Basically, Fifth Edition D&D is coming out in the near future, and has an ongoing public playtest right now. Discuss it here! Also, chocolate!
Useful links:
Previous threads:
Printable View
Basically, Fifth Edition D&D is coming out in the near future, and has an ongoing public playtest right now. Discuss it here! Also, chocolate!
Useful links:
Previous threads:
It occurs to me that this thread could reasonably be titled "Discussions & Debates 5e", or similar :smallwink:.
Continuing from old thread:
You only have a 20% chance of failure if you roll. You only roll if there is a reasonable chance of failure. If the only way to fail is to roll, you don't roll. In other words, the die roll is what you do when you don't already know the outcome of the given situation. The die role is subservient to the "reasonableness" of the task at hand, it does not determine the reasonableness. This is RAW, and arguing otherwise is equivalent to arguing that you should get a chance to fire your bow across 3 continents and snipe the BBEG on his morning constitutional because you always succeed on a 20. No rule system can prevent you from twisting the rules into something they don't mean, and personally, I don't want to slog through legalese to play a game because some players and DMs don't know how to act like civilized adults.Quote:
20% constitutes a "reasonable expectation for failure," and warrants a roll.
If the rules say that, if you roll, you will lose 20% of the time to a dead guy, then those are bad rules.
Is it reasonable for the players to override the rules in this instance? Sure. But the point is that they shouldn't have to.
The what comes from your quote:Quote:
You: You can't compare a level 1 Fighter and level 20 fighter and complain they're not different enough, because they're both veterans
Me: But we were comparing a level 20 Fighter with a level 0 commoner. And the results still made no ****ing sense
You: They're both veterans you can't compare them!
Seriously... what?
If you meant Level 0 Commoner, that isn't what you wrote.Quote:
They're level 20 fighter, with all the benefits we know of that we can expect from that, against level 1 character with a negative modifier to the roll. So yes, the comparison is 100% valid.
In older editions, where wizards didn't get their spells automatically and at whim, this is very much true. While a wizard might have the power to cast, and have access to higher level spells that doesn't make him a demi-god except insofar as magic allows one to bend the laws of physics. Perhaps part of the problem is that while D&D has increased its level caps, its lost the changing game styles that came with the old BECMI rules, leading to power creep and "astral slimes replace green slimes" because we have what in older editions really would have been immortals slogging through the cosmos instead wandering around saving the world from a lich with delusions of grandeur.Quote:
Unless we want to say that there's no real big difference between a Wizard at first and 20th level, after all he spent way more time training to be a wizard than he's spent actually adventuring, so they should be practically the same. Just give him more 1st and 2nd level spells per day, it'll be all right.
Personally, I think D&D ought to go back to BECMI and 4e "tiered play" give each one its own distinct play style and core, with flat curves among them. That way you can play your demi-god heroes and not have to worry about how a one size fits all rule system breaks down at that level.
Replace the dead man with a cripple and the rules still say if there's no reasonable chance for failure, then you don't roll. So RAW, the cripple still loses every time, unless maybe he's crippled because his legs are missing and so he walks on his hands all day and has the arm strength of a normal man.Quote:
Replace the dead man with a cripple with 1 strength. And while yes, logically it makes sense there is no chance of failure for the fighter, the rules indicate there is a fair chance of that cripple winning. It isn't a sure thing, so it needs to be rolled out.
They won't be ignorable if there is a reasonable chance of failure. Even without an explicit take 10/20 rule, you can see that the rules clearly allow a check to be skipped if the action is "appropriate and stress free". Meaning while your level 20 PC can't automagically ignore the DC for breaking out of manacles in the middle of being assaulted, they most certainly can ignore them for being captured by goblins and left to rot in a cell for a few days.Quote:
My bad about the threshold. It doesn't change that no check above a DC15 will be ignorable for any PC (we've been told PCs won't get beyond 20 in their attribute), and you can't ignore contests because there is no set DC.
They maybe should be more explicit, but my reading of the rules and their description in the previous LL, leads me to believe the intention is that regardless of level, when you want to set a challenging DC, that you should use 20 something, and that its up to the DM and the players to determine whether a given task is actually something with a chance of failure anymore. I much prefer this play style. It's clear you don't.
You could handle this any number of ways. Assuming that you haven't already determined no reasonable chance of success or failure (again, see page 1 of the rules) you could say that ability scores differing more than 5 (so a STR 20 fighter wins over an STR 14 fighter), or you could declare the DC to be the 10 + ability as an average, or you could simply declare on of the rolls to be the DC. Presumably the check is in response to one person deciding to act, so the DC is just the other person's skill roll. Again, they could make this clearer, but the first rule of checks is don't roll checks if there's no reasonable chance of failure.Quote:
But there is no set DC. The whole point of the contest is that you have an opposed roll. It is impossible to say "This guy will be below my threshold" unless his bonus + 20 is less than your strength minus 5. So I guess the guy with 1 strength against the guy with 20 strength may be an auto success. (His max roll is 15, which is within your auto success thing), but anything with better than a -5 modifier you have to play out the check.
Except the rules do work, because the first rule is don't roll if it doesn't make sense to roll. Just because there aren't numbers in that rule doesn't mean it's not a rule.Quote:
Yes this is extremely stupid, and most DMs will completely ignore results that don't make sense, but that isn't justification for having ****ty rules that don't work in the first place.
So where is a cutoff point? When do you roll? Why can't WotC come up with clear criteria?Quote:
Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4
I can't speak for Seerow, but I think the ability check system is a bad system and should not be in the game. I am not looking how to fix by setting DCs; a system as random as that should not be in any game in the first place.Quote:
They maybe should be more explicit, but my reading of the rules and their description in the previous LL, leads me to believe the intention is that regardless of level, when you want to set a challenging DC, that you should use 20 something, and that its up to the DM and the players to determine whether a given task is actually something with a chance of failure anymore. I much prefer this play style. It's clear you don't.
Those are houserules. While they may be reasonable, they do not belong in a discussion about a mechanic. WotC designers should be smart enough to identify there is a problem here (that you are solving with houserules) and implemented their own solution.Quote:
You could handle this any number of ways. Assuming that you haven't already determined no reasonable chance of success or failure (again, see page 1 of the rules) you could say that ability scores differing more than 5 (so a STR 20 fighter wins over an STR 14 fighter), or you could declare the DC to be the 10 + ability as an average, or you could simply declare on of the rolls to be the DC. Presumably the check is in response to one person deciding to act, so the DC is just the other person's skill roll. Again, they could make this clearer, but the first rule of checks is don't roll checks if there's no reasonable chance of failure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4
1) Actually when someone is making an attack roll at an impossible DC, they DO always roll. They don't get to fire across 3 continents because range gets capped based on the weapon. In fact it was for the exact reason you specified that auto success on a 20 was removed from skill checks in 3.5.
The RAW says that the reasonableness of the task at hand is determined by the DC of the task vs your relevant attribute. If the DC is less than your attribute minus 5, you have to try to roll. Period. You could maybe argue that the other person needs to roll first, effectively setting the DC for you (so if they roll less than a 15, you no longer have to roll), but other than that yes you do need to roll short of DM fiat.
Okay sorry, level 1 commoner not level 0 commoner. You will note however I didn't specify fighter. No fighter would have a -1 strength mod. Level 1 character was short for anything at all that is not high level. Because yes, higher levels do represent increased power and expertise.Quote:
The what comes from your quote:
If you meant Level 0 Commoner, that isn't what you wrote.
Sure, I could get behind that. I've advocated as such in the past. Not 100% flat math, but big jumps at tiers. So the difference between a the lowest Heroic fighter and the highest Heroic Fighter might only be +7. That's totally acceptable. But once the Fighter jumps to Paragon tier, he suddenly gains a decent boost to just about everything (like +3-5 across the board), so it is noticeable that he's a cut above. Those numbers might scale another 5-10 over the tier, before going up to Epic where you see another jump.Quote:
In older editions, where wizards didn't get their spells automatically and at whim, this is very much true. While a wizard might have the power to cast, and have access to higher level spells that doesn't make him a demi-god except insofar as magic allows one to bend the laws of physics. Perhaps part of the problem is that while D&D has increased its level caps, its lost the changing game styles that came with the old BECMI rules, leading to power creep and "astral slimes replace green slimes" because we have what in older editions really would have been immortals slogging through the cosmos instead wandering around saving the world from a lich with delusions of grandeur.
Personally, I think D&D ought to go back to BECMI and 4e "tiered play" give each one its own distinct play style and core, with flat curves among them. That way you can play your demi-god heroes and not have to worry about how a one size fits all rule system breaks down at that level.
Of course tiers would need to mean more than just the number jumps (because honestly in 4e that's all they were, and not even really good number jumps at that). For example effects like teleport and flight could be reserved for paragon tier. Effects like Simulacrum and Wish would be reserved for Epic. Basically each tier would unlock a whole slew of new modes of transportation, status effects, and defenses.
As for BECMI, Basic would basically be level 0. Really squishy, almost no powers or abilities. Expert/Champion is basically Heroic, Master is Paragon, and Immortal is Epic.
You are however defining "reasonable chance for failure" as "What does the DM think is reasonable?" Also if the DM can say the chance of failure is low enough for the cripple to beat the fighter despite the 20% chance, what does that say about say the Fighter trying to Grapple the troll? Can the DM just decide "Sorry that doesn't work" while ignoring the numbers that say the Fighter has a pretty decent chance at it? DM Fiat as the basis for making a skill system make sense isn't something I want.Quote:
Replace the dead man with a cripple and the rules still say if there's no reasonable chance for failure, then you don't roll. So RAW, the cripple still loses every time, unless maybe he's crippled because his legs are missing and so he walks on his hands all day and has the arm strength of a normal man.
Sure, because the Fighter can retry until he succeeds. Unless he fails by what... 10 or more? With a +3 on the roll, that's a very real possibility against a DC over 13. And yes, there is no take 10 roll because they gave it to the rogue as a class feature.Quote:
They won't be ignorable if there is a reasonable chance of failure. Even without an explicit take 10/20 rule, you can see that the rules clearly allow a check to be skipped if the action is "appropriate and stress free". Meaning while your level 20 PC can't automagically ignore the DC for breaking out of manacles in the middle of being assaulted, they most certainly can ignore them for being captured by goblins and left to rot in a cell for a few days.
DC 20 challenges as the default for a difficult challenge? Jeeze! Remember most characters only have like 3 skills trained, and there is a very real chance of nobody having something for the situation at hand. You're looking at an attribute mod of +3-+5 being applied to the roll. If you make any semi-difficult task a DC20 minimum, that means any time you call for a roll, the PCs will succeed less than 20% of the time. (And remember, you just got done saying how 20% chance of failing to arm wrestle the diseased guy with 1 strength was negligible enough to not bother rolling. So I guess we're doing the same thing here, so the party just auto fails at anything unless they have the correct skill trained)Quote:
They maybe should be more explicit, but my reading of the rules and their description in the previous LL, leads me to believe the intention is that regardless of level, when you want to set a challenging DC, that you should use 20 something, and that its up to the DM and the players to determine whether a given task is actually something with a chance of failure anymore. I much prefer this play style. It's clear you don't.
But once again you're setting 'reasonable chance of failure' at "Whatever the DM feels like" which is absolute bull**** because every DM ever will rule these things differently. Seriously put a question of "Where is the reasonable line" to 10 different DMs kept apart, they'll come back to you with 15 different possibilities, with widely varying results. You are literally feeding Mearl's bull**** about how rules are bad because a DM will handle it with this line of argument.Quote:
You could handle this any number of ways. Assuming that you haven't already determined no reasonable chance of success or failure (again, see page 1 of the rules) you could say that ability scores differing more than 5 (so a STR 20 fighter wins over an STR 14 fighter), or you could declare the DC to be the 10 + ability as an average, or you could simply declare on of the rolls to be the DC. Presumably the check is in response to one person deciding to act, so the DC is just the other person's skill roll. Again, they could make this clearer, but the first rule of checks is don't roll checks if there's no reasonable chance of failure.
And Rule 0 in AD&D was that the DM can change anything. I guess that makes AD&D the perfect system, and nobody can complain about what was wrong with it.Quote:
Except the rules do work, because the first rule is don't roll if it doesn't make sense to roll. Just because there aren't numbers in that rule doesn't mean it's not a rule.
Seriously DM fiat does not replace rules. If WotC is going to give us a rule set, it needs to be rules that can actually be followed not "Go with your gut feeling on it"
So, in summation:Quote:
Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4
"You only have a chance of failure when you roll and you only roll when there is a chance of failure."
...really?
Granted, I removed the word "reasonable" from that summation, but "reasonable" is not a word with a clear and consistent meaning from player to player, DM to DM, or game to game. It's a word bereft of value in that context. If a group has a problem with determining what is or is not reasonable, then this rule does not help them. If they do not have such a problem, then they don't need the rule in the first place. The DC is supposed to be an arbiter of reasonableness. If it is not, what good is it?
I don't need a game mechanic to tell me to "be reasonable." I can do that on my own. For free.
Based on this I honestly find it hard to really judge how its going to pan out in terms of skills/rolls.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seerow
With what we see right now I get the impression there isn't enough of a difference between skilled and unskilled characters about a skill, but I feel like without more information like feats/magic items (I think Christmas tree with always be around in D&D), etc will impact and ultimately help with the rolls to the point I will be happy with. If we do have all the information I might add a few things.
I would love some high level information to see how it scales, their mindset, and help figure out the skill stand point. But we might not until release :(
By the way, just as an aside, since I did a lot of negative ranting in my last post: I really did like the suggestion of "If the attributes are within 5, it's a challenge. If not the higher attribute guy wins". I'd still like to see more attribute scaling with level (the idea of characters being capped at 20 as their maximum really doesn't sit well with me), but something like that would solve the problem of opposed checks coming up with unbelievable results. I could accept that as a standard rule, but that's the thing: it would need to be a standard rule. Because right now it's not, it's something you made up.
The cutoff point is at whatever point the DM and players decide it is. Do you and your DM think that a level 20 fighter should be able to break any manacles at any time, then go for it. Or are you seriously suggesting that if the rules said that level 20 fighters could only break manacles 20% of the time, that would be better? And if they chose something more reasonable, like 90% of the time, what about people who don't think level 20 fighters should be gods? They're not happy now either. The beauty of a flat system like what WotC appears to be going for, is that without an explicit rule for "how tough are manacles" we can all be happy. If you want all level 20 fighters to break all manacles, you don't bother with a check at all, if you want level 20 fighters to have a small chance, you pick a high DC, if you want them to have a really good chance, but not a guarantee, you pick a low DC. No need to rip out rules or try to recalculate DCs depending on the level of the party, if I want a tough task, I chose one DC, if I want an easy task, I choose another, same numbers, no matter the level. That makes my life as a DM much easier.Quote:
So where is a cutoff point? When do you roll? Why can't WotC come up with clear criteria?
You see it as a problem, I don't, since I seem to interpret the rule about reasonableness of checks as overriding all other rules concerning checks. If it's not reasonable, I don't care what the check rules say. The mechanic is encompassed in more than just the specific rules on how to conduct a check. Part of the mechanic is determining if the check is necessary in the first place.Quote:
Those are houserules. While they may be reasonable, they do not belong in a discussion about a mechanic. WotC designers should be smart enough to identify there is a problem here (that you are solving with houserules) and implemented their own solution.
And this is why I think we will never reach an agreement on this discussion, because you seem to be saying the reason that a 3e character can't fire across a continent is because of the rules for weapon range, rather than the simple fact that such an action would be impossible. If there were no range rules for a bow in 3e, would you say the rules allow you to shoot across a continent?Quote:
Actually when someone is making an attack roll at an impossible DC, they DO always roll. They don't get to fire across 3 continents because range gets capped based on the weapon. In fact it was for the exact reason you specified that auto success on a 20 was removed from skill checks in 3.5.
Well yes, increased levels do represent increased power and expertise. My argument was that level 1 to level 20 is more akin to an E1 to an O8 or a rookie NFL player vs a 10 year veteran player, rather than Joe Couchpotato to the 10 year veteran.Quote:
Okay sorry, level 1 commoner not level 0 commoner. You will note however I didn't specify fighter. No fighter would have a -1 strength mod. Level 1 character was short for anything at all that is not high level. Because yes, higher levels do represent increased power and expertise.
As for level 1 commoner, I have two thoughts on this. One I think levels are only relevant within your class, just like someone with a PhD in mechanical engineering and someone with a PhD in Underwater Basket Weaving aren't directly comparable, neither is a level 20 fighter and a level 20 cleric.
The second is that I think D&D screwed up big time when they gave NPCs and monsters "levels", aside from the above, there's no reason why NPCs and monsters have to be generated the same way as PCs, or have the same stats, because they serve a different purpose. This incidentally is why I hope they take a page from Swords and Wizardry and drop the stats and associated saves for monsters and just give them a single Save value, with a potential modifier for a prime attribute.
I think we're in agreement here. The problem is, a mechanic that works at really low levels breaks down at really high levels without a lot of extraneous math (a la 3e or 4e) that would be much better simplified by just acknowledging that different "tiers" of play have different rules and/or mechanics.Quote:
Of course tiers would need to mean more than just the number jumps (because honestly in 4e that's all they were, and not even really good number jumps at that). For example effects like teleport and flight could be reserved for paragon tier. Effects like Simulacrum and Wish would be reserved for Epic. Basically each tier would unlock a whole slew of new modes of transportation, status effects, and defenses.
I am defining it as "what do the players and DM think is reasonable for the setting, world, story and current situation at hand". The key is that I expect DMs and players to actually talk to each other and behave like civilized adults. And if one side or the other can't do that, I expect the rest to stop playing with them until they can. There's no reason for the DM and the players to be adversarial to each other. If you and I can agree that arm wrestling a cripple is a silly thing to roll for, why should we need a rule that either a) tells us it's a silly thing to roll for or b) requires us to roll, even though the result is guaranteed?Quote:
You are however defining "reasonable chance for failure" as "What does the DM think is reasonable?"
I don't see anything about failure by 10 or more in the rules, unless I'm missing it. The only thing I see is on page 4 under multiple checks, where again you are asked to be reasonable. Is it a task that allows multiple attempts (picking locks), then allow it, just be aware of the passage of time. If it doesn't allow multiple attempts (convincing the guard you work for the king) then disallow it.Quote:
Sure, because the Fighter can retry until he succeeds. Unless he fails by what... 10 or more? With a +3 on the roll, that's a very real possibility against a DC over 13. And yes, there is no take 10 roll because they gave it to the rogue as a class feature.
I really have to ask at this point, and I don't mean to be rude, have you actually read through the play test rules, and actually read and parsed the rules; or have you just skimmed them, assumed things from other editions to be the norm or in the rules and dismissed them out of hand; or are you simply going off what you've heard second hand? I'll be honest, there's a lot of stuff I keep seeing pop up and I seriously wonder whether I'm reading the same play test document that everyone else is some times.
Eh, I misremembered, but you're missing the forest for the trees. The point was that a DC of X always means the same thing. DC 20 is always so hard, DC 5 is always so easy.Quote:
DC 20 challenges as the default for a difficult challenge? Jeeze!
No, I said that you only had a 20% chance of failing if you needed to roll in the first place. The decision whether or not to roll is entirely separate from the chance of failure once you have decided to roll. By deciding to roll, you have said "for this given task, there is a significant (to the story or situation) chance of failure, and it is reasonable for the situation at hand to have an uncertain and randomized outcome, therefore we should roll to determine the outcome. We will roll using this mechanic as outlined in the rules, which provides us with chances of failure based on these criteria". The first step is making the decision to roll.Quote:
And remember, you just got done saying how 20% chance of failing to arm wrestle the diseased guy with 1 strength was negligible enough to not bother rolling. So I guess we're doing the same thing here, so the party just auto fails at anything unless they have the correct skill trained
Or to put it another way, in D&D Next, you only roll when a random outcome will add something to the game, not every time you want to do something. Walking and chewing bubblegum doesn't require a DEX check.
And I am absolutely 100% ok with different DMs deciding their world is a little bit different. D&D is not a sport, it's not a competition or a contest. I have no stake in two different DMs worlds behaving identically. In fact, I personally think it would be rather dull if every single DM played everything exactly the same way. If I wanted a perfectly consistent experience across every DM, I would simply DM the game myself, or get a computer to DM for me.Quote:
But once again you're setting 'reasonable chance of failure' at "Whatever the DM feels like" which is absolute bull**** because every DM ever will rule these things differently. Seriously put a question of "Where is the reasonable line" to 10 different DMs kept apart, they'll come back to you with 15 different possibilities, with widely varying results. You are literally feeding Mearl's bull**** about how rules are bad because a DM will handle it with this line of argument.
They are rules to be followed. The rule is "If you come across a scenario where you and the DM can not reach an agreement on what the outcome should be for the story and the environment, or where you think the result should be random, then you should roll for the result using these following mechanics. Otherwise, go with what fits."Quote:
Seriously DM fiat does not replace rules. If WotC is going to give us a rule set, it needs to be rules that can actually be followed not "Go with your gut feeling on it"
I don't need or want a rule to tell me that a fighter will win an arm wrestling contest with a dead man. I don't want a rule to tell me that a thief can always open a pair of chinese finger cuffs. I don't need a rule that tells me how much damage a mountain deals when it falls on your head from space. I don't need a rule that tells me that arrows can't be fired across continents. And I certainly don't need a rule that tells me that if I think a level 20 character is a demigod with the strength of hulk, that a wooden door doesn't pose a challenge to him.
I do want rules for when I do decide that something should be a challenge, if I choose a DC of X type, it will be Y% challenging.
If a group has trouble determining what is or is not reasonable, no rule will help them. If the rules say that it's reasonable for a wooden door to pose a challenge to a character, and the DM agrees with the rules, and players don't, unless the DM has been 100% strictly by the (numerical) rules with his game (and if you find such a DM, let me know so I can avoid them) then the DM has no more leg to stand on than if the rules didn't declare a DC one way or the other.Quote:
If a group has a problem with determining what is or is not reasonable, then this rule does not help them. If they do not have such a problem, then they don't need the rule in the first place.
Sure, it would be nice to see it spelled out, but to be honest, it's to some degree already the same rule. Consider, if I have a DC that's 10, I succeed with an attribute of 15. Similarly, if I have a DC of 15, I succeed with an attribute of 20. Well if you view the opponent's roll as your DC, and the average on a d20 as 10 (or 11 if you round up), than a character with a 10 Attribute has an average DC of 10-11, and a character with a 15 attribute (+2) gives an average DC of 12 (13). It's not a precise match, but you do still beat the average DC with your 20 attribute.Quote:
I could accept that as a standard rule, but that's the thing: it would need to be a standard rule. Because right now it's not, it's something you made up.
Okay here's a question for you: You don't like rules. You say you don't want rules for a lot of things that are perfectly logical. Sure I don't need to know about a Fighter firing his bow across continents, but I do need to know where the line is drawn. Can he fire it 100 yards? 300? 1000? I would argue you need a rule to define that, and that rule by its definition prevents the cross continent shot. Similarly, I don't need to know the damage of a mountain falling from space, but a boulder dropped off a cliff? That's something that comes up. Now if a mountain happens to be dropped from space (I guess someone got hit by a meteor?) you can extrapolate that rock falling damage rule to fit with the mountain falling damage.
I would ask why there were no rules for it. Why am I paying for a game that doesn't have rules for basic things in the game world. If I buy a bow I expect to know how far it will shoot, and not rely on GM rule of thumb to tell me exactly where it cuts off. This gets increasingly important as power levels leave human behind. Because yes, in 3.5 a character CAN shoot his bow to any point he can see with an epic feat. So he could fire his bow at the moon. Or with a high enough spot check or some divinations, conceivably fire at a continent on the other side of the world. Is this realistic? No! But that's the joy of epic play, you are leaving realism behind for something super human.Quote:
And this is why I think we will never reach an agreement on this discussion, because you seem to be saying the reason that a 3e character can't fire across a continent is because of the rules for weapon range, rather than the simple fact that such an action would be impossible. If there were no range rules for a bow in 3e, would you say the rules allow you to shoot across a continent?
In fact, this is a great example of why DM fiat as a mechanic doesn't work. In 3.5 rules, I can in fact shoot my bow thousands of miles. If you were my DM, it wouldn't matter what level I was or how awesome I got, that shot would be too hard to make, because you think it's silly. Rules make it so everyone has a common foundation to approach the game from, rather than 5 people coming to the table with different ideas of what is acceptable at a given level of play.
Page 3 of the DM's guide, Hazzards. If you fail by 10 or more on the check, you get a hazzard.Quote:
I don't see anything about failure by 10 or more in the rules, unless I'm missing it. The only thing I see is on page 4 under multiple checks, where again you are asked to be reasonable. Is it a task that allows multiple attempts (picking locks), then allow it, just be aware of the passage of time. If it doesn't allow multiple attempts (convincing the guard you work for the king) then disallow it.
I guess that should answer your follow up question on whether I've read the playtest rules.
Okay, now that I'm done responding to that I'm getting back to my initial point, since all of the rest of your post just brings me back to it: You really seem to hate rules. You want a game where everything is extremely narrative, and apparently relatively low in power level. That's fine, you can totally have a game like that. But the best part is, you don't need to pay anyone for a rule book to play that game.
All you need to do is have everyone write down their archtype on a sheet, write down their 6 ability scores (rolled or not, whatever you prefer), and use ability checks to improvise everything that you don't think should be automatic. I mean, you don't need a rule book to tell you what spells your wizard can cast, you can figure out what's appropriate for yourself. You can decide if you think it's okay for the Fighter to wrestle that troll or not. If that's what you and your group like, that's great... but D&D is traditionally a rules heavy game, and that means yes, you are going to have rules telling you what you can and cannot do. And most importantly, you don't need to shell out 100 dollars on core books to make the game work exactly the way you like it.
I do like rules, I hate legalese and rules lawyers, and I don't like having so many rules that the game devolves into competitions between char-op people, rules lawyers, and the players as a whole vs the dm. Equally, I don't like having so many rules that altering any one rule destroys the delicate balance of the system. I'd rather my rules be a lego set rather than a house of cards.Quote:
You don't like rules.
How far do you and your DM want to allow him to fire? But we have a misunderstanding here. I don't a rule with a given DC or max for something. What I mind is that the max or DC is so baked into the rest of the rules that if I wanted to change it, it would screw other things up to. I don't mind a rule that says a 2 ton boulder falling on you from 100 feet up will kill you, or do 100 HP of damage, what I do mind is a rule that says "Falling objects do damage at a rate of 5*weight in tons d (height/10)" because then someone eventually turns around and exploits that into something unreasonable, like saying that the half ton falling rock from 50 feet up only does 5d5 damage, so my 2nd level fighter will survive having a half ton rock dropped on his head every time, never mind that logically you wouldn't survive being hit dead on with a half ton rock landing on your head, it's in the rules. One is an example that one can adjust or ignore as needed for the world, the other is an exploitable mechanic that can break down, and while isn't in this case, may be tied to other mechanics that break if removed. See also healing surges, where if you don't like them, too bad because healing skills, undead abilities and so much more rely on them being in the system. By comparison, I see very little so far that relies on the HD system in D&D Next (with the obvious caveat that it may change, and get baked in just as badly).Quote:
Sure I don't need to know about a Fighter firing his bow across continents, but I do need to know where the line is drawn. Can he fire it 100 yards? 300? 1000?
Not at all, if I were your DM, we would have already had a discussion about how epic this campaign and world could get. Whether you could or couldn't be that epic should have nothing to do with the rules. The rules should provide me with a framework to use to construct and support such epicness.Quote:
In fact, this is a great example of why DM fiat as a mechanic doesn't work. In 3.5 rules, I can in fact shoot my bow thousands of miles. If you were my DM, it wouldn't matter what level I was or how awesome I got, that shot would be too hard to make, because you think it's silly. Rules make it so everyone has a common foundation to approach the game from, rather than 5 people coming to the table with different ideas of what is acceptable at a given level of play.
Fair enough, but hazzards don't prevent you from trying again per the rules, which was your original claim.Quote:
Page 3 of the DM's guide, Hazzards. If you fail by 10 or more on the check, you get a hazzard.
I guess that should answer your follow up question on whether I've read the playtest rules.
Again, I don't hate rules. I hate rules that restrict, rather than allow for construction.Quote:
You really seem to hate rules.
D&D may not be the most rules light system out there, but rules heavy it aint. D&D is a walk in the park (yes even 2e 3e and 4e) vs something like GURPsQuote:
If that's what you and your group like, that's great... but D&D is traditionally a rules heavy game, and that means yes, you are going to have rules telling you what you can and cannot do. And most importantly, you don't need to shell out 100 dollars on core books to make the game work exactly the way you like it.
But while I may not need to shell out money for books, sometimes I enjoy inspiration from those books. And sometimes they provide ideas and structure I don't have. I can also download labyrinth lord for free and play as much as my heat desires. I still bought the book.
I look at rules as a lego set. Sure, I can melt down some plastic and use a 3d printer to construct my own building blocks and do whatever the heck I want without paying a dime to lego. Or I can spend some money on some lego, build a model off the box, and then customize it into something else, maybe even something I didn't think of before.
The rules shouldn't be a legalese filled contract between me and my players.
I've been gaming with the same group since middle school, and we've all finished our degrees now. We're good friends, and we enjoy gaming together, but we still have disagreements about rules in RPGs. It's not that we're trying to undermine each other, or that we want to break the game, but it comes up. Sometimes an ability doesn't work the way you'd expect it to, sometimes two characters will work together in a way that's disgustingly strong, sometimes something just isn't covered by the rules.
It's useful to have a neutral source that we can go to when we do disagree. I'd rather have a well thought out, clearly stated ruling on everything in the game. If I disagree with a ruling I can still change it, but there's no harm in having mechanics clarified, and quite of bit of good in doing so. If a system has large gaps that require me to write significant amount of house rules for consistency in my worlds, that's not a good thing. Having rules doesn't prevent me from making my own if I have to, but a strong base covering most situations makes a system much stronger for me.
I think rules should always be approached from the viewpoint of a new GM, one who may be reluctant to take the reins and adjudicate (this is pretty common in my experience). It's easy enough to say "leave it to the DM to figure it out" but that will only leave a new GM up for criticism when their decision is taken badly, without guidelines to help adjudicate those decisions.
The point shouldn't to have a rule for every situation, just one that the DM can turn to when the rules provided are murky (as they often can be in weird situations).
That we're having a discussion about when to use skill rolls and when not to is a perfect example of how a "bad call" can be made; really, the problem with using a d20 for success has always been a problem since at least 3e, but the protection of skill ranks/training made it more palatable I think. While I don't object to the idea of using a Stat modifier in place of all Str/Dex/etc. related skills, the system needs to (in my opinion) either adapt to the d20 or replace it. I won't repeat or get into the criticisms people have levied at it thus far, except to say that rather than leave it up the DM to determine when a skill check is necessary, model the rules instead to make "easy" tasks just that: easy to succeed in on a d20 roll. Others have done this math or something similar, but to repeat:
The DM guidelines in the playtest suggest a DC "10 or lower" should be a 'trivial" task. As many have pointed out, a DC 10 is not "trivial" when the chance of failure is higher than 25%. I would suggest that therefore, that if they want to simulate something being "trivial" that they assume that it should be something like a DC 5. This would mean that someone with a good ability score (say, a 14, or +2 bonus) would have a really good chance of succeeding. Having a good ability score and training would therefore mean you "would" auto-succeed by the rules; experience DMs (as well as players) can see the math, and new GMs can see how the math plays out.
A DC 8-10 would therefore become the new "moderate" challenge, where (as per the text) training would be required to reliably succeed. Therefore, having a +2 stat modifier would allow you to succeed 60% of the time, where training in the skill would bump that up to a 75% success rate. A good stat/training would likely allow for a player to auto-succeed. This would make sense in that even with zero training, it would become appropriate for a novice character to at least having roughly 50/50 odds of succeeding. It also would properly peg the challenge as being "worth" rolling for, and could become the standard default for a DM that is unsure whether a skill roll is appropriate or not.
For contested skill rolls, I think you could use the advantage/disadvantage system to greater effect. The player with the higher ability score has "advantage" on a contested skill roll (thus rolling twice). Admittedly, I don't know if this math works well, but it would help alleviate the problem of the 8 strength wizard beating an ogre in a contest of muscle, as well as allow for more opportunities to utilize the "advantage" mechanism.
tl/dr: You can have your cake and eat it too when it comes to creating rules that help new GMs, but don't slow down experienced ones.
Just gotta say, I love how the 5E is Ending thread has a final comment noting how the discussion has "devolved" into a discussion about GNS theory.
As far as newbie GM, or Experienced GM: I would like to see the new edition look something like 2e in that you had a simple core chassis, along with loads of optional rules for those who wanted it. The 5e playtest for me seems like a good core chassis so far. i can't wait to see how they tweak it.
Honestly something like that can work, but they need to go farther still at simplifying things if that's the intent. Like Vancian Magic needs to come off the casters, with the casters being given a basic magic blast and being told to improvise everything else. They can then get their resource back via themes just like the martial characters. This sets everyone on even footing as the baseline, and makes it easier to sub different magic systems in and out as new books/modules are released.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crow
And there are guidelines. People seem to be taking objection to the fact that there's no explicit rule telling you that arm wrestling a cripple is not something you generally need to roll for. That seems like taking things a bit too far.Quote:
I think rules should always be approached from the viewpoint of a new GM, one who may be reluctant to take the reins and adjudicate (this is pretty common in my experience). It's easy enough to say "leave it to the DM to figure it out" but that will only leave a new GM up for criticism when their decision is taken badly, without guidelines to help adjudicate those decisions.
And ultimately, the only way to get better at adjudicating is to actually adjudicate. Better to be able to adjudicate with smaller things and get the hang of it before your players come up with some world breaking combo.
And that's what it appears 5e is attempting to do. We can argue over whether the chosen DC ranges are appropriate, but that's not what the discussion has been about so far.Quote:
I won't repeat or get into the criticisms people have levied at it thus far, except to say that rather than leave it up the DM to determine when a skill check is necessary, model the rules instead to make "easy" tasks just that: easy to succeed in on a d20 roll.
It's also worth noting that RAW, "An adventurer can almost always succeed automatically on a trivial task." which is anything DC 10 or lower.
Honestly, as much as I would like this myself, I don't see it happening. Vancian Magic is pretty much a as much a staple of D&D as the 3 basic classes are. I don't even particularly care for it (I actually like the M20 system), but even I was disappointed to find it missing from 4e (or more accurately, co-opted and warped). There's also the fact that magic in D&D even since the beginning occupied more space than just what a combat oriented "blast" would occupy. You need healing and control magic as well.Quote:
Like Vancian Magic needs to come off the casters, with the casters being given a basic magic blast and being told to improvise everything else. They can then get their resource back via themes just like the martial characters. This sets everyone on even footing as the baseline, and makes it easier to sub different magic systems in and out as new books/modules are released.
Still, it would be nice to see magical system as plugin modules rather than a baked in part of core, especially given how different some other magic user classes are in general.
If I may weigh in on the current conversation:
I don't need a rulebook to tell me to get along with my friends. I can do that all on my own, thanks. Telling me to make a collective decision at the table also isn't necessary, because this is what happens when there's a question about the rules anyways. I can do that with any system, I do do that with any system, and I am certainly not paying $100+ for a system to tell me to do just that.
Rather, what I want to know is: How do certain mechanics interact with the system, and what are the real-world values of objects represented in the game?
I do not know how to play D&D Next. I haven't played it, and I certainly haven't played the completed version. I do not know what a "good" value is for a specific roll, nor do I know what a "bad" value is. As such, it is up to the game system to tell me so. If a situation is considered unreasonable and shouldn't be rolled for, then the system should simply tell me so - because I most certainly do not know what the system values mean. That is the key point. 1 Strength could me a cripple, someone who is barely capable of walking with their clothing on, or 1 Strength could mean a person 10% stronger than average. I have no way of determining the reasonability of a 1 Strength vs 20 Strength contest without looking at the numbers, and if I'm seeing only d20-4 vs d20+5, then it certainly does not appear to be an impossible contest with an obviously predetermined result.
The comparison only gets worse when we move away from the obvious physical situations and into the vaguely magical. What should when a 1st level Wizard with 20 INT casts an illusion at the 20th level Cleric with 4 INT and a defensive advantage? Should the 20th level character "obviously" succeed? Should the 20 INT attack "obviously" overcome the 4 INT defense? Should the defensive advantage "obviously" grant protection against the assault?
I would also want to know how rather mundane actions interact with the ruleset, so that the DM can properly adjudicate situations. If the rules say a longbow can fire 300 yards and gains a -1 penality for every fifth of max range, we can use that. If we decide that longbows really have a range of 1000 yards, we can still use the rest of the rules (-1 penality for every fifth of max range) and adjust accordingly. However, if the rules just say "longbows can be used to attack at a distance", then what can we use? Do we just say they are perfectly accurate until 1000 yard, and suddenly lose the ability to hit anything? Are we supposed to perform fieldtests on longbows to determine accuracy drops?
Remember, we're paying one hundred dollars, quite possibly each, for this ruleset. Unless the D&D Next ruleset possesses some miraculous preparation ability, simply putting together a game take up a large enough part of time. I don't have time to be testing/researching ever sword, bow, and piece of armor myself to come up with accurate data. I expect the system to do it for me. That's why I'm giving them my money. (Also, note that this applies to fantastical and magical equipment even moreso - I have no way of testing or studying the properities of an "Elven Feywood Farbow", and certainly have no way to determine what the designers had in mind.)
A group can have trouble determining what is or is not reasonable because the people themselves are not reasonable, yes; however, an otherwise reasonable group can also have trouble determining what is or is not reasonable because they have no basis from which to make a reasonable call.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4
Plenty of players are not blacksmiths, archers, locksmiths, swordsmen, cavalrymen, sailors, or otherwise in the know regarding skills or abilities which might be a) relevant during a game, b) observable in the real world, and c) easily modeled with elegant rules.
Telling these players that they should just "be reasonable" in no way helps them. Whether they are already reasonable (hooray!) or they are not (boo!), either way they lack knowledge which they were relying on the rules to provide or simulate. It's like telling someone who can't swim that the way to swim is to "drown less." It's good advice, but it's not actually helpful.
Rules do not have to be complicated to be effective, but bad rules will surely complicate the game.
No, people object to the fact that the rules allow for clearly ludicrous outcomes.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4
If Bob the Barbarian loses an arm-wrestling contest against Disease-Riddled Commoner on an infrequent but reliable basis, that's a degree of failure which says we should be rolling, but the scenario tells us we should not. So either the mechanic does not properly model the scenario as intended, which means the mechanic is broken, or it does, which means the game expects for Disease-Riddled Commoners to reliably (even if infrequently) beat healthy Barbarians in contests of strength, which is an odd direction for a heroic fantasy adventure game to go.
Do you see the conflict there?
because it is not their job to come up with clear criteria in a game where literally anything can reasonably be expected to come up at the table. the game has a thinking, reasoning DM for a reason, let him or her do their damn job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tehnar
Speaking purely as a DM, it actually is their job to come up with rules for common circumstances. I'm fine with making rulings when I have to (what happens when Metafaculty is used on a Vecna-Blooded target or something), and I'll record them for consistency, but if a system demands that I house rule core mechanics to make them functional/realistic, then it's a bad system. If I want to make my own homeruled system, then I'd do that. But if I'm paying a significant amount of money to use this system, then it should be comprehensive, and cover a reasonable of situations.Quote:
Originally Posted by darkelf
EDIT
Fatebreaker said it better than me.
Why is it the DM's job to make rules and balance the game on the fly, when he has all the work of actually running the game to do? Especially when there is a team of people being paid for months or years to develop a system that is supposed to be providing the rules. I really don't get this insistence of putting everything on the DM rather than the game designers.Quote:
Originally Posted by darkelf
I know Mearls is pushing it hard, because if people buy into it it makes his job way easier, but why do we expect the DM to do so much? I mean it's this exact sort of attitude that keeps people away from DMing. So much responsibility gets placed on the DM that most players are afraid to take it. I loved 4e because it made the DM's job so much easier, people around my area who had previously refused to DM were running games, and doing so easily. Returning to the olden days where rules are archaic and the DM needs to decipher everything puts the onus for everything back onto him, and that's something most people simply don't want to deal with.
If you read through the core books, this is actually how the 4E tiers were supposed to work. In practice it didn't really work out because it was up to the DM to provide these things to players (the extremely limited nature of the ritual and power systems means the players had no way to get it themselves) and DMs would give these things to players whenever they felt it would be appropriate for the game, regardless of level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seerow
Still, the intent was definitely there.
Right. Like I said, I agree with the design goal of 4e, I just acknowledge it fell really flat and left high level play feeling like more of the same. I would want the play to really feel different. Like people mentioned in the last thread how 4e actually expects all doors to be a level appropriate challenge, I'd make it clear how that's not the case and yes you should just breeze through most doors past a certain point, because doors are typically not an epic level challenge. A Epic Level dungeon crawl would be a completely different beast from a heroic level one, to the point where a heroic tier character being there might not even realize that he is in a dungeon crawl.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craft (Cheese)
I buy books because I'm lazy and don't feel like making up my own "clear criteria". I think and reason because the PCs need a guy to tell them what's happening, or else the heroes of light become murder hobos. I certainly expect the book to tell me exactly how hard it is to break down an adamantium door, as well as provide general guidelines on how much adamantium is in that door should my players decide to take the door with them and sell it.Quote:
Originally Posted by darkelf
Well, while I think it's a noble idea, I think there's one very critical point that needs to be solved before this goal can be implemented effectively: The Spore problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seerow
If you haven't played Spore, spore basically is 5 different games wrapped up into 1. As you guide your species past different stages of evolution, the gameplay completely changes.
What's the problem with this? The problem is that Spore is not a very good game. This is primarily for 2 reasons:
1. The included mini-games are so different as to practically be in different genres. Chances are, even if there's one or two of the 5 different games that you really like, there'll be at least one of them that you'll absolutely hate because it just won't appeal to your taste. Problem is you can't really ignore the one you hate, because you switch through them as the game progresses.
2. Because the different stages of evolution are so different, development attention had to be spread thin. Rather than putting all of their resources into making one really good experience, they had to make 5 lackluster ones.
Now, the first problem can be somewhat solved by getting together a group with the same preferences and just playing through a limited level range, but I don't see any clean way to avoid the second problem except to just multiply the design work.
If an arm wrestle between a cripple and a level 20 Fighter comes down to 1d20-4 vs. 1d20+5, and that difference of 10 is supposed to be ruled out as 'no chance of failure' out of pure reason, then when the dragon with a +15 STR has that same Fighter pinned against the ground with a massive claw, should the Fighter get a chance to try and extricate himself? If so, then the "reasonableness" rule is inconsistent and needs to be standardized; the line has to be drawn somewhere. If not, then 20 levels is unnecessary and probably kind of boring, since what you can accomplish besides to-hit and damage capped out a long time ago. If D&D 5 is going to be that much more tame in terms of power escalation, I'd be OK with that, but a lot of people wouldn't, and it would need to come out and say it now before everyone gets their feelings hurt.
Either way, the "reasonableness" rule is unreliable because we have no frame of reference for how fast a dragon can move, or how wise one is, other than what the numbers and dice tell us, so those rules need to explicitly tell us where all the lines are drawn. I'm OK if it says, "If the difference in Ability modifiers is greater than 10, no roll is necessary," but it needs to say exactly that, not rely on "reasonableness." Because trying to trick a dragon with illusion magic is entirely unreasonable where I come from; there are neither dragons nor magic.
I agree that it's WOTC's job to write down guidelines for common situations. Rare situations can always be decided by the DM, but I want a central rule for how to break a wooden door, or how many damage a falling rock does. This improves playing speed as well as internal consistency of the game world.
(edit) Also, I don't have a problem with a dragon pinning the wizard or cleric and giving him no chance at all to escape physically (unless e.g. they have MC'ed to rogue for an escape artist ability). This is still a team game, so your friends can bail you out; or perhaps you could use magic to escape.
I've been gone for a week. Anything new and important happening in the meantime?
Lots of people arguing, mostly. Well, many people have played the playtest now with highly mixed reactions. Pretty much every mechanic and design principle is loved by some people, hated by others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yora
Its almost as if the design goal of bringing everyone together was a bad idea.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurald Galain