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

[Raineh Daze]

I think 4e's point buy hits the right tone; you can choose between roughly 18/14/11/10/10/8 or 16/14/14/13/10/8, both which hit different needs and offer different advantages/disadvantages.*

*Mind you, a character's prime ability score is probably a little too strong - the extra +1 to hit can be pretty big - and the need to hit at least and 18 in your prime stat puts a crimp on what races can really go with each class, so I wouldn't say it's perfect, just a better model to emulate.

If only two possible configurations are really viable in play, it might be better just to go with a stat array rather than include what's effectively trap options, then.

The possible threat I can see is that Next might encourage having +4 or +5 in your main stat too much because bounded accuracy makes that advantage of vital importance. Which might lead the most effective point buy to be something like 18/18/8/8/8/8. Depends how many other bonuses there end up being in the system...

[Ashdate]

If only two possible configurations are really viable in play, it might be better just to go with a stat array rather than include what's effectively trap options, then.

The only real "trap" option in regards to stats in 4e is having less than an 18 in your prime stat after racials are added. The books communicate pretty well that "if you're a (class) you want a high (stat)". Given that races add +2 (rather than +1) to abilities, this isn't hard to achieve.

Currently in the D&D Next playtest, there is no threat of players creating a character with a 18/18/8/8/8/8 stat spread. Point Buy only allows characters to purchase up to a 15 in their stat, the biggest divide allowing 15/15/15/8/8/8.

Again, not perfect, but a fairly reasonable compromise. The issues I have with the playtest are not with its point buy system at the very least. It's a much better option than allowing players to roll dice for their stats given that stat bonuses follow the 3e/4e model rather than the 2e one.

[Doug Lampert]

I'll be honest, it looks to me like they got their maths wrong, then. Most common rolls are 12-14. That's an average of 4-6 points per roll. 5x6 = 30. Low rolls would lower the average, but high rolls are somewhat more probable, and also have a higher point value. Hence, 28, not 25.

I remember seeing a thread on here a few months ago that went into the maths behind it better than I have. Wish I could find it again.

Elite array is equivalent to 25 point buy, though.

There are a bunch of factors that modify this, but to simplify you can calculate the probabilities for each roll on 4d6k3 and get the table below:

Roll Chance in 1296
3 1
4 4
5 10
6 21
7 38
8 62
9 91
10 122
11 148
12 167
13 172
14 160
15 131
16 94
17 54
18 21

You can then multiply out by point costs and get that the average set of 6 rolls has a value of 28.52777778 if you allow negative point costs and 29.13425926 if you treat abilities below 8 as having cost 0 (which is reasonable if you assume anyone can find a dump stat).

Throwing out rolls with no 14+ or where the modifiers sum to 0 or less will further increase the average. Thus 29 point buy is on the conservative side for an arithmetic mean point buy.

But conversely, a rolled 11 is negligibly better than a rolled 10, a point buy character will typically have most abilities at even values, while rolls produce "wasted" value on numbers like 9 and 11 which you are unlikely to ever increase by an odd amount. This "wastage" will usually average 1-2 points more per rolled character than per point buy character, thus rolled characters have about 29 points, but on average are no more powerful in play than a 27-28 or so point buy character.

But on the other side there's the fact that actual play time corresponds to survival time, and the guy with three 18s so he throws one in Con may just outlast mister 14, 10, 10, 10, 10, 8. So actual play will skew toward the strong side of your rolling method regardless of method.

This is quite aside from players who simply roll 27 times till they get the character they want. Even if playing "no rerolls" it's easy enough to die in D&D land if you know you get to randomly roll a new replacement till you get the character you want.

My first 3.0 campaign we used by the book rolling, and when I noticed how much weaker the mundane character was I first thought it was the bad luck on rolls, so we compared totals, he was at 19 points, the rest of the party averaged 41. It turned out that this was not the problem, but it was part of the problem.

Finally, who actually rolls by the book 6 rolls of 4d6k3, only throw it out if the total modifiers are non-positive or if no ability is 14+? When's the last time someone actually rolled and played a 14,10,10,10,10,8 array?

When rolled vs. point buy comes up, and people who roll describe their ACTUAL methods it's not 4d6k3 six times. It's 5d6k3 reroll 1s or roll 12 4d6k3 and pick the best 6, or roll 14 arrays for everyone and the players independently pick any array they like, or whatever; and it turns out the average is about FIFTY points in point buy! And then they add that if their rolling method doesn't produce a good enough character to be balanced with the rest of the party they simply reroll, so the ACTUAL average will be well above the 50 or so you'd expect from the described methods.

[Kurald Galain]

If only two possible configurations are really viable in play, it might be better just to go with a stat array rather than include what's effectively trap options, then.

Yes. 4E's point buy is mostly meaningless because pretty much every character has one "god stat" that does everything, one or two normal stats that are kind of important, and three or four dump stats that do absolutely nothing for your character. This is unbalanced. I think 5E tries to fix it with having saving throws based on each of the six abilities, but we'll see how well that works out.

Ideally, every ability score does something for each character and they're all useful in their own way, so the player has a clear choice. 2E does this pretty well with the exception of wisdom; 3E attempts this but some stats are clearly more powerful than others.

[Raineh Daze]

Finally, who actually rolls by the book 6 rolls of 4d6k3, only throw it out if the total modifiers are non-positive or if no ability is 14+? When's the last time someone actually rolled and played a 14,10,10,10,10,8 array?

Well, I agreed to roll stats, 3d6 reroll 1's, and I had to reroll twice because it didn't even reach the +1 modifier total. Ended up with this. Still, I'd agreed to play fair, so 14, 10, 10, 10, 10, 8 would've been kept. Would probably have changed character idea, though.

[SiuiS]

I don't want to be seen as flaming, but I don't want to be coy either. Here goes...

One of them, relating to the skills discussion, is that I find D&D inelegant. IT takes far more math than it needs to do something simple. For deriving AC from DEX, for just one example: why should players need to roll four dice, remove one, subtract ten, divide by two, and then add ten again just to find the number you need to roll to hit them? And this is before all the other modifiers that can be added on. There is logic behind it, but it still strikes me as excessive.

That's a very goo break down of what happens when you design by aggregate. Armor class is "Armor, also maybe a shield, on a specific scale of 10-1." Dexterity is "once you get out of the average of the curve, you're rewarded with a bonus of 1". The end.

And then people didn't like AC as physical composition and abstracted it to a number. And then people didn't like just 13+ granting a +1, and split the bonuses up into standard deviation. And then people didn't like that you could flounce around in plate with full dodge and capped it. And then people didn't like that an 18 was worth like, 3 points, so they bumped it to 4, and then...

So yeah. Your formula is silly. It's not your formula, I'm not like, blaming you, but it is silly. It must be understood for what it is; several systems interacting with each other. Armor is only a scale of X to Y. Dexterity has been deemed appropriate to modify that that. And dexterity, as an attribute, is an output from a third system. It can be done better; I too spent years tweaking, refining and puttering. I'm rather chagrined to fid some of my "12 year old genius" ideas actually made it into later published products, due to parallel development! Ach, I'm losing focus. Let me tighten up.

Next is an opportunity to recognize, refine and clearly work with strata. They um, they aren't doing that unfortunately, but the fan base is. The basic core, with the least grain, is your attributes. They generate data to be used in the next strata, which generates data to be used in the next. Only at the end, looking at the product with none of the work, do we get weird heuristics like the algebraic nightmare that is "how do I armor class?". D&D should be first and foremost a framework with the ability to be extrapolated well. Next has that. It's just burying it too deep beneath details that the new age of gamers seemingly can't live without.

I found this, and came to post it. It's rather appropriate, I think.

I agree that D&D as it is now, as it has been for about 12 years, is pretty weird when viewed objectively though.

I want to link these quotes together to point out another issue. If you want random stats, roll dice. But that's too random for D&D these days. Fair enough. If you want player choice to matter and a good stat balance between characters, do a point buy system. But that's arbitrarily not random enough for D&D. The curve isn't inherently bad, it just has no clear purpose (to me).

Having both allows variety. D&D is a meat grinder where you throw recruit after recruit to the dogs, and whoever comes back gets promoted and then you play them as a hero. D&D is a heroic fantasy game where plucky heroes survive by grit and talent and claw their way to godhood. These are somewhat counter to each other but both can be done.

Having a ruleset where both can be done seems to water it down. This may be 3.5's failing; fighters are wicked awesome if you're doing 3d6 R1s or 4d6k3 and starting in a dungeon! But different designers focused on what they "knew D&D was" and we got... Well, a mess. A delightful mess, but still a mess.

What you quoted was a standard thing where I can understand and state many opinions regardless of my own. Most of this thread is poorly representative of anything I personally care about; next cut numbers and added Dis/Adv, which is all I need. So aside from stupid healing rules I'll ignore and poorly frame skill DCs I don't need to slave to, I'm already happy with it.

For me, D&D is a successful hack of an unsuccessful '80s tactical wargame. Its focus has changed, sure, from dungeoncrawling exclusively to a more general fantasy RPG, but the platform is inherently unsuited to the latter role in particular. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, and I don't plan on trying to defend this position in this thread.

As a note, I want to say that my experience with D&D is limited. My first contact with it came after about five years of trying to do game design in a near vacuum. Maybe this is why it looks like a mess to me - not to say that any of my own stuff is any good; I make no claims to that. It's hard to breathe in vacuums.

You're completely right, actually. But here's the catch;

I read the dungeon world rules and they excited me! But the classes, the crunch for player end, didn't. Huge turn off! I actually want the overlapping, nested circles of 3.5 and even late 1/2e character design choices. I am in the position that a really good fantasy system is not restrictive or granular enough for me. D&D is fun because it sucks at its job. RAW has become the law of the west because succeeding, achieving in such a ruleset is, well, like playing dark sun. The deck is stacked against you, so success is more meaningful.

The problem with rolling stats is that it's not really clear what it is supposed to accomplish. Ideally, choosing it over point-buy would add some amount of risk to the character creation process, but I think in practice a lot of players (and DMs!) end up allowing various ways of negating that risk. Indeed, D&D since 3e (perhaps before, but I don't remember 2e having a different method) has tried to create above average characters through various methods of reducing risk - starting with "your stat modifiers must add up to +1 to higher", to point buy.

Truthfully, the problem with rolling dice over point buy is something that was exacerbated in 3e and beyond. Before 3e, only the very best of stats (15+) offered a bonus, and usually it was minor.

A character with straight 14s in all stats in 3.5 or 4e would get +2 to hit, damage, saving throws, armor class, and potentially a bunch of other perks (such as bonus languages, hit points/level, etc.).

A character with straight 14s in 2e would get 4 languages and the ability to cast 7th level mage spells, with two bonus 1st level spells if they were a priest. And a +2 reaction adjustment, if that was something the DM used.

The practical difference in combat with a melee weapon - carrying capacity aside - for a 2e character with an 8 strength and a 16 strength was +1 to damage. Compare that to 3.5 or 4e where the difference is +4 to hit and +4 to damage relatively.

My point is when the game allowed rolled stats back before 3.5, it was in an environment where the chances of your stats having a huge impact on your character (save for classes that required them like the Paladin) was relatively low. Hopefully you get lucky (16+) with your prime stat, and then who cares about the rest? They're not likely to give you any sort of bonus anyway. In more modern D&D however, each additional point of a stat could have a tremendous impact on your character.

In such an environment, it's no wonder that - again in my experience - "rolled stats" is usually a synonym not for "28 point buy" (actually according to the 3.5 DMG, 25 point buy would be more equivalent) but something closer to 32 point buy, after all the pity re-rolls have been made. Theoretically a player would roll and come out with something like 16/14/13/10/10/8 (25 point buy), but I dunno, in practice it usually seems to be more like 16/16/14/12/11/8 (33 point buy).

Which would be fine if it wasn't the case that higher stats - even the ones below 15 - didn't have such a tremendous impact on a character. But they do, and I don't think that kind of randomness should really be encouraged in a team game.

All good points.

The best I've seen is ACKS, where bonuses come from standard deviation, and reward high stats, allow good stats, and so not punish the standard expectations i rolling 3d6 in order.

Next is reducing the numerical requirements across the board which is nice, but the wide spread of the d20 still makes things shaky. They have fixes in place, nice, elegant ones, who just so happen to have their instructions not only written in bad Korean but also not shipped with the box.

The only advantage to point buy - in my opinion - is that it potentially allows some quirky stats (such as the high strength wizard, or the fighter who happens to have a 15 charisma), but even in those cases, that happens not because such quirkyness is a result of rolling stats, but a result of rolling stats and rolling so well that the character has a floating 14+ that the player doesn't need elsewhere.

Rolling you mean?

Group consensus was that 4d6k3 (R1s/2s) roll seven stats keep six, place to taste was "best" in my county. I did some Maths, and some brute force stuff... Our standard rolling method was the same as allocating 76 points (from 0, no scale) and getting a free +4 LA.

Let me out that in perspective; a kill end (as class) draconic get touched chaosite or a phrenic winged half giant were about as strong as our standard, level 1 clerics and rogues. Gods help the dungeon if our fighter made it to level 2!

Sure it's fun, that way, but ridiculous, and provin equivalency kinda drove that point home; the 12/12/12/13/13/13 spread with Templates was more fun and relaxing because it was lower powered over all...

Ideally we wouldn't have "SAD" classes (or alternatively, wouldn't have "MAD" ones), we'd just have classes, none of which are overly reliant on having multiple high scores. That classes like the 3.5 Monk and Paladin exist is hopefully a strike against poor class design, not against point buy.

Truth. I think the 1e paladin and monk are better than 3e.

[Ashdate]

Rolling you mean?

Yes, apologies.

[Stray]

Legends & Lore you have all been waiting for! It's all about the math, DCs, bonuses and bounded accuracy! Tear it all to peace's in inevitable flame war!

Also last week's article, that was sort of meh.

[Turalisj]

To make things easier, our current draft of backgrounds includes tables you can use to flesh out your character's bonds to the world. Additional tables use alignment as the starting point for ideals and flaws. For instance, as the member of a craft guild you might be intensely loyal to the patron noble house that sponsored your guild membership. On the flip side, you've made an enemy of the criminal cartel that wants to disrupt your guild. DMs with the time and inclination can fill out their own tables as starting points for characters. As usual, you can also choose to make stuff up if nothing on the tables is appealing, or simply roll on them and accept the results.

A final table provides your character with something that sparks the beginning of your adventuring career and gives your character a key problem or question that needs an immediate solution. Perhaps you left the guild because your master was murdered under circumstances that point to you as a suspect. You might have been sent as an undercover agent to infiltrate the cartel that is working to undermine the guild. Your DM could also give you ideas based on the campaign, or you could come up with something on your own.

Oh. My. God.

Because that's what gamers want. Tables telling them how their character should feel.

[Thrudd]

Oh. My. God.

Because that's what gamers want. Tables telling them how their character should feel.

LOL, haven't you played AD&D? There's a table for everything!

[Tehnar]

Haha a lvl 20 (dwarf) fighter will have +12 to constitution saving throws, and +6 to other saving throws. How very original and imaginative.

Well at least its better then the previous version, where you got some scaling. Now its not 1/level, but 1/ 3 levels. The mind truly boggles.

[SiuiS]

Oh. My. God.

Because that's what gamers want. Tables telling them how their character should feel.

It's for pick up games. "Hey guys, roll up some personalities and let kill an hour till the bus gets here". It's not bad.

Inspiration seems hit or miss, since its basically an action point with no rules attached...

Haha a lvl 20 (dwarf) fighter will have +12 to constitution saving throws, and +6 to other saving throws. How very original and imaginative.

Well at least its better then the previous version, where you got some scaling. Now its not 1/level, but 1/ 3 levels. The mind truly boggles.

We never really ha 1/level scaling in Next.

The listed stuff seems good. I mean, it really does. I especially like this bit;

That said, we've seen a few issues from our playtest feedback and from our own games. The big one focuses on saving throws and skill DCs.

Saving throws against effects that take you out of the fight, like a ghoul's paralysis, mess up monster scaling. A ghoul is equally deadly to a 3rd- or 17th-level fighter. If either one blows a saving throw, the fighter is out of the battle.
Our skill DCs are out of whack. They don't match up well with the actual bonuses that characters accrue at all levels.

And where they flat say "no. You're not getting awesome attacks and stuff, deal with it." Because it clears up a lot. So now every monster needs to be balanced based on its ability to remove a PC at its intended level; a goblin looks to deal out about 33-50% per shot at level 1, so Gould we assume level 1 is base and every level equivalent monster can two- or three-shot a PC?

I'm actually sad they are thinking about dropping skill dice though, because all it would take is putting DCs on a curve and it would be awesome. Now we just get watered down 3e.

[Kurald Galain]

Legends & Lore you have all been waiting for! It's all about the math, DCs, bonuses and bounded accuracy! Tear it all to peace's in inevitable flame war!

This strikes me as an important goal to WOTC: "Since the gap doesn't grow too large, you don't have to rely on system mastery—your mastery of how to manipulate the game system—to make an effective character."

Unfortunately, it also strikes me as utterly incorrect. For instance, in 4E there isn't much you can do with improving your ability scores and skills, but optimization is very much a big deal; it just focuses on power choice and feat selection instead.

[Tehnar]

We never really ha 1/level scaling in Next.

The listed stuff seems good. I mean, it really does. I especially like this bit;

I meant 1/level scaling in 3.x to 1/3 level in 5e (with the 1/2 level scaling in 4th now that I think about it).

[SiuiS]

This strikes me as an important goal to WOTC: "Since the gap doesn't grow too large, you don't have to rely on system mastery—your mastery of how to manipulate the game system—to make an effective character."

Unfortunately, it also strikes me as utterly incorrect. For instance, in 4E there isn't much you can do with improving your ability scores and skills, but optimization is very much a big deal; it just focuses on power choice and feat selection instead.

This is true but contained. Mastery at this level really only optimizes your HP damage output, and then only by about 3 points, and then only if you take the recommended feat versus not taking the recommended feat. For skills, there is literally nowhere to go but up. They've achieved casual perfection by almost eliminating choice. We will see if it holds.

I meant 1/level scaling in 3.x to 1/3 level in 5e (with the 1/2 level scaling in 4th now that I think about it).

Ah, you meant skills. I thought saves.

[BayardSPSR]

I have spoilered my response to SiuiS because it's really freakin' long and less on-topic, and I actually want to talk about the stat thing too.

Spoiler

Show

I found this, and came to post it. It's rather appropriate, I think.

I agree that D&D as it is now, as it has been for about 12 years, is pretty weird when viewed objectively though.

I read the dungeon world rules and they excited me! But the classes, the crunch for player end, didn't. Huge turn off! I actually want the overlapping, nested circles of 3.5 and even late 1/2e character design choices. I am in the position that a really good fantasy system is not restrictive or granular enough for me. D&D is fun because it sucks at its job. RAW has become the law of the west because succeeding, achieving in such a ruleset is, well, like playing dark sun. The deck is stacked against you, so success is more meaningful.

Don't get me wrong - I love my retro challenge-gaming. Dwarf Fortress, '90s games, and all that. I can very much agree with the sentiment that as a player, a game can recommend itself by its difficulty, especially if that difficulty produces interesting emergent gameplay. I don't think D&D's does that, but 'interesting' is subjective. I don't even think difficulty recommends itself in an RPG, because I find that it interferes with the RP part, but that's very subjective too.

What I do dispute is that difficulty should be considered positive from a developer's perspective. Emergent qualities, be they gameplay or narrative, certainly should, and can certainly override the importance of difficulty - but difficulty should not be pursued for its own sake. If you could theoretically achieve the exact same results with less difficulty or fewer rules, you should. "Perfection is not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."

Regarding the link, I don't disagree with the logic, but I do disagree with the conclusion. Any RPG, after all, is just a set of tools we combine with our imaginations to collectively produce narratives. I also don't disagree that any gaming group can and should adapt whatever "officially" exists to their own purposes, as no two groups are completely alike. But you don't need an incomplete set of tools to make your own. If you're willing to houserule when RAW is insufficient to play, what's stopping you from houseruling when it is? I cannot accept the idea incompleteness is a virtue that should be sought, and the idea of selling an unplayable game under the guise of a complete one strikes me extremely unethical.

I hate to say it, and I apologize for the harshness, but "it's supposed to suck" sounds to me like a lame excuse brought out by grognards to justify their affection for things that have been surpassed even in their niche. There's nothing wrong with nostalgia; we shouldn't be afraid to admit to it, and we shouldn't need things to be superior because we like them. It's enough to say "it may be poorly designed, but I like it", not "I like it, therefore it is not poorly designed."

I realize that I assume in those statement that it truly is poorly designed, and that I myself am not saying "I dislike it, therefore it must be poorly designed". I hope that I have demonstrated real concerns, and not just malice or partisanship.

As a note, I want to add that design quality aside, D&D is still hugely important to the history of the medium. That's just not enough to make me want to play it.

So long post, yeah.

About the stats - can we agree that the purpose of the stats is to derive modifiers that can then be applied to relevant mechanics? That seems to be their purpose to me. Maybe we can add a secondary purpose of describing the character in question.

If that is their purpose, having all classes have a single primary stat do everything ruins the point, since the result is that everyone gets the same modifier. Describing the character can be done separately.

If this is their purpose, we should only need to list the modifiers, and the numbers we derive those from shouldn't matter. I realize ability damage may exist, but that seems like a redundant mechanic to me.

If only even numbers, or only each +50% to a stat alters the modifier, there is no need to have the 'dead numbers' in-between. They don't do anything, and they only describe minor distinctions.

If all PCs are expected to have at least a certain modifier from every stat, then all the modifiers below that don't matter unless we're making all NPCs the same way we make PCs - which we don't and never have. Whether the modifier is +1, +0, or even -1 (allowing for penalties) is just details.

If all of these are true, then the way D&D has always done stats in unnecessarily byzantine. If we still want curves in our random results (let's assume we do), there are easier ways to produce them and manipulate them - roll 3d6, drop the highest and the lowest, and that's your modifier. Or just roll 2d6 and pick the highest; the point is that you don't need the extra middle step to produce whatever curve you like for your modifiers.

[Morty]

They still don't realize that hit points are probably the most boring and uninspired way of advancing individual power. If my character's a high and mighty badass, it apparently means that weak monsters and characters can whale at her for rounds on end before she finally keels over and dies.

At least they seem to realize that abilities which bypass the normal HP attrition throw a wrench in their assumptions. I'm not certain they know what to do about it, though. They mention monster abilities - what about spells available to the PCs?

[1337 b4k4]

About the stats - can we agree that the purpose of the stats is to derive modifiers that can then be applied to relevant mechanics? That seems to be their purpose to me. Maybe we can add a secondary purpose of describing the character in question.

If that is their purpose, having all classes have a single primary stat do everything ruins the point, since the result is that everyone gets the same modifier. Describing the character can be done separately.

If this is their purpose, we should only need to list the modifiers, and the numbers we derive those from shouldn't matter. I realize ability damage may exist, but that seems like a redundant mechanic to me.

While I agree with the underlying point (that ability scores are redundant at this point), I disagree that this should be the goal. Honestly, using ability mods for everything I think is a problem. The ability scores should be relevant as well.

On that note, an (unfinished) idea I was kicking around the other day, what if they changed the skill system up a bit. What if we took a page from Traveller and gave tasks both a DC and a Time component. So for example, climbing a tree is DC X and takes 5 minutes. Any character who is not being actively opposed and is willing to take the full amount of time can auto succeed provided that DC X is <= Ability Score + Training.

For any circumstance where the DC is greater than that value, or the player is being actively hindered (being attacked etc) or the player wants to shorten the duration, they can roll as normal (d20 + Ability Mod + Training + Mods). The only catch is that any DC which is within the character's normal "unhindered" range means that the player has advantage on the check.

So going back to our climb example, say climbing the tree is DC 15, 5 minutes.

Character A has STR 12, Character B has STR 15.

On a bright day, A and B decide to climb a tree to see further and get a lay of the land. A has to roll d20 + 1 against DC 15, B simply succeeds because they're that good. If A had a "climbing" skill, they would roll d20 + 1 + skill die (or skill value depending on what they decide to do with the system).

Now say instead that the evil wizard has started flooding the plain with a torrential downpour and they're trying to climb the tree quickly (less than 5 minutes) before the waters sweep them away. A still has to roll as normal, but this time so does B, but because the DC is 15 and that is within B's standard abilities, B gets advantage on the roll.

Does something like this A) make ability scores more relevant (even for the values that don't normally give a mod bonus) and B) solve some of the master thief compared to novice thief issues?

[Knaight]

Roll to hit, then roll for damage. Two separate parts of an action, two rolls. Effects that are just 'roll to hit/roll a save, then X' are the same thing.

It's still a bunch of rolls for a fight - it isn't something along the lines of "Goblin: DC 15 Combat check", which indicates that people are more than willing to roll multiple times to do things if they are interesting. This could easily be expanded to other parts of the system, at least those that are central. It likely has less business being in simple task resolution type stuff, but chases? Social conflicts? Stealth? These could all use that, as they are more conflict based.

[Kurald Galain]

They still don't realize that hit points are probably the most boring and uninspired way of advancing individual power. If my character's a high and mighty badass, it apparently means that weak monsters and characters can whale at her for rounds on end before she finally keels over and dies.

This also has an issue with scaling. A tenth-level character has approximately twice as many hit points as a fifth-level character, yes? That means that, if four ogres are an appropriately challenging encounter for a level-5 party, a level-10 party is challenged by... eight ogres. Wooo, such progress

[Knaight]

This also has an issue with scaling. A tenth-level character has approximately twice as many hit points as a fifth-level character, yes? That means that, if four ogres are an appropriately challenging encounter for a level-5 party, a level-10 party is challenged by... eight ogres. Wooo, such progress

Not quite, but only because they did keep some amount of scaling in the various things that apparently don't need to scale according to the current designs, particularly spells.

You also left out the other issue with hit point scaling: The higher level one is, the more levels it takes for a significant gain. From level 5 to 10 one doubles in power with pure HP scaling, but then one has to reach 20 to do so again. If they are trying to introduce diminishing returns this is fine, but it goes against other parts of the design - again, spells stand out here.

[Jerthanis]

It's still a bunch of rolls for a fight - it isn't something along the lines of "Goblin: DC 15 Combat check", which indicates that people are more than willing to roll multiple times to do things if they are interesting. This could easily be expanded to other parts of the system, at least those that are central. It likely has less business being in simple task resolution type stuff, but chases? Social conflicts? Stealth? These could all use that, as they are more conflict based.

When I first read about the "Skill die" I assumed it was going to be a sort of "Skill damage" die, where noncombat resolution would be accumulation of success beyond simple success or failure. EG: a locked chest might have 20 Durability and 5 Lock Complexity. You could roll Break an Object at it and roll 20 skill damage after about 5 successful checks, but you might pick it after a single check if you roll well on your Skill Die.

However, that level of abstraction can lead to a disconnect with the weight of the situation. "Behold, the cliffs of insanity! Its craggy face has thwarted the greatest climbers in history! Its name comes from how you must be mad to--" "Okay, we get it, how much HP does it have, I do 1d10+8 climbing damage per turn, but could do an extra 2d6 if I get a buff, I need to figure out if I need to save the buff for later"

Also, some tasks could involve teamwork as every member produces progress, like translating a series of runes or breaking down a door, while other tasks require each member making their own individualized progress through, like climbing a cliff or sneaking through a compound.

The problem with a unified skill system is that it's going to always have different goals depending on each situation. Combat, meanwhile might have secondary goals, but "the pointy end goes in the other guy" aspect is always going to be simple.

[Morty]

This also has an issue with scaling. A tenth-level character has approximately twice as many hit points as a fifth-level character, yes? That means that, if four ogres are an appropriately challenging encounter for a level-5 party, a level-10 party is challenged by... eight ogres. Wooo, such progress

Not quite, but only because they did keep some amount of scaling in the various things that apparently don't need to scale according to the current designs, particularly spells.

Which, of course, means that magic-users might end up falling out of the scale the non-magic-users are bound by. Who would have thought?

You also left out the other issue with hit point scaling: The higher level one is, the more levels it takes for a significant gain. From level 5 to 10 one doubles in power with pure HP scaling, but then one has to reach 20 to do so again. If they are trying to introduce diminishing returns this is fine, but it goes against other parts of the design - again, spells stand out here.

There's that too. On low levels, each new hit die is a bit thing. When you're already level 15, those few more hit points become a lot less relevant.

[Knaight]

Which, of course, means that magic-users might end up falling out of the scale the non-magic-users are bound by. Who would have thought?

Pretty much. I'm sure both of the people who didn't see this coming are surprised.

[SiuiS]

I have spoilered my response to SiuiS because it's really freakin' long and less on-topic, and I actually want to talk about the stat thing too.

sorry about that...

What I do dispute is that difficulty should be considered positive from a developer's perspective. Emergent qualities, be they gameplay or narrative, certainly should, and can certainly override the importance of difficulty - but difficulty should not be pursued for its own sake. If you could theoretically achieve the exact same results with less difficulty or fewer rules, you should. "Perfection is not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."

Ah. I hadn't meant to imply that. Basic difficulty is fine because one can usually work the rules to increase it. Dungeon Wolrd's lack of satisfying crunch level was meant more to evoke pity on the player who Acclimated.

There is also "nothing perfect is beautiful" if we want to go the quote route ;)

Regarding the link, I don't disagree with the logic, but I do disagree with the conclusion. ... If you're willing to houserule when RAW is insufficient to play, what's stopping you from houseruling when it is?

Your directions here surprise me.
Legitimacy would be one reason why, but RAW itself is not a good thing, it's just a thing. You have a game system that says you can do one hint and by RAW allows something else but not that thing, that isn't a quality to be proud of.

But more, I posted that because it makes headway into an old argument; that what people who are used to completely ridiculous levels of 'simulation' wherein a housecat can kill a normal human with aplomb, people handing over tools creates a perpetual motion generator, etc., is in fact not thoroughness or completeness but constructif, choking and limiting.

I realize that I assume in those statement that it truly is poorly designed, and that I myself am not saying "I dislike it, therefore it must be poorly designed". I hope that I have demonstrated real concerns, and not just malice or partisanship.

Certainly. The onus would fall on me for generating those concerns, but she. Sleepy I am not known for clarity... But my point would be that rather than incomplete and poorly designed, it is simple and abstract (design quality I won't argue; old D&D flew by its dreams, not its writing or similar).

About the stats - can we agree that the purpose of the stats is to derive modifiers that can then be applied to relevant mechanics? That seems to be their purpose to me. Maybe we can add a secondary purpose of describing the character in question.

It feels like there is more, but I can't isolate it. Perhaps it's a relic of olden times...

If that is their purpose, having all classes have a single primary stat do everything ruins the point, since the result is that everyone gets the same modifier. Describing the character can be done separately.

Mm. Not so; a wizard and fighter may both get +5 [pertinent class acore], but a fighter can also haul things, break things and contest dragons. A wizard would instead learn things, know things, and contest ancient powers. Having the same die bonus cannot speak to the application of that bonus.

If all PCs are expected to have at least a certain modifier from every stat, then all the modifiers below that don't matter unless we're making all NPCs the same way we make PCs - which we don't and never have. Whether the modifier is +1, +0, or even -1 (allowing for penalties) is just details.

Normally I woul say this is proof we should examine those assumptions, but lets be realistic here. The nature of a D20 game with rolls over throws is that you will need addition. You will need certain numbers minimum. The design principles structure it so that you must indeed have certain modifiers.

I would rather change that, than indulge in which modifiers, but I'm in the minority.

They still don't realize that hit points are probably the most boring and uninspired way of advancing individual power. If my character's a high and mighty badass, it apparently means that weak monsters and characters can whale at her for rounds on end before she finally keels over and dies.

You're making a beginners mistake Morty.
Why are you claiming your character is a high and mighty badass when getting to of high and mighty badasses is the point? You're picking a completely nonsensical (for the system) goal and complaining that this English course isn't giving you a physics degree.

While I agree with the underlying point (that ability scores are redundant at this point), I disagree that this should be the goal. Honestly, using ability mods for everything I think is a problem. The ability scores should be relevant as well.

On that note, an (unfinished) idea I was kicking around the other day, what if they changed the skill system up a bit. What if we took a page from Traveller and gave tasks both a DC and a Time component. So for example, climbing a tree is DC X and takes 5 minutes. Any character who is not being actively opposed and is willing to take the full amount of time can auto succeed provided that DC X is <= Ability Score + Training.

Does something like this A) make ability scores more relevant (even for the values that don't normally give a mod bonus) and B) solve some of the master thief compared to novice thief issues?

Neat!
A) yes, B) depends in how DCs would thereafter be factored.

It's still a bunch of rolls for a fight - it isn't something along the lines of "Goblin: DC 15 Combat check", which indicates that people are more than willing to roll multiple times to do things if they are interesting. This could easily be expanded to other parts of the system, at least those that are central. It likely has less business being in simple task resolution type stuff, but chases? Social conflicts? Stealth? These could all use that, as they are more conflict based.

This reminds me of my suggestion to make combat a skill. The irony, the same folks were against it.

I think what is currently BaB should be a skill though. Make it a class skill for fighters, rogues and clerics. Fighters and sometimes rogues also get a class bonus.

Not quite, but only because they did keep some amount of scaling in the various things that apparently don't need to scale according to the current designs, particularly spells.

You also left out the other issue with hit point scaling: The higher level one is, the more levels it takes for a significant gain. From level 5 to 10 one doubles in power with pure HP scaling, but then one has to reach 20 to do so again. If they are trying to introduce diminishing returns this is fine, but it goes against other parts of the design - again, spells stand out here.

Nah, remember benchmark thresholds? "Affects you if HP < 60" and "affects 6th level or less targets"?

When I first read about the "Skill die" I assumed it was going to be a sort of "Skill damage" die, where noncombat resolution would be accumulation of success beyond simple success or failure. EG: a locked chest might have 20 Durability and 5 Lock Complexity. You could roll Break an Object at it and roll 20 skill damage after about 5 successful checks, but you might pick it after a single check if you roll well on your Skill Die.

However, that level of abstraction can lead to a disconnect with the weight of the situation. "Behold, the cliffs of insanity! Its craggy face has thwarted the greatest climbers in history! Its name comes from how you must be mad to--" "Okay, we get it, how much HP does it have, I do 1d10+8 climbing damage per turn, but could do an extra 2d6 if I get a buff, I need to figure out if I need to save the buff for later"

Also, some tasks could involve teamwork as every member produces progress, like translating a series of runes or breaking down a door, while other tasks require each member making their own individualized progress through, like climbing a cliff or sneaking through a compound.

The problem with a unified skill system is that it's going to always have different goals depending on each situation. Combat, meanwhile might have secondary goals, but "the pointy end goes in the other guy" aspect is always going to be simple.

Cool. I like it.

[Morty]

You're making a beginners mistake Morty.
Why are you claiming your character is a high and mighty badass when getting to of high and mighty badasses is the point? You're picking a completely nonsensical (for the system) goal and complaining that this English course isn't giving you a physics degree.

What on Earth are you talking about? You're either completely missing my point or intentionally misrepresenting it to make it look like I'm making a 'beginner's mistake'. If I have a high-level character, then I have every right to say he or she is a badass, if only because of what s/he's had to do to get there. And yet, according to WotC, the main difference between him/her and a lower-level character is how many hit points the enemies have to slog through to kill them.

[Talakeal]

This is looking really sad. They have been in development for over a year now, right? And they are just now figuring out the basic implications of the math they are using?

[Kurald Galain]

This is looking really sad. They have been in development for over a year now, right? And they are just now figuring out the basic implications of the math they are using?

Pretty much.

They've just decided that letting a character's weak saving throws go up by six points over twenty levels is a good idea. Of course, that's exactly what 3E did thirteen years ago...

[Person_Man]

RE: Legends and Lore:

WotC's math is backwards and probably wrong.

Instead of starting with the content, creating some numerical modifiers that "feel" right, and just letting the chips fall where they may, start with the success rates you want and work backwards.

Make the following decisions:

1. In determining the success of a challenging task, what do you want the relative importance of luck, ability scores, class level, and everything else (Feats, Skills, Race, Traits, magic items, spells, etc) to be?
   
2. Assuming you've maxed everything out, what should your chance of success be?
   
3. Assuming that you're a 1st level character with no investment, what should your chance of success be?

For example, I prefer a system where there is roughly equal weight on the die roll (luck), Ability Scores (natural ability), class levels (experience), and everything else (character optimization). I think that a fully maxed out character should have a 80% chance of success (and a DM can hand wave tasks that are not challenging to that character, like a master thief opening a basic lock outside of combat), and that a new character should have a 20% chance of success. So the math in my theoretical game would be:

• Ability Scores capped at 18 (max +4 bonus).
• 1/5 your class level to any task you are trained/proficient/etc in. (max +4 bonus).
• Bonuses from all other sources capped at +4 total.

A Challenging task is then set at DC 17. On a 1d20 + 12 roll I have an 80% chance of success (roll 5 or higher), on a 1d20 + 0 roll I have a 20% chance of success (roll 17 or higher).

Modify any of the above based on your personal biases however you like - it's only provided as an example and not a statement of what D&D Next math should be. But this is the basic process they should follow, not "oh a save vs. the low level ghoul sorta sucks now so lets screw with all the math to come up with a solution."

[Turalisj]

Guys.... why don't we make our own system?