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

[Scots Dragon]

What you describe there is a limitation of the classes as presented, not a limitation of the class based system. In fact, what you present there specifically is a limitation of 3.5e/4e, particularly skills and feats. It's perfectly possible to spend a few non-weapon proficiency slots as a fighter in 2nd edition in order to become something of a scholar, knowing about history or religion or otherwise, for instance.

It's also perfectly possible in that same system to make a mage whose background is centred around etiquette and wordplay as much as the bard, provided he has enough charisma to pull it off. It costs a bit more, but not in as crippling a manner as 3rd edition.


Making things 'outside of the box' is something that can be done quite easily within a class-based structure. But in the case of D&D, it is quite important to make sure not to lose the basic feel and structure that makes the game work to begin with.

[Craft (Cheese)]

D&D 3.5 actually dodges most of my issues with class systems anyway thanks to its unusually flexible multiclassing system: Attribute score dependencies are the main limitation. I was just using it as a particular example because D&D's the only class-based tabletop system that I know reasonably well.

But we're getting off topic again. Who wants to see hybrids come back? I wouldn't mind seeing some sort of partial gestalt system exist in the core rules alongside normal 3.5-style multiclassing.

[Clawhound]

As for DM's making decisions or using Rule 0 too often, what is too often?

I don't mean that as a philosophical question. How often is often? I'm happy with 80/20. That may be too frequent for you.

As in so many things D&D, we have different tolerances for running off the rails. I happen to enjoy running off the rails, so a high frequency of ad-hocing suits me. The same isn't true for the next person.

I am going to predict, based on the comments of the designers, that the "core" game will be a very loose game. The DM will be required to make frequent Rule 0 judgements. I don't think that any feedback will change this direction as their surveys over the last year indicated that the general player base preferred this direction before they chose it.

I also see no change in the basic d20 mechanic occurring, and so the game will keep all its flaws.

D&D also has a large house rule and homebrew community. By large, I mean staggeringly large. They are designing rules that feed that community. That means publishing the sparsest game possible that can still be called D&D.

This is all to remember that the designers are not trying to design the game "right". They are trying to publish a game that makes money by appealing to their fan base.

[Craft (Cheese)]

This is all to remember that the designers are not trying to design the game "right". They are trying to publish a game that makes money by appealing to their fan base.

You'd think that good game design would be more appealing to the fan base than bad.

[Yora]

A good game is one that appeals to the broadest group of people. Not one that is super-extremely beloved by a small group of people.

[Craft (Cheese)]

A good game is one that appeals to the broadest group of people.

This just in: Farmville is among the greatest games ever made. Stop the presses!

Seriously though, this is maybe only a useful filter once you factor in time. A long time. A game that's still extremely popular a decade after it's released probably has something going it, but I don't think immediate popularity is a good measure of good game design.

[Scots Dragon]

The terms 'underrated' and 'underappreciated' exist for a reason, after all. It is more than possible for games to simply not have been noticed, or have otherwise been overlooked. Either by lack of awareness or lack of distribution, for instance.

[blackseven]

I disagree. The design space between the Fighter and the Rogue traditionally have a lot of overlap, as the two main Mundane classes.

...

The two CAN be represented as separate classes, but ultimately the Fighter is capable of filling the rogue's role in and out of combat, and in a minimalistic game it should. Mainly because making the rogue separate and making something like skill usage a Rogue primary ability gimps the Fighter out of being able to be skilled... leaving him with basically no way to interract with the world out of combat (see: 3.5)

I agree with you were we creating a system from scratch, but we are not.

If you say "Rogue/Thief" whatever is simply a variant of Fighter, you're likely to hear a lot of objections, no matter the strength of your mechanical arguments. The Rogue/Thief had been its own class category longer than most in this thread have been alive.

I'm not saying its ideal, but it's a design constraint if you use the D&D label. Ditching the Rogue as a category equal to Fight/Cleric/Mage is almost as crazy as ditching the D20 (and I HATE the D20.)

Again, someone else brought it up, but if you are going to roll "rogue" into "fighter," then why not roll "cleric" and "mage" together? (And Psion, for that matter.) You can abstract out "power source" to mere fluff, and just give the "magic user" a choice of several lists that include both traditionally cleric and wizard spells. There's no necessary reason to separate "divine" and "arcane" magic: it can be all "fluff." One PC gets it from study (wizards), another is born with it (sorcerer), a third gets it through prayer (clerics), a fourth gets through devotion to nature (druid), and the last gets it by the power of their mind (psion.) But mechanically they all use the same spells.

[king.com]

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.

My definition of a class system is one which requries you to take a pregenerate set of rules an restrictions/advantages which specify much of what you can and cant do for much of your characters life. Classless is the opposite.

I think your analysis of specialisation being the problem is largely incorrect. Your standard roles to put it simply are: the tank, dps, healer, skill-monkey and talky. There might be more game specific roles but those are essentially how things work. Most systems even cross over those roles like a sorcerer being both dps and talky. Theres a limited number of specialisations and even if you have 10,000 unique specialisations to go down, they dont matter. The game is dictated by what the party can do. If nobody is playing a character who is going to talk their way out of a situation, why would a GM ever put them in a talky environmnet? If an opportunity occurs where then CAN use it fine but it is pointless for a party where nobody can talk as there is nothing the party can do about it. Instead the players spend their xp on the field where they KNOW theyare going to use it, combat being the obvious but also in their specialisations.

Anyone who knows a little about roleplaying is going to understand that GM is not going to immediately stop the game because nobody picked up lockpicking so the magic door cant be opened and everyone sits around doing nothing (dont argue the example sure there are other ways around it but Im using it as an example where a GM wont set fail states because a party didnt specialise in the right way).

This means there is zero reason why a game would have a player freely choose skills which dont benefit his specialisation. A class system actually produces a reason to get to take a broader set of skills.

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.

In later versions of the system (Black Crusade) they dropped classes for levelling purposes and you only pick a background. The result is that 90% of skills are completely ignored and you end up with the character who 'stabs dudes REAL good' and 'the talky guy' and of course 'the smart guy'. Outside of the few startign skills you get, there is zero reason to take anything outside what makes you better.

Not to mention any new player is immediately overwhelmed by the 500 options available to them and given zero explanation as to what they should take and why or how they develop rather than "heres a bunch of xp, heres a bunch of tables....go". Its not fun.

Classes give new players direction. I think 3.5's character creation is terrible, I cant even will myself to make a character for it. Your talk to pick a race...fine that makes sense. Then some stats then some classes alrighty. Then a pick skills...okay it tells me whats for my class that makes sense. The choose feats. This massive full double spread page of feats. Nothing indicates where I should start or what I should do or what would be beneficial to me or anything. My first character was a Human sorcerer with improved unarmed strike and deflect arrows. My logic was that I didnt want to have to carry weapons and since I was in the back my biggest threat was being shot by an arrow. In some games this makes sense but until I play many games of D&D I never learn this is generally a bad idea.

The game cannot reasonably teach you its natural flow and logic until you play it and see how it runs. Then you have a better grasp on the system. For a new player there is no direction and you better hope that theres someone to explain how any of it works or your going to run into the same trap of incorrectly applying logic into a system that bases itself on a different set of logic. How can you except a person to understand and make a large often unwieldy selectino of skills and abilities without understand how these skils and abilities operate.

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.

Im not saying making a pacifist in a combat-base game. Dark Heresy is NOT a combat-based game. Im saying making a character who exists with ideas and a personality which contradicts everything that exists for a human being in that universe. A universe of fanatical religious dogma, and extreme violent Xenophobic culture and an overwhelming hatred for anything that is different. Somewhere in which a pacifist doesn't exist, survive long or get recruited into an organisation which actively investigations and cleanses anything that is a threat.

One aspect of a class system you dont seem to appreciate is that class system allow you to create a concept during the character creation process. Rogue Trader for exampel has a list of selections to make to determine how you got to your career path. Your first choice is a homeworld, simple. Then you choose things like a particular hardship you went through, your outlook, what drove you to seek space. These are AMAZING for creating a character. I dont need to have a clearly defined concept, I just pick what sounds cool and in the end I have not simply a set of numbers and figures but instead a complicated and fleshed out character that is in a particular career (term used for class) as a result of certain his past. For many players especially new players it is one of the most difficult things in the world to have a character concept beyond "its kinda like me but...". This lets you create that character. I understand if thats not appealing but to me thats the heart of character creation, to create a character. With every class-less system I've ever touched I've only felt as if Im left with a bunch of numbers on a sheet.

D&D, atleast to me was the game that once tried to emulate what one might call traditional fantasy (please dont argue with me on what traditional fantasy is, im just talking about what was popular culture of fantasy for a brief period in history and yes theres exceptions, yes people are intrepreting something wrong, I dont care). The idea that there was a smooth talking poet who played a lute to gain the affection of a barmaid, each song a lie of some adventure he was never on. The traditional knight fighting for truth justice and god. He was good, pure, incorruptable and a perfect realisation of the truest form of morality. Something that shaped into a D&D Paladin.

Your real problem seems to be that D&D's class system is bad, not class systems as a concept. I dont know what you've played but I have no arguement that D&D's class system is a mess. It offers almost none of the advantages of being a class system with a messy set of freedom from a classless system. Honestly its one of the biggest reasons I dont play D&D is because its not fun to make a character. I dont doubt theres a lot of flexiblity in 3.5 but I will likely never see it simply because it doesnt make anything I can grasp and understand.

I personally havn't looked too much at 4th Ed (and hence why edition wars threads are some of my favourite on the internet and im sorry I missed their peak ages ago), I dont know people who run it and took a quick look at the player handbook and immediately didnt want to mess with it given the big list of powers I was expected to examine, sort through and determine what was best for my character before I knew how anything worked. That seems far too much like work to make me want to spend time and money on a new game system. I just hope that D&D Next does something, ANYTHING to indicate what I should be taking and what feats a class should be related to or develop a system that lets a play mess with the game before making choices like that.

[Fatebreaker]

Take a class based system like Dark Heresy or Rogue Trader...

The Dark Heresy line works because it adopts the best aspects of a class system and a classless system. It's not a class system in the way D&D is a class system. D&D has you cash in your XP for a level, and that level determines how your character improves. Oh, did your Fighter want more skill points instead of a better Fortitude save? Too bad! Dark Heresy "classes" change how much xp it costs to buy different abilities, so it guides you down a role, but it doesn't dictate how you improve your character.

Or, put another way, D&D's class system asks the player to make one big choice, then ride the consequences until their next level. Dark Heresy asks the player what kind of role they want to fulfill, and then lets them make regular tweaks to that role within the level.

Personally, I think it's a great compromise. I usually describe it to new players as a "half-class" system, or an "archetype" system.

Incidentally, L5R operates on a similar model. You pick your broad archetype, then customize heavily within that archetype. I love both systems.

Craft (Cheese), I heartily second king.com's advocacy for looking into Dark Heresy and it's attendant games. There are four games within the same world, each focused on a different aspect of that world and a different style of play. Dark Heresy is more gritty, gloomy, "low-level" investigation. Think sci-fi noir horror. Rogue Trader is more powerful, exploration and conquest and wild adventure... plus the horror. Deathwatch and Black Crusade are BADASS! (...plus horror). Definitely give 'em a whirl.

Eclipse Phase

DUDE! Eclipse Phase is awesome!

...once you get past character creation. Which is... rough. There's a couple excel programs out there which make it much easier, and once you've got the hang of it, it's fairly smooth, but... yeah. Not a beginner-friendly character creator. If you want to see a good, friendly classless character creation system, the old West End Games d6 system was amazing. Fifteen minutes or less or your character's free!

Eclipse Phase is a good example of how a buggy game can still be fun. My crew just started up a campaign over Memorial Day weekend, and it's definitely worth overcoming the system flaws. It has a great community, too, and the developers actively listen to folks. I can't wait to see how they improve the system as time goes on. Very excited.

As for DM's making decisions or using Rule 0 too often, what is too often?

"Too often," for me, is when a DM consistently uses Rule Zero to inconsistently interpret a core mechanic of the game because it is poorly designed and does not accurately model systemic intentions.

I like Rule Zero. What I don't like is the group having to regularly choose between enduring the immersion-breaking effects of a poorly constructed rule or hoping that Rule Zero Roulette comes out in their favor.

As in so many things D&D, we have different tolerances for running off the rails. I happen to enjoy running off the rails, so a high frequency of ad-hocing suits me. The same isn't true for the next person.

Choosing to run off the rails is fine. Being run off the rails by faulty mechanics is not. One is born of choice. The other is born of frustration... and somebody not doing their job.

[Johnny Sunshine]

Wizards and other spellcasters are completely different. ... Their physical self rarely impedes them and they can use stronger magic easily as they level up. ... Its less hard to develop magical ability than physical ability. ... 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.

As someone in a very mental-oriented profession who had to suffer through 15+ years of sweat, tears, and metaphorical blood, I would disagree with the implication that increasing in mental power is guaranteed and effortless.

As far as wizards go, I'm sure they'd disgree as well. Just as a PC fighter is far and away a better fighter than the average warrior in the game world, so too is a PC wizard more powerful than the average magic-user.

I think that predominantly viewing the game through the eyes of uber-powerful PC adventurers as we do, our perspectives are skewed to take for granted that one can simply increase in power forever. But our characters can only do that becase they "cheat" by being the stars of the show.

Consider this: You claim a warrior's growth in power is limited by their body, because they are mortal. Well, so too is it with casters. They are limited to what spells they can comprehend depending on how high their associated ability score is.

Most people see it as a waste of time playing a wizard without an Int of 17 or 18, for example. Yet, there are likely many, many more NPC wizards running around with Int scores below 15, who struggle and sweat all their lives but just can't seem to increse in power anymore.

By the way, also consider a fighter with a Str of 14 or 15. Less desireable, but certainly not as great a career limitation as it would be for a wizard. The fighter can still learn lots of tricks and techniques and become an incredibly powerful warrior, while after a while the wizard will be having severe spellbook envy against his fellow mages.

They don't have to suffer anything to get to being extremely powerful other than to risk dying.

Um, yeah. No big deal there.

[king.com]

The Dark Heresy line works because it adopts the best aspects of a class system and a classless system. It's not a class system in the way D&D is a class system. D&D has you cash in your XP for a level, and that level determines how your character improves. Oh, did your Fighter want more skill points instead of a better Fortitude save? Too bad! Dark Heresy "classes" change how much xp it costs to buy different abilities, so it guides you down a role, but it doesn't dictate how you improve your character.

Or, put another way, D&D's class system asks the player to make one big choice, then ride the consequences until their next level. Dark Heresy asks the player what kind of role they want to fulfill, and then lets them make regular tweaks to that role within the level.

For me I dont see a difference, maybe my definition of Class system is simply broader but both games have you choosing a class which places large restrictions on what you can and cant do. I know the fundamental different on how level up works but the progression follows the same format. Did you want more more toughness? "1000 XP you picked a class that doesnt do that well." Something so far beyond reach its not worth ever grabbing. An assassin can NEVER use a heavy weapon.

Sure I can see the arguement of it being more open than D&D but its still based so heavily around a class principle. If you want to move from level 1 to 2 you have a list of 8-10 skills and talents you can pick from and nothing else. Its much the equivilant to where you allocate skill points and what new feat you pick on level up. The only major difference is that Dark Heresy would give you more skill points than you have class skills and if you pick one a couple of times you can pick it again so you end up dabbling in various areas.

I still stay thats a D&D implementation problem, not a class system problem. I really would love to get into D&D but as Im not in a situation where if I were to play it I would have to run it, I need a system I can get into and want to learn the ins and outs of. If I don't want to do that theres a big problem. I'm really enjoying what they have put out for D&D Next and I really hope they implement a character creation system that actually offers a strong and interesting process for developing a character.

DUDE! Eclipse Phase is awesome!

...once you get past character creation. Which is... rough. There's a couple excel programs out there which make it much easier, and once you've got the hang of it, it's fairly smooth, but... yeah. Not a beginner-friendly character creator. If you want to see a good, friendly classless character creation system, the old West End Games d6 system was amazing. Fifteen minutes or less or your character's free!

Eclipse Phase is a good example of how a buggy game can still be fun. My crew just started up a campaign over Memorial Day weekend, and it's definitely worth overcoming the system flaws. It has a great community, too, and the developers actively listen to folks. I can't wait to see how they improve the system as time goes on. Very excited.

Yea I was using the excel program, it was a combined effore of 4 people all working together and we got a single character completed. After that everyone else just grabbed one out of the back fo a book. The game itself is great fun but geeeeez I've saved the one character made and I will never make a character again but simply present this same character sheet everytime someone runs an Eclipse Phase game.

Personally I found Shadowrun 4th Ed's character creation to be my favourite classless. It breaks everything up into clear categories to be implemented and when it hits skills it tells you. If you want to talk? Buy these skills. If you want to shoot? Buy these ones. Spell selection gets far more tricky but extensions to character creation systems I dont have as much of a problem working with. I just wish it had told be that 19 dice is world altering levels of diplomancy.

[Johnny Sunshine]

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?

PCs are the best and brightest in their worlds. By virtue of being the main characters in a fiction story, things tend to go their way much more often, they can increase in power far more easily than a common person could, they frequently seem to be "in the zone," et cetera. Being Level 1 just means they are relatively inexperienced.

To have an 18 in an ability score is an incredibly rare thing in the game world, but as players we blow it off as nice, but not exactly hard to obtain. To have +7 training in a skill is, again, a phenomenal thing.

And that DC 27? That's just the bare cusp of "godhood" difficulty, something that most gods wouldn't even expend true effort to accomplish.

So, let's take an example with some real-world parallels to illustrate things. Let's say the NSA, FBI and Pentagon all work together to make the most secure computer system ever seen, which controls everything in their offices. From their control centers, they are effectively "gods" of their computer system, able to accomplish anything within it as they wish.

On the other side, let's put a hacker genius. Give him the brain of an Einstein or Hawking (specifically in tune with hacking through; I acknowledge different sorts of genius), as well as the absolutely best equipment available.

Put the hacker through a few test runs and training mods to get him familiar with his gear and practice mentally approaching the problems he will tend to face - thus putting him roughly the equivalent of "Level 1" - and further, assume he's been through any and all possible training available with the best gurus in existence.

Am I okay with a rules system that lets this hacker do something relatively insignificant against this computer system - perhaps getting it to flash the lights on and off briefly in a Pentagon bathroom - 5% of the time he tries to hack the system? Yeah, seems okay to me.

[Oracle_Hunter]

As for DM's making decisions or using Rule 0 too often, what is too often?

It isn't necessarily a matter of frequency, but of kind.

If a DM must use Rule Zero on common and/or reoccurring situations, then the system requires too much Rule Zero.

For example, if a D&D-style system had no or unusable rules regarding killing dragons and exploring dungeons, it would require too much Rule Zero. If the same system required Rule Zero to adjudicate a pie-eating contest, that would not be too much Rule Zero for the system.

[Johnny Sunshine]

Still, now we have the amusing result where, if your Str is 20 (+5 mod), you auto-succeed on anything DC 15 or lower. DC 16? You have a 50% failure chance. Skills could change that probably, but I found that idea amusing that 55% success rate = so trivial you always succeed.

It isn't really effortless for a character of Str 20 to accomplish a DC 15 task, but rather from a gaming perspective it's somewhat unreasonable to risk derailing the adventure just because a die said so.

At any rate, I feel the "autosucceed" rule is worded to make it clear it's an optional general guideline, to be adjusted on-fly as the situation warrants, and also it would only apply when circumstances are excellent.

Even when using such a rule though, should a Str 20 character try even a measly DC 7 task I would still require a roll if failure would result in damage or another significant event (pretty much anything during combat, for example), and I believe the presentation and wording of the rules in the preview documents get this point across.

[Seerow]

PCs are the best and brightest in their worlds. By virtue of being the main characters in a fiction story, things tend to go their way much more often, they can increase in power far more easily than a common person could, they frequently seem to be "in the zone," et cetera. Being Level 1 just means they are relatively inexperienced.

To have an 18 in an ability score is an incredibly rare thing in the game world, but as players we blow it off as nice, but not exactly hard to obtain. To have +7 training in a skill is, again, a phenomenal thing.

False. Even in OD&D, an 18 was a 1/216 thing. This means in the smallest village you can expect to have someone there with an 18 in at least one stat. For every 1300 people, you can expect someone with an 18 in any given attribute. In a large city, you can reasonably expect to have a dozen people with an 18 in each stat. (er I just realized that's unclear, I mean to have a dozen people with an 18 in Str, a dozen with an 18 in Int, a dozen with 18 in con, etc).

So no, 18s aren't that rare. PC's have them more frequently than the common man in more recent editions, but a commoner with an 18 in a stat has always been around with some degree of frequency. And it makes sense that characters will have training in areas that suit their attributes.

And that DC 27? That's just the bare cusp of "godhood" difficulty, something that most gods wouldn't even expend true effort to accomplish.

False. The playtest packet states that Immortal Tasks are so difficult only gods can accomplish them with any reliability. They are the highest DC in the game. There isn't "Gods do this effortlessly, and can do even more awesome things", these ARE the awesome things. And level 1 commoners with a high stat can pull it off. There is no way you can spin that as making the least bit of sense.

[Johnny Sunshine]

False. Even in OD&D, an 18 was a 1/216 thing...
So no, 18s aren't that rare.

The way I interpreted it, an 18 in OD&D is a 1/216 thing for PC adventurers - the special, dynamic, paragon movers and shakers of the world - not every measely sentient being. So from a global perspective I do see it as quite rare.

What if we looked around the real world and used Intelligence as an example, with IQ 100 = Int 10 being average. Would you really expect to find 1/216 of people walking down the street have IQs of 180? This is an extreme example with bellcurves that don't match up statistically, I realize, but hopefully it gets my point across.

Hm. I just realized that with this argument, 1/216 heroic adventurers would have any given score at a 3. Well then, let me adjust my thinking:

The bellcurves for ability scores are more broad than those abilities are for people in the real world. In the real world, the abstract equivalent of an 18 in an ability score is outrageously rare. Although in D&D most scores congregate at the peak of the curve around 10-11 or so, in the real world the peak would be much higher, and the tail ends of the curve would involve much less people.

I suppose the main reason for doing this in the game is to create much more diversity and interesting characters. If D&D tried to perfectly replicate real life, pretty much everyone would be playing characters with nearly every score in the mid-range, which would be really dull.

Well, now I don't know what to think. Okay, so maybe it isn't that rare to have an 18. It's still nowhere near common though, and I feel my most important point still applies:

False. The playtest packet states that Immortal Tasks are so difficult only gods can accomplish them with any reliability. They are the highest DC in the game. There isn't "Gods do this effortlessly, and can do even more awesome things", these ARE the awesome things. And level 1 commoners with a high stat can pull it off. There is no way you can spin that as making the least bit of sense.

There is a big difference between "only gods can accomplish them with any realiablity" and saying that it's a difficult task for gods. It just means it's really difficult for a mortal. Also, I don't see anything that says or even implies that DC 27 is the highest possible, that the laws of the game universe physics or whatnot make higher DCs impossible. Rather, it seems to say that for the purposes of mortal adventurers encountering obstacles it doesn't make practical sense to use higher DCs within a gaming session.

This is clearly an area of the rules that could use some rewording or expanding, since you and I are developing such opposite interpretations of it.

[blackseven]

False. Even in OD&D, an 18 was a 1/216 thing. This means in the smallest village you can expect to have someone there with an 18 in at least one stat. For every 1300 people, you can expect someone with an 18 in any given attribute. In a large city, you can reasonably expect to have a dozen people with an 18 in each stat. (er I just realized that's unclear, I mean to have a dozen people with an 18 in Str, a dozen with an 18 in Int, a dozen with 18 in con, etc).

Why do you assume that the character generation rules are meant to "accurately" model *everyone* in the game world?

[kyoryu]

big snip

Totally agreed, and it's the main reason I don't like 3.x. By treating classes essentially as very coarse-grained skills, it ends up being a hybrid creature that gains the strength of neither.

It's also the main reason a lot of people *do* like 3.x. The options and possibilities of the system, as unbalanced as it is, creates a much higher emphasis on the character creation subgame. Combined with the emphasis on the preparation subgame, it creates a very unique playstyle for people whose main interest is in "outclevering" the encounters.

[Seerow]

Why do you assume that the character generation rules are meant to "accurately" model *everyone* in the game world?

Because in OD&D adventurers weren't different. Everyone was just 3d6 take what you roll in that order. There's a reason why player characters these days get higher point buys and stuff like 4d6 drop lowest. It's because the 3d6 is an average person. But that generates average people with an 18 fairly regularly.

[kyoryu]

The way I interpreted it, an 18 in OD&D is a 1/216 thing for PC adventurers - the special, dynamic, paragon movers and shakers of the world - not every measely sentient being. So from a global perspective I do see it as quite rare.

Not how I've ever seen it, given that 4d6 is used to generate above-average characters when dice rolling is used in the first place.

True, most folks with an 18 probably become movers and shakers, but that's becuase they're naturally gifted, not because they're some special caste of folks.

But, my preference for "adventurers as normal folks that do exceptional things" vs. "adventurers as exceptional folks" is well-documented in this thread.

[Fatebreaker]

King.com & Dark Heresy Sidebar:

Spoiler

Show

For me I dont see a difference, maybe my definition of Class system is simply broader but both games have you choosing a class which places large restrictions on what you can and cant do.

Well, for me at least, Dark Heresy & Co. straddle the line between class and classless systems. It's leaning towards the class side, but it occupies a design space distinct from that of D&D.

The key, to me, is the question of how much freedom you have over your character. Gaining a level (rank) in Dark Heresy carries no inherent bonuses. It just opens up new opportunities. Gaining a level in D&D automatically improves your base attack bonus, your saves, your hit points, your skills, and so forth at a rate determined by their class. They gain specific class abilities exactly at a specific point and nowhere else. Some casters have a greater degree of freedom, since wizards and clerics gain spell slots which they can trade out on a daily basis.

Dark Heresy is much more free in letting you determine what your character looks like. Character creation gives you starting abilities based on your backgrounds and your chosen class, but after that, it's in your hands. There, the class serves as a guide. Some things are feasible, and some things are just beyond the scope of your chosen role, but within that role, there's a larger degree of flexibility and choice.

At least, that's how I see it.

I still stay thats a D&D implementation problem, not a class system problem. I really would love to get into D&D but as Im not in a situation where if I were to play it I would have to run it, I need a system I can get into and want to learn the ins and outs of. If I don't want to do that theres a big problem. I'm really enjoying what they have put out for D&D Next and I really hope they implement a character creation system that actually offers a strong and interesting process for developing a character.

Well, I agree with you that there's a disconnect between the design goal of "all-inclusive fantasy system" and "stereotyped classes," which invalidates neither on their own, but they operate poorly in conjunction with one another. 3.x was a huge disappointment to me in this area. 4e's decision to clearly define each class within the role it was intended to fulfill was a good step in the right direction, as was its greater clarity in saying "this is the kind of world which this game operates in."

I'm very curious to see how 5e's modularity operates.

Personally I found Shadowrun 4th Ed's character creation to be my favourite classless. It breaks everything up into clear categories to be implemented and when it hits skills it tells you. If you want to talk? Buy these skills. If you want to shoot? Buy these ones. Spell selection gets far more tricky but extensions to character creation systems I dont have as much of a problem working with. I just wish it had told be that 19 dice is world altering levels of diplomancy.

The most important thing I found that Shadowrun doesn't tell you is how important it is to get Wired Reflexes (or equivalent). Going multiple times before the bad guys even realize a fight has broken out is brutal. Half our first Shadowrun group stumbled into Wired Reflexes, and the other half didn't. The other half did not enjoy the game nearly so much as those of us who lived in bullet time. This, by the way, was SR3, not SR4, which I have the books for but haven't played yet. Between SR3 and Eclipse Phase, I probably won't get a chance to.

Point is, I'm always a fan of the game communicating important concepts to you. That sort of thing strikes me as very mature, very honest, and very good game design.

"Adventures are/are not different!"

*shrug* I don't mind a game which tells me that players are different or better than non-players. Exalted and 4e both go about it in very different ways, but they're up front and honest about it. And I don't mind a game where players are exactly like everyone else, except for how they happen to have a real-life puppeteer. L5R does this rather well.

I do mind a game which... isn't clear on the subject. 3.x, for example, had PC classes cost the same XP as NPC classes, with no special requirements to pick a PC class. So why would anyone choose an NPC class? It just makes me picture a world full of muddy li'l tykes going "Golly gee, I sure hope I grow up to be a commoner!"

[Scowling Dragon]

Is anybody else already sick to the bone of DND5e discussions?

[TheAbstruseOne]

Is anybody else already sick to the bone of DND5e discussions?

Nope, just sick of listening to everyone go in circles and/or dissecting the math to insane degrees of minutia. Also, about ready to go on the various forums and just start pointing out all the logical fallacies people keep using over and over again. Reductio ad absurdum seems to be a very popular one, with straw man arguments being a solid second.

[Draz74]

Also, about ready to go on the various forums and just start pointing out all the logical fallacies people keep using over and over again. Reductio ad absurdum seems to be a very popular one, with straw man arguments being a solid second.

Since when is ruductio ad absurdum a fallacy? It was taught to me as a valid law of logic in high school math class ...

[Knaight]

Since when is ruductio ad absurdum a fallacy? It was taught to me as a valid law of logic in high school math class ...

It isn't a fallacy.

[TheAbstruseOne]

Since when is ruductio ad absurdum a fallacy? It was taught to me as a valid law of logic in high school math class ...

Math and debate aren't the same thing. That's why you get spherical cows in a vacuum. Reductio ad absurdum in debate is when one side reduces an argument to its furthest extreme and then ridicules the result. So if I say that such-and-such shouldn't be a class, then someone else says "Well if that's not a class, then rogue shouldn't be a class and neither should fighter or wizard and then we just don't have any classes at all and that's just stupid!" It doesn't address the actual argument made. I have a better example, but it's political in nature and a hot-button topic right now and I don't want to derail the thread.

[Fatebreaker]

Is anybody else already sick to the bone of DND5e discussions?

Clearly not, otherwise we wouldn't be talking. If you yourself are no longer interested, no one is making you participate. On the other hand, if you would like to change the course of the discussion to something more suiting to your interests, is there a subject you'd like to discuss?

Nope, just sick of listening to everyone go in circles and/or dissecting the math to insane degrees of minutia.

Like I said earlier, the math happens whether you believe it, are aware of it, or even care about it. And, whether you believe it, are aware of it, or even care about it, it will change your game.

For folks who care or are interested in game design, then opening up the mechanics and seeing what makes them tick, or how they function in different circumstances, or even finding where they break can all be a fascinating subject.

For folks who have a vested interest in spending their time and/or real money-dollars on a quality game, answering the question "How does it actually work?" is very relevant to their interests.

And for the folks at Wizards -- some of whom can and will lose their jobs based on the next year in the world of D&D -- these answers aren't just fascinating or relevant. It's a priority.

So, since it's a playtest, and since it's a fascinating time to watch a game in development, and since it's a chance to see whether a new product is worth investing in, and since it's a life-altering moment for real folks just like you or I, I hope you can understand why people do want to look at the math.

If you don't, that's fine. You can skip those bits. You can also, should you choose, read them and try to learn why they matter.

[Draz74]

Math and debate aren't the same thing. That's why you get spherical cows in a vacuum. Reductio ad absurdum in debate is when one side reduces an argument to its furthest extreme and then ridicules the result. So if I say that such-and-such shouldn't be a class, then someone else says "Well if that's not a class, then rogue shouldn't be a class and neither should fighter or wizard and then we just don't have any classes at all and that's just stupid!" It doesn't address the actual argument made. I have a better example, but it's political in nature and a hot-button topic right now and I don't want to derail the thread.

Huh, I thought that was a strawman.

[TheAbstruseOne]

Huh, I thought that was a strawman.

No, but they're related. A strawman is setting up a false argument to change the subject. Example: I say avengers shouldn't be a class. Someone else says that they shouldn't be in the game because they're from 4e and 4e is horrible because blah blah blah. That's a strawman argument because it's setting up a separate argument that has nothing to do with the original one. You're not saying anything as to the merits and drawbacks of having avengers in Next, you're simply railing against 4th Edition in an attempt to get me to defend 4e.

Basically, reductio ad absurdum stays on-topic but attempts to shift the debate within that topic to the point where the discussion has no value. "This leads to this which leads to this which is completely stupid!" Strawman attempts to shift the topic completely to something else that is more easily defeated. "This is the same as that and that is completely stupid!"

Another fun one that's a bit more rare due to forum rules (but keeps popping up in arguments against the developers) is argumentum ad hominim. This is where they attack the person rather than the argument. Example: Mearls said in this review of Keep on the Borderlands that he hates the module and the style of play, then in this interview was the first person to say "DM May I" and talked about how rulings over rules was stupid. Now he's saying the exact opposite. How can we believe anything he says if all he's doing is being a mouthpiece for WotC?" This is attacking Mearls himself for changing his mind (for the record, it was over a period of 7 years) rather than discussing the idea of rules vs. rulings. It's attempting to dismiss the argument by dismissing the person putting the idea forward.

The reason all these bug the hell out of me is that they add absolutely nothing to the discussion, and right now the discussion itself is incredibly important. We need to be discussing the ideas of what is a class and what isn't a class, the merits of rules vs. rulings, the idea of a simple and streamlined rules system and adding complexity through powers/abilities/feats/spells/modules/whatever, what the default assumptions for playstyles should be or if there should be assumptions, etc. etc.