5E UA and depth of complexity - Page 10
Closed Thread
Page 10 of 18 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415161718 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 179
  1. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by Hemlock View Post
    I hate (non-Dark Sun) clerics because they are almost-inextricably tied to offscreen uber-NPCs who, at least according to the default game lore, interfere constantly with the party's adventures (granting spells, turning undead, etc.) but never actually do anything directly without the cleric "casting a spell" first; and the gods' motives generally don't make any sense even to the DM, nor does the "worship" associated with them. Clerics are incoherent theologically and they make the story incoherent as well, unless you make the assumption that gods don't really exist and that clerics are all just deluded magical technicians of some sort, just like wizards--but most DMs don't make that assumption, so clerics are generally just a mess.
    Harsh!

    I prefer to think of it in reverse: because the cleric is not incoherent or a mess, it must be that clerics' use of prayers and other actions reflects the will of the gods who empower them, which means that those gods must not be NPCs in the traditional sense at all, but rather are, at least prima facie, adjuncts to the player of the cleric. (A little bit like a familiar is to a magic-user, as far as the game structure is concerned; obviously very similar from the in-fiction point of view.)
    XP Satyrn gave XP for this post

  2. #92
    Member
    Greater Elemental (Lvl 23)



    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    7,031
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    Block FormerlyHemlock


    Friend+
    Quote Originally Posted by pemerton View Post
    Harsh!

    I prefer to think of it in reverse: because the cleric is not incoherent or a mess, it must be that clerics' use of prayers and other actions reflects the will of the gods who empower them, which means that those gods must not be NPCs in the traditional sense at all, but rather are, at least prima facie, adjuncts to the player of the cleric. (A little bit like a familiar is to a magic-user, as far as the game structure is concerned; obviously very similar from the in-fiction point of view.)
    But that theory can't be true, or else why are clerical spells dispelled just as easily as a wizard's spells and by the same means? Are gods merely wizards with extremely long-range spellcasting? Why do the spells go away if the cleric stops concentrating on them?

    Isn't it a little bit thematically uncomfortable to have a PC who is essentially just a spectator, while the player spends most of the time playing the god? "I, Cyric the Unholy, send another bolt of sacred flame down from the heavens to singe the beards of the righteous dwarves. Sacred Flame for 2d8 damage, yeah! Oh yeah, and I guess my cleric Modwin is praying to me and waving his arms around while pointing at the dwarves, but who cares about Modwin, he never does anything anyway." (Actually that sounds at least twice as awesome as a regular cleric, and if I were forced to play a god-worshipping cleric as a PC that's probably how I would do it, although it gets a little bit more incoherent if the cleric multiclasses and Cyric chooses to inexplicably sit around doing nothing while the priest/wizard casts Fireball.)

  3. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by Hemlock View Post
    why are clerical spells dispelled just as easily as a wizard's spells and by the same means? Are gods merely wizards with extremely long-range spellcasting? Why do the spells go away if the cleric stops concentrating on them?
    These are good questions.

    If I come up with an answer that makes sense from a traditional D&D perspective I'll get back to you! In Burning Wheel clerical magic isn't dispellable in the D&D sense; in 4e dispel magic is a bit of a thing, but nothing like in the traditional sense (and there is no counterspelling). The rulebooks tell us that a cleric is imbued with the power to use divine power, but is not really a conduit for his/her god (more like the god stuck a battery in him/her and then pressed the "Go" button) - a bit like Gygax's account of 1st and 2nd level cleric spells being sourced just in the cleric's training. But at upper levels this becomes a bit implausible, even if it was plausible at lower levels. But I think the idea implicit in how I run it is that the god is something like a long-range wizard ie creates an effect by will, with the cleric as conduit or agent of his/her will, and this is liable to being dispelled like a wizard's effect would be (but only a high level wizard could dispell a high level cleric's effect, so the gods are at least powerful wizards!).
    XP FormerlyHemlock gave XP for this post

  4. #94
    Member
    Greater Elemental (Lvl 23)



    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    7,031
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    Block FormerlyHemlock


    Friend+
    Quote Originally Posted by pemerton View Post
    (but only a high level wizard could dispell a high level cleric's effect, so the gods are at least powerful wizards!).
    Or at least, they are powerful wizards when channeled by powerful priests. In fact, they are exactly as powerful as the priest himself... suggestive, eh?

    "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! The great Oz has spoken!"
    Laugh pemerton laughed with this post

  5. #95
    Member
    Magsman (Lvl 14)



    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    City of the Dead
    Posts
    1,132
    Reviews
    Read 2 Reviews
    KickstarterD&DForgotten RealmsGoodman GamesEN World EN5iderGygax Memorial FundThe Perturbed Dragon

    Block Corpsetaker


    Friend+
    Quote Originally Posted by Sacrosanct View Post
    I think the obvious question is being overlooked in threads like this: Do they even want more complexity?

    We need to look at the design goals of 5e, and I think it's clear that they are taking a more simple, streamlined approach where they want WE as the players to create additional tools that we like*, as opposed to a splat train of ever increasing complexity and options coming from them directly.

    I think 5e has an identity, one that they are careful to adhere to, and expecting it to be different from that identity will result in you waiting a long, long time.


    *With guidelines on how to create classes and subclasses, feats, etc, and especially with the creation of the DM's Guild seems to point to this intent strongly.
    Need I remind you that 5th edition D&D was sold on the back of a "plug and play" strategy where one could have as much simplicity as they wanted or as much complexity as they wanted.

    If you want to keep "your" games simple then stick to what you have, but those of us who want more complexity should be able to go to those extra options and just plug those right into our games. You know, like all options that have been a part of every edition? You choose what you want to use and discard the rest.

  6. #96
    Member
    Magsman (Lvl 14)



    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    City of the Dead
    Posts
    1,132
    Reviews
    Read 2 Reviews
    KickstarterD&DForgotten RealmsGoodman GamesEN World EN5iderGygax Memorial FundThe Perturbed Dragon

    Block Corpsetaker


    Friend+
    Quote Originally Posted by pming View Post
    Hiya!

    **SNIP A BIT-TOO-SNARKY-OF-A-POST**

    More crunch? No thanks. I, and apparently the majority of 5e'ers, don't want more crunch for the sake of it.
    Hiya!

    Then don't use it and let those who do want it have it.

    Bye-ya!

  7. #97
    Member
    Magsman (Lvl 14)



    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    City of the Dead
    Posts
    1,132
    Reviews
    Read 2 Reviews
    KickstarterD&DForgotten RealmsGoodman GamesEN World EN5iderGygax Memorial FundThe Perturbed Dragon

    Block Corpsetaker


    Friend+
    Quote Originally Posted by Sacrosanct View Post
    Congrats. I've been playing for 35. So what. This means nothing.
    I knew a guy who claimed he had been a painter for 35 years. I later found out that nobody had the heart to tell him to find another profession.
    Last edited by Corpsetaker; Friday, 27th January, 2017 at 10:14 AM.
    Laugh CapnZapp, Hitdice, Valetudo laughed with this post

  8. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by Sacrosanct View Post
    I think the obvious question is being overlooked in threads like this: Do they even want more complexity?
    No, you may assume, for the purposes of this thread, that the answer is "yes".

    If you want to discuss why you don't want to see more complexity in the game, or why you believe there will be no more complexity in the game, feel free to start a new thread.

    This thread was created to discuss the subject of what forms more complexity could take

  9. #99
    Member
    Orcus on an Off-Day (Lvl 22)



    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Colombus, OH
    Posts
    11,620
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    Block Celebrim


    Friend+
    Quote Originally Posted by CapnZapp View Post
    No, you may assume, for the purposes of this thread, that the answer is "yes".

    If you want to discuss why you don't want to see more complexity in the game, or why you believe there will be no more complexity in the game, feel free to start a new thread.

    This thread was created to discuss the subject of what forms more complexity could take
    Though I said that you had to be careful adding more depth of complexity to a system, I do in fact think that 5e is (as it currently exists) vastly too simple with far too few options. I just don't think the problem lies in there being not enough options for existing archetypes. The existing classes are already crammed full of abilities (practically at every level) and they all have two or three dials to turn already to tweak them. Any new features would invariably mean power creep. Power creep is lethal to a game in the long run, and would in short order necessitate a 6e.

    Some areas I would like to see new breadth of complexity though:

    a) More feats.

    b) More spells. Particularly spells that are thematic.

    c) More archetypes.

    d) More backgrounds.

    e) More subsystems. Pursuit/Evasion, Mass Combat, Domain/Dynasty Management, Crafting, Mystery/Investigation, Research/Invention, example Skill Challenge Frameworks

    f) Better refined existing subsystems. A lot of the existing subsystems - say some of the simple Downtime systems (Carousing, for example, comes to mind) - to me feel like simplified placeholders designed to give quick and easy answers to something not intended to be a major part of the game. I've got mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I applaud them putting subsystems into the game at all. On the other hand, I feel like the only justification for the subsystems as is, is lack of space to put in better ones, and that they are better thought of as stubbed out components to be replaced by advanced systems is later supplements than as anything really useful except as inspiration.

    g) Possibly more classes. See my comments earlier on the standard D&D classes and how they leave lots of design space untouched. If that design space can't be reached by swappable archetype components, you need new classes to do it. The reason I say 'possibly' is new classes is a huge danger of power creep, and the more classes you have the more risks you are taking. It doesn't matter how many classes a system has. It matters how many classes are of a viable tier. Nonviable classes will on the whole cease be played.

    I guess you'd have to sale me on the idea of increased depth of complexity. I see 5e as an elegant but poorly supported system. I'd like to see it better supported, but without breaking it's elegance.
    XP Gradine gave XP for this post

  10. #100
    Member
    Grandfather of Assassins (Lvl 19)



    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,047
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    Block Elfcrusher


    Friend+
    Quote Originally Posted by Celebrim View Post
    Feel free to write assertions in C++ if you think it would help.
    Oh well heck you should have said so. That would help reduce miscommunication. Here's an analysis of my proposed uncertainty mechanic:

    Code:
    	.section	__TEXT,__text,regular,pure_instructions
    	.macosx_version_min 10, 11
    	.section	__TEXT,__literal8,8byte_literals
    	.align	3
    LCPI0_0:
    	.quad	4636737291354636288     ## double 100
    	.section	__TEXT,__text,regular,pure_instructions
    	.globl	_main
    	.align	4, 0x90
    _main:                                  ## @Main
    	.cfi_startproc
    ## BB#0:
    	pushq	%rbp
    Ltmp0:
    	.cfi_def_cfa_offset 16
    Ltmp1:
    	.cfi_offset %rbp, -16
    	movq	%rsp, %rbp
    Ltmp2:
    	.cfi_def_cfa_register %rbp
    	subq	$128, %rsp
    	movl	$0, -4(%rbp)
    	movl	%edi, -8(%rbp)
    	movq	%rsi, -16(%rbp)
    	cmpl	$4, -8(%rbp)
    	je	LBB0_2
    ## BB#1:
    	leaq	L_.str(%rip), %rdi
    	movb	$0, %al
    	callq	_printf
    	leaq	L_.str.1(%rip), %rdi
    	movl	%eax, -100(%rbp)        ## 4-byte Spill
    	movb	$0, %al
    	callq	_printf
    	xorl	%edi, %edi
    	movl	%eax, -104(%rbp)        ## 4-byte Spill
    	callq	_exit
    LBB0_2:
    	xorl	%eax, %eax
    	movl	%eax, %edi
    	callq	_time
    	movl	%eax, %ecx
    	movl	%ecx, %edi
    	callq	_srand
    	movq	-16(%rbp), %rax
    	movq	8(%rax), %rdi
    	callq	_atoi
    	movl	%eax, -20(%rbp)
    	movq	-16(%rbp), %rdi
    	movq	16(%rdi), %rdi
    	callq	_atoi
    	movl	%eax, -24(%rbp)
    	movq	-16(%rbp), %rdi
    	movq	24(%rdi), %rdi
    	callq	_atoi
    	movl	%eax, -28(%rbp)
    	movl	$1000000, -32(%rbp)     ## imm = 0xF4240
    	movl	$0, -36(%rbp)
    	movl	$0, -40(%rbp)
    	movl	$0, -44(%rbp)
    LBB0_3:                                 ## =>This Inner Loop Header: Depth=1
    	movl	-44(%rbp), %eax
    	cmpl	-32(%rbp), %eax
    	jge	LBB0_20
    ## BB#4:                                ##   in Loop: Header=BB0_3 Depth=1
    	callq	_rand
    	movl	$20, %ecx
    	cltd
    	idivl	%ecx
    	addl	$1, %edx
    	movl	%edx, -48(%rbp)
    	cmpl	$0, -28(%rbp)
    	je	LBB0_11
    ## BB#5:                                ##   in Loop: Header=BB0_3 Depth=1
    	callq	_rand
    	movl	$20, %ecx
    	cltd
    	idivl	%ecx
    	addl	$1, %edx
    	movl	%edx, -52(%rbp)
    	movl	-52(%rbp), %ecx
    	cmpl	-48(%rbp), %ecx
    	jge	LBB0_10
    ## BB#6:                                ##   in Loop: Header=BB0_3 Depth=1
    	cmpl	$0, -28(%rbp)
    	jge	LBB0_8
    ## BB#7:                                ##   in Loop: Header=BB0_3 Depth=1
    	movl	-52(%rbp), %eax
    	movl	%eax, -108(%rbp)        ## 4-byte Spill
    	jmp	LBB0_9
    LBB0_8:                                 ##   in Loop: Header=BB0_3 Depth=1
    	movl	-48(%rbp), %eax
    	movl	%eax, -108(%rbp)        ## 4-byte Spill
    LBB0_9:                                 ##   in Loop: Header=BB0_3 Depth=1
    	movl	-108(%rbp), %eax        ## 4-byte Reload
    	movl	%eax, -48(%rbp)
    LBB0_10:                                ##   in Loop: Header=BB0_3 Depth=1
    	jmp	LBB0_11
    LBB0_11:                                ##   in Loop: Header=BB0_3 Depth=1
    	movl	-20(%rbp), %eax
    	addl	-48(%rbp), %eax
    	movl	%eax, -48(%rbp)
    	movl	-48(%rbp), %eax
    	cmpl	-24(%rbp), %eax
    	jl	LBB0_18
    ## BB#12:                               ##   in Loop: Header=BB0_3 Depth=1
    	leaq	L_.str.2(%rip), %rdi
    	movl	$5, %eax
    	movq	l_main.dice(%rip), %rcx
    	movq	%rcx, -80(%rbp)
    	movq	l_main.dice+8(%rip), %rcx
    	movq	%rcx, -72(%rbp)
    	movl	l_main.dice+16(%rip), %edx
    	movl	%edx, -64(%rbp)
    	movl	-48(%rbp), %edx
    	subl	-24(%rbp), %edx
    	movl	%eax, -112(%rbp)        ## 4-byte Spill
    	movl	%edx, %eax
    	cltd
    	movl	-112(%rbp), %esi        ## 4-byte Reload
    	idivl	%esi
    	movl	%eax, -84(%rbp)
    	movl	-84(%rbp), %esi
    	movb	$0, %al
    	callq	_printf
    	cmpl	$4, -84(%rbp)
    	movl	%eax, -116(%rbp)        ## 4-byte Spill
    	jle	LBB0_14
    ## BB#13:                               ##   in Loop: Header=BB0_3 Depth=1
    	movl	$4, -84(%rbp)
    LBB0_14:                                ##   in Loop: Header=BB0_3 Depth=1
    	movslq	-84(%rbp), %rax
    	movl	-80(%rbp,%rax,4), %ecx
    	movl	%ecx, -88(%rbp)
    	callq	_rand
    	cltd
    	idivl	-88(%rbp)
    	cmpl	$0, %edx
    	jne	LBB0_16
    ## BB#15:                               ##   in Loop: Header=BB0_3 Depth=1
    	movl	-40(%rbp), %eax
    	addl	$1, %eax
    	movl	%eax, -40(%rbp)
    	jmp	LBB0_17
    LBB0_16:                                ##   in Loop: Header=BB0_3 Depth=1
    	movl	-36(%rbp), %eax
    	addl	$1, %eax
    	movl	%eax, -36(%rbp)
    LBB0_17:                                ##   in Loop: Header=BB0_3 Depth=1
    	jmp	LBB0_18
    LBB0_18:                                ##   in Loop: Header=BB0_3 Depth=1
    	jmp	LBB0_19
    LBB0_19:                                ##   in Loop: Header=BB0_3 Depth=1
    	movl	-44(%rbp), %eax
    	addl	$1, %eax
    	movl	%eax, -44(%rbp)
    	jmp	LBB0_3
    LBB0_20:
    	leaq	L_.str.3(%rip), %rdi
    	movsd	LCPI0_0(%rip), %xmm0    ## xmm0 = mem[0],zero
    	cvtsi2sdl	-36(%rbp), %xmm1
    	cvtsi2sdl	-32(%rbp), %xmm2
    	divsd	%xmm2, %xmm1
    	mulsd	%xmm0, %xmm1
    	cvttsd2si	%xmm1, %eax
    	movl	%eax, -92(%rbp)
    	cvtsi2sdl	-40(%rbp), %xmm1
    	cvtsi2sdl	-32(%rbp), %xmm2
    	divsd	%xmm2, %xmm1
    	mulsd	%xmm0, %xmm1
    	cvttsd2si	%xmm1, %eax
    	movl	%eax, -96(%rbp)
    	movl	-92(%rbp), %esi
    	movb	$0, %al
    	callq	_printf
    	leaq	L_.str.4(%rip), %rdi
    	movl	-96(%rbp), %esi
    	movl	%eax, -120(%rbp)        ## 4-byte Spill
    	movb	$0, %al
    	callq	_printf
    	xorl	%edi, %edi
    	movl	%eax, -124(%rbp)        ## 4-byte Spill
    	callq	_exit
    	.cfi_endproc
    
    
    	.section	__TEXT,__cstring,cstring_literals
    L_.str:                                 ## @.str
    	.asciz	"Usage: 'roll [modifier] [dc] [dis/advantage]\n"
    
    
    L_.str.1:                               ## @.str.1
    	.asciz	"(-1 == disadvantage, 0 == normal, 1 == advantage\n "
    
    
    	.section	__TEXT,__const
    	.align	4                       ## @Main.dice
    l_main.dice:
    	.long	4                       ## 0x4
    	.long	6                       ## 0x6
    	.long	8                       ## 0x8
    	.long	12                      ## 0xc
    	.long	20                      ## 0x14
    
    
    	.section	__TEXT,__cstring,cstring_literals
    L_.str.2:                               ## @.str.2
    	.asciz	"%d\n"
    
    
    L_.str.3:                               ## @.str.3
    	.asciz	"Success Rate: %d%%\n"
    
    
    L_.str.4:                               ## @.str.4
    	.asciz	"False Success Rate: %d%%\n"
    
    
    
    
    .subsections_via_symbols
    As you can plainly see, the probabilities need some tweaking.
    XP CapnZapp gave XP for this post

Closed Thread
Page 10 of 18 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415161718 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Depth of Felk Mor?
    By Zardnaar in forum D&D 5th Edition News, Rules, Homebrews, and House Rules
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Saturday, 13th February, 2016, 09:27 PM
  2. [ุone Games] Just Add depth!
    By Master01 in forum Roleplaying Games General Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Wednesday, 21st June, 2006, 09:21 AM
  3. An in depth look at Dragonmarks
    By Whisper72 in forum Pathfinder, Starfinder, Older D&D Editions (4E, 3.x, 2E, 1E, OD&D), D&D Variants, OSR
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Friday, 23rd July, 2004, 11:11 PM
  4. In depth character building
    By Ferret in forum Pathfinder, Starfinder, Older D&D Editions (4E, 3.x, 2E, 1E, OD&D), D&D Variants, OSR
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Saturday, 25th May, 2002, 02:57 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •