D&D 5E Legends & Lore 4/1/2013

[Li Shenron]

See, the problem I have with all this is that in 5e you *can* play like 4e (if it's more than just a tacked-on tactical module), maybe, if the DM says so, and I think that's... just an awful compromise. Most groups *won't* because there will be rules to handle all kinds of sim BS like in 3.x where the "laws of physics" and fear of trampling on someone's "verisimilitude" are going to trump the "rule of cool" at most tables. No more pushing ogres and giants with fighter abilities because "that doesn't make sense" - or, you can *try* but with that -16 penalty, you'll most likely fail, so why bother? Swing with your sword again, fighter! But break out the maaaaaaaagic and watch the laws of physics do cartwheels.

*yawn*

I get why some folks and some tables don't like fighters shoving giants around willy nilly, but unless the books are *very* explicit about it being more than a little ok to ignore that crap if you don't want to use it, there will be this culture built up around those rules like ignoring them is somehow "cheating" and if you ask me that just precludes a lot of potentially good experiences, and possibly even potential players from signing on.

What makes you so sure that such laws-of-physics verisimilitude would be mandatory? I hardly expect that to be in the Basic game, and if it's in Standard then most likely it is a module, since Basic & Standard are supposed to be freely mixable depending on a group's preference.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

What makes you so sure that such laws-of-physics verisimilitude would be mandatory? I hardly expect that to be in the Basic game, and if it's in Standard then most likely it is a module, since Basic & Standard are supposed to be freely mixable depending on a group's preference.

I'm not talking about basic or standard or advanced. I'm talking about the culture at individual tables.

That's why I said that unless the rules are very specific about just how optional such things are, then there will be a "culture of mandatory," and not using them will feel like cheating to many groups/tables. I know that this was certainly the case in most 3.x groups I encountered during the game's 8-year run; the vast majority that I experienced were very much "all in" with every rule. I'd expect similar from Next, especially if its default assumptions adhere to a very process-sim mentality in rules design (and all signs point to that being the case).

Oddly, this was not my experience with AD&D.

 

[Mon]

I don't think there's a very appreciable difference.

There is a significant difference. That difference is the whole point of this thread. A 1st level PC is a cut above average in all editions of D&D - it is just a matter of degree and supported play styles.

Characters should always be quite capable.

Only for certain play styles.

"0 level" is traditionally the label for a 'almost commoner' type of starting character variation. Even 2e had a pretty well developed set of rules for this (albeit I don't recall them showing up in a book, they were in Dragon though).

0-level has never been the intended starting point for any edition of D&D. Ever. In older editions 0-level could refer to "normal humans" from the monster manual, men-at-arms attracted by high level fighters, and so forth. Any 0-level PC rules only appeared in obscure sources such as a specific issue of DRAGON or the appendix of a campaign specific sourcebook.

There is no such thing as a "level 1 commoner", commoner isn't a class because PCs aren't ever commoners, so no such class is needed, nor is the giant headache of 3e's nonsensical insistence on trying to mush class rules into NPCs/Monsters a good idea, it was horrible in fact.

Not at all true. All editions of D&D have something to represent non-adventuring average Joes: 0-level NPCs, or a commoner class, or 1st-level minions.

Also, as I said above, I won't be involved in edition discussion so please refrain from either demonizing 3e or getting on the defensive about 4e if you wish to continue this line of conversation. I like both editions, and also earlier ones. I hope the next one is awesome too.

So, given that you agree that the literary characters you mentioned all (or virtually all) begin as highly capable characters then you would agree that 4e depicts them quite adequately.

I never said that. I said they have a little more, and a lot of potential. They're in no way highly capable right out of the gate - in D&D or those stories.

I do agree that 4e, or any other edition of the game, can depict them adequately within the framework of that edition's rules. I never contented otherwise.

I'm not real sure there's a disagreement here.

Only about degree and support of different play styles. My reading is that you only want your play style to be supporte: that characters should always stat out as heroes. I disagree with that sentiment.

While I agree that your preferred play style is a good one, I don't think it should be imposed on everyone (nor the meatginder style imposed on you). I enjoy gonzo heroic games and roguelike meatgrinders and everything in between which I've played in over the years. All have a place in the hearts and minds of D&D players.

Ged is quite adequately (modulo the huge differences in magic systems) modeled by a level 1 4e wizard for instance, etc. OTOH 1e AD&D characters represent these types not so well in most cases.

1e AD&D models Ged just as well as any other edition of D&D, although Earthsea wizards are not super compatible with D&D magic rules in general; that's a different issue and applies across all editions.

Can you understand that this is not about which edition does what the best (or worst)? I don't care about your preferred edition and you shouldn't care about mine. They all have strengths and weaknesses. It is about being inclusive.

You asked for stories where the characters are not already heroes at the start and I gave them to you. They're not yet heroes, they're learning to be heroes. In most cases, they're also having some kind of adventure while they're learning. Playing out those learning adventures is a perfectly valid play style which is supported in the fantasy genre. I am not contending that it is the only valid playstyle, merely that it is there and it is legitimate. Most of all, it is fun for some (maybe many?) D&D players even if you don't care for it.

For the record, the "already accomplished at the start" playstyle is also valid and supported in the fantasy genre and is fun for some (maybe many?) D&D players. I enjoy it myself, from time to time. But I wouldn't try to impose it on everyone or proclaim that it is the only way that is supported in the fantasy genre.

 

[pemerton]

They're in no way highly capable right out of the gate - in D&D or those stories.

<snip>

1e AD&D models Ged just as well as any other edition of D&D

Ged can bind the wings of dragonlings so they fall into the water. That's Hold Monster vs multiple targets. He can also change form into a dragon and thereby beat one up in combat - in 1st ed AD&D that's Shapechange (Polymorph self only gives movement abilities).

Ged is quite hard to do in any version of D&D, I think. And certainly hard to do if you're going to start him at 1st level!

 

[Li Shenron]

I'm not talking about basic or standard or advanced. I'm talking about the culture at individual tables.

That's why I said that unless the rules are very specific about just how optional such things are, then there will be a "culture of mandatory," and not using them will feel like cheating to many groups/tables. I know that this was certainly the case in most 3.x groups I encountered during the game's 8-year run; the vast majority that I experienced were very much "all in" with every rule. I'd expect similar from Next, especially if its default assumptions adhere to a very process-sim mentality in rules design (and all signs point to that being the case).

Oddly, this was not my experience with AD&D.

Ok, I see...

But 3e was designed in such a way that in fact many times supposed the group was using all the rules. There were lots and lots of character and monsters abilities that directly related to the action economy, to hard-coded conditions, weapon classifications, or e.g. to attacks of opportunities, flanking etc. Lots of "IF <condition> THEN <ability>" where the <condition> is very clearly defined, and if you started to ignore some of that stuff, suddenly many feats or spells or special abilities had to be removed from the game as well. 3.5 made it even worse because it added a couple of more actions types. I am not familiar with 4e, but I thought it was quite the same, just as codified. I don't think any of these editions allowed to easily ignore a list of 6-8 different actions types and just go... 5e seems much better than the previous 2 editions with regard to these, although it's still going to have IF-THEN abilities (most of which at the moment seem to gravitate around the (dis)advantaged condition).

Also for simulationist reasons there were rules for such thing as weather, although most of the times these were indeed optional. In our case we usually just handled everything with default circumstance bonuses, which was really a precursor of the (dis)advantage mechanic.

But maybe you're referring to something else, if you think 3e was more simulationist than 4e... maybe the average intricacy of every spell, special ability, feat etc. was significantly higher than in 4e?

 

[Mon]

Ged can bind the wings of dragonlings so they fall into the water. That's Hold Monster vs multiple targets. He can also change form into a dragon and thereby beat one up in combat - in 1st ed AD&D that's Shapechange (Polymorph self only gives movement abilities).

That's not at the start, though is it? That'sl after he's "Graduated" from Roke. At the start he casts one fog spell and is then spent.

Which is why I said "as well as any other edition of D&D". Note that I never contended at AD&D, 3e, 4e, or any other edition is better or worse?

Ged is quite hard to do in any version of D&D, I think. And certainly hard to do if you're going to start him at 1st level!

Which is why I explicitly called out that Earthsea wizards are not super-compatible with D&D magic in general.

Trying to tie specific (non-D&D) fantasy spell to D&D is doomed to fail. It's the underlying play style that is important here: do you want to start out as Ged the bronze-smith's helper wit a knack for magic that sets him apart from the average Joe, or Ged the fully realized wizard on his way to becoming archmage? both are valid and fun choices.

 

[I'm A Banana]

No. None of those things is within the system's framework. There isn't any such thing as fire that deals normal damage (hence the role of a flaming sword). Or electricity that doesn't deal Lighting damage. Or a conjuration that lacks the Conjuration keyword. (You can even see the errata reflecting this - eg errataing Icy Terrain as a Zone, which they got wrong in the PHB.)

Tide of Iron is particularly constrained, because whatever the narration is it ought to involve your shield, given that wielding a shield is a prerequisite for using the power.

Well, now you're just contradicting me. But my leprechauns are making you back away, so I guess I'll move into your space.

Tide of Leprechauns
The 1,000 leprechauns that hide behind your shield (which becomes a Leprechaun while this power is taking effect) burst out and run at the enemy, tickling them and making them move away from you, because they don't like to be tickled. The leprechauns then invite you to a tea party in the enemy's old location, but disperse as soon as you get there because they are tricky! The kind of tickling the leprechauns perform depends on the kind of weapon you wield and the ferocity of the tickling is determined by how hard you squeeze your hand when you call the leprechauns into combat.
At Will * Martial, Weapon
Standard Action; Melee Weapon
Requirement: You must be using a shield.
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Strength Modifier damage and you can push the target 1 square if it is no larger than one size category larger than you. You can then shift 1 square into the space the target left. LV 21: 2[W] + Strength modifier damage.

It ain't a clean fit, but elegance is secondary to realizing one's dream of being a warrior who summons leprechauns at-will.

Totally hope so! I would add 3e's system mastery style to your list.

I imagine that'd be hard with a lite system, actually...but we'll see.

See, the problem I have with all this is that in 5e you *can* play like 4e (if it's more than just a tacked-on tactical module), maybe, if the DM says so, and I think that's... just an awful compromise. Most groups *won't* because there will be rules to handle all kinds of sim BS like in 3.x where the "laws of physics" and fear of trampling on someone's "verisimilitude" are going to trump the "rule of cool" at most tables. No more pushing ogres and giants with fighter abilities because "that doesn't make sense" - or, you can *try* but with that -16 penalty, you'll most likely fail, so why bother? Swing with your sword again, fighter! But break out the maaaaaaaagic and watch the laws of physics do cartwheels.

Man, you cannot force people to accept a playstyle that doesn't work for them. And "Wizards are the BEST EVAR" is as valid a playstyle as "Wizards are not the best ever." It's fun for some groups. Not my groups, but my preferences don't matter at tables I'm not sitting at, and I really don't care what those tables play like. 13 year olds the world over will use deity stats as excuses to kill Thor. Not my problem. Hope they have fun.

I get why some folks and some tables don't like fighters shoving giants around willy nilly, but unless the books are *very* explicit about it being more than a little ok to ignore that crap if you don't want to use it, there will be this culture built up around those rules like ignoring them is somehow "cheating" and if you ask me that just precludes a lot of potentially good experiences, and possibly even potential players from signing on.

I think an essential part of running D&D, if you're kind of old hat, is establishing how your table runs. It's how DMs leave their own mark on their players' experiences. It's an AWESOME feature of the game, that each group has its own dynamic. The best thing the rules can do is get the hell out of the way of that.

 

[gyor]

Okay Tide of Leprecauns is officially the coolest 4e power I've every since

 

[Li Shenron]

I imagine that'd be hard with a lite system, actually...but we'll see.

No, I just meant that "system mastery" was possibly a defining gamestyle for 3e, to add to the list of edition-defining gamestyles, not necessarily that it should be a target for 5e But then any system, no matter how lite, can be played with "mastery" in mind by a gaming group, so I don't think this needs to be specifically a 5e target.

I don't even know if it was so much a defining gamestyle as it was a requirement for playing 3e... someone could argue that 3e defining gamestyle was simulationism, someone else could say character/monsters consistency, someone else character building flexibility...

 

[Balesir]

Nah, they're just more rules that interact with each other and don't care about how you justify it. All lightning damage comes from tiny frogs. Thunder is the sound of one hand clapping. Ninjas are summoned with martial powers to do the work for you. None of that affects the mechanics.

You could imagine the game world working that way, if you wanted to, but it wouldn't change the rules one iota and it would be much simpler to just take the words as having their normal meanings. How is that anything but a strength? Unless you rely on wordsmithing to warp the rules to your advantage, I can't see how it can be.

Players don't choose to use Pg 42 or not.

Why not? They certainly can do if I'm running the game.

Yeah. And? If you play with jerks who like to screw you over, don't play with those jerks. No rule set is going to stop jerks.

It's nothing to do with being a "jerk", just people having different views of the same situation. You need only read a chunk of this thread to see how possible that is! The DM can describe a scene such that the player thinks there is an opportunity in it; if the DM agrees, then they can take advantage of it, but if the DM isn't thinking in the same "groove" then the opportunity may not "really" exist.

Example: suppose a GM describes a scene as a small giant guarding a prisoner and stood near a chasm. Now, maybe the GM is thinking the giant is a clever sod who is stood close enough to the cliff to throw troublesome teenies over it but not so close as there is any chance that he will himself be shoved over. Meanwhile the player thinks "hey hey! small giant, big cliff - I'll topple the lummox in!"

In 4e the actual chances of the ploy succeeding are available to the player; the dice add uncertainty, but the viability of trying to shove, pull or scare the giant over are known from the system. The player can make informed choices and pick actions in the game world based on those "game world facts".

Now, take a "rulings not rules" case:

Player: "I charge and topple the giant over the cliff!"

DM: "Hah - no way that works! He may be a small giant, but he's still a giant, and he's not so dumb as to stand so close to the cliff that you can just tip him over. He'll try to opportunity attack you, though..."

Both have a point; both are not unreasonable ways to envision the situation. But where does this lead? IME it leads to the player thinking "well, OK, so I need to consider that the situation described may be slanted against me in ways I don't immediately see. So maybe I need to think primarily about how this GM likes to set stuff up, and wordsmith my action descriptions to make them sound plausible to how this GM views the world and what s/he thinks of as powerful forces." All of a sudden, it's a game about exploring what the GM thinks and how the GM views the world. This is pretty much inevitable where the "how the world works" is all left to "how the players think the world should work, with specific veto and casting vote power to one individual".

This is made necessary whenever a game element is not described in game terms (as opposed to game world terms). For example, durations of effects measured in "minutes". How long is that in the real world, exactly? How much can my character achieve while the effect is still up? The answer, inevitably, is "however much the GM thinks they can". It puts the rules in a position where either they define every conceivable action in terms of how much game time they require to perform (totally unrealistic as a rule system), or the GM just guesstimates it. 4e just says "until the end of the encounter", and it's mostly sorted. More broadly, make the durations, refresh times and so on relevant to game situations, not game world timings and the rules system is genuinely shared, rather than the sole province of one guy. And when the game rules are genuinely shared, the game can be genuinely shared, becuase everyone knows what they are doing rather than guessing and relying on the one individual who actually has access to the full rules (because they are making them up as they go) for validation of everything they (try to) do.

I don't know how to make this any clearer; as a GM, I want rules I can share with my players so that they can take a full and active part in the game, knowing what they are doing based on the rules of the game. I want them to be able to make fully informed choices that they know are valid, not choices that it's up to me to confirm or deny.