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

[huttj509]

That's not how it works in previous editions. Because of the 1/2 level scaling, a warrior gets better at Arcana just by levelling up. How does that make sense? Is he reading the Wizard's arcane tomes before bed each night?

I think it was intended to reflect "he's been around the block a few times. Seen things Joe Guard has never dreamed of (and killed them). Been around hundreds of spells and magic effects, and those are just the ones that were levied against him. He's picked up a few things about how magic works."

I've never studied plumbing, but I've picked up a few things over the years. I bet you have too. Not necessarily anything involved or complex, but even "oh, the chain came off the toilet handle" is more than you knew in the past. How'd you learn it? Probably through experience, watching someone else fix it, and such, as opposed to sitting down and specifically studying the workings and mechanics of toilets.

[Menteith]

And I'm not asking for across the board scaling. I think it's an interesting idea, and wouldn't be adverse to it, but it's not something that I'm used to (as it's specific to 4E). I'm talking about scaling within the areas your character is trying to specialize in. A Ranger should be able to track two halflings across an incredibly disturbed battlefield better than a drunk who wandered over and did a better job. Tyrion Lannister should be better at Diplomacy than Gregor Clegane, regardless of how they roll. Batman can hold his breath longer than random dudes off the street. Except that's not true inherently true under this system - and if you're comfortable with the system abnormally modeling things a large amount of the time, great. But I'm not really happy about having to house rule a system for common situations.

[Stubbazubba]

It's as if they half went with this idea but didn't really finish it and then didn't tell anyone about it, either. Which is the worst of both worlds. The system described there last August would achieve what they're going for with this "reasonableness" thing easier and more transparently. The lines are clearly drawn, you can look at one item on your character sheet to know if you can, in fact, attempt something, and we have a hard-wired way of knowing when it applies. Now, there are also a lot of problems with that system, but ambiguity and putting the responsibility to make the game make sense on the DM are not among them.

Now, the other side of this issue is people's approach to the game. By the RAW, D&D has included very, very superhuman characters as you enter higher levels, in pretty much every edition. Nevertheless, many people don't realize that this is the case, and are under the impression that the rules are actually there to model fantasy action movies where characters push the limits of human capability, but certainly never break them outright, much less re-write whatever other rules of physics they want. The same system cannot work for both playstyles.

However, D&D Next can and ought to have rules for capping at a certain power level, whereafter attack bonus and AC cease to scale, spells, damage and HP continue to scale at increasingly lower rates, and what keeps progressing normally is just your Feats. Or something along those lines. Then define levels 1-6 as heroic, 7-12 as legendary, and 13+ as epic, and let DMs define what kind of game they are starting, i.e. "D&D (Level 1 to Legendary) LFM, inquire within." In the book, make it clear that the stories you can tell in these different tiers are pretty different, so you need to decide which feel you want, and you need to be clear with your players from the very beginning about it. As others have mentioned, both the numbers and the number of options need to increase significantly between each tier.

This, combined with a more transparently bounded skill system, will fix the issues we're going back and forth about here. I would regain so much respect for WotC if they did something like this.

[kyoryu]

Tyrion Lannister should be better at Diplomacy than Gregor Clegane, regardless of how they roll.

I'm just going to deal with this example.

Is Tyrion "better" at Diplomacy? Sure. Does that mean he'll get a better result in *all situations*?

No.

Certainly, he will get a better result the vast majority of the time. But will he really get a better result when dealing with mercenaries? Maybe, maybe not. Is it possible that he's had an off day, and says something offensive? Of course. Is it possible that Gregor just happens to know some background on someone that Tyrion doesn't, allowing his to be more effective at building a friendship? Of course. Is it possible that Gregor has a common friend with the Diplomacy target that Tyrion doesn't? Yup. Heck, maybe the person being talked to is a woman that's attracted to Gregor, or someone just really impressed with his size.

Could we model all of that with situational modifiers? Of course! But that seems like a lot of hassle, and I don't think the results would be all that different than randomness. So I'll go with the simpler solution.

Of course, there's a big requirement for this kind of thing to work. And that's whether dice are rolled pre- or post- description. For many people, playing D&D is about describing what you do, and then rolling the dice to determine what happens afterwards.

For this kind of abstraction to work, you need to use a pre-description kind of thing - that is, you state your general intent, roll the dice, and then narrate what happened to achieve that result. It's a bit of an inversion, but I usually like the feel of it better, anyway.

It's as if they half went with this idea but didn't really finish it and then didn't tell anyone about it, either. Which is the worst of both worlds. The system described there last August would achieve what they're going for with this "reasonableness" thing easier and more transparently. The lines are clearly drawn, you can look at one item on your character sheet to know if you can, in fact, attempt something, and we have a hard-wired way of knowing when it applies. Now, there are also a lot of problems with that system, but ambiguity and putting the responsibility to make the game make sense on the DM are not among them.

I like the general gist of this system.

[Menteith]

Certainly, he will get a better result the vast majority of the time. But will he really get a better result when dealing with mercenaries? Maybe, maybe not. Is it possible that he's had an off day, and says something offensive? Of course. Is it possible that Gregor just happens to know some background on someone that Tyrion doesn't, allowing his to be more effective at building a friendship? Of course. Is it possible that Gregor has a common friend with the Diplomacy target that Tyrion doesn't? Yup. Heck, maybe the person being talked to is a woman that's attracted to Gregor, or someone just really impressed with his size.

Could we model all of that with situational modifiers? Of course! But that seems like a lot of hassle, and I don't think the results would be all that different than randomness. So I'll go with the simpler solution.

Except changing reality around in order to accommodate bizarre dice rolls seems terrible to me. If you want to set up a situation where Gregor has a social advantage (say, dealing with his own group of men), then he should have a bonus on a roll. But by this system, Gregor - a socially inept psychopath who seems barely able to form coherent sentences - can walk up and negotiate a treaty more effectively than an intelligent and urbane negotiator who lives and dies by his ability to convince people. I don't see how giving a(possibly cumulative) +2/-2 or giving advantage/disadvantage to characters is harder than this; it's not a hassle, it's incredibly simple to do.

What if Gregor is making a Diplomacy check in a situation where he shouldn't have any benefits, and still rolls really well? Hell, what if Tyrion is in a situation with advantage, and still rolls poorly against Gregor? It breaks the story to have random results that don't make sense occur, and the huge variance in dice will ensure that it occurs on a pretty frequent basis. The simpler solution is to allow characters to actually benefit from what they've specialized in, and make sure that their specialization is meaningful, not to reshape reality to fix absurd results.

[Craft (Cheese)]

It's as if they half went with this idea but didn't really finish it and then didn't tell anyone about it, either. Which is the worst of both worlds. The system described there last August would achieve what they're going for with this "reasonableness" thing easier and more transparently. The lines are clearly drawn, you can look at one item on your character sheet to know if you can, in fact, attempt something, and we have a hard-wired way of knowing when it applies. Now, there are also a lot of problems with that system, but ambiguity and putting the responsibility to make the game make sense on the DM are not among them.

Nah. That'll never work. It's not "iconic" enough.

[Knaight]

Thats a variance issue with a d20 versus a ~8-20 stat range corresponding to a modifier range of about 6. That means that the die has a range three times larger than the biggest range between characters you'd expect to see. But saying its a Fighter isn't really relevant - the same should be true of a Wizard with an 18 Str, or a Commoner with an 18 Str or anyone with an 18 Str.

That's part of it. The other problem is that the d20 is a completely flat distribution. With an exploding die system, the die range is technically infinitely larger (the variance and standard deviation are not, however), but because the probability of any individual result drops precipitously per explosions necessary to get it, that isn't a problem.

[kyoryu]

That's part of it. The other problem is that the d20 is a completely flat distribution. With an exploding die system, the die range is technically infinitely larger (the variance and standard deviation are not, however), but because the probability of any individual result drops precipitously per explosions necessary to get it, that isn't a problem.

A bell curve dice system (like GURPS' 3d6) has much of the same effect.

Except changing reality around in order to accommodate bizarre dice rolls seems terrible to me.

Yes, it's a different model, and different models often seem terrible when they're first encountered.

The point is you're not "changing" reality. You're just not modeling it all. When you get a result that says Gregor did (anomalously) well, then you explain it with an advantage that he had. The advantage, in fiction, was there *all along*, it just wasn't modeled. It's a very narrativist approach, of course, and that doesn't appeal to all people.

Even without retconning relationships, people get along with certain types well. Maybe the noblewoman that actually likes Gregor does so because he reminds her of a younger brother, or an old paramour, or something along those lines. Since we probably don't model every fact of every NPC, there's usually enough run to safely come up with an explanation for the "anomalous" behavior.

The system you seem to be looking for is one where higher skill = *always* does better, and I just fundamentally disagree with that. I suspect we won't meet in the middle on this, though. FWIW, I'd also be okay with *less* variance than what 5e appears to be proposing. I'm not necessarily saying that the amount of variance they're using is *just right*. I'm trying to explain how it could work, if anything.

And again, the fact that these anomalies mostly show up in edge case scenarios (extreme gaps in skill) dealing in areas other than the core simulation of D&D (combat), I'm generally okay with more weird results in those areas, since they're less likely to have a meaningful impact on the game.

[Seerow]

That's part of it. The other problem is that the d20 is a completely flat distribution. With an exploding die system, the die range is technically infinitely larger (the variance and standard deviation are not, however), but because the probability of any individual result drops precipitously per explosions necessary to get it, that isn't a problem.

Right. Even without exploding dice, just having more dice makes for a weighted average that makes smaller bonuses worth more.

For example, if using 3d6 instead of 1d20, for the -5 vs +5, the chance of the -5's chance of winning is MUCH lower. To the point where it probably is statistically insignificant. (I don't feel like calculating the exact odds, someone else is welcome to if they want).

Similarly, something like Shadowrun's system allows smaller bonuses to be more meaningful, because you're rolling so many dice you're weighted towards the average. Sure silly things can happen, but they're such a small fraction of the time, it's practically irrelevant (Like I can only remember 1 critical glitch happening in 2 year long shadowrun campaign). The difference between a guy with +4 (rolling 4 dice), and a guy with a +10 (rolling 10 dice), is WAY more pronounced than rolling a d20+4 vs d20+10.




Of course, D&D is stuck with the d20 mechanic. I really wouldn't want to change that. But it does mean that bonuses need to be higher for any sort of real divergence in capability to make sense. I mean just for reference, in 5e an 'immortal' feat, the absolute hardest checks in the game, supposedly attempted only by Gods, is a DC27. If you get a +7 to a skill, you can succeed on a 20.

This means a character at level 1 with an 18 in a stat and skill training can succeed at a godlike task 1 attempt in 20. If the character is a rogue, anything below a 10 becomes a 10, so his minimum roll is a 17, so the DM can't even penalize him for failing by more than 10.

So now you have to decide: Do you want gods to be weak and not able to do awesome things, or do you want level 1 characters doing godlike things 5% of the time?

[TheAbstruseOne]

I don't know if it's been covered in the other threads (and no way I'm going to search through them all), but have they explained why the two sample clerics have a different number of orisons known? My guess is that it's either to do with the God being worshiped or to do with the differing wisdom bonus.

Your question seems to have gotten buried in the ongoing debate about math and abstraction vs. realism, so I figured I'd address it since I stopped caring about the other debate :p

They've stated in blog posts and Q&As that the two clerics were presented to show the range of customization within a single class, particularly when it comes to clerics and domains. Pelor has typically been the god of good, healing, and light so that is reflected in the character. Moradin has typically been the god of law, war, and...ale? I don't know, it's the dwarf god.

Anyway, they wanted to show that the cleric class is going to respect the two typical depictions of clerics in the game. On one hand, you have the "priest" type cleric, who stands in the back and heals/buffs everyone while shooting spells. The "Healic" and "Laser Cleric" type builds from 4e (which also existed in previous editions as well, but I'm not as familiar with them personally). On the other hand, you have the run-up-in-their-face, leading from the front with heavy armor and a massive mace "warpriest" type cleric.

And judging from the various forums, they've failed at that because everyone's focused on how "boring" the fighter is because all it can do is attack and that's it (even though they're showing multiple build types of characters is possible in the game) and because everyone including myself keeps calling the Moradin cleric a "Paladin", even though they've stated that the paladin will be a distinct class separate from the cleric.

So now I'm going to go into my personal opinion. I feel that the paladin should be a cleric that multiclasses or gets a theme. With only a few exceptions, pretty much every class can be recreated thematically by multiclassing or adding themes to one of the four core classes we've seen. Fighter/Rogue = Assassin. Cleric/Rogue = Avenger. Rogue/Wizard = mystic-style Ninja. Fighter/Wizard = Spellsword. Cleric/Wizard = Sage, Druid, or Bard. It doesn't even need to be a multiclass, either. Put a roguish theme on a fighter or a fightery theme on a rogue and you can get different styles of assassin, for example.

I really think this is what they should do as it's something that fits with modern game design while still respecting the tradition of the game. Start with simple core rules and add complexity on top of that. It also allows for a lot more "fine tuning" of characters that prevents every single 1st level whatever from feeling exactly the same in play. An assassin is an assassin is an assassin, but a fighter with stealth abilities feels completely different from a rogue with better combat stats. One is more thuggish and while good with ambushes doesn't need to resort to them, while the other is more finesse-based and relies more on those sort of ambush tactics in combat because he/she can't take a hit as well.

[NichG]

Actually in the real world universal models are quite simple. To model any nonrelativistic, non quantum interaction between any two or more objects all you need to start with are Newtons laws. That is not to say that for specific cases you need approximations to even have a chance of calculating things, but the basic "rules" or "laws" of the system are simple.

This may just be me being pedantic, but writing down 'Newton's Laws' isn't a complete description of any problem. You're sort of missing the problem part: the degrees of freedom, the initial conditions, the interactions (which derive from QM applied to the material microstructures). In fact, its far worse: macroscopic objects interact via material properties that are quite non-trivial. Non-Hamiltonian terms like friction, inelasticity.

So putting the details missing aside, the initial conditions/index of degrees of freedom is the problem. This is the 'complexity' I'm referring to. Just try inputting the contents of your room into a computer. Even just simple 3D models. It'll take hours, and you'll probably miss things.

In practice, usable models extract out the salient degrees of freedom and discard the rest as an approximation. That approximation has a regime of validity - describing an object as a rigid body works well for determining how it'll pile up if you drop it, but doesn't do too well in describing what'd happen if that same object were shot at pointblank range with a shotgun. That finite regime of validity is what you pay for having something simple enough to think about without a computer handling all the details.

[Menteith]

Since we probably don't model every fact of every NPC, there's usually enough run to safely come up with an explanation for the "anomalous" behavior.

Usually being the key word here. I see where you're coming from, but (at least, with how my group and I play) there are certain NPCs and settings that are indeed very well defined. For some interactions, this might work, but other times it wouldn't work too well. If a setting is as fleshed out as the world of SoI&F, both with regard to player backgrounds and NPCs, this mechanic would be jarring.

The system you seem to be looking for is one where higher skill = *always* does better, and I just fundamentally disagree with that. I suspect we won't meet in the middle on this, though.

I don't want a system where a higher skill always wins. I want a system where a larger skill always matters - this could work with a "Degrees of Failure" system instead of a binary pass/fail (an expert swimmer will almost never be at risk of drowning while swimming a river - instead, they simply make less progress than normal), or a system that limits what certain skill levels can attempt (similar to the variant skill system Stubbazubba linked), or by using normalized dice (3d6 vs. 1d20) which makes the smaller bonuses of 5E more relevant (and decreases the chance of a wild result). I'm fine with it happening once in a blue moon, but a greater than 10% chance is baffling.

[Seerow]

Wow double posts more than an hour apart. That's new.

[Craft (Cheese)]

because everyone including myself keeps calling the Moradin cleric a "Paladin", even though they've stated that the paladin will be a distinct class separate from the cleric.

Nonsense! The Moradin cleric has spells that actually matter, and lacks the magic horsie.

[Stubbazubba]

I suppose one somewhat easy fix is to say that if your modifier is X or more lower than the other guy's or the DC, you have Disadvantage. That will prevent the vast majority of "unreasonable" but mechanically feasible things from actually happening almost 100% of the time. This could work in reverse, as well; if your modifier is X higher than the other guy's or the DC, you have Advantage. Although, with opposed rolls, your kind of giving both an advantage and a dis for the same thing, which I don't particularly like, but it would use the innovation they have come up with to deal with this huge hole in the rules without putting all of the responsibility for fixing it on the DM.

[kyoryu]

Usually being the key word here. I see where you're coming from, but (at least, with how my group and I play) there are certain NPCs and settings that are indeed very well defined. For some interactions, this might work, but other times it wouldn't work too well. If a setting is as fleshed out as the world of SoI&F, both with regard to player backgrounds and NPCs, this mechanic would be jarring.

Right. And if Joffrey is trying to Diplomacize Arya, it Just Don't Work. No roll needed. "Dude, you killed her father, killed her friend, killed her sister's wolf, and forced her wolf to run off. She hates you. She's not going to go out with you."

It seems like a lot of the disconnect or difference I'm seeing with some people is the difference between the rules being the "physics" of the world, and the rules being used to determine the result when the result is not clear. The latter is a pretty typical old-school view of gaming, while the former is much less so.

Basically, the former view says "hey, if it's impossible for something to happen, the rules should say so." The latter says "if it's impossible for something to happen, then why do you need rules?" They're both viable, and both equally subject to DM fiat (if we achieve impossibility for the Arya/Joff scenario by adding disadvantages, then those disads come from somewhere - namely the DM. Even if they come from a list, the DM decides which do or do not apply).

[Seerow]

Right. And if Joffrey is trying to Diplomacize Arya, it Just Don't Work. No roll needed. "Dude, you killed her father, killed her friend, killed her sister's wolf, and forced her wolf to run off. She hates you. She's not going to go out with you."

It seems like a lot of the disconnect or difference I'm seeing with some people is the difference between the rules being the "physics" of the world, and the rules being used to determine the result when the result is not clear. The latter is a pretty typical old-school view of gaming, while the former is much less so.

Basically, the former view says "hey, if it's impossible for something to happen, the rules should say so." The latter says "if it's impossible for something to happen, then why do you need rules?" They're both viable, and both equally subject to DM fiat (if we achieve impossibility for the Arya/Joff scenario by adding disadvantages, then those disads come from somewhere - namely the DM. Even if they come from a list, the DM decides which do or do not apply).

The problem with this as has been mentioned several times earlier in the topic is 'what's reasonable' is going to vary from person to person, even if you have the same assumptions about power level (ie "We're playing Game of Thrones, not Wheel of Time").

The game system is supposed to be what tells you what is reasonable and what is not within the world. That's the whole point, the rules give you a baseline idea of what is possible within the world, and gives players a common ground to work with when cooperating.

[TheAbstruseOne]

Wow double posts more than an hour apart. That's new.

Been having browser problems today. Woke up, checked the thread, wrote my reply, went to do other stuff (reddit, webcomics, etc.), came back to the tab and there was a 503 error, and refreshed the page. Thus, double post more than an hour apart. I deleted the second one though.

Nonsense! The Moradin cleric has spells that actually matter, and lacks the magic horsie.

In a debate on ENWorld about that right now. My argument for independent class over class + theme is when the class itself can support multiple themes while still retaining the "feel" of the original class. A fighter with an archery-based theme and nature background still feels like a subset of fighter. Would a paladin with an archery-based theme still "feel" like a paladin?

[Conundrum]

In a direct contests, the guy with a +17 modifier loses or ties with the no modifier guy 1.5% of the time, strictly losing 0.75% of the time. That seems acceptable to me, as a artifact of the model.

I don't see where you got your 10% figure.

Me neither, to be honest. Some kind of awful brain-fart, I guess. Sorry

[kyoryu]

The problem with this as has been mentioned several times earlier in the topic is 'what's reasonable' is going to vary from person to person, even if you have the same assumptions about power level (ie "We're playing Game of Thrones, not Wheel of Time").

The game system is supposed to be what tells you what is reasonable and what is not within the world. That's the whole point, the rules give you a baseline idea of what is possible within the world, and gives players a common ground to work with when cooperating.

Yes. And in my post, I basically pointed out that my solution to this is "it's the DM's say." This may seem arbitrary, but since the application of the rules is really up to the DM anyway, I don't see it as adding any arbitrariness that doesn't already exist.

At the base level, let's say there's a rule that says "disposition towards to Diplomacizer can yield between a +30 and -30 modifier to the roll." The DM still gets to make that decision, and is within the rules.

We can refine that further, with a list of possible positives and negatives. But the DM is still going to decide which among that list apply, and which don't.

So in a way, adding rules doesn't really change the fundamental fact that it's the DM deciding how likely something is to happen. It's just adding to the complexity.

I suspect you highly disagree with this idea. I'd also make a guess that you're very anti-rule-zero. I don't mean this as an insult, just that I'm starting to get a feeling for what you want out of games, and I'd bet that rule zero is pretty antithetical to it.

[Menteith]

Basically, the former view says "hey, if it's impossible for something to happen, the rules should say so." The latter says "if it's impossible for something to happen, then why do you need rules?"

Because in a universe like D&D where the impossible can happen on a daily basis, it should be clear what is and what is not possible. With magic and other reality warping powers, I don't have a real life basis to determine what is and what isn't reasonable. For example, what happen if, say, Joffery had Glibness on him while trying to negotiate with Arya? Arguably, even though she has every reason to hate him, the magic empowering him could let him convince her. But it's still not unreasonable for someone to say that regardless of how convincing he is, he can't do it. In situations that I can't use real life experiences to cover for, the rules need to be clear.

EDIT

I'm against overt Rule 0. Players should have the ability to make changes in a dynamic environment, and our group prefers a clearly defined set of rules. When we make a house-rule, we'll decide as a group, and record the rule for future reference. Whenever a DM is forced midsession into saying "no, that's not how it works" in order to make a campaign work, something's gone wrong. Rarely, it's the only solution, but it always leaves a bad taste in my mouth when I have to do it.

[Seerow]

I actually don't have a problem with rule 0. Houserules are something that come up all the time. I'm an active homebrewer (though I haven't really posted much in that area recently), and enjoy seeing things tinkered with and changed, without rule 0 that's not possible. Similarly, with my regular group the main rule of the game is, try to stick with the rules, but if we're not sure of what it is, don't waste time looking it up, let the DM decide, and look it up after the game so we can remember it later. I'd qualify that as rule 0.

The point is, the DM changing things, or making rulings, isn't something I'm opposed to. What I am opposed to, is that the game requires this of the DM. I don't agree with any system that demands a DM to have to make up rules for literally everything as you go. That puts a lot of pressure on new DMs who don't have experience, and discourages people away from taking that role. I don't agree with the idea that you can't have any real baseline assumptions about what is and isn't possible without asking the DM. The DM might change something with rule 0, but that would be a intentional change of the game's assumptions, rather than the game not having any assumptions at all. There is a very big distinction.

[russdm]

I know Mearls is pushing it hard, because if people buy into it it makes his job way easier, but why do we expect the DM to do so much? I mean it's this exact sort of attitude that keeps people away from DMing. So much responsibility gets placed on the DM that most players are afraid to take it. I loved 4e because it made the DM's job so much easier, people around my area who had previously refused to DM were running games, and doing so easily. Returning to the olden days where rules are archaic and the DM needs to decipher everything puts the onus for everything back onto him, and that's something most people simply don't want to deal with.

That was part of my issue with DMing 3.5, but also more so because of the group i am playing with. 3 power gamers in it out of 5 players. Its really hard to make encounters that challenged that didn't go overboard on giving them stuff like xp and treasure as a result. Yeah, I screwed up severely both times that I DMed. And screwed up the first time I DMed, since that group had two of those power gamers. They have really put me off DMing as a result.

Chance is something that happens though. The level 1 dude might be able to win an arm-wrestle with the level 20 fighter. the chance exists that it might randomly happen. Chances happen in real life, so why wouldn't they exist in the game?

Both Backgrounds and Themes seem to me to be ways of personalizing your character. Also, i think the main issue with the moradin cleric and the pelor cleric is that people just don't get it. Let me example what i mean before people start flinging stuff at me.

First off: So while there is one cleric class, there are different ways to play that cleric. So far we have seen two differents kinds of clerics. Clerics get to worships deities and can 'Specialize' in parts of the deities' portfolio. A good with domains of good, law, protection and sun will have clerics that pick up one or two of those domains and each cleric will be different from the others.

Moradin Cleric: Others have said that this cleric is very paladiny, well that makes sense because paladins are warrior/fighter clerics. Paladins have usually been clerics that have strong martial sides. Also this cleric seems to be following the war aspect of moradin. How would this cleric be different if he followed the aspect of moradin relating to dwarves or ale? Wouldn't he have different spells/abilities/what-have-you to reflect that?

Pelor Cleric: This cleric seems to be very like the monks of europe that lived in monasteries and spent alot of time in study. A cleric like that would be different from a lay-cleric or a cleric that dedicated themselves to fighting undead. This cleric seems to be a fairly scholary sort or alteast spent time pursuing unique aspects.

The main thing though is that both kinds of clerics have shown up in the game before this. Why is it now a problem?

Linear Warriors/Quadratic Wizards has always been a problem for the game designers to solve and they have usually failed in my humble opinion. The problems stems alot from how the methodalogy is used. That causes problems that start small and grow large to create a massive divide.

The fighter(warrior) learns his abilities through practice (no matter how he learned origionally) and tests them out frequently on monsters. He will improve his skills quite a bit and learn new things, but all of this is still bound on one major caveat: His physical ability

The fighter's body can be only pushed so far and can only take so much. The fighter's body can only learn so much muscle memory before reaching a cap on limits. The Hulk might be special, but he still has limitions. He can only jump so high up despite his great strength, he can only punch so hard despite his great strength. likewise the fighter reaches a point where he simply cannot do more. He can't jump higher, he can't fight any better because he is still mortal. He will reach the pinnacles of his abilities and stop there, trying to surpass those limits but be unable to do so because his body in its state is unable to surpass them.

Wizards and other spellcasters are completely different. While they practice using magic and doing things, they are bound by different rules entirely. Their physical self rarely impedes them and they can use stronger magic easily as they level up. The wizard becomes able to surpass the physical limitations of the fighter at a lower cost and far quicker. After that point, they simply increase in ability until they can rewrite reality or nearly so. They also stay mortal during the whole time. Its less hard to develop magical ability than physical ability. Many athletes have dedicated the bulk of their lives or their entire lives to develop their skills and it usually requires that kind of dedication for them to have reache that point. Thats not the case with wizards. They can pursue magic to a point then do something else, but they will be stronger than an athlete that spent their life pursuing something.

Another major point is that the fighter had to suffer alot to get to where they are; the same with athletes. They suffered blood, sweat, and tears in their journey. Wizards don't have to doing any of that. They don't have to suffer anything to get to being extremely powerful other than to risk dying.

Something who is better at something should be able to succed more. Thats the result of being better at it.

Rule 0 is something that should be used when required. It shouldn't be needed in order to play/run the game. The game system should be compact and functional enough to allow for that. the game system also needs to be customizable for play. The game system needs to a foundation that the players/DMs build onto or take away from as they like. The system needs to work across the board because it is made to simulate/demonstrate 'real life'. The characters inhabit a world that has laws to it and the game system needs to be those laws. The laws on earth show up in the background and are rarely noticed. The law of gravity, the law of oxygen required for humans to breathe, the law that your body holds its shape and doesn't float apart or mutate every second where-in your arm is suddenly longer than your leg and then shorter than your nose. Do we notice those rules all the time or in a few individualized instances?

The game system is designed for versimilitude. Having to houserule large portions that should have been there already breaks that versimilitude because the laws the game world is based on are in flux or have problems. If the law says that you need oxygen to breathe, then you should need oxygen to breathe and have it available unless you have to make it available. If the law says you need oxygen to breathe, but there is no source of oxygen available, then you should be unable to breathe.

The presence of magic changes the very nature of existence. If it appeared in/on earth, it would completely change the way we live our lives. We have to assume something like that happened in teh game world. Magic has changed how the characters live and that needs to be reflected. It makes magic almost like oxygen for us and it should be treated as such.

Another major point is that sometimes the impossible happens. somehow it does.

If happen to be strong enough, then you should be able to do stuff anyway. If you happened to learn math when younger and learned how to add/subtract, then you should be able to do so without problem. You may need to recall what you learned or remember it, but you shouldn't be able to fail to add/subtract. You might not peform it correctly, but you shouldn't forget how to do it and have to relearn how to every time you need to. Also if you learned how, you shouldn't have to roll a dice that says because you failed on the roll that you don't know what they even happen to be. That can happen if you fail knowledge checks, even if you have already encountered a monster before.

You don't need to think on how to breathe naturally, but you do need to for situations like going into space or underwater, because those are places where it happens to be concern.

(I think i am rambling at this point. What was the topical discussion again?)

[TheAbstruseOne]

(I think i am rambling at this point. What was the topical discussion again?)

I honestly thing the two of you are the only ones who know at this point...

New topic! What classes from previous editions do you think work better as stand-alone classes and which work better as themes or multiclass builds?

[holywhippet]

In a debate on ENWorld about that right now. My argument for independent class over class + theme is when the class itself can support multiple themes while still retaining the "feel" of the original class. A fighter with an archery-based theme and nature background still feels like a subset of fighter. Would a paladin with an archery-based theme still "feel" like a paladin?

I have thought on occasion it might be interesting if they went back to something in the original D&D which was to require pre-requisite class levels for classes. I've never seen it myself (have ordered the reprint for when it comes out) but I gather to take levels in bard you needed to have levels in certain other classes first (fighter, thief and druid maybe?).

It would be interesting to have a system where either all characters start out with fairly simple classes and have to work on certain class levels or something similar in order to progress towards certain roles. Final Fantasy Tactics had something akin to what I mean, except there wasn't really much synergy or logic to class pre-requisites.

[Treblain]

Why are we saying that the 5th edition rules allow for this whole variance problem? They DON'T, because they say to not use the rolls when inappropriate. The rule to use common sense instead of allowing unnecessary variance due to dice-rolling is also part of the rules.

The dice-roll system has a problem, and the rules address it. You can dislike how it's being addressed, but just because it isn't a mathematical solution for the problem doesn't let you ignore it and continue complaining.

Level and DC scaling is a problem that makes skills less meaningful in 4e. Lack of DC scaling in comparison to bonus increase is a problem that makes skills less meaningful in 3e. Both of those are being avoided, and without removing the d20. I'd call that a win.

[Craft (Cheese)]

I honestly thing the two of you are the only ones who know at this point...

New topic! What classes from previous editions do you think work better as stand-alone classes and which work better as themes or multiclass builds?

Alright, you'll probably be able to see a fair bit of my heavy pro-wizard bias here (I just love the fluff behind a character who uses vast knowledge of the inner workings of the world to engineer solutions to things. I just naturally gravitate toward them even games where they suck). But here it goes:

Assassin
Barbarian
Fighter
Monk
Ranger
Rogue
Paladin
Warlord

To me, all of these classes are mergeable with each other in concept (of being just "Fighter + some extra twists"), assuming we're talking about the Assassin as nonmagical (which is what I believe it was at first; the 3.5 version added spells AFAIK). The magical 3.5 Assassin can probably be handled by just making slight changes to the wizard.

Druid
Cleric
Wizard

I got one problem with these 3: Except for Wild Shape, they're basically identical aside from the different spell lists. Make Wild Shape into a set of feats, give the wizard cure spells and just call it a day.

Sorcerer
Warlock

...Yeah. Sorry guys, but Spontaneous/At-will Casting is not different enough to justify a whole new class. 4E sorta made a worthwhile difference between them by making these two damage-based while the Wizard is control/utility based, but I'm all for making a smaller number of broader classes instead of a bazillion tightly focused classes like 4E went with.

Barbarian
Druid
Ranger

I'm separating these guys out because they all share a thing in common of being the "close to nature guy." (That is, if you consider the aspect of the Barbarian as the tribal warrior, rather than the other aspect of being a fighter who works off of instinct and natural talent rather than years of training.) For somewhat personal reasons that would be inappropriate for this discussion, I've always absolutely despised these type of fantasy tree-hugger characters and I wouldn't shed one tear if these three classes (and elves) were removed from 5E entirely.

[Menteith]

Why are we saying that the 5th edition rules allow for this whole variance problem? They DON'T, because they say to not use the rolls when inappropriate. The rule to use common sense instead of allowing unnecessary variance due to dice-rolling is also part of the rules.

As has been said before, many supernatural/magical interactions have no basis in reality, and what's reasonable could vary drastically between players. Look at how widely different illusions behave in 3.5, or what qualifies as "against a subject's nature" with regard to Charm Person. Completely reasonable, intelligent people can have a wide range of opinions on how these spells behave, and be completely justified in their opinions. The easiest solution to these problems is to have a consistently applied rule - and I'd rather that they ship the game with that rule in place, instead of ask me to fill in areas.

[Seerow]

I honestly thing the two of you are the only ones who know at this point...

New topic! What classes from previous editions do you think work better as stand-alone classes and which work better as themes or multiclass builds?

Hrm...

Honestly this depends on how big of a role classes play vs Themes and Backgrounds. Like right now the classes we can see from 5e vary so much in how much the class influences them it's impossible to tell what the intent is in how important a class is.

I mean, it is theoretically entirely possible to make an entire game just based around the core 4: Fighter/Cleric/Mage/Thief.

I might even argue for knocking that down one more, making Thief into a Theme geared towards Fighters with a sneaky/underhanded bent, and leave you with just Fighter/Cleric/Wizard. Throw in Psion because Psionics has become a pretty big thing in D&D as well.

From there, just about any class from any edition can be recreated from some combination of these. Druid? Nature Domain cleric. Ranger? Fighter with a Wilderness theme, maybe with a splash of cleric levels. Paladin? Cleric of Moradin already pretty much looks just like one, but multi-classing with Fighter could work just as well. Sorcerer and Warlock could easily be Wizard themes. Barbarian could be a Fighter theme. And so on.

So the question is really where to draw the line? Does having sneak attack and more skills justify the rogue being a separate class, rather than just making the Fighter more skilled, so he can fulfill the whole badass mundane role himself? Does a character having his magic innately rather than through study warrant its own class?

It's a tough choice. There's always been a lot of overlap between classes. I mean, it's even possible to drop below those core 4, I've been toying with the idea of dismantling the Cleric class, and turning Domains into features that anybody can pick up via feats or bonding magic item slots (a la ToM). In such a system you could get away with just the Fighter and Wizard in theory.




Now after all that ranting, going through the core books of 3e and 4e, and picking classes I would definitely want for a base class in a core game of 3.5 I'd say:

Martial:
-Warlord
-Barbarian
-Rogue

Arcane:
-Wizard
-Bard
-Warlock

Divine:
-Cleric
-Druid
-Warlock


Reasoning for this class set up:
-Warlord is the skilled tactitian. A versatile martial class with an emphasis on leadership and tactical abilities. Has access to most martial powers. Basically the Wizard of the Martial Characters. For those who viewed Fighter as a tactically focused character, that concept has been subsumed by this class.

-Barbarian is the raging berserker. For those who have traditionally viewed Fighter as the heavy hitter, that concept is subsumed by the Barbarian. Barbarian has fewer powers relative to the Warlord, but much better self-buffing ability, passively gaining great mobility, damage, and defenses while raging.

-Rogue is the sneaky bastard. His abilities are predatory in nature, locking down and devastating the opponents he singles out. His defenses are highly reactionary. He has low defenses, but many escape style powers that can be activated as a reaction. As an example, a rogue who gets targetted for an attack may be able to resist that attack with a hide check, which if successful negates the attack and hides the rogue until the end of his next turn.

-Wizard is the same old Wizard we've always had. Possible change includes more distinctive specializations. Possibly something like Psionics specializations where only specialists get access to the highest tier of abilities. So if you want Shapechange, you're going to be a transmuter, which means you're losing out on a lot of the best defensive buffs, summons, and other stuff.

-Sorcerer Like in 3.5, this class gets the power of the Wizard, but less variety, and more longevity. Has access to powerful at will blasting, with access to some Wizard spells to supplement its utility (likely still using spontaneous casting mechanic).

-Bard This class represents the jack of all trades who uses music to make magic. The class would remain close to how it was in 3.5, but with some of the better non-core toys moved into the core class, and likely with Inspire Damage automatically doing something to Dragonfire Inspiration (ie +d6 damage instead of +hit/damage).

-Cleric Loses heavy armor and its medium BAB, and becomes a real back line caster like the Wizard. The Cleric gets the most domains of any divine class. These domains give access to special abilities that align with that domain. Most clerics should be similar in flexibility to a specialist wizard.

-Warlock This one is kind of weird for a lot of people to consider as Divine, but the fluff of the Warlock is that he has made a pact with a greater power for his abilities. That to me screams divine. It could come from a god (good or evil), or a Demon King, but he gains his power from essentially divine beings. The Warlock picks a pact which gives him access to a couple of domains, and a bunch of passive and at will powers as he levels.

-Druid The druid gains only the Nature Domain, and as such has a very limited source of divine powers relative to the other divine classes, but in exchange gets to keep many of the features he has in 3.5, such as the animal companion and wild shape.



Out of those, the most questionable one was Druid, as I really think that should be doable with Cleric or Warlock easily, but I wanted to keep things symetrical (3 groups of 3), and none of the other core (or even non-core) divine classes fit the bill. In fact, the lack of diversity in divine classes, and the diversity available within the Cleric class, is a large part of why I consider getting rid of divine classes altogether.

The other classes all fit a pretty solid pattern. You have the Flexible/Complex class (Warlord/Wizard/Cleric), the Simple/Strong class (Barbarian/Sorcerer/Warlock), and the jack of all trades class (Rogue/Bard). I just couldn't think of anything divine that fits that same sort of role.




And wow I typed a lot here and am rambling quite a bit, so I'm gonna go ahead and cut it short there.

[demigodus]

Why are we saying that the 5th edition rules allow for this whole variance problem? They DON'T, because they say to not use the rolls when inappropriate. The rule to use common sense instead of allowing unnecessary variance due to dice-rolling is also part of the rules.

common sense is also known as going with your gut instincts. The only time people can agree on something with common sense, is when they have some common basis upon which to make their decisions. Like, referencing something similar going on in real life.

This is really freaking hard to do in a game called Dungeons and Dragons where Magic makes up a very large portion of the setting and its rules.

The dice-roll system has a problem, and the rules address it. You can dislike how it's being addressed, but just because it isn't a mathematical solution for the problem doesn't let you ignore it and continue complaining.

Not complaining about the rules not addressing it. Complaining about the rules not fixing it. Big difference. We ARE allowed to disagree with how the rules address it, or dislike how they fail to fix the problem. And no, "if there is a problem, it is the DM's job to rule 0 a fix" is NOT a fix to the rules. In fact, here the way the rules address the problem is an entire another problem.

Level and DC scaling is a problem that makes skills less meaningful in 4e. Lack of DC scaling in comparison to bonus increase is a problem that makes skills less meaningful in 3e. Both of those are being avoided, and without removing the d20. I'd call that a win.

So, DCs increasing with the bonuses is a problem? DCs not increasing with bonuses is a problem? Hence 5e's system where bonuses don't increase, therefore we can't in anyway claim DCs correlate with it, solves the situation?

Is that really your argument? Please tell me I'm horribly misreading your point and clarify what you mean...