D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

[Yora]

I think the goal of feats should be to emphazise certain aspects of the character and focus on things that everyone can do but are of greater importance for the character.

When I play a campaign from 1st to 6th level, I don't want to have for my 3rd feat before my character becomes what I want it to be. Any action should be possible regardless of feats. A feat should increase the likelyhood and degree of success.

I think that's the biggest problem with pretty much all d20 games, that you have to wait for high levels until your character can actually do what you want him to do. So far, changing this seems to be the main issue that 5th Edition is adressing.
I like the Archery specialization. It doesn't enable you to do anything new. You still shot a single arrow at a single target. But with the feats, you shot more often and have a good chance at incredibly difficult shots.
Or the Lurker specialization, which does not affect your sneak attacks at all. But it significantly decreses the chance that you become unable to exploit it.

Those are great feats! You still can only do the same things you can do without them. But you have really good chance to succeed in situation that would normally be highly unlikely.

Ambusher is possibly the coolest feat I've ever seen! You attack from shadow and make a sneak attack. Yes, any rogue can do that. But most rogues have to wait for the target to walk right next to their hiding spot. An Ambusher can crash through a window or bolt out of a crowd and cross the room to stab the king in the heard while everyone is watching and still reaching for their weapons. That's awesome! And still you just get a single sneak attack like any rogue who sneaked up behind the throne and slit the kings throne from the behind him.

[noparlpf]

Originally Posted by Ziegander

And this brings me to the "three pillars design" that Mearls and company keep touting, but ultimately, I predict, will fail horribly to deliver. If each of the three pillars (Combat, Social, Exploration) were given equal weight with regards to design as well as importance to character and inter-party balance, then sacrificing combat effectiveness for utility in one of the other areas would be acceptable. However, nothing we have seen thus far indicates that the Social and Exploration pillars hold any significance to player characters whatsoever. Which is sad, especially when you consider that the Rogue was originally imagined as, and continues to be designed as if it were, the "out-of-combat guy." We have the Rogue set up to be the skills master, except, just like in 3.5 and 4e, skills don't matter. Maybe they matter a little bit more than in 3.5 or 4e, or maybe they matter even less it's really hard to tell so far. But in the first playtest, because of this, the Rogue was the weakest class. In the second playtest, we didn't get an increased importance to the non-combat "pillars" of adventuring, no, we got a Rogue with increased combat power.

Of course, that balance also depends on the DM. I had one DM who would make combat much less of a thing and exploration and social interaction much bigger things. Skills actually happened, frequently. Role-playing happened more. Other DMs just make a series of combat encounters with maybe a trap or two to appease the Rogue, and most of the game is fighting.

[Seerow]

Originally Posted by DrBurr

The problem with Two-Weapon Fighting and the Rapid Shot feats in the packet are really based on the new design philosophy of feats. If you listened to some of the podcasts and recordings from GenCon you would have heard that the idea of Combat feats in Next is not to make you stronger but to give you more options in Battle. (I believe it was the Making of the Core Panel)

The reason for this is to make spending feats on Interaction or Exploration worthwhile because we all know from a meta game perspective learning Elven will not be as useful to you then an extra +2 to attacks every turn. This boils down that theres no way to keep them balanced and please at the same time. (At least not from what I can see) You could make the second attack from TWF be the penalized attack but then theres no reason not to use the feature.

Which is why learning elven shouldn't be a feat. So you don't have to balance those against each other.

[JoeMac307]

Originally Posted by Seerow

Which is why learning elven shouldn't be a feat. So you don't have to balance those against each other.

I thought in 3.5e it only costs a skill point (or 2?) to learn elven, not an entire feat? Is it different in 4e?

[Seerow]

Originally Posted by JoeMac307

I thought in 3.5e it only costs a skill point (or 2?) to learn elven, not an entire feat? Is it different in 4e?

You're right about 3.5, and I don't know about 4e. I was just responding to the example provided.

If we're going to be balancing feats against the ability to speak a new language, we may as well get rid of feats completely, because that is a near-useless baseline.

[obryn]

Originally Posted by JoeMac307

I thought in 3.5e it only costs a skill point (or 2?) to learn elven, not an entire feat? Is it different in 4e?

It's a feat for 3 languages, and even when 4e was released and feats were essentially worthless, it was a weird option. There's only 10 basic languages in the game. Most starting characters have from 2 to 3. (2 is the default, but you can pick up another with your theme.)

4e doesn't have skill points, so that's not an option. You can learn new languages with a feat, as parts of paragon paths, or via items/ritual casting.

Telepathy is a popular way around it, too. :)

-O

[Yora]

Well, currently there are skill increases. You could use those.

[Ziegander]

Originally Posted by noparlpf

Of course, that balance also depends on the DM. I had one DM who would make combat much less of a thing and exploration and social interaction much bigger things. Skills actually happened, frequently. Role-playing happened more. Other DMs just make a series of combat encounters with maybe a trap or two to appease the Rogue, and most of the game is fighting.

If Social and Exploration aren't given actual design space and rules to play with that make them more important, then, when the DM decides to do a combat-light game and focus on the Social and Exploration pillars, what the DM is actually doing is either mostly freeform roleplaying (because currently ability checks with skill training bonuses are the only rules attached to those pillars), or homebrewing his own rules to support the playstyle.

Either way, regardless of whether that DM can make that game fun, it's a failing on the part of Mearls and his design/development team. They keep coming back and mentioning the three pillars, and I think that's a very novel approach, especially to D&D design which has sorely lacked Social and Exploration mechanics, yet we have seen no evidence that D&D Next will actually provide mechanics to run a deep Social and/or Exploration game.

[DrBurr]

Originally Posted by Seerow

Which is why learning elven shouldn't be a feat. So you don't have to balance those against each other.

Yeah I've always felt that way too but just giving an example of poor feat options from 4th. Languages should revert to how they kinda worked in 1st where increasing your intelligence past a certain point allows you to learn a new language. I think the threshold was 16.

[oxybe]

honestly speaking, i don't feel like languages should take up any real resources since IME how many languages you know is generally cultural, when you're young you learn the languages of your people and neighbours: i grew up in a french canadian community surrounded by english-speaking everywhere else... i am bilingual by default. and i know in europe you have areas where people are natural polyglots, speaking 3+ languages due to them simply being in close proximity to so many different cultures/countries/whatnot.

it's also moot for the most part, IMO, unless you have a campaign where language is extremely important (IE: the PCs are thrown halfway across the world... culture shock!) or it's used as a one-off plot point, everyone in the party will be communicating in a common language (be it common, elven, dwarves, gaelic, swahili, pig-latin).

at that point your character will need to apply himself in a way that levelling really doesn't do justice to if he wants to be fluent.

i don't remember ever being in a campaign where language was ever a serious problem:

at best it was a "really foreign" or "ancient" language used as a plot point where we had to find that one scholar who is deemed crazy for specializing in it.

at worst it's "one PC interprets what we say for every other PC when we're in elfland/dwarfsylvania/orcsburgh/halflington/dragonbornia/etc..."

were it up to me i'd just say "you start knowing 2 languages" and allow for a polyglot/world traveller/trader background where they know more languages or enough to get by or just go "you know as many languages as your GM will allow you and after being immersed in a culture for a while, you can learn it's language."

[1337 b4k4]

Language is a hold over from (and was more important in) the older editions of D&D, where one of the expectations was that players would try to talk their way out of fights and combat. Suddenly, knowing "Draconic" or "Goblin" is really important when you're staring down the spears of 30 Kobolds wondering what you're doing in their home, even more so if the reason you're in their home is because you were fleeing the Ogre one floor down.

[JoeMac307]

Originally Posted by Ziegander

If Social and Exploration aren't given actual design space and rules to play with that make them more important, then, when the DM decides to do a combat-light game and focus on the Social and Exploration pillars, what the DM is actually doing is either mostly freeform roleplaying (because currently ability checks with skill training bonuses are the only rules attached to those pillars), or homebrewing his own rules to support the playstyle.

Either way, regardless of whether that DM can make that game fun, it's a failing on the part of Mearls and his design/development team. They keep coming back and mentioning the three pillars, and I think that's a very novel approach, especially to D&D design which has sorely lacked Social and Exploration mechanics, yet we have seen no evidence that D&D Next will actually provide mechanics to run a deep Social and/or Exploration game.

So far, this is true. What mechanics have D&D Next give us for Social? Charisma check vs. Wisdom check? That's not very robust.

[Ashdate]

Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4

Language is a hold over from (and was more important in) the older editions of D&D, where one of the expectations was that players would try to talk their way out of fights and combat.

I think you're myth-building here. It has never been the expectation, as far as D&D has been concerned, that player would "talk their way out of fights". Not even in 3e, which arguably had the most PCs with "languages" running around (thanks to being granted bonus languages for a high intelligence). Certainly, certainly modules/DMs included diplomacy as option, but those were the exception, not the rule.

[noparlpf]

Originally Posted by Ziegander

If Social and Exploration aren't given actual design space and rules to play with that make them more important, then, when the DM decides to do a combat-light game and focus on the Social and Exploration pillars, what the DM is actually doing is either mostly freeform roleplaying (because currently ability checks with skill training bonuses are the only rules attached to those pillars), or homebrewing his own rules to support the playstyle.

Either way, regardless of whether that DM can make that game fun, it's a failing on the part of Mearls and his design/development team. They keep coming back and mentioning the three pillars, and I think that's a very novel approach, especially to D&D design which has sorely lacked Social and Exploration mechanics, yet we have seen no evidence that D&D Next will actually provide mechanics to run a deep Social and/or Exploration game.

Granted. We mostly did combinations of skill checks, combined with role-playing. Which the game provides bare bones for.

[1337 b4k4]

I think you're myth-building here. It has never been the expectation, as far as D&D has been concerned, that player would "talk their way out of fights". Not even in 3e, which arguably had the most PCs with "languages" running around (thanks to being granted bonus languages for a high intelligence). Certainly, certainly modules/DMs included diplomacy as option, but those were the exception, not the rule.

I think you might need to go back and read up a little bit on your Dungeons & Dragons history. What do you think the DM was supposed to do with the monster reaction tables? How do you square this against the numerous cases in the B2 module describing the conditions under which various monsters will ally with or negotiate with the PCs? For that matter, what pray tell is the purpose of being able to learn monster languages if not to be able to talk to the various monsters.

But here don't take my word for it, open up your copy of the basic rules for Dungeons & Dragons, the Tom Moldvay copy. Turn the page B28 and take a look at the play example there. The players enter room and encounter a bunch of goblins and a player steps forward holds out empty hands and says "Greetings, noble dwellers of deep caverns; can we help you?" The DM then rolls a reaction check for the monsters and decides it's not quite good enough so then the hobgoblin responds "Go away! You're not allowed in this room!" To which the players respond "It's okay; Gary sent us." This particular attempt fails but if that's not attempting to talk your way out of combat and an expectation built into the game I don't know what is.

You might say the B2 module is just one module, but it was the module that many people got their start with Dungeons & Dragons with. In addition the play example from the basic rule book was an example of play by the people who designed the game, this is what they intended players to do. I say it's a pretty safe assumption that any included examples of play in the basic boxed versions of the game are exactly the sort of expectations the designers had for how the game was supposed be played.

[Urpriest]

Originally Posted by oxybe

at worst it's "one PC interprets what we say for every other PC when we're in elfland/dwarfsylvania/orcsburgh/halflington/dragonbornia/etc..."

I prefer dragonborneo.

On the thread topic, since most DMs will make whatever types of encounters are more straightforward and obvious without regard for Social/Exploration/Combat, what if the roles were mixed? What if, by default, combat encounters required some level of social abilities (coordinating with your partymates, for example), and exploration (varied, complicated battlegrounds, encounter-based traps)?

[navar100]

Originally Posted by Nu

If they do this, they should also make it apply for spells imo. Though I suppose that could irritate a lot of 3rd edition fans, but I would much prefer for combat abilities and utilities be in two different categories myself.

And yes, keep the stuff that's 4E-ish utility that actually is mostly for combat in the combat category. Utility stuff should be focused on skills or other things that might happen out of combat (but could still happen in combat).

As a 3E fan who doesn't like 4E, I don't object to the concept of some 4E-ish stuff in 5E. There are some game mechanics concepts of 4E I like. Having separate feat-like resources for combat and non-combat choices sounds fun to me. It helps to round-out the character and promote the idea of warriors being able to do interesting and useful things outside of combat.

[navar100]

Originally Posted by Yora

I think the goal of feats should be to emphazise certain aspects of the character and focus on things that everyone can do but are of greater importance for the character.

When I play a campaign from 1st to 6th level, I don't want to have for my 3rd feat before my character becomes what I want it to be. Any action should be possible regardless of feats. A feat should increase the likelyhood and degree of success.

I think that's the biggest problem with pretty much all d20 games, that you have to wait for high levels until your character can actually do what you want him to do. So far, changing this seems to be the main issue that 5th Edition is adressing.
I like the Archery specialization. It doesn't enable you to do anything new. You still shot a single arrow at a single target. But with the feats, you shot more often and have a good chance at incredibly difficult shots.
Or the Lurker specialization, which does not affect your sneak attacks at all. But it significantly decreses the chance that you become unable to exploit it.

Those are great feats! You still can only do the same things you can do without them. But you have really good chance to succeed in situation that would normally be highly unlikely.

Ambusher is possibly the coolest feat I've ever seen! You attack from shadow and make a sneak attack. Yes, any rogue can do that. But most rogues have to wait for the target to walk right next to their hiding spot. An Ambusher can crash through a window or bolt out of a crowd and cross the room to stab the king in the heard while everyone is watching and still reaching for their weapons. That's awesome! And still you just get a single sneak attack like any rogue who sneaked up behind the throne and slit the kings throne from the behind him.

I agree with this concept. Just because a character is 1st level doesn't mean he's not entitled to do cool, awesome things. Details to be worked out.

[Lictor of Thrax]

Originally Posted by Urpriest

I prefer dragonborneo.

On the thread topic, since most DMs will make whatever types of encounters are more straightforward and obvious without regard for Social/Exploration/Combat, what if the roles were mixed? What if, by default, combat encounters required some level of social abilities (coordinating with your partymates, for example), and exploration (varied, complicated battlegrounds, encounter-based traps)?

I like that idea a lot but also think it could be applied more directly to abilities/feats. . . categorizing feats into types (each one being of one of the "three pillars") but allowing each one to effect bleed-over into the other.

A combat pillar feat, something that as a direct action might allow improvement to a attack type, might also allow a bonus to your other pillars when used in coordination with them. So a player using their combat feat might, for example, get a bonus to intimidate checks when using said feat, or might get a bonus to terrain when using said feat on poor terrain.

Conversely, using the feat to speak extra languages as an example. At face value it offers extra languages. Perhaps it could also add enhancement bonuses to attempts to identify creatures who's languages fall within that language type. . . so your brainy linguist might be able to gain tips and tricks (or maybe even just a direct bonus) on how to defeat the beast. Somewhat like how rangers have favored enemies.

Of course, this is just shooting from the hip but I think that in the end, any attempt to really achieve their "three pillars" philosophy will have to focus around making all three pillars interact and actually effect eachother mechanically.

[Ashdate]

Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4

I think you might need to go back and read up a little bit on your Dungeons & Dragons history. What do you think the DM was supposed to do with the monster reaction tables?

They probably did what most DMs did (such as mine), and ignored them If a DM wants the PCs to be able to negotiate with monsters, then they shouldn't need a 2d6 roll to decide it, nor should the PCs have a certain level of charisma and need to speak goblin or giant; such thinking comes from an era where the DM was seen as a neutral arbiter, who "let the dice fall where they may". I think most DMs thought the idea that their monsters might randomly like PCs who burst into their home, offer a handshake and say "greetings! Let's be friends!" was stupid (because it is).

And I'm sure (despite not owning a copy) if you counted the number of pages in the "Tom Moldvay version" devoted to smoozing with those gnolls, and the number of pages devoted to ways the PCs can shove the gnolls' heads up their butts, you'll see exactly how the people who made D&D expect you to play it.

They could have taken the direction of a White Wolf game, where combat is a relatively small part of the rules, but they didn't. It's a game born from a table-top minatures game whose purpose is to entertain players by putting increasing sizes of monsters and treasure in front of PCs. "Reaction Adjustments" and the like are olive branches to players who would like D&D to be more than a dungeon crawl. And good on those players and the rules for including a way (however random) to do that! I think a D&D game that was nothing but a string of combats would be boring!

But don't take a few examples and a handful of modules to be some indication that the game expects players to talk their problems out with the neighbourhood beholder. As I said, such examples are exceptions, not the rule. D&D has always been a "kick down the door and take names" simulator before a "fantasy" one.

For that matter, what pray tell is the purpose of being able to learn monster languages if not to be able to talk to the various monsters.

To allow the PCs to gain information about the enemy's plans (i.e. by sneaking in and listening to a conversation)?
To allow the PCs to read information the enemy leaves behind?
To allow the PCs to potentially trick the enemy by impersonating or communicating with them?

I'm not saying that talking with them shouldn't be an option, but I think it's an exaggeration to believe that the only reason a Dwarf might want to know Goblin is because they want to sit down and talk about their feelings.

[1337 b4k4]

As I said, such examples are exceptions, not the rule. D&D has always been a "kick down the door and take names" simulator before a "fantasy" one.

We're going to disagree here, it appears to me that given that all low level characters in early D&D were to one degree or another fragile (even the fighter could fall to a lucky errant strike) combat was note supposed to be the first tool in your kit. This is further backed up by the fact that the majority of your experience will come from gold and not monsters killed (at almost 3:1), and by how much of the spells and equipment are not directly offensive combat devices, but exploration and utility devices.

Is combat a large part? Sure, but that doesn't mean that negotiating or talking your way out of a sticky situation wasn't an expected tactic. As for the portion of rules devoted to combat vs negotiations, I imagine that this was an assumption of the game designers that players didn't need rules to have a negotiation at the table.

[noparlpf]

Originally Posted by Urpriest

I prefer dragonborneo.

On the thread topic, since most DMs will make whatever types of encounters are more straightforward and obvious without regard for Social/Exploration/Combat, what if the roles were mixed? What if, by default, combat encounters required some level of social abilities (coordinating with your partymates, for example), and exploration (varied, complicated battlegrounds, encounter-based traps)?

I think that leaves too much up to the DM and many people will still just use combat as the primary mechanic. Unless they could somehow force you into it, like flanking requires a Wis check with your partner or something.

[oxybe]

exploration via varied terrain is easy enough to implement in a game. make the floor lava and the reprecussios of bathing in lava harsh enough, and people will be doing their best to not take a dip (or force their enemies to take one).

give the players interesting set-pieces, like a ruined church with loose marble pillars, and obvious uses (squish the zombies!) for them and you'll probably see them interacting with the set itself, as much as the enemies.

the difference between the first scenario and the second is one of subtlety: you don't need much setup or pre-emption to know that lava is kinda dangerous. that a marble pillar can be toppled though? that requires a bit more finesse for some groups and a backhanded slap to others.

for the most part though, good encounter design, however, should not require the use of lava or pillars but take into account their use.

but "social" aspects in combat? those are a bit harder to reinforce. mainly i would go the carrot rather then the stick method and not require it, but rather make it's use a boon.

violence is nothing more then aggressive diplomacy, where a sword between the enemy's ribcage can often lend you the final word in an argument.

combat occurs in one of three scenarios: discussion isn't possible (party VS zombie horde), discussion isn't wanted (party VS necromancer), discussion fails (party VS angry mob for killing their priest without proof. oops.)

if discussion is possible in place of or during combat, it should be hinted at in some fashion by the GM rather then left in the air.

this, again, boils down to encounter design.

now, let's say your character had several ways to bypass some terrain (spider climb or some sort of parkour power), this will let the character interact with the lava floor or the pillars in rather interesting ways, by letting them go to places a "grounded" PC could not.

4th ed's warlord class was technically the battle socializer: he'd shout and point out openings for PCs to take advantage of, raise them from the brink of death with a few strong words and could push them beyond their normal means.

what was neat, is that the warlord was just one big bonus to the group. he wasn't needed for the party success. a party of a fighter, rogue, cleric & wizard works fine as is and no class "needs" a warlord to be useful. the warlord just allowed for better coordination between groups during combat.

that's how i would like to see combat socialization: as like combat exploration, not required for success, but when used is a boon.

[Scowling Dragon]

So. I haven't checked up on 5e for months now. Anything new since that first playtest?

[Starbuck_II]

Originally Posted by Scowling Dragon

So. I haven't checked up on 5e for months now. Anything new since that first playtest?

New classes:
Warlock and Sorcerer.
You can actually build a class, you don't have to use playtest character if you don't want to.
We get actual examples of background feat/speciality, etc.
What races give and class give. Stat array is 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8.
We get a new module to run through in the underdark.

[Gwendol]

Well, there is the new playtest.

[Siegel]

Originally Posted by Ashdate

I think you're myth-building here. It has never been the expectation, as far as D&D has been concerned, that player would "talk their way out of fights". Not even in 3e, which arguably had the most PCs with "languages" running around (thanks to being granted bonus languages for a high intelligence). Certainly, certainly modules/DMs included diplomacy as option, but those were the exception, not the rule.

Have a Look at moldvay DnD, fighting is Most Times the worst option.

[Lictor of Thrax]

Originally Posted by lesser_minion

Incorrect. WotC are attempting to write and publish a roleplaying game. They have just as great a responsibility to provide competent fluff, irrespective of whether or not they're likely to pull it off.

Forcing an overused trope down people's throats when there are alternatives is a betrayal of those responsibilities. And there are alternatives to making the sorcerer pick a bloodline. Among them:

• Pick three 'gifts' from a list. Each grants you a minor bonus power. This is no better crunch-wise, but it covers everything that the bloodlines do, without forcing them down our throats.
• Pick ten 'gifts' from a list, which determine which spells and other powers you receive. Each gift offers at least one spell or power that isn't otherwise available. Fluff as desired.
• Don't give the sorcerers anything like this, and instead differentiate them by making their magic genuinely and radically different -- a sorcerer could make up spells on the fly, for example.

Making Sorcerer spells genuinely different would completely ruin the class. Sorcerers are people who harness Vancian magic in a different way from wizards. Give them a new way to harness different magic and...well...they're Psions or something.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Originally Posted by Lictor of Thrax

Making Sorcerer spells genuinely different would completely ruin the class. Sorcerers are people who harness Vancian magic in a different way from wizards. Give them a new way to harness different magic and...well...they're Psions or something.

Honestly I'd rather see them make the sorcerer into something completely different and just nix the wizard's vancian casting...

[Yora]

As long as we get a spell-point wizard, I don't actually care what they call it.