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

[Flickerdart]

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

Blackjacks & Hookers?

[Person_Man]

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

Um, this community has already made several. The Giant is the most obvious example, and wrote a huge campaign world (he came in second in the contest that eventually created Eberron). Legend is probably the most prominent recent example. Fax made 3.5 Rebirth. Saph writes (excellent) novels set in an urban fantasy setting with a very coherent internal magical logic. I know at least one Playgrounder who prefer to remain nameless that writes for Pathfinder.

And that's just the ones I remember off the top of my head. I'm sure if you actually did a census, you could find dozens more.

[TuggyNE]

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.

So… the goal of Next's bounded accuracy is to get rid of all the awesomeness of high-level characters, so that all you have is lamesauce guys and kinda cool guys? Permit me to say that this defense of their implementation greatly reduces my desire to be anywhere near the result.

[SiuiS]

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.

"I am twelve inches tall! The ruler is wrong because it says I am only ten inches tall!"

The rubric is arbitrary, yes, but it is still the rubric. "I'm a badass even when I'mnot because I said so because I feel I should be a badass" is the misrepresentation. They are taking that out of the game. Saying you can't be a badass anymore is a valid complain, saying you still are and the game is wrong because REASONS is not.

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

Most of us have! or at least have used this data to modify our current games.

[Stubbazubba]

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

Logistically, it's extremely hard to get people, even in this very thread, to agree on fundamentals, let alone go through and implement a given core of design principles and goals throughout an entire system. Even Gygax & Arneson disagreed on a number of things in the original versions of D&D.

However, we all have a lot of creative output, nevertheless. And some of us are working or have worked on home-brew systems that would probably (and some have) put 5e to shame.

[Kurald Galain]

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

Been there, done that And I'm hardly the only one here, either.

[Raineh Daze]

"I am twelve inches tall! The ruler is wrong because it says I am only ten inches tall!"

The rubric is arbitrary, yes, but it is still the rubric. "I'm a badass even when I'mnot because I said so because I feel I should be a badass" is the misrepresentation. They are taking that out of the game. Saying you can't be a badass anymore is a valid complain, saying you still are and the game is wrong because REASONS is not.

You can most certainly still be a badass. A system that doesn't allow you to do impressive things is probably not going to have a major combat system. If you survive from level 1 to level 20, then hey, you're a badass, congratulations (especially if you killed a bunch of dragons or such)

The complaint's that the only change there is pretty much you get more health. Apparently the difference between a novice and a master is that one will take forever to die and no more. Who knew?

[Craft (Cheese)]

"I am twelve inches tall! The ruler is wrong because it says I am only ten inches tall!"

The rubric is arbitrary, yes, but it is still the rubric. "I'm a badass even when I'mnot because I said so because I feel I should be a badass" is the misrepresentation. They are taking that out of the game. Saying you can't be a badass anymore is a valid complain, saying you still are and the game is wrong because REASONS is not.

I think the complaint is more "This ruleset violates my expectations of what a level means." Like if you went through the books and swapped all instances of "Barbarian" and "Wizard": Even if the result is mechanically identical it would just be wrong.

[Moreb Benhk]

You can most certainly still be a badass. A system that doesn't allow you to do impressive things is probably not going to have a major combat system. If you survive from level 1 to level 20, then hey, you're a badass, congratulations (especially if you killed a bunch of dragons or such)

The complaint's that the only change there is pretty much you get more health. Apparently the difference between a novice and a master is that one will take forever to die and no more. Who knew?

Well Wizards can still be badasses. They get to bypass the stuff that makes the other classes 'higher level' (i.e. - save or dies / save or sucks, etc). I haven't looked at the math yet to see how the new save progressions will affect the abilities of Wizards to actually succeed in targeting a high level foe. Certainly targetting the Con defense of a Dwarf seems to be made of pain... but I guess that makes sense.

I'd be worried if they tried to level the playing field such that while magic users get nifty higher level abilities... that almost never work because everyone just saves against them.

[Oracle_Hunter]

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

Who says some of us aren't
[/shameless_plug]

@Legends & Lore
Someone really needs to take Mearls's keyboard away from him. He has a positive genius for conveying reasonable ideas in the worst way possible

So let's shift the chaff for some wheat

L&L 7/22/2013

Spoiler

Show

Mechanically, we're looking at a fairly simply system that we're calling inspiration. When you have your character do something that reflects your character's personality, goals, or beliefs, the DM can reward you with inspiration. The key lies in describing your action in an interesting way, acting out your character's dialogue, or otherwise helping to bring the game to life by adding some panache to your play. By demonstrating that the events in the game are critical to your character's goals and beliefs, you can allow your character to tap into reserves of energy and determination to carry the day.

You can spend inspiration to gain advantage on a check, saving throw, or attack attached to your action. Alternatively, you can bank it to use on a roll that happens during the current encounter or scene. Additionally, you can choose to pass the inspiration along to a different character during the scene. In this case, your character's determination serves as an inspiration for the other party members. You can have only one inspiration at a time.

It's up to the DM to reward inspiration, but as a rule of thumb, a player can gain it once per significant scene or important combat. Inspiration fades quickly, so you must spend it within a few minutes in game time before you lose it.

While a semi-novel idea back in 2002, I'm not so sure it fits the D&D audience. None of them have been brought up in the Indie RPG ecosystem (or they would most certainly be playing Burning Wheel) and it is already hard enough to keep the "typical" D&D Player within the comparatively simple Nine Alignment System (judging by posters of this refined forum). I, for one, would not like to try to teach this mainstream how to use a Belief-style system, nor to sell this as a good idea for the 3.PF crowd. For these reasons alone I'm not adding it to Gold & Glory, even though I found it much more appropriate to value-based genres (e.g. Superheroes in Four-Color Heroes).

There is a slim chance that Mearls thinks this inclusion will pull in folks like Totally Guy who play Burning Wheel et al. I think such an outcome is laughable but I'm not being paid the big(?) bucks to wait 19 months before looking at the math of the system I'm developing so what do I know?

L&L 7/29/2013

Spoiler

Show

Here's a summary of our goals:

• We want to focus on growing hit points, rather than attack or saving throw bonuses (or DCs), as the way we reflect growing character power.
• Keeping numerical bonuses under control means that the gaps between characters don't grow too large.
• 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. You can make a better character (character optimization is fun for many gamers) but it isn't an "I win!" card.
• Since AC, attack, and saving throw numbers don't grow too much, low-level monsters can still hit and damage you (though for a smaller portion of your hit points) as you reach higher levels.

Putting aside for a moment whether these can really be considered "goals" I have to agree with Person_Man that this is a really bass-ackward way to do game design. Pretty much everything about this has already been said by this thread (e.g. HP is not a good metric of character power) but I wanted to put that quote up there to frame yet another statement of 5e's "design goals."

So, not much, but at least it breaks up the monotony of arguing over how long a "length of string" is

[Raineh Daze]

So, not much, but at least it breaks up the monotony of arguing over how long a "length of string" is

A length of string is one length long and no more! Two lengths for your length of string would just be being greedy, and no length may be lengthier than another length!

... unfortunately, that is probably an accurate summation of many discussions, here included.

[Felhammer]

Spoiler

Show

While a semi-novel idea back in 2002, I'm not so sure it fits the D&D audience. None of them have been brought up in the Indie RPG ecosystem (or they would most certainly be playing Burning Wheel) and it is already hard enough to keep the "typical" D&D Player within the comparatively simple Nine Alignment System (judging by posters of this refined forum). I, for one, would not like to try to teach this mainstream how to use a Belief-style system, nor to sell this as a good idea for the 3.PF crowd. For these reasons alone I'm not adding it to Gold & Glory, even though I found it much more appropriate to value-based genres (e.g. Superheroes in Four-Color Heroes).

There is a slim chance that Mearls thinks this inclusion will pull in folks like Totally Guy who play Burning Wheel et al. I think such an outcome is laughable but I'm not being paid the big(?) bucks to wait 19 months before looking at the math of the system I'm developing so what do I know?

Every edition of D&D has said, "you should reward players for good roleplaying" but never really worked out what that reward should be other than "just toss them some extra XP."

I for one like the idea of a more mechanically inclined carrot to draw more meaningful RP out of players.

We already had the edition of "let's not make any rules to help role playing" and we all know how that turned out.

These kinds of mechanics are very popular in other RPGs and they can be in D&D as well. You don't have to teach people how to believe something, just how to think in character.

L&L 7/29/2013

Spoiler

Show

Putting aside for a moment whether these can really be considered "goals" I have to agree with Person_Man that this is a really bass-ackward way to do game design. Pretty much everything about this has already been said by this thread (e.g. HP is not a good metric of character power) but I wanted to put that quote up there to frame yet another statement of 5e's "design goals."

So, not much, but at least it breaks up the monotony of arguing over how long a "length of string" is

They are goals that need to be fixed, not goals that define the system.

[Felhammer]

So… the goal of Next's bounded accuracy is to get rid of all the awesomeness of high-level characters, so that all you have is lamesauce guys and kinda cool guys? Permit me to say that this defense of their implementation greatly reduces my desire to be anywhere near the result.

WotC *knows* that most groups stick to levels 1-10(-ish). The "awesomeness" of high level characters are an albatross around D&D's neck. They are a barrier to entry that has kept most groups far, far away from high level characters. WotC is in the business of making money and that means they need to find a way of enticing people into playing High Level characters. After much reviewing, polling and etc. it was determined that the level of system mastery was the ultimate barrier to high level play. That is why Bounded Accuracy exists and why all the "awesomeness" of high level character is going away.

That isn't to say all of that Awesomeness cannot be added back into the game. Just give characters a Christmas tree of magic items, bump monster stats up by +x amount and/or apply the legendary template. Boom, the awesomeness of high level play is back (either that or wait for the epic level handbook).

[Thrudd]

Having a badass character now means that you are a badass player (or a very lucky one), who kept a character alive for so long against all the odds. It wasn't your levels that let you beat the dragon, it was your ingenuity and planning (and luck). The game mechanics may not distinguish so much between a new character and a long lived one (though they still do so more than Basic and AD&D did). I don't think it's a bad idea. I guess I'm nostalgic for the old style play of my childhood, but like the idea of an updated edition with some of the options and ideas from later editions imported in (and a few less percentage tables and number matrices). It could be an interesting changeup.

[Thrudd]

Blackjacks & Hookers?

Papers & Paychecks http://casualstrolltomordor.com/file...DD-cartoon.jpg

[Felhammer]

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."

EMAIL THIS TO WotC!!!!

I mean it! That is a perfectly logical explanation and formula for creating the core of the system.

[Scow2]

What bothers me is that the new rules CONTINUE to screw the Fighter, who's supposed to be the hardest to kill, over. 2e had the best save progression.

I liked Skill Dice, because they put the results on a curve instead of a flat line. Failing a Moderate task is hard. Making a longshot is possible. But it's possible to get lucky without skill, and DCs don't need to be stupidly high to challenge characters that have optimized their skill output.

[Felhammer]

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

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.

Totally agree with your idea however, "having an 18 in a stat" has apparently entered the pop culture lexicon.

Having said that, what is the point of having a "14" in a stat when all you are about is the modifier? It's not like we're using non weapon proficiencies any more.

[BayardSPSR]

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

You... you haven't? I've had one in my sig this whole time.

To be honest, we could move in the direction of "if we were designing Next, what would we make it" as a kind of thought experiment, but actually doing one collectively brings chefs and soups to mind.

@SiuiS: I would actually love to hear your opinions on some of the stuff in my sig. If you want to discuss it, let's do so in PMs, just for the sake of the thread.

@Next: It seems like their design choices are deliberately limited the power variance between characters. They've said as much. It seems to get around the entire point of levels, but that's fine with me because I don't like levels anyway. And balancing options is a good thing. Somehow, though, I worry that their execution will have unfortunate consequences and still be unsuccessful in achieving its objective.

As has been said, different classes rely on different mechanics. If the classes that rely on rolling dice have their progression curtailed, then something comparable has to be done to the classes that just get better spells. We know exactly where that leads.

[Drachasor]

I can understand wanting to limit the modifiers compared to 3.X. However, we should still see more defense in other ways (beyond just HP) and more and more options as you level up.

[Flickerdart]

Defenses are boring. There are few things more annoying than "oh you missed/it made its save/whatever, good job wasting your turn". In that respect, lots of HP is pretty nice, because higher-level characters get to land more hits without making combat rocket tag.

Now, active defenses are actually interesting - they get everyone paying attention even during other people's turns, using them is a tactical decision, and they're something people can look forward to, as opposed to "yay, my AC goes up by one at level 7".

[SiuiS]

I think the complaint is more "This ruleset violates my expectations of what a level means." Like if you went through the books and swapped all instances of "Barbarian" and "Wizard": Even if the result is mechanically identical it would just be wrong.

That's fine, but if so, make that clear. The problem is in the details.

What is a bad ass?
So you can't grapple a Titan to it's knees and swing it at another titan. You can hit level three and speak so eloquently that you get a free divine intervention with your +250 Perform. You can't strap two unconscious drgon's to your feet and pedal so fast they flap and gain a fly speed.

You're still able to survive and thrive while surrounded by twenty five men with cleavers all coordinated and working to take you down. That's badass! Dealing with three coordinated attackers is really, really hard. That you're able to handle a literal, like, platoon of enemies is amazing! Just because an axe still does "I've been hit by an axe, ow!" Damage to you doesn't reduce that. You can achieve hard tasks in a skill like fighting across a tight rope in full gear, or clobbering a sea snake with enough time to unbuckle your armor and get to air. That's still pretty neat.

Why are you entitled to be a bad ass?
You say "I'm level twenty i should be deific" but why? You got to level 20 fighting the same things a gaggle of peasants could kill! If the peasants aren't qualified as AWESOME, neither are their opponents, and therefore, neither are you for beating them.

It's about calibrated expectations. I'm all about finding a good poit of rapport and working with it, but that's not you to happen with 'I'm totally a bad ass and the game won't let me express it!" Because that's so subjective as to have no value without beig dissected, and the act of dissection apparently irritates the folks who feel you should just know what they mean.

Well Wizards can still be badasses. They get to bypass the stuff that makes the other classes 'higher level' (i.e. - save or dies / save or sucks, etc). I haven't looked at the math yet to see how the new save progressions will affect the abilities of Wizards to actually succeed in targeting a high level foe. Certainly targetting the Con defense of a Dwarf seems to be made of pain... but I guess that makes sense.

We don't know they can, yet.

Every edition of D&D has said, "you should reward players for good roleplaying" but never really worked out what that reward should be other than "just toss them some extra XP."

I for one like the idea of a more mechanically inclined carrot to draw more meaningful RP out of players.

We already had the edition of "let's not make any rules to help role playing" and we all know how that turned out.

These kinds of mechanics are very popular in other RPGs and they can be in D&D as well. You don't have to teach people how to believe something, just how to think in character.

I always liked flaws for this. I don't just give flat penalties ever. If a player has a flaw, it gets a clause where something – some appropriate behavior or auto fail or condition – can be activated 1/session by either the DM or a player at the appropriate time... Meaning that if you're Star Crossed, your party mates can spontaneously declare you develop a crush on the BBEG or something.

Related, nWoD conditions work like an RP award. They are statuses (either good or bad) which allow for penalties either for a set duration, or you can engage them for an XP bonus. So a character who takes Massive Damage could either, like, fight on with a -1 to everything, or at any point fulfill that condition, drop to 0 and dying, and get XP.

EMAIL THIS TO WotC!!!!

I mean it! That is a perfectly logical explanation and formula for creating the core of the system.

Yes. Seriously.

What bothers me is that the new rules CONTINUE to screw the Fighter, who's supposed to be the hardest to kill, over. 2e had the best save progression.

We don't know that yet.

I liked Skill Dice, because they put the results on a curve instead of a flat line. Failing a Moderate task is hard. Making a longshot is possible. But it's possible to get lucky without skill, and DCs don't need to be stupidly high to challenge characters that have optimized their skill output.

Aye. Skill dice, expertise dice and hit dice were the interesting systems. Without them, it's crappy 3.5 and I don't care anymore.

I can understand wanting to limit the modifiers compared to 3.X. However, we should still see more defense in other ways (beyond just HP) and more and more options as you level up.

We have them. So far, XX HP or X level is a gate which prevents those things from working. Suddenly, a finger of death which only kills an enemy with 50 or less XP is about as useful as being able to drop 50 damage, rather than being an instakill always. 50 may be a bit strong – it's a tenth level fighter! – but the idea is sound if they figure out what totals a spell of any level should hit, rather than pulling integers out of a hat.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

You say "I'm level twenty i should be deific" but why?

Because in every prior edition, reaching level 20 (more like level 15+, really) meant you were a deity-slaying hero (or villain) of legend, and it's not too much to ask that you can tell the same kinds of stories in the One Edition To Rule Them All that you could in any of the editions being Ruled.

If you can only tell the same kinds of stories at 5e level 20 that you can at 1e-4e level 5--which is what will happen if "a gaggle of N peasants" can kill anything in the Monster Manual for sufficiently large values of N--then there's no point in going up to level 20. WotC might as well just admit that they can't design for crap past level 7ish, release B/X 2.0, and leave it at that.

[TuggyNE]

We have them. So far, XX HP or X level is a gate which prevents those things from working. Suddenly, a finger of death which only kills an enemy with 50 or less XP is about as useful as being able to drop 50 damage, rather than being an instakill always.

A HP check of that nature is significantly less powerful than just doing straight damage, since if the enemy has more HP than that it does little or nothing, and does not contribute to the fight. Put another way, 50 damage is a 50-HP-check-or-die that also reduces enemy HP by 50 if it fails. (Well, not counting the dying buffer, of course. Still, the principle is much the same.)

[Drachasor]

Defenses are boring. There are few things more annoying than "oh you missed/it made its save/whatever, good job wasting your turn". In that respect, lots of HP is pretty nice, because higher-level characters get to land more hits without making combat rocket tag.

Now, active defenses are actually interesting - they get everyone paying attention even during other people's turns, using them is a tactical decision, and they're something people can look forward to, as opposed to "yay, my AC goes up by one at level 7".

Defenses need not be limited to "haha, your attack does nothing!". HP IS a type of defense, after all. There's a huge potential for various types of defense mechanics, but usually just the boring stuff in D&D which leads to the problem you describe.

We have them. So far, XX HP or X level is a gate which prevents those things from working. Suddenly, a finger of death which only kills an enemy with 50 or less XP is about as useful as being able to drop 50 damage, rather than being an instakill always. 50 may be a bit strong – it's a tenth level fighter! – but the idea is sound if they figure out what totals a spell of any level should hit, rather than pulling integers out of a hat.

But as others have noted, that kind of defense isn't FUN! At least not in many situations. It can be when you use it to crush a bunch of weak enemies that are part of a larger battle/conflict, but outside of that it is boring.

Heck, probably the biggest problem with D&D is that it is so focused on binary defenses that people forget there are a ton of other options. Heck, it's also so focused on each attack action being an island unto itself that people don't even realize you could have a system that innately rewards people working together.


I'm just not sure what I see DDN doing that is all that great taken as a whole. It's like a house-ruled 3.5 where most of the options are taken away -- particularly from the martial characters.

[Kurald Galain]

A length of string is one length long and no more! Two lengths for your length of string would just be being greedy, and no length may be lengthier than another length!

I think that's a string man.

[SiuiS]

Because in every prior edition, reaching level 20 (more like level 15+, really) meant you were a deity-slaying hero (or villain) of legend, and it's not too much to ask that you can tell the same kinds of stories in the One Edition To Rule Them All that you could in any of the editions being Ruled.

Trick question, kind of, because if gods are defined in the same manner within this system as everyone else, you can tell those stories without needing anything vaguely resembling prior edition numbers.

If you can only tell the same kinds of stories at 5e level 20 that you can at 1e-4e level 5--which is what will happen if "a gaggle of N peasants" can kill anything in the Monster Manual for sufficiently large values of N--then there's no point in going up to level 20.

So a system of advancement only has value when past a certain point the lower end falls away?

WotC might as well just admit that they can't design for crap past level 7ish, release B/X 2.0, and leave it at that.

I would enjoy that, but another company beat them there. I also don't think they would benefit at that point, when they could instead just rich up actual B/X and rerelease it (along with 3.5 and 4). There's seriously a lot info money to be had there for a while, both in revision and in providing for a new generation what was old and crumbly even in their father's time. I have the BECM boxes stashed at an acquaintance's place (and I'll probably never see them again ) and they were in great condition, but every other D&D book i know of from the early 80s or before is almost dust.

That said, if B/X is all you want, Adventurer Conqueror King is there for you. It even has the capacity to adapt and reverse 3.5 as 4e classes into it if necessary! My only lamentation is I was too broke to get the hardcover, because a PDF alone is insufficient for my needs.

Which means I, personally, already have this game and probably wouldn't give WotC money for it... Which is sad. When the rules compendium (3e) was released, I was hoping for a series of cleanups and redeployed books integrating later systems and balancing some issues which emerged over time. I would have dropped another few hundred on that. Instead we got 4e, and by the time that got sufficient polish that I would consider dropping money on it, we get Next...

I guess RPG fandoms just don't react on a business timescale?

A HP check of that nature is significantly less powerful than just doing straight damage, since if the enemy has more HP than that it does little or nothing, and does not contribute to the fight. Put another way, 50 damage is a 50-HP-check-or-die that also reduces enemy HP by 50 if it fails. (Well, not counting the dying buffer, of course. Still, the principle is much the same.)

Yes. That's the point; it can both empower melee style characters because their damage is guaranteed and also allow for a higher threshold without being problematic on the caster side.

In theory.

But as others have noted, that kind of defense isn't FUN! At least not in many situations. It can be when you use it to crush a bunch of weak enemies that are part of a larger battle/conflict, but outside of that it is boring.

Heck, probably the biggest problem with D&D is that it is so focused on binary defenses that people forget there are a ton of other options. Heck, it's also so focused on each attack action being an island unto itself that people don't even realize you could have a system that innately rewards people working together.

I'm just not sure what I see DDN doing that is all that great taken as a whole. It's like a house-ruled 3.5 where most of the options are taken away -- particularly from the martial characters.

Yes on all.

I think that's a string man.

Heh.

[Felhammer]

Because in every prior edition, reaching level 20 (more like level 15+, really) meant you were a deity-slaying hero (or villain) of legend, and it's not too much to ask that you can tell the same kinds of stories in the One Edition To Rule Them All that you could in any of the editions being Ruled.

If you can only tell the same kinds of stories at 5e level 20 that you can at 1e-4e level 5--which is what will happen if "a gaggle of N peasants" can kill anything in the Monster Manual for sufficiently large values of N--then there's no point in going up to level 20. WotC might as well just admit that they can't design for crap past level 7ish, release B/X 2.0, and leave it at that.

You were not a deity slaying hero at 15+ in 4E, nor was a Fighter or a Rogue in 3.x.

Not to put too fine a point on it but even WotC has admitted that the game is all about 1-10. Even in 4E, which was a very simple and standardized system to learn and play, the game was still 1-10. Of all the gaming groups that gather together to play D&D, my bet is only a small percentage regularly play above level 10, and a fraction there of play at level 20 or above for any significant amount of time. The designers will never focus that heavily on the top end of the scale because so few people venture up that high.

The reason high level play is so often neglected by the players is three fold. First, most campaigns start low and peter out well before 20th level. Secondly, the system mastery required to play effectively at that level is beyond a good portion of the player base's interest. Thirdly, I think 99% of the people in this thread can come to a general concensus about how powerful a level 1 character should be. I think we could do the same for every single level up to 10. After that, opinions tend to diverge a bit. By the time you claw yourself up to level 20, you have almost everyone disagreeing about how powerful a level 20 character should be. Some think he should be Goku level powerful, while others merely Superman, or even poor Thor. Others think it is childish for mere mortals to become so powerful and instead insist on a much lower powerscale. Others say 20th level characters should be gods, opponents would disagree. Some believe 20th level characters could create worlds and shape civilizations, others look to fantasy novels - which the game is trying to emulate - and point out how few characters ever become even a tiny bit demonstrably more powerful than when they started out. And the list goes on and on. Without consensus, there can be no unified vision. With no unified vision, people will simply continue to gloss over the higher levels and relish them to the dustbins of history.

It all boils down to expectations in the end.

[lesser_minion]

Because in every prior edition, reaching level 20 (more like level 15+, really) meant you were a deity-slaying hero (or villain) of legend, and it's not too much to ask that you can tell the same kinds of stories in the One Edition To Rule Them All that you could in any of the editions being Ruled.

In nearly every roleplaying game ever made, the first law of badass has always been that badass is something that cannot simply be written on a character sheet -- instead, it must be established through actual play. No matter how many levels your character gains off-screen, they are not a badass for it.

The exceptions to this rule are games that declare your character to be a 'badass' no matter what. In such systems, your character is not a badass and can never be one, no matter what they do.

[Felhammer]

In nearly every roleplaying game ever made, the first law of badass has always been that badass is something that cannot simply be written on a character sheet -- instead, it must be established through actual play. No matter how many levels your character gains off-screen, they are not a badass for it.

The exceptions to this rule are games that declare your character to be a 'badass' no matter what. In such systems, your character is not a badass and can never be one, no matter what they do.

That is really well put. Bravo.