Something Awful leak.

[GreyICE]

So where in 4E do you have a 'save versus passive insight or die' effect?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It doesn't MATTER whether you calculate 6 additional defenses, or just use the stats straight. 6 NADs is the opposite of streamlined, elegant design, especially when those NADs will be determined, according to the default book, by 4d6d1!

That's the problem here. There is nothing streamlined, elegant, or balanced about that design. It's messy, stupid, random, and it's going to randomly kill off characters for no discernible reason.

This is stupid design, messy faux-realistic design and stupid messy faux-realistic design is pretty much the polar opposite of 4E design.

Yup! This is a whole OTHER dimension to the problem. NOT ONLY is this design NOT going to make things more convenient for the players at the table, it is also NOT EVEN NUMERICALLY VIABLE as an approach to setting defenses. There are so many downsides to this whole concept it is hard to even take it seriously.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think that this matters more for transient bonuses than permanent ones. Which kind of brings up another design idea that I am beginning to like -- declaring war on the transient bonus. It maximizes complexity and, when it is +1 or +2, does so for a very small shift in the odds.

So, I rolled an 8 and I had to put it in some ability score or other and now there's simply no way I can ever compensate for my weakness? The cleric can't buff it, I can't hide behind a bush, I can't wear a ring, drink a potion, etc? That's going to fly. Yes, that will most certainly fly.

Frankly I'm not averse to there being quite limited ways to transiently modify things. I think it is a fine idea to keep that down to a dull roar, but there is really no chance there are not going to be circumstances where some modifier needs to be used. If the only mod available is to the ability score itself, that's a REAL PITA. It is also WEIRD. I hide behind a bush and my DEX goes up? I'm pretty sure that won't happen. Thus again we arrive at the fallacy of the hidden number.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

The whole 7 defenses things smacks of the 3E design attitude of "it looks great on paper, who cares how it plays at the table".

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

No, it is NOT inevitable. 4E has the equivalent in Passive Insight and Passive Perception, and after four years of crunch-bloat I am not aware of a single thing that modifies Passive Insight independently of Insight, or Passive Perception independently of Perception. Likewise, 4E has exactly zero effects that modify your ability scores.

If the designers can muster the discipline to achieve that in 4E, I see no reason they can't do something similar in 5E. 3E was an object lesson in why cascading modifiers are bad.

Nothing modifies your ability scores BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER NUMBERS THAT CAN BE MODIFIED INSTEAD. That's the whole POINT of having defenses!

Your comment about Passive Insight is also irrelevant. Passive Insight and Perception are on the sheet as a convenience, nothing else. They can be removed and there's no real impact at all. It is a totally different situation. I have a Perception skill bonus (which you will note IS on my sheet) and that is the absolute determinant of Passive Perception. Now, look at the Initiative modifier, THAT can be modified independent of anything else. That needs to be on the sheet. Just because 4e puts some derived numbers on your sheet and they don't HAVE to be there does not invalidate derived numbers. There's no X therefore Y to your logic, it is a flawed argument.

As for the 'discipline' of 4e... Well, see above, but the whole point is that being able to have items etc that shore up your defenses is a core aspect of the game which has existed since 1974 (trust me, I know). You're saying that for the sake of pretending that defenses don't exist we have to give up an entire design element of 5e, one that can't be really added back in (you could add it in a module, which is now incompatible with every other module that interacts with the core defenses system, which is going to be a LOT of them). Again, the core game is supposed to provide a platform for optional modules, not exclude the possibility of them existing by refusing to define core concepts that have been in the game since literally day 1.

 

[dkyle]

The point about wanting to play a system that doesn't use the six basic stats still applies.

Who wants this? Certainly not me. I don't think Incenjucar does either. Neither of us (and noone else I've seen in this thread) is expressing a desire to remove the six ability scores. Wanting a system where they produce a smaller number of derived stats, that get used in combat, does not mean we don't want a system with six ability scores. It only means we don't want to have to reference 7 defenses in combat instead of 4. That's it. Stop reading things that aren't there.

 

[GreyICE]

So, I rolled an 8 and I had to put it in some ability score or other and now there's simply no way I can ever compensate for my weakness? The cleric can't buff it, I can't hide behind a bush, I can't wear a ring, drink a potion, etc? That's going to fly. Yes, that will most certainly fly.

Frankly I'm not averse to there being quite limited ways to transiently modify things. I think it is a fine idea to keep that down to a dull roar, but there is really no chance there are not going to be circumstances where some modifier needs to be used. If the only mod available is to the ability score itself, that's a REAL PITA. It is also WEIRD. I hide behind a bush and my DEX goes up? I'm pretty sure that won't happen. Thus again we arrive at the fallacy of the hidden number.

Remember, SOD is coming back. Save versus death DC 15 at a -1 penalty!

Oh but this is new SOD, you get two saves or something.

Nice character sheet there. Now tear it up and make a new one.

 

[Hassassin]

So, which is it? BOTH A AND B are worse than what 4e has, inarguably. This is the problem. Every variation of A and B are ALL worse than what 4e has. There is simply no way around this.

And are you seriously trying to imply that the game will simply blanket eschew ANY modifier of any kind to defenses and there will be NOTHING but static modifiers to ability scores than only change with level up?

We don't know if there will be any blanket +X to Cha saves type modifiers. I hope there will not. +5 against poison, OTOH, is no different from 4e. It doesn't matter if it applies to Fort or Con.

All I'm saying is that you *assume* they will choose A or B, when we don't really know that they will.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

We don't know if there will be any blanket +X to Cha saves type modifiers. I hope there will not. +5 against poison, OTOH, is no different from 4e. It doesn't matter if it applies to Fort or Con.

All I'm saying is that you *assume* they will choose A or B, when we don't really know that they will.

OK, there's a third choice between "this is on your sheet" and "this is not on your sheet"?

Lets examine this other option further. OK, so now I have a bonus against 'poison'. How many of these different bonuses will I have? Which ones will apply? If there's NO OTHER WAY to have bonuses in 5e then presumably these will be fairly common. If they are so rare that I probably can't get one, then we're back where we were before. If they're not so rare then we've just created a whole OTHER issue, which is that I have to go tot all THOSE things up, AND we need a keyword system so I know what these bonuses apply against (we need one anyway, but that doesn't mean we'll get one, this was a huge issue with AD&D).

Again, this kind of problem was largely avoided in 4e anyway because AGAIN there were defenses to apply adjustments to. Sure, there was a very occasional bonus to saves vs poison or something, but they were VERY rare. In fact I know of exactly ONE in the entire game, dwarves. I don't know of any other case in the entire system where there was a save or defense bonus against one specific type of damage or effect. There were resistances and immunities instead. This is a good solid design. It was easy to use at the table and numbers rarely changed. A bonus could logically apply to FORT and in fact USUALLY this made more sense anyway. If you're resistant to poison, you'd assume that resistance exists for SOME reason. Chances are that same effect will help you against other similar sorts of things (IE things that attack FORT).

 

[Hassassin]

OK, there's a third choice between "this is on your sheet" and "this is not on your sheet"?

Lets examine this other option further. OK, so now I have a bonus against 'poison'. How many of these different bonuses will I have? Which ones will apply? If there's NO OTHER WAY to have bonuses in 5e then presumably these will be fairly common. If they are so rare that I probably can't get one, then we're back where we were before.

Supposing they are not too common there is no problem, in my opinion.

If I got to choose, they would be things you have at most 1-3 of, usually from race or class. Other bonuses would come through ability score increases (also not common) or circumstance bonuses (quite common). Cleric or Bard buffs would only affect them through general effects like +1 to all checks.

But again, we'll have to wait and see.