• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

D&D 5E What needs to be fixed in 5E?

So maybe classes should specify areas of knowledge that you are knowledgeable about or could be knowledgeable about, but being 'knowledgeable' as a trait is more about using what you know. So maybe they all have to be ACTIVE words. Maybe we'd want something more like adverbal forms or something. It is a bit murky for sure.

I think knowledge areas are like weapon proficiencies: You should get a few inherent in your class, but you could have an option to get a few more with feat-like picks. And thus we come full circle to the old sage variants. They seemed a little off with no other mechanic to back them up. If you suddenly have a "Lore" skill to handle the heavy lifting in the mechanics, they might work.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

It is that he deceives, he is deceptive. It is a part of his nature, and maybe he typically does it in certain ways that suite his other resources, so perhaps he typically tells tall tales, or maybe he distracts people with idiotic blather, or sings songs that manipulate them or whatever (and he probably can fall back on a couple of techniques and can probably extemporize well using other techniques, given his predilections).

I have such a serious problem with presenting creative practices such as storytelling, musicianship, baking, etc. as part of Bluff and "being deceptive" that I'm having to consciously control my respiration.
 

I have such a serious problem with presenting creative practices such as storytelling, musicianship, baking, etc. as part of Bluff and "being deceptive" that I'm having to consciously control my respiration.
Then I would suggest you step back, take a break, and go for a walk or something. It's just one possible example of how a talent could be used. And it's only a game.

I get where you're coming from though, really I do. Hey, I used to play guitar too, but I think you're overreacting. I also think that the others are on to something here. It's where my head has been going with 4e for quite some time as well. In a system like what Abdul Alhazred described, the bluff skill doesn't represent your ability or talent or whathaveyou with your creative skill. It doesn't even necessarily describe a skill at all - it describes your character's approach. How he uses a given talent, not what that talent is, or even how good he is at it at all. For all I care there could be separate mechanics for that (so long as they don't eat into other resources).

That's why when they release a new edition, I would like to see options for both types of systems. I don't want your camp to hate where the game is going, because I care about the well-being of the game and the hobby as much as any of us, but I also don't want the things I like about the current system or direction to disappear.
 

I have such a serious problem with presenting creative practices such as storytelling, musicianship, baking, etc. as part of Bluff and "being deceptive" that I'm having to consciously control my respiration.

I appreciate that we have very different approaches to how we think about this, it is OK.

Let me also say that there is of course more to it than that. The same creative practices can be used for other purposes, like diplomacy or intimidation. Of course these are VERY proscribed ways of looking at creative pursuits in REAL WORLD terms. I'm just looking at them in game centric terms where they are activities you model as part of your character's adventures. If the player simply wants to have his character spend his off time on artistic activities there wouldn't need to be any modeling of that.

And of course my specific example was pretty contrived. Usually I can pull something half decent out my hat, but not always.
 

http://img2.imagesbn.com/images/14290000/14292281.JPG

Many of the 4Ed skills are far too broad, or composed of oddly related subparts (or, as pointed out, non-existent), leading to an atrocious square-peg=>round hole issue, which repeatedly crops up in PC design or RP situations.

A Starlock's pact is with certain alien powers of- as I recall, of Far-Realmsian nature- yet has no special knowledge of aberrations and creatures of such origins without burning a feat to gain Dungeoneering. The aforementioned craft/creative skills largely get shoehorned into logic defying uses of skills like bluff, diplomacy and so forth, or handwaved.

It may not matter for some campaigns or playstyles, but for some of us, it is quite jarring.

4Ed has many things it's good at handling, but its skills system is a mess.
 
Last edited:

http://img2.imagesbn.com/images/14290000/14292281.JPG

Many of the 4Ed skills are far too broad (or non-existent), leading to an atrocious square-peg=>round hole issue, which repeatedly crops up in PC design or RP situations.

A Starlock's pact is with certain alien powers of- as I recall, of Far-Realmsian nature- yet has no special knowledge of aberrations and creatures of such origins without burning a feat to gain Dungeoneering. The aforementioned craft/creative skills largely get shoehorned into logic defying uses of skills like bluff, diplomacy and so forth, or handwaved.

It may not matter for some campaigns or playstyles, but for some of us, it is quite jarring.

4Ed has many things it's good at handling, but its skills system is a mess.
And I completely disagree.

In my group (of mostly AD&D grognards) we have no square peg round hole issues with the skill system. Like, at all. Other areas of 4e, sure. But not the skills.

As for playstyles, we're RP-heavy; RP-centric even. So your implication that it's about playstyle doesn't fit. Unless that's not what you mean?

I think the heart of the issue is one of approach, and how literally one wants to interpret the rules.

And I still fail to understand how using skills in the ways described above is "logic defying." Makes perfect sense to me.

In fact, to me, I actually don't get the point of having a skill in the game that only represents your technical ability with something.

It's very well and good to say, "I play some sweet riffs on my hurdy gurdy. Sweet! I got a 36!"

What does that prove? You can play well? Great. So what? More to the point, what are you trying to accomplish with that? That's where a roll on another skill is involved. The game just assumes that you play well enough, but what it needs to know is how you intend to direct that action.

I guess if you are the kind of person that needs to have a number to know how good you are, fine. 4e can account for that, as I've said (anywhere from just rolling an associated stat to stat + training + focus). But being good at a thing, and being able to apply that to different situations are completely different.

It's pretty clear that we're not going to see eye to eye here, ever. That's why I hope to heck that the next incarnation of this game incorporates both (or more?) points of view, because I thought 3.x skill system was a complete mess. A time-consuming, fiddly, over-nuanced mess. You don't, and that's fine. Variety is the spice of life and all that.
 

Much the same experience here, with a group that is comprised mostly of people who are north of 40 and one young'un. Most of us have been playing for decades, with experience in a number of different RPGs.

Perhaps if they had called them "aptitudes", rather than "skills", some people would have less trouble accepting the system?
 

What does that prove? You can play well? Great. So what? More to the point, what are you trying to accomplish with that? That's where a roll on another skill is involved. The game just assumes that you play well enough, but what it needs to know is how you intend to direct that action.

If I'm playing an instrument to earn my supper, a competition for a monetary prize, or even in a "cuttin' heads" competition with the Devil's champion, I'm not bluffing or intimidating my audience, I'm engaged in a display of skill. In each, I'm trying to please my audience, but the judging criteria are different. And they all boil down to "can you play your instrument well at this time"- IOW, without "chord amnesia", without oversoloing to the point that the main theme is lost, hitting some clams, and so forth. None of the skills in 4ed reflect that.

Stepping back to the Starlock example: Monster IDing is spread out over 4 skills- Arcana, Dungeoneering, Nature and Religion. And those skills are not necessarily on the lists of those who would be familiar with those critters- like the Starlock not having Dungeoneering- usually because there's good reason for the class NOT to have the main uses of he skill. This IS a problem.

(The best way I can see around this is remove that IDing from thos classes and simply making each class familiar with certain critters as a class feature- essentially, a class-specific Monster ID trained skill.)

Going back further upthread to look at the HERO system, it's crucial to recognize that any PC may take any skill- without classes, your PC's skillset is unique to him because he can take ANY skill. In addition, if you don't see the skill in the book, you cn simply add it...and it follows exactly the same mechanics as a standard skill.

Translating that into 4Ed, that would mean divorcing skill selection from lists limited by class. If you want to maintain that certain classes are better at certain skills than others due to training- part of the logic behind class-limited skill lists- give classes a +2 bonus to those skills (let's call that the Expert bonus...and it only applies to skills you train in).

You'd have a functionally infinite skill list with 3 basic tiers- untrained, trained, and expert- plus racial, level, and feat-based bonuses.
 
Last edited:

I think the problem here is one of not really having the same argument. You say I'm comparing higher level with lower level powers. YES, so what? We're not comparing levels of powers. The REASON the fly powers are higher level is because they are potentially so good!

Here's how I view the movement powers from weakest to strongest within combat:

1) Shifting (more than one square from a power). The PC moves around, but various terrain and conditions (physical restraint, immobilization, and grabs) do affect it. It doesn't provoke OAs. This should be the type of movement power that mostly shows up at 1 to 4 heroic levels. It's not that good at getting past obstacles, but it's useful for getting past NPCs.

2) One move action flying, but PC must land or will fall. The PC moves around, terrain does not affect it, but conditions still do. These powers should start showing up in the level 3 to 5 level range. This is still more powerful than shifting because of the vast utility of getting past traps and avoiding climb checks, even if it does provoke OAs.

3) Limited short range combat teleport (i.e. limited to must teleport next to a foe or must attack a foe or something similar). It has all of the advantages of one move action flight, but it doesn't provoke OAs, and it avoids physical restraint, immobilization, and grabs. It should show up in the 4 to 6 level range. Short range combat teleport as a general rule is just a bit more useful than one move action flight because of its stronger tactical positioning capability and ability to just go past foes/hazards unhindered. The main limitation here is blindness/los and that's not really that common with combat teleport because blindness is not common at these levels and it's likely that most foes are within sight.

4) One round flying/hover. The PC moves around, terrain does not affect it, but OAs and conditions still do. The ability to be out of melee range for a single round is nice, but far from earth-shattering because we are talking about the fact that the foes can just go attack someone else. As a defense, it is about on par with invisibility since it is not immunity from attacks, just a lesser chance to get hit (fewer foes can attack in the first case, a -5 penalty to attack againt melee or ranged in the second case). Flying also risks the chance of falling, so it's not all that great of an effect. These powers should start showing up in the 6 to 8 level range.

5) Short range teleport. It has all of the advantages of one move action flight and combat teleport, but it can go anywhere and be used out of combat. Short range teleport as a general rule is much better than short range flight because of it's ability to go nearly anywhere, regardless of most environmental effects. This is not just what you call tactiport, but many other useful environmental avoidances. It should show up in the 8 to 10 level range. The main limitation here is blindness/los.

6) Encounter long flight. This power is obviously stronger than short range teleport. It should start showing up around mid-paragon and that's where we mostly see it.


Outside of combat, one round flight does get an advantage of moving over a wall or around a corner, but this type of advantage isn't as prevalent in combat situations.


My main problem with these movement powers is that when one compares them to Shift, they are significantly more effective and useful, but still get handed out at first or second level. There's something wrong with that. Argue the actual levels that certain effects should show up however you want, but I doubt you will convince a lot of people that short range teleport or short duration flight is equally balanced with shifting.

I think PCs should have to use climb checks and such to get past obstacles at low heroic. The ability to just zip past obstacles should be a higher heroic concept and not handed out like candy.

Another balance point that is kind of ignored is the distance of the movement. Isn't moving 6 squares a lot stronger of an effect than moving 3 squares? Lower level powers should move shorter distances. So with the examples above, a 3rd level power might be Flight 3 must land, a 5th level power might be Flight 6 must land, and an 8th level power might be Flight 6 can hover one round. Or some such.

I will not argue the merits of all encounter Flight. I see it as a solid ability, but not great. You see it as a major ability. But, that's not my point. My point is that teleport at level one is a LOT more useful than shift at level one or must land flight at level one.

That's where the game balance of movement effects is too uber. IMO. Let the PCs struggle with climbing over obstacles for a few levels.

Bring back the 10 foot pole. Everyone is a fricking potent spell caster at first level these days.

The designers should look carefully at each movement effect for 5E and determine which are more potent/useful and which are weaker, and hand out the weaker effects at lower levels and hand out the stronger effects at higher level. And as levels get higher, even the weaker effects should become more prevalent and have more utility. Game design 101.

D&D shouldn't be a game of low level super heroes flying or teleporting all over the place. Again, IMO. Let the PCs build up to the stronger effects as they level up and don't just hand them out like candy at level one.

This is what I am arguing against.

Ever since the 3.5 Spell Compendium book came out, the designers have gone hog wild with very low level teleports. It was a bigger, better, badder splat book thing in 3.5 and went straight across into 4E.


In fact, it's my opinion that the very REASON that when players look at all of the powers for their class at their level and see a third as junk, a third as situationally ok, and a third as pretty good is because the designers did not come up with a list of metarules for game effects, listing the levels at which certain abilities should start showing up and at what power/utility.

It's really a hodge podge at most levels for most classes because the game designers did not come up with a game design rulebook for the game designers.
 

If I'm playing an instrument to earn my supper, a competition for a monetary prize, or even in a "cuttin' heads" competition with the Devil's champion, I'm not bluffing or intimidating my audience, I'm engaged in a display of skill. In each, I'm trying to please my audience, but the judging criteria are different. And they all boil down to "can you play your instrument well at this time"- IOW, without "chord amnesia", without oversoloing to the point that the main theme is lost, hitting some clams, and so forth. None of the skills in 4ed reflect that.
And none of them need to. All of these things are adequately represented by an ad-hoc model. The first example shouldn't even be an issue in most campaigns, especially not past first level but ok, let's assume that for whatever reason, it is. Ad-hoc method like mine works fine. Make your check, DM makes a judgment call and you're done. In real life, I don't even think it matters. I've given money to street performers, but do you actually think I gave a crap how 'good' they were? Heck no. I gave out of charity, or pity, or whatever. I respected the fact that they were doing something to earn it rather than flat out panhandling. I know lots of people who feel the same way.

Competition for a monetary prize? My (or a similar) model still works. But if this is actually something in the campaign's plot, or even a sidequest, I sure hope that it isn't decided by a couple of dice rolls in some obscure overly specific skill. I should hope there is more to it than that. Intruigue, sabotaging the competition, trying not to be sabotaged yourself, etc. Something like a skill challenge. Preferably one involving more than just one character.

If it is even a part of the story at all, more than likely the DM put it there knowing that you put ranks in a relevant skill, or you went looking for it to justify your investment.

Your third example is no different. If all you want to do is brag and show off about how high your skill in a given area is, the ad-hoc model works just fine. It's not a lot different than anything you would have done under 3.x - you just don't have to blow skill points on it - I'll take your word that your character is as good as you say he is. Though, you have to put some thought or effort into it. You have to have roleplayed it previously, or written it into your story, or whatever. End of the day? Same results. When it actually matters.

Most of the rest of the time though, it's just not important.

These are the same old arguments you've used before, and I'm still not buying them. It's just such a corner case that I don't care to bloat the skill system with that stuff. It's fluff. It's background. And when it becomes important there are ways to make it work.

That said, I'm a clever guy, I can come up with this stuff. Not everyone can, so I do wish they would have put more effort into helping DMs with this area of the game, but by and large page 42 has it covered.
Stepping back to the Starlock example: Monster IDing is spread out over 4 skills- Arcana, Dungeoneering, Nature and Religion. And those skills are not necessarily on the lists of those who would be familiar with those critters- like the Starlock not having Dungeoneering- usually because there's good reason for the class NOT to have the main uses of he skill. This IS a problem.

(The best way I can see around this is remove that IDing from thos classes and simply making each class familiar with certain critters as a class feature- essentially, a class-specific Monster ID trained skill.)
I see no reason why a Starlock should automatically have any knowledge of the things he is making a pact with. I've read plenty of Lovecraft, and most of the time the pact-makers are clueless or insane, or both.

That said, I agree that it should be on the Warlock's class list, since that is what it covers.

Though if someone in one of my games came to me about this, I would let them take the skill if they had a good reason (like that one).


Of course, now there are backgrounds (since PH2?) and you can put it on your class list that way, and maybe even snag a bonus while you're at it.
Kind of a non-issue these days.
 
Last edited:

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top