PDA

View Full Version : A Grognard's Guide to 5E D&D Rules



Pages : [1] 2

Person_Man
2014-06-24, 08:29 AM
Starting at age 12, D&D has been a life long hobby for me. I have played all the various editions of the game over the past 24ish years. So I thought it might be useful to post a brief overview of the new 5E rules, and then do my best to briefly compare those rules to previous editions of D&D.



You can download a complete legal copy of the D&D Basic Rules from the WotC website here (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/basicrules?x=dnd/basicrules).



A Very Brief Overview of 5E Rules


Note: I will not be posting anything other then very very brief "fair use" descriptions of anything, in order to stay legal and comply with forum rules. I suggest you do the same.


The Basics

In my opinion 5th edition D&D is the best version of 3rd edition D&D ever published. If you like 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder D&D, you'll probably enjoy playing 5th edition. If you think that the mechanical flaws of 3rd edition make it unworkable or have no interest in buying yet another clone of a game you already own or can read for free online, then you probably won't like 5th edition.



Theater of the Mind (http://geek-related.com/2014/05/27/theater-of-the-mind/) is the default game mechanic, not a physical tabletop map with miniatures. Players describe what they want to do to the DM and maybe roll a dice, the DM adjudicates it and describes what happens. The movement, Opportunity Attack, reach, and targeting rules are all built to support this play style, and if you attempt to use the Basic rules with a physical tabletop map and miniatures you'll probably end up with some unintuitive or difficult to adjudicate results.



Ability Checks, Saving Throws, and Contests: The basic unified resolution mechanic for 5E is to roll 1d20 + Ability Score Modifier + Proficiency Bonuses + Other Modifiers, and compare the result against a set Armor Class (AC), Difficulty Chance (DC), or the result of your enemy's Ability Check.



Advantage/Disadvantage: When there are positive or negative circumstances, then you can gain Advantage or Disadvantage. You roll 2d20 instead of 1d20, and use the higher (Advantage) or lower (Disadvantage) result. Multiple Advantages and Disadvantages don't stack, so you never roll more then 2d20. If you have at least one Advantage and at least one Disadvantage, then they cancel each other out, even if you have multiple Advantages and just one Disadvantage or vice-verse. You can gain/impose Advantage/Disadvantage lots of different ways, including DM fiat.



Proficiency Bonus: Scales with your character level, but it is a relatively small bonus. The vast majority of rolls in 5E are going to have a modified result between 1 and 31.



Abilities:

Uses the same ability scores from every previous edition; Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma.



The bonuses provided by ability scores are standardized using the same methodology from 4E and 3E (10 = 0, 12 = +1, 14 = +2, etc), which means that odd Ability Scores continue to be pointless in most circumstances.



As you gain class levels, you gain the option of ability score increases (or Feats), which are part of your class chart (and not part of your character level progression). An ability score cannot be increased past 20 (+5 bonus) with a few rare exceptions.



The standard methodology for determining Ability Scores is roll 4d6, drop the lowest die, repeat until you have six scores, then assign the scores as you prefer, then apply racial modifiers. They also offer up a standard array and point buy as alternative methodologies. Using the point buy method, the highest score you can get prior to racial modifiers is 15 and the lowest is 8.



Races

Races in the Basic rules are Human, Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling. The Player's Handbook adds the Dragonborn, Gnome, Half-Elf, Half-Orc and Tiefling. The Dungeon Master's Guide adds Aasimar as an example of how to make your own custom race.



Race provides a package of fluff, age, size, speed, ability score modifiers, and some special abilities, some of which are useful. Some races have sub-race options, which add an additional ability score modifier and ability.



Some race/class combinations are clearly more optimal then others. For example, most players probably won't choose to play race or subrace that grants an Intelligence bonus unless they want to play a Wizard, because Intelligence is only useful for playing a Wizard, occasional Skill checks, and very rarely a Saving Throw. Though Variant Trait Humans are notably pretty good at being anything.



Aasimar: +2 Cha, +1 Wis, Medium, 30 ft speed, Darkvision, Resistant to Necrotic and Radiant damage, Light cantrip, and as you gain levels you also get Lesser Restoration and Daylight once per Long Rest. (DMG pgs 286-287).



Dragonborn: +2 Str, +1 Cha, Medium, 30 ft speed, a weak-ish breath weapon, and resistance to one energy type.



Dwarf: +2 Con, Medium, 25 ft speed, Darkvision, Advantage and Resistance vs. Poisons, mostly useless Stonecunning, some minor/fluffy weapon and tool proficiencies. Hill Dwarf sub-race adds +1 Wis and +1 hit point per level. Mountain Dwarf sub-race adds +2 Strength and light and medium armor proficiency.



Elf: +2 Dex, Medium, 30 ft speed, Darkvision, Perception Skill Proficiency, Advantage vs Charm, Immune to magical sleep, Long Rest only takes 4 hours. High Elf sub-race adds +1 Int, a Wizard Cantrip, an extra language, and some weapon proficiencies. Wood Elf sub-race adds +1 Wis, higher base movement, and camouflage. Dark Elf (Drow) sub-race adds +1 to Cha, superior darkvision, sunlight sensitivity. Eladrin subrace (5E DMG pgs 286-287) adds +1 Int, Misty Step spell once per Short or Long Rest. All of the subraces also add a few weapon proficiencies.



Gnome: +2 Int, Small, 25 ft speed, Darkvision, and Advantage on mental Saves vs magic. Forest Gnome sub-race adds +1 Dex, minor illusion cantrip, and speak with small beasts. Rock Gnome sub-race adds +1 Con, a higher proficiency bonus on some Intelligence (History) checks, and a fluffy but useless tinker ability.



Halfling:+2 Dex, Small, 25 ft speed, Lucky (potent reroll ability), Advantage vs Frightened, can move through larger creature's spaces. Lightfoot sub-race adds +1 Cha and Naturally Stealthy ability. Stout sub-race adds +1 Con and Advantage and Resistance vs. Poisons.



Half-Elf:+2 Cha, +1 to any two other ability scores, Medium, 30 ft speed, Darkvision, Advantage vs Charm, Immune to magical sleep, and two extra Skill proficiencies of your choice.



Half-Orc:+2 Str, +1 Con, Medium, 30 ft speed, Darkvision, Intimidation Proficiency, a Diehard (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Diehard)-like ability, and bonus damage on critical hits with a melee weapon.



Human: +1 to all six ability scores, Medium, 30 ft speed, bonus language. Variant Human Traits gives you +1 to any two ability scores of your choice, a Bonus Feat (the only way to get a Feat at first level), and Proficiency in one Skill of your choice.



Tiefling: +2 Cha, +1 Int, Medium, 30 ft speed, Darkvision, Resistance to Fire, and some minor spells.



Classes

Your class choice determines your hit points, hit die, Proficiencies, and class abilities. Within the first three levels, every class must also choose a subclass, which provides a different package of class abilities at certain levels.



Barbarian: d12 hit die/hit points per level, light and medium armor, shields, simple and martial weapons, Strength and Constitution Saves Proficiency, 2 Skill proficiencies. The new and interesting ability is a dramatically improved Rage. Otherwise the class basically just grants bonus damage, plus Advantage on various rolls. Primal Path subclass options are Path of the Berserker (more offense) and the Path of the Totem Warrior (more defense or other options). Barbarians are a simple class that can be very, very hard to kill while in a Rage (especially Bear Totem), so I think its a good option for any new players who just want to hit stuff with a melee weapon.



Bard: d8 hit die/hit points per level, light armor, simple weapons plus a few extras, any 3 Skill proficiencies, Dex and Cha Save Proficiency, some very useful bardic performance abilities, and 9th level spellcasting from the bard spell list, plus the ability to cherry pick a small number of spells from other class lists. College subclass options are College of Lore (better spells) and the College of Valor (better armor/shield and Extra Attack). The Bard is now very clearly on par with other top tier magic users.



Cleric: d8 hit die/hit points per level, light and medium armor, shields, simple weapons, 2 Skill proficiencies, Wisdom and Charisma Save Proficiency, full spell casting up to 9th level spells from the cleric spell list, Channel Divinity (Turn Undead plus Domain abilities), and a package of domain related abilities. The new and interesting ability is Divine Intervention, where you can call for aid from your god directly once per week and have a small % chance of your deity intervening, as determined by your DM. Your 20th level capstone ability is that it works automatically. Domain subclass options are Knowledge, Life, Light, Nature, Tempest, Trickery, and War. Cleric is once again a very strong full caster with a ton of potent options.



Druid: d8 hit die/hit points per level, light and medium armor, shields, (though no metal armor or shields), some limited weapons, 2 Skill proficiencies plus the Herbalism (healing) kit, Intelligence and Wisdom Save Proficiency, full spell casting up to 9th level spells from the druid spell list, open ended Wild Shape starting at level 2 (though you can't cast spells while in Wildshape until level 18), and a few other minor abilities. Circle subclass options are Circle of the Land (better spells) or Circle of the Moon (better Wildshape). Nothing particularly new or interesting compared to Druids from previous editions, but still a very potent and flexible full caster class that's also strong in melee.



Fighter: d10 hit die/hit points per level, all armor and shields and weapons, 2 Skill proficiencies, Strength and Constitution Save Proficiency. Gets bonuses to-hit, damage, and AC, gains Extra Attacks, reroll a Saving Throw, or heal some damage to himself. The new and interesting ability is Action Surge, which gives the Fighter an extra Action once (or twice at very high levels), which can then be restored with a Short Rest (1 hour). Fighter is also the only class that gets up to four default attacks per turn (everyone else is limited to one or two, not counting attacks from things like two weapon fighting, spells, etc). Martial archetype subclass options are Champion (simple option, increases critical hit chance), Battle Master (adds some basic combat maneuver options), or Eldritch Knight (adds one-third casting). The Fighter is a fairly simple class that's good at making mundane attacks.



Monk: d8 hit die/hit points per level, no armor, simple weapons and short swords, 2 Skill proficiencies plus artisan's tools or a musical instrument, Strength and Dexterity Save Proficiency, and a lot of abilities similar to the Pathfinder Monk (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk) (though arguably much stronger). Monastic tradition subclass options are Way of the Open Hand (augments unarmed strike), Way of Shadow (Stealth related), or Way of the Four Elements (adds energy effects). The Monk is mobile class with a variety of special defenses (especially at higher levels) and a few useful offensive tricks. I'm sure it will once again be one of the most debated classes in the game.



Paladin: d10 hit die/hit points per level, all armor and shields and weapons, 2 Skill proficiencies, Wisdom and Charisma Save Proficiency, 1st through 5th level spellcasting from the paladin spell list, and a variety of other abilities similar to the 3.5 Paladin (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm) (though arguably much stronger in some ways). Few of the base class abilities are particularly new to players familiar with previous versions of the Paladin, though they are a lot more effective. Oath (Code of Conduct) subclass options are Oath of Devotion, Oath of the Ancients, and Oath of Vengeance. As in previous editions, the Paladin is basically combination warrior/cleric.



Ranger: d10 hit die/hit points per level, light and medium armor, shields, all weapons, Strength and Dexterity Saves Proficiency, three Skill proficiencies, and a variety of other abilities similar to the Pathfinder Ranger (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/ranger). Ranger Archetypes are Hunter (better attacks and defense) or Beast Master (Animal Companion with a nerfed action economy). For me, the Ranger is currently the biggest disappointment in the book. Outside of combat the Ranger's effectiveness can sometimes be highly dependent on whether or not you come across your Favored Enemies or Terrain. In combat they can be sub-par compared to other classes, though I'm sure this will be heavily debated.



Rogue: d8 hit die/hit points per level, light armor, simple weapons plus a few extras, 4 Skill proficiencies plus Proficiency with Thieves' Tools, Dexterity and Intelligence Save Proficiency, various abilities that make Skill checks better, very easily triggered Sneak Attack once per turn, Evasion and Uncanny Dodge (which are way better then the 3.5 versions). The new and interesting ability is Cunning Action, which lets you Hide, Disengage (avoid Opportunity Attacks), or Dash (move faster) as a Bonus Action. This means that under the right conditions you can move, Sneak Attack, move some more, then hide (avoiding counter attacks) every turn. Roguish archetype subclass options are Thief (Skill options), Assassin (ambush and kill), and Arcane Trickster (one-third casting from illusion and enchantment spells). The Rogue is a solid option for players who want to be sneaky, mobile, hard to kill, while also dealing plenty of damage (and probably my personal favorite non-caster).



Sorcerer: d6 hit die/hit points per level, no armor proficiencies, crud weapons, 2 Skill proficiencies, Charisma and Constitution Save Proficiency (with the latter being very important for Concentration rules, see below), full casting from the Wizard/Sorcerer. The new and interesting ability is Font of Magic, which gives you Sorcery Points that you can use to recover spells or use metamagic effects. Origin subclass options are Draconic Bloodline or Wild Magic. The Sorcerer is very similar to the Wizard, and honestly could have been combined with it.



Warlock: d8 hit die/hit points per level, light armor, simple weapons, Wisdom and Charisma Save proficiency, two Skill proficiencies. Patron subclass options are Archfey , Fiend, and Great Old One. On first glance at the Warlock's chart it appears to be a half-caster that restores can restore its limited spells with a Short Rest (unlike every other spellcaster, which needs a Long Rest) that also gets a number of at-will Invocations and some continuous magic buffs from your Patron. But read the details and you realize that its another full spellcaster with access to 1st through 9th level spells, though it gets just one 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th level spell per Long Rest. The Warlock is a good choice for players that are willing to accept fewer spells in exchange for the ability to use those spells much more often.



Wizard: d6 hit die/hit points per level, no armor proficiencies, crud weapons, 2 Skill proficiencies, Intelligence and Wisdom Save Proficiency. Full casting from the Wizard/Sorcerer spell list, and a package of metamagic like effects that improve various spell effects or give you additional spell uses. The new and interesting ability is Arcane Recovery, which restores spell uses, and a few very high levels abilities that allow you to cast some low level spells at-will. Wizard Arcane Tradition subclass options are Abjuration, Conjuration, Divination, Enchantment, Evocation, Illusion, Necromancy, and Transmutation. (Based on the traditional schools of D&D magic).



Magic

Forget about how you think D&D magic works. Although 5E borrows a lot of the same vocabulary and appears superficially the same, the mechanics, resource management, and tactics used by 5E spellcasters are different, and direct comparisons can be confusing. Explaining the management of your spells is even more of a Rube Goldberg Machine then it used to be, though in actual games I've found it to be a bit simpler then 1/2/3E once you get the hang of the new system. (Though more complicated then the standardized 4E at-will/encounter/daily/ritual mechanics).



Magic users can prepare a number of spells each day. They can then cast from that list spontaneously.



Spells do not automatically scale, as they usually did in 3E/2E/1E. Instead you must cast a spell using a higher spell level slot if you want to increase it's effect. Thus a 20th level Wizard that casts the 1st level Magic Missile spell only deals 2d4 + 5 Force damage when he casts it out of a 1st level slot. If he wants it to increase the damage he must choose to spontaneously cast it out of a higher level spell slot. (For people who have played 3.0/3.5 or Pathfinder, this is similar to how the Sorcerer needed to use higher spell level slots to increase the effectiveness of spells with Metamagic Feats). This is important because high level spellcasters actually have very few high level spell slots available. It also means that some spells are useful around the level you first learn them, but not at higher levels.



Spell uses can be restored by a Long Rest (8 hours, or with a Short Rest for spells below 6th level if you're a Warlock). The Sorcerer and Wizard also can also replenish some spell uses using their respective class abilities. In addition, the Wizard gets a few high level class abilities that allows some low level spells to be used at-will.



Spells with the "Ritual" tag can be cast out of their base spell level "for free" without using a spell slot by increasing the casting time to 10 minutes. Ritual Spells include many utility and divination spells, but not all of them.



The Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard each get at-will Cantrips ("0th level spells") so they always have something to do that doesn't require using a crossbow or some other Dexterity or Strength dependent weapon. They're much more impressive then Cantrips from previous editions, but less useful then 1st level or higher spells. They're basically on part with At-Will Powers from 4E. Warlocks also get small number of at-will Invocations, which are equivalent to various low-mid level spells.



Between Rituals, Cantrips, and various class abilities which provide spell-like abilities and restore spell uses, saying that a spellcaster gets "X spell uses every game day" is usually incorrect and misleading, since it is more like a pool of spell uses, some of which get emptied and refilled throughout the game day.



Many spells with a duration now require Concentration (but not all). You can only have Concentration on one spell at a time. Whenever you take damage while you are Concentrating on a spell, you must make a Constitution Saving Throw that scales with damage or the spell ends. In theory this will limit "CoDzilla" builds that stack multiple buffs, and action advantage builds that summon hoards of creatures to gain tons of actions and battlefield control by flooding the map. It also encourages spellcasters to buff allies (instead of themselves) and then hang back, instead of fighting in melee on the front line. But this limitation will only be meaningful to the extent that they enforce it systematically across all spells. For example, the 9th level Foresight spell is extremely potent, lasts for 8 hours, and requires no Concentration. On the flip side the very fluid movement rules make it easy to move around enemies, which in turn may make Concentration spells very temporary.



Spellcasters of all kinds can cast spells while wearing armor, as long as they're proficient in it.



Equipment

Armor: There are easy ways for every class to get AC of 17 or 18, unless your Dexterity and Strength are both very low. Using a shield and a few class abilities and spells can push it up a bit further. There are also trap option armors that provide you with inferior AC with no benefit other then being slightly cheaper, so you may have slightly lower AC for your first couple of levels. There is no down side to wearing heavier armors other then Disadvantage on Stealth checks. Encumbrance exists but will rarely be a problem for anyone unless your Strength is terrible.



Weapons: You can make both melee and ranged attack and damage rolls using your Strength or Dexterity, as long as you choose the right weapon to use. Some weapons deal slightly more damage then others. Reach weapons add 5 feet of reach without any fiddly drawbacks. Everyone can use Two Weapon Fighting by default with light weapons.



Tools: You can craft things or add your Proficiency bonus to a few other things that were previously handled by Skills (like disarm traps, open locks, and perform with an instrument) by having proficiency in the proper tools for it.



Magic Items

Some magic items require that you "attune" them with a Short Rest in order to use them. You can have a maximum of three attuned magic items at a time. Other magic items don't need to be attuned, such as +1 armor, +1 weapon, potions, or scrolls.



You cannot buy or sell magic items other then (one use) potions and scrolls. You have to find them. Reusable magic items do not have a listed gold piece or other value.



Magic items that effect your Ability Scores or movement rate set it at a fixed number, rather then providing a bonus. For example, when attuned Gauntlets of Ogre Strength grants you Strength of 19. So a character with 19 or 20 Strength gains no benefit from them.

Person_Man
2014-06-24, 08:30 AM
How 5E rules differ compared to previous editions
This is a work in progress. I will add additional sections soon.


Abilities

5E: Uses the same ability scores from every previous edition; Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma. The bonuses provided by ability scores are standardized using the same methodology from 4E and 3E (10 = 0, 12 = +1, 14 = +2, etc), which means that odd Ability Scores continue to be pointless in most circumstances.

4E: Ability scores can be determined several ways, with a standard array or point buy used as the suggested methods, which meant that in most games every player started out with the same number of resources in their ability scores. Each and every class has explicit key abilities, which determine the bonuses to their Powers. There are also three "couplets" of ability scores which may determine your Defense Values - Strength or Constitution for Fortitude Defense, Dexterity or Intelligence for Reflex Defense, Wisdom or Charisma for Will Defense. So from an optimization point of view, if you're using a non-random method of determining ability scores, in order to maximize Defenses, players generally aimed to have one high statistic from each pair. And in the interests of efficiency, players generally endeavored to minimize their investment in the partner of a high attribute. (In other words, almost every build has exactly 3 dump stats).

3E: Ability scores are determined randomly, with the default method being roll 4d6, drop the lowest die, repeat this six time, scrap/reroll all rolls if your overall array is too low, and then assign them to your preferred ability scores. Some classes (especially spellcasters) were considered "Single Attribute Dependent" (SAD - like the Wizard who only needed high Intelligence to be very effective) and others were Multiple Attribute Dependent (MAD - like the Monk who needed high Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom to be modestly effective). Charisma was consider almost entirely useless unless your class depended on it.

2E: Ability scores were determined randomly, with random 3d6 rolled in order being the default method. This meant that players sometimes had radically different ability scores. Races and Classes had minimum ability score requirements for entry, and if you were using the default method it was extremely rare to randomly generate a character that could qualify to be certain classes (like the Paladin, who required 12 Str, 9 Con, 13 Wis, and 17 Cha). Each Ability Score has it's own chart which determines your bonus or percentage chance for success for various specific things, and the bonuses provided are not consistent between Ability Scores. (18 Strength gives you a +1 to hit and +2 to damage, 18 Dexterity gives you a +2 to Reaction, +2 to ranged attacks, and -4 to your Defensive Adjustment). Only Warriors (Fighters, Paladins, Rangers) could benefit from a Constitution bonus of +3 or higher, which meant that Warriors almost always had much higher hit points. Only Fighters could benefit from "Exceptional Strength" - if you had 18 Strength at the time of character creation, you got to roll 1d100 to determine if it was permanently higher. This typically gave Fighters a very useful additional Strength bonus at low levels, which was typically replaced by a magic item at mid-levels. Also, Charisma could be a surprisingly important Ability Score at higher levels, because it determined the number of Henchmen you had, their base loyalty percentage, and your reaction adjustment (interactions with NPC's).

1E: Very similar to 2E, though the bonuses provided for specific ability scores and what the ability scores applied to were somewhat different and sometimes wonky. Only Fighters can benefit from a Constitution bonus of +3 or higher (not Rangers and Paladins). The 1st edition Unearthed Arcana also presented the option of the infamous Comeliness (physical attractiveness) Attribute, which was basically useless unless you optimized it, in which case it could be used as an at-will fascination or charm effect.


Races

5E: Core races are Dragonborn, Elf, Dwarf, Gnome, Half-Elf, Half-Orc, Halfling, Human, and Tiefling. Racial abilities are more numerous and consequential then in previous editions, though many smaller fluffy abilities still exist.

4E: Core races were Dragonborn, Dwarf, Elf, Eladrin (high elves), Half-Elf, Halfling, Human, and Tiefling. Each race provides you with a +2 bonus to two attributes (except for humans, who get +2 to one attribute of your choice). This meant that certain racial options were more optimal then others for certain classes. Races also provided 6ish mostly small/fiddly bonuses, and a racial Power or additional flexibility on choosing another class Power.

3E: Core races were Dwarf, Elf, Gnome, Half-Elf, Half-Orc, Halfling, and Human. Human and (for certain builds) Dwarf were generally considered the most powerful by far, and other core races were considered quite weak. Every race other then the Human and Half-Elf provided an ability score bonus and penalty, with the Half-Orc getting two penalties.

2E: Core races were the same as 3E, minus the Half-Orc. Except that non-Human races had minimum ability score requirements. In other words, you couldn't be a Dwarf without 8 or higher Strength and 11 or higher Constitution. Races also had class restrictions. For example, only Humans could be Paladins, and you couldn't be a Dwarf Wizard. Humans had no special abilities or bonuses other then unrestricted class choice, which meant that players rarely chose to play a human unless they wanted to play a class or class combination limited only to humans. As in 3E, racial bonuses were generally small or situational, with the most noteworthy and useful being the scaled Constitution based Dwarf and Gnome bonus to Saving Throws against all poison (Dwarf only), wands, staves, rods, and spells, which was somewhat balanced out by a random chance of failure when using some types of magic items. The net result was that certain race/class/level combinations were strictly more optimal then others.

1E: Core races were the same as 3E. Requirements, restrictions, and benefits are very similar to 2E, though they were somewhat different, more limiting, and more arbitrary. In particular, every non-human race had a maximum class level in most classes. So it was always optimal to be a non-human at low-mid levels, but only humans could reach high levels. The funny/odd exception to this was the Thief class, which meant that all high level non-humans were Thieves (or Assassins, if you were a Half-Orc).


Classes

5E: Each class has a unique chart of things that it does. Each class gains at least one new ability from their class chart every level. There are subclasses, which allow you to swap out a package of class abilities for a different package (very similar to Archetypes in Pathfinder). Overall class setup and feel is very similar to 3E.

4E: Each class has a unique set of Powers, plus a small number of stand alone class features. Powers are divided into at-will, encounter, daily, and utility. Every class gains new Powers at the same exact rate, and so classes are generally balanced in terms of the number of resources that they each get. Powers are highly granular and fairly balanced. You swap out lower level Powers for higher level ones as you gain levels. Your class also determines your Role (the types of things most of your Powers help you do), Power source (fluff), armor and weapon proficiencies, Defense bonuses, trained Skills, hit points, and healing surges. Classes have 30 levels, instead of the classic 20. At level 10 and 20 you can choose different Paths, which provide you with additional class features plus Power options.

3E: Each class has a unique chart of things that it does. Your class chart determines the rate at which you gain Skill ranks, hit points, Saving Throw bonuses, base attack bonus, plus starting weapon and armor proficiency. Classes also gain class features as they gain levels, though non-spellcasters don't necessarily gain anything other then better numbers many levels. For example, 9/20 of the Fighter class is dead levels. Classes get dramatically different amounts of resources, and class abilities have wildly different power levels.

2E: As in 3E, but non-full spell casters are almost entirely composed of dead levels where they gained nothing but higher bonuses, Saves, and/or % success rates. Arcane magic users are extremely fragile unless they have defensive spells active. Classes have subclasses which provide the same progression of bonuses/saves/etc but different class abilities. As mentioned above, classes have racial and minimum attribute requirements, so you can't be a Paladin unless your a human with 12 Str, 9 Con, 13 Wis, and 17 Cha. Classes require different amounts of experience to gain a level. And after a certain level, you only gained a small fixed number of hit points, instead of rolling an additional hit die). Only Rogues and Bards can do certain things which are handled by Skills in all future editions (Pick Pockets, Move Silently, Hide, Open Locks, Disarm Traps) which protects their exploration toolbox niche.

1E: As in 2E, but less balanced. For example, a 1st level Magic-User is comically easy to hit and kill and gets just 1 spell per day but eventually weilds godlike power, and a Thief starts out with a 20-50ish% chance (with modfiers) of success in most Skills but has a 100%+ chance of success in most Skils starting around level 11ish.


Magic

5E: A variation of Vancian Magic (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VancianMagic) is the default, as was the case in every previous edition other then 4E. See the description above for a detailed explanation. Overall, spellcasters appear to have fewer "I win" buttons then before and can't just stack a bunch of buff spells to become "better then the Fighter at fighting." But once you master the Rube Goldberg Machine of their resource management, they never truly run out of resources while you're adventuring, unlike 3E/2E/1E where running out was a common event at low levels.

4E: Spells were converted into standardized Powers, and were thus balanced with every other Power in the game, and were used on an At-Will/Encounter/Daily basis like every other Power. Utility and most of the broken spells from previous editions were converted into Rituals, where the spellcaster had to pay a gold piece cost and often spend a long time casting in order to use them. In most cases the cost was not worth the benefit, and so for players most Rituals were not worth using. (Though for DMs they could be an important tool to make NPCs and monsters more interesting and powerful).

3E: Classic Vancian Magic was the default. Full casters (Cleric, Wizard, Sorcerer, Druid, and many others introduced through supplements) in most games had many more resources then other classes, and were often wildly more powerful. A single spell could often win any given encounter. Some higher level spells could be abused to give players god-like powers. In theory there were limiting factors to magic, such as Spell Resistance, Material Components, Attacks of Opportunity, or limited armor. But in reality, any player who mastered the rules could bypass these restrictions. For many players, the flexibility and coolness of magic was one of the most fun parts of the game. For others players and some DMs, it was one of the most broken parts of the game.

2E: Classic Vancian Magic was the default, and it could be extremely powerful. But there were a number of very real limiting factors on them.

Spells had a casting time counted in initiative points, with most higher level spells taking longer to cast. If you take damage in any way during that time, you automatically lose the spell. Which meant that it was very risky to cast higher level spells in combat if you faced quick and/or smart enemies.
Memorizing spells took much, much longer for higher level spells. And random encounters outside of town was the default rule, so resting to restore spells mid-dungeon crawl was a time consuming and risky endevour.
Non-Warriors of all kinds were usually much more fragile (as their bonus hit points from Constitution were limited to +2 per level and their armor was typically more limited). Conversely, damaging spells were significantly more powerful than they were in 3e and 4E due to those editions' hit point inflation.
Wizards had to find spells, learn them (and there was a chance that you failed to learn them if your Intelligence wasn't high enough), and add them to their spellbooks, which was both time-consuming and expensive.
Druid and Cleric spells only went up to 7th level, not 9th level like the Wizard. Paladins could still get up to 4th level Cleric spells though, which was comparatively more powerful in this edition compared to 3E.
Many spells had specific drawbacks; Fireball and Lightning Bolt could easily hit you and/or other party members if you targeted them wrong, Haste permanently aged it's targets, using Shout more then once per day could deafen you, you had to make a system shock roll that could kill you when Polymorphed, etc.


1E: Classic Vancian Magic mechanics were created. The Illusionist was a sepereate sub-class of the Magic-User (other specializations didn't exist yet). Some spells were very poorly written and open to DM interpretation.



More to come soon. I will continue to update this post on a regular-ish basis until all of the core rules are covered. I know that there are a number of things in the playtests that will probably be in the core rules. But until I see it in an official excerpt or actual game materials, I'm not going to post it here, in order to avoid confusion and re-writes. Again, I would appreciate any help from other Playgrounders who could summarize or compare rules. Thanks.

Raging_Pacifist
2014-06-24, 01:28 PM
I feel paladins are too strong. For instance, a lvl 5 paladin will have +2 proficiency, and 20 STR [18+2 racial], a feat (lvl 4), and 2 attacks (lvl 5), and presumably a +1 weapon, in this example, a maul, doing 2d6 bludgeoning. With such, the pally has +7 to hit, for 2d6+6 dmg, twice a round, but with the feat "great weapon master" the pally can take -5 to hit to do double damage with an attack, (STR dmg included). This means, +2 to hit for 4d6+12 dmg a round and due to great weapon style at lvl 2, the pally still does STR mod in dmg even on a miss with a two handed attack. To counteract this, the pally may take an action during the first round to give himself +CHA mod to hit for 1 min, possibly greatly diminishing the power attack penalty depending on CHA score. On top of this, the pally has half level as caster levels, which fuels his "divine smite". At lvl 5 said pally has 4 first lvl spell slots, and 2 second lvl slots, and upon hitting with an attack he can burn a 1st lvl slot to add 2d8 radiant dmg to the attack, and a 2nd lvl adds 3d8 radiant (always adds another 1d8 if undead, celestial, fiend, or fey), and he can do this for each hitting attack. Which means A decnt palading will have +5 to hit for 8d6+20+6d8, over two attacks in one round, which far outpaces any other classes potential. As a player, I like, as a DM, its rough when the pally can
one shot something with 58hp at lvl 5, wiping out anything of his level in one shot, potentially first in the round depending on init.

obryn
2014-06-24, 01:53 PM
I feel paladins are too strong. For instance, a lvl 5 paladin will have +2 proficiency, and 20 STR [18+2 racial], a feat (lvl 4), and 2 attacks (lvl 5), and presumably a +1 weapon, in this example, a maul, doing 2d6 bludgeoning. With such, the pally has +7 to hit, for 2d6+6 dmg, twice a round, but with the feat "great weapon master" the pally can take -5 to hit to do double damage with an attack, (STR dmg included). This means, +2 to hit for 4d6+12 dmg a round and due to great weapon style at lvl 2, the pally still does STR mod in dmg even on a miss with a two handed attack. To counteract this, the pally may take an action during the first round to give himself +CHA mod to hit for 1 min, possibly greatly diminishing the power attack penalty depending on CHA score. On top of this, the pally has half level as caster levels, which fuels his "divine smite". At lvl 5 said pally has 4 first lvl spell slots, and 2 second lvl slots, and upon hitting with an attack he can burn a 1st lvl slot to add 2d8 radiant dmg to the attack, and a 2nd lvl adds 3d8 radiant (always adds another 1d8 if undead, celestial, fiend, or fey), and he can do this for each hitting attack. Which means A decnt palading will have +5 to hit for 8d6+20+6d8, over two attacks in one round, which far outpaces any other classes potential. As a player, I like, as a DM, its rough when the pally can
one shot something with 58hp at lvl 5, wiping out anything of his level in one shot, potentially first in the round depending on init.
I think you have some rather large errors in your analysis, including (a) the unlikelihood of a 20 in a stat at 5th level, (b) the availability of +1 weapons, (c) the fact that Great Weapon Fighter has changed since the playtest.

But also ... (d) he sunk literally everything he had into that alpha strike, and even had to waste an action so he can be at least minimally accurate, while all a Wizard needs to do for 6d6 AoE damage is cast fireball.

I think I'll want to see it in play.

Kurald Galain
2014-06-24, 02:01 PM
I think you have some rather large errors in your analysis, including (a) the unlikelihood of a 20 in a stat at 5th level,

Why would that be unlikely? It strikes me as feasible to start with 16 (from point buy) +1 (from class) +1 (from race), and then boost that to 20 at level four. Of course, it would be better to take an actual feat, but it's not all that hard to max out your primary if you want to.

obryn
2014-06-24, 02:11 PM
Why would that be unlikely? It strikes me as feasible to start with 16 (from point buy) +1 (from class) +1 (from race), and then boost that to 20 at level four. Of course, it would be better to take an actual feat, but it's not all that hard to max out your primary if you want to.
This character also has a feat.

Raging_Pacifist
2014-06-24, 02:18 PM
I think you have some rather large errors in your analysis, including (a) the unlikelihood of a 20 in a stat at 5th level, (b) the availability of +1 weapons, (c) the fact that Great Weapon Fighter has changed since the playtest.

But also ... (d) he sunk literally everything he had into that alpha strike, and even had to waste an action so he can be at least minimally accurate, while all a Wizard needs to do for 6d6 AoE damage is cast fireball.

I think I'll want to see it in play.
20 at level 1 isn't too difficult, 18 from 4d6 drop the lowest, plus 2 racial from half orc.

Kurald Galain
2014-06-24, 02:19 PM
This character also has a feat.

Point.

Ok, 18 from rolling well (the default method is 4d6b3, I believe), +1 for race +1 for class. Regardless, if the pally is OP with a 20 stat, then he's still OP with an 18; it's only a tiny difference anyway.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-24, 03:19 PM
Eh, if the Paladin is the class that is OP in Next I think I can live with that. They were pretty awesome in 2e and 4e... Maybe WotC is still trying to atone for 3e Paladin?

da_chicken
2014-06-24, 04:38 PM
Where are people drawing the idea that rolling must be the default method? Because the pre-gens have weird stats that don't match the playtest? All you can say from that is that the final game ability mods will not match playtest (which we knew) and that the pre-gens don't look like they were generated with the playtest rules. Why does that mean rolling must not only have been the method they used for the pre-gens, but it must also be the game default?

Lokiare
2014-06-24, 05:56 PM
Where are people drawing the idea that rolling must be the default method? Because the pre-gens have weird stats that don't match the playtest? All you can say from that is that the final game ability mods will not match playtest (which we knew) and that the pre-gens don't look like they were generated with the playtest rules. Why does that mean rolling must not only have been the method they used for the pre-gens, but it must also be the game default?

Because they said in the articles that rolling is the default.

obryn
2014-06-24, 06:42 PM
Because they said in the articles that rolling is the default.
The starter set characters seem to be built with an array.

da_chicken
2014-06-24, 08:06 PM
Because they said in the articles that rolling is the default.

I've never read that. Can you tell me which one?

unwise
2014-06-24, 08:15 PM
I DM for a 5th level Paladin and yes, I do think that they put out a great deal of damage when they want to. The +2d8 damage is nasty, but not as nasty as the spells that add +d4 to hit or +d8 damage for the entire fight. The latest packet I have has the -5 to hit for double damage thing, what is the new Greatweapon Mastery? With the +3 to hit from the bless weapon, it is well worth trying if you think it will drop an enemy to zero, as it sparks an extra attack.

I was pleasantly surprised to find Paladins putting out a good amount of damage. I particularly like the fact that, at least at low levels, they are a dominant damage dealer against undead.

One mistake I made as a DM was allowing the Paladin to start with Platemail. It is much like letting something start with Mithrel Chain or Eldar Dragon Hide. AC20 is way too high for low levels to make fights interesting.

1337 b4k4
2014-06-24, 08:36 PM
The starter set characters seem to be built with an array.

They are per Mearls twitter. Whatever the default in the PHB is.

Lokiare
2014-06-25, 03:21 PM
I've never read that. Can you tell me which one?

The final play test packet has it as the default and I thought they mentioned it, but I can't find it in their legends and lore articles. It might have been one of the interviews. They basically said it led to more rp or something superficial like that.

obryn
2014-06-25, 03:37 PM
I've never read that. Can you tell me which one?
It was from a previous L&L, but for all I know they've backed off it.

I know I much prefer arrays or point-buy, myself, and if that's how the Starter Set characters are made, I'm sure it'll be an option.

Person_Man
2014-06-27, 09:47 AM
Updates:

Ability Scores and Races added. I'll start working on classes next. Let me know if there's anything I missed.

Question: Do we know for sure whether or not 5E races provide an Ability Score bonus (and penalties)? I'm guessing that the answer is yes, since ability score bonuses for non-humans have been a part of every previous edition. But I also know that a vocal minority of players criticize them, since they make certain race/class combinations more optimal and and more common, and less optimal race/class combinations were rarely chosen. This is particularly important in 5E, where bonuses are rarer, and you literally have to give up one or more Feats if you want to max out your primary attribute.

obryn
2014-06-27, 10:17 AM
Updates:

Ability Scores and Races added. I'll start working on classes next. Let me know if there's anything I missed.

Question: Do we know for sure whether or not 5E races provide an Ability Score bonus (and penalties)? I'm guessing that the answer is yes, since ability score bonuses for non-humans have been a part of every previous edition. But I also know that a vocal minority of players criticize them, since they make certain race/class combinations more optimal and and more common, and less optimal race/class combinations were rarely chosen. This is particularly important in 5E, where bonuses are rarer, and you literally have to give up one or more Feats if you want to max out your primary attribute.
Current best-guess is that demihumans get +2 to one stat and +1 to another. The +1 is probably (but not certainly) subrace-based.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-27, 11:17 AM
Current best-guess is that demihumans get +2 to one stat and +1 to another. The +1 is probably (but not certainly) subrace-based.

That's what I was thinking.

It is also one of the first thing I'll be getting rid of.

Person_Man
2014-06-27, 12:41 PM
Current best-guess is that demihumans get +2 to one stat and +1 to another. The +1 is probably (but not certainly) subrace-based.

Huh. Was there an article or forum post or whatever where they discussed that decision? Because I honestly don't understand it at all.

The fact that some (all?) races get fixed attribute bonuses, and bonuses in general are rare (and perhaps subject to Bounded Accuracy), and other racial abilities appear to be small/mediocre (unlike the 3E human bonus Feat + Skill points), means that players that choose to optimize will almost always choose certain combinations of races and classes. (Example: If only Elves have a +2 Intelligence bonus, the huge majority of Wizards played will be Elves (at least until a supplement with another Int bonus race comes out). Giving out an additional +1 based on subrace makes the corridor of optimal choices even narrower. For example, if Wood Elves get +2 Int and +1 Con and High Elves get +2 In and +1 Cha, I could see how the huge majority of Wizards would be a Wood Elf, and almost no one would choose to be a High Elf.

Also, because they're using the 4E/3E ability score bonus calculation, odd ability scores are functionally pointless. But new players who pick up the game for the first time don't always realize this, or realize the importance of bonuses. So they're basically encouraging the trap option of having odd numbered ability scores. (Which seems to be the case with their pre-generated characters as well).

It's reasonable to assume that not all players are going to optimize, so it's ok to throw in non-optimal bonuses for flavor. But it's a terrible design decision to specifically encourage trap options.

obryn
2014-06-27, 12:57 PM
Not only don't I like racial bonuses to ability scores, I'm really leaning DTAS* these days, so don't ask me. So I guess if you're stuck with ability scores anyway, racial bonuses don't make them much more terrible. :smallbiggrin:

As for even numbers ... eh. There's always been "gaps" where the difference between two numbers was meaningless or next-to. In AD&D, you had no modifiers for most attributes between ... was it 7? ... and 14 or 15. In BECMI, it's less forgiving, but there's still a big gap containing probably 2/3+ of all ability scores with no bonuses. Also, rolled stats are either the default method of generating stats, or else a fully-supported variant in the core rules (more supported than they were in 3e or 4e, at least).

Humans, FWIW, get +1 to all scores by default as their "racial ability". So a Human won't be as tough as a dwarf, but is probably faster and more charismatic. Humans will never be as quick as elves, but they're tougher and stronger. And so on.


* Death To Ability Scores. Basically, the philosophy that ability scores, even in a game like D&D, are just unnecessary cruft, and that there's better ways to show characters are smarter/stronger/etc. than others.

1337 b4k4
2014-06-27, 01:08 PM
As for even numbers ... eh. There's always been "gaps" where the difference between two numbers was meaningless or next-to. In AD&D, you had no modifiers for most attributes between ... was it 7? ... and 14 or 15. In BECMI, it's less forgiving, but there's still a big gap containing probably 2/3+ of all ability scores with no bonuses. Also, rolled stats are either the default method of generating stats, or else a fully-supported variant in the core rules (more supported than they were in 3e or 4e, at least).

One important different though is that in older editions, ability modifiers didn't have such important roles in everything and the general expectation wasn't constant bumps to your ability scores. That it might be 2 or 3 ability score bumps before your modifier changed didn't mean much when that modifier affected just your to hit. But when it affects saves, and skills and actions, and the game expects you to be raising those scores over time, then the dead levels are somewhat useless.

It's a shame they didn't go back to d20 roll under for skill checks. That would have made every ability level count for something, but of course it would have ruined the whole grand unified mechanic thing that has been a bane on RPG design for the last 20 or so years.

Dimers
2014-06-28, 03:11 AM
Person_Man, are you considering a section on multiclassing in the various editions?

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-28, 11:46 AM
Not only don't I like racial bonuses to ability scores, I'm really leaning DTAS* these days, so don't ask me. So I guess if you're stuck with ability scores anyway, racial bonuses don't make them much more terrible. :smallbiggrin:

As for even numbers ... eh. There's always been "gaps" where the difference between two numbers was meaningless or next-to. In AD&D, you had no modifiers for most attributes between ... was it 7? ... and 14 or 15. In BECMI, it's less forgiving, but there's still a big gap containing probably 2/3+ of all ability scores with no bonuses. Also, rolled stats are either the default method of generating stats, or else a fully-supported variant in the core rules (more supported than they were in 3e or 4e, at least).

Humans, FWIW, get +1 to all scores by default as their "racial ability". So a Human won't be as tough as a dwarf, but is probably faster and more charismatic. Humans will never be as quick as elves, but they're tougher and stronger. And so on.


* Death To Ability Scores. Basically, the philosophy that ability scores, even in a game like D&D, are just unnecessary cruft, and that there's better ways to show characters are smarter/stronger/etc. than others.


I'm working on...

Physical Attack: Weapon Attacks
Physical Defense: Defense Versus Non-magical effects
Physical Skill: Bonus to all physical skills

Mental Attack: Magic Attacks
Mental Defense: Defense Versus magical abilities
Mental Skill: Bonus to all mental skills.

This way you can describe your character's ability scores however you want, perhaps you are good at physical attacks not because of strength or Dexterity but because you are great at pissing people off and can see through their movement thus you know where to Strike, or you have seen many battles and you use your wisdom to know where to strike...

You still have the 6 score model, and with a little work you could probably push this into any D&D system out there.

:D

rlc
2014-06-28, 12:56 PM
Most of the spoilered images aren't loading

Fwiffo86
2014-06-28, 05:55 PM
Does an attribute score really need a modifier change every level? Do you really need that for something? Just like, do you absolutely have to have something added to your character beyond HP increase every level? I'm not seeing proper reasoning to actually demand this of a system.

huttj509
2014-06-28, 06:02 PM
Does an attribute score really need a modifier change every level? Do you really need that for something? Just like, do you absolutely have to have something added to your character beyond HP increase every level? I'm not seeing proper reasoning to actually demand this of a system.

What's the difference between a STR of 11 and a STR of 10?

If there's no difference, why have them be different numbers?

Morty
2014-06-28, 06:10 PM
* Death To Ability Scores. Basically, the philosophy that ability scores, even in a game like D&D, are just unnecessary cruft, and that there's better ways to show characters are smarter/stronger/etc. than others.

That's interesting, and I'm inclined to agree, although it depends on what exactly is meant by that.

obryn
2014-06-28, 06:20 PM
That's interesting, and I'm inclined to agree, although it depends on what exactly is meant by that.
Okay, as an example. A dwarf is tough, right? So give them active abilities to demonstrate their toughness - whether it's shrugging off injury, digesting poison, etc. Elves are fast? Well, turn that agility into practice, with abilities to dodge around the battlefield and/or shoot things up with arrows real good. Stats are passive, and a +1 or +2 bonus gives you ... what, 1 more HP? A little more AC? Boring, and not really noticeable except in the aggregate.

When it comes to raw game numbers, don't even go as far as @SpawnOfMorbo did (good idea, man - just extrapolating). Take it one step further. Don't bother with the ability scores themselves; assume a decent stat is the norm in your Important Stuff, and math it out from there. If you want your character to have marginal Intelligence or be extremely Weak, give them active options which demonstrate this (or compel it, ala Fate).

Stuff along those lines.

Fwiffo86
2014-06-28, 08:04 PM
We (my group and I) always went with...

Elves = superior agility. Elf Dex 12 is inherently superior to all other races Dex 12 for the 1 out of 100 times it actually came up as being relative.

Dwarves = Durable. Same ideology, Dwarf Con 13 > all other races Con 13.


What's the difference between a STR of 11 and a STR of 10?

If there's no difference, why have them be different numbers?

One or two steps to increase it. With the decisions about adding 2 attribute points, or a feat (and those points don't have to be in the same attribute) a STR 11 and a STR 10 are as different as can be.

Morty
2014-06-29, 06:10 AM
Okay, as an example. A dwarf is tough, right? So give them active abilities to demonstrate their toughness - whether it's shrugging off injury, digesting poison, etc. Elves are fast? Well, turn that agility into practice, with abilities to dodge around the battlefield and/or shoot things up with arrows real good. Stats are passive, and a +1 or +2 bonus gives you ... what, 1 more HP? A little more AC? Boring, and not really noticeable except in the aggregate.

When it comes to raw game numbers, don't even go as far as @SpawnOfMorbo did (good idea, man - just extrapolating). Take it one step further. Don't bother with the ability scores themselves; assume a decent stat is the norm in your Important Stuff, and math it out from there. If you want your character to have marginal Intelligence or be extremely Weak, give them active options which demonstrate this (or compel it, ala Fate).

Stuff along those lines.

In that case, I definitely agree. Abilities that broaden or restrain the way your character interacts with the story and environment are a better way of presenting strengths and weaknesses.

Chaosvii7
2014-06-29, 08:31 AM
Friendly reminder that the final playtest packet didn't have classes giving bonuses to stats at 1st level(As in, before the ability sore adjustments); I don't recall if they phased that out in an earlier packet(me being one of the people who's playtested every packet), but I know that it isn't in the penultimate version of the game we've got in our hands so it's a fair assumption that it's been cut.

As for races having ability score improvements, I think it's a stellar idea, because they've decided to stop handing out ability score penalties. The penalties were the real limiting factor in a build, because it usually defined what you couldn't do; But it only helps increase the bounds at which you can do things. A +1 can matter, but in this edition I don't see it as a detriment to class selection that one race's bards are just a bit more charismatic than another race's bard. Especially not if their racial traits are generalized enough to be useful for situations that multiple classes will encounter(such as being caught in a particular type of save or trying to make a particular type of check; Or just being all-around useful like the Elf's free cantrip).

Not to say that racial stat adjustments are the best thing ever and that you're all wrong, I just think that it's totally fine to express the worth of a race by giving it particular excellent aptitudes, especially in a system that says no to ability score penalties, which I haven't missed since 4e.

Lokiare
2014-06-29, 03:27 PM
Friendly reminder that the final playtest packet didn't have classes giving bonuses to stats at 1st level(As in, before the ability sore adjustments); I don't recall if they phased that out in an earlier packet(me being one of the people who's playtested every packet), but I know that it isn't in the penultimate version of the game we've got in our hands so it's a fair assumption that it's been cut.

As for races having ability score improvements, I think it's a stellar idea, because they've decided to stop handing out ability score penalties. The penalties were the real limiting factor in a build, because it usually defined what you couldn't do; But it only helps increase the bounds at which you can do things. A +1 can matter, but in this edition I don't see it as a detriment to class selection that one race's bards are just a bit more charismatic than another race's bard. Especially not if their racial traits are generalized enough to be useful for situations that multiple classes will encounter(such as being caught in a particular type of save or trying to make a particular type of check; Or just being all-around useful like the Elf's free cantrip).

Not to say that racial stat adjustments are the best thing ever and that you're all wrong, I just think that it's totally fine to express the worth of a race by giving it particular excellent aptitudes, especially in a system that says no to ability score penalties, which I haven't missed since 4e.

The difference is in 5E, a single +1 is much more important and rare, especially if its to increase a save DC or an attack roll since they both target non-increasing numbers. AC supposedly doesn't improve based on character level and everything in the game has an AC between 6 and 30 or something close. Saves don't go up either because supposedly monster ability scores don't increase to match player level either. So a +1 is an actual 5% increase, instead of keeping up with the monsters stats. So stat adjustments are extremely important. As important as stat penalties.

obryn
2014-06-29, 03:51 PM
I am pretty concerned if only, like, 2-3 of your saving throws improve at all over 20 levels, I have to say.

Lokiare
2014-06-29, 05:17 PM
I am pretty concerned if only, like, 2-3 of your saving throws improve at all over 20 levels, I have to say.

Yep no scaling means no treadmill. Aren't you so happy for bounded accuracy now.

Kurald Galain
2014-06-29, 06:04 PM
So from an optimization point of view, if you're using a non-random method of determining ability scores, in order to maximize Defenses, players generally aimed to have one high statistic from each pair. And in the interests of efficiency, players generally endeavored to minimize their investment in the partner of a high attribute.
Wow, such verbose language :smallbiggrin: It may be clearer to just say that 4E classes have three dump stats.

The standard way of generating ability scores in 5E is random rolls. By contrast, 4E has no mention of random ability score generation in the rulebooks, although some people insist on doing it anyway. And speaking of dump stats, I find that in 3E that even SAD classes benefit from decent stats in other abilities (e.g. dex for init, int for skills). By contrast, in 2E investing in wisdom is utterly pointless if you're not a divine caster, and investing in charisma doesn't do anything for most characters either; these are true dump stats.

da_chicken
2014-06-29, 06:21 PM
I am pretty concerned if only, like, 2-3 of your saving throws improve at all over 20 levels, I have to say.

Why? Why is that a problem? If an attack from a level 5 Fighter is still dangerous at level 20, shouldn't a spell from a level 5 Wizard also be dangerous? What makes a level 20 Wizard more resistant to poison or disease than a level 1 Wizard? What's he been doing to earn that additional resistance?

Also consider: if we look at the other defense, AC, it doesn't improve with level, either. We can consider armor proficiency to be roughly equivalent to save proficiency, so when higher level characters can afford higher level defenses, it's appropriate. Magically speaking, of course, you can get a ring of protection for magical enhancement. I don't think anything increases spell DC except for spell level and (for primary casters) their proficiency bonus.

obryn
2014-06-29, 08:02 PM
Why? Why is that a problem? If an attack from a level 5 Fighter is still dangerous at level 20, shouldn't a spell from a level 5 Wizard also be dangerous? What makes a level 20 Wizard more resistant to poison or disease than a level 1 Wizard? What's he been doing to earn that additional resistance?
He's gotten more experienced and adventured a lot. I'd say that's good enough! :smallsmile:

It's a balance concern more than anything. At 20th level, based on the most recent packet (and yes, it might have changed)...

Spell DC = 8 + Wis mod (5) + Proficiency (6), or 19.
Proficient Save = Stat Mod (...4?) + Proficiency (6) or +10, which is better than even odds, so we're fine.
Non-Proficient Save = Stat Mod (...2?) + 0 = +2, which is meager odds.

Now, Fighters (eventually) get Advantage on all saves, which rocks. But even then, you're looking at 2 chances to roll a 17 (or, heck, a 19) on a non-proficient save, which is pretty terrible. "Legendary Creatures" like Asmodeus have similar resistances and at least better saves because they didn't need to buy up or roll their stats. (Still - watch those Dex saves on dragons!)

This is, of course, based on the (safe!) assumption that getting whammied with a spell is a worse outcome than getting hit by a sword. But if this math is accurate, there's a good chance caster supremacy at higher levels may sneak in through the back door with the spell save system.

Hmmm... saving throw bonuses not keeping pace with spell save DCs? Where have we seen this before? :smallbiggrin: Only maybe worse in some ways because you have 6 saves to manage instead of 3! And it doesn't take much - just one save or suck vs. each defense. We already know Phantasmal Killer needs an Int save, so about your Fighter...

It's all so obviously catastrophic I find it hard to believe the developers won't have accounted for it in the final release, so I'm crossing my fingers. Time will tell!

Lokiare
2014-06-29, 08:14 PM
He's gotten more experienced and adventured a lot. I'd say that's good enough! :smallsmile:

It's a balance concern more than anything. At 20th level, based on the most recent packet (and yes, it might have changed)...

Spell DC = 8 + Wis mod (5) + Proficiency (6), or 19.
Proficient Save = Stat Mod (...4?) + Proficiency (6) or +10, which is better than even odds, so we're fine.
Non-Proficient Save = Stat Mod (...2?) + 0 = +2, which is meager odds.

Now, Fighters (eventually) get Advantage on all saves, which rocks. But even then, you're looking at 2 chances to roll a 17 (or, heck, a 19) on a non-proficient save, which is pretty terrible. "Legendary Creatures" like Asmodeus have similar resistances and at least better saves because they didn't need to buy up or roll their stats. (Still - watch those Dex saves on dragons!)

This is, of course, based on the (safe!) assumption that getting whammied with a spell is a worse outcome than getting hit by a sword. But if this math is accurate, there's a good chance caster supremacy at higher levels may sneak in through the back door with the spell save system.

Hmmm... saving throw bonuses not keeping pace with spell save DCs? Where have we seen this before? :smallbiggrin: Only maybe worse in some ways because you have 6 saves to manage instead of 3! And it doesn't take much - just one save or suck vs. each defense. We already know Phantasmal Killer needs an Int save, so about your Fighter...

It's all so obviously catastrophic I find it hard to believe the developers won't have accounted for it in the final release, so I'm crossing my fingers. Time will tell!

With over powered spells at all levels that require a save, this is pretty catastrophic already. In the final play test casters got such spells as grease at 1st, hold person at 3rd, etc...etc... Can you imagine being able to whale on any humanoid creature for 3-6 rounds because of hold person? Can you imagine any non flying creatures being knocked prone and losing the rest of their movement to a 1st level spell? Well guess what? 5E has it.

da_chicken
2014-06-29, 09:06 PM
He's gotten more experienced and adventured a lot. I'd say that's good enough! :smallsmile:

It's a balance concern more than anything. At 20th level, based on the most recent packet (and yes, it might have changed)...

Spell DC = 8 + Wis mod (5) + Proficiency (6), or 19.
Proficient Save = Stat Mod (...4?) + Proficiency (6) or +10, which is better than even odds, so we're fine.
Non-Proficient Save = Stat Mod (...2?) + 0 = +2, which is meager odds.

Now, Fighters (eventually) get Advantage on all saves, which rocks. But even then, you're looking at 2 chances to roll a 17 (or, heck, a 19) on a non-proficient save, which is pretty terrible.

This is, of course, based on the (safe!) assumption that getting whammied with a spell is a worse outcome than getting hit by a sword. But if this math is accurate, there's a good chance caster supremacy at higher levels may sneak in through the back door with the spell save system.

Hmmm... saving throw bonuses not keeping pace with spell save DCs? Where have we seen this before? :smallbiggrin: Only maybe worse in some ways because you have 6 saves to manage instead of 3! And it doesn't take much - just one save or suck vs. each defense. We already know Phantasmal Killer needs an Int save, so about your Fighter...

It's all so obviously catastrophic I find it hard to believe the developers won't have accounted for it in the final release, so I'm crossing my fingers. Time will tell!

I haven't seen your version of Phantasmal Killer. My playtest only has Phantasmal Force, which is a) a Wis save, and b) when used just to cause damage has the effect of dealing 1d6 damage a round for Concentration or 10 minutes, and c) doesn't scale with spell level.

Nearly every attack spell in the playtest does one (or more) of three things:

1. Deals hit point damage.
2. Has effects capped by hit points (including slay living, disintegrate, harm, sleep).
3. Grants a save every round and requires concentration (hold).
4. Cause a transitory effect (command) or straight debuff (slow).

The only major exceptions I see are charm and dominate, which have their own restrictions and weaknesses, and flesh to stone, which is like a super hold that requires the target to fail twice on and you have to concentrate on for 1 minute to make permanent or it ends after that minute.

Additionally:

1. Zero spells specify Intelligence saving throws. Even maze, the obvious Int save spell, is an opposed check instead of a save.
2. Only spells such as banishment require Charisma saving throws. I only see a handful of such spells.
3. Only a few spells that try to push the target around or tie them up require Strength saves. I only see three out of a couple hundred spells.

So there are six saves, but there's still only truly 3 in spells. The consequence of this is that Bards (Int, Cha) have particularly poor saves vs spells.

Furthermore, spell casters only get one spell slot at 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th spell levels.

I think the deadliest spell in the game is Otto's irresistible dance. All the target can do is try to make a Wis check vs the spell's save DC. That spell lasts up to 1 minute. Although I do love this caveat that if you know the target's true name, you can make the spell last for up to 10 days or, as the spell specifically notes, they die of exhaustion.

obryn
2014-06-29, 10:14 PM
Sorry, the Int save is from the most recent closed playtest. Feeblemind is also an Int save, as is Maze.

I'm not saying the system absolutely won't work in the end. I'm skeptical that enough was done, though. With spells, particularly, you just need the one broken one - and if not now, later. Actions are the most valuable resource in the game.

Hold person is one of the problem ones. Saving every round won't help much if you still need a DC 19 on a weak save, you know?

But like I said, we'll see.

da_chicken
2014-06-29, 11:23 PM
Sorry, the Int save is from the most recent closed playtest. Feeblemind is also an Int save, as is Maze.

Oh, I see.


I'm not saying the system absolutely won't work in the end. I'm skeptical that enough was done, though. With spells, particularly, you just need the one broken one - and if not now, later. Actions are the most valuable resource in the game.

Hold person is one of the problem ones. Saving every round won't help much if you still need a DC 19 on a weak save, you know?

But like I said, we'll see.

Hold isn't that bad relative to previous editions. You can't coup de gras a paralyzed character, so it just prevents attacks and grants advantage to attackers. If it's really a problem in your games, have it break on damage being dealt to the target. Or change it to restrained instead (although that's probably too weak to be worthwhile). So while it's dangerous, opponents still technically have to punch through your AC (with advantage) and HP. And it's still a single target spell. If 4e's mantra was "don't split the party," it's quickly becoming apparent that 5e's is "bring your friends." Adventuring alone is dangerous as hell.

Sure, Oberoni says that the existence of house rules doesn't mean rules don't have to be balanced out the publisher's door, but by the same measure you can't say that you're running a broken game when you know after repeated play that certain things are broken and you refuse to house rule them. Players should demand that rules be functional, but the RAW aren't a suicide pact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suicide_pact). If it's truly one spell, just fix it and move on. Report it for the annual rules refresh. Indeed, just because it's a problem in your games doesn't mean it's a problem in everybody's games. This isn't MTG where you expect to go to an adversarial tournament and have fixed, standard rules enforced by neutral third party referees. Yes, you can play D&D that way, but realistically that's not what the game is primarily designed to do or be. Micromanaging the rules like they did with 4e is not something I think they want to repeat. It turned into a fool's errand.

Finally, how often do you expect to have to make a DC 19 save in 5e? You need to be facing a level 17+ primary spellcaster with maxed spellcasting stat (which, granted, most high level casters will have, battle clerics excepted) or something on the order of a Pit Fiend (hold person at-will, DC 20). By that point your party should at the very least have access to freedom of movement. Even Rangers and Paladins (Devotion anyhow) have it by level 13.

I do see where you're coming from, but I'm just not that convinced. I played a long time with 1e/2e, and hold just didn't end up working that well after a certain point. Usually because there were too many opponents.

Envyus
2014-06-30, 12:06 AM
With over powered spells at all levels that require a save, this is pretty catastrophic already. In the final play test casters got such spells as grease at 1st, hold person at 3rd, etc...etc... Can you imagine being able to whale on any humanoid creature for 3-6 rounds because of hold person? Can you imagine any non flying creatures being knocked prone and losing the rest of their movement to a 1st level spell? Well guess what? 5E has it.

Did you know that both Grease and Hold Person are not in the basic game. Because they are not.

obryn
2014-06-30, 12:15 AM
I do see where you're coming from, but I'm just not that convinced. I played a long time with 1e/2e, and hold just didn't end up working that well after a certain point. Usually because there were too many opponents.
1e/2e had saves that got easier as the target went up in level, and there was basically nothing a caster could do to make those saves harder. Which is really how I think D&D should generally work, YMMV.

Envyus
2014-06-30, 12:17 AM
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140630 Complete spell list for basic game. Hold Person is not in it even.

Edit never mind it's on the Cleric spell list was looking at the wrong area.

obryn
2014-06-30, 12:24 AM
Did you know that both Grease and Hold Person are not in the basic game. Because they are not.
Hold Person is.

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140630

Kurald Galain
2014-06-30, 05:41 AM
1. Zero spells specify Intelligence saving throws. Even maze, the obvious Int save spell, is an opposed check instead of a save.
2. Only spells such as banishment require Charisma saving throws. I only see a handful of such spells.
3. Only a few spells that try to push the target around or tie them up require Strength saves. I only see three out of a couple hundred spells.

I'm really not surprised to learn that certain saves are much more important than others, and indeed that these happen to be the three saving throws that 3E had (after all, these are the three that make the most sense thematically). Indeed several people have suggested this straight from the beginning, when it was stated that 5E would have six saving throws because Attributes Are Important.

obryn
2014-06-30, 05:58 AM
I'm really not surprised to learn that certain saves are much more important than others, and indeed that these happen to be the three saving throws that 3E had (after all, these are the three that make the most sense thematically). Indeed several people have suggested this straight from the beginning, when it was stated that 5E would have six saving throws because Attributes Are Important.
Apparently there are a ton of Strength saves vs. Monster abilities. I'm guessing webs and grabs, but no idea the specifics.

da_chicken
2014-06-30, 08:50 AM
I'm really not surprised to learn that certain saves are much more important than others, and indeed that these happen to be the three saving throws that 3E had (after all, these are the three that make the most sense thematically). Indeed several people have suggested this straight from the beginning, when it was stated that 5E would have six saving throws because Attributes Are Important.

Yeah. There are a few that are arguable, like charm and dominate kind of make sense as Cha saves, but Wis does work, too. Maze makes sense as an Int save. If obryn is right, then the latter is now an Int save. I expect there to be a lot more Str saves, too. A lot of spells talk about Str checks. Entangle, for example, was Str save and Str check, but web was Dex save and Str check. That's just odd to me. Str saves, IMO, are likely to be fairly weak since monsters tend to get ridiculous Str scores in general in D&D. I suppose 5e might change that, but that seems unlikely.

I like the idea of Str saves because it works well for effects previously requiring Str checks, but I question the utility of having 3 distinct mental saves.

Kurald Galain
2014-06-30, 10:12 AM
I like the idea of Str saves because it works well for effects previously requiring Str checks, but I question the utility of having 3 distinct mental saves.

I agree. Strength saves makes sense because some spells are effectively grapples. However, an int save represents willpower just as much as a wis save does, and I don't see a cha save being any different either. I suppose cha saves would be fitting for social combat, though, but D&D traditionally doesn't have that.

1337 b4k4
2014-06-30, 10:18 AM
Once again, I have to say I prefer the Dungeon World way of handling this. Tell me what you're doing to avoid the effect and that determines the save you use. Backflipping out of the way? Cool it's a DEX save. Shattering the webs with your inhuman strength? Roll STR. Resisting the poison because you're a gorram Dwarf and you've had beers stronger than this? Break out that CON modifier. Disbelieving the illusion because clearly no person would put a perfectly maintained bathroom in the middle of a dungeon? Roll INT. Resisting the fears by calling on your god and relying on your faith? Roll WIS. Obviously it's looser, requires some on the fly interpretation and trust in your DM for fair adjudication but then again, those are sort of important for any TTRPG so that doesn't bother me.

Lokiare
2014-06-30, 10:27 AM
I agree. Strength saves makes sense because some spells are effectively grapples. However, an int save represents willpower just as much as a wis save does, and I don't see a cha save being any different either. I suppose cha saves would be fitting for social combat, though, but D&D traditionally doesn't have that.

Int saves are for active observation or knowledge based saves like being trapped in a maze or trying to decide which image is the real one. Wis is for passive observation like being trapped in an illusion world that mimics our own with slight subtle changes. Cha is for when your sense of self is being attacked like charm person or dominate.

Kurald Galain
2014-06-30, 10:28 AM
Once again, I have to say I prefer the Dungeon World way of handling this. Tell me what you're doing to avoid the effect and that determines the save you use. Backflipping out of the way? Cool it's a DEX save. Shattering the webs with your inhuman strength? Roll STR. Resisting the poison because you're a gorram Dwarf and you've had beers stronger than this? Break out that CON modifier. Disbelieving the illusion because clearly no person would put a perfectly maintained bathroom in the middle of a dungeon? Roll INT. Resisting the fears by calling on your god and relying on your faith? Roll WIS.

The main issue with this is that it turns the game into "fast talk the DM into letting you roll your best stat all the time, regardless of whether that makes any sense", just like in 4E's skill challenges.

Fwiffo86
2014-06-30, 10:28 AM
I agree. Strength saves makes sense because some spells are effectively grapples. However, an int save represents willpower just as much as a wis save does, and I don't see a cha save being any different either. I suppose cha saves would be fitting for social combat, though, but D&D traditionally doesn't have that.

I disagree. INT should represent computational and analytical power as well as memory retention. None of which hint at willpower.

Kurald Galain
2014-06-30, 10:40 AM
I disagree. INT should represent computational and analytical power as well as memory retention. None of which hint at willpower.

I'm not saying that int = wis, but that in practice there is no difference between an int save and a wis save, and that it's pretty arbitrary which is used for a particular effect. You might think of some different fluff, but in practice int save = willpower against a mental effect, and wis save also = willpower against a mental effect.

1337 b4k4
2014-06-30, 10:42 AM
The main issue with this is that it turns the game into "fast talk the DM into letting you roll your best stat all the time, regardless of whether that makes any sense", just like in 4E's skill challenges.

Well, of course one of the core tenets in DW is that things have to make sense within the context of the fiction. There should be no problem with the DM challenging a player and asking "how exactly are you doing that" before they're allowed to roll. If the web is 30 feet in diameter, it's perfectly reasonable to ask how exactly the player is tumbling out of the way of something that large. Similarly, there's got to be some explanation for how you're using your intelligence to save against the poison.

Kurald Galain
2014-06-30, 12:29 PM
What would be nice for this thread is a table with some numbers. For example, comparing a "tank class" with a "squishy" class, with straightforward character choices:

Fighter hit points at level 1
2E: 7
3E: 12
4E: 33
5E: ??

Fighter hit points at level 10
2E: 65
3E: 100
4E: 87
5E: ??

Note: 2E assumes con 15, since fighters have no reliable way of getting more than that and no real way of raising it. 3E assumes con 14, which is easy with point buy, and con 18 at level 10 because of items. Note also that 3E maximizes hit points at level 1 whereas 2E does not. 4E assumes auspicuous birth or similar background.

Wizard hit points at level 1
2E: 3
3E: 6
4E: 30

Wizard hit points at level 10
2E: 23
3E: 66
4E: 66

Same assumptions as above.

How much better in combat is the level-10 fighter than the level-1 fighter?
2E: +9
3E: +14
4E: +9
5E: +3

Note: 2E is straight THAC0 increase, although I'd have to look up the rules for weapon spec. 3E assumes a +2 weapon, +2 strength from level, and +4 strength from an item, which is pretty much guaranteed from WBL. 4E assumes expertise, +2 weapon or inherent bonus, and +2 strength increase from level. 5E assumes +2 increase to proficiency and dropping one feat to increase strength.

How much better in combat is the level-10 fighter than the level-10 wizard?
2E: +8
3E: +11
4E: +0
5E: +0?

Note: 2E is THAC0 difference and assumes +1 to hit from strength. 3E is BAB difference and assumes 22 strength on the fighter. 4E is negligible since the wizard has melee attacks that run off intelligence instead. 5E apparently has a cantrip (Shocking Grasp) that also does that.

obryn
2014-06-30, 12:36 PM
I call shenanigans on Auspicious Birth. :smallsmile:

Also, how/why is the 4e Wizard using Intelligence for their melee attacks? Are they wasting a feat on Melee Training?

e: Also, need to account for multiattacks from classes who get them in 2e/3e/5e. And add in Weapon Specialization in 2e. Baseline is +1 to-hit/+2 damage, with extra attacks gained a "step" earlier, starting at 3/2 and moving to 2/1 when most Fighters are hitting 3/2. Ranged weapons throw this in disarray, which gives us the Dartmaster.

Kurald Galain
2014-06-30, 12:51 PM
Also, how/why is the 4e Wizard using Intelligence for their melee attacks?
Beast Switch at-will power.



e: Also, need to account for multiattacks from classes who get them in 2e/3e/5e.
Good point, but I'm not seeing a big difference here. 2E fighter gets two attacks per round by level 10 IIRC, 3E gets a second one albeit at a penalty, 4E can effectively attack twice per round the entire combat using encounter powers (since most combats last only 3-4 rounds anyway) and 5E can also attack twice by then unless I've got my playtest packets switched up. What I was going for is a simple comparison of to-hit modifiers.


Ranged weapons throw this in disarray, which gives us the Dartmaster.
Assume straightforward choices, not known cheese builds.


How much are saving throws better at L10 than at L1?
2E: +6 fighter, +2 wizard (straightforward from the table)
3E: +9 strong save, +5 weak save (assuming +2 cloak by that level, which is basically guaranteed from WBL)
4E: well, they're called defenses here, but +8 (half level and assuming +2 item or equivalent inherent bonus, and two out of three defenses will benefit from a guaranteed ability increase)
5E: +2 (proficiency bonus only)


(edit) Oh, here's a nice one. What is the common range of archery (longbow) and of spells?
2E: I'd have to look this up
3E: 300' (at a -4 penalty, but can go up to 1000' if you don't mind ludicrous penalties), with medium range for spells being 110'-200' (at L1 resp L10).
4E: 200' (at a -2 penalty, but note that only very few classes can use a bow effectively; e.g. fighters can't do this), with almost all spells between 25' and 50'
5E: 320' (disad) and don't know about spells yet.

Merlin the Tuna
2014-06-30, 12:57 PM
The main issue with this is that it turns the game into "fast talk the DM into letting you roll your best stat all the time, regardless of whether that makes any sense", just like in 4E's skill challenges.

Well, of course one of the core tenets in DW is that things have to make sense within the context of the fiction. There should be no problem with the DM challenging a player and asking "how exactly are you doing that" before they're allowed to roll. If the web is 30 feet in diameter, it's perfectly reasonable to ask how exactly the player is tumbling out of the way of something that large. Similarly, there's got to be some explanation for how you're using your intelligence to save against the poison.In addition to the "fiction first" approach, the tenet of "Make a move that follows" is an important distinction as well.

4E Skill Challenges suffered in part because the rolls weren't really related to each other. If I flub my Diplomacy check to the Duke, the GM could decide that the Duke no longer cares about your cool History factoids and disallow an otherwise-appropriate skill. But that's not really a common application - most challenges just said "Good skills: Bluff Diplomacy History. OK skills: Arcana Athletics Nature." and called it a day. And since challenges are based on a strict "X Success before Y Failures" model, it further reinforces the idea of doing a handful of arbitrary, unlinked skill checks, which basically amounts to the PCs playing a round of Yahtzee and seeing whether they win or lose.

Dungeon World can certainly be power-gamed, in a sense, by sweet-talking a GM who just can't help himself from playing favorites. But the core assumption - and the most common case - is that different approaches yield different results, even if they all read as "Success" in game terms. If an ogre hurls a huge rock at the party, the Ranger might dive for cover (Roll+Dex) and the Fighter might set his feet, raise his shield, and endure the hit (roll +Con). If the Ranger succeeds, he takes no damage, but maybe he's totally fine, maybe he's prone behind the cover and at risk because of it, or maybe the cover he ducked behind is actually the opening of an ankheg burrow. Likewise, the Fighter might take no damage & stand his ground like a badass, or maybe his shield breaks, he gets knocked back, or he gets pinned under the boulder where it lands. Those have an implication for right now, but they also heavily influence what happens next.

The ultimate point being that context matters tremendously in Dungeon World whereas it's basically just window dressing in the average Skill Challenge. Similar point with a lot of Saving Throws, where success means that nothing happens, rather than giving different results depending on how you save.

obryn
2014-06-30, 01:03 PM
Beast Switch at-will power.
That's one of your two At-Wills, and it's considered one of the worse choices? I'm really not seeing it here. If you are insisting on Auspicious Birth, dandy, but I'm not seeing it.


Good point, but I'm not seeing a big difference here. 2E fighter gets two attacks per round by level 10 IIRC, 3E gets a second one albeit at a penalty, 4E can effectively attack twice per round the entire combat using encounter powers (since most combats last only 3-4 rounds anyway) and 5E can also attack twice by then unless I've got my playtest packets switched up. What I was going for is a simple comparison of to-hit modifiers.
I think part of the problem might be with using 10th level here as opposed to 11th or 12th. Those are both levels where a 2e and 3e Fighter get added attacks; 10 is a low cap.

But no doubt encounter powers are at least worth a second attack, even if they're not actual second attacks.

Also - a comparison of to-hit modifiers should require a comparison of monster defenses. (Same with HP vs. monster damage.) Both are easily calculated in 4e; just use Skirmisher stats as the "standard." For 5e this is going to be telling since monster AC won't go up much.

Kurald Galain
2014-06-30, 01:14 PM
That's one of your two At-Wills, and it's considered one of the worse choices? I'm really not seeing it here.
Very well. Thunderwave at-will power, which is a top-notch pick and works on melee range. The pattern here is that practically every class in 4E has an easily accessible range-1 attack that runs off their best ability score for to-hit and damage, and that gets the same "half level" bonus as the fighter does. That's decidedly not the case in 2E and 3E.


Also - a comparison of to-hit modifiers should require a comparison of monster defenses.
Indeed. Feel free to do a writeup. It seems the difference is that in 2E/3E, attacks scale but defenses don't (meaning that at some point, melee classes are pretty much guaranteed to hit); whereas in 4E attacks and defenses scale at the same rate (meaning you can expect the same to-hit range throughout your career, but get a difference against higher or lower level monsters); whereas in 5E attacks and defenses basically don't scale (meaning you can expect the same to-hit range throughout your career irrespective of what you're facing). But that's intuitive, some actual numbers would be better.

obryn
2014-06-30, 01:23 PM
Well, for 2e we can call it AC 5 just to pick a mid-range number. AC's below 3 or above 8 are pretty uncommon, so 5 sounds about right for both 1st level and 10th level. There's a good deal of range later on, but it's limited to -10 and that's only for edge-case scenarios. Damage doesn't scale all too much, but then again, neither do hit points. Hit probability is improved by 1 per level, plus almost certain +2 or +3 weapon, plus weapon specialization.

No idea on 3e; someone who's played it more recently can fill in.

For 4e, Skirmishers (the baseline) have an average of 15 AC at Level 1 and 24 AC at level 10. Average damage is 9 at 1st and 18 at 10th.

For 5e, we still need to see the final release, but I think much like with 2e, an average AC of 15 sounds kind of reasonable? This generally does not increase, though high-level legendary enemies might go up to 19ish.

---

Oh, including RC D&D might be illustrative, too. Even lower HPs (Fighters with d8's), but substantially stronger offense from Fighters due to weapon mastery rules.

Person_Man
2014-06-30, 01:42 PM
Person_Man, are you considering a section on multiclassing in the various editions?

Yes, I have every intention of doing a multiclass/duel class/Prestige class/subclass/kits explanation of some kind, and would appreciate any help anyone wants to give me in describing it or any other rules.

In particular, can someone explain 4E multiclassing to me? My understanding is that you can take a Feat to gain some of the benefits of a second class, but overall it's a cruddy option. Why?

And to my knowledge, they haven't given us final 5E rules for this yet, have they?



Most of the spoilered images aren't loading

Fixed. Thanks.

obryn
2014-06-30, 01:54 PM
In particular, can someone explain 4E multiclassing to me? My understanding is that you can take a Feat to gain some of the benefits of a second class, but overall it's a cruddy option. Why?
There's two real kinds of multiclassing in 4e.

(1) Feat-based multiclassing. The buy-in feat is anything but a bad deal; you get an active benefit that represents your training, plus a trained skill. They're some of the better feats in the game, and almost everyone will pick one up sometime. It qualifies you for other feats, paragon paths, etc. You're limited to one of these, unless your main class is bard. Some of these multiclasses are really weird, not being real classes, like several where you specialize in obscure weapons. (The spiked chain one is amazing.)

Going down the feat-based path further is where the costs start to outweigh the benefits. You need to spend more feats to swap out your own class's powers for the second class's - one for Encounter, one for Daily, and one for Utility. There's edge cases where this is good - a few Ranger and Rogue powers are worth that cost - but it's rarely done.

Ultimately you can Paragon Multiclass, which is awful and you really shouldn't ever do it. Half-elves are better at it, but even then. Ugh, no.

(2) Hybrids. Hybrids come with a big warning label, because it's super easy to make an awful character with them. While they are occasionally used to fit a character concept, they're most often found in the hands of (a) 3.x players, who just know that getting more classes = more powerful character!; and (b) Charoppers who have found an unexpected synergy with access to three classes and still usually end up with a quirky but seldom broken character. Oh, or (c) folks who want to play a Binder or Sentinel druid and figured out you can get the best parts of the class with a Hybrid.

I pretty much hate the whole hybrid system. :smallbiggrin:

There's a third system but it's Unearthed Arcana, and therefore always optional. It's also pretty busted, and I wouldn't recommend it.

Kurald Galain
2014-06-30, 02:00 PM
In particular, can someone explain 4E multiclassing to me? My understanding is that you can take a Feat to gain some of the benefits of a second class, but overall it's a cruddy option. Why?
Sure. You can take a feat, which gives you (1) a minor benefit from the class you MC into (such as sneak attack once per encounter), and (2) a free skill, and (3) you now count as both classes for the purpose of meeting prerequisites. Point #3 actually makes it a decent option because most feats in 4E are fairly weak, and it allows you to poach a feat or paragon path (i.e. prestige class) intended for another class.

From there, you can take three more feats to swap a power from your original class with one from your secondary class. This is a good deal if your original class has weak powers overall; as a result, lower-tier classes benefit from grabbing a power or two (particularly encounter powers) from a higher-tier class.

Alternatively, you can "hybrid" two classes. Doing so generally gives you one class feature of each class (most classes have two or three noticeable class features) plus you can spend one feat to get a second feature. Whenever you get a new power, you can pick it from either list, but you must pick one power from each class as soon as you can. Almost universally, a hybrid's class features count for that class only; for example, if you're a hybrid rogue, your sneak attack only works on your rogue powers (whereas if you're a multiclass rogue, your sneak attack works on any power). Most hybrids are weaker than either class would be on its own, and so hybriding is a common trap for beginning players; if you make a hybrid without decent system mastery, you are likely to end up with a messy ineffective character. For advanced players, it opens up several combos that wouldn't exist for non-hybrids.

Hybrids can also multiclass. A character cannot multiclass twice, except bards. A background option existed that allowed multiclassing twice, but this was errata'ed away as it was an enabler for numerous cheese builds (see point #3 above).

Merlin the Tuna
2014-06-30, 02:56 PM
No idea on 3e; someone who's played it more recently can fill in.Tough to determine since 3e scales so weirdly - I cried a little inside when I re-read the rules on advancing monsters via class levels versus advancing them via monstrous hit dice. But I get the impression Brute-type monsters are easiest to use as a measuring stick, since (A) they actually use AC/HP/Attacks in combat rather than hinging on spells & special abilities, and (B) you simply stop finding non-brutes in the SRD after a certain level. The only CR 10 creature that isn't Large or bigger is the Rakshasa, and including it in the numbers throws them off wildly. If you want skirmishers -- or anything else, for that matter -- you probably need to take an intelligent humanoid and add class levels and magic items. But anyway, actual numbers based on a quick eyeball:

CR 1 - References: Gnoll, Ghoul, Troglodyte, Wolf
AC: 15
HP: 13
Damage: ~5 on primary attack. 1-2 damage on secondary attacks, if they exist.

CR 10 - References: Clay Golem, Fire Giant, Bebilith (Demon), Adult White Dragon
AC: 23
HP: ~140
Damage: 18 or so on the primary attack. Followups are typically about as strong (varying to-hit), with 2-3 total attacks expected in a full attack sequence.

Edit: Oh jesus, just about every single one of these guys has Power Attack, so who even knows about damage anymore.


In particular, can someone explain 4E multiclassing to me? My understanding is that you can take a Feat to gain some of the benefits of a second class, but overall it's a cruddy option. Why?Obryn and Kurald mentioned this, but to drive the point home: multiclass feats after the first allowed you to replace one of your powers with an equal-level power from the other class, not to gain a new power. That's the big sticking point. Since 4E classes all contribute to combat by way of direct damage, you're trading out an attack with a rider for an attack that deals similar damage with a different rider. You might get a tiny bit of utility out of the trade -- especially if you're picking up an area attack because your party is mostly focused on single-target attacks -- but you aren't appreciably increasing your power the way you could in 3E. This ends up sort of sucking because you could have spent your feat on something that got you a new ability entirely or one that provided a bonus on your attack rolls - far and away the most valuable number in the game.

Person_Man
2014-07-02, 12:14 PM
Added a section on magic. Please let me know if I missed anything important. In particular, I swear that 2E/1E had a lot of other limitations on magic that I'm forgetting.

obryn
2014-07-02, 12:36 PM
Added a section on magic. Please let me know if I missed anything important. In particular, I swear that 2E/1E had a lot of other limitations on magic that I'm forgetting.
I'll talk about 1e, which I'm more familiar with.


1E: Same as 2E, but the number and range of spells that a spellcaster had access to was far more limited. A 1st level Magic User had just 1 spell per day, and while he wielded god-like power at higher levels, most spells were some variation of "I blow stuff up." Clerics typically healed and cast protective spells. And some spells were also very poorly written, which made them wildly powerful or completely worthless depending on your DM.
Let's see...

(1) 1e had 4 spell lists, not 2. Druids (cleric subclass) and Illusionists (Magic-User subclass) each had their own full spell lists and variant casting progressions. Wizards got up to 9th level spells; everyone else got up to 7th. Some spells people think of as Wizard and Cleric spells nowadays weren't on the Wizard or Cleric lists at all in 1e.
(2) I would certainly not say "blow stuff up" was the default; most spells were utility spells. However, damaging spells in 1e and 2e were significantly more powerful than they were in 3e and later due to those editions' hit point inflation.
(3) Clerics and Druids received bonus spells (quite a lot of them!) for high Wisdom and "knew" their entire spell list. Magic-Users did not. Magic-users had to find spells, learn them, and add them to their spellbooks, which was both time-consuming and expensive. High Intelligence increased the chance of a Magic-User successfully transcribing any given spell (with a peak of 85% at 18 Int). Failure means the M-U would need to do spell research if they had their hearts set on a certain one.
(4) Spell interruption depended on initiative. A spellcaster has to declare their spell before initiative is rolled, and the spell's Casting Time counts as a penalty to their personal initiative. Depending on where in the DMG you're looking, a spellcaster either (a) automatically loses their spell if they are struck before it's cast, or (b) only loses it if they're struck on a segment during which they are actually casting*.
(5) M-U's started out with a random collection of 3 spells + Read Magic. Good luck!
(6) In AD&D, Clerics get spells starting from 1st level. In BX/BECMI/RC and OD&D, they don't get a spell at 1st level.
(7) Some broken spells abound, yeah. Chromatic Orb, a 1st-level Illusionist spell from Unearthed Arcana, is a particularly egregious offender.

* Oh god segments are a nightmare and were rightly ignored/glossed over by many D&D players. Heck; AD&D initiative in general is crazy. Your "side" starts acting on the segment the other side rolled on a d6, so you wanted them to roll low and you to roll high. Casting time adds to that segment, though importantly stuff like Weapon Speed does not. I don't want to go into too many details, but high casting times could push a spellcaster past the 10th segment and into the next round, which got to be a mess like everything with segments always was. (In BX/BECMI/RC, you just have to hit the caster before they cast, which is a lot more elegant in practice.)

da_chicken
2014-07-02, 12:37 PM
Added a section on magic. Please let me know if I missed anything important. In particular, I swear that 2E/1E had a lot of other limitations on magic that I'm forgetting.

Well, in 1e, clerical and druid spells ended at level 7. Additionally, you had to petition your deity directly to prepare 5th, 6th, and 7th level spells, so you better be in good standing. The PHB says "a deed, or sacrifice, atonement or abasement might be required".

For magic users, memorizing a spell took 15 minutes per spell level. That means a 20th level caster took (5 * 1 + 5 * 2 + 5 * 3 + 5 * 4 + 5 * 5 + 4 * 6 + 3 * 7 + 3 * 8 + 2 * 9) * 0.25 = 40.5 hours to fully prepare her spells. Additionally, Intelligence had numerous limitations for magic-users. You have both a minimum number of spells known and a maximum number of spells known for each level. Whenever a character wishes to add a spell to her spellbook, they must roll the dreaded Chance to Know roll. This starts at 35% for Int 9, and increases by about 10% every 2 points of Int to 95% at Int 19. The 1e PHB says "you can only check a spell once," and makes it pretty clear that if you don't learn it the first time you try, you can never, ever learn it. That's why there are duplicate spells sort of, like fly and gaseous form, and fireball and lightning bolt. This roll just determines that if you find the spell whether or not you can even add it to your spellbook.

The way you usually did this was when you gain a new spell level, you pick the spell you want to learn from the list in the PHB. Then you roll your Chance to Know. You keep going until you hit your Maximum Known per Level limit, or, if you get all the way through the list without meeting the Minimum Known limit, you start again and check spells a second time until you hit your Minimum Known limit.

Kurald Galain
2014-07-02, 01:43 PM
2E: As in 3E, but non-full spell casters are almost entirely composed of dead levels where they gained nothing but higher bonuses, Saves, and/or % success rates. Arcane magic users are extremely fragile unless they have defensive spells active. Classes have subclasses which provide the same progression of bonuses/saves/etc but different class abilities. As mentioned above, classes have racial and minimum attribute requirements, so you can't be a Paladin unless your a human with 12 Str, 9 Con, 13 Wis, and 17 Cha. Classes require different amounts of experience to gain a level. And after a certain level, you only gained a small fixed number of hit points, instead of rolling an additional hit die). Only Rogues and Bards can do certain things which are handled by Skills in all future editions (Pick Pockets, Move Silently, Hide, Open Locks, Disarm Traps) which protects their exploration toolbox niche.
In addition, the 2E PHB had a lengthy chapter on "non-weapon proficiencies" (and later splatbooks added a few more) that are essentially skills. This chapter was marked "optional" but as it was right in the middle of the PHB, and pretty straightforward, and allowed for a way to further customize your character, to my knowledge almost everybody used it.

Of particular note is that you gain a new skill every 3 or 4 levels (depending on class), in contrast with 4E/5E where you never learn new skills (except by spending a feat on it). Furthermore, the default assumption is that characters can't read unless they take reading skill (which isn't nearly as crippling as it sounds, as long as one party member can read there's no problem).



2E: Classic Vancian Magic was the default. But you could not cast a spell while adjacent to another creature without provoking an attack, and if hit and damaged your spell often failed.
Not exactly. "Provoking opportunity attacks" doesn't exist as a mechanic until 3E. Rather, spells have a casting time counted in initiative points (generally equal to spell level for arcane spells, spell level + 3 for divine spells and 1 for certain "verbal only" spells like Power Word and Dimdoor). If you take damage in any way during that time, you automatically lose the spell. This means that you can make things very difficult to an enemy wizard by using Magic Missile right as he starts casting (and this is precisely why the Shield spell blocks magic missiles, of course).
Note also that the eight schools of wizardry date from 2E, and that splatbooks added elementalists and the Wild Mage. The two strong schools were transmutation (then called "alteration") and evocation (then called "invocation/evocation") because some spells were somewhat arbitrarily assigned to a school and these were the big ones. However, each specialty school had fixed opposite schools (you don't get to pick these like in 3E). Divination had only one opposed school, illusion had three (since it was the only way by which gnomes could be an arcane caster) and all divination spells of level 1-3 were considered the universal school (then called "lesser divination") mainly because of Detect Magic and Identify.
Bards were vancian; spontaneous casting didn't exist yet.
Also, cantrips (0th level spells) didn't exist, neither for wizards nor clerics. There was a 1st-level spell called Cantrip which lets you perform minor acts of magic for one hour per level; these were only vaguely specified but basically cover 3E's non-offensive cantrips.



1E: Same as 2E, but the number and range of spells that a spellcaster had access to was far more limited. A 1st level Magic User had just 1 spell per day, and while he wielded god-like power at higher levels, most spells were some variation of "I blow stuff up." Clerics typically healed and cast protective spells.
The last two sentences aren't really true. Wizards had basically all the classic spells including walls, illusions, and abjurations; blowing stuff up was effective but by no means the only option. Also, clerics had access to most of their classic spells including flame strike, spiritual hammer, and other non-heal non-prot spells.
Note that the illusionist was a separate class in this edition, and the only way in which gnomes could be an arcane caster.

obryn
2014-07-02, 01:55 PM
Cantrips were introduced in Unearthed Arcana for 1e. They were incredibly minor spells and you were able to prepare ... some number, 3? 4? ... instead of a 1st-level spell. This was basically never a good idea, unless you had a need to make your food taste good or clean your clothes.

They were mostly jokey, like to make a quick fire pop out of your finger, you say "Zip-po" or "Ron-son.

Kurald Galain
2014-07-02, 02:02 PM
Magic-users had to find spells, learn them, and add them to their spellbooks, which was both time-consuming and expensive. High Intelligence increased the chance of a Magic-User successfully transcribing any given spell (with a peak of 85% at 18 Int). Failure means the M-U would need to do spell research if they had their hearts set on a certain one.
In 2E at least, you could retry after leveling up, and as I recall a specialist does get to pick one spell from his school whenever he levels up. Otherwise, you were expected to plunder enemy spellbooks (which is one of the reasons Fire Trap and Sepia Snake exist). That said, the DMGs of 1E/2E seem to suggest large amounts of downtime between adventures (which after all makes more sense than leveling from 1 to 15 over two or three in-game weeks :) ), and this could be spent on researching spells.



(7) Some broken spells abound, yeah. Chromatic Orb, a 1st-level Illusionist spell from Unearthed Arcana, is a particularly egregious offender.
Some other interesting spells... Invisibility had a duration of 24 hours (!) or until you attack. In combat that doesn't make a difference, but in social campaigns this spell is hilarious. Another L2 spell was ESP (now "detect thoughts") which would basically allow you to solve any detective plot by just reading the minds of people involved (which is why almost all BBEGs in printed adventures have an amulet of protection from ESP). Chroma Orb is a level-1 spell that is literally save-or-DIE if your caster level is high enough. And a common one is Stoneskin, which would make you totally immune to the next 5-10 attacks. Since the spell was confusingly written, depending on the DM it would either be countered by throwing a handful of pebbles (since each pebble "counts as an attack") or it would stack with itself. Notably, in what is one of the most famous 2E computer games Eye of the Beholder, it does stack; so you just cast it ten times in a row and get through the rest of the game without worrying about monsters. The spell was removed from its sequel EOB2.

Also very important here is that many powerful spells contained drawbacks. The most well-known of these is that Fireball and Lightning Bolt would both rebound and hit party members if you targeted them wrong. Another fun one was that using Shout more than once per day would deafen you. Anyway the point here is that magic was supposed to be risky. This went a long way in toning down the power of wizards.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-02, 02:10 PM
Also very important here is that many powerful spells contained drawbacks. The most well-known of these is that Fireball and Lightning Bolt would both rebound and hit party members if you targeted them wrong. Another fun one was that using Shout more than once per day would deafen you. Anyway the point here is that magic was supposed to be risky. This went a long way in toning down the power of wizards.

If my memory serves me correctly then Haste had a nasty habit of aging the target :smallwink:

1337 b4k4
2014-07-02, 02:12 PM
Also very important here is that many powerful spells contained drawbacks. The most well-known of these is that Fireball and Lightning Bolt would both rebound and hit party members if you targeted them wrong. Another fun one was that using Shout more than once per day would deafen you. Anyway the point here is that magic was supposed to be risky. This went a long way in toning down the power of wizards.

All very true. Don't forget things like Wish aged you too. As I've said before, one of the biggest contributing factors to Super Wizards in 3.x was the elimination of so many of the magical drawbacks.

obryn
2014-07-02, 02:13 PM
In 2E at least, you could retry after leveling up, and as I recall a specialist does get to pick one spell from his school whenever he levels up. Otherwise, you were expected to plunder enemy spellbooks (which is one of the reasons Fire Trap and Sepia Snake exist). That said, the DMGs of 1E/2E seem to suggest large amounts of downtime between adventures (which after all makes more sense than leveling from 1 to 15 over two or three in-game weeks :) ), and this could be spent on researching spells.
Yeah, 2e eased up the burden quite a bit.


Some other interesting spells... Invisibility had a duration of 24 hours (!) or until you attack. In combat that doesn't make a difference, but in social campaigns this spell is hilarious. Another L2 spell was ESP (now "detect thoughts") which would basically allow you to solve any detective plot by just reading the minds of people involved (which is why almost all BBEGs in printed adventures have an amulet of protection from ESP). Chroma Orb is a level-1 spell that is literally save-or-DIE if your caster level is high enough. And a common one is Stoneskin, which would make you totally immune to the next 5-10 attacks. Since the spell was confusingly written, depending on the DM it would either be countered by throwing a handful of pebbles (since each pebble "counts as an attack") or it would stack with itself. Notably, in what is one of the most famous 2E computer games Eye of the Beholder, it does stack; so you just cast it ten times in a row and get through the rest of the game without worrying about monsters. The spell was removed from its sequel EOB2.

Also very important here is that many powerful spells contained drawbacks. The most well-known of these is that Fireball and Lightning Bolt would both rebound and hit party members if you targeted them wrong. Another fun one was that using Shout more than once per day would deafen you. Anyway the point here is that magic was supposed to be risky. This went a long way in toning down the power of wizards.
Oh gosh I forgot about how long Invisibility's duration was. Yeah, that was simply crazy.

Stoneskin... ahhh, I remember well arguments about whether or not it made you immune to falling damage.

Lightning Bolt was written so confusingly that some tables interpreted the spell as, "You can bounce the lightning bolt to hit a dude more than once." This was nixed right away. I think 2e clarified it a lot. I know Sage Advice specified that the spell "rebounds" back towards you from the origin point first. I don't think it made "sense" until 3e when I think the origin was officially your dude rather than "some point your wizard picks some distance away from you."

Lightning Bolt and Stoneskin were basically good ways to get into fistfights with your D&D friends in middle school.

Kurald Galain
2014-07-02, 02:41 PM
Other interesting things from 2E,

Splatbooks like the "complete fighter" added kits, which are essentially the same as pathfinder archetypes. These cover a broad spectrum of variations within a class, and are more diverse than 3E's ACFs. Notably, a certain druid kit allows shapeshifting from level 1; and although dwarves and halflings cannot cast arcane spells, a certain bard kit allows them to be a bard anyway with counterspell ability instead of spells.
Characters have a "resurrection survival" percentage based on their constitution; this indicates how likely a raise dead is to work on you. These numbers are pretty good, with 80% for even an 11 con.
Low wisdom clerics have a chance of spell failure whenever they cast a cleric spell. Not that anyone ever played a low wisdom cleric.
Based on your charisma, you could get a number of "henchmen" or followers. I've never actually met a DM who used that rule, though, but other than this charisma is utterly useless for any character who's not a bard or paladin. Since charisma isn't the same as appearance, an exceedingly common houserule for 2E is to add "comeliness" as a 7th attribute, although this attribute doesn't really do anything.
There's no perception skill. A reasonably common houserule for 2E is to add "perception" as an 8th attribute. Note that wisdom is pretty much useless in 2E for anyone who's not a divine caster, which makes it understandable why WOTC folded perception into wisdom.
You basically get three skills at level one (four for certain "smart classes"), plus more for above-average intelligence, plus one per four levels (per three for "smart classes"). There were four skill groups, one each for fighter, wizard, cleric, thief; e.g. a paladin could pick from both fighter and cleric lists, and a bard from pretty much all. You can get out-of-class skills for twice the cost. Languages count as skills, and common skills include etiquette, rope use, and spellcraft. Some of the funnier skills include astrology, cooking, and drinking (i.e. consuming lots of alcohol without getting drunk).
Note that non-rogues also get access to certain rogue skills depending on race and dexterity, e.g. climbing. They cannot increase those skills though. Of course, splatbooks added items that give bonuses to e.g. stealth.
2E cleric spells were divided into domains (e.g. "guardian", "plant", "astral", "combat") with some domains having way more spells than others. Any setting with a pantheon would require clerics to pick a specific deity, and to use only spells from the domains associated with that deity. Most deities did have the healing domain, but if you pick one that doesn't, well you don't get to cast CLW ever.
2E clerics had no healing spell at level 2 and 3 (CLW was level 1, CSW level 4, CCW level 5), although adding those was another common house rule.
Cleric spells go up to 7th level, although a later splatbook added "Quest Spells" which are higher than that but for special occasions only. Essentially, many of 3E's 8th and 9th level divine spells are 2E's Quest Spells.
Looking at crazy spells again, it's notable that some of 2E's buffs are permanent until used; for example, Armor, Prot/Energy, and Negative Plane Protection don't time out ever, they only "go down" after absorbing a certain amount of damage/hits. Stoneskin does, too.
Another weird thing is that 2E defines a "turn" as "ten combat rounds", and numerous durations are in "turns".
2E elves are 90% resistant to charm spells (half-elves get 30%) as opposed to a mere +2 on saves they get in later editions.

Well, HTH. If it sounds like "2E is the edition that everybody houseruled", well, it is. But then again, I've never met a 3E or 4E DM either who didn't have some amount of house rules :smallbiggrin:

obryn
2014-07-02, 02:49 PM
All very true. Don't forget things like Wish aged you too. As I've said before, one of the biggest contributing factors to Super Wizards in 3.x was the elimination of so many of the magical drawbacks.
We also need to mention that you had to make System Shock rolls whenever you got Polymorphed. :smallsmile:

No talk of 2e kits is complete without referencing the Greenwood Ranger.

Kurald Galain
2014-07-02, 02:51 PM
Oh gosh I forgot about how long Invisibility's duration was. Yeah, that was simply crazy.
One of my campaigns had one of the characters almost permanently invisible. Interestingly enough, this wasn't overpowered, in the same sense that putting a few dots in Obfuscate isn't overpowered from VtM.



Lightning Bolt was written so confusingly that some tables interpreted the spell as, "You can bounce the lightning bolt to hit a dude more than once." This was nixed right away. I think 2e clarified it a lot. I know Sage Advice specified that the spell "rebounds" back towards you from the origin point first. I don't think it made "sense" until 3e when I think the origin was officially your dude rather than "some point your wizard picks some distance away from you."
Lightning Bolt got clarified in 2E. It starts at a point of your choice, moves away from you but rebounds towards you (regardless of angle) if it strikes a surface, and any creature that ends up in its path multiple times has to make saving throws for each time, but takes damage only once (i.e. half damage if you make all saves, full damage if you fail at least one). I suppose that helps, although to the best of my memory in all the many games I've played nobody has EVER used lightning bolt.

da_chicken
2014-07-02, 03:12 PM
Also very important here is that many powerful spells contained drawbacks. The most well-known of these is that Fireball and Lightning Bolt would both rebound and hit party members if you targeted them wrong. Another fun one was that using Shout more than once per day would deafen you. Anyway the point here is that magic was supposed to be risky. This went a long way in toning down the power of wizards.

Fireball didn't rebound. It would just always fill the same volume. It would expand to fill 33,000 cubic feet or 33 1" cubes. It made A LOT of fire. Lightning bolt only rebounded if the DM wanted it to, which of course meant the opponents spell reflected around corners, but the PC's spell rebounded at the caster.

Oh, also spells had different sizes indoors vs out of doors. Indoors, 1" meant 10 feet. Out of doors, 1" meant 10 yards. I want to say time was weird like that in vs out of combat, too, but I can't remember.

Kurald Galain
2014-07-02, 03:20 PM
Fireball didn't rebound. It would just always fill the same volume.

True. What I mean is that if the fireball hit something earlier than you thought, or the room you cast it into was smaller than you thought, then some of that lots-and-lots-of-fire would come right back at you.

Person_Man
2014-07-02, 03:46 PM
I've updated the Magic section to reflect feedback. Thanks to everyone.

And after spending $12 for lunch today (including a soda and a cookie) I decided it was worth it to pre-order the basic boxed edition simply to have real legal printed access to the basic rules and a (hopefully) decent adventure to play with my friends. (Plus you can always use more dice). So once I get it or more rules get leaked, I'll be making a lot of additional updates.

BWR
2014-07-03, 01:24 AM
2E clerics had no healing spell at level 2 and 3 (CLW was level 1, CSW level 4, CCW level 5), although adding those was another common house rule.

Actually Cure Moderate Wounds was introduced in PO: S&M. It healed 1d10+1, IIRC. There were also a number of different healing spells from 1e and 2e that made it into the Priest's Spell Compendium series. I'm pretty sure there was at least one spell that was about 4th level which allowed you to sacrifice another spell to power a CLW.

Person_Man
2014-07-03, 03:24 PM
I'm reading the 5E Basic Rules and updating as quickly as I can. So far I'm encouraged by the basic mechanics, though the Fighter seems laughably simple and weak while the Wizard seems like a Rube Goldberg Machine of Death. Will have a more thorough analysis of everything soon.

obryn
2014-07-03, 03:32 PM
I'm reading the 5E Basic Rules and updating as quickly as I can. So far I'm encouraged by the basic mechanics, though the Fighter seems laughably simple and weak while the Wizard seems like a Rube Goldberg Machine of Death. Will have a more thorough analysis of everything soon.
Don't base too much on this. This only has the "simple" build of Fighter.

But yes, their Athletics bonus is pretty hilariously bad. "OOOH! I JUMP 4 EXTRA FEET!"

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-03, 04:52 PM
Don't base too much on this. This only has the "simple" build of Fighter.

But yes, their Athletics bonus is pretty hilariously bad. "OOOH! I JUMP 4 EXTRA FEET!"

I already homebrewed it to be (5 X Strength modifier) feet.

GPuzzle
2014-07-03, 06:50 PM
Sure. You can take a feat, which gives you (1) a minor benefit from the class you MC into (such as sneak attack once per encounter), and (2) a free skill, and (3) you now count as both classes for the purpose of meeting prerequisites. Point #3 actually makes it a decent option because most feats in 4E are fairly weak, and it allows you to poach a feat or paragon path (i.e. prestige class) intended for another class.

From there, you can take three more feats to swap a power from your original class with one from your secondary class. This is a good deal if your original class has weak powers overall; as a result, lower-tier classes benefit from grabbing a power or two (particularly encounter powers) from a higher-tier class.

Alternatively, you can "hybrid" two classes. Doing so generally gives you one class feature of each class (most classes have two or three noticeable class features) plus you can spend one feat to get a second feature. Whenever you get a new power, you can pick it from either list, but you must pick one power from each class as soon as you can. Almost universally, a hybrid's class features count for that class only; for example, if you're a hybrid rogue, your sneak attack only works on your rogue powers (whereas if you're a multiclass rogue, your sneak attack works on any power). Most hybrids are weaker than either class would be on its own, and so hybriding is a common trap for beginning players; if you make a hybrid without decent system mastery, you are likely to end up with a messy ineffective character. For advanced players, it opens up several combos that wouldn't exist for non-hybrids.

Hybrids can also multiclass. A character cannot multiclass twice, except bards. A background option existed that allowed multiclassing twice, but this was errata'ed away as it was an enabler for numerous cheese builds (see point #3 above).

Remember when Adept Dilletante acted just like a Multiclass feat but did not work like one?

You could be a Half-Elf Hybrid with 3 Multiclasses at once.

It was crazy. 5 classes at once? And it didn't even require too many feats!

Endarire
2014-07-05, 08:12 PM
The 5E spell slot system seems like 3.5's psionic powers/PP system but with spell slot levels instead of power points: Put the minimum amount of effort into achieving your desired effect. For blasters this usually meant paying full price for a power. For utility abilities, this meant paying minimum or close.

How much does 5E's rules encourage a 'pick up and play right away without extensive research' approach? 3.x required a tremendous amount of research to understand what was possible and viable in the system, and how and why.

Thrudd
2014-07-06, 05:10 AM
The 5E spell slot system seems like 3.5's psionic powers/PP system but with spell slot levels instead of power points: Put the minimum amount of effort into achieving your desired effect. For blasters this usually meant paying full price for a power. For utility abilities, this meant paying minimum or close.

How much does 5E's rules encourage a 'pick up and play right away without extensive research' approach? 3.x required a tremendous amount of research to understand what was possible and viable in the system, and how and why.

The basic rules and the starter set are exactly designed to pick up and play.
When we get the full "advanced" game in the core books over the next couple years, I'm sure there will be more complexity and system mastery involved, a lot more classes and sub class choices to make in character creation.

Chaosvii7
2014-07-06, 08:07 AM
The basic rules and the starter set are exactly designed to pick up and play.
When we get the full "advanced" game in the core books over the next couple years, I'm sure there will be more complexity and system mastery involved, a lot more classes and sub class choices to make in character creation.

I think they're gonna invest all of their splatbook resources on subclasses and potentially feats, until they make Psionics(and maybe try to re-hash some of their original ideas like initiators and incarnum, though I wouldn't be too remiss if they didn't try to revisit those) and then they'll just get added to the mix and probably have to play subclass catchup.

I think the fact that their base classes all automatically get specializations to choose from means they're going to focus more on different skins of one kind of overarching concept as opposed to making several hundred base classes that do things thematically differently from each other.

That isn't to say you're not gonna be able to optimize; But I think the optimization philosophy is going to turn less away from just straight up multiclassing and more towards what specializations you can stack up with each other.

Yorrin
2014-07-06, 08:59 AM
That isn't to say you're not gonna be able to optimize; But I think the optimization philosophy is going to turn less away from just straight up multiclassing and more towards what specializations you can stack up with each other.

Sounds like PF to me, in a good way. I like the idea of several options within one class, with incentives to stay but also potential to look elsewhere for synergy.

Person_Man
2014-07-08, 08:57 AM
Updated the Magic and Equipment sections. Next up is spells. Please let me know if you have any feedback.

Morty
2014-07-08, 09:03 AM
Not much to say about the weapons and armour table, really, since they're the same old, obsolete lists they've been using for years now. The weapons list especially looks like a fossil.

obryn
2014-07-08, 09:35 AM
Not much to say about the weapons and armour table, really, since they're the same old, obsolete lists they've been using for years now. The weapons list especially looks like a fossil.
Yeah, but really - that's par for the course for 5e, much like the return of Electrum Pieces.

I mean, there's both a Halberd and a Glaive on the list. They are identical. Same everything, including cost and weight.

You could reasonably condense this list down to, like, 10 items and be done with it. But crusty old lists of mostly-identical weapons are Tradition, I suppose, so here we are.

I can only hope that feats will somehow make some of these more interesting, but given a lack of keywords to distinguish, say, a flail from a sword, I'm not seeing it.

Chaosvii7
2014-07-08, 09:38 AM
Updated the Magic and Equipment sections. Next up is spells. Please let me know if you have any feedback.

I don't know if you intended to cover this, Person_Man, but assuming that you're in this for the long run would you consider adding a section discussing splatbook distribution across the editions? I know that means you'd have to wait to exposit about Next's decision in expanded material, but I am also curious how every edition has handled their sourcebook material.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-08, 09:43 AM
Yeah, but really - that's par for the course for 5e, much like the return of Electrum Pieces.

I mean, there's both a Halberd and a Glaive on the list. They are identical. Same everything, including cost and weight.

You could reasonably condense this list down to, like, 10 items and be done with it. But crusty old lists of mostly-identical weapons are Tradition, I suppose, so here we are.

I can only hope that feats will somehow make some of these more interesting, but given a lack of keywords to distinguish, say, a flail from a sword, I'm not seeing it.

I'm pretty sure if they don't fix the weapon table then I will.

I'm not sure what bugs me more, what they have on the table like you pointed out or what they don't have on the table. Like the sickle, flail, and morning star are all a waste of space since they have no defining characteristics.

Weapons are each special and do a certain job(s) and I wish they would emulate this within D&D.

Maybe this will be in a splat book? There was one playtest where weapons had their own special stuff and everyone complained that the fighter couldn't be special if the weapons were haha.

Morty
2014-07-08, 09:51 AM
Yeah, but really - that's par for the course for 5e, much like the return of Electrum Pieces.

I mean, there's both a Halberd and a Glaive on the list. They are identical. Same everything, including cost and weight.

You could reasonably condense this list down to, like, 10 items and be done with it. But crusty old lists of mostly-identical weapons are Tradition, I suppose, so here we are.

I can only hope that feats will somehow make some of these more interesting, but given a lack of keywords to distinguish, say, a flail from a sword, I'm not seeing it.

Not even ten items. You could achieve the same effect by letting players pick a light weapon with 1d6 damage, one-handed with 1d8/1d10 or two-handed with 1d12/2d6, then letting them apply things like reach and pick whether it's a strength-based or dexterity-based weapon. There are no weapon properties to speak of other than finesse and reach.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-08, 10:03 AM
Not even ten items. You could achieve the same effect by letting players pick a light weapon with 1d6 damage, one-handed with 1d8/1d10 or two-handed with 1d12/2d6, then letting them apply things like reach and pick whether it's a strength-based or dexterity-based weapon. There are no weapon properties to speak of other than finesse and reach.

Yup, then let the PC fluff the weapon however they want. Literally put it in the rules.

Oh my short sword is actually the broken end of a polearm that I found and put on a handle.

obryn
2014-07-08, 10:06 AM
Not even ten items. You could achieve the same effect by letting players pick a light weapon with 1d6 damage, one-handed with 1d8/1d10 or two-handed with 1d12/2d6, then letting them apply things like reach and pick whether it's a strength-based or dexterity-based weapon. There are no weapon properties to speak of other than finesse and reach.
Yeah, I was making a shorter list but upped my estimate due to...

(1) The Finesse property
(2) The Light property
(3) Ranged weapons

:smallsmile:

Person_Man
2014-07-08, 11:03 AM
RE: Weapons

Yes, once again they introduce pages of complexity for the sake of "simulation" and as a bone to old school gamers, when they could have made it simple and said "there are lots of weapons in the world, you and your DM should pick whatever is appropriate for your campaign."

Also, drawing or stowing a weapon is a free action. So the entire distinction of whether to use melee vs. reach vs. ranged vs reach vs sword and board etc is meaningless. You can just start combat carrying a shield (in case you lose initiative), and then drop and it switch to whatever weapon you want each round. The only issue of importance is Proficiency, which provides a marginal benefit.


I don't know if you intended to cover this, Person_Man, but assuming that you're in this for the long run would you consider adding a section discussing splatbook distribution across the editions? I know that means you'd have to wait to exposit about Next's decision in expanded material, but I am also curious how every edition has handled their sourcebook material.

Yes, I plan to keep this guide updated as splatbooks come out. The short answer is that every edition other then 4E had splatbooks that basically broke the game. Someone who was more in tune with it will have to weigh in on 4E, but my understanding of the 4E splatbooks is that they made certain options better then others, added a lot of bloat, and made combat a lot slower by adding to the Action Economy/Decision Paralysis, but didn't fundamentally alter the general balance of the game.

Morty
2014-07-08, 11:08 AM
Yeah, I was making a shorter list but upped my estimate due to...

(1) The Finesse property
(2) The Light property
(3) Ranged weapons

:smallsmile:

Yeah, I'm not sure how ranged weapons would fit into this. And I'm not sure if weapons being finesse-able should come with a penalty.



Yes, once again they introduce pages of complexity for the sake of "simulation" and as a bone to old school gamers, when they could have made it simple and said "there are lots of weapons in the world, you and your DM should pick whatever is appropriate for your campaign."


It's not really complexity, but an illusion of it.

obryn
2014-07-08, 11:50 AM
Yes, I plan to keep this guide updated as splatbooks come out. The short answer is that every edition other then 4E had splatbooks that basically broke the game. Someone who was more in tune with it will have to weigh in on 4E, but my understanding of the 4E splatbooks is that they made certain options better then others, added a lot of bloat, and made combat a lot slower by adding to the Action Economy/Decision Paralysis, but didn't fundamentally alter the general balance of the game.
It's my experience that 4e splatbooks and dragon articles focused more on trying to make non-viable options (like Strength Clerics and ... well, all Paladins) viable. They did push the overall power curve higher, but it was slow and less game-breaking. I mean, any time you introduce a new "best option," the balance shifts slightly upwards. Now, with that said, they weren't perfect, but the 4e designers used errata and updates liberally, so when something extremely broken (Windrise Ports background, Kulkor Arms Master, Feycharger) popped up, it eventually got knocked down a peg or two. There's still a few abusive builds possible that they never got around to errata'ing (Dragonborn Rebreather, for example), but the end situation is still much improved.

It did add some bloat, but largely 4e Power bloat is pretty manageable, since everything is stratified by Class and Level. It's the feat bloat that just sucks away your will to live, much like in 3.x. :smallsmile:

Person_Man
2014-07-08, 01:29 PM
It's not really complexity, but an illusion of it.

That is a very accurate statement that describes a lot of things in 5E. Weapons, Armor, Skills, etc.

Maybe we leave out the simulationist and trap options and homebrew "The Truly Basic Rules for 5E D&D."

Example:

Every roll (attack, saves, skills, etc) is resolved with 1d20 + Attribute Bonus + (2 + 1/5 your class level if Proficient) + Enhancement bonuses (modifiers from all other sources, which do not stack).
DM can assign Advantage/Disadvantage for situational benefits.
Fighter is Proficient with all Strength and Constitution checks, Wizard is Proficient with all Intelligence and Constitution checks, Cleric is proficient with all Wisdom and Constitution checks, Rogue is Proficient with any 4 attributes of her choice and doubles her Proficiency bonus for all checks other then attack rolls and saving throws. You can gain Proficiency with another attribute by spending a Feat on it. There's also an optional 2 page Skill system that breaks it out in a more granular fashion.
Armor Class is = 13 + the higher of your Strength or Dexterity bonuses.
Weapon Damage = 2d6, and you may choose one special property (Reach, Ranged, Shield, etc).
"Short Rest" is defined by your DM, and can be as little as 1 Action (for Warblade style recovery) or 8 hours (once per dungeon/adventure location).
Use the 3.5 spell progression and memorization rules, with the addition of worthwhile At-Will Cantrips. Spells can be memorized in higher level slots in order to increase their effect. Utility spells that bypass or replicate Skills don't exist.
Any spell with a duration requires Concentration. You can only Concentrate on one spell at a time. Concentration is also broken if you ever take damage higher then 15 + your Con bonus + your Proficiency bonus. Along with fewer hit points, this is the price that spellcasters pay for getting more options.


Did I miss anything, or does that pretty much sum up what could have been the entire game in one paragraph?

Then we could spend the rest of the rules actually describing how to build a campaign and play the game, instead of 100ish pages of character creation and literally less then one page of "hey remember to Roleplay."

Lord Raziere
2014-07-08, 05:48 PM
What's the difference between a STR of 11 and a STR of 10?

If there's no difference, why have them be different numbers?

Yea, you might as well just have the Ability Modifiers, and point buy your ability modifiers up. question is, how many points should you get for determining said modifiers? maybe somewhere about 10? 1 point per +1 modifier bonus? enough to provide good bonuses but not for everything.

Yuki Akuma
2014-07-08, 06:28 PM
What's the difference between a STR of 11 and a STR of 10?

15 lb of carrying capacity.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-08, 06:51 PM
15 lb of carrying capacity.

Now if we only had a system where people actually played attention to carrying capacity.... :smallbiggrin:

HunterOfJello
2014-07-08, 07:35 PM
Since armor choices have gotten kinda complex I created a flow chart for what the best AC is based on what your character's stats and what they are trying to accomplish.

This is a first draft so it's a bit rough. Any comments are welcome. (And if I made any mistakes, please please tell me.)

http://i.imgur.com/HrpFaAk.jpg

Squirrel_Dude
2014-07-08, 10:10 PM
It's not really complexity, but an illusion of it.The table being an impenetrable mess to try and read certainly doesn't help anything.

The table should be split into:

Simple:
- Light
- One-Handed
- Versatile (if there are any, I can't ****ing tell)
- Two Handed
- Ranged

Martial
- As Above

It's still better than the spell descriptions not saying what spell list they're on.

nyjastul69
2014-07-08, 10:28 PM
The table being an impenetrable mess to try and read certainly doesn't help anything.

The table should be split into:

Simple:
- Light
- One-Handed
- Versatile (if there are any, I can't ****ing tell)
- Two Handed
- Ranged

Martial
- As Above

It's still better than the spell descriptions not saying what spell list they're on.

Are you referring to a play test packet or the basic PDF? The PDF has versatile listed under 'properties'.

Squirrel_Dude
2014-07-09, 07:02 AM
Are you referring to a play test packet or the basic PDF? The PDF has versatile listed under 'properties'..PDF. I know where versatile is. I can just barely tell if there was a simple weapon that had that property listed because everything is so jumbled.

Yuki Akuma
2014-07-09, 07:13 AM
.PDF. I know where versatile is. I can just barely tell if there was a simple weapon that had that property listed because everything is so jumbled.

...Are you for real?

Versatile weapons in the Basic Rules weapons table: Quarterstaff, Spear, Battleaxe, Longsword, Warhammer.

That took me less than a minute to parse.

Edit: Commas

Squirrel_Dude
2014-07-09, 07:35 AM
...Are you for real?

Versatile weapons in the Basic Rules weapons table: Quarterstaff, Spear, Battleaxe, Longsword, Warhammer.

That took me less than a minute to parse.

Edit: CommasI guess I just have more difficulty reading it than you, but it took me a minute to notice that there was a Versatile simple weapon. Perhaps it really is just me, but I honestly find that table a complete bear to try and read and parse down into usefulness.

Yuki Akuma
2014-07-09, 07:44 AM
I guess I just have more difficulty reading it than you, but it took me a minute to notice that there was a Versatile simple weapon. Perhaps it really is just me, but I honestly find that table a complete bear to try and read and parse down into usefulness.

I think the table is designed more for people who say "I want to wield a battleaxe, where's that on the table?" than people who say "I want to wield a martial versatile weapon, where are they on the table?". But still, there's not that many entries - if you want a specific thing you can just read down the special column until you find it.

(Well actually more like "My class gives me a battleaxe, where's that on the table?")

Person_Man
2014-07-09, 08:19 AM
Since armor choices have gotten kinda complex I created a flow chart for what the best AC is based on what your character's stats and what they are trying to accomplish.

This is a first draft so it's a bit rough. Any comments are welcome. (And if I made any mistakes, please please tell me.)

http://i.imgur.com/HrpFaAk.jpg

That's completely ridiculous.

Your chart isn't ridiculous - it's spiffy - and thank you for making it.

It's ridiculous that players would have to go through such a crazy decision tree to decide on their armor. It should be a very strait forward decision: AC = X + Y, and you can increase it by Z if you're willing to take a Disadvantage on Stealth and a movement penalty (or some similar formula).

pikeamus
2014-07-09, 08:24 AM
Since armor choices have gotten kinda complex I created a flow chart for what the best AC is based on what your character's stats and what they are trying to accomplish.

This is a first draft so it's a bit rough. Any comments are welcome. (And if I made any mistakes, please please tell me.)

http://i.imgur.com/HrpFaAk.jpg

Hang on, so half plate is medium and chainmail is heavy now? That seems weird.

Ivellius
2014-07-09, 10:26 AM
The table being an impenetrable mess to try and read certainly doesn't help anything.

I'm not having much difficulty with it, either. Though your suggestion of reordering the table makes sense from a game perspective, I wonder if it makes more sense as-is to the uninitiated: "Okay, I want to wield a warhammer, what stats will that give me?" I honestly like it even as a veteran, and the weapons seem differentiated enough.


It's ridiculous that players would have to go through such a crazy decision tree to decide on their armor. It should be a very strait forward decision: AC = X + Y, and you can increase it by Z if you're willing to take a Disadvantage on Stealth and a movement penalty (or some similar formula).

It's basically that, though. AC = armor + Dex mod, and you can increase it by (Plate bonus) if you'll take a Disadvantage on Stealth and have a good Strength score (or don't mind a movement penalty).

In cases where (Dex mod) > (Plate bonus), you want (Dex mod).
In cases where (Plate bonus) > whatever disadvantages, you want (Plate bonus).
In other cases, you have breastplate (if you don't want Disadvantage on Stealth), half plate (don't care about Stealth), ring mail (low Strength), or chain mail (medium Strength).

Person_Man
2014-07-10, 08:10 AM
It's basically that, though. AC = armor + Dex mod, and you can increase it by (Plate bonus) if you'll take a Disadvantage on Stealth and have a good Strength score (or don't mind a movement penalty).

In cases where (Dex mod) > (Plate bonus), you want (Dex mod).
In cases where (Plate bonus) > whatever disadvantages, you want (Plate bonus).
In other cases, you have breastplate (if you don't want Disadvantage on Stealth), half plate (don't care about Stealth), ring mail (low Strength), or chain mail (medium Strength).

You're correct. I just hate trap options, such as:

Using any armor other then studded leather (best light), half plate (best medium), plate (best heavy), or the Mage Armor spell (Wizard).
Choosing to have a Dexterity of 15 or higher if you're going to wear medium armor, or 11 or higher if you're going to wear heavy armor (which wastes your AC bonus from Dex).
At low to mid levels, a Cleric or Fighter or Dwarf Wizard with 14 Dex that wears a Breastplate so that he doesn't have Disadvantage on Stealth is rarely actually going to succeed at Stealth, unless he's sneaking up on a single unwise non-Perception proficient enemy.


We're all smart enough to make the right decisions on such things, because we have a high level of game mastery. But new and casual players that we want to attract to the hobby don't. So there shouldn't be trap weapon or armor choices.

akaddk
2014-07-10, 08:19 AM
Like the sickle, flail, and morning star are all a waste of space since they have no defining characteristics.

Slashing, bludgeoning, piercing. Expanded rules and monster listings will make these matter.

Morty
2014-07-10, 11:56 AM
That would make it the first edition of D&D in which they matter.

Sartharina
2014-07-10, 04:25 PM
You're correct. I just hate trap options, such as:

Using any armor other then studded leather (best light), half plate (best medium), plate (best heavy), or the Mage Armor spell (Wizard).
Choosing to have a Dexterity of 15 or higher if you're going to wear medium armor, or 11 or higher if you're going to wear heavy armor (which wastes your AC bonus from Dex).
At low to mid levels, a Cleric or Fighter or Dwarf Wizard with 14 Dex that wears a Breastplate so that he doesn't have Disadvantage on Stealth is rarely actually going to succeed at Stealth, unless he's sneaking up on a single unwise non-Perception proficient enemy.


We're all smart enough to make the right decisions on such things, because we have a high level of game mastery. But new and casual players that we want to attract to the hobby don't. So there shouldn't be trap weapon or armor choices.
1. Studded leather's cost and weight can be a deterrant, but it's really a problem that it's the best light armor. Breastplate and Half-plate compete for Best Medium Armor. Rangers and Stealthy Fighters prefer Breastplate. Also, cost is a factor. Full Plate armor is really expensive
2. Dex is still useful for ranged attacks and dexterity saves. And, a fighter in full plate and 20 DEX has +1 AC over a fighter in Studded Leather and Max Dex. (But Full Plate is Expensive As Hell)
3. He'll succeed often enough. Hopefully most enemies aren't proficient with perception, though. That was one of the big "What the hells" of 3.5 and 4e - stealth was All-or-Nothing

akaddk
2014-07-10, 06:23 PM
That would make it the first edition of D&D in which they matter.

Really?

I seem to recall it mattering in 2e.

Person_Man
2014-07-11, 08:34 AM
Really?

I seem to recall it mattering in 2e.

In 2E immunities or 50% Resistance in general to certain types of damage or energy were also a lot more common then they were in later editions, as was relatively high magic resistance. IIRC from my childhood it was common for skeletal creatures to take 50% less damage from Slashing or Piercing damage, and the Shambling Mound was immune to Blunt. So your character could be highly effective against the vast majority of monsters in the world, and completely or mostly ineffective against others unless you had a backup weapon or magic item. The rules for magic weapons were also a lot different and more limiting, so it was harder to have a properly stocked "gold bag of weapons" for every occasion. For example, Clerics were limited to Blunt weapons, only Warriors could use certain types of magic weapons, Druids can't use metal, Paladins could only own 10 magic items, etc.

Also, GP = XP, not killing a monsters. So it was assumed that you would actively avoid combat if it was too costly or dangerous. This is where things like the Rust Monster or Gelatinous Cube came from, in that (depending on what level you encountered them at) they were basically more like death traps or logic puzzles instead of combat encounters.

Yuki Akuma
2014-07-11, 08:40 AM
Also, GP = XP, not killing a monsters. So it was assumed that you would actively avoid combat if it was too costly or dangerous. This is where things like the Rust Monster or Gelatinous Cube came from, in that (depending on what level you encountered them at) they were basically more like death traps or logic puzzles instead of combat encounters.

But... why should being richer make you better at kicking teeth in? Character levels mostly represent how good you are at killing stuff, so surely you should get better at killing stuff by killing stuff.

obryn
2014-07-11, 08:48 AM
But... why should being richer make you better at kicking teeth in? Character levels mostly represent how good you are at killing stuff, so surely you should get better at killing stuff by killing stuff.
It's a completely gamist, 100% wonderful reward system.

Morty
2014-07-11, 08:55 AM
Really?

I seem to recall it mattering in 2e.

How did it matter?

As far as XP goes, I support giving it out for accomplishing goals and reaching story milestones. It's what most systems do, one way or the other, and it works.

da_chicken
2014-07-11, 10:23 AM
It's a completely gamist, 100% wonderful reward system.

Yeah, it depends on the type of game you're running.

If you want to encourage finding loot, use XP = GP.

If you want to encourage winning combats by killing things, then XP = dead monsters.

If you want to encourage achieving nebulous goals, then XP = story awards.

If you want to encourage roleplay, then XP = good roleplay.

The advantage of the XP = GP system is you know exactly how much loot the players should be finding, and players are rewarded for efficiently extracting wealth from dungeons. The disadvantage is that, because wealth is everywhere and not just in dungeons, the system rewards greed, hoarding, and backstabbing. The players are rewarded for extracting wealth from towns and other PCs, too. The extreme discrepancy between the amount of loot PCs find in dungeons and the amount of money you can make by working for a living in these systems is no mistake.

I prefer story awards, I will tolerate dead monsters, but I no longer want to play D&D: Prisoner's Dilemma Edition.

Sartharina
2014-07-11, 10:33 AM
But... why should being richer make you better at kicking teeth in? Character levels mostly represent how good you are at killing stuff, so surely you should get better at killing stuff by killing stuff.Character Levels represent how awesome you are at life and being you, not any specific ability or trait. (On that note - Hit points are less a skill at surviving, and more about how much the universe loves you for being awesome and doesn't want you to die)

Psyren
2014-07-11, 10:47 AM
But... why should being richer make you better at kicking teeth in? Character levels mostly represent how good you are at killing stuff, so surely you should get better at killing stuff by killing stuff.

Eh, I prefer XP and GP being separate too - but it's not really any more realistic than getting better at picking locks by killing stuff, or learning a new language by killing stuff.

Person_Man
2014-07-11, 11:15 AM
But... why should being richer make you better at kicking teeth in? Character levels mostly represent how good you are at killing stuff, so surely you should get better at killing stuff by killing stuff.

As obryn points out, it's a completely Gamist construct.

But if you haven't done so recently, I would encourage you to try playing D&D with a group of 12 year olds, or people without experience in RPGs in general. In my personal experience, video games have hard wired them to try and kill every monster they see.

But if you explain to them, "You gain levels by getting the treasure, not killing monsters. And some monsters are going to be more powerful then you. So if you think that a monster might kill you, like a giant dragon sleeping on a pile of gold, then you might want to try something other then attacking him, like sneaking up to steal the best piece of treasure and running away, or avoiding him to get to his vault of magic items, or luring other monsters into his room so that they fight each other while you take their stuff, or tricking the dragon into leaving so you can take his treasure." You'd be surprised at how quickly they start playing a more traditional D&D game with exploration and roleplaying, and not just tabletop Diablo where they repeatedly just walk up to monsters an attack them until they're dead.

With more mature players, I have Story Accomplishments = Gain a Level.

Either way, Killing Monsters = XP tends to be the least enjoyable mechanic for me, even if it doesn't make any Simulationist sense to do so.

Yuki Akuma
2014-07-11, 11:23 AM
Mmh.

Okay, I can see why you might want to emphasise the Gamist part of the game.

Yes, your opinion managed to change someone's mind. On the Internet. The apocalypse is surely nigh.

da_chicken
2014-07-11, 12:37 PM
As obryn points out, it's a completely Gamist construct.

But if you haven't done so recently, I would encourage you to try playing D&D with a group of 12 year olds, or people without experience in RPGs in general. In my personal experience, video games have hard wired them to try and kill every monster they see.

But if you explain to them, "You gain levels by getting the treasure, not killing monsters. And some monsters are going to be more powerful then you. So if you think that a monster might kill you, like a giant dragon sleeping on a pile of gold, then you might want to try something other then attacking him, like sneaking up to steal the best piece of treasure and running away, or avoiding him to get to his vault of magic items, or luring other monsters into his room so that they fight each other while you take their stuff, or tricking the dragon into leaving so you can take his treasure." You'd be surprised at how quickly they start playing a more traditional D&D game with exploration and roleplaying, and not just tabletop Diablo where they repeatedly just walk up to monsters an attack them until they're dead.

It also works well if you don't let players game the system like I mentioned above. Like gp is always divided evenly so you can't hoard it, stealing from players does nothing, etc.

obryn
2014-07-11, 12:44 PM
It also works well if you don't let players game the system like I mentioned above. Like gp is always divided evenly so you can't hoard it, stealing from players does nothing, etc.
Yep, in fact, that's how I thought most groups did it. :smallbiggrin: I know mine did when I ran AD&D not too long ago.

Another basic assumption is that you don't get the XP until you bring the loot "home" - that is, to a safe place outside the dungeon.

da_chicken
2014-07-11, 01:22 PM
Yep, in fact, that's how I thought most groups did it. :smallbiggrin: I know mine did when I ran AD&D not too long ago.

Another basic assumption is that you don't get the XP until you bring the loot "home" - that is, to a safe place outside the dungeon.

We did at first, then people started to think it was a good idea to only divide treasure you get when you're there. It devolved from there. 3e's XP was one of the main reasons I wanted to switch to it, since we used XP = GP right through 2000. There were... a lot of multiclass thieves by the end. :smallamused:

Tholomyes
2014-07-12, 04:58 PM
As obryn points out, it's a completely Gamist construct.

But if you haven't done so recently, I would encourage you to try playing D&D with a group of 12 year olds, or people without experience in RPGs in general. In my personal experience, video games have hard wired them to try and kill every monster they see.

But if you explain to them, "You gain levels by getting the treasure, not killing monsters. And some monsters are going to be more powerful then you. So if you think that a monster might kill you, like a giant dragon sleeping on a pile of gold, then you might want to try something other then attacking him, like sneaking up to steal the best piece of treasure and running away, or avoiding him to get to his vault of magic items, or luring other monsters into his room so that they fight each other while you take their stuff, or tricking the dragon into leaving so you can take his treasure." You'd be surprised at how quickly they start playing a more traditional D&D game with exploration and roleplaying, and not just tabletop Diablo where they repeatedly just walk up to monsters an attack them until they're dead.

With more mature players, I have Story Accomplishments = Gain a Level.

Either way, Killing Monsters = XP tends to be the least enjoyable mechanic for me, even if it doesn't make any Simulationist sense to do so.

I don't think it necessarily requires more mature players to do the fiat leveling based on the narrative, and story accomplishments. I've found that you usually find groups that use fiat leveling are more mature, but it seems to be more of a result of being more comfortable with deviating from the written mechanics (especially ones that govern advancement, roleplay and the like), if they see the need. But I can't think of a group that I've played in where Fiat leveling wouldn't be appreciated. Even more dungeon crawl-y combat focused groups, it doesn't mean much on how much combat will play into the campaign, but it just makes level-ups less random seeming.

Honestly the only real reason I like XP is because nowadays most devs design around the notion of XP budgets for various difficulties of encounters, by level, which makes it easier to prep, as the DM.

TheOOB
2014-07-14, 02:46 AM
For class and level based systems, my group mostly uses fiat leveling, that is you level up when the GM tells you to, which usually ends up being every 2-4 sessions(or when he wants you to be more powerful for the next session).

This avoids 2 problems a)characters not advancing at the rate the GM wants, and b)players modifying their play style to get more xp.

akaddk
2014-07-14, 03:13 AM
I try to institute a goal oriented levelling system but most of the time I get voted down by players insisting on XP.

In a goal-oriented system, you only level up when you achieve certain in-game goals. Those goals come about through the player-inspired narrative and tend to be fairly clear-cut and agreed upon. For instance, roleplaying to a point where you know that the princess needs saving from the dragon. Excellent, you all level up when you rescue the princess from the dragon.

This tends to really speed up play and focus players on not only achieving the goal but also in them instigating new goals to achieve. I've found that it really helps motivate players to create their own narratives rather than me having to force them towards any particular goal or destination.

Squirrel_Dude
2014-07-14, 07:40 AM
I try to institute a goal oriented levelling system but most of the time I get voted down by players insisting on XP.

In a goal-oriented system, you only level up when you achieve certain in-game goals. Those goals come about through the player-inspired narrative and tend to be fairly clear-cut and agreed upon. For instance, roleplaying to a point where you know that the princess needs saving from the dragon. Excellent, you all level up when you rescue the princess from the dragon.

This tends to really speed up play and focus players on not only achieving the goal but also in them instigating new goals to achieve. I've found that it really helps motivate players to create their own narratives rather than me having to force them towards any particular goal or destination.The issue that I've always had with Goal Oriented Leveling is that it feels overly restrictive to player choice and exploration. It's obviously a tool to keep players from just killing every enemy in sight, or from acting like total murder hobos, and that's fine. It just feels like you're taking a cudgel to the problem.

I've kept the standard XP system, modifying it so that an enemy bypassed or talked down counts as a killed monster for XP. The tradeoff of course being that players still don't get the loot from the monsters they talk down or bypass.

akaddk
2014-07-14, 07:42 AM
The issue that I've always had with Goal Oriented Leveling is that it feels overly restrictive to player choice and exploration.

Umm, you're going to have to explain this one to me 'cause IME it's the exact opposite. Basing the goals on player choices is the point so... yeah, I'm not getting your point.

Tholomyes
2014-07-14, 08:50 AM
Umm, you're going to have to explain this one to me 'cause IME it's the exact opposite. Basing the goals on player choices is the point so... yeah, I'm not getting your point.

I think the point is that, even if the players set the goals, all you're doing is trading one defined method of advancement for another. With fiat leveling, it's more of a subjective 'when it feels right' way of doing it. As such, players don't feel like they need to do one thing, at the expense of everything else, to gain advancement. With fiat leveling, I've found games tend to be more well-rounded. You can have RP heavy moments, which may not advance the party towards their goals, but provide intraparty dramatic moments, you can have combat, when the party just really wants to roll some dice and beat up some monsters, and you can have campaign-advancing scenes, all which contribute to advancement.

akaddk
2014-07-14, 09:01 AM
I think the point is that, even if the players set the goals, all you're doing is trading one defined method of advancement for another. With fiat leveling, it's more of a subjective 'when it feels right' way of doing it. As such, players don't feel like they need to do one thing, at the expense of everything else, to gain advancement. With fiat leveling, I've found games tend to be more well-rounded. You can have RP heavy moments, which may not advance the party towards their goals, but provide intraparty dramatic moments, you can have combat, when the party just really wants to roll some dice and beat up some monsters, and you can have campaign-advancing scenes, all which contribute to advancement.

I guess it depends on the group. I tend to play with randoms most of the time and rarely manage to get established groups together for long periods of time. For some reason this leads to extremes of either kick in the door, murderhobo style or complete and utter stagnation style. Fiat might improve the murderhobo style but it only exacerbates the stagnation style.

I once actually had to say to a group, "If you want to continue sitting in the tavern all day long and not going out to find adventure, then perhaps we could switch systems to Ale & Wenches: the story of a tavern owner?"

Morty
2014-07-14, 09:24 AM
If the players just want to break down doors and kill everything that looks like a target, no system of XP awards will stop them. But goal-oriented rewards at least won't encourage it and give both players and GMs a lot more freedom.

Person_Man
2014-07-14, 09:38 AM
If the players just want to break down doors and kill everything that looks like a target, no system of XP awards will stop them.

I agree. But if you've ever played stealth action video games like Thief of Hitman, they actually penalize your XP if you kill someone or are seen without wearing a disguise. In theory D&D could implement a similar system, where you only got XP for GP or a story or goal oriented reward, and penalized breaking down a door or killing a creature. The net result would be a much much different game then traditional D&D, but it would in theory prevent people from playing a "kick in the door" campaign. (Or people would like that kind of game just wouldn't play D&D, or they would house rule it differently).

Shining Wrath
2014-07-14, 09:50 AM
The issue that I've always had with Goal Oriented Leveling is that it feels overly restrictive to player choice and exploration. It's obviously a tool to keep players from just killing every enemy in sight, or from acting like total murder hobos, and that's fine. It just feels like you're taking a cudgel to the problem.

I've kept the standard XP system, modifying it so that an enemy bypassed or talked down counts as a killed monster for XP. The tradeoff of course being that players still don't get the loot from the monsters they talk down or bypass.

I am considering this for the next time I DM:
1) You level when I say you level based on the story
2) Following the story arc will gain you appropriate WBL
2a) Unless you skip a step, or miss a hidden treasure, or Sunder something, etc.
3) If you go on side quests you won't "level" but you will have more GP, exceeding WBL standards - depending on whether or not the side quest pays well
4) Wandering Monsters may also provide GP above and beyond the WBL standards - or not

Person_Man
2014-07-14, 02:40 PM
Updated the post to include the Tiefling, which has been publicly posted (http://community.wizards.com/forum/product-and-general-dd-discussions/threads/4110616) by WotC/Mearls.

Short version: It sucks unless your DM is very fond of Fire damage.

Lord Raziere
2014-07-14, 02:49 PM
I dunno, to me its cool that Tieflings get both Cha and Intelligence bonuses. useful for both rogue-ish skill types and spellcaster types. and don't underestimate resistance to fire. fire is a popular weapon to use for a reason. oh and getting three spells as a racial thing....

Squirrel_Dude
2014-07-14, 03:07 PM
I like that it can cast spells, but it seems pretty boring otherwise. Say what you will about the balanced nature of Paizo's tieflings, but their optional traits to gain hooves/wings are pretty awesome.

Lord Raziere
2014-07-14, 03:15 PM
I like that it can cast spells, but it seems pretty boring otherwise. Say what you will about the balanced nature of Paizo's tieflings, but their optional traits to gain hooves/wings are pretty awesome.

yea, but the wings are not level one things y'know? I could homebrew that sort of thing up, but the wings probably would not come into play for a few levels....

Tholomyes
2014-07-14, 03:27 PM
I honestly feel like, unless they've drastically changed the other races for the better from the playtest, everything that's not the big 4 of Human, Halfling, Dwarf and Elf seem fairly uninspired. I'd have much preferred if they didn't even include them, and actually had polished versions later, than push out underwhelming races, such as the Tiefling.

pwykersotz
2014-07-14, 04:30 PM
It's probably not as underwhelming as you guys think it is. We don't have the page on subraces. Think if you were looking at Dwarf or Elf without the subraces and judging it solely on that. It would feel similarly underwhelming.

Tholomyes
2014-07-14, 04:42 PM
It's probably not as underwhelming as you guys think it is. We don't have the page on subraces. Think if you were looking at Dwarf or Elf without the subraces and judging it solely on that. It would feel similarly underwhelming.Calling it now, that there won't be subraces. The only PHB races that we Know will have sub-races are Elf, Dwarf, Halfling and Gnome (and Human, if you count the alternate "if you're using feats" human, but, let's be honest, that will be effectively the default for most groups). There weren't subclasses for the others in the playtest, and the Tiefling already gets +2 Cha, +1 Int, so whatever subclasses they'd have wouldn't have Stat bonuses. It's not like they wouldn't even have alternate stats that they could give to tieflings (Con springs to mind), so I'm taking that as a sign that this is all we get.

Now, I think this is a bad idea, since it doesn't allow future sub-races in later supplements. But it's not like I really have much of a choice at this point. I made my case, during the playtest, and it apparently fell on deaf ears.

akaddk
2014-07-14, 05:59 PM
I don't see why it's underwhelming at all. Compared to any other edition it doesn't seem like any more or any less than I would expect.

Person_Man
2014-07-15, 07:49 AM
I agree with Tholomyes that there isn't going to be a Tiefling subrace. Take a look at how its formatted. With the Dwarf and Elf, there are base racial abilities which they all share, and then the subraces add additional abilities. You never lose a base ability to gain a subrace ability. The Tiefling already has a full complement of racial abilities, and they are very Tiefling specific. If they wanted to do subraces, then they would have made the base race Planetouched (or something similar) and then do subraces for Tiefling, Aasimar, and whatever.


Separately, I hate racial ability score bonuses, because they strongly encourage a very narrow range of race and class pairings. Although there are certainly some unintuitive combinations that may work well (Mountain Dwarf Wizard, Halfling Sorcerer), most players are going to choose races where the +2 bonus is the primary attribute of the class. Humans can be anything, but 90%+ of Tieflings will be Sorcerers, Bards, or Paladins.

obryn
2014-07-15, 08:08 AM
Separately, I hate racial ability score bonuses, because they strongly encourage a very narrow range of race and class pairings.
I'm 100% with you; I'd rather express the different fantasy races through active abilities than through boring and oft-invisible static bonuses.

Given what we've got, though, the silver lining is that a hard stat cap of 20 means you aren't behind forever.

Fwiffo86
2014-07-15, 08:31 AM
I remember a GM of mine who described elves this way.... (accounting for their racial bonuses and ideologies)

Elves are considered the most magical race, not because they wield powerful magic, or that they live in towns grown from the forest itself. They are just more magically talented as a whole. Where maybe 1 in 100,000 humans has the ability to learn, and use magic, with elves, the numbers are more along the line of 1 in 10,000, or even 1 in 1,000. And by this I mean able to learn, use and more importantly Master arcane magic.

I always figured the racial bonuses were to give the game participants an idea of how the general member of the race is. And by further definition, what they most commonly choose as a career. Certainly anomalies exist, but they are not the measure of the race. You can argue that certain stat bonuses lend credence to specific classes, but I think that is actually intentional. If you take away the racial bonuses? what do you get? Long eared humans? Short stocky humans? Midget humans? Deformed goat-like humans? Aside from what the character looks like, what is there to differentiate them?

I am not advocating for racial bonuses being this way or that way. I am just explaining my personal view and you can take it or leave it.

Tholomyes
2014-07-15, 02:45 PM
I'm of two minds on racial ability score bonuses. On one hand, I do think it enforces stereotypes, such as the High-Elf Wizard, the Halfling Rogue, the Dwarven Fighter, the Wood-elf ranger, ect, a bit too harshly. On the other hand, there is some charm in playing an off-type class/race combination. Let me be clear, I in no way buy into the oft repeated claim that you can't have a mechanically effective character, and RP well, or that you must intentionally choose underpowered options in order to RP well. But that doesn't mean that it isn't interesting once in a while, playing off type. And without Racial ability score boosts, the mechanics don't particularly favor one class/race combo inherently (at least, as much), meaning, you're not playing off type as much.

What I probably would have liked to see would be if they kept with the early playtest design of having both your class and your race giving minor ability score boosts. That way, the stereotypes aren't too mechanically superior to other options, but by the same token, they're still somewhat favored, meaning that playing off type still has a meaning.

obryn
2014-07-15, 03:06 PM
I always figured the racial bonuses were to give the game participants an idea of how the general member of the race is. And by further definition, what they most commonly choose as a career. Certainly anomalies exist, but they are not the measure of the race. You can argue that certain stat bonuses lend credence to specific classes, but I think that is actually intentional. If you take away the racial bonuses? what do you get? Long eared humans? Short stocky humans? Midget humans? Deformed goat-like humans? Aside from what the character looks like, what is there to differentiate them?
I don't think stats differentiate a character, as it is. What race is a character with 15 / 12 / 16 / 10 / 13 / 12 stats? I have no idea - it might be a dwarf, but it might be a human or even a weird elf. It could be anything, unless you see a 19 or 20 in there.

If you take away stat bonuses and penalties, you're left with two broad categories of stuff. The first is something D&D always does, and the second is something that only 4e consistently has done, but which should really have been carried forwards.

Passive Bonuses: This is stuff like the Elf being immune to sleep/charm, the Dwarf being either magic resistant and/or poison resistant, extra proficiencies, size modifiers/restrictions, bonus skills, etc. These are fine, for what they're worth, as long as they're not ridiculously nitpicky.

Active Abilities: On the earlier end of the scale, this can include 1e Dwarves' Stoneworking knowledge - depth, direction, etc. On the more interesting end, we get stuff like 4e's Dwarven Resilience (dwarves are tough, so can heal up in the middle of a fight more easily), Halfling Agility (you are small and fast, so force an enemy to reroll an attack roll), and Elven Accuracy (you are deadly accurate, so reroll one of your own attack rolls). In 5e, High Elves get a free Cantrip! That's pretty neat, too!

Active Abilities are great because you - the player - are demonstrating your Dwarvenness or Elfishness. You're not passively a dwarf, you're actively dwarfing your way through obstacles.

Sartharina
2014-07-15, 03:21 PM
Something I like about the game's bound systems is that it makes everyone's racial abilities always matter. A dwarven wizard or rogue is ALSO a capable warrior thanks to his toughness, strength, and proficiencies. Elven fighters and rogues are ALSO proficient spellcasters, and Elven Wizards are also competent weapon users.


Humans can be anything - that's what makes them Human.

TrexPushups
2014-07-15, 03:27 PM
With the ability score increases and the cap of 20 for stats the differences will balance out as the players level.

akaddk
2014-07-15, 04:53 PM
With the ability score increases and the cap of 20 for stats the differences will balance out as the players level.

I love the cap on stats. It seems like such an irrelevant rule until you realise how often it will come into play and how it changes the dynamic of the game. I also love that point-buy and array effectively limit you to, at most, one ability with a 17 in it. In combination with the feats or ability score choice and feats being more attractive than stat bumps, in-game you'll see most characters tend towards bumping only one stat all the way to 20.

This makes distributing stats for bonuses at 1st-level all that more important. It's effectively a more attractive option to have a 16 in a primary ability to start simply because it gives you more points to spread elsewhere for those precious +1's.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-15, 10:30 PM
Active Abilities are great because you - the player - are demonstrating your Dwarvenness or Elfishness. You're not passively a dwarf, you're actively dwarfing your way through obstacles.

Whenever I make a race for D&D, another system, or my own I will try to keep this in mind.

This might be the best concept to have when making races.

obryn
2014-07-15, 11:15 PM
Whenever I make a race for D&D, another system, or my own I will try to keep this in mind.

This might be the best concept to have when making races.
Thanks! :)

archaeo
2014-07-15, 11:46 PM
SpawnOfMorbo & obryn: while it's not tough to imagine a game in which every mechanical aspect of your character is an active, demonstrative part of said character in at-the-table play, I think we can basically agree that D&D has always reserved part of a character's mechanics for passive stats/abilities. And if you're going to have said passives, isn't race a handy place to put them, the part of your character that ties you to your species and the genetic (or divine, whatever) norms thereof?

I feel like 5e has an ok mix of actives and passives on races anyway, certainly to the point that it provides mechanical examples of fairly active races that would be easy to refluff as whatever you desired if the choices presented are too distasteful.

Morty
2014-07-16, 03:51 AM
To me, racial passive bonuses would be better if every class had some use for every ability score. Which, let's face it, isn't going to happen. At least not in equal measure. And even if it were to happen, those bonuses are boring. So, yes, I agree wholeheartedly with obryn. Active abilities that change the way your character interacts with the game world are better than fiddly bonuses, especially when it comes to abilities given to you by your race. What's better at making you feel that you're playing a halfling? A bonus to an attribute that might or might not make it higher than that of your party's dwarf, or an ability a non-halfling will never use?

Joe the Rat
2014-07-16, 07:32 AM
Active Abilities are great because you - the player - are demonstrating your Dwarvenness or Elfishness. You're not passively a dwarf, you're actively dwarfing your way through obstacles. +1

Something I'm going to remember when tinkering... in any game system. And quotable.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-16, 07:32 AM
SpawnOfMorbo & obryn: while it's not tough to imagine a game in which every mechanical aspect of your character is an active, demonstrative part of said character in at-the-table play, I think we can basically agree that D&D has always reserved part of a character's mechanics for passive stats/abilities. And if you're going to have said passives, isn't race a handy place to put them, the part of your character that ties you to your species and the genetic (or divine, whatever) norms thereof?

I feel like 5e has an ok mix of actives and passives on races anyway, certainly to the point that it provides mechanical examples of fairly active races that would be easy to refluff as whatever you desired if the choices presented are too distasteful.

Think of it this way...

Passive abilities come from being a humanoid, each humanoid may have different passive abilities but they can be swapped quite easily.

Active abilities come from your race, who and what you are. Like Obryn was saying... I'm not going to punch you in the face, I'm going to dwarf-punch you in the face. Loud in proud. These abilities are set in stone and not swappable with other races.

When making a race Humanoid (Dwarf) I would do the following.

Humanoid Passive x4 (of say 10 or more choices)
Dwarf Active x2 (of say four choices)

Then you can add physical qualities and stuff but you allow a player to craft their own dwarf race. An Elf may have similar or the same passive abilities as a dwarf, say because the elf grew up with dwarves, but will always have different active abilities to be an elfventurer.

Person_Man
2014-07-16, 08:13 AM
Got the boxed Starter game yesterday. Highlights:


Some magic items require that you "attune" them with a Short Rest. You can have a maximum of three attuned magic items at a time. Other magic items don't need to be attuned, such as +1 armor, +1 weapon, potions, or scrolls.
You cannot buy or sell magic items other then (one use) potions and scrolls. You have to find them. Reusable magic items do not have a listed gold piece or other value.
Magic items that effect your Ability Scores or movement rate set it at a fixed number, rather then providing a bonus. For example, when attuned Gauntlets of Ogre Strength grants you Strength of 19. So a character with 19 or 20 Strength gains no benefit from them.



I've updated the main post with this information as well.

Metagame considerations:

I wonder if +1 weapons and armor don't need to be attuned because they're weak-ish, or because they're weapons and armor that don't provide some other benefit (like the Spider Staff, which is a weapon but also has magical effects).
If +5 weapons don't need to be attuned, then that benefits classes that use weapons (as opposed to spells).
If +5 armor doesn't need to be attuned, then getting armor proficiency of some kind from Mountain Dwarf or multi-classing will be a lot more important for mid-level Wizards, unless there's a "Greater Mage Armor" or some similar equivalent.
Magic items that grant a fixed Ability Score is how it worked in 2E. (And I think 1E, IIRC).
The fact that you can't buy magic items and they have no gp value is going to make building mid-high level characters a hassle, because the DM has to approve everything on a case by case basis rather then just giving a gp or +X budget.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-16, 08:26 AM
The fact that you can't buy magic items and they have no gp value is going to make building mid-high level characters a hassle, because the DM has to approve everything on a case by case basis rather then just giving a gp or +X budget.
[/LIST]

I'm a weirdo but this is by far my favorite thing about magic items.

This shows a couple things...

Christmas tree ant assumed for PCs, players don't feel entitled to have X item(s), and it will make creating a high level character a lot faster for the player but perhaps a bit harder for the DM (since they give out items).

I wouldn't be surprised if the DM has specific kits that characters can have depending on level. A lot like how each player at level 1 gets to pick their starting kit of items.

Squirrel_Dude
2014-07-16, 10:11 AM
The fact that you can't buy magic items and they have no gp value is going to make building mid-high level characters a hassle, because the DM has to approve everything on a case by case basis rather then just giving a gp or +X budget.
That will be fine for games where every is sitting around a table and talking while they build characters before a game. Considering that scenario probably plays out less that 50% of the time, and that the most likely venue for me to find games at the moment is over the internet it could drive me insane.

pwykersotz
2014-07-16, 12:18 PM
Metagame considerations:

If +5 weapons don't need to be attuned, then that benefits classes that use weapons (as opposed to spells).
If +5 armor doesn't need to be attuned, then getting armor proficiency of some kind from Mountain Dwarf or multi-classing will be a lot more important for mid-level Wizards, unless there's a "Greater Mage Armor" or some similar equivalent.
The fact that you can't buy magic items and they have no gp value is going to make building mid-high level characters a hassle, because the DM has to approve everything on a case by case basis rather then just giving a gp or +X budget.


I believe the max for magic weapons and armor is +3. That doesn't invalidate your point, I'm just mentioning it.

To the magic items having no gp value, that's because magic items aren't assumed. If you build a mid-high level character, they might not have ANY magic items or even dirt poor, and that's okay. As others have stated, it's more a feature than a bug.

Person_Man
2014-07-16, 01:25 PM
To the magic items having no gp value, that's because magic items aren't assumed. If you build a mid-high level character, they might not have ANY magic items or even dirt poor, and that's okay. As others have stated, it's more a feature than a bug.

I agree with your sentiment. I'm not a fan of the MagicMart, and I'm all in favor of magic items not being a required part of the game. But I do feel like they should have some sort of formal value or rating system, because the fact of the matter is that magic items have a big impact on the effectiveness of a character, and having magic items is an assumed part of the game for most people who have played any previous version of D&D.

In addition to how difficult it can make starting a new mid-high level game, consider monster design. If a CR 10 Vampire is fighting four level 10 characters with no magic items, the players are going to have a much harder time then if each of their characters has 3 magic items and a backpack full of scrolls and potions. An experienced DM can adjust the difficulty of a combat up or down. But this is a brand new edition with brand new rules, so very few DMs are going to be able to do that well without a lot of trial and error. And having a high level of rules mastery shouldn't be a requirement to be a DM. If a newb buys a 5E Players Handbook for the first time and wants to run a game for his friends, he should all be able to do so without accidentally and unintentionally causing TPK.

Also, though its not my preference, there are plenty of players who like the MagicMart. The lack of any fixed value for reusable magic items means that they have literally no benchmark to use to run the magic item economy in their game. If players do want to sell magic items and buy other magic items, the DM needs to homebrew a cost for each and every magic item that players want to buy or sell. And that's just a DMing nightmare.

pwykersotz
2014-07-16, 01:48 PM
I agree with your sentiment. I'm not a fan of the MagicMart, and I'm all in favor of magic items not being a required part of the game. But I do feel like they should have some sort of formal value or rating system, because the fact of the matter is that magic items have a big impact on the effectiveness of a character, and having magic items is an assumed part of the game for most people who have played any previous version of D&D.

In addition to how difficult it can make starting a new mid-high level game, consider monster design. If a CR 10 Vampire is fighting four level 10 characters with no magic items, the players are going to have a much harder time then if each of their characters has 3 magic items and a backpack full of scrolls and potions. An experienced DM can adjust the difficulty of a combat up or down. But this is a brand new edition with brand new rules, so very few DMs are going to be able to do that well without a lot of trial and error. And having a high level of rules mastery shouldn't be a requirement to be a DM. If a newb buys a 5E Players Handbook for the first time and wants to run a game for his friends, he should all be able to do so without accidentally and unintentionally causing TPK.

Also, though its not my preference, there are plenty of players who like the MagicMart. The lack of any fixed value for reusable magic items means that they have literally no benchmark to use to run the magic item economy in their game. If players do want to sell magic items and buy other magic items, the DM needs to homebrew a cost for each and every magic item that players want to buy or sell. And that's just a DMing nightmare.

Fair enough. A general category would be a minimum for something like that. Lesser, Moderate, Greater, Artifact might be helpful. I take it there is no such ranking in the Starter Set?

akaddk
2014-07-16, 03:42 PM
akaddk's Magic Guide to Magic Items Past 1st-level Now With Extra Pony!

1st-level to 4th-level: Zip, nada, zilch, nilch, nothing, screw you yah fairy.

5th-level to 10th-level: 1 x +1 weapon or armour and you'll bloody-well like it.

11th-level to 14th-level: 1 x +1 weapon, 1 x +1 armour and now you can call yourself a snowflake.

15th-level to 20th-level: 1 x +1 weapon OR 1 x +1 armour and 1 x +3 item... ah hell, I'll let you choose it 'cause I like yah.

You want more? Go adventure for it you self-entitled ****!*
















*Not intended to mean offence to anyone here on these forums. Unless you disagree with me, in which case, go tickle the nose of an ancient wyrm red dragon and tell him you slept with Tiamat.

da_chicken
2014-07-16, 05:49 PM
Fair enough. A general category would be a minimum for something like that. Lesser, Moderate, Greater, Artifact might be helpful. I take it there is no such ranking in the Starter Set?

No, but there's 2 pages and maybe 10 different items in the starter set. I mean, it's only level 1-4 or so. I would suspect they'd all be the same category.

I do see that any class can use the Wand of Magic Missiles in the Starter Set, though.

Kurald Galain
2014-07-16, 07:12 PM
I believe that WOTC is pretending that having magical items makes no difference to the power level of a character. This is obviously and self-evidently false, but if they pretend it hard enough then numerous players will probably believe it.

Tholomyes
2014-07-16, 09:16 PM
I believe that WOTC is pretending that having magical items makes no difference to the power level of a character. This is obviously and self-evidently false, but if they pretend it hard enough then numerous players will probably believe it.Not that I disagree that a lot of the things they say seem to indicate they don't quite get the consequences of their math, but since the game is designed without assumed magic items, it's easier to balance the game when you add magic items, than for if you want to play a (at least relatively) magic item-less campaign.

akaddk
2014-07-16, 09:34 PM
Not that I disagree that a lot of the things they say seem to indicate they don't quite get the consequences of their math, but since the game is designed without assumed magic items, it's easier to balance the game when you add magic items, than for if you want to play a (at least relatively) magic item-less campaign.

Yeah, I mean, it's not like they asked hundreds of thousands of people for feedback and did thousands of hours of playtesting.

Tholomyes
2014-07-16, 09:54 PM
Yeah, I mean, it's not like they asked hundreds of thousands of people for feedback and did thousands of hours of playtesting.

And many people commented on this notion of "Magic items aren't assumed, thus they don't matter for the math" and nothing changed. Let's face it, this is Mearls, and, as much as I like some of the things he's done in his career, understanding probability and the math of a system isn't one of them.

da_chicken
2014-07-17, 07:13 AM
I believe that WOTC is pretending that having magical items makes no difference to the power level of a character. This is obviously and self-evidently false, but if they pretend it hard enough then numerous players will probably believe it.

No, they're pretending that they actually improve your character, instead of assuming you must have them or you'll get TPKd by level-appropriate encounters. Thus, a +1 longsword helps a Level 15 Fighter (50%->55% hit rate vs CR 15) as much as a Level 4 Fighter (50%->55% hit rate vs CR 4), rather than a Level 15 Fighter needing a +3 longsword just to keep up (40%->55% hit rate vs CR 15).

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-17, 07:22 AM
No, they're pretending that they actually improve your character, instead of assuming you must have them or you'll get TPKd by level-appropriate encounters. Thus, a +1 longsword helps a Level 15 Fighter (50%->55% hit rate vs CR 15) as much as a Level 4 Fighter (50%->55% hit rate vs CR 4), rather than a Level 15 Fighter needing a +3 longsword just to keep up (40%->55% hit rate vs CR 15).

After reading some stuff again, I think this seems to be more of what WotC is working with.

Magic items are a luxury, not a necessity.

Kurald Galain
2014-07-17, 07:39 AM
That's nothing but semantics.

In earlier editions, you can tackle challenges a few levels over your actual level if you have good magical items, and challenges of your own level if you don't.
And in 5E, again, you can tackle challenges a few levels over your actual level if you have good magical items, and challenges of your own level if you don't. It doesn't change a thing.

obryn
2014-07-17, 07:49 AM
Someone on ENWorld calculated that a +3 sword increases a sword & board Fighter's damage output by 56%.

That's kinda nuts.

Squirrel_Dude
2014-07-17, 08:04 AM
Someone on ENWorld calculated that a +3 sword increases a sword & board Fighter's damage output by 56%.

That's kinda nuts.Can you link the post/thread? I'm curious to see how he came up with that number. Also, you'll forgive me if I don't find any "X increases damage by X%" numbers yet. Unless we have CR/APL appropriate target AC for characters to try and hit, there isn't any reference point for these numbers.

But yes, accuracy is an underrated way to improve damage. Every +1 point to accuracy is an indirect 5% increase to a character's expected damage, even though it doesn't modify raw damage. Of course +3 swords do both.

da_chicken
2014-07-17, 08:07 AM
That's nothing but semantics.

In earlier editions, you can tackle challenges a few levels over your actual level if you have good magical items, and challenges of your own level if you don't.
And in 5E, again, you can tackle challenges a few levels over your actual level if you have good magical items, and challenges of your own level if you don't. It doesn't change a thing.

Then what's the complaint?

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-17, 08:19 AM
Then what's the complaint?

Maybe that magic items shouldn't help you take on challenges above your level and should only help you take out challenges of your level or lower?

:smallconfused:

Kurald Galain
2014-07-17, 08:21 AM
Then what's the complaint?

That several of 5E's so-called improvements are based upon obfuscation rather than better game design.

obryn
2014-07-17, 08:29 AM
Can you link the post/thread? I'm curious to see how he came up with that number. Also, you'll forgive me if I don't find any "X increases damage by X%" numbers yet. Unless we have CR/APL appropriate target AC for characters to try and hit, there isn't any reference point for these numbers.

But yes, accuracy is an underrated way to improve damage. Every +1 point to accuracy is an indirect 5% increase to a character's expected damage, even though it doesn't modify raw damage. Of course +3 swords do both.
I can't link it from this PC, but Stalker0 started the thread. It makes some good sense, though - keep in mind, the Fighter's main way to increase damage is through extra attacks, and this pushes the damage of each attack from a laughable 1d8+5 to a still-laughable 1d8+8.

TrexPushups
2014-07-17, 08:41 AM
If you chose duelist would it not take your damage from 1d8 + 7 to 1d8+10 for each of your attacks?

With 4 attacks that is about 58 damage a round or 116 on the round you double your attacks. This nearly kills a con 2 level 20 wizard that took 4 every level. Roll 6 damage higher and the wizard is at 0.

That is a decent bit of damage if you ask me.

da_chicken
2014-07-17, 08:55 AM
Can you link the post/thread? I'm curious to see how he came up with that number. Also, you'll forgive me if I don't find any "X increases damage by X%" numbers yet. Unless we have CR/APL appropriate target AC for characters to try and hit, there isn't any reference point for these numbers.

It's pretty simple to replicate. A Sword and Shield Champion Fighter is likely to have Dueling, so we'll count that. Let's also assume it's a high level Fighter, since it's unlikely a low level Fighter would have a +3 weapon. That means 18-20 crit, which I think helps the non-magical Fighter slightly more than the magical Fighter. It doesn't matter how many attacks there are since this is a relative comparison and both Fighters will have the same number of attacks. Quadruple the damage if you want to know the average damage, but the percentage improvement is identical.

If the base Fighter needs an 11 to hit:

No magic:
Regular (35%): 1d8 + 5 + 2 = 11.5
Crit (15%): 2d8 + 5 + 2 = 16

(0.50 * 0.00) + (0.35 * 11.5) + (0.15 * 16) = 6.425

With a +3 longsword:
Regular (35 + 15 = 50%): 1d8 + 5 + 2 + 3 = 14.5
Crit (15%): 2d8 + 5 + 2 + 3 = 19

(0.35 * 0.00) + (0.50 * 14.5) + (0.15 * 19) = 10.1

10.1 / 6.425 = 1.57

That's a 57% increase in damage.



If the base Fighter needs a 16 to hit:

No magic:
Regular (10%): 1d8 + 5 + 2 = 11.5
Crit (15%): 2d8 + 5 + 2 = 16

(0.75 * 0.00) + (0.10 * 11.5) + (0.15 * 16) = 3.55

With a +3 longsword:
Regular (10 + 15 = 25%): 1d8 + 5 + 2 + 3 = 14.5
Crit (15%): 2d8 + 5 + 2 + 3 = 19

(0.60 * 0.00) + (0.25 * 14.5) + (0.15 * 19) = 6.475

6.475 / 3.55 = 1.82

That's an 82% increase in damage.



If the base Fighter needs a 6 to hit:

For a level 20 Fighter:
Regular (60%): 1d8 + 5 + 2 = 11.5
Crit (15%): 2d8 + 5 + 2 = 16

(0.25 * 0.00) + (0.60 * 11.5) + (0.15 * 16) = 9.3

With a +3 longsword:
Four attacks at +14
Regular (60 + 15 = 75%): 1d8 + 5 + 2 + 3 = 14.5
Crit (15%): 2d8 + 5 + 2 + 3 = 19

(0.10 * 0.00) + (0.75 * 14.5) + (0.15 * 19) = 13.725

13.725 / 9.3 = 1.48

That's a 48% increase in damage.

PinkysBrain
2014-07-17, 09:41 AM
But yes, accuracy is an underrated way to improve damage. Every +1 point to accuracy is an indirect 5% increase to a character's expected damage, even though it doesn't modify raw damage. Of course +3 swords do both.
More like 10% on average (going from 50% to hit to 55% to hit is a 10% increase in average damage).

obryn
2014-07-17, 09:54 AM
If you chose duelist would it not take your damage from 1d8 + 7 to 1d8+10 for each of your attacks?

With 4 attacks that is about 58 damage a round or 116 on the round you double your attacks. This nearly kills a con 2 level 20 wizard that took 4 every level. Roll 6 damage higher and the wizard is at 0.

That is a decent bit of damage if you ask me.
Wait until you see how many HP high-level monsters have. :smalleek:

TrexPushups
2014-07-17, 10:05 AM
Hundreds or thousands?

obryn
2014-07-17, 10:30 AM
Hundreds or thousands?
Per a mearls tweet, 500ish.

Which means a Fighter goes from dropping a monster in 1-2 rounds to dropping them in something like 8-11 rounds. HP scaling outpaces damage.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-17, 10:40 AM
Per a mearls tweet, 500ish.

Which means a Fighter goes from dropping a monster in 1-2 rounds to dropping them in something like 8-11 rounds. HP scaling outpaces damage.

Hey now, they know what they are doing. It isn't like their last edition needed the monster's HP to be cut in half or something.

obryn
2014-07-17, 10:44 AM
Hey now, they know what they are doing. It isn't like their last edition needed the monster's HP to be cut in half or something.
Yeah, I just have no idea what they are thinking here if this is true.

Sartharina
2014-07-17, 10:55 AM
[QUOTE=Squirrel_Dude;17784074But yes, accuracy is an underrated way to improve damage. Every +1 point to accuracy is an indirect 5% increase to a character's expected damage, even though it doesn't modify raw damage. Of course +3 swords do both.[/QUOTE]

Actually, it isn't a 5% increase. Instead, the increase is relative to the target number. Going from hitting on a 20 to hitting on a 17, for example, is a 300% increase in damage (But that's at the far end of the spectrum). However, going from hitting on a 6 to hitting on a 3 is only a 20% increase.

Callin
2014-07-17, 10:55 AM
As per the Magic items in the Starter Set.

They have two staves in there, both requires you to be attuned to them. They give 2 spells 1 at 1 charge and another at 2 charges. The staff starts at 10 chargers per day, and each morning you roll 1d6+4 to regain charges. If you use the last charge in a staff it has a 1 in 20 chance of crumbling to dust/destroyed.

The wand starts with 7 charges and can regain 1d6+1 every morning. It has 1 spell and you can spend more charges to increase the spell level of the spell. From 1st to 2nd for 2 charges as an example. You do not have to be attuned to the wand AND you dont have to be a spellcaster to use it. And same deal as the Staff if you use the final charge.

TrexPushups
2014-07-17, 11:00 AM
Is that for a solo monster or one that tends to travel in groups? Because the rogue is throwing 10d6 which double on a crit at things too.

If it only had the 200ish or so hit points a fighter has at 20 then the party is going to drop it in 1-2 rounds if they don't get a case of the miss alots.

Person_Man
2014-07-17, 11:04 AM
Mike Mearls is probably a great D&D player and DM. Reading the stuff he's written and interviews he's given gives me the strong impression that he's smart, creative, fun, and interesting.

But I'm not sure he fully understands that he's writing a game that is literally going to have thousands and thousands of pages worth of supplements, and that 5E is filled with loopholes that are going to break the game once those supplements are published, and he seems unwilling or unable to fix them. (Magic items, buffs that don't require Concentration, lack of stacking rules, non-scaling of AC and non-proficient saves, lots of rules designed for tabletop games when the default is theater of the mind, etc). He seems to do things by what "feels" right or fun to him, as opposed to thinking through the actual math and balance issues involved for a system with lots of moving parts and hundreds of options.

I think that most of the balance issues were solved in 4E, and they've decided that there are more customers in the pool of 3.5/PF + new players, and that those players didn't like 4E, so they're not going to use anything that feels like 4E. Which is a real shame, because I don't know anyone who was against fixed math and stacking rules.

Squirrel_Dude
2014-07-17, 11:06 AM
It's pretty simple to replicate. A Sword and Shield Champion Fighter is likely to have Dueling, so we'll count that. Let's also assume it's a high level Fighter, since it's unlikely a low level Fighter would have a +3 weapon. That means 18-20 crit, which I think helps the non-magical Fighter slightly more than the magical Fighter. It doesn't matter how many attacks there are since this is a relative comparison and both Fighters will have the same number of attacks. Quadruple the damage if you want to know the average damage, but the percentage improvement is identical.

*snip for space concerns*Okay, that's what I figured. The original comment stated that it increased a fighter's damage by 56%, as though it was being presented as some universal rule. In fact, it increases a fighter with X amount of base raw damage and X amount of base accuracy by 56%. I just wanted to make sure my suspicion was correct.


Actually, it isn't a 5% increase. Instead, the increase is relative to the target number. Going from hitting on a 20 to hitting on a 17, for example, is a 300% increase in damage (But that's at the far end of the spectrum). However, going from hitting on a 6 to hitting on a 3 is only a 20% increase.That's true, I had forgot to consider the relative impact of accuracy on damage. Like I said, accuracy is underrated.

Beleriphon
2014-07-17, 11:07 AM
If it only had the 200ish or so hit points a fighter has at 20 then the party is going to drop it in 1-2 rounds if they don't get a case of the miss alots.

I gotta agree with Trex. 500ish hitpoints isn't that bad if its a solo threat like a dragon. Against a party of four or five then 500ish hitpoints is maybe five rounds of combat.

PinkysBrain
2014-07-17, 12:05 PM
Which means a Fighter goes from dropping a monster in 1-2 rounds to dropping them in something like 8-11 rounds. HP scaling outpaces damage.
So are most encounters meant to be single monster? Or are they assuming everything is going to be hold monster'd for crits or something?

obryn
2014-07-17, 12:09 PM
Mike Mearls is probably a great D&D player and DM. Reading the stuff he's written and interviews he's given gives me the strong impression that he's smart, creative, fun, and interesting.

But I'm not sure he fully understands that he's writing a game that is literally going to have thousands and thousands of pages worth of supplements, and that 5E is filled with loopholes that are going to break the game once those supplements are published, and he seems unwilling or unable to fix them. (Magic items, buffs that don't require Concentration, lack of stacking rules, non-scaling of AC and non-proficient saves, lots of rules designed for tabletop games when the default is theater of the mind, etc). He seems to do things by what "feels" right or fun to him, as opposed to thinking through the actual math and balance issues involved for a system with lots of moving parts and hundreds of options.

I think that most of the balance issues were solved in 4E, and they've decided that there are more customers in the pool of 3.5/PF + new players, and that those players didn't like 4E, so they're not going to use anything that feels like 4E. Which is a real shame, because I don't know anyone who was against fixed math and stacking rules.
I just wanted to emptyquote this for truth.

The "math team" they talked about ... seems to have done very, very little indeed.

The last person I know of on the design team with a deep understanding of both math and how it affects gameplay was Rob Heinsoo.

Tholomyes
2014-07-17, 12:50 PM
Mike Mearls is probably a great D&D player and DM. Reading the stuff he's written and interviews he's given gives me the strong impression that he's smart, creative, fun, and interesting.

But I'm not sure he fully understands that he's writing a game that is literally going to have thousands and thousands of pages worth of supplements, and that 5E is filled with loopholes that are going to break the game once those supplements are published, and he seems unwilling or unable to fix them. (Magic items, buffs that don't require Concentration, lack of stacking rules, non-scaling of AC and non-proficient saves, lots of rules designed for tabletop games when the default is theater of the mind, etc). He seems to do things by what "feels" right or fun to him, as opposed to thinking through the actual math and balance issues involved for a system with lots of moving parts and hundreds of options.

I think that most of the balance issues were solved in 4E, and they've decided that there are more customers in the pool of 3.5/PF + new players, and that those players didn't like 4E, so they're not going to use anything that feels like 4E. Which is a real shame, because I don't know anyone who was against fixed math and stacking rules.

I think this will honestly be the make or break point for me, as a player. As a DM, I have other concerns, but as a player, if the math of the system can't handle future supplements that the base game pretty desperately needs (I'm more optimistic than when I saw the basic rules, but even so, 3 subclasses per class may be enough for PHB-release, but for the game to keep my interest as a player, there will need to be support, meaning more maneuvers, more subclasses, more feats, ect), or hell, if the game can't handle PHB stuff, without becoming as broken as 3.5 or PF can get, math-wise, then I'll probably go back to using a supers game, even, for my Fantasy campaigns, just because it's better designed.

Fwiffo86
2014-07-17, 01:26 PM
In general, I'm against Splat. I've seen it ruin way to many games that I enjoyed. Some examples include: WoD, 3e, Rifts, etc. In every case (IMX) I have simply said, No. We are using the basic book, and that is all. It's the only book where everything is equal, and everyone gets a fair shake at being awesome.

To many times, splat producers have taken liberties with games that fail to meet the standards and/or intended meaning of the rules. IF WotC will allow 3rd party supplementation, there should be benchmark rules. Something like limiting the damage output to X per level no matter the source of that damage.

Splat often does, and is encouraged to by powergamers to break this concept as often as possible in the name of "FIXING" a problem. The problem usually (not always, and IMO) has been nothing but someone not getting UBER power when they think they should.

I am seeing alot of statements saying the math is not correct, or doesn't work, or isn't enough, (insert your favorite here), but I am not seeing any proof of it that is significant enough to tell me it needs to be fixed somehow. I am not a design expert. I don't care if X ability increases Dilbert the rogue's damage output by X%, any further than does it overshadow abilities of other characters at the same level. IF it doesn't, then it works fine. The problem with analysis of this kind is we tend to target Fighter vs Wizard, or Spell vs Attack, etc. When we should be looking at all options available to each class and subtype at the same level.

Does a Wizard's fireball, a Fighter's GWF, a Bard's Bardsong, a Rogue's Sneak attack, A cleric's Heal etc. all amount to roughly the same HP damage one way or another is the question. If all of it balances out + or - a bit, then why are we complaining? As long as the numbers roughly match, there shouldn't be an issue. Not to mention having the enemies conform to a similar scale.

Where many see "its not right" I tend to see, so what? How often does that actually come up? Isn't the job of the DM to adjudicate issues like this when they come up? Especially when they are just "fringe" cases?

Essentially, if you are judging a game solely on its mathematical merits, make sure you have all of the data, from every class, for every ability/spell before you decide if it meets your standards or not. If you are judging it based against previous editions or other games, make sure you use the same criteria for both.

I for one love everything about 5e as is. I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. It works fine. The classes are balanced as nicely as they can be without whorking up the whole mess with additional and unnecessary rules. It is a game. Not a manual. It was never meant to be a manual. But that is just my opinion.

TrexPushups
2014-07-17, 01:39 PM
So are most encounters meant to be single monster? Or are they assuming everything is going to be hold monster'd for crits or something?

Was the 500 hit points for a high cr monster supposed to for normal monsters? If so it is way too high.

For a solitary monster it seems about right. Did the tweet indicate the type he was talking about?

Morty
2014-07-17, 01:41 PM
People keep saying that splatbooks ruined 3e, but it's actually the complete opposite of the truth. The game is already broken in core, and the range of 'builds' for non-magical characters is suffocatingly small. Adding books doesn't really give magic-using classes more broken tools than what they already have, but it gives everyone else some much needed options. Fighters, especially, can actually get to a decent level without running out of good feats to spend their only class feature on. Rangers and paladins get actual unique spells that help them out significantly, and ACFs to replace their cumbersome animal companions and mounts. Barbarians get ways to actually be anything other than Hulk. Rogues get ways to actually hurt undead and constructs. The Shapeshift ACF for druid is significantly more balanced than the core wildshape. Magic classes such as beguilers, warmages, warlocks and favoured souls are saner alternatives to core casters. Combat styles other than a two-handed weapon receive some actual support. And so on and so forth.

It's not like it's limited to 3e, either. The New World of Darkness, for instance, sees a pretty consistent increase in quality over the course of its publishing. The recent God-Machine Chronicles and Blood & Smoke are more or less straight upgrades for the core book and Vampire, respectively.

obryn
2014-07-17, 01:49 PM
Was the 500 hit points for a high cr monster supposed to for normal monsters? If so it is way too high.
In context, that's what it seemed like. Again, I guess we'll need to wait and see...

PinkysBrain
2014-07-17, 02:16 PM
The recent God-Machine Chronicles and Blood & Smoke are more or less straight upgrades for the core book and Vampire, respectively.

Hadn't even heard of these, or rather I'd probably just skipped over any mention of them because I didn't realise they were essentially the basis of a new edition ... I think they could market them better ...

Fwiffo86
2014-07-17, 02:26 PM
Rangers and paladins get actual unique spells that help them out significantly, and ACFs to replace their cumbersome animal companions and mounts. Barbarians get ways to actually be anything other than Hulk.

The above is not splat by my definition. Different is not splat, as long as it is roughly equivalent to what all other classes gain at the same levels.


Rogues get ways to actually hurt undead and constructs.

Conversely, this is what I consider splat. This is not a variant of an ability that rogues possessed. This is granting them a wholly new ability they did not possess. If it were to be say... your sneak attack damage now ONLY applies to undead (for you're undead hunter concepts). That would be different.


Magic classes such as beguilers, warmages, warlocks and favoured souls are saner alternatives to core casters. Combat styles other than a two-handed weapon receive some actual support. And so on and so forth.

I agree with this part also not being my definition of splat, even if the alternatives are a bit too focused on what they do. But I tend to like more utility out of characters instead of being supreme at one thing. Though I tend to think the Favored Soul as being nothing more than someone preferring the Sorc cast mechanic to the Cleric one.

An example of Splat IMO:

---- EDIT ----

Shadow Storm. Causes damage, and Str and Con loss. (Relics and Rituals) 8th level Wiz/Sorc spell. I don't have the full spell to look at, but I remember this being the ONLY spell used once it was gained because it was unbelievably powerful.

Envyus
2014-07-17, 02:40 PM
Was the 500 hit points for a high cr monster supposed to for normal monsters? If so it is way too high.

For a solitary monster it seems about right. Did the tweet indicate the type he was talking about?

For CR 20 monsters which I bet is stuff like the Balor and Pit Fiend.

Person_Man
2014-07-17, 03:01 PM
People keep saying that splatbooks ruined 3e, but it's actually the complete opposite of the truth.

I'm a fan of additional material as well, and think that splat books provide an opportunity for innovation. 2E Kits, 3.5 Swift/Immediate Actions and the Tome of Battle, 4E monster improvement, all came out of splat books.

Splat books aren't the problem. The default core system just needs to have a rock solid foundation so that it can't be broken by a thousand monkeys typing at a thousand typewriters to create a thousand different splatbooks.

Morty
2014-07-17, 03:03 PM
Hadn't even heard of these, or rather I'd probably just skipped over any mention of them because I didn't realise they were essentially the basis of a new edition ... I think they could market them better ...

From what I've heard, they wanted to make it a "nWoD 2.0" thing, but couldn't get it approved. So they had to be sneaky. Either way, the new rules are better than the old ones, especially in the case of Vampire. So I'm fine with it.


The above is not splat by my definition. Different is not splat, as long as it is roughly equivalent to what all other classes gain at the same levels.

That's a weirdly narrow definition of 'splat'.


Conversely, this is what I consider splat. This is not a variant of an ability that rogues possessed. This is granting them a wholly new ability they did not possess. If it were to be say... your sneak attack damage now ONLY applies to undead (for you're undead hunter concepts). That would be different.

So you're perfectly fine with them being useless against two common - extremely so in case of undead - enemy types?


I agree with this part also not being my definition of splat, even if the alternatives are a bit too focused on what they do. But I tend to like more utility out of characters instead of being supreme at one thing. Though I tend to think the Favored Soul as being nothing more than someone preferring the Sorc cast mechanic to the Cleric one.

Of course they're weaker and less versatile than the Big Three, but they're supposed to be. Since, you know, wizards, clerics and druids are too good.


Shadow Storm. Causes damage, and Str and Con loss. (Relics and Rituals) 8th level Wiz/Sorc spell. I don't have the full spell to look at, but I remember this being the ONLY spell used once it was gained because it was unbelievably powerful.

So? It's an overpowered spell for wizards. At level 15, they're neck deep in such spells even if you stick to the Player's Handbook. I can deal with spell-casters getting a few more toys if it means other classes get options they badly need.


I'm a fan of additional material as well, and think that splat books provide an opportunity for innovation. 2E Kits, 3.5 Swift/Immediate Actions and the Tome of Battle, 4E monster improvement, all came out of splat books.

Splat books aren't the problem. The default core system just needs to have a rock solid foundation so that it can't be broken by a thousand monkeys typing at a thousand typewriters to create a thousand different splatbooks.

Exactly. And in case of 3e, the typewriter-wielding monkeys didn't manage to produce that many things which would be worse than a high-level core-only wizard.

Tholomyes
2014-07-17, 05:29 PM
Yeah, as much as I moan and groan about certain things to come out of splatbooks in various systems and editions, really, they've done more good than harm in my mind. And, often times the same "typewriter-wielding monkeys" do a good job in pointing out both what is broken and what can be broken, if you're not careful and allow certain combinations. This allows me, as a DM, to sit down with my players and say "This new splatbook is fair game; I'm aware of X, Y and Z broken things to come out of it, and I ask you not to use them. If the X broken thing is conceptually key to your character, talk with me, and I'll work something out"

Dimers
2014-07-17, 06:43 PM
Person_Man, if you're interested in adding a section on physical combat maneuvers, weapon handling styles, and unusual forms of combat across the various editions, here's a little to start with:

1e) ...

2e) There are rules in core for brawling, wrestling, and overbearing (grappling). Due to lack of scaling damage, brawling and wrestling are mostly inapplicable after about character level 3. Rangers could wield two weapons in core. The Player's Option splatbooks added options to differentiate sword-and-board, single-weapon and two-handed weapon fighting from each other mechanically without making one "the best". Weapon category has little relevance except that stabby weapons are required for thieves' backstab ability.

3.X) Core has rules for charges, bull rushes, tripping, grappling, disarming, different weapon handling styles, and a few ways to apply skills to combat. ((Might be more in core -- I'm AFB and that's all I can think of at the moment.)) "Safe" tripping and disarming require particular weapons or expenditure of feats. Splatbooks mostly add small amounts to existing possibilities until the introduction of the Tome of Battle, which offers a different and complementary framework for selecting and executing combat maneuvers. Throughout the edition, TWF has the most published possibilities for support but THF remains clearly the most effective weapon handling option. There is also limited support for other styles, including for natural weapons. Weapon category has no relevance other than damage type for purposes of damage reduction.

4e) There are general rules for bull-rushing, grappling and charging. All other combat maneuvers are now powers gained through a particular class/race/feat/skill, and there are tons of 'em. No rules exist for disarming at all. Weapon handling styles exist but there is little differentiation except in class powers. On the other hand, weapon categories become more distinct in powers, feats and class features.

5e) ...

Kurald Galain
2014-07-17, 07:10 PM
4e) There are general rules for bull-rushing, grappling and charging.

4E doesn't have grappling. It has grabbing, which doesn't really do anything for most characters (it immobilizes an enemy with no other penalties, and gives it an easy roll to escape from that; frankly this option is so utterly weak that I've seen it used only once or twice over five years of play).

Dimers
2014-07-17, 07:22 PM
4E doesn't have grappling. It has grabbing, which doesn't really do anything for most characters (it immobilizes an enemy with no other penalties, and gives it an easy roll to escape from that; frankly this option is so utterly weak that I've seen it used only once or twice over five years of play).

Sure. I just didn't want to get too specific, because there's a lot of ground that could be covered in all editions in minute detail. Could also talk about the uselessness of bull rushing in 3e and 4e, the circumstances under which grappling is meaningful in 3e, the evolution of the requirements for backstab/sneak attack, the weapon type versus armor type optional rule in 2e, and on and on. EDIT: Plus, of course, dunno whether Person_Man cares to include any of this at all. *shrug*

Kurald Galain
2014-07-17, 07:26 PM
Sure. I just didn't want to get too specific, because there's a lot of ground that could be covered in all editions in minute detail. Could also talk about the uselessness of bull rushing in 3e and 4e, the circumstances under which grappling is meaningful in 3e, the evolution of the requirements for backstab/sneak attack,

For the purpose of a guide like this, I think we should. It makes a big difference whether some edition has useful rules for some maneuver, or whether this maneuver technically exists but really is so pointless that it might as well not be there. Likewise, it makes a big difference that a rogue can sneak attack almost never in 2E, pretty often in 3E, and is expected to successfully use it on every single attack in 4E.

Fwiffo86
2014-07-17, 08:13 PM
That's a weirdly narrow definition of 'splat'.

I thought it was rather broad personally. But I can see why you think that.



So you're perfectly fine with them being useless against two common - extremely so in case of undead - enemy types?


If your definition of a Rogue being useful is tied entirely to their ability to sneak attack, I can see how this seems unfair. I stick with my statement. Undead are not as common (or should I say, shouldn't be as common) as other creatures. At best I would put them in the rare occurrence category, and Golems on the very rare category. Frequency of appearance is in the hands of your DM. If they keep pitting you against undead, then yes, I can see where your point of view comes from. Again, I stick with my original statement.


So? It's an overpowered spell for wizards. At level 15, they're neck deep in such spells even if you stick to the Player's Handbook. I can deal with spell-casters getting a few more toys if it means other classes get options they badly need.

First, its a death sentence no matter what happens. You either die outright (CON), or you fall to the ground helpless (STR). And if I remember correctly (and I'm probably not) there is no resistance/counter to it. All this for an 8th level spell. I might have been convinced if it were 9th. Maybe.


Exactly. And in case of 3e, the typewriter-wielding monkeys didn't manage to produce that many things which would be worse than a high-level core-only wizard.

Completely agree with you.

da_chicken
2014-07-17, 08:48 PM
First, its a death sentence no matter what happens. You either die outright (CON), or you fall to the ground helpless (STR). And if I remember correctly (and I'm probably not) there is no resistance/counter to it. All this for an 8th level spell. I might have been convinced if it were 9th. Maybe.

I still have my Relics & Rituals. Of course, I've still never used it in a game, but I have it. It was cheap and on clearance!

It's a 2'/level spread (yes, I'm serious) at long range, so it's a 30' spread minimum, and gets 1 square in radius larger every 3 levels. Targets "suffer catastrophic loss [...] in both temporary Str and temporary Con points" (whatever that means) equal to 1/2 caster level (max 12), Fort save for half. Additionally, it deals a small amount of damage about equal to a clerical spell, Reflex save for half. That's not bad for a level 8 spell, IMO. I mean, it's no mind blank, and ray of enfeeblement isn't that much worse.

obryn
2014-07-17, 09:40 PM
Exactly. And in case of 3e, the typewriter-wielding monkeys didn't manage to produce that many things which would be worse than a high-level core-only wizard.
Except those typewriter monkeys kept on churning out spells. Which are all power ups for said wizard. In breadth minimally, and, often, power.

(Also, from what I understand, Paizo may have finally succeeded in making a class even more powerful than the wizard which is quite a thing.)

obryn
2014-07-17, 09:44 PM
4E doesn't have grappling. It has grabbing, which doesn't really do anything for most characters (it immobilizes an enemy with no other penalties, and gives it an easy roll to escape from that; frankly this option is so utterly weak that I've seen it used only once or twice over five years of play).
Yeah, just like in 3e, it's rarely used (and mostly useless) unless you're specifically specced out for it. In 4e, that would be the awesomely fun Brawler Fighter.

Squirrel_Dude
2014-07-17, 10:17 PM
Except those typewriter monkeys kept on churning out spells. Which are all power ups for said wizard. In breadth minimally, and, often, power.

(Also, from what I understand, Paizo may have finally succeeded in making a class even more powerful than the wizard which is quite a thing.)The Arcanist, and right now the debate is basically being held in these terms:

Side One: The class is overpowered. It's stronger than the wizard and obsoletes the sorcerer.
Side Two: The class isn't overpowered. It's only as strong as the wizard.
Side Three: Guys, the final class isn't out yet, so we can't really know how powerful it's going to be.

Yup.

Lord Raziere
2014-07-18, 03:12 AM
In general, I'm against Splat. I've seen it ruin way to many games that I enjoyed. Some examples include: WoD, 3e, Rifts, etc. In every case (IMX) I have simply said, No. We are using the basic book, and that is all. It's the only book where everything is equal, and everyone gets a fair shake at being awesome.


3e? basic books only? balanced and equal?

pardon me whilst I proceed to laugh uproariously, because this is hilariously wrong.

its corebook caster classes that dominate, all the 1st tier classes and the stuff that makes them broken is right there in the corebook, no need to go searching for splats to help with that. unless you mean equal shake at choosing wizard or cleric to do awesome things while the rogue is stuck never doing anything as awesome as what the wizard can do daily. in which case, your right, we can play an all-caster party to have equal opportunity to be awesome, anyone who chooses a monk or rogue, or wants a non-caster class that can actually keep up with casters is just ignorant or stupid right?

Morty
2014-07-18, 05:51 AM
If your definition of a Rogue being useful is tied entirely to their ability to sneak attack, I can see how this seems unfair.

I await an explanation of how a core-only rogue is supposed to contribute in combat against crit-immune enemies, then. Preferably one that couldn't be just as easily executed by a wizard or ranger.


I stick with my statement. Undead are not as common (or should I say, shouldn't be as common) as other creatures. At best I would put them in the rare occurrence category, and Golems on the very rare category. Frequency of appearance is in the hands of your DM. If they keep pitting you against undead, then yes, I can see where your point of view comes from. Again, I stick with my original statement.

Why shouldn't they be common, other than for reasons of taking pity on rogues? There's a fair number of them in MM alone, from low-level skeletons to liches. Not to mention that zombies and skeletons are templates, which means that, theoretically, you can keep meeting them on very high levels. And that's just undead, there are also constructs and plants, off the top of my head.

Mind you, I can't see how the tools to let SA affect all those fits your definition of a 'splat', anyway. It's not like rogues get them for free. They need to buy magic items, use spells or trade off class features.


First, its a death sentence no matter what happens. You either die outright (CON), or you fall to the ground helpless (STR). And if I remember correctly (and I'm probably not) there is no resistance/counter to it. All this for an 8th level spell. I might have been convinced if it were 9th. Maybe.

Your point being? Yes, it's a broken spell from an obscure rulebook. It comes at a level when wizards are already dropping Prismatic Wall and Polymorph any Object, even if you stick to the core rules. Meanwhile, rangers and paladins get spells that are actually suited to the rest of their skills, instead of getting the same ones druids and clerics got several levels earlier.


Except those typewriter monkeys kept on churning out spells. Which are all power ups for said wizard. In breadth minimally, and, often, power.

(Also, from what I understand, Paizo may have finally succeeded in making a class even more powerful than the wizard which is quite a thing.)

That is true. But my point is that the net effect was more balance, because previously weak options - that is, half of the core classes - were given somewhat compelling options.

Fwiffo86
2014-07-18, 08:43 AM
3e? basic books only? balanced and equal?

pardon me whilst I proceed to laugh uproariously, because this is hilariously wrong.

its corebook caster classes that dominate, all the 1st tier classes and the stuff that makes them broken is right there in the corebook, no need to go searching for splats to help with that. unless you mean equal shake at choosing wizard or cleric to do awesome things while the rogue is stuck never doing anything as awesome as what the wizard can do daily. in which case, your right, we can play an all-caster party to have equal opportunity to be awesome, anyone who chooses a monk or rogue, or wants a non-caster class that can actually keep up with casters is just ignorant or stupid right?

You opinion is noted.

Fwiffo86
2014-07-18, 08:56 AM
I await an explanation of how a core-only rogue is supposed to contribute in combat against crit-immune enemies, then. Preferably one that couldn't be just as easily executed by a wizard or ranger.

In similar ways to how a melee contributes to fights with creatures who are immune to non-magical weapons. In the same way that a caster contributes to dealing with a Wild zone or AMF. Again, if your measure of a rogue is based on SA, I can clearly see we will differ on opinion. Which is perfectly fine.


Why shouldn't they be common, other than for reasons of taking pity on rogues? There's a fair number of them in MM alone, from low-level skeletons to liches. Not to mention that zombies and skeletons are templates, which means that, theoretically, you can keep meeting them on very high levels. And that's just undead, there are also constructs and plants, off the top of my head.

Number of entries in the MM doesn't indicate commonality in a game world. Or at the very least, it shouldn't. I would think if "undead" were as common as say... elves, than general society of the game world is in extremely dire straights. You wouldn't be able to go two days without a zombie attack, or skeleton wandering down the street. That however is a world building decision, and once again, entirely in the hands of your DM.



Mind you, I can't see how the tools to let SA affect all those fits your definition of a 'splat', anyway. It's not like rogues get them for free. They need to buy magic items, use spells or trade off class features.


The examples above are not what I thought you were talking about. I thought you were discussing the feats that allow rogues to sneak attack whatever they want. I would even be happy with a variant of sneak attack that says, "You sneak attack loses 2d6 when used on undead or crit immune creatures". That at least is a trade off. Your examples above are perfectly acceptable to me. A price was paid for them. Variant abilities by definition means you Lose X to gain Y. That is perfectly acceptable. Even with the feats, I just mentioned require you to spend a slot for them.

I suppose its irrelevant anyway. Your game is different than my game. Neither of us is right. I have my opinions, and you yours. No amount of discussion is likely to change either opinion.



Your point being? Yes, it's a broken spell from an obscure rulebook. It comes at a level when wizards are already dropping Prismatic Wall and Polymorph any Object, even if you stick to the core rules. Meanwhile, rangers and paladins get spells that are actually suited to the rest of their skills, instead of getting the same ones druids and clerics got several levels earlier.


My point is why continue adding to the insanity? More broken options does not fix the problem, only exacerbate it. Benchmarks for supplements are a possible solution. Clearly defined maximums for level, to balance abilities against. I think this could be useful in the future.

PracticalM
2014-07-18, 09:58 AM
You cannot buy or sell magic items other then (one use) potions and scrolls. You have to find them. Reusable magic items do not have a listed gold piece or other value.



What makes not being able to buy and sell magic items difficult is that players wandering through a local noble's lands are going to be subject to that noble wanting to take those magic items away from the players. Rare things are going to be desired by the ruling class, and they'll have armies to enable this.

After watching 18 warriors (playtest human warriors and gnolls) with bows tear through two of my players (playtest Paladin and Druid), I'm not convinced that less than scrupulous rulers wouldn't make this a habit.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-18, 10:31 AM
What makes not being able to buy and sell magic items difficult is that players wandering through a local noble's lands are going to be subject to that noble wanting to take those magic items away from the players. Rare things are going to be desired by the ruling class, and they'll have armies to enable this.

After watching 18 warriors (playtest human warriors and gnolls) with bows tear through two of my players (playtest Paladin and Druid), I'm not convinced that less than scrupulous rulers wouldn't make this a habit.

Except that the noble may not want to crap where they eat. Sure some may try stuff like stealing magic items but then what happens if the noble needs those adventurers?

Noble: Hey I know I stole your +1 sword but can I get your assistance on those wild bands of Owlbears messing up the place?
PC: Hahaha... Hahahaha.... Sure sure... *proceeds to create/find magic spell "Owlbears Mating Season" to make the Owlbears problem worse.

obryn
2014-07-18, 10:38 AM
What makes not being able to buy and sell magic items difficult is that players wandering through a local noble's lands are going to be subject to that noble wanting to take those magic items away from the players. Rare things are going to be desired by the ruling class, and they'll have armies to enable this.
This sounds like a "terrible DM" anecdote waiting to happen.

1337 b4k4
2014-07-18, 10:53 AM
This sounds like a "terrible DM" anecdote waiting to happen.

Frankly speaking, the fact that PCs aren't taxed heavily for their wealth is a failing of a lot of settings. Let's face it, when 5 brigands suddenly show up in your relatively stable city and start spending the equivalent of your annual budget in a day, city officials (and for that matter, the trade guilds who rely on the markets) are going to take notice. And if real life has taught us anything, it's people with money are soon beset by people who want a piece of that money.

Sartharina
2014-07-18, 11:33 AM
In similar ways to how a melee contributes to fights with creatures who are immune to non-magical weapons. In the same way that a caster contributes to dealing with a Wild zone or AMF. Again, if your measure of a rogue is based on SA, I can clearly see we will differ on opinion. Which is perfectly fine.Melee contributes to fights with creatures immune to nonmagical weapons by spending wealth on magic items - the same option the Rogue has to get Deathstrike Bracers, which requires a splatbook. Casters contribute to dealing with Wild Zones by enjoying their crazier casting ability, and AMFs by using Instantaneous Conjurations or summoning creatures with nonmagical ranged attacks.


The examples above are not what I thought you were talking about. I thought you were discussing the feats that allow rogues to sneak attack whatever they want. I would even be happy with a variant of sneak attack that says, "You sneak attack loses 2d6 when used on undead or crit immune creatures". That at least is a trade off. Your examples above are perfectly acceptable to me. A price was paid for them. Variant abilities by definition means you Lose X to gain Y. That is perfectly acceptable. Even with the feats, I just mentioned require you to spend a slot for them.There are only two ways I can think of that allow Rogues to get through Crit/SA-immune enemies. Deathstrike Bracers cost 5,000 GP, and allow a Rogue to make a single Sneak Attack against Plants, Undead, Constructs, Oozes, and elementals up to 3x per day. Otherwise, they have to give up another class feature to be able to deal half sneak attack damage to SA-immune creatures by flanking them - any other way of depriving the creature of Dex-to-AC doesn't work.

pwykersotz
2014-07-18, 12:22 PM
Melee contributes to fights with creatures immune to nonmagical weapons by spending wealth on magic items - the same option the Rogue has to get Deathstrike Bracers, which requires a splatbook. Casters contribute to dealing with Wild Zones by enjoying their crazier casting ability, and AMFs by using Instantaneous Conjurations or summoning creatures with nonmagical ranged attacks.

There are only two ways I can think of that allow Rogues to get through Crit/SA-immune enemies. Deathstrike Bracers cost 5,000 GP, and allow a Rogue to make a single Sneak Attack against Plants, Undead, Constructs, Oozes, and elementals up to 3x per day. Otherwise, they have to give up another class feature to be able to deal half sneak attack damage to SA-immune creatures by flanking them - any other way of depriving the creature of Dex-to-AC doesn't work.


http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/500x/52707276.jpg

I'm with Fwiffo86 on this one, ingenuity is a player resource often overlooked on these forums. Just because a type of enemy shuts down your primary power does not mean you can't contribute. It shouldn't be constant, you should have more opportunities than not to shine, but it's not a player right to have 100% of their options available all the time.

Fwiffo86
2014-07-18, 12:54 PM
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/500x/52707276.jpg

I'm with Fwiffo86 on this one, ingenuity is a player resource often overlooked on these forums. Just because a type of enemy shuts down your primary power does not mean you can't contribute. It shouldn't be constant, you should have more opportunities than not to shine, but it's not a player right to have 100% of their options available all the time.

Thank you. I couldn't have said it better if I had 6 hours to figure it out.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-18, 01:53 PM
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/500x/52707276.jpg

I'm with Fwiffo86 on this one, ingenuity is a player resource often overlooked on these forums. Just because a type of enemy shuts down your primary power does not mean you can't contribute. It shouldn't be constant, you should have more opportunities than not to shine, but it's not a player right to have 100% of their options available all the time.

I agree.

One could argue that the point of competition and the feeling of reward of overcoming said competition/obstacles is directly linked to how much at a disadvantage you are.

I mean, if you are the best victory still taste sweet. But the Miracle on Ice is celebrated still because the US team was such heavy underdogs, like no chance in the abyss even Nixon types would put down money on the Russians. Hell, people think that was the gold medal match for christmas sakes!

Although there needs to be a balance, I think that the DM owes it to the players to challenge them in ways in which they aren't always at 100, 90, or even 80 percent efficiency. Because only then will victory be the sweetest.

Snatching victory from the jaws of defeat and all that jazz.

Morty
2014-07-18, 02:38 PM
In similar ways to how a melee contributes to fights with creatures who are immune to non-magical weapons.

Creatures immune to non-magical weapons are going to be just as immune to them when they're used by a rogue.


In the same way that a caster contributes to dealing with a Wild zone or AMF.

You mean a setting-specific random occurrence and a single spell?


Again, if your measure of a rogue is based on SA, I can clearly see we will differ on opinion. Which is perfectly fine.

*sigh* Please refrain from putting words into my mouth so you can be patronizing. I'm not 'measuring' rogue based on SA. I'm stating the obvious fact that against enemies resistant to critical hits, rogues are going to be scratching at them ineffectually.


Number of entries in the MM doesn't indicate commonality in a game world. Or at the very least, it shouldn't. I would think if "undead" were as common as say... elves, than general society of the game world is in extremely dire straights. You wouldn't be able to go two days without a zombie attack, or skeleton wandering down the street. That however is a world building decision, and once again, entirely in the hands of your DM.

Adventurers don't meet enemies based on statistics, you know. By definition, they go into places and meet dangers most sane people do their best to avoid.


The examples above are not what I thought you were talking about. I thought you were discussing the feats that allow rogues to sneak attack whatever they want. I would even be happy with a variant of sneak attack that says, "You sneak attack loses 2d6 when used on undead or crit immune creatures". That at least is a trade off. Your examples above are perfectly acceptable to me. A price was paid for them. Variant abilities by definition means you Lose X to gain Y. That is perfectly acceptable. Even with the feats, I just mentioned require you to spend a slot for them.

What did you think I was talking about, then? :smallconfused: That splatbooks just let rogues SA crit-immune enemies willy-nilly? Did you even read the books you're condemning?


My point is why continue adding to the insanity? More broken options does not fix the problem, only exacerbate it. Benchmarks for supplements are a possible solution. Clearly defined maximums for level, to balance abilities against. I think this could be useful in the future.

You can ignore the broken additions while using those which make lousy options less lousy.



I'm with Fwiffo86 on this one, ingenuity is a player resource often overlooked on these forums. Just because a type of enemy shuts down your primary power does not mean you can't contribute. It shouldn't be constant, you should have more opportunities than not to shine, but it's not a player right to have 100% of their options available all the time.

Once again, I'm eagerly awaiting a way for rogue to contribute against enemies immune to Sneak Attacks that another class couldn't execute just as easily. Enemies being immune to certain tactics is one thing - another is a class's major feature being shut down by several creature types and magic items.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-18, 02:45 PM
Once again, I'm eagerly awaiting a way for rogue to contribute against enemies immune to Sneak Attacks that another class couldn't execute just as easily. Enemies being immune to certain tactics is one thing - another is a class's major feature being shut down by several creature types and magic items.

Not getting into the other stuff but...

Rogues are damn good at the Shove Maneuver, can use items just like anyone else, use the Help action, or other things.

I like opening up sneak attack to most monsters since it doesn't have to just be a precise strike at a living vital, just a vital area :p.

pwykersotz
2014-07-18, 02:58 PM
Once again, I'm eagerly awaiting a way for rogue to contribute against enemies immune to Sneak Attacks that another class couldn't execute just as easily. Enemies being immune to certain tactics is one thing - another is a class's major feature being shut down by several creature types and magic items.

You're awaiting something that has no absolute. It's dependent on the environment, the creatures involved, the item proficiencies that have been chosen, etc. There's no one example that will perfectly satisfy your criteria.

I'm also curious how you define contribute? Do you mean 'directly facilitate the defeat of the enemies' or 'directly facilitate the personal growth of the character' or 'directly facilitate the progression of the game'? I assume the first since we're talking about combat features, but just as negotiations sometimes go against you and things devolve into a fight, sometimes also you can't sneak attack so you'd better use the Social or Exploration legs of the game to deal with the problem. Sometimes you don't need to because you can grab a few Alchemist's Fire and toss them around or taunt the opponent into a trap you disabled in the previous room. Sometimes those options aren't readily available and you've got to think outside the box.

Lord Raziere
2014-07-18, 04:24 PM
You opinion is noted.

Opinion? dude. Tier system exists for a reason. its NOT to just analyze the fringe classes in splats. its an analysis of each classes capability and how powerful they are in comparison to one another- even an Evoker Wizard can dispatch with a lot of enemies to the point of making everyone else superfluous, and thats the weakest school of magic. if you want play tactical in 3.5, and you allow wizards and clerics, they're going to choose things that are far more balance-breaking than that.

I WISH this was a thing that I thought was subjective, I WISH that I could agree with you that this is just an opinion, but looking at the system, seeing what a caster class is capable of doing vs what the height of a fighters capability- its not feasible to say that they playing the same level! while the fighter has learned how to be the best sword fighter ever....the wizard has already learned spells like: cast almost anything in existence, stop time, mind control anyone, transform into anyone, make clone backup of self, create extradimensional mansion, bind any extraplanar creature to your will, travel to other worlds, instantly disintegrate any monster, and create any illusion one can think of. I cannot deny the evidence I see with my own eyes. :smallannoyed:

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-18, 04:28 PM
I cannot deny the evidence I see with my own eyes. :smallannoyed:

Dude, what the frack? Don't you know this is the internet?

You are supposed to deny any evidence you see with your own eyes... How do you think the internet keeps turning?

Don't ruin it for the rest of us.

:smalltongue:

Fwiffo86
2014-07-18, 06:21 PM
Opinion? dude. Tier system exists for a reason. its NOT to just analyze the fringe classes in splats. its an analysis of each classes capability and how powerful they are in comparison to one another- even an Evoker Wizard can dispatch with a lot of enemies to the point of making everyone else superfluous, and thats the weakest school of magic. if you want play tactical in 3.5, and you allow wizards and clerics, they're going to choose things that are far more balance-breaking than that.

I WISH this was a thing that I thought was subjective, I WISH that I could agree with you that this is just an opinion, but looking at the system, seeing what a caster class is capable of doing vs what the height of a fighters capability- its not feasible to say that they playing the same level! while the fighter has learned how to be the best sword fighter ever....the wizard has already learned spells like: cast almost anything in existence, stop time, mind control anyone, transform into anyone, make clone backup of self, create extradimensional mansion, bind any extraplanar creature to your will, travel to other worlds, instantly disintegrate any monster, and create any illusion one can think of. I cannot deny the evidence I see with my own eyes. :smallannoyed:

The Tier system is a construct of observation. Unless someone would like to point me to where the creators of D&D came up with the idea and either published it in an article or book I don't have, I have to assume it was created by forum posters, who by nature are expressing their opinions.

Incidentally, I want to play Dungeons and Dragons. Not combat simulation exclusively. I don't focus on the combat. Because ultimately, in my games, it is a VERY small portion of the game. Maybe a violent encounter once out of 5 or six game sessions. So no, I don't care about the minutia of the combat system, because it doesn't affect anything about my games. This is my opinion, and it is different than yours.

Just because something does not conform to your desired parameters does not mean it is broken, wrong, or doesn't work. It only means that you do not approve/like/desire it. Which is an opinion. Opinions are neither right, or wrong.

Perhaps I should have said... "I acknowledge your opinion." Would that have been better? I was not attempting to goad you, or cause an argument. Exactly the opposite. I had nothing constructive to say, but I felt you deserved a response.

Fwiffo86
2014-07-18, 06:39 PM
*sigh* Please refrain from putting words into my mouth so you can be patronizing. I'm not 'measuring' rogue based on SA. I'm stating the obvious fact that against enemies resistant to critical hits, rogues are going to be scratching at them ineffectually.



I fail to understand how trying to express what I think you are saying so that you understand why I am choosing the words I am using is putting words in your mouth. It's neither here nor there. I will attempt to explain in a different light.

A character's combat effectiveness is only a part of the character. Anyone who focuses ONLY on the combat abilities of the character is voluntarily ignoring the other aspects of that character and what those aspects can do. Determining a classes validity based solely on combat is marginalizing the character as a whole. Attempting to claim that combat is the majority of the system is a faulty argument. Combat is used ONLY at the discretion of the DM. If the DM doesn't ever provide a situation where combat comes up, all of the math in the world proving X, Y, or Z is pointless.

Splat....I define splat as unnecessary classes, spells, abilities, feats, rules or anything that relates to the game that can be represented by the basic four. Variant rules are an exception. That provides options to allow you to flesh out character concepts. See below.

Why do we need a spellsword? Why do we need a Ranger? Why do we need ANYTHING besides the basic four? We don't. Every character concept can be represented with imagination and variant abilities. There is no fundamental difference between a ranger and a paladin, just like there is no fundamental difference between a Wizard and a Warlock. They both hit things. They both cast spells. The ranger and the paladin both hit things, wear armor, and cast spells. The spells are different. But that's minor. The armor is different. That's minor as well. Boiled down, they are just Warriors who cast spells or Wizards who cast spells. We don't need 12 different versions of these concepts do we?

You don't like the mechanics? Fine. Don't use them. You don't like the spells, fine. Don't use them. Why does everyone need to have all of this written down and codified for them? Do you really need X game company's permission to do something with the game you paid for?

There. If that doesn't explain it to you, nothing I say will.

Person_Man
2014-07-18, 08:55 PM
Person_Man, if you're interested in adding a section on physical combat maneuvers, weapon handling styles, and unusual forms of combat across the various editions, here's a little to start with:

1e) ...

2e) There are rules in core for brawling, wrestling, and overbearing (grappling). Due to lack of scaling damage, brawling and wrestling are mostly inapplicable after about character level 3. Rangers could wield two weapons in core. The Player's Option splatbooks added options to differentiate sword-and-board, single-weapon and two-handed weapon fighting from each other mechanically without making one "the best". Weapon category has little relevance except that stabby weapons are required for thieves' backstab ability.

3.X) Core has rules for charges, bull rushes, tripping, grappling, disarming, different weapon handling styles, and a few ways to apply skills to combat. ((Might be more in core -- I'm AFB and that's all I can think of at the moment.)) "Safe" tripping and disarming require particular weapons or expenditure of feats. Splatbooks mostly add small amounts to existing possibilities until the introduction of the Tome of Battle, which offers a different and complementary framework for selecting and executing combat maneuvers. Throughout the edition, TWF has the most published possibilities for support but THF remains clearly the most effective weapon handling option. There is also limited support for other styles, including for natural weapons. Weapon category has no relevance other than damage type for purposes of damage reduction.

4e) There are general rules for bull-rushing, grappling and charging. All other combat maneuvers are now powers gained through a particular class/race/feat/skill, and there are tons of 'em. No rules exist for disarming at all. Weapon handling styles exist but there is little differentiation except in class powers. On the other hand, weapon categories become more distinct in powers, feats and class features.

5e) ...

Thanks. I will definitely be adding a lot more sections to the Guide, including Combat. And I appreciate any help that you and/or other Playgrounders can give me. But I'm waiting for the 5E PHB to come out first, since I want a basis for what has stayed the same across editions and what's different in the new edition first. I have the Starter set, but honestly, it's a very railroad with pre-gen low level characters, and probably not a real measure of what 5E combat is going to be like in typical games.

da_chicken
2014-07-18, 09:14 PM
Did I miss something? There are no monsters immune to a Rogue's Sneak Attack. For that matter, there are no enemies immune to crits. Indeed, zombies that die to a crit don't get the benefit of Undead Fortitude.

Lord Raziere
2014-07-18, 10:58 PM
The Tier system is a construct of observation. Unless someone would like to point me to where the creators of D&D came up with the idea and either published it in an article or book I don't have, I have to assume it was created by forum posters, who by nature are expressing their opinions.


....its a widely accepted form of measurement, constructed by observation and figuring out what each class can do how much it can be exploited. the wizard has more ways of being exploited and used to gamebreaking ends than the fighter ever will. a wizard does not even need to be combat capable to be godly- because the tier system, is not measuring combat potential, its measuring how flexible the class is, how many DIFFERENT things you can do as well as how well you do them. if a class is tier 1, they can pretty much fulfill any role better than any other.

even if your not a combat game, and instead is in a social game or something like that, the wizard can instead use a lot of suggestion and other spells that make them better at doing the social thing than the actual people designed for it, while still having spells available for stealth, transportation, and knowledge gathering. when I say that evocation wizards are the weakest- its because they can only do combat. the strongest wizards probably don't even need to directly fight, as I recall the two strongest schools being Conjuration and Necromancy, so they have minions to do that FOR them, while they focus on say, whatever else they want.

it does not matter what your kind of game is, the entire point of the tier system, is that it point out the wizard will succeed at it. a fighter in a social game on the other hand has no skills for it, no class features and no way to affect things in a social setting because there is no combat when he is designed for that- and only that.

I'm not saying I like the tier system, but to deny that it points out how freaking imbalanced 3.5 is by showing the capabilities of all the classes is to deny that these guys have spent a lot of time and effort to figure this sort of thing out, run the math and analyze what the spells can do. its hardly a matter of opinion when the cleric goes CODzilla and proceed to the fighters job better than the fighter, or when the wizard with a couple spells have better AC than most people, or proceeds to gain +4 to all stats with a few spells.

Sartharina
2014-07-19, 01:47 AM
as I recall the two strongest schools being Conjuration and Necromancy, so they have minions to do that FOR them, while they focus on say, whatever else they want.

Transmutation, not necromancy. Necromancy's the third weakest school, after Evocation and Enchantment.

Leon
2014-07-19, 01:56 AM
. if a class is tier 1, they can pretty much fulfill any role better than any other.


And yet it doesn't make it a better choice to play.

Lord Raziere
2014-07-19, 02:50 AM
And yet it doesn't make it a better choice to play.

yeah because they're broken as heck, who'd want to play something so unbalanced?

@ Sartharina: I guess I stand corrected then.

Fwiffo86
2014-07-19, 09:14 AM
....its a widely accepted form of measurement, constructed by observation and figuring out what each class can do how much it can be exploited. the wizard has more ways of being exploited and used to gamebreaking ends than the fighter ever will. a wizard does not even need to be combat capable to be godly- because the tier system, is not measuring combat potential, its measuring how flexible the class is, how many DIFFERENT things you can do as well as how well you do them. if a class is tier 1, they can pretty much fulfill any role better than any other.

even if your not a combat game, and instead is in a social game or something like that, the wizard can instead use a lot of suggestion and other spells that make them better at doing the social thing than the actual people designed for it, while still having spells available for stealth, transportation, and knowledge gathering. when I say that evocation wizards are the weakest- its because they can only do combat. the strongest wizards probably don't even need to directly fight, as I recall the two strongest schools being Conjuration and Necromancy, so they have minions to do that FOR them, while they focus on say, whatever else they want.

it does not matter what your kind of game is, the entire point of the tier system, is that it point out the wizard will succeed at it. a fighter in a social game on the other hand has no skills for it, no class features and no way to affect things in a social setting because there is no combat when he is designed for that- and only that.

I'm not saying I like the tier system, but to deny that it points out how freaking imbalanced 3.5 is by showing the capabilities of all the classes is to deny that these guys have spent a lot of time and effort to figure this sort of thing out, run the math and analyze what the spells can do. its hardly a matter of opinion when the cleric goes CODzilla and proceed to the fighters job better than the fighter, or when the wizard with a couple spells have better AC than most people, or proceeds to gain +4 to all stats with a few spells.

Valid points all. My own personal views of the tier system are functionally irrelevant. I agree that a wizard can theoretically do that if the DM is willing to let you. The system does in fact allow that. 3x completely destroyed the feel of D&D, combined with the players who actually sought to break the system in as many ways as possible, and then spread the word via the internet. It is an unfortunate side effect of the internet and one that will continue until the stars burn out.

I however, am under no obligations to allow, or use any of that garbage (personal opinion). I am going to be focusing on removing my abhorrence for 3x and examine 5e on its own merits and what I want it to be. I don't need many things that people seem to think are required for the game. Which is cool, many of their options they want sound interesting, but I don't need rules to simulate them.

ex) Fighter maneuvers: I don't need a set of rules to say that a fighter is better at fighting than everyone else. It's assumed with the class. If he wants to disarm and it isn't another fighter (melee class) then boom.... disarmed. I completely expect a fighter to come up to a Wizard and just disarm them, then trip them, then CDG them. No rolls beyond, roll to hit. The Wiz is not trained to recognize, resist, or realize what the fighter is doing.

I don't need published rules to represent this. It's common sense. Even if I have to represent with rolls, the fighter is still going to be superior against non-fighters. Bonuses on disarm, bonuses to bull rush, bonuses to distract, whatever my players can think of, I can work with. We don't need rules laid out for us. Because I know this, arguing about it or tier systems or whatever is just a colossal waste of time to me. Fun, certainly, but still a pointless exercise.

Envyus
2014-07-19, 01:47 PM
Well good thing they are not super unbalanced in 5e.