-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
navar100
It helps to make combat fighting and casting a spell feel different in play. One complaint of those who don't like 4E is the sameness of the classes. While not the only cause of the sameness, the wizard having to roll to hit and the fighter having to roll to hit means "spell" is just another word for "sword".
I think such logic lies madness, and has never been true in any edition anyway. There are plenty of spells that require the wizard to roll an attack roll (ranged touch attacks come to mind), and - while not plentiful - there are examples of martial attacks that require a DC save as well (the Monk's "Stunning Fist" comes to mind, and if I remember correctly there were some assassin attacks even in 2nd edition that caused "saving throws").
Also, I think it's ridiculous to claim that the cause of any 4e "sameness" was because the attacker always rolled to hit. We can have a conversation about making characters feel like they're playing different, but not if it begins with "some classes should roll d20s to use their powers, and others shouldn't."
Is it more engaging to be rolling dice as the attacker AND the defender? I'm not entirely convinced, in part because the dividing line is so arbitrary. Additionally, if we can agree that "rolling dice is fun", it seems silly to create some classes that roll a lot of dice (i.e. those classes that target AC), but also create classes that don't (i.e. those classes that target saving throws). And then on top of all that, you add needless complexity into the game by creating two systems when one would work just fine.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Raineh Daze
And, uh... sorry to burst your bubble, here, but the PC's don't need to track the monster's AC and saves. All they need to do is give a number and find out whether it hit or not. Or they can track the saves if they want to, just like they can with AC.
I agree, it does indeed "burst my bubble". I absolutely despise DMs who feel the need to keep DCs a secret. 99% of the time it serves no purpose but to slow down the game with needless queries and makes the players suspect the DM is cheating. It also makes it impossible for players to intelligently plan on when to use situational bonuses such as power attack or encounter powers.
If 5E is built with that assumption in mind that would be huge mark against it and that alone may well stop the game from winning me back.
Back on track. I do agree that for the most part single target one time effects should probably be a "to hit roll" rather than a save. But saves are, again this is only my oppinion and I know you disagree, a much more elegant way of resolving "aoe" effects for a multitude of reasons.
Two problems I see though. One, how would you handle ending an ongoing effect like hold person? Second, wouldn't an old school dungeon with a lot of traps be really boring for the players when the DM is rolling everything?
Also, when it comes to something major like a save or die or mind control it just feels better when you have the dice in your hand than the DM. It isn't logical, but it atleast feels like you have some control in your destiny.
It isn't rational, but it is psychology. One time I had a player walk out a session because I rolled a monsters attack roll while he was away from the table and it came up a max damage crit. The player told me the odds of all the other players conspiring against him and making it up were greater than the odds of the dice rolling that well. Totally crazy, but that is how some people think.
One time I made a character whose defining trait was a crazy good will save. The DM was using a house rule "attacker roles saves" varient and the very first round of the very first combat the enemy rolls a nat 20 (the only way I could have failed a save) and dominates me. It ruined the entire evening, and I felt powerless and cheated. If I had rolled my own dice I doubt it would have been an issue.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Talakeal
I agree, it does indeed "burst my bubble". I absolutely despise DMs who feel the need to keep DCs a secret. 99% of the time it serves no purpose but to slow down the game with needless queries and makes the players suspect the DM is cheating. It also makes it impossible for players to intelligently plan on when to use situational bonuses such as power attack or encounter powers.
If 5E is built with that assumption in mind that would be huge mark against it and that alone may well stop the game from winning me back.
If the DM feels like cheating, whether they roll the save or the player rolls to beat defences makes no difference.
And I have no clue why you seem to think that static defences will lead to greater DM secrecy and cheating. It makes no sense.
Quote:
Back on track. I do agree that for the most part single target one time effects should probably be a "to hit roll" rather than a save. But saves are, again this is only my oppinion and I know you disagree, a much more elegant way of resolving "aoe" effects for a multitude of reasons.
Only if the number of things you're catching in your AoE is so huge that it slows things down regardless of who's rolling.
Quote:
Two problems I see though. One, how would you handle ending an ongoing effect like hold person? Second, wouldn't an old school dungeon with a lot of traps be really boring for the players when the DM is rolling everything?
1) Cut down the duration? Require the caster to spend some effort to maintain the effect? It doesn't have to be a 'get a new saving through' type thing. Hell, it could even have no fixed duration, but the effective passive defence increases by +1 per round or something.
2) Not really, no. The players should be playing an active part in avoiding traps; blundering into them and relying on their defences to not take damage is rather a stupid thing to be doing.
Quote:
Also, when it comes to something major like a save or die or mind control it just feels better when you have the dice in your hand than the DM. It isn't logical, but it atleast feels like you have some control in your destiny.
It isn't rational, but it is psychology. One time I had a player walk out a session because I rolled a monsters attack roll while he was away from the table and it came up a max damage crit. The player told me the odds of all the other players conspiring against him and making it up were greater than the odds of the dice rolling that well. Totally crazy, but that is how some people think.
One time I made a character whose defining trait was a crazy good will save. The DM was using a house rule "attacker roles saves" varient and the very first round of the very first combat the enemy rolls a nat 20 (the only way I could have failed a save) and dominates me. It ruined the entire evening, and I felt powerless and cheated. If I had rolled my own dice I doubt it would have been an issue.
Eh, that's how you think; can't say I agree with it. I have atrocious luck when rolling myself. I think I roll above 10 on a d20 about... 1/8 of the time at best? :smalltongue:
... also, 'we should give this system and illogical and unfitting method for resisting certain effects that runs counter to everything else in the game because some people will react poorly to the DM rolling well' is not a sound design principle. Some people are going to dislike it for emotional reasons whichever way you handle it, so it may as well be the more consistent option.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Right; there might be good reasons to allow the players to roll dice rather than the DM.
Assuming the DM might be cheating is not one of them.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Raineh Daze
If the DM feels like cheating, whether they roll the save or the player rolls to beat defences makes no difference.
And I have no clue why you seem to think that static defences will lead to greater DM secrecy and cheating. It makes no sense.
Say, for example, the DM does not want the PCs to be able to succeed at a certain task, and if willing to fudge to make sure it happens.
If the DM tells the player the DC first they will have to state an absurdly high DC to ensure the player cannot succeed, which makes it obvious to the players that something is up.
If the DM instead is willing to fudge numbers slightly it will only be obvious occasionally.
So instead of saying something ridiculous like: The DC to climb the wall is 75", which is sure to raise player suspicions, the DM can say "What did you roll on your climb check?" Then the player says "I rolled an X" and the fudging DM can just say "Ooh tough luck, the DC was X+1", which will only raise suspicions if it is done too often or in situations where the roll was clearly insufficient.
Even if the DM doesn't fudge rolls, the temptation and suspicion are still there.
Also, the DM knows the players stats. Unless he is intentionally "playing dumb" he is better able to make tactical decisions than the players are when they are left in the dark.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Raineh Daze
... also, 'we should give this system and illogical and unfitting method for resisting certain effects that runs counter to everything else in the game because some people will react poorly to the DM rolling well' is not a sound design principle. Some people are going to dislike it for emotional reasons whichever way you handle it, so it may as well be the more consistent option.
I believe saving throws were added to the game for the psychological feeling of having some control over your characters fate. It just isn't fun to FEEL helpless against such an important roll even if there is no mathematical difference.
I also don't see how it is illogical or unfitting. Most things that require saves have no direct input from the person who set up the scenario. If I poison the soup at a banquet it is going to depend on how much each individual person consumes and their own personal health / reaction to the poisoning that determines survival, nothing I do. If I lob a grenade into the room the position of the grenade is on me, but how quickly the people in the room react and who is able to succsesfully get to cover has almost nothing to do with my aim and almost everything to do with their own reflexes, coordination, and position relative to obstacles.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Personally, I'd be in favor of a "players roll all the dice" system. It keeps players more involved even when it's not their turn, and it feels more like you're in control of your character. It's also, I find, easier for the GM not to have to fumble around with dice and addition.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Talakeal
Say, for example, the DM does not want the PCs to be able to succeed at a certain task, and if willing to fudge to make sure it happens.
If the DM tells the player the DC first they will have to state an absurdly high DC to ensure the player cannot succeed, which makes it obvious to the players that something is up.
If the DM instead is willing to fudge numbers slightly it will only be obvious occasionally.
So instead of saying something ridiculous like: The DC to climb the wall is 75", which is sure to raise player suspicions, the DM can say "What did you roll on your climb check?" Then the player says "I rolled an X" and the fudging DM can just say "Ooh tough luck, the DC was X+1", which will only raise suspicions if it is done too often or in situations where the roll was clearly insufficient.
Even if the DM doesn't fudge rolls, the temptation and suspicion are still there.
Also, the DM knows the players stats. Unless he is intentionally "playing dumb" he is better able to make tactical decisions than the players are when they are left in the dark.
Yeah, this has... nothing at all to do with saves or mechanics.
Quote:
I believe saving throws were added to the game for the psychological feeling of having some control over your characters fate. It just isn't fun to FEEL helpless against such an important roll even if there is no mathematical difference.
I also don't see how it is illogical or unfitting. Most things that require saves have no direct input from the person who set up the scenario. If I poison the soup at a banquet it is going to depend on how much each individual person consumes and their own personal health / reaction to the poisoning that determines survival, nothing I do. If I lob a grenade into the room the position of the grenade is on me, but how quickly the people in the room react and who is able to succsesfully get to cover has almost nothing to do with my aim and almost everything to do with their own reflexes, coordination, and position relative to obstacles.
Consistent mechanically. If you use a skill, you roll; if you attack, you roll; if you hit, you roll for damage. Saves should be the same for the simple reason that it makes everything operate on the same principle: if you take an action requiring randomisation, it's YOU that rolls for it.
Psychological hangups about being unable to change things be damned; you don't roll for avoiding an attack and it should be the same for a spell or poison. Either have all defences be passive or none of them. Don't do things halfway.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Raineh Daze
Yeah, this has... nothing at all to do with saves or mechanics.
I didn't say it did. I said a system that encourages both sides to keep secrets from one another is an environment in which it is easy to cheat. In my oppinion environments where it is easy to cheat are bad because they lead to the temptation to cheat and suspicion that the other side has given into that temptation.
It ALSO slows down play because you constantly have to ask the DM questions and play something akin to battleship as you try and narrow down the monster's AC to try and find the optimal power attack range.
It ALSO gives the DM an advantage (although he can intentionally play dumb to ignore it) because the PCs stats don't change from encounter to encounter, so he will already know what the PCs AC is for optimal tactics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Raineh Daze
Consistent mechanically. If you use a skill, you roll; if you attack, you roll; if you hit, you roll for damage. Saves should be the same for the simple reason that it makes everything operate on the same principle: if you take an action requiring randomisation, it's YOU that rolls for it.
Unless that action is one that happens to be about self preservation?
Deciding to jump for cover to escape an explosion, deciding to slow my metabolism so that the poison I ingested won't spread through my body as quickly, and deciding to try and fight through the pain and continue due to sheer willpower are all actions I would be taking that I would not be allowed to roll the result for because they fall under the category of "saves" and saves are never rolled in your proposed system.
Even if the condition which I am saving against is imposed by an inanimate object.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Talakeal
I didn't say it did. I said a system that encourages both sides to keep secrets from one another is an environment in which it is easy to cheat. In my oppinion environments where it is easy to cheat are bad because they lead to the temptation to cheat and suspicion that the other side has given into that temptation.
It ALSO slows down play because you constantly have to ask the DM questions and play something akin to battleship as you try and narrow down the monster's AC to try and find the optimal power attack range.
It ALSO gives the DM an advantage (although he can intentionally play dumb to ignore it) because the PCs stats don't change from encounter to encounter, so he will already know what the PCs AC is for optimal tactics.
Please show me on the doll where the bad DM touched you.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ashdate
Please show me on the doll where the bad DM touched you.
Actually it has more to do with the bad PCs. They always assume I am cheating when I am not. Although the temptation is there, and I would much prefer not having to worry about it.
It is HARD to play dumb effectively. Trying to pretend to guess your opponents stats is like playing chess against oneself. A farce rather than an actual contest of skill.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Talakeal
Unless that action is one that happens to be about self preservation?
Deciding to jump for cover to escape an explosion, deciding to slow my metabolism so that the poison I ingested won't spread through my body as quickly, and deciding to try and fight through the pain and continue due to sheer willpower are all actions I would be taking that I would not be allowed to roll the result for because they fall under the category of "saves" and saves are never rolled in your proposed system.
Even if the condition which I am saving against is imposed by an inanimate object.
Pretty much every part of AC involves the character actively doing something. However, it's still passive. Why? Perhaps because it's assumed self preservation will cause defences to always be their best, whilst offence has to try and circumvent it. Same would go for saves--not all traps and poisons are prepared equal.
We already have a system exactly like the one I've been pushing for. It has the same 'real world' problems in that things aren't all opposed rolls. But it matches the rest of the system nicely, so that's okay.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talakeal
Actually it has more to do with the bad PCs. They always assume I am cheating when I am not. Although the temptation is there, and I would much prefer not having to worry about it.
I just don't remember which version of Dungeons and Dragons it was that it was assumed that both sides were playing in bad faith. I'm not sure we should be borrowing that for the new edition.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ashdate
I just don't remember which version of Dungeons and Dragons it was that it was assumed that both sides were playing in bad faith. I'm not sure we should be borrowing that for the new edition.
I don't think any edition has ever said one way or another if you are supposed to reveal DCs or not. I said that I much prefer DMs who play with open DCs as the environment feels much more trusting and friendly than one where everything is a secret.
I only brought it up because I said that a player rolling "to hit" for enemy saving throws against AOE attacks could take forever if the DM refused to tell the players what the target number was.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ashdate
I just don't remember which version of Dungeons and Dragons it was that it was assumed that both sides were playing in bad faith. I'm not sure we should be borrowing that for the new edition.
D&D, Talakeal Edition. Because his players are THAT crazy. Of course, I do agree with him about the trouble with hidden DCs and invisible non-subtle rolls (Such as stealth and listen/spot checks)
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Raineh Daze
Pretty much every part of AC involves the character actively doing something. However, it's still passive. Why? Perhaps because it's assumed self preservation will cause defences to always be their best, whilst offence has to try and circumvent it. Same would go for saves--not all traps and poisons are prepared equal.
We already have a system exactly like the one I've been pushing for. It has the same 'real world' problems in that things aren't all opposed rolls. But it matches the rest of the system nicely, so that's okay.
I agree, a system where only one side rolls is much easier in play than an opposed roll. I agree that to hit rolls would be silly if they were opposed.
However, saving throws are often triggered in situations which have no reason to be an opposed roll at all (for example a player drinks tainted water or is standing in the path of a rock slide), and in those situations you need a mechanic.
In the case of a direct magical assault such as charm person or slay living I could go either way. However, as saving throw rules should be in place (see above), you might as well use them. The player feeling like they have some control over their own destiny in such important matters is just the icing on the cake.
In the case of an AOE attack it just feels like more fun for the DM to say "Ok, you set off a trap. Everyone roll reflex to see if you can get out of the way in time," rather than "Ok, you set off a trap. Let me roll five dice on behalf of some nameless trapsmith who died a thousand years ago and then I will tell you what happened to your characters."
As I said, this is just my oppinion.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Moreb Benhk
What does that even mean?
Check I quoted. It was in reference to the idea of spells' power not being variable (so a Fireball is always the same no matter who casts it).
Magic is just magic, regardless of the caster.
The bit in parenthesis was my own preference for wizards getting magical wands/staves/tomes/orbs/etc. that improved their magic in the way a fighter's magic sword aid him in combat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Talakeal
I agree, it does indeed "burst my bubble". I absolutely despise DMs who feel the need to keep DCs a secret. 99% of the time it serves no purpose but to slow down the game with needless queries and makes the players suspect the DM is cheating. It also makes it impossible for players to intelligently plan on when to use situational bonuses such as power attack or encounter powers.
It serves a perfectly reasonable purpose - it maintains an air of mystery. That mystery is present both in game (your character doesn't know exactly how good/poor the defenses of the Kobolds are) and out of character (the Kobolds' AC is hidden from you). After a few rounds of combat, your character figure out the best tactics to use in combat (trial and error) and you the player do as well (because if 16 doesn't hit and 17 does, then you know their AC).
I'd wager that most DMs and Players prefer the mystery to just being told the enemy's stats. To be honest, I can't really think of an RPG where that sense of mystery is - by the rules - eliminated.
Your dislike of that mystery and your emphasis on tactics, tells me that you'd probably adore Wargames, as they are both tactical and there is zero hidden information.
DM's are given the right to "cheat" in order to create a superior play experience, thus making encounters both more and less difficult. The power is supposed to be used sparingly and judiciously (which, sadly, is a lesson many DM's need to learn). The only DM's I can think of that don't or can't cheat are those who play without a screen and David Noonan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Talakeal
I specifically said the DM counts as a player. In an ideal world EVERYONE at the table should have roughly even spotlight time, although this is seldom possible when the DM is running multiple characters at once.
The Dungeon Master will almost always have more screen time because he controls over half the game.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Felhammer
It serves a perfectly reasonable purpose - it maintains an air of mystery. That mystery is present both in game (your character doesn't know exactly how good/poor the defenses of the Kobolds are) and out of character (the Kobolds' AC is hidden from you). After a few rounds of combat, your character figure out the best tactics to use in combat (trial and error) and you the player do as well (because if 16 doesn't hit and 17 does, then you know their AC).
I'd wager that most DMs and Players prefer the mystery to just being told the enemy's stats. To be honest, I can't really think of an RPG where that sense of mystery is - by the rules - eliminated.
Your dislike of that mystery and your emphasis on tactics, tells me that you'd probably adore War-games, as they are both tactical and there is zero hidden information.
No, I detest war games as there is no character development.
I like playing a character and I like making choices in character.
If I am unable to gauge my opponent I am unable to make choices in or out of character. This is not realistic, nor is it mysterious. It is just frustrating.
Unless there is actually a reason an enemy’s AC should be readily apparent to someone who lives in the world and is used to fighting.
If I see a guy who is not moving with any special amount of grace and is wearing chain mail and holding a shield he should have an AC of 16. Unless he is secretly hiding an amulet of protection under his shirt I should be able to know this in character. If he does have magical protection that should be readily apparent after the first attack.*
By leaving players in the dark you are removing any semblance of strategy or "having cool powers" there is in playing a martial character and stripping away any verisimilitude.
On the flip side of the coin the DM knows exactly what my AC is, and knows exactly what the optimal maneuver is for the monsters to use. This is not fun and it is not fair.
*IMO this is both much better gameplay and more mysterious. Saying "I attack!" and the DM says "Random mook has a 30 AC" I know something is up, this is mysterious and gives me something to think about, I will look for a reason for his high AC.
If the DM just says "(I roll a 3) You miss. (I roll a 6) You miss. (I roll a 20)You hit. He is dead." I don't know that he has any sort of magical protection. Indeed I didn't see anything out of the ordinary at all. There is no mystery, no tactical input, no suspense, nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Felhammer
DM's are given the right to "cheat" in order to create a superior play experience, thus making encounters both more and less difficult. The power is supposed to be used sparingly and judiciously (which, sadly, is a lesson many DM's need to learn). The only DM's I can think of that don't or can't cheat are those who play without a screen and David Noonan.
Are there any RPGs that actually let the DM "cheat?" I can't recall any. I know that the DM is allowed to create custom content and house rules, but I don't think I have ever seen one that actually allowed the DM to blatantly ignore a dice roll or change an NPCs stats mid game.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Felhammer
Check I quoted. It was in reference to the idea of spells' power not being variable (so a Fireball is always the same no matter who casts it).
Magic is just magic, regardless of the caster.
The bit in parenthesis was my own preference for wizards getting magical wands/staves/tomes/orbs/etc. that improved their magic in the way a fighter's magic sword aid him in combat.
I still don't entirely follow. You keep using the phrase 'magic is just magic' as though it clearly means something other than tautology.
So you mean Fireball always does, say 5d6 damage or whatnot? So spells have set outputs and are not based off caster level and/or caster stats (saves always being the same, etc)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Felhammer
The Dungeon Master will almost always have more screen time because he controls over half the game.
That quote you quoted isn't me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Talakeal
On the flip side of the coin the DM knows exactly what my AC is, and knows exactly what the optimal maneuver is for the monsters to use. This is not fun and it is not fair.
I don't get this. Are you under the impression that you are playing against the DM and he is trying to beat the party? If not the fact that he knows the party stats, while the party doesn't know all the baddie stats doesn't really factor into fairness. If you need to 'even up the tables' against your DM, you have much bigger problems than the system you are using. What's stopping the DM from running consistent monsters and NPC's who act off what THEY know (you know, like players are supposed to do with PC's)? If your DM is stacking the fights against you in a way which is pure metagame in order to beat you (without player consent), you need a new DM.
I always loved the differentiation of saves and attacks in 3.5. Attacks usually resolve about hitting a particular target, usually with a physical thing. Saves usually are about area effect things and/or resisting various effects (like charm or whatnot). Things that draw saves are often (not always) a lot nastier than attacky things. To me the distinction feels natural enough.
I would also vastly prefer rolling saves to having those things target a static defense (as in 4e.). The second just lacks that element of suspense when I (as the player) roll the 'do or die' thing and was one of the elements of 4e I did not like at all.
Having said that, I also did love 4e's save mechanic - the round by round save for those durational effects.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
I presume what he meant was more "Magic A is Magic A", meaning spells and abilities should function consistently across the board, and not depend on the caster.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
To me, engaging players is the strongest argument here for having the players roll saving throws when the party is hit by a trap or fireball. I think it's problematic if players have nothing to do outside their own turns; I've seen this lead to players getting bored and distracted instead of engaged in the game. While consistency of mechanics is a good thing, it is good only as long as it serves a purpose, and can be taken too far; having some effects have an "offense roll" and other effects have a "defense roll" is not problematic for most players in practice.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Talakeal
No, I detest war games as there is no character development.
I like playing a character and I like making choices in character.
Depends on the game and who you game with, just like RPGs. I've played in more than a few game sessions where there was zero interaction with fellow players or the DM and everything was just OOC jokes and rolling attacks. By the same token, I have experienced a great number of - what I would call role playing - in war games. It just matters who you game with (but your chances for character development are greater with RPGs). :smallsmile:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Talakeal
If I am unable to gauge my opponent I am unable to make choices in or out of character. This is not realistic, nor is it mysterious. It is just frustrating.
If the DM says, "The Death Knight is wearing very heavy armor and wields a massive two handed axe." Then you know he probably has a high AC thanks to his armor but not an astronomical one thanks to the lack of a shield and (presumably) low DEX. Not exactly someone you would power attack against.
If the DM said, "Ten Kobolds drop down from the cieling and flank you on all sides. They are wearing skin tight black unitards and wield short swords." You know that they are probably wearing clothing but have a very good DEX.
You don't need to know the exact number because you can infer their AC range but their description.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Talakeal
If I see a guy who is not moving with any special amount of grace and is wearing chain mail and holding a shield he should have an AC of 16. Unless he is secretly hiding an amulet of protection under his shirt I should be able to know this in character. If he does have magical protection that should be readily apparent after the first attack.*
By leaving players in the dark you are removing any semblance of strategy or "having cool powers" there is in playing a martial character and stripping away any verisimilitude.
Half the fun of playing is attacking and finding out what happens.
The enemy should be held to the same level of presumed ignorance as the PCs. They shouldn't know you have a Amulet of Protection hidden below your shirt or that you have a Ring of Jumping. Just as in real life, you should be able to surprise the enemy just as often as they surprise you. Thinking on your feet and creating new battle plans on the fly is the hallmark of a superior tactician.
Remember, a round lasts 6 seconds in game, while out of character that single turn could last as long as 15 to 20 minutes. Even a witless child could eventually figure out the best possible strategy if all the information is strewn out in front of him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Talakeal
On the flip side of the coin the DM knows exactly what my AC is, and knows exactly what the optimal maneuver is for the monsters to use. This is not fun and it is not fair.
But the DM isn't the adversary. Your relationship should not be confrontational in the least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Talakeal
If the DM just says "(I roll a 3) You miss. (I roll a 6) You miss. (I roll a 20)You hit. He is dead." I don't know that he has any sort of magical protection. Indeed I didn't see anything out of the ordinary at all. There is no mystery, no tactical input, no suspense, nothing.
That's just plain bad DMing. The DM should be peppering his descriptions of how you are missing with clues as to why you are missing. If the Death Knight has an Amulet of Protection, then he should mention the fact that you see some kind of thin magical aura or invisible force intercede between you and your enemy, blocking the attack from finding its mark.
Descriptions are key. Without them, the game is really byzantine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Talakeal
Are there any RPGs that actually let the DM "cheat?" I can't recall any. I know that the DM is allowed to create custom content and house rules, but I don't think I have ever seen one that actually allowed the DM to blatantly ignore a dice roll or change an NPCs stats mid game.
Page 18 of the 3.5 DMG talks about the pros and cons of DM's "cheating." Their thoughts are pretty much summed up as "The DM really can't cheat. You're the umpire, and what you say goes."
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Moreb Benhk
I still don't entirely follow. You keep using the phrase 'magic is just magic' as though it clearly means something other than tautology.
So you mean Fireball always does, say 5d6 damage or whatnot? So spells have set outputs and are not based off caster level and/or caster stats (saves always being the same, etc)?
It's just tautology. A catchy way of summing up the point. :)
So a Fireball would always do 5d6 damage and require a save of 15 for half damage, rather than in 3.5 where the damage was variable based on level and the save was also variable based on your ability score. Meaning even if you had two Wizards cast the same spell, not only would their output would be different but so too would the DC to save.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Moreb Benhk
That quote you quoted isn't me.
Threshing error, my bad. :smallfrown:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Moreb Benhk
Having said that, I also did love 4e's save mechanic - the round by round save for those durational effects.
I agree, the random duration tracker was a brilliant idea.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Moreb Benhk
I don't get this. Are you under the impression that you are playing against the DM and he is trying to beat the party? If not the fact that he knows the party stats, while the party doesn't know all the baddie stats doesn't really factor into fairness. If you need to 'even up the tables' against your DM, you have much bigger problems than the system you are using. What's stopping the DM from running consistent monsters and NPC's who act off what THEY know (you know, like players are supposed to do with PC's)? If your DM is stacking the fights against you in a way which is pure metagame in order to beat you (without player consent), you need a new DM.
I am not talking about a DM intentionally making an unfair encounter. I am saying that if you have two characters who are supposedly equal in power the DM has two choices:
Say, for example, a fighter hits their target on a -5. They have no reason in the world not to use 6 points of power attack.
If the DM is controlling the fighter he must either:
1: Play smart and apply 6 points of power attack.
2: Play dumb and go out of their way to not use the optimal attack strategy.
If a PC is controlling the fighter they have to blindly guess at just how much power attack is needed. Meaning they cannot make the best use of a feat which they purchased. Indeed, it would take hundreds of rounds of trial and error to figure out exactly how much power attack was optimal, and by that time one of the fighters will be several hours in their grave.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Felhammer
But the DM isn't the adversary. Your relationship should not be confrontational in the least.
The DM is not my enemy. But the monster I am fighting is, and I expect the DM to play the monster to its full capabilities. I play the game to be challenged, not to have victories handed to me by intentionally bad decisions on the other end.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Talakeal
I am not talking about a DM intentionally making an unfair encounter. I am saying that if you have two characters who are supposedly equal in power the DM has two choices:
Say, for example, a fighter hits their target on a -5. They have no reason in the world not to use 6 points of power attack.
If the DM is controlling the fighter he must either:
1: Play smart and apply 6 points of power attack.
2: Play dumb and go out of their way to not use the optimal attack strategy.
If a PC is controlling the fighter they have to blindly guess at just how much power attack is needed. Meaning they cannot make the best use of a feat which they purchased. Indeed, it would take hundreds of rounds of trial and error to figure out exactly how much power attack was optimal, and by that time one of the fighters will be several hours in their grave.
The DM is not my enemy. But the monster I am fighting is, and I expect the DM to play the monster to its full capabilities. I play the game to be challenged, not to have victories handed to me by intentionally bad decisions on the other end.
I suspect your difficulties lie in the absence of differentiation of DM and monster. The DM knows the numbers. The monster knows the same sort of thing that the PC's know. All that is required is that he optimise play per the knowledge of the monster. In the same way as a player shouldn't metagame about their own character. If their character doesn't know something that the player does, the player shouldn't have the character utilise such information. I thought that was one of the basic precepts of the genre.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kurald Galain
To me, engaging players is the strongest argument here for having the players roll saving throws when the party is hit by a trap or fireball. I think it's problematic if players have nothing to do outside their own turns; I've seen this lead to players getting bored and distracted instead of engaged in the game. While consistency of mechanics is a good thing, it is good only as long as it serves a purpose, and can be taken too far; having some effects have an "offense roll" and other effects have a "defense roll" is not problematic for most players in practice.
There's really no difference between a player rolling a save and a DM rolling an attack, the math just shifts.
In the 4E style, the system is, basically, Players have a Defense set at 10+ability mod+Other Modifiers while the attacker uses d20+ability mode+other modifiers.
The 3.x system is, basically, the opposite - Players have a Saving throw set at d20+ability mod+other modifiers while the enemies' attack is set at a DC of 10+ability mod+other modifiers.
They're essentially exactly the same and easily reverse engineered. :smallsmile:
The hardest part about this is codifying exactly when you switch to the rolling a save. The easiest way to do it would be to say "roll a save when you are targeted by a spell or an area attack" but that really does rob Spellcasters of rolling d20's on their turn (and rolling more = fun) as well as eliminating the iconic "save against falling into the pit trap!"
You could design a system where monster spells all require a saving throw while player spells require an attack roll but that's a really wonky and inelegant solution. :smallfrown:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Talakeal
I am not talking about a DM intentionally making an unfair encounter. I am saying that if you have two characters who are supposedly equal in power the DM has two choices:
Say, for example, a fighter hits their target on a -5. They have no reason in the world not to use 6 points of power attack.
If the DM is controlling the fighter he must either:
1: Play smart and apply 6 points of power attack.
2: Play dumb and go out of their way to not use the optimal attack strategy.
There are two answers for this and neither of which is play smart or play dumb.
The DM can play according to what his character thinks, i.e. a raging Barbarian would Power Attack (HULK STRONGEST THERE IS!), while an experienced Soldier would be more cautious (Better to hit and wound than miss entirely), etc.
The other method is to look at the battle and decide what is more meaningful for the story. Does the Fighter really need to get pummeled by a random mook? Does the Fighter getting beaten by a re-occurring bad guy add a cool dynamic to the story?
DM's who think of the situation only in terms of playing smart and playing dumb are in fact playing incorrectly (at least IMO) because it presumes a level of meta knowledge that the characters simply would not have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Talakeal
If a PC is controlling the fighter they have to blindly guess at just how much power attack is needed. Meaning they cannot make the best use of a feat which they purchased. Indeed, it would take hundreds of rounds of trial and error to figure out exactly how much power attack was optimal, and by that time one of the fighters will be several hours in their grave.
Here lies the heart of the situation - you want to use meta knowledge to utilize your best attacks. You presume other players and DMs are on the same wave length as yourself. You are frustrated by the fact that DM's are - from your perspective - skewing the game arbitrarily due to their use of meta knowledge.
Only the *worst* DM's think along those lines. They view the world as antagonistic - me vs. the players - and will use any advantage they have (from bending the rules, to fudging dice to using meta knowledge) to win.
Most DM's are not that way. They look at an encounter and decide actions based on the criteria I listed above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Talakeal
The DM is not my enemy. But the monster I am fighting is, and I expect the DM to play the monster to its full capabilities. I play the game to be challenged, not to have victories handed to me by intentionally bad decisions on the other end.
I am going to be dead honest here - are you sure you don't want to play Wargames? I don't mean any offense but your preferred play style is exactly what a war game is - everyone has all the information and everyone uses their game pieces to maximum effect every single turn. There is zero mollycoddling, everything is hardcore. Once again, no offense intended. :smallsmile:
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Raineh Daze
Good. Those tasks are easy, after all.
Real quick, as an exercise; I want to draw attention to the DCs given in actual play. The DCs in the modules are predominantly 11-13, with 15 or so for those tasks which seemingly require specialization.
I wonder; would a preponderance of Roge Skills all having high DCs and everyday Joe skills having lower ones make this make more sense?
Quote:
Strictly speaking, the rogue is superior, but would you want to sacrifice in other areas for something that isn't going to make an enormous impact on passing? :/
The rogue is still consistently the most damaging party member in the early game. You're not giving anything up at all; our "Swashbuckler" almost cleaned house on her own, if not for a lucky Crit driving her to deep negatives mid-fight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Raineh Daze
All this talk about rolls etc. makes me wonder why it is that they decided to make the person saving against an effect the one to roll but you roll to hit. I mean, they sort of managed consistency with 3.X in that it's 'roll greater than' pretty much every time, but why the hell did they do that with saves? :smallconfused:
Focus tests show that players enjoy situations more when they roll. Simple as that. There are even rules and full games out there which are "players roll all the dice".
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Raineh Daze
The first one doesn't need a rogue at all, the second--one success and no failures--either isn't that important or implies something's being badly run, and the third is just bad design because of geometric progressions.
The first one means that in a stressful situation you want a higher success chance than not – a rogue who climbs up the shaft first can help others with a rope and harness, instead of having the fighter fall repeatedly.
The second, not that important? Baloney.
The third, depends on if success is Game Over or Take The Left Path. Having to succeed on a skill twice in a row comes up all the time in other editions. Limping, for example. Or swimming. Or talkin your way out of a war camp. Or a ritual. Or social maneuvering. Or...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
eepop
http://anydice.com/program/270c
Looks like 0.14% (or 0.35% if 10 counts as "under 10" as well)
PS: I am not trying to debunk any assertion you may be making, it was just an interesting question and I knew where to find the answer.
(looks like SiuiS beat me to it, doh!)
No, no. I'll talk all sorts of crap but I'm interested in the truth, not being right. And kudos, it took me like, 20 minutes to figure the code for that. Kept getting errors!
What I'm seeing is that the Rogue's expected dice outcome are about equal to the Fighter's expected combat outcome. This i pleasant because the fighter, whose chassis is built not on numbers but on value manipulation, actually uses the same expressions as other characters but with a wider array of possible variances; the math is "universal" but the implementation changes give her an edge. This is really cool design wise, and even if an accidental emergent property it's a good idea that can be harvested.
Fighters use the same combat statistics but tweak the curve.
Rogues use the same skill statistics but tweak the curve.
We need a magic curve, and we need to give mages an edge. This was once upon a time achieved in reverse, with Wizards having all magic items except fighter regalia and fighters having their regalia (swords, shields, armor) and nothin else; and others between them had arrays of magic access via scroll, potion and such. This can work but not on the 3e system, and would have to be built as a balanced scale, and then modified up for mages and down for fighters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
navar100
The problem with rolling for under is vocabulary. When you get a bonus, you get a minus. Suppose your attribute for some roll is 16. You need to roll under 16 to succeed. Now suppose for some reason you get a +2 bonus to succeed. That becomes a -2 to your roll. That's the disconnect: bonus = minus. That's 2E. To prevent bonus = minus, you would have say your attribute gets the +2 for purposes of the roll and not the roll itself.
ACKS uses a similar method, but without the vocabulary problems. They don't use roll under though, not sure why I keep thinking that...
My question is why would you have a bonus to an attribute roll? If its straight "roll d20, bet your stat threshold" then Dis/Ad is PERFECT! You don't need +1s or +2s ever. Just skew the odds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
noparlpf
Well that was easy to solve.
Y'know?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
obryn
...For one edition of the game?
Gonna be a voice of dissent here, in that AD&D also did this, even saying that one should save against dragon breath in a sparring match to avoid being hit, and there's another (paralysis?) to avoid dizziness and nausea for having your head traumatized, Etc. hearkening to saves is actually an age old Fighters Matter trick, because the fighting man had the best progression!
I'd like to see that actually, in 3e. Make it so fighters and their ilk get the best saves, maybe start higher than +2. Arcane casters get Will for dealing with entropic beings; Priestly types get Fort for their unflagging devotion and being able to withstand rigors of their faith; Roguelikes get Reflex for their uncanny knack for dodging. Fighter types get all three, with a bonus by fighter type (fighter would be +4 fort, maybe, and +2 else wise, monk gets +3 across the board, paladin gets maybe a Will bonus too, barbarian can have Reflex, but minimum +2 for all).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MtlGuy
I signed up for the 5th edition playtest and read through the rules. There's some stuff I like, the language of race and character creation has a 2nd edition feel to it. I like that you have both Race and Subrace, each with a modifier. Saving throws have been increasingly simplified and streamlined over time (just look at all the categories in 2nd edition and compare it to the three kinds of saves in Pathfinder). Tying ability scores to saving throws is a continuation of this trend. I wonder if we'll just end up moving towards a armor class rating for magical attack etc. That would be a mistake, the saving throw is a moment of dramatic tension, it would be best not to remove it.
4th edition was very polarizing. Enough players went over to TSR's spiritual successor, Paizo, to make Pathfinder a success. I read through 4th edition, but I never played it, can't say I was enthusiastic abotu the prospect. I read and played Pathfinder and enjoyed it immensely. That's not the measure of a rules system by any account, but it is my experience. I think 5th edition is an effort by WotC to reclaim spiritual ownership of the D&D brand from Paizo, which has gone on to claim that Pathfinder is now the best selling RPG. By crowdsourcing the playtest, WotC doesn't have to wait until the product is completed to 'change the channel' on Paizo. Furthermore, by making the game modular it can be everything to everyone. Will it work? Does it matter?
I think Paizo being a spiritual successor is a flawed idea. Pathfinder replicates strictly ONE edition, and not always well. This is actually what 4e did, too. All the components of D&D split their separate ways like a band that became many solo acts.
I think WotC is less tryin to reclaim anything, and more feeling like they missed something and trying, for themselves as well as players, to find a sweet spot. Next has the feel of an experimental craftsman, not a mine grubbing panderer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Scow2
Saves worked for traps. They didn't really work for spells. 4e's NADs were better for casters, I think.
Rocking the quad, eh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Raineh Daze
Now imagine what happens when the enemies act! Let's say that they all have weapons and aren't using magic. The DM might even have to keep asking the PC's what their AC is if there's a lot of them or it changes vs X condition.
I continue to say that not being able to handle this is a sign of a poor DM. This is what Dungeon-Mastering is. You don't get to have a hard time with math and be an engineer on faith. You don't get to have a hard time DMing and still be a DM on faith. You get better by practice – and we can excuse mistakes during progression, easily – or you don't do the job.
I suppose I now miss the days where being allowed to read the DM books like the Necromancer's Handbook was a privilege which marked one as ready to step beyond the parting veil?
Quote:
Besides, not only mages should get to affect groups of enemies at one time like that.
Shouldn't they? Maybe not as they have been ("autooni this group, auto kill this group...") but AoE has always been the mage's thing, with clerics behind them. Mages deal with mind numbing things, focus fire well, and spray groups.
Clerics can fight well, bolster allies, deny enemies their wickedness, and censure enemies of the faith.
Rogues can scout, steal, carouse, assssinate and slink away.
Warriors can survive anything to get up close and be a threat.
Those are the founding ideas behind the archetypes. They aren't invalid, just often poorly executed.
I would like a Mass Effect style system i think, where you have Elsmental, paraelemental and quasi elemental classes; F is a valid choice. R is a valid choice. F/R is a valid choice. Each clearly has its merits and the mix has obvious parts from the elemental classes while bein unique enough to be played and enjoyed (see; soldier F, engineer R, Infiltrator F/R)
As a second though, other classes can do area stuff. It's just rolled differently most times.
Quote:
Clearly, no enemies should ever roll to hit, they should have a static attack value and the PC's roll to defend.
... except not, because that's messy, and doesn't really mesh with the rest of the system. Saves are weird; there is no reason for them to be rolled. A universally applicable mechanic (person taking an action is the one to roll) is better than players maybe not getting to roll when a trap comes up. :|
The game you want is Dungeon World.
Seriously. Like, not a snarky Internet comment. See if you can get some folks together, and play a quick game. I think you'll like it.
As for rolling defenses, I want D&D to have the same setup as WoD; there's your defense (AC) and you can also dodge, which is numerically better, but instead of 10+ bonuses, it's 1d20 + bonuses. And you can add carriers; a riposte against a successfully dodged attack, or a barbarian who shrugs off a hit and staggers the enemy, or toss expertise dice and regain HP from them as a surge of confidence and adrenaline; not only dodge the spell but fling some of the fire back at the Mage, or both resist the dragon's breath and block it's area with your shield. That would be pretty bad ass, and easy to implement.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SiuiS
As for rolling defenses, I want D&D to have the same setup as WoD; there's your defense (AC) and you can also dodge, which is numerically better, but instead of 10+ bonuses, it's 1d20 + bonuses. And you can add carriers; a riposte against a successfully dodged attack, or a barbarian who shrugs off a hit and staggers the enemy, or toss expertise dice and regain HP from them as a surge of confidence and adrenaline; not only dodge the spell but fling some of the fire back at the Mage, or both resist the dragon's breath and block it's area with your shield. That would be pretty bad ass, and easy to implement.
To me, that isn't core D&D but would make an excellent variant rule in the DMG or Unearthed Arcana. :smallsmile:
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Felhammer
There's really no difference between a player rolling a save and a DM rolling an attack, the math just shifts.
Mathematically they're identical, but psychologically they're not.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kurald Galain
Mathematically they're identical, but psychologically they're not.
Exactly.
Having the attacker roll everything is more consistent and thus easier to grasp but there are times when it isn't as fun. I often had to catch myself from saying, "Roll a ref save!" when playing 4E.
Like I said in my post, the issue isn't mechanical in nature but where you draw the line between attacks and saving throws.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Since it's more fun to roll dice, why not give up on universal mechanics? Have PCs roll attacks AND saves; have NPCs roll nothing, with attack and defense values being set numbers.
As long as things stay PC v NPC, it works fine, and the players get to do all the rolling. For things that happen between NPCs, it doesn't matter, since it's no fun watching NPCs do things anyway. For things that happen between PCs, you just get to roll even more dice.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BayardSPSR
Since it's more fun to roll dice, why not give up on universal mechanics? Have PCs roll attacks AND saves; have NPCs roll nothing, with attack and defense values being set numbers.
As long as things stay PC v NPC, it works fine, and the players get to do all the rolling. For things that happen between NPCs, it doesn't matter, since it's no fun watching NPCs do things anyway. For things that happen between PCs, you just get to roll even more dice.
It's called Dungeon World and from what I hear, it's rather effective and fun. It's also a variant rule as far back as 3e Unearthed Arcana. People DO do this, and DO enjoy it. People also, generally, don't actually experience any of the problems that come up in optimization-spreading forums which teach people a reliance on math and on technical wordplay. So, the pithy bit at the end about rolling even more dice kind of misses that yes, in most situations, this is considered fun and engaging.
The problem with PC versus PC has nothing to do with dice, and everything to do with Pc v. PC on it's own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Felhammer
To me, that isn't core D&D but would make an excellent variant rule in the DMG or Unearthed Arcana. :smallsmile:
I dunno. Some form of riposte, counter attack, or preparation to evade as either a bonus or a roll rather than static number has been around forever. I can recall it in 1e, and in 3e it's how Readied Actions work; My favorite readied action was to move lateral to a charger so he loses his benefits and still takes a -2 AC for example; The stuff for robilar's gambit shows up in 2e dragon, I believe, and there are kits and side notes for ripostes and parries throughout.
It's not been core because the implementation is emergent and or sucks. Making it a thing you can do would do wonders, because the language is now so much easier.
Dodging: When using full defense, you roll 1d20 instead of basing your armor class on 10. You add gain a +4 dodge bonus. Fighters may use Expertise Dice on Dodge actions. Certain feats allow you to gain additional benefits from the Dodge action.
Then have feats. The shield feat that lets you shield an ally? You can also shield an ally as part of a dodge (fighters can add expertise dice to either their or their ally's defense boost). Two weapon defense? You can make an off-hand attack while dodging (fighters can use expertise dice on either the attack roll or the damage roll). Pole arm mastery? You can make a knockdown or knockback attempt against any enemy you dodge (fighters add ED damage in addition to the knockdown/back effect, regardless of success).
Suddenly fighters are better, melee is more engaging, and you can't look at your 21 AC and go "face it bro, my Defensity is unassailable" all the time, since it's now not AC 21, it's AC 1d20+11.
Saves would only benefit from this if they were converted to the 4e system, unfortunately.