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

[prufock]

I have, to my disappointment, not been able to get my group together to try out the Next playtest material. I have nothing else to say, only expressing my displeasure.

[1337 b4k4]

Apparently I'm not making myself clear. I have no problem with the game including examples and base rules for how difficult a given task normally is, especially relative to other tasks. That the 5e play test comes with a series of common DCs doesn't bother me in the slightest. What I do have a problem with is thinking that I need a rule to tell me that arm wrestling a dead guy shouldn't be rolled, or that no matter the relative charisma scores, the king is going to believe his long time friend and trusted advisor over a random PC who just walked in off the street and killed his daughter, without some astronomical proof of why the king should believe the PC.

I am perfectly OK with the core mechanics as outlined in the rules only being able to adjudicate a subset of all the possibilities in the world. I don't want or expect a mechanic that can perfectly model every possible aspect of every possible uncertain outcome in every possible situation. Never mind that such a mechanic doesn't exist, if it did, it would be so unwieldy and so damn complicated, no one would actually play it as designed, and every game and world and scenario would be just as inconsistent as if the rules didn't exist in the first place.

I just honestly can't imagine any situation that would come up where a check (as outlined in the play test) would be necessary, that can't be reasonably adjudicated. Obviously, no one here thinks it's reasonable that a dead person has any chance of wining an arm wrestling contest, so no check is necessary. When the dragon lands on your PC, the question is, does it seem reasonable that you PC has a non-0 chance of simply throwing the dragon off him? If not, no check needed. You don't need to have real world experience with dragons to do this, you just need to decide how powerful STR 10 is in your game world, and how powerful dragons are in your game world. Are your PCs reluctant farm boys or hercules? Are dragons mere flying lizards or practically gods unto themselves. The check rule isn't there to resolve all these situations, it's there to resolve situations where you've decided that both sides should have a chance of defeating the other.

[Tehnar]

Apparently I'm not making myself clear. I have no problem with the game including examples and base rules for how difficult a given task normally is, especially relative to other tasks. That the 5e play test comes with a series of common DCs doesn't bother me in the slightest. What I do have a problem with is thinking that I need a rule to tell me that arm wrestling a dead guy shouldn't be rolled, or that no matter the relative charisma scores, the king is going to believe his long time friend and trusted advisor over a random PC who just walked in off the street and killed his daughter, without some astronomical proof of why the king should believe the PC.

I am perfectly OK with the core mechanics as outlined in the rules only being able to adjudicate a subset of all the possibilities in the world. I don't want or expect a mechanic that can perfectly model every possible aspect of every possible uncertain outcome in every possible situation. Never mind that such a mechanic doesn't exist, if it did, it would be so unwieldy and so damn complicated, no one would actually play it as designed, and every game and world and scenario would be just as inconsistent as if the rules didn't exist in the first place.

I just honestly can't imagine any situation that would come up where a check (as outlined in the play test) would be necessary, that can't be reasonably adjudicated. Obviously, no one here thinks it's reasonable that a dead person has any chance of wining an arm wrestling contest, so no check is necessary. When the dragon lands on your PC, the question is, does it seem reasonable that you PC has a non-0 chance of simply throwing the dragon off him? If not, no check needed. You don't need to have real world experience with dragons to do this, you just need to decide how powerful STR 10 is in your game world, and how powerful dragons are in your game world. Are your PCs reluctant farm boys or hercules? Are dragons mere flying lizards or practically gods unto themselves. The check rule isn't there to resolve all these situations, it's there to resolve situations where you've decided that both sides should have a chance of defeating the other.

I think we are pretty much in agreement what the core rules should do: resolve common situations that come up in the game and provide a guideline to resolve those situations that are not covered by the rules. I don't think anyone is disputing that.

What I am disputing is that the principle resolution of 5E, the single d20 ability check resolution is bad. Wrestling a dead man is a extreme example why that rule mechanic does not work.

Wouldn't it be better if they designed a mechanic that didn't require a DM to fiat things? A mechanic that prevented children from winning strength contests with ogres, or at least made it extremely unlikely?

The question still stands, where do you draw the line. Obviously a child shouldn't be able to wrestle an ogre, but should a fighter be able to? What about a fighter vs storm giant? If he can't wrestle with him, why can a monk damage him with unarmed strikes? These are all questions that can be answered with solid mechanics and not DM fiat.

Resolving things on a DM fiat is bad even with reasonable DM and reasonable players. I have been gaming with my current group for 10 years, that is to say we are past the point of any silly arguments. But at 2 am, after drinking 6 beers and playing DnD for 6-8 hours, mistakes start seeping in. My judgment is not what it was. If the PCs encounter a strange circumstance I often pull a resolution out of my ass, and often its not consistent with my resolution when the same PCs find themselves in the same situation two sessions down the line.

Now for most part that is ok, and a part of table top gaming, as long as it doesn't happen to often. If I have to pull resolutions out of my ass every hour while we play, something is wrong. Why did I pay money for a product if I have to come up with rules/mechanics/resolutions to play?


EDIT: A example of a system that does it right; Shadowrun 4E. A child will almost always lose to a adult human, who will almost always lose to a troll and who will almost always lose to a dragon in a tug of war. Assuming average statistics, and the almost always is >98%. There is no need for a DM fiat there. *

*Assuming you use straight STR+BOD contests. I am also not advocating Shadowrun as the best system evah; it has its problems but it does this pretty well.

[Clawhound]

If one is starting RULES LIGHT, then it makes sense to begin with the most generic rules possible. Put the arbitration on the DM. The designers can then make more detailed rules later on.

Later on in the playtest, after they've sorted out feedback, they may (or may not) revisit the issue. That's the hazard of a playtest.

You can not cover all possibilities in a game system. Infinite variability yields infinite possibilities. If the generic rules can cover 80% of all possibilities in the adventure game, then they make sense enough. What you want is the fewest rules possible covering the most frequent challenges.

Of the remaining 20%, ad-hoc rulings should cover another 80% with few problems. Can you wrestle a bucket of water? How about a boulder? Can you wrestle a boulder? How about the wind? Those are all technically valid possibilities, but it's just not worth writing the rules for those rare circumstances.

Wrestle a dragon? Yeah, that's worth writing the rules for.

The rules do already account for some of this. Wrestle a corpse? Fine, the first combatant to 0 hp loses. Go. The corpse instantly loses because it's at 0 hp.

When a generic rules adequately covers a circumstance, you don't need specialized rules. Child wrestles a troll? Let's assume that the child wins 20 times, causing 40 hp of damage. The troll wins once, rending the child into mincemeat. Again, the rules have successfully modeled the encounter even with absurdly lopsided die rolls.

[Seerow]

If one is starting RULES LIGHT, then it makes sense to begin with the most generic rules possible. Put the arbitration on the DM. The designers can then make more detailed rules later on.

Here's the big problem I have with this: The rules light thing isn't fairly distributed. We have mundanes who have to magic tea party literally everything ever, while Casters get a full subsystem and spells that take up a large chunk of the 'how to play' packet, right out of the gate in the 'rules light' version.

This doesn't indicate to me they're going for a rules light game where everyone starts off with ****, and you gain more complexity through modules. It indicates to me that they want to recreate 2e-3e style D&D. Except here stuff is even -worse- for the mundanes.

It doesn't even matter if they get a better skill system or a full resource system for non-casters later, or if casters get some other rules lite system as a module. Because what we're looking at are the default assumptions of the game, and those default assumptions aren't rules light. So no, we can't just handwave it all away as "it's a rules light game" UNLESS they take out Vancian Casting, which I have a very strong feeling they won't ever do.

The rules do already account for some of this. Wrestle a corpse? Fine, the first combatant to 0 hp loses. Go. The corpse instantly loses because it's at 0 hp.

When a generic rules adequately covers a circumstance, you don't need specialized rules. Child wrestles a troll? Let's assume that the child wins 20 times, causing 40 hp of damage. The troll wins once, rending the child into mincemeat. Again, the rules have successfully modeled the encounter even with absurdly lopsided die rolls.

Um, are there some grappling rules in the playtest packet I didn't see? Why are the rules based around HP and doing damage, rather than restraining the target? Or are you making stuff up, and passing it off as a reasonable rule despite the fact that no rule at all exists in the game?

[Kerrin]

I wish WotC had done a little better job framing the playtest - explaining the boundaries, what's not included and why, etc. It doesn't feel like they did enough expectation setting with this playtest as well as proving rough roadmap information for where things will go from here.


On another note, I wonder what development process they are using.

Did they start with a particular edition and do adding, subtracting, and changing? Did they enumerate all the mechanics of each system then stitch together 5e making tweaks as they went? Did they read the volumes of commentary about each edition and start from there? Did they do an analysis of other RPG systems as the starting point?

There are so many approaches that can be used and it'd be really interesting to know how they've approached the project.

This is one of the meta topics I tackle when starting a new software project - we have to figure out what development process, practices, and tools to use that are appropriate to the project before we start developing a solution because they form the framework of how we do our work.

[Clawhound]

How else should you playtest the base rules?

It seems to me that the designers aimed for the safest harbor of D&D and started the playtest with that. I don't blame them. Make sure that the foundation is working mostly as intended. Make sure that the feel is right.

Will there be other pieces? Surely. We know there are missing things. We know that they are still arguing and designing follow-on pieces. If they had plopped a fully formed game on us, then this whole iterative playtest process would be a sham.

They had to start somewhere. I accept that this is it. At this point, I don't judge the game by what is or isn't in it. I can only judge the game by the rules that they've shown.

[Doug Lampert]

I have, to my disappointment, not been able to get my group together to try out the Next playtest material. I have nothing else to say, only expressing my displeasure.

I just told everyone I'd be running an extra session for playtest on Memorial Day afternoon and anyone who wanted to show up could.

That way it didn't interfere with the ongoing campaign. It worked fine, we got me and all six players.

I sugest picking an otherwise open time, I'll probably go with another test on the 4th Saturday of this month (there are regular activities on the first three saturdays, but number 4 is open). So we'll play, then break for dinner, then have our usual evening session.

[Tyndmyr]

Here's the big problem I have with this: The rules light thing isn't fairly distributed. We have mundanes who have to magic tea party literally everything ever, while Casters get a full subsystem and spells that take up a large chunk of the 'how to play' packet, right out of the gate in the 'rules light' version....
Um, are there some grappling rules in the playtest packet I didn't see? Why are the rules based around HP and doing damage, rather than restraining the target? Or are you making stuff up, and passing it off as a reasonable rule despite the fact that no rule at all exists in the game?

The grappling didn't come up in my test, but the HP/doing damage thing did. There was much looking for flanking or other tactical options.

The rogue in particular felt a bit shafted, given the lack of clarity on skills.


I'm not disappointed in the edition overall, but after playtesting, I do feel like the initial playtest packet was not well put together. We had something like a page of feedback(typewritten, 8 pt font) before a single die got rolled.

[1337 b4k4]

Here's the big problem I have with this: The rules light thing isn't fairly distributed. We have mundanes who have to magic tea party literally everything ever, while Casters get a full subsystem and spells that take up a large chunk of the 'how to play' packet, right out of the gate in the 'rules light' version.

You'd have less of a problem if you interpret "Rules Light" as "Rules Light 'Iconic' D&D". Vancian magic is one of the most basic and long term elements of D&D, which means that there will be spell lists. Heck, even M20, arguably the most "Rules Light" version of D&D still has spell lists, and expects you to rely on the SRD for details if you want them. The nature of Vancian Magic requires that it will take up a substantial chunk of the paper and rules. The only way they could really have gotten a lighter magic would have been to scrap Vancian and go with something like 4x5 magic.

[TheAbstruseOne]

Actually, there are rules for grappling in the system as it stands. It's a Str vs. Str/Dex contest depending on whether the grapplee is trying to power out of the grapple or wriggle out of it.

As far as the casters taking up most of the rules, welcome to every edition of D&D ever aside from 4e. The ratio for each edition seems to be between 1/3 to 1/2 of the Player's Handbook being taken up by the chapters on the magic system and spell lists - not even counting all the other places rules for magic pop up, like in feats, magic item creation, skills, combat situations involving magic, rituals, etc. We have in 1st Edition AD&D 60 out of 130 pages, 2nd Edition 148 out of 320 pages, 3rd Edition 128 out of 275 pages, 3.5...th Edition 135 out of 322 pages, and even the more modern design philosophy in Pathfinder giving us 168 out of 575 pages (noting that the Pathfinder Core Rulebook is the PHB and DMG rolled into a single book).

I can't speak for any of the OD&D games as I don't own any of those books, though, but I'd bet that they spent just as much space on magic as well.The only edition I can think of where they didn't spend a large portion of the page count on magic and spells is 4th Edition, and that's because aside from Rituals, the spells were in the class descriptions just like the other class's At-Will/Encounter/Daily powers.

[Seerow]

You'd have less of a problem if you interpret "Rules Light" as "Rules Light 'Iconic' D&D". Vancian magic is one of the most basic and long term elements of D&D, which means that there will be spell lists. Heck, even M20, arguably the most "Rules Light" version of D&D still has spell lists, and expects you to rely on the SRD for details if you want them. The nature of Vancian Magic requires that it will take up a substantial chunk of the paper and rules. The only way they could really have gotten a lighter magic would have been to scrap Vancian and go with something like 4x5 magic.

Sorry I don't buy into this. If Vancian Magic is a core rule, then we should also have a skill system, and a resource system for Mundanes as a core rule.

I have absolutely no interest in a game where the default assumption is people who don't cast spells are second rate characters. This was literally the biggest problem in 3e, and here, they're taking it a step backwards and making it even worse.

Right now, in 5e, the way any martial character does anything is ask the DM if that's reasonable, DM agrees or disagrees. If the DM agrees, he sets a check DC, and the Fighter rolls. In a true rules light system, everybody would follow this exact resolution mechanic. And yes, that means that a Wizard will have "Magic strike +6 2d6+5 damage" as his major class feature, and doing anything else he asks the DM, they work something out, and the Wizard rolls.

The problem with giving Magic Users a discrete subsystems and abilities to choose from and nothing to non-casting characters, is that they are in effect playing two different games. One set of characters is able to do cool things by default, the other depends entirely on how his DM feels. That is a huge ****ing discrepency that should not exist in core rules.

[Yora]

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.

I said new or important.

[kyoryu]

Its almost as if the design goal of bringing everyone together was a bad idea.....

Really, it might be.

Peoples' ideas of "D&D" are very different. The 1e grognard is *not* playing the same game as the 3.x high-powered gamer, is *not* playing the same game as the 4e player.

And I don't mean in trivial ways like rules. The structure and assumptions of the way they play are *very* different. I don't know if "one ruleset to rule them all" is an achievable goal.

[Yora]

So what? From everything I've heard, the vast majority of people is quite happy how things are looking. And if a few don't, then they don't have to play it and can play any of ther other ten or so versions of D&D that are around.

[TheAbstruseOne]

Sorry I don't buy into this. If Vancian Magic is a core rule, then we should also have a skill system, and a resource system for Mundanes as a core rule.

I have absolutely no interest in a game where the default assumption is people who don't cast spells are second rate characters. This was literally the biggest problem in 3e, and here, they're taking it a step backwards and making it even worse.

While Linear Fighters/Quadratic Wizards was a big problem with 1st through 3.5 and is something the developers should be keeping in mind, we can't really say if it's going to be a problem in D&D Next as of yet. Right now, we can only see five specific builds of four different classes up to level 3. We can extrapolate some idea of what the classes will be like, but we can't know for sure what the specifics will be later down the road.

From what the designers are saying in the Q&As, blogs, and on Twitter; it looks as though damage and HP are going to scale through levels but not AC/to-hit/etc. This means that the balance between casters and non-casters may very well be that non-casters are going to do damage more consistently, while casters are going to do more damage in big bursts but less damage outside that. So your big 3rd level Fireball may do 6d6+12 damage*, you can only do it on one round per 3rd level spell slot while my fighter can do 2d8+6 damage* every single round.

Something like this would curb the overpowering nature of casters at higher levels, but would bring back even more the 10 Minute Workday problem. Why should we push forward and have the wizard and cleric save all their big spells when we can just kick in the door, have them blast everything, loot the bodies, then let them take a nap to get those spells back? It's a tough problem to solve and the only time I can recall that anyone took a real stab at it was in 4e. Fourth edition "fixed" the problem by causing other ones in return (making non-casting classes just as complex as casters and putting a heavy emphasis on the encounter rather than the day in adventure design). And even that didn't really fix the problem because everyone could just blow their dailies in the first encounter then take an extended rest to get them all back. The Milestone mechanic was a good try, but it just didn't have enough weight to compete. Thankfully, the problem just didn't seem as widespread as it did back in the old 1st/2nd/3rd edition days.

Anyway, after all that rambling, my point got lost. Anything we say about how power will scale over levels and how classes are balanced is complete speculation because we just don't have enough data at this point to make a call. Until we see different builds at higher levels for pregenerated characters or the actual character generation rules, we're really just guessing.

* These damage numbers are complete guesses and meant for illustrative purposes only. I have no earthly idea what damage or anything else may look like beyond 3rd level in Next.

[1337 b4k4]

Right now, in 5e, the way any martial character does anything is ask the DM if that's reasonable, DM agrees or disagrees. If the DM agrees, he sets a check DC, and the Fighter rolls. In a true rules light system, everybody would follow this exact resolution mechanic. And yes, that means that a Wizard will have "Magic strike +6 2d6+5 damage" as his major class feature, and doing anything else he asks the DM, they work something out, and the Wizard rolls.

And there would still be someone complaining about how giving wizards "Magic Strike" is giving them a super special skill that mundanes don't get. The only way to actually get what you want is to either provide every single class with a full listing of every single power and ability they can have a la 4e (which a lot of people, myself included, disliked, not the least of which because it makes character creation and leveling a slog), or do whittle the core down completely so that in core, every character is a mundane fighter, and make all skills and powers plugin modules. Basically, every character is fighter, and fighter is no longer a class, and your class (Wiz, Cleric, Barbarian, Rouge) becomes a module on top of that base template. Which again goes back to maybe they should just plain scrap the fighter.

Something like this would curb the overpowering nature of casters at higher levels, but would bring back even more the 10 Minute Workday problem. Why should we push forward and have the wizard and cleric save all their big spells when we can just kick in the door, have them blast everything, loot the bodies, then let them take a nap to get those spells back?

Honestly, TSR had this solved way back in 0e. Random encounter tables, and upkeep costs. Random encounters (especially rolled once every hour or so) used up resources, and prevented full rest, and upkeep costs, both for cost of living, and for paying your hirelings meant spending time going back to town after each encounter was a losing battle. Even with KotB which caves of chaos comes from, IIRC the caves are nearly 8 hrs travel from the keep, going back and forth to town after every battle eats up your resources, and players do need to rest or they will suffer penalties, so humping it to the caves for 8 hours and then immediately going into battle will incur lots of problems.

[Seerow]

Limited uses per day as a balancing point has been tried. It doesn't work at high levels, because those limited uses become effectively unlimited uses, as no party is going to go on long enough for the Wizard to burn through 50 spell slots.

Also worth noting: They are using some daily abilities for the Fighter too. the 2/day bonus action is just going to make Fighters also want to rest after 1-2 fights, thus exacerbating the 5 minute work day issue.

And of course that completely ignores that what makes spells broken isn't the damage per round they can cause, but the versatility granted. Mundanes get stuck with a non-scaling ability check for the vast majority of things they might want to do. Wizards get access to a whole new tier of spells every other level, giving them new non combat abilities as well as better damage. I don't trust WotC to not release a lot of awesome non combat powers, or combat powers that are more useful than damage... and even if I did trust that and wizards did it, everybody would be upset at how limited magic was.

The core problem is Casters are getting lots of options. Mundane options are "Ask your DM if you can do that". In a real rules light system, you wouldn't have that dichotomy, both sets of characters would be stuck asking the DM if they can do something. Then as a module both sets would gain access to more discrete powers that could be used in and out of combat.


Instead, what we have is Casters with a full fledged spellcasting mechanic, Fighters who can't do anything more than attack, and the promise that in the future the Fighter will have the ability to trade out his Theme to gain access to special combat maneuvers. If the Martial Classes need to waste their themes to get a resource system, why do casters get them for free? Once again, it's an indication of the 5e developers not just falling into old habits of wanking to wizards and making fighters suck, but actually taking a step backwards from what we had before.

The only way this is actually an improvement is for people who thought fighters had too many options before, or people who genuinely think that raw damage is enough to make a character viable. By going with a core system that includes vancian magic but no-ability fighters, they are instituting a disparity from the get-go, in a system that is being advertised as being customizable to any style of game. Can you not see how that is wrong?

[Menteith]

Is it unreasonable for the rules to cover general tactical maneuvers and what's allowable? Look at the rules for a Dirty Trick in Pathfinder. It wouldn't be that difficult to create standardized rules for what's reasonable and what isn't.

@kyoryu

I agree wholeheartedly. It's more than just rules differences; there are fundamental assumptions about the game that differ drastically between editions. They've stated that they want people to be able to create characters using different systems and all play at the same table, which is a cool idea. But when my idea of a Lv20 is a minor god who's capable of destroying nations and yours is an experienced soldier, we have a disconnect that can't really be fixed through the rules. One of us is going to be disappointed.

@Yora

Enh, from what I've seen, it's been a mixed reaction. I haven't seen anyone who's just over the top gushing with praise right now (bearing in mind that I've been watching reactions via GitP forums and Enworld, not WotC's forums). I don't know how the modules will affect it, and I'm hoping that they do a lot to make it more attractive for me.

[Seerow]

And there would still be someone complaining about how giving wizards "Magic Strike" is giving them a super special skill that mundanes don't get.

In this scenario though "Magic Strike" would basically just be a ranged attack, that the magic user could then improvise to do whatever they and the DM thinks is appropriate. If DMs prefer a lower magic game, they'll restrict the improv more, just like they're more likely to restrict the fighter from doing awesome stuff.

The only way to actually get what you want is to either provide every single class with a full listing of every single power and ability they can have a la 4e (which a lot of people, myself included, disliked, not the least of which because it makes character creation and leveling a slog)

How is it more of a slog than 3.5 character creation when playing any spell casting character? Or are you saying you want half the classes in the game to be simple because occasionally you can't be assed to pick powers? If so why not have the magic user class as the one that gets shafted on options? All the wizard players out there would hate it, that's why. Yet somehow people who prefer non-casters get told to suck it up and deal with it over and over again. **** that ****.

If your complaint is that every single class ever had its own ability list, I can get behind that. I liked the overlap of spell lists in 3.5. If martial characters had a shared list that they all drew from, where different martial characters overlapped with one another, that would be fine by me. But would this address your complaint of 'slog'? Or do you think it's a slog to have to make the choices at all, regardless of how the choices are shared among classes?

Because if your position is actually that half the classes in the game should get no options so that they're easier to stat up, I don't know what to say. Because that's about the most stupid and selfish thing I've heard on a topic that invites a lot of stupid and selfish comments.

[TheAbstruseOne]

Honestly, TSR had this solved way back in 0e. Random encounter tables, and upkeep costs. Random encounters (especially rolled once every hour or so) used up resources, and prevented full rest, and upkeep costs, both for cost of living, and for paying your hirelings meant spending time going back to town after each encounter was a losing battle. Even with KotB which caves of chaos comes from, IIRC the caves are nearly 8 hrs travel from the keep, going back and forth to town after every battle eats up your resources, and players do need to rest or they will suffer penalties, so humping it to the caves for 8 hours and then immediately going into battle will incur lots of problems.

They never solved the problem really. I've been running a home-conversion of the D1-3 modules in Pathfinder using the same random encounter tables from the original module (with updated monsters) and they come up very rarely. Also, the group can easily take precautions against a monster randomly walking up to them and attacking. If they're in a dungeon or even a place like the Caves of Chaos, they could simply clear out one area of low level monsters that's isolated (like the kobold caves) and put in place traps and/or barricades to prevent any interruption in their sleep. When the higher level spells come into play like Rope Trick, Magical Hut, and all the various "here's a pocket of interdimensional space you can take a nap in" spells; that becomes even more worthless at a time it's needed the most. And even if they were effective, not all the random encounters were combat encounters on the older tables.

Then there's the backlash against random encounters. They add nothing to the story and they're just ways of eating up gametime. With a system like OD&D/1st/2nd Edition or what we've seen so far of Next, it's not a big deal because combat's pretty quick. But I've been running 3rd/4e/PF games for the past decade and change, so I've still got a knee-jerk reaction to random encounters as eating up 30-60 minutes of my game session. It left a bad taste in my mouth and I really don't like them. It also removes a level of control from me as DM in determining things like pacing and PC advancement that I really like having.

Really, the only sure-fire way to fix the 10 Minute Workday problem is to stop playing with metagaming munchkins. I don't think there's a rule in the book that will actually take care of the problem in an effective way. If your players are pulling tactics like that, they're not acting in-character because no one who chooses the adventuring life would approach it that way. Either talk to them and explain that all this is going to do is force them to fight bigger, badder monsters every single encounter in order to keep the game fun or find some other way to use Rule Zero to punish them for it.

[TheAbstruseOne]

How is it more of a slog than 3.5 character creation when playing any spell casting character? Or are you saying you want half the classes in the game to be simple because occasionally you can't be assed to pick powers? If so why not have the magic user class as the one that gets shafted on options? All the wizard players out there would hate it, that's why. Yet somehow people who prefer non-casters get told to suck it up and deal with it over and over again. **** that ****.

If your complaint is that every single class ever had its own ability list, I can get behind that. I liked the overlap of spell lists in 3.5. If martial characters had a shared list that they all drew from, where different martial characters overlapped with one another, that would be fine by me. But would this address your complaint of 'slog'? Or do you think it's a slog to have to make the choices at all, regardless of how the choices are shared among classes?

Because if your position is actually that half the classes in the game should get no options so that they're easier to stat up, I don't know what to say. Because that's about the most stupid and selfish thing I've heard on a topic that invites a lot of stupid and selfish comments.

Wow, you've already seen the character creation rules that they haven't released outside internal playtesting to know what a fighter or rogue character of a different build type than the pregens will look like? Awesome! I have so many questions for you about how the various classes, themes, and backgrounds will interact with each other to produce different character build types!!

Unless, you know, you're making assumptions based on rules that no one outside WotC and maybe the friends and family playtest have seen and are getting very upset and aggressive over those rules you haven't even seen yet...

[demigodus]

When the dragon lands on your PC, the question is, does it seem reasonable that you PC has a non-0 chance of simply throwing the dragon off him? If not, no check needed. You don't need to have real world experience with dragons to do this, you just need to decide how powerful STR 10 is in your game world, and how powerful dragons are in your game world. Are your PCs reluctant farm boys or hercules? Are dragons mere flying lizards or practically gods unto themselves. The check rule isn't there to resolve all these situations, it's there to resolve situations where you've decided that both sides should have a chance of defeating the other.

Reasonable to whom? What if the DM and the PC in question disagree? What if the DM in question, and PC in question, and the other 3 PCs at the table have 5 different ideas for what the PC's odds should be?

It isn't like your only options might be farmboy or hercules. You could pick anything in between. What if the PC asked to be a grappling master, and the DM agreed to it? Does "grappling master" sound like a reasonable description for a PC in a DM fiat run system? Now, what if when the DM heard the term he was imagining a PC who did well in the Olympics, while when the player said the term, he was envisioning a character that leaped onto a dragon's neck, grabbed it, and using pure skill grappled it unconscious? In one of those cases, the PC would auto-fail this check. In the other case, the PC would auto-succeed.

Now what if the PC actually gave that description of grappling dragons with ease, but then it turned out that the DM's idea of a dragon differed greatly from the player's idea of a dragon?

If you have 5 different people, they will have 5 different ideas of what is reasonable. Just saying "be reasonable" and expecting that to solve problems is a HORRIBLE system. You might as well just write that whatever the DM thinks is most convenient to advance his plot line will happen, and it will be just as accurate.

[Menteith]

Really, the only sure-fire way to fix the 10 Minute Workday problem is to stop playing with metagaming munchkins. I don't think there's a rule in the book that will actually take care of the problem in an effective way. If your players are pulling tactics like that, they're not acting in-character because no one who chooses the adventuring life would approach it that way. Either talk to them and explain that all this is going to do is force them to fight bigger, badder monsters every single encounter in order to keep the game fun or find some other way to use Rule Zero to punish them for it.

I disagree with this. There are ways to pressure players in realistic ways that drain resources from players without having to resort to DM fiat. It's not the player's fault if they use the abilities of their characters in intelligent ways. Being a good DM means knowing what they're capable of, and presenting challenging encounters regardless.

I'll admit that Plane-Shifting to fast time places is a problem, though....

[1337 b4k4]

In this scenario though "Magic Strike" would basically just be a ranged attack, that the magic user could then improvise to do whatever they and the DM thinks is appropriate. If DMs prefer a lower magic game, they'll restrict the improv more, just like they're more likely to restrict the fighter from doing awesome stuff.

But it's still the magic user getting a toy that the fighter doesn't. The BBEG can take away the fighter's sword and bow. How does he stop the mage from magicing up the place? I suppose you could require that the MU carry an implement (I TOLD YOU TO TAKE HIS STAFF!), but then I think we're just back to option 2, where every character at the base is a fighter, since the implement is essentially a bow with unlimited amo. It's not a bad option, but it would radically change how we view D&D classes.

How is it more of a slog than 3.5 character creation when playing any spell casting character?

Honestly, I thought 3.5 was a slog too.

Or are you saying you want half the classes in the game to be simple because occasionally you can't be assed to pick powers? If so why not have the magic user class as the one that gets shafted on options? All the wizard players out there would hate it, that's why.

I'm saying I want the option to do all of the above. I want a system where I can be a lazy SOB and not have to do calculus to level up my character and still be a viable character. I want the option to choose from spell lists, and choose from combat moves, and I want the option to be able to just build spells and moves out of basic materials. I have no dog in who has to start with a basic skill, and add on modules to get cool toys, the only thing I have interest in is that magic feels "magical". 4e, magic was not at all different in feel from any of the martial powers. Equally, there wasn't a different feel between the fighter dancing and weaving and slashing his way through the enemies, and the wizard just zapping them all with a magic missile.

Because if your position is actually that half the classes in the game should get no options so that they're easier to stat up, I don't know what to say. Because that's about the most stupid and selfish thing I've heard on a topic that invites a lot of stupid and selfish comments.

Not quite. I think all the classes should have a "quick mode" for creation and leveling. Let's face it, character creation and leveling is a slog, and nothing turns off a new player faster than handing them a stack of text books to read before they even get a chance to play. A simple quick overview of the classes and their distinguishing features, with a viable simple progression system is what I want. If you happen by Zack S' blog, check out his posts on his idea for "Type V". That's something like what I want.

Reasonable to whom? What if the DM and the PC in question disagree? What if the DM in question, and PC in question, and the other 3 PCs at the table have 5 different ideas for what the PC's odds should be?

It isn't like your only options might be farmboy or hercules. You could pick anything in between. What if the PC asked to be a grappling master, and the DM agreed to it? Does "grappling master" sound like a reasonable description for a PC in a DM fiat run system? Now, what if when the DM heard the term he was imagining a PC who did well in the Olympics, while when the player said the term, he was envisioning a character that leaped onto a dragon's neck, grabbed it, and using pure skill grappled it unconscious? In one of those cases, the PC would auto-fail this check. In the other case, the PC would auto-succeed.

Now what if the PC actually gave that description of grappling dragons with ease, but then it turned out that the DM's idea of a dragon differed greatly from the player's idea of a dragon?

If you have 5 different people, they will have 5 different ideas of what is reasonable. Just saying "be reasonable" and expecting that to solve problems is a HORRIBLE system. You might as well just write that whatever the DM thinks is most convenient to advance his plot line will happen, and it will be just as accurate.

Then you have 5 people playing 5 different games and even having explicit rules aren't going to solve that because rule 0 is that the DM can override any rule. That's why I keep saying everyone at the table needs to come to an agreement about the type of game being played ahead of time. Sorry, if your player says "I want to be a grapple master" and you just say yes without getting an idea for what the player had in mind, that's a mistake on your part as a DM. Your options at that point are either to negotiate with the player when your visions disagree (as reasonable adults do), give the player what they want for now, and talk to them about it after the game (as reasonable adults do), state that you are the DM and for now you are making a ruling, and you will discuss it with the player after the game (as reasonable adults do), let the player have their way, silently sulking over how "they ruined your game" and passive aggressively punishing them (as unreasonable DMs do), or you can run roughshod over your player, telling them to suck it, and have them storm out of your game in a huff (as unreasonable DMs and players do).

Do you people seriously sit down to game with your players and never discuss anything about the world or the power level of the game?

[Doug Lampert]

Really, the only sure-fire way to fix the 10 Minute Workday problem is to stop playing with metagaming munchkins. I don't think there's a rule in the book that will actually take care of the problem in an effective way. If your players are pulling tactics like that, they're not acting in-character because no one who chooses the adventuring life would approach it that way. Either talk to them and explain that all this is going to do is force them to fight bigger, badder monsters every single encounter in order to keep the game fun or find some other way to use Rule Zero to punish them for it.

Huh? MY CHARACTERS want to live and save the town/city/country/continent/world, they do not want to be party number 23 that failed and died as an example for party 24.

It's totally in character and not metagaming at all to rest when you're obviously impared and a relatively short easy rest will fix this. I rest if I think it will help more than pushing on in real life all the time.

The fix is SIMPLE and EASY, it can be implemented almost trivially.

Long term resources don't come back overnight! Seriously, does ANYONE who believes that recovery is that fast ever been tired? Hint, overnight does not give 100% recovery to real people. Pulling back and resting is a negligable benefit, the adrenaline will wear off and you'll stiffen up and you'll probably perform WORSE the next day.

Rest for purposes of recovering spell slots, healing surges, or any other "long term" resource should START on the second or third day of rest, and then be fairly slow from that point on.

People do what works, that's not metagaming, that's playing my character, if you want my character to push on then DON'T have vital resources that are available for a full recharge anytime I take 6 hours off. Make recovering spell slots or serious fatigue or damage take MONTHS, and people won't back out and rest 6 hours at the drop of a hat.

But don't tell me playing a superintelligent wizard as if he were smart enough to notice the most basic things about how his own powers work is metagaming.

[TheAbstruseOne]

I disagree with this. There are ways to pressure players in realistic ways that drain resources from players without having to resort to DM fiat. It's not the player's fault if they use the abilities of their characters in intelligent ways. Being a good DM means knowing what they're capable of, and presenting challenging encounters regardless.

I'll admit that Plane-Shifting to fast time places is a problem, though....

You've never played with die-hard rules lawyer munchkins have you? I wanted to run a traditional good-vs-evil, classic 1st Ed style Greyhawk campaign in Pathfinder. One of my players wanted to play a ninja. I said no. He spent the next two months trying to convince me to let him play a ninja. He dug up every oddball module and novel and interview with Gary Gygax he could find to try to justify me letting him play a ninja even after I said it didn't fit with the stye of the campaign.

This is just to give you an idea because he does this with anything that happens in the campaign that he doesn't like. He's tried to argue for third party feats that are incredibly broken, for items that don't exist in the game world (he wanted a friggin' revolver for his ranger), for skills to cover things that make no sense for them to cover because he had a bigger bonus. I swear if I ordered a pizza with sausage on it, he'd use his smartphone to look up a third-party 2nd edition netbook to prove that I should've ordered pepperoni.

That is the sort of player that Rule Zero and a mechanical way to prevent the 10 Minute Workday is needed for. Most reasonable players either won't play that way or they'll see quickly the sort of frustrations that can cause. But for some players, it's really the only option other than just threatening to kick them out of the group.

[Seerow]

Wow, you've already seen the character creation rules that they haven't released outside internal playtesting to know what a fighter or rogue character of a different build type than the pregens will look like? Awesome! I have so many questions for you about how the various classes, themes, and backgrounds will interact with each other to produce different character build types!!

Unless, you know, you're making assumptions based on rules that no one outside WotC and maybe the friends and family playtest have seen and are getting very upset and aggressive over those rules you haven't even seen yet...

I'm extrapolating from the designer's past proven tendencies, the information given in the playtest packet, and the information from their blogs/columns. Yes, there is room for me to be wrong, but it seems more and more likely that I am right. And yes, being right about it does make me angry, because seeing a game regress in terms of design is something that bugs me a lot.

Could WotC somehow miraculously go against everything they've shown us thus far and pull a great system out of nowhere? Sure. I however won't be holding my breath.

[TheAbstruseOne]

Rest for purposes of recovering spell slots, healing surges, or any other "long term" resource should START on the second or third day of rest, and then be fairly slow from that point on.

Except that's not remotely how the game works or has ever worked. And even if you did extend a "long rest" from one night to three, it still wouldn't change this cheesy tactic. To paraphrase a rather well-known webcomic, "Anyone have anything they want to do for the next three days?"

As to the non-quoted parts of your post, I stand by the position that the 10 Minute Workday is metagaming. It is taking advantage of rules from the system in a way your character in-game would not. No adventurer is going to kick down a door, point the wizard at the monsters like a bazooka, blast everything, then spend the next 23 hours 59 minutes sitting around with the doors locked waiting to be able to sleep again to regain spells. Maybe once or twice in a dire situation, when there are multiple strong enemies and no time limit, but not several times.

And just to preemptively counter another argument, by the time the players are of a level where the 10 Minute Workday really gets abused, no one's worrying about having enough gold to buy rations. No one's going to pull this schtick at 1st or 2nd level and probably not even at 3rd level. It's when they get to 5th level and higher when all those juicy insanely powerful area spells and rays start popping up with only 2-3 spell slots to hold them. By that time, they can sell that +1 magic dagger they found back at 2nd level for a half ton of trail rations.

[TheAbstruseOne]

I'm extrapolating from the designer's past proven tendencies, the information given in the playtest packet, and the information from their blogs/columns. Yes, there is room for me to be wrong, but it seems more and more likely that I am right. And yes, being right about it does make me angry, because seeing a game regress in terms of design is something that bugs me a lot.

Could WotC somehow miraculously go against everything they've shown us thus far and pull a great system out of nowhere? Sure. I however won't be holding my breath.

You mean the designers who gave you 4th Edition which does exactly what you're saying you want Next to do by giving fighters/rogues/etc. just as many power options as wizards and clerics? Or the blogs/columns/Q&As which state that there will be options for the fighter to have 4e style combat maneuvers to push/pull/slide enemies in the advanced combat modules and that they're also testing a change to the fighter class to give them two themes instead of just one and encouraging playtesters dissatisfied with the lack of options for the fighter to add the defender ability from the Moradin cleric? Or the playtest material that proves you wrong already since the fighter build already can do something that no other class can do out of the five pregens in getting two attacks per round at 3rd level through cleave?