D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?

[Raineh Daze]

The second, not that important? Baloney.

The third, depends on if success is Game Over or Take The Left Path. Having to succeed on a skill twice in a row comes up all the time in other editions. Limping, for example. Or swimming. Or talkin your way out of a war camp. Or a ritual. Or social maneuvering. Or...

The second? I'd really hope it's not that important and you aren't hinging everything on one person's roll. If you have a party of four or five, and all but one of them is unable to affect the present situation in any substantial way, and then it comes down to how lucky the last character is? That's why it's bad design--you're making everything hinge on the luck of one person--to make these things that important.

As for the third: just because it's happened before doesn't mean it should happen again. The chance there's a failure increases with the number of rolls (even if the chance of failing on each individual roll is constant), so making PC's roll two successes in a roll is ridiculous. They've rolled a success? That's enough, there's no need to roll again. The only reason to make them keep rolling is if you really want them to fail, in which case, don't bother with the rolling at all. :|

Also, I don't know why you decided I want Dungeon World out of a sarcastic comment. Because... I have no desire to roll absolutely everything, every time.

[obryn]

Personally, I'd be in favor of a "players roll all the dice" system. It keeps players more involved even when it's not their turn, and it feels more like you're in control of your character. It's also, I find, easier for the GM not to have to fumble around with dice and addition.

Yep. Personally, I like the game to be consistent in some way. You can be consistent by making it so the actor always rolls; that's one way to do it, such as in 4e. It gets weird when poison gas clouds attack your Fortitude, but those aren't all too common.

You can also be consistent by having the players roll all the dice, like in Cinematic Unisystem (Buffy/Angel) and Dungeon World. The real issue with this in D&D is damage rolls... If the player has to roll damage against their own PC, it can seriously slow things down. And if the DM has to roll it, I don't know if there's anything gained.

Gonna be a voice of dissent here, in that AD&D also did this, even saying that one should save against dragon breath in a sparring match to avoid being hit, and there's another (paralysis?) to avoid dizziness and nausea for having your head traumatized, Etc. hearkening to saves is actually an age old Fighters Matter trick, because the fighting man had the best progression!

I was referring to the "Reflex Save" in particular.

-O

[Grod_The_Giant]

The real issue with this in D&D is damage rolls... If the player has to roll damage against their own PC, it can seriously slow things down. And if the DM has to roll it, I don't know if there's anything gained.

Mmm, true. You might couple static damage to a degrees of success/failure system-- monster attacks deal average damage, + 1 'die result' per degree of failure on your defense check. "The dragon's 10d6 breath weapon deals 30 damage, plus 10 damage for every degree of failure on your reflex check." "A spear does 4+Strength damage, plus 1 damage for every degree of failure on your parry check."

As a bonus, you're using a degrees of success system, which is nice in a whole bunch of other places as well.

[obryn]

Mmm, true. You might couple static damage to a degrees of success/failure system-- monster attacks deal average damage, + 1 'die result' per degree of failure on your defense check. "The dragon's 10d6 breath weapon deals 30 damage, plus 10 damage for every degree of failure on your reflex check." "A spear does 4+Strength damage, plus 1 damage for every degree of failure on your parry check."

As a bonus, you're using a degrees of success system, which is nice in a whole bunch of other places as well.

I think a simple average damage (max on crit) would work adequately well for a players-roll D&D. The only potential issue is that, when damage is always the same, it's easier to "game" it.

-O

[SiuiS]

The second? I'd really hope it's not that important and you aren't hinging everything on one person's roll. If you have a party of four or five, and all but one of them is unable to affect the present situation in any substantial way, and then it comes down to how lucky the last character is?

You've never been down to the last pip of initiative where te foghter's attack roll is all that stands between you and dragon fire?

More importantly, why are you afraid of failing? Failing does not equal not having fun, unless you only find fun in 'winning'. "I lost a skill roll, the situation is over, this game must therefore suck" is a strange and backwards idea. Games include winning and losing. Better game design is not winning more often, but making both options fun.

That's why it's bad design--you're making everything hinge on the luck of one person--to make these things that important.

As for the third: just because it's happened before doesn't mean it should happen again.

It is proof that, despite your cries to the intranet, it is not the end of all things and can be fun enough that it hasn't broken anything yet. My proof that its okay is that it succeeds regularly in satisfying players. Your proof to the contrary is math that points to an end but not a judgement.

Also, I don't know why you decided I want Dungeon World out of a sarcastic comment. Because... I have no desire to roll absolutely everything, every time.

Because despite everything I've seen, I expect you would like to learn and grow? Emergence means that you cannot understand a system solely by reading. Experience has value which reading cannot grant. Play the game, see what there is to it, and see if you can reevaluate your ideas based on improved information.

I don't know why I bother though, since apparently rolling 2d6 is, like, burdensome.

I was referring to the "Reflex Save" in particular

Yes. Dragon breath is a reflex save; it's why I thought if it. Name wise, sure, it's different, but only as different as Magic User, Mage and Wizard.

For players always roll, either simplify damage to 1 for the base (an reduce HP, give wizards 1 at first level, fighters 4 maybe?) or do stuff like "long swords deal 1 extra damage for every two points by which the player fails their defense". This is D&D; we are still allowing difficult math like 1 point every 3 on the die, and such.

[Raineh Daze]

You've never been down to the last pip of initiative where te foghter's attack roll is all that stands between you and dragon fire?

More importantly, why are you afraid of failing? Failing does not equal not having fun, unless you only find fun in 'winning'. "I lost a skill roll, the situation is over, this game must therefore suck" is a strange and backwards idea. Games include winning and losing. Better game design is not winning more often, but making both options fun.

There's a long, long path to 'the fighter's one attack roll is the only thing that matters'. Hopefully. Otherwise, the fighter's attack roll is about as likely to make a difference as a stick of butter.

I'm not afraid of failing. I'm annoyed at the concept that whether there's a good outcome or bad outcome should be reliant entirely upon one roll by one person in a system which has been designed so nigh on every class is terrible at it. If failure on the skill roll isn't going to be the end of the world, then hey--still no need for rogues. If either outcome is interesting, then a class balanced around being really good at skills is basically dead weight.

If it's necessary to not die, then you have a class tax.

And I don't trust WotC to not balance around the idea that being really good at skills is equal to every other class feature.

It is proof that, despite your cries to the intranet, it is not the end of all things and can be fun enough that it hasn't broken anything yet. My proof that its okay is that it succeeds regularly in satisfying players. Your proof to the contrary is math that points to an end but not a judgement.

So... the fact that making people roll multiple successes, increasing the chance of failure, on the same skill is basically pointless makes no difference to you? There is no good reason to roll the same thing multiple times. If you want it to be harder, raise the DC; at least that's transparently more difficult.

"Rogues are necessary because DM's can make it harder to successfully use skills" is also kind of weird. Surely the chances of getting such skill checks are lower when there isn't anyone that has a chance of doing them?

Because despite everything I've seen, I expect you would like to learn and grow? Emergence means that you cannot understand a system solely by reading. Experience has value which reading cannot grant. Play the game, see what there is to it, and see if you can reevaluate your ideas based on improved information.

I don't know why I bother though, since apparently rolling 2d6 is, like, burdensome.

You're not making any sense here. You concluded that Dungeon World is apparently what I'm after because I was being sarcastic about changing AC to work in the same way as saves, and now you're going off on a tangent about how I should go learn stuff by experience because I'm not actually interested in that at all?

No rubbish about 'you won't know until you try'. Err, yes, I do know that I'm not interested in it because (amazingly) I know what I like, and I'm sick of people trying to use that as an excuse to push me to do something I don't want because they think it's good for me. >_>

[BayardSPSR]

It's called Dungeon World and from what I hear, it's rather effective and fun. It's also a variant rule as far back as 3e Unearthed Arcana. People DO do this, and DO enjoy it. People also, generally, don't actually experience any of the problems that come up in optimization-spreading forums which teach people a reliance on math and on technical wordplay. So, the pithy bit at the end about rolling even more dice kind of misses that yes, in most situations, this is considered fun and engaging.

The problem with PC versus PC has nothing to do with dice, and everything to do with Pc v. PC on it's own.

Actually, that sounds like a wonderful game. Thanks for telling me about it; I had no idea it existed before. I wasn't being sarcastic, for once - that actually sounds fun. I'll have to look up the system more thoroughly.

Though it is kind of sad that my biggest take-home from a thread on D&D's development is an unrelated system to play. Still, good for me.

I'm not sure what you mean with that last sentence - are you saying that PvP is inherently problematic?


In terms of ideas to propose: what about leaving the binary success/fail deal behind, and instead measuring degrees of success? Of course Next won't do this, but I want to throw it out there before this thread gets too far ahead of me (again).

[Amidus Drexel]

I'm not sure what you mean with that last sentence - are you saying that PvP is inherently problematic?

Well, it's not something one should explicitly design a system to account for, unless it's an important part of the system. Most RPGs that I'm familiar with assume a certain level of PC cooperation.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Well, it's not something one should explicitly design a system to account for, unless it's an important part of the system. Most RPGs that I'm familiar with assume a certain level of PC cooperation.

Hmm, not necessarily true. Some games (like Smallville) can go back and forth on the axis of PvP -- Teamwork. (The GM is encouraged to play them against one another at the start of an episode, but they should be able to come back together by the end to team up, which is highly effective.) Though I suppose that does qualify as "PvP vs. Teamwork is an important part of the system".

But then again, if you view it in a negative light, an RPG that assumes PC cooperation is a game where PvP is important--in its absence. When PvP is absent, characters are rewarded. In a way, that is accounting for PvP...it just isn't compensating for it. There's a lot of difference between the two.

If you're designing a game so that PvP will bork the party by its nature, then you're accounting for PvP. If you're designing a game so that PvP won't cripple the party, then you're accounting for PvP, but you're also compensating for the presence of PvP.

Hmm. Just some thoughts, I s'pose. You should definitely be aware of PvP potential in a game, and ensure that it either has an impact, has little impact, or isn't possible. (Though I find games that give reasons for PvP to be more interesting, especially if they involve dilemmas that divide the party in the face of great danger. Just how willing are you to stand your ground when you're jeopardizing everyone?)

[Person_Man]

Another math idea:

Everything is resolved by Ability Score checks. 1d20 + (Ability Score - 10) + Relevant Bonuses (max +8) vs fixed Difficulty Chance (if it is a task like disarming a trap) or the creature's relevant Ability Score + Relevant Bonuses (again, max +8). Ability Scores for non-Legendary creatures are capped at 18.

For example, a Fighter with Str 14 and +4 in Relevant Bonuses (class bonus, Feats, whatever) makes a melee attack against an Orc with Str of 16 and chainmail (which grants a +3 to Str to resist melee attacks).

Fighter rolls 1d20 + 8 (14-10+ 4) vs 19 (16 + 3).

Strength handles all melee attacks combat maneuvers (Trip, Grapple, etc). Dexterity all finesse weapons and ranged attacks. Con all endurance/health effects (and still adds to your hit points). Intelligence defends against all area of effect attacks (you're smart enough to take cover, and mentally quick enough to react in time). Wisdom defends against most magical/psionic effects. Charisma defends against all Compulsion/Charm/Fear effects (anything that forces you to do something you don't want to do).

Along with Feats/class abilities/etc, Armor and/or magical equivalents can add to any of your six ability scores to resist attacks. But the Relevant Bonuses are always capped at +8, so it's really more about where and how you want to put your resources, not a endless optimization task to max out everything.

Optional Module: Player rolls all dice. When being attacked, Player rolls a Saving Throw (1d20 + Ability Score - 10 + Relevant Bonuses vs Creature's Ability Score + Relevant Bonuses). Since the math is symmetrical, it's easy to flip.

[Amidus Drexel]

But then again, if you view it in a negative light, an RPG that assumes PC cooperation is a game where PvP is important--in its absence. When PvP is absent, characters are rewarded. In a way, that is accounting for PvP...it just isn't compensating for it. There's a lot of difference between the two.

-snip-

Hmm. Just some thoughts, I s'pose. You should definitely be aware of PvP potential in a game, and ensure that it either has an impact, has little impact, or isn't possible. (Though I find games that give reasons for PvP to be more interesting, especially if they involve dilemmas that divide the party in the face of great danger. Just how willing are you to stand your ground when you're jeopardizing everyone?)

I had meant the combat system specifically; I probably should have specified. Allow me to rephrase that:

I personally rather like PvP, and I think that if the game itself is going to encourage it (well, at least a little bit - a la Paranoia, Smallville, etc.), then the combat system should be designed with that in mind. If it isn't an important subset of the game, though (which tends to be the case, as far as D&D is concerned - disregarding arena games and overly antagonistic parties), then I don't think the combat rules shouldn't be balanced around it. Should it be possible? Yes, absolutely (at least I think so). Should we explicitly design a combat system to make it easier? Only if it's something that's important to the game.

[1337 b4k4]

There's a long, long path to 'the fighter's one attack roll is the only thing that matters'. Hopefully.

And so should it be with skills. But even still, you want a guy around who's good at making things dead.

If failure on the skill roll isn't going to be the end of the world, then hey--still no need for rogues. If either outcome is interesting, then a class balanced around being really good at skills is basically dead weight.

Interesting outcome != Good outcome
Good outcome != Ideal outcome
Bad outcome != Uninteresting outcome

I suspect you know these things, and honestly am beginning to get the impression you're being argumentative for the sake of arguing.

So... the fact that making people roll multiple successes, increasing the chance of failure, on the same skill is basically pointless makes no difference to you? There is no good reason to roll the same thing multiple times. If you want it to be harder, raise the DC; at least that's transparently more difficult.

Multiple rolls mean multiple failure points and action points. It's a distinctly different thing from one action being extremely difficult. By your logic, we should skip HP entirely and simply make tough monsters have really really high ACs. After all, making the players roll multiple times increases the chance of characters dying.

No rubbish about 'you won't know until you try'. Err, yes, I do know that I'm not interested in it because (amazingly) I know what I like, and I'm sick of people trying to use that as an excuse to push me to do something I don't want because they think it's good for me. >_>

This is the second time (that I'm aware of) you have been referred to a particular system that implements a mechanic because your statements in regards to that mechanic have been wildly off base from the actual experiences of others. It's also the second time you've refused to find information on or try to experience the recommended system because you "know what [you] like". If you're sick of this happening, then I can only assume you've been in other similar conversations and had it happen before. Perhaps it keeps happening because you have a very narrow view of games and mechanics that is influenced only by your uninformed (or at least, only partially formed) personal impressions of third party accounts. If you want it to stop happening, perhaps you should consider gaining some experiences so that your opinions have the weight of coming from actual experience rather than bad assumptions?

[Scow2]

There's a long, long path to 'the fighter's one attack roll is the only thing that matters'. Hopefully. Otherwise, the fighter's attack roll is about as likely to make a difference as a stick of butter.

I'm not afraid of failing. I'm annoyed at the concept that whether there's a good outcome or bad outcome should be reliant entirely upon one roll by one person in a system which has been designed so nigh on every class is terrible at it. If failure on the skill roll isn't going to be the end of the world, then hey--still no need for rogues. If either outcome is interesting, then a class balanced around being really good at skills is basically dead weight.

Then why do you want a system at all? Rolls determine everything, and so far, the classes AREN'T bad at skills. Just not as infaillable at them as they were in The Edition of Caster Supremecy and Arbitrarily High Numbers.

Also, while skills do matter in gameplay (It's the difference between being able to climb on top of the cathedral to ambush the high cultist, or having to slog through the

So... the fact that making people roll multiple successes, increasing the chance of failure, on the same skill is basically pointless makes no difference to you? There is no good reason to roll the same thing multiple times. If you want it to be harder, raise the DC; at least that's transparently more difficult.

I like using Climbing as my "go-to" skill - You'd want to be able to make successive climb checks when scaling a cliffface covered by archers - you need to get at least one guy to the top, so he can make it easier for the rest to get up. He needs to be able to beat a climb check to get started up the rockface (And failing's not critical at this point, but does subject them to a round of volley fire), and then beat another when they're attacked halfway up the cliff face. You also want to be able to make successive jump checks when you want to jump up and strike (Or grab onto) the swooping dragon as it strafes your Peasant Militia trying to kill it.

There are also lots of situations where you'd love the rest of the party to be able to make checks, but they can't because they're occupied. The "Drive" skill is one that can only be used by one person at any given time, and usually takes actions to use.

You're not making any sense here. You concluded that Dungeon World is apparently what I'm after because I was being sarcastic about changing AC to work in the same way as saves, and now you're going off on a tangent about how I should go learn stuff by experience because I'm not actually interested in that at all?

No rubbish about 'you won't know until you try'. Err, yes, I do know that I'm not interested in it because (amazingly) I know what I like, and I'm sick of people trying to use that as an excuse to push me to do something I don't want because they think it's good for me. >_>

I DO NOT LIKE GREEN EGGS AND HAM! I DO NOT LIKE THEM SAM-I-AM!

But, on a serious note... Really, saves and Magic Attacks vs. NADs probably have a place in D&D Next. Ideally, I think Spells should have two defenses against them. Most of the single-target direct-damage spells should be an attack against a NAD, then damage-dealer (Defense and HP). Disintigrate should be a spell that needs an attack roll, a success dealing damage, and a failed Constitution check dealing a whole truckload of damage. Dragon firebreath and Fireball should probably be an attack against a single primary target, and anyone else in the AoE makes a save to avoid the breath/explosion.

Personally, I'm a fan of making spells like Dominate/Charm person be opposed checks - casting stat and save bonus vs. the opponent's save.

[Stubbazubba]

Multiple rolls mean multiple failure points and action points. It's a distinctly different thing from one action being extremely difficult. By your logic, we should skip HP entirely and simply make tough monsters have really really high ACs. After all, making the players roll multiple times increases the chance of characters dying.

I don't agree with RD on the larger point, but in this particular I do. Every roll should make a change in the tactical or narrative environment, win or lose. You should never require multiple checks to achieve one outcome. That really is just wasted time. Frankly, HP is, in fact, guilty of this (*cough* See my sig *cough*). Dealing 12 HP is pretty boring if that doesn't change anything from before to after. It's just putting in the time before you can actually achieve change, which is a waste of play time, if you ask me.

However, that is not to say that combats that involve a bunch of rounds going back and forth is meaningless, because each turn is a chance to see if you can affect some change before the other guy gets a chance to kill you. That's still plenty exciting and changes each time. Now if each turn actually affected change, that would be even better.

[Raineh Daze]

Multiple rolls mean multiple failure points and action points. It's a distinctly different thing from one action being extremely difficult. By your logic, we should skip HP entirely and simply make tough monsters have really really high ACs. After all, making the players roll multiple times increases the chance of characters dying.

I've been assuming that by 'multiple rolls', it's multiple rolls to achieve one action. For instance, two successful rolls to get open one door. Two rolls to do two different things I have no issue with. Two rolls to do exactly one thing, and you should just increase the difficulty. :|

This is the second time (that I'm aware of) you have been referred to a particular system that implements a mechanic because your statements in regards to that mechanic have been wildly off base from the actual experiences of others. It's also the second time you've refused to find information on or try to experience the recommended system because you "know what [you] like". If you're sick of this happening, then I can only assume you've been in other similar conversations and had it happen before. Perhaps it keeps happening because you have a very narrow view of games and mechanics that is influenced only by your uninformed (or at least, only partially formed) personal impressions of third party accounts. If you want it to stop happening, perhaps you should consider gaining some experiences so that your opinions have the weight of coming from actual experience rather than bad assumptions?

I've been told to find another system because of a sarcastic comment. Not because it implements a mechanic (and if it's because it implements a mechanic, then that's really weird because I have no issue with the mechanic, just consistency). Is that an at all valid reason to spend money on a system? No, not really.

Please explain the bad assumption in 'everything in the system working the same way would be nice'. Because, you know, that's what I was talking about in the first place that lead to Dungeon World being brought up. The entire thing that got it started was basically 'AC and saves should work the same way', albeit being sarcastic about changing AC.

Then why do you want a system at all? Rolls determine everything, and so far, the classes AREN'T bad at skills. Just not as infaillable at them as they were in The Edition of Caster Supremecy and Arbitrarily High Numbers.

It's not rolls. It's rolls such as 'quick, Skillguy, roll to prevent the end of the world!'... thereby visibly pinning everything upon one d20 roll by one character.

I dunno, they look pretty bad at skills to me. 1d20+1dX+Y, with Y 5 at the most, and 1dX being about 4.5 at best (I think, can't remember how high they go up). So at your absolute best, you won't be making a DC 20 roll half the time. This is as good as you'll ever get. So... not really reliable, that...

I like using Climbing as my "go-to" skill - You'd want to be able to make successive climb checks when scaling a cliffface covered by archers - you need to get at least one guy to the top, so he can make it easier for the rest to get up. He needs to be able to beat a climb check to get started up the rockface (And failing's not critical at this point, but does subject them to a round of volley fire), and then beat another when they're attacked halfway up the cliff face. You also want to be able to make successive jump checks when you want to jump up and strike (Or grab onto) the swooping dragon as it strafes your Peasant Militia trying to kill it.

See above. I thought you meant multiple rolls to, say, open 1 door.

I DO NOT LIKE GREEN EGGS AND HAM! I DO NOT LIKE THEM SAM-I-AM!

No, I'm just incredibly bad at keeping track of things, so I have no desire to go near a system that makes me roll for even more stuff.

[1337 b4k4]

I don't agree with RD on the larger point, but in this particular I do. Every roll should make a change in the tactical or narrative environment, win or lose. You should never require multiple checks to achieve one outcome. That really is just wasted time. Frankly, HP is, in fact, guilty of this (*cough* See my sig *cough*). Dealing 12 HP is pretty boring if that doesn't change anything from before to after. It's just putting in the time before you can actually achieve change, which is a waste of play time, if you ask me.

However, that is not to say that combats that involve a bunch of rounds going back and forth is meaningless, because each turn is a chance to see if you can affect some change before the other guy gets a chance to kill you. That's still plenty exciting and changes each time. Now if each turn actually affected change, that would be even better.

I think dealing HP damage does change the tactics of the situation even if there is no mechanical change. Up front, let me say this is on a continuum and it can be done wrong (for example, I think 3.x did this worse than 4e or 1e did by virtue of having higher damage / HP ratios). Tactics are about planing ahead multiple moves. Each change in the amount of HP you or your opponent has should cause at least some change in tactics. Now it may be that staying on the same course is still optimal, but it should at least give pause to reconsider. For example, if you're ambushed by a group of monsters, and they open the round doing 3 damage each, you might consider sticking around and fighting. But if on the next round, one of them crits for 20, you might decide to run.

[Knaight]

The DM is not my enemy. But the monster I am fighting is, and I expect the DM to play the monster to its full capabilities. I play the game to be challenged, not to have victories handed to me by intentionally bad decisions on the other end.

It's full capabilities include perceptions. If you have a hidden item of protection or similar, the monster will be rolling a perception check of some sort (probably spot), and acting based on their knowledge. If something like power attack is used, they would then power attack too heavily. If you assume optimization, it will be towards the AC that they can detect. Following the failure of this tactic when it should have succeeded, it would adjust the strategy. The GM using perfect information that the monsters don't have isn't avoiding intentionally bad decisions, it is metagaming.

[Talakeal]

It's full capabilities include perceptions. If you have a hidden item of protection or similar, the monster will be rolling a perception check of some sort (probably spot), and acting based on their knowledge. If something like power attack is used, they would then power attack too heavily. If you assume optimization, it will be towards the AC that they can detect. Following the failure of this tactic when it should have succeeded, it would adjust the strategy. The GM using perfect information that the monsters don't have isn't avoiding intentionally bad decisions, it is metagaming.

I agree with most of what you said here.

From a versimilitude perspective an experianced fighter (or practicioner of any skill) is going to be able to gauge the approximate* difficulty of any action. Some things might not be initially apparent, for example I wouldn't know my opponent had a magical forcefield until after I had already swung and impacted off of it, and even then I wouldn't know its source.

In real life I am able to judge my opponent's skill relatively quickly. In D&D the fight will be long over before you can get even a rough idea of your opponents AC or BaB barring a very vague idea from very extreme rolls (eg I roll a 19 and still miss then I know his AC is "very high")

From a tasctical perspective my decisions are more or less meaningless if I don't know the numbers I am aiming for. Being able to use things like power attack and combat expertise are some of the only options a melee character gets, and not knowing the enemy's AC and BaB means you can't use them intelligently, just randomly and hoping for the best.

This is screwing over melee characters, cutting the player out of the information loop and thereby breaking immersion, and removing the decision element from combat and thereby turning it from a strategici intellectual challenge into a dice rolling slog fest.

As for metagaming, yeah, it sucks, and the ability / temptation to do so should be minimized. A DM who knows the PCs stats is like a PC running the Tomb of Horrors after their player has already read the module. They are only going to make a mistake when and if they choose to, there is no actual challenge or skill involved.

*: The swinginess of the d20 more than makes up for the approximation, no need to further obscure it with the DM giving imprecise information once the character has dedicated themself to attempting the task.

[navar100]

I don't agree with RD on the larger point, but in this particular I do. Every roll should make a change in the tactical or narrative environment, win or lose. You should never require multiple checks to achieve one outcome. That really is just wasted time. Frankly, HP is, in fact, guilty of this (*cough* See my sig *cough*). Dealing 12 HP is pretty boring if that doesn't change anything from before to after. It's just putting in the time before you can actually achieve change, which is a waste of play time, if you ask me.

However, that is not to say that combats that involve a bunch of rounds going back and forth is meaningless, because each turn is a chance to see if you can affect some change before the other guy gets a chance to kill you. That's still plenty exciting and changes each time. Now if each turn actually affected change, that would be even better.

This idea can be problematic. It's not unheard of for rules such as get penalties for being a certain percentage less than max hit points. The problem is this leads to exponential death. If the penalties apply to defense (AC, saves), then the more you're hit the easier you are hit leading to increasing penalties. If the penalties apply to offense (attack roll) then you are less likely to hit your opponent who's hitting you without penalty. You'll have even less of a chance of forcing penalties onto your opponent. Meanwhile, you suffer them and get more often over all. Therefore, whoever lands the first hit is more likely to win the combat. Since it is warriors who lose hit points more often by the nature of them being warriors, they suffer from these penalties a lot while spellcasters much less often.

[Morty]

I don't agree with RD on the larger point, but in this particular I do. Every roll should make a change in the tactical or narrative environment, win or lose. You should never require multiple checks to achieve one outcome. That really is just wasted time. Frankly, HP is, in fact, guilty of this (*cough* See my sig *cough*). Dealing 12 HP is pretty boring if that doesn't change anything from before to after. It's just putting in the time before you can actually achieve change, which is a waste of play time, if you ask me.

However, that is not to say that combats that involve a bunch of rounds going back and forth is meaningless, because each turn is a chance to see if you can affect some change before the other guy gets a chance to kill you. That's still plenty exciting and changes each time. Now if each turn actually affected change, that would be even better.

This idea can be problematic. It's not unheard of for rules such as get penalties for being a certain percentage less than max hit points. The problem is this leads to exponential death. If the penalties apply to defense (AC, saves), then the more you're hit the easier you are hit leading to increasing penalties. If the penalties apply to offense (attack roll) then you are less likely to hit your opponent who's hitting you without penalty. You'll have even less of a chance of forcing penalties onto your opponent. Meanwhile, you suffer them and get more often over all. Therefore, whoever lands the first hit is more likely to win the combat. Since it is warriors who lose hit points more often by the nature of them being warriors, they suffer from these penalties a lot while spellcasters much less often.

The death spiral is a problem if we're talking about an unrealistic, cinematic game. I think one solution might be making the penalties last for a short time, apply only to certain actions, or both - so that being hit doesn't cripple you for the entire fight, and you can avoid getting hit with those penalties by taking certain actions.

All in all, I agree that the HP/AC model D&D traditionally uses is pretty boring. Of course, trying to invent something new requires some serious thought. I think that if I were to do it, I would start by designing a system relying on damage avoidance - using armour, dodging, parrying or magic - with HP being sparse - if you lose HP, it means you're in trouble. The opponents would try to reduce their enemies' chances of avoiding damage before going in for the kill. An important part would be making sure combat isn't a series of 'whiffs' before someone finally hits and draws blood. That's my general idea, anyway.

[Stubbazubba]

The death spiral is a problem if we're talking about an unrealistic, cinematic game. I think one solution might be making the penalties last for a short time, apply only to certain actions, or both - so that being hit doesn't cripple you for the entire fight, and you can avoid getting hit with those penalties by taking certain actions.

Agreed, I think damage should give you a disadvantage temporarily. You might even roll a save against it every turn until you successfully recover, a la 4e's throws. At least with certain wounds. And frankly that's more cinematic; wounds are usually a problem in the scene that they occur in, but not much of an impediment afterwards (with exceptions for serious injuries, which you could also model somehow).

All in all, I agree that the HP/AC model D&D traditionally uses is pretty boring. Of course, trying to invent something new requires some serious thought. I think that if I were to do it, I would start by designing a system relying on damage avoidance - using armour, dodging, parrying or magic - with HP being sparse - if you lose HP, it means you're in trouble. The opponents would try to reduce their enemies' chances of avoiding damage before going in for the kill. An important part would be making sure combat isn't a series of 'whiffs' before someone finally hits and draws blood. That's my general idea, anyway.

Agreed. I, too, want to see a damage system that doesn't use HP and relies more on avoidance, but then you end up with a whiffy experience, unless you have a 'success' that doesn't equal a 'hit,' but in that case you are asking PCs to try to do things besides kill their opponent, and just killing them when they get lucky, which for some reason seems less than satisfying. It's something of a conundrum.

[1337 b4k4]

Agreed. I, too, want to see a damage system that doesn't use HP and relies more on avoidance, but then you end up with a whiffy experience, unless you have a 'success' that doesn't equal a 'hit,' but in that case you are asking PCs to try to do things besides kill their opponent, and just killing them when they get lucky, which for some reason seems less than satisfying. It's something of a conundrum.

The other trick is avoiding making a "sub-hp" system, where whatever "success" system you're using amounts to simply another layer of HP.

There's a video game (Resonance of Fate) which takes the approach of scratch and real damage. When you deal damage, you can choose to use either one weapon which deals high damage, but it's all scratch which heals over time, or low damage but it's real and it turns any scratch damage into real damage. It's neat, but it's still basically HP in one form or another, you just need to use two weapons to do it. And really, it wouldn't translate very well to a tabletop I don't think. Too much to keep track of.

[MukkTB]

As far as who rolls dice I prefer this method. #1 the actor rolls against a passive defense. #2 The victim rolls saves against passive environmental effects. #3 if a spellcaster lays down a passive effect, its victims roll saves. If a spellcaster makes an active attack, he rolls against defenses.

That can lack elegance in some cases I guess.

[Morty]

Agreed, I think damage should give you a disadvantage temporarily. You might even roll a save against it every turn until you successfully recover, a la 4e's throws. At least with certain wounds. And frankly that's more cinematic; wounds are usually a problem in the scene that they occur in, but not much of an impediment afterwards (with exceptions for serious injuries, which you could also model somehow).

I think that a good way to do it would be to have HP loss incur long-term penalties, and have HP loss be a big deal. Such wounds would have to be healed by magic or medical aid.

Agreed. I, too, want to see a damage system that doesn't use HP and relies more on avoidance, but then you end up with a whiffy experience, unless you have a 'success' that doesn't equal a 'hit,' but in that case you are asking PCs to try to do things besides kill their opponent, and just killing them when they get lucky, which for some reason seems less than satisfying. It's something of a conundrum.

It is a tricky balance to strike. I think it would require re-defining what it means to make an attack roll - so that it represents trying to get past the enemy's defences and open them up for a solid hit. Perhaps you'd need to beat the enemy's defences by a certain margin in order to deal HP damage or otherwise deal a lasting blow, and various combat manoeuvres and abilities would reduce that margin? Something along those lines.

I admit I'm taking a lot of inspiration from what has been revealed about the combat model for Exalted 3rd edition. The developers said that they'd designed the combat system to revolve around gaining advantage in combat, until you get enough of an advantage over the opponent to strike. I'm eager to see how they accomplish it. If they succeed, maybe it can be mined for ideas.

[SiuiS]

There's a long, long path to 'the fighter's one attack roll is the only thing that matters'.

And?

So... the fact that making people roll multiple successes, increasing the chance of failure, on the same skill is basically pointless

Is baseless supposition on your part and not really a valid point of evidence.
The fact that this very system has survived thirty years and still has people clamping for more, however, is valid evidence.

No rubbish about 'you won't know until you try'. Err, yes, I do know that I'm not interested in it because (amazingly) I know what I like, and I'm sick of people trying to use that as an excuse to push me to do something I don't want because they think it's good for me. >_>

You never said you weren't interested, so the animosity is pointless and rude. But hey, since you already know it, perhaps you could tell me the emergent properties of dungeon world?

Actually, that sounds like a wonderful game. Thanks for telling me about it; I had no idea it existed before. I wasn't being sarcastic, for once - that actually sounds fun. I'll have to look up the system more thoroughly.

I seem to have my detector on backwards then...

Though it is kind of sad that my biggest take-home from a thread on D&D's development is an unrelated system to play. Still, good for me.

I've got three! This is a discussion about mechanics to fill a need. There's no shame in identifying a need and finding something which fulfills it. You'll probably still play D&D because it is still niche.

I'm not sure what you mean with that last sentence - are you saying that PvP is inherently problematic?

The problem with PvP is that it only works by engaging the very worst of the system. If you hold it true that players should roll things, and that players should be built to deal with powerful monsters, you end up with PvP which can only be rocket tag. That's not fun.

Well, it's not something one should explicitly design a system to account for, unless it's an important part of the system. Most RPGs that I'm familiar with assume a certain level of PC cooperation.

Aye. If D&D were designed for it, is hope for a better system than all opposed rolls all the time.

Another math idea:

Everything is resolved by Ability Score checks. 1d20 + (Ability Score - 10) + Relevant Bonuses (max +8) vs fixed Difficulty Chance (if it is a task like disarming a trap) or the creature's relevant Ability Score + Relevant Bonuses (again, max +8). Ability Scores for non-Legendary creatures are capped at 18.

For example, a Fighter with Str 14 and +4 in Relevant Bonuses (class bonus, Feats, whatever) makes a melee attack against an Orc with Str of 16 and chainmail (which grants a +3 to Str to resist melee attacks).

Fighter rolls 1d20 + 8 (14-10+ 4) vs 19 (16 + 3).

Strength handles all melee attacks combat maneuvers (Trip, Grapple, etc). Dexterity all finesse weapons and ranged attacks. Con all endurance/health effects (and still adds to your hit points). Intelligence defends against all area of effect attacks (you're smart enough to take cover, and mentally quick enough to react in time). Wisdom defends against most magical/psionic effects. Charisma defends against all Compulsion/Charm/Fear effects (anything that forces you to do something you don't want to do).

Along with Feats/class abilities/etc, Armor and/or magical equivalents can add to any of your six ability scores to resist attacks. But the Relevant Bonuses are always capped at +8, so it's really more about where and how you want to put your resources, not a endless optimization task to max out everything.

Optional Module: Player rolls all dice. When being attacked, Player rolls a Saving Throw (1d20 + Ability Score - 10 + Relevant Bonuses vs Creature's Ability Score + Relevant Bonuses). Since the math is symmetrical, it's easy to flip.

Then we can finally do what I've been thinking about, and scrap attributes and just use bonuses. Roll 3d6, subtract 10. That's your bonus. So your strength is 17, it's +7. Much cleaner.

I don't agree with RD on the larger point, but in this particular I do. Every roll should make a change in the tactical or narrative environment, win or lose. You should never require multiple checks to achieve one outcome. That really is just wasted time. Frankly, HP is, in fact, guilty of this (*cough* See my sig *cough*). Dealing 12 HP is pretty boring if that doesn't change anything from before to after. It's just putting in the time before you can actually achieve change, which is a waste of play time, if you ask me.

This falls apart. The same people are saying both "one roll should never decide everything it's unrealistic and boring" and "ne'er use more than one roll". A scene will require more than one skill check. Sometimes in the same skill. Skills are also designed so that only a rogue can succeed on hard checks with regularity. These two ideas are fine (see: decades of gaming).

However, that is not to say that combats that involve a bunch of rounds going back and forth is meaningless, because each turn is a chance to see if you can affect some change before the other guy gets a chance to kill you. That's still plenty exciting and changes each time. Now if each turn actually affected change, that would be even better.

Why is it okay to do this with combat but not skills?

I've been told to find another system because of a sarcastic comment. Not because it implements a mechanic (and if it's because it implements a mechanic, then that's really weird because I have no issue with the mechanic, just consistency). Is that an at all valid reason to spend money on a system? No, not really.

Then congratulations! It's available online free!

I'm also unclear on something... What part of "no sarcasm, I think this will make you happy" deserves you getting upset over people not getting your "obvious" sarcasm? I have to agree with 133t, I think you're you're just arguing for fun.

I dunno, they look pretty bad at skills to me. 1d20+1dX+Y, with Y 5 at the most, and 1dX being about 4.5 at best (I think, can't remember how high they go up). So at your absolute best, you won't be making a DC 20 roll half the time. This is as good as you'll ever get. So... not really reliable, that...

Your math is wrong.

This idea can be problematic. It's not unheard of for rules such as get penalties for being a certain percentage less than max hit points. The problem is this leads to exponential death. If the penalties apply to defense (AC, saves), then the more you're hit the easier you are hit leading to increasing penalties. If the penalties apply to offense (attack roll) then you are less likely to hit your opponent who's hitting you without penalty. You'll have even less of a chance of forcing penalties onto your opponent. Meanwhile, you suffer them and get more often over all. Therefore, whoever lands the first hit is more likely to win the combat. Since it is warriors who lose hit points more often by the nature of them being warriors, they suffer from these penalties a lot while spellcasters much less often.

This isn't bad design at all. It incentivizes not fighting to the god-damn death because dying is fast and permanent.

That said, I think it would be bad for D&D. The best compromise was Bloodied as a condition which shows you at half. You can trigger stuf off that without being a death spiral.

[Raineh Daze]

Is baseless supposition on your part and not really a valid point of evidence.
The fact that this very system has survived thirty years and still has people clamping for more, however, is valid evidence.

... people actively want multiple skill rolls to do one action?

You never said you weren't interested, so the animosity is pointless and rude. But hey, since you already know it, perhaps you could tell me the emergent properties of dungeon world?

You told me I was looking for it because players rolled all the dice.

I have no interest in trying to track that much stuff. I'm absent-minded in the extreme.

Therefore, not interested.

This falls apart. The same people are saying both "one roll should never decide everything it's unrealistic and boring" and "ne'er use more than one roll". A scene will require more than one skill check. Sometimes in the same skill. Skills are also designed so that only a rogue can succeed on hard checks with regularity. These two ideas are fine (see: decades of gaming).

No, no, I'm saying two different things:
1) Never hinge absolutely everything on a single roll intentionally.
2) Never use multiple skill rolls for one action.

Corollary: multiple skill rolls for more than one action are no problem as far as I'm concerned.

... Though I really don't agree with 'only a rogue can succeed on hard checks with regularity', as that means someone is going to get forced to play a rogue at some point.

Why is it okay to do this with combat but not skills?

More options in combat? Skills aren't that involved.

Then congratulations! It's available online free!

I'm also unclear on something... What part of "no sarcasm, I think this will make you happy" deserves you getting upset over people not getting your "obvious" sarcasm? I have to agree with 133t, I think you're you're just arguing for fun.

Because I'm generally grumpy. And misguided suggestions, no matter how honest, irritate me. :|

Your math is wrong.

Huh, so it is.

Correction, then: they have slightly more than a 50% chance of succeeding at their absolute best. That still seems like a bit low... probably because the example DC's are weird.

[navar100]

This isn't bad design at all. It incentivizes not fighting to the god-damn death because dying is fast and permanent.

That said, I think it would be bad for D&D. The best compromise was Bloodied as a condition which shows you at half. You can trigger stuf off that without being a death spiral.

Agreed it's bad for D&D because combat is integral to the game. There is fun in trying to avoid combat. There's a time and place for stealth, trickery, and avoidance, but what's the point of having warrior classes if they don't get to be warriors and bash monsters' faces in with pointy sticks?

However, I also did like the Bloodied Condition concept of 4E. It triggered abilities and/or simple pluses to help combat become more interesting even when participants are getting close to death. 5E keeping that idea I could accept. Penalties for lost hit points add insult to injury figuratively and literally. Getting special abilities for lost hit points is involved interest. The devil is in the details, but I might even be ok with the special abilities correlating with a small penalty in something else.

[Stubbazubba]

This falls apart. The same people are saying both "one roll should never decide everything it's unrealistic and boring" and "ne'er use more than one roll". A scene will require more than one skill check. Sometimes in the same skill. Skills are also designed so that only a rogue can succeed on hard checks with regularity. These two ideas are fine (see: decades of gaming).

1) I am not saying one roll should never decide everything, I'm actually OK with that, though I wouldn't want it to happen too often.

2) I still don't think re-rolling the same skill multiple times in a row adds anything to the game; rolling for rolling's sake just slows down the game and breaks the tension. And you're not making any argument for it, either. "It's always been that way," is not evidence of success of anything, and you should know that.

3) The Rogue should not be the only class that succeeds on hard skill checks, that's old grognard thinking right there. The Rogue should have his niche in skills, but so should the Wizard and the Cleric and the Fighter and everyone else. You want everyone to have both a combat niche and a non-combat niche to fill, at least, so that everyone can hopefully contribute both in and out of combat.

Why is it okay to do this with combat but not skills?

I answered that in the very paragraph you quoted: Needing three successes to open a lock, when the lock isn't changing, nor the environment around you is changing, is just a waste of time. However, needing three hits to kill off the Orc chief is different because he will take an action after each attempt until he's dead. It changes the tactics with each die roll; is he closer to dead or is he going to get another round to wail on you? Can you take that extra round or is it time to run? The scenario changes with each attack.

There are also some skill scenarios where this might be true; if the room is filling with sand and the Rogue is attempting to disable the trap, the break points become "Can he do it before the Dwarf is covered and needs to make Fort saves to keep from suffocating or Athletics checks to keep above it?" Roll. "Can he do it before the other members of the party need to do likewise?" Roll. "Can he do it before they fail their various checks and die?" Roll until they all die or he succeeds. But you only roll when failure would change the scenario for the party. That's an important distinction; if success would change the scenario, but failure wouldn't, then there's nothing to keep you from just trying again until you succeed, so cut out the needless rolling and narrate a success (assuming it's possible).

Combat works on a fundamentally different paradigm; failure actually doesn't change the scenario, while success does, but every round your enemy is fighting is a danger to you. In the blog post in my sig I played around with the idea of making failure actually change the scenario for you as much as success would change the scenario for them, and while I'm not sure if I like it that extreme, I do think failure needs to be more interesting in combat. The consequence for failing to hit and hitting in combat are, IMO, way too close to each other, and I think that needs to change.

This isn't bad design at all. It incentivizes not fighting to the god-damn death because dying is fast and permanent.

That said, I think it would be bad for D&D. The best compromise was Bloodied as a condition which shows you at half. You can trigger stuf off that without being a death spiral.

I still think applying temporary penalties might be the way to go, but this idea is still percolating. It'll probably be another blog post.

[tasw]

The problem is that saves don't even necessarily have to come from spells--and sometimes spells are going to end up using attack rolls. So there may as well be a universal mechanic, but that'd probably be too much to ask for...

A universal mechanic is an absolutely AWFUL idea. Magic should feel different then sword and board combat and both should feel different then a skill check.

Defenders rolling is much better. It lets everyone have something to do when a caster uses a spell rather then 1 person having lots to do and everyone else sitting around with their thumbs up their butts watching.

Also with area affect one caster roll doesnt even make sense. The caster isnt targeting every single person. Its like throwing a grenade, you target where you want the thing to land and everyone in the area better figure out what to do fast.

Your not throwing a bomb (or a fireball) at each individual person in the area.

[Raineh Daze]

A universal mechanic is an absolutely AWFUL idea. Magic should feel different then sword and board combat and both should feel different then a skill check.

... you just quoted something that says that saves aren't restricted to magic, though, so 'magic should feel different' has no bearing on whether saves should be a passive or active defence. Also, people keep mentioning traps and environmental hazards, which also aren't spells.