Power vs. Options

[kitsune9]

So the orc might not threaten a 20th level character, but is still useful against a 7th level party.

My biggest curiousity and fear is how they do the options thing. I really have come to hate character book keeping.

Think of the converse too. As a DM, would you be happy that the 1st level party can challenge your "7th level" orc (I guess this could be some orc barbarian chieftain)?

I think picking the power curve is going to be a challenge for the designers--finding that spot where most of the playtesters will be happy with it.

 

[Ratskinner]

I think the old 3e idea of a fighter getting a +1 to ht every level is over. Im more for +1 every 4 (or around that)

I'd be fine with 1st level Fighters starting with oh say +3 BAB and slowly progressing from there.

Maybe even have it like SWSAGA where multiclassers don't get that (to stop level dipping).

 

[Recidivism]

I think I would be perfectly content with no built-in level scaling bonuses, but I think it's much more likely we'll just see a flattening of the curve like 1/4 levels or 1/5 levels.

As for this making it impossible to have player characters fight dragons ... How exactly? I mean, the Monster Manual will probably have a range of dragons to fight, from "challenging" to "really effin' hard" much like past editions.

The only mechanical side-effect flattening out bonus curves out will have is that the level range a foe can be fought at and be an appropriate challenge will be much wider. As far as I'm concerned that will be a good thing. Less need to have Goblin Slinger (Level 1), Feral Goblin Slinger (Level 10), Demonic Goblin Slinger (Level 20). Improves the ability of DM tools to be useful throughout a campaign, thus reducing my workload.

 

[Ratskinner]

Think of the converse too. As a DM, would you be happy that the 1st level party can challenge your "7th level" orc (I guess this could be some orc barbarian chieftain)?

I think picking the power curve is going to be a challenge for the designers--finding that spot where most of the playtesters will be happy with it.

Sure, why not? The difference would be how many at once. The first level party might fight a single 7HD(or level or whatever) Orc Chieftain at the end of an orc-extermination adventure. The 7th level party might need to fight a dozen 2HD orc soldiers to make it non-trivial (or put fewer in with other monsters, maybe wargs?).

I know that's not the way we're used to thinking of it anymore, but "level" is another one of those words that really doesn't have meaning outside the specific rules in question. So, since 3e we've gotten used to the idea that two levels of difference in CR or level is pretty big, but 5e may make the "pretty big" difference more like 5 levels.

 

[billd91]

I think the old 3e idea of a fighter getting a +1 to ht every level is over. Im more for +1 every 4 (or around that)

That would be the old 2e-3e (and even with an option for it in 1e) +1 for every level for fighters. Its genesis is way older than 3e.

 

[Minigiant]

I'd be fine with 1st level Fighters starting with oh say +3 BAB and slowly progressing from there.

Maybe even have it like SWSAGA where multiclassers don't get that (to stop level dipping).

This is what I kind of see also.
The fighter gets +3 attack at the first level and +1 attack at the 4th and every 4 four levels thereafter. Other warrior classes might get +1 at 1st, 4th, and every 4 after.

THEN PCs can trade their +1 for access to a special attack or maneuver like two weapon fighting without the -4 penalty or two attacks in a round.

Then you can have level 8 Joe with Str+5 attack, Jon with Str+3 attack, dual wield, and grapple bonuses or Jak with Str+1 attack, dual wield, tripping, shield bash, and grapple bonuses.

 

[kitsune9]

I'm for a flatter power curve so long as the d20 roll remains relevant at the highest levels. If D&DN goes to 36th level (yay! ), then I could see a BAB only going up +1/3 levels or +1/4 levels for fighter types. If D&DN only caps at 15th level mad, then +1/1 level or +1/2 levels.

Anyways, I'll be really curious to see what it is when the playtest comes out.

 

[kitsune9]

Sure, why not? The difference would be how many at once. The first level party might fight a single 7HD(or level or whatever) Orc Chieftain at the end of an orc-extermination adventure. The 7th level party might need to fight a dozen 2HD orc soldiers to make it non-trivial (or put fewer in with other monsters, maybe wargs?).

I know that's not the way we're used to thinking of it anymore, but "level" is another one of those words that really doesn't have meaning outside the specific rules in question. So, since 3e we've gotten used to the idea that two levels of difference in CR or level is pretty big, but 5e may make the "pretty big" difference more like 5 levels.

Agreed!

 

[Ahnehnois]

This is like saying, "Anybody can fly a fighter jet by pushing the right buttons and pulling the right levers, so why can't my untrained character at least try to jump in and take off?"

Answer: You can try, but absent training, you will fail abysmally every time. There's no need for specific rules to model what would happen because the result is always the same, and it's the same result as if you just missed with a regular attack--nothing happens. You fail.

Now, in a realistic game, these abilities would be on a scale where you start out unable to do it, and then you progress to being just barely able to do it on a good day, and then you progress to being sort of okay at it, and then to being tolerably competent, et cetera. However, those rules would add way too much complexity for very little benefit IMO.

That's true, but modern life has a gerat deal more tasks that require specialized expertise than the fantasy world.

In any case. DCs and the d20 system model this kind of learning pretty well. First, you can't succeed even on a 20. Then, you succeed only on a 20, then on a 19...
Eventually you're good enough to attempt the task under pressure.

The peril is that you could get into a situation where only certain characters can, say, fight with two weapons or attempt a particular type of attack. A big conceptual problem with 3e, for example, was Power Attack, which you couldn't do at all without the feat. Hard to justify that. But in a world of options, options, options, that's what can happen.

 

[Essenti]

Now, in a realistic game, these abilities would be on a scale where you start out unable to do it, and then you progress to being just barely able to do it on a good day, and then you progress to being sort of okay at it, and then to being tolerably competent, et cetera. However, those rules would add way too much complexity for very little benefit IMO.

Thinking more along these lines I am reminded of my groups Green Ronin - The Black Company campaign for 3.5 d20. That 3pp added a mechanic for action points that either let you add 1d6 to any d20 roll when spent (kinda boring), or, the much more intersting use of emulating a feat that you did not yet possess but otherwise qualified for. Eventually, the feat emulation usage for action points was more widely used by the group. It let you test out new feats that you might want to get on the next level up.

Something similar to feat emulation could be fed back into 5e as an add-on module or whatever, but for feats/abilities/spells/options/whatever. So maybe you can attempt to use an ability you don't yet have but otherwise qualify for with some caveats, like a numeric penalty or spending a surge/action point, etc. It could be interesting and possibly erase abilities automagically popping into existance upon level up. As a DM you could require that your PCs only pick new abilities they've test driven, heh. No more need for *go to town to get training* or similar fluffed-over crunch.

Just a thought.