-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tasw
A universal mechanic is an absolutely AWFUL idea. Magic should feel different then sword and board combat and both should feel different then a skill check.
Defenders rolling is much better. It lets everyone have something to do when a caster uses a spell rather then 1 person having lots to do and everyone else sitting around with their thumbs up their butts watching.
Also with area affect one caster roll doesnt even make sense. The caster isnt targeting every single person. Its like throwing a grenade, you target where you want the thing to land and everyone in the area better figure out what to do fast.
Your not throwing a bomb (or a fireball) at each individual person in the area.
I'd prefer the rules to state that either/both are equally valid, depending on what the DM deems to be narratively or psychologically appropriate. Mathematically, 1d20+Save Stat+Bonuses against 10+Casting Stat+Bonuses is identical to 1d20+Casting Stat+Bonuses agaisnt 10+Save Stat+Bonuses. Psychologically, a lot of players like having their fate's in their own dice.
Or, it really should depend on spell, because spells are not universal in their mechanics. Some, like Fireball, deserve a Dexterity Save. Others, like "Lighting bolt", probably should require a Hit Against Dexterity.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Raineh Daze
... you just quoted something that says that saves aren't restricted to magic, though, so 'magic should feel different' has no bearing on whether saves should be a passive or active defence. Also, people keep mentioning traps and environmental hazards, which also aren't spells. :smallconfused:
As usual, patently false and probably deliberately obtuse.
You can DEFAULT to one resolution without saying thats the only situation that would use that resolution very easily. In fact any other supposition at all is completely illogical.
And magic being handled the same as an environmental hazards is not only perfectly valid, its the most rational method. A swamp or thunderstorm isnt trying to kill you, it just is. A trap isnt trying to get you. Its a machine that just drops a rock, flips a door, throws a spear etc etc at a very specific piece of ground. Like the weather and terrain effects it exists whether your there or not. Its not targeting you or reacting to your actions because its out to get you. Its just there and you have to deal with it.
And most spells, especially area effect are the same way. The caster fills an area with fire, swarming tentacles, etc etc. He's not aiming it at every single person in it so an attack roll is dumb and counter to logic. He is targeting an area, and everything in that area must deal with it. Exactly like a terrain/ weather/ trap effect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Scow2
I'd prefer the rules to state that either/both are equally valid, depending on what the DM deems to be narratively or psychologically appropriate. Mathematically, 1d20+Save Stat+Bonuses against 10+Casting Stat+Bonuses is identical to 1d20+Casting Stat+Bonuses agaisnt 10+Save Stat+Bonuses. Psychologically, a lot of players like having their fate's in their own dice.
Or, it really should depend on spell, because spells are not universal in their mechanics. Some, like Fireball, deserve a Dexterity Save. Others, like "Lighting bolt", probably should require a Hit Against Dexterity.
To me any effect that targets an area whether its full of adventurers/ dragon slaying peasents/ kobolds etc should be a save.
So for corner cases like a lightning bolt maybe target the first person, but everyone else in that line should roll a save because they are just reacting to being in the way
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tasw
As usual, patently false and probably deliberately obtuse.
You can DEFAULT to one resolution without saying thats the only situation that would use that resolution very easily. In fact any other supposition at all is completely illogical.
And magic being handled the same as an environmental hazards is not only perfectly valid, its the most rational method. A swamp or thunderstorm isnt trying to kill you, it just is. A trap isnt trying to get you. Its a machine that just drops a rock, flips a door, throws a spear etc etc at a very specific piece of ground. Like the weather and terrain effects it exists whether your there or not. Its not targeting you or reacting to your actions because its out to get you. Its just there and you have to deal with it.
And most spells, especially area effect are the same way. The caster fills an area with fire, swarming tentacles, etc etc. He's not aiming it at every single person in it so an attack roll is dumb and counter to logic. He is targeting an area, and everything in that area must deal with it. Exactly like a terrain/ weather/ trap effect.
So... if I scoop up a bunch of rocks and throw them all at once, entirely within the bounds of non-magic, that would be a save under this definition, correct? Therefore, saves have no bearing on whether it happens to be magic or not. Also, you're focusing entirely on Reflex saves and AoE's, here. What about things like Disintegrate and Sleep?
Your reasoning sounds a lot like 'AoE should be Saves. Fireballs are AoE. Fireballs are Magic. Therefore, Magic should use Saves.' Not, exactly, the best logic.
Also, passive defences don't mean that the thing is actively trying to kill you. Is the spring on the spear-trap faster than your reflexes? Does lightning strike before you duck for cover? Or, hell, does the wizard's fireball expand in your direction faster than you can react? You can phrase things either way around so they make sense.
EDIT: Also, I resent being accused of lying. You said that a universal mechanic is a terrible idea because magic and swords should feel different. This has absolutely no bearing on saves whatsoever, because saves aren't restricted to magic. Therefore, universal mechanics and how magic and swords should feel different have no bearing on how saves should be handled. This is in no way 'patently false'.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Yeah. Officially at not worth my time enough to argue anymore.
Other guy: why isn't the environment changing? I said "multiple rolls are okay". You said "multiple rolls are not okay unless there is dynamism". This agrees with me, for one, and Im neither affirming nor denying dynamism. It's like "I totally thought you meant multiple rolls on a single action with no buildup behind a gate, instea of something reasonable, so I'm not wrong!". It's assuming a ridiculous or unworkable thing instead of wondering how it would work.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
I agree with Raineh here; if you want to use a different system for magic than physical attacks, (or just make players roll dice for everything) okay, but be consistent about it.
Making most martial abilities require the attack to roll while some require the defender, while at the same time having most magical spells require the defender to roll, but having some require the attack to roll instead, is kind of silly. Pick one or the other.
If the problem is keeping players engaged, then I think we should be aiming a bit higher than the number of dice they may or may not roll.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
I'm all for mixing them: "One target is attacked. The others get to save." With identical chances on the math, but it changes the psychology. Making a save against a fireball or dragon breath is great when you're not a primary target. Having to wait for the DM to roll, or player to wake up and roll when he's the only target of a spell or firebreath? Not so much.
When playing 3.5, my newish DM keeps asking me to roll something when I cast color spray: I'd rather be able to roll 1d20+CHA+1 and compare that to a Will defense.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SiuiS
I seem to have my detector on backwards then...
No worries - now I see why people choose to do sarcasm in blue. Of course, when half the things being seriously argued seem quite silly (and I'll freely include myself in that), the distinction does get a bit weird.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SiuiS
I've got three! This is a discussion about mechanics to fill a need. There's no shame in identifying a need and finding something which fulfills it. You'll probably still play D&D because it is still niche. :smallsmile:
Yes on the need and fulfillment, but no on the D&D. I will continue to avoid playing it when it is possible to do so, because I believe the whole family of systems has inherent flaws that no number of editions will ever be able to fix. I don't want to get into that here, though; it wouldn't be productive for anyone.
I'm on this thread because it's a (generally) serious discussion of game design with practical examples, not because I'm planning on playing - let alone buying - Next. I do find these debates illuminating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SiuiS
Then we can finally do what I've been thinking about, and scrap attributes and just use bonuses. Roll 3d6, subtract 10. That's your bonus. So your strength is 17, it's +7. Much cleaner.
Why not reduce the math even further? Roll d6, that's your bonus. Maybe races could assign different dice to roll, instead of outright modifiers. Maybe you could get to roll a bigger die if it's the primary stat of your class. Maybe MAD classes could get multiple stat bonuses to alleviate the difficulty in assigning stats. Imagine a Fighter rolling d8 for STR, a Half-Orc Fighter rolling d10 for STR and d4 for INT, a Paladin rolling d8 for STR and CHA, a Monk rolling d8 for DEX and WIS, and so on.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
The 3-18 3d6 Stat spread is too iconic to be dropped.
On the off-chance we're still arguing about rogues and skills - It's not a bug that you don't need to be a rogue to be decent at skills. A barbarian or monk can choose to be just as stealthy and trapfindery. The advantage of the rogue is that it has MORE skills to draw on. You can rely on one person to do multiple things. And, the more skills someone has to draw on, the more options they have, and likelier they are to take an action that makes a battle go MUCH easier.
Skills don't need overt combat bonuses. The shenanigans you can get up to with them makes up for it.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Scow2
The 3-18 3d6 Stat spread is too iconic to be dropped.
On the off-chance we're still arguing about rogues and skills - It's not a bug that you don't need to be a rogue to be decent at skills. A barbarian or monk can choose to be just as stealthy and trapfindery. The advantage of the rogue is that it has MORE skills to draw on. You can rely on one person to do multiple things. And, the more skills someone has to draw on, the more options they have, and likelier they are to take an action that makes a battle go MUCH easier.
Skills don't need overt combat bonuses. The shenanigans you can get up to with them makes up for it.
Actually, with how things work right now, you do need to be a rogue to be really good at skills (barbarians and monks can't be just as stealthy or trapfindery) because they get bigger/more (delete as appropriate) dice to add on afterwards.
... if you're going to have an entire subsystem and portion of the game devoted to doing something, why would you design one class to be better in every way with it? :smallfrown:
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Raineh Daze
... if you're going to have an entire subsystem and portion of the game devoted to doing something, why would you design one class to be better in every way with it? :smallfrown:
Because D&D is obsessed with role protection, and likes to go about it in a ham-handed fashion.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SiuiS
Other guy: why isn't the environment changing? I said "multiple rolls are okay". You said "multiple rolls are not okay unless there is dynamism". This agrees with me, for one, and Im neither affirming nor denying dynamism. It's like "I totally thought you meant multiple rolls on a single action with no buildup behind a gate, instea of something reasonable, so I'm not wrong!". It's assuming a ridiculous or unworkable thing instead of wondering how it would work.
? I laid down what I thought to be a valid interpretation of the use of skill checks, and you replied with this:
Quote:
This falls apart. A scene will require more than one skill check. Sometimes in the same skill. Skills are also designed so that only a rogue can succeed on hard checks with regularity. These two ideas are fine (see: decades of gaming).
If that's not disagreeing with my proposal, I don't know what is. Furthermore, I'm not assuming a "ridiculous or unworkable thing," I'm assuming 4e Skill Challenges or anything that works like them. That's not an outlandish, unreasonable concept, it's what a lot of current-gen games are using, some kind of arbitrary mechanism to draw skill checks out into longer encounters. I feel like that was designed as a response to the swinginess of the dice on individual skill checks in 3.X, and what ended up happening was they wanted each individual skill check to matter less, and make these big aggregate Challenges what really mattered. They should have just fixed the skill system and talked about how to use it properly in adventure design.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Flickerdart
Because D&D is obsessed with role protection, and likes to go about it in a ham-handed fashion.
QFT.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Scow2
The 3-18 3d6 Stat spread is too iconic to be dropped.
True. But are there alternatives that would work? After all, few people actually roll 3d6 (mostly 4d6 drop one), and I know of hardly anyone doing them in order anymore. There is a certain malleability here.
For me, the funny thing about skill checks is you could play the game without them and hardly know the distance. Real class abilities seem to make the biggest difference ('Immune to Disease' aside) in gameplay terms.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BayardSPSR
True. But are there alternatives that would work? After all, few people actually roll 3d6 (mostly 4d6 drop one), and I know of hardly anyone doing them in order anymore. There is a certain malleability here.
Last I checked, they stopped even recommending that you used 3d6 in order. In 3.5, you're allowed to reroll (however you roll) if the total modifier is 0 or less or your highest ability score is 13 or lower, for instance, and it suggests rolling 4d6 best 3. There's certainly malleability in how you appoint your stats, it just seems to be expected that the range be 3-18.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Raineh Daze
So... if I scoop up a bunch of rocks and throw them all at once, entirely within the bounds of non-magic, that would be a save under this definition, correct? Therefore, saves have no bearing on whether it happens to be magic or not. Also, you're focusing entirely on Reflex saves and AoE's, here. What about things like Disintegrate and Sleep?
Actually if you threw a handful of pebbles it would be neither an attack roll or a save. Because there is no danger in it and no affect of being hit by a handful of extremely small rocks in combat.
If you had a spell or something that would let you charge them up to explode or catch fire like Gambit from the X-men then yes, it would be a reflex save to get out of the way of lots of little ones in an area. If you threw one large rock though it would be an attack roll.
Since disintegrate is described as a single glowing ray that affects what it hits it should be an attack roll. Any logical application would have being hit by it disintegrate your armor, or t-shirt, etc etc rather then the body underneath unless it happens to strike exposed flesh though.
Sleep is a corner case that should be a will save. Unless you describe it as the caster specifically and actively working to overcome the targets defenses and reacting to their own force of will to change how the spells energy is attacking. Then it should be an attack roll. But I would also make that take more then a single round.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Raineh Daze
Also, passive defences don't mean that the thing is actively trying to kill you. Is the spring on the spear-trap faster than your reflexes? Does lightning strike before you duck for cover? Or, hell, does the wizard's fireball expand in your direction faster than you can react? You can phrase things either way around so they make sense.
Actually ALL of those descriptions sound like saving throws and not attack rolls in that they are measures of how the TARGET reacts to what happens.
Most importantly though passive defenses are an awful idea because everyone should have something to do as often as possible in a turn.
You can argue mechanics until your blue in the face. It wont change the over-riding fact that the game is about having fun. And its more fun to do stuff then to have stuff done to you passively. You dont need any reason other then that and nothing can be more important then it.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Raineh Daze
... people actively want multiple skill rolls to do one action? :smallconfused:
When that action is 'fight this one thing' the answer appears to be yes - consider how intricate the combat system is. I don't see why it should be 'yes' there, but 'no' everywhere else.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Knaight
When that action is 'fight this one thing' the answer appears to be yes - consider how intricate the combat system is. I don't see why it should be 'yes' there, but 'no' everywhere else.
To be fair, combat tends to be a lot more interesting than any other instance I can think of where rolling is involved. If the "roll skill multiple times" was made more interesting, then I think there wouldn't be any issue. I don't have any ideas on how to do that, though, besides making up rather complicated situations to force multiple skill rolls.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Knaight
When that action is 'fight this one thing' the answer appears to be yes - consider how intricate the combat system is. I don't see why it should be 'yes' there, but 'no' everywhere else.
Roll to hit, then roll for damage. Two separate parts of an action, two rolls. Effects that are just 'roll to hit/roll a save, then X' are the same thing.
Skills really don't have enough to recommend them to require several successful rolls to open one door or disarm a trap. Doesn't really make that much sense in general; surely one successful roll on opening a door should open a door?
I don't see a reason to have 'this door requires X successes to open'. Now, something more like Flickerdart's thing from... two threads back, now? That makes more sense. I can see how that one works.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Raineh Daze
Last I checked, they stopped even recommending that you used 3d6 in order. In 3.5, you're allowed to reroll (however you roll) if the total modifier is 0 or less or your highest ability score is 13 or lower, for instance, and it suggests rolling 4d6 best 3. There's certainly malleability in how you appoint your stats, it just seems to be expected that the range be 3-18.
And with all those recommendations, the expected range isn't even 3-18; it's 10-18, hence the "why not just d6/d8" logic. Of course, the distribution's different, but if the stats exist to determine the abilities of PCs, but the PCs will only have stats in the upper half of the range, why even have the lower half? As SiuiS said, why not just state the modifier? There's no reason to have the extra step.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Raineh Daze
Roll to hit, then roll for damage. Two separate parts of an action, two rolls. Effects that are just 'roll to hit/roll a save, then X' are the same thing.
Skills really don't have enough to recommend them to require several successful rolls to open one door or disarm a trap. Doesn't really make that much sense in general; surely one successful roll on opening a door should open a door?
I don't see a reason to have 'this door requires X successes to open'. Now, something more like Flickerdart's thing from... two threads back, now? That makes more sense. I can see how that one works.
When you treat it as simply "Open a door" or "Disarm a trap", no. But when that Door's lock has multiple components, or the trap's mechanisms have several distinct parts that can be operated independently, things get a bit more complex. I don't really have an issue of "Best two out of three" or "three out of five' as long as the action can be aborted at any point. However, there needs to be a lot more behind the rolls. It shouldn't be "Make three disable device checks!" - it should be "You need to open the blast cap, remove the pressure from the winch, unwire the drawstring, and lock it down to keep from triggering." Or something like that, with ways to bypass needed rolls with canny thinking/puzzle solving/application of the right amount of magic, violence, or tools.
Something that bothered me about 4e's skill challenges was the large number of instances where I saw "Make 10-15 successes before 3 failures." That's something I cannot ever get behind. And, the way the challenges were presented, the individual rolls didn't MEAN anything - they were just padding.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BayardSPSR
And with all those recommendations, the expected range isn't even 3-18; it's 10-18, hence the "why not just d6/d8" logic. Of course, the distribution's different, but if the stats exist to determine the abilities of PCs, but the PCs will only have stats in the upper half of the range, why even have the lower half? As SiuiS said, why not just state the modifier? There's no reason to have the extra step.
Lower half is to fit in everything that isn't a PC. Or PC's who manage to roll atrociously on one but brilliantly on the others.
And of course you can use 3d6 if you want, but your survival rate will plummet. But hey, it's always an option. :p
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Scow2
When you treat it as simply "Open a door" or "Disarm a trap", no. But when that Door's lock has multiple components, or the trap's mechanisms have several distinct parts that can be operated independently, things get a bit more complex. I don't really have an issue of "Best two out of three" or "three out of five' as long as the action can be aborted at any point. However, there needs to be a lot more behind the rolls. It shouldn't be "Make three disable device checks!" - it should be "You need to open the blast cap, remove the pressure from the winch, unwire the drawstring, and lock it down to keep from triggering." Or something like that, with ways to bypass needed rolls with canny thinking/puzzle solving/application of the right amount of magic, violence, or tools.
Mmm. Makes sense so long as there's multiple things being done and you can clearly explain it. However, there'd better be a damn good reason for making people roll three disable device checks instead of one. Two successes and one failure should have some impact, too. Mostly disarming the trap, then having it go off at full potency? Not going to be nice. Maybe if the trap was basically a TPK at full strength... but really, that sort of thing shouldn't just be disable device, that's a bit boring.
Quote:
Something that bothered me about 4e's skill challenges was the large number of instances where I saw "Make 10-15 successes before 3 failures." That's something I cannot ever get behind. And, the way the challenges were presented, the individual rolls didn't MEAN anything - they were just padding.
Exactly the sort of thing I can't understand, either. Just... why?
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Scow2
When you treat it as simply "Open a door" or "Disarm a trap", no. But when that Door's lock has multiple components, or the trap's mechanisms have several distinct parts that can be operated independently, things get a bit more complex. I don't really have an issue of "Best two out of three" or "three out of five' as long as the action can be aborted at any point. However, there needs to be a lot more behind the rolls. It shouldn't be "Make three disable device checks!" - it should be "You need to open the blast cap, remove the pressure from the winch, unwire the drawstring, and lock it down to keep from triggering." Or something like that, with ways to bypass needed rolls with canny thinking/puzzle solving/application of the right amount of magic, violence, or tools.
So long as failure for each of those component rolls carries a risk, then sure. But if the complex lock is just barring them from treasure, there's nothing stopping them from spending the time to get it, no matter how many successes it would take. If they're capable of unlocking the lock, just narrate them working on it for a while until it comes free. However, if the complex lock is barring their escape, and they're surrounded by enemies, and each round is another round of blades and blood and risk, then requiring multiple attempts is fine, as each failure brings with it risk of more injury.
Or even if the complex lock is keeping them from pursuing the ninja who is going to assassinate the emperor's daughter, and he's gaining ground each time, so long as the players are aware of the stakes each attempt (i.e. There are 3 "spaces" he needs to cross before he's in her room, and then each "round" after that he has a 1 in 3 chance of killing her, and all this is made approximately apparent to them somehow), then that's still fine because there is a risk with each attempt. Though I feel like the complex lock + the ground the ninja gains is a little much and would probably just run it as a one-roll lock + catching up to him. But yeah, there's a place in the world for "complex skill checks," but they are dependent on the situation, not simply the difficulty of the attempt.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BayardSPSR
Yes on the need and fulfillment, but no on the D&D. I will continue to avoid playing it when it is possible to do so, because I believe the whole family of systems has inherent flaws that no number of editions will ever be able to fix. I don't want to get into that here, though; it wouldn't be productive for anyone.
I'm on this thread because it's a (generally) serious discussion of game design with practical examples, not because I'm planning on playing - let alone buying - Next. I do find these debates illuminating.
I'd be interested in your reasons, and to be fair it's not any more of a segue than anything else that's come up.
Quote:
Why not reduce the math even further? Roll d6, that's your bonus. Maybe races could assign different dice to roll, instead of outright modifiers. Maybe you could get to roll a bigger die if it's the primary stat of your class. Maybe MAD classes could get multiple stat bonuses to alleviate the difficulty in assigning stats. Imagine a Fighter rolling d8 for STR, a Half-Orc Fighter rolling d10 for STR and d4 for INT, a Paladin rolling d8 for STR and CHA, a Monk rolling d8 for DEX and WIS, and so on.
The curve. And while both 3/4e had number bloat, this edition is obviously tryin to fix that. Old school's "you must have a +1 to matter" made that bonus matter while still being "only 5% more", for example. When's the last time anyone have a damn about a +1 in the d20 editions?
I've seen games that do that, and they work, but they aren't D&D.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stubbazubba
? I laid down what I thought to be a valid interpretation of the use of skill checks,
I am pointing out that it's strange to go "combat will always have numerous factors which create a dynamic environment" but when one says that combat has multiple rolls so skills can too, you don't do the mental math of "like combat = dynamic environment with multiple factors".
What I'm seeing is that people are taking their side as a given and assuming the barest, most literal version of the other. It's asinine.[/QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Amidus Drexel
To be fair, combat tends to be a lot more interesting than any other instance I can think of where rolling is involved. If the "roll skill multiple times" was made more interesting, then I think there wouldn't be any issue. I don't have any ideas on how to do that, though, besides making up rather complicated situations to force multiple skill rolls.
That's a DM issue. I've had sessions that revolved around skills and everyone left satisfied. One was performing emergency surgery during a getaway on a wagon, the other was keeping a longship afloat in a supernatural storm. Both took at least an hour.
If you're going "okay, make a heal check. Okay, make another heal check. Okay, you, you can aid another or make a different check" that's being, but it's a boring application not inherently boring at the rules level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BayardSPSR
And with all those recommendations, the expected range isn't even 3-18; it's 10-18, hence the "why not just d6/d8" logic. Of course, the distribution's different, but if the stats exist to determine the abilities of PCs, but the PCs will only have stats in the upper half of the range, why even have the lower half? As SiuiS said, why not just state the modifier? There's no reason to have the extra step.
Well, for one, reducing to bonuses still allows for penalties (3d6=8, -10 =-2). But really, the system at that point woul be better served by canonicity point buy.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SiuiS
Well, for one, reducing to bonuses still allows for penalties (3d6=8, -10 =-2). But really, the system at that point woul be better served by canonicity point buy.
Canonicity? I don't quite get what you mean by that. Point buy included alongside rolling as a default option? :smallconfused:
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SiuiS
I'd be interested in your reasons, and to be fair it's not any more of a segue than anything else that's come up.
I don't want to be seen as flaming, but I don't want to be coy either. Here goes...
One of them, relating to the skills discussion, is that I find D&D inelegant. IT takes far more math than it needs to do something simple. For deriving AC from DEX, for just one example: why should players need to roll four dice, remove one, subtract ten, divide by two, and then add ten again just to find the number you need to roll to hit them? And this is before all the other modifiers that can be added on. There is logic behind it, but it still strikes me as excessive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SiuiS
The curve. And while both 3/4e had number bloat, this edition is obviously tryin to fix that. Old school's "you must have a +1 to matter" made that bonus matter while still being "only 5% more", for example. When's the last time anyone have a damn about a +1 in the d20 editions?
[QUOTE=SiuiS;15705406]
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SiuiS
Well, for one, reducing to bonuses still allows for penalties (3d6=8, -10 =-2). But really, the system at that point woul be better served by canonicity point buy.
I want to link these quotes together to point out another issue. If you want random stats, roll dice. But that's too random for D&D these days. Fair enough. If you want player choice to matter and a good stat balance between characters, do a point buy system. But that's arbitrarily not random enough for D&D. The curve isn't inherently bad, it just has no clear purpose (to me).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SiuiS
I've seen games that do that, and they work, but they aren't D&D.
For me, D&D is a successful hack of an unsuccessful '80s tactical wargame. Its focus has changed, sure, from dungeoncrawling exclusively to a more general fantasy RPG, but the platform is inherently unsuited to the latter role in particular. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, and I don't plan on trying to defend this position in this thread.
As a note, I want to say that my experience with D&D is limited. My first contact with it came after about five years of trying to do game design in a near vacuum. Maybe this is why it looks like a mess to me - not to say that any of my own stuff is any good; I make no claims to that. It's hard to breathe in vacuums.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BayardSPSR
I want to link these quotes together to point out another issue. If you want random stats, roll dice. But that's too random for D&D these days. Fair enough. If you want player choice to matter and a good stat balance between characters, do a point buy system. But that's arbitrarily not random enough for D&D. The curve isn't inherently bad, it just has no clear purpose (to me).
The point buy costs are actually based on the curve generated by dice. For instance, the 3.5 recommended method (4d6, best three) yields approximately the same results as a 28 point buy, as well as the elite array, if I recall correctly. So they're all about equivalent in outcome, it's just a matter of choice.
As for why they use the curve? I guess they like it. They at least nicely save you the trouble of calculating modifiers unless you get extreme values by listing them all.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Raineh Daze
The point buy costs are actually based on the curve generated by dice. For instance, the 3.5 recommended method (4d6, best three) yields approximately the same results as a 28 point buy, as well as the elite array, if I recall correctly. So they're all about equivalent in outcome, it's just a matter of choice.
The problem with rolling stats is that it's not really clear what it is supposed to accomplish. Ideally, choosing it over point-buy would add some amount of risk to the character creation process, but I think in practice a lot of players (and DMs!) end up allowing various ways of negating that risk. Indeed, D&D since 3e (perhaps before, but I don't remember 2e having a different method) has tried to create above average characters through various methods of reducing risk - starting with "your stat modifiers must add up to +1 to higher", to point buy.
Truthfully, the problem with rolling dice over point buy is something that was exacerbated in 3e and beyond. Before 3e, only the very best of stats (15+) offered a bonus, and usually it was minor.
A character with straight 14s in all stats in 3.5 or 4e would get +2 to hit, damage, saving throws, armor class, and potentially a bunch of other perks (such as bonus languages, hit points/level, etc.).
A character with straight 14s in 2e would get 4 languages and the ability to cast 7th level mage spells, with two bonus 1st level spells if they were a priest. And a +2 reaction adjustment, if that was something the DM used.
The practical difference in combat with a melee weapon - carrying capacity aside - for a 2e character with an 8 strength and a 16 strength was +1 to damage. Compare that to 3.5 or 4e where the difference is +4 to hit and +4 to damage relatively.
My point is when the game allowed rolled stats back before 3.5, it was in an environment where the chances of your stats having a huge impact on your character (save for classes that required them like the Paladin) was relatively low. Hopefully you get lucky (16+) with your prime stat, and then who cares about the rest? They're not likely to give you any sort of bonus anyway. In more modern D&D however, each additional point of a stat could have a tremendous impact on your character.
In such an environment, it's no wonder that - again in my experience - "rolled stats" is usually a synonym not for "28 point buy" (actually according to the 3.5 DMG, 25 point buy would be more equivalent) but something closer to 32 point buy, after all the pity re-rolls have been made. Theoretically a player would roll and come out with something like 16/14/13/10/10/8 (25 point buy), but I dunno, in practice it usually seems to be more like 16/16/14/12/11/8 (33 point buy).
Which would be fine if it wasn't the case that higher stats - even the ones below 15 - didn't have such a tremendous impact on a character. But they do, and I don't think that kind of randomness should really be encouraged in a team game.
The only advantage to point buy - in my opinion - is that it potentially allows some quirky stats (such as the high strength wizard, or the fighter who happens to have a 15 charisma), but even in those cases, that happens not because such quirkyness is a result of rolling stats, but a result of rolling stats and rolling so well that the character has a floating 14+ that the player doesn't need elsewhere.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
I'll be honest, it looks to me like they got their maths wrong, then. Most common rolls are 12-14. That's an average of 4-6 points per roll. 5x6 = 30. Low rolls would lower the average, but high rolls are somewhat more probable, and also have a higher point value. Hence, 28, not 25.
I remember seeing a thread on here a few months ago that went into the maths behind it better than I have. Wish I could find it again. :smallsigh:
Elite array is equivalent to 25 point buy, though.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Raineh Daze
Honestly, whether 4d6.highest3 is roughly equivalent to 25 point buy or 28 point buy is kind of besides the point. In practice, the poor results - and maybe even the average ones - are going to be discarded, while the guy who rolls two eighteens and a seventeen gets to yell "hoody-hoo!" and keep it. That's not really a great way of generating a character when almost every point in a stat can matter.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ashdate
Honestly, whether 4d6.highest3 is roughly equivalent to 25 point buy or 28 point buy is kind of besides the point. In practice, the poor results - and maybe even the average ones - are going to be discarded, while the guy who rolls two eighteens and a seventeen gets to yell "hoody-hoo!" and keep it. That's not really a great way of generating a character when almost every point in a stat can matter.
Yeah, it's unreliable. Can be fun, but it's most definitely unreliable as hell. Point Buy gives more customisation, but buffs SAD classes far more, and arrays can have people complaining about not having enough choice/never being able to get the best possible stat.
On a side note, I think it might be that 4d6.highest3 might be equivalent to 32-point buy, with 3d6 reroll 1's being 28. Bah, poor memory.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Raineh Daze
Yeah, it's unreliable. Can be fun, but it's most definitely unreliable as hell. Point Buy gives more customisation, but buffs SAD classes far more, and arrays can have people complaining about not having enough choice/never being able to get the best possible stat.
Ideally we wouldn't have "SAD" classes (or alternatively, wouldn't have "MAD" ones), we'd just have classes, none of which are overly reliant on having multiple high scores. That classes like the 3.5 Monk and Paladin exist is hopefully a strike against poor class design, not against point buy.
I think 4e's point buy hits the right tone; you can choose between roughly 18/14/11/10/10/8 or 16/14/14/13/10/8, both which hit different needs and offer different advantages/disadvantages.*
*Mind you, a character's prime ability score is probably a little too strong - the extra +1 to hit can be pretty big - and the need to hit at least and 18 in your prime stat puts a crimp on what races can really go with each class, so I wouldn't say it's perfect, just a better model to emulate.