D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

[Stubbazubba]

WotC isn't bad at math, it's simply that there is no mathematically correct solution to the problem.

I beg to differ. There is a mathematically correct solution to any given design goal. Having mutually exclusive design goals is a problem, as is having design goals that change from group to group, and math can't help you do the impossible there, but math is what makes design goals happen, nothing else.

WotC lies and tells us that the math is just a secondary concern that can be polished up before release and that mechanics are somehow different and Mearls' ideas are what really matter, but those are all lies. The math is the product. The idea may be the soul, but the math is the actual body, and without the body, the soul, for all intents and purposes, doesn't exist. It is intangible and therefore, we can't play with it.

I, for one, am enjoying the math discussion. I would contribute if I had more time to sit down and actually contribute, but for now I'll just voice my support for math.

EDIT: Skill Challenges fail because tracking failures as well as successes penalizes players for participating too often, a direct contradiction with their design goals for them. That, and math.

[AgentPaper]

Ok, I wrote up a huge response to a few of the latest posters, but I've decided to quit the ghost. I'm just too sick of the constant negative attitude in this thread towards every little thing WotC has done. Bye.

[Draz74]

I'd say another part of the problem is WotC assumes "Situations the party wants to resolve with a single roll" means "Any situation where one thing isn't trying to kill another thing."

That is an assumption they tend to make, yes. And it deserves more scrutiny, yes. But in some situations, it will stand up to such scrutiny. To repeat my earlier example -- I have never met a group that would prefer a series of 5+ die rolls to determine the outcome of an in-character chess game, even though that would be more realistic than a single roll.

Note the difference here between a Strength check and a Strength contest. In both if your examples you're referring to opposed rolls, but the contest part isn't the problem; two fighters with max Str, max ranks/training, and identical miscellaneous bonuses rolling against each other will have a 50/50 shot regardless of the skill system being used. The check part is the problem, because that's the part that has the bad objective benchmarks and that's the part where comparing static DCs vs. the width of the RNG causes problems.

I think what I wrote is actually still just as applicable. In that I was agreeing with you that, for single-roll-resolution tasks, the RNG's width is currently much too big compared to the available modifiers. Hence why I asked how much it would help if 1d10 were used instead of 1d20 in such cases.

Flip it around and use normal skill checks: even if you need just one success on a DC 25 Int check in one case and multiple successes on multiple DC 25 Str checks in another case, if a 1st level character can succeed at a DC 25 check and accomplish "godlike" results, it doesn't matter how many checks they need to or can make because the fact that they can make it at all is the problem in and of itself.

Obviously in any case, whether my fix or another fix or no fix is implemented, the Static DCs in the playtest packet are only a rough draft and will need to be adjusted. Dice, I think you're conflating this issue with the modifier-vs.-RNG-width problem, which is making other people have a hard time following some of your arguments. Let's keep the two issues separate.

But although this will need adjustment, my main point is still valid: in the current 5e system, DC 25 is indeed "godlike" IF you have to roll it consistently to get the desired results. For example, if the door being beaten down by a Strength check requires hitting DC 25 for 5 Strength checks (and a single failure ends the attempt), that is indeed a godlike door. More evidence that WotC's mindset, when they wrote the packet, was on resolving tasks through a series of rolls.

It's not an in-combat vs. out-of-combat divide, though. If you want a dragon to be noticeably better than a goblin, you need a wide enough gap for that to be the case whether it's the dragon attacking the goblin or vice versa, the dragon rolling Hide vs. the goblin's Spot or vice versa, or both of them rolling either against a third party. Again, it's the bonus spread relative to the width of the RNG, the bonus spread between opponents, and the DC benchmarks that matter, not the importance of individual rolls.

He's referring to a simple math trick: Rolling multiple times and summing the result lowers the variance, which means it's less swingy.

To be completely arbitrary, let's say the Dragon's Spot is +7 and the Goblin's Hide is +0.

If we do this as a simple contest, the chance of the dragon spotting the goblin is 77%. But if we do it skill challenge style and keep rolling until one side gets 3 successes before 2 failures, the chance of the dragon spotting the goblin rises to 92%. 5 successes before 4 failures brings it up to 99%.

Yeah, basically Craft is aiming at the same thing I'm aiming at here, although I tend to think of it less in terms of "summing" or "x successes before z failures."

To adopt you guys' Hide vs. Spot example ... If there is an important plot-clue that requires passing a Spot check, then the current skill system is borked, because there is simply too much of a chance that the Spot-skilled character will get unlucky and miss the clue, or that Belkar will get lucky and Spot the clue. The RNG is too wide compared to the modifiers.

However, in combat (or other situations resolved by rolling many times), since each skill check's outcome only lasts 6 seconds, this isn't such a problem. I don't mind if the Goblin has a 20% chance of being able to Hide from the Dragon when it only lasts one Round before he has to try Hiding again. That keeps combat interesting, and can be chalked up to the general chaos and unpredictability of combat as far as in-game sense goes. So in these situations, I'm not sure the RNG width vs. the characters' modifiers is actually a problem.

Skill challenges sucked because they basically weren't interactive and had no real choices. Doesn't mean that, say, an in-depth and detailed Diplomacy subsystem would be impossible.

Yeah, ideally I'd like to see skill challenges come back in a much-improved form, for exploratory challenges, but ESPECIALLY for social challenges. But I'm having a hard time imagining a system for them that I'd really approve of. It would have to be something truly innovative.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I think what I wrote is actually still just as applicable. In that I was agreeing with you that, for single-roll-resolution tasks, the RNG's width is currently much too big compared to the available modifiers. Hence why I asked how much it would help if 1d10 were used instead of 1d20 in such cases.

Yes, a smaller RNG would make the current modifier range work better. I was only objecting to the part where you were talking about using a narrow RNG for out of combat and a wide RNG for combat--you were using single-roll examples for out of combat and multi-roll examples for combat, when it's possible for the reverse to happen (single saves against spells in combat and repeated Climb checks out of combat, for instance). The point being that if you're going to switch to 1d10 or 3d6 or whatever, either stick with that for all rolls or use it for all single rolls, don't use the arbitrary combat/noncombat distinction.

Obviously in any case, whether my fix or another fix or no fix is implemented, the Static DCs in the playtest packet are only a rough draft and will need to be adjusted. Dice, I think you're conflating this issue with the modifier-vs.-RNG-width problem, which is making other people have a hard time following some of your arguments. Let's keep the two issues separate.

But although this will need adjustment, my main point is still valid: in the current 5e system, DC 25 is indeed "godlike" IF you have to roll it consistently to get the desired results. For example, if the door being beaten down by a Strength check requires hitting DC 25 for 5 Strength checks (and a single failure ends the attempt), that is indeed a godlike door. More evidence that WotC's mindset, when they wrote the packet, was on resolving tasks through a series of rolls.

That makes a lot more sense; I think I misunderstood your point because you were using combat-related multi-roll examples with noncombat-related single-roll examples. If you're just talking about skill-challenge-ifying 5e skill rolls, then that just makes WotC bad at explaining things rather than fundamentally innumerate.

[Kurald Galain]

To adopt you guys' Hide vs. Spot example ... If there is an important plot-clue that requires passing a Spot check, then the current skill system is borked, because there is simply too much of a chance that the Spot-skilled character will get unlucky and miss the clue, or that Belkar will get lucky and Spot the clue. The RNG is too wide compared to the modifiers.

However, in combat (or other situations resolved by rolling many times), since each skill check's outcome only lasts 6 seconds, this isn't such a problem. I don't mind if the Goblin has a 20% chance of being able to Hide from the Dragon when it only lasts one Round before he has to try Hiding again. That keeps combat interesting, and can be chalked up to the general chaos and unpredictability of combat as far as in-game sense goes. So in these situations, I'm not sure the RNG width vs. the characters' modifiers is actually a problem.

So fundamentally, the problem is that WOTC is designing a system primarily for combat, and assumes for non-combat situations (like simple skill checks) that they can either shoehorn it into the combat system, or have the DM make something up since it doesn't really matter.

They're not living up yet to their design principle of focusing on three pillars of D&D (exploration, interaction, and combat); so far, they're just working on combat, combat, and more combat.

[TuggyNE]

They're not living up yet to their design principle of focusing on three pillars of D&D (exploration, interaction, and combat); so far, they're just working on combat, combat, and more combat.

What do you mean? Exploration is just combat with more walking. Interaction is just combat with more talking.Yes I'm aware those rhyme; it wasn't intentional but it sounded good. :P

[Craft (Cheese)]

Nah, interaction and exploration are those boring parts between fights when the DM talks at you while you don't pay attention to him and instead make gay jokes with the other players.

[Seerow]

Nah, interaction and exploration are those boring parts between fights when the DM talks at you while you don't pay attention to him and instead make gay jokes with the other players.

No you've both got it all wrong. Interaction and Exploration are the parts of the game where you argue with the DM to convince him what you want to do is completely reasonable. If at any point your argument fails to sway him, you simply roll a d20 and say "Look how big the number I rolled is! Clearly I did it very well, so should succeed!".

Anything more than this loses the heart of D&D as 'rollplayers' take all the fun out of the game with their rules telling you what you can and can't do

[Scowling Dragon]

So wait are you saying that a lack of rules ruins D&D or that a surplus of them ruins it?

[ThiagoMartell]

I beg to differ. There is a mathematically correct solution to any given design goal.

You're objectively wrong. Game design is not just about math. Nomenclature and description are important parts of design and math does not touch them.

Ok, I wrote up a huge response to a few of the latest posters, but I've decided to quit the ghost. I'm just too sick of the constant negative attitude in this thread towards every little thing WotC has done. Bye.

I tend to agree. I think that happens because fo the large amount of homebrewers in these forums. It seems people can't accept that professional game designers have any clue about what they are doing, even if what they are doing is testing the waters on a 2 year long design process.
If you would criticize any homebrew in these forums the way people criticize professional games... let's just say you wouldn't be able to post for long.

[Scowling Dragon]

I think its to do with this obsession with numbers thing going.

Seriously its about having fun. Thats the core and most important part of the game.

[Stubbazubba]

You're objectively wrong. Game design is not just about math. Nomenclature and description are important parts of design and math does not touch them.

Nothing you've said contradicts what I said. I never said design was only about math or that there weren't other important elements. It's just that math is absolutely critical to get right because the math is the embodiment of the mechanics. In the final estimation, the math and the mechanics are one and the same. The world can only work the way the math of the mechanics says it does. Nothing else in the game will change that, unless it's a house-rule or home-brew, which is not a part of the product being sold.

@Scowling Dragon: In my experience, you can have fun playing almost any rule-set, good or bad, with enough cooperation amongst players and the right attitude towards it. That is literally the most important ingredient to having fun. However, I would like a rule-set that does not get in the way for a given play-style. I think a game that sells itself as X should deliver results that match X. IME, the math is the key to accomplishing X, whatever that is, and if the math deviates from X, then the experience deviates from X. Fun is a different axis entirely, IMO, which has to do more with the players' expectations.

[ThiagoMartell]

Nothing you've said contradicts what I said. I never said design was only about math or that there weren't other important elements. It's just that math is absolutely critical to get right because the math is the embodiment of the mechanics. In the final estimation, the math and the mechanics are one and the same. The world can only work the way the math of the mechanics says it does. Nothing else in the game will change that, unless it's a house-rule or home-brew, which is not a part of the product being sold.

It does, dude. Unless you can present a 'mathematically correct' decision for nomenclature, immersion and worldbuiulding, it's wrong. Also, game design is not limited to mechanics and mechanics are not limited to math. THAC0 and Base Attack Bonus are the same mechanic, mathematically, and we all know which one is better.

[Menteith]

I think it would be more accurate to say there are mathematically incorrect ways to accomplish a stated design goal, rather than saying there is a mathematically correct way to accomplish the goal. For example, the rules given governing Magical Item Rewards do not match the stated design goals (uniquely cool items, each magic item feels special, rare items) very well due to the math of it - thus, it is a mathematically incorrect way to accomplish the goal (and the issue will likely be fixed purely by changing the math of it around).

Whether or not the system governing skills is/isn't robust enough is subjective, but now is exactly the time to voice these concerns. We're in the middle of a beta, and clearly stating one's feelings on a specific part of game design is not a bad thing, nor is it being negative for the sake of being negative. It makes much more sense to focus on the negative parts of the game (that need help) than it does to focus on the positives (which don't need it).

[Kurald Galain]

Seriously its about having fun. Thats the core and most important part of the game.

Of course. But we already know how to have fun with roleplaying games, e.g. with earlier editions. So the question is, then, should we pay WOTC for something we already have?

It does, dude. Unless you can present a 'mathematically correct' decision for nomenclature, immersion and worldbuiulding, it's wrong. Also, game design is not limited to mechanics and mechanics are not limited to math.

I believe what he's trying to say is that proper math is necessary to good design; that doesn't mean that it's sufficient for good design, as other things may be equally necessary.

[1337 b4k4]

Yeah, ideally I'd like to see skill challenges come back in a much-improved form, for exploratory challenges, but ESPECIALLY for social challenges. But I'm having a hard time imagining a system for them that I'd really approve of. It would have to be something truly innovative.

The Spycraft game (d20) had a resolution system for everything other than combat (chases, negotiations, stealthy sneaking) that boiled down to something like this (and apologies if I get the details wrong, I'm working off fuzzy memory):

1) Decide who the "attacker" and "defender" is. Set a counter at 10, the attacker wins if the counter reaches 20, the defender wins if the counter reaches 0.

2) Each side chooses the action they're planning on performing, applies appropriate modifiers and rolls, if one side makes their roll and the other does not, you move the counter in the winner's direction 2 spaces. If both sides make their roll, it moves in one space in the direction of the person with the greater margin of success. If both sides miss their roll, the counter remains as is.

3) Continue in this manner until one side wins the challenge.

This could be adapted to unopposed skill checks by using the difference between the current counter value and 10 as a modifier to your die roll, so that the more successes, the easier each subsequent one is, and the more failures, the harder it is to recover.

So fundamentally, the problem is that WOTC is designing a system primarily for combat, and assumes for non-combat situations (like simple skill checks) that they can either shoehorn it into the combat system, or have the DM make something up since it doesn't really matter.

They're not living up yet to their design principle of focusing on three pillars of D&D (exploration, interaction, and combat); so far, they're just working on combat, combat, and more combat.

The problem is their (IMHO) boneheaded decision to stick with d20 resolution mechanics for everything. Had they gone with say, a 3d6 (or 2d12, or 3d10 or any similar curve roll) roll under skill check system, they could have had their bounded accuracy built right in, and had a system that well addresses everyone's favorite hang up over the town cripple out arm wrestling the barbarian.

It's just that math is absolutely critical to get right because the math is the embodiment of the mechanics. In the final estimation, the math and the mechanics are one and the same. The world can only work the way the math of the mechanics says it does.

However, sometimes the "right math" isn't the "correct math". Sometimes, abstraction, ease of use or plain old "wrong is more fun" means that the "correct math" is wrong for the game in question. I'm not saying whether the skill check system is or isn't one of these scenarios, but I do think that discussions over game math sometimes lose sight of the larger picture. Sure it might not make sense that the barbarian can lose a wrestling match to a cripple based on the math, but sometimes, it's more important that when the wizard fights the Balrog on the way down to the center of the earth, that he has a statistically significant chance of living.

Incidentally this is why, while I'd prefer a roll under system as described above, I don't think the current d20 skill resolution is horribly broken either. I'm perfectly fine with a system that says "Life normally works like this, but in the event that you think things should be different, here's a basic resolution mechanic for that" which is in not as many or as eloquent words, what 5e says. They say that if there's no significant chance of success, you shouldn't roll, so as a DM I would say that the cripple can't win, and there's no need for the barbarian to roll. On the other hand, if I decide I really want the wizard to have his chance of a heroic balrog take down, I can just apply the skill system, recognizing the system starts me with a x% chance of the event I'm looking for occurring. To some people, that's too much DM fiat peanut butter in their player chocolate, but to others, that's a reeces cup of pure D&D goodness.

THAC0 and Base Attack Bonus are the same mechanic, mathematically, and we all know which one is better.

Of course we do, THAC0 is clearly and objectively superior to all other systems and anyone who says otherwise is a doody head.

Of course. But we already know how to have fun with roleplaying games, e.g. with earlier editions. So the question is, then, should we pay WOTC for something we already have?

For the same reason you bought 4e, and 3e before that, and AD&D, and the same reason you buy other games even though GURPS already exists. And the reason you buy pre-made adventures even though you have a binder full of adventures, and free generators all over the internet. Because sometimes you want to try something different, and because sometimes you want to see what other ideas people have, and because you like the pretty pictures, and because you enjoy collecting and because your friends really want to play D&D and they don't like 3e and they don't like 4e, but THAC0 and negative AC confuses them and you've never heard of Swords and Wizardry before, and so on and so forth etc etc etc etc.

[Scowling Dragon]

Of course. But we already know how to have fun with roleplaying games, e.g. with earlier editions. So the question is, then, should we pay WOTC for something we already have?

Im not saying im going to. I will pay them if they have something I DO want (ADD Complete Monsters Handbook).

I don't like the way 5e is shaping up. But thats because of its FEEL rather then anything strongly mechanical.

Its taking lots of different things from older editions without understanding how they work together in context. Like why 2e magic was so powerful because of long casting times and save DC didn't increase. Thus spells became more and more powerful.

This was carried over to 3e except with none of the balancing factors of the above. Now 5e is grabbing 3e spellcasting and trying to fix it in all the most boring bland ways. Instead of just using the balancing factors of 2e.

In fact allot of problems stem from a critical misunderstanding of what to carry over from 2e.

edit:

Also I don't like Gurps. Its overtly ruled to the point it feels chocking. And character creation is painful. I can remove 90% of the rules but by that point I may as well be playing a different game..

[Yora]

From everything I've seen, WotC is making something I do not already have.

I don't have a game that resembles 3rd Edition without escalating numbers and a simpler skill and combat system. Or a game that resembles 2nd Edition without THAC0 and roll under saving throws.
5th Edition looks like I can have both at the same time, and also in printed book form with additional optional rules for it instead of lose notes and leaflets.

I'll pay for that.

[Draz74]

From everything I've seen, WotC is making something I do not already have.

I don't have a game that resembles 3rd Edition without escalating numbers and a simpler skill and combat system. Or a game that resembles 2nd Edition without THAC0 and roll under saving throws.
5th Edition looks like I can have both at the same time, and also in printed book form with additional optional rules for it instead of lose notes and leaflets.

I'll pay for that.

Great! Hopefully players with your taste are an abundant enough population to keep the brand alive.

(Which is very difficult to judge, especially if GitP is your main venue of interaction with the community, since I don't think it's a great representation of the community as a whole.)

You're objectively wrong. Game design is not just about math. Nomenclature and description are important parts of design and math does not touch them.

You know, these threads keep going more productively if people try to understand what others mean and agree when possible (e.g. acknowledging the truth of the importance of math that Stubbazebba referenced) rather than saying "You're wrong."

I tend to agree. I think that happens because fo the large amount of homebrewers in these forums. It seems people can't accept that professional game designers have any clue about what they are doing, even if what they are doing is testing the waters on a 2 year long design process.
If you would criticize any homebrew in these forums the way people criticize professional games... let's just say you wouldn't be able to post for long.

Hmmm, it appears my attempts to make peace in this thread were too late for AgentPaper ...

And I think you're right about the level of criticism on these Forums being ... unique compared to WotC or ENWorld Forums. I don't know if it's the Homebrewers or what, but people here are particularly critical in their judgment of games. I actually think this is a good thing about the community as long as it stays constructive criticism rather than turning into complaining or overall negativity.

Yes, a smaller RNG would make the current modifier range work better. I was only objecting to the part where you were talking about using a narrow RNG for out of combat and a wide RNG for combat--you were using single-roll examples for out of combat and multi-roll examples for combat, when it's possible for the reverse to happen (single saves against spells in combat and repeated Climb checks out of combat, for instance). The point being that if you're going to switch to 1d10 or 3d6 or whatever, either stick with that for all rolls or use it for all single rolls, don't use the arbitrary combat/noncombat distinction.

That makes a lot more sense; I think I misunderstood your point because you were using combat-related multi-roll examples with noncombat-related single-roll examples. If you're just talking about skill-challenge-ifying 5e skill rolls, then that just makes WotC bad at explaining things rather than fundamentally innumerate.

Well, as Kurald and Craft(Cheese) have both mentioned, the de facto status quo is that combat is resolved by many die rolls, while other things are decided by a single die roll. So my examples catered to that status quo. But you're absolutely right that, as the non-combat parts of the game develop, using a d20 will make more sense for those.

You also raise an interesting question about whether particular rolls during combat (e.g. saves against particularly nasty spells) can or should be significant enough that they should be resolved using single-roll-resolution math. I think that's open for further discussion.

So fundamentally, the problem is that WOTC is designing a system primarily for combat, and assumes for non-combat situations (like simple skill checks) that they can either shoehorn it into the combat system, or have the DM make something up since it doesn't really matter.

They're not living up yet to their design principle of focusing on three pillars of D&D (exploration, interaction, and combat); so far, they're just working on combat, combat, and more combat.

Well, my optimistic hope is that they're actually working pretty hard on decent rules for the Exploration and Interaction pillars, but they just don't have anything polished enough yet that they're willing to subject it to public scrutiny. Since, assuming they are trying to come up with something innovative, they had to basically start from Square One, rather than building off of several editions' experience with decent combat systems.

[Orsen]

While posting about 5e on /tg/ someone summed the current game's direction with this post:

In general, they're looking to flatten character scaling in order to keep monsters relevant and combat quick (less attack/AC scaling, more damage/HP scaling), give each class options for simple and complex play, and keep the base rules simple to allow for rules customization via modules in order to replicate the "feel" of each previous edition.

I know there's a lot of arguments here (especially about bounded accuracy) but I just want to say that by reading that summary, I feel excited for what this game could do for new and old players alike.
I'm hoping it will be able to bring groups together and let people put as much or as little homework into there weekly gaming session as they want. If they provide that along with a nice and simple combat system I'll be more than happy to put up with some flaws. We all have with whatever our preferred editions already.

[Yora]

That about sums it up. Most of the discussion here is about design ideology and winning the argument. Don't let that detract from the actual content of the playtest game.

[Excession]

Another source for 5e info, that I don't think anyone has mentioned before, is Mike Mearls's twitter. It's not all about 5e, but there are some good titbits there. For example, it seems that Paladin powers and planned to be pick and choose, just like fighting styles are for Fighters, so the "LG Paladin" with lay on hands, smite, etc. is just a guideline. That seems remarkably sensible to me.

Some of the relevant tweets are summarised in this thread on the WotC boards.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

And I think you're right about the level of criticism on these Forums being ... unique compared to WotC or ENWorld Forums. I don't know if it's the Homebrewers or what, but people here are particularly critical in their judgment of games. I actually think this is a good thing about the community as long as it stays constructive criticism rather than turning into complaining or overall negativity.

EnWorld has plenty of critique--there must be three or four new "I don't think X works and here's why" threads every day--but they're a much more 4e-heavy and 5e-friendly forum than this one so their critiques are different from ours here. As for the WotC forums, well...ever since the Gleemax fiasco, the quality of those forums has been falling so fast that the text has started blueshifting.

People here might be particularly critical of WotC because we do have excellent homebrewers and we can recognize bad design, but it's also because this is a less 4e-centric forum, this is a more mechanically-focused forum, and other reasons. GitP doesn't have the mechanical focus (or vitriol) of the Gaming Den or the "old school" cred of RPG.net, but I think it seems more critical in comparison to EnWorld or the WotC forums because the wider variety of games discussed here and the overall expertise with those games gives GitP more of a baseline for good design than forums which are basically D&D only.

For instance, when people talk about skill system revisions here, I see plenty of suggestions (and make plenty of my own) to borrow something from Shadowrun, compare skill granularity to GURPS, make "background" skills like Profession work more like FATE Aspects, incorporate Burning Wheel ideas for social skills, and so on. Extended tests, skill rerolls, and similar are familiar to the crowd here if only through being exposed to them by non-D&D players, so people here are fairly unimpressed with the "innovations" of 5e; we see expertise dice and advantage as fairly standard dice pool stuff and say "That's nice, WotC, but what else can you do?" By contrast, I haven't seen practically any threads in the EnWorld D&D forum that mention other games' mechanics except in the context of GNS debates, and even then most of those posters are also posters here or BG; they see expertise dice, advantage, skill challenges, and similar "new" mechanics as major innovations on WotC's part and are willing to cut them a lot of slack for them.

All my opinion, of course, but I think "GitP is jaded, EnWorld knows mostly 4e at this point" would explain a lot of the difference in critical reception.

You also raise an interesting question about whether particular rolls during combat (e.g. saves against particularly nasty spells) can or should be significant enough that they should be resolved using single-roll-resolution math. I think that's open for further discussion.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here by talking about "significant" things in combat using single-roll resolution; I'd think that everything in combat would be resolved with single-roll resolution math, because it's the interaction of such math that makes combat use multi-roll resolution math in the first place. Expound, please?

[Doug Lampert]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here by talking about "significant" things in combat using single-roll resolution; I'd think that everything in combat would be resolved with single-roll resolution math, because it's the interaction of such math that makes combat use multi-roll resolution math in the first place. Expound, please?

I assume what's he's looking at is something like the Medusa's ability to turn a character into a statue. It's a single die roll which can reasonably mean, "Does your character die here?" (At the level you can first encounter a medusa you have no way to undo being a statue unless the GM goes out of his way to give it to you).

If the GM uses the monster as presented, as a reasonably intelligent creature that can pass as human at a distance, then it WILL almost certainly get a gaze attack on a party when the character's aren't averting their gaze. If that gaze hits, you're sitting out the combat at best, making a new character is quite likely, and a TPK isn't out of the question. If that gaze misses then it never gets a second chance as you avert your eyes and don't suffer any additional attacks from the gaze.

The gaze attack (or the wizard's Finger of Death going the other way) is a single event that can easily determine the success or failure of the entire combat. It is as much a single roll resolution of a major event as any chess game or arm-wrestling contest, you either make the roll, or you lose.

25% better for being massively superior is fine for cases where there are dozens of rolls, the superior character will almost always actually do better (the normal case in combat), but it sucks for a single roll resolution event. And save or die or save or suck is actually a single roll resolution.

[Kurald Galain]

Extended tests, skill rerolls, and similar are familiar to the crowd here if only through being exposed to them by non-D&D players, so people here are fairly unimpressed with the "innovations" of 5e; we see expertise dice and advantage as fairly standard dice pool stuff and say "That's nice, WotC, but what else can you do?"

That's actually a good point. People who are familiar with multiple RPG systems are really not the target audience for 5E.

Thinking about it, I don't actually believe that good mechanics sell a game. I'm saying this because the most popular RPGs (such as any edition of D&D, as well as oldstyle Whitewolf) have numerous well-known mechanical flaws. People who dislike <insert game here> tend to point vocally at these flaws (because how can anyone enjoy a game where you can <insert flaw here>!!!!!), but people who play the game just shrug and keep playing.

So WOTC doesn't have a strong incentive to fix flaws in the game, they just need to appear responsive to vocal concerns. That's hardly the same thing.

[1337 b4k4]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here by talking about "significant" things in combat using single-roll resolution; I'd think that everything in combat would be resolved with single-roll resolution math, because it's the interaction of such math that makes combat use multi-roll resolution math in the first place. Expound, please?

I think in this context, significant things means like saving vs the sleep spell the wizard casts in combat, or other status effects like prone or dazed. 4e did switch to a multi roll system for those saves for the most part too. Aside from the fact that everything is roll to hit (providing the first layer of defense), almost every status effect allows for unlimited saving throws to recover from the effect. Even the traditional save or dies (medusas gaze) take I believe 3 or 4 failed saves before they really take effect.

On the one hand I understand and appreciate the design decision that went into this, on the other hand it really irritates me as a player. I really hate when the following scenario plays out (and it does far more frequently than it should)

"Crap guys, we're taking a beating here and we need some room to breathe. Wizard, put those guys to sleep to give us some time."

::wizard rolls::

"Well, the sleep spell only hit 5 out of the 10 goblins, but that's ok, at least they're out for a little while ... wait, no they're just drowsy this round, they'll fall asleep if they fail their save next round."

::next round::

"Well crap, 3 of the goblins made their saves, but hey at least 2 of them are asleep and we're still alive for now."

::next round::

"Damn it, they both made their saves. Hey wizard, do it again!"

"Sorry guys, that craptastic display was a daily power, we're SOL."

So WOTC doesn't have a strong incentive to fix flaws in the game, they just need to appear responsive to vocal concerns. That's hardly the same thing.

Well not quite. They have an incentive to fix the flaws, but only the ones that are immediately apparent to any new player and "fun breaking" (see my previous point about the right math and the correct math). The thing is, char op and math geeks are just a small subset of the overall rpg gaming market. Many or even most of the rpg market won't ever even read the entire rule book cover to cover, let alone delve into the mechanics and see where things start breaking down. And beyond that, if (as WotC has claimed) most campaigns never make it out to the higher levels, there's an even smaller incentive to fix the immediately apparent flaws that appear in high levels because most people won't get there. I would venture to say that to the majority of the D&D market, the very vocal people who complain about the broken math in D&D are a lot like the guy that shows p to your D&D session every week and says how busted D&D is and how you should all be playing <favorite system>. He may be technically right, but most people just don't care that much. Basically, WotC has to balance whether they lose more players to a barbarian losing to the town cripple in a wrestling match, or to different subsystems confusing casual players etc.

[Kaervaslol]

I think its to do with this obsession with numbers thing going.

Seriously its about having fun. Thats the core and most important part of the game.

From my experience, people that grew with d20 tend to be more mathematical inclined that other roleplayers. Part of the fun is doing numbers and metagaming.

I do not share that viewpoint, for I consider that type of fun to be fleeting.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I assume what's he's looking at is something like the Medusa's ability to turn a character into a statue. It's a single die roll which can reasonably mean, "Does your character die here?" (At the level you can first encounter a medusa you have no way to undo being a statue unless the GM goes out of his way to give it to you).

I think in this context, significant things means like saving vs the sleep spell the wizard casts in combat, or other status effects like prone or dazed. 4e did switch to a multi roll system for those saves for the most part too. Aside from the fact that everything is roll to hit (providing the first layer of defense), almost every status effect allows for unlimited saving throws to recover from the effect. Even the traditional save or dies (medusas gaze) take I believe 3 or 4 failed saves before they really take effect.

So he's not talking about actually changing resolution mechanics or anything, it's just the ol' "Give SoDs multiple saves to nerf them" thing. Makes sense.

[Zeful]

On the one hand I understand and appreciate the design decision that went into this, on the other hand it really irritates me as a player. I really hate when the following scenario plays out (and it does far more frequently than it should)

There isn't a way to fix that without making NPCs and players mechanically different on several scales (meaning that information in an NPC statblock is mostly, or totally non-compatible with the PC statblock). Which causes even more problems for games that aren't just hack and slash adventures.

So it's either magic is super effective and you get the same problems with 3.5, you completely break the mechanical parity between NPCs and PCs resulting in no depth to the world once you stop taking it at face value (you are inexplicitly the chosen ones), or weakening magic so it's not the best option in every scenario, and getting moments were, well-- law of averages.

[Craft (Cheese)]

There isn't a way to fix that without making NPCs and players mechanically different on several scales (meaning that information in an NPC statblock is mostly, or totally non-compatible with the PC statblock). Which causes even more problems for games that aren't just hack and slash adventures.

This is so laughably ridiculous I don't even know where to begin. First of all, there are plenty of games that treat PC and NPC statblocks differently without being nothing but hack and slash adventures. Granted most of these are radically different from how D&D works, like In A Wicked Age.

Second, the main problem is that SoD/SoS effects exist. It has nothing to do with PC/NPC symmetry.