D&D 5E L&L D&D Next Goals, Part Two
- Thread starter Blackwarder
- Start date
Klaus
First Post
I, otoh, like skill dice. For one, it creates a bell curve in skill checks. At 1st-level, a skilled character has an average roll of 13 (10.5 + 2.5) that can come up with 4 variations (9 + 4, 10 + 3, 11 + 2 and 12 + 1), with extreme results occurring much less often. In fact, the larger the skill die, the more likely an average roll will be, and that average increases slowly.
And second, the skill die gives you something to spend in order to get special effects on non-combat tests.
Chris_Nightwing
First Post
Well, a trapezoidal* distribution, it's only two dice. Also the variance of the result increases as the size of the die increases. I will agree it gives you something to spend on skill tricks, though I'm not sure it's well used that way - a low-level character wants to use tricks (only loses 1d4) whereas a high-level character doesn't (loses 1d12) - that depends on the trick structure though.
*edit
Last edited:
Matrix Sorcica
Hero
Why are they talking about these goals when they have released 4 playtest packages. Shouldn't this have been in January 2012?
Also, what is it we are testing? Is it an 'advanced' version, meaning that the core will be even more crippled than what we have right now?
I'm concerned.
Also, what is it we are testing? Is it an 'advanced' version, meaning that the core will be even more crippled than what we have right now?
I'm concerned.
Last edited:
KidSnide
Adventurer
I quite like the aspect of skill dice that generate the trapezoidal distribution. I think they are very good for creating situations where skilled characters are very likely to succeed but still have a (very) small chance of failure. But I wish they had used the "roll multiple dice and take the highest" rule more broadly.
As for skill tricks, they seem like a good idea, but most of the actual skill tricks aren't very good.
-KS
Klaus
First Post
I was gonna call it "trapezoidal"...
There is the option, at higher levels, of "deflating" a skill die in exchange for tricks, instead of the Yoda binary of "die or die not".
Chris_Nightwing
First Post
I was gonna call it "trapezoidal"...
There is the option, at higher levels, of "deflating" a skill die in exchange for tricks, instead of the Yoda binary of "die or die not".
Hm, an interesting prospect - it limits your maximum, but it get's tricky when you know the DC of something you're trying to do (if rolling a check is still involved). This isn't solved by a flat bonus really either though. I *still* want to see their original skill mastery idea (roll no lower than X) incorporated into the core skill system - that way, when you improve a skill, you can't massively screw it up and you might get a better result than someone who hasn't improved the skill (your bonus constrained by flat math). Then, for a skill trick, I would say that you can't use the mastery aspect - you might roll terribly, but you still get your bonus to try it.
They were talking about design goals back in January. Goals are constantly evolving though, so I appreciate that they update us on them periodically.
The playtest version is more than the basic version. I don't think that means it's not core though. The impression I'm getting is that the advanced version will be available from day one, and they assume that most current players will play that version, while the basic version is for new players.
This stuff was talked about from the very beginning. Nothing Mike said here is any different from what they originally defined and talked about for their goals for the next game (other than the specific mechanics they've developed since then). The only problem is... nobody ever LISTENS to what they say. So a year later, we get all kinds of people going "Wait, what?!? Whazzit-- I don't-- that's not-- how is that--?!?" even though they could have gotten all this info if they just used the Search function and went back and looked at all the posts were made the past year about this stuff.
Anyone who is surprised by what Mike said is his column just hasn't been paying attention this past year.
Yes, we are testing advanced options right now. Although I have a hard time understanding why you seem to think the core is "crippled"... seeing as how Mike stated quite clearly what is the basic game. Thus, anything we test that isn't those things he lists in his column as the basic game is obviously thus advanced and expert rules.
Iosue
Legend
Seriously?
The One-Hour D&D Game
D&D Next Design Considerations
Cleric Design Goals
Fighter Design Goals
Rogue Design Goals
Balancing Wizards in D&D
Heck, read Mearls' L&L columns from before the release. It's all about modularity, telescoping complexity, and dials.
Really, he isn't saying anything new here, except to flesh out the basic, core rules, the simplest kind of game, which they have said repeatedly they intend to look a lot like B/X, and which does.
What we are testing are various iterations. Trying out new mechanics, different systems, and the different feelings thereof. For the serious gamers that want lots of characters and/or game-style options, they can see if they want to, say, silo magic systems in classes, or make them their own interchangeable part. For the basic, core game he's talking about now, that doesn't matter. There will only be one magic system (Vancian with some at-wills). They can experiment with skills all they want; the core, basic game won't have 'em. The core was the easy part -- it's B/X with d20 and ascending AC, of which there are plenty of retro-clones. Specialties and backgrounds provide the catalyst for transitioning from a B/X type core to a 1e/2e type game (use backgrounds like NWPs, use background and specialties for kits) and 3e/4e (choose a la cart!). So now they play around with the tougher stuff -- different class features, different magic systems, different skill systems, battlegrid combat, NPC interaction mechanics, etc.
Similar Threads
