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

[obryn]

I remember that d20 had a lot of issues (when it was first released) with the market becoming flooded with unofficial material using the d20 stuff that was, honestly, junk. Granted, that was over 10 years ago, so I would welcome a second opinion.

That's 100% accurate. Tangential ramble below...

Spoiler

Show

S&S Studios (which was a branch of White Wolf, IIRC) even released the Creature Catalog before WotC's own Monster Manual hit the shelves. Which I think might have been the first sign to the business side that something, maybe, was a little ... off ... with this license thingy. (Mongoose's pocket PHB was probably right up there, too.) I'll note that the Creature Catalog was inventive, but its mechanics were ... well, I'll use "inventive" here, too, but not in a good way.

There was a ton of awful stuff from companies like AEG and Fast Forward early on. Even the trusted stuff from well-known names - I'm thinking Malhavoc/Monte Cook here - could be hit or miss and introduce entirely new problems (like, say, your incredible wizard becoming even more incredible).

The 3.5 edition change more or less decimated the market for "stuff made to work with D&D." 3.5 was basically the death knell for the smaller, less-organized publishers, who were already struggling due to the d20 glut. (It also led to sites like RPGNow taking off, because PDFs are way cheaper for a small company to deal with than paper.)

If you look on the other side of the 3.5 divide, you can see that the companies which survived largely figured out that tying your ship to D&D's star was a risky and unviable proposition. So what you saw were a bunch of d20-based OGL games like Conan, Blue Rose/True20, SpyCraft/FantasyCraft etc. which didn't depend on the D&D IP in anything other than a silly blurb on the back cover saying it "required the 3.5 PHB." This process had started before 3.5 with great releases like Arcana Unearthed, but 3.5 forced the issue. And this is exactly the business model which worked for Paizo; they published what amounted to house-rules for 3.5, but with their own imprint that wasn't tied to any other publisher's whims.

There were some exceptions - Necromancer, for example, had basically cornered the market in retro-style adventures, and were able to maintain that market niche. And Malhavoc and some others were big enough to absorb the 3.0 loss and actually turn 3.5 to their advantage with re-releases - but by and large the 3.5 transition fatally wounded the 3pp stuff-for-D&D market.

in regards to some of the other conversation recently, I just wants to chime in that Obryn is bang on.

Thanks! It's been a boring day.

-O

[lesser_minion]

I think the most telling response to this argument is that there are games which are clearly RPGs that rely on "dissociated mechanics" all the time. Look at any FATE-based game like Spirit of the Century or Dresden Files, any Burning Wheel-style game, and basically anything from the Indie movement.

From skimming the book, I don't see any evidence of Burning Wheel 'relying' on dissociated mechanics in the same way that FATE and the products of the Ron Edwards Fan Club do. Aside from Artha, virtually every mechanic in the game is associated. Even Circles.

[Talakeal]

And the other definition of dissociated, and I have no idea of where 4E has dissociated powers by this definition.

A truly dissociated power, by that logic, would be something that relied on information outside of the game world - such as the real world time of day, like a power that only worked between 3 and 4, am or pm.

Daily martial powers? Associated. Why? Because any warrior worth his sword will notice that certain things can be done once a day, no matter how hard he tries to do them more. Period. It's the physics of the game world, and can't be broken.

There might be insufficient fluff for it, or you might not care for how it's fluffed, but the character is not asked to rely upon knowledge outside of the game world to make a decision. The question "can I use x ability" is answered by the simple question "have I rested 8 hours since the last time I used this ability?" All of those factors are known to the character.

That would work IF people didn't try and explain the weirdness of 4E by claiming that they are metagame concepts. When asked WHY a 4E fighter can only trip once per day when a real life person can do so indefinitely (or at least attempt it) most 4E defenders claim that there isn't an in character explanation, rather it is a narrative mechanic to make for more cinematic fight scenes.

IF they gave an explanation, even a stupid one like angering the god of legs, it would be an associated mechanic, but nothing in the fluff even suggests such a thing.

[Oracle_Hunter]

That would work IF people didn't try and explain the weirdness of 4E by claiming that they are metagame concepts. When asked WHY a 4E fighter can only trip once per day when a real life person can do so indefinitely (or at least attempt it) most 4E defenders claim that there isn't an in character explanation, rather it is a narrative mechanic to make for more cinematic fight scenes.

IF they gave an explanation, even a stupid one like angering the god of legs, it would be an associated mechanic, but nothing in the fluff even suggests such a thing.

How about the same explanation as to why 3.X Barbarians can only Rage a certain number of times per day? Or ToB Maneuvers.

Yeah, I'll use those.

[lesser_minion]

How about the same explanation as to why 3.X Barbarians can only Rage a certain number of times per day? Or ToB Maneuvers.

Yeah, I'll use those.

The fact that a flaw exists in other games doesn't justify 4th edition repeating it, particularly not when it also makes the problem far worse.

There's no explanation for why 3.x barbarians can only rage a certain number of times per day, and there is no double standard: it wasn't acceptable when 3e did it either.

As for Tome of Battle, the mechanics used aren't similar enough to 4e's to justify reusing the same explanation.

[Talakeal]

How about the same explanation as to why 3.X Barbarians can only Rage a certain number of times per day? Or ToB Maneuvers.

Yeah, I'll use those.

I personally have all the same complaints about ToB maneuvers that I do about 4E fighters, that comparison is spot on.

As for barbarians, it is a little weird, but it is a biological / psychological fact that people cannot stay in a perpetual "fight or flight" state, and I would count that as an abstraction rather than a mechanic with no explanation.

[Ashdate]

How about the same explanation as to why 3.X Barbarians can only Rage a certain number of times per day? Or ToB Maneuvers.

Yeah, I'll use those.

Can they also explain why a 3.5 Druid can only wild shape a limited amount of times a day? Does nature or some tree-loving god have an invisible pixie with a little chalkboard, tallying the amount of times they shapeshift? What happens if a 5th level druid tries to wild shape a second time?

And what's up with 3.5 wizard spells? They're defined by the number of pages they take up in a book, right? What is it about Wizards that makes them go "Woah, TWO pages? I'm not reading that until I've killed a few more goblins!"

[Oracle_Hunter]

Can they also explain why a 3.5 Druid can only wild shape a limited amount of times a day? Does nature or some tree-loving god have an invisible pixie with a little chalkboard, tallying the amount of times they shapeshift? What happens if a 5th level druid tries to wild shape a second time?

And what's up with 3.5 wizard spells? They're defined by the number of pages they take up in a book, right? What is it about Wizards that makes them go "Woah, TWO pages? I'm not reading that until I've killed a few more goblins!"

I know right? 3.X is so disassociated

Wonder why nobody mentioned "disassociated mechanics" until 4e came out...

@Talakeal -- OK, it is a weird biological/psychological fact that trained warriors can only successfully trip other trained warriors once per Encounter. There, perfectly OK

[lesser_minion]

Wonder why nobody mentioned "disassociated mechanics" until 4e came out...

Because nobody had coined the term. Doesn't mean that the concept wasn't there.

People have been trying to figure out what the hell hit points are since the dawn of time, and people have been bitching about armour class for even longer.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Because nobody had coined the term. Doesn't mean that the concept wasn't there.

Was it?

Did anyone ever complain the Barbarian Rages being limited "made no sense?" ToB I know they complained a lot about (but it appears to be OK with you) but Rages?

I mean, it's not like daily mechanics are a new thing. Magic Items had them all the time in AD&D and, IIRC, so did certain Kit Bonuses. Back then nobody complained about these limitations because they were just the rules of the game. One might as well complain about Leveling via GP gained or not being able to cast magic in armor even if only with verbal components.

[Talakeal]

@Talakeal -- OK, it is a weird biological/psychological fact that trained warriors can only successfully trip other trained warriors once per Encounter. There, perfectly OK

And if 4E players / writers gave explanations like that no one would argue the mechanics were disassociated. I would argue they are incredibly stupid for making up artificial restrictions on a character who is supposed to be larger than life, but not disassociated.

But as I said, I don't like daily mechanics on ANY class because they break my suspensions of disbelief. I can kind of accept it with spell casters because I can picture some sort of "mana" that gets refueled over time, but I still don't like it.

I don't play 3E with ToB. When I PC in 3E or 4E I don't use daily powers regardless of what class I am playing, I simply don't write them down on my character sheet.

Also, Vancian casting is dumb. I argued about how stupid vancien casting was for years, long before 4E or even 3E was even a twinkle in WoTC's eye. The problem is that it has been part of the game for almost 40 years, and is a lot more iconic to D&D than things like healing surges which have only been around for 5 years or so.

[Seerow]

Okay we've been on this disassociative mechanics discussion for like 3 pages now, can we please just all drop it and find something more interesting to discuss?

Like how apparently now in addition to attack/AC not scaling, HP and damage will be cut dramatically as well?

[obryn]

Because nobody had coined the term. Doesn't mean that the concept wasn't there.

Back then it was called "metagame mechanics" or "metagame concepts." Same thing. "Dissociated" is just the new branding. And they're as old as gaming.

-O

[navar100]

The echo chamber effect, I'd say. Everybody thinks that his personal opinion is the majority opinion.

They were also vastly overestimating how many people actually had problems with game balance in 3E. True, there are some vocal forum users (especially over at WOTC) that scream bloody murder about any perceived imbalance in the game, but the point of actual fact is that millions of people play lots of 1E/2E/3E/PF and have no issue with balance. So the balanced game that WOTC designed is what people asked for, or at least the vocal people, but not what people actually wanted.

Bingo.

The people who had no problems whatsoever with 3E hadn't the need to shout about it on the internet. When 4E came out, you heard them roar well enough. You say "tier" they think water from eyes.

Best stop now before I go into a rant.

[lesser_minion]

Was it?

See my edit and my earlier post. People have been confused by hit points since the dawn of time, and armour class was despised even before that. You still get people who dislike the abstraction that armour makes you "harder to hit".

Did anyone ever complain the Barbarian Rages being limited "made no sense?"

I'm pretty sure many people thought it -- it probably didn't get people going on the internet to bitch about it because it was a small part of the game. You'll note that Pathfinder mixed things up, presumably out of a desire to make it make more sense.

I mean, it's not like daily mechanics are a new thing. Magic Items had them all the time in AD&D

I would have to point out that magic items are a far cry from martial arts techniques, and the way they work is analogous to how spells work.

Back then nobody complained about these limitations because they were just the rules of the game.

IIRC, quite a few people did. Several of them made their own games.

One might as well complain about Leveling via GP gained or not being able to cast magic in armor even if only with verbal components.

My understanding is that GP = XP was universally reviled. There's definitely a reason it only lasted one edition.

[navar100]

It's also worth pointing out that (in my experience) many groups actually enjoy the different levels of play that can occur as a result of this. If everyone wants a lower power game, people start to use Healers and Warmages as the primary casters alongside Barbarians and Knights. If everyone wants a higher power game, then parties with Beguilers and Dread Necromancers show up with Warblades and Crusaders. It was only a problem because the classes in the PHB were, for the most part, the most poorly designed and presented material in D&D3.5, with classes like the Wizard and Cleric being presented as equal as the Monk. There's nothing wrong with having variable power level across a system, so long as it's clear to the players that certain classes shouldn't be in the same group.

Says you. My group had fighters and monks in the same party as wizards and clerics (including a DMM Persistent Spell cleric for one campaign) without a problem at all.

[Menteith]

Says you. My group had fighters and monks in the same party as wizards and clerics (including a DMM Persistent Spell cleric for one campaign) without a problem at all.

Which is why I said "In my experience" . I mean, more power to you guys for making it work, I was just saying that it's nice that one can run a party of T1s fighting off Demon Lords, and the same group can run a family trying to fend off wolves attacking their farm, with everything in between. Some concepts translate better than others, but the large variance in power can allow for a wider range of campaigns.

[obryn]

My understanding is that GP = XP was universally reviled. There's definitely a reason it only lasted one edition.

GP as XP was one of the core concepts of OD&D & AD&D. Removing it from the system basically broke 2e's advancement.

It's a resurgence, too. I'd say it's a defining characteristic of the oldschool experience. One of my wishes is that Next brings it back as a solid option.

-O

[Seerow]

GP as XP was one of the core concepts of OD&D & AD&D. Removing it from the system basically broke 2e's advancement.

It's a resurgence, too. I'd say it's a defining characteristic of the oldschool experience. One of my wishes is that Next brings it back as a solid option.

-O

Is this sarcasm?

Or are kings supposed to be like level 30 godlike beings?

[Oracle_Hunter]

Is this sarcasm?

Or are kings supposed to be like level 30 godlike beings?

It was gold earned through adventuring only. You didn't get XP from tithes

Besides, everyone was a 0th Level Character except for PCs, Combat NPCs, and Gods. And in BECMI even the Gods used to be adventurers

[IncoherentEssay]

Personally, i'm fine with barbarian's /day Rages because it's a pool mechanic. You have X resource (daily rages) that you can spend to get Y effect (Rage, at least one feat in Races of Destiny, maybe some others). It does break down once you start dipping around for rage variants and cannot combine the pools, meaning you can be out of Rage A but not Rage B and that is jarring. But within itself, the barbarian (and pool based martial dailies) are just fine. It's when you must have distinct but similar in nature mundane /day abilities A, B and C that each can be used once and only once independent of one another that suspension of disbelief begins to strain for some people, myself included.

Ideally you could combine associated pools, so /encounter Berserking-pool abilities could be paid for with /day Rage-pool points (but not the other way round of course. Rage abilities would be extended buffs and other temporary feats of strenght whilst Berserking is more short focused bursts of brutality).
Similarly, any endurance-themed pool would be interchangeable with Rage whilst pools representing resources of a different nature (like factotum's inspiration) aren't.

[obryn]

Is this sarcasm?

Or are kings supposed to be like level 30 godlike beings?

No, no sarcasm - it's all about reward systems.

Basically, when you get almost no XP from killing monsters but there's a high risk of death, it encourages you to find other ways to get their treasure. It also rewards stuff like trap avoidance, thorough searching, etc.

You only get the XP through adventuring. Not even remotely simulationist, but back in the mid-70's people were really just trying to make a fun game and didn't worry about this abstract stuff.

-O

[Craft (Cheese)]

Like how apparently now in addition to attack/AC not scaling, HP and damage will be cut dramatically as well?

"We're fixing the problems in high-level play by making it identical to low-level play!"

[IncoherentEssay]

They could deliver proper high level gameplay through actually level-appropriate class features!
...but that's wishful thinking around the likelyhood of "instantly rich from lottery winnings without ever even touching a ticket" .

[Menteith]

"We're fixing the problems in high-level play by making it identical to low-level play!"

Except that we're going to continue to give the Wizard access to new spells! This is brilliant!

EDIT
This isn't to say Wizards shouldn't get new spells, but having some classes scaling with their class features and others not substantially benefit from level ups is terrible.

[Fatebreaker]

This isn't to say Wizards shouldn't get new spells, but having some classes scaling with their class features and others not substantially benefit from level ups is terrible.

Especially when leveling up is one of the fundamental rewards of the system!

[Menteith]

The differences between low level and high level play have nothing to do with scaling Attack/Damage/HP, and everything to do with the nature of high level abilities. Fly is going to invalidate many low level challenges - Teleport is going to negate even more, and there are many of these effects. Eventually, one has to accept that low level concepts (Go to a dungeon, kill dudes and take their stuff) won't function in a system that has these game changing effects available. If they stop all characters from gaining this out of combat utility, then they might keep low and high level play similar (although I don't know why one would want to), but many of these effects are "iconic" to D&D, and have a good chance of showing up. Which means that they're restricting the level up benefits to the lower powered classes. Which is pants on head stupid.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Something more troubling from recent articles: This Rule of Three article says that they basically want to make everything as generic as possible so it works with all rules modules.

This is... troublesome. The logical extension of this is that they don't have a firearms module at all, they just have a "ranged weapons" category in the core rules that includes both bows and guns. Everything that would reference either bows or firearms instead references "ranged weapons."

The result of this is you don't really have modules at all, you just have a rules-lite core system. And while it's an experiment I'd welcome, I fear they don't actually realize what they're doing and they're doing this by accident. The results of accidental game design are rarely good.

[Camelot]

I'm glad they're reigning in attack bonus/armor class/hit points/etc. No matter how powerful a human is, if he has no enchantments cast on him and you sneak up on him and stab him in the neck, chances are he'll die in a few minutes unless he gets immediate medical attention. Having a huge amount of hit points makes him just mildly annoyed, and he loses absolutely no ability to fight even with a dagger in his neck.

Making the numbers scale slowly certainly makes the game more realistic, and it makes it so that there don't need to be just as many high-level monsters/enemies as there are low level ones. With this scaling, low-level combat will be skirmish combat; high-level combat will be like Lord of the Rings: four adventurers will be able to take out dozens of orcs. They're not making it all the same across every level.

[Menteith]

I'm glad they're reigning in attack bonus/armor class/hit points/etc. No matter how powerful a human is, if he has no enchantments cast on him and you sneak up on him and stab him in the neck, chances are he'll die in a few minutes unless he gets immediate medical attention. Having a huge amount of hit points makes him just mildly annoyed, and he loses absolutely no ability to fight even with a dagger in his neck.

Making the numbers scale slowly certainly makes the game more realistic, and it makes it so that there don't need to be just as many high-level monsters/enemies as there are low level ones. With this scaling, low-level combat will be skirmish combat; high-level combat will be like Lord of the Rings: four adventurers will be able to take out dozens of orcs. They're not making it all the same across every level.

No matter how much I will myself to levitate, I'm not going to take off. Except that happens in D&D. So do thousand of other unrealistic things. The game isn't going to spontaneously become a good realism simulator if they limit what kind of campaigns the new system can support (I won't be able to run a campaign involving overthrowing a god, for example - something I have done in 3.5, and something that made an amazing campaign). Especially since I can already accomplish exactly what you're talking about with an E6 or E9 variant, without losing the excitement of high level play. Additionally, the issue raised earlier still stands - classes (read: casters) not reliant on scaling AC/Damage/HP will be even more (relatively) powerful against classes built on slowly scaling static boosts.

And for all we know, combat is going to remain similar across 20 levels, with the only variation in how the monsters are described, provided they're scaling monsters at the same rates as the players. Which would be hideously boring. The game should fundamentally change as characters level up.