D&D 5th Edition X: Where's the Craft (RPG System) skill? [Archive]

Saph

2013-05-21, 07:42 AM

Welcome to the 10th thread discussing D&D 5th Edition, aka D&D Next!

As is (by now) well known to every RPGer who hasn’t spent their past year hiding under a rock, a new edition of D&D is coming out. When? Well, they’re not telling us. What they are giving us is an open playtest, which you can sign up for right here (http://dndplaytest.wizards.com/). At the time of writing, the most recent playtest packet dates from April 1st, 2013.

Use this thread to discuss the playtest, the weekly mostly-weekly Legends and Lore update articles from Mike Mearls, and other news relating to D&D’s new edition.

Useful (and freshly updated!) links:
Playtest Signup (http://dndplaytest.wizards.com/)
Legends and Lore Archive (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Archive.aspx?category=all&subcategory=legendslore)
EN World D&D Forum (http://www.enworld.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?3-D-amp-D-and-Pathfinder&prefixid=dndnext)
Penny Arcade / PvP 5e Podcasts:
Part 1 of 4 (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4pod/20120806)
Part 2 of 4 (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4pod/20120813)
Part 3 of 4 (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4pod/20120820)
Part 4 of 4 (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4pod/20120827)
Previous threads:
First Edition (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=218549)
Second Edition (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=231033)
Third Edition (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=242069)
3.5th Edition (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=245504)
Fourth Edition (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=244672)
D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=245600)
D&D 5th Edition: 6th Thread and counting (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=252870)
D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=257952)
D&D 5th Edition: 8th Revision and counting (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=265084)
Pathfinder, Next, and the Future of D&D (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=271218)
D&D 5th Edition IX: Still in the Idea Stage (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=277822)

Person_Man

2013-05-21, 08:00 AM

OK, because of my OCD list making, I needed to post this:

Summary of D&D Next Rules and Controversies

Big Picture

There will probably not be an SRD.
In April 2012, lead D&D Next writer Monte Cook quit WotC (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/116962-Monte-Cook-Leaves-Dungeons-Dragons-Next) due to "differences of opinion with the company" but not "with [his] fellow designers".
There is a major debate between "rules for consistency, balance is up to the DM" and "rules for balance, consistency is up to the DM". In other words, should the rules allow a DM to build and simulate a consistent game world (where players and NPCs and monsters all use the same rules), and it's up to the DM to balance out the game. Or should the rules create a balanced game, and leave it to the DM to make the game world and plot line consistent.
Should D&D Next have a long list of highly codified class abilities/powers/feats? (Like 4E or 3.X with supplements). Or should D&D Next have a small set of mostly generic abilities? (Like 1st and 2nd edition, and the current version of D&D Next). A more complicated game allows for more balance (if done with balance as a goal, like 4E) and/or a greater variety of rules, subsystems, and options. A simpler game allows for faster, easier combat in the "theater of the mind" and it allows players and DMs more room for improvisation, but it lends itself to vague rules, boring non-magical characters, and lots of dead levels.

Checks

Most things (including Skills, Attack Rolls, and Saving Throws) are determined by relatively simple Ability Checks. 1d20 + relevant Ability modifier + bonuses or penalties (of which there are relatively few), which is compared to a Difficulty Chance, Armor Class, or an enemy's opposed roll.
Ability Checks, including Skills, Attack Rolls, Armor Class, and Saving Throws, do not scale. This is known as bounded accuracy (www.wizards.com/dnd/article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120604). This means that low level abilities/spells/monsters/etc are more useful throughout all levels of the game. But it also means that high-level characters aren't all that much better at most things than low-level characters. Bounded Accuracy has a tremendous impact on the metagame in a wide variety of ways.

Advantage and Disadvantage

There are far fewer miscellaneous modifiers. Instead, circumstances can grant you Advantage (roll 2d20 and use the higher result) or Disadvantage (roll 2d20 and use the lower result) on various Checks. No matter how many times you gain Advantage or Disadvantage on the same check, attack roll, or saving throw, you roll only one additional d20. If you have Advantage and Disadvantage on the same check, attack roll, or saving throw, they cancel each other out for that roll.
In case you're wondering what that translates to in terms of a numerical bonus, here's a chart:http://i.imgur.com/8d8AT6c.png
Advantage or Disadvantage generally occurs due to DM fiat - "when the DM thinks some task or monster should be easy, he can give the players advantage." Some people think this is is clever design, others think it's a cop-out Oberoni fallacy (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145434).

Ability Scores

Like every edition, D&D Next uses Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma.

Every class uses it's primary Ability Score for most of it's attack and damage rolls. You can add your Dexterity modifier to your attack rolls and damage rolls for finesse weapons and missile weapons. (And don't have to waste a Feat or whatnot on Weapon Finesse). Wizards use Intelligence for most rolls, Clerics use Wisdom, etc.

Apart from whatever Attribute your class depends on, like most previous editions the most important Attributes are your Constitution (hit points, Saving Throws vs poison, disease, etc) and Dexterity (AC bonus when unarmored or in light armor, Initiative, finesse weapons, ranged weapons, Saving Throws vs most area of effect attacks, and some of the most useful Skills). But you probably don't want to dump any Attribute entirely, because in theory every Attribute is used for some Saving Throws and/or opposed Checks, and Bounded Accuracy makes your Ability Score bonuses (or penalties) a lot more important.

Ability scores are capped at 20. Magic items and spells can improve ability scores beyond this cap. This ruling (http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/blog/2013/04/25/dd_next_qa:_starting_gold,_paragon_pathsprestige_c lasses__bounded_accuracy) is a part of the Bounded Accuracy game design.

Skills

As mentioned above, Skills have been replaced by Ability Checks. There are no Skill points. Instead, your Background grants you four trained Skills. When you make a check for a task related to one of your trained Skills, you get to add a Skill Die to it. It starts as 1d6, but increases as you gain levels up to 1d12.
Rogues get extra trained Skills and a lot of other Skill based crunch.
The variance math of the Skill system is such that experts have a significant chance of losing a skill contest against a rank amateur.
The list of Skills is highly granular, and mostly mirrors the 3.0/3.5-ish list.
How, whether, or to what degree non-combat Skills (Knowledge, Profession, etc) should be included is hotly debated.
This whole issue of how Skills are handled is currently up in the air (http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/blog/2013/05/02/dd_next_qa:_skills,_skill_dice_and_proficiencies).

Classes

Each class does it's own thing. Wizards use Vancian casting. Clerics use 3.5 Spirit Shaman casting. Rogues have a bunch of Skill abilities. Fighters are the "simple" class that don't do much but deal damage. Barbarians Rage. Rangers have Favored Enemies. Monks mostly suck.
This basically means that Tiers (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=266559) are back, ie, non-casters can do far fewer things then casters, in that they do not have a set of scaled abilities (like spells, psionic powers, maneuvers, vestiges, soulmelds, or 4E style powers).
Dead and dead-ish levels (where the class gets nothing but a minor numerical bonus) are back. LOTS of them. And they still suck. Really not sure how on earth this happened, since pretty much everyone universally agreed that dead levels are a terrible thing. I assume it's lazy writing, or a misguided attempt to make things simpler, or ape the worst parts of previous editions.

Movement

Everyone gets Spring Attack by default, (you can move, use your Action, and continue your movement), which makes combat very "wobbly."

Action Economy
[LIST]
A complete mess at this point. Everyone gets one Action, one Move, and one Reaction. Plus their are Swift spells, ways to gain extra actions, non-actions, and "as part of your action."
Action Advantage is still a huge problem, in that it's still possible to stack numerous "non-actions" and extra actions, such as Spiritual Weapon, Healing Word, Action Surge, Cleave, or other "combined actions (http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/blog/2012/09/27/dd_next_qa:_action_economy,_power_creep_and_monste r_immunities)."

Races

The laundry list of bonuses to various things are mostly gone, instead, races have a smaller number of more meaningful/useful abilities.
Humans are arguably the strongest and/or most flexible race. They get +2 to on Attribute and +1 to all other Attributes. Every other race gets only +1 to a specific Attribute and a handful of more situational benefits.

Note: I've severely edited this post. Since we go through a D&D Next thread about once a week, I hope it can be used as a living template by other Playgrounders as new threads are created, so anyone who doesn't want to read through hundreds of posts can get a general sense about what everyone is talking about. I will add more as I see them in the thread, and I'll do my best to organize them. If you have any additions, please let me know.

Thanks.

noparlpf

2013-05-21, 08:06 AM

Woot! New thread. So, does anyone have a good list of the current controversies? Here's a start:

1) Non-casters still suck.

That's an issue and I don't see WotC fixing it. But it would be nice.

2) Everyone gets Spring Attack by default.

In my experience, that works fine, but possibly with a small penalty on the attack roll.

3) Attacks of Opportunity don't exist.

In my experience, AoOs do exist, but more when somebody moves past you (through a threatened square) than away from you (out of a threatened square). As an abstraction with no facing rules, the 3.X rules work for me. I want to see AoOs in 5e too.

4) Swift/Minor Actions don't exist.

I find that they're handy because you can put concrete limits on what you can and can't do in one round rather than leaving it to DM fiat to determine how many "non-actions" you can fit into six seconds—which leads to things like how in manga people hold full conversations in under ten seconds; sorry, it doesn't work that way.

5) Action Advantage is still a huge problem, in that it's still possible to stack numerous "non-actions" and extra actions, such as Spiritual Weapon

Could be fixed by adding swift/minor actions and/or some Concentration mechanic that consumes an action.

6) To Hit and AC does not scale (bounded accuracy).

Bleh.

Kurald Galain

2013-05-21, 08:16 AM

Woot! New thread. So, does anyone have a good list of the current controversies? Here's a start:

(7) Whether the game should include a craft skill, and similar skills.
(8) In the skill system, experts have a significant chance of losing a skill contest against a rank amateur.
(9) High-level parties have a significant chance of losing saving throws against low-level effects; for instance, a level-15 or higher party will have about half of their members run away when they spot a level-10 dragon.
(10) The underlying issue here is that high-level characters aren't all that much better at most things than low-level characters. That includes combat: the attack bonus for a level-20 character isn't that much higher than at level-1.
(11) Whether the rule of "when the DM thinks some task or monster should be easy, he can give the players advantage" is clever design or a cop-out Oberoni fallacy.
(12) The debate between "rules for consistency, balance is up to the DM" and "rules for balance, consistency is up to the DM".
(13) To which extent monsters and PCs should follow the same rules.
(14) Strawberry!

Seerow

2013-05-21, 08:19 AM

Bleh.

Sums up my thoughts on the playtest in a nutshell.

noparlpf

2013-05-21, 08:21 AM

(10) The underlying issue here is that high-level characters aren't all that much better at most things than low-level characters. That includes combat: the attack bonus for a level-20 character isn't that much higher than at level-1.

In my opinion this is the opposite of how you should advance. It's too unrealistic—normal people don't really get more durable (HP inflation), they get better at dealing damage (by which I mean attack rolls; normal people don't need that much weapon damage to go down) while avoiding damage (AC and saves). You can argue all of that is abstracted into HP (actual health, luck, dodging, parrying, and grazing blows), but that doesn't seem particularly intuitive to me.

obryn

2013-05-21, 08:29 AM

EDIT: Sorry, I know I'm wasting all y'alls bandwidth. I just hate it when someone misrepresents someone else's point, especially on the internet.
Yes, how terrible.

At least he was arguing from the perspective that he felt a binary trained skill wasn't the same as having a skill that could be improved multiple times (even if in the context of the greater argument it doesn't matter because you can still make crafting something you have "trained" and therefore can do it).
I think they are different in very important ways. It's all about the availability of resources and the granularity of the system.

In short, if you have skill points, you can make little dips into areas of interest. ("I put two ranks in Profession: Barkeep! That means I'm roleplaying!") If your skill system relies on a trained/untrained dichotomy, every skill you learn is a heftier investment. If a feat is too hefty an investment for a random bit of character fluff (and I agree, it is!), it follows that using very limited "skill training" would be, too.

This is why when you're talking about using a skill system for the Crafting stuff, I have an objection. In order to do this in a reasonable fashion, you need to have a much more involved subsystem than I think the entire topic of "skills" in D&D warrants.

-O

noparlpf

2013-05-21, 08:32 AM

So you're saying there's no level of competency between "I have no idea what that is" and "I'm already an expert"? And the mechanical difference is going to be fail vs. succeed, right?

Person_Man

2013-05-21, 08:37 AM

Seerow

2013-05-21, 08:40 AM

I'm cautiously optimistic. But there's really no way of telling how well it will work until they release a more extensive rule set with high level play involved.

ahahaha

*wipes tear from eye* wow that's great. There actually are intelligent people out there who honestly believe WotC is going to release more high level material beyond maybe some half-baked rules for getting an army.

I'm sorry, but your optimism astounds me.

noparlpf

2013-05-21, 08:43 AM

So I think the specific issue is that Bounded Accuracy dramatically decreases the differences between low level and high level characters/monsters/NPCs. This has the added benefit of making low level abilities and monsters more useful throughout the life of the game. (For example, any spell or ability which imposes a useful status effect). But it has the effect of changing the entire "feel" of the game. (High level characters must still fear low-level challenges/encounters).

I'm cautiously optimistic. But there's really no way of telling how well it will work until they release a more extensive rule set with high level play involved.

If you want low-level abilities to stay relevant, make them scale. In 3.X, Fireball was relevant for a while because it scaled by caster level (and then later was a good low-level damage spell to add metamagic to), whereas Dodge was useless at all levels because it gave a flat and rather lackluster bonus.
This way might work too, it just has a completely different feel, and I don't like high-level characters not being much better at things than low-level characters.
Edit: Also, didn't Mearls say that they've more or less settled on this as the core system in a recent L&L? I'm not expecting much to change.

obryn

2013-05-21, 08:44 AM

In my experience, AoOs do exist, but more when somebody moves past you (through a threatened square) than away from you (out of a threatened square). As an abstraction with no facing rules, the 3.X rules work for me. I want to see AoOs in 5e too.
Actually, lets talk about this one.

I love tactical combat. But I think Theater of the Mind combat can be fun, too.

I don't think D&D Next is doing a very good job of making a working system for ToTM combat. The moment you're putting everything in 5' increments and giving Fireballs a specific diameter, you're assuming a grid - even if that grid is held in your "mental theater" instead of on the table.

I'd like to see D&D Next give a better solution for this if they want ToTM combat to be anything more than "imaginary grid" combat. FATE-like Zones, a simple linear scale with descriptors like Melee / Reach / Short / Long, etc.

So you're saying there's no level of competency between "I have no idea what that is" and "I'm already an expert"? And the mechanical difference is going to be fail vs. succeed, right?
There's still ability scores (and 1/2 level bonuses in 4e, which would be absent in Next) but by and large if you're making a simple trained/untrained system, each trained skill is a more substantial investment than a "fluff" skill like Craft or Profession* warrants.

-O

* In a typical, baseline D&D game where these will seldom be critical, as opposed to climbing stuff, sneaking, or knowing lore about monsters.

Kurald Galain

2013-05-21, 08:49 AM

So you're saying there's no level of competency between "I have no idea what that is" and "I'm already an expert"?
Yes. Skills are binary, in that you're either trained or you're not. There is no concept so far of different ranks or points of being skilled (like, say, in Whitewolf).

More importantly (to me) is that an expert isn't that much more likely to succeed at checks or contests than the "no idea what that is" guy. It's pretty hard to get more than +8 to any skill; so an "easy" task (that amateurs can do 55% of the time) is still failed at by experts 10% of the time. Conversely, a "hard" task (that amateurs should find impossible but in fact have 5% chance at) can only be done by an expert 45% of the time either. In a contest, the amateur will beat the expert about 16% of the time.

In actual gameplay, differences of around +4 are more likely, which means that e.g. the clumsy loud dwarf will beat the cunning agile elf at sneaking about one time out of three.

And the mechanical difference is going to be fail vs. succeed, right?
Of course.

Ozfer

2013-05-21, 08:52 AM

Seerow

2013-05-21, 08:59 AM

I feel like I am going to have my mind changed for me very quickly if I say this, but...

I just looked at what bounded accuracy is, and I think it's a really good idea. It balances the game world, allows the players to take greater risks, and makes designing monsters much easier.

Now, I think this is a good idea, within the bounds of Dnd, which I kind of dislike anyway. I disagree with the hitpoints system altogether, but for Dnd sets out to do, I think bounded accuracy was a great idea. I always hated keeping track of peoples' massive attack bonuses anyway.

Dislike D&D, like bounded accuracy.

Sounds like I couldn't have come up with a better argument against it if I tried. Bounded accuracy, to me, represents a system that destroys a core fundamental part of D&D. Which is definitionally not what you want in a system that is supposed to be about being as D&D as it is possible to be.

Kurald Galain

2013-05-21, 09:11 AM

Sounds like I couldn't have come up with a better argument against it if I tried. Bounded accuracy, to me, represents a system that destroys a core fundamental part of D&D. Which is definitionally not what you want in a system that is supposed to be about being as D&D as it is possible to be.

Very true. Bounded Acc would fit reasonably well in a gritty / realistic RPG, where there are simply limits to how good you can realistically be as a human (e.g. Call of Chtulhu traditionally does use a 1-100 scale of BA), or in a parody / slapstick RPG, where the whole point is that everybody has a high chance of failing at everything (e.g. Paranoia traditionally uses a mechanic that makes even highly trained clones likely to mess up).

SiuiS

2013-05-21, 09:58 AM

So you're saying there's no level of competency between "I have no idea what that is" and "I'm already an expert"? And the mechanical difference is going to be fail vs. succeed, right?

No, there's no level of difference between "I can do this" and "Dayum, I can do this in my sleep".

ahahaha

*wipes tear from eye* wow that's great. There actually are intelligent people out there who honestly believe WotC is going to release more high level material beyond maybe some half-baked rules for getting an army.

I'm sorry, but your optimism astounds me.

I'm still optimistic :smallconfused:
There's an easily inferable system which handles the specific nature of all grievances. The question is whether or not it is just wishful thinking that they are using it. Benefit of the doubt and all.

I feel like I am going to have my mind changed for me very quickly if I say this, but...

I just looked at what bounded accuracy is, and I think it's a really good idea. It balances the game world, allows the players to take greater risks, and makes designing monsters much easier.

Now, I think this is a good idea, within the bounds of Dnd, which I kind of dislike anyway. I disagree with the hitpoints system altogether, but for Dnd sets out to do, I think bounded accuracy was a great idea. I always hated keeping track of peoples' massive attack bonuses anyway.

I agree completely. I think the biggest complaints are
1) it may be a working system, but it's not a D&D system
2) it may work in theory, but the practice is terrible (but see #1)

Most of the "this doesn't work what were they thinking!" is wrong, in that the system does exactly what it says it does. It just isn't satisfying.

Ozfer

2013-05-21, 10:00 AM

Dislike D&D, like bounded accuracy.

Sounds like I couldn't have come up with a better argument against it if I tried. Bounded accuracy, to me, represents a system that destroys a core fundamental part of D&D. Which is definitionally not what you want in a system that is supposed to be about being as D&D as it is possible to be.

Fair enough :). I still think it makes Dnd more fun for the players, since they can fight monsters that are stronger with them without it being literally, mathematically impossible, but if you want a system that follows the same principals as previous iterations, I can see why you would dislike it.

I just hope people remember that sometimes, a systems core principles have to evolve a little to keep up with the times. Dnd is actually one of the most outdated commercially popular system that I know of.

Seerow

2013-05-21, 10:03 AM

Fair enough :). I still think it makes Dnd more fun for the players, since they can fight monsters that are stronger with them without it being literally, mathematically impossible, but if you want a system that follows the same principals as previous iterations, I can see why you would dislike it.

I just hope people remember that sometimes, a systems core principles have to evolve a little to keep up with the times. Dnd is actually one of the most outdated commercially popular system that I know of.

Evolving is one thing. I don't think the core conceit of "High level guys are immeasurably better than low level guys" is an outdated philosophy that needs to go. I see no reason why a group of level 1, or even 5 or 10 people should even be on the radar to a level 20 demon lord, or god, much less be meaningfully threatened by them.

1337 b4k4

2013-05-21, 10:09 AM

Bounded Acc would fit reasonably well in a gritty / realistic RPG, where there are simply limits to how good you can realistically be as a human (e.g. Call of Chtulhu traditionally does use a 1-100 scale of BA), or in a parody / slapstick RPG, where the whole point is that everybody has a high chance of failing at everything (e.g. Paranoia traditionally uses a mechanic that makes even highly trained clones likely to mess up).

I think the real problem is the combining of bounded accuracy in combat with bounded accuracy in skills. This all flows from WotCs insistence that 1d20 be used to resolve EVERYTHING. If skills and checks were resolved using a different system than D&D combat, I think both could have a form of bounded accuracy without feeling slapstick.

I also wonder if it might be better of WotC heavily pushed the idea of "failing forward" to the DMs. Rather than thinking of skills as binary pass fail things, they should heavily encourage DMs to use failures as "meta-game" resources that come into play later. Rather than Conan v Tiny Tim being Tiny Tim outwrestled Conan, Conan still won, but the failure means something like "Tiny Tim is a cousin to the sherrif, who is overly protective of his crippled cousin and now will actively hinder the players." or failing a lock pick check doesn't mean the door doesn't open, it means you made a lot of noise doing it, or it took extra time and now there's another 1d6 goblins in the next encounter. Failing your craft roll (assuming there is one :smallwink:) means that sword or shield you made has a minor flaw with a 1 in 10 chance of breaking at an inopportune time next battle. Or maybe you made something and the local smith thinks it's too close to one of his designs and you're trying to make forgeries of his work.

Ozfer

2013-05-21, 10:12 AM

Evolving is one thing. I don't think the core conceit of "High level guys are immeasurably better than low level guys" is an outdated philosophy that needs to go. I see no reason why a group of level 1, or even 5 or 10 people should even be on the radar to a level 20 demon lord, or god, much less be meaningfully threatened by them.

Well, I guess it just comes down to opinions, because I feel that even a really awesome fighter should feel threatened by 20 untrained guys (And really, they still aren't that much of a threat). Bounded accuracy really makes use of that bothersome, 'HP is abstract' philosophy.

Again, it's all opinions at this point, as I have always hated how quickly characters go from regular people to demigods. I believe that if you are a regular person at level 1, you should a massively skilled person at level 20, but not untouchable. Being an invincible demigod should be something that is an option decided at the start of the game.

In short, my version of Dnd isn't Dnd anymore.

Seerow

2013-05-21, 10:16 AM

Well, I guess it just comes down to opinions, because I feel that even a really awesome fighter should feel threatened by 20 untrained guys (And really, they still aren't that much of a threat). Bounded accuracy really makes use of that bothersome, 'HP is abstract' philosophy.

Again, it's all opinions at this point, as I have always hated how quickly characters go from regular people to demigods. I believe that if you are a regular person at level 1, you should a massively skilled person at level 20, but not untouchable. Being an invincible demigod should be something that is an option decided at the start of the game.

In short, my version of Dnd isn't Dnd anymore.

Sounds like E6 is the game for you.

Conundrum

2013-05-21, 10:20 AM

Mm. We have differing ideas about what constitutes tacking it on. Usin a system specifically abstracted to handle these sorts of emergent quandaries, isn't (to me). Making a subsystem which is entirely new and thus doesn't jive with the aesthetic of the game or it's mechanics (which is what would have to happen to add it on but be different from skills or feats) is, in my etsimation, tacking it on.

Using a system abstracted to represent a series of adventuring-related tasks like jumping, swimming, searching etc. in order to represent crafting feels like tacking it on, to me.

Making a subsystem specifically abstracted to handle crafting doesn't.

Saying it doesn't "jive with the aesthetic or mechanics" is assuming that feats and skills are a necessary, iconic part of D&D - which WotC have proven they feel isn't the case by making them optional, and other editions have proven by not having them.

After all, I feel like if the internet was around like this when they were designing the 3e skill system, people would have had a similar argument. "Why come up with an entirely new subsystem to represent this? It's nothing like anything else in the game!"

Water_Bear

2013-05-21, 10:25 AM

Seeing as WotC seems to hate level-scaling and high level play, why don't they just make a Basic game? Put out their core rules as levels 1-4, keep that nice neat Bounded Accuracy / pickup-and-play feel they like, then make a new book with additional rules for every couple levels.

Like maybe a way to show that your characters have become experts, or make their group of companions into epic heroes, or achieve mastery of your class, and cap it off with some way to become an immortal demigod. And for some reason I cannot identify, this concept seems vaguely familiar. Maybe even... Iconic.

(In all seriousness, turning one $60 book into five $60 books while inherently accommodating different playstyles (maybe put noncombat Skills/NWPs into Expert or Companion, so people interested in simpler play can avoid them) and fulfilling their promise to be modular sounds like good business sense. Plus if they actually care about "uniting the fanbase," getting OSR players back is almost as important as re-hiring us Pathfinder fans).

Ashdate

2013-05-21, 10:46 AM

I think at this point, bounded accuracy isn't going away. It's going to be as much a feature of DnD Next, as feats and prestige classes were in 3.5, as was the AEDU system was in 5e. Love it or hate it, I think it's what is going to have to carry 5e; Advantage/Disadvantage just isn't deep enough.

(The challenge is, of course, that for the people that hate bounded accuracy, there has to be something else in the system they love enough to put aside their hatred for bounded accuracy.)

obryn

2013-05-21, 10:58 AM

I think at this point, bounded accuracy isn't going away.
Yeah, I think the Rubicon was crossed on that a year ago. Everything else in the system hinges on it at this point.

While the implementation might end up terrible, it's at least trying to do something different in D&D. I can applaud that, at least.

-O

Rhynn

2013-05-21, 10:59 AM

In short, my version of Dnd isn't Dnd anymore.

Psst. Check out my sig. :smallwink: Great games that just might be your version of D&D.

Ozfer

2013-05-21, 11:38 AM

Psst. Check out my sig. :smallwink: Great games that just might be your version of D&D.

Thanks, but I just dislike DnD in general. Despite it being the only system I currently play :smallannoyed:. Sometimes I think the only reason Dnd is popular at all is convenience (It being the only RPG widely available in stores).

Kurald Galain

2013-05-21, 11:47 AM

I think at this point, bounded accuracy isn't going away. It's going to be as much a feature of DnD Next, as feats and prestige classes were in 3.5, as was the AEDU system was in 5e. Love it or hate it, I think it's what is going to have to carry 5e; Advantage/Disadvantage just isn't deep enough.

You're probably right, but there's still a difference between the principle of bounded acc, and its current implementation in 5E. First, I think it could be improved by making the modifiers substantially bigger. And second, it was primarily intended for combat, so it is not a given that the same logic should apply to skills.

Oracle_Hunter

2013-05-21, 11:54 AM

Thanks, but I just dislike DnD in general. Despite it being the only system I currently play :smallannoyed:. Sometimes I think the only reason Dnd is popular at all is convenience (It being the only RPG widely available in stores).
Well hell, have you tried getting an Indie RPG off the Internet? There are cheap-to-play and free-to-play RPGs everywhere these days. Most are well-designed enough that even a total RPG novice can learn to play and run them within a session or two.

There's even a thread about 'em on this very forum. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=283016)

Nobody should feel compelled to pay a game they dislike in this day and age. It's not the 90s anymore :smallsmile:

GutterFace

2013-05-21, 11:56 AM

I don't think WoTC is thinking (or thought) that 5.0 would be compared to other versions.

look at the vast leap between 2.0 > 3.5 > and 4.0

each time a new version comes out we spend weeks going over everything and finding out what shakes lose.

I think they wanted a new version they could expand upon. if you spend 5 minutes looking up "handbooks" for 3.5 it's all shenanigans. game/world breaking jive or super dipping and feat juggling.

this 5.0 from the baseline looks far easier for new people to pick up and learn. I remember i started with 3.0, and everything after 3.5 is scary and nonsensical compared to what i learned on and loved. but im willing to give it a chance. if i dont like it (like 4.0), ill just go back to 3.5

Morty

2013-05-21, 11:58 AM

I think that keeping a tighter check on the numbers is a good idea, even in D&D. Number inflation is a dangerous thing - it's the reason why AC is so useless in 3e, for instance. But WotC seems to have adopted a very restrictive model of bounded accuracy and decided to stick to it come hell or high water.

Even that might not be that much of a problem if advancement and power were represented by non-numerical means. Which they are... if you're a spellcaster. Otherwise, tough luck. And then there's always the whole issue of Asmodeus, Lord of the Nine Hells, being convinced by the village idiot to drop the whole "conquer the Material Plane and turn it into the tenth layer of Baator" idea.

Ozfer

2013-05-21, 12:10 PM

Well hell, have you tried getting an Indie RPG off the Internet? There are cheap-to-play and free-to-play RPGs everywhere these days. Most are well-designed enough that even a total RPG novice can learn to play and run them within a session or two.

There's even a thread about 'em on this very forum. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=283016)

Nobody should feel compelled to pay a game they dislike in this day and age. It's not the 90s anymore :smallsmile:

Hehe, thanks for that too :). The reason I still play Dnd is that it's easier for casual gamers to get into it, and is still fun for me, despite it's flaws. I own a copy of The Burning Wheel, and I've played one or two sessions of that. I also have FATE core, but haven't had a chance to play yet.

Ozfer

2013-05-21, 12:12 PM

I don't think WoTC is thinking

For the most part, I completely agree :smallbiggrin:.

Oracle_Hunter

2013-05-21, 12:17 PM

Hehe, thanks for that too :). The reason I still play Dnd is that it's easier for casual gamers to get into it, and is still fun for me, despite it's flaws.
To be honest, if I was running a casual game I'd run something a lot less rules-intensive than D&D. For example, The Drifter's Escape (http://swingpad.com/dustyboots/wordpress/?page_id=250) is quick to set up, fast to play, and extremely satisfying. I wouldn't use it for a campaign, of course, but if I had a group of players over and we decided to play a RPG I'd rather whip up a session of that than try to piece together an entire D&D adventure in an hour or less.

obryn

2013-05-21, 12:22 PM

Hehe, thanks for that too :). The reason I still play Dnd is that it's easier for casual gamers to get into it, and is still fun for me, despite it's flaws. I own a copy of The Burning Wheel, and I've played one or two sessions of that. I also have FATE core, but haven't had a chance to play yet.
Yeah, FATE Core looks outstanding. The final PDF from the kickstarter is gorgeous, and I can't wait to get my hands on the hardcover version. (Or, even moreso, the hardcover Toolkit I'm getting, too.) Honestly, if you put a cyborg kung-fu gorilla on a cover, I'm pretty well happy no matter what.

I think D&D Next could do worse than implement some of the ideas. I already mentioned that I think something Aspect-like could work very nicely for D&D Next's Skills, and that something like Zones would be much better for Theater-of-the-Mind combat than an imaginary grid.

Burning Wheel ... I like it in theory, but it's too rules-y for me and my table. (I checked out Torchbearer, and it's much the same.) It requires more, rules-wise, out of the players than most games. I have a copy of Burning Empires, too, but frankly the whole thing makes my head spin.

If you like the ideas of D&D but not their implementation, check out Dungeon World (http://book.dwgazetteer.com/). It's likewise an easy game for new players to get into. It plays a whole lot like I thought D&D was supposed to play back when I was a kid.

-O

Ashdate

2013-05-21, 12:38 PM

You're probably right, but there's still a difference between the principle of bounded acc, and its current implementation in 5E. First, I think it could be improved by making the modifiers substantially bigger. And second, it was primarily intended for combat, so it is not a given that the same logic should apply to skills.

I think you're right, but I'm not sure such aims (bigger modifiers, using a different resolution mechanic for skills) necessarily jive with some of their design goals.

The bounded accuracy problem in combat - I think - is going to produce some edge cases, and I think we'll probably just have to accept it. If an orc is supposed to be "threatening" to a level 1 character and a level 10 character, then a black dragon may end up being threatening to a level 10 and a level 20 character.

Skills are going to work on rolling a d20; the question is how exactly that will work. I don't expect that anything complicated would be adopted (the one I suggested in the previous thread somewhere probably would fail a simplicity test). I highly doubt they'll add anything resembling a scaling mechanic to prevent the commoner from out-arm-wrestling Conan 10% of the time (or whatever the % is currently). My suspicion is that it's really going to come down to the static modifier.

My tentative suggestions to the problems you outlined above:

7) "Craft" skills: remove them. Allow backgrounds to cover these things; players should be adventurers first, and blacksmiths second.

8) Skills: 'Training' gives a flat +5 bonus. Skill improvement bonus currently found at level 7, 12, and 17 can either train a new skill, or give an existing skill you have trained another +5. Thus a level 12 character could have +20 to a particular skill (I would decrease all the DCs in the DMG by 5 as well, but the point is more to allow higher level characters to have a substantial bonus).

9) Saving Throws: there should be some sort of slowly-scaling defensive bonus. Will it stop the level 10 Black Dragon from somewhat reliably scaring the level 25 fighter? No. I would suggest that feats or fighter options could "fix" that problem should a player decide to. But ensuring that a level 20 character can naturally be fearless in the face of a level 10 dragon is probably not going to happen (and I'm not sure if it should happen). But those are numbers that can be played with.

10) Scaling levels to-not-scaling: I think this is simply going to be an unavoidable part of the design. That said, they could take some measures to make high level characters "better". For example, they should bring back "magic weapon" requirements, similar to 3.5e (i.e. a magic weapon is a magic weapon, whether it's +1 or +4). If you can equip an army of commoners with magic bows, I don't really have a problem if they have a decent shot at taking a high-level threat down. This couldn't be the only fix, but the point (I think) shouldn't be to make level 20 characters invincible to level 1 characters, just "better".

11) I think if the DM decides that a task or monster should be "easy", rather than giving the character advantage, they should just announce "you win". This should be a DMG issue rather than a mathematical one (keeping in mind that I favour a higher bonus to trained skills than is currently in the playtest).

12) I favour rules that makes DMing easier. A page 42 is worth much more to me than 42 tables that offer specific DCs for specific situations/hazards.

13) They shouldn't. Monsters following PC rules simply adds DM overhead, and that should be discouraged.

14) CHOCOLATE (chocolate is 4e right?)

Kurald Galain

2013-05-21, 12:41 PM

13) They shouldn't. Monsters following PC rules simply adds DM overhead, and that should be discouraged.
I find that monsters being created by the same rules as PCs adds to DM overhead, but monsters playing by the same rules as PCs reduces DM overhead.

14) CHOCOLATE (chocolate is 4e right?)
...nope! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106111)

Ashdate

2013-05-21, 12:52 PM

I find that monsters being created by the same rules as PCs adds to DM overhead, but monsters playing by the same rules as PCs reduces DM overhead.

Oh yeah, to be clear I don't have a problem with monsters rolling d20s and having hit points and stuff, just that creating them shouldn't be a labour intensive process. Something much closer to 4e than 3.5.

...nope! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106111)

:smallfurious: CHOOOOOCCOOOOLLLLLATTE!

Jacob.Tyr

2013-05-21, 12:59 PM

When I first started playing RPGs I ignored crafting. Granted, I started with console games before I got into PnP. As things have progressed, however, I've realized that I really do like crafting as an option. In MMOs you actually have to take the time and invest in your craft, which I think makes abundant sense. I honestly can't really stand MMOs that have "tacked on" crafting systems anymore(read: all of them that weren't SW:G back in the day).

I don't know why crafting couldn't be a thing in Next, it's been pretty big in previous games. Not necessarily Profession(chef) or Craft(Basket weaving), but from magic weapons to golems to castles it's been a consistent option in my DnD experience. And, honestly, if your character doesn't have a profession or a craft how exactly did they survive to level one? I'm sure at some point in their past they had to work, maybe with Profession(Stable boy) while going to wizarding school to pay for ink and books.

I'm of the opinion that every background should have some sort of sensible craft or profession or whatever you'd like to call it. And I also think it should just be a set bonus to a check that lets you make enough money for food while in town, or maybe cobble together an okay sword in your spare time while in town. Not a great one, but one that would probably be monetarily beneficial to make after material and time expenditures.

Aaandddd, if you want your character to be a blacksmith or master baker or whatever, they stop adventuring and wind up taking some levels in Expert(or some NPC class that actually gets a bonus to it's profession/craft skill checks). Seriously, if you are an adventurer you aren't honing your craft all that often and definitely not going to become some master blacksmith when you treat it as an occasional hobby during down time.

You quit your day job, as it were.

Kurald Galain

2013-05-21, 01:02 PM

Oh yeah, to be clear I don't have a problem with monsters rolling d20s and having hit points and stuff, just that creating them shouldn't be a labour intensive process. Something much closer to 4e than 3.5.

That is key, though. As far as I can tell, the people arguing for "monsters should use PC rules" aren't suggesting that monsters should follow the elaborate and overly long character creation process from 3E.

Rather, they are suggesting e.g. that a monster with a longsword should do the same damage as a PC with a longsword (1d8 + 2-6 points of strength mod), that a monster's hit points are on the same scale as a PC's (clearly not the case in 4E), and that a monster using a ranged flame attack simply uses the PCs' fireball spell (1d6 per level, save for half). This is because they find it more convenient, both for players and DMs, to just memorize one fireball ability instead of writing a different-but-similar range flame attack for every monster that needs one.

For instance, in 2E I would design custom monsters simply like this "Blazing Skeleton: fighter 5, daggers 1d4+3/1d4+3, fireball 1/d, gaseous form 1/d, half damage from slash/pierce". That's all, and I'll bet that it would anyone familiar with that system only seconds to figure out exactly what this critter does. That I find very convenient.

Jacob.Tyr

2013-05-21, 01:04 PM

Sums up my thoughts on the playtest in a nutshell.

Y'know, when I read the first packet I thought "This looks like a good base... things aren't as horribly unbalanced as they could be. I wonder what they'll do to make it interesting." And then it never got interesting, and somehow manages to get more and more boring.

But hey, thanks to following these threads I finally grabbed a copy of GURPS, and I'm excited to try it out.

Jacob.Tyr

2013-05-21, 01:11 PM

I find that monsters being created by the same rules as PCs adds to DM overhead, but monsters playing by the same rules as PCs reduces DM overhead.

I'll agree with this, why reinvent the wheel every time you need something to shoot fire?(Playing off your example below)

Ashdate

2013-05-21, 01:19 PM

Rather, they are suggesting e.g. that a monster with a longsword should do the same damage as a PC with a longsword (1d8 + 2-6 points of strength mod), that a monster's hit points are on the same scale as a PC's (clearly not the case in 4E), and that a monster using a ranged flame attack simply uses the PCs' fireball spell (1d6 per level, save for half). This is because they find it more convenient, both for players and DMs, to just memorize one fireball ability instead of writing a different-but-similar range flame attack for every monster that needs one.

With bounded accuracy, I don't really have a problem with this.

That said I wouldn't necessarily marry my system to it. It's one thing if the game is just longswords and fireballs; it's another if you expect there to be a dozen weapons and hundreds of spells. Most players aren't going to care if you're rolling a d8 instead of a d6 with a shortsword against their character, as long as the attack hits AC and does an amount of damage that's reasonably matched to their level. Similarly, while there's nothing wrong with emulating a Wizard's Magic Missile attack with an enemy wizard, I don't have a problem if the DM decides that this wizard knows some spell that kind of looks like Gust of Wind, but deals 2d6 rather than 2d10 (or 3d12 rather than 3d10). If they DM wants to pull stuff straight out of the PHB, go for it, but if they just want to improvise an attack or spell, I think that should be a reasonable option too (within boundaries of course, as outlined on a page 42-esq table).

Don't forget that 4e also removed some overhead by removing the core stats (str, dex, etc.) from to hit and damage, and not tying defenses to armour, which I think was really smart. People talk about the powers, but there was a lot more going on that made them easy to design for.

Saph

2013-05-21, 01:25 PM

NoldorForce

2013-05-21, 01:28 PM

NoldorForce

2013-05-21, 01:35 PM

Seconded, definitely. This is a much better way of doing it than having a monster's longsword attack work completely differently from an adventurer's longsword attack, and it's really annoying when opponents have 5x to 10x as many hit points as PCs for no very discernable reason. (It always reminds me of those enemy-then-ally NPCs in CRPGs: you fight them as an enemy boss and they're a challenge for the whole party, then they join your party and suddenly lose 90% of their hitpoints, nearly all of their special attacks, and everything else that made them threatening in the first place.)How would you run a boss encounter, then? 3.x single-monster encounters tended to fall prey to the workings of the action economy, so much so that I remember someone referring to this as the Ackbar Strategy.
We've got to give those fighters more time. Concentrate all fire on that Super Star Destroyer.

Meeki

2013-05-21, 01:39 PM

Y'know, when I read the first packet I thought "This looks like a good base... things aren't as horribly unbalanced as they could be. I wonder what they'll do to make it interesting." And then it never got interesting, and somehow manages to get more and more boring.

How so?

This edition feels very similar to 3.x. Is 3.x boring to you too?

On the topic of Bounded Accuracy: I support this system, however the upper and lower bounds need to be a bit further apart, IMO. I feel that epic level DC's and monsters are too easy to hit with low level characters. It seems almost too mundane that low levels can achieve feats of "whatever" that high level characters can just at less frequency. I'd like a bit of a divide where high level characters are the only ones that can do X or defeat X and very low-level characters have no chance.

Kurald Galain

2013-05-21, 01:46 PM

That said I wouldn't necessarily marry my system to it. It's one thing if the game is just longswords and fireballs; it's another if you expect there to be a dozen weapons and hundreds of spells.
If you're going to have monster statblocks anyway, nothing is stopping you from copying the default text of Magic Missile or Gust of Wind into that statblock whenever needed.

Most players aren't going to care if you're rolling a d8 instead of a d6 with a shortsword against their character, as long as the attack hits AC and does an amount of damage that's reasonably matched to their level.
Not exactly. This is precisely one of those issues of "rules for consistency, balance is up to the DM" and "rules for balance, consistency is up to the DM". Fans of the latter aren't going to care, and it's pretty clear that you are in that group. Fans of the former are going to care.

And here's the thing: you can easily please both groups. Because nobody wants twenty different abilities that are similar-but-not-identical to Fireball. Group one wants them all to be the same, and group two wants their full text printed in the statblock for each monster that uses them. The key lies in realizing that this is not contradictory.

You may not be selecting feats or such, but you're still setting up a collection of derived stats - and this in and of itself is where a lot of complication comes from!
The key to this approach is to avoid derived stats. This is not about 3E-versus-4E; there is no particular reason why a Fireball's save DC would have to depend on its spell level and its caster's intelligence. Indeed, in 2E it didn't: everything derives only from level (and that is the same in 4E, where you would have to look up the appropriate damage for a monster of such-and-such level).

Saph

2013-05-21, 01:48 PM

How would you run a boss encounter, then?

There are dozens of ways, but the most common is to (a) have the bad guy use bodyguards/footsoldiers, (b) have the bad guy be several levels above the party, or (c) some combination of both.

The giant-sack-o-hit-points model is a workable way to do a boss, but it's not the only way, and there's no good reason to limit yourself to nothing else.

Jacob.Tyr

2013-05-21, 02:01 PM

How so?
This edition feels very similar to 3.x. Is 3.x boring to you too?

I think I can say that I liked 3.x theoretically. I really enjoyed all of the options and abilities and things I could make characters do. Of course it had the downfall of serious balance problems and character traps going against it.

So far it's a slightly less unbalanced 3.X, without any really fun or interesting choices. I would say that this might just be due to a lack of splat books or modules, but my first read of just 4e's phb didn't give me this reaction. It was balanced, and everyone had a few interesting options in chargen with a few more choices to be made at each level. This, I thought, was a good design.

(I am not going to say any more on 4e, we all know that some of you hate x, y, and z about it, and others have a, b, and c reasons for why your reasons are wrong, and some of their reasons for why your reasons are wrong are wrong and some for why you're right are right).

NoldorForce

2013-05-21, 02:02 PM

Saph

2013-05-21, 02:06 PM

My point was that having a single enemy for your boss encounter is a common and expected way to do it, and yet 3.x is rather poor at it.

Sez you. I've been running boss battles in 3.5 for years and it works just fine, thank you very much. :smalltongue:

The vast majority of RPG systems manage boss battles without needing huge hit point numbers. Having enemies with vastly inflated HP totals is common in CPRGs and MMORPGs, but it's the exception to the rule in tabletop games.

ImperiousLeader

2013-05-21, 02:19 PM

There are dozens of ways, but the most common is to (a) have the bad guy use bodyguards/footsoldiers, (b) have the bad guy be several levels above the party, or (c) some combination of both.

The giant-sack-o-hit-points model is a workable way to do a boss, but it's not the only way, and there's no good reason to limit yourself to nothing else.

Henchmen works, but what about Dragons and Beholders? Not all of them would have followers, and they should still be good encounters.

As for levels ... eh, it still doesn't fix action economy, and while bounded accuracy means an above-level encounter won't screw with the PCs ability to hit the target, I don't think just giving a Dragon more hp and damage makes it an interesting fight.

I was just reading the Angry DM's model for Boss Monsters (http://angrydm.com/2010/04/the-dd-boss-fight-part-1/) and it's a good idea. But it's explicitly using non-PC tech, which I'm hearing a lot of grumbles about. Personally, I like it, because I want to challenge the players and design fun combats, and boss monsters like this do that. Whether or not a PC can do it is not one of my pressing concerns.

Saph

2013-05-21, 02:30 PM

Henchmen works, but what about Dragons and Beholders? Not all of them would have followers, and they should still be good encounters.

Dragons are one type of monster where it does make sense to give them a ton of hit points, because they're a giant 50-ton lizard. The party are going to expect them to take a hell of a beating before going down. (Just make sure you avoid the problems listed in that Angry DM article – you don't want the fight to become a slow grind against the dragon's mammoth HP total while the dragon just sits there and attacks the PCs ineffectively round after round.)

Beholders work best as a different type of boss altogether – the extreme glass cannon type. The party can probably kill it in a single round, but the beholder can kill the party almost as fast in return and their antimagic eye is a massive game-changer. Every beholder fight I've seen has been very quick and very lethal, usually ending after only a round or two with the beholder and one or two party members dead. You can't overuse these types of battles for obvious reasons, but they make for very exciting adrenaline spikes and they ensure that the players will be genuinely scared of them.

theNater

2013-05-21, 03:01 PM

If you're going to have monster statblocks anyway, nothing is stopping you from copying the default text of Magic Missile or Gust of Wind into that statblock whenever needed.
If we put the full text of the spell in the statblock, then the DM overhead for using premade monsters is pretty much the same either way.

On the other hand, when a DM is putting together a monster, insistence on standardized spells either means that the DM only uses spells already known or searching through the spell lists looking for the right one(assuming one even exists). Unless the system has a pretty small number of spells, that's going to be a lot of overhead.

Meeki

2013-05-21, 03:08 PM

So far it's a slightly less unbalanced 3.X, without any really fun or interesting choices.

Understandable. I think if it is too simple and yet too much like 3.x there will be a core of players that won't even bother to play. I'm also hoping that many more options will be in the final release. I just wondered why you found it boring. Also we have the same avatar so naturally I had to ask.

4e seemed different enough to keep people interested in waiting to see what's next. I'm not sure 5e will do the same, although I'll probably still play it!

Kornaki

2013-05-21, 03:46 PM

I just wanted to pop in and recommend a thread title of "What the craft happened to my skills?"

Axinian

2013-05-21, 03:55 PM

I don't think WoTC is thinking (or thought) that 5.0 would be compared to other versions.

And yet they clearly stated that they want it to evoke the best things of previous editions, at very least the feel of those versions. Not sure how they wouldn't think it would be compared to other editions when they themselves invited the comparison.

jindra34

2013-05-21, 04:14 PM

My opinion? Needs to go back through the development cycle 4 or 5 more times. This doesn't really seem to me (or my group) to even be the framework for a complete game, much less a complete, good playable game. But then maybe we have a wee bit high standards.

1337 b4k4

2013-05-21, 04:27 PM

This doesn't really seem to me (or my group) to even be the framework for a complete game, much less a complete, good playable game. But then maybe we have a wee bit high standards.

Now this is just silly. I can certainly buy that you don't think what they've done is good or high quality, but I don't see how you can say that what they have isn't a framework for a complete game. What do you think is missing?

jindra34

2013-05-21, 04:49 PM

Now this is just silly. I can certainly buy that you don't think what they've done is good or high quality, but I don't see how you can say that what they have isn't a framework for a complete game. What do you think is missing?

Not really sure, its just how the format and materials feel. It might be do to the fact that they are including things well past the point where the rules suggest tapering off the game, and leaving them mostly empty.

PairO'Dice Lost

2013-05-21, 05:52 PM

It occurs to me that 5e's skill system is basically a hybrid of 3e/4e skills and 2e proficiencies, and all of the problems people have with it (no background skills, bad opposed check math, etc.) stem from the clash between the 3e/4e part and bounded accuracy; also, the fluffy abilities in backgrounds (which resemble 2e proficiencies) seem to be popular and fighters need more Nice Things. Why not just go with proficiencies all the way?

Here's my proposal:
You have weapon proficiencies which cover equipment (Swords, Heavy Armor) and fighting styles (Wrestling, Two-Weapon Fighting), and nonweapon proficiencies which cover professions (Blacksmith, Sailor) and general activities (Burglary, Investigation, etc.), standard 2e so far. They come in three grades, Training, Focus, and Specialization (and a fourth untrained grade, of course). Each grade gives a cumulative +2 bonus on relevant checks (and damage rolls, for weapon proficiencies), some sort of cool and useful ability that you don't need to roll for (like how the Healer specialty just lets you make X potions, no check required), gives you advantage on opposed checks with opponents with one grade less proficiency, and imposes disadvantage on your opponent if they have two grades less proficiency than you do.

To use the Conan vs. Tiny Tim example, assuming everyone involved has the same Str modifier, a character with Specialized Wrestling has a ~96% chance of success arm-wrestling a character with untrained Wrestling (1d20+Str+6 with advantage vs. 1d20+Str with disadvantage), a ~92% chace against a character with Trained Wrestling (1d20+Str+6 with advantage vs. 1d20+Str+2 with disadvantage), a ~74% chance of success against a character with Focused Wrestling (1d20+Str+6 with advantage vs. 1d20+Str+4), and a ~50% chance of success against another character with Specialized Wrestling (1d20+Str+6 vs. 1d20+Str+6). This ensures that a character highly trained in something rarely loses to an amateur without making a single rank of proficiency give a character a massive advantage over an untrained character, and it formalizes the vague "the DM should grant advantage and/or apply disadvantage when opponents are much weaker" guidelines. You can fiddle with the math to give +3/+2/+1 if you want a single rank to have more impact or give +3/+3/+3 if you want bigger bonuses or whatever, but that's the general idea.

Regarding the abilities at each rank, this is where the background skills and maneuvers come into play. If you want to be able to craft things, you might make the following nonweapon proficiency:

Crafting
Requirement: Choose a type of crafting, such as smithing, carpentry, or sculpture. This proficiency applies to crafting of the chosen sort.
Trained: As long as you have access to appropriate tools, materials, and facilities, you may craft items appropriate to your profession. You require one week and half the price in raw materials to craft a Medium-size object (one between 4 and 8 feet wide in its largest dimension) of moderate complexity. Double this time for each doubling in size, if the item is particularly intricate or complicated, and if the item is particularly dense or bulky; halve the time for each halving in size, if the item is particularly plain or simple, and if the item is particularly light or streamlined. Repairing items takes one-half the normal construction time and one-quarter the item's price in raw materials.
Focused: You no longer require access to the appropriate tools, materials, and facilities. As long as you have access to two of the three, you may improvise and/or scrounge up the missing component with 1d6*10 minutes' work as long as you have access to reasonable substitutes. At the DM's discretion, particularly complex resources (a working forge, a complete loom, rare metals) may take longer or might be impossible to create or procure. If you do have access to all three, your total crafting time is halved.
Specialized: You may craft items of superior workmanship. [Insert rules for working with whatever masterwork system 5e might have here.]
If you want to give martial characters more options, you might make the following weapon proficiency:

Mauls
Requirement: You must be wielding a heavy, blunt weapon to use this proficiency.
Trained: Your attacks deal double their base weapon damage (and damage from combat expertise or sneak attack, if applicable) to objects and constructs.
Focused: When you attack a single opponent on your turn, if you deal damage your opponent must make a Str save or fall prone. When you attack multiple opponents on your turn, each opponent must make a Str save or be pushed back 5 feet.
Specialized: When you successfully damage a construct or knock down or push a creature with the Focused ability of this proficiency, your target must make a Con save or be slowed for 1 round.
Or something like that, you get the idea.

For role-protection purposes, Specialization in nonweapon proficiencies might be limited to skillmonkey classes and Specialization in weapon proficiencies might be limited to martial classes (or limit Specialization to the rogue and fighter and Focused to skillmonkey and martial classes, depending on how much one wants to make them "the skills class" and "the weapons class" and how much role-crossing casters should be able to do). Then the exact system of gaining proficiencies, the level at which new ranks can be gained, and so forth can be tweaked as desired.

With nonweapon proficiencies taking the place of skills and weapon proficiencies basically taking the place of feats and some maneuvers, feats can be reserved for PrCs or themes or whatever they end up being called, so a character never has to choose between "get marginally better at swording things" and "take a prestige class." It also more clearly delineates the difference between feats (class-specific mostly-vertical advancement) and proficiencies (class-agnostic mostly-horizontal advancement) the way 4e clearly differentiated between powers (active, limited abilities) and feats (passive, constant abilities) instead of jumbling everything together like 3e did, with Power Attack, Skill Focus, and Quicken Spell drawing from the same resource pool.
Thoughts?

Seerow

2013-05-21, 06:02 PM

POD: That actually looks remarkably like a skill system I've been working on, except I use 7 ranks instead of 3, and didn't roll everything ever into it (just using for non-combat skills).

Icewraith

2013-05-21, 07:18 PM

Only downside to the weapon/nonweapon proficiency idea is bloat. With all the various things that people will come up for fighters to do with a sword, the nonweapon proficiency system will put the fighter back where he was in 3-3.5 with an ever-expanding list of feats to fill his limited feat slots, a certain percentage of which are too good not to take.

On the non-combat side at least, if the skill analogues are well chosen and cover most of the things a player would want to use them for, I can see bloat not being a problem. I wouldn't mind seeing most "generic" skills (not spellcraft, but certainly the perception/spot analogue) available to all classes up to one level of whatever the maximum will be, with the maximum level being restricted to fighting, skillmonkey, or spellcaster archetypal classes when appropriate. This solves a good chunk of the "well did you put any cross-class ranks in search?" problem that 3.5 had as long as there are enough available points/ranks/whatever to get players more than the minimum number of proficiencies to operate.

PairO'Dice Lost

2013-05-21, 07:31 PM

POD: That actually looks remarkably like a skill system I've been working on, except I use 7 ranks instead of 3, and didn't roll everything ever into it (just using for non-combat skills).

Only downside to the weapon/nonweapon proficiency idea is bloat. With all the various things that people will come up for fighters to do with a sword, the nonweapon proficiency system will put the fighter back where he was in 3-3.5 with an ever-expanding list of feats to fill his limited feat slots, a certain percentage of which are too good not to take.

The combining-everything-ever part is there mostly because current 5e feats are crap, so being able to spend X points each level on weapon proficiencies gives people more Nice Things than spending a feat every other level or getting a maneuver every 3-4 levels, it's not integral to the concept.

Falling

2013-05-21, 08:04 PM

All we can hope for is that there will be Craft(Underwater Basket Weaving). :smalltongue:

But really, I HOPE Next will do good, I really do, I just don't think it will. Seems to be dividing fans more than uniting them, to me. Wonder if we'll get a bunch of 5e players banding together, like how 4e players split from the 3.5 players. One of these days I'm going to have to investigate tabletop gamer psychology...

Conundrum

2013-05-21, 08:16 PM

And then there's always the whole issue of Asmodeus, Lord of the Nine Hells, being convinced by the village idiot to drop the whole "conquer the Material Plane and turn it into the tenth layer of Baator" idea.

This should be prevented by the Interaction rules in the latest L&L article, I think.

The key to this approach is to avoid derived stats. This is not about 3E-versus-4E; there is no particular reason why a Fireball's save DC would have to depend on its spell level and its caster's intelligence. Indeed, in 2E it didn't: everything derives only from level (and that is the same in 4E, where you would have to look up the appropriate damage for a monster of such-and-such level).

There's no indication that 5E will have PC spells scaling with only level, though. Which means that if you want the NPCs to play by the same rules, you need their stats to be derived from the same semi-complex interactions.

Personally I think having derived stats on PCs is fairly important (in D&D, anyway). If you made all PCs scale equally with level, that'd be very dull. And as soon as you introduce class-specific scaling, that DM overhead is back for monsters.

Your skeleton from earlier: what AC, saves, etc does he get from being Fighter 5? Suddenly I need to look up the Fighter table to derive all his stats, even if I do remember exactly how Fireball, etc work.

neonchameleon

2013-05-21, 08:42 PM

and it's really annoying when opponents have 5x to 10x as many hit points as PCs for no very discernable reason.

If there's no discernable reason for the monster being there or behaving the way it does, one thing is clear. Either the DM or the module writer has screwed up. But if more skilled is a justification for a lot more hit points (as it has always been in D&D), that some people are very skilled and thus have a lot more hit points than lower level PCs isn't inherently a problem. At least not unless you want to throw away the entire hit point model of every D&D edition.

If that was a dig at 4e as I suspect, a quick search of Adventure Tools shows me that 4e there were, I believe, four solos published that were of PC-ish races from levels 1-10 (not counting Dragons or Undead - but Sir Keegan from Keep on the Shadowfell should be shot alongside everything else in the keep. Those were Krayd the Butcher, a level 1 orc solo who is obviously level adjusted as monster manual orcs start at level 3 or 4 (because orcs are tougher than humans), and he has fewer HP than an orc chieftain (level 8 elite brute) or an orc bloodrager (level 7 elite brute), Sinruth the Hobgoblin from Dungeon 156 who is just bad, High Shaman Sancossug from the Forgotten Realms guide, who appears to be a clinic in how not to design monsters of any sort, Dajani the Tiefling Darkblade from Dragon 155 who I agree doesn't live up to the billing of a solo, and Thorn from Dragon 160. Which means that this is a dig against a total of four bad monsters and one with a 4e-specific approach (levelling down to make sure he could be hit and occasionally missed, then turning into a solo to keep the threat constant). Of the four genuinely bad ones, three of which were published in Dungeon magazine and one was in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting.

Moreb Benhk

2013-05-21, 09:40 PM

Excession

2013-05-21, 10:51 PM

I don't know about campaign specifics and exact stats, but my experiences of solo-fights in 4E usually revolved around blowing dailies/encounters pretty quickly followed by a fairly tedious grind of at-wills, with the solo only really becoming a threat by also slowly wearing us down with low damage abilities (and normally dragging the fight out longer with various status effects). Some of these solos were from official campaign materials (dunno the names of the campaigns).

Suffice to say, from my own experience, and what I've read on the boards, 4E 'solo monster method' does have a strong tendency towards decidedly un-epic bloat-HP battles.

Having said that, one thing I really enjoyed about solo monsters was their ability to act several times in a round. This is a great way (I think) to make solo monsters more credible, without pumping them full of HPjuice, and a way of allowing them to feel threatening without needing abilities that seriously risk 1-shotting adventurers (which also tend to be anti-climactic).

The solos in MM3, and especially Monster Vault and Monster Vault: Threats to the Nentir Vale haven't turned into bags on hit points for me. They have the right damage to threaten the party, and not so many hp that they become a grind. A fight with a White Dragon from MV for example had half the party unconscious, the the other half living by about 10 feet as the desperately spammed slow effects just managed to keep it out of the ranger's face.

Threats to the Nentir Vale takes it up another notch, by including enemies like Calastryx, a three headed adult red dragon. Three turns per round, three separate breath weapons, for when you need your PCs extra crispy. And when he hits bloodied, he sprouts a fourth head. :smalleek:

Great art too:http://community.imaginefx.com/fxpose/eric_deschampss_portfolio/images/398641/original.aspx
Damn Kobolds, looting during the fight again.

I feel it's a pity that 4e had to die just as they'd really gotten good at monster design, and I personally hope they can keep it up in Next. The playtest monsters are just placeholders, right? Right?! :smallfrown:

SiuiS

2013-05-22, 12:43 AM

That is key, though. As far as I can tell, the people arguing for "monsters should use PC rules" aren't suggesting that monsters should follow the elaborate and overly long character creation process from 3E.

Rather, they are suggesting e.g. that a monster with a longsword should do the same damage as a PC with a longsword (1d8 + 2-6 points of strength mod), that a monster's hit points are on the same scale as a PC's (clearly not the case in 4E), and that a monster using a ranged flame attack simply uses the PCs' fireball spell (1d6 per level, save for half). This is because they find it more convenient, both for players and DMs, to just memorize one fireball ability instead of writing a different-but-similar range flame attack for every monster that needs one.

For instance, in 2E I would design custom monsters simply like this "Blazing Skeleton: fighter 5, daggers 1d4+3/1d4+3, fireball 1/d, gaseous form 1/d, half damage from slash/pierce". That's all, and I'll bet that it would anyone familiar with that system only seconds to figure out exactly what this critter does. That I find very convenient.

Skeleton needs hit dice and AC, but yeah. Complete monster.
Heck. Don't even need those two values, it just leaves assignment up to fiat

With bounded accuracy, I don't really have a problem with this.

That said I wouldn't necessarily marry my system to it. It's one thing if the game is just longswords and fireballs; it's another if you expect there to be a dozen weapons and hundreds of spells. Most players aren't going to care if you're rolling a d8 instead of a d6 with a shortsword against their character, as long as the attack hits AC and does an amount of damage that's reasonably matched to their level.

Until the PC loots the sword and suddenly they are doing much less damage than the original wielder. That's always the problem, I find. The balor tried by detonation. But it IS a problem people have tried to solve.

Don't forget that 4e also removed some overhead by removing the core stats (str, dex, etc.) from to hit and damage, and not tying defenses to armour, which I think was really smart. People talk about the powers, but there was a lot more going on that made them easy to design for.

Really? I thought armor was still a thing, and you definitely added an attribute to attack and damage. At least in the beginning.

Your first and second paragraphs seem to be at odds with each other. See, if a monster's damage and similar effects are determined in that manner then you're practicing exactly the sort of lengthy chargen process that PCs have. You may not be selecting feats or such, but you're still setting up a collection of derived stats - and this in and of itself is where a lot of complication comes from!

Not really. If you need a monster to deal 1d8+10 damage, just don't give them a short sword. Done.

You don't need to go through any rigamarole at all. Having the same components doesn't mean the same process. Not even with skills. Especially since you don't need to point buy or roll attributes. That +10 damage? You could look at damage, attack, and balance a clear strength score from there, without the supposed figuring strength then proficiency then class then... Etc.

And that's only if you need strength.

Similarly, noting that a monster has certain spells or effects usable every so often is as much "reinventing the wheel" as cooking up your own special ability. All it allows you to do is to hide the work, since you still have to cross-reference the effect every time it comes up (memorization is non-trivial!) and determine various derived stats like duration and save DC. If you were cooking it up in the 4E manner you'd just be figuring those out up front rather than on the back end.

Poppycock. You may as well say you need to rewrite what an attack bonus or armor class is! Fewer options means easier memorization. Especially if they are iconic, such as attack bonus, or armor class, or, I dunno, a fireball?

(As a side note, I hate seeing monster abilities that function as spells, considering what it implies about casters vs. mundanes.)

This I agree with though.

The solos in MM3, and especially Monster Vault and Monster Vault: Threats to the Nentir Vale haven't turned into bags on hit points for me. They have the right damage to threaten the party, and not so many hp that they become a grind. A fight with a White Dragon from MV for example had half the party unconscious, the the other half living by about 10 feet as the desperately spammed slow effects just managed to keep it out of the ranger's face.

Threats to the Nentir Vale takes it up another notch, by including enemies like Calastryx, a three headed adult red dragon. Three turns per round, three separate breath weapons, for when you need your PCs extra crispy. And when he hits bloodied, he sprouts a fourth head. :smalleek:

Great art too:http://community.imaginefx.com/fxpose/eric_deschampss_portfolio/images/398641/original.aspx
Damn Kobolds, looting during the fight again.

I feel it's a pity that 4e had to die just as they'd really gotten good at monster design, and I personally hope they can keep it up in Next. The playtest monsters are just placeholders, right? Right?! :smallfrown:

Aye. 4e dying is unfortunate... But heck, killing at its prime seems to be what WotC is good for.

NoldorForce

2013-05-22, 01:05 AM

Not really. If you need a monster to deal 1d8+10 damage, just don't give them a short sword. Done.

You don't need to go through any rigamarole at all. Having the same components doesn't mean the same process. Not even with skills. Especially since you don't need to point buy or roll attributes. That +10 damage? You could look at damage, attack, and balance a clear strength score from there, without the supposed figuring strength then proficiency then class then... Etc.

And that's only if you need strength.You're still constructing derived stats, just in reverse.

Poppycock. You may as well say you need to rewrite what an attack bonus or armor class is! Fewer options means easier memorization. Especially if they are iconic, such as attack bonus, or armor class, or, I dunno, a fireball?That's an invalid comparison. An attack bonus or an Armor Class is a general statistic, while a Fireball is a specific effect that happens to contain multiple statistics.

Moreb Benhk

2013-05-22, 01:15 AM

Ashdate

2013-05-22, 01:30 AM

Until the PC loots the sword and suddenly they are doing much less damage than the original wielder. That's always the problem, I find. The balor tried by detonation. But it IS a problem people have tried to solve.

Really? I thought armor was still a thing, and you definitely added an attribute to attack and damage. At least in the beginning.

Well in 4e, you'd generally never want an enemy's weapon because they were non-magical. But unless you roll all the dice in the open (and maybe even if you do), your players are not going to notice.

Enemies can have "armour" but it doesn't really affect their defenses. An enemy's base defenses are determined by their level and their role. From there, you can play with them as you see fit (perhaps you give an arcane controller mob +2 to its will defense, but -2 to their fortitude for example). Damage is similarly calculated. You can use PHB weapons and add whatever ability score you decide to give them in order to create powers, but without the inherent scaling that PCs get from magic weapons and feats, the damage of such attacks will generally be too low. 4e PCs are more accurate at hitting with their powers than monsters, so they need to compensate by dealing more damage generally.

Thus you say, "I want this creature to do about 20 damage with this attack" (there's a table of suggested damage values in the DMG, but stealing from other monsters can work too), and then maybe you make the attack 2d10+9 or 2d6+13 (or whatever). Depending on what you're trying to go for, you might modify the attack. For example, if you're going for a chain-fighting monster that has an encounter ability to tie up their enemies with their chains, you add a rider that the attack restrains the target (save ends).

The point isn't to laser-precision a power out, it's to create a cool monster that does what you describe it to do.

Of course, there's nothing stopping you from scouring the 4e Compendium for a PC power that does the effect you want it to. Sometimes I do that for inspiration! But inevitably, I have to modify the power because the damage, effect, and complexity are built on PC expectations (and I think it's easier to balance Player vs Monster than Player vs "Player"). Unless this is a monster I have plans for beyond the next 30 minutes, sweating the details is not something I'm entirely interested in doing.

Ashdate

2013-05-22, 01:36 AM

For those of you advocating fairly complete dissociation between monster stuff and PC stuff, how would you suggest Next should handle a situation like:

Baddie has sweet magic sword, with glowy coolness and firey capabilities demonstrated in combat (to pick a simple example). PC's slay baddie and get sword, and are desirous to weild it for it's glowy coolness and firey capabilities (as demosntrated by baddie)...

If it was a specific magic item (say, a flaming longsword +2), then I'd probably take the time to have the monster's stat block reflect something like a flaming longsword, in that it uses a d8 dice and deals fire damage. I would leave the +hit and +damage up to normal values for a monster of its type/level however. Perhaps give (or replace) a power that shows off the glowy coolness and firey capabilities as a sneak peak (modeled after whatever the weapon does).

This is would be a specific instance where you would want to model the weapon generally off PC expectations. But the point isn't that all monsters should be built this way, just the special ones... unless in your campaign, every monster is walking around with magic loot the PCs want I suppose.

Excession

2013-05-22, 01:40 AM

theNater

2013-05-22, 01:50 AM

Really? I thought armor was still a thing, and you definitely added an attribute to attack and damage. At least in the beginning.
PCs have armor and add a stat to their rolls, but NPCs don't. This is done so that NPCs(which a DM will usually need to build a large number of over the course of the campaign) are easier to build than PCs(which a player will usually not need to build very many of over the course of the campaign).

Not really. If you need a monster to deal 1d8+10 damage, just don't give them a short sword. Done.

You don't need to go through any rigamarole at all. Having the same components doesn't mean the same process. Not even with skills. Especially since you don't need to point buy or roll attributes. That +10 damage? You could look at damage, attack, and balance a clear strength score from there, without the supposed figuring strength then proficiency then class then... Etc.

And that's only if you need strength.
Assuming it's a humanoid monster, you can't just give it no weapon and say 1d8+10. You have to know(or look up) which weapons do 1d8, and give it one of those, which takes time. And as NoldorForce points out, determining the damage bonus and deriving strength from it isn't a significant time-saver compared to determining strength and deriving damage from it. Not giving NPCs derived stats does save time, because you can just declare the two stats independently.

Poppycock. You may as well say you need to rewrite what an attack bonus or armor class is! Fewer options means easier memorization. Especially if they are iconic, such as attack bonus, or armor class, or, I dunno, a fireball?
Fireball has come up a few times as an example of an iconic spell that everybody knows. And indeed, we all know it's 1d6 per level fire damage, with half damage on a successful save. But I'm a little curious as to how many people actually know the whole spell. In particular, how many of us can give its range in our own favored edition(without looking it up)? I can't do better than an educated guess in mine, frankly.

NoldorForce

2013-05-22, 02:07 AM

Fireball has come up a few times as an example of an iconic spell that everybody knows. And indeed, we all know it's 1d6 per level fire damage, with half damage on a successful save. But I'm a little curious as to how many people actually know the whole spell. In particular, how many of us can give its range in our own favored edition(without looking it up)? I can't do better than an educated guess in mine, frankly.Long (400' + 40'/CL) with a 20'-spread, at least in 3.x.

At this point I feel like a Cthulhu Mythos protagonist about 3.x; there is so much that I know that I cannot forget. And yet I wish to forget.

Saph

2013-05-22, 02:25 AM

If that was a dig at 4e as I suspect

General rule: if I want to specifically talk about an edition, I'll say its name. Given that I got bored with the edition wars a long time ago, you can safely assume that if I'm not name-checking 3.5 or 4e then that's not what I'm referring to.

Fireball has come up a few times as an example of an iconic spell that everybody knows. And indeed, we all know it's 1d6 per level fire damage, with half damage on a successful save. But I'm a little curious as to how many people actually know the whole spell. In particular, how many of us can give its range in our own favored edition(without looking it up)?

In PF (which is my current system), Long range (400' + 40/CL), 1d6 fire damage per level to a maximum of 10d6, 20' radius. (Though I admit I had to check the spell description to remember whether it was burst or spread – eh, doesn't make much difference :smalltongue:)

DeltaEmil

2013-05-22, 02:42 AM

In PF (which is my current system), Long range (400' + 40/CL), 1d6 fire damage per level to a maximum of 10d6, 20' radius. (Though I admit I had to check the spell description to remember whether it was burst or spread – eh, doesn't make much difference :smalltongue:)So you had to look it up.

Saph

2013-05-22, 02:46 AM

So you had to look it up.

Chose to rather than had to. Burst/spread is an almost-completely-irrelevant detail – I just happen to like trivia.

Kurald Galain

2013-05-22, 03:31 AM

Your skeleton from earlier: what AC, saves, etc does he get from being Fighter 5? Suddenly I need to look up the Fighter table to derive all his stats, even if I do remember exactly how Fireball, etc work.
That's on the DM screen, of course.

Conundrum

2013-05-22, 03:52 AM

That's on the DM screen, of course.

What, you've got the full progression of saves/AC/BAB/class features for every class on the DM screen, along with everything else that needs to be on there?

Kurald Galain

2013-05-22, 04:54 AM

What, you've got the full progression of saves/AC/BAB/class features for every class on the DM screen, along with everything else that needs to be on there?

Perhaps you should try it before repeatedly asserting that this can never work. It has only been the biggest and most popular RPG for eleven years, you know.

Tehnar

2013-05-22, 05:15 AM

Yeah its not that hard to memorize.

Good, medium, poor BaB; Good and Poor Saves; Skills

You need to know like 4 linear functions and the fact that you round down, and what goes for each class)

Example:
Fighter (Good BaB, good fortitude, d10, martial/heavy/tower, extra feats)
Wizard (poor BaB, good will, d4, simple/-/-, arcane spellcasting (Good))

I can generate simple NPCs in a matter of moments, once you get used to it you can do it on the fly.

It all depends on how much effort you want to put in. Even a lvl 15+ fully detailed NPC spellcaster doesn't take more then half an hour if you know what your are doing.

If you don't have time, a fully functional NPC can be created in under a minute, two tops.

Rhynn

2013-05-22, 05:16 AM

That's on the DM screen, of course.

Who needs a screen? :smallbiggrin: Monster THAC0 is 19 at 1 HD, 17 at 3 HD, and so on (improves by 2 every odd level). PCs start at 20, fighter THAC0 improves by 1 per 1, priest by 2 per 3, rogue by 1 per 2, and wizard by 1 per 3.

What, you've got the full progression of saves/AC/BAB/class features for every class on the DM screen, along with everything else that needs to be on there?

Yup. You can fit all armor stats, all saves, and all THAC0s on one A4 page. I have a 7-page "DM Screen" (PDF) I made myself that has every table from AD&D 2E that I could need. (In a poorly space-optimized format at that - huge whitespaces between tables.) That includes ability score tables, overland speed by terrain, cost of NPC spellcasting, and reaction roll tables. And this is a relatively complicated version of D&D.

Conundrum

2013-05-22, 05:27 AM

Perhaps you should try it before repeatedly asserting that this can never work. It has only been the biggest and most popular RPG for eleven years, you know.

If you assert that you have all that information on the DM screen, then I'm going to challenge you on it. No DM screen I've ever seen has that stuff. It's a list of common DCs for all the other things that 3.5 deems necessary to have prescriptive rules for.

I'm not saying it doesn't work, I'm saying it's a lot more effort than it needs to be. I have DMed 3.5 - not as extensively as some others here, but I'm also hardly the only one making these comments.

And, just because it's been big and successful does not mean it can't be improved.

Now, I'll thank you not to be quite so dismissive.

Yeah its not that hard to memorize.

Good, medium, poor BaB; Good and Poor Saves; Skills

You need to know like 4 linear functions and the fact that you round down, and what goes for each class)

Example:
Fighter (Good BaB, good fortitude, d10, martial/heavy/tower, extra feats)
Wizard (poor BaB, good will, d4, simple/-/-, arcane spellcasting (Good))

That's still quite a lot of information to memorise for what I (and others) feel is no mechanical benefit. And again, what happens if you want to do something that doesn't fit into that framework?

Yup. You can fit all armor stats, all saves, and all THAC0s on one A4 page. I have a 7-page "DM Screen" (PDF) I made myself that has every table from AD&D 2E that I could need. (In a poorly space-optimized format at that - huge whitespaces between tables.) That includes ability score tables, overland speed by terrain, cost of NPC spellcasting, and reaction roll tables. And this is a relatively complicated version of D&D.

I'm not sure if you're positing this as a serious response, but I was talking only about 3.x. I don't have any DMing experience with older editions and so don't feel comfortable talking as to how difficult/easy it was to create NPCs in 2E. Having said that, my understanding is that there aren't feats in 2E - which is one system that adds a lot of complexity to creating NPCs in 3.5.

SiuiS

2013-05-22, 05:55 AM

You're still constructing derived stats, just in reverse.

No, I have the ability to if I need it. It really is as simple as "I want this guy to hit for 1d8+10. Lets give him whichever weapon from memory happens to do 1d8 damage." And the strength i only if you want to unify it all. He does way more damage than he has attack bonus? "Maybe he isn't proficient."

That's an invalid comparison. An attack bonus or an Armor Class is a general statistic, while a Fireball is a specific effect that happens to contain multiple statistics.

No it is not an invalid comparison. Remember, this is about making fireball equally homogenous through the system; fireball is THE go to in game fire effect. In which case d6/level, save half, fire damage is all you need.

Red dragon, 12 HD; "Fireball, 15 squares range. Explodes in 3 square radius, lights all targets on fire. Reflex."
Blazing skeleton 3HD; Fireball, ranged touch attack +6, no save."
PC wizard; "Fireball, range 25+CL, damage = CL, 4 square radius. Reflex."
Balor, 18 HD; "fireball on death, 0 range 20 square radius. Objects in range use Fortitude or are destroyed. Reflex."

Well in 4e, you'd generally never want an enemy's weapon because they were non-magical. But unless you roll all the dice in the open (and maybe even if you do), your players are not going to notice.

No? There's a section in either MM or DMG that says monsters do have magical equipment passed a certain point, and it's taken into account as a given. I believe they wanted the level to be lower than anything the PCs have so it wasn't worth looting them, but they went so far as to spell it out for us. That means they wanted monsters using magical gear to some extent; if a 4hd ogre was counted as having a +1 club, and his treasure was a +3 club, then you were, indeed, supposed to increase his attack and damage by 2.

Or was this changed in MM 17 or DMG 9 or something~? :smallwink: :smalltongue:

Assuming it's a humanoid monster, you can't just give it no weapon and say 1d8+10. You have to know(or look up) which weapons do 1d8, and give it one of those, which takes time. And as NoldorForce points out, determining the damage bonus and deriving strength from it isn't a significant time-saver compared to determining strength and deriving damage from it. Not giving NPCs derived stats does save time, because you can just declare the two stats independently.

Assuming 3.5, yes you can. The benefits of a glutted system is that there are so many options available that you can indeed pull off bull as nobody will call you on it. Maybe he took that feat that boosts his unarmed damage? Maybe he's a monk? Maybe he's under a temporary enchantment? Maybe he has loadstones in his hands, concealed? Maybe he has a discipline maneuver?

It's also trivial, literally, to remember the single most iconic weapon in the game. A long sword does 1d8 damage. If you don't remember that then I'm sorry, but you're not educated about the topic enough to be worth listening to. Remembering a basic, groundwork fact about the and is not 'nontrivial memorization', and is not a valid argument against breaking the game down to nothing but nontrivial memorization.

Fireball has come up a few times as an example of an iconic spell that everybody knows. And indeed, we all know it's 1d6 per level fire damage, with half damage on a successful save. But I'm a little curious as to how many people actually know the whole spell. In particular, how many of us can give its range in our own favored edition(without looking it up)? I can't do better than an educated guess in mine, frankly.

One, this doesn't matter. These details aren't the important part of fireball. It's obfuscation. See my fireball thing, above.

Two, 400+(40/level) in 3.5, and in 1/2e had a clause which instructed for miss chances at extreme ranges, or precision tasks such as detonating a fireball through an arrow slit in a castle wall. It also specifically calls out as detonating on one of two conditions; either when the specified distance set by the caster is reached OR when it hits something. Enemy trolls who marched with armies often had caster backup, including charmed or dominated pixies who were given bottle of peppermint schnapps and told they were potions of fire immunity. So the wizard's precision bombing strike was usually interrupted by an invisible bodyguard.

They also had a chance of straight detonating on YOU, if you were hit while casting the spell. Not sure which book that's from.

Burning hands used to be a sheet of flame, fan shaped,which spread from your hand, not a cone. Lightning bolts would reflect off of walls unless they destroyed the wall, and you could use math to really mess some folks up. And winter wolves breathed a cone of blistering cold out to 6", and I couldn't for the life of me figure out how that was useful because I read the monster manual effort the PHB. :smallbiggrin:

obryn

2013-05-22, 07:56 AM

Baddie has sweet magic sword, with glowy coolness and firey capabilities demonstrated in combat (to pick a simple example). PC's slay baddie and get sword, and are desirous to weild it for it's glowy coolness and firey capabilities (as demosntrated by baddie)...

If it was a specific magic item (say, a flaming longsword +2), then I'd probably take the time to have the monster's stat block reflect something like a flaming longsword, in that it uses a d8 dice and deals fire damage. I would leave the +hit and +damage up to normal values for a monster of its type/level however. Perhaps give (or replace) a power that shows off the glowy coolness and firey capabilities as a sneak peak (modeled after whatever the weapon does).
I just want to say that Ashdate nailed it.

There was, in the original 4e DMG, some weird bits about how monsters'/NPCs' magic items might make a difference in attack and damage past a certain threshold ... but it, like the class templates, is really best ignored.

If a bad guy has a glowing longsword which does fire damage and has an Encounter attack which explodes for fire damage, I'd change some keywords on his main attack. Possibly I'd add some extra damage if it's thematically appropriate, but that part's optional (and likely invisible to the players, so it's not like I'm doing it to make a point). And I'd give him a fiery explosion encounter attack, making it clear it's the sword's magic. Done.

Edit:

No? There's a section in either MM or DMG that says monsters do have magical equipment passed a certain point, and it's taken into account as a given. I believe they wanted the level to be lower than anything the PCs have so it wasn't worth looting them, but they went so far as to spell it out for us. That means they wanted monsters using magical gear to some extent; if a 4hd ogre was counted as having a +1 club, and his treasure was a +3 club, then you were, indeed, supposed to increase his attack and damage by 2.

Or was this changed in MM 17 or DMG 9 or something~? :smallwink: :smalltongue:
There's nothing that says they automatically have magic items past a certain point.

There is a weird, funny little table you can use to adjust an NPC's or monster's attack/damage rolls upwards, if they have magic weapons or implements above a certain threshold. (So it's not assuming an L17 Human Blade Noble has a +3 sword; it's saying that Noble gets no math benefit from a sword of +3 or less.)

It's one of many bad ideas re: monster design found in the DMG1 that have been phased out. (Another being, as I mentioned above, the "class templates" idea which turns a monster into an Elite, messes with their math, and doesn't help their action economy in exchange for a few underpowered class abilities.) In the early days of 4e, there were random nods towards 3e-style monster simulation here and there that stick out like sore thumbs. Like, (iirc) making a monster's Constitution and Dexterity matter for their HP and initiative.

-O

Tehnar

2013-05-22, 08:09 AM

That's still quite a lot of information to memorise for what I (and others) feel is no mechanical benefit. And again, what happens if you want to do something that doesn't fit into that framework?

If that is too much information to memorize then I don't think rules heavy systems are for you. The amount of information is fairly trivial, and all 3.5 classes, racial hit dice can fit on a single A4.

If you want something out of that framework, just add stuff. Feats, more classes, racial hit dice. There are a lot of options, they fit together and you can get what you want with a minimum of effort.

The thing is that its more of a art then a science (more science involved would be better IMO). You have to match your "recipe" (construction) to your players "taste" (power level)

Jacob.Tyr

2013-05-22, 08:21 AM

I'm just going to go ahead and throw it out that I never really built my monsters beyond what tactics I wanted them to use. Never gave them stat blocks and feats. Arbitrarily assigned them defense stats based on what I wanted. Gave them SU abilities if I wanted them to have them, decided how much damage I wanted them to do on any given attack or ability. If it was a fight that was supposed to be a big deal I wouldn't even give them HP, and would just leave it up to the what felt dramatically satisfying. I then based the flow of the fight on how the players behaved; if someone did something heroic and risky I'd let them drop an enemy or if they landed a hit on a mook I'd have it go down.

So that was actually something I really liked about 4e.

Unless you're the type of person who thumbs through the MM and memorizes enemies in the hopes you can use that to your advantage at the table you would probably never even notice. None of my players ever have.

obryn

2013-05-22, 08:35 AM

If that is too much information to memorize then I don't think rules heavy systems are for you. The amount of information is fairly trivial, and all 3.5 classes, racial hit dice can fit on a single A4.

If you want something out of that framework, just add stuff. Feats, more classes, racial hit dice. There are a lot of options, they fit together and you can get what you want with a minimum of effort.
...or you can use result-based math and go with 4e's formulas on an index card.

Just because you're playing a rules-heavy game (and I wouldn't call 4e "rules light") doesn't mean you have to make extra work for yourself.

-O

Kurald Galain

2013-05-22, 09:07 AM

If that is too much information to memorize then I don't think rules heavy systems are for you. The amount of information is fairly trivial, and all 3.5 classes, racial hit dice can fit on a single A4.

The thing is this: the ruleset never requires that the DM memorizes anything. However, certain rulesets allow a DM to prepare faster by memorizing (or simply becoming familiar with) a small amount of standard abilities like fireball.

Because this is an option rather than a requirement, there really isn't any drawback here. There is no benefit to giving each class or monster with a flaming area attack a similar-but-slightly-different version of fireball. Combat will run faster and smoother if these are standardized.

This goes for lots of things. There is really no benefit to having the "companion creature" rules behave subtly differently for a summon, animal companion, figurine, familiar, or mount.

SiuiS

2013-05-22, 09:28 AM

...or you can use result-based math and go with 4e's formulas on an index card.

Just because you're playing a rules-heavy game (and I wouldn't call 4e "rules light") doesn't mean you have to make extra work for yourself.

Respectfully, this is actually what I am suggesting. Having math doesn't belie that it can be used in multiple ways.

The thing is this: the ruleset never requires that the DM memorizes anything. However, certain rulesets allow a DM to prepare faster by memorizing (or simply becoming familiar with) a small amount of standard abilities like fireball.

Because this is an option rather than a requirement, there really isn't any drawback here. There is no benefit to giving each class or monster with a flaming area attack a similar-but-slightly-different version of fireball. Combat will run faster and smoother if these are standardized.

This goes for lots of things. There is really no benefit to having the "companion creature" rules behave subtly differently for a summon, animal companion, figurine, familiar, or mount.

Aye.

obryn

2013-05-22, 09:44 AM

There is no benefit to giving each class or monster with a flaming area attack a similar-but-slightly-different version of fireball. Combat will run faster and smoother if these are standardized.
Sure there's a benefit, and it all lies in the realm of flexibility. If you want a 20' diameter fireball, or one that does d8's, etc. you don't need to invent a new spell to handle it.

If you're printing the details along with the monster's stat block, it's speed-neutral at the table. Standardization's benefits lie in using common terms to describe an effect in precise game terms, not in having them refer to a spell description.

-O

Person_Man

2013-05-22, 10:08 AM

Seerow

2013-05-22, 10:16 AM

Sure there's a benefit, and it all lies in the realm of flexibility. If you want a 20' diameter fireball, or one that does d8's, etc. you don't need to invent a new spell to handle it.

Except by making up new mechanics... you are creating a new spell. The only difference is you're not coming up with a new name for it.

Also, why would you particularly care about getting d8s instead of d6s? Or having a 20ft rather than 30ft spread? You're talking about wanting to be able to change what is effectively a relatively trivial detail, I don't see where making that kind of change would ever make or break the existence of a monster. I just really don't understand why this particular detail is so important.

And even if it IS that important, even in a system designed for consistency, I wouldn't have a problem with say for example writing down "Enhanced Fireball" that bumps its damage up to a d8, and let the players nab it for a feat or increased spell slot or whatever if they actually noticed or wanted it; or "Focused Fireball" that bumps the damage up to d8 and reduces the AOE at the same time, which is something I'd totally let the players get as a spell known instead of Fireball if they wanted to.

Seerow

2013-05-22, 10:19 AM

I think there's an even easier solution to this. Use both.

Have standardized spells, abilities, etc. When it's possible to use them, game designers should use them.

In addition, have Supernatural Abilities. Each Supernatural Ability is unique unto itself in terms of it's mechanics, and this is explicitly stated in the description of what a Supernatural Ability is.

End result: Most monsters use standard weapons, spells, Feats, etc. But if a writer really needs to do something different, he has an in game explanation and mechanic to do so.

With monsters in particular, this is no big deal. The issue comes in when Obryn wants to be able to have a Human Cleric NPC be able to cast something like "Storm of Judgement" (spell name madeup offhand), doing something unique, but then no PC ever can try to learn that ability because he's not an NPC. That's where the argument comes in.

The other part of it is just wanting to be able to make minor tweaks to the spell for seemingly no reason, and still pretend like it's the same spell. I still don't quite get why this is important for the system, but he gives the impression that it is critical to his enjoyment of 4e.

Kurald Galain

2013-05-22, 10:52 AM

Looking over the rules I just find this hilarious. Mind you, this is not even about the easiness of homebrew yet, but only about how quickly you can become familiar with patterns in the actual core rules.

In this aspect, 3E is really very simple. Wizards can cast Fireball. So can sorcerers and bards. Guess what a wand of fireballs or a necklace of fireballs does? Yes, they cast Fireball, and to craft one you must know how to cast Fireball yourself; the same applies to the Helm of Brilliance. A fireball trap predictably casts Fireball, and creatures like a fire salamander or flame demon once more cast Fireball. Wow, that was easy to learn.

Now let's look at 4E, and we get the following:

Fireball, Fire Burst and Scorching Burst are basically the same thing as respectively a daily, encounter, and at-will power. One of these has a different range (can you guess which one?), and one cannot be affected by Enlarge Spell (guess which). Of course, each does a different amount of damage, and two deal half damage on a miss while the third doesn't.
Combust, Cinderfall, and Firescythe are the same thing again, but with slightly different range, damage, and miss effect.
Then there's half a dozen spells that do the same thing plus leave a zone of fire on the ground. Again, all these zones do slightly different damage too.
You'd expect all of these to target reflex, but actually some of them target fortitude instead, and one of them hits will. Most of them have the Evocation keyword but others don't.
Certain of these spells can be put in a wand, others can't, and one of them behaves differently if cast from a wand. To craft such a wand, you don't have to know (or be able to cast) any of these.
The Necklace of Fireballs casts something resembling Fireball, but with different stats again. So does the Helm of Brilliance, for that matter.
The sorcerer and invoker have a few spells that do basically the same except using charisma or wisdom rather than intelligence.
And, of course, there are several monsters and traps with area burst flame attacks, that all behave differently again.

Well, that's one way to get your page count up.

SiuiS

2013-05-22, 10:59 AM

Sure there's a benefit, and it all lies in the realm of flexibility. If you want a 20' diameter fireball, or one that does d8's, etc. you don't need to invent a new spell to handle it.

If you're printing the details along with the monster's stat block, it's speed-neutral at the table. Standardization's benefits lie in using common terms to describe an effect in precise game terms, not in having them refer to a spell description.

No, this is a non-benefit. Allow me to demonstrate again.

No it is not an invalid comparison. Remember, this is about making fireball equally homogenous through the system; fireball is THE go to in game fire effect. In which case d6/level, save half, fire damage is all you need.

Red dragon, 12 HD; "Fireball, 15 squares range. Explodes in 3 square radius, lights all targets on fire. Reflex."
Blazing skeleton 3HD; Fireball, ranged touch attack +6, no save."
PC wizard; "Fireball, range 25+CL, damage = CL, 4 square radius. Reflex."
Balor, 18 HD; "fireball on death, 0 range 20 square radius. Objects in range use Fortitude or are destroyed. Reflex."

See? You absolutely need your mosnter to cast an almost fireball at d8 instead of d6? No, you don't write up a whole new spell, that's a waste of effort. You say "fireball, does d8 instead of d6." Using something that's not a problem as an example of how one system is better than the other is already silly. It gets even sillier when the system you're arguing against can handle that problem better/.

Ashdate

2013-05-22, 11:13 AM

With monsters in particular, this is no big deal. The issue comes in when Obryn wants to be able to have a Human Cleric NPC be able to cast something like "Storm of Judgement" (spell name madeup offhand), doing something unique, but then no PC ever can try to learn that ability because he's not an NPC. That's where the argument comes in.

The other part of it is just wanting to be able to make minor tweaks to the spell for seemingly no reason, and still pretend like it's the same spell. I still don't quite get why this is important for the system, but he gives the impression that it is critical to his enjoyment of 4e.

I think it's silly that you must justify your NPC's unique abilities by giving them a particular box to sit in (he's a gorgon-dragon so he can have a fear attack that petrifies! But not if he's a human cleric because that's not on their spell list).

And you're missing the point: it's not about allowing the DM to make minor tweaks to spells; it's about making up spells and abilities that fit the narrative the DM wants to tell without needing to create tools to create the powers and effects you want. Sometimes I do want Fireball, but usually, I just want a ranged burst attack that deals fire damage, and I want the latter without being a slave to the former. Maybe I want it to deal cold damage too, or maybe I want it to use d8s, but I never want to have to create feats and spells for my players because of some strange inferiority complex they have towards dead NPCs.

Looking over the rules I just find this hilarious. Mind you, this is not even about the easiness of homebrew yet, but only about how quickly you can become familiar with patterns in the actual core rules.

Congrats, you've memorized what is possibly the most iconic spell in D&D's existence!

Unfortunately there are more spells in the game than just Fireball and Magic Missile, not every new player/DM will be confident in using a 3.5 Fireball spell without digging for it's entry in the PHB, and you're also forgetting that all of those 4e references are neatly contained such that you don't need to dig for them. Now just multiple that complexity with a few hundred 3.5 spells (many of which are leagues more complicated than Fireball) and you've then built a system that places an emphasis on memorizing books, rather than on keeping the game moving at the table.

I guess this point never sunk in for some people here: not everyone who wants to play this game is an old hand at D&D. The moment you begin with "as long as you know that fireball does _________" you've completely forgotten what some bad teachers do: that knowing something isn't the same as learning something.

Tehnar

2013-05-22, 11:14 AM

...or you can use result-based math and go with 4e's formulas on an index card.

Just because you're playing a rules-heavy game (and I wouldn't call 4e "rules light") doesn't mean you have to make extra work for yourself.

-O

Aside from consistency, using 4e method you lose options.

Per 4e a monster of a given level has a attack, defenses and skills of a certain level. You won't find a monster of level 20 with a AC of 10. Its strictly defined to preserve bounded accuracy; it limits your options.

Building a monster from component parts gives you more options, as you can decide where to spend its resources. Do you want a 300hp massive damage monster with 8 AC? You can have it.

Do you want a 40 AC nimble thief type with 40 hp. You can have it.

Describing a monster with full plate armor should mean something to the players. Monsters with stone axes should not be very precise or hit especially strong.

Kurald Galain

2013-05-22, 11:32 AM

Unfortunately there are more spells in the game than just Fireball and Magic Missile, not every new player/DM will be confident in using a 3.5 Fireball spell without digging for it's entry in the PHB, and you're also forgetting that all of those 4e references are neatly contained such that you don't need to dig for them.
I'm not forgetting anything. There's nothing stopping you from writing down the effect of fireball in every 3E statblock that needs this. It's nonsensical to claim that the advantage of having wildly inconsistent abilities is that you can write them out.

Once more: having consistent abilities is not the opposite of having spelled out abilities. It's entirely feasible to use abilities that are both consistent and spelled out (e.g. Magic the Gathering does that; 4E's design team could have learned a lot from MtG's).

DeltaEmil

2013-05-22, 11:34 AM

You give the 4th edition monster full plate if you want to show them that its AC and possibly Fortitude defenses are higher than its Reflex or Will. It's a visual clue for players.
Also, the suggested level range, defense numbers, hit point, attack bonuses and damage values are exactly that. Suggestions.
To make a monster hopefully challenging enough to be a threat, and therefore a fun monster.
It's not fun to whiff at empty space all the time because the monster has too high defenses, it's not fun to have monsters with too many hit points, it's not fun to have a monster that one-shots player characters, it's not fun to have monsters that are too weak.

But nothing stops you from having an AC 40 monster with 40 hp. As long as the player characters can attack its other defense values, nobody has to sit out, or any player can contribute with his or her character in a way that is fun for the player, everything's alright.

You just have to be very careful that the AC 40 monster with 40 hp can't be hit by the player character that can only attack AC. Because that isn't fun.

obryn

2013-05-22, 11:46 AM

Except by making up new mechanics... you are creating a new spell. The only difference is you're not coming up with a new name for it.
No, because I'm not coming up with a specific framework around it. It's not assigned a spell level, the damage and attack/save isn't based on various attributes and other factors, etc.

The difference is that Fireball is a formula using a number of secondary characteristics. You add in caster level, caster's attributes, applicable feats and magic items. At the end you get the spell's damage, range, Save DC, etc.

An ability created for an NPC is simply the end result. "Burst 2 in 10, 2d6+12 damage."

Also, why would you particularly care about getting d8s instead of d6s? Or having a 20ft rather than 30ft spread? You're talking about wanting to be able to change what is effectively a relatively trivial detail, I don't see where making that kind of change would ever make or break the existence of a monster. I just really don't understand why this particular detail is so important.

And even if it IS that important, even in a system designed for consistency, I wouldn't have a problem with say for example writing down "Enhanced Fireball" that bumps its damage up to a d8, and let the players nab it for a feat or increased spell slot or whatever if they actually noticed or wanted it; or "Focused Fireball" that bumps the damage up to d8 and reduces the AOE at the same time, which is something I'd totally let the players get as a spell known instead of Fireball if they wanted to.
That's precisely the sort of framework-building I want to avoid.

In this aspect, 3E is really very simple. Wizards can cast Fireball. So can sorcerers and bards. Guess what a wand of fireballs or a necklace of fireballs does? Yes, they cast Fireball, and to craft one you must know how to cast Fireball yourself; the same applies to the Helm of Brilliance. A fireball trap predictably casts Fireball, and creatures like a fire salamander or flame demon once more cast Fireball. Wow, that was easy to learn.
Forgetting, of course, that the players are using those spells and responsible for tracking them. As the DM, I am not. When making a monster, I never need to know the difference between Scorching Burst and Fireball.

Per 4e a monster of a given level has a attack, defenses and skills of a certain level. You won't find a monster of level 20 with a AC of 10. Its strictly defined to preserve bounded accuracy; it limits your options.
A monster's attack and defense bonuses are, yes, calculated so they're an appropriate challenge for their level. If that's how you want to define "flexibility" you certainly can, but the +/-3 adjustments built into the building process create, in practice, very noticeable differences in play. (As do the differences between Brutes and Soldiers, at two extremes.)

If you need to assign a 10 AC to a Level 20 monster, you can. There's really nothing stopping you. However, you're getting about the same mileage out of it as you would with an AC of 29 for Level 20 PCs.

Building a monster from component parts gives you more options, as you can decide where to spend its resources. Do you want a 300hp massive damage monster with 8 AC? You can have it.

Do you want a 40 AC nimble thief type with 40 hp. You can have it.

Describing a monster with full plate armor should mean something to the players. Monsters with stone axes should not be very precise or hit especially strong.
If you have a foe in 4e described as wearing full plate armor, that fact should, indeed, be relevant. The easiest way to do so is by making them a Soldier rather than, say, a Brute. (Or by upping a Brute's AC at the expense of his Reflex. You signal this by mentioning the Brute's armor and the fact that he's slow and plodding.)

Likewise, with the huge stone axe, you can do one (or more!) of the following, depending on what you're trying to achieve with your fiction:
* Make the monster a Brute, which kicks up their damage.
* Give an Encounter or Recharge attack which deals even higher damage at a lower frequency, and possibly adds in that the monster is granting combat advantage. Like "Powerful swings with an unwieldy weapon that leave the ogre off-balance."
* Use the standard damage expression, but make the monster's strength apparent by adding in other effects like "Push 2", "Knock Prone", or "Dazed"
* Make their attack a Close Blast, representing that it's a huge axe that can smash several targets at once.
* Make the attack vs. Reflex, indicating that armor just won't help you.

These can all be telegraphed appropriately in the narrative. There's not a "right" answer; it's based on how you picture them working in combat.

Your fiction should align with the stats. The key is that you're going straight from fiction to stats without pausing in the middle for extraneous calculations.

-O

Ashdate

2013-05-22, 11:57 AM

Aside from consistency, using 4e method you lose options.

I think you're mistaken; you absolutely can have those options (the system is just guidelines after all). BUT, allowing such monsters is potentially asking for trouble.

Per 4e a monster of a given level has a attack, defenses and skills of a certain level. You won't find a monster of level 20 with a AC of 10. Its strictly defined to preserve bounded accuracy; it limits your options.

Building a monster from component parts gives you more options, as you can decide where to spend its resources. Do you want a 300hp massive damage monster with 8 AC? You can have it.

The monster's defenses and attack rolls (being based of level) are given not because you can't break out of the boundaries, just that doing so might cause unintended side-effects.

In the above example, you can certainly create a 300 hp "damage monster" with 8 AC, but (and this is without more details) then you have to balance the monster's expected survivability (how quickly can the party deal 300 hp of damage?) against the monster's expected damage output (how quickly can the party deal 300 hp of damage before the damage output of the monster overwhelms them?).

Experienced DMs who know what their party is capable of can absolutely do this. But inexperienced DMs might potentially create a monster that is too easy (as they burn through its hit points because their attacks miss only on a 1), or too difficult (as they can't burn through its hitpoints quickly enough).

Do you want a 40 AC nimble thief type with 40 hp. You can have it.

You can do it in 4e too, but the question is: why? 40 AC (assuming its other defenses are equally as high) is too much for anyone but a high paragon level character to hit. If they can reliably hit such a number (or just auto-hit with some powers), 40 hp is too low.

The danger is that you potentially create a combat that literally last a dozen rounds while your PCs take turns trying to roll natural 20s, OR they've got enough powers that auto-hit (i.e. magic missile, the fighter's Rain of Steel) that they blow through it.

Describing a monster with full plate armor should mean something to the players. Monsters with stone axes should not be very precise or hit especially strong.

I think what ties all of these "monsters" together is one word: "why?" If you can craft a narrative where such creatures exist, then you absolutely can have them in a 4e game. But (and this is true for any edition), you have to consider what their purpose is for.

If you've got monsters with stone axes, and you want them to appear weaker than a standard monster, then use a lower-level monsters. It may not be challenging to the players (in fact, fighting them might feel like a waste of time), but you can do it.

The point -and 4e is generally very good with this - is not to tell DMs to arbitrarily decide monster defenses/hit points/etc. The point is that they're guidelines that - when followed - will hit a general sweet spot that is neither too easy, nor too difficult. And that's how it should be. Once you've DM's for a while and know your party's strengths and weaknesses, perhaps a kooky battle (see your examples above) would be entirely appropriate. But you learn that from experience, not from following guidelines in a book.

I'm not forgetting anything. There's nothing stopping you from writing down the effect of fireball in every 3E statblock that needs this. It's nonsensical to claim that the advantage of having wildly inconsistent abilities is that you can write them out.

I'm suggesting that if you're writing out what every feats and spell does in every monster block in 3.5, that you end up with complicated monster messes. It would be nearly impossible to create a 3.5 equivalent to the monster builder for monsters, because they would be much too unwieldy, because the monsters (and their PC derived abilities) are too complicated to be used on monsters. That's why I don't advocate punishing new DMs by forcing them to play their monsters like PCs.

And who would want to read this on a monster block? And this is a simple spell.

Evocation [Fire]
Level: Sor/Wiz 3
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Area: 20-ft.-radius spread
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Reflex half
Spell Resistance: Yes

A fireball spell is an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage. The explosion creates almost no pressure.

You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. (An early impact results in an early detonation.) If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.

The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does.

Material Component: A tiny ball of bat guano and sulfur.

noparlpf

2013-05-22, 12:04 PM

And who would want to read this on a monster block? And this is a simple spell.

*snip*

Fireball: [range], 20' radius, Xd6, Ref1/2, SR, 1 standard action, V/S/M(bat guano/sulfur), ignites flammable objects in area.

Kurald Galain

2013-05-22, 12:09 PM

Fireball: [range], 20' radius, Xd6, Ref1/2, SR, 1 standard action, V/S/M(bat guano/sulfur), ignites flammable objects in area.

Well done.

Also, this thread is not about deciding which of 3E and 4E is objectively superior; it is about picking the best parts of each, and hoping WOTC will put those in 5E.

noparlpf

2013-05-22, 12:11 PM

Well done.

Also, this thread is not about deciding which of 3E and 4E is objectively superior; it is about picking the best parts of each, and hoping WOTC will put those in 5E.

That's how I note down spells as a PC or as a DM. Have ever since my first character was a Wizard and I had to figure out character creation on my own using just the PHB.

Doug Lampert

2013-05-22, 12:16 PM

Fireball: [range], 20' radius, Xd6, Ref1/2, SR, 1 standard action, V/S/M(bat guano/sulfur), ignites flammable objects in area.

No save DC? Looks unusable to me. No entry for what the SR penetration is? Also a problem.

You don't actually need the full description, but you do need everything but the fluff to make the spell work. And that non-fluff is LONGER and more complicated than some entire monster descriptions from any edition except third.

Edited: That can be how you write down spells AS A PC, which is where you state you got the format, because you KNOW what your SR penentration and caster level and save DC are for your own wizard with spells of a given level. Those are elsewhere on the complicated PC write-up, but need to be with the power for a monster write-up. Because monsters and PCs are different.

Ashdate

2013-05-22, 12:16 PM

Well done.

Also, this thread is not about deciding which of 3E and 4E is objectively superior; it is about picking the best parts of each, and hoping WOTC will put those in 5E.

And one of the worst things about 3.5 (and the best things about 4e) was their respective barriers to entry for new DMs. Forcing NPCs to play by PC rules creates an unnecessarily large barrier that should not exist in DnD Next.

noparlpf

2013-05-22, 12:21 PM

No save DC? Looks unusable to me. No entry for what the SR penetration is? Also a problem.

You don't actually need the full description, but you do need everything but the fluff to make the spell work. And that non-fluff is LONGER and more complicated than some entire monster descriptions from any edition except third.

Edited: That can be how you write down spells AS A PC, which is where you state you got the format, because you KNOW what your SR penentration and caster level and save DC are for your own wizard with spells of a given level. Those are elsewhere on the complicated PC write-up, but need to be with the power for a monster write-up. Because monsters and PCs are different.

Oh yeah, my bad.
Fireball: [range], 20' radius, Xd6, Ref1/2 DCX, SR +X, 1 standard action, V/S/M(bat guano/sulfur), ignites flammable objects in area.
Better? If I gave you a monster statblock with this listed under its powers, would that be a problem for you?

Thomar_of_Uointer

2013-05-22, 12:22 PM

obryn

2013-05-22, 12:26 PM

neonchameleon

2013-05-22, 12:27 PM

General rule: if I want to specifically talk about an edition, I'll say its name. Given that I got bored with the edition wars a long time ago, you can safely assume that if I'm not name-checking 3.5 or 4e then that's not what I'm referring to.

Sorry. I twitch at rhetoric used in the edition wars that otherwise has no relevance to D&D at all so far as I can tell.

Looking over the rules I just find this hilarious. Mind you, this is not even about the easiness of homebrew yet, but only about how quickly you can become familiar with patterns in the actual core rules.

In this aspect, 3E is really very simple. Wizards can cast Fireball. So can sorcerers and bards. Guess what a wand of fireballs or a necklace of fireballs does? Yes, they cast Fireball, and to craft one you must know how to cast Fireball yourself; the same applies to the Helm of Brilliance. A fireball trap predictably casts Fireball, and creatures like a fire salamander or flame demon once more cast Fireball. Wow, that was easy to learn.

Indeed. If you want cookie cutter magic where all fireballs are exactly the same radius and cast in exactly the same way (unless they come from a Flame Trap) I suppose you could do things that way. It makes the world a hell of a lot blander to me.

And unless you are only using about a dozen standardised effects, total, it makes the barrier for learning all of them much much higher.

Now let's look at 4E, and we get the following:
Fireball, Fire Burst and Scorching Burst are basically the same thing as respectively a daily, encounter, and at-will power

You mean that some mages in 4e master flame so much they can produce a small amount at will rather than a lot very occasionally. Yeah, not seeing the problem here in the idea that different people produce different quantities of fire.

One of these has a different range (can you guess which one?), and one cannot be affected by Enlarge Spell (guess which). Of course, each does a different amount of damage, and two deal half damage on a miss while the third doesn't.

Why in the name of Gygax do you ever have to guess? Unlike in 3.X with the overgrown keywords that are spells, any time you would ever need to use such a spell it is right there in front of you.

The fact that different uses of fire behave differently, and you don't have one cookie-cutter ball of fire spell (always 20ft radius unless there's a feat) is one of the many reasons 4e is much more flexible than 3e.

And, of course, there are several monsters and traps with area burst flame attacks, that all behave differently again.

Again good.

Well, that's one way to get your page count up.

Fireball for a 3e monster that can cast fireball: 1/4 line (Fireball, DC 15).

Fireball for a 4e monster that can cast fireball: 3 half lines
Fireball (At Will) Range 20, Burst 2 enemies in burst +11.5 vs reflex
Hit: 6d6 fire damage and ongoing 5 fire
Miss: Half damage

Yeah, that really wastes a lot of space.

And it in no way makes it easier to customise monsters by intensity, area, accuracy, and various other factors.

Now, off the top of your head, can you tell me the exact rules for a Flaming Sphere, a Wall of fire, and Summon Monster VIII - Fire Elemental? Because if you can't then your ability to use a Noble Salamander's fireball simply because you can remember it is ... near meaningless.

Likewise, can you off the top of your head tell me everything a Prismatic Spray does? If not, that's your Helm of Brilliance having lost its benefits from using standard spells.

And this is what the customisable approach does. First it provides you with options - how much fire do you want to produce? Should it work like fire or napalm? Second, you can run 4e monsters RAW with only the statblock in front of you. You don't need to carry a pile of books with you - and look up every spell you named which you do not have memorised.

Aside from consistency, using 4e method you lose options.

Per 4e a monster of a given level has a attack, defenses and skills of a certain level.

Um... no. You are expected to vary the stats of a given monster from the guidelines. The formulas given present a baseline and then most monsters are altered from that.

You won't find a monster of level 20 with a AC of 10. Its strictly defined o preserve bounded accuracy; it limits your options.

Error: You won't find a monster of level 20 in 3e with 1hp. It's strictly defined by level; it limits your options.

Building a monster from component parts gives you more options, as you can decide where to spend its resources. Do you want a 300hp massive damage monster with 8 AC? You can have it.

Why do you want a 300hp monster with AC 8? And I notice you do not talk about the 300hp monster's BAB, which is going to be pretty high with that many hit dice.

Do you want a 40 AC nimble thief type with 40 hp. You can have it.

You too can have a thief who will only be hit on a natural 20 and dies to anything that's going to challenge him.

But as a matter of fact, you can do this in 4e - there's something of the sort in the module I'm running now (the opening adventure of the Zeitgeist adventure path). This is against the guidance and the 4e DMG recommends you don't do this sort of thing, and gives you no guidelines as to the XP it should be worth. But it's not against the rules. What it is is in territory marked "Here be dragons" with a disclaimer that if you do such things on your own head be it.

Describing a monster with full plate armor should mean something to the players. Monsters with stone axes should not be very precise or hit especially strong.

And in 4e it does. Monsters with full plate armour should be represented as soldiers - a full 4 points of AC over our unarmoured brutes, archers, and cloth armoured mages (artillery). If your monsters in plate armour don't have high AC you're doing it wrong.

4e has a descriptive system rather than a prescriptive one. In 3.5 monsters have to follow the rules - leading to such things as zombies that you can't decapitate. In 4e you lead fiction-first rather than having to follow the mechanics. You work on what the fiction says, then fit the mechanics to that fiction. And only the edge cases don't fit at all - the ones where your fiction makes it impossible for 4e to estimate the effective challenge the monster presents using formulae and must be done on a case by case basis.

You don't have to make all undead immune to critical hits. Your clockwork horrors have gear you can jam - there is nothing in the rules for constructs making them immune to precision damage in 4e. (Of course if you want a monster immune to precision damage like a floating steel sphere you just do that).

Kurald Galain

2013-05-22, 12:28 PM

And one of the worst things about 3.5 (and the best things about 4e) was their respective barriers to entry for new DMs. Forcing NPCs to play by PC rules creates an unnecessarily large barrier that should not exist in DnD Next.

Having PCs and NPCs use the same rules means that prospective dms need to learn only one ruleset, not two. There was a thread last year about which system people consider it easier to DM for, and the answers were about 50-50 split, so it's fair to say that some people see a bigger barrier in DMing for 4E than for 3E.

noparlpf

2013-05-22, 12:32 PM

Better on the final "use this at the table" end, sure.

Not better on the "You still need to calcuate all this through a collection of stats and feats, and it's a specific rigid spell" part. :smallsmile:

-O

All of those Xs will be actual numbers when this is in a monster statblock. They'll be provided in existing monsters, and you can just come up with roughly-appropriate values if you're making your own monster. In 3.X, sometimes I build enemies like PCs, but for general things, I just come up with AC, attack bonus, damage, hit points (a multiple of ten because I'm lazy), saves, off the top of my head, or look at a few existing monsters similar to what I'm going for and modify them a bit.
This doesn't require tremendous study to achieve, either. I played regularly for about a year, year and a half, before that group dissolved.

DeltaEmil

2013-05-22, 12:40 PM

Oh yeah, my bad.
Fireball: [range], 20' radius, Xd6, Ref1/2 DCX, SR +X, 1 standard action, V/S/M(bat guano/sulfur), ignites flammable objects in area.
Better? If I gave you a monster statblock with this listed under its powers, would that be a problem for you?That's how I first wrote those spells when I was GM for D&D 3.x. Then I found out that it also needs a defined spell level, in the case somebody uses effects like globe of invulnerability or has specific stuff that works against spells and spell-like abilities of a specific spell level. Needs to be defined as a spell instead of a spell-like ability (the verbal, somatic and material components obviously means that it's a spell and not a spell-like ability, but this might be an exception, just like warlock invocations are). Needs keywords like that it's an evocation spell and has the fire descriptor, in case somebody has defenses or special abilities regarding those specific keywords, like immunities, or an increased spell resistance, or gets a bonus to saving throws because of that, and so on. Needs to know if it's a burst or a spread, just like Saph had to look it up.

Needless little details, but when you don't have them, you will be forced to look up the spell anyway when your players suddenly ask about that stuff.

Flickerdart

2013-05-22, 12:42 PM

Error: You won't find a monster of level 20 in 3e with 1hp. It's strictly defined by level; it limits your options.
Wrong. A monster with 1 Constitution and the Frail flaw and Quick trait gains no HP from even d12 hit dice (since both Frail and Quick are -1 and can explicitly reduce to 0, and Con 1 is -5, for a total of -7 against 6.5 from the HD). Then there are ways (like Ritual of Blood or the Draconic Rite) to decrease your HP by set values, and other ways (like Toughness) to increase it by set values, meaning that for any value of HD, any HP total is possible.

obryn

2013-05-22, 12:43 PM

All of those Xs will be actual numbers when this is in a monster statblock. They'll be provided in existing monsters, and you can just come up with roughly-appropriate values if you're making your own monster.
In 3.X, sometimes I build enemies like PCs, but for general things, I just come up with AC, attack bonus, damage, hit points (a multiple of ten because I'm lazy), saves, off the top of my head, or look at a few existing monsters similar to what I'm going for and modify them a bit.

I think the key is in providing a table (like some edition did somewhere...) which has those "roughly-appropriate" values for you.

We're still apart on other issues. Such as...
* In 3.x, a spell save DC is based on the spell's level and monster's stats. In 4e, it's based only on the monster's level.
* Whether or not NPCs and monsters should be restricted to the list of stuff PCs can do. This also limits the sorts of "special effects" a non-magical NPC can use.
* Whether it's more beneficial to just make an ability which matches the fiction you're picturing, or look through spell lists to find something which does it (and which imposes some limits).

Edit:

Wrong. A monster with 1 Constitution and the Frail flaw and Quick trait gains no HP from even d12 hit dice (since both Frail and Quick are -1 and can explicitly reduce to 0, and Con 1 is -5, for a total of -7 against 6.5 from the HD). Then there are ways (like Ritual of Blood or the Draconic Rite) to decrease your HP by set values, and other ways (like Toughness) to increase it by set values, meaning that for any value of HD, any HP total is possible.
...Oh my how simple and concise and easy!

-O

Ashdate

2013-05-22, 12:48 PM

Having PCs and NPCs use the same rules means that prospective dms need to learn only one ruleset, not two. There was a thread last year about which system people consider it easier to DM for, and the answers were about 50-50 split, so it's fair to say that some people see a bigger barrier in DMing for 4E than for 3E.

I think a poll (especially on this forum) is not necessarily how you would want to make such decisions. I'm confident that if you did focus testing, you'd find that new players would find 4e easier to DM for. If building 4e monsters required dipping into PC classes/feats I'm pretty sure I'd hate to DM it.

And better two "simple" rules systems for a DM to learn than one "complex" one, although I would take issue with describe the NPC rules as a 'new' rule-set given how simple they are. A monster hitting Reflex in 4e is the same mechanic as a player hitting Reflex, the difference is just in how you arrive at the numbers.

Flickerdart

2013-05-22, 12:49 PM

NoldorForce

2013-05-22, 12:50 PM

Having PCs and NPCs use the same rules means that prospective dms need to learn only one ruleset, not two. There was a thread last year about which system people consider it easier to DM for, and the answers were about 50-50 split, so it's fair to say that some people see a bigger barrier in DMing for 4E than for 3E.If I recall correctly several of the folks who'd found 3.x easier had internalized the rules to varying degrees. But in any case, "one ruleset, not two" is obscuring some of the complexity that's happening. In 4E the two rulesets are more like one-and-a-half, neither of which is terribly complex (monster guidelines + what the PCs can actually do). In 3.x the "one ruleset" is actually two (what the PCs can do + what the PCs could potentially do) and each component is notably more complicated.

If 3.x weren't inherently so complicated (and it is), there probably wouldn't be so much chatter about this distinction. But the PC=NPC concept generally ends up as complexity for its own sake, and when you're dealing a game that rewards lobster accountancy that complexity ends up clogging stuff down.

Kurald Galain

2013-05-22, 12:58 PM

I think a poll (especially on this forum) is not necessarily how you would want to make such decisions. I'm confident that if you did focus testing, you'd find that new players would find 4e easier to DM for.
Based on the respective sales figures of 3E/PF books and 4E books, I would expect the exact opposite.

If 3.x weren't inherently so complicated (and it is), there probably wouldn't be so much chatter about this distinction. But the PC=NPC concept generally ends up as complexity for its own sake, and when you're dealing a game that rewards lobster accountancy that complexity ends up clogging stuff down.
It strikes me that you're conflating "PCs and NPCs use the same rules" with "NPCs have to be built like PCs are". They're not the same thing. And 3E's monster manuals are also chock full of monsters you can use without doing any designing or math whatsoever, certainly you don't need to (as Ash suggests) dip them into PC classes/feats.

For that matter, "easy DMing" is hardly the same as "easy to design your own monsters". I think that 3E is easier to DM for, whereas 4E is easier to design your own monsters for.

NoldorForce

2013-05-22, 01:04 PM

Based on the respective sales figures of 3E/PF books and 4E books, I would expect the exact opposite.That doesn't logically follow at all.

It strikes me that you're conflating "PCs and NPCs use the same rules" with "NPCs have to be built like PCs are". They're not the same thing. And 3E's monster manuals are also chock full of monsters you can use without doing any designing or math whatsoever, certainly you don't need to (as Ash suggests) dip them into PC classes/feats.You'll have to define "PCs and NPCs use the same rules" for me then, both to differentiate it from "NPCs have to be built like PCs are" and because it's been used as this rather malleable concept depending on the speaker.

Raineh Daze

2013-05-22, 01:09 PM

That doesn't logically follow at all.

Yes it does: the one that sold better is more likely to be the one that is easier to pick up and learn to DM, because everybody starts with no exact knowledge of how to DM the system.

DeltaEmil

2013-05-22, 01:16 PM

Yes it does: the one that sold better is more likely to be the one that is easier to pick up and learn to DM, because everybody starts with no exact knowledge of how to DM the system.Going around saying which RPG sold better will make this thread drown in needless edition war flaming.

Raineh Daze

2013-05-22, 01:18 PM

Going around saying which RPG sold better will make this thread drown in needless edition war flaming.

Don't blame me; I didn't bring it up.

obryn

2013-05-22, 01:21 PM

The danger of "just wing it" for abilities is that the restrictions on similar spells are intentionally there to make it balanced against a level-appropriate opponent.
So are the guidelines on a 4e-style chart, and I'd argue they're a whole lot better for it. If you're following them, you end up with a level-appropriate opponent.

It is easy. All you need to do is add two things from one book to have your 1 HP high level guy (only one thing if the HD is smaller than d12). If that's too complicated for you, then I don't know what to say.
It's completely and totally unnecessary. It's make-work. If you want a monster to have 1 hit point, you give them 1 hit point.

So, is it more complicated than just saying "this guy has 1 hit point"? Absolutely.

-O

obryn

2013-05-22, 01:24 PM

It strikes me that you're conflating "PCs and NPCs use the same rules" with "NPCs have to be built like PCs are". They're not the same thing.
One entails and implies the other. You may be able to skip steps or leave blanks in the name of simplification, but ... If you're making PCs and NPCs follow the same rules, everything outside "whack something with a sword" requires implementation as a....

Feat
Spell
Magic item
Class ability
or Racial ability

Going off this list means you're no longer using the same rules as the PCs. You're using stuff that is not available for the PCs under the "same rules" model.

-O

DeltaEmil

2013-05-22, 01:26 PM

It's completely and totally unnecessary. It's make-work. If you want a monster to have 1 hit point, you give them 1 hit point.

So, is it more complicated than just saying "this guy has 1 hit point"? Absolutely.

-OTo be fair, Flickerdart did bring this up to neonchameleon's claim that a D&D 3.x character couldn't have a level 20 monster with only 1 hp.

Still, having to legitimize stuff in D&D 3.x is still bad in my opinion.

Raineh Daze

2013-05-22, 01:29 PM

It's completely and totally unnecessary. It's make-work. If you want a monster to have 1 hit point, you give them 1 hit point.

So, is it more complicated than just saying "this guy has 1 hit point"? Absolutely.

That's not exactly good advice to put in a book on how to DM the system, 'give it what you feel like'. Sure, you can, that's always an option, but that doesn't mean you should actively suggest people ignore the shiny book they just paid for. :smallconfused:

Still, having to legitimize stuff in D&D 3.x is still bad in my opinion.

You don't have to. O_o

Flickerdart

2013-05-22, 01:30 PM

NoldorForce

2013-05-22, 01:32 PM

Is it more complicated? Yes. Is it complicated? No. Which one were you claiming, again? :smallamused:When you have to dive through two to four specific books looking for obscure mechanics I'd call that complicated.

Flickerdart

2013-05-22, 01:35 PM

When you have to dive through two to four specific books looking for obscure mechanics I'd call that complicated.
All you need is Unearthed Arcana (which is part of the searchable SRD), and both Flaws and Traits are hardly obscure. The other stuff is just icing on the cake.

obryn

2013-05-22, 01:38 PM

That's not exactly good advice to put in a book on how to DM the system, 'give it what you feel like'. Sure, you can, that's always an option, but that doesn't mean you should actively suggest people ignore the shiny book they just paid for. :smallconfused:
He's finding building blocks to make the end result work how he wants instead of simply making the end result work how he wants.

I'd say that advice to "handwave" for this corner case is completely appropriate, yes.

Is it more complicated? Yes. Is it complicated? No. Which one were you claiming, again? :smallamused:
Um, both?

You can substitute "more complicated than it needs to be" if it helps? You're hunting for mechanics to justify (or legitimize) a desired end result. This is completely backwards from how I want to prepare for a game.

-O

DeltaEmil

2013-05-22, 01:38 PM

You don't have to. O_oYou have to so in D&D 3.x, apparently. The former D&D Next thread and this one have shown that some people demand that a statblock be built legitimately and that every feat, spell, ability and whatever be correctly calculated and having a source, and that every stuff not found in the official rules be available to the players, forcing you to also become a game designer.

Ashdate

2013-05-22, 01:42 PM

The danger of "just wing it" for abilities is that the restrictions on similar spells are intentionally there to make it balanced against a level-appropriate opponent. If you're doing whatever, especially for inexperienced DMs, then you run the danger of making the ability too powerful and frying the PCs.

Well you have numerous printed examples you can draw from (reskinning monsters is incredibly easy in 4e), but more to your point, that's why the game outright gives you some values to spitball around. 4e's combat isn't so lethal that you don't have some very generous leeway in deciding what an ability does. The only real golden rule I'd say is "don't give monsters powers the ability to stun PCs", which is less about power concerns so much as that it's a horrible thing to do to a PC.

I would also point out that in a system with a lot of choices - like 3.5 and 4e - some are going to be better than others (and some are going to be overpowered). One can claim that the restrictions on 3.5 Grease are meant to make it "balanced" against a spell like 3.5's Chill Touch, but I think you would be hard pressed to convince anyone (and that's not even the worst example). To wit: there are 4e equivalents of this phenomenon too! The point is pulling from a list of predefined abilities isn't necessarily going to be any more/less balanced than 'spit-balling it' from a table.

Yes it does: the one that sold better is more likely to be the one that is easier to pick up and learn to DM, because everybody starts with no exact knowledge of how to DM the system.

I think it would be a mistake to believe that book sales are in any way correlated with how easy a game is to run, especially give each game's respective history. The environment that 3e was designed and released into is a very different one than one than 4e was designed and released into. There are plenty of factors that may/may not spur book sales, and using any one (such as "ease of DM") as the variable that caused those book sales is going to rest on very sketchy logic.

Flickerdart

2013-05-22, 01:45 PM

Um, both?

You can substitute "more complicated than it needs to be" if it helps? You're hunting for mechanics to justify (or legitimize) a desired end result. This is completely backwards from how I want to prepare for a game.

-O
I'm not hunting for anything. You were talking about a ridiculous and pointless monster that would never come up in a real game, and I said "here's how you would make said pointless monster using one thing of free material" and now you have a problem with having to do a minimal amount of work to get said monster to look exactly like you wanted it to.

One can claim that the restrictions on 3.5 Grease are meant to make it "balanced" against a spell like 3.5's Chill Touch, but I think you would be hard pressed to convince anyone (and that's not even the worst example). To wit: there are 4e equivalents of this phenomenon too! The point is pulling from a list of predefined abilities isn't necessarily going to be any more/less balanced than 'spit-balling it' from a table.

Given that we're talking about an entirely new system, I think it's fair to base arguments on what competent designers would do, rather than justifying everything with "well WotC was awful at this before".

obryn

2013-05-22, 01:49 PM

Raineh Daze

2013-05-22, 01:50 PM

You have to so in D&D 3.x, apparently. The former D&D Next thread and this one have shown that some people demand that a statblock be built legitimately and that every feat, spell, ability and whatever be correctly calculated and having a source, and that every stuff not found in the official rules be available to the players, forcing you to also become a game designer.

Key thing: some people.

You don't have to, but it's neat, it allows for any unforeseen rules interactions, and you can use it again further down the line without wondering 'what was this for, again?' But there's no 'must' component to it.

But if you are doing that, then yes, calculate it correctly, because it says bad things if you're getting numbers wrong like that and are in charge... :smallsigh:

Jacob.Tyr

2013-05-22, 01:52 PM

Yes it does: the one that sold better is more likely to be the one that is easier to pick up and learn to DM, because everybody starts with no exact knowledge of how to DM the system.

<insert indignant response, claims to not want to flamewar, and a bunch of tinder>

I had typed something out, but decided to shorten it for you.

NoldorForce

2013-05-22, 01:55 PM

I'm not hunting for anything. You were talking about a ridiculous and pointless monster that would never come up in a real game, and I said "here's how you would make said pointless monster using one thing of free material" and now you have a problem with having to do a minimal amount of work to get said monster to look exactly like you wanted it to.It was originally neonchameleon who mentioned this, and I wouldn't call it "ridiculous and pointless" at all when several combat-based RPGs have used the minion (or something similar) as a critter that can be one-shot and mowed down by the PCs.

As noted, you can hack this sort of thing into place in 3.x, but it requires book-diving (just about anything outside the core books qualifies as "obscure"; these boards aren't close to a representative sample) and you shouldn't have to hack this stuff into place.

Ashdate

2013-05-22, 02:00 PM

Given that we're talking about an entirely new system, I think it's fair to base arguments on what competent designers would do, rather than justifying everything with "well WotC was awful at this before".

I'll put it this way: no matter how 'competent' DnD Next's designers are, there are going to be optimal and suboptimal choices, because D&D demands a level of complexity in its characters that is extremely difficult to balance around. I will guarantee that there will be spells in DnD Next that are brokenly good, and others that only a player going for some sort of weird niche concept would ever think of playing.

My point isn't that 3.5 (or 4e) has badly designed spells/powers (although both systems DO have some badly designed spells/powers), just that the notion that using a small table to 'spit-ball' monster powers is no more/less 'better' at creating 'balanced' powers than instead pulling the powers from a predefined list. The difference is in the respective overhead of each.

If you are relying on 'competent' designers to create 'balanced' powers/monsters based off of PC abilities in DnD Next, I expect that you'll be extremely disappointed with the results.

theNater

2013-05-22, 02:10 PM

No it is not an invalid comparison. Remember, this is about making fireball equally homogenous through the system; fireball is THE go to in game fire effect. In which case d6/level, save half, fire damage is all you need.
If all you're getting from fireball is d6/level, save half, fire damage, then all you save by saying fireball instead of explicitly listing those out is maybe 26 characters per fireball-like ability. That doesn't strike me as a significant benefit.

Assuming 3.5, yes you can. The benefits of a glutted system is that there are so many options available that you can indeed pull off bull as nobody will call you on it. Maybe he took that feat that boosts his unarmed damage? Maybe he's a monk? Maybe he's under a temporary enchantment? Maybe he has loadstones in his hands, concealed? Maybe he has a discipline maneuver?
Why is it okay to do this to make him do d8 damage barehanded, but not to make him do d8 damage with a shortsword?

It's also trivial, literally, to remember the single most iconic weapon in the game. A long sword does 1d8 damage. If you don't remember that then I'm sorry, but you're not educated about the topic enough to be worth listening to. Remembering a basic, groundwork fact about the and is not 'nontrivial memorization', and is not a valid argument against breaking the game down to nothing but nontrivial memorization.
Which is fine, if you are okay with every NPC that does d8 damage using a longsword. I would prefer this not to be the case.

In this aspect, 3E is really very simple. Wizards can cast Fireball. So can sorcerers and bards. Guess what a wand of fireballs or a necklace of fireballs does? Yes, they cast Fireball, and to craft one you must know how to cast Fireball yourself; the same applies to the Helm of Brilliance. A fireball trap predictably casts Fireball, and creatures like a fire salamander or flame demon once more cast Fireball. Wow, that was easy to learn.
Fire Seeds, Fire Storm, Fire Trap, Fireball, Flame Arrow, Flame Strike, Flaming Sphere. These are just from the F section of the SRD spell list.

You may get more traction for the idea of unifying all fire effects under Fireball if you don't point at 3E as an example of the resulting simplicity.

See? You absolutely need your mosnter to cast an almost fireball at d8 instead of d6? No, you don't write up a whole new spell, that's a waste of effort. You say "fireball, does d8 instead of d6." Using something that's not a problem as an example of how one system is better than the other is already silly. It gets even sillier when the system you're arguing against can handle that problem better/.
And what do you do when your players ask if they can use the d8 version instead of the d6 version?

That's not exactly good advice to put in a book on how to DM the system, 'give it what you feel like'. Sure, you can, that's always an option, but that doesn't mean you should actively suggest people ignore the shiny book they just paid for.
The advice in the book is "here are the numbers that should make it work". People are saying that's too limiting, because it prevents you from using ridiculous numbers.

Raineh Daze

2013-05-22, 02:14 PM

Why is it okay to do this to make him do d8 damage barehanded, but not to make him do d8 damage with a shortsword?

Because a PC using a shortsword will then grab the shortsword, and be ticked off if they're still only dealing d6. Seriously, don't mess with the equipment, that's just... illogical. @_@

Flickerdart

2013-05-22, 02:15 PM

It was originally neonchameleon who mentioned this, and I wouldn't call it "ridiculous and pointless" at all when several combat-based RPGs have used the minion (or something similar) as a critter that can be one-shot and mowed down by the PCs.

A 300-level monster (or indeed, many monsters of almost any level) can be one-shotted by level-appropriate PCs without needing to be reduced to a single hit point of max HP, and yet still have the ability to resist some damage done by enemies much weaker than them, which is internally consistent with the game world.

As noted, you can hack this sort of thing into place in 3.x, but it requires book-diving (just about anything outside the core books qualifies as "obscure"; these boards aren't close to a representative sample) and you shouldn't have to hack this stuff into place.

I don't think you understand what the word "hack" means. Using a single flaw to do exactly what it's intended to do does not qualify as hacking any more than learning a spell is hacking spellcasting into the game.

Kurald Galain

2013-05-22, 02:15 PM

My point isn't that 3.5 (or 4e) has badly designed spells/powers (although both systems DO have some badly designed spells/powers), just that the notion that using a small table to 'spit-ball' monster powers is no more/less 'better' at creating 'balanced' powers than instead pulling the powers from a predefined list. The difference is in the respective overhead of each.

Yes, they're tied in balance, we get that. However, the latter approach is stronger in terms of world consistency.

See also, again, the whole issue of "rules-for-balance" vs "rules-for-consistency".

neonchameleon

2013-05-22, 02:17 PM

Wrong. A monster with 1 Constitution and the Frail flaw and Quick trait gains no HP from even d12 hit dice (since both Frail and Quick are -1 and can explicitly reduce to 0, and Con 1 is -5, for a total of -7 against 6.5 from the HD). Then there are ways (like Ritual of Blood or the Draconic Rite) to decrease your HP by set values, and other ways (like Toughness) to increase it by set values, meaning that for any value of HD, any HP total is possible.

Interesting. Point conceded. You can with optional sources and high magic do some weird things.

Based on the respective sales figures of 3E/PF books and 4E books, I would expect the exact opposite.

Bring back 1981!

Having PCs and NPCs use the same rules means that prospective dms need to learn only one ruleset, not two. There was a thread last year about which system people consider it easier to DM for, and the answers were about 50-50 split, so it's fair to say that some people see a bigger barrier in DMing for 4E than for 3E.

Um... no. Having NPCs and PCs use the same ruleset means that prospective DMs need to learn every single ruleset the PCs use. If all PCs work the same way (as in 4e) then yes it's an extra ruleset. If casters work one way, martial folks another, we've already caught up. If there are sorcerors with spontaneous casting, Clerics with semi-vancian casting, and others then it's fewer rulesets.

As for the thread last year, Giant is a 3.5 centric board (for very good reason - and it's IMO the best 3.5 centric board on the net). Try coming over to RPG.net or Something Awful and asking that question.

Flickerdart

2013-05-22, 02:21 PM

If there are sorcerors with spontaneous casting, Clerics with semi-vancian casting, and others then it's fewer rulesets.
There's no way that cleric casting, wizard casting, and sorcerer casting can be considered different rule sets. The differences can be described in a single sentence each: "Sorcerers can cast any spell they know without having to prepare it, but can't scribe new spells" and "Clerics automatically know all their spells and can convert a prepared spell into a Cure of equal level" respectively. A single sentence does not a rule set make.

Ashdate

2013-05-22, 02:24 PM

Yes, they're tied in balance, we get that. However, the latter approach is stronger in terms of world consistency.

See also, again, the whole issue of "rules-for-balance" vs "rules-for-consistency".

I think that's an oversimplification of the matter, and doesn't address whether a game is easy/hard to DM/GM for. A game can be "perfectly" balanced but be a pain in the butt to run (usually because there's too many options), while a game can also be very consistent with it's rules, but be a breeze to run (usually because there are scant few options).

I would put it this way: if the so-called-"rules-for-consistency" people wanted a game that was easy to DM for, then you would need to severely limit the amount of options available. Fireball is okay when it's one of a dozen spells; it's not so okay if it's one of three-hundred.

Reducing DM overhead can happen in several areas, and one of the most important is allowing them to make decisions without needing to justify it in the fiction based off PC capabilities.

Flickerdart

2013-05-22, 02:26 PM

Reducing DM overhead can happen in several areas, and one of the most important is allowing them to make decisions without needing to justify it in the fiction based off PC capabilities.
Justifying it in the fiction without basing it on PC capabilities is fine. "That guy can shoot lasers from his eyes because he is a Cylcopsian, which you can't play as" makes sense and everyone is happy (until someone wants to Polymorph into a Cyclopsian, but that's a whole other can of worms).

Ashdate

2013-05-22, 02:51 PM

Justifying it in the fiction without basing it on PC capabilities is fine. "That guy can shoot lasers from his eyes because he is a Cylcopsian, which you can't play as" makes sense and everyone is happy (until someone wants to Polymorph into a Cyclopsian, but that's a whole other can of worms).

And again, why is it okay if a Cyclopsian has NPC-only abilities, but a Cleric of Vecna doesn't (I mean, unless he's a Cyclopsian I guess).

Needing to arbitrarily justify what is/is not a NPC ability is a mug's game that only creates overhead, and would simply lead to ridiculous compromises that could easily be solved by recognizing that PCs already have access to hundreds of abilities, many of which are inappropriate for an NPC to have, if not by virtue of complexity, then by virtue of the differences between what it means for a player to run a PC in a long campaign, and a DM who wants to use an NPC for a single combat.

Rather than a system that forces me to jump through a hoop to keep an ability out of PC hands, I'd simply prefer a system that says straight-up that I'm going to be doing things that PCs can't. And that's okay, because I'm the DM, and my job is different than the PCs job, so my tools have to be different.

Water_Bear

2013-05-22, 02:57 PM

SiuiS

2013-05-22, 03:01 PM

I just want to say that Ashdate nailed it.

There was, in the original 4e DMG, some weird bits about how monsters'/NPCs' magic items might make a difference in attack and damage past a certain threshold ... but it, like the class templates, is really best ignored.

If a bad guy has a glowing longsword which does fire damage and has an Encounter attack which explodes for fire damage, I'd change some keywords on his main attack. Possibly I'd add some extra damage if it's thematically appropriate, but that part's optional (and likely invisible to the players, so it's not like I'm doing it to make a point). And I'd give him a fiery explosion encounter attack, making it clear it's the sword's magic. Done.

Edit:

There's nothing that says they automatically have magic items past a certain point.

There is a weird, funny little table you can use to adjust an NPC's or monster's attack/damage rolls upwards, if they have magic weapons or implements above a certain threshold. (So it's not assuming an L17 Human Blade Noble has a +3 sword; it's saying that Noble gets no math benefit from a sword of +3 or less.)

It's one of many bad ideas re: monster design found in the DMG1 that have been phased out. (Another being, as I mentioned above, the "class templates" idea which turns a monster into an Elite, messes with their math, and doesn't help their action economy in exchange for a few underpowered class abilities.) In the early days of 4e, there were random nods towards 3e-style monster simulation here and there that stick out like sore thumbs. Like, (iirc) making a monster's Constitution and Dexterity matter for their HP and initiative.

So then yes, it was removed in a later book. Alright.

I think it's silly that you must justify your NPC's unique abilities by giving them a particular box to sit in (he's a gorgon-dragon so he can have a fear attack that petrifies! But not if he's a human cleric because that's not on their spell list).

Think of it from the thee way. How many times have you come across a farmer, who sprouted three heads which spat lazers and and had instakill vision with a ridiculous save, because rule 0?

Where do you draw the line between "my cleric can do monster things because I am the DM" and "my pet commoner can do stupid stuff because i am the DM"? We assume guide lines. We assume fair play. And for some people, that air play comes out of everyone playing with the same rules, instead of a DM using his own custom ruleset and just assuring people it's balanced.

You can give your cleric all that stuff, no problem. It's not even a Ali's example of what you can't do. But the honest truth is that unless you are already established as a fair and just DM, someone will probably cry foul. The question is which system do you want in place to nip that in the bud?

And you're missing the point: it's not about allowing the DM to make minor tweaks to spells; it's about making up spells and abilities that fit the narrative the DM wants to tell without needing to create tools to create the powers and effects you want. Sometimes I do want Fireball, but usually, I just want a ranged burst attack that deals fire damage, and I want the latter without being a slave to the former.

Look army fireball thing. Tell me; what is the difference? Because from where I'm standing the difference between fireball and ranged burst with fire damage is that one is a keyword meaning the other. That's it.

Maybe I want it to deal cold damage too, or maybe I want it to use d8s, but I never want to have to create feats and spells for my players because of some strange inferiority complex they have towards dead NPCs.

These are unconnected problems. Make your d8 cold ball. It has nothing to do with the players getting access.

Unfortunately there are more spells in the game than just Fireball and Magic Missile, not every new player/DM will be confident in using a 3.5 Fireball spell without digging for it's entry in the PHB, and you're also forgettng that all of those 4e references are neatly contained such that you don't need to dig for them.

All we are saying is to use a different system for the exact same thing. Are you arguing it must be lifted from 4e whole cloth and that we shouldn't create a similar convenience for the new game, only tailored to it?

I guess this point never sunk in for some people here: not everyone who wants to play this game is an old hand at D&D. The moment you begin with "as long as you know that fireball does _________" you've completely forgotten what some bad teachers do: that knowing something isn't the same as learning something.

Not at all. My point is that it should be easy to become an old hand at 5e. 3.5/4th have jack all to do with that. You are the one making the mistake; you are turning "a complete and holistic system" into some high-complexity straw man. I'm not saying every fire spell should be based on exactly 400 feet range (plus forty each caster level) with all that V/S/M stuff and SR and spell level and such. Neither did anyone else (although when asked, they did say it wasn't hard). All they said was that things should be simple and easy to build on.

I think the key is in providing a table (like some edition did somewhere...) which has those "roughly-appropriate" values for you.

Yes. Exactly.

* Whether or not NPCs and monsters should be restricted to the list of stuff PCs can do. This also limits the sorts of "special effects" a non-magical NPC can use.

Okay, no, stop. This is a language issue. Lets try this a different way.

NPCs should not be limited to anything.

Instead, the rules should provide an engine which is consistent and functional. Both classes of character can be made off of the same engine. There is complete transparency.

4e achieved this, almost. Except instead of using the building blocks it relied on a lot of heuristic stuff at the user end.

* Whether it's more beneficial to just make an ability which matches the fiction you're picturing, or look through spell lists to find something which does it (and which imposes some limits).

This is only a problem if you think people want to port another system in wholesale.

If EVERY ability is a guideline, then this is a nonissue.

Goddess why am I even arguing this?! It's not going in Next and has nothing to do with either currently loved edition. It's just a cool idea someone had that got kicked for being misunderstood.

So are the guidelines on a 4e-style chart, and I'd argue they're a whole lot better for it. If you're following them, you end up with a level-appropriate opponent.

If you buy four different books and can cross reference them all :smallwink:

Isn't that what we don't want to happen? :smalltongue:

It's completely and totally unnecessary. It's make-work. If you want a monster to have 1 hit point, you give them 1 hit point.

Yes. It is busy work. The only benefit is that if you made a monster with 1 HP, and someone asked, you could figure it out after the fact. But you don't need to. Plenty of 3.5 material can be winged just as easy as 4e.

One entails and implies the other. You may be able to skip steps or leave blanks in the name of simplification, but ... If you're making PCs and NPCs follow the same rules, everything outside "whack something with a sword" requires implementation as a....

Feat
Spell
Magic item
Class ability
or Racial ability

Going off this list means you're no longer using the same rules as the PCs. You're using stuff that is not available for the PCs under the "same rules" model.

Which is why, instead of building a PC system and using it for NPCs, you build a game system and use it for characters, period.
That's what 4e did. They just added back in some extra dewdads for players to tinker with too.

Second, how is it "minimal" when it's completely unnecessary?

It depends on hat your benchmark is.
I agree though. Unnecessary math is unnecessary.

If all you're getting from fireball is d6/level, save half, fire damage, then all you save by saying fireball instead of explicitly listing those out is maybe 26 characters per fireball-like ability. That doesn't strike me as a significant benefit.

And consistency. Not complete fidelity, no. But a fireball deals fire damage at range. The burst should have even included, actually, that was my faux pas. Then you have a system where fireball is fireball is fireball, even with exceptions no special cases like attack rolls or d8 damage or parameter shifts (size, reach, ongoing damage, knockdown).

Why is it okay to do this to make him do d8 damage barehanded, but not to make him do d8 damage with a shortsword?

Who said it isn't okay with a short sword? Short sword doing d^ damage != magic glowing firesword becoming smaller, non magical, non glowing and nonfire in a PCs hands.

Which is fine, if you are okay with every NPC that does d8 damage using a longsword. I would prefer this not to be the case.

Irrelevant point. There are plenty of things which deal 1d8 damage. The specific example is to enlighten, not to become some artificial benchmark to measure against.

Fire Seeds, Fire Storm, Fire Trap, Fireball, Flame Arrow, Flame Strike, Flaming Sphere. These are just from the F section of the SRD spell list.

You may get more traction for the idea of unifying all fire effects under Fireball if you don't point at 3E as an example of the resulting simplicity.

3e isn't. What I personally am getting at is dropping the superfluous details and using the heart of things.

And what do you do when your players ask if they can use the d8 version instead of the d6 version?

Depends how you balance your table. For a long time, dragon breath was of limits. So you do the same thing you do when a player asks to use dragon breath weapons. Or asks to use a mummy's fear aura.
But when you look at numbers, it's not so bad. Balance is a range of acceptability. Keeping them in that range while making it feel scandalously out of that range is a fun balancing act.

The advice in the book is "here are the numbers that should make it work". People are saying that's too limiting, because it prevents you from using ridiculous numbers.

That is a ridiculous claim, aye.

Ah well. Suppose I'm done with this for now. We are just going round the mulberry bush. Someone's gonna pop, and I don't want to be monkey, or weasel.

Thank you, TheNater, for humoring me enough to argue.

Scowling Dragon

2013-05-22, 03:10 PM

Also the Harry Potter (With the Time Turner) example was just awful writing from Rowlings part rather then anything to do with D&D. Its like if The Rebels getting the Death Star, and then forgetting about it cause....No reason. And then it gets blown up for poorly explained reasons as well (Not because of the Exhaust port).

For example why didn't Voldemorts pals just save a few copies? Wouldn't it be horrifying:

"Voldemorts dead!....Oh well. Il just go to the emergency bunker and Warn Lord Voldemort to double tap Harry with the Time Turner"

Its more to do with consistent worldbuilding.

Players want to act smart, and if your plot FORCES them to be stupid for it to work, then thats a large flaw.

Person_Man

2013-05-22, 03:11 PM

Person_Man, please add this under Ability Scores.

Ability scores are capped at 20. Magic items and spells can improve ability scores beyond this cap.

Source: http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/blog/2013/04/25/dd_next_qa:_starting_gold,_paragon_pathsprestige_c lasses__bounded_accuracy

Done.

Limiting To-Hit/Armor/Saving Throw progression seems like a very good idea on the surface to me. But reading through the link you provided, it seems that Bounded Accuracy is going to have an odd side effect on the metagame of class construction. Because everything is determined by Ability Check bonuses, and those bonuses are relatively rare, it seems like anything that provides a bonus to your primary Ability score or primary Ability Checks will essentially be mandatory, much like Expertise Feats in 4E. Or if there are certain caps, then the metagame will be about getting to those caps in the most efficient ways.

Honestly, if they're going to do Bounded Accuracy, they might as well go all-in and just remove all such "optional" bonuses to Ability Checks and Ability scores. If a character absolutely needs it to keep up and function as they gain levels, just give the appropriate bonus to all characters.

obryn

2013-05-22, 03:14 PM

If an NPC has a cool ability, especially if it is one which allows them to compete head-to-head against the entire party single-handedly, chances are the PCs will want said ability. And they will try to acquire it and use it.

That's a point where "narrative first" attitude falls apart; characters in most types of fiction and RPG characters are just operating by different MOs. A great example of this is with short term plot-devices like the Time Turners in Harry Potter. In most Books/Comics/Movies/Plays/TV Shows I've seen, characters are perfectly willing to forget about cool and useful options simply to keep the plot headed in the direction the author wants it to; look at how much fan wankery is based on inventorying all the useful little one-off techniques or gadgets the protagonists (and often antagonists) end up accumulating and ignoring throughout the work. PCs do not, in my experience anyway, behave anything like that; they will seize any advantage which comes their way, use their resources as efficiently as possible, and focus on acting reasonably in character rather than preserving a certain chain of events.

Because when the PCs see the cool move and try to copy it, what happens? Either they hit an immersion-breaking Fiat wall, they get access to something which is more powerful than a PC should have, or they find out that there are rules governing it which gives them a path to actually getting the ability (learn feat/spell/maneuver, make character in this class/race, etc) without it being ridiculous. The way I've phrased that should make it clear which I prefer.
Why is there an assumption that everything in the game world is learnable by the PCs? How is that not just as immersion breaking?

I think there's a tendency among folks who play heavier-sim games to conflate the game's fiction with the game's rules.

Think of it from the thee way. How many times have you come across a farmer, who sprouted three heads which spat lazers and and had instakill vision with a ridiculous save, because rule 0?

Where do you draw the line between "my cleric can do monster things because I am the DM" and "my pet commoner can do stupid stuff because i am the DM"? We assume guide lines. We assume fair play. And for some people, that air play comes out of everyone playing with the same rules, instead of a DM using his own custom ruleset and just assuring people it's balanced.
I'll get back to the rest later, but it's about the narrative and fiction.

Is it reasonable in the game world that a Templar of Dregoth has weird things PCs don't? IMO, absolutely. Is it reasonable that PCs can learn everything NPCs can do? I don't think so, and I have to wonder where that idea came from.

If you buy four different books and can cross reference them all :smallwink:

Isn't that what we don't want to happen? :smalltongue:
The fact that parts of 4e came out half-baked is incredibly regrettable. But the errata process means you don't need 4 books; it's freely available online. (Or, if you started with the DM's kit or Rule Compendium, you don't even need errata.)

OTOH, if proper implementation of your monster/NPC concept relies on feats, prestige classes, spells, and variant rules from several sources...

-O

Ashdate

2013-05-22, 03:16 PM

DeltaEmil

2013-05-22, 03:23 PM

If an NPC has a cool ability, especially if it is one which allows them to compete head-to-head against the entire party single-handedly, chances are the PCs will want said ability. And they will try to acquire it and use it.Any normal GM should absolutely and perfectly be fine to tell his or her gaming group that no, they can't have that ability (at least not yet in its current form), because it's obviously unbalanced, seeing how the entire group absolutely want that ability, wasn't made with player characters in mind, and the GM might not have made up the prerequisites yet.

The players are free to try to help the GM refine and rebalance that NPC-uberability, or get the help of the Internet, or perhaps even get said paid "professional" roleplaying game designers to develop a balanced version of the uberability that the gaming group's GM made up, and release it in a supplemental with tons of new stuff the gaming group might want to use at their gaming table.

Of course, one should never forget that even paid "professional" roleplaying game designers can create absolutely worthless and/or unbalanced rules.
But it might be nice for the gaming group's ego to have their uberability-suggestion be implemented in an official gaming book.

Water_Bear

2013-05-22, 03:26 PM

Why is there an assumption that everything in the game world is learnable by the PCs? How is that not just as immersion breaking?

I think there's a tendency among folks who play heavier-sim games to conflate the game's fiction with the game's rules.

If I'm a swordsman and the enemy uses a sword technique to kick my ass, I will take out my To Do list cross off the top item and write in "learn cool sword strike" or at the very least "learn countermove to cool sword strike." Ditto with Spellcasters and spells, Bards with songs/sonic powers, shapeshifters and racial abilities, etc. Not even mentioning abilities from items, which can literally just be picked up and put in a pocket to save for later.

The idea that a PC will shrug and say "oh well" when they encounter cool powers which fall under their areas of expertise is much more immersion breaking than players trying to salvage the Necromancer's spellbook to see how he made the Fire Skeletons.

-Edit-

Any normal GM should absolutely and perfectly be fine to tell his or her gaming group that no, they can't have that ability (at least not yet in its current form), because it's obviously unbalanced, seeing how the entire group absolutely want that ability, wasn't made with player characters in mind, and the GM might not have made up the prerequisites yet.

The players are free to try to help the GM refine and rebalance that NPC-uberability, or get the help of the Internet, or perhaps even get said paid "professional" roleplaying game designers to develop a balanced version of the uberability that the gaming group's GM made up, and release it in a supplemental with tons of new stuff the gaming group might want to use at their gaming table.

Of course, one should never forget that even paid "professional" roleplaying game designers can create absolutely worthless and/or unbalanced rules.
But it might be nice for the gaming group's ego to have their uberability-suggestion be implemented in an official gaming book.

That's restating the problem; you have to go outside of the system, spending your own time and money, to solve an artificial problem caused by inconsistent rules.

1337 b4k4

2013-05-22, 03:42 PM

Think of it from the thee way. How many times have you come across a farmer, who sprouted three heads which spat lazers and and had instakill vision with a ridiculous save, because rule 0?

Where do you draw the line between "my cleric can do monster things because I am the DM" and "my pet commoner can do stupid stuff because i am the DM"? We assume guide lines. We assume fair play. And for some people, that air play comes out of everyone playing with the same rules, instead of a DM using his own custom ruleset and just assuring people it's balanced.

You can give your cleric all that stuff, no problem. It's not even a Ali's example of what you can't do. But the honest truth is that unless you are already established as a fair and just DM, someone will probably cry foul. The question is which system do you want in place to nip that in the bud?

I've been following this for the last few pages (and growing more amused by the page, but that's neither here nor there) but finally someone has stated the problem that belies all of this. The assumption that the players and the DM are "balanced".

Frankly speaking that is a load of bunk and everyone knows it. By definition (and in fact, by statement in the 4e rules) the players and the DM are not balanced. The players (in the modern play style) are supposed to win, which means any talk of balance should be thrown out right then and there. Once you accept that the DM is not supposed to TPK 50% of the time, then it's fairly easy to understand that the DM needs (and should have) a different set of tools for engaging with the game than the players.

Why does the DM get to have monsters that do 1d12 with a short sword, breathe fire or cast spells above their level? Because the DM is supposed to be challenging the players and making them sweat and dance and making them fear for their lives. Because the DM is responsible for managing an entire world and environment while the players are only responsible for managing one character. If you want to play the monster that does 1d12 damage with a short sword, then you DM. If you want to play a hero that saves the land, gets the prince(ss) and becomes an all powerful god, then you play as a PC and accept that in exchange for all of those options, you don't get to do 1d12 damage with a short sword.

Trying to balance between the DM and the players is a suckers game that only leads to rules lawyering and whining from both sides.

Edit
---------

Also as a side note regarding book sales and how easy 3e or 4e is to DM. The lack of book sales from 4e should say nothing at all about how easy it is to DM simply because there are far fewer DMs than players. In fact, I would expect that an easier to DM game has fewer book sales because the DM is more likely to part with and share the books.

But 4e was also fairly clearly not a "players" game like 3e was. With less players spending hours building character concepts and combinations it should logically follow that 4e would have a smaller set of book sales, regardless of how easy or hard it was to DM.

NoldorForce

2013-05-22, 03:43 PM

That's restating the problem; you have to go outside of the system, spending your own time and money, to solve an artificial problem caused by inconsistent rules.If you're going to allow this sort of thing (and it's not the default in TRPGs by any means!) then you've got a lot of implications (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15241067&postcount=1265) to worry about. One of which, as I noted, is that you'll want to be pushing for a point/skill-based system rather than a class-based system.

MukkTB

2013-05-22, 03:44 PM

DeltaEmil

2013-05-22, 03:45 PM

Official rules aren't more consistent. They never were, and never will be, the moment you have more than one race, more than one class, more than one way to resolve a situation, or more than one paid "professional" roleplaying game designer making up the rules.

They're just official (at best), and hopefully more sensible than what the gaming group's GM might have made up.

What the paid "professional" roleplaying game designers can and should do is to include the guidelines and design process as well as explanation why making up such an ability with this and that number and so might not be a good idea.

And as I've said, even they can still be wrong and/or make up complete garbage that in hindsight should have been done differently.

Raineh Daze

2013-05-22, 03:49 PM

1337 b4k4

2013-05-22, 03:52 PM

DeltaEmil

2013-05-22, 03:55 PM

You appear to be arguing against the existence of a roleplaying system at all, rather than what the goal of the creation of such a system should be.I have no idea why you would come up with that conclusion, but okay. I'm not.

NoldorForce

2013-05-22, 03:56 PM

Reposting this for Kurald Galain et al.

You'll have to define "PCs and NPCs use the same rules" for me then, both to differentiate it from "NPCs have to be built like PCs are" and because it's been used as this rather malleable concept depending on the speaker.

Kornaki

2013-05-22, 04:12 PM

The other thing is that special 1 off abilities only available to NPCs are a crutch for bad storytellers. "I want X to happen. I have no idea how to get X. I'm going to magic it." If something is supposed to challenge a PC group despite action economy disadvantage there are multiple options. #1 make the boss monster higher level. #2 have some minions around #3 create a favorable environment for the boss monster.

Number bloat is a storytelling technique now?

Ashdate

2013-05-22, 04:17 PM

There's also the matter of consistency within the world. If you encounter a rogue its nice to understand what he can do in general. If DM fiat might give him the power to shoot fireballs out of his ass then as a player you've suddenly lost all ability to predict basic things about the world.

I don't know how many times I need to repeat this, but I guess it's one more time than I thought I would:

The point of DM fiat is not "anything goes!" You've still got to justify it with your narrative.

If you - as a DM - are going to have a rogue that shoots fireballs out of his arse, then you need to create the world where that is a plausible thing. That there are no firm rules on the mechanical side of things does not mean there are no narrative rules that dictate what is/is not possible. When I had my players encounter mechanical cows that could shoot lasers, I did it in a setting (Planescape's Mechanus) where that made sense. They didn't need to spend a lot of time figuring out who built them and why they were there, because they were on a plane of existence where stuff like that was entirely plausible. If they had encountered them on Pandemonium? Well, that would have taken some explaining.

I'll put it this way: just because Beholders are a monster that exists, does not mean that every situation is appropriate to throw a Beholder in. There are particular contexts they do work in (such as overlords in a dungeon), but if a player opens a tavern door and sees a Beholder casually sitting (er, floating) at the bar, then I - as the DM - better have a pretty damn good explanation.

This is true for everything. It's why you don't generally encounter CR 15 goblins, or Vampires who are buddies with Hound Archons, or Ancient Red Dragons who perform card tricks at children's birthday parties. It's not that the rules don't support them, it's that the narrative rarely does.

BUT (and this is an important "but") sometimes you do have a good narrative reason for a level 15 goblin. Just like how sometimes you do have a good narrative reason for a thief who can shoot a fireball out of his butt. But the problem isn't that a game might allow you to create one or the other, the challenge is making sure that they fit into your narrative, and that challenge is not one that is made easier or harder by the absence of PC/NPC symmetry. It's made easier/harder by whether or not the game can teach you that running an effective game is not found by running it off a random encounter table, but by thinking about how each piece in your world fits into the larger whole.

And in my opinion, the less time you spend worrying about how you get an NPC to create animated furniture, the more time you can spend on the things the players are going to notice and question.

theNater

2013-05-22, 04:17 PM

Because a PC using a shortsword will then grab the shortsword, and be ticked off if they're still only dealing d6. Seriously, don't mess with the equipment, that's just... illogical. @_@
Why would they get ticked off? The implication should be that the opponent had a feat, class feature, temporary enchantment, hidden magical item, or discipline manuever they don't have, just as with the unarmed damage.

And consistency. Not complete fidelity, no. But a fireball deals fire damage at range. The burst should have even included, actually, that was my faux pas. Then you have a system where fireball is fireball is fireball, even with exceptions no special cases like attack rolls or d8 damage or parameter shifts (size, reach, ongoing damage, knockdown).
I think the main thing that's going on here is that we have a different threshold for where the number of special cases makes the thing no longer consistent. If we're going to have, say, one in five creatures use "fireball, except XYZ", then I'd be just as happy to write the whole thing out every time. YMMV.

Who said it isn't okay with a short sword? Short sword doing d^ damage != magic glowing firesword becoming smaller, non magical, non glowing and nonfire in a PCs hands.
Er, you did, actually. Ashdate suggested a shortsword doing d8 instead of d6, and you said it was fine until a PC picked it up and got less damage out of it. However, the flaming sword did come up in conversation at about the same time, so a little confusion there is understandable.

Irrelevant point. There are plenty of things which deal 1d8 damage. The specific example is to enlighten, not to become some artificial benchmark to measure against.
There's actually a very important point in here, that I'd like to make very clear. There's a handful of ways of handling the fact that the DM will likely need to make a lot of NPCs, each with their own deal going on. The ones I've seen hinted at so far are:

1)Make a small number of options, and expect the DM to know them all. I find this acceptable, if a little boring. However, it's not typical for D&D.

2)Make a large number of options, and expect the DM to know them all(the 3e approach). This is where the massive overhead comes in, either in the form of the DM learning all the options in advance, or looking through the books to find them. I dislike this option.

3)Make a large number of options, and give the DM clear, simple guidelines on how to make new ones(the 4e approach). This is my personal favorite of the three, but it does mean that sometimes the DM will make an ability that is strictly better than a player ability, or that contradicts known mechanics(shortsword attacks doing d8 damage). These problems are minimized if an ability can only be used by one specific NPC and are never seen again, but some find that makes the world feel inconstant.

3e isn't. What I personally am getting at is dropping the superfluous details and using the heart of things.
You and I agree that 3e isn't simple; Kurald Galain was explicitly pointing to it as a simple system.

Depends how you balance your table. For a long time, dragon breath was of limits. So you do the same thing you do when a player asks to use dragon breath weapons. Or asks to use a mummy's fear aura.
It sounds like you and I are both okay with saying no. Be aware, however, that some other posters object to it.

But when you look at numbers, it's not so bad. Balance is a range of acceptability. Keeping them in that range while making it feel scandalously out of that range is a fun balancing act.
As it happens, I find that balancing act painful, rather than fun. So I'm hoping for a system that will make it easy for me to avoid.

Ah well. Suppose I'm done with this for now. We are just going round the mulberry bush. Someone's gonna pop, and I don't want to be monkey, or weasel.

Thank you, TheNater, for humoring me enough to argue.
I think we're making some progress, but if you're done, you're done. Thank you as well, it's been informative.

Raineh Daze

2013-05-22, 04:24 PM

Why would they get ticked off? The implication should be that the opponent had a feat, class feature, temporary enchantment, hidden magical item, or discipline manuever they don't have, just as with the unarmed damage.

Well, if the PC was using a shortsword, and the enemy was using a shortsword, and the enemy's shortsword was using a different die when attaacking normally, then you would naturally expect it to use the same die if you use the thing... not drop back to 1d6 damage. Because that xdx thing, with weapons, represents the damage potential of the weapon itself, not skill or special abilities. You may as well not give weapons consistent stats if they'll change like that. :smallconfused:

theNater

2013-05-22, 04:33 PM

DeltaEmil

2013-05-22, 04:36 PM

Well, if the PC was using a shortsword, and the enemy was using a shortsword, and the enemy's shortsword was using a different die when attaacking normally, then you would naturally expect it to use the same die if you use the thing... not drop back to 1d6 damage. Because that xdx thing, with weapons, represents the damage potential of the weapon itself, not skill or special abilities. You may as well not give weapons consistent stats if they'll change like that. :smallconfused:Unless the enemy monster had special class features, feats, a racial ability, an ability bestowed by a deity/demon/devil/daemon/fey/celestial/dragon/wizard/magic item to use short swords better than other people, is a time traveler from the distant future/past where people actually know how to really use short swords to their correct potential, the short sword is actually a magic bastard sword which only the enemy monster can activate, was trained by the best short sword master ever, or comes from another plane of reality where the people just are that good with short swords.

That's been part of D&D 4th edition, 3rd edition, and 2nd edition, and I'm sure also older editions where sometimes, some character simply uses different rules because the game designer decided so, like for example that Rangers start play with 2 HD, because they're better than fighters and paladins.

Raineh Daze

2013-05-22, 04:37 PM

Why is it different for barehanded attacks? We're assuming two humanoids of similar enough race that we can't say "oh, it's a racial thing" in either case.

Because monks are poorly designed. There ought to be a better way to handle it than that. :/

Unless the enemy monster had special class features, feats, a racial ability, an ability bestowed by a deity/demon/devil/daemon/fey/celestial/dragon/wizard/magic item to use short swords better than other people, is a time traveler from the distant future/past where people actually know how to really use short swords to their correct potential, the short sword is actually a magic bastard sword which only the enemy monster can activate, was trained by the best short sword master ever, or comes from another plane of reality where the people just are that good with short swords.

And none of these arbitrarily made up explanations make the slightest bit of sense. Just grab a 1d8 weapon and not a 1d8 shortsword.

Or give the shortsword using PC some method of getting that die size, rather than arbitrarily declaring 'you are forever a worse wielder of a shortsword than this guy'.

Oracle_Hunter

2013-05-22, 04:38 PM

Oookay, maybe it's time for a shift in topic :smallsmile:

* * *

Even though this is irrelevant to how 5e is going to turn out, the persistent talk about what is or is not “D&D” got me to thinking about the “least conditions” for D&D. In short, the absolute minimum boundaries of what it means to be D&D that (hopefully) everyone can agree on. One I had that, I came up with the framework of a hypothetical 5e which would satisfy Mearl's stated aim of making One System To Rule Them All.

Included in spoilers because, well, it's not even close to what 5e is going to look like.
First, a note on “not feeling like D&D.”

Being a purely subjective measure it is nearly impossible for any Game Designer to build a game around something as amorphous as “feeling like” a game which has spanned decades and numerous Editions. This is particularly true when a narrow element such as “skill points” or “save or die” spells is identified as mechanics change and such elements rarely look the same from Edition to Edition. So, if I had my druthers, I wouldn't bother trying to design a System around such metrics. But, as this Thread (and others like it) have taught me, if you want to unify all “D&D” Players across time and space that's how you're going to have to design.

Here's what I came up with:
1) Player Characters ("PCs") have Classes
Ever since the first version of D&D, Player Characters have been defined by their Classes. While the definition of “Class” has changed over time I'll fix it as “a label that defines some, if not most, of your Character's in-game capabilities and grants new and/or improved capabilities.”

2) PCs operate in Parties with diverse talents
The iconic party is Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Wizard – four people who work together (and stick together!), supporting each other with their individual talents. Now, the party doesn't have to be those four classes but it does bespeak an approach of “everyone helps, and nobody can win alone” style of play.

This “iconic” choice may be controversial, but I think it needs to be included.

3) PCs explore Dungeons
I mean, it's in the title, no? If you're calling yourself D&D you should include mechanics to explore underground structures filled with puzzles, traps, monsters and treasure. I know early editions were light on the mechanics, per se, but I think the “games without mechanics for core issues” thing has had its time.

4) PCs fight Monsters, including Dragons
This is the second part of the title. It extrapolated from “Dragons” because, well, it's a bit too narrow.
Those are my four “inarguable” points of what it means to be D&D, with slight elaboration. My argument is these four elements are the Necessary elements to include to make something “feel like D&D” to 95% of the audience who has played D&D and cares about its “D&D-ness.” We can argue about that assertion if anyone wants, but here's the basics of what sort of game I'd envision that includes those elements.
Classes: Each and every Class has two main facets – a Combat Role and an Exploration Role. The Combat Role reflects how they contribute most to a party when fighting Monsters, such as Dragons. The Exploration Role reflects how they contribute most to a party when exploring dangerous places, such as Dungeons.

For the Core, I'd include just four classes with the following role selections:
Fighter: Combat (Front-line Melee & Blocking), Exploration (Knowledge of Monsters and Natural Hazards)
Rogue: Combat (Ranged Damage & Singe target take-down), Exploration (Finding/Disarming Traps & Finding Secret/Hidden stuff)
Cleric: Combat (Healing & Buffs), Exploration (Divination)
Wizard: Combat (Controlling), Exploration (“Special Effects” like Light, Levitation and Magic Fingers)

The Core Classes are designed to operate best in Dungeons, the default adventure setting.

Expansions:
Splatbooks would each include four new Classes designed to operate best in a different setting, and rules specific for running adventures in that setting.

For example: Woods & Will-o-the-Wisps Expansion (for Wilderness Adventures)
Barbarian (Wilderness Fighter)
Ranger (Wilderness Thief)
Druid (Wilderness Cleric)
Witch (Wilderness Wizard)

That, of course, is not the be-all and end-all of Expansion Classes, but this is just a bare-bones sketch of the system so I won't go further.

Additionally, W&W could include rules for getting lost in forests (or finding your way around), more “natural” hazards and monsters you might find above ground, rules for starvation, weather, etc. – things that wouldn't matter in a Dungeon but would be relevant in this new setting.

You could do the same for any number of other settings: Castles & Cads for urban adventures (with detailed social rules, for example), Ether & Elementals for extra-planar adventures, Foulness & Fiends for going to Hell and/or the Abyss and so on.

Commentary:
This system has several points that recommend it as the One System To Rule Them All:
1) The Core is dense and focused.
Any newbie who picks it up is going to get exactly the sort of game that the title indicates. With only four classes to worry about the designers can actually get these basic mechanics right before worrying about the 1001 “classes” that have accumulated over the years. Plus, by announcing the policy in “Expansions” nobody is going to worry about their “favorite” class being left out – it'll get there eventually.

2) The ultimate set of rules is clearly divided into sections so you don't have to worry about “missing” some essential Simulationist element.
Lots of people want D&D to be Simulationist, but it can be daunting for everyone else to look at the “core” and find rules for everything from asphyxiating when being buried alive to the force of Ether Storms. My proposal “divides and conquers” this expansive intention, giving the designers plenty of time to think about the “modular” elements they want to include without causing Players to howl that such-and-such isn't addressed.

3) Expansions are coherent and dense
This approach to Expansions provides an automatic theme to each splatbook so that the designers can add a little bit of everything to a book without worrying about filling pages. If every splatbook has Classes, Feats, Rules and Monsters focused around a specific setting then it will not be hard to figure out what to include and how much. Plus, Players will be more happy to buy Woods & Will-o-the-Wisps since they know what it's about instead of Primal Power 23 or Book of 1001 Swords.
Importantly, it actually builds on some of the ideas Mearls already has stated. It is modular (to the extreme!), has rules for fighting and exploring, and can support whatever 3.x mechanics you want. While I envisioned the “Wizard” and “Cleric” to be on par in flexibility and effectiveness with the Fighter and Thief you could easily release a “Caster's Delight” splatbook which has 3.PF Caster classes in it if you really wanted to. IMHO, this is the sort of framework that you could use to build exactly the sort of 5e that the “Devs” have indicated they wanted.
So there's my framework. To be honest I'd be pretty happy playing a game built on this framework and, I suspect, most of you would as well (as long as I wasn't doing the designing :smalltongue:). But I won't make this game for two reasons:

1) The “D&D” market is already quite full with Paizo and, presumably, WotC at some point.

2) Fleshing out all those splatbooks is a job for a team, not a single man. Ditto for the Core Rules, although I could probably make that if I spent long enough.

I think Mearls could design 5e around this framework without changing his current approach of throwing the Internet at the wall and seeing what sticks, but I suspect such a radical change in structure would be too much for a project that has already been rolling for months now.

Ah well, at least I got it out of my brain :smallsmile:

DeltaEmil

2013-05-22, 04:54 PM

And none of these arbitrarily made up explanations make the slightest bit of sense. Just grab a 1d8 weapon and not a 1d8 shortsword. They absolutely make sense. You just don't like it, because they say "NPC can do one thing that PC can't do". It's the same like "Wizards shoot fireballs and Fighters can't", or "Rogues can evade fireballs and Fighters can't". It's absolutely the same.

Or give the shortsword using PC some method of getting that die size, rather than arbitrarily declaring 'you are forever a worse wielder of a shortsword than this guy'.The NPC monster had to take NPC monster HD/class that gave him better use with short swords, but made him worse at everything else than the player characters, which is why the monster is dead, and the player characters are alive and victorious. The monster was stupid to specialize in using short swords slightly better than other people and paid with its life, while player characters can simply take the longsword and be immediately better than the monster.

Everything's fine now.

Unless that monster somehow killed the entire party with its d8-short swords. Which obviously means that the ability to use short swords like long swords, and long swords by themselves are overpowered. :smallcool:

TuggyNE

2013-05-22, 05:11 PM

Oookay, maybe it's time for a shift in topic :smallsmile:

Yes, please. This pointless slapfest has gone on long enough; no new arguments are being brought up, and it's just down to passive-aggressive talking past each other.

Even though this is irrelevant to how 5e is going to turn out, the persistent talk about what is or is not “D&D” got me to thinking about the “least conditions” for D&D. In short, the absolute minimum boundaries of what it means to be D&D that (hopefully) everyone can agree on. One I had that, I came up with the framework of a hypothetical 5e which would satisfy Mearl's stated aim of making One System To Rule Them All.

[…]

Gotta admit, that sounds like a game I'd like, at least in theory. Pity it probably won't happen. :smallfrown:

theNater

2013-05-22, 05:16 PM

Because monks are poorly designed. There ought to be a better way to handle it than that. :/
Saying it's bad design all around is fine. I was having troubles because it seemed to be suggested that it was acceptable design for the unarmed, but bad design for the shortsword.

Just grab a 1d8 weapon and not a 1d8 shortsword.
SiuS suggested that a bit earlier. I've pulled out that part of the conversation for your convenience(in the spoiler tags, to save space).

You have to know(or look up) which weapons do 1d8, and give it one of those, which takes time.

It's also trivial, literally, to remember the single most iconic weapon in the game. A long sword does 1d8 damage. If you don't remember that then I'm sorry, but you're not educated about the topic enough to be worth listening to. Remembering a basic, groundwork fact about the and is not 'nontrivial memorization', and is not a valid argument against breaking the game down to nothing but nontrivial memorization.

Which is fine, if you are okay with every NPC that does d8 damage using a longsword. I would prefer this not to be the case.

Irrelevant point. There are plenty of things which deal 1d8 damage. The specific example is to enlighten, not to become some artificial benchmark to measure against.

There's actually a very important point in here, that I'd like to make very clear. There's a handful of ways of handling the fact that the DM will likely need to make a lot of NPCs, each with their own deal going on. The ones I've seen hinted at so far are:

1)Make a small number of options, and expect the DM to know them all. I find this acceptable, if a little boring. However, it's not typical for D&D.

2)Make a large number of options, and expect the DM to know them all(the 3e approach). This is where the massive overhead comes in, either in the form of the DM learning all the options in advance, or looking through the books to find them. I dislike this option.

3)Make a large number of options, and give the DM clear, simple guidelines on how to make new ones(the 4e approach). This is my personal favorite of the three, but it does mean that sometimes the DM will make an ability that is strictly better than a player ability, or that contradicts known mechanics(shortsword attacks doing d8 damage). These problems are minimized if an ability can only be used by one specific NPC and are never seen again, but some find that makes the world feel inconstant.
Feel free to pick up at any point in there.

...I came up with the framework of a hypothetical 5e which would satisfy Mearl's stated aim of making One System To Rule Them All.
I like it. My only concern is keeping the Cleric's Divination from overlapping the Rogue's "finding things", but assuming we can keep those separate, we've got something solid.

Kurald Galain

2013-05-22, 05:17 PM

Reposting this for Kurald Galain et al.

Sure. PC/NPCs on the same rules means that they work on the same numerical scale; if a level-5 PC fighter has between 30 and 50 hit points and dies at -20, then it would be different rules if a level-5 NPC fighter has 200 hit points and dies at 0. If an NPC uses an item in combat, and the PCs take this item from him, then they can use it to the same effect. If an NPC wizard casts a spell and the PCs find his spellbook, then they can use the same spell to the same effect.

Barring extreme cases, of course. The PCs aren't supposed to mimic a beholder's eye rays or a dragon's firebreath. You can always make up some ridiculous example where any rule shouldn't work; rules are for common cases.

PC/NPCs using the same character generation means you go through the lengthy process of rolling/pointbuying ability scores, leveling up skill points, and so forth. That's not necessary, you only need the details you'll actually use. For instance, a 10th level PC wizard may have dozens of spells, a 10th level NPC wizard only needs a couple iconic spells if that's all he'll ever use in play. It's fine to make up or eyeball an NPC's numbers, as long as they would be within reason for a PC of the same race/class/level.

neonchameleon

2013-05-22, 05:21 PM

Yes, they're tied in balance, we get that. However, the latter approach is stronger in terms of world consistency.

See also, again, the whole issue of "rules-for-balance" vs "rules-for-consistency".

There are two forms of consistency. The first is consistency with the rules - which if the DM prioritises consistency is going to happen whether the rules mandate it or not. Every monster I can think of in the 4e official monster books who wields a shortsword does damage in a multiple of d6. Every monster I have ever created in 4e wielding a shortsword, likewise. And with all due respect, who really cares?

The second is consistency of fiction. Your "rules for consistency" are what lead to a Standard Climbable Tree (DC15) (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/climb.htm). They are what lead to being set on fire by napalm under the RAW doing the same damage as having your cloak caught on fire (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/environment.htm). And to lava always doing the same amount of damage however hot it is, however fast moving, whatever basic stone, and however far from the centre of the volcano.

This sort of "rules for consistency" make the rules of the game consistent with each other - but they do so at the expense of making the game inconsistent with the world as being described unless the world is an identikit world in which all lava is at the same temperature. They force the DM to either massively limit the fiction so everything is much more uniform than in the real world, or they force the DM to make the outcomes from the rules not match the descriptions in the fiction.

By not forcing worlds into an identikit model and instead allowing DM discression, rules for description (and rules for balance) can be much more consistent with most fictions than rules-for-consistency are.

There's no way that cleric casting, wizard casting, and sorcerer casting can be considered different rule sets. The differences can be described in a single sentence each: "Sorcerers can cast any spell they know without having to prepare it, but can't scribe new spells" and "Clerics automatically know all their spells and can convert a prepared spell into a Cure of equal level" respectively. A single sentence does not a rule set make.

I was thinking of one of the versions of Next clerics when I wrote that. I agree that 3e Clerics are effectively casting the same way as 3e Wizards.

If I'm a swordsman and the enemy uses a sword technique to kick my ass, I will take out my To Do list cross off the top item and write in "learn cool sword strike" or at the very least "learn countermove to cool sword strike."

And if "cool sword strike" is the only thing you do in a 6 second timeframe you're moving slowly enough that you're roadkill. At 6 seconds a round is about the approach you take, the opportunities you see and focus on, and the way you move. A single sword stroke, or something big like a spin-kick or spinning backfist takes less than a second. Sure you can learn it, and the counter. But you can't retrain your entire muscle memory easily to move like the other guy.

Ditto with Spellcasters and spells,

Why? In 4e, combat magic is the magic you have enough muscle-memory of to do flawlessly in a few seconds. And magic is magic. It should be mysterious and not just a shopping list. (Rituals are, of course, different. Because there you have time and can double check your work).

The idea that a PC will shrug and say "oh well" when they encounter cool powers which fall under their areas of expertise is much more immersion breaking than players trying to salvage the Necromancer's spellbook to see how he made the Fire Skeletons.

Oh, I agree the players can try to see how the Necromancer made the Fire Skeletons. This doesn't mean that players are going to be able to cast a ritual involving blood magic and invoking Orcus unless they want to turn into a very different type of campaign and one I didn't sign up to run.

I've been following this for the last few pages (and growing more amused by the page, but that's neither here nor there) but finally someone has stated the problem that belies all of this. The assumption that the players and the DM are "balanced".

This.

You appear to be arguing against the existence of a roleplaying system at all, rather than what the goal of the creation of such a system should be.

Bwuh?

The goal of rules of a roleplaying system is twofold.

1: To draw out and expand on the fiction, helping everyone towards a shared visualisation of the world.

2: To make a better and more interesting game, with the challenge level being close to the one intended and the DM not accidently swatting the PCs or continually lobbing softballs.

The point of DM fiat is not "anything goes!" You've still got to justify it with your narrative.

If you - as a DM - are going to have a rogue that shoots fireballs out of his arse, then you need to create the world where that is a plausible thing.

QFT. If a rogue can shoot fireballs out of his arse then there should be a damn good story behind it. Or at least cursed magic vindaloo and the right sort of game. If the fiction is consistent then you do not need rules to say that you shouldn't do this. If the fiction isn't consistent then the rules won't bail you out.

Oracle_Hunter

2013-05-22, 05:26 PM

I like it. My only concern is keeping the Cleric's Divination from overlapping the Rogue's "finding things", but assuming we can keep those separate, we've got something solid.
Oh, I was thinking "Divination" to be things like Hand of Fate / Augury, perhaps some Detect spells -- things to give you a supernatural insight into things.

The Thief would be all about detecting secret doors, traps and so on. More physical things, that is to say.

* * *

To be honest, this framework kept me up last night.
It seems so right that I bet even some of my Worthy Opponents here (e.g. Kurald Galain, Saph) might think it was a pretty good way to design a new Edition of D&D. But I have no idea if it would appeal to my "target audience" because I have long ago realized I just don't understand the 3.PF mindset. I've tried, but I just can't grok it.

If I'm on the right track here, I'd be ecstatic -- I'd have finally made some progress to understanding that which I have been stymied by so often in the past. But I would still not undertake writing the system because the "fiddly bits" (i.e. actual mechanics) that the 3.PF types enjoy remain beyond my ken. I could ape the 3.PF mechanics, of course, but I couldn't make "better" ones that would cause 3.PF fans to switch to my new system.

No, I'd need to partner up with a Designer who still thinks 3.PF is a good idea, and doesn't drive me crazy. Personally, I'm not sure which is the harder qualification to meet, but I don't think it'll happen any time soon :smalltongue:
That said, if anyone does think they can work with this framework, go right ahead. Hell, if you have Mike Mearls on your speed dial, have him drop me a line -- I could use a job :smallbiggrin:

neonchameleon

2013-05-22, 05:26 PM

It's fine to make up or eyeball an NPC's numbers, as long as they would be within reason for a PC of the same race/class/level.

And this leads to an interesting question. Does your class exist as a mechanic within the game or is it strictly a metagame mechanic? For that matter would your setting know about character levels, or is that just a way of approximating your character's abilities.

I started RP on classless pointbuy (GURPS), and the notion that classes are explicit within the game world rather than merely a way of encouraging differentiated characters by splitting up the local maxima and minima and adding internal synergy to various approaches is a weird one to me. But there are people who play this way.

SiuiS

2013-05-22, 05:37 PM

Why is there an assumption that everything in the game world is learnable by the PCs? How is that not just as immersion breaking?

The thing here is something I can only lightly point to. It's the same reason, when drawing, you flip it, turn it upside down, etc. To see what is actually there,a nd not what you recall putting there. In the same way that if all swans are white, then also n non-white thing is a swan...

Is it reasonable in the game world that a Templar of Dregoth has weird things PCs don't? IMO, absolutely. Is it reasonable that PCs can learn everything NPCs can do?

Is it unreasonable for a PC to play a Templar of Dregorth?

That's the trouble. Sure, a wizard of the nine golden hills cannot learn the secrets of the godking who handed down his magic to the templars... But a templar could. What if someone had a compelling reason to be a templar?

Options. We aren't advocating any one ruleset. We are advocating all of them. Use at leisure whichever you like, but don't cut a part off because you, and you alone, don't like it. That's the mantra.

I generally think it would be ridiculous for a simple commoner to be able to sprout three heads and shoot lasers, just as I think it would be ridiculous for many concepts to sprout heads and start shooting lasers. Please, this isn't about rule 0. It's about figuring out how to match your fiction with your mechanics. If the complaint is that you can build DM PCs with god-like powers that insta-gib the party, well you can also sic a Balor on a level 1 party too and that will be pretty unfair too. The problem you've identifies is a bad DM, not bad rules.

Bragging: I've one-shot a balor at level 1 with a barbarian. Different ideas of fair and unfair.

And actually, it's not even about rules at that point; it isn't even guidelines. That;'s the trouble.

he "fair-play" comment, if your group is such that the default assumption is that the DM's job is to kill the players, and the player's job is to beat whatever the DM throws at them, you've likely got a dysfunctional group and should probably be playing a different game other than Dungeons and Dragons. If the players don't trust their DM, then no amount of PC/NPC symmetry is going to magically fix that.

You're reading into it too hard, and assuming. The group that has to trust the DM instead of having perfect transparency is the 4e group, because the Dm specifically uses different EVERYTHING.

I've been following this for the last few pages (and growing more amused by the page, but that's neither here nor there) but finally someone has stated the problem that belies all of this. The assumption that the players and the DM are "balanced".

Frankly speaking that is a load of bunk and everyone knows it. By definition (and in fact, by statement in the 4e rules) the players and the DM are not balanced. The players (in the modern play style) are supposed to win, which means any talk of balance should be thrown out right then and there. Once you accept that the DM is not supposed to TPK 50% of the time, then it's fairly easy to understand that the DM needs (and should have) a different set of tools for engaging with the game than the players.

Why does the DM get to have monsters that do 1d12 with a short sword, breathe fire or cast spells above their level? Because the DM is supposed to be challenging the players and making them sweat and dance and making them fear for their lives. Because the DM is responsible for managing an entire world and environment while the players are only responsible for managing one character. If you want to play the monster that does 1d12 damage with a short sword, then you DM. If you want to play a hero that saves the land, gets the prince(ss) and becomes an all powerful god, then you play as a PC and accept that in exchange for all of those options, you don't get to do 1d12 damage with a short sword.

Trying to balance between the DM and the players is a suckers game that only leads to rules lawyering and whining from both sides.

Okay, yeah. That's probably the best outlook.

Reposting this for Kurald Galain et al.

I believe I answered that by saying flip the equation. Don't build a system to make PCs and then also use it for NPCs. Build a system that works and handles characters well, period. Then it's not htat you're passing off player tools as DM tools, bt that everyone is playing the same game.

Why would they get ticked off? The implication should be that the opponent had a feat, class feature, temporary enchantment, hidden magical item, or discipline manuever they don't have, just as with the unarmed damage.

I do not think it is a ood thing they get ticked off, just a thing which happens a lot. You need positive goodwill as a DM to pull it off, and even then sometimes things get heated.

Look up The Further Adventures Of Abernathy's Company, it's a game that went from 2e up through 3e and just relatively recently finished, but didn't move over to 4e. There was a point where, had the DM - a damn fine one, too, and a gentleman who was trusted by his group - had this DM not explained how th enemies got through the party's defenses, the game might have dissolved. Because sometimes, logic be damned, you're dealing with your friends' feelings, and you need to make concessions, rules can rot.

the main thing that's going on here is that we have a different threshold for where the number of special cases makes the thing no longer consistent. If we're going to have, say, one in five creatures use "fireball, except XYZ", then I'd be just as happy to write the whole thing out every time. YMMV.

Okay.

There's actually a very important point in here, that I'd like to make very clear. There's a handful of ways of handling the fact that the DM will likely need to make a lot of NPCs, each with their own deal going on. The ones I've seen hinted at so far are:

1)Make a small number of options, and expect the DM to know them all. I find this acceptable, if a little boring. However, it's not typical for D&D.

2)Make a large number of options, and expect the DM to know them all(the 3e approach). This is where the massive overhead comes in, either in the form of the DM learning all the options in advance, or looking through the books to find them. I dislike this option.

3)Make a large number of options, and give the DM clear, simple guidelines on how to make new ones(the 4e approach). This is my personal favorite of the three, but it does mean that sometimes the DM will make an ability that is strictly better than a player ability, or that contradicts known mechanics(shortsword attacks doing d8 damage). These problems are minimized if an ability can only be used by one specific NPC and are never seen again, but some find that makes the world feel inconstant.

See, this is where things fall apart. Because #3? that's how I played 3.5. Full transparency (when it wouldn'truin a plot point) and no problems. That is the heart of my disagreement, because many of the virtues of fourth edition are not strictly fourth edition virtues, but matters of paradigm.

It sounds like you and I are both okay with saying no. Be aware, however, that some other posters object to it.

Quite the contrary, actually. Knowing htat it is say, trivial for a wizard to wear full armor and pull off crazy damaging spells and also get a full attack with a greatsword, I can freely let any character do that if they have a good enough fiction backing. I'm all for winging it, because I know my upper and lower bounds. While the idea is that no, a player is normally not able to breath dragon fire, they can be a warlock and do more damage. So why not let them use dragon fire?

The only limit is the, and goodness I hate to phrase it this way, but the 'tier allowance' of the game. if the game is gritty and realistic, then your barbarian can rage, and taht is it. But if it's higher fantasy, I have no problem fluffing your rage as transforming into a small dragon and going to town, and even giving you fire breath and flight! It would just use resources akin to giving anyone else the same.

That's why I like the details, by the way. i can look at feats which give characters flight, and benchmark when other characters can get it too. But that's more of retroactive explanation than rargument.

As it happens, I find that balancing act painful, rather than fun. So I'm hoping for a system that will make it easy for me to avoid.

I was describing the 4e system, there, actually. You have a range (weak, strong and regular damage expressions, etc.) for each level, and just need to fit monsters into it. PCs should, too, although allowing them more spikes and dips is a good idea.

I think we're making some progress, but if you're done, you're done. Thank you as well, it's been informative.

My issues are when I find myself talking about something not relevant. This is fun, ish, but has nothing to do with 5th edition, or a playtest. It's mental masturbation. I've draged you and Obryn through tedium enough. If you don't actually understand a point, or if it is unclear, I'll corect it. But if you understand and disagree, well. You're adults, that's fine. Not my business to try and change your minds, aye?

Why is it different for barehanded attacks? We're assuming two humanoids of similar enough race that we can't say "oh, it's a racial thing" in either case.

Levels of granularity. A fist does not do 1) good damage, 2) lethal damage, and 3) proficient attacks. If a creature does any one of those, it's obvious that something changed. If a sword does on average 1 point of damage more for enemies than you, then you might think something smaller was going on, perhaps a transcription error. Or possibly less a surprise, and more a trick; Players get upset when the DM gets heavy handed.

Kurald Galain

2013-05-22, 05:39 PM

Water_Bear

2013-05-22, 05:39 PM

Sure you can learn it, and the counter. But you can't retrain your entire muscle memory easily to move like the other guy.

Why? In 4e, combat magic is the magic you have enough muscle-memory of to do flawlessly in a few seconds.

Have you ever taken martial arts classes? Dance lessons? Learned a new sport? Congratulations, you have retrained your muscle memory in a way that you now can move differently.

The idea that applying, say, techniques of footwork I learned in a few weeks fencing with a saber to make me better at sparring in my dojo shouldn't work because I "would need to retrain my entire muscle memory" is utter nonsense.

Oh, I agree the players can try to see how the Necromancer made the Fire Skeletons. This doesn't mean that players are going to be able to cast a ritual involving blood magic and invoking Orcus unless they want to turn into a very different type of campaign and one I didn't sign up to run.

So you would really shut down a whole campaign if the players decided to make a few skeletons? That sounds fairly vindictive and I can't understand it.

SiuiS

2013-05-22, 06:00 PM

SiuS suggested that a bit earlier. I've pulled out that part of the conversation for your convenience(in the spoiler tags, to save space).

Feel free to pick up at any point in there.

Ah, my apologies. You spliced two similar but different threads, and I didn't catch it. My responses would have been more coherent if I had known.

Precisely. Just because you want Strawberry doesn't mean WOTC shouldn't offer Chocolate too.

Wow. I now get knee-jerk aggressive and angry when I read chocolate or strawberry out of context. Thanks, thread.

Have you ever taken martial arts classes? Dance lessons? Learned a new sport? Congratulations, you have retrained your muscle memory in a way that you now can move differently.

Muscle memory is also highly mechanical. Athletes require specially trained massage staff because much of the formatting of muscle memry is in the intermuscular and subcutaneous fscail networks. It takes threee deep tissue massages to knock you rmuscle memory out of whack.

Further, muscle memory decays and rebuilds all the time like one. That's what getting rusty is all about. That guy's life time of dedication doesn't mean squat, since only the last three to six months are retained by his current body makeup.

As soon as you bring in muscle memory, you're bringing in how it actually works. Realism is a terible limiter in D&D because it goes back and forth.

neonchameleon

2013-05-22, 06:03 PM

Have you ever taken martial arts classes? Dance lessons? Learned a new sport? Congratulations, you have retrained your muscle memory in a way that you now can move differently.

The idea that applying, say, techniques of footwork I learned in a few weeks fencing with a saber to make me better at sparring in my dojo shouldn't work because I "would need to retrain my entire muscle memory" is utter nonsense.

You ignored half my comment. You can learn tricks. Tricks are about a second - and you're expected to pick them up as you level up in D&D; it's one of the reasons why your BAB (and in 4e your defences) increase. But entire reams of action where you react as someone else and ignore your old muscle memory? That's ... dangerous.

So you would really shut down a whole campaign if the players decided to make a few skeletons? That sounds fairly vindictive and I can't understand it.

I'd really shut a campaign down if the players decided to dabble in blood magic (i.e. human sacrifice) and make deals with Orcus. A few skeletons would (probably - it depends what animating the skeleton does to the former occupant) be fine.

NoldorForce

2013-05-22, 06:04 PM

Options. We aren't advocating any one ruleset. We are advocating all of them. Use at leisure whichever you like, but don't cut a part off because you, and you alone, don't like it. That's the mantra.All of them? :smallconfused: From what I can tell everyone's been arguing for this or that piece of their own preferred ruleset. You can agree to disagree on what that should be, but don't claim you're trying to be more inclusive than the next person.

Besides, creating multiple rulesets requires a lot of overhead and, without careful intermarrying and/or siloing, would be staggeringly incoherent. WotC also hasn't spoken of modules in any substantive manner lately, so all indications are that there will be one ruleset.

Kurald Galain

2013-05-22, 06:09 PM

All of them? :smallconfused: From what I can tell everyone's been arguing for this or that piece of their own preferred ruleset. You can agree to disagree on what that should be, but don't claim you're trying to be more inclusive than the next person.

I think it would help if people argued more that "I like rule X so 5E should include that", and less that "I dislike rule Y so 5E should exclude that". This is because the former approach will make 5E more versatile and appeal to a larger group of fans.

Ashdate

2013-05-22, 06:17 PM

I think it would help if people argued more that "I like rule X so 5E should include that", and less that "I dislike rule Y so 5E should exclude that". This is because the former approach will make 5E more versatile and appeal to a larger group of fans.

I would think it would be more likely to produce a clunky system that everyone likes but no one loves.

Kurald Galain

2013-05-22, 06:21 PM

I would think it would be more likely to produce a clunky system that everyone likes but no one loves.
It strikes me that's precisely what WOTC needs. Because let's face it, if 5E turns out to be "3E with some minor bugfixes" or "4E with some minor bugfixes" then it's not going to sell anyway.

Regardless, there are often third options that people are overlooking.

Rhynn

2013-05-22, 06:22 PM

I would think it would be more likely to produce a clunky system that everyone likes but no one loves.

Does anyone still doubt that this is the inevitable result of this horrible example of design by committee? This was my first thought when they started with the "oh this edition will please everyone!" No, it's really not possible to make a D&D that will simultaneously please OD&D, BECMI, AD&D, D&D 3.X, and D&D 4E players. What a joke. (It's not even possible to make a single D&D to completely please just one of those subsets; proliferation, as in the OSR, is key.)

Saph

2013-05-22, 06:26 PM

No, it's really not possible to make a D&D that will simultaneously please OD&D, BECMI, AD&D, D&D 3.X, and D&D 4E players. What a joke.

I'd disagree with this. Sure, you're not going to get all of them, but I think you could get most of them.

Kurald Galain

2013-05-22, 06:32 PM

Does anyone still doubt that this is the inevitable result of this horrible example of design by committee? This was my first thought when they started with the "oh this edition will please everyone!" No, it's really not possible to make a D&D that will simultaneously please OD&D, BECMI, AD&D, D&D 3.X, and D&D 4E players. What a joke. (It's not even possible to make a single D&D to completely please just one of those subsets; proliferation, as in the OSR, is key.)

Yes. It should be patently obvious by now that 3E fans and 4E fans tend to have directly opposed and mutually exclusive opinions on a number of things. This means WOTC has four options.

Remove everything the 3E fans dislike, and end up with a system that is mostly like 3E. The 4E fans will never buy this, the 3E fans will likely stick with actual 3E or PF. Result: fail.
Remove everything the 4E fans dislike, and end up with a system that is mostly like 4E. The 3E fans will never buy this, the 4E fans will be split between this and sticking with actual 4E. Result: fail.
Remove everything that a large amount of people dislikes, and end up with not enough rules to build a system on. Result: fail.
Include everything that a large amount of people likes, and end up with a clunky system that everyone likes but no one loves. Result: not great but not bad either.

Rhynn

2013-05-22, 06:38 PM

I'd disagree with this. Sure, you're not going to get all of them, but I think you could get most of them.

But you'd need volume after volume of optional rules and...

Oh.

Oooooh.

:smallamused:

neonchameleon

2013-05-22, 06:44 PM

Honestly I'd prefer a system I hated than the lukewarm, brackish mess we've got right now. I have a lot of good RPGs on my shelf already. I might want a polished and rationalised 4e with a thousand fewer feats or so - but we won't get that. But if Next can't find anything to be good at, it's not going to be one I'm ever going to DM. I might not like what it's good at, but if it has vision and attention to detail it will deserve a place in my collection. Right now, it has neither.

Rhynn

2013-05-22, 06:50 PM

Yeah, WotC is in a bind. Both 3.X and 4E players (and all the others, too) already have their game. But the market isn't going to suddenly expand enormously with a new edition of D&D. So they need to lure in the fragmented customer base. They can't fail to, because if they do, Hasbro is going to shut off D&D and focus WotC on MtG etc. - D&D is already pocket change income, and if it doesn't turn a profit, it'll probably be gone.

Fortunately, the OGL was the Golden Path of D&D, and created a diaspora that ensured the survival of D&D potentially forever, in new game after new game. Uh, that makes Ryan Dancey Letro Atreides I guess? Weird, he doesn't look that much like a sandworm.

Oracle_Hunter

2013-05-22, 06:54 PM

Include everything that a large amount of people likes, and end up with a clunky system that everyone likes but no one loves. Result: not great but not bad either.

Is that really what we should be aiming for here? Who really needs another mediocre clunky system in the market today?

IMHO this is just as bad as the other results you posit, if not worse. Personally, if they made another 4e that was better than current 4e, I'd upgrade. Fixing Skill Challenges, implementing this Exploration Phase -- those aren't a bad idea.

Besides, didn't y'all buy Choice #1 when WotC "updated" 3.0 to 3.5? Or is the world today, in fact, different from the world of the early 2000s?

TuggyNE

2013-05-22, 07:06 PM

Besides, didn't y'all buy Choice #1 when WotC "updated" 3.0 to 3.5? Or is the world today, in fact, different from the world of the early 2000s?

Pretty sure that was actually more comparable to option 2, except without the massive divide between fans of the previous edition and fans of the current edition. In other words, a qualitatively different scenario with qualitatively different outcomes.

But eh, could just be my impression.

Jacob.Tyr

2013-05-22, 07:48 PM

And in my opinion, the less time you spend worrying about how you get an NPC to create animated furniture, the more time you can spend on the things the players are going to notice and question.

Holy **** is this still the animated furniture debate? I totally forgot about that...

Damn I hope a new packet comes out so we can maybe discuss something different.

TuggyNE

2013-05-22, 07:55 PM

Holy **** is this still the animated furniture debate? I totally forgot about that...

Damn I hope a new packet comes out so we can maybe discuss something different.

Like what color they're gonna paint the bike shed dungeon doors?

Dude, red is so last millennium.

Excession

2013-05-22, 08:51 PM

Has WotC said anything more about art in Next? I haven't been keeping up, and the last thing I saw was the weird bobble-head Halflings.

Edit: I guess I'll be catching up on all the Dragon's-Eye View (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Archive.aspx?category=all&subcategory=dragonseyeview) columns I haven't read.

jindra34

2013-05-22, 08:56 PM

No, it's really not possible to make a D&D that will simultaneously please OD&D, BECMI, AD&D, D&D 3.X, and D&D 4E players.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Its not easy to see a system that will appeal to all those people (much less the people who left for other systems when 4th came out), but that doesn't mean it isn't possible. I doubt WotC with its relatively thin design theory could pull it off, but if someone (or a group there of) really spent some time actually discussing, comparing, and thinking on what was said, followed by a well thought out plan, I don't think it would be that big a stretch to believe its possible. But it requires actually listening not just to the surface discussions but the undercurrents as well.

Flickerdart

2013-05-22, 09:55 PM

And again, why is it okay if a Cyclopsian has NPC-only abilities, but a Cleric of Vecna doesn't (I mean, unless he's a Cyclopsian I guess).
Because a player can make a cleric who worships Vecna, and will expect the candy to start raining down. You could have the NPC cleric be some kind of Chosen of Vecna though, which must be granted by Vecna himself (or otherwise, must be awarded by his church), which would be fine. Basically, any excuse grounded in the fiction is fine, while "you can't have it because the cleric is an NPC and you're not" is not.

PairO'Dice Lost

2013-05-22, 10:07 PM

To be honest, this framework kept me up last night.
It seems so right that I bet even some of my Worthy Opponents here (e.g. Kurald Galain, Saph) might think it was a pretty good way to design a new Edition of D&D. But I have no idea if it would appeal to my "target audience" because I have long ago realized I just don't understand the 3.PF mindset. I've tried, but I just can't grok it.

If I'm on the right track here, I'd be ecstatic -- I'd have finally made some progress to understanding that which I have been stymied by so often in the past. But I would still not undertake writing the system because the "fiddly bits" (i.e. actual mechanics) that the 3.PF types enjoy remain beyond my ken. I could ape the 3.PF mechanics, of course, but I couldn't make "better" ones that would cause 3.PF fans to switch to my new system.

No, I'd need to partner up with a Designer who still thinks 3.PF is a good idea, and doesn't drive me crazy. Personally, I'm not sure which is the harder qualification to meet, but I don't think it'll happen any time soon :smalltongue:

Speaking as someone who does grok this "3.P mindset" that is apparently so alien, your framework looks fairly sound from a mechanical and from a business perspective. In fact, that kind of combine-combat-and-noncombat-classes, divide-splats-by-setting approach isn't foreign at all; 3e has gestalt and free multiclassing like the former and the Sandstorm/Frostburn/Cityscape/etc. line of splats like the latter.

None of the 3.Pers' major complaints have anything to do with that system or 4e at a player framework level, really. They're all at the NPC/world framework level (like the discussion of the past half-dozen pages) or at the individual mechanic level (like the existence of certain skills, explanations for certain powers, etc.). As long as it specifically doesn't hit the Martial Dailies and Warlord Healing problems, 5e can really make the player side look like whatever it wants and everyone will at least give it a chance.

Conundrum

2013-05-23, 01:27 AM

Because a player can make a cleric who worships Vecna, and will expect the candy to start raining down. You could have the NPC cleric be some kind of Chosen of Vecna though, which must be granted by Vecna himself (or otherwise, must be awarded by his church), which would be fine. Basically, any excuse grounded in the fiction is fine, while "you can't have it because the cleric is an NPC and you're not" is not.

Yes, and everyone who's been saying this has been advocating reasons that make sense in-narrative.

Would you be ok with your DM saying that the powers of that NPC (all 3-4 of them) are available to you if you put 15 levels into the class "Devoted of Vecna", which has only those features and nothing else? Ie. you can have the powers, or you can have all your regular cleric features/powers, but not both?

TuggyNE

2013-05-23, 02:05 AM

Yes, and everyone who's been saying this has been advocating reasons that make sense in-narrative.

Would you be ok with your DM saying that the powers of that NPC (all 3-4 of them) are available to you if you put 15 levels into the class "Devoted of Vecna", which has only those features and nothing else? Ie. you can have the powers, or you can have all your regular cleric features/powers, but not both?

Not to put words in Flickerdart's mouth, but yes, I think so, at least as long as that tradeoff is plausible from the perspective of the NPC. (Maybe not optimal, but something that they might choose.)

SiuiS

2013-05-23, 02:18 AM

All of them? :smallconfused: From what I can tell everyone's been arguing for this or that piece of their own preferred ruleset. You can agree to disagree on what that should be, but don't claim you're trying to be more inclusive than the next person.

Why not? I'll tell the truth all I please. Because when discussing moving things forward, I have been almost completely inclusive.

When the entire conversational tangent is "which of these and why" I will pick one, because that's the conditional buy-in of participating. But I always agree with the strengths of one satem or another even if it isn't my favorite. See back when I was touting 4e, for example. Or using nWoD or dungeon world ideas and metastructures.

I think it would help if people argued more that "I like rule X so 5E should include that", and less that "I dislike rule Y so 5E should exclude that". This is because the former approach will make 5E more versatile and appeal to a larger group of fans.

Aye.

Does anyone still doubt that this is the inevitable result of this horrible example of design by committee? This was my first thought when they started with the "oh this edition will please everyone!" No, it's really not possible to make a D&D that will simultaneously please OD&D, BECMI, AD&D, D&D 3.X, and D&D 4E players. What a joke. (It's not even possible to make a single D&D to completely please just one of those subsets; proliferation, as in the OSR, is key.)

I doubt it is design by committee. For one, the designers obviously have their own direction and ideas and implementation, and are only gauging how people react to the striped wrapping paper versus the polka dot wrapping paper – see their touting of bounded accuracy as fixing those problems which it actually causes. This is as much a labor of propaganda and delivery as it is design. This is why I'm optimistic; there is a lot of material implied to be there we just haven't seen.

Conundrum

2013-05-23, 03:44 AM

Not to put words in Flickerdart's mouth, but yes, I think so, at least as long as that tradeoff is plausible from the perspective of the NPC. (Maybe not optimal, but something that they might choose.)

Plausability can be justified in any number of ways, so I think I'd be fine with this. The Devoted of Vecna might just *really* like Vecna, or not have had generic Cleric training available while he was growing up.

Of course, this sorta runs parallel to the "Why would any NPC take levels in Commoner?" thing that 3.5 had. But as long as there aren't any ridiculously awful classes, then it doesn't become an issue.

Saph

2013-05-23, 04:11 AM

It seems so right that I bet even some of my Worthy Opponents here (e.g. Kurald Galain, Saph) might think it was a pretty good way to design a new Edition of D&D. But I have no idea if it would appeal to my "target audience" because I have long ago realized I just don't understand the 3.PF mindset. I've tried, but I just can't grok it.

I think it's a workable approach, but for me, the real test would be how the classes were designed. Speaking as a player, I've never cared very much what my 'role' is supposed to be – I just want interesting abilities to play with. So while the design you're describing could work, I don't think it tackles the hardest questions.

(I've always been surprised that you find the 3.P mindset THAT complicated. I've always thought it's pretty easy to see why someone would prefer either 1e/2e, 3.x, or 4e. Goodness knows we've all read enough love-letters by the fans of each one – all you have to do is read 'em!)

obryn

2013-05-23, 08:02 AM

I doubt it is design by committee. For one, the designers obviously have their own direction and ideas and implementation, and are only gauging how people react to the striped wrapping paper versus the polka dot wrapping paper – see their touting of bounded accuracy as fixing those problems which it actually causes. This is as much a labor of propaganda and delivery as it is design. This is why I'm optimistic; there is a lot of material implied to be there we just haven't seen.
I will say this for them - now that we're starting to see some new stuff, it is much easier to accept and view Next as a new edition in and of itself instead of some grand compromise or mish-mash.

I think they have a direction, and I no longer think it's "tell me what the soul of D&D means to you." Not mainly, anyway. I'm not positive I'll love the end product, but with stuff now like the exploration rules (reminiscent of Dungeon World) and NPC keywords (sorta reminiscent of FATE) they're actually looking at games that aren't 15+ years old for some inspiration.

With some tweets I saw from mearls, I wouldn't be surprised to see some variant of Dungeon World's Fronts (http://book.dwgazetteer.com/Fronts.html) in there, either.

-O

Kurald Galain

2013-05-23, 08:26 AM

I think it's a workable approach, but for me, the real test would be how the classes were designed.

I agree, as written it is too abstract. I'm sure almost everyone would agree that D&D is a class-based game in which you can explore dungeons and fight stuff, but there is lots of disagreement about what the specifics should be.

Stubbazubba

2013-05-23, 08:39 AM

Yeah, I'd say the themes and pitch are spot-on, but it's still too many processes away from implementation to say much more. I don't know if I'd want a new edition based solely on that; I'd like to see some innovation used to make a fresh experience that sticks to that skeleton.

SiuiS

2013-05-23, 10:01 AM

I will say this for them - now that we're starting to see some new stuff, it is much easier to accept and view Next as a new edition in and of itself instead of some grand compromise or mish-mash.

I think they have a direction, and I no longer think it's "tell me what the soul of D&D means to you." Not mainly, anyway. I'm not positive I'll love the end product, but with stuff now like the exploration rules (reminiscent of Dungeon World) and NPC keywords (sorta reminiscent of FATE) they're actually looking at games that aren't 15+ years old for some inspiration.

With some tweets I saw from mearls, I wouldn't be surprised to see some variant of Dungeon World's Fronts (http://book.dwgazetteer.com/Fronts.html) in there, either.

-O

I certainly hope they do. Fronts are something I've personally hashed and rehashed for my games for about two decades. I think it shows a lot of integrity to include how people actually play the game, in with the rules. And for those of us who didn't use D&D as a war simulator, that includes some measure of handling the world via meta construct.

obryn

2013-05-23, 10:17 AM

I certainly hope they do. Fronts are something I've personally hashed and rehashed for my games for about two decades. I think it shows a lot of integrity to include how people actually play the game, in with the rules. And for those of us who didn't use D&D as a war simulator, that includes some measure of handling the world via meta construct.
Yep, I think their presentation wasn't 100% clear in DW, but the general concept is one that I think most experienced DMs already use in some sense or another. Formalizing and organizing it is incredibly helpful, though; I've been DMing for 30 years, and I felt like I learned something new from that chapter. I can only imagine they'd be even more helpful for less-experienced DMs.

-O

TinyHippo

2013-05-23, 10:31 AM

So, quick digression: who here is planning on actually buying the book when it comes out? I think I'll at the least snag a PHB just to see what the new system is like. In my experiencce even if I hate it I can still probably find a local gamer who'll be happy to swap me some old 3.X books for it after they upgrade.

Flickerdart

2013-05-23, 11:31 AM

Yes, and everyone who's been saying this has been advocating reasons that make sense in-narrative.
Having separate NPC rulesets kind of goes against that, because it makes every NPC different even if they're just a normal guy, and people might get tired of seeing every enemy be the chosen of a god or a monster in disguise or super high level when they're just random guys doing some low-level humanoid fighting.

Would you be ok with your DM saying that the powers of that NPC (all 3-4 of them) are available to you if you put 15 levels into the class "Devoted of Vecna", which has only those features and nothing else? Ie. you can have the powers, or you can have all your regular cleric features/powers, but not both?
If you're fighting 15th level enemies who are sufficiently awesome that a level-appropriate cleric is jealous of their power, I think some people might actually jump at the chance.

Person_Man

2013-05-23, 12:31 PM

obryn

2013-05-23, 12:38 PM

Still on topic for the thread but not part of the current conversation.

Does anyone else think that the D&D Next stealth/perception rules (like the stealth/perceptions rules for most editions) are a mess? Do we really need Hide and Move Silently and Spot and Listen AND Search, and the weird description of when to make a Wis check (when you're not "actively searching) and when to make an Int check (when you are), which makes high Wisdom characters less likely to find danger when they're actively aware of it?
Yep, a complete and utter mess.

Insofar as there are skills, they should be very general. The larger the number of discrete skills, the less likely I'll want to use them in a D&D game. (Even most modern skill-based games like Savage Worlds keep the overall quantity of skills fairly controlled and broad.)

I have different qualms about the various Perception skills, but that dovetails with my general dislike of D&D skills. It's kind of the showcase for why it's a crazy system, IMO.

Having separate NPC rulesets kind of goes against that, because it makes every NPC different even if they're just a normal guy, and people might get tired of seeing every enemy be the chosen of a god or a monster in disguise or super high level when they're just random guys doing some low-level humanoid fighting.
Yeah, I think it's safe to say we have very different priorities.

I want a good game first and a good fiction a close second. I also want slick and easy prep, with flexible enough rules that I'm not beholden to whatever the PCs are using and really never need to look at PC rules at all.

Having slightly separate rule sets is, IMO, superior for all these goals. The ramifications you've been talking about ... just haven't come up. Much like the person up-thread who was concerned players would get jealous if one's a better farrier.... They haven't been actual issues.

-O

Jacob.Tyr

2013-05-23, 02:22 PM

Having slightly separate rule sets is, IMO, superior for all these goals. The ramifications you've been talking about ... just haven't come up. Much like the person up-thread who was concerned players would get jealous if one's a better farrier.... They haven't been actual issues.
-O
I don't think it makes for very good fiction if your PCs are just random guys fighting low-level humanoids, anyway. The fiction is a lot better if the enemies stand out, imo.

PairO'Dice Lost

2013-05-23, 03:26 PM

So, quick digression: who here is planning on actually buying the book when it comes out? I think I'll at the least snag a PHB just to see what the new system is like.

Eh, doubtful. I bought the core 4e books on release day because I really liked the previews, and I was so sure I'd want to jump ship to 4e that I was even working on a project with Scott Rouse (the brand manager at the time) involving the promised digital tools suite. When I actually sat down and ran some games and saw that WotC's digital tools were going nowhere fast I became disillusioned and stayed away from 4e until around when the PHB2 was published and most of the worst parts were patched, but at least the preview was good enough to intrigue me.

In this case, though, unless WotC radically improves things between now and release there's just not really anything new there that I can't get from houseruling 3e, 4e, and/or AD&D with the very few interesting ideas they've had and failed to implement well. As several people have mentioned, they've stopped just cribbing from AD&D, 3e, and 4e and started also cribbing from OSR games and FATE-like games, and that's something I can easily do myself.

Does anyone else think that the D&D Next stealth/perception rules (like the stealth/perceptions rules for most editions) are a mess?

Yep. I've been using my own system for stealth/perception skills, sensing range, special senses, etc. since shortly before 3.5 came out and neither 3.5 nor PF nor 4e have noticeably improved upon them for my purposes. I'm pretty sure I'll keep using them in 5e if I end up playing it, because I don't see WotC improving stealth and perception any time soon.

Raineh Daze

2013-05-23, 03:39 PM

I don't think it makes for very good fiction if your PCs are just random guys fighting low-level humanoids, anyway. The fiction is a lot better if the enemies stand out, imo.

I don't think it's very good fiction if each and every enemy is exceptional in some way the PC's could not ever manage. That's just going to strain disbelief. :smallconfused:

obryn

2013-05-23, 03:49 PM

I don't think it's very good fiction if each and every enemy is exceptional in some way the PC's could not ever manage. That's just going to strain disbelief. :smallconfused:
Again, never comes up for me. Because the enemies aren't exceptional; until there's a TPK, they generally lose. They just operate differently from PCs. And remember - the PCs (in 4e at least) have an immense number of tricks and cool things they can do which their enemies can't. (At least, not all at the same time!)

-O

Kurald Galain

2013-05-23, 03:53 PM

So, quick digression: who here is planning on actually buying the book when it comes out?
If it's similar to the current playtest, then I don't see any added value in buying it.

Does anyone else think that the D&D Next stealth/perception rules (like the stealth/perceptions rules for most editions) are a mess?
I agree, there's no point in having four skills where two suffice, and the int/wis split makes it worse.

Doug Lampert

2013-05-23, 04:02 PM

I don't think it's very good fiction if each and every enemy is exceptional in some way the PC's could not ever manage. That's just going to strain disbelief. :smallconfused:

Have ANY of the people arguing here actually LOOKED at the actual 4th edition monsters?

Where are all these better than PC powers?

Seriously? What cool moves can human enemies of modest level do that ANY PC would actually want in place of one of his encounter or at-will powers? Maybe the rangers would trade their second at-will, but that's only because for a ranger any at-will not labled "twin-strike" is a waste of paper. No power they use is inferior to a comparable level standard monster's powers.

A monster for example can sneak attack for a TRIVIAL FRACTION of the damage an actual PC rogue does on every attack rather than one per turn? Of course he only gets one attack per turn anyway because he doesn't have multitarget powers and doesn't have an action point. Cry me a river.

Solos have better powers, but solos are also circa 9 levels up on the party, what solo powers would PCs really envy that a creature 9 levels lower gets?!

Elites are competative with PCs, sort of, but they have circa 4 levels on the party in terms of XP value and power.

For that matter, what are all these shortsword powers that use a d8? Can anyone name even one?! The FIRST PRINTING of the PHB on the other hand had a class feature that let a PC use a larger die with a weapon. PCs get feats to increase the die size of sneak attack and hunter's quarry, and equivalent NPCs don't.

Crap. Please point to all these powers PCs want, because if my PCs managed to capture or ally an NPC I NEVER downgraded them to make them play well with PCs, I UPGRADED them to represent better gear, and unless they were a HIGHER LEVEL SOLO they still lagged so badly that they weren't envied.

I offered to remake ANY PC as an upgraded elite monster, and got no takers. None, not even the people suffering from decision paralysis and would have benefited greatly from a simpler character were stupid enough to take me up on that.

Excession

2013-05-23, 04:02 PM

I don't think it's very good fiction if each and every enemy is exceptional in some way the PC's could not ever manage. That's just going to strain disbelief. :smallconfused:

Very few of the of the humanoid enemies in 4e have attacks that the PCs cannot reproduce somehow. In fact, I suspect you would find that the PCs can do more things than humanoid monsters can if you go through all the Monster Manuals and all the player books. Part of that is that, generally, monsters should to be simpler than PCs. The DM is running hundreds of enemies over the campaign, while the players might only be running one.

Looking over the humans for the Monster Vault for example, I'm going to list the things I might want a character of mine to do that I cannot, off the top of my head, work out how to do:

The Human Duelist, a level 8 soldier, immobilises anything she hits with combat advantage, at will. The ranger can slow at will (without CA) but I can't think of an immobilise, except for plentiful encounter powers.

There are differences in the number of times the enemies can use a lot of abilities. This is balanced by the enemies having less abilities, and only lasting a few rounds IMO. For example, the Human Transmuter has a recharge 4,5,6 baleful polymorph equivalent (only lasts a round though) but he uses that once and the PCs are going to realise he's the biggest threat on the board and gank him. As a DM I would consider getting to use it twice to be a win.

I'm not sure if this proves any point, but I found it interesting.

Raineh Daze

2013-05-23, 04:05 PM

TinyHippo

2013-05-23, 04:11 PM

I honestly think it's a matter of justification and player buy in. One style says "The world acts the same for everyone" and another style says "The world acts differently for different people based on completely meta-game OOC reasons."

Now, you can wallpaper over that and come up with fluff that hopefully distracts the PC's from noticing this. Or the table can just agree to attempt to suspend disbelief and pretend the world is not internally inconsistent. But the point is that, for a large group of folks, needing to do that makes the game less fun. If it doesn't bother you, awesome! I'm sure it simplifies things. But the opposite point is still a valid and reasonable objection.

I should note here that I don't actually like 3E all that much. The skill system (esp cross class skills) vexes me greatly, Vancian casting is a nightmare I wish I could wake up from, as both a Dm and a player trying to keep track of ever shifting bonuses/buffs/debuffs in combat is a logistical pain that slows things to a crawl. I don't like the implementation at all. But what I do like is the overall design goal of a coherent and consistent world. I'd love if 5E was able to do that.

1337 b4k4

2013-05-23, 04:23 PM

One style says "The world acts the same for everyone" and another style says "The world acts differently for different people based on completely meta-game OOC reasons."

But this is already true in every RPG. By definition, PCs are different from everyone else. Even in 3.x where it was the closest to not being true, there were NPC classes and players would have screamed bloody murder if they actually lost as frequently as NPCs do.

Jacob.Tyr

2013-05-23, 04:36 PM

Oh, okay. If we're talking something like a 3.p fighter then yeah, you can't overshine them with enemies having cool abilities and telling them lolnope.

Which, honestly, is an entirely different problem. Players should have interesting things on their own. 5e has yet to produce this, and it is problematic for people who have been spoiled by 4e actually letting them have nice things if they weren't a caster.

Excession

2013-05-23, 04:42 PM

... okay, why have people decided to bring up the 4e mechanics now, when that was a comment on a conversation that has been going for several pages and was based on NPC's having these powers? :smallsigh:

Also, why do I get all the negative attention whenever I post in the discussion? :smallconfused:

Hell, I'm not even certain that this was specifically talking about 4e, anyway! Just design philosophies. :|

I apologise for my part in jumping all over your argument. Your statement was clear, succinct, and easily refutable in a way that others were not.

On the larger topic, I find I don't really understand the desire for NPCs to be built using exactly the same rules as PCs. When stuff like daily resources exist I'm not even sure if it can work. What's daily for a PC is encounter or at-will for an NPC who's not going to last 5 rounds. I just don't see the rules as creating a world, because that's the job for fluff and narrative. The rules are there to make the game fun, easy to play and run, and to some degree give inspiration to work out from. Maybe the "rules as world simulator" thing is just a play style I'm never going to understand.

Oh, okay. If we're talking something like a 3.p fighter then yeah, you can't overshine them with enemies having cool abilities and telling them lolnope.

Which, honestly, is an entirely different problem. Players should have interesting things on their own. 5e has yet to produce this, and it is problematic for people who have been spoiled by 4e actually letting them have nice things if they weren't a caster.

Yeah, if the fighter's player is annoyed because the mundane enemies get nice things and he doesn't, lets give the fighter some nice things too. Better nice things even.

Raineh Daze

2013-05-23, 04:45 PM

On the larger topic, I find I don't really understand the desire for NPCs to be built using exactly the same rules as PCs. When stuff like daily resources exist I'm not even sure if it can work. What's daily for a PC is encounter or at-will for an NPC who's not going to last 5 rounds. I just don't see the rules as creating a world, because that's the job for fluff and narrative. The rules are there to make the game fun, easy to play and run, and to some degree give inspiration to work out from. Maybe the "rules as world simulator" thing is just a play style I'm never going to understand.

Well, it lets you build mirror matches, opposed adventuring parties, or anything that logically would run on the same rules as PC's (because, for instance, they were PC's).

Water_Bear

2013-05-23, 04:49 PM

But this is already true in every RPG. By definition, PCs are different from everyone else.

That's not really the case; in fact through much (most really) of D&D, PCs actually need to gain some levels or roll really well to stick out as far and above ordinary people and an NPC of equal level didn't have an automatic "not a PC" handicap.

Now obviously many people don't like the idea of having low-level PCs being "weak," which is why the ability to easily generate higher level PCs was such a great innovation in d20. But if you take away the option to have parity in the system entirely, have everyone start as a superhero head-and-shoulders above the rest of the world, then you've lost something core to the idea of D&D.

-Edit-

On the larger topic, I find I don't really understand the desire for NPCs to be built using exactly the same rules as PCs. When stuff like daily resources exist I'm not even sure if it can work. What's daily for a PC is encounter or at-will for an NPC who's not going to last 5 rounds.

This is part of the problem with dailies. And the philosophy that NPCs only exist to get cut down in four rounds, not needing to actually exist in the game world or be able to interact with it "off-screen" except by fiat.

I just don't see the rules as creating a world, because that's the job for fluff and narrative. The rules are there to make the game fun, easy to play and run, and to some degree give inspiration to work out from. Maybe the "rules as world simulator" thing is just a play style I'm never going to understand.

If the rules do not model the fluff and player choice is dominated by metagame concerns, it's hard to call that an RPG. I'm not even sure what you would call it.

Person_Man

2013-05-23, 04:53 PM

If they're going for simple basic rules with options more complicated rule modules, I honestly can't understand why they went with such convoluted Check/Background/Trait/Skills/Class Ability setup. A much simpler version would be:

Ability Checks: Determine pretty much everything. 1d20 + Ability Score bonus or penalty + Feat Bonus (if any) OR Trait Bonus (if any) + bonuses granted by class abilities (if any, like spells, Wildshape, whatever).

Feats: Grant a new combat ability or bonuses, including all combat Skills. For example, the Weapon Focus Feat provides you with 1 + 1/4 your character level on all Ability Checks rolled to hit an enemy with any melee or ranged weapons. The Stealth Feat could provide you with a 4 + 1/4 your character level level on Dexterity checks used to prevent detection. Arcane Implement gives you a similar bonus to hit with any arcane spell. The Cleave Feat allow you to apply the damage from one attack to any one additional enemy within your reach if you successfully kill an enemy with a melee attack. And so on. It's basically a long list of different generic combat abilities you want multiple classes to have access to. You get 1 Feat at first level, and 1 additional Feat every even level.

Traits: Out of combat stuff, including all non-combat Skills. Each Trait either grants you a new ability, or gives you a scaled bonus to certain non-combat Ability Checks. Track, Craft, Profession, Sleight of Hand, Guild membership, extra languages, Find Traps, Skill Mastery (which allows you to Take 10 or the highest result for Trait ability), etc. You get 1 Trait at first level, and 1 additional Trait every odd level. Some will probably be more useful then others, but it's all non-combat stuff, so you're not really "losing" that much by choosing basket weaving over Track.

Class Starting Packages: In addition to the Feats gained from levels, each class starts out with a list of starting Feats and Traits. You get to choose a certain number of each from those lists, above and beyond those gained from gaining levels (which can be chosen from any Feat or Trait). Classes also get whatever their unique class abilities are, like spellcasting, sneak attack, combat maneuvers, whatever.

But you don't need to list out BS abilities like Weapon Attack or Martial Damage Bonuses as class abilities, and you don't need an annoying secondary Background system which prevents me from choosing the custom Skills I want. And that's it. Simple, easy to understand, grants players lots of options while still grouping combat and non-combat abilities together into coherent classes.

Excession

2013-05-23, 05:00 PM

Well, it lets you build mirror matches, opposed adventuring parties, or anything that logically would run on the same rules as PC's (because, for instance, they were PC's).

I'm going to think more about mirror matches. At first glance I'm wondering how to avoid making them a 50-50 chance of a TPK without building or running the enemies unlike PCs. Opposed adventuring parties I run on narrative causality; I would never subject my players to watching my NPCs fight each other.

To me, there are no other PCs, because there are no other players. Being an adventurer, or in an adventuring party, does not make an NPC into a PC.

Seerow

2013-05-23, 05:01 PM

Have ANY of the people arguing here actually LOOKED at the actual 4th edition monsters?

Where are all these better than PC powers?

For me it's not so much an issue of "better than PC" powers. I don't particularly care if the powers are weaker. I do care that if it is an ability that is cool enough that it makes a player say "Wow how do I learn do that?" there's an actual answer for it. It may not be an optimal choice, but it should be a choice.

We've had a lot of arguments from the 4e crowd about how you can justify these things ("It's a class that gets one ability and one ability only", "It's a servant of a deity" "It got the power from a demonic pact that you aren't going to take because we're playing a Good campaign"), but most of them don't actually need that kind of justification to work. They aren't objectively more powerful, they're just different. Which is why it seems so strange that the PC can't learn it no matter what they do. Racial abilities are one thing. Even supernatural endowments (though that would raise the question of whether it is possible for the PC to get access to said endowments). But when you have a stock Goblin Hexer who has access to a Hex ability that is totally different from anything a PC class can get, it makes you wonder why it is no character of any class can learn this, not even a goblin character.

Crap. Please point to all these powers PCs want, because if my PCs managed to capture or ally an NPC I NEVER downgraded them to make them play well with PCs, I UPGRADED them to represent better gear, and unless they were a HIGHER LEVEL SOLO they still lagged so badly that they weren't envied.

When you restatted them, did they lose access to the abilities they had as an elite? Because seriously, while the regular PC may be better than the elite, having the character after converting to a PC lose a couple of signature abilities and half his HP would definitely annoy me. It's not that it got a nerf, it's the sudden drastic change in capabilities because you switched which side of the screen it was on. I find that disruptive. I am much happier being able to take a NPC and just add stuff to make them into a PC, rather than having to rework everything and call it close enough.

Water_Bear

2013-05-23, 05:12 PM

I'm going to think more about mirror matches. At first glance I'm wondering how to avoid making them a 50-50 chance of a TPK without building or running the enemies unlike PCs.Opposed adventuring parties I run on narrative causality; I would never subject my players to watching my NPCs fight each other.

That danger is sort of the entire point of a mirror match; it's a fight where you have to outthink someone with identical abilities rather than just Hulk Smashing your way through.

As for opposed adventuring parties, I think she means a party of NPC adventurers opposed to the PCs. AKA people who really ought to have the same sorts of abilities, as opposed to laser-blasting cyclops robots or priests of dark gods who might get a pass on that sort of stuff.

To me, there are no other PCs, because there are no other players. Being an adventurer, or in an adventuring party, does not make an NPC into a PC.

If there is another Cleric in the world they should not have drastically different abilities than a PC Cleric of that level; either they were misnamed or built incorrectly, because they are demonstrably not the same thing. And that is something that people in that world should notice as soon as they see their first PC Cleric.

Raineh Daze

2013-05-23, 05:17 PM

As for opposed adventuring parties, I think she means a party of NPC adventurers opposed to the PCs. AKA people who really ought to have the same sorts of abilities, as opposed to laser-blasting cyclops robots or priests of dark gods who might get a pass on that sort of stuff.

That's what I meant, yes.

obryn

2013-05-23, 05:44 PM

This is part of the problem with dailies.
Yes, enemy spellcasters should never be built with vancian mechanics.

If the rules do not model the fluff and player choice is dominated by metagame concerns, it's hard to call that an RPG. I'm not even sure what you would call it.
The rules and the narrative must interact, but it's not the rules' job to model it. It's the rules' job to generate something awesome while keeping consistent with the fiction.

As for the metagame, I point you at any number of other RPGs, such as FATE, that exist even more on a separate narrative and metagame layer. Saying otherwise is dissocianonsense tribalism.

We've had a lot of arguments from the 4e crowd about how you can justify these things ("It's a class that gets one ability and one ability only", "It's a servant of a deity" "It got the power from a demonic pact that you aren't going to take because we're playing a Good campaign"), but most of them don't actually need that kind of justification to work. They aren't objectively more powerful, they're just different. Which is why it seems so strange that the PC can't learn it no matter what they do. Racial abilities are one thing. Even supernatural endowments (though that would raise the question of whether it is possible for the PC to get access to said endowments). But when you have a stock Goblin Hexer who has access to a Hex ability that is totally different from anything a PC class can get, it makes you wonder why it is no character of any class can learn this, not even a goblin character.
Frankly, it's all unnecessary because it is fun to play at the table, and works to generate pretty awesome narratives. It's silly trying to put this into simulation terms or justifications, because it's not a simulation (and thank goodness for this!). And it's not about more powerful, different, etc. - it's about how they work at the table, and whether and exciting game and engrossing story arises.

The important bit is that your enemies work in a thematically or narratively proper fashion, not that they work like a similar PC would. And likewise, that PCs work in a thematic and appropriate way. I think this is the fundamental disconnect.

-O

Raineh Daze

2013-05-23, 05:49 PM

Frankly, it's all unnecessary because it is fun to play at the table, and works to generate pretty awesome narratives. It's silly trying to put this into simulation terms or justifications, because it's not a simulation (and thank goodness for this!). And it's not about more powerful, different, etc. - it's about how they work at the table, and whether and exciting game and engrossing story arises.

What, so a sidequest to get at whatever cool trick the enemy had because, well, it is a PC-accessible power can't be exciting or engrossing? Or things working on one set of rules can't make good stories? :smallconfused:

The important bit is that your enemies work in a thematically or narratively proper fashion, not that they work like a similar PC would. And likewise, that PCs work in a thematic and appropriate way. I think this is the fundamental disconnect.

You're defining thematically and narratively proper in a very specific, very bizarre way, here. An evil high priest of the god of destruction, working on the same mechanics as a PC cleric but with a different spell loadout, fits all of those criteria.

Oracle_Hunter

2013-05-23, 05:55 PM

I think it's a workable approach, but for me, the real test would be how the classes were designed. Speaking as a player, I've never cared very much what my 'role' is supposed to be – I just want interesting abilities to play with. So while the design you're describing could work, I don't think it tackles the hardest questions.
If I've learned one thing in designing games, it's that hiding the ball is the best way to deal with this sort of thinking.

Nobody seemed to be bothered that, say, Fighters could only do a limited set of things which all revolved around "hitting things hard" and "protecting other people from harm" but as soon as you said he's a Defender all hell's out for noon.

So yeah, I wouldn't advertise that a Barbarian is just a "Wilderness Fighter" but that's how I'd design him :smallamused:

(I've always been surprised that you find the 3.P mindset THAT complicated. I've always thought it's pretty easy to see why someone would prefer either 1e/2e, 3.x, or 4e. Goodness knows we've all read enough love-letters by the fans of each one – all you have to do is read 'em!)
Oh, I've read 'em. I've tried to parse them with Socratic Inquiry. But here's my biggest problem: every 3.P fan I've talked to can only tell me how they like one exact thing; they cannot tell me what qualities of that thing they like -- just that they do not like any different version of that one thing.

I can't design around that. It just doesn't work. When I ask most people "hey, what do you like about X" they can tell me something about X and I can respond "well, what about Y, which is like X but different" and they usually say "hey, that sounds fun!"

But whenever I talk to a 3.P fan their answer is "that it is X."

Obviously it can't be as tautological as it seems to me -- none of the 3.P fans seem to think so anyhow -- so I'm forced to conclude that I lack some essential faculty to understand the mindset.
So yeah, it's a personal problem of mine.

Now, I'm glad folks have read over my framework and says "looks good, but needs more" -- it means I'm not totally wrong. Note, for example, that nothing in 5e to date support proposition 2 -- why do we have Fighters in 5e parties again? -- so the framework isn't as obvious as you might think.

That said, I have some ideas for class mechanics:
- Vancian Casting for Casters, but with a few slots for big spells. They will also have at-will magics in combat keyed to their Specialty (or Sphere for Clerics).

- Mundanes get "Stances" they can switch between. Fighters get to be the grid-warriors who would pick Stances based on how they want to control the immediate battlefield. Thieves get "Gambits" which will trigger high-damage or special effects based on the status of a given target.

- Skills get a Training Component. At each level the PC can pick a Skill to "Train." At the next level that skill rank goes up by 1 regardless of how much it is used (or not). Other skills advance via usage. Feats can grant additional "Training Slots" if you want a skill monkey

- "Knowledge" is a function of Class, not Skill. Fighters know about monsters and natural hazards; Thieves know about traps and dungeon architecture; Wizards know about spells; Clerics don't know much but can ask via Divination. Mundanes know more about the world around them; Casters know about mysteries.
Feel free to comment if anyone is interested in The D&D That Will Never Be :smalltongue:

TinyHippo

2013-05-23, 05:55 PM

But this is already true in every RPG. By definition, PCs are different from everyone else. Even in 3.x where it was the closest to not being true, there were NPC classes and players would have screamed bloody murder if they actually lost as frequently as NPCs do.

The thing is, it's not about being better or even about the PC's wanting to learn it. It's about the world not having an artificial meta-game "PC laws of reality vs everything else in the entire world laws of reality."

I'm going to think more about mirror matches. At first glance I'm wondering how to avoid making them a 50-50 chance of a TPK without building or running the enemies unlike PCs. Opposed adventuring parties I run on narrative causality; I would never subject my players to watching my NPCs fight each other.

To me, there are no other PCs, because there are no other players. Being an adventurer, or in an adventuring party, does not make an NPC into a PC.

Ok, I really don't understand the last bit. "You 4 people are entirely different than everyone else in the entire multi-verse. Why? Uhhhh, just cause that's why."

It's really confusing to me that this doesn't break immersion for folks. "Our characters are the only people in the world who can do what we can do, for no discernable in character reason."

Of course you could fluff it that every single PC is the super spectacular exception to every rule of the universe, but for any game other than the cliche you all are the Chosen Ones!" it's kind of silly.

The important bit is that your enemies work in a thematically or narratively proper fashion, not that they work like a similar PC would. And likewise, that PCs work in a thematic and appropriate way. I think this is the fundamental disconnect.

I think the disconnect is that some people find the notion that PCs are operating under entirely different laws of reality based solely on OOC reasons to be a priori not thematic and appropriate.

DeltaEmil

2013-05-23, 06:05 PM

Mirror matches suck in pen and paper. Every D&D edition is the worst game at trying to PvP, and every future edition will also be the worst at it, no exceptions.
It all comes down to who rolls better and/or who had the better build. And if you actually remember to use your ubercombo, which as a GM might be a problem if you also have to be the rules overseer, the world builder, the plot maker, and the one controlling a myriad of NPCs. More complex and varied game systems with bajillions of options for characters lead to a more complicated and time-consuming character creation, which won't be worth the time spent on it if the character gets owned anyway.

That complexity and preparation time might be okay for players (and even then most of them dislike such complexity). A GM should never be forced to make a complex and time-consuming character that is a throw-away random encounter piece.

D&D Next is already proving to have a more complex character creation than OD&D.

navar100

2013-05-23, 06:06 PM

Saph

2013-05-23, 06:23 PM

If I've learned one thing in designing games, it's that hiding the ball is the best way to deal with this sort of thinking.

I . . . don't think that's a great way to do it, to be honest.

I can't design around that. It just doesn't work. When I ask most people "hey, what do you like about X" they can tell me something about X and I can respond "well, what about Y, which is like X but different" and they usually say "hey, that sounds fun!"

But whenever I talk to a 3.P fan their answer is "that it is X."

That's not at all true. Over the last five years both the 3.5 and the 4e fans have explained exactly why they like their chosen editions in excruciating detail, up to the point where most D&D players would rather stab out their eyes with mechanical pencils than read yet another novella on why 3.5/4e is better/worse. I could literally write essays on why people prefer one edition over the other, and it's not because I have some kind of special insight – it's because I've been told it so many times that forgetting it would require more effort than remembering!

Conundrum

2013-05-23, 06:30 PM

Having separate NPC rulesets kind of goes against that, because it makes every NPC different even if they're just a normal guy, and people might get tired of seeing every enemy be the chosen of a god or a monster in disguise or super high level when they're just random guys doing some low-level humanoid fighting.

If you're fighting 15th level enemies who are sufficiently awesome that a level-appropriate cleric is jealous of their power, I think some people might actually jump at the chance.

Haven't read the rest of the thread yet, but I'm short on time so I thought I'd reply to this now. The problem is that the NPCs class would have so few features that it'd be incredibly boring in actual play. They're also balanced around the single encounter, and might be non viable or overpowered over the course of an entire adventuring day.

neonchameleon

2013-05-23, 07:02 PM

That's not really the case; in fact through much (most really) of D&D, PCs actually need to gain some levels or roll really well to stick out as far and above ordinary people and an NPC of equal level didn't have an automatic "not a PC" handicap.

This has not been true in any edition of D&D in history.

If you can cast one single spell you stand out from ordinary people. For that matter in AD&D if you aren't a 0th level character you stand out. In 3e if you aren't a commoner you stand out. In 2e fighters had weapon specialisation - even from level 1 they kicked ass and took names. In every version of D&D there has ever been first level wizards can cast spells.

In literally every edition of D&D there has been PCs have stood out by the rules and by the worldbuilding advice. You can try retconning so they don't stand out - and I own games where they don't. But those games aren't D&D.

But if you take away the option to have parity in the system entirely, have everyone start as a superhero head-and-shoulders above the rest of the world, then you've lost something core to the idea of D&D.

You also aren't talking about 4e. In my version of 4e, a first level kobold with some combat experience has more hit points than most level adventurers. A battletested orc starts out at third level with 50 hit points.

What there is is a stark difference between people who are basically competent and those who are shopkeepers, militia, or otherwise barely know how to hold a sword (read: minions). In 3e a human thug would be a commoner.

This is part of the problem with dailies.

Once more you are arguing that first level wizards should not exist. Dailies were brought into the 4e playtests to make it more like older editions.

If you dislike the assumptions of D&D so much, why do you want to play it?

And the philosophy that NPCs only exist to get cut down in four rounds, not needing to actually exist in the game world or be able to interact with it "off-screen" except by fiat.

Is one belonging to oD&D and 1e but not 4e. 4e monsters have skills (it's just not such a laborious process as 3e). In oD&D, kobolds could move through a stuck door which would take adventurers a strength check.

As for not existing in the game world - that's your issue. They exist, it's just that 4e is rules light out of combat.

If the rules do not model the fluff and player choice is dominated by metagame concerns, it's hard to call that an RPG. I'm not even sure what you would call it.

Irrelevant?

I'm going to think more about mirror matches.

These have always been a bad idea.

The thing is, it's not about being better or even about the PC's wanting to learn it. It's about the world not having an artificial meta-game "PC laws of reality vs everything else in the entire world laws of reality."

It doesn't. It has a "Laws of reality for people who spend all their time onscreen" vs "Looser approximations for people who don't."

Ok, I really don't understand the last bit. "You 4 people are entirely different than everyone else in the entire multi-verse. Why? Uhhhh, just cause that's why."

It's really confusing to me that this doesn't break immersion for folks. "Our characters are the only people in the world who can do what we can do, for no discernable in character reason."

Why? Because our characters are forging their own paths. They learn through experience which is unlike those of just about any other character. Their school of hard knocks is extraordinary - and unique. I expect soldiers or militia with the same training to fight almost exactly like each other. But I expect the PCs to have been driven to their limits by taking down Ancalagon the Black, Ranthanas the Red, the Red Hand of Doom, the Deepwater Goblins, and other unique experiences that no one else has had. No one other than the PCs survived to kill Ancalagon the Black. Only the PCs have been captured by the Red Hand of Doom and lived to not only tell the tale, but escaped and wiped out the entire camp. That sort of thing gains you experiences, and hence approaches, that no one else has.

And the same applies to NPCs. I craft certain outstanding NPCs unique powers because they've had unique experiences. Some of the wizards are experts in aspects ritual magic to a degree the PCs will never master unless they dedicate their life to it. But the same NPCs can't match even a PC wizard in melee combat because it's not what they have spent their life doing.

Of course you could fluff it that every single PC is the super spectacular exception to every rule of the universe, but for any game other than the cliche you all are the Chosen Ones!" it's kind of silly.

The PCs aren't the chosen ones. They are the ones who answered the call. Other people who answered the call were also pushed well past normal limits in unusual ways, and developed in their own ways.

If by level 2 the PCs aren't unique, with unique experiences, I want to know why not. This doesn't in any way prevent there being other unique individuals with massive expertise in their skills in ways that the PCs would have to give up adventuring and dedicate themselves to to match.