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

[Seerow]

And I believe this is the crux of the argument, the role of the DM in the game.

I'm a bit more on the old-school side in this, I guess. I don't worry about bad DMs, because in the end, bad DMs will make bad games no matter what. If the DM assumes the world knows what the PCs are up to, have unlimited resources, and magically can think of everything the PCs come up, then it will be a pretty terrible game no matter what. The DM screwing me on a couple of skill checks is pretty minor compared to that.

See I disagree. A DM can be mediocre but still run a fun game with a well-defined system, but when put into a situation where he has to make ALL of the decisions, the game is terrible. Most DMs are not game designers and don't want to be. For DMs who do want to be game designers, mother may I and open ended rules are great. For anyone else, they lead to a bunch of meaningless arguments and bad feelings that could have been avoided with a better ruleset.

[Stubbazubba]

I'm a bit more on the old-school side in this, I guess. I don't worry about bad DMs,

My examples weren't even about bad DM's. You're right, a bad DM can never be made good by rules, and that's not what I'm getting at. I'm saying it's unreasonable to think that even a good DM can simply adjudicate that much and be consistent and fair to everyone. That is, in my opinion, what rules are for. To help good DMs be great ones, not give them a hundred chances of accidentally shafting a player every single session.

Essentially, I view the primary interaction as players and DM. Others view the primary interaction as the players and DM interacting through the rules. They're both valid approaches.

Perhaps I'm taking you too literally here, but doesn't the former not require rules at all? Freeform RP is kind of cool; it moves fast, it's very improv-based, and thus its way more flexible than anything else. I've tried it and really enjoyed it, and I didn't put down a dime to do so. I don't think D&D has ever been that game, though. The rules are there to provide the level of structure implied in the latter approach. At least that's my take on things. In your opinion, what role do rules serve in the former, more old-school approach, if not to regulate DM-player interaction?

[kyoryu]

See I disagree. A DM can be mediocre but still run a fun game with a well-defined system, but when put into a situation where he has to make ALL of the decisions, the game is terrible. Most DMs are not game designers and don't want to be. For DMs who do want to be game designers, mother may I and open ended rules are great. For anyone else, they lead to a bunch of meaningless arguments and bad feelings that could have been avoided with a better ruleset.

Your terminology shows your bias.

Any interesting game I've been in has too many situations that can't be codified into rules. Okay, you just punched a guard. How do the others react? What happens when the survivors (if any) report this? What happens if any bystanders report this? I just can't imagine any scenario where these things are all covered by rules.

The impact of scenarios like this upon the overall play experience is so much higher than simply determining where the specific margin is between "possible but unlikely" and "impossible" that I don't see it as a worthwhile cause of concern. Mostly because I probably won't be attempting "impossible" things anyway, as it's a waste of time, and NPCs I run generally won't be doing that anyway.

My examples weren't even about bad DM's. You're right, a bad DM can never be made good by rules, and that's not what I'm getting at. I'm saying it's unreasonable to think that even a good DM can simply adjudicate that much and be consistent and fair to everyone. That is, in my opinion, what rules are for. To help good DMs be great ones, not give them a hundred chances of accidentally shafting a player every single session.

Perhaps I'm taking you too literally here, but doesn't the former not require rules at all? Freeform RP is kind of cool; it moves fast, it's very improv-based, and thus its way more flexible than anything else. I've tried it and really enjoyed it, and I didn't put down a dime to do so. I don't think D&D has ever been that game, though. The rules are there to provide the level of structure implied in the latter approach. At least that's my take on things. In your opinion, what role do rules serve in the former, more old-school approach, if not to regulate DM-player interaction?

At the extreme, sure. In reality, the game mostly plays by the rules, with the DM having the ability to override them as appropriate. Which is, yes, determined by the DM. See above for why that doesn't bother me too much.

I don't think the case of "disallow a contested roll when the result is pretty clear" is that much of an area - again, this is only going to come up in severely unbalanced scenarios, and even then one would assume that in the vast majority of these decisions, the players and DM would agree. There's only a handful of edge-case scenarios where there might be disagreement, and even then, it's probably not going to be that big of a deal.

Maybe some of that comes from playing sports, where refs make bad calls, and you just get on with it.

[Fatebreaker]

Another solution, though I think its one that doesn't feel very D&D, is to have a 'Stat Rank' thing in addition to the numbers. Only characters/creatures with the same Stat Rank in the given statistic of comparison need to roll against eachother. An advantage or disadvantage is Stat Rank creates an auto-succeed/auto-fail situation.

You're right. That doesn't feel very D&D. But I'd be very curious to see how it would work out, because it neatly helps to sidestep some of the weird math.

That huge dragon pinning the Fighter to the ground? Yeah, he's just too big to move. Raw strength can only do so much against the combined powers of mass and leverage. It also creates an alternative means to acquiring power, and options are a good thing.

You could also disconnect your Stat Rank from your Stat Score if you want the Stat Rank to fill in for a bunch of fiddly bonuses. Instead of dwarves getting a +x against poison or +y to stamina-related checks, they get a higher Constitution Rank. A Con 14 elf and a Con 14 dwarf both die when you stab them in the face, but the ConR 1 elf has less stamina, is more vulnerable to poisons and disease, and so on than the ConR 2 dwarf.

Again, not very D&D, but... that doesn't mean it's a bad idea. I'd be curious to see this in action.

And I believe this is the crux of the argument, the role of the DM in the game.

-snip-

Essentially, I view the primary interaction as players and DM. Others view the primary interaction as the players and DM interacting through the rules. They're both valid approaches.

They are, in fact, both valid approaches, and I've had fun with both. However, for the amount of money we're talking about, the rules need to be good rules.

If the rules are not good rules, then under either approach, buying them is bad. If you're a player+DM group, you didn't need them, and now your baseline for when you break out Rule Zero is lower, which means more work on the group just to break even. If you're a player+DM+rules group, you did need those rules, and now the bad rules are actively impeding you. In either case, why would I pay money for rules that make it harder for me to have fun?

I am not buying my friends. I am buying the rules. I expect my investment to facilitate, not hinder, my fun.

[Stubbazubba]

At the extreme, sure. In reality, the game mostly plays by the rules, with the DM having the ability to override them as appropriate. Which is, yes, determined by the DM. See above for why that doesn't bother me too much.

I'm sincerely curious to hear your thoughts on what the rules are for in an old-school game, though.

I don't think the case of "disallow a contested roll when the result is pretty clear" is that much of an area - again, this is only going to come up in severely unbalanced scenarios, and even then one would assume that in the vast majority of these decisions, the players and DM would agree. There's only a handful of edge-case scenarios where there might be disagreement, and even then, it's probably not going to be that big of a deal.

Well, um, I just wrote, like, a page of not-edge-case scenarios where it could come up in almost any session. And is it OK to be unfair to the Fighter so long as he agrees to it?

Maybe some of that comes from playing sports, where refs make bad calls, and you just get on with it.

And some games are won or lost based on one ref's call, not to mention how many are heavily affected by an apparently biased ref. I mean, I've played sports, too, and I got on with it, but not without some level of resentment towards the ref. Why does that make it OK for an RPG?

I don't mean to sound rude, but so far all you've done is dismiss actual arguments with a wave of your hand and something resembling an anecdote. It's not that I want to argue, but I want to know what the thinking is behind your preferred approach. If it's nothing more than, "Well, it's not a huge deal," then that still begs the question of why not use (theoretical) rules which would make it an even less big deal and take so much of that onus off the DM? If there's more to it than that, please explain.

In other news, I also like the idea of non-arithmetic Ranks for either skills or stats, but it would need to be done pretty carefully.

[Seerow]

On an unrelated note, fun thing about D&D Next that was noticed elsewhere while looking at the effects of strength:

In 5e, a 10str character can carry 100lbs unencumbered. If we compare this against the light load of characters in 3.5e, a 10str 5e character is directly equivalent to a 18str 3.5e character! The heavy load in 5e for 10str caps out at 200, the same as a 15str character in 3.5e.


But then, when we move up to a 20str character, he can only carry 200 unencumbered, or 400 fully encumbered. The max encumbrance lines up with what a 20str 3.5e character gets, while the unencumbered lines up with a 23str character.


Basically, in 5e characters got stronger. How much stronger depends on what load amount we're looking at, encumbered or unencumbered, but it's higher across the board. The most annoying thing though is that it is completely linear. Combine that with low attribute caps, and tough guys are weaker than they were before, both in the absolute cap sense, and in the relative to the average joe sense.

In 3.5, my 34 strength character can carry around 2800lbs as a heavy load. In 5e, I won't ever be able to carry more than 400lbs. In 3.5e, a 20str character could carry 4x more than a 10str character, in 5e he can carry only twice as much.

In mythology, Beowulf is as strong as any 30 normal men. in 3.5e this meant being able to effortlessly carry 30x33 = 990 lbs, which translates to 35 strength, which isn't unreasonable for a high level character. In 5e, to be as strong as 30 men requires being able to effortlessly carry 3000lbs, which requires a strength score of 300, literally 10x what Gods get capped at.

tl;dr: Wizards don't even need Fighters as pack mules anymore, and encumbrance scaling means Beowulf is as strong as any 10 gods combined.

[Person_Man]

So I've made a couple of posts over on the WotC D&D Next Feedback forums, and I have to say that I think WotC is screwed.

First, it seems like the tenor of conversation over there is just terrible. I see a lot of people being personally berated and insulted, myself included. Maybe I've just been sheltered by the Playground for too long, but some people over there seem to be real jerks, and the mods never seem to do anything other then move threads to the appropriate forum and delete WotC intellectual property (which makes me think there clearly is not going to be an SRD).

Second, there seems to be a highly fractured fan base. People generally want it to be more like their favorite edition (or something entirely new). And since each editions are dramatically different from each other, no one is particularly happy. Some people explicitly want balanced combat, classes, and attributes, other people explicitly hate those things because they feel that it detracts from roleplaying, simulation, world building, their preferred fluff, etc. And D&D Next doesn't deliver on either.

Third, every mechanic has a highly vocal set of detractors, and none of the mechanics seem particularly inventive or interesting.


Has anyone seen any sort of consensus on D&D Next?

[Seerow]

So I've made a couple of posts over on the WotC D&D Next Feedback forums, and I have to say that I think WotC is screwed.

First, it seems like the tenor of conversation over there is just terrible. I see a lot of people being personally berated and insulted, myself included. Maybe I've just been sheltered by the Playground for too long, but some people over there seem to be real jerks, and the mods never seem to do anything other then move threads to the appropriate forum and delete WotC intellectual property (which makes me think there clearly is not going to be an SRD).

The WotC mods do delete stuff, they're just usually pretty slow about it, and as far as I can tell there's no warnings, and bans only occur for major things, so there's nothing to discourage people from doing the same thing over and over. (In fact I got a post deleted for calling out one guy for trolling and derailing a topic repeatedly)

Second, there seems to be a highly fractured fan base. People generally want it to be more like their favorite edition (or something entirely new). And since each editions are dramatically different from each other, no one is particularly happy. Some people explicitly want balanced combat, classes, and attributes, other people explicitly hate those things because they feel that it detracts from roleplaying, simulation, world building, their preferred fluff, etc. And D&D Next doesn't deliver on either.

Honestly, I see a lot of unanimity on stuff over on the WotC forums that makes me bang my head against the wall. Like the Bounded Accuracy thing? Feedback is overwhelmingly positive from people who haven't thought any of the ramifications through and/or people who want characters to be perpetually low level. Also it seems the largest segment of posters there are the type who thinks that "Improvise" is a valid class feature.

Third, every mechanic has a highly vocal set of detractors, and none of the mechanics seem particularly inventive or interesting.

Yeah just about the only mechanic that seems well received is Advantage/Disadvantage. I haven't seen anyone really complain they don't like that. And honestly when you think about it, that was just about the only real 'mechanic' that D&D next introduced. There's not a lot to love or hate, most people are loving or hating the 'feel' of the material released in the playtest.

[TheAbstruseOne]

No more maths please. My brain is hurting...

The thing to keep in mind is that a bad DM is going to be a bad DM and a good DM is going to be a good DM. If you have a lot of rules rather than relying on DM rulings, it can mitigate the badness of the bad DM but it's also going to hamstring the good DM. If you have few rules but lots of rulings, the good DM is going to have room to shine but the bad DM is going to be worse. There's no right or wrong answer here, only compromise between how far you want the sliders to go. If you bring them until they meet all the way in the middle, you've got Skyrim or World of Warcraft - the DM is a computer that just does all the math and tells you what happened based on algorithms. It's not an RPG anymore. If you push them all the way out, you've got a group storytelling exercise rather than a roleplaying game.

As far as the tone of conversation, the WotC forums have always been, for lack of a better word, a bit of a troll haven. Right now it's the focus point of everyone who hates WotC regardless of what they think of 5e. There are a lot of people who are jumping to conclusions and making wild assumptions based off the playtest, then saying that Next is horrible and sucks and they'll never buy it because of it. I frankly gave up on trying to have conversations there because every single thread seems to get derailed.

They're also updating at an insanely fast rate, with probably 10-30 posts every hour on all four groups each 24/7. They'd have to have a small army of moderators to keep up. Poor Trevor sure as hell can't do it alone. Best they can do is shuffle everything around to make sure it's at least in the right place, check on the posts that get reported (like the guy that called me an autistic "derogatory term for homosexual which is also a synonym for 'cigarette' in the UK" because I didn't agree with...something, I can't even remember what anymore), and make sure their IP isn't getting violated.

As far as an OGL goes, it's way too early to tell. They are, however, having to enforce their IP strictly in the playtest sections because if they don't enforce it, they can lose it. Let one person get away with posting stats wholesale and you have someone else posting it, then someone else, then someone else putting it on their blog and making money off it through banner ads or possibly printing it out and distributing it. You can't copyright rules, only the way in which they're presented. So that's why the "don't distribute or share or post excerpts or anything like that" is part of the Playtest Agreement - so they have an avenue for legal recourse if some third party publisher decides to print their own version of Next. It's may also come as word-on-high from Hasbro for them to be able to even do the playtest - make sure it's strictly controlled. Otherwise, WotC just talked Hasbro into giving away something they could be making money on.

[Craft (Cheese)]

As far as an OGL goes, it's way too early to tell. They are, however, having to enforce their IP strictly in the playtest sections because if they don't enforce it, they can lose it.

This is actually closer to literally true than you may think: There's precedent for courts denying a copyright holder because they didn't attempt to enforce their copyright strictly enough. (I'd have to ask my lawyer friends if you want specific cases.) This is why IP holders fight so hard to take down even seemingly harmless things.

[TheAbstruseOne]

This is actually closer to literally true than you may think: There's precedent for courts denying a copyright holder because they didn't attempt to enforce their copyright strictly enough. (I'd have to ask my lawyer friends if you want specific cases.) This is why IP holders fight so hard to take down even seemingly harmless things.

Oh, I know. Also why McDonald's sues everyone who puts "Mc" in front of something. They forced the closure and bankruptcy of an elderly couple who owned McDonald's Bakery even though their last name was McDonald and the bakery had been in the family since the 1800s or 1900s, I can't remember the exact year but it was a good few decades before the first McDonald's Hamburger Stand opened. They've done the same to a McDonald's car dealership and a few other places as well.

It's also how the British government lost the trademark on the police phone box. When a big budget Fox TV movie was being made in 1996, the police department sued because they were using the image of their phone box. They wanted royalties. The court ruled that because they never defended the trademark in the previous 30+ years and the phone box was more associated with the subject of the film than the police department, they didn't have the trademark. That means that police departments in England are now paying royalties to the BBC because the TARDIS is a trademark and the police phone box it was based off of is not.

Oh, um, the movie in question was the crappy Doctor Who movie. Figured that part went without saying...

[Flickerdart]

That means that police departments in England are now paying royalties to the BBC because the TARDIS is a trademark and the police phone box it was based off of is not.

Pretty sure the BBC is government owned, so the government is paying itself money?

[Craft (Cheese)]

Pretty sure the BBC is government owned, so the government is paying itself money?

Governments are rarely cohesive, single actors. They're built of chambers and factions and departments and subdepartments that often work at cross-purposes from each other. Which is how you end up with crazy stuff like anti-tobacco laws and pro-tobacco subsidies being passed in the same bill, let alone relatively minor stuff like this particular case.


But we're starting to get really off topic now, so new topic: What does everyone want WotC to do with Wild Shape?

[TheAbstruseOne]

But we're starting to get really off topic now, so new topic: What does everyone want WotC to do with Wild Shape?

Kill it with fire.

Sorry, I hate druids. Hate hate hate hate hate druids. Every edition and every incarnation. They're either underpowered enough to be useless or broken as hell with nothing in between. And the rules are always complicated as all hell to figure out. Want absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with them. Bad evil bad hisssssss!

Well, you did ask my opinion of what they should do, not what I expect them to do...

[Tehnar]

The thing to keep in mind is that a bad DM is going to be a bad DM and a good DM is going to be a good DM. If you have a lot of rules rather than relying on DM rulings, it can mitigate the badness of the bad DM but it's also going to hamstring the good DM. If you have few rules but lots of rulings, the good DM is going to have room to shine but the bad DM is going to be worse. There's no right or wrong answer here, only compromise between how far you want the sliders to go. If you bring them until they meet all the way in the middle, you've got Skyrim or World of Warcraft - the DM is a computer that just does all the math and tells you what happened based on algorithms. It's not an RPG anymore. If you push them all the way out, you've got a group storytelling exercise rather than a roleplaying game.

I don't agree that a lot of rules will hamstring a good DM, because a DM is much more then making rulings. In fact I feel that a good set of rules will help a good DM because it will provide verisimilitude and he/she will have more time to develop a story, NPCs, encounters and so forth.

[Seerow]

But we're starting to get really off topic now, so new topic: What does everyone want WotC to do with Wild Shape?

I don't mind wild shape if it's restricted to small animals. The druid turning into a house cat or a bird to avoid detection or get away is fine. It's a nifty utility.

Wild Shaping available as a combat application should not be available to any class that has other major abilities to go with it. I mean, you can have a class completely balanced around wildshape and the flexibility it offers both in and out of combat. If they bring back combat wildshape, it should be on a class that is dedicated to nothing but that.

[Craft (Cheese)]

I don't mind wild shape if it's restricted to small animals. The druid turning into a house cat or a bird to avoid detection or get away is fine. It's a nifty utility.

Wild Shaping available as a combat application should not be available to any class that has other major abilities to go with it. I mean, you can have a class completely balanced around wildshape and the flexibility it offers both in and out of combat. If they bring back combat wildshape, it should be on a class that is dedicated to nothing but that.

I've actually had an idea bouncing around in my head for a while for a class based entirely around an improved form of wild shape, except what forms they can take is limited by their environment. Like, the forms available when they're in a forest is different from when they're in a swamp, jungle, or tundra. Add in a limited ability to be able to change their environment (like, say, suddenly flooding a forest with water so they gain access to swamp forms, or having trees shoot up through the floor to get forest powers) and I think there's enough to build a really interesting, unique class around it.

[Seerow]

I've actually had an idea bouncing around in my head for a while for a class based entirely around an improved form of wild shape, except what forms they can take is limited by their environment. Like, the forms available when they're in a forest is different from when they're in a swamp, jungle, or tundra. Add in a limited ability to be able to change their environment (like, say, suddenly flooding a forest with water so they gain access to swamp forms, or having trees shoot up through the floor to get forest powers) and I think there's enough to build a really interesting, unique class around it.

That does sound interesting, but fairly complex. Especially for drawing the line for things like Jungle vs Forrest. Or would you make very broad terrain types (something like "Open" "Wooded" "Swampy" "Water" "Underground")? Because unless they are that broad, categorizing every potential form could get to be a real pain.

As an aside, for a pure wildshape class, I'd be more interested in being able to change themselves to adapt, rather than changing the environment. I mean imagine someone taking a tiger form and adding fins/gills for an aquatic environment, or picking up a lizard style tail for the tail sweep attack. At least I think being a shapeshifting chimeric would be pretty interesting.

[Craft (Cheese)]

As an aside, for a pure wildshape class, I'd be more interested in being able to change themselves to adapt, rather than changing the environment. I mean imagine someone taking a tiger form and adding fins/gills for an aquatic environment, or picking up a lizard style tail for the tail sweep attack. At least I think being a shapeshifting chimeric would be pretty interesting.

That's also pretty cool, but I intended for the environment-changing mechanics to be useful for more than just letting you get new wildshape forms. Things like making a volcano pop out of the ground and cover an opposing army with pyroclastic flows.


I'd probably just implement both of our ideas though. High-powered? Yes, but still cool and fun, and a druid conception I'd actually want to play.

[Fatebreaker]

No more maths please. My brain is hurting...

The math happens whether you think about it or not. Best to actively question whether it's actually working.

The thing to keep in mind is that a bad DM is going to be a bad DM and a good DM is going to be a good DM. If you have a lot of rules rather than relying on DM rulings, it can mitigate the badness of the bad DM but it's also going to hamstring the good DM. If you have few rules but lots of rulings, the good DM is going to have room to shine but the bad DM is going to be worse.

Well, "good DM" and "bad DM" are not absolute values. A good DM in one system can be a bad DM in another. This is especially true if the DM does not understand how the system actually functions, as opposed to how it claims to function.

Neither rules-light nor rules-heavy are inherently better systems. While we can debate the value of each, the supremacy of one over the other is not the point I've been putting forward (nor, I believe, are those whom I find myself agreeing with, such as Seerow or Stubbazubba). The real point is that whatever mechanics a system does use should work, and work in such a way that it actually models the intentions of the system. Preferably, they should also be elegant. That is to say, as streamlined as possible for ease of application and as clearly expressed as is effective. But functionality is the priority. A mechanic which puts a DM in the position of allowing blatantly ludicrous outcomes to occur with regularity or using Rule Zero with regularity is not what I would define as a functional rule, especially when it's a core mechanic for a "costs real money-dollars" system.

I've actually had an idea bouncing around in my head for a while for a class based entirely around an improved form of wild shape, except what forms they can take is limited by their environment. Like, the forms available when they're in a forest is different from when they're in a swamp, jungle, or tundra. Add in a limited ability to be able to change their environment (like, say, suddenly flooding a forest with water so they gain access to swamp forms, or having trees shoot up through the floor to get forest powers) and I think there's enough to build a really interesting, unique class around it.

I'd be curious to see a shapeshifter class who could also change the environment. Very high-end on the power level, but let's face it, that's what higher levels are for, eh?

I think it would actually work really well in an RPG themed around a Magic: the Gathering style of world, since that's a setting where the different environments are key to the game.

That said, I agree with Seerow on Wild Shape in general: either make that the core focus of the class, or make it limited to a utility rather than combat ability.

-----

Somewhere up-thread, there was a question regarding classes. Things like, "which classes should exist," and "which classes could be themes" and stuff like that.

To toss my two copper into that, I personally think that 4e had the right idea with the Defender/Leader/Controller/Striker vibe. Define the class by what role it needs to perform. Add fluff and abilities to match.

Want to play a divine class? There's a variant for that in each role. Divine leader? Cleric. Divine defender? Paladin. Divine Striker? Avenger. Divine controller? Invoker. Allow multiclassing, or have some sort of modular system that allows you to add on elements from another role.

Disclaimer: I'm not saying to lift the whole 4e system. I mean, sure, I liked it, but I can see legitimate reasons for people to disagree with it. I'm saying you have four roles, over which you add power sources, themes, mechanics, and flavor which suit your character concept. A divine defender should play differently than a martial defender, while still fulfilling the same basic "defender" class role.

[Craft (Cheese)]

To toss my two copper into that, I personally think that 4e had the right idea with the Defender/Leader/Controller/Striker vibe. Define the class by what role it needs to perform. Add fluff and abilities to match.

Want to play a divine class? There's a variant for that in each role. Divine leader? Cleric. Divine defender? Paladin. Divine Striker? Avenger. Divine controller? Invoker. Allow multiclassing, or have some sort of modular system that allows you to add on elements from another role.

I still think that classes don't really make sense in the type of game 4E was trying to be. Really, the more I think about it, the more reasons I'm finding to question class systems in general.

[TheAbstruseOne]

I've actually had an idea bouncing around in my head for a while for a class based entirely around an improved form of wild shape, except what forms they can take is limited by their environment. Like, the forms available when they're in a forest is different from when they're in a swamp, jungle, or tundra. Add in a limited ability to be able to change their environment (like, say, suddenly flooding a forest with water so they gain access to swamp forms, or having trees shoot up through the floor to get forest powers) and I think there's enough to build a really interesting, unique class around it.

If you want some inspiration, check out Shadowrun's spirit summoning rules for shamen (1st-3rd ed).

Basically a shaman can only summon a nature spirit of the location they're at, which becomes the spirit's "domain". So you want to summon a forest spirit, you have to summon it in the forest and the spirit is limited to the forest.

The fun comes in when you get two shamen in a fight. Say that same forest has a river in it and it's under the open sky on the side of a mountain. That's four different domains. And each shaman individually can decide which domain they're "in" when summoning a spirit regardless of what the other shaman chooses and without moving. So Shaman A summons a forest spirit. Shaman B summons a mountain spirit. Shaman A decides the forest spirit isn't going to work so summons a water spirit (and though not having moved an inch physically, he has declared that he has changed domains and is now in the water domain, thus no longer having control over the forest spirit).

It gets so much fun at times that one of the examples giving in one sourcebook is an argument over whether someone was in the front seat or back seat of a car because it determined which domain they were in. If they were in the back seat which was over the sidewalk, they were in the city domain. If they were in the front seat, they were in the living room of the house and thus in a hearth domain.

[TheAbstruseOne]

I still think that classes don't really make sense in the type of game 4E was trying to be. Really, the more I think about it, the more reasons I'm finding to question class systems in general.

Classes are staying. That's not in question. Take classes out of the game and it doesn't feel like Dungeons & Dragons anymore. It's now just "Generic Fantasy D20". If I wanted that, there's a ton of OSR games out there.

However, you're right that 4e roles make no sense in Next. They're working to get back to allowing more fine-tune customization of what your character can do, which precludes assigning classes specific roles. You're a fighter? You're not pigeonholed as the tank because you can take the Slayer theme and be a damage-dealing machine.

[Seerow]

I still think that classes don't really make sense in the type of game 4E was trying to be. Really, the more I think about it, the more reasons I'm finding to question class systems in general.

Class systems are nice because they provide discrete blocks of power, and package together abilities that in a point buy system players might ignore in favor of more power. For example in a class system you can be sure players will pick up some amount of non-combat utility through their class levels. In a point buy system, you always have that guy who decides it's better to have 400 points invested into "Swording that other guy in the face" and forgets things like "Talking to people" or "See things"

(Not that 3.5 is really better about that given the scarcity of skill points and the way they can be distributed, but ideally a class system ensure that any class has ability to take part to some degree in all areas of play)

[Craft (Cheese)]

Oh, of course. They're not gonna ditch classes in D&D no matter what, something that I think really held them back in 4E's design. Still though, I can't help but wonder if there really are any legitimate areas where classes make for a better game design than some other system.

Other than being the system most people are already familiar with, of course. I don't think following conventions for their own sake is a legitimate design purpose.

The fun comes in when you get two shamen in a fight. Say that same forest has a river in it and it's under the open sky on the side of a mountain. That's four different domains. And each shaman individually can decide which domain they're "in" when summoning a spirit regardless of what the other shaman chooses and without moving. So Shaman A summons a forest spirit. Shaman B summons a mountain spirit. Shaman A decides the forest spirit isn't going to work so summons a water spirit (and though not having moved an inch physically, he has declared that he has changed domains and is now in the water domain, thus no longer having control over the forest spirit).

Interesting! Question: Can Shaman B shift to the Forest domain and gain control over the forest spirit that Shaman A summoned?

Class systems are nice because they provide discrete blocks of power

So they give the player... less choice? I can understand making the game less complicated is worth it sometimes, but I don't see how providing less choice to the player, all else remaining equal, is ever a good thing.

(Unless you meant something else and I'm just an idiot.)

and package together abilities that in a point buy system players might ignore in favor of more power. For example in a class system you can be sure players will pick up some amount of non-combat utility through their class levels. In a point buy system, you always have that guy who decides it's better to have 400 points invested into "Swording that other guy in the face" and forgets things like "Talking to people" or "See things"

Easy: Separate currencies for different skill groups. Combat skill points (stabbing people, spellcasting talent, concentration), Exploration skill points (Search, Spot, Swim, Disable Device), Social skill points (Bluff, Intimidate, Diplomacy, Forge Script). Maybe putting the Profession, Craft, and Perform skills in their own category, along with Knowledge skills in their own category.


Plus classes exacerbate a problem with character building in general: It rewards you for acting within the confines of a tight little box you build for yourself, instead of actually exploring and experimenting within the confines of the game system. Classes tend to make the box that much tighter and acting outside it impossible instead of just less profitable.

[Fatebreaker]

I still think that classes don't really make sense in the type of game 4E was trying to be. Really, the more I think about it, the more reasons I'm finding to question class systems in general.

Honestly, I'm not a fan of a class system -- it gets real weird real fast, because it's easy to conjure up character concepts which don't "fit" into a single class. But if you're going to do it, then the key is to make sure that every class has a mechanical purpose, because roles are the entire reason you use a class system in the first place.

Classes are staying. That's not in question. Take classes out of the game and it doesn't feel like Dungeons & Dragons anymore. It's now just "Generic Fantasy D20". If I wanted that, there's a ton of OSR games out there.

However, you're right that 4e roles make no sense in Next. They're working to get back to allowing more fine-tune customization of what your character can do, which precludes assigning classes specific roles. You're a fighter? You're not pigeonholed as the tank because you can take the Slayer theme and be a damage-dealing machine.

Why don't the roles make sense? Roles are larger than classes -- many classes can fit within a role. Some classes straddle the line between roles. Other classes have a primary role and a secondary role. Even classless systems still have roles. But the basic functions of combat are fairly well-described (not defined, but described) by the Defender/Leader/Controller/Striker model.

"Protect allies." -- Defender

"Help allies." -- Leader

"Hinder enemies." -- Controller

"Murder time." -- Striker

That's a fairly clear starting point from which to begin character customization.

[TheAbstruseOne]

Interesting! Question: Can Shaman B shift to the Forest domain and gain control over the forest spirit that Shaman A summoned?

Well, depends on what the spirit does when it's "released". If it was given a command first, it's going to stick around and follow it. If not, it's going back to the astral plane (or whatever metaplane it came from). If it stays around or if Shaman A is still in control over it, then yes, Shaman B can try to take it over. Just like Shaman A can switch to the mountain domain and try to take over that spirit.

And then the street samurai fires off a bazooka and blows the enemy shaman into chunky salsa. It's a really fun game. If you've never played, pick up Shadowrun 3rd Edition used off Amazon. There's also a very rich and detailed metaplot.

And to get back to topic, yes I would love a Shadowrun-style magic system in D&D but I don't think it's possible with the level-based advancement.

[king.com]

Honestly, I'm not a fan of a class system -- it gets real weird real fast, because it's easy to conjure up character concepts which don't "fit" into a single class. But if you're going to do it, then the key is to make sure that every class has a mechanical purpose, because roles are the entire reason you use a class system in the first place.

Your going to run into character concepts that dont fit in a game period regardless of a class system or not. A class system offers an easy entry for new players to build a character without being slap in the face with a list of too many option and lets a system develop character concepts that exist in the games setting. The only time class systems fall apart are when they are applied to games which try to be generalists. D&D is an example of this as its goal is to try and allow all kinds of fantasy settings to coexist under the same rulesystems.

I find classless systems to be a massive pain to get into. Its like the feat system for D&D, a massive list of variables that freee a person into inaction or allows them to completely override how a system is normally supposed to operate (i.e. optimising above and beyond). It is TERRIBLE for a new player to try and look at no matter how great the system may be. Eclipse Phase is a great system but there is no way in hell I will EVER make a character in that system and therfore extremely unlikely to actually play anything more than the coupel of 1 shots i've been involved in.

I remember my first Shadowrun character (I wanted to play a talky spellcaster). Starting character rolling something like 19 dice for all talky skills. Things got dumb very quickly and as a result the most interest aspect of roleplaying games became irrelevent to me. I didnt know at the time what is a reasonble skill to be set at and what your supposed to spend improvement points on (given I was a diplomatic GOD at that point). Similiarly I played Runequest (i think it was) once and my characters highest skill was like a 15 and was unable to hit or kill anything (playing a combat focused kind of character) or achieve anything for the game.

Simple answer you might say is that you tell the players what a default skill is like or what you need to be set to in order to be competent. At that point your telling players what good and bad sets of numbers they need in order to fit a concept and at that point they're going for a class.

Plus classes exacerbate a problem with character building in general: It rewards you for acting within the confines of a tight little box you build for yourself, instead of actually exploring and experimenting within the confines of the game system. Classes tend to make the box that much tighter and acting outside it impossible instead of just less profitable.

Every experience of class vs class-based systems I've had speaks the opposite. Classless system which dont specificly state you have to split points into areas (which often results in such a massive pain of a system that its not worth doing - see Eclipse Phase) have you spending points in a field until you hit maximum possible and then you move into a different field, you WANT to be ahead of the curve skill wise so you keep pumpinping points into it until your perfect and cant fail, THEN you start falling into areas that your allies have covered either weakly or not at all.

Take a class based system like Dark Heresy or Rogue Trader (which I know I never shut up about but I still think they are the best examples of character creation systems I've ever touched). You pick your class and you have a table of skills and talents to choose from. Before you can advanced to the next table for your class you need to spend a certain amount of XP into that table. A table covers a wide array of skillsets. This FORCES you to break out of the mono-task mindset very quickly or else you cant buy many more skills (given how this system operates a single skill character is bored most of the time anyway).

Take the assassin, focuses on killing things and sneaking. In a classless system you would max out your skills with either guns or melee weapons or more specified if thats how the system works and maybe something like sneaking to add to that. Raise those to max then swap over. Dark Heresy requires you pick up a bunch of side skills, so you spend most of your points on weapon training and security , sneaking and also things like drive skills and underworld knowledge so you can throw these pieces of information out when the party needs it. Its not your speciality but your forced to make a rounded human being.

If this gamedidnt use a class system you would have an absolute mess given how the universe operates and how the game is supposed to go. The format for the game requires certain types of individuals to be in place. Your working for a brutal organistation of the Inquisition, if your concept is 'I want to be a Pacifist who goes around helping people' you dont exist in this game system. Creating a skillset that accepts that makes zero sense.

I understand the need for class-less systems in games that need to be generalist and cover more bases than theres space to make classes for but they are not inherently cleaner than a class system.

Easy: Separate currencies for different skill groups. Combat skill points (stabbing people, spellcasting talent, concentration), Exploration skill points (Search, Spot, Swim, Disable Device), Social skill points (Bluff, Intimidate, Diplomacy, Forge Script). Maybe putting the Profession, Craft, and Perform skills in their own category, along with Knowledge skills in their own category.

Aren't you then forcing people to make a certain type of character with certain skills and requirements that they can pick from and certain features and aspects of their character that need to be taken? What if I want to just play a guy who hits things or a guy who talks my way through everything? You've put me in a tight little box.

At this point I would like to point out this is the essense of what makes a class system. You have limited how your expereinced is developed based upon guidelines. The only difference between a class system and what you've described is that a class allocates those points differently depending on which class is chosen.

[erikun]

You're right. That doesn't feel very D&D. But I'd be very curious to see how it would work out, because it neatly helps to sidestep some of the weird math.

That huge dragon pinning the Fighter to the ground? Yeah, he's just too big to move. Raw strength can only do so much against the combined powers of mass and leverage. It also creates an alternative means to acquiring power, and options are a good thing.

You could also disconnect your Stat Rank from your Stat Score if you want the Stat Rank to fill in for a bunch of fiddly bonuses. Instead of dwarves getting a +x against poison or +y to stamina-related checks, they get a higher Constitution Rank. A Con 14 elf and a Con 14 dwarf both die when you stab them in the face, but the ConR 1 elf has less stamina, is more vulnerable to poisons and disease, and so on than the ConR 2 dwarf.

Again, not very D&D, but... that doesn't mean it's a bad idea. I'd be curious to see this in action.

HeroQuest does this. Stats gain "ranks" (called Masteries) every time they increase over 20, and each Mastery bumps what you actually rolled up one grade against a lower challange.

For example, if you have 5w2 in a skill (5 ranks with 2 Masteries, basically a 45) against a 17 difficulty, and your roll is a failure, then that is bumped up twice - once to a success, and once to a critical success. If it is reversed - a 17 skill against a 5w2 difficulty - then a critical success would be knocked down twice, once to a basic success and once to a failure.

Masteries cancel out for simplicity; 5w2 vs. 17w2 wouldn't bump the success up or down in either direction, but just cancel out and behave like a 5 vs. 17 roll.

The thing to keep in mind is that a bad DM is going to be a bad DM and a good DM is going to be a good DM. If you have a lot of rules rather than relying on DM rulings, it can mitigate the badness of the bad DM but it's also going to hamstring the good DM. If you have few rules but lots of rulings, the good DM is going to have room to shine but the bad DM is going to be worse.

If I may jump on the conversation for a moment: I'd prefer rules that allow a new DM get setup easily and pointed in the right direction. I remember AD&D 2nd edition, and it was quite confusing to even figure out how to get started.

There isn't any ruling that will stop a bad DM from DMing badly, but I'd at least like a ruleset that allows a new DM to start the right way and doesn't get in the way of a good DM.

But we're starting to get really off topic now, so new topic: What does everyone want WotC to do with Wild Shape?

Go back to 2nd edition, where you basically had a single animal form and stuck with that. You want to turn into something for melee combat? Good, you're now a bear, I hope you enjoy buying some armor and someone to suit yourself up because you're not getting spellcasting or wilding clasps or even healing for Wildshaping.

Perhaps a bit more seriously, Wild Shape sounds like a fun idea... although perhaps not too much for a Druid. Maybe if we go back to AD&D, where Druids were basically witch-priests, it would fit far better. The D&D4 Barbarian "animal totem" rages were also neat, if a bit silly at times.
However, the current nature-Clerics who can also turn into animals and get a lot of benefits from it really aren't the best (or even most interesting) option available.

I've actually had an idea bouncing around in my head for a while for a class based entirely around an improved form of wild shape, except what forms they can take is limited by their environment. Like, the forms available when they're in a forest is different from when they're in a swamp, jungle, or tundra. Add in a limited ability to be able to change their environment (like, say, suddenly flooding a forest with water so they gain access to swamp forms, or having trees shoot up through the floor to get forest powers) and I think there's enough to build a really interesting, unique class around it.

Forcing the Druid to pick an "animal totem spirit" that they need to focus their abilities around could be interesting. For example, a snake-Druid could turn into a snake, speak with snakes, and becomes an expert at grappling and making poisons. A tiger-Druid would be good at stealth, stalking, and pounce-striking.

Actually, that might make a really interesting class if you could take away the spellcasting...

So they give the player... less choice? I can understand making the game less complicated is worth it sometimes, but I don't see how providing less choice to the player, all else remaining equal, is ever a good thing.

(Unless you meant something else and I'm just an idiot.)

They make it easy to quickly look through options and make choices. 10 classes vs 100 abilities may sound like a bad idea for the former, but when you want to put a game together and start playing quickly, those 10 classes are the much better option.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Every experience of class vs class-based systems I've had speaks the opposite. Classless system which dont specificly state you have to split points into areas (which often results in such a massive pain of a system that its not worth doing - see Eclipse Phase) have you spending points in a field until you hit maximum possible and then you move into a different field, you WANT to be ahead of the curve skill wise so you keep pumpinping points into it until your perfect and cant fail, THEN you start falling into areas that your allies have covered either weakly or not at all.

Well, actually, when I say "classless" I don't automatically mean a GURPS-like point-buy system. I think there's a great big design space out there that needs exploring, and it's a lot wider than that.

Anyway, this problem really has more to do with specialization than with anything to do with point buy: When one character can do something to the entire party's benefit, it doesn't make sense to have two characters who can do the same trick. If there's as many useful tricks as there are party members, then the logical result is you have a small group of hyperspecialized one-trick ponies.

Really, when your design is based on a D&D-like approach of each player choosing one of a handful of character classes each having a (theoretically) focused specialty, this problem becomes harder to deal with, not easier.

Take a class based system like Dark Heresy or Rogue Trader (which I know I never shut up about but I still think they are the best examples of character creation systems I've ever touched). You pick your class and you have a table of skills and talents to choose from. Before you can advanced to the next table for your class you need to spend a certain amount of XP into that table. A table covers a wide array of skillsets. This FORCES you to break out of the mono-task mindset very quickly or else you cant buy many more skills (given how this system operates a single skill character is bored most of the time anyway).

It's certainly interesting (and now I want to take a look at Dark Heresy for ideas) but I don't see how this system couldn't be applied if you chucked the class system.

If this gamedidnt use a class system you would have an absolute mess given how the universe operates and how the game is supposed to go. The format for the game requires certain types of individuals to be in place. Your working for a brutal organistation of the Inquisition, if your concept is 'I want to be a Pacifist who goes around helping people' you dont exist in this game system. Creating a skillset that accepts that makes zero sense.

I understand the need for class-less systems in games that need to be generalist and cover more bases than theres space to make classes for but they are not inherently cleaner than a class system.

This isn't really what I mean: My problem with classes here isn't that they stop you from making pacifists in a combat-based game, but that they often stop (or severely hinder) you from making things that fit with the game for seemingly arbitrary reasons. Why is the best liar the guy who sings? Why is the most learned character the spellcaster? You can come up with reasons for these things but what if you want to make a character who defies the stereotypes? A booksmart fighter would not spell the end of fantasy, and yet D&D doesn't let me do this without seriously crippling my character.

Aren't you then forcing people to make a certain type of character with certain skills and requirements that they can pick from and certain features and aspects of their character that need to be taken? What if I want to just play a guy who hits things or a guy who talks my way through everything? You've put me in a tight little box.

The problem here is the system of "You're good at some things, and bad at other things, so good things will happen if you stick to what you're good at and don't attempt anything else unless you absolutely have to." Chucking classes doesn't come anywhere close to solving this problem, but I never said it would.