D&D 5E 08/05/2013 - Legends & Lore : Scaling Complexity

[keterys]

Yeah, as someone who generally likes more complex and flexible options, I'm not finding much to enjoy in the Gladiator. The maneuvers aren't particularly inspiring, and they use their own weird little mechanic for no apparent reason. Why isn't the opponent making saves against these attacks, rather than comparing ability modifiers?

Because this way the die gets used, it effectively wraps in a size / upper bound limit easily (you have a 22 in a stat? Well, you're immune to that maneuver), and it's one of the few bits of nifty innovation they've made?

If there's one thing that sticks, I hope it's this bit of nifty. Hell, I'd be fine if some spells moved to copy it, instead of this moving to copy saves.

 

[Iosue]

Because this way the die gets used, it effectively wraps in a size / upper bound limit easily (you have a 22 in a stat? Well, you're immune to that maneuver), and it's one of the few bits of nifty innovation they've made?

If there's one thing that sticks, I hope it's this bit of nifty. Hell, I'd be fine if some spells moved to copy it, instead of this moving to copy saves.

100% agreed. I really like that mechanic. It doesn't force you to choose between doing something nifty or doing more damage. You can try for the effect, and even if you fail, you still get extra damage. And especially nice is they provide the maneuvers in sets of three, targeting Wis, Dex, and Str and Con, Str, and Dex. This means the fighter is never out of options when facing a variety of foes.

 

[Klaus]

Because this way the die gets used, it effectively wraps in a size / upper bound limit easily (you have a 22 in a stat? Well, you're immune to that maneuver), and it's one of the few bits of nifty innovation they've made?

If there's one thing that sticks, I hope it's this bit of nifty. Hell, I'd be fine if some spells moved to copy it, instead of this moving to copy saves.

Chalk me up as someone who liked the Combat Superiority mechanic. In fact, I'd like to see it in more Subclasses.

 

[Warbringer]

?.. they want to make feats optional. Instead what is happening though is they have preselected feats in sub-classes and then have an added bonus in the optional feat system.
...

Well to be honest, this is just semantics, and missing the issue of complexity.

There seems to be the (incorrect) belief that character creation is the area that requires reduction in choice to constrain complexity. I don't just mean creating characters at the initial levels, but also those choice points at leveling.

But, as [MENTION=882]Chris_Nightwing[/MENTION] and others have pointed out, the real complexity in the game is the multiple sub-systems and number of choices "in the round" that is the real complexity in the game.

I'm concerned that not enough attention is given to in round complexity and balancing that against monsters. Right now its hard to judge as the monster math is in general very poor

 

[Warbringer]

If there's one thing that sticks, I hope it's this bit of nifty. Hell, I'd be fine if some spells moved to copy it, instead of this moving to copy saves.

I like the mechanic too, far better than the current save mechanic. But I don't like it as a separate mechanic to saves and checks, its just another subsystem for the same outcome: action vs. ability score.

It's easy to think of a single implementation though:

Spells: Spellcasting Superiority: 1st d4; 5th d6; 10th d8; 15th 2d4; 20th 2d6: When you cast a spell, roll your SpS die if the spell has an attack or save. If the die is >= to the targets modifier the spell overcomes the targets defenses. If you hit with a spell that you have advantage with, the roll happens with maximum effect. So creatures have magic resistance, listed as dx. Roll and subtract this number from the caster SpS check.

Skills: (as listed). When attempting a skill check you must overcome the inherent difficulty of the challenge. DC is now simply the implied "modifier" of the challenge, so DC20 is a +5. If you roll higher or equal to the obstacle target you succeed at the challenge. If attempting an opposed check, the opponent rolls their skill die and subtracts from characters SkS.

Now, it does start to look like savage worlds , but the d20 becomes the "attack die" now, not the general resolution mechanic

 

[Stalker0]

Because this way the die gets used, it effectively wraps in a size / upper bound limit easily (you have a 22 in a stat? Well, you're immune to that maneuver), and it's one of the few bits of nifty innovation they've made?

If there's one thing that sticks, I hope it's this bit of nifty. Hell, I'd be fine if some spells moved to copy it, instead of this moving to copy saves.

Yep, chalk me up as someone who really likes this idea.

 

[Sadrik]

I see what you're saying - if they made a basic system with attribute increases that you could choose to turn into feats, why can't they do the same here? Each point on the Martial path is a simple increase in something that matters to Fighters, or it's a choice of complex tricks or non-standard features like feats. I like that idea.

Why can't the fighter be d12 HD and good attack bonus and knows how to use every weapon and armor. Instead it is a bunch of mini abilities. Scale the barbarian off of the fighter give them some of the complexity of activated and triggered abilities. Fighter needs to be the baseline for all characters actually...

 

[Sadrik]

Well to be honest, this is just semantics, and missing the issue of complexity.

I agree, it is semantics the core of it is that we have class features which are little packets of abilities that are assigned to classes and only work for that one class. I'd like to see them incorporated into the feats, that won't happen. But at least they could make them selectable and in a pool for the class to select from.

the real complexity in the game is the multiple sub-systems and number of choices "in the round" that is the real complexity in the game.

I'm concerned that not enough attention is given to in round complexity and balancing that against monsters. Right now its hard to judge as the monster math is in general very poor

Well removing fiddly abilities from classes and making them optionally additive for those that want that can be a good start.

 

[Warbringer]

I agree, it is semantics the core of it is that we have class features which are little packets of abilities that are assigned to classes and only work for that one class. I'd like to see them incorporated into the feats, that won't happen. But at least they could make them selectable and in a pool for the class to select from.


Well removing fiddly abilities from classes and making them optionally additive for those that want that can be a good start.

Agreed, if the fiddly bit actually removes the whole mechanic, meaning, mechanic X with 3 choices vs mechanic X onaly a single option isn't that less complex from a rules perspective, though I admit can have an impact on in round choicing.

 

[Hussar]

I also don't get how a player who doesn't like complexity, but feels inspired by a recent viewing of Spartacus (or whatever) plays a simple gladiator. Can we get some scaling within the subclasses?

I'm really, really hoping that in the final draft they add a paragraph to the front of the classes, in double sized, bold type, possibly with a different font just to make it stand out saying something like this:

Class names are optional. These are the names we chose as a convenient shorthand for each class. However, despite possible confusion, there are no correlations between the name of the class and that character's position in the world. A Class:Wizard could be called anything you like, whether it be Prestidigitator or Anagok. Please do not infer from the name of the class, any position in the fictional world of your game.​

And hopefully that stops short all the wankery revolving around "Oh my god, my world can't have class X because it has all this real world connotation!!!"