D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

[Knaight]

Dude, the designers know it isn't complete. There is no pretense that it is complete. They've told us straight out that it isn't complete and the game is a work in progress. "Incomplete" is not a useful criticism. Everyone knows that it isn't complete.

However, suggesting that it not to be codified (which is what kicked off this tangent) is basically a statement that it is, in this regard, complete. That's absurd, and as such warrants it being pointed out.

[JoeMac307]

However, suggesting that it not to be codified (which is what kicked off this tangent) is basically a statement that it is, in this regard, complete. That's absurd, and as such warrants it being pointed out.

That is fair enough... at some point, I would like to see more of the tactical rules that 3.5 has in place (Bullrush, Sunder, Trip, Disarm, etc).

But for now, at this point in the play test, not having every single thing spelled out shouldn't be that big a deal... that is what I was trying to get at.

Also, should all the tactical combat rules be core, or should some of it be module/optional? (I see plus/minus on both sides of the argument, and I'm not sure which side I would come down on).

The main thing I'm fearful of is having too many core tactical combat rules... As a DM, I have a hard time remembering dozens and dozens of seperate rules, especially during combat, and hate, hate, hate it when I have to stop the game to look something up.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Also, should all the tactical combat rules be core, or should some of it be module/optional? (I see plus/minus on both sides of the argument, and I'm not sure which side I would come down on).

The main thing I'm fearful of is having too many core tactical combat rules... As a DM, I have a hard time remembering dozens and dozens of seperate rules, especially during combat, and hate, hate, hate it when I have to stop the game to look something up.

I don't really see how having pages and pages of precisely-defined spell effects in the book is any different from giving the same treatment to what the fighter can do. If spell lists are core, then maneuvers for the Fighter should also be core. Though I'd accept (even if I wouldn't particularly like to play) it if the "core" system just told you to improvise with spells like you do with fighting.

[1337 b4k4]

Arguably the pages and pages of defined spells are equally daunting and unnecessary. But there's also a difference between combat maneuvers and a full fledged "tactical combat" system, mostly in how much mental effort other players have to expend to memorize them. In early D&D, only the wizard and cleric have to care about their spells and how they work (and the DM has to at least have a general idea). In 4e on the other hand, everyone needs to know how cover works, how line of sight works, shifting, Opportunity Attacks, so on and so forth, and all of this in addition to their massive list of powers.

Edit
--------

Anyone see the AMA Mike Mearls did on Reddit? Lot's of info there, certainly some good sounding things. Of course, it appears that people are reading what they want to read in it. If you trust the thread at the PA forums, you'd think all Mike Mearls talked about was how over powered martial characters are and their plans to cut them down even more. I guess YMMV, but if you're already positive about the playtest, you probably liked what Mearls said, if you're already negative about the playtest, you probably hated every word.

[Dienekes]

Anyone see the AMA Mike Mearls did on Reddit? Lot's of info there, certainly some good sounding things. Of course, it appears that people are reading what they want to read in it. If you trust the thread at the PA forums, you'd think all Mike Mearls talked about was how over powered martial characters are and their plans to cut them down even more. I guess YMMV, but if you're already positive about the playtest, you probably liked what Mearls said, if you're already negative about the playtest, you probably hated every word.

Any chance for a link?

[Menteith]

Any chance for a link?

http://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments...and_design_at/

Reading through it myself right now, would highly recommend it for everyone else. I'm still with holding any final judgements until I see how the module system is going to work more fully. While I approve of fixing the armor system and adding AoO by a different name into the game (and that there will be a more developed, optional system for mundane classes) I'm still not sure if core issues for me (everything being Adv/Disadv instead of specific (de)buffs, high degrees of randomness, low top end bonuses) will be fixed.

[Tehnar]

http://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments...and_design_at/

Reading through it myself right now, would highly recommend it for everyone else. I'm still with holding any final judgements until I see how the module system is going to work more fully. While I approve of fixing the armor system and adding AoO by a different name into the game (and that there will be a more developed, optional system for mundane classes) I'm still not sure if core issues for me (everything being Adv/Disadv instead of specific (de)buffs, high degrees of randomness, low top end bonuses) will be fixed.

I am not sure how much of a fix that will be, but ok, armor rules have never been DnD's strong point. One can hope though.

I agree with you on the rest; with the core mechanics being bad, even with great patches at best you will get a average system.

[Clawhound]

Reading through that.

I liked:

"100% the fact that people are already hacking the game is good feedback."

Not PROOF of anything, but it does show what the designers think is important, which is different than many voice here want. They will produce a game that is guaranteed to different between playgroups, and they view this design as a core feature, not a bug. They also view "write your own rules" as a feature.

I also saw the "overhaul" term used quite a few times. Feedback is working, folks.

[Yora]

When I look at what they appear to be doing with the rules, it seems like remembering the strengths of the earlier editions, and now being able to understand how and why certain things worked, while also making use of the new lessons learned in the last 20 years during which lots of people have shared, exchanges, and modified each others ideas.

It's not perfect for everyone, but I think they are good on track to make it quite decent for a lot of people.

[JoeMac307]

I don't really see how having pages and pages of precisely-defined spell effects in the book is any different from giving the same treatment to what the fighter can do. If spell lists are core, then maneuvers for the Fighter should also be core. Though I'd accept (even if I wouldn't particularly like to play) it if the "core" system just told you to improvise with spells like you do with fighting.

I guess I've been playing D&D so long, that I have a fairly good grasp on what the majority of spells can do without having to look them up. Sure, they vary from edition to edition, but a magic missile is a magic missile is a magic missile, and a fireball is a fireball is a fireball.

Also, spells are used less frequently than mundane attacks in a Vancian system. If a spell is used that I'm not 100% familiar with, yes I'll have to stop the game to look it up, but that should happen far less frequently than having to look up melee manuevers because I can't juggle 100 different combat rules in my head.

Finally, at the end of the day, it is the player's responsibility to know how their spells, special abilities, feats, etc, work, whereas as a DM, I have to know the combat rules inside and out... it just puts a lot more on my shoulders when they are really complicated.

Of course, YMMV. And I have nothing against detailed manuevers and tactical combat... I just think it should be a module, not core, that's all.

If you want to make the argument that core spellcasting should be limited to only at-will powers for the sake of balance, streamlining and simplicity, with a Vancian system (or other systems, like a power point-type system) built out as an optional core, I could see your POV.

I just am guessing more people would be up in arms about making daily spellcasting an add-on module than making tactical combat an add-on module.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I, for one, am pleased to hear that they are claiming to listen to user feedback.

Perhaps this wasn't a sham playtest after all

[1337 b4k4]

I agree with you on the rest; with the core mechanics being bad, even with great patches at best you will get a average system.

That of course assumes you think the core mechanics are "bad". I'm not entirely sure why so many people seem to think this is much more random than 4e (or really any other D&D). I mean I guess I get it if you don't like the d20 mechanic in general, but I don't see the d20 mechanic for D&D going away any more than I see d6s going away for GURPS or Traveller.

They will produce a game that is guaranteed to different between playgroups, and they view this design as a core feature, not a bug. They also view "write your own rules" as a feature.

In both cases, if done right, it absolutely is a feature. No set of rules is ever going to be perfect, nor is it ever going to cover every scenario or desire of every GM, player and group. But a well done modular system that assumes only the absolute minimum that it needs to assume and provides well thought out guidelines and modules to expand the system will be much more likely to mold itself to the game you want to play and do so without breaking in obscure and unexpected ways. That customisability part of the reason why early D&D was so successful, even in the face of the competition it spawned.

[kyoryu]

That of course assumes you think the core mechanics are "bad". I'm not entirely sure why so many people seem to think this is much more random than 4e (or really any other D&D). I mean I guess I get it if you don't like the d20 mechanic in general, but I don't see the d20 mechanic for D&D going away any more than I see d6s going away for GURPS or Traveller.

The randomness of the d20 check is an interesting point. It comes down to how much should randomness vs. skill matter for a particular check.

If we look at "reality", a lot of that boils down to what particular thing we're checking. In some cases, a lot of randomness is appropriate. In others, very little is required.

The d20 mechanic in general assumes a reasonably high level of randomness. I'd argue that this is both for the assumption of what "typical" tests will involve, as well as the fact that too much determinism in games is typically bad. The scenarios that are shown as "failures" of the system are generally ones where little, if any, randomness is appropriate. For the "arm wrestling" scenario, if I were to write a rule to determine the winner without any preconceived ideas of rules, I'd start with "highest strength wins". From there I'd probably add a tiny amount of randomness (str + 1d4, highest wins) just to make it somewhat interesting.

That's a great rule for arm wrestling, but I think it's sorely lacking as a general play mechanic.

And that's kind of the high-level question that needs to be asked - what's an appropriate "default" level of randomness, and do we err on the side of randomness, or on the side of determinism? Any answer will be wrong for some scenarios, but that doesn't mean that the mechanic is (necessarily) flawed.

[Clawhound]

There's a Time <-> Chance axis.

More time lessens the effects of chance. Less time amplifies the effects of chance.

Take 20 relied on this. If you had enough time, you just assumed a 20. There's no doubt that you can make a flute, so take 20 to get a flute. You can ruin 19 just to get one that's perfect.

d20 rolls really belong where the outcome is uncertain. Will you make a magic flute out of irreplaceable components, where a mistake will ruin it? How do you best simulate that? Should that really be one die roll, or a series of die rolls?

I don't have any best answers for that.

Chance also works best where you have the possibility of influencing chance. You can position yourself on a grid, for example. But how do you tacticalize making a flute? I don't know.

[Kerrin]

For this version of D&D, something I hope they have right at the launch is several first rate modules of a variety of adventure types.

(Please excuse my specific examples, there may be better examples out there but these are some the popped into my mind while typing)

Something low level in a game mechanic introducing series like ???
Something in the levels 1-4 range
Something in the levels 5-9 range
Something in the levels 10-14 range
Something in the levels 15-20 range
Something epic like Red Hand of Doom
Something with a mystery like Assassin's Knot
Something gothic and creepy like Ravenloft
Something in a level-advancing series like Aerie of the Slave Lords

MARKETING TIP FOR WOTC: What better way to showcase your system than to write top rate modules for folks to run your system within and have a ball?

[Menteith]

That of course assumes you think the core mechanics are "bad". I'm not entirely sure why so many people seem to think this is much more random than 4e (or really any other D&D). I mean I guess I get it if you don't like the d20 mechanic in general, but I don't see the d20 mechanic for D&D going away any more than I see d6s going away for GURPS or Traveller.

From the perspective of 3.5, it's because there's very little specialization, meaning that the payoff for an investment is much lower. Lack of Base Attack Bonus & Skills are big ones, as it gives a random chump the ability to beat up Hercules (or an untrained person picking a lock that the master trapsmith broke 3 picks in on his first try, or whatever other situation, refer back to the long debate about it) if the dice favor him. That works for some people, but it's not my cup of tea.

In both cases, if done right, it absolutely is a feature. No set of rules is ever going to be perfect, nor is it ever going to cover every scenario or desire of every GM, player and group. But a well done modular system that assumes only the absolute minimum that it needs to assume and provides well thought out guidelines and modules to expand the system will be much more likely to mold itself to the game you want to play and do so without breaking in obscure and unexpected ways. That customisability part of the reason why early D&D was so successful, even in the face of the competition it spawned.

Absolutely. I just don't feel that the core rules cover the absolute minimum for play (for me) at this time. I'll wait and see until modules are implemented before I cement my opinion.

[kyoryu]

There's a Time <-> Chance axis.

More time lessens the effects of chance. Less time amplifies the effects of chance.

Take 20 relied on this. If you had enough time, you just assumed a 20. There's no doubt that you can make a flute, so take 20 to get a flute. You can ruin 19 just to get one that's perfect.

To quibble, Take 20 relied on the idea that if there were no consequences, you could try and try again until you succeeded.

Take 10 did a good job of removing randomness if given time and a calm environment to work in. It also did a pretty good job of codifying that the "default" rules assumed that you did *not* have time and calm to work within.

d20 rolls really belong where the outcome is uncertain.

Of course. If the outcome is certain, why are you rolling?

Will you make a magic flute out of irreplaceable components, where a mistake will ruin it? How do you best simulate that? Should that really be one die roll, or a series of die rolls?

I don't have any best answers for that.

Well, I think the answer is "how much randomness do you want?" More die rolls = less randomness, where die rolls > 0.

Chance also works best where you have the possibility of influencing chance. You can position yourself on a grid, for example. But how do you tacticalize making a flute? I don't know.

I'm not sure that I agree with this point. Chance works where the outcome is uncertain, as a way to choose between multiple possible outcomes (if there's only one "acceptable" to the game outcome, don't roll). Less rules for flute-making is more of a point that D&D is not, at it's core, about making flutes.

[Clawhound]

LOL. Flutes were just an example.

What matters is a game is whether rolling a die is part of something interesting, or just an exercise is die rolling.

You could have a "save the world" skill, but would rolling d20 and succeeding be satisfying? Of course not.

Combat is interesting. There's a lot to it. The same is not true of flute making. The same is not true of magic item creation. They also occupy far less game time, so simplification demonstrates their relative importance.

IMHO, skills should be part of an interesting chain of events, one that is influenceable by the PCs, and one that is not guaranteed in outcome.

[Jerthanis]

The randomness of the d20 check is an interesting point. It comes down to how much should randomness vs. skill matter for a particular check.

If we look at "reality", a lot of that boils down to what particular thing we're checking. In some cases, a lot of randomness is appropriate. In others, very little is required.

The d20 mechanic in general assumes a reasonably high level of randomness. I'd argue that this is both for the assumption of what "typical" tests will involve, as well as the fact that too much determinism in games is typically bad. The scenarios that are shown as "failures" of the system are generally ones where little, if any, randomness is appropriate. For the "arm wrestling" scenario, if I were to write a rule to determine the winner without any preconceived ideas of rules, I'd start with "highest strength wins". From there I'd probably add a tiny amount of randomness (str + 1d4, highest wins) just to make it somewhat interesting.

That's a great rule for arm wrestling, but I think it's sorely lacking as a general play mechanic.

And that's kind of the high-level question that needs to be asked - what's an appropriate "default" level of randomness, and do we err on the side of randomness, or on the side of determinism? Any answer will be wrong for some scenarios, but that doesn't mean that the mechanic is (necessarily) flawed.

I think what you're missing here is that there is no aspect of 5e that ISN'T titanically random or 100% deterministic as it has been written so far. Your suggestion of there being different size dice to roll against one another to determine the outcome of certain tasks with more or less randomness is something that I can TOTALLY get behind, because my issue is that this is a serious flaw in 5e as written and it NEEDS a solution. You're now talking about a solution to the problem which is the undesirably large degree of randomness that is implied by what we've seen in the 5e playtest.

Maybe the task resolution system will be dX + Modifier vs a DC chart according to the size of the die... We could do some math and see if it's a more consistent and desirable system than the other proposal of d20 + Ability Score vs d20 + Ability Score. We can then run it through playtests to see if people grok it, and if it works and people can understand it and they like it, then it's a successful solution to a problem of rules which can't model things satisfactorally.

So do you now admit that raw d20 + modifier vs d20 + modifier wouldn't be a satisfactory way to randomize and keep interesting those contests which otherwise might have SOME degree of randomness, but not 100% success, ~50% failure, 100% failure, as they are as currently written, and as would be from the solution, "Only allow a roll when the DM rules the results would logically be uncertain" which was also suggested?

[JoeMac307]

We can then run it through playtests to see if people grok it, and if it works and people can understand it and they like it, then it's a successful solution to a problem of rules which can't model things satisfactorally.

I think that is the rub... will people like it and understand it? Will it be clear when to use a d10 and when to use a d20, or will it be too confusing?

I understand the math. If you have a Wizard with a 3 Str (-4 modifier) armwrestle a Fighter with an 18 Str (+4 modifier), the odds of who wins are greatly affected by using a d10 v a d20:

d20
Fighter 80.50%
Wizard 16.50%
Tie 3.00%

d10
Fighter 97.00%
Wizard 1.00%
Tie 2.00%

If you use a d20, the weakling Wizard will outright win 1 out of ~6 times, but if you use a d10, the weakling Wizard only outright wins 1 out of 100 times, which probably makes a lot more sense.

But when do we use a d10 and when do we use a d20? How do you make that simple and intuitive in a way that players will understand and gravitate towards?

IMHO, that seems to be the sticking point.

[Kurald Galain]

That of course assumes you think the core mechanics are "bad". I'm not entirely sure why so many people seem to think this is much more random than 4e (or really any other D&D).

The thing is that in 3E, the range of the modifiers (e.g. skill ranks) is much, much greater; and in 2E, skills checks depend on your full attribute score, not a 1-on-2 ratio. Whereas 4E does have the same skill mechanics as the 5E playtest, but these are one of the most criticized parts of 4E anyway.

[Zombimode]

What do you think of the following two rule changes?

1. Change all d20 rolls (besides damage - if that ever comes up) to 3d6.
Reasoning: bell curve distribution accounts better for the differences in skill currently displayed by D&D next characters. With generally smaller bonuses each - or + has to count. A bell curve makes those small numbers more relevant.

2. Dis-/advantage is changed from rerolls to adding/subtracting d6's. If you get an advantage, you add one d6 (so you make the check with 4d6 instead of 3d6). Likewise, a disadvantage results in one less d6. Advantages and disadvantages are cumulative. I would say the minimum is 0d6, so no "negative" d6. That means without any advantages you can suffer only 3 disadvantages at a time (succeeding is based on the modifier alone).
Reasoning: One of the criticisms of the advantages/disadvantage system is that they don't stack (which is not intuitive) and that a single instance of an dis-/advantage can cancel out an arbitrarily large number of the opposite (which is ridiculous). Adding and subtracting d6's on the other hand seems like an easy to do alternative (with roughly equal results of a single dis-/advantage) that avoids both problems.

[JoeMac307]

1. Change all d20 rolls (besides damage - if that ever comes up) to 3d6.
Reasoning: bell curve distribution accounts better for the differences in skill currently displayed by D&D next characters. With generally smaller bonuses each - or + has to count. A bell curve makes those small numbers more relevant.

This could work. In my example with the weakling Wizard (-4 modifier) and muscular Fighter (+4 modifier) armwrestling, the results of who wins using 3d6 looks like this:

Fighter 96.41%
Wizard 1.97%
Tie 1.62%

At first blush, this looks fairly reasonable.

[kyoryu]

I think what you're missing here is that there is no aspect of 5e that ISN'T titanically random or 100% deterministic as it has been written so far.

Hrm, DC 15 with no mod = 25% chance of success. DC 15 with +9 mod = 75% chance of success.

I'd hardly call either of those "titanically random or 100% deterministic."

Your suggestion of there being different size dice to roll against one another to determine the outcome of certain tasks with more or less randomness is something that I can TOTALLY get behind, because my issue is that this is a serious flaw in 5e as written and it NEEDS a solution. You're now talking about a solution to the problem which is the undesirably large degree of randomness that is implied by what we've seen in the 5e playtest.

Actually, I dont' support that as a general mechanic. It'd be a good mechanic for arm wrestling. I believe that the randomness required for a good arm-wrestling simulation is far less than the typical D&D skill check. Of course, a good arm wrestling situation would also take into account speed, skill at arm-wrestling, stamina, probably maneuvers that could be used against each other, etc.

But since we're talking about D&D, and not Over The Top: The RPG, I *don't care*. I don't claim that 5e is a failure because of over-randomness, and I also don't claim that it's a failure due to the lack of detailed arm-wrestling rules. In fact, I'd probably be more critical of it if it *did* have detailed arm-wrestling rules.

Maybe the task resolution system will be dX + Modifier vs a DC chart according to the size of the die... We could do some math and see if it's a more consistent and desirable system than the other proposal of d20 + Ability Score vs d20 + Ability Score. We can then run it through playtests to see if people grok it, and if it works and people can understand it and they like it, then it's a successful solution to a problem of rules which can't model things satisfactorally.

At a cost of complexity. The rules as written are, I believe, reasonable enough for situations that will likely come up at the gaming table, and close enough in other scenarios that I'd rather have them streamlined.

Besides, the story of the kobold that the fighter just couldn't grapple is quite entertaining, and is the kind of thing that groups remember long after the fact. I'm okay with a system that produces results like that.

You're not, and that's okay too. These are just our *subjective* opinions on the subject. The point of my previous post was to get people thinking about the tradeoffs that game designers have to make.

So do you now admit that raw d20 + modifier vs d20 + modifier wouldn't be a satisfactory way to randomize and keep interesting those contests which otherwise might have SOME degree of randomness, but not 100% success, ~50% failure, 100% failure, as they are as currently written, and as would be from the solution, "Only allow a roll when the DM rules the results would logically be uncertain" which was also suggested?

Again, the results are far from "50/50", even in the worst case. Overexaggeration does not help your case.

Nonetheless, I admit that D&D 5e rules as presented make a very poor arm wrestling simulation. And, in fact, they do a pretty bad job of simulating isolated attributes vs. each other in a controlled setting where external influences can be removed. I also think they do a reasonable job of simulating more typical contests in more typical circumstances.

The last statement is pure *subjective* opinion, however.

What do you think of the following two rule changes?

1. Change all d20 rolls (besides damage - if that ever comes up) to 3d6.
Reasoning: bell curve distribution accounts better for the differences in skill currently displayed by D&D next characters. With generally smaller bonuses each - or + has to count. A bell curve makes those small numbers more relevant.

2. Dis-/advantage is changed from rerolls to adding/subtracting d6's. If you get an advantage, you add one d6 (so you make the check with 4d6 instead of 3d6). Likewise, a disadvantage results in one less d6. Advantages and disadvantages are cumulative. I would say the minimum is 0d6, so no "negative" d6. That means without any advantages you can suffer only 3 disadvantages at a time (succeeding is based on the modifier alone).
Reasoning: One of the criticisms of the advantages/disadvantage system is that they don't stack (which is not intuitive) and that a single instance of an dis-/advantage can cancel out an arbitrarily large number of the opposite (which is ridiculous). Adding and subtracting d6's on the other hand seems like an easy to do alternative (with roughly equal results of a single dis-/advantage) that avoids both problems.

I actually like them, but I honestly think that getting away from d20+modifiers won't happen with D&D.

[Dienekes]

Hrm, DC 15 with no mod = 25% chance of success. DC 15 with +9 mod = 75% chance of success.

I'd hardly call either of those "titanically random or 100% deterministic."

Is there anything that we've seen that even has a +9 modifier?
I see a lot of +6s, and +5s, and some +4s, and maybe the Pelor cleric could get a +7 if Insight ever comes up.

[Kurald Galain]

What do you think of the following two rule changes?

1. Change all d20 rolls (besides damage - if that ever comes up) to 3d6.

2. Dis-/advantage is changed from rerolls to adding/subtracting d6's

Very good, I like that.

[1337 b4k4]

I actually like them, but I honestly think that getting away from d20+modifiers won't happen with D&D.

Actually, if enough feedback was supplied in support of it, 5e would be the place to sneak it in. After all, if we're looking to learn from D&D's past, one thing that should be obvious to anyone is 1d20 + mods is not sufficient to resolve and model many things. Part of this is why early D&D has disparate systems for different things. And it's not like 3d6 is a completely alien roll mechanic from D&D (well, perhaps to some 4e players ). It's certainly fairly easy to memorize, "For opposed checks, roll 3d6 + Stat Mod, +1 d6 for advantage, -1d6 for disadvantage, vs your opponent rolling the same"

[Kurald Galain]

I actually like them, but I honestly think that getting away from d20+modifiers won't happen with D&D.

Actually, that depends on how serious WOTC is about taking the best from each edition - because both 1E and 2E had numerous task rolls that weren't 1d20.

[Stubbazubba]

Keep that 3d6 variant alive, it might make Next a lot more playable than it otherwise will be. I'd say that as there can only be a maximum of 3 disadvantages, there can similarly only be a maximum of 3 advantages, just so things don't get completely out of control. Rolling 8d6 is, I think, patently ridiculous.

Another variant rule would be that for each advantage you have, you roll an additional d6 and drop the lowest from the result. Disadvantage might then be the opposite; you roll an extra die and drop the highest die. So if you rolled a 2, a 3, a 4, and a 6, your total with advantage would be 13, while your total with disadvantage would be 9. That'll keep things on the curve, but push you onto a more or less favorable portion of the curve, as dis/advantage ought to do, instead of changing the range of the curve entirely.

[Kerrin]

It's amazing how many decent task resolution systems folks here have put forth.

I wonder how many WotC brainstormed and evaluated before settling on the one they're using in the play test?