D&D 5E Innovations I'd like to keep in 5E

[CroBob]

I am interested in balance. But my point is I am pkay with balance over time. I am not interested in the kind of balance that 4e achieves which is much more absolute, and about class parity. For me its fine if a rogue isn't worse at combat than a fighter, so long as the rogue can outperform the fighter elsewhere in the game.

I'm fine with balance over time as well, if it works for the game. If you require a character to be played through all of the listed levels in order for him to have seen or to make to the point where he shines, though, then what do you do for the games which don't cycle through all the tabled levels, for example most games of D&D?

And further, if you advocate balance over time, then you ARE saying that characters should be equal based on their average experience, just you want one class to be better than others at certain points. Otherwise there's no balance at all.

If the rogue is as good at combat as the fighter so long as the rogue outshines him elsewhere, do you think there's not some other place the Fighter should outshine the rogue? Should they be just as good in combat in the same way, or should they each have their niche?

 

[Guest 85555]

I'm fine with balance over time as well, if it works for the game. If you require a character to be played through all of the listed levels in order for him to have seen or to make to the point where he shines, though, then what do you do for the games which don't cycle through all the tabled levels, for example most games of D&D?

And further, if you advocate balance over time, then you ARE saying that characters should be equal based on their average experience, just you want one class to be better than others at certain points. Otherwise there's no balance at all.

Sure. But equal over the game is very different from equal at all times or at every increment.

If the rogue is as good at combat as the fighter so long as the rogue outshines him elsewhere, do you think there's not some other place the Fighter should outshine the rogue? Should they be just as good in combat in the same way, or should they each have their niche?

I think the fighters need should be physical combat.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Except that it's a terrible analogy. D&D isn't a machine. It's not limited by technology (except maybe by improvements in desktop publishing and art creation).

If you say so

Classes didn't have different XP tables because no one thought of having a single table. They had different tables because it was designed that way.

Race-as-class didn't exist in BECMI because no one thought of separating race and class. It was a design decision.

AD&D didn't have unified ability score mods. That was also by design.

Well, perhaps you were privy to those decisions, I don't know. Speaking for myself I wouldn't be able to say one way or another what people did or didn't think of. IMHO they were making it all up by the seat of their pants and few, if any, of these decisions were made with any deep understanding of their ultimate implications or an overarching plan. They tried things. Some things worked, some things didn't, other things later got tweaked, and the goals and preferences of people playing the game evolved. I suspect Dave, Gary, etc all had very little idea of where things would ultimately go. I don't find there is any compelling reason to stick to design decisions which may or may not have been good choices at the time and place they were made simply because they were made way back when. In every edition things are open to change and reinterpretation. If 4e did anything for us it certainly showed that a lot of things can evolve and many of those evolutions are likely to be improvements.

I'm not saying that all of these design decisions were the best decisions (they're all up for debate), but I am saying that they were creative decisions, not technological limitations.

Technology could be a slippery word here. In the car case it is clear, we're dealing with manufacturing and materials technology, etc. In the case of RPGs we're more dealing with 'techniques'. Certainly many RPG design techniques which are known today were not known to Gary and crew in 1974. We have a great deal more context and experience to draw upon today than they did almost 40 years ago.

Let's try a different analogy: Movie Remakes. 5e shouldn't simply be a remake of a remake of a remake. Take a look at the source material. Understand it and why it was designed the way it was. Then, look at the other versions (remakes) that were made over the years and carefully evaluate which changes worked and which ones didn't. Then, make a new remake (5e) based on the original with a view to changes that actually were improvements... and not every change was an improvement.

Well, this analogy too has its limits. Movies (etc) create a 'canon' of established fictional facts. D&D in and of itself doesn't. Each edition is free to be a re-imagining of the game to whatever extent its designers feel like. It need not adhere to past conventions simply for continuity.

As for understanding things. What can I say? I've played D&D since basically the beginning. Is my understanding superior to anyone else's? Who knows? I don't claim it is, I simply make observations. They are based on almost as long a history of playing RPGs and specifically D&D as anyone can claim. I don't expect anyone to give my views any more credence than anyone else's. OTOH I think it is reasonable that I feel reasonably confident that they're informed opinions. I don't see any value in different XP progressions. I don't think that AD&D's dozens of different ability modifiers were particularly a good thing. I don't think pre-3e D&D's hodge-podge of mechanics was a particularly good use of design space. What else can I say? I've justified those statements to the extent they can be justified. I will advocate for more 'modern' mechanics in 5e and IMHO they will be a superior choice. We probably don't agree on those things, that's fine. I doubt either of us will change our minds. Not sure what that implies for 5e's chances, but it will be interesting to see.

 

[CroBob]

Well, the way I see it the 17 skills that 4e has FAIRLY clearly define themselves. Ability scores are a lot fuzzier. Should 'willpower' be a function of WIS or CHA? How about knowing some fact or how to do something? It is always reasonably arguable between a couple of abilities, sometimes you could make good cases for any of 3 choices. Of course it is possible for a task to fall somewhere between or outside the 17 skills, but most of those cases aren't going to unequivocally fall into one ability score either. In your proposed system you have TWO levels of choices. You have a choice of ability scores AND a choice of skills. The more precisely you define the skills the narrower they get too, and the more likely they are to become proscriptive (IE you need skill X to be able to do something at all). That creates a new set of issues. There's also a tendency in an open-ended list for the size of the list to expand to a point where it isn't at all clear what skill to apply when something doesn't quite fall into any of them.

Ability scores may be more ambiguous currently, but I see no reason an entire chapter couldn't still be allocated to ability checks just like there's a chapter allocated to skills currently. I figure an entire chapter ought to give you a pretty good idea which ability covers which sorts of actions. The best complaint you have is that there are more decisions to be made, but the fact is that players will still attempt the things they're good at, having a good idea what skill and stat will be checked in advance. I've heard people complain that the current skill system is too limiting, and opening it up this way increases it's virtual versatility. We're not designing a computer game where all your options are scripted and we're trying to make the math simpler. We're trying to make the system itself interesting while maintaining usefulness and simplicity at the same time. It's not about making it simple, it's about making it fun and interesting.

Just to be clear, I don't think your proposed system is at all unworkable. I just think it increases the workload at the table during conflict resolution sequences (encounters), which is the highest demand point in the game and thus the one where to you want to decrease the number of decision points the most to allow people to focus on things besides mechanics and to keep things moving quick.

People are still going to do the things they're good at and have do e before in each encounter. The rogue is still going to roll Dex to hide, just like last time, the Fighter's still going to roll strength to climb up the ledge the archer's on, and with every action the thing to roll will be obvious enough that gameplay will not be hampered. Maybe it will be in groups that split hairs already, but the problem in that case is not the rules.

IMHO you can get equally interesting class features and feats in 4e's system. There are TONS of feats and powers (and other stuff) that feed into doing specific tasks, all without dealing with extra variables. I don't think your system prevents anything, it isn't a bad system. I just think it increases complexity and I can't come up with a clear advantage. Since it is really impossible to address people's preferences by analysis of game mechanics there's not much we can say about that.

The advantage is versatility and complexity. Simple is good, but too simple is uninteresting. We could just have someone roll a d20 and say anything 11+ succeeds at whatever you're attempting, but that's not interesting at all. Further, what I propose is essentially the same as what 4th has. Skill checks are already just modified stat checks. That's what they are. This just removes the difference between skills and stat checks, making them exactly the same thing instead of essentially the same thing.

Well, in current 4e there's one decision point, which is fairly unequivocal, which skill to use, which is generally made by the DM ahead of time. The player says what he does, the DM tells him which skill he's picked for that, and the player just rolls and adds one number. The set of numbers to add is short and pretty clear. I think 4e's skill system is literally as streamlined as it is possible to get and still have a meaningful system. Your system requires at a minimum looking at a potentially long list of skills, finding your modifier for that skill, adding it to an ability score modifier, and then rolling. That's a bit more work. Not a HUGE amount, but again it is extra work that happens at the table in the midst of play. Almost all the work in 4e's system is (or certainly can be) front loaded to prep time.

Consider it's practical application, then. The player knows he's good at "stealth", so he tries to sneak. The DM says his sneak will be a Dex check, since that's the standard stat checked for that and there's nothing unusual a out the circumstances. The player rolls the check, already aware what his modifiers are, and that's it.

Both systems can allow for pretty much arbitrary modifiers and specializations, etc. In fact 4e backgrounds pretty much already ARE your proposed skill system as it stands. I don't feel like anyone has convincingly demonstrated a real need for anything beyond what we have now.

My idea is essentially the same system, minus the middle man.

 

[CroBob]

Sure. But equal over the game is very different from equal at all times or at every increment.

nope. When they're equal at every level or other measure of increment, they're also equal through the entire game regardless how long that game lasts. Since most games do not play through every level, this gives the advantage to equal power every level instead through all levels in an objective way.

I think the fighters need should be physical combat.

You think the only thing they should contribute is their ability to fight, yet you're okay with rogues being just as good at fighting, with extra abilities on top of that? So what would someone choose fighter over rogue for? Why arbitrarily punish someone for choosing to play a fighter instead of a rogue?

 

[Guest 85555]

nope. When they're equal at every level or other measure of increment, they're also equal through the entire game regardless how long that game lasts. Since most games do not play through every level, this gives the advantage to equal power every level instead through all levels in an objective way.

Clearly we a talking past one another or there was a misunderstanding because i really dont see how this follows from what we have been saying.

You think the only thing they should contribute is their ability to fight, yet you're okay with rogues being just as good at fighting, with extra abilities on top of that? So what would someone choose fighter over rogue for? Why arbitrarily punish someone for choosing to play a fighter instead of a rogue?

I never said want the rogue to be just as good at fighting i said i wanted them to be worse. If you look at the 2e thief they are terrible at combat for example. So the fighter isn't being punished. My argument isthe fighter should get something like a beefy damage bonus in physical combat, specializatiobs, multiple attacks etc. I want the fighter to do well in combat. If we go back to the old nwp system, the fighter will also have things to do outside combat, just none of those things will be rogue skills (because those are tied to class).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Ability scores may be more ambiguous currently, but I see no reason an entire chapter couldn't still be allocated to ability checks just like there's a chapter allocated to skills currently. I figure an entire chapter ought to give you a pretty good idea which ability covers which sorts of actions. The best complaint you have is that there are more decisions to be made, but the fact is that players will still attempt the things they're good at, having a good idea what skill and stat will be checked in advance. I've heard people complain that the current skill system is too limiting, and opening it up this way increases it's virtual versatility. We're not designing a computer game where all your options are scripted and we're trying to make the math simpler. We're trying to make the system itself interesting while maintaining usefulness and simplicity at the same time. It's not about making it simple, it's about making it fun and interesting.



People are still going to do the things they're good at and have do e before in each encounter. The rogue is still going to roll Dex to hide, just like last time, the Fighter's still going to roll strength to climb up the ledge the archer's on, and with every action the thing to roll will be obvious enough that gameplay will not be hampered. Maybe it will be in groups that split hairs already, but the problem in that case is not the rules.




The advantage is versatility and complexity. Simple is good, but too simple is uninteresting. We could just have someone roll a d20 and say anything 11+ succeeds at whatever you're attempting, but that's not interesting at all. Further, what I propose is essentially the same as what 4th has. Skill checks are already just modified stat checks. That's what they are. This just removes the difference between skills and stat checks, making them exactly the same thing instead of essentially the same thing.




Consider it's practical application, then. The player knows he's good at "stealth", so he tries to sneak. The DM says his sneak will be a Dex check, since that's the standard stat checked for that and there's nothing unusual a out the circumstances. The player rolls the check, already aware what his modifiers are, and that's it.



My idea is essentially the same system, minus the middle man.

I don't really understand what 'middleman' you are talking about. There's no particular middleman here. What you have done is break the ability score <-> skill linkage that 4e has. You still have a skill number and an ability score number, except in 4e I can have those added up before hand prior to play because I KNOW that Stealth is ALWAYS DEX. You're trying to say that Stealth might not always be DEX, except exactly when is it not DEX? I've been running 4e since day one and never yet found a situation that seriously warranted using a skill with a different ability score. Sure, you can argue about which score MIGHT be best in some situation, but the beauty of the 4e system is it answers that debate. There's no need for a CHAPTER on ability scores (which BTW still won't end arguments about what they mean, that's a pipe dream).

Misc modifiers like background or etc are always cropping up in any system. You always have to add these in. You're not gaining anything or removing anything in your system, just opening yourself up to debates and making people add more numbers. Nothing at all is gained. Really, go through actual scenarios and actually walk through the things that you have to do in each one.

 

[CroBob]

Double post. Sorry.

 

[CroBob]

I don't really understand what 'middleman' you are talking about. There's no particular middleman here. What you have done is break the ability score <-> skill linkage that 4e has. You still have a skill number and an ability score number, except in 4e I can have those added up before hand prior to play because I KNOW that Stealth is ALWAYS DEX. You're trying to say that Stealth might not always be DEX, except exactly when is it not DEX? I've been running 4e since day one and never yet found a situation that seriously warranted using a skill with a different ability score. Sure, you can argue about which score MIGHT be best in some situation, but the beauty of the 4e system is it answers that debate. There's no need for a CHAPTER on ability scores (which BTW still won't end arguments about what they mean, that's a pipe dream).

There's a chapter describing what skills do, so if skills were to be replaced with simple stat checks, there's no difference in the amount of space used to explain how they work. We don't even need to include the skill bonus to certain types of actions. My point is that skills are currently nothing more than stat checks. Unless you're trained, in which case it's a stat check plus 5. I actually think my system would work better with a smaller number than 5. I'd go with 2 or 3, and not give the half level to them, but that's besides the point.

I'm not even trying to argue that certain stats would not apply to certain skills by default. I simply think that having a list of stat checks on the same page stats are on is redundant. Stealth is a Dex check. If you're trained, you get +5. The versatility of potentially using different stats for certain actions is nothing more than a bonus. It's not like there's going to be any serious debate or confusion about which skill would apply to the stat check, since you know exactly what you're trying to do. The math is essentially the same thing

Misc modifiers like background or etc are always cropping up in any system. You always have to add these in. You're not gaining anything or removing anything in your system, just opening yourself up to debates and making people add more numbers. Nothing at all is gained. Really, go through actual scenarios and actually walk through the things that you have to do in each one.

My system is simply condensing the list of skills from 13 to 6, adding bonuses based on the exact aim of the check. Maybe even give classes bonuses to one or two kinds of stat checks pure and simple. It's like how the list of skills got condensed from 3rd to 4th. No more spot and listen, now it's perception. No more perception and insight, just wisdom checks. On top of that, the feats and stuff that add to skill checks for specific things (athletics for jumps) it only adds to one of the six instead, like Dex checks to hide. Six skills, more variables.