D&D 5E (2014) Weighing in on 5e

[Gort]

One thing I would like to see them drop is the 3-18 scale for stats.

It makes little sense having say, strength 15, from you have to extrapolate that you have +2 strength. Why not just have "Strength 2"? I understand that it's a sacred cow, but we can probably ditch it by now.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Most goblins are nasties that can be ignored at a certain point. It's just those few exceptional ones that are significantly better than their brethren who pop up and surprise you. It's a useful tool to have: monsters the players think are set-dressing, but who turn out to actually be threats.

There are very few goblins above 3rd level anyway. The Compendium lists some level 4 stuff, but the Goblin Underboss is the only real straight goblin of that level, with a couple variations from different modules. Level 5 has a few more significant variants, but those are basically separate races. Admittedly there are other monsters that have been spread more, probably too much. OTOH it is always annoying to run a campaign and have a bunch of cool iconic monsters that never get used because they are all crowded into a few levels. Sometimes it is nice to have the option of another related creature that is a bunch of levels higher, they can come in handy, and if they aren't what you want, well, refluff them, lol.

 

[Dice4Hire]

It's a common misconception (which I'm not accusing you of having ) that the skill DC for opening a locked door goes up as you level. It doesn't. Any given door has its own level of difficulty to open.

Note the part you quoted, "Part of a skill challenge."

Please read qualifiers.

 

[Grydan]

One thing I would like to see them drop is the 3-18 scale for stats.

It makes little sense having say, strength 15, from you have to extrapolate that you have +2 strength. Why not just have "Strength 2"? I understand that it's a sacred cow, but we can probably ditch it by now.

I think that's one sacred cow that might be safe for at least one more edition. Killing it off would definitely be a significant break with the past.

I don't think you're wrong, though. While inertia, history, and nostalgia keep it going, there's little mechanical reason to keep on doing it.

There's a handful of places that the actual ability score does in fact interact with the rules of 4E, but if you're building 5E you can avoid putting those in, or come up with alternate ways of handling them.

 

[Grydan]

Note the part you quoted, "Part of a skill challenge."

Please read qualifiers.

Even with the qualifier, I don't see how the situation changes.

If the challenge is about the door, then it's in the range where success and failure are both possible, or it's not a skill challenge. It's entirely possible to set it as an easy, medium, or difficult challenge.

If the door is a part of the challenge, it's in the range where success and failure are both possible, or it's not worth mentioning in the skill challenge. It can be easy, medium, or hard. It can count as a success in the challenge, or modify some other roll, or cancel a failure, or what have you.

I'm honestly confused. What am I not understanding?

 

[drothgery]

Well, this thread is as good a place as any for a rough outline of how I'd set up 5e. Note here that I'm far more inclined to be evolutionary than revolutionary in game design (because I'm a programmer, not a game designer), so I guess here's what I'd go for

Major points here
- 4e-style rules, 3e-esque flavor; my basic theory here is that anyone that wants 3e rules and 3e flavor is playing Pathfinder and unlikely to switch, but people who were upset with the trappings of 4e rather than the mechanics may be inclined to switch to 5e
- class matters, and classes do one thing, and do it well; I'm not a big fan of the essentials (and later) shoehorning multiple builds that are new classes all but in name under the umbrella of the same class
- combat roles matter; if there are explicit combat roles, there should be stuff all defenders can do or all strikers can do
- power sources matter; there should be spells any arcane character can use, prayers any divine character can use, etc...
- epic tier in the core rulebooks was a noble experiment, but mostly ended up with 10 unused levels and a lot of unused epic destinies lying around
- sub-goal is to be about as compatible with 4e as 2e is with 1e (assuming no math fix feats)
- classes should offer varying levels of complexity; all the simple classes should not be stuck in a single role or power source, nor should all the complex classes

So what's in PH1 in drothgery's 5e
- races: just the 3e PH1 races -- human, elf, dwarf, halfling, half-elf, gnome, and half-orc. Based on the revised 4e versions with non-humans having a choice for one of their stat bonuses
- classes: 10 of the 3e PH1 classes, and two 4e imports
martial: rogue (striker), fighter (defender), warlord (leader), ranger (controller, based on the Essentials hunter)
divine: monk (striker), paladin (defender), cleric (leader), druid (controller) -- neither the monk nor the druid are divine in 4e, but the druid is certainly divine traditionally in D&D, and resonates quite a bit more with classic D&D players than the invoker, while the monk is far more of a traditional D&D class than the avenger (or the blackguard paladin) and D&D monks have often been tied to churches
arcane: sorcerer (striker), swordmage (defender - I think the magic-using swordsman is a sufficiently popular archetype to get a core class), bard (leader - I think artificers are cooler than bards, but D&D history disagrees with me), wizard (controller)

How am I getting 12 4e-style classes in one book without making it huge?
1 - as per above, I'm ditching the epic tier; this can be shuffled off to expansion.
2 - while all classes will have encounter powers and utility powers, only some will have at-wills and/or daily powers (though everyone will have an at-will attack of some type that uses their primary ability score)
3 - encounter powers are shared by power source; sorcerers, wizards, bards, and swordmages can all cast fireball. Some classes may have class features that tweak their powers to better suit their role.
4 - utility powers are shared by combat role; clerics, warlords, and bards can all use cure light wounds.

quick note on powers - powers that give out short term, small bonuses or penalties will be discouraged if not removed entirely
quick note on feats - all feats will grant fixed, always-on abilities/bonuses, will never have more than one prerequisite, and neither class nor possessing a specific class feature will be a valid prerequisite

 

[Skyscraper]

?

In 1st/2nd Edition, saving throw target numbers decreases as you went up in level. In 3e, save modifiers likewise went up with level.

In all cases, the only defence that didn't automatically go up with level was AC, and even there the party was assumed to be getting better items as they gained levels, effectively increasing their AC.

What 4e has brought to the table is fixed progressions for all defences, and that progression at the same rate for PCs as with their attack bonuses. But the concept of defences improving with level is not new.

In 1E-2E, your saving throws "went up", but the "attack bonuses" of the opponents didn't. (There weren't any attack bonuses for spells.) So saving throws increasing in effectiveness meant that your PC improved in an "absolute scale". Likewise in 3E. To the point: if you get attacked by a "hold person" spell and need to save against it, you have a better chance of success when you're level 10 than when you're level 1.

In 4E, when you're level 10 you either meet a level 10 minion or a level 10 standard, but you don't meet level 1 standards. Not saying this is a bad thing mechanically, but in the end your defenses will only matter against opponents with a similarly scaled attack value. So in 4E when you're level 1 or level 10 you get attacked with a hold person spell (assuming it exists), the opponent has the same chances of success.

 

[Skyscraper]

But in an absolute sense PCs DO improve. At level 1 the goblin is a challenge to hit and your defenses are barely adequate to defend you against its attacks. Advance to level 5 and said goblin is no longer a big threat, but now you can take on a bugbear and have a good chance of winning. Remove advancing bonuses and you undermine that absolute progression. Now, there might be other ways to achieve it, but there's a good argument for the mechanics being simple and transparent.

One of the more annoying things about AD&D was that the progression wasn't all that transparent. Your AC WOULD improve, or at least it had better if you expect to survive. However you had to depend on either the whim of the dice or the whim of the DM for it to happen. A level 10 fighter in non-magical AC2 plate armor would be a sad puppy.

In 4E you do get the relative advancement you had in previous version of D&D, but it lasts only for a few levels and then it gradually disolves. The DMG states, and the entire 4E is designed, to avoid PCs being pitted against opponents of more than 5 levels over or under the PC levels. Once you're beyond that point, the PCs are expected to meet minions or solos or elites. That's how the mechanics work.

So while I agree that progression in power as you level is certainly fun and rewarding, the 4E level-dependent progression is a total illusion since as you level up, your opponens on average "level up" at the same rate and you end up having a relative attack vs. defense value that is equivalent at all levels, on average. The opponent that aims to hit you with any attack will need approximately the same value on his d20 roll, on average, at any level.

In older versions that wasn't true. It came with fun and not so fun consequences, but it was certainly not the same. When you met a flesh golem, it was easy to hit (AC 9) whatever level you were at. Adventure design did not tell you to use flesh golems only at a given level, and flesh golem defenses were not detemrined to allow PCs to hit with a 10 on their d20 on average. (Again, you can disagree with how the mechanics worked.)

 

[Oldtimer]

I'd like for some of the fans with their nose bent out of shape about the OGL to stop making false accusations of lying, even after they've been repeatedly called out for it, then lying low for awhile, then trying it yet again.

"False accusations"??
I distinctly remember being lied to by WotC around a year ago. That lie was the major reason I cancelled my DDI account and why I'm no longer a customer of said company.

I don't see what your problem is and why you post in such a toxic way.

 

[JoeGKushner]

One thing I would like to see them drop is the 3-18 scale for stats.

It makes little sense having say, strength 15, from you have to extrapolate that you have +2 strength. Why not just have "Strength 2"? I understand that it's a sacred cow, but we can probably ditch it by now.

I've been saying that for years. When I saw Green Ronin do it with True 20, it made perfect sense.

Once you no longer go the route of pre 3rd ed where stats having the same score meant different things depending on the stat, the actual utility of having 3-18 is diminished vastly.