D&D 5E With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base

[MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION]

You seem to be discussing homogeneity within classes, whereas I believe the poster you responded to is referring to homegeneity between classes.

Chris_Nightwing said:

[MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION]

You seem to be discussing homogeneity within classes, whereas I believe the poster you responded to is referring to homegeneity between classes.

Click to expand...

I'm referring to both. I'm saying that within class diversity in 4e in many cases is comparable to between class diversity in 3.X.

Crazy Jerome said:

I'd say that "concept first" is often a good way to approach RPG development--provided that you have a sufficiently rigorous and narrow view of what encompasses "concept". The more lazy and broad you get with "concept," the less that will work.

Really, once you've got a good concept nailed down, then you can do fluff first, mechanics first, do them in tandem, alternate, or any number of combinations and mixes. Then on the next concept, you can go do it some other way. The problem is that most people write RPG concepts like middle managers write "vision statements".

For example, "Illusionist" is not a good concept--even with the implied baggage/assumptions from prior versions that the word may invoke. "Illusionist" would be one good key word in any number of single-sentence concepts. Think about those prior version assumptions, and you can probably come up with such a good sentence.

Click to expand...

Thanks CJ, that where I meant to go, but got bogged down in definitions. Starting with a concept seems like a no-brainer, but if done poorly can lead to all sorts of lazy/crappy design. Its a very important step, and one that should always be in mind when discussing mechanic or "fluff".

ie what concept do these mechanics and/or fluff reinforce?

pemerton said:

No, I wouldn't. My Forge-ism is orthodox enough that I regard Simulationism as the key pole against which non-simulationist approaches to RPGing have to be defined.

This is partly historical - I agree with the Forge that simulationism-by-habit is very common in RPGing. But I also think it's inherent - because exploration of a shared fiction is pretty essential to RPGing, there is always the possibility that this exploration becomes the end in itself. Hence, the possibility of a simulationist takeover is inherent in RPGing, I think, unless steps are taken (by designers, first, by GMs, next, and by players, last) to push the game in other directions.

(I know my hierarchy of steps presupposes GMs. Once you're into GM-less games, I think you've successfully transcended my hierarchy!)

Click to expand...

I tend to agree with the tendency to simulation. I think its bred into the fundamental architecture of D&D (and most other rpgs, by inheritance, despite constant claims to the contrary). I'm not sure about the centrality of the GM wrt to this phenomenon. By which I mean, I'm not sure how much having a GM in the game leads to this propensity beyond being bred into the participants by D&D.

Where I think I disagree with the Forge is the idea that Simulation is some kind of Creeping Doom. I find that both Gamism and Simulation in rpgs have a tendency to want to add more rules...which I think eventually weighs an rpg down. Narrativist games by the nature must either be extremely simplistic (and thus unprofitable) or take a dive toward either G or S...which is where the trouble starts.

Hussar said:

No one is talking about redlining options though. That's the point. I'm talking about basic options that are available right out of the chute. No cross pollinating options from five different splat books. Again, how is choosing color spray over burning hands abusing the rules? How is choosing web or glitterdust over, say, Scorching Ray abusing the rules?

Click to expand...

It isn't. But wild shaping into animals available in the monster manual, picking good spells, and creating wands of CLW are not exactly the kind of earth-shattering imbalances that would merit discarding an entire paradigm of rpging. At worst, Glitterdust and some other spells could use a rewrite, as could many rules. That doesn't mean that the basic notion of giving spells to spellcasters and not fighters itself is broken.

Neonchameleon said:

[MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION], starting with an Int of 16 is all very well. But that means by level 8 they should probably have an Int of 18 and certainly a +2 headband of intellect and possibly a +4 (especially if they spent a feat on crafting wondrous items - a very good investment, and they can make even the +6 version at level 8). Also assume spell focus if they are conjuring a lot. That's a total Int of 22 (with the +4 version) with spell focus, for a +7. Or Glitterdust DC 19. And I'm not particularly redlining here.

Click to expand...

I can't help but notice that you've devoted pretty much every advancement decision past 3rd level (which is when we might have had a glitterdust spell with a DC of 15 on an Int of 16) into pumping the PC's save DCs as quickly as possible. The wondrous item crafting feat at 5th level, the spell focus at 6th, both stat increases at 4th and 8th. And you've devoted 16,000 gp worth of his 27,000 gp wealth by level assumption to get a +4 to his Intelligence modifier (and +2 to the save DCs).

That may not be redlining quite as much as doing it from 1st level and starting with a 20 Intelligence and gotten one more feat into the spell focus chain, but you've definitely put a moderate character on the redline trajectory. It's hard to see what someone could do that would be more intense in increasing your save DCs given a start of glitterdust at DC 15. You've gotten +4 to your DCs in 5 levels time.

Ahnehnois said:

It isn't. But wild shaping into animals available in the monster manual, picking good spells, and creating wands of CLW are not exactly the kind of earth-shattering imbalances that would merit discarding an entire paradigm of rpging. At worst, Glitterdust and some other spells could use a rewrite, as could many rules. That doesn't mean that the basic notion of giving spells to spellcasters and not fighters itself is broken.

Click to expand...

Actually, wild shaping into animals 3.X style so you gain their physical stats and keep your mental ones is a pretty severe imbalance. But that just means polymorph needs a rewrite (and I believe got one in PF). 4e makes it mostly a special effect. GURPS gives limited bonusses. Hell, if you were to use 3.5 Alter Self as the basis for Wild Shape it would probably work.

The thing that needs to go is the idea Fighters Don't Get Cool Stuff and casters do all the time. The Book of 9 Swords doesn't give spells to Warblades. It gives them Cool Stuff that isn't spamtastic. It also means you need to seriously tone down the spells the casters do get. Other than excessive fiddliness of 3.X, I'd have very few problems with a game in which the casters were the bard and the psychic warrior and the warriors mostly came from the Book of 9 Swords. Or if you put back the old restrictions on the wizard so they had to earn their cool. Or if you gave drawbacks to casting with WFRP or DCC style blowback on the magic. There are many ways to do it. But 3.X uses precisely none of them.

You don't have to discard the paradigm. But you do have to savagely nerf Wild Shape and Polymorph and pretty much the entire 3.X wizard and cleric classes. Either you can bring down the wizards and clerics back to the standards they were designed at for the playstyle to work (i.e. oD&D where clerics didn't even start getting magic until level 2 and wizards only got a random spell and had to beg, borrow, or steal the rest) or you can make fighters much much cooler.

You can't simply make the casters much cooler than they were designed to be and do little for the fighters and expect this not to have an effect.

Neonchameleon said:

Actually, wild shaping into animals 3.X style so you gain their physical stats and keep your mental ones is a pretty severe imbalance.

Click to expand...

It can be, but it really requires a conscious effort to abuse it.

Several alternate takes on wildshape were presented in late 3e (UA & PHBII) that addressed this. Indeed, polymorph needs a rewrite to ensure that there are some limitations on what you can polymorph into and that your base stats don't become irrelevant. Natural spell definitely makes things way too easy. The thing that saves it in practice is that most of the animal choices aren't that good.

You don't have to discard the paradigm. But you do have to savagely nerf Wild Shape and Polymorph and pretty much the entire 3.X wizard and cleric classes.

Click to expand...

If I were designing D&D, I would probably do that in ways not terribly dissimilar to what you describe; by making it harder to learn and cast spells and by fixing some of the really problematic spell effects.

billd91 said:

I can't help but notice that you've devoted pretty much every advancement decision past 3rd level (which is when we might have had a glitterdust spell with a DC of 15 on an Int of 16) into pumping the PC's save DCs as quickly as possible. The wondrous item crafting feat at 5th level, the spell focus at 6th, both stat increases at 4th and 8th. And you've devoted 16,000 gp worth of his 27,000 gp wealth by level assumption to get a +4 to his Intelligence modifier (and +2 to the save DCs).

Click to expand...

Let me just clarify the above.

I've devoted every advancement decision into making my specialist spellcaster into a better spellcaster. An int bonus affects just about all aspects of being a caster.

He spent 8000 GP on his wondrous item - he crafted it. And Craft Wondrous Item is a superb investment. It's only 16,000 if he had to buy it over the counter.

So. I've spent my stat boosts on my most important stat. An obvious choice. I've spent one feat on something that's good for the whole party (Craft Wondrous Item) and a total of one feat out of three to make me more skilled with my most-used combat school. I've spent 8000 GP to make myself a better caster. Or as much as the fighter would spend on a +2 sword.

I'm not allowed to spend one feat and a bit more than the cost of a +2 sword on making myself a better caster? Seems a little harsh! I assume the Barbarian's allowed Power Attack, Cleave, and to buy a +2 sword! And to go for stat boosters himself.

Ahnehnois said:

It can be, but it really requires a conscious effort to abuse it.

Click to expand...

You mean the sort of effort that would be put in by a wise specialist and student of nature fighting for their life and possibly the fate of the world?

If I were designing D&D, I would probably do that in ways not terribly dissimilar to what you describe; by making it harder to learn and cast spells and by fixing some of the really problematic spell effects.

Click to expand...

Which is how Gygax did it