-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
I've heard about NWP's a few times, but I don't really know what they are (never played 2e/retroclones). Could you perhaps post an example of how a NWP could work in Next?
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Water_Bear
Honestly, the best way to do skills in a D&D-like game is probably something close to the old Non-Weapon Proficiencies.
It's funny how the 5E playtest keeps pointing out that 2E was a much better game than people give it credit for (and how its ruleset solves quite a number of the issues in 3E).
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kurald Galain
It's funny how the 5E playtest keeps pointing out that 2E was a much better game than people give it credit for (and how its ruleset solves quite a number of the issues in 3E).
2E truly was the best edition of D&D. It just had so much strange math and so many seemingly arbitrary restrictions that an overhaul was needed, and gaming companies seem to be unable to bring themselves to do subtle updates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grod_The_Giant
I've heard about NWP's a few times, but I don't really know what they are (never played 2e/retroclones). Could you perhaps post an example of how a NWP could work in Next?
It is a simpler skilll system. Each character receives a small number of NWPs based on their class, and a few more for having a high INT (and I believe an extra one every three levels).
There is a skill list, similar to the 3E skill list but a bit longer and with a lot more "fluffy" skills. Being trained costs one NWP slot (two if it is a cross class proficiency). A trained character rolls a d20 and if they roll under the relevant attribute is succsesful. A DM could modify this roll for an especially easy or challenging task.
I believe a few of the more useful NWPs required an extra slot, and there was an optional rule allowing you to spend extra slots for a +1 bonus to the roll, but it was mostly just a simpler skill system which had binary levels of training. You were either trained in a given skill or not, and your attribute alone determined how good you were at a trained skill.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grod_The_Giant
I've heard about NWP's a few times, but I don't really know what they are (never played 2e/retroclones). Could you perhaps post an example of how a NWP could work in Next?
Unfortunately I'm pretty sure board rules don't allow posting non-OGL content, so you'll have to hunt down examples yourself. But I can help on the basic idea.
Essentially, NWPs each were associated with a single ability score and if you needed to roll for part of it's function you rolled 1d20 with a result of less than the ability score + modifiers . Most NWPs could be taken more than once to add a bonus which increased your odds.
For the most part, each one gave you at least one task you could do automatically without a check and then at least one more difficult task to roll for both related to the general concept. And because the game was a lot more freeform these sorts of thematic abilities could easily be stretched to do whatever cool things you could think up.
The main disadvantages to 3e/4e style skills is that roll-under is considered confusing and they are more up in the air than later edition's more precise skills. The main advantages being that they are less fussy and allow for a more broad realistic range of skills (you can build 0th level blacksmiths who are as good as any PC could hope to be just by specializing all their NWP slots and having one above-average score).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kurald Galain
It's funny how the 5E playtest keeps pointing out that 2E was a much better game than people give it credit for (and how its ruleset solves quite a number of the issues in 3E).
Yeah, 2e was hardly the best edition of D&D (Rules Cyclopedia 4 Life) but you can absolutely see why people are still playing it today. Of course, "solving" problems with a future iteration isn't a particularly impressive way of doing that; that's more just WotC's ineptitude in how they chose to implement Feats.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
There is no objective best version of D&D, only your personal subjective favorite. I liked 2E well enough but having played 3E I don't want to go back to it. I have no outright objection if 5E takes inspiration from 2E, I just don't want to play 2E anymore. I find 3E is the best version of D&D so far, more Pathfinder now truth be told. However, it's really only the best version for me. Hooray for those who prefer and still play 2E.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
The main disadvantages to 3e/4e style skills is that roll-under is considered confusing
For the life of me I've never been able to figure out why people think this way. I can understand the dislike (and confusion) that was generated by descending AC but I can't think of a single person I've ever played with who was confused for longer than 2 seconds by a "roll under" check and I think that WotC's insistence of not using them while relying on ability scores for skill checks is a major issue. Experienced players get it easily in my experience and inexperienced players simply ask what they need to roll, and "roll a d20 less than 17" is no more difficult for them than "roll a d20 over 17" is. Basically the main difference is that roll over makes it easy to put the math burden on the player "roll d20 plus your skill bonus plus this and that" rather than on the DM to calculate the target number.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
1337 b4k4
For the life of me I've never been able to figure out why people think this way. I can understand the dislike (and confusion) that was generated by descending AC but I can't think of a single person I've ever played with who was confused for longer than 2 seconds by a "roll under" check and I think that WotC's insistence of not using them while relying on ability scores for skill checks is a major issue. Experienced players get it easily in my experience and inexperienced players simply ask what they need to roll, and "roll a d20 less than 17" is no more difficult for them than "roll a d20 over 17" is. Basically the main difference is that roll over makes it easy to put the math burden on the player "roll d20 plus your skill bonus plus this and that" rather than on the DM to calculate the target number.
It might have worked if it was consistent, but the rolling low on skills and saves and rolling high in combat was confusing, as was high attributes being a good thing but wanting low AC and Thac0.
I am told this was intentional as a way of countering misweighted dice, but it is very inconsistent and confusing.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
1337 b4k4
For the life of me I've never been able to figure out why people think this way. I can understand the dislike (and confusion) that was generated by descending AC but I can't think of a single person I've ever played with who was confused for longer than 2 seconds by a "roll under" check and I think that WotC's insistence of not using them while relying on ability scores for skill checks is a major issue. Experienced players get it easily in my experience and inexperienced players simply ask what they need to roll, and "roll a d20 less than 17" is no more difficult for them than "roll a d20 over 17" is. Basically the main difference is that roll over makes it easy to put the math burden on the player "roll d20 plus your skill bonus plus this and that" rather than on the DM to calculate the target number.
As Talakeal said, it's a consistency thing. "Roll and add this number" is easy. "Roll and try to get below this number" is easy. But when you have both in a system, and have to remember which method gets used where, then it gets confusing.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Sure, I get the argument, I just don't buy it. I seriously don't know any people (and I've mentioned I play with people with hardly no interest in the rules at all) for whom it's an issue. Perhaps though that's why I never see it as an issue, I always play and run in games where when checks come up (for anything), the DM calls for them in the form of "roll a dX, you need to beat/need to stay under Y"
And to be honest, at least when it was roll under for saves (was that AD&D because my basic books have descending save numbers as you level) it was consistent. If you were rolling against your characters innate ability, you wanted to roll low (ability checks, saves, theif skills) if you rolled against another person/monster, you wanted to roll high (attack rolls)
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
1337 b4k4
And to be honest, at least when it was roll under for saves (was that AD&D because my basic books have descending save numbers as you level) it was consistent. If you were rolling against your characters innate ability, you wanted to roll low (ability checks, saves, theif skills) if you rolled against another person/monster, you wanted to roll high (attack rolls)
That sounds really good in theory (I am saying that a lot today). In practice though Thac0 was just BaB with less intuitive math and arbitrary caps.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
To make rolling under make sense, just reverse the roller. Rolling under your own saves (wanting to roll low) is stupid. The DM rolling a "spell attack" that succeeds if it rolls over your save makes sense, even though it's exactly the same roll - you still want the roll to be low, but now it makes sense for you to want that because it's an enemy rolling it.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Flickerdart
To make rolling under make sense, just reverse the roller. Rolling under your own saves (wanting to roll low) is stupid. The DM rolling a "spell attack" that succeeds if it rolls over your save makes sense, even though it's exactly the same roll - you still want the roll to be low, but now it makes sense for you to want that because it's an enemy rolling it.
And this is how we get Saves.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
The ADnD proficiency system worked because you had a 10+ point spread of modifiers compared to the d20. It was functional, but I don't think we should go back to it.
It was the same mechanically as if you rolled d20+ABILITY SCORE ( typically 8-18) + NWP bonus (+2,+4) + task difficulty (-4 to +2) vs DC 20.
Of course, the obligatory and true remark, 5E does it much worse then ADnD did, so we actually have a regression.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Flickerdart
To make rolling under make sense, just reverse the roller. Rolling under your own saves (wanting to roll low) is stupid. The DM rolling a "spell attack" that succeeds if it rolls over your save makes sense, even though it's exactly the same roll - you still want the roll to be low, but now it makes sense for you to want that because it's an enemy rolling it.
While it is the same mechanically, I prefer for players to roll their saves instead of having static defenses. It gets the player more involved, and as spells tend to be fairly powerful they get the idea that the fate of their character is in their hands.
But that is a minor quibble, not something that would turn me away from the system.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
1337 b4k4
Sure, I get the argument, I just don't buy it. I seriously don't know any people (and I've mentioned I play with people with hardly no interest in the rules at all) for whom it's an issue. Perhaps though that's why I never see it as an issue, I always play and run in games where when checks come up (for anything), the DM calls for them in the form of "roll a dX, you need to beat/need to stay under Y"
Like all usability issues, some people can adjust to it without ever noticing a problem, while others are irritated, frustrated, or confused every single time. In fact, like some usability problems (*coughDOScough*) some people actually prefer it.
That doesn't change the fact that it is objectively a strong potential source of problems.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grod_The_Giant
As Talakeal said, it's a consistency thing. "Roll and add this number" is easy. "Roll and try to get below this number" is easy. But when you have both in a system, and have to remember which method gets used where, then it gets confusing.
But they're mathematically interchangeable. Rolling 1d20 under your ability score is the same as rolling 1d20 plus your ability score with a DC of 21. So if you want consistency (which is good, yes) you simply pick the other one.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
I don't think the skill system of Next is completely broken, at least it compares decently to AD&D and 3ed in terms of probability. At level one, the d20 +d6 gives almost identical percentages for common DC's to a 3e class skill with maxed out ranks (4) at level one. 4 skill ranks plus skill focus (+3) in 3e is again almost identical percentages to The d20 +2d6 that a rogue gets in Next on its two "scheme" mastered skills. Since ability score modifiers are identical in both versions, the percentages scale exactly the same regardless of ability scores. In certain situations, Next actually gives PC's a chance at higher DC's than is even possible to a 1st level 3ed character.
Next is actually closer to AD&D proficiency system than 3e skills, however, because of the lack of progression. AD&D has no skill progression at all, Next gives you the equivalent of +4 over the life of the character through level 20, as well as ability score increases every four levels (also not present in AD&D). So if someone likes AD&D's method of stat based skills/proficiencies with no progression, Next isn't far off. The only question is one of DC guidelines, which can easily be overruled by any DM who thinks various tasks should be easier or harder than the book's recommendations. The advantage/disadvantage mechanic gives DM's another mechanic for adjusting probability that was not present in earlier editions. Overall, I don't think it is looking too bad. They could possibly add more skills, give starting PC's more skills, and adjust the subsystem involved with using some of the more important skills (stealth, tracking, needs to be a survival/orienteering skill, finding/disarming traps, we'll see what the anticipated social encounter subsystem looks like). But I don't see how the actual mechanic of the skill die for learned skills is all that terrible: it's easy to remember and track, gives nearly identical chances to 3ed starting class skills for the common DC's.
The gripe most people have, I think, is just that they disagree with Next's whole premise of "bounded accuracy", which is understandable for folks who have expectations formed by 3e. Yes, the system presented so far is more reliant on DM ruling to keep it balanced (more similar to AD&D), vs the crunch and specificity of 3e. This system can be broken, surely, but so can 3e and every other edition without trying too hard. We'll see what else they put out for us in coming months and what the final product looks like. I acknowledge some things are concerning and bad decisions could be made, but I'm actually relatively happy with a lot of it.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Pretty sure the words appropriate challenge there work out like I said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BayardSPSR
In a party of four with no rogues, the chance of everyone failing a given check is 31.6% (assuming everyone is as bad demihumanly as possible at that skill). This is only marginally worse than a single rogue (assuming the rogue is as good as demihumanly possible at that skill). With a party of five, the chance drops to 23.7% - less likely than the best (individual) rogue imaginable.
That only applies for checks that only require a single pass, like a listen or spot check. For a check that everyone must pass, like hide (assuming everyone's hiding) a four-strong party composed entirely of the best possible rogues will still get someone caught 68.4% of the time. A party with fewer rogues is even more screwed.
So ignoring coordination for the time being, adding a rogue to a party will, depending on the demands of the test, either make them marginally less bad (where everyone has to succeed) - or be less helpful than five random peasants would be (where only one person has to succeed).
Remember, all of these calculations were done assuming that the rogue is extremely good at everything, and that anyone else is completely incompetent at everything. If we used more realistic numbers, the situation would be even more dire.
What?
You're comparing 1d20-3 to 2d20k1+4+2d6, right? An the only guaranteed failure is 9 or less, because we aren't working on a specific task. So what are the odds of 2d20k1+4+2d6 getting under 10? I don't think it's quite as high as proposed...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Scow2
Skills work to shore up weak ability checks, or drive a strong one even higher. And there ARE some checks only a rogue can do, such as find and disarm traps, and open locks.
Or anyone with the right feats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Water_Bear
Honestly, the best way to do skills in a D&D-like game is probably something close to the old Non-Weapon Proficiencies.
You get a bunch of NWP slots which are mostly separate from your combat customization abilities, with more at higher levels but a decent number starting out as well. Each one you can choose (ideally; I'm ignoring the lame ones like "heraldry") covers an entire skill set or profession rather than a single specific task. Their effectiveness is mainly about ability scores, but more specialization can and does significantly boost your odds. And they all (again, ignoring the lame ones) open up new ways to interact with the world rather than just being essentially pay-walls for roleplay.
The best I've seen it done is in Adventurer Conqueror King's Proficiencies, but 2e's NWPs were still pretty good for the most part. And both naturally light-years ahead of our current skill system.
Plus it gives you an "in" with the grognards, which is a big part of 5e's hype.
ACKS has the best system I've yet seen. The proficiencies cover both skills and feats, and work pretty damn awesomely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grod_The_Giant
I've heard about NWP's a few times, but I don't really know what they are (never played 2e/retroclones). Could you perhaps post an example of how a NWP could work in Next?
You have weapon and nonweapon proficiencies. They come at different rates; fighter at one end gets four WP at first level and another every two or so versus the wizard's two (one?) with more every six levels. The nonweapon scale is literally reversed. Thief skills were entirely separate, such that you could take the proficiency but not be as good as a thief (or the thig could fall back on proficiency.
Each class had a proficiency list (there was some overlap).
There was also a general list. You bought one, and you used your attribute. Additional points increased your attribute SOLELY for that proficiency.
The problem was bloat. Why take quick draw when I could take iaijutsu and get Quick Draw plus my enemy is surprised plus I win initiative? Why get navigation when I could get astronomy and navigate with that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Talakeal
It might have worked if it was consistent, but the rolling low on skills and saves and rolling high in combat was confusing, as was high attributes being a good thing but wanting low AC and Thac0.
I am told this was intentional as a way of countering misweighted dice, but it is very inconsistent and confusing.
It's not that confusing, is it? Saves were never (to my knowledge) roll-under; a 3 or less on a save was a failure. Saves were throws instead of rolls, where the target number was part of the character, but that's the only difference. And heck, that's what thac0 was, an attack throw.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Scow2
And this is how we get Saves.
No, saves are the opposite - the PC wants to roll high against a static number.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SiuiS
What?
You're comparing 1d20-3 to 2d20k1+4+2d6, right? An the only guaranteed failure is 9 or less, because we aren't working on a specific task. So what are the odds of 2d20k1+4+2d6 getting under 10? I don't think it's quite as high as proposed...
Following up on this, a rogue at disadvantage (use lowest of 2 d20) has a ~3% chance to fail a standard task if he has training and high attributes. A 27% chance to fail a DC 15 task. A 67% chance to fail a DC 20 task.
A rogue at advantage (which I believe is possible due to feats?) has a .14% chance of failing a DC 10 task. A 3.67% chance of failing a DC 15 task. A 17.46% chance of failing a DC 20 task.
Tell me; how is that not strictly better than a part full of -3's trying the same roll? Sure, 5d20k1 -3 has good odds, but not as good as [(4d20k1 -3) (2d20k1+2d6+4)]k1 for sure.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kurald Galain
But they're mathematically interchangeable. Rolling 1d20 under your ability score is the same as rolling 1d20 plus your ability score with a DC of 21. So if you want consistency (which is good, yes) you simply pick the other one.
Or +Ability Score-10 vs DC 11.
D&D Next's problem is that it's d20+(Ability Score-10)/2 vs. DC 15.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Flickerdart
No, saves are the opposite - the PC wants to roll high against a static number.
I was referring to "If you want consistency, swap who's rolling." - the casters wants the NPC to roll low beneath their Save DC.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Said party of people who are all atrociously bad at this skill only has a failure chance of ~5% for easy tasks. Sure, they're worse at the harder things--but can you explain to me how it is that you end up with a party that has a -3 modifier for every single person on this one skill?
Remove the negative modifier, and they're likely to pass anything but the DC 20 task. Give a +2 positive modifier due to ability scores, the odds are in their favour.
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? :/
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Raineh Daze
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? :/
While I agree with your main point, I'd like to point out that the rogue isn't really sacrificing things in other areas, because it doesn't mean as much to specialize in them. :smalltongue:
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Amidus Drexel
While I agree with your main point, I'd like to point out that the rogue isn't really sacrificing things in other areas, because it doesn't mean as much to specialize in them. :smalltongue:
But the rogue, as a class, would be the one that's sacrificing--because if they're balanced in other ways against 'good with skills', it means that they've inherently sacrificed utility elsewhere for a comparatively minor advantage.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kurald Galain
But they're mathematically interchangeable. Rolling 1d20 under your ability score is the same as rolling 1d20 plus your ability score with a DC of 21. So if you want consistency (which is good, yes) you simply pick the other one.
Hmm? It's not a math thing, it's a "what do I do when" thing. And in an edition trying to be newbie friendly...
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
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:
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
The rogue is still important for skill checks that are "Only one person can attempt at a time", or "You need one success and no failures" or "Two (or more) consecutive successes" - all of which can come up very frequently in a game.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Scow2
The rogue is still important for skill checks that are "Only one person can attempt at a time", or "You need one success and no failures" or "Two (or more) consecutive successes" - all of which can come up very frequently in a game.
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.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SiuiS
So what are the odds of 2d20k1+4+2d6 getting under 10?
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!)
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
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.
-
Re: D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?
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.
Well that was easy to solve.