D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

[TheOOB]

I skimmed through the class writeups in the new playtest, and I noticed that the cleric's and the sorcerer's attacks and saving throw DCs do not scale with level. The text implies that they should scale with level, but the tables show that they don't.

Or perhaps they don't scale until 6th level? It seems strange that sorcerers have much lower saving throw DCs than wizards when their magic is supposed to be a barely controllable force that overwhelms them with use. I guess uncontrollable means that it's less effective? I expected it to be the other way.

I'm guessing they do scale with level, but just fairly slowly. Once again on the D&D/PA podcast(which is really good and you should all listen to it), he mentioned that they are trying to get the numbers to go up a little slower, partly in an effort to keep the math easy, and party to help keep the classes balanced.

I think the sorcerer's save DC and magical attack bonus is a baseline, and Bloodlines may improve it(keep in mind this is just me throwing ideas agienst a wall). For the draconic bloodline, which is more focused on melee combat, it stays at a low level.

Also keep in mind, it seems they get the same bonus a cleric gets, which is likely a good magical attack/save DC(remember that saving throws don't get better with level). I could see the wizard, being the master of spells, having a notably higher aptitude in those areas.

[Hylas]

I finally had a chance to go over the newest packet and listened to the PA podcasts.

I actually like where they're going with the system. A big problem I had with d20 is that anything you aren't trained for provokes an AoO, which basically says "you can't do anything but hit a dude with a sword, or else you'll get owned in the face." So far the only instance of AoO is when you move out of an enemy's range (but not within their range) and I'm fine with that, except for the advantage that they get on you.

The regenerating resource that fighters get each round to do cool things is great. You get to choose to go offensive and try to get extra damage, or cover your enemies, or try to keep yourself alive, or simply plink at dudes while doing something else. Sure fighters don't have as many choices as the wizard or cleric for what they use their resources on, but they get it every round so they're flexible in their own way.

I'm glad that rogues have skill mastery at first level, so they're still kings of skill without having to have a bazillion of them. They can also use the Thug scheme to good effect to make an archer, assuming there's 2 or more melee characters in the party.

Speaking of skills, I don't think I like where they're going with the skills. I do like how they're going for a more imaginative approach, though I think still having the DM determine DCs on the fly is a shortfall, and that how they're splitting and combining skills is odd. The part that I don't really like is that you either get your stat bonus or a skill bonus, but not both. 16 DEX and you want to be sneaky? Well no bonuses for you, you're just as good as the 10 DEX fighter in medium armor who also took stealth.

I haven't looked over the magic at all, but from what I've heard they're doing some cool things. Spells won't scale unless you use higher spell slots is a good choice.

[TheOOB]

I finally had a chance to go over the newest packet and listened to the PA podcasts.

I actually like where they're going with the system. A big problem I had with d20 is that anything you aren't trained for provokes an AoO, which basically says "you can't do anything but hit a dude with a sword, or else you'll get owned in the face." So far the only instance of AoO is when you move out of an enemy's range (but not within their range) and I'm fine with that, except for the advantage that they get on you.

I like this too, I got the implication that an AoO was only for moving outside of a hostile creatures melee reach(a strict reading of the rules even implies you can move within a creatures melee reach) and will only be for such. AoO's add a deep tactical element, but I felt they got over complicated for 3e, and when GMing new players I felt like I'd have to warn players that they'd threaten one too often. I made them avoid doing fun things.

Speaking of skills, I don't think I like where they're going with the skills. I do like how they're going for a more imaginative approach, though I think still having the DM determine DCs on the fly is a shortfall, and that how they're splitting and combining skills is odd. The part that I don't really like is that you either get your stat bonus or a skill bonus, but not both. 16 DEX and you want to be sneaky? Well no bonuses for you, you're just as good as the 10 DEX fighter in medium armor who also took stealth.

You get both bonuses. If you are trained in a skill, you get +3 on the check, but you still get your attribute bonus/penalty. Rogues get the ability where they can use their ability modifier or +3, whichever is greater, but in either case they still get their trained bonus. DC's are still determined ahead of time, but they are easier to determine on the fly as they are not level dependant.

[noparlpf]

DC's are still determined ahead of time, but they are easier to determine on the fly as they are not level dependant.

That's something I haven't understood about this playtest. DCs were never level-dependent that I can remember. They were dependent on the difficulty of the task. The only reason higher-level characters faced higher DCs was because they went out on more difficult adventures and faced more difficult tasks. They could still choose to go on low-level adventures and face low-level tasks with low DCs, they'd just get little or no XP.

[Gwendol]

I'm comfortable with players picking styles and feats as they wish right now; it doesn't become that complicated, and the characters get more choices.

[Zombimode]

That's something I haven't understood about this playtest. DCs were never level-dependent that I can remember. They were dependent on the difficulty of the task. The only reason higher-level characters faced higher DCs was because they went out on more difficult adventures and faced more difficult tasks. They could still choose to go on low-level adventures and face low-level tasks with low DCs, they'd just get little or no XP.

This wasn't that clear-cut in 4e, though. DCs were level-dependent but it was encouraged to flavour the obstacles appropriately. So a lock at higher levels that was rolled against at all, was "of superior dwarven craftsmanship" or so. This model does not translate well to all skills. A DM that wants to have certain skills relevant at all levels has to come up with exceedingly over-the-top descriptions. That alone can stretch the suspension of disbelieve.
When the only reason a wall to climb is "coated with lava, that is also frozen and is also perfectly plain with no grips at all" is to justify the expected DC, something is amiss.

3e suffered from this, too, to some extend. Max skill ranks were a function of number of HD, resulting in creature with more HD having potentially higher skill values. It mostly effects stealth and perception, resulting in many creatures having obscene listen and spot values without actually being fluffed as especially perceptive - at least when compared to creature who actually are known has having very acute senses but happen to have very few HD.

[JoeMac307]

I'm interested in seeing the rules behind how you can design your own monsters in D&D Next. What determines their level, and their XP value? I hope they go into that in one of the playtest packets down the road.

[huttj509]

This wasn't that clear-cut in 4e, though. DCs were level-dependent but it was encouraged to flavour the obstacles appropriately. So a lock at higher levels that was rolled against at all, was "of superior dwarven craftsmanship" or so. This model does not translate well to all skills. A DM that wants to have certain skills relevant at all levels has to come up with exceedingly over-the-top descriptions. That alone can stretch the suspension of disbelieve.
When the only reason a wall to climb is "coated with lava, that is also frozen and is also perfectly plain with no grips at all" is to justify the expected DC, something is amiss.

...Or because the wall is supposed to be a challenge and by that point you're freaking awesome. If it's not supposed to be a special wall that would actually challenge a 2xth level character, why give it a high DC?

What the non (or reduced) scaling of Next does is stops (or reduces) the "I laugh at your puny doors" effect. Especially when in other editions different characters scaled differently at various skills, it made it very difficult to have any sort of obstacle that was not tailored to "well, I know they have an awesome climber, but everyone else has 0 ranks and high check penalties." The guy who's good will still be good, but will not be increasingly getting "better than player 2" at every level, to where the other player has zero chance at something the first can do in his sleep. This can be good story-wise when a character's "the expert locksmith", but can be really difficult to adventure-design for.

4E tried to keep the player to player skill creep down, but ran into the issue of "players outlevelling the world." It comes down to the question of "should the tavern's locked door be considered a significant barrier at both level 1 and level 21?" If you say 'yes,' then 4e's "+ half level" to skills likely grated you wrong. If you say 'no,' then 4e's method probably felt smooth and reasonable to you. If you say 'yes, but not if the player focused on lockpicking,' then it goes to the question of if that focus should be internal or external. Internal? Raise Dex, train, skill points. External? Magic lockpicks.

What skill points ran into was the increasing inter-character skill difference. If your rogue was out of commission? Suddenly your "brief speedbump" door became a dead end (assuming they couldn't break it down, etc.). Next looks like it aims to avoid both that, and the "players outlevel the world" issue.

[Flickerdart]

...Or because the wall is supposed to be a challenge and by that point you're freaking awesome. If it's not supposed to be a special wall that would actually challenge a 2xth level character, why give it a high DC?

There's nothing "challenging" about hitting a skill DC. A powerful monster might be challenging because you actually have to figure out how to best adapt your abilities to the situation, but making a skill check is just "I make the check", "oh you passed", "yay" or "I make the check", "you fail", "the wizard casts fly and everyone flies over the wall".

[Ashdate]

There's nothing "challenging" about hitting a skill DC. A powerful monster might be challenging because you actually have to figure out how to best adapt your abilities to the situation, but making a skill check is just "I make the check", "oh you passed", "yay" or "I make the check", "you fail", "the wizard casts fly and everyone flies over the wall".

I think that's a poor way of looking at skill checks; in a tense time-limited situation, a skill check can absolutely be a fun and easy way of determining success of failure. If there's no "penalty" to trying again, then the problem isn't skill DCs, it's that there is no penalty for failure.

What I hope that 5e pushes is the idea of "yes, but..." design for skill DCs. Forcing the game to a halt because a player rolls a 2 on his lockpick check is dumb; what's more interesting is if there is a consequence. "You have trouble with the lock, and drop your lockpick, causing some noise which alerts the creatures in the next room that you're on the other side! You can finish picking the lock if you wish..."

And while 4e skill challenges didn't accomplish what they were trying to do, the heart was in the right place: make it so any given obstacle wasn't passed or failed due to a single roll. I've switched to an alternate skill challenge system in my 4e game (the Obsidian system) and it's worked out pretty well, with the emphasis on "what does your character do in this situation?" rather than "which skill do you want to roll?".

Finally, the question I would ask if the players (sporting high level characters)are trying to pick the lock of a tavern door in a rural town (the kind adventures tend to start in) is, "You're level 17. Why do you care about what's behind this door at your level?" And to that point, if the answer was "plans for an drow invasion" rather than "cleaning supplies", then I think a higher Thievery DC would be warranted!

[TheOOB]

Well I always had a problem with everyone numbers increasing by 1/2 level in 4e, namely that it's entirely pointless. If everyone's numbers increase at the same rate, they might as well not increase at all and make the math eaiser.

Before, in 3e and 4e, a DC 30 lock(continuing with the lock example), represented an impossible challenge for a level 1 character. Even while taking 20, they just couldn't overcome it. For a level 20 characters, a DC 30 lock was trivial. The problem with this, if you think there is a problem, is that when calculating how tough you want a challenge to be, you always have to keep in mind how strong the players are in those areas.

In 5e, a DC 10 lock should be easy at any level, and a DC 20 lock will be really hard at any level(and a DC 30 near impossible to impossible), and it's that way for every skill. It's easier to know how challenging something will be for the PC's, and it gets rid of the DC creep where things either a)get trivially easy all the time, or b)you keep finding arbitrary reasons to make something difficult(okay, the ledge you're balancing on if 1/2 inch wide, covered in ice, unstable, on fire, and you can only hop on 1 foot).

I personally like the new system at least in concept. Anything that makes math easier and makes less work for the DM is great. It takes away the pointless number increases of 4e, and also removes the whole skill point barrier to entry from 3e(as the game is fundamentally about combat, making a new player spend a bunch of skill points on things they don't understand is needlessly complex).

[Ashdate]

I totally agree that the 4e skill "staircase" did ultimately more harm than good (although I think it's preferable to the 3e model), and that 5e's way of doing static DCs (although to be clear, those did exist in 4e) it is ultimately cleaner and more understandable way of handling skills.

However, I think 5e should implement some form of skill bonus for all skills as players level. Not on the 4e scale (i.e. +1 every two levels), but something a little more subtle, that still reflects that a level 10 character will have an easier time picking a lock than his 1st level counterpart due to his experience (without the massive gaps between trained/untrained that was seen in 3e). Maybe +1 to all skill checks every 5 levels?

[AgentPaper]

Well, as long as we're testing out the new system, we may as well see what it's like to make homebrew classes as well, right? Thus, I give you...the Death Knight.

[kyoryu]

I totally agree that the 4e skill "staircase" did ultimately more harm than good (although I think it's preferable to the 3e model), and that 5e's way of doing static DCs (although to be clear, those did exist in 4e) it is ultimately cleaner and more understandable way of handling skills.

However, I think 5e should implement some form of skill bonus for all skills as players level. Not on the 4e scale (i.e. +1 every two levels), but something a little more subtle, that still reflects that a level 10 character will have an easier time picking a lock than his 1st level counterpart due to his experience (without the massive gaps between trained/untrained that was seen in 3e). Maybe +1 to all skill checks every 5 levels?

I get the idea of the 4e staircase - what you're really doing is choosing what skills you want to specialize in and how much, and in 3e, putting all of your skill points into those skills to "keep up" was pretty much default and optimal, so let's just get rid of the illusion of the decision. I just don't know if I liked how it worked out, or how they chose to advance those skills.

[Agent 451]

I don't know if any of you is keeping up with D&D Next updates from Gen Con, but this article at io9.com has a nice recap. I'm looking forward to more info about this "Sundering" that is going to hit the Forgotten Realms.

[Madfellow]

I know nothing about the Forgotten Realms other than they're where Drizz't comes from (and I haven't read any of the novels), but based on what they said in the Gen Con keynotes address it sounds like the Sundering is some kind of gigantic World War.

[Agent 451]

I just hope it culminates in Torril being restored to pre 4th ed geographics.

[MukkTB]

Meh. The sundering will be some artificial disaster that exists so that the Next designers won't be overburdened with lore. Remember that castle and town we had in the last set? The ground melted and it sank into the earth. Now we don't have to make sure our designers get it right.

[Kurald Galain]

So far the Sundering sounds exactly like the Spellplague and the Time of Troubles - an arbitrary cataclysm that they can use to arbitrarily rearrange all the Realms as they like it.

[Zeful]

So far the Sundering sounds exactly like the Spellplague and the Time of Troubles - an arbitrary cataclysm that they can use to arbitrarily rearrange all the Realms as they like it.

It's The Realms, without an arbitrary cataclysm to arbitrarily rearrange it, it has this huge accessiblity problem that requires sinking lots of money into EU material unless you want that one guy who knows The Realms to be constantly correcting you every time you're not running things "according to canon".

[MukkTB]

Personally I would rather create a new world when I feel that there is enough content for the old one. Its about the same as wiping the slate clean and its a bit nicer to the guy who memorized everything about the setting than trying to tell him hi knowledge is now worthless. Its also a bit less likely to alienate him to your edition.

[Knaight]

The problem with this, if you think there is a problem, is that when calculating how tough you want a challenge to be, you always have to keep in mind how strong the players are in those areas.

Alternately, you can simply try and work out how tough a challenge actually is then let the strength in those areas determine how hard it is for the people experiencing. That 4e didn't do that, and instead had nonsensical scaling of DCs with character level was a weakness.

On Forgotten Realms - At this point, it could just be allowed to die. There are other settings, there can be new ones, there can be new incarnations of older ones that aren't as ridiculously defined at every point (Dark Sun, Al-Qadim, Mazatlan, etc.) so on and so forth.

[Menteith]

If I recall correctly, FR provides a reasonably lucrative income through non-RPG materials such as novels or tie-ins. I doubt that a money-maker would be allowed to expire.

[Knaight]

If I recall correctly, FR provides a reasonably lucrative income through non-RPG materials such as novels or tie-ins. I doubt that a money-maker would be allowed to expire.

The novels and tie-ins could persist even if the RPG setting were allowed to die.

[Menteith]

The novels and tie-ins could persist even if the RPG setting were allowed to die.

True enough. It's not something very concerning to me either way. I've no love for FR, and the only time I really interact with it is when I boost up the Balder's Gate games.

[Hylas]

I'd rather see Eberron flying around some more, but I can understand if they want a more "pure" fantasy setting for the core.

Glad I was wrong with how I read the skill rules. I knew something had to be wrong. Rogues are even cooler now, if they have an 18 or higher in their skill.

As for DCs, they weren't supposed to be so high or silly to begin with. Things like use rope and climb weren't meant to be "fully leveled" in 3.0, or so it seems, not like balance or one of the more important skills, as their DCs topped out pretty low. I think Ride's highest DC is 20 or so, making anything higher than a +19 pointless.

However, in actual play, if players tend to min-max their skills a lot or just simply roll well, the DM seems to increase DCs across the board. I've seen this happen in a lot of systems, even stuff like WoD where you suddenly need more than 2 successes to ask your close friend to borrow an umbrella for the rain.

[navar100]

I'd rather see Eberron flying around some more, but I can understand if they want a more "pure" fantasy setting for the core.

Glad I was wrong with how I read the skill rules. I knew something had to be wrong. Rogues are even cooler now, if they have an 18 or higher in their skill.

As for DCs, they weren't supposed to be so high or silly to begin with. Things like use rope and climb weren't meant to be "fully leveled" in 3.0, or so it seems, not like balance or one of the more important skills, as their DCs topped out pretty low. I think Ride's highest DC is 20 or so, making anything higher than a +19 pointless.

However, in actual play, if players tend to min-max their skills a lot or just simply roll well, the DM seems to increase DCs across the board. I've seen this happen in a lot of systems, even stuff like WoD where you suddenly need more than 2 successes to ask your close friend to borrow an umbrella for the rain.

Some DMs get enraged a PC can auto-succeed on a task.

[TheOOB]

Personally I would rather create a new world when I feel that there is enough content for the old one. Its about the same as wiping the slate clean and its a bit nicer to the guy who memorized everything about the setting than trying to tell him hi knowledge is now worthless. Its also a bit less likely to alienate him to your edition.

A lot of people will buy books simply because their are for the Realms. Personally I've never liked the Realms much, but they are popular, and it would be silly of wizards to not publish something they know will sell.

These cataclysms do two things. They make the setting a bit more simple and easy to enter, and they help explain(hand waive) the rules changes in the setting. 4e dramatically changed how magic worked, for example, and now it's going back to a vancian model.

[Knaight]

A lot of people will buy books simply because their are for the Realms. Personally I've never liked the Realms much, but they are popular, and it would be silly of wizards to not publish something they know will sell.

These cataclysms do two things. They make the setting a bit more simple and easy to enter, and they help explain(hand waive) the rules changes in the setting. 4e dramatically changed how magic worked, for example, and now it's going back to a vancian model.

The cataclysms do nothing that simply declaring the old fluff void and working out a new iteration that isn't connected to previous timelines, geography, and similar doesn't do.

[TheOOB]

The cataclysms do nothing that simply declaring the old fluff void and working out a new iteration that isn't connected to previous timelines, geography, and similar doesn't do.

WotC doesn't want to say all your old FR books are useless(even if they are).