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

[Craft (Cheese)]

Also, you're lucky that your DM isn't a stickler for the rules, given that the spell is called fireball, and later on there is a lightning serpent, clearly that means that your fireball can't be anything other than a ball (even though it's a square)

Okay, I'm tired of this one. 4E's fireball *is* a circle.

[jseah]

At the end of the day, we're talking about a magic spell which has no observable appearance in reality. It would have been equally easy for the designer to write "looks like a snake on fire" rather than "looks like a ball on fire," and neither one is more true than the other. It could be either or both or neither, and it wouldn't change the damage, the range, radius, or any other mechanical ability which a fireball spell already possesses, nor would it grant it anything new. It looks like whatever we want it to look like, so it might as well look cool for the guy who's casting it!

In particular, I am not saying you cannot have your flame serpent. I am saying you should talk to your DM and see if he's fine with it first and expect to have minor differences with the normal fireball. (unless you like retconning your explanation every time any inconsistency comes up)

Also, I indeed would discourage excessive rewriting if only because it is alot of work to make the explanations. Suffice it to say that even magic has rules.
The primary disagreement here is whether it is possible to refluff something without changing the mechanics...

*hmm, didn't I do this before?*
uhoh, um... its in the Flame Hair thread! (and I vaguely recall a stupid challenge I made in the distant past)

P.P.S You also keep mentioning "flame hair thread," which I am not familiar with. Can you provide a link so that I can properly understand what you mean?

XD I am going to not respond to the rest of your post because it is basically the same stuff covered in the flame-hair thread.

Timeline:

My entry into the thread starts at page 17...
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...0#post11420750
right in the middle of an argument about whether making a character with fire for hair was a change of the rules.

That argument was epically long and only really started to die away around page 24...
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...0#post11434480
shortly afterwards we start a discussion about whether classes exist as in-game constructs and whether rules exist in game.

After that dies down, there is some discussion about determining rules from inside the game. And then the 2nd epic part starts, regarding refluffing UMDing wands...
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...0#post11477270
which runs until the end of the thread with a diversion into other things.


Note that my opinions have been refined since that thread. In particular, I had not thought of "fluff as explanations that crunch is modelling" at the time.

[1337 b4k4]

Okay, I'm tired of this one. 4E's fireball *is* a circle.

Oh I agree, but this is only true if you accept fluff as rules, because if you don't, this is what the rules say is a fireball:

Daily Arcane, Fire, Implement
Standard Action Area burst 3 within 20 squares Target: Each creature in burst
Attack: Intelligence vs. Reflex
Hit: 3d6 + Intelligence modifier fire damage.
Miss: Half damage.

And this is what the rules say a "Burst" is:

A burst starts in an origin square and extends in all directions to a specified number of squares from the origin square.

Which clearly defines it as a square.

At an absolute minimum, the limitation that it's a circle or a square is clearly an arbitrary limitation on the spell that has no mechanical effect an only serves to hinder proponents of the fireball as serpent from choosing what their character looks like.

Yes, reducto ad absurdum because I think the idea that if the rules describe the fireball as starting as a small ball of flame and growing bigger, this somehow limits people who want their fireballs to look different is absurd on its face.

[Craft (Cheese)]

No, I mean, it's a circle by the rules.

A circle can be minimally defined by a center point and a radius. The circle is the set of points with a distance from the center point less than or equal to the radius.

...And that's exactly how 4e's bursts work. They only look like squares on the battle grid as a consequence of how 4e defines distances.

[1337 b4k4]

A circle can be minimally defined by a center point and a radius. The circle is the set of points with a distance from the center point less than or equal to the radius.

...And that's exactly how 4e's bursts work. They only look like squares on the battle grid as a consequence of how 4e defines distances.

< Super Pedantic Rules Lawyer Mode >

Pedantically, a circle is all the points on a plane equidistant from a given point, which distance is defined as a "radius". The area of the circle is the thing that includes all points at a distance less than the radius as well. Now that that's out of the way, we can examine the burst as defined in 4e. The burst has an origin square, and extends in all directions an equal number of squares from the origin.

At face value that sound an awful lot like a circle. Except the rules are inconsistent about what a square really is. Despite normally treating squares as arbitrary units of measurement (see the movement rules where diagonal movement is no different from NESW movement), the rules still define a square as a 5 foot square in game, meaning that the distance between opposite faces on the square is 5 feet, and the distance between the corners of the square is ~7 feet. Furthermore, the rules state that up to 4 tiny creatures can occupy a square meaning a tiny creature can fit in a space consisting of 2.5 feet to a side, and that a 1/4 square is a significant unit of measurement.

If your fireball bursts at the center square and extends 3 squares to the east, that means that your circle has a radius of 15 feet. Moving diagonally, it means your fireball should end only a about a foot into the 3rd diagonal square, meaning at least 1 if not more tiny creatures in that square should be outside your fireball's range, without even having to move or squeeze. If we assume that the fireball fills the full diagonal distance of 21 feet, that means that your fireball should extend a fully additional square to the NESW directions. The only way to square (no pun intended) the statement in the rules that a square is a real world 5 foot square, and that your fireball fully threatens a perfect square of squares is to assume that the fireball is actually a square.

Of course, all of this holds true, only if we don't believe that D&D has redefined the rules of mathematics, geometry and physics, to define a square as a 4 sides shape with sides and diagonals of equal distance. If D&D has indeed redefined the rules of math, geometry and physics, we have a whole new set of concerns that should probably be addressed elsewhere.
< /Super Pedantic Rules Lawyer Mode >

This message brought to you by People for the Unethical Treatment of Rules Lawyers. Remember kids, rules lawyers have no souls, killing them does not violate your Good alignment.

[Ashdate]

Don't blame 4e, 3e is the one that started defining circles as anything but*. At least 4e's are five times easier to calculate compared to the awkward expanding boxes of 3e. Does anyone really look fondly at the metal wireframes needed to "quickly" determine a burst in 3e?

*an earlier edition might have thrown away circles for the use with miniatures, but in those cases they probably used hexes. Citation needed!

[Togath]

Why would you need a wire-frame to figure eout the radius of a burst in 3e?
At worst you might need a single peice of string, or a tailor's measuring tape

[WinWin]

Silly, silly 2d thinkers...

A burst is not a circle (square).

It's a sphere (cube).

[obryn]

What's hilarious is that never once has circle vs. square caused my group any heartache. Bursts and blasts and auras and zones are everywhere in 4e. Tracking them with 3e battlemap math would just get obnoxious. Just like with hit points, it's a meaningless game abstraction to make play smooth and easy.

If I need it for fluff, it's a sphere or a ball. On the map it's a square or a cube. Somehow this utterly fails to concern me.

-O

[Craft (Cheese)]

< Super Pedantic Rules Lawyer Mode >

4e's battle grid is not a euclidean space. Yes, squares have diagonals equal to their length in 4e-space.

[Ashdate]

Why would you need a wire-frame to figure eout the radius of a burst in 3e?
At worst you might need a single peice of string, or a tailor's measuring tape

You need a wire frame to quickly determine the radius of a burst. If you're using a grid, you can't use a piece of string.

Per the SRD:

Spoiler

Show

Some spells affect an area. Sometimes a spell description specifies a specially defined area, but usually an area falls into one of the categories defined below.

Regardless of the shape of the area, you select the point where the spell originates, but otherwise you don’t control which creatures or objects the spell affects. The point of origin of a spell is always a grid intersection. When determining whether a given creature is within the area of a spell, count out the distance from the point of origin in squares just as you do when moving a character or when determining the range for a ranged attack. The only difference is that instead of counting from the center of one square to the center of the next, you count from intersection to intersection.

You can count diagonally across a square, but remember that every second diagonal counts as 2 squares of distance. If the far edge of a square is within the spell’s area, anything within that square is within the spell’s area. If the spell’s area only touches the near edge of a square, however, anything within that square is unaffected by the spell.

Thus your blasts aren't true circles; they look more like a small group of pixels trying to emulate a circle.

[Camelot]

What's hilarious is that never once has circle vs. square caused my group any heartache. Bursts and blasts and auras and zones are everywhere in 4e. Tracking them with 3e battlemap math would just get obnoxious. Just like with hit points, it's a meaningless game abstraction to make play smooth and easy.

If I need it for fluff, it's a sphere or a ball. On the map it's a square or a cube. Somehow this utterly fails to concern me.

-O

I completely agree. Instead of worrying about circles and squares, I'm more interested in how 5e is going to handle cones, and to an extent, lines. I haven't been able to think of a really quick-and-easy way to handle cones, as it not only has an origin point and a radius like a circle, but it also has a direction that it faces. The way blasts was handled in 4e was pretty convenient, but to make it triangle-shaped will confuse things a tad, especially for my casual group that has trouble using the grid to begin with.

[1337 b4k4]

4e's battle grid is not a euclidean space. Yes, squares have diagonals equal to their length in 4e-space.

And this is one of the many reasons why 4e turned so many people off, because in order to make the rules internally consistent, it has to routinely violate our human experiences with physics, math and everything else.

What's hilarious is that never once has circle vs. square caused my group any heartache. Bursts and blasts and auras and zones are everywhere in 4e. Tracking them with 3e battlemap math would just get obnoxious. Just like with hit points, it's a meaningless game abstraction to make play smooth and easy.

If I need it for fluff, it's a sphere or a ball. On the map it's a square or a cube. Somehow this utterly fails to concern me.

Oh it doesn't concern me or my group either. Then again, I routinely play older games that just use distances, and it's a whole lot easier to ask if someone is within the given distance than it is to bother with precise positioning with grids and such.

[obryn]

And this is one of the many reasons why 4e turned so many people off, because in order to make the rules internally consistent, it has to routinely violate our human experiences with physics, math and everything else.

I'd think it'd be more accurate to say you're picking which abstractions you're going to concede. I mean, compared to hit points and levels, easy math for battlemap convenience is kind of a quibble.

I mean, routinely surviving 200' falls, greatsword hits, dragon breath, giant boulder strikes, and so on ... those violate our human experiences in nearly every conceivable way. This isn't to say that you don't have the right to pick and choose your abstractions - that's why we have different systems, after all - but it's a bit disingenuous to talk about "physics, math, and everything else" if you've already tossed those out the window.

And a note on...

Then again, I routinely play older games that just use distances, and it's a whole lot easier to ask if someone is within the given distance than it is to bother with precise positioning with grids and such.

I don't see a barrier to this sort of play with 3e or 4e, either. Instead of a grid, you're looking at rulers and pieces of string. "Diagonal=1" (or 3e's "diagonal = 1.5") isn't baked into either system in any really substantial way.

I suppose it's techncially a houserule in both cases, but when it comes to parts of the system you want to modify ... well, there are basically zero consequences in the system if you do it differently.

-O

[Menteith]

HP isn't a bad abstraction because it's representing unrealistic things occurring in the game world, it's a bad abstraction because it's not great at representing those things. If the rules in a D&D setting say that a high level Barbarian can fall from orbit and survive because he was angry, then he can - HP doesn't come into it at all. HP isn't a great abstraction because it's generally used to represent increasing injuries, and doesn't do so very well. There's no limb damage, wound levels, or anything to impede combat effectiveness until you're disabled. HP is doing a bad job of representing something in the game world, rather than doing a good job representing something unrealistic, if that makes sense.

[jseah]

I mean, routinely surviving 200' falls, greatsword hits, dragon breath, giant boulder strikes, and so on ... those violate our human experiences in nearly every conceivable way. This isn't to say that you don't have the right to pick and choose your abstractions - that's why we have different systems, after all - but it's a bit disingenuous to talk about "physics, math, and everything else" if you've already tossed those out the window.

I think the point is that we shouldn't have thrown them out the window. Fall damage should model actual falls (namely based on weight and shouldn't matter if you are falling on the ground or the ground falling on you; ie. symmetric) and terminal velocity ought not to imply that D&D air is 10x denser than RL's... HP, stamina, etc.
This is not difficult to write good rules for and they certainly could have done better there. And yes, they do bother me, but not as much as square circles.

Changing coordinate systems is a rather more fundamental change than super high air densities. You can also explain falling 200 feet and getting up with a magical biology, which is something that really ought to have happened a long time ago. (A setting with magic and common creatures don't use it?!)
EDIT: note that I don't actually condone having 10x denser air (and people ought to splat at long falls, even at D&D terminal velocity)

Its rather harder to understand the full implications of having a coordinate system where the distance between two points is the biggest difference between the positions on each axes instead of pythagoras.
(the implications of THAT is incredibly crazy, practically everything breaks; it is significantly worse than manhattan distance since that at least had some mathematical treatment)

And if you are making a model from the fluff explanation (fireballs are round), it ought to be a good faith effort to model the fact the fireballs are round, not adopt a coordinate system that means whether you use a battlemat or not affects whether it takes two or three fireballs to burn a house down. (assuming your GM tells you fireballs set things on fire)
As it turns out, using 1.5 as a substitute for root 2 is pretty good as things go.


--- Pardon if I come off as irritated, it has been a very bad day for me (working on sundays T_T) and I have a headache. I do not mean to convey any irritation... more... something else I don't have the words for right now.

[obryn]

Its rather harder to understand the full implications of having a coordinate system where the distance between two points is the biggest difference between the positions on each axes instead of pythagoras.

In my mind, this is far, far too much overthinking. It says nothing about a coordinate system. It says a lot about convenience and speed of play on a grid.

If this is someone's biggest issue with 4e, it's weird. Because it's not like it's an integral part of the system like powers, actions, or levels are; it's just a convenience on a grid, like SWSE's diagonals = 2, or 3.5's "all your spells have origins on corners and there's no such thing as 25' diameter". No other rules feed back into it in any of the three systems.

It makes it so you don't need to buy wire templates for big spell diameters. That's pretty much it. I don't think it intends to be anything more than that, just like HPs aren't intended to be anything more than "numbers like this make combat work how we want."

-O

[Scowling Dragon]

There is abstraction, Simplification and high fantasy.

Abstraction is to make things more abstract to make it easier to use.

Simplification is to make something simpler to allow for easier use

High Fantasy is creation of a different world with different rules.

[Oracle_Hunter]

There is abstraction, Simplification and high fantasy.

Abstraction is to make things more abstract to make it easier to use.

Simplification is to make something simpler to allow for easier use

High Fantasy is creation of a different world with different rules.

Uh, Abstraction and Simplification sound a lot alike.

Just sayin'

[1337 b4k4]

I'd think it'd be more accurate to say you're picking which abstractions you're going to concede. I mean, compared to hit points and levels, easy math for battlemap convenience is kind of a quibble.

I mean, routinely surviving 200' falls, greatsword hits, dragon breath, giant boulder strikes, and so on ... those violate our human experiences in nearly every conceivable way. This isn't to say that you don't have the right to pick and choose your abstractions - that's why we have different systems, after all - but it's a bit disingenuous to talk about "physics, math, and everything else" if you've already tossed those out the window.

Oh sure, but I think for most people it's much easier to write off surviving massive falls and dragons and giants as "heroics" than it is to write off a completely alien physics and coordinate system. It's also worth noting that another complaint about 4e was just how completely overpowered everything was to the point of breaking suspension of disbelief, 200' falls and all that. Sure D&D has always had its oddities, especially at high levels, but those oddities have increased over the years and I think with 4e might have reached a bit of a breaking point for people, especially those that don't necessarily want to run a super heroes game, but are required to if they play 4e because it's superheroes at level 1.

Incidentally, I think the odd coordinate system would have been easier for WotC to get away with if they had simply completely disconnected the square from any real world measurement (5 foot square), instead saying that a square was a unit of measure equal to the amount of space a medium sized creature occupies comfortably, and left it at that. Of course, that would have really tweaked some people on the "too videogamey" front, but since 4e had already pissed them off, one more push wouldn't have hurt.

I don't see a barrier to this sort of play with 3e or 4e, either. Instead of a grid, you're looking at rulers and pieces of string. "Diagonal=1" (or 3e's "diagonal = 1.5") isn't baked into either system in any really substantial way.

I suppose it's techncially a houserule in both cases, but when it comes to parts of the system you want to modify ... well, there are basically zero consequences in the system if you do it differently.

Absolutely, 4e doesn't require a "battle grid" so much as it required precise measurements. If you simply translate "square" to "5 feet" then everything more or less works. Now you do need a tape measure and a playing surface, but given D&D's Chainmail roots, that's hardly anything new.

That said, I think most of the complaints over the battle grid requirement has a lot to do with the absolute positioning needs of the system. While D&D may have Chainmail roots, early editions definitely allowed for more in head and relative positioning than 4e and even 3e before it.

[jseah]

In my mind, this is far, far too much overthinking. It says nothing about a coordinate system. It says a lot about convenience and speed of play on a grid.

I don't think I would touch a model that cuts corners to that extent. Approximations are fine (root 2 = 1.5) when used judiciously, and the more extreme the approximation, the more need there has to be (rotational inertia is hard)

If you want a circle model that was easy, you'd be better off with a hex grid or a ruler. Squares are NOT the way to go however you look at it.

Still, perhaps we could just use hexes and run with that.

[Kerrin]

The should have just named the spell Firecube and been done with it.

Or, maybe something more generic like Conflagration.

[Craft (Cheese)]

And this is one of the many reasons why 4e turned so many people off, because in order to make the rules internally consistent, it has to routinely violate our human experiences with physics, math and everything else.

Yeah, I just don't see it. How do non-euclidean spaces violate the laws of math?

[obryn]

Oh sure, but I think for most people it's much easier to write off surviving massive falls and dragons and giants as "heroics" than it is to write off a completely alien physics and coordinate system.

It's not an alien physics and coordinate system. It's an abstraction and simplification used for quick gameplay, like every other battle grid. It does not intend to simulate or model reality, whether of the euclidean or non-euclidean varieties.

And it's fine to write things off as "heroics". It's still an abstraction, and I think it's important to keep this in mind. There's a decision-making process here about how much abstraction is too much for you. It's silly to talk as if previous editions had no other abstractions.

For example. It's 3.5. I have a skilled blacksmith with a +17 in Craft (Blacksmithing). What's his minimum BAB? And how did he get this if he has never fought a battle in his life?

but are required to if they play 4e because it's superheroes at level 1.

This is just so far outside my experiences with the system that I have to think you're thinking of something else.

(rotational inertia is hard)

It's not supposed to model rotational inertia. It's a fantasy game about elves and dwarves killing orcs and dragons and stealing their stuff.

-O

[huttj509]

4e put the statement "this is a game, and should function smoothly and easily as a game" as a higher design priority than 3e, or perhaps other RPG systems. On this I think most folks agree.

Whether this is a good thing or bad thing is HEAVILY YMMV.

[Scowling Dragon]

Uh, Abstraction and Simplification sound a lot alike.

Just sayin'

Yup. They mean different things (Similar but different) but are both employed by game systems to ensure that Rules for systems do not require a warhouse to hold.

[Stubbazubba]

OK, so, new topic:

What do you hope to see added/changed in the next round of playtest docs we hope to see at GenCon?

[Menteith]

- A more robust way of dealing with multiple instances of Advantage

- A better form of scaling or specialization, that doesn't allow for the weakest possible person on the planet to beat the strongest possible character at chargen in a arm wrestle more than 10% of the time.

- An effective, fair way of resolving the current problems facing the Fighter (complete lack of utility and tactical options both in and out of combat) and Casters (far too much potential utility in the "iconic" spells, exponential scaling).

- Multiple working modules that showcase the strengths of previous editions, that are compatible both with the previous editions and with each other.

- A new mechanic that is 5E specific, that significantly improves the system.

[obryn]

- An effective, fair way of resolving the current problems facing the Fighter (complete lack of utility and tactical options both in and out of combat) and Casters (far too much potential utility in the "iconic" spells, exponential scaling).

Speak of the devil...

This looks like a step in the right direction. It adds some tactical options in combat at least, and gives Fighters a "shtick" that sets them apart from Joe Commoner with a Longsword. So it gets those two right.

Without some kind of ability to guard the party effectively, I don't know if it will go far enough for me, but having a strong, unique Fighter class feature was near the top of my list.

-O

[Togath]

Also a quick question I just now realized i should ask; the current playtest is the one with 5 premade characters that goes up to about level 3, correct?, Just wanting to make sure I have the current one as the WotC download was really buggy so i was sure i got the correct one from it.
edit; it is also nice to see that WotC is listening to reports about under-powered, or at least boring fighters, so hopefully they will continue to add things to them, and hopefully they may even add something like ToB in 3.5