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

[Clawhound]

My problem with fumbles was that your melee folks got MORE likely to fumble the higher level that they got. In contrast, harder spells never fumbled because they were magic. :(

Any fumble system really needs to encompass both magic and melee. If there is to be risk, then all characters must risk.

[Thialfi]

It strikes me that all the horror stories about critical fumbles are not about the concept of fumbles, but about the execution. "You roll a one therefore something bad happens" is a decent game concept. "You roll a one therefore you just stabbed your own throat by accident" is ridiculous and strongly detrimental to gameplay.

So if WOTC manages to come up with a fumble table that doesn't let your character kill himself on a regular basis, it'll probably be okay.

I have always felt that critical fumbles turn what should be hardened and experienced adventurers into a Three Stooges routine. I can't imagine them taking a form that I would want in my game.

[Oracle_Hunter]

It strikes me that all the horror stories about critical fumbles are not about the concept of fumbles, but about the execution. "You roll a one therefore something bad happens" is a decent game concept. "You roll a one therefore you just stabbed your own throat by accident" is ridiculous and strongly detrimental to gameplay.

Well, to be fair every post-TSR D&D *did* have a "you roll a one therefore something bad happens" -- namely "you miss even if you would have hit."

Things like "drop your weapon" "stab your ally" do turn combat into, what Thialfi named in a delicious turn of phrase, a Three Stooges Routine. In a tactical combat system, Critical Misses add more chaos and typically slows down combat further; in a more dramatic system they could have a better role so long as losing magic swords in lava pits isn't crippling to other Themes in the system.

Still, it never quite fit for King Arthur to be chucking Excalibur into the middens a couple times every battle

[ImperiousLeader]

I still remember my first, and hopefully last experience with a critical fumble deck. If you rolled a "1", you had to roll another d20. On another "1" ... instant death.

[Craft (Cheese)]

I'd design a fumble system with two things in mind:

1. Exposing yourself to the possibility of fumbling should be a player choice: There should always be a way to act that's safe, if less rewarding.

2. The safe and unsafe options need to be balanced against one another. If nobody ever uses the unsafe option because it's suicidally stupid and provides no gain, the system needs work. If everybody uses the unsafe option all the time because the downsides are negligible, the system also needs work.

[Menteith]

I still remember my first, and hopefully last experience with a critical fumble deck. If you rolled a "1", you had to roll another d20. On another "1" ... instant death.

I've had a damage immune character with Regeneration kill himself by critically fumbling with a sword. I really want to know how....

[Kurald Galain]

I still remember my first, and hopefully last experience with a critical fumble deck. If you rolled a "1", you had to roll another d20. On another "1" ... instant death.

Precisely my point, thanks. Critical fumbles aren't bad design per se, but critical fumbles that kill your character are.

That said, of course fumble rules should be optional. Some people like 'em, some people don't. And if they apply, they should also apply to spellcasters. But unless you're playing Paranoia, clearly they shouldn't involve killing yourself.

[maglag]

That said, of course fumble rules should be optional. Some people like 'em, some people don't. And if they apply, they should also apply to spellcasters. But unless you're playing Paranoia, clearly they shouldn't involve killing yourself.

Dark heresy and the other games in that system have a chance for casters psykers to blow up their brains or worst when trying to use their powers, and the system seems relatively popular.

[Craft (Cheese)]

I still remember my first, and hopefully last experience with a critical fumble deck. If you rolled a "1", you had to roll another d20. On another "1" ... instant death.

...Your DM did realize this means the average first-level fighter only lives for 40 minutes of combat, even discounting what their enemies are trying to do to them?

[JoeMac307]

...Your DM did realize this means the average first-level fighter only lives for 40 minutes of combat, even discounting what their enemies are trying to do to them?

Or, really, any combatant, regardless of level...

[Draz74]

Or, really, any combatant, regardless of level...

No, at higher levels it gets shorter as combatants get more attacks per round.

[JoeMac307]

No, at higher levels it gets shorter as combatants get more attacks per round.

Lol, good point. A 20th level fighter would be dead on average after 10 minutes. That's hysterical.

[Clawhound]

The problem with previous fumble iterations was that many just weren't interesting.

In a tactical combat, a fumble could produce a 5-foot step or a slide, in your enemy's favor. That sound small, but that forced movement can have a big effect.

To me, what a fumble really begs is an interesting "miss" system, one that doesn't make you feel stupid, but still produces that "whoa" reaction at the table as events take a sudden turn.

Scenarios that I like include:
- Opponent gets to recharge power
- Opponent gets a free slide
- You get a forced slide
- You lose all advantages and gain disadvantage until the end of your next turn

Stuff like that, only better.

[Menteith]

I could get behind a critical fumble module in a system where each action wasn't so powerful. At higher levels in D&D3.5, a single standard action or charge was more than capable of killing/incapacitating someone, and to lose out on that created a big swing in the dynamics of combat. In a slower system, where even high power combat isn't "Rocket Tag", and losing actions isn't utterly crippling, where the penalties can be neatly put into "Give Advantage to enemy/lose Advantage yourself", I could see it. Of course, I'd really like to see a more robust buff/debuff system than just (Dis)Advantage right now, but we'll see if modules fix that.

[Kurald Galain]

Dark heresy and the other games in that system have a chance for casters psykers to blow up their brains or worst when trying to use their powers, and the system seems relatively popular.

To be honest I've never even heard of it. Do you seriously claim that it is comparably popular to Dungeons and Dragons?

[Craft (Cheese)]

To be honest I've never even heard of it. Do you seriously claim that it is comparably popular to Dungeons and Dragons?

It's a Warhammer game. Your character being able to die really easily to random flukes is just a part of the genre.

[Kurald Galain]

Hm. I just noticed that WOTC is going to reprint the 3E core books, and is looking into reprinting other popular 3E books as well. This is in addition to their reprint of 1E.

So looks like they'll be competing with themselves, big time. I'm not convinced this is good business practice (then again, for the individual players it is great to have more systems freely available).

[Craft (Cheese)]

Hm. I just noticed that WOTC is going to reprint the 3E core books, and is looking into reprinting other popular 3E books as well. This is in addition to their reprint of 1E.

So looks like they'll be competing with themselves, big time. I'm not convinced this is good business practice (then again, for the individual players it is great to have more systems freely available).

Looks more like hedging their bets to me. The thought process probably went "Hey, if 5E flops, at least we'll have the sales from the 3.5 reprints."

[Yora]

I don't see what they want to gain by that move in the long run either.

If it's just the core books, most will probably be bought by people who want to replace the worn ones they already have. Which I don't think won't be that many. Maybe a move to gain goodwill with the people who said "4th edition destroyed D&D for EVAR!" and getting them to rethink their stance of "I won't buy anything by WotC again, ever!".

[Craft (Cheese)]

I don't see what they want to gain by that move in the long run either.

If it's just the core books, most will probably be bought by people who want to replace the worn ones they already have. Which I don't think won't be that many. Maybe a move to gain goodwill with the people who said "4th edition destroyed D&D for EVAR!" and getting them to rethink their stance of "I won't buy anything by WotC again, ever!".

Possibly. I can't really see any reason for the 1E reprints except as a publicity stunt to say "Hey guys, we care about the 'good old days'!"

[JoeMac307]

I don't see what they want to gain by that move in the long run either.

If it's just the core books, most will probably be bought by people who want to replace the worn ones they already have. Which I don't think won't be that many. Maybe a move to gain goodwill with the people who said "4th edition destroyed D&D for EVAR!" and getting them to rethink their stance of "I won't buy anything by WotC again, ever!".

If they are trying to appeal to people who play old editions, why don't they release new material for old editions.

I mean, I already have all the core books for 2e and 3.5e, and most of the expansion manuals as well, or at least most of the ones I'll ever want, but a new module / adventure for 2e or 3.5e, that I may consider buying, maybe....

[Kurald Galain]

If they are trying to appeal to people who play old editions, why don't they release new material for old editions.

Presumably because writing new material costs a lot of time from highly paid game designers, artists, and editors; whereas reprinting older books is just a matter of paperwork.

[lesser_minion]

Wizards have to compete with previous versions of their product, whether they like it or not. If they try to cut supply of an edition of D&D, then the fans will pick up the slack, even if that means doing something illegal and/or unethical.

At the same time, they end up developing a reputation for being spiteful and out of touch with the 21st century.

I can't say I'm an expert in economics and business practices, but from where I'm standing, they're being given a choice between paying money to look bad and accepting money to look good. I get the vague impression that one of these options dominates the other. Just barely.

[JoeMac307]

Presumably because writing new material costs a lot of time from highly paid game designers, artists, and editors; whereas reprinting older books is just a matter of paperwork.

Why did you have to go and make so much sense and crush all my hopes and dreams?

[Kurald Galain]

Why did you have to go and make so much sense and crush all my hopes and dreams?

Do I get XP for killing that?

(edit) besides, material is being developed and published for earlier editions; just not by WOTC but by third parties.

[deuterio12]

I would like to point out that, going by Amazon sales, used 3.5 books are selling quite well. Not on the top 100 (more like top 10 000), but still a significant amount(amazon deals on millions of diferent books) meaning that if people are willing to pay for beer-stained versions, they're surely willing to pay for shiny new versions. Specially when, as already mentioned, wotc doesn't actually have to pay to develop anything new, just get some printers running.

[Yora]

The problem is that people don't have bottomless wallets. If you have people thinking "I would like to give 5th Edition a try, but I already bought four 3.5e books in the last three months", they will not get "hooked" by the new Edition. Which means they won't encourage their friends to play 5th Edition and buy those books.

No clue how strong that effect could actually be, but as someone in charge of marketing, I would feel very uneasy about it.

[navar100]

Please, please no critical fumble. I don't even care if spellcasters get equal chance for a change. Just NO!

If you must, must, must, have it than no worse than "Roll a 1. Confirm the miss. If miss, opponent gets Advantage for one attack." For spellcasting, since you don't roll to cast, roll anyway. If get a 1, confirm the miss. (How, to be determined). If miss, opponent gets Advantage on the saving throw or you get Disadvantage on roll to hit for appropriate spells.

[Seerow]

Please, please no critical fumble. I don't even care if spellcasters get equal chance for a change. Just NO!

If you must, must, must, have it than no worse than "Roll a 1. Confirm the miss. If miss, opponent gets Advantage for one attack." For spellcasting, since you don't roll to cast, roll anyway. If get a 1, confirm the miss. (How, to be determined). If miss, opponent gets Advantage on the saving throw or you get Disadvantage on roll to hit for appropriate spells.

Just about the only incarnation of critical fumble I've cared for was a thread or two back when the idea of "Opportunity" as a universal mechanic that works something like combo points, where some attacks build up opportunity on a target, and other spend it, and similarly some actions may increase the opportunity on yourself. In such a system, having a critical fumble increase your opportunity by 1 is something noticeable but isn't as versimilitude shattering as a Warrior killing himself by attacking a target dummy for a few minutes.


Fun story: A year or so back I played D&D with a new DM who decided she wanted to include critical fumbles, where on a natural 1 you dealt damage to yourself as if you hit yourself with your attack. Well I was playing a heavy armor shield user, and it was low level (like 2 iirc), and we ran into a bunch of clones of ourselves... the end result was me and my clone attacking each other and constantly whiffing, the fight only ending because my clone rolled 3 natural 1s over the course of the fight, killing himself. I don't think I managed to land one hit on him.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Just about the only incarnation of critical fumble I've cared for was a thread or two back when the idea of "Opportunity" as a universal mechanic that works something like combo points, where some attacks build up opportunity on a target, and other spend it, and similarly some actions may increase the opportunity on yourself. In such a system, having a critical fumble increase your opportunity by 1 is something noticeable but isn't as versimilitude shattering as a Warrior killing himself by attacking a target dummy for a few minutes.

Stagger meter?