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

[Drachasor]

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.

But systems also need to enable you to perform feats of badassitude.

For instance, in a Star Wars game I used a Destiny Point just to move quick enough to get onto a fleeing enemy ship (the door was closing). I then used my Mechanics skill to hit their ship's reactor so it would quickly blow up -- leaving me enough time to get to an escape pod. Oh and there was something with grenades and blasters almost killing me. No destiny point? No badass feat. No reactors and mechanic skill? No badass feat. Etc.

The more limited a system, the harder it is to do crazy stuff that really stands out, and that's half of what being a badass is. You'll end up with something that's pure DM fiat on whether you can do it or not, which will tend to make players (in general) more hesitant about trying new things. In particular, more outlandish things will seldom be tried without a lot of DM effort to encourage it.

I'm not saying ever badass thing has to be 100% spell out in the rules (my example wasn't, but it was perhaps 90% spelled out). It is best to have a solid framework for such things, however.

[Thrudd]

But systems also need to enable you to perform feats of badassitude.

For instance, in a Star Wars game I used a Destiny Point just to move quick enough to get onto a fleeing enemy ship (the door was closing). I then used my Mechanics skill to hit their ship's reactor so it would quickly blow up -- leaving me enough time to get to an escape pod. Oh and there was something with grenades and blasters almost killing me. No destiny point? No badass feat. No reactors and mechanic skill? No badass feat. Etc.

The more limited a system, the harder it is to do crazy stuff that really stands out, and that's half of what being a badass is. You'll end up with something that's pure DM fiat on whether you can do it or not, which will tend to make players (in general) more hesitant about trying new things. In particular, more outlandish things will seldom be tried without a lot of DM effort to encourage it.

I'm not saying ever badass thing has to be 100% spell out in the rules (my example wasn't, but it was perhaps 90% spelled out). It is best to have a solid framework for such things, however.

It all depends on what flavor and expectations you have for the game. For Star Wars, I totally agree, you should be able to do stuff like that and the mechanics should have a way to make it possible. D&D doesn't necessarily need to be that way. It could be gritty and dangerous and deadly, where you sneak and run from threats as often as you face them. D&D could be like that, and if you want it to then they can add action points or somesuch to it as an option that will allow more epic heroics. If they actually follow through with the promise of modularity, we could see multiple playstyles accounted for.

[Jerthanis]

...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.

You're arguing that essentially because by your completely unsubstantiated estimation people don't play levels 10-20, it must be because no one can agree how powerful a high level person "Should" be and so no one bothers to actually consult how powerful a character objectively IS by the rules at those levels to settle disagreements and set their own expectations.

I would argue instead that everyone plays the game at the sort of power level best suits the game they're playing. If someone wishes to play a game featuring Goblins and Pit Traps, managing resources and struggling to survive in the wilderness, having level 1-3 suit that game well is a benefit. I think 4e fell down on this end, with presenting level 1 characters as extremely capable and durable, with even (young) Dragons in the sights of the most ambitious among them.

If someone wants to play Medieval Special Forces, where the PCs are a cut above the herd, and with their special talents can achieve great things, but are still mortals, and betrayal by their human employers could spell near-certain doom, it's nice for levels 3-7 to capture this feel. It seems like a lot of people find this the most preferable in play. I think 3.5 falls down here because it allows some classes, builds, and options to break out of this category while still within this level range.

If someone wants to play a mythic game of Odysseus, St. George and his Dragon, Jason and the Argonauts, or Beowulf, where people are superhuman, able to push a beached ship to sea at low tide, able to tear the arms off of giants, able to trick the cleverest of sorcerers, but still fundamentally connected to humanity and not standing astride the world, it's nice for levels 7-12 to capture this feel. I think AD&D falls down here because it implies that most leaders of a thieves' guild, mage tower, or lords on the frontier would be a person of such strength. Also, frequent and easy character death usually leads to inevitable NPCs capable of resurrection magic, trivializing the uniqueness of the mythic qualities of the power of such characters.

If someone wants to play a game such that their stories affect the very fabric of reality, and all the nations of the world... stories like Order of the Stick, Elric, or Percy Jackson, it's nice for levels 12-16 to capture this feel. I think 5e is shaping up to fall down on this point, although it's clear from Legends and Lore that our playtest is probably entirely rewritten by now, so who knows.

If someone wants to shape the world by their presence, having their personal battles, foibles and rivalries direct the fates of thousands, like playing as Odin or Anansi, it's nice to have levels 16-20 to capture this feel. Only 3.5 has ever done this level of power, and then only for certain classes, so the idea of preserving this capability is controversial.

So essentially, I would posit that you assume no one plays levels 10-20 because you and your group probably like the Medieval Special Forces -> Low Mythic sort of feel and play that because it's the level range optimized for you. I can assure you that others do in fact get just as much use out of the level range optimized for the types of stories they wish to tell.

If I were married to the idea of exactly 20 levels of advancement, and I wanted to create an edition that attracts the widest possible diversity of players, I would try to cater to each of these groups by allowing my game system to model any of these groups well, and then encourage people to use my tools to craft the game experience they want by starting at the level best suited for the story, and advancing in such a way that they don't progress out of the level range suited for their playstyle.

I would not just assume that 100% of my audience likes Medieval Special Forces and set up my game to allow 20 levels of advancement without leaving that feel.

[SiuiS]

But systems also need to enable you to perform feats of badassitude.

I would argue that they do not, in fact, need it. I prefer it, personally, but it's not a requirement.

You're arguing that essentially because by your completely unsubstantiated estimation people don't play levels 10-20, it must be because no one can agree how powerful a high level person "Should" be and so no one bothers to actually consult how powerful a character objectively IS by the rules at those levels to settle disagreements and set their own expectations.

No, though similar. Levels 10+ are so objectively, verifiably diverse that saying anything about levels 11-20 is a generalization so dilute as to almost lack meaning, and it gets worse the higher you go. Extrapolating back from that, it's a hassle.

I've been able to coordinate games of nigh-deific power at 14th. I've also coordinated games of midieaval special forces at 18th. So the scale isn't quite so clear.

I would argue instead that everyone plays the game at the sort of power level best suits the game they're playing. If someone wishes to play a game featuring Goblins and Pit Traps, managing resources and struggling to survive in the wilderness, having level 1-3 suit that game well is a benefit.

I agree with the general direction here, aye.

If someone wants to shape the world by their presence, having their personal battles, foibles and rivalries direct the fates of thousands, like playing as Odin or Anansi, it's nice to have levels 16-20 to capture this feel. Only 3.5 has ever done this level of power, and then only for certain classes, so the idea of preserving this capability is controversial.

Isn't this the entire point of either Paragon or Epic tier in 4e? I think it's only failing is that the world is not simulated well enough to showcase it; there is no retirement while staying on screen.

I would not just assume that 100% of my audience likes Medieval Special Forces and set up my game to allow 20 levels of advancement without leaving that feel.

Feel is variable, and can be changed with an eye to grain and an allowance of tweaking the user end expectations of any given d20 roll.

[Jerthanis]

I've been able to coordinate games of nigh-deific power at 14th. I've also coordinated games of midieaval special forces at 18th. So the scale isn't quite so clear.

I assume these were either different editions of D&D or they were both 3rd edition, which has serious issues in terms of what constitutes power in that system.

If it was 3rd edition, I consider its scale being unclear a fixable problem. If it was another edition, I'd need more details, but would default to hypothesizing it was a matter of different settings or something like that.

Isn't this the entire point of either Paragon or Epic tier in 4e? I think it's only failing is that the world is not simulated well enough to showcase it; there is no retirement while staying on screen.

The problem with the Paragon and Epic tiers of 4e was that for all your power, you were still a guy in chainmail moving 5 squares and attacking for xd8+Y and a rider effect, same as you behaved at level 1. Sure, you were fighting demon kings rather than goblin kings, but your operational range and suite of problem solving skills didn't expand very much.

Feel is variable, and can be changed with an eye to grain and an allowance of tweaking the user end expectations of any given d20 roll.

Well, sure, you can change what results are returned by a given d20 roll to allow for higher level adventures to feel more mythic, so that at level 1 a DC15 dexterity check walks across a tightrope and a level 20 DC 15 dexterity check balances on the surface of raging floodwater, but how is that different than having DCs 15 and 40 for the two actions and provide 25 points of advancement opportunity between the two extremes of capability?

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean.

[Felhammer]

You're arguing that essentially because by your completely unsubstantiated estimation people don't play levels 10-20, it must be because no one can agree how powerful a high level person "Should" be and so no one bothers to actually consult how powerful a character objectively IS by the rules at those levels to settle disagreements and set their own expectations.

WotC has openly admitted to this fact on their podcasts. The majority of players only play 1-10. I'm only repeating what they have said.

The reasoning for why that is the case is all me, however.

I would argue instead that everyone plays the game at the sort of power level best suits the game they're playing. If someone wishes to play a game featuring Goblins and Pit Traps, managing resources and struggling to survive in the wilderness, having level 1-3 suit that game well is a benefit. I think 4e fell down on this end, with presenting level 1 characters as extremely capable and durable, with even (young) Dragons in the sights of the most ambitious among them.

If someone wants to play Medieval Special Forces, where the PCs are a cut above the herd, and with their special talents can achieve great things, but are still mortals, and betrayal by their human employers could spell near-certain doom, it's nice for levels 3-7 to capture this feel. It seems like a lot of people find this the most preferable in play. I think 3.5 falls down here because it allows some classes, builds, and options to break out of this category while still within this level range.

If someone wants to play a mythic game of Odysseus, St. George and his Dragon, Jason and the Argonauts, or Beowulf, where people are superhuman, able to push a beached ship to sea at low tide, able to tear the arms off of giants, able to trick the cleverest of sorcerers, but still fundamentally connected to humanity and not standing astride the world, it's nice for levels 7-12 to capture this feel. I think AD&D falls down here because it implies that most leaders of a thieves' guild, mage tower, or lords on the frontier would be a person of such strength. Also, frequent and easy character death usually leads to inevitable NPCs capable of resurrection magic, trivializing the uniqueness of the mythic qualities of the power of such characters.

If someone wants to play a game such that their stories affect the very fabric of reality, and all the nations of the world... stories like Order of the Stick, Elric, or Percy Jackson, it's nice for levels 12-16 to capture this feel. I think 5e is shaping up to fall down on this point, although it's clear from Legends and Lore that our playtest is probably entirely rewritten by now, so who knows.

If someone wants to shape the world by their presence, having their personal battles, foibles and rivalries direct the fates of thousands, like playing as Odin or Anansi, it's nice to have levels 16-20 to capture this feel. Only 3.5 has ever done this level of power, and then only for certain classes, so the idea of preserving this capability is controversial.

All of this is just supposition based on your own personal feeling of the game, which ironically is what you are claiming I am doing (and, honestly, I am). Pot calling the kettle black there.

Your arbitrary break down of the game feels very forced. You can emulate the styles you have listed at any level, given that is the kind of story the DM is peddling. 4E's break down I think encapsulated the concept of threat progression quite nicely but - believe me you - I have heard a lot of complaining about it over the years. Different strokes, really.

Which is the heart of the matter, really. D&D is a lot like the Fighter in that the game represents wildly different things to a diverse population of peoples. Not everyone will be satisfied with a single interpretation because it does not harken back to what they love and/or think the game should be. I personally know people who would vehemently disagree with your idea of how to break the game down (because they are hardcore fans of dark, grim and gritty, even at higher levels).

If I were married to the idea of exactly 20 levels of advancement, and I wanted to create an edition that attracts the widest possible diversity of players, I would try to cater to each of these groups by allowing my game system to model any of these groups well, and then encourage people to use my tools to craft the game experience they want by starting at the level best suited for the story, and advancing in such a way that they don't progress out of the level range suited for their playstyle.

That system sounds nice in principle but it didn't work overly well in 4E and I don't see it working well in 5E because, just as a matter of perspective, what happens when a group levels up into another playstyle's milieu? It's radically different both mechanically and flavorfully. It feels different and they don't like it. What do they do? Call it quits at level 7?

That's a recipe for endless hours of complaining.

A better system is the system Next is shooting for - modularity. Give the DM's all the tools they need to sculpt the basic game into what ever kind of game they really want to play, be it Swashbuckling in the Astral Sea, falling into make-shift pit goblinoid pitraps and everything in between.

My guess is that the core game is going to be far more similar in tone between levels 1 and 20 than most other edition of the game. The add-ons that will be released in the DMG and future books will allow more genre/style tones to be emulated to a greater degree. I, personally, don't relish that because I - like you - enjoy a diversity of tones in my campaigns (I just loathe the "I am a MORTAL GOD!" tone).

[Person_Man]

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.

Interestingly enough, WotC came very close to actually making melee characters very useful. If they had simply stuck with the Hit Points = Primary Defense mechanic, and then put hit point thresholds into place to resist Save or Lose/Suck abilities, then then classes with higher hit dice would have a distinct advantage over characters with lower hit dice. (And it would help newer players, who tend to play less optimal melee classes more often). But it looks like they're slowly recreating 3.X for some odd reason.

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".

I apologize if you already posted this, but what is your preferred Active Defense mechanic?

[Stubbazubba]

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,

*Ahem*

The more limited a system, the harder it is to do crazy stuff that really stands out, and that's half of what being a badass is.

Eh, not entirely: The more established the base-line is, the more exceptional stuff is actually exceptional. You want a nice, predictable system that then lets you break it (i.e. using Destiny Points in your SW example) just occasionally enough to be awesome.

This works the same for creativity and "out-of-the-box thinking." Having a super-open game system a la Marvel Heroic Roleplaying where everything is very abstracted to allow for a huge variety of fluff actually reduces procedural or mechanical creativity and stunts the development of emergent gameplay. You need a well-defined, limited base in order to combine things or otherwise work them to your advantage in unforeseen ways, instead of just earning a bunch of 'Advantage' for pretty descriptions and then spending it all on attack rolls that only in the abstract benefit from those prior actions.

[Flickerdart]

I apologize if you already posted this, but what is your preferred Active Defense mechanic?

I haven't seen many. Legend, the system I'm most familiar with that does this, chooses to go for a grab-bag of different ones that share an action cost or have a limited use per encounter. But something as simple as 3.5 Mounted Combat's "roll a check and that's your mount's new AC" already makes things more interesting, as long as it comes into play frequently enough that players remember it. Also I'm quite fond of the 3.5 Body Leech's "Will save not to die after all" ability - being defeated but not killed is something that should be common in a system, both for the recurring villains and so you can throw riskier challenges at your PCs once in a while.

[Friv]

WotC has openly admitted to this fact on their podcasts. The majority of players only play 1-10. I'm only repeating what they have said.

There was quite a long discussion about this roughly a bazillion pages back, actually. What it boils down to is the following: WotC's methodolgy for making that statement is more than a little dubious.

The "players mostly play Levels 1-10" was based largely off what level the characters in WotC's online character generator were at. It assumes that the following is true:

*) Players play nearly all of the characters that they generate,
*) Players stay with the character generator for their entire character careers, and
*) The online character generator is a representative sample of D&D players.

I find all three of those assumptions to be pretty iffy. For low-level play especially, I've found that my players in nearly all RPGs will create multiple characters and then figure out what works best, something that they will rarely do with high-power characters due to how much extra time it takes. I've also found that when my players use online resources, they're more likely to drop them as time goes on and they start scribbling things down on their printed sheets at the table. Finally, I have no idea how many D&D players use the online generator, and whether they're a good cross-section of the hobby as a whole.

I can say that the last two D&D campaigns I was in, not counting PbP games, one started at Level 1 and worked up to Level 13 before ending, and the other started at Level 8 and worked up to Level 14 before ending, with a discussion that we may pick it up again from there later.

We didn't use any online resources.

[Kornaki]

I can say that the last two D&D campaigns I was in, not counting PbP games, one started at Level 1 and worked up to Level 13 before ending, and the other started at Level 8 and worked up to Level 14 before ending, with a discussion that we may pick it up again from there later.

So 65% of your playtime was at level 10 or below? And I assume you're presenting yourself as an example of how level 10 and below play does not dominate the DnD market

[Morty]

All this discussion about whether high-level characters are meant to be badasses by default and the intended power level is splitting hairs. The fact is that characters do grow in power from level 1 to 20. A level 20 character is supposed to overcome challenges more easily than a level 1 character. And yet, the primary gauge of this change in competence and power as far as combat is concerned is apparently how many hit points you have. And that's awful.

[Flickerdart]

I don't think it's very productive to discuss what levels people play at, especially across systems. Rather, we should probably be discussing what level of competence people like to play at. Most people I know start 3.5 campaigns at 3-6, but it's not because they like those numbers. It's because at those levels, characters still feel like they're starting their journey, but they're already defined by several key abilities and options beyond "I attack with my greatsword". Comparatively, I would expect many more people start 4e games at lower levels, since even level 1 gives you 3 or 4 unique abilities. By the looks of it, 5e is much stingier with important character abilities, so I foresee more people starting at higher levels just to get the same kind of experience they've gotten used to.

[Kurald Galain]

I don't think it's very productive to discuss what levels people play at, especially across systems. Rather, we should probably be discussing what level of competence people like to play at.

Anecdotal evidence from my play area suggests that for 2E and 3E, most people started around level 3 because characters below that die too easily; whereas for 4E, most people started around level 5 because lower-level characters are just too boring and limited to play.
Basically many players consider using at-will powers the equivalent of 3E's "I just hit it again" and begin losing interest in combat once it comes down to that (which, even with themes, is already after one or two rounds if you're below level 3).

Aside from that, most campaigns fizzle out before they get to level 11. At conventions I've seen, the vast majority of tables will be around level 5, with a minority of tables around level 12, and perhaps a single table (but never more) at level 18+.

[Flickerdart]

Campaign end times are a good point. I've never encountered the "ideal" campaign where you have one game go on for years as characters rise from nobodies to kings of everything. Designing the game around capstones in an environment where level 10 and not 20 is the more common cut-off point will just lead to more campaigns that start at high levels.

Some kind of tiered system like 4E had would actually be pretty neat, if it took this into consideration. So you'd be able to retire your character at level, say, 5, using your super-sweet move you just learned to beat the baddies, but had you kept playing, that super-move would swiftly be eclipsed by an even more super move you could use to defeat the Dragon at level 10, the BBEG at level 15, and the man behind the curtain at level 20. And in between, you have mainstay abilities that are more utilitarian than flashy, and keep you abreast of the game's math and level-based expectations.

[Friv]

So 65% of your playtime was at level 10 or below? And I assume you're presenting yourself as an example of how level 10 and below play does not dominate the DnD market

This is actually an excellent example of my point, so thank you!

Technically, you are correct. Equally technically, 65% of my playtime took place during Levels 8-13. I could argue that we should be ignoring Levels 1-5, since clearly those aren't as important.

Mostly what I'm saying is that looking at one fact in a vacuum can lead to some pretty inaccurate conclusions, is all. You can pull a lot of different results from a set of data, especially if it's not complete.


Anyway, new topic! There's a new Legends and Lore out, guys. It's about math!

It is magical.

[Raineh Daze]

That's already been posted.

... but I forgot to read it.

I'm glad to see they found out that the skill DC's were just... not really working, though. And that weaker monsters should probably be less dangerous than stronger ones. Has basic logic finally begun to be born in whatever world their creation process inhabits?

[Doug Lampert]

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.

Was that supposed to be a bad roll? Because it's 35-36 points by point buy.

I note that you're rolling a weaker method than most people (3d6 rather than 4d6k3) and you're STILL above anything point buy is likely to give you.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

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.

I would argue that any god who can be killed by a gaggle of peasants, or who can be killed by a handful of adventurers who can be outdone by a handful of peasants, is not a god.

High-level play is qualitatively different from low-level play, not just numerically, and adding +20 to everything doesn't suddenly make it higher level; higher numbers are necessary for some aspects of high-level play, but not sufficient to define high-level play. You can cut out most bonuses in high-level 3e--just entirely chuck the Big Six items, synergy bonuses, spells that just give numerical bonuses, etc.--and it'll still feel high-level; you can add a bunch of bonuses to high-level 5e (the current incarnation, at least), and it'll still feel low- or mid-level.

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

Any generic system of advancement? No. D&D's particular system of advancement, which is full of "you must be this heroic to do X" effects for better or for worse and which has several breakpoints at which lower-level characters are non-challenging mooks? Yes.

1e, the edition whose math was most similar to 5e's bounded accuracy given its limited bonus, loosely constrained -10 to 10 AC, and so forth, still had characters reach a "not at all threatened by minimum-level mooks" breakpoint--fighters could one-shot 1 0-level enemy per level per round, fireballs could one-shot large numbers of mooks, and so forth--and the various rules about needing a +X weapon to damage Y creature and such ensured that only mid-level characters and not peasant hordes could take out scary beasts like dragons and demons.

So again, if 5e wants to emulate the style of any prior edition, its math and leveling assumptions should match those of said prior editions, which requires a sort of planned obsolescence and is incompatible with bounded accuracy and everything being a threat up through level 20.

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

I admit that I included 4e in that assertion because 4e's level range of 1-30 is really just 1e-3e's level 5-13 "sweet spot" stretched out to 30 levels, so I count its level 30 as mid-high level in older editions at best. Still, level 22 is 4e's level 15, proportionally, and taking on a level 34ish solo with a party of 5-6 optimized level 22s is possible, if quite difficult.

As for martial types being godslayers in 3e, they certainly can be; they need to be well-optimized and have plenty of magical support like any other wannabe godslayer, but just because they're weaker than casters doesn't mean they can't do it.

I'm not arguing that it's easy for PCs to slay gods, or that unoptimized and unprepared PCs can do so, or even that they can do so on their own and not as part of a party. I'm saying that gods being a significant challenge to pretty much everything in the game world and PCs being able to slay them as the culmination of an epic quest are two standard aspects of high-level play in 1e through 4e, and if 5e level scaling is so much lower and slower than 1e-4e that they can't kill gods or can only kill "gods" who can be taken out by any random mortals, then the level scaling will not allow older editions to be emulated as WotC wants.

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.

My group primarily plays D&D because of high level, essentially; it's the only system that bridges the gap between the lower-powered lower-magic games like WHFRP, GURPS Fantasy, and the like and the higher-powered higher-magic games like Exalted, Mage, and similar. We usually make it to the high teens if not low 20s for our games, and other groups in our area are similar. As Kurald noted, starting in the mid-10s and going up from there isn't uncommon, so reaching at least the mid-high levels like Friv's group does isn't uncommon either, so support for those levels can't simply be ignored.

The fact that most people play at 1-10 is no reason to neglect the higher levels...especially because WotC's sucky design and playtesting of higher levels in 3e is likely to blame for many groups finding high levels untenable and avoiding them. Not to belabor the point, but 5e is supposed to be all editions to all people, and if it is to succeed at that goal it has to be able to emulate other editions at least passably, which includes functional high-level play.

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.

This is true. However, if the things on your character sheet do not let you be a badass, you cannot establish that you are a badass through actual play.

[Raineh Daze]

Was that supposed to be a bad roll? Because it's 35-36 points by point buy.

I note that you're rolling a weaker method than most people (3d6 rather than 4d6k3) and you're STILL above anything point buy is likely to give you.

It's not bad, but it was the first thing I got that could've been kept. Definitely none too big a fan of the strength and wisdom scores.

It's more that, yes, there is at least one person that would keep any valid stats.

[Jerthanis]

WotC has openly admitted to this fact on their podcasts. The majority of players only play 1-10. I'm only repeating what they have said.

The reasoning for why that is the case is all me, however.

Sure, but a system meant to serve all the players cannot take the dish preferred by the majority of players and serve it to everyone and tell them to like it because that's what got voted on. That's a way to get out of the catering business. Especially when your catering business has the slogan, "A little bit of everything for everyone", only serving lasagna because it's the single most popular dish seems like a backwards way of achieving that business goal.

And that's assuming that WotC is using a truly representative sample size and is not drawing incorrect conclusions from that sample, which needs more supporting evidence from my perspective.

All of this is just supposition based on your own personal feeling of the game, which ironically is what you are claiming I am doing (and, honestly, I am). Pot calling the kettle black there.

Well, I'm not saying that "A good game must contain these elements all at the same time", I'm saying, "It'd be nice if a game captured this feel for those who want it". It's not a pejorative to say that it's preferable to have different level ranges represent different power levels when your intent is to capture the interest of groups that prefer different level ranges.

Your arbitrary break down of the game feels very forced. You can emulate the styles you have listed at any level, given that is the kind of story the DM is peddling. 4E's break down I think encapsulated the concept of threat progression quite nicely but - believe me you - I have heard a lot of complaining about it over the years. Different strokes, really.

My arbitrary breakdown of the game is outlined in broad strokes in less than 500 words, but it outlines how a single progression of levels can contain many different scales of power, and mapped them to my experiences with how D&D has acted in the past. I could go into more detail and make a serious proposal and justification for the duration of each power scale, advancement scale, and so on. There can be non-arbitrary reasons for certain levels conveying certain levels of power in the context of a game, but I can't treat every post I make as a serious, professional treatment for a game concept.

Which is the heart of the matter, really. D&D is a lot like the Fighter in that the game represents wildly different things to a diverse population of peoples. Not everyone will be satisfied with a single interpretation because it does not harken back to what they love and/or think the game should be. I personally know people who would vehemently disagree with your idea of how to break the game down (because they are hardcore fans of dark, grim and gritty, even at higher levels).

Well, isn't that kind of them being a little selfish? I mean, to demand the game represent hardcore dark, grim and gritty low power levels even at high levels just because it's their preference? Can you name the level range I prefer, just from my discussion of possible power scale breakdowns by level? If I like that specific level range, I could just as easily argue for that level range and tone representing the full 1-20 advancement on the same basis of people who prefer the other tone.

Wouldn't it be better in a game they're intending to sell as a game for everyone, to make it function in such a way that many preferences are served at the same time, rather than just the majority?

That system sounds nice in principle but it didn't work overly well in 4E and I don't see it working well in 5E because, just as a matter of perspective, what happens when a group levels up into another playstyle's milieu? It's radically different both mechanically and flavorfully. It feels different and they don't like it. What do they do? Call it quits at level 7?

4e did not resoundingly succeed at something, clearly that must mean it's impossible to build on what we learned by its shortcomings and do a better job next time, might as well just give up.

And having tools for level capped growth, similar to E# systems, frank discussion of the purposes of advancement, and guidelines for framing a story to best take advantage of the increase in PC competence is a boon to a game system.

A better system is the system Next is shooting for - modularity. Give the DM's all the tools they need to sculpt the basic game into what ever kind of game they really want to play, be it Swashbuckling in the Astral Sea, falling into make-shift pit goblinoid pitraps and everything in between.

Then why as it stands does it only present adventurers of the competence of the group falling into the make-shift goblin pit trap, no matter how many levels they gain? They grow more powerful in that they can survive more damage and thus can engage more dangerous enemies, but they don't advance their overall competence. They're as likely to fall into a makeshift pit trap at level 20 as at level 1, they just can climb out of them unhurt more times per day. (Although now they've added 6 points of advancement to some characters, so, they ARE moving away from this)

My guess is that the core game is going to be far more similar in tone between levels 1 and 20 than most other edition of the game. The add-ons that will be released in the DMG and future books will allow more genre/style tones to be emulated to a greater degree. I, personally, don't relish that because I - like you - enjoy a diversity of tones in my campaigns (I just loathe the "I am a MORTAL GOD!" tone).

Personally, I thought that 4e Rituals were going to be a hallmark of the system. I thought that aspect of the game was going to be a cornerstone of the way you interacted with the game world, and would be expanded on throughout the edition into a really robust problem solving mechanic. Instead, maybe fifty or sixty rituals were published outside the core, and many of them simple variations on existing rituals or extremely specialized tools or plot devices.

I will not assume that "Future products will develop an anemic aspect of the core books into a robust limb" any more. If genres other than grim 'n gritty Medieval Special Forces are to be represented in D&D Next, there are very important reasons they should be included in the core ruleset.

[navar100]

It hurts no one to have high level play availability, define the power levels of the various class level ranges for the feel of adventures, and explicitly state PCs do not have to start at level 1. For those players where power level can be too high for their tastes, you can have a slower progression chart so that each level appropriate to their tastes lasts longer, and the campaign can end satisfactorily where they want.

To instead draw a line and say No One May Play Above This Level hurts those players who enjoy above that level. They will not play the game, instead choosing other systems that allow that kind of play. That will not win back the fired customers.

[Seerow]

A lot of people have mentioned the 4e tier system in the recent discussion, so I'm going to chip in on that. I personally think that was probably one of the best ideas that came out of 4e, the disappointment (like so many other things) was in the execution, because as Jerthannis said:

The problem with the Paragon and Epic tiers of 4e was that for all your power, you were still a guy in chainmail moving 5 squares and attacking for xd8+Y and a rider effect, same as you behaved at level 1. Sure, you were fighting demon kings rather than goblin kings, but your operational range and suite of problem solving skills didn't expand very much.

Personally, my ideal solution would be some mix of 3e, 4e, and E6. What I would want to see is a clean breakpoint between tiers like in 4e. Going up a level into the next tier represents a significant advancement. It opens up entire new categories of powers and feats that characters outside of that tier simply can't do (or if they can it is much harder. ie a ritual teleportation vs a 1 std/move action teleportation).

But to get into a new tier of play, you need to actually do something that is worthy of pushing you over the edge into that next category. This would be pretty much DM discretion, and until that new tier has been hit, progression is more E6 style (ie you stop leveling up, but you still gain experience that lets you get more feats, spells/abilities from your current level, etc). So you want to stick in the Heroic tier where orcs and trolls are a threat? Built into the system, you can stay there forever. But if you want a higher power level game? That's also built into the system.


What I don't understand is people who like D&D in the 1-5 range, or even the 1-10 range, and decide that rather than sticking with that, they need to ruin the game for anybody who actually enjoys playing at a point beyond that by turning everything beyond that into more of the same.

[Person_Man]

High-level play is qualitatively different from low-level play, not just numerically, and adding +20 to everything doesn't suddenly make it higher level; higher numbers are necessary for some aspects of high-level play, but not sufficient to define high-level play. You can cut out most bonuses in high-level 3e--just entirely chuck the Big Six items, synergy bonuses, spells that just give numerical bonuses, etc.--and it'll still feel high-level; you can add a bunch of bonuses to high-level 5e (the current incarnation, at least), and it'll still feel low- or mid-level.

To agree with and expand upon this sentiment, it's possible to have a very strict bounded accuracy (caps on bonuses so that the math is easy and the game doesn't become about optimizing bonuses) while still having qualitatively different high level gameplay.

Examples of things that higher level characters can get which sets them apart from lower level characters without screwing up the bounded accuracy math:

• Damage Reduction/Resistances: A set number and/or percentage which is subtracted from certain types of damage. For example, a high level Fighter ability might grant them DR 20/magic. An infinite number of peasants can throw attack him, but no one will hurt him unless they're using magical weapons.
• Scaled area of effects: This is simple for magic. But it can also be applied to pretty much any attack. For example, Cleave could be: Make a melee attack against one creature. If it succeeds, you may also make an attack roll against another creature within your reach. You may make a total number of additional attacks equal to 1/2 your class level, though you may not attack the same creature twice with this ability. Options like this allows melee characters to mow through lots of mooks quickly.
• More options: A low level Fighter might only have enough resources to fill a few niche roles, like front line offense and defense. A high level fighter might have enough options that he can fill lots of different roles, like having an commanding followers, battlefield control, ranged damage, etc.
• More awesome stuff in general: The stuff you get at higher levels should be different and better then low level stuff, not just a higher number. You hit an opponent and they fly across the room, hitting any creatures in their path. You can tear off an opponent's arms. If enemies flank you but miss, they accidentally hit their flanking ally. You move so quickly that you can run across walls. When you kill an enemy, other enemies with fewer hit dice must Save or run in Fear. If you disrupt someone while they are casting a spell, it goes off on the caster instead of their intended target. If you defeat an enemy humanoid of similar alignment without killing them, there's a chance they become your follower. And so on.

To summarize, having higher numbers does not make you a better or higher level character, especially if most of your combats are against enemies with similarly scaled numbers. Having +100 to hit is meaningless if most of your combats are against enemies with +100 AC. It's more important for you to be able to do a greater variety of different and more awesome things.

[Seerow]

More awesome stuff in general: You hit an opponent and they fly across the room, hitting any creatures in their path. You can tear off an opponent's arms. If enemies flank you but miss, they accidentally hit their flanking ally. You move so quickly that you can run across walls. When you kill an enemy, other enemies with fewer hit dice must Save or run in Fear. If you disrupt someone while they are casting a spell, it goes off on the caster instead of their intended target. And so on.

Sorry that's too anime

[Drachasor]

It all depends on what flavor and expectations you have for the game. For Star Wars, I totally agree, you should be able to do stuff like that and the mechanics should have a way to make it possible. D&D doesn't necessarily need to be that way. It could be gritty and dangerous and deadly, where you sneak and run from threats as often as you face them. D&D could be like that, and if you want it to then they can add action points or somesuch to it as an option that will allow more epic heroics. If they actually follow through with the promise of modularity, we could see multiple playstyles accounted for.

Eh, a game where a 50' dragon claws, bites, and otherwise lays into your face in one turn and it DOESN'T kill you is inherently not gritty. The entire hit point system is not a gritty one. D&D has never done gritty well, but I suppose it has allowed some people to lie to themselves about it.

I have severe reservations about the goal of a modular system. A lot of things you can't just tack onto a system and have it work well. It requires careful balancing, counter-balancing, etc. Even an action point system of some sort would require rebalancing how encounters work in ways that aren't always trivial (for instance, it would tremendously increase burst damage). Lots of written "optional rules" demonstrate this in D&D -- most of them require a great deal of work to...work.

[On Systems for badassitude]
I would argue that they do not, in fact, need it. I prefer it, personally, but it's not a requirement.

I think if we want a system where martials can keep up with casters, then any D&D-like system needs it. Because otherwise only Casters get it.

Eh, not entirely: The more established the base-line is, the more exceptional stuff is actually exceptional. You want a nice, predictable system that then lets you break it (i.e. using Destiny Points in your SW example) just occasionally enough to be awesome.

This works the same for creativity and "out-of-the-box thinking." Having a super-open game system a la Marvel Heroic Roleplaying where everything is very abstracted to allow for a huge variety of fluff actually reduces procedural or mechanical creativity and stunts the development of emergent gameplay. You need a well-defined, limited base in order to combine things or otherwise work them to your advantage in unforeseen ways, instead of just earning a bunch of 'Advantage' for pretty descriptions and then spending it all on attack rolls that only in the abstract benefit from those prior actions.

You don't necessarily need a strict mechanic to let you break things. In my example if I had bit a bit closer I wouldn't have needed the Destiny Point (I literally used it for just two move actions). What is needed are little interactive bits, I think. The more detailed the environment, the more you things you can do with it. Of course, it is always easier to blow things up in a setting with notable technology.

That said, a system like Destiny points does make it easier. But yes overall I agree.

[Morty]

It sort of feels like WotC finally realized that bounded accuracy means there's far too little a difference between low-level and high-level characters and creatures... but then decided that they're going to make up for it by tying the power disparity to hit points. Maybe if they spend another couple of years thinking about it, they'll finally come up with the idea that new, unique abilities are a better solution.

[Loki_42]

So, I kind of stopped paying attention to this because it started sucking and didn't stop. Has there been an update after 6/14, or should I just keep ignoring it.

[Seerow]

So, I kind of stopped paying attention to this because it started sucking and didn't stop. Has there been an update after 6/14, or should I just keep ignoring it.

Nope, that's the most recent. Don't think we're getting anything new for a month or two.

[Person_Man]

So, I kind of stopped paying attention to this because it started sucking and didn't stop. Has there been an update after 6/14, or should I just keep ignoring it.

Every couple of weeks lead designer Mike Mearls posts a Legends and Lore where he explains some fairly reasonable design goal, then gives examples of how they're going to implement it in the worst possible way, and then states that it will be included in the next iteration of the play test, but without actually ever delivering a new play test packet.