D&D 5E 11/1/13 google hangout with

[YRUSirius]

It's not a question of whether the word itself is correct, but more of whether people who use that system treat it correctly. And based upon a whole lot of threads here and elsewhere... many players seem to keep wanting to treat "skills" as they were in 3E and 4E... instead of how they are now supposed to be used. And so long as you use the word "skills" to describe the system... some players will continue to try and use the system incorrectly. Change the name... make people realize it's a new game system... and I think we'd be better off.

Yeah, I understand this. But to me the term "skill" seems more elegant and it's used almost everywhere (other rpgs, pc rpgs, etc.). A "new" term like "proficiencies" can prevent the cognitive dissonance and get the point across better to confused players - but it seems more unelegant and unwieldy to me.

I think we shouldn't change the term only to help out 3E and 4E players, especially given the fact that just a little bit of time with the actual skill system and attribute resolution system can clear any confusion whatsoever. The change just seems unneccessary to me - only to please old editioners, who don't understand the rules - yet.

Newbie RPGamers shouldn't have a problem with the term "skill" I think.

This is nothing big though, just my personal preference. I'll continue calling them skills in my game, no matter what.

-YRUSirius

 

[Blackwarder]

Yeah, I understand this. But to me the term "skill" seems more elegant and it's used almost everywhere (other rpgs, pc rpgs, etc.). A "new" term like "proficiencies" can prevent the cognitive dissonance and get the point across better to confused players - but it seems more unelegant and unwieldy to me.

I think we shouldn't change the term only to help out 3E and 4E players, especially given the fact that just a little bit of time with the actual skill system and attribute resolution system can clear any confusion whatsoever. The change just seems unneccessary to me - only to please old editioners, who don't understand the rules - yet.

Newbie RPGamers shouldn't have a problem with the term "skill" I think.

This is nothing big though, just my personal preference. I'll continue calling them skills in my game, no matter what.

-YRUSirius

I disagree, based on my experience with a bunch of players who played since 2e (some even played BD&D) and who's recent experience is with 3e and 4e, there is a big difference between how they grasp the DnDNext skills as opposed to how the system use skills, for a bunch of folks who used to treat skills as task resolution system trying to grasp that ability checks do that now, changing the name will be the most straightforward way to make sure that old players won't slip into old habits.

Warder

 

[YRUSirius]

So they used Next's skill system like the task resolution system of 3E and 4E because those were the last editions they played before Next.

But they do understand the task resolution system is relying on attributes now, right? So the term "skill" shouldn't be a problem for them NOW, correct?

That's what I meant: Old 3E/4E players have different expectations how the rules work without reading them. Totally new players wouldn't have problems with the "skill" term, because they do not have any 3E/4E background. Maybe "proficiencies" would confuse newbies more, than the term "skill" would confuse rpg veterans? I don't know.

But I don't think that the cognitive dissonance with the term "skill" would last longer than a few sessions.

-YRUSirius

 

[Randomthoughts]

So the google hangout interview just ended, what do you guys think?

Really interesting discussion that’s chock full of stuff. I came away from it thinking this: What a tricky balancing act this is becoming! But I think they are going about it the right way (IMHO). Specifically:

-- Attention paid to the game play experience and making the GM's job easier. As an underlying design principle, a few of Mike's and Jeremy's comments highlighted their attention to "is this rule easy on the player?" and "is this easy for the GM?" This is a good thing.

-- Skills/Areas of Expertise and Attribute Checks. Though I'm partial to 4e, Mike's explanation on the making skills more character customization elements (at least in the basic game) made sense esp. in making the GM's job easier i.e., the GM doesn't have to memorize skill lists.

OTOH, I don't agree with fighters add skill dice to STR while Rogues add it to DEX, etc. Let the player choose during chargen!

-- Allowing Martial Characters to do "Cool Stuff". As part of the skills discussion, they commented on taunt and capabilities of martial characters in general. I'm glad they’re paying attention to balancing what martial characters can do. I think Jeremy mentioned that "narrative defining non-magical abilities" will not be in the basic rules (perhaps a module?). But skill tricks like Taunt (as PC defining abilities) are included. The discussion highlighted what a tricky balancing act this will be.

Oh yeah, change the "Charm" condition to "Friendly". It's confusing.

-- Martial Damage. Mike mentioned that it currently is too high. But the math is easy to fix. Do you agree?

-- High Level Play. A few topics were touched on. Jeremy indicated, in terms of the abilities of high level characters in the playtest, the benchmark is Conan and members of the Fellowship than say, Beowulf or Roland. I’m good with that. Mike mentioned a Legacy system, for PCs going beyond 20th level. My impression was it wasn't in current development, more a concept than anything.

-- The Dragon and 43 Bugbears. Mike commented less on the result of that encounter, and more on the design of the dragon, i.e., it should be able to take on 4 characters at once. I agree with their comments about status effects (like stunning) and how solos shouldn't - as a rule - be immune to those. It'll be interesting to see what they come up with. What Mike didn’t want is for the game play to devolve into casting the same three spells as some “I Win” button.

But Jeremy made it a point to say that they’re ok with encounters ending in unexpected ways but want the rules to stack the deck against unsatisfying endings. They "want cleverness to be rewarded in the game." Mike added that players wanted more variability in the game. The essence of D&D is not knowing what is going to happen next (not only b/c you have a GM but also the rules facilitate this).

-- Spreading Damage Dice. Again, they touched on martial characters. I’m ok with using the damage dice in the way they described, like spreading it across multiple targets or reducing it for status effects.

-- Sources of the Playtest. Jeremy mentioned four sources of feedback for the playtest. There are daily internal playtesting, feedback from playtesters who’ve signed a NDA and have access to materials not released to the public playtesters, the public playtesters (he mentioned 1000s) and finally, the forums.

-- Swarm and minion rules. Not really a focus now. Mike mentioned he wanted rules for mass combat in the standard game (meaning not in the basic game).

-- Out of combat.So far, they’ve removed class skills. But the classes will be designed that some will be better than others in certain situations (like a bard will be better in social situations). Beyond that, the discussion was very general. Mike doesn’t envision specific rules for non-combat, like they have it for combat. He could provide more options, but not “I Win” buttons (he was referring to taunt making the opponent want toward you).

OTOH, both wants to avoid defining too much (or as Jeremy mentioned, making it “suffocating”), b/c it may discourage improvisation. Mike concluded that he’s not sure of the priority of this part of the rules.

-- Multi-class and New Class. Multiclass will be by level. But Mike mentioned that while the system may work for edge cases (like a L19 Fighter/L1 Wizard or 1 level in 20 classes), it will work best for “reasonable multi-classing”, described as up to 3 classes that are close in level.

A new class will be released during Winter Fantasy. What do you think it will be? My hope is the Warlord!

 

[YRUSirius]

What weapon dice rate would you give fighters? The first additional WD at level 3, so a fighter can cleave at that level? The next additional at level 6, and so on...?

Any balancing thoughts on this?

-YRUSirius

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think I agree with you. But in their discussion I cant help feel they were too defensive about the idea of mundane forced action, it was kinda: we dont want to go too far down this path, but it happens all the time in the real world. I like the example Mearls used of con men tricking people out of the money. Even in the context of sport, players get out of position all the time because of fakes, feints etc.

The truth is that people make mistakes because of the skill of their opponents, but I think than many people and DMs want to have complete sovereign control over all their actions all the time except when magic is involved. I dont see this as realistic or fun but it seems baked into many of the earlier editions of D&D. I think I would like to see incentives to performs actions, especially at lower levels, but I would also like to see dictation of actions at higher levels.

I think it's an important point of gameplay psychology. Fundamentally, you play D&D by dictating the choices of the character(s) you control. When a rule doesn't let you make those choices, it feels like the game is playing itself.

That's OK to a small degree when pernicious magic is involved -- one of the wicked things about magic is that it can remove your free will. It's also OK when it involves a physical force -- pushing, pulling, knocking around, all good. There's a lot of room there.

It's less OK to represent manipulation or trickery. That involves choice. If I am meant to play my character (or NPC if I am a DM), I want to make choices for my character. If I'm not making those choices when the character is, I don't feel like I'm playing the game. It's not fun -- I feel like someone else is playing the game via my characters

It might help to think of it like this: if you were approaching a juncture in the dungeon that let you turn right or left, and the DM made a Wisdom check and made the decision for you, how would that feel?

I get making a Wisdom check to give context, or to give information, and I get things like high checks being likely to reveal secrets or trickery, but the DM doesn't take the choice away from you. She might subtly guide you based on your check, but she doesn't tell you what your characters do.

 

[Manbearcat]

I just got back from playing basketball. There was quite a bit of forced movement out there and no magic:

- crossover dribbles from left to right and defenders jumping to their right while you blow by them on their left.
- "no look" or "look away" passes causing defenders to mistakenly jump "passing lanes" as you throw the ball to your teammate who is where they just were.
- pump fakes causing defenders to leave their feet and jump past you playing jump shots that don't exist; and then you blow past them to the rim.
- hard dribble to hesitation dribble causing guys to relax for a moment and then you blow by them.
- guys who have been repeatedly trapping pick and rolls on defense and aggressively jumping "phantom picks" as the pickman "slips" to the rim getting a wide open layup.

 

[I'm A Banana]

crossover dribbles from left to right and defenders jumping to their right while you blow by them on their left.

In D&D, this is simply making a check (such as a Dex check) and avoiding opportunity attacks for moving out of melee.

- "no look" or "look away" passes causing defenders to mistakenly jump "passing lanes" as you throw the ball to your teammate who is where they just were.

In D&D, this might be represented with a check (such as a Dex or Cha check) that negates a target's cover.

- pump fakes causing defenders to leave their feet and jump past you playing jump shots that don't exist; and then you blow past them to the rim.

Either of the above mechanics could cover this, too.

- hard dribble to hesitation dribble causing guys to relax for a moment and then you blow by them.

Sounds like #1 again, just a slightly different way to implement it.

- guys who have been repeatedly trapping pick and rolls on defense and aggressively jumping "phantom picks" as the pickman "slips" to the rim getting a wide open layup.

Sounds like the above two tactics in concert again.

...Additionally, none of that dictates your opponent's actions. They make the choice to jump, to move, to juke in one direction or another. You don't remove their freedom to act, you simply try to persuade them to use that freedom in the wrong way. You are not in control of them, you simply mislead them. In a game like D&D, where control over your character is how you play, I feel that it's quite disruptive to remove that.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

My thoughts...

I'm alright with Rogues or other non-magical classes getting that charm ability, as the charm condition they define doesn't seem to be that big of a deal. In the past I know that many handled charm person as if it was some kind of ability like dominate person. But maybe a name change should be in order.

Multiclassing, back in 2e there were times when I tried to go for something like Fighter/Wizard/Cleric because you could in the rules, I'd have to see if something like that (even if it's a weird combo) can be a valid character build.

The suggestion that martial damage die is based on the weapon, it sounds reasonable. But what would there be, to make a dagger over a greataxe, appealing to a fighter?

The new class, somehow I suspect it's going to replace a class like Warlord or (Magical) Assassin by taking its stuff.

 

[Manbearcat]

- crossover dribbles from left to right and defenders jumping to their right while you blow by them on their left.

In D&D, this is simply making a check (such as a Dex check) and avoiding opportunity attacks for moving out of melee.

Coordination and agility primary + Explosive athleticism secondary vs the ability to instantaneously, correctly process multiple physical vectors including posture, velocity and spatial orientation/geometry and have the reflex command of your musculature and coordination to bring that information processing to bring that information to bare.

So basically, in 5e terms: Dexterity + Strength vs Intelligence + Wisdom + Dexterity. D&D doesn't do that level of granularity well so we abstract it to...what? Dex vs Intelligence? Ugly but probably the closest as I would say the speed and accuracy of the information processing (not the noticing of a feint) is the most important aspect for the defender.

- "no look" or "look away" passes causing defenders to mistakenly jump "passing lanes" as you throw the ball to your teammate who is where they just were.

In D&D, this might be represented with a check (such as a Dex or Cha check) that negates a target's cover.

Probably Wisdom vs Wisdom here.

- pump fakes causing defenders to leave their feet and jump past you playing jump shots that don't exist; and then you blow past them to the rim.

Either of the above mechanics could cover this, too.

Probably Dexterity + Strength vs Wisdom here. Coordination/agility is predominant for the offender...so, Dexterity vs Wisdom.

- hard dribble to hesitation dribble causing guys to relax for a moment and then you blow by them.

Sounds like #1 again, just a slightly different way to implement it.

Strength + Dexterity vs Dexterity + Intelligence + Wisdom. Explosiveness vs agility/coordination is predominate here...so Strength vs Dexterity.

- guys who have been repeatedly trapping pick and rolls on defense and aggressively jumping "phantom picks" as the pickman "slips" to the rim getting a wide open layup.

Sounds like the above two tactics in concert again.

Intelligence + Dexterity vs Wisdom here. Canniness and guile + coordination vs perception.

...Additionally, none of that dictates your opponent's actions. They make the choice to jump, to move, to juke in one direction or another. You don't remove their freedom to act, you simply try to persuade them to use that freedom in the wrong way. You are not in control of them, you simply mislead them. In a game like D&D, where control over your character is how you play, I feel that it's quite disruptive to remove that.

I just don't agree. At all.

We have this "Charisma equals Bluff" non sequitur attached to our D&D reasoning because it was couched this way starting with 3.0 and we just accepted it. Sure, it counts this way in SOCIAL settings where persuasiveness, force of personality, leadership, sense of self/presence is predominant. However, in physical situations it falls almost exclusively under the purview of Intelligence (canniness, reasoning, information processing and guile) + Dexterity (requisite coordination/agility needed for the body control to pull it off) + Strength (explosiveness required to be "faster than your opponents mind" and destroy their instantaneous calculations of velocity/spatial orientation/etc). Most of the guys I play with have (these are my pals...but its true) little to no persuasiveness, force of personality, leadership, sense of self/presence (Charisma) but they can cross someone over or stutter step or execute a pump fake and leave a defender in the dust. I always liked the Flick of the Wrist (Dexterity) modeling of a physical deke/fake much better than Bluff (Charisma) for a Combat Feint.

In total, you are controlling them. You are dictating what they do because their information processing skills + their coordination + their explosiveness + their perception is undone by your own. We've done this dance before. There is no "free will" in instantaneous physical exchanges. There are subconscious (velocity/spatial orientation/geometry) calculations and are you coordinated/fast enough to stay with me?

D&D doesn't do this well as it abstracts complex physical processes with one attacking score vs one defense. Further it is obfuscated by the legacy issue of the (physical) combat feint (where coordination/agility/explosiveness are predominant) inexplicably being associated with Charisma.