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

[Hylas]

Originally Posted by Nu

That sounds good in theory, but in practice I have never seen a new player that actually wants to have their options chosen for them.

Maybe that's just the crowd I hang out with, but then again, that's mostly new players as well, and they still want to choose their own stuff.

I've seen players who have been playing for well over a decade and always have people make characters for them. d20 is pretty complicated and contrived and 5e's simplification is much better. Simple is not worse in this case.

Eventually we'll get the tools to make our own backgrounds, and I'm sure the "specialties" will be swappable at each level for people who want finer control over their character's abilities.

The only thing I wish they would change in D&D Next is the ability score bonus. I have the hardest time explaining that a 12 and 13 are both +1 and a 14 is +2 to new players.

[noparlpf]

Originally Posted by Hylas

The only thing I wish they would change in D&D Next is the ability score bonus. I have the hardest time explaining that a 12 and 13 are both +1 and a 14 is +2 to new players.

Every even number above 10 it goes up one. Not that complicated.

[Yora]

Then explain 2nd Edition ability modifiers...

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4

You are completely missing the point of the pre packaged builds which is that there is a non insignificant number of players and potential players out there who will never "fiddle around" with character creation. The whole point is to bundle the existing choices into simple thematic packages for those players so that they can pick one and go. And they are absolutely going about it the right way. There should be no difference between choosing a pre-pack and choosing your own feats so that it's easy to switch and so that there is never a feeling like the pre-packs are either letting you getaway with something, or that you're losing something by taking a pre-pack.

I'm not missing the point of packaging abilities together, I'm saying the actually useful goal of making it easy for newbies (or experienced players who prefer simpler builds) and the stated goal of boiling character creation down to "pick race, pick class, pick background, pick specialty, go" don't mesh very well. If the baseline is supposed to be specialties and picking your own feats is a module option, then people who are comfortable with picking and choosing feats will do so, which (A) negates the simplicity of pre-packaged options and (B) makes them a lot stronger than the specialty users, if the example specialties and combat styles are anything to go by. If the baseline is supposed to be picking your own feats and specialties are purely there to help newbies make characters, then you'd get the same benefit from 4e-style suggested feats/powers for your class without having to spend the effort to either come up with extra feats to ensure all specialties have the right number or figure out how to tie together disparate feats into themed specialties.

The only benefit I can see to having prepackaged abilities with specific names is that you can convey your character's schtick by saying "he's a human noble fighter archer" and have that mean something, but that's something you can do in any edition, the difference being that in previous editions there are many ways to make an archer or a noble without any one of them having the label Archer or Noble. It's like the unarmed swordsage vs. monk issue: in plenty of games, if you want to play a monkish character, the only real reason to pick monk over unarmed swordsage (or psychic warrior, or OA ninja, or...) is to have "monk" on your character sheet, yet plenty of people do choose the monk because they feel that if you want to play a monk you obviously need to pick something named "monk," regardless of the class's actual level of power/versatility/interestingness/etc.

[Knaight]

Originally Posted by noparlpf

Every even number above 10 it goes up one. Not that complicated.

It's not that complicated, but it is also unnecessary - they could just use the modifier as the score, which simplifies things and loses just about nothing.

[TheOOB]

Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost

They've said that, yes, but they've also said some other things that have been changed or not at all apparent in the materials we've seen so far.

The playtest documents have only been out a few months, they are expecting around two more years of development time. Give it time. I personally asked Mike Mearls(sp) at PAX if you would be able to individual pick feats, fighter techniques, skills, and rogue techniques, and he said yes for feats, skills, and fighter techniques, but probably not for rogue techniques(They are designed to work off of one another). You don't get higher authority on the topic than him.

Right now the specialties allow them to make a minimum amount of feats and have the system be playable, as feats really are not what are being tested right now(right now they are finishing off the core system and trying to make the classes).

Also, remember that while 5e will likely be simpler than 3e, that doesn't mean there will be less depth to the game. Complexity and depth are not the same thing, and in fact they often work agienst eachother. Remember Othello is one of the simplest games around, but there is a ton of depth there.

[Draz74]

Originally Posted by TheOOB

Remember Othello is one of the simplest games around, but there is a ton of depth there.

You may want to pick an example of depth that hasn't been completely "solved" by computers.

Go works. It's very simple except for the scoring.

[navar100]

Originally Posted by Knaight

It's not that complicated, but it is also unnecessary - they could just use the modifier as the score, which simplifies things and loses just about nothing.

There is a legacy issue. I find it more aesthetically pleasing to say my fighter has 18 strength than it is to say he has strength +4. There is nothing complicated about 12 and 13 giving a +1 modifier. If players aren't comprehending that, that's their problem. No need to dumb-down the game.

[Talakeal]

Originally Posted by navar100

There is a legacy issue. I find it more aesthetically pleasing to say my fighter has 18 strength than it is to say he has strength +4. There is nothing complicated about 12 and 13 giving a +1 modifier. If players aren't comprehending that, that's their problem. No need to dumb-down the game.

Complex? No not really. But it is pointless. A waste of space that is both unneccessary and counter intuitive. 3-18 stats are exactly the kind of sacred cow that they need to either embrace or slaughter if they want this edition to improve upon the previous two.

[Camelot]

Originally Posted by Hylas

The only thing I wish they would change in D&D Next is the ability score bonus. I have the hardest time explaining that a 12 and 13 are both +1 and a 14 is +2 to new players.

Ability Modifier = ((Ability Score / 2) - 5)

[TheOOB]

Originally Posted by Draz74

You may want to pick an example of depth that hasn't been completely "solved" by computers.

Go works. It's very simple except for the scoring.

To be fair, any game with a limited number of board positions and no hidden information can be solved(and no random chance). It's only a matter of time until we make an unbeatable chess computer.

[TheOOB]

Originally Posted by Talakeal

Complex? No not really. But it is pointless. A waste of space that is both unneccessary and counter intuitive. 3-18 stats are exactly the kind of sacred cow that they need to either embrace or slaughter if they want this edition to improve upon the previous two.

I'd agree that the 3-18 system is kind of pointless in this day and age, and a -4 through +4 system might work better mechanically, but I don't think the 3-18 system is actually harmful, and it helps to define the system as D&D apart from another system. It's the same reason the class is still called a fighter instead of calling it a warrior or soldier. Some tradition helps to build a brand(and helps when copyright cases come up).

[Kurald Galain]

I actually think the 3-18 system is better than the -4 to +4 system, because it makes ability score variance matter more. The difference between 0 and +4 is just too small to make the skill system work (especially now that they're leaning towards few trained skills, and only a small bonus for being trained).

[Talakeal]

Originally Posted by Kurald Galain

I actually think the 3-18 system is better than the -4 to +4 system, because it makes ability score variance matter more. The difference between 0 and +4 is just too small to make the skill system work (especially now that they're leaning towards few trained skills, and only a small bonus for being trained).

But as it is now the game doesn't have a 3-18 system. It has a -4 through +4 system for everything (except iirc encumbrance). The 3-18 is just a description which has to be translated into -4 to +4 before it can be used.

It would be like if they printed a Latin to English dictionary in the front of the PHB and occasionally wrote rules throughout the book in Latin. Translating it is not particularly complex or challenging, but pointless and a waste of time and space.

[Yora]

But the 3-18 system wasn't much better at any point.
In AD&D, you usally had the entire range from 6 to 15 being simply +0 to everything. Unless you had a 16 or better or a 5 or lower, your ability scores didn't mean anything.

[Knaight]

Originally Posted by navar100

There is a legacy issue. I find it more aesthetically pleasing to say my fighter has 18 strength than it is to say he has strength +4. There is nothing complicated about 12 and 13 giving a +1 modifier. If players aren't comprehending that, that's their problem. No need to dumb-down the game.

Portraying what is essentially the same thing more effectively is not dumbing down the game. As of now, there is essentially a system where you have -4 through +4, only it is portrayed in a different manner simply because it always has been. It's "dumbing-down" inasmuch as switching from THAC0 to BAB was "dumbing-down", and inasmuch as it was dumbing-down chemistry to organize the periodic table.

[Kurald Galain]

Originally Posted by Talakeal

But as it is now the game doesn't have a 3-18 system. It has a -4 through +4 system for everything (except iirc encumbrance). The 3-18 is just a description which has to be translated into -4 to +4 before it can be used.

Yes, I know. I'm suggesting they move to the 2E skill system (where every point in an attribute translates to +1 on your skill checks). WOTC seems wedded to a highly random system, where an expert character has only a marginally better chance to succeed than a rookie. To me, that's a deallbreaker for buying 5E.

Originally Posted by Yora

In AD&D, you usally had the entire range from 6 to 15 being simply +0 to everything.

Except to skills. I'm talking about skills here, not attack rolls.

[Knaight]

Originally Posted by Kurald Galain

Yes, I know. I'm suggesting they move to the 2E skill system (where every point in an attribute translates to +1 on your skill checks). WOTC seems wedded to a highly random system, where an expert character has only a marginally better chance to succeed than a rookie. To me, that's a deallbreaker for buying 5E.

However, the 2e skill system has basically the same issue - you can set this up as -8 to +8, instead of -4 to +4, which removes the B.S. ability/ability mod dichotomy, while keeping options wider.

[noparlpf]

Originally Posted by Yora

Then explain 2nd Edition ability modifiers...

2e is the only one I've never met. :<

Originally Posted by Knaight

It's not that complicated, but it is also unnecessary - they could just use the modifier as the score, which simplifies things and loses just about nothing.

Except for stat generation by rolling 3d6 or 4d6b3...the dice are kind of integral to the game.

[TheOOB]

Originally Posted by Talakeal

But as it is now the game doesn't have a 3-18 system. It has a -4 through +4 system for everything (except iirc encumbrance). The 3-18 is just a description which has to be translated into -4 to +4 before it can be used.

It would be like if they printed a Latin to English dictionary in the front of the PHB and occasionally wrote rules throughout the book in Latin. Translating it is not particularly complex or challenging, but pointless and a waste of time and space.

Well, odd ability scores are often prerequisites to feats, right now most racial stat bonuses are odd numbers, and you get an odd number bonus every 4 levels. The odd numbers are relevant to a point.

[AgentPaper]

Originally Posted by TheOOB

Well, odd ability scores are often prerequisites to feats, right now most racial stat bonuses are odd numbers, and you get an odd number bonus every 4 levels. The odd numbers are relevant to a point.

Odd numbers also allow for more fine-tuned bonuses, such as the +1 ability bonuses that most classes hand out.

I do think they could make a more streamlined and easier to understand system without getting rid of any of the depth of the system, but the scores are fairly simple to understand anyways, and are too much of a sacred cow to make changing them worth it, when it would change so little.

[TheOOB]

My opinion is simple, I can see the arguments on why to keep the 3-18 range, and since I don't think it hurts things, I see no reason to change it.

That said, I also see why Green Ronin changed to (in their case) a -5 through +5 system when making a new system based on d20. Without the weight of tradition on their shoulders, making such a change is a good idea.

[Flickerdart]

Originally Posted by AgentPaper

Odd numbers also allow for more fine-tuned bonuses, such as the +1 ability bonuses that most classes hand out.

Is a bonus that literally does nothing half the time really worthwhile to begin with?

If considering the +1 every 4 levels, just make it +1 every 8 levels on the -4/+4 system. Bam, problem solved, let's go get tacos.

[Stubbazubba]

The 3-18 range for abilities only makes sense if you are rolling 3d6 to determine what they are. If you're doing point-buy, then just eliminate the redundancy and go straight to modifier values.

[Knaight]

On another point - Blingdenstone. What sort of a name is Blingdenstone? My group recently did two sessions of it; I was GMing. 8 hours later, and we still can't say Blingdenstone without throwing up some sort of fake gangster sign, and are liable to start calling gemstones blingstones out of game. It's a terrible, terrible name that is impossible to take seriously, that has spawned a filk of Gangnam Style about the campaign. I get that D&D isn't exactly serious, but on the other hand..."Blingdenstone". Seriously, "Blingdenstone". Just try to say that out loud and keep a straight face.

[Yora]

It's a 1992 Forgotten Realms novel name.

[JoeMac307]

Originally Posted by TheOOB

Another tid bit from PAX. This was mentioned in passing, and they mentioned it's still in the hypothetical stages, but they said they don't want specialist wizards to just get extra spell slots. They suggested specialist wizards may get abilities they can cast at will or encounter based, or maybe be able to recharge their specialty school spells. The idea being an illusionist, for example, can cast illusions all the time. They cast other spell just fine, but they can't do so as often.

That sounds kind of cool. I like the idea of specialty wizards actually being, you know, specialists in their field, not just generalists with a little bit of focus or a couple of special tricks.

Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost

I'm not missing the point of packaging abilities together, I'm saying the actually useful goal of making it easy for newbies (or experienced players who prefer simpler builds) and the stated goal of boiling character creation down to "pick race, pick class, pick background, pick specialty, go" don't mesh very well. If the baseline is supposed to be specialties and picking your own feats is a module option, then people who are comfortable with picking and choosing feats will do so, which (A) negates the simplicity of pre-packaged options and (B) makes them a lot stronger than the specialty users, if the example specialties and combat styles are anything to go by. If the baseline is supposed to be picking your own feats and specialties are purely there to help newbies make characters, then you'd get the same benefit from 4e-style suggested feats/powers for your class without having to spend the effort to either come up with extra feats to ensure all specialties have the right number or figure out how to tie together disparate feats into themed specialties.

Maybe the solution is meeting somewhere in the middle... right now, if I'm understanding the rules correctly, you have two options:

1. You can pick a specialty upfront at the start of character creation, which is essentially picking all your feats level 1-20 upfront and waiting to actually be able to use them one by one as you level up

2. You can pick feats one at a time as you level up (either by simply not using specialities, only feats, or by allowing players to change their specialty at any point with no associated cost).

It seems clear that the flexibility of option #2 is going to allow players to make much more optimized characters than option #1, which can unbalance the game if you have some players in the party happy with option #1 and others going with option #2.

Maybe to overcome this potential problem, there should be a third option:

3. Players can design their own specialty, with these caveats: they must pick all the feats that are part of that specialty up front at the time of character creation, the progression of feats must meet all prereqs (such as needing "Cleave" before "Greater Cleave" or whathaveyou), and the DM must approve of the specialty before it can be used. PCs cannot switch out their speciality after it is selected, at least not without some cost (retraining (ie gold), xp penalty, xp cost, etc).

By letting the DM see the feat progression the player wants upfront at the point of character creation, and locking the PC into that progression, you can more easily weigh the relative strength of Specialities against each other, whether or not they are homebrewed. If the player really, really wants a certain homebrewed Specialty, but it seems overpowered to the DM, perhaps there can be a way to offset it, such as a fluffy disadvantage that can be a future adventure hook - "sure, you can have this badass Specialty, but in return you have a KID SISTER you look after, and she tends to get mixed up in all kinds of trouble... deal?"

[Craft (Cheese)]

Originally Posted by Knaight

On another point - Blingdenstone. What sort of a name is Blingdenstone? My group recently did two sessions of it; I was GMing. 8 hours later, and we still can't say Blingdenstone without throwing up some sort of fake gangster sign, and are liable to start calling gemstones blingstones out of game. It's a terrible, terrible name that is impossible to take seriously, that has spawned a filk of Gangnam Style about the campaign. I get that D&D isn't exactly serious, but on the other hand..."Blingdenstone". Seriously, "Blingdenstone". Just try to say that out loud and keep a straight face.

I keep wanting to pronounce it [blɪdgənˈstɔn], probably my brain auto-correcting the stupid to make it sound better.

[Knaight]

Originally Posted by Craft (Cheese)

I keep wanting to pronounce it [blɪdgənˈstɔn], probably my brain auto-correcting the stupid to make it sound better.

I was considering doing exactly this, but throwing up fake gangster signs while putting a lot of emphasis into "Blingdenstone" when it was said won out with the group.

[Surrealistik]

After my group took over the government building, we dubbed ourselves the grand high pimps of Blingdenstone, populating it with all manners of fine gnomish bitches from across the underland.