Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Now your playing with Playtests!

[Seerow]

See, I disagree with this, and this goes back to the idea that level 20 characters are gods. I don't want them to be, and I'm perfectly happy with a system that says level 20 characters aren't gods, and can't stand toe to toe with a Tarrasque. Want to take out a Tarrasque? Better have good tactics, strategy and plans.

If you don't want characters being Gods, you don't place them against God-like beings and call it an equal level challenge. If Players cap out at level 20, and the Tarrasque is level 30, then sure it makes sense that Players won't stand toe to toe with it and will need some complex strategy to make it work.


But that's not the way D&D works. It places a monster at a certain level, and players reach that level when they take it down. So if you have a god-like Tarrasque at level 20, and you are level 20, yes you are a god-like being.

[Menteith]

In which case you're hosed. There will be limits, because there have to be. If the game caps out at 20th level and the tarrasque is a 20th-level opponent, you will have what you need to fight the tarrasque.

While I'm sure that picking up a mountain and throwing it at the tarrasque would be fun, it would also be excessive. You may as well just pick up the tarrasque and throw it into space. It won't come back on its own, and anything that could intercede to bring it back would be powerful enough to resurrect it once killed anyway.

If you're a fighter, that would be fighting, would it not?

Fighters don't specialise in feats of strength, no class is provided that does, and if you actually take the phrase "any feat of strength imaginable" literally, then the game breaks and becomes pointless.

The terrible part is that someone capable of throwing a mountain still isn't over the top for High-Op 3.5 . Sure, you'll be forced to specialize in fighting, but that's a really wide range, and I'd love to have the ability to specialize a fighter into an equally diverse range of builds, from a FTL swordsman to an unstoppable juggernaut. What I want out of the game isn't what everyone wants, I'll agree, but everything we're discussing is simply a matter of opinion.

And the Tarrasque traditionally isn't a great enemy simply because he's so specialized. Something as simple as Flight can trivialize him. If I want a more epic challenge for level 20s, then I start to pull up enemies who have class levels on top of their already impressive frames.

[Reverent-One]

I'd rather change the nature of the challenges instead of increasing the same challenge's DC. Eventually, there may come a point where it doesn't matter how sturdy that door is or how complex a lock is; the PCs have abilities that fundamentally negate the challenge of a door. They might be able to cleave their way through fifty feet of stone around it and tunnel through, they might be able to turn themselves into a liquid and diffuse through it, or there might just be a spell like Knock that just negates the challenge. That's not a bad thing to me, it just means that I need to find other ways to challenge players. Instead of putting a Macguffin behin d a door, it's in a chest at the bottom of the sea, or on the Negative Energy Plane, or inside of a dragon's stomach. I'm fine with changing the nature of a challenge to account for PC abilities, and I'd rather give different challenges instead of the same challenge with different flavor text.

Sure, and there's nothing wrong with combining the two approaches. And it's entirely possible for a DM to overdo changing the nature of the challenges so that the PCs investment in improving their ability to do X becomes just as pointless as if the DM simply ups the DCs, since they simply never get a chance to use it. Having similar types of challenges that are harder to do and making X challenge into Y challenge instead both have their uses.

[Menteith]

Sure, and there's nothing wrong with combining the two approaches. And it's entirely possible for a DM to overdo changing the nature of the challenges so that the PCs investment in improving their ability to do X becomes just as pointless as if the DM simply ups the DCs, since they simply never get a chance to use it. Having similar types of challenges that are harder to do and making X challenge into Y challenge instead both have their uses.

I agree with everything you're saying here. I think I misunderstood you initially . Sorry!

[navar100]

Which is an example of bad adventure design than bad game design. The feel of high level play comes at least as much from seeing all those old lower level challenges again and breezing past them as it is as important as seeing the new higher level challenges you can take down.

So yes, when you are a level 30 Fighter, if there is going to be a door challenge, then that door should probably be an Enchanted Adamantine door. This does not mean every door in the world instantly becomes made of Enchanted Adamantine. Most of the doors are still going to be made out of normal wood, maybe banded with metal. These doors aren't going to even give you pause, and that's okay. However when you get to the Demon King's treasure room, that door might be made out of enchanted adamantine, with a similarly impressive lock.

I think a lot of the problems come in when people make the assumption that high level play is supposed to just be reskinned low level play. At low levels, you run into locked doors all the time, and need to find ways around them to progress in the dungeon. At high levels, the vast majority of locked doors mean nothing to you. Dungeon Crawling is not the same at high levels as low levels, and that is okay. As soon as you accept that, increased scaling to high levels makes far more sense.

Agreed. This is the fighter equivalent to people complaining about wizards teleporting everywhere. (Not Scry & Die, that's something else.) They complain the party doesn't interact with the locals anymore. There are no more traveling random encounters. No more fun adventures on the high seas. These DMs are stuck in low level mode. They can't comprehend that it's more important for the party to deal with the threat of the actual adventure worthy of their power than having to hire themselves out as caravan guards. The world will be destroyed if they don't Do Something now on the neighboring continent. Dealing with a storm at sea on a ship attacked by the local pirates just isn't so important. Also, perhaps teleporting could be the only way to reach the adventure destination at all. Perhaps the world is doomed tomorrow. They don't have time to take the month of traveling guarding a caravan.

For high level play, a simple door should likewise not be a You Shall Not Pass obstacle to a fighter. That's the least you could do to give warriors nice things for a change.

[kyoryu]

We just want different things out of the game, then. I very rarely play at 20th level, but I'm glad that it's there and I have the option to. If I want to play a grittier game, I can run in E6 or a similar system. Playing against an awakened Tarrasque in E6 is really cool, and fighting off armies of Pit Fiends at level 20 is cool. And I want a system can deliver both of these experiences to me.

That's pretty much what I suspect, and I'm happy to acknowledge that while the system as presumed may support my desires well, it probably doesn't support yours.

If you don't want characters being Gods, you don't place them against God-like beings and call it an equal level challenge. If Players cap out at level 20, and the Tarrasque is level 30, then sure it makes sense that Players won't stand toe to toe with it and will need some complex strategy to make it work.

The Tarrasque wasn't my example. Someone said they wanted fighters to stand toe-to-toe with a Tarrasque, and I don't want that in a system I play. Not that there's anything necessarily *wrong* with it, it just doesn't fit what I want in an RPG.

[obryn]

The elegant approach is saying "a portcullis is DC 20, and this is an appropriate obstacle for a level-1 party". Note that this is precisely what 3E does, and 5E has been promised to do. There is still scaling, but there is also internal consistency.

And for quite a few things, there' set DCs.

The table is for adjudicating on the fly. Which, btw, I find a bit more elegant than looking up a list of static DCs on a table. Boiled down to their essence, though, it's not all that dissimilar... You could also have a table like...

Wooden Door (Strength DC 15)
Locked Iron Door (Strength DC 21)
Adamantine Door (Strength DC 29)
Unobtainium/Adamantine Alloy Door (Strength DC 37)

...which is really just the DC by level table. If that floats your boat, that's fine, but I think it's an unnecessary middle step.

One thing that I recently realized about 4E is that when a combat starts, the DM first has to spend several minutes explaining how this particular combat works. For instance, if there's lava or spiderwebs on the map, then he has to tell the players how this particular lava or these particular webs work on this map. It increases immersion and make gameplay faster to have a central rule for what lava or webs do, and to apply that consistently.

In the H-P-E series, you're not precisely wrong.... But those adventures are simply awful, and IMO the worst representation of the 4e rule set possible. It doesn't resemble any 4e game I've run in the past two years. My players know precisely what happens if they fall into the Silt Sea, for example.

If there's lava? Your players know it will be hot and burn and falling into it is bad. Webs? Odds are they're sticky. Maybe they're toxic, too - a Nature check would warn you. Spiky stuff? Probably sharp! Spires of fragile-looking rock? Odds are you could push them over or something like that. Usually you won't know the mechanics until it happens to your character or an enemy, at which point if it's not consistent, that's a problem.

Simply put, the environment should be an organic part of the gameplay. As a DM, I'm not going to tell you that the smoking hot tar pit is going to deal (say) Ongoing 10 Fire damage and be tough to escape until it's important, and by then the rules in play should model what you'd expect out of smoking hot tar pits. I leave it up to you to figure out you don't want a Pit Snatcher to drag you into it.

The same applies to monster abilities. An early criticism of 4E was that numerous cyclops-related monsters all have an ability called "evil eye" and that these abilities are all completely different other than the name. So if you tell your players "the cyclops uses his evil eye!" they have no idea what's going on. On the other hand, every 2E player knows precisely what's going on if you say that the evil demon casts fireball.

Is that a strength? I see it as a constraint, personally. There's knowledge checks which could give you a hint about what it does - but other than that, just like with spells, your group will learn that different cyclopes do different things with their eyes.

-O

[Seerow]

The Tarrasque wasn't my example. Someone said they wanted fighters to stand toe-to-toe with a Tarrasque, and I don't want that in a system I play. Not that there's anything necessarily *wrong* with it, it just doesn't fit what I want in an RPG.

The tarrasque was the example because at level 20 it is the stereotypical encounter. Other level 20 encounters include Balors, Pit Fiends, and Ancient Dragons. I consider standing toe to toe with any of those just as impressive and god-like.

Hell even if your high end is standing head to head with Trolls and Ogres (which I would argue would be a very low power curve version of D&D, basically playing E6), I would still argue that to manage that you should be significantly stronger than your average person.

[Tehnar]

Yes, and that suggests a flatter power curve, where characters start human, and end human. That's very 1e, and I personally think it's a *good* thing.

Tennis is more analogous to combat than it is to opening a door. A 20th level fighter would destroy a 1st level fighter flat out. If anything, the fact that the hypothetical tennis match using skills doesn't have the same guarantee is an artifact of the game not being focused on tennis matches. It's also not focused on opening doors. I'm okay with some level of inconsistencies in these areas if it's service of the greater playability of the game.

What you are describing is a curve so flat it might not as well exist. If over 20 levels a characters ability (that he invested in) to do something improves by 10%, then you as a designer are doing something wrong.

I was using tennis as just an example, but the base premise still stands. If you are using a single d20 roll (or opposed roll) to determine a victor at that task then the difference between the two opponents bonuses to the roll has to be significant, if one opponent is much better then the other; it has to be around 20 points at least. (HINT: thats the primary reason a 3.5 high level fighter beats a low level on, it can achieve that difference).

Now it doesn't matter if I use a analogy applied to tennis, swimming, jumping, basketweaving or something else if I assume that DnD will model that activity with a single opposed d20 roll.

You're overstating it a bit, and presuming that the max is 9 points. But let's go with that. For a 15 DC, the person with 9 skill points will succeed on a 6 or better. That's 75% of the time. A person with 0 skill points will succeed on a 15 or better, which is 30% of the time.

That hardly seems like "luck" is the biggest factor. However, it *is* a factor. I think people just like the idea of auto-succeeding, and I frankly blame 3e's "Rule of Ten" for that.

Think of it this way. In trying to perform the same task (DC 15), two characters with a +9 difference will perform identically around 39% of the time, with the less skilled character being better 9% of the time (not included in the above percentage). For the amount of resources invested, that is a way too high of a percentage.

Why is that bad? Because the players will feel bad about their character. If I am playing a character that is one of the best in the world at X, I want him to beat a Joe who only heard about X in passing a great deal more then 50% of the time. Seerow even wrote a great example about a lockpicker expert and the farmer here.

[Menteith]

That's pretty much what I suspect, and I'm happy to acknowledge that while the system as presumed may support my desires well, it probably doesn't support yours.

And if Wizards is fine with that, then they should keep the system the way it is. However, I will note that Pathfinder, which is more or less 3.5 in all but name, has drawn away a substantial amount of D&D's playerbase, outselling 4E (last I checked). If Wizards is trying to bring those players back, then they either need to make a system so awesome that it doesn't matter that it's different (which is not the case from what I've seen of 5E) or they need to identify what aspects of 3.5 people liked so much and incorporate them (which they're really not doing either). I'd like to buy and love 5E, but from the information that's been released, it doesn't look appealing to me, and as it stands now, I'm likely to continue using the older systems. That's something that Wizards probably doesn't want.

EDIT

And I honestly don't know enough about 4E to have a discussion about it. I've played it once, and never DMed it. I know it gets a lot of flack online, which has certainly skewed my perception about it, and if I've been incorrect about anything I've said about the system, I apologize.

[Kerrin]

Not meaning to reply just to Stubbazubba on this bit, a few other folks said something similar...

The problem in 4e wasn't the idea that your abilities scaled with your level, it was that all the DCs you encountered also scaled with your level, thus eliminating any benefit from the scaling.

I'm not sure why folks keep saying this about 4e. Does anyone actually play 4e this way? It seems rather silly to me to do so. Really, every city guard is a level appropriate interaction? Seems kinda silly to me.

I agree with the idea behind the idea, that low-level things, in big enough numbers, can still threaten PCs. I would just have them form squads and attack as a single unit, Squad of Goblins, instead of 6 Goblins attacking individually. The Squad's AC would simply be the average AC of the Goblins, so you would hit and kill almost every attack, which would decrease the Squad's to-hit bonus and damage.

In fact, you could just add the individual to-hit bonuses of lower-level enemies together in a squad, and have their combined damage be roughly half of what it would be if they all hit. So, a Squad of 6 Goblins has a +12 to attack, and deals 3d6 damage on a hit. It's AC is still 15, and it has 30 HP, but for each 5 HP damage you do, it loses a Goblin, losing +2 from its to-hit and (1/2)d6 damage, rounded up. So if you deal 15 damage, you've killed 3 Goblins, the Squad is down to +6 to-hit and 2d6 damage on a hit. A Squad needs at least 3 creatures to form; if one more Goblin dies, the remaining Goblins attack individually.

I really like this idea! In fact, I'm going to use this the next time such a situation comes up in our games. Thanks!

[Kurald Galain]

I'm not sure why folks keep saying this about 4e. Does anyone actually play 4e this way? It seems rather silly to me to do so. Really, every city guard is a level appropriate interaction? Seems kinda silly to me.

It's called LFR. Yes, lots of people play precisely this way.

[Kerrin]

It's called LFR. Yes, lots of people play precisely this way.

Yikes. Makes me glad the folks I play with don't play like this.

[kyoryu]

What you are describing is a curve so flat it might not as well exist. If over 20 levels a characters ability (that he invested in) to do something improves by 10%, then you as a designer are doing something wrong.

You're presuming a flat curve with no bonuses. The article referred to AC and attacks, not necessarily skills. I'm assuming that skills will increase more than attacks do, due to the fact that you can't apply damage and hit points to them, and they're clearly not going for a *totally* flat curve.

Think of it this way. In trying to perform the same task (DC 15), two characters with a +9 difference will perform identically around 39% of the time, with the less skilled character being better 9% of the time (not included in the above percentage). For the amount of resources invested, that is a way too high of a percentage.

The "perform identically" doesn't really bother me, especially with a task that's binary.

Even the less skilled doing better 9% of the time doesn't bug me. I'm a senior developer with a major software company. I ask peers with less experience questions all the time. Sometimes they have expertise in an area that I don't. Sometimes they've seen problems very similar to this one and I haven't. Sometimes, especially when the pressure is on (like interviews) I make dumb mistakes. It happens.

The success/failure rate isn't simply a matter of your ability in the area. It's your overall ability, your familiarity with the specific problem at hand, the environmental factors, etc. The untrained guy that opens the lock the master doesn't? "Oh, yeah, my daddy had one of those on his porn stash. I don't know much about locks, but I can open that kind in my sleep". The strength check? Come on, how many times have we seen someone stronger try to open a jar, just to hand it to someone else that's not as strong that opens it with ease?

Is the math a little wonky at the extremes? Maybe, but a DC 15 lock isn't that hard anyway. That's more a matter of the expert brain-farting under pressure than anything.

Again, I'm okay with those types of results on occasion, given that the game isn't really about tennis and is only peripherally about opening locks. You're not. That's fine.

Why is that bad? Because the players will feel bad about their character. If I am playing a character that is one of the best in the world at X, I want him to beat a Joe who only heard about X in passing a great deal more then 50% of the time. Seerow even wrote a great example about a lockpicker expert and the farmer here.

But even in the example you gave, the expert does better the majority of the time. The fact that it's a binary result flattens the results somewhat, but in the vast majority of cases your margin of success would be higher.

I suspect it's also a matter of game style here, as well. I'm not really interested in playing games to show how awesome my character is. I like my characters fallible and human.

And if Wizards is fine with that, then they should keep the system the way it is. However, I will note that Pathfinder, which is more or less 3.5 in all but name, has drawn away a substantial amount of D&D's playerbase, outselling 4E (last I checked).

Most of my comparisons are to 1e, not 4e, actually. 4e is, if anything, worse about epic-ness once you reach the appropriately named epic tier.

It's called LFR. Yes, lots of people play precisely this way.

Gah. LFR is the worst thing about 4e.

[Seerow]

You're presuming a flat curve with no bonuses. The article referred to AC and attacks, not necessarily skills. I'm assuming that skills will increase more than attacks do, due to the fact that you can't apply damage and hit points to them, and they're clearly not going for a *totally* flat curve.

No, but as far as I can tell, they expect to have something like 14 be the complete difference between someone who is the best at something and someone who is the worst at something.

And yes, that is really bad.

The "perform identically" doesn't really bother me, especially with a task that's binary.

Even the less skilled doing better 9% of the time doesn't bug me. I'm a senior developer with a major software company. I ask peers with less experience questions all the time. Sometimes they have expertise in an area that I don't. Sometimes they've seen problems very similar to this one and I haven't. Sometimes, especially when the pressure is on (like interviews) I make dumb mistakes. It happens.

How often do you see a world class weight lifter lose an arm wrestling contest to a 6 year old? Or even worse, a weight lifting contest? Because with 5e both of these things are distinctly possible.

How often do you see someone with no training or ability at all successfully pick a lock? Or you say you're a senior software developer, how do you feel about the idea that a kid who has never seen a computer before in his life has a solid shot of writing better software than you?

These are the results that 5e's system allows for. You never hit a point where someone becomes good enough at something that they always beat a completely untrained talentless person at it. Never. Because somehow it's supposed to be more balanced when nobody can reliably succeed at anything.

But even in the example you gave, the expert does better the majority of the time. The fact that it's a binary result flattens the results somewhat, but in the vast majority of cases your margin of success would be higher.

I suspect it's also a matter of game style here, as well. I'm not really interested in playing games to show how awesome my character is. I like my characters fallible and human.

Yes, the expert usually wins. Also worth noting the expert is literally a 20th level character who is 100% focused on his skill. We're not talking about Gendry the village blacksmith being beaten out by someone with little training at blacksmithing, we're talking about Hephaestus crafting a hammer, and due to unfortunate rolls it being worse than what a a complete novice made.

You say you like your characters human and fallible. That's great. Human is levels 1-6. When PCs start teleporting and flying, and taking out armies, you've left the realm of human behind. When these superhuman badasses can't be as competent in their realm of expertise as a normal human is in real life, I can't believe the world.

[Draz74]

4e died for me the moment I read about how at high levels, the game automatically assumed any green slime you ran into would instead be Astral Slime -- the same, except with higher DCs to make your level-scaled saves meaningless.

This was in a preview article. Before the game was even published.

[Thomar_of_Uointer]

Don't forget the impact of magic items on the skill curve. When your 10th-level rogue with +3 thief training has a set of +10 lockpicks and a Dexterity score of 24, he's going to have a +20 modifier and will beat Joe Locksmith's +0 modifier 100% of the time.

[Seerow]

Don't forget the impact of magic items on the skill curve. When your 10th-level rogue with +3 thief training has a set of +10 lockpicks and a Dexterity score of 24, he's going to have a +20 modifier and will beat Joe Locksmith 100% of the time.

Sorry I'm not interested in a game that tells me I need magic items to be certifiably better at my job than an untalented amateur. Even 3.5 with it's crazy magic item reliance for mundanes didn't go quite that far.

[kyoryu]

How often do you see someone with no training or ability at all successfully pick a lock? Or you say you're a senior software developer, how do you feel about the idea that a kid who has never seen a computer before in his life has a solid shot of writing better software than you?

These are good points. My preferred mechanic for dealing with these is to require that some tasks cannot be done without training.

Yes, the expert usually wins. Also worth noting the expert is literally a 20th level character who is 100% focused on his skill. We're not talking about Gendry the village blacksmith being beaten out by someone with little training at blacksmithing, we're talking about Hephaestus crafting a hammer, and due to unfortunate rolls it being worse than what a a complete novice made.

A) Most characters aren't focused blacksmiths. The game is Dungeons and Dragons, not Blacksmiths and Bakers. A warrior may have some ability with blacksmithing, but he's not likely the best in the world, because his main focus is, um, warrioring (is that a word?).
B) I don't want my characters being Hephaestus. I don't want demigods. You do. That's fine, and I've conceded that this would be a poor system for that style of gaming.
C) The game doesn't involve a significantly robust blacksmithing simulation, and so accuracy is lost in favor of simplicity. Again, I'm okay with this.
D) Most of your issues seem to revolve around "someone might beat me at my specialty" which, frankly, I'm okay with.
E) We really don't know what kind of bonuses might be available at high level. I just re-read the article, it doesn't really say either.
F) A single check is a poor way to model the entire process of building a hammer (or writing complex software). A single check would be more appropriately bound to something shorter in duration, such as making a quick repair to a sword. Am I okay with the idea that even a master blacksmith could screw up with something like that, in less-than-optimal situations, and with other distractions? Sure. And that someone else might do better on occasion, even though they're less skilled? Sure, they didn't get distracted at the wrong time, their tools didn't have the failure at teh critical point, whatever.

You say you like your characters human and fallible. That's great. Human is levels 1-6.

That's like, your opinion, man.

Besides which, it varies significantly with edition. 3.x seems to be the *most* high-powered edition, and I'm pretty sure you're a 3.x fan, so it's unsurprising that you have this opinion. I happen to disagree.

And I think this is ultimately the crux of our disagreement, and I don't even think either of us are objectively wrong, and I'm highly sure we're not going to convince each other to switch our views, so I think we've gone as far with this as is productive.

[Menteith]

Don't forget the impact of magic items on the skill curve. When your 10th-level rogue with +3 thief training has a set of +10 lockpicks and a Dexterity score of 24, he's going to have a +20 modifier and will beat Joe Locksmith 100% of the time.

Except Commoner Joe with a base Dex of 8 and no training can pick up the same tools you were using, giving him a +11 Mod, and will still be able to beat you a distressingly often amount of the time.

I'm still trying to find out why this system is superior to any pre-existing system. It is not realistic - using this sort of system will let a four year old with brittle bone disease bowl over Ndamukong Suh successfully every once in a while (just like real life!). It results in a shallower game as it makes classes less distinct from each other, homogenizing them for no real reason. It's really not well balanced, as I could just Charm an army of commoners and go tell them to make me an epic sword, and it'll actually work.

[Kurald Galain]

Don't forget the impact of magic items on the skill curve. When your 10th-level rogue with +3 thief training has a set of +10 lockpicks and a Dexterity score of 24, he's going to have a +20 modifier and will beat Joe Locksmith's +0 modifier 100% of the time.

I note that "+10 lockpicks" exist in no currently available edition of D&D, and I seriously doubt they will be available in fifth edition either.

But I do seriously hope that 5E will eliminate the Christmas Tree Effect. 4E promised that it would in its previews, but instead it has made it worse.

[Seerow]

That's like, your opinion, man.

Besides which, it varies significantly with edition. 3.x seems to be the *most* high-powered edition, and I'm pretty sure you're a 3.x fan, so it's unsurprising that you have this opinion. I happen to disagree.

And I think this is ultimately the crux of our disagreement, and I don't even think either of us are objectively wrong, and I'm highly sure we're not going to convince each other to switch our views, so I think we've gone as far with this as is productive.

In every edition of D&D past level 5-8, Wizards start getting super powers and have enough spells per day they don't run low in an average work day. Monsters start getting bigger and tougher than anything a real human could believably fight and live. Challenges include super powerful beings such as demons, devils, and dragons. They include hyper-strong enemies such as Trolls, Giants, Titans, and yes the Tarrasque.

In order to keep up with these casters and match these higher level enemies, they need to be super human, and as they get closer to higher levels they become more super human, more god-like. This has been the case in EVERY edition of D&D. From 1e to 4e. You can't just close your eyes to this fact and ignore it, and pretend like average every day dudes are something that has ever existed in high level D&D.

[kyoryu]

Except Commoner Joe with a base Dex of 8 and no training can pick up the same tools you were using, giving him a +11 Mod, and will still be able to beat you a distressingly often amount of the time.

I'm still trying to find out why this system is superior to any pre-existing system. It is not realistic - using this sort of system will let a four year old with brittle bone disease bowl over Ndamukong Suh successfully every once in a while (just like real life!). It results in a shallower game as it makes classes less distinct from each other, homogenizing them for no real reason. It's really not well balanced, as I could just Charm an army of commoners and go tell them to make me an epic sword, and it'll actually work.

One would presume that "craft epic sword" would have a DC > 20.

Again, I find the mechanic of "some things can't be attempted without training" (such as locksmithing) to be a better mechanic to handle things like untrained locksmiths getting lucky.

As far as the brittle bone example, the system is clearly designed around reasonably-to-extremely healthy adults performing activities in stressful situations. It gives reasonable results in those situations, and fails as you start breaking those assumptions.

I'm okay with this, as those are exactly the situations I find useful in skill system in a fantasy role-playing game.

In every edition of D&D past level 5-8, Wizards start getting super powers and have enough spells per day they don't run low in an average work day. Monsters start getting bigger and tougher than anything a real human could believably fight and live. Challenges include super powerful beings such as demons, devils, and dragons. They include hyper-strong enemies such as Trolls, Giants, Titans, and yes the Tarrasque.

In order to keep up with these casters and match these higher level enemies, they need to be super human, and as they get closer to higher levels they become more super human, more god-like. This has been the case in EVERY edition of D&D. From 1e to 4e. You can't just close your eyes to this fact and ignore it, and pretend like average every day dudes are something that has ever existed in high level D&D.

Come on. In 1e, most classes stopped advancing in any significant way past about 9th level. Given random hp advancement, fighters averaged at 45hp + 9*con mod + 3*(level past 9) hp. A 20th level fighter might then have 110 hp or so.

Some classes couldn't even get past level 14, and to even get that high required you to off someone of that level.

And a Tyrannosaur had 20 hit dice, averaging to 90 hp, and did 3d10 a pop. Even a high level fighter did *not* want to stand toe-to-toe with one.

An ancient red dragon could have 11 hit dice at 8 hp per, for 88 hp. Its breath weapon would do that much damage, with save for half. A failed save could drop even a 20th level fighter down to a mere fraction of his hit points.

Storm giants had 15 HD and did 7d6 damage - averaging 24 or so? Even though they're technically "weaker" than a 20th level fighter, they could take him down in about 4 rounds, on average.

Characters in 1/2e were significantly less godlike than their 3e or 4e equivalents.

Heck, even in 3e, the Tarrasque wasn't really meant to be killed. It was a threat, the nuclear weapon, that the players were supposed to *prevent* ever getting loose.

As far as the ability to fly? Yeah, I can do that today, given sufficient artifacts. I even have a flying servant that I can maneuver so long as I concentrate on it for roughly 15 minutes at a time. Though buying new blades when I crash it into things gets annoying.

Did 1/2e characters take on mythical, legendary creatures? Yeah, of course they did. But it wasn't on an equal footing. They didn't go toe-to-toe and slug it out.

And 20th level characters were very, very rare. For all practical purposes the system really did top out at around 10.

[Seerow]

One would presume that "craft epic sword" would have a DC > 20.

Again, I find the mechanic of "some things can't be attempted without training" (such as locksmithing) to be a better mechanic to handle things like untrained locksmiths getting lucky.

As far as the brittle bone example, the system is clearly designed around reasonably-to-extremely healthy adults performing activities in stressful situations. It gives reasonable results in those situations, and fails as you start breaking those assumptions.

I'm okay with this, as those are exactly the situations I find useful in skill system in a fantasy role-playing game.

So someone with 8s in their physical ability scores is a reasonably healthy score? Because in all the scenarios given' we've been talking about untrained people with a penalty in their score. Even if you take it all the way down to a -2 or -3 penalty (which is basically so low they're nearly dead) it doesn't shift things too much.


Hell, a Fighter with 16 strength can arm wrestle a dead guy with 0 strength, and STILL loses about 20% of the time. The most skilled lock picker in the world fails at picking moderate locks 15-20% of the time. These are real issues.

[Menteith]

Again, I find the mechanic of "some things can't be attempted without training" (such as locksmithing) to be a better mechanic to handle things like untrained locksmiths getting lucky.

As far as the brittle bone example, the system is clearly designed around reasonably-to-extremely healthy adults performing activities in stressful situations. It gives reasonable results in those situations, and fails as you start breaking those assumptions.

I'm okay with this, as those are exactly the situations I find useful in skill system in a fantasy role-playing game.

I don't think that I could run faster than an Olympic athlete. NFL Linemen are pretty study, and I doubt that I could overpower one. Something tells me that a member of Delta Force can hold his breath longer than me. This system lets me have a rather significant chance to beat all of these people at these tasks. This isn't realistic. This is just random. Randomness isn't inherently superior or more realistic, and in this case, I feel that it really detracts from the game. It has nothing to do with the power level of the game, this just feels like randomness for the sake of randomness.

[Kurald Galain]

In order to keep up with these casters and match these higher level enemies, they need to be super human, and as they get closer to higher levels they become more super human, more god-like. This has been the case in EVERY edition of D&D. From 1e to 4e.

Huh? There isn't anything particularly superhuman or godlike about high-level rogues and fighters in 4E. Come to think of it, neither do 4E wizards get super powers at level 5, nor do they get enough spells to not run out in an average day (considering they get exactly as many powers as everyone else).

Capstone fighter powers include hitting someone really hard, hitting two people slightly less hard, and getting a free attack on adjacent enemies. Capstone rogue powers include stabbing someone really hard, a tendon slash that leaves its victim unable to walk for a few seconds, and redirecting an attack. All of this can be done once per day, of course. That's... not... very superhuman or godlike, certainly not on the scale of a Beowulf, Cuchulainn, or Herakles.

I don't think that I could run faster than an Olympic athlete. NFL Linemen are pretty study, and I doubt that I could overpower one. Something tells me that a member of Delta Force can hold his breath longer than me. This system lets me have a rather significant chance to beat all of these people at these tasks. This isn't realistic. This is just random.

Precisely.

This strikes me as a fundamental design decision. From one point of view, it is only fair to give everybody a chance at everything; this is basically 4E's philosophy, and it means that nobody should be that much more or less skilled than anybody else. From another point of view, it doesn't really make sense for an average high schooler to be able to arbitrarily beat an olympic athlete. This is what 3E tries for, but it doesn't succeed too well because it doesn't mesh well with the 1d20 core mechanic.

Well, you can't please anyone, but 5E clearly has to make a choice here of which philosophy to follow.

[Clawhound]

So, an average thief would have a good dex + skill + a little magic.

An average commoner would have unremarkable dex + no skill + no magic.

In numerical terms, I expect my 10th level rogue to have a +9 to pick a lock. I would expect a commoner to have a +0, maybe a +1. Could he beat me if I rolled badly and he rolled well? Yes. Do you want that person as a thief on your adventure? I doubt it.

You also have definitions.

Common Lock - Anyone may attempt to pick this lock.
Well Made Lock - Only someone with training in Pick Lock may attempt to pick this lock. *or* If you are not trained in lock picking, attempting to pick this lock takes 10x as long.
Excellent Lock - If you have Lock Picking, you may take ten minutes and attempt to open the lock. If you do not have lock picking, you may take ten hours.

Likewise, Lockpicking skill may allow rerolls where untrained may not require rerolls.

Numerical bonuses are not the only way to differentiate skill levels.

[Seerow]

Huh? There isn't anything particularly superhuman or godlike about high-level rogues and fighters in 4E. Come to think of it, neither do 4E wizards get super powers at level 5, nor do they get enough spells to not run out in an average day (considering they get exactly as many powers as everyone else).

Capstone fighter powers include hitting someone really hard, hitting two people slightly less hard, and getting a free attack on adjacent enemies. Capstone rogue powers include stabbing someone really hard, a tendon slash that leaves its victim unable to walk for a few seconds, and redirecting an attack. All of this can be done once per day, of course. That's... not... very superhuman or godlike, certainly not on the scale of a Beowulf, Cuchulainn, or Herakles.

You're right, the specific powers weren't impressive. Yet you were still playing a character who is considered a demi-god in world. You are still trivially succeeding at tasks that lower level characters have no chance at. You are still standing toe to toe with Dragons and Demons and Tarrasques.

It's not the same sort of high level as 3.5. But everything I listed applies just as much to 4e as any other edition. If someone says "I don't want to be playing as a demi-god at high levels" as a 4e player I have to ask "Well why are you playing 4e where demigod is actually something you can be?"

[Menteith]

Well, you can't please anyone, but 5E clearly has to make a choice here of which philosophy to follow.

I'm going to go out on a limb, and say the decision to release D&D Next after only a few years of 4E was strongly influenced by the large loss of customers to Pathfinder. Much of the design draws heavily from 3.5, and their stated goals support the idea that this is to bring back/update old fans for a new system. The problem is that as it stands right now, this system just isn't very interesting. It's functional, but seems to be less complex, shallower, and more random than existing editions. It's entirely possible that the modules will breath life into this, but at its core it's just sort of "blah" for me.

[kyoryu]

So someone with 8s in their physical ability scores is a reasonably healthy score? Because in all the scenarios given' we've been talking about untrained people with a penalty in their score. Even if you take it all the way down to a -2 or -3 penalty (which is basically so low they're nearly dead) it doesn't shift things too much.

8s are low average. Technically, 9-12 has historically been "average", but 8 isn't that far below, hence "reasonably healthy." At 8, you're certainly not afflicted with brittle bone disease.

Hell, a Fighter with 16 strength can arm wrestle a dead guy with 0 strength, and STILL loses about 20% of the time. The most skilled lock picker in the world fails at picking moderate locks 15-20% of the time. These are real issues.

That doesn't even make sense. And again, let me agree with you on something here: In controlled conditions, the variability displayed in the system as we understand it is way too high.

I don't think that I could run faster than an Olympic athlete. NFL Linemen are pretty study, and I doubt that I could overpower one. Something tells me that a member of Delta Force can hold his breath longer than me. This system lets me have a rather significant chance to beat all of these people at these tasks. This isn't realistic. This is just random. Randomness isn't inherently superior or more realistic, and in this case, I feel that it really detracts from the game. It has nothing to do with the power level of the game, this just feels like randomness for the sake of randomness.

I couldn't push over an NFL lineman in controlled circumstances. In combat, is there a chance that other situations (footing, distractions, etc.) could cause me to be able to get past him or knock him down? Possibly.

I will reiterate - the variance is too high for tests in *controlled conditions*. I maintain that the system works fine (for me!) in more typical adventuring scenarios, which are not controlled. A skill test is not simply a gauge of your ability, it's a gauge of your ability and ability to perform in spite of the pressures and fluctuations in the environment.

If Will Wizard manages to knock down Fred Fighter, that doesn't mean (to me!) that Will Wizard is stronger. It means that Fred Fighter lost his footing, or wasn't expecting the push attempt, or underestimated Will, or was distracted, or...

In more controlled circumstances, it would make more sense to use something like Take Ten. The system really doesn't model such contests well in controlled scenarios - it'd make a horrible Olympics simulator, for instance.

In numerical terms, I expect my 10th level rogue to have a +9 to pick a lock. I would expect a commoner to have a +0, maybe a +1. Could he beat me if I rolled badly and he rolled well? Yes. Do you want that person as a thief on your adventure? I doubt it.

And this is kind of my point, too. The lower-skilled may outperform the higher-skilled on rare occasions (again, due to factors outside their pure skill). That said, my bet is still on the guy with the high skill.

Numerical bonuses are not the only way to differentiate skill levels.

True. I think that unlocking certain "abilities" at various levels of training is probably a good way to make skills more special, apart from just a numbers race.

I'm going to go out on a limb, and say the decision to release D&D Next after only a few years of 4E was strongly influenced by the large loss of customers to Pathfinder. Much of the design draws heavily from 3.5, and their stated goals support the idea that this is to bring back/update old fans for a new system.

I actually see it as more of a throwback to 1e, with the good bits of the newer editions thrown in. Some of that may be wishful thinking, of course, just as some of the perception that it's based on 3.x may be wishful thinking on the part of 3.x fans :)