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

[Menteith]

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

Yup, that's exactly the sort of thing I'd love to see more of.

[Oracle_Hunter]

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.

Well I'll be damned, WotC actually listened to user feedback and acted appropriately!

Yes, this "combat superiority" system is exactly the sort of thing that will allow Fighters to stand out: the ability to respond flexibly in combat. Depending on how "hard-wired" these options are, CS can leave Fighters with a nice form of Encounter-length resource management which adds a bit of tactics back into the game.

Now, we do need to see if they implement this well (e.g. keeping it flexible, not letting it be overshadowed by other class or generic features) but it is certainly a step in the right direction

[Craft (Cheese)]

Hey, I have to admit, combat superiority actually does sound kinda promising as a resource system for fighters. We'll have to see if the options they provide for it actually match up or not, though.

Honestly though, I'm kinda surprised they made it per-turn instead of per-day. That's great!

But one question: Let's say your character has 3d6 per turn to spend on combat superiority. Can you spend the dice individually on different options, or do you have to spend them all at once?

[Togath]

looking through some of the articles, it'll be interesting to see if they do actually make the cleric worse at melee combat then fighters, they do say they're aiming for it being mainly a healer so hopefully they will, but then again, they said the same in 3.5. Also, repeating my question from the last page since it got cut off by the page switching; I did download the correct playtest documents from wizards correct?, Or did they move onto ones that go past level 3?

[Seerow]

Crossposting combat superiority reaction.

None of the examples of things a Fighter can do in this article inspire any great confidence in me. Bonus damage, reduce damage, defend an ally, take an extra attack when an enemy misses? It's a wash overall, and not particularly exciting.

On the other hand, one of the things I've been toying with is a resource system that refreshes round by round, where you can invest the points into passive abilities, or use them for active abilities, some of which reduce your resource cap until you take a rest. The system laid out in this article actually works pretty similarly, just with dice instead of points, and without any indication of abilities that can reduce your dice for the rest of combat/day.

Anyway what I'm getting at is the system itself isn't terrible. It gives Fighters a resource that could potentially be expanded on and used, but dressed up as something unique that feels different. It could be workable if the developers give Fighters actual abilities to use with it, and not just more damage/attacks as it currently looks to be.

[huttj509]

I think what I'd really want to see is an example of a module in play. Something such as having the default work well with "theater of the mind", but having a module there providing more robust tactical combat, for those groups who prefer those rules, while keeping the same "base."

[ThiagoMartell]

looking through some of the articles, it'll be interesting to see if they do actually make the cleric worse at melee combat then fighters, they do say they're aiming for it being mainly a healer so hopefully they will, but then again, they said the same in 3.5.

Actually, that's pretty much the opposite of what they said about the cleric in 3rd edition.

[Togath]

Actually, that's pretty much the opposite of what they said about the cleric in 3rd edition.

So they made the clerics good at everything on purpose?
edit: actually now that i think about it, i think there was an article on how they thought they needed to bribe people to play one, I had forgotten they thoguht that when making 3.5.
The new cleric may be better balanced then the 3.5 then

[jseah]

Spoiler

Show

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.

It still ends up being used that way. Especially when you get different results on a battle grid than off.

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.

It's more than that. A setting is a fictional reality where the characters live, plan and react. Stuff happens and, if your DM has built an interesting scenario, your characters may live in interesting times.
Killing orcs and dragons may factor in somewhere, but it is certainly not ALL about killing orcs and dragons.

Well, interesting to us. More like a curse to the characters in the fishbowl, but we play the game for us so screw them.

EDIT:

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

Well, if we are speaking of violating our normal expectations for basic things like distance and size... for one thing, the distance between X and Y depends on how you orient your grid. Which means that with some judicious applications of measuring tape, characters can actually work out the directions of your grid.
Another implication is that the shape with the most volume for surface area is the cube... and geometry is a mess. I'm not sure if angles even exist as such.

Menteith basically said what I would like to see happen, but I would just like to add that I want to see fluff explanations for crunch. Even if a meager few lines.

[obryn]

It still ends up being used that way. Especially when you get different results on a battle grid than off.

You don't, though. Because the battle grid is an abstraction, and should be treated as such. The world as a whole is not on a battle grid. You can't travel southeast overland and move 40% faster.

It's more than that. A setting is a fictional reality where the characters live, plan and react. Stuff happens and, if your DM has built an interesting scenario, your characters may live in interesting times.
Killing orcs and dragons may factor in somewhere, but it is certainly not ALL about killing orcs and dragons.

...None of which is in any way, shape, or form incompatible with making things easy on yourself with abstractions on the battle mat. Because this isn't a physics textbook, and you're not teaching yourself geometry with D&D. In the game world, pi is 3.14 as you'd expect, not 4.

And if the easy abstraction bothers you, like I mentioned, it's completely irrelevant to anything else in the system. It's not a hard-coded part of the game rules.

-O

[lesser_minion]

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?

The rot might have set in in 3e, but that doesn't excuse the designers for failing to fix it in 4e.

The correct answer was always "come up with something that isn't a square grid". Hex grids and rulers have both proven themselves repeatedly to be at least as easy to use as a square grid, and there was always the option of just making distance more abstract -- e.g. tracking it based on rooms or weapon ranges.

[jseah]

And if the easy abstraction bothers you, like I mentioned, it's completely irrelevant to anything else in the system. It's not a hard-coded part of the game rules.

Perhaps then the design of the game ought to be abstraction-independent? Since 4E's mechanics are quite strongly affected by things like how you handle circles and other little things like that, one can safely say that simply how you handle areas will change viable tactics.


So, an addition to what I would like to see in 5E.
"Separate interface from processing"

Translation: Your game rules and fluff should not reference or be designed around a specific method of representation (whether you use hexes or grid or ruler).
Keep the representation independent of your game design.

[obryn]

Perhaps then the design of the game ought to be abstraction-independent? Since 4E's mechanics are quite strongly affected by things like how you handle circles and other little things like that, one can safely say that simply how you handle areas will change viable tactics.

4e's mechanics aren't even remotely affected by how you design circles. Where are you getting that? Yes, your tactics change, of course. Tactics are what arise from the interplay between the rules, the characters, and the situation. Change one, and tactics change.

Your game rules and fluff should not reference or be designed around a specific method of representation (whether you use hexes or grid or ruler).
Keep the representation independent of your game design.

It's always interesting to see where someone's preference for abstraction begins and ends. You see, a 1:1 battle grid bothers me a whole lot less than the best cupcake maker in the kingdom having a boatload of hit points and better combat skill than most guards.

-O

[lesser_minion]

It's always interesting to see where someone's preference for abstraction begins and ends. You see, a 1:1 battle grid bothers me a whole lot less than the best cupcake maker in the kingdom having a boatload of hit points and better combat skill than most guards.

What makes you think that disliking stupid half-baked positioning rules and disliking stupid half-baked advancement rules are mutually exclusive?

[obryn]

What makes you think that disliking stupid half-baked positioning rules and disliking stupid half-baked advancement rules are mutually exclusive?

I never said they were?

-O

[jseah]

It's always interesting to see where someone's preference for abstraction begins and ends. You see, a 1:1 battle grid bothers me a whole lot less than the best cupcake maker in the kingdom having a boatload of hit points and better combat skill than most guards.

It isn't that bad in 3E. At least if you assume a reasonable level range.

The one I tend to use in my games is that adult human NPCs range from levels 4 to 7. In both NPC and PC classes. (I discarded the city generation rules because they were ridiculous)
In this system, the best in X skill in the lands would be a 7th aristocrat or expert with max ranks, a skill focus feat and another regional feat (or trait or random +2 thingies that exist all over); as well as 14-16 in the relevant stat.
Who isn't going to be much tougher than the random level 4 guard who has 4 levels in warrior or fighter and a good con. (unless we're comparing a weight lifter vs a weaker than usual guard; exceptions exist)

EDIT:
I haven't run a 4E game, but if I had to, I would ressurect the 3E skill point system (with number of trained skills = skill points per level). And human NPCs would go from 5-10, with exceptionals reaching 12.

Maybe. I am not familiar enough with 4E to do this off the top of my head.

EDIT2:
And yes, the very first thing I would do when running 4E is to use PC rules for making NPCs. I tend to run campaigns where players tend to fight NPCs rather than monsters anyway. Or sometimes making NPCs fight each other =D

EDIT3:
That is not to say that this isn't a problem. I just find that setting creation handles this and if you adopt a ridiculous population distribution, you have ridiculous results.

[Camelot]

I think the combat superiority is great. To whomever said that the options don't sound very interesting, I agree, but I also think that you need to have the boring stuff be options alongside the interesting stuff. One player might prefer to just have increased damage instead of being able to slide down banisters and swing from chandeliers.

In addition, it would be extremely easy to add more options to combat superiority in modules and supplements. They sound a lot like at-will powers for fighters, only with a tad more versatility since they don't need to be tied down to an attack.

The rot might have set in in 3e, but that doesn't excuse the designers for failing to fix it in 4e.

The correct answer was always "come up with something that isn't a square grid". Hex grids and rulers have both proven themselves repeatedly to be at least as easy to use as a square grid, and there was always the option of just making distance more abstract -- e.g. tracking it based on rooms or weapon ranges.

I don't think anything was ever broken, so there was nothing to fix. I prefer making my own maps by hand, and hexes are a lot harder to draw than squares. Using rulers is way too intense for my casual group, even for me. Squares are simply easier for everyone, and it is no stretch of the mind to understand that the square blasts are merely representational of spheres.

[lesser_minion]

I prefer making my own maps by hand, and hexes are a lot harder to draw than squares.

You can buy -- or just print out -- graph paper in hexagonal or isometric. No matter what layout you use, if you're drawing out gridlines by hand, you only have yourself to blame.

it is no stretch of the mind to understand that the square blasts are merely representational of spheres.

That's true, but it doesn't mean that it isn't a problem.

The problem isn't that it's somehow immersion-breaking or unplayable to use squares, it's that doing better might have contributed to putting the game somewhere on the right side of mediocre.

[Kerrin]

Any time you have grid based movement there will be issues of one sort or another. With squares there is the diagonal issue. With hexes there are hex row, hex spine, and side slipping issues. Etc.

For D&D I've always just figured 5 real life feet = 1 square = 1 hex = 1 inch, and can easily adapt between any of the square/hex/inch representations that any particular D&D gaming group decides to use.

For me it's not a big issue if a fire"ball" is a cube, a hexahedron, or a true sphere.

[kyoryu]

The problem isn't that it's somehow immersion-breaking or unplayable to use squares, it's that doing better might have contributed to putting the game somewhere on the right side of mediocre.

And would have resulted in slowdowns in game play. That's the tradeoff, and clearly they went with "quicker gameplay". Personally, I think it was the right choice, and that it's an improvement over 3.x in that way. Clearly, you disagree.

[Ashdate]

EDIT:
I haven't run a 4E game, but if I had to, I would ressurect the 3E skill point system (with number of trained skills = skill points per level). And human NPCs would go from 5-10, with exceptionals reaching 12.

Maybe. I am not familiar enough with 4E to do this off the top of my head.

Why? Skills work pretty well in 4e, without the issues with PCs falling drastically behind their comrades as they gain levels. Certainly, a flat +5 bonus isn't as sexy as having "14 ranks in Arcana", but it also means that your worst gap in skills is constant, rather than ever increasing. Even 5e has gotten the memo that skill ranks cause more problems than they are worth (although the playtest DC numbers need to be fixed).

EDIT2:
And yes, the very first thing I would do when running 4E is to use PC rules for making NPCs. I tend to run campaigns where players tend to fight NPCs rather than monsters anyway. Or sometimes making NPCs fight each other =D

I can tell you that this would be a mistake; PCs deal way too much damage and have too few hit points to do "PVP" combat. Fights would come down to which side won initiative, allowing them to action point and blow daily powers. And let's be honest: a fight isn't going to last long enough for you to need a NPC with 15 abilities.

Creating believable monsters in mere minutes is one of the best things about 4e; if 5e takes anything from the 4e system, it should be how easy it is to create/refluff monsters.

[kyoryu]

I can tell you that this would be a mistake; PCs deal way too much damage and have too few hit points to do "PVP" combat. Fights would come down to which side won initiative, allowing them to action point and blow daily powers. And let's be honest: a fight isn't going to last long enough for you to need a NPC with 15 abilities.

Actually, I think this is the most compelling reason for asymmetric PC/enemy design (which was certainly the case in all versions except 3.x). A PC has to be designed to do *lots* of things, while an enemy really only needs to be specialized in one area - killing the PC. Combine this with the fact that an enemy is only around for a single fight (typically), and you get to the point where NPC and PC creation are asymmetric, even if they're using the same creation rules.

Creating believable monsters in mere minutes is one of the best things about 4e; if 5e takes anything from the 4e system, it should be how easy it is to create/refluff monsters.

I've found that *most* systems are actually set up this way, TBH. Certainly 1/2e were, and most other systems follow the same path. Creating enemies in GURPS, for instance, is just assigning appropriate skills and stats, and possibly a few advantages/disads. Much less time than creating a full character.

[Person_Man]

So they made the clerics good at everything on purpose?
edit: actually now that i think about it, i think there was an article on how they thought they needed to bribe people to play one, I had forgotten they thoguht that when making 3.5.
The new cleric may be better balanced then the 3.5 then

In my personal experience with 2nd edition D&D growing up, virtually all combat took place in the theater of the mind, and combat was quick, deadly, and frequent. There was a huge demand for healing services almost every round of every combat.

Also, everyone got a free attack on an enemy if they moved away from you, and you couldn't cast a spell or use a ranged weapon if you were standing next to a foe. So fighting on the front line while healing as necessary wasn't advisable. You had to stand behind other players who weren't going to cast spells.

And although there were a few potent gems (I will forever love Blade Barrier) Cleric spell lists in general consisted mostly of healing, status condition removal, and buffs with short durations.

Clerics were boring, and thus players avoided them. So in 3.0, they purposely overcompensated, assuming that Clerics would still spend most rounds healing, but would at least have some more potent options for when they didn't. Instead, they just ignore healing until after combat, and win the battles by themselves.

Honestly, I think it's time for them to stop reacting to reactions of reactions. Just design each class to be fun and interesting. It doesn't need to be a direct response to previous editions.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I've found that *most* systems are actually set up this way, TBH. Certainly 1/2e were, and most other systems follow the same path. Creating enemies in GURPS, for instance, is just assigning appropriate skills and stats, and possibly a few advantages/disads. Much less time than creating a full character.

Quite the opposite.

It is true that in 1e/2e creating enemies from scratch was just "throwing stuff together" but that was because the DMG provided little, if any, guidance on how to create appropriate monsters. How much XP is a given HD worth? Is it more or less depending on SLAs or certain powers? DMs had literally no way to gauge what was appropriate aside from "eyeballing it." This was true across many of TSR's contemporaries; as a result DMs traditionally either refluffed published monsters or built them like PCs.

4e's innovation was providing DMs with the same tools that the game designers were using to make monsters (and, as an aside, trying to make their game designers use those same tools). Now DMs could have a generally good idea as to how tough a given monster would be and therefore have an easier time experimenting with making their own monsters. You didn't worry so much at throwing a novel LV 11 creature at your PCs -- it would probably be as big a threat as LV 11s usually are.

As a DM, I really hope 5e provides a similar toolkit: it helped me not just make interesting encounters for my Players but also to make actually novel creatures to populate my homebrew world.

[kyoryu]

Quite the opposite.

It is true that in 1e/2e creating enemies from scratch was just "throwing stuff together" but that was because the DMG provided little, if any, guidance on how to create appropriate monsters. How much XP is a given HD worth? Is it more or less depending on SLAs or certain powers? DMs had literally no way to gauge what was appropriate aside from "eyeballing it." This was true across many of TSR's contemporaries; as a result DMs traditionally either refluffed published monsters or built them like PCs.

Yeah, I was mostly referring to the fact that 1e enemies weren't built like PCs - they had HD, not levels, etc. The intent is pretty clearly that the system is asymmetric.

4e is a definite step up from that in terms of providing additional tooling.

Even in cases where in 1e someone built enemies as PCs (which is odd, given the whole HD/level thing, etc.), it would *still* be less effort due to the lower effort of creating characters in 1e compared to 3.x.

[lesser_minion]

And would have resulted in slowdowns in game play.

We have no evidence of that, and as far as I'm aware, the designers didn't either.

That's the tradeoff, and clearly they went with "quicker gameplay".

See above. There's no evidence whatsoever that any tradeoff needed to be made. Intuitively, it seems unlikely that either rulers or hexes would have any disadvantage at all, let alone a significant one.

Personally, I think it was the right choice, and that it's an improvement over 3.x in that way. Clearly, you disagree.

Again, there is no evidence that they actually made an informed choice or were faced with a tradeoff. I'm not comparing 3e with 4e, I'm comparing with 4e with what 4e might have been.

Actually, I think this is the most compelling reason for asymmetric PC/enemy design (which was certainly the case in all versions except 3.x). A PC has to be designed to do *lots* of things, while an enemy really only needs to be specialized in one area - killing the PC. Combine this with the fact that an enemy is only around for a single fight (typically), and you get to the point where NPC and PC creation are asymmetric, even if they're using the same creation rules.

It's reasonable -- and normal -- not to include details about a monster that would never be applicable. Nobody's saying that every single wolf has to have a modifier listed for its Craft (basketweaving) skill.

The problem is that the typical monster should be able to fill far more than just one role in the game. When designing a monster, there are more things to bear in mind than just "what can it do in a fight?" -- in fact, there's no real need to make a given monster interesting to fight at all.

[obryn]

The problem is that the typical monster should be able to fill far more than just one role in the game. When designing a monster, there are more things to bear in mind than just "what can it do in a fight?"

These things are not mutually exclusive.

-- in fact, there's no real need to make a given monster interesting to fight at all.

In a game in which interesting fights are valued, making monsters interesting to fight is a plus. I believe D&D is such a game, particularly 3.x and 4e. And, from the design notes to-date, 5e as well.

-O

[lesser_minion]

These things are not mutually exclusive.

What are you talking about?

In a game in which interesting fights are valued, making monsters interesting to fight is a plus. I believe D&D is such a game, particularly 3.x and 4e. And, from the design notes to-date, 5e as well.

Interesting fights are nice to have, but they are not critical to any given monster entry if the game as a whole can be entertaining outside of combat.

[kyoryu]

We have no evidence of that, and as far as I'm aware, the designers didn't either.

Wha? So you think they just made a decision to change things like that randomly? If your argument is "they must be idiots," then there's really no need to continue any discussion, as the only conclusion is that anyone that disagrees with you as an idiot.

I've played 3.x. I've played 4e. While the plural of anecdote is not data, my experience is that square bursts, while less realistic, are faster for most players than "round" 3.x style bursts.

See above. There's no evidence whatsoever that any tradeoff needed to be made. Intuitively, it seems unlikely that either rulers or hexes would have any disadvantage at all, let alone a significant one.

My experience is that both rulers and hexes are off-putting to new players. Grids aren't. My guess is that's because most people are familiar with chess and checkers, which are both played on grids, while most people are *not* familiar with either traditional wargames (rulers) or hex-based games.

Again, there is no evidence that they actually made an informed choice or were faced with a tradeoff. I'm not comparing 3e with 4e, I'm comparing with 4e with what 4e might have been.

So, your argument is that people who were paid to design a game did not have your enlightened background, or even do the bare minimal of research? Especially when it truly appears that older D&D variants were based upon rulers, given that they measure distances in inches?

It's reasonable -- and normal -- not to include details about a monster that would never be applicable. Nobody's saying that every single wolf has to have a modifier listed for its Craft (basketweaving) skill.

There's a difference between having the end statistics available, and actually going through character generation the same way a PC would.

The problem is that the typical monster should be able to fill far more than just one role in the game. When designing a monster, there are more things to bear in mind than just "what can it do in a fight?" -- in fact, there's no real need to make a given monster interesting to fight at all.

"Depending on the game". D&D has been, historically, a game about tromping through dungeons and killing stuff. Or at least taking their treasure. It can be coerced into working in other situations, but it does so weakly at best compared to other systems.

[obryn]

What are you talking about?

You said, "The problem is that the typical monster should be able to fill far more than just one role in the game." I am saying that this is not mutually exclusive with having monsters that are also interesting to fight.

Interesting fights are nice to have, but they are not critical if the system can be entertaining in other ways.

I disagree; they are absolutely critical. The system should be entertaining in many ways, including via interesting fights. This is D&D; fights with monsters are central to the genre and concept, regardless of how some individual campaigns are run. The "fighting monsters" part of the system must be interesting, and interesting monsters help meet that goal.

This does not prevent monsters from also having a place in the game-world or interesting ecologies. It simply means that the fact that PCs might very well fight with your monsters should be considered at all steps in monster design.

-O