Roleplaying GamesThe all-purpose forum for general advice or system-independent (or multi-system) discussion. Come discuss adventure plots, gamemastering dilemmas, or player advice here. For ruleset-specific discussions, see the subforums.
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentPaper
I didn't mean to say that all rogues would want dexterity as their main stat, I meant that all rogues would benefit from a high dexterity. Unless there's a way to build the rogue that I haven't taken into account, this is different from a Fighter who wants to use a bow or a rapier, because such a fighter would get no benefit at all from strength, and in fact it is likely to be their dump stat.
If you want to be a rogue that focuses on Int, or Charisma, then you may want to choose a race that boosts that stat, so that you can get it higher than normal. It'd fine if halflings make better charming rogues, and dwarves make better tough rogues, and elves make better skilled rogues. That adds diversity to the game and make race more meaningful. The issue comes in when Halflings or elves or dwarves become the best race for ALL kinds of rogues, which ends up reducing diversity and making race choice less meaningful, since the race and class are tied so closely together.
That's fair. I forget, can Sneak Attack only be used with Finessable weapons as-written? Because if not, I can definitely imagine brawny Rogues who don't particularly need Dexterity if they gain a different bonus Background rather than Thief or Thug. (And there certainly will be more options than just those two, eventually.) And they were recently discussing options that would be alternatives to Sneak Attack, too ...
__________________
You can call me Draz. Trophies:
Work on my homebrew system, CRE8, is still marching slowly onwards. I think I can see the light at the end of the tunnel -- an Alpha release -- in the distance now. Read my Design Goals here.
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentPaper
It may also be beneficial to allow a few classes to get bonuses to one of two abilities, for example a fighter should also be able to choose dexterity over strength if they're going for a archery or finesse weapons. I don't think every class needs this though, for example it's hard to imagine a wizard that doesn't want intelligence, or a cleric that doesn't want wisdom, or a rogue that doesn't want dexterity.
Consider the character creation process. If dice rolling, a spellcaster player may have a natural 17 or 18 for his casting stat so will want to put the +2 into another score that's important to him. In Point Buy, a player may be willing to pay the cost for a high stat in his prime and will use the +2 in another stat to save some points. For example, if he's comfortable with a 14 he'll only pay for a 12 allowing another stat to be a 12 or have no 8 at least and put the +2 in his secondary stat to make it 14.
If they follow the 4E model of every class being Dual-ability score dependent, then a +2 to either score does well.
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Since the Psionic is going to be 1 of the base classes in the next edition of Dungeons & Dragons, I hope that class works with abilities base off of this list: http://indigolifecenter.wordpress.co...nic-abilities/ to minimize headaches when using the class.
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by navar100
Consider the character creation process. If dice rolling, a spellcaster player may have a natural 17 or 18 for his casting stat so will want to put the +2 into another score that's important to him. In Point Buy, a player may be willing to pay the cost for a high stat in his prime and will use the +2 in another stat to save some points. For example, if he's comfortable with a 14 he'll only pay for a 12 allowing another stat to be a 12 or have no 8 at least and put the +2 in his secondary stat to make it 14.
If they follow the 4E model of every class being Dual-ability score dependent, then a +2 to either score does well.
The point isn't to allow for tons of flexibility. The point is to allow each race to do well as many different classes, while still retaining their racial flavor. Of course you can help out the player by allowing them to allocate stats wherever they want, but the point of game design is to put obstacles in the players path, not take them away.
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knaight
There are also fundamental issues with how cultures are presented. Essentially every edition of D&D has presented racial monocultures defined by trends, which largely ignores the interaction with individuals. This is incorrect and unbelievable on a number of points - the idea of racial cultures that nonetheless produce racially diverse adventuring groups is inherently suspect, particularly when trade is explicitly noted as part of the culture; monocultures are essentially absurd, and the use of trends exclusively is shallow. A better approach would be to look at cultures in the sense of pressures, many of which are inherently contradictory, where cultures are not monocultures but instead have factions and subcultures within them which vary in pressures exerted on the members of those societies. Added to that, there is the matter of geographical and climatological effects regarding societies, social pressures, and social development. Take dwarven alcoholism - if you couch that in terms of social pressures regarding individual and clan honor, their conflict, the association between alcohol and stresses that come from this conflict, geographic encouragement for alcohol development, physiological responses to alcohol, cultural pressures that are largely homogenous regarding alcohol being a positive influence as a social lubricant, and the idea of alcohol as a symbolic ritual demonstrating toughness in the presence of cultural pressures encouraging it it becomes much less a stupid looking stereotype and much more a believable cultural element. If you then add in variety among clans, geographical regions, etc. then there is some depth, particularly if racially heterogenous areas are taken into account.
This. This is how you really design a believable culture.
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentPaper
It may also be beneficial to allow a few classes to get bonuses to one of two abilities, for example a fighter should also be able to choose dexterity over strength if they're going for a archery or finesse weapons. I don't think every class needs this though, for example it's hard to imagine a wizard that doesn't want intelligence, or a cleric that doesn't want wisdom, or a rogue that doesn't want dexterity.
This is already the case in Next.
Every class gets a +1 bonus to one of two or three abilities. Fighters can choose between Strength, Dexterity and Constitution, for instance.
Last edited by Zombimode : 09-19-2012 at 02:07 AM.
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
At least in theory, the basic racial traits of a race are supposed to represent the gross physical traits of the race(or at least cultural traits that are so essential to the race they are instinctual), and the sub race is supposed to represent more cultural or societal differences. So, for example, there may eventually be a Dwarf sub-race the represents a Dwarf raised among humans.
As written, the races only party meet those design goals(I can accept that stoncutting might be instinctual to dwarves, but axe and hammer training?). Though to be noted, races are not even close to being done. Apparently, the base Core System is mostly done(though it will likely continue to receive revision throughout the next 2 years), and right now they are working on the classes, specifically the four core classes(so far, the cleric is mostly done, the rogue fairly close, the fighter still under development, and the wizard not really started). The races, equiptment, spells, and monsters presented are all pretty much stubs just there so what they do have is playable until those areas of the game are tackled.
__________________
"It wasn't me who was wrong, it was the world!"
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by Draz74
That's fair. I forget, can Sneak Attack only be used with Finessable weapons as-written? Because if not, I can definitely imagine brawny Rogues who don't particularly need Dexterity if they gain a different bonus Background rather than Thief or Thug. (And there certainly will be more options than just those two, eventually.) And they were recently discussing options that would be alternatives to Sneak Attack, too ...
It just says "Once per round, you can deal Sneak Attack damage to a creature you hit with an attack. To deal this extra damage, you must have advantage against this creature."
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentPaper
The point isn't to allow for tons of flexibility. The point is to allow each race to do well as many different classes, while still retaining their racial flavor. Of course you can help out the player by allowing them to allocate stats wherever they want, but the point of game design is to put obstacles in the players path, not take them away.
I was commenting on your thought that a wizard wouldn't want to put a +2 in a score that's not intelligence. I was showing that's not necessarily true.
If I can't have flexibility then why play? Here's an obstacle: Player, you can't do anything. Have fun.
A game is a series of interesting decisions, not an obstacle course. (Granted a real-life obstacle course could be a fun race.)
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by navar100
I was commenting on your thought that a wizard wouldn't want to put a +2 in a score that's not intelligence. I was showing that's not necessarily true.
If I can't have flexibility then why play? Here's an obstacle: Player, you can't do anything. Have fun.
A game is a series of interesting decisions, not an obstacle course. (Granted a real-life obstacle course could be a fun race.)
Yes, but you're supposed to be making that decision when you choose your race. If you give characters a ton of flexibility in where they put their stat from race/class, then you start to dilute the flavor of those bonuses. If any wizard can get a bonus to +con, then there's no difference between an elf wizard (+int +con) and a dwarf wizard (+int +con).
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by noparlpf
Just in terms of flavour, ignoring race, why should a Wizard get a Con bonus? Wizards sit around studying.
Aside from the rogue, every class seems to be able to choose a Con bonus(and I would support a general rules that makes it so every class can), because con is useful to everyone.
As for concentration, I would prefer a casting ability check.
__________________
"It wasn't me who was wrong, it was the world!"
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOOB
Aside from the rogue, every class seems to be able to choose a Con bonus(and I would support a general rules that makes it so every class can), because con is useful to everyone.
As for concentration, I would prefer a casting ability check.
Useful, sure, but I don't see the fluff supporting Con bonuses for Wizards or Rogues.
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by noparlpf
Useful, sure, but I don't see the fluff supporting Con bonuses for Wizards or Rogues.
Two things. First of all, not everything has to be about fluff. Game mechanics are king, and making working game mechanics ALWAYS takes priority over fluff in every case.
Second, why would anyone in an adventurer profession not try to train themselves to be tougher. Adventuring is the most dangerous and demanding profession out there. If it is possible to train ability scores, that is one someone would logical pick to train regardless of their class role.
__________________
"It wasn't me who was wrong, it was the world!"
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOOB
Two things. First of all, not everything has to be about fluff. Game mechanics are king, and making working game mechanics ALWAYS takes priority over fluff in every case.
I disagree so strongly about this that I can't even put it into words.
That's clearly not how D&D Next is designed. That's the 4e mantra you're repeating there.
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell
I disagree so strongly about this that I can't even put it into words.
That's clearly not how D&D Next is designed. That's the 4e mantra you're repeating there.
I like fluff, I use fluff, and I don't want to put work into changing fluff when I DM.
But honestly I am seeing a lot more game mechanics then fluff in DDN so far, and the fluff I have seen, looks more like place holder...at least I hope thats not all.
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Backgrounds are almost entirely fluff, though. From the looks of it, 5e is going to try and tie fluff and mechanics together much more tightly than in 3.5 (where refluffing was if not encouraged then at least easy) or 4e (where the fluff was clearly an afterthought).
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaronK
Frankly, a Wizard can suck even more than a Fighter could ever dream of sucking. A Fighter can stab himself to death, but only a Wizard could Plane Shift to some horrible far realm to be tortured for an eternity of insanity.
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell
I disagree so strongly about this that I can't even put it into words.
That's clearly not how D&D Next is designed. That's the 4e mantra you're repeating there.
Really, because the vast majority of what they have done is mechanics. Fluff and story is nice, it can be helpful in building a campaign, but it is also something that can be changed, altered, and ignored. If I don't like the idea that a warlock fae pact gives you a wart, and I can change it and the rest of the system, both mechanics and fluff, work fine.
A mechanic on the other hand is far more important. Changing a mechanic, even a minor one, can be very difficult as it will have far reaching implications as all the mechanics are co-dependant on eachother. If you make say, perception checks based on intelligence, you've made every character, every item that boosts int stronger, and made everything that boosts wis weaker, you've affected the balance of the game. If you do a more dramatic change, like changing a d20 to 3d6, you've completly changed the whole game, all the carefully crafted probabilities are now completely worthless, and you'll either break the game, or make so much work you might as well be making a new system.
Game mechanics are king. Ultimately, if you have to choose between fluff and mechanics, you should choose mechanics every time in game design. Bad or weak fluff can always be made up for by good players, but bad mechanics, things that actually make the game itself no fun to play, ruin the entire experience.
__________________
"It wasn't me who was wrong, it was the world!"
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOOB
Really, because the vast majority of what they have done is mechanics. Fluff and story is nice, it can be helpful in building a campaign, but it is also something that can be changed, altered, and ignored. If I don't like the idea that a warlock fae pact gives you a wart, and I can change it and the rest of the system, both mechanics and fluff, work fine.
A mechanic on the other hand is far more important. Changing a mechanic, even a minor one, can be very difficult as it will have far reaching implications as all the mechanics are co-dependant on eachother. If you make say, perception checks based on intelligence, you've made every character, every item that boosts int stronger, and made everything that boosts wis weaker, you've affected the balance of the game. If you do a more dramatic change, like changing a d20 to 3d6, you've completly changed the whole game, all the carefully crafted probabilities are now completely worthless, and you'll either break the game, or make so much work you might as well be making a new system.
Game mechanics are king. Ultimately, if you have to choose between fluff and mechanics, you should choose mechanics every time in game design. Bad or weak fluff can always be made up for by good players, but bad mechanics, things that actually make the game itself no fun to play, ruin the entire experience.
I agree on all the particulars but I can't disagree more about the conclusion. Bad Fluff has killed more game systems than any amount of poorly balanced mechanics, while games like D&D WoD and Traveler have become practically household names because of the way they inspired players with their settings and styles. Fluff and Crunch must be in balance for a game to be successful; you can't ignore either and expect to get a good result.
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by Water_Bear
I agree on all the particulars but I can't disagree more about the conclusion. Bad Fluff has killed more game systems than any amount of poorly balanced mechanics, while games like D&D WoD and Traveler have become practically household names because of the way they inspired players with their settings and styles. Fluff and Crunch must be in balance for a game to be successful; you can't ignore either and expect to get a good result.
He's not saying that you need to ignore Fluff, he's saying that if they're in conflict, mechanics usually wins simply because it's easier to mold fluff around a mechanic rather than molding mechanics around fluff.
That's not to say that you shouldn't look to mold mechanics to fit fluff when you can, of course. A good mechanic that's backed up with good fluff is far superior to a good mechanic backed up by bad fluff. It's only when you can't get the two to work well together, that you need to sacrifice one for the other. Having to do so essentially means you've failed as a designer, but it's still better to have good mechanics and bad fluff than it is to have bad mechanics and good fluff.
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by Water_Bear
I agree on all the particulars but I can't disagree more about the conclusion. Bad Fluff has killed more game systems than any amount of poorly balanced mechanics, while games like D&D WoD and Traveler have become practically household names because of the way they inspired players with their settings and styles. Fluff and Crunch must be in balance for a game to be successful; you can't ignore either and expect to get a good result.
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Fluff is easier to change than mechanics, yes. But if a system is saying that the fluff for any spell/maneuver/power can be changed to whatever you like at any time, then that is basically saying that fluff doesn't matter. For a roleplaying game, I don't think that's a constructive attitude.
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oracle_Hunter
Wait, what system has been "killed" by bad fluff
Eh... I can sortof half-buy this argument, in theory anyway. What really sells me on whether I want to try a new system/subsystem/splatbook is the kind of stories that pop into my head when I read it, moreso even than everything else put together. Interesting and innovative ideas will intrigue me, but to actually get it into play at the table the stories have to be there. Otherwise I'll just cannibalize the interesting bits and sprinkle it into my homebrew but the unmolested system itself will forever go unplayed.
It's the reason why I've still yet to try Dungeon World, Old School Hack, or Warrior/Rogue/Mage, I read through them and just think "...What am I supposed to do with this that I can't already do with D&D?" I mean they streamline the process and get you to those delicious nuggets faster and maybe even better than D&D does, but they don't evoke new nuggets that I want to dig up and chow down.
Now, I only half-buy the argument because fluff isn't really necessary to do this, though it helps. Oftentimes I'll come up with a story when reading a book through mechanics, just by saying to myself "Hey, I just came up with a great situation that these mechanics right here are just perfect for modeling/arbitrating." or "Hey, this mechanic sounds like it could do a great job of avoiding narrative structure problem X." Heck, the mechanics alone are what got me into Wushu and Ars Magica. Love Magica's spellcasting mechanic even though I can't stand Mythic Europe as a setting.
Last edited by Craft (Cheese) : 09-20-2012 at 06:00 PM.
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oracle_Hunter
Wait, what system has been "killed" by bad fluff
It depends entirely on the players, doesn't it? What one person thinks is a deep and compelling world, another might think is pretentious and uninteresting.
When I pick up a game, I do so entirely because of the flavor. Star Wars? Sci-fi with jedi is so cool! Dragon Age? That game had a great plot, I'd love to make up my own stories in that universe! D&D? I love magic and swords and dragons! Call of Cthulhu? Ooh, I want to scare the heck out of my friends and myself! Vampire: the Masquerade? Eh, I don't really like vampires all by themselves.
Then once I start playing a game, or maybe even just reading the rules, I make a decision of whether I want to continue based on the mechanics. I took one look at the Call of Cthulhu book and my brain started spinning around in confusion, so I've never actually been in a game.
So I don't think bad flavor (or fluff) kills a game, but it can stop it from ever being born. Since I've never been interested in the world that V:tM presents, I don't even know how the mechanics work. Bad mechanics are what can kill a game.
Your experiences may vary, but of course we're interested in hearing them!
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camelot
So I don't think bad flavor (or fluff) kills a game, but it can stop it from ever being born.
Yes. Good fluff sells a game. D&D is probably the only RPG that can still sell if it doesn't have good fluff in its core books, but that doesn't mean people want it to.
RSS Feeds: 
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
