D&D 5E Final playtest packet due in mid September.

[pemerton]

This can be the game, or the GM. I come back again (ad nauseum, probably) to the GM who strictly applies the rules for combat activity, but bases success or failure in social skills on player speeches and his view of whether the NPC would be persuaded (generally, only if the issue doesn’t have any real impact).

<snip>

In a game run by a GM with that style, expect players (at least those who know the GM) to gravitate to such characters, and away from squishy spellcasters and tricksters.

This seems to me to be talking about system - ie what system is being used to resolve encounters?

I am not that interested in systems where the resolutin method is "GM fiat". It puts too much work on my shoulders as GM, and also leads to conflicts of interest - I have to, at one and the same time, (i) push my NPCs hard to create pressure on the PCs (and thereby on the playes) while (ii) decide whether or not I want the PCs to win or lose the conflict. In my experience that does not produce very satisfying play.

 

[N'raac]

This seems to me to be talking about system - ie what system is being used to resolve encounters?

I think it can be about system. The system itself can provide detailed rules for resolving some challenges (most often combat) and leave others to GM fiat (perhaps social/interaction activities), exactly as you say. It can also be on the GM where the system provides mechanics for resolving some type of challenge, but the GM ignores these in favour of a GM fiat approach.

This might result in player skill, rather than character ability, being determinative of success or failure. For example, where the GM bases success in social encounters on the player's persuasiveness, speechmaking, glibness, etc. rather than the skills and abilities of the character representing persuasiveness, speechmaking, glibness. In this case, investing character resources like feats or skill points in such abilities is pointless, as they will not influence the character's success.

Or it may simply be that the GM wants combat to be the method of resolution, so all of the important NPC's/adversaries are immune to persuasion and the PC's can succeed only by battle, not by other means.

Either approach logically results in characters focused on combat strength, since investment in interaction skills carries no reward.

I am not that interested in systems where the resolutin method is "GM fiat". It puts too much work on my shoulders as GM, and also leads to conflicts of interest - I have to, at one and the same time, (i) push my NPCs hard to create pressure on the PCs (and thereby on the playes) while (ii) decide whether or not I want the PCs to win or lose the conflict. In my experience that does not produce very satisfying play.

Agreed. To me, a good game comes from the GM placing the PC's in challenging situations with, perhaps, some thoughts on how the players may resolve the challenge (ideally with thoughts on multiple approaches) without forming a vested interest in one method over others, or even in the success or failure of the characters (again, ideally with a plan for how the game will proceed either way - sometimes, failure may carry more interesting results than success). To me, the GM forcing a specific approach to problem resolution is the epitome of "railroading" in its most negative form. Hey, why not just tell me how you want us to resolve the situation, or better yet, save everyone's time and email us the preconceived story you've worked out - obviously, our characters' choices won't change the story anyway. I think you and I are on the same page in this regard.

Of course, approaching the game in this manner can be a difficult skill to cultivate - the GM builds the world, and it's tough to eliminate any bias creeping in - but the better GM's are certainly more skilled at minimizing that bias.

 

[Hussar]

That's patently not true. People often choose to play halflings because they think there's something fun to play about halflings even if they aren't the most optimal fit to be a fighter. Hell, I'm playing a halfling paladin in Pathfinder Society. He may not do the most damage in your average party, but he gets by and he's fun to play. Moreover, I recognize that I'm not going to do the most damage and am satisfied with that.

So, basically, you accepted the fact that you are playing with a handicap. You recognized the fact and are playing to it. Fine and dandy.

But, why should I be forced to play with your playstyle just because you want to play with a handicap? What if I want my halfing to be just as effective in melee as the half-orc? Shouldn't my playstyle be supported too?

Then again, this particular example always flies up my nose because I watched one of my players basically create a completely useless character. A halfling monk/paladin/pious templar who basically could never be killed - insane AC and saving throws that meant he only failed on a 1 and got saves versus everything. But, the character couldn't hit anything and, even when it did, did so little damage that it was pointless.

So, maybe it's simply my personal experiences coloring my perception. But, why should the rules punish me for playing something? I can see rewarding someone else for playing to type. That's fine. But, the rules actively punish players for playing against type.

 

[N'raac]

The only reason I can see for the rules to penalize a specific concept is a desire that such a construct not appear in the game. With that in mind, I would suggest that the rules should include an explicit statement that such constructs are not intended to be viable in the game - or just disallow them entirely. Leaving them as a trap for the unwary is, to me, not the mark of good game design.

An example would be 1st Ed Stormbringer, where characters randomly rolled their location of origin and received specific bonuses and/or penalties as a result. Nadsokor, City of Beggars, was pretty much all penalty. The rules stated this, and acknowledged that such a character would be severely disadvantages, so the player could re-roll if they preferred not to play such a disadvantaged character. If, for whatever reason, there is a desire to include a sub-optimal choice, highlight it (just like the rules now suggest a PC could take levels in an NPC class if desired, but that this would be a sub-optimal choice, rather than presenting them in a format where they could be mistaken for equals to PC classes).

 

[billd91]

So, basically, you accepted the fact that you are playing with a handicap. You recognized the fact and are playing to it. Fine and dandy.

But, why should I be forced to play with your playstyle just because you want to play with a handicap? What if I want my halfing to be just as effective in melee as the half-orc? Shouldn't my playstyle be supported too?

Then again, this particular example always flies up my nose because I watched one of my players basically create a completely useless character. A halfling monk/paladin/pious templar who basically could never be killed - insane AC and saving throws that meant he only failed on a 1 and got saves versus everything. But, the character couldn't hit anything and, even when it did, did so little damage that it was pointless.

So, maybe it's simply my personal experiences coloring my perception. But, why should the rules punish me for playing something? I can see rewarding someone else for playing to type. That's fine. But, the rules actively punish players for playing against type.

Where's the punishment? You took an option that wasn't optimal but that isn't necessarily non-viable. Being the second best melee character in the party still gives you things to fight. Who cares if the half-orc does a bit better? That's not a punishment for you, that was a choice. One hopes the reason you made that choice makes up for being #2 (as playing an escaped "slip" now working to undermine slavery works for me and my halfling paladin).

With respect to the halfling monk/paladin/pious templar and combinations that don't prove to be useful or viable, what's wrong with telling that player to reconfigure? That's part of a GM's job, enabling the players to be successful.

 

[Hussar]

Tell me about it. The entire group tried to get him to reconfigure the character to no avail. Sigh. It's pretty bad when you give a paladin a holy avenger just to bring him up to par to the rest of the group. :/

But, are you really second best? Sure, if there's only two fighter types in the group I suppose. But, if you're on par with the bard in combat, but, you don't have the balancing effects of out of combat abilities (like a bard gets), I'd say that's a pretty heavily penalized character.

And a halfling fighter, if you play 3e core only, isn't all that much better in melee than a bard. Certainly not holding a candle to the paladin or ranger. Probably close to a monk. In other words, you've dropped down to a bottom tier, or pretty close, character. If that was your intention and you made that decision consciously (which I assume [MENTION=44640]bill[/MENTION]91, you did), then fine and dandy. But that player who isn't really all that mechanically inclined might be pretty frustrated.

 

[Manbearcat]

The primary problem I have with the paradigm of fluctuating, nebulously accounted for value of class worth (specifically in the arena of combat where the cost of failure is so punitive) is when a class is represented as a value of L(evel) * n (where the value of n is represented as 1) and then goes into the encounter budget formula accordingly. When varying classes are less than or greater than 1, all of a sudden we have set up a situation where challenge predictability (and thus planning) runs wildly askew. That puts enormous pressure on the GM to ad-hoc a combat midstream to correct for the large error bars in the formula. I don't want that pressure, I don't want that conflict of interest, and I don't want the responsibility to correct for bad math mid-stream. I want the output of encounters I set up to manifest pretty closely to the inputs so all of my mental overhead is spent on (i) going full bore against the PCs (thus giving them a true victory rather than a massaged one) and (ii) the set-dressing and stakes that make the encounter compelling.

If n is represented in the rulebooks as 1 yet we have the hypothetical true value of n for classes as

Halfling Fighters @.65
Fighters, Monks @ .75
Rangers, Rogues, Barbarians @ 1
Bards, Swordsages @ 1.25
Wizards, Clerics, Druids @ 1.5

, all of a sudden we have a deeply askew encounter formula contingent upon group makeup. Worse yet, if certain classes scale quadratically while others scale linearly, as the game progresses n runs afoul by yet another vector, rendering functional encounter budgeting all but obsolete by a further perturbed n...which is represented as a constant 1 by the rulebooks.

Theoretically, say a 10th level group of 5 are supposed to be budgeted at 50 (10 * 1 * 5) for an of-level encounter and 100 for an BBEG equivalent combat. By 10th level, my group with a Halfling Fighter (10 * .65), a Human Fighter (10 * .75), a Monk (10 * .75), a Ranger (10 * 1), and a Bard (10 * 1.25) are swimming heavily upstream with a 44 input to that proposed budget of 50 and 100. While of-level combats are slightly harder, BBEG fights may become pretty close to insurmountable. Alternatively, by 10th level, my group with a Druid (10 * 1.5), a Cleric (10 * 1.5), a Wizard (10 * 1.5), a Swordsage (10 * 1.25), and a Barbarian (10 * 1) are well ahead of the game @ 67.5 input to that proposed budget, dominating of-level encounters and trivializing (relatively) BBEG fights. And the rulebooks wouldn't represent this. I'd have TPKs at one end of the spectrum and anti-climactic BBEG fights at the other end...and the built in conflict of interest to "massage" the fights midstream to produce something beyond a table full of facepalms or an unrewarding confrontation with a primary antagonist.

 

[pemerton]

This might result in player skill, rather than character ability, being determinative of success or failure. For example, where the GM bases success in social encounters on the player's persuasiveness, speechmaking, glibness, etc. rather than the skills and abilities of the character representing persuasiveness, speechmaking, glibness. In this case, investing character resources like feats or skill points in such abilities is pointless, as they will not influence the character's success.

I definitely want player skill, and player investment in the actual play of the game, to matter. But in the case of combat, it's not player skill at combat that should matter - it's player skill with the tactical and narrative conceits of the game. And in social interaction, the individual player's charming personality or debating skills aren't what I'm trying to engage - rather, it's their skill in envisaging the dynamics of the ingame situation and thinking through it's narrative possibilities.

This is related to skill choice, too. A player who wants to engage ingame situations in terms of the narrative possibilities of peace and friendship should play a PC trained in Diplomacy but not Bluff or Intimidate. A player who wants to engage ingame situations in terms of the narrative possibilities of manipulation and deceit should play a PC trained in Bluff (with perhaps some Diplomacy backup). Etc. Just like a player who wants to engage ingame combat situations in terms of the narrative possibilities of blowing things up should (in 4e, at least) play a sorcerer; and so on.

 

[billd91]

And a halfling fighter, if you play 3e core only, isn't all that much better in melee than a bard. Certainly not holding a candle to the paladin or ranger. Probably close to a monk. In other words, you've dropped down to a bottom tier, or pretty close, character. If that was your intention and you made that decision consciously (which I assume bill91, you did), then fine and dandy. But that player who isn't really all that mechanically inclined might be pretty frustrated.

How different are you expecting the PCs to be? The halfling gets a -2 to Strength which translates to -1 to hit and damage, but the hit penalty is offset by the small hit bonus, leaving just a -1 to damage. Then he uses small weapons which tend to do -1 on expected value compared to similar medium sized weapons. So, he's no better than the bard though his attack bonus is likely the same as an equivalent human fighter and he does -2 points of damage per hit?

 

[Hussar]

How different are you expecting the PCs to be? The halfling gets a -2 to Strength which translates to -1 to hit and damage, but the hit penalty is offset by the small hit bonus, leaving just a -1 to damage. Then he uses small weapons which tend to do -1 on expected value compared to similar medium sized weapons. So, he's no better than the bard though his attack bonus is likely the same as an equivalent human fighter and he does -2 points of damage per hit?

Yes, but, we're comparing him to the half-orc fighter no? So, now he's -1 to hit and -4 to damage, and, possibly considerably more when you take two handed weapons into effect. The halfing with a 2-H weapon gets +4 to damage (16 str max at 1st=+3+1for 2h). The half orc, using the same weapon, gets +7 to damage (20 str at 1st,=+5+2 for 2H).

So, our half orc averages 5.5+7=12 points of damage per hit, while our halfling averages 4.5+4=8 damage per hit. And, he's hitting 10% less often than the half orc. IOW, the halfling is averaging about half the damage that the half orc is. Even the human fighter with an 18 str is still averaging 11 points per hit, and hitting 5% more often. ((Yes, I know that the hit bonus isn't quite right, but, you get the point)).

That's a pretty big double whammy. Note, because the half-orc's attack bonus is primarily based on his strength, he can also afford things like Power Attack much more easily. Going from a +6 to a +5 to hit isn't too much of a penalty when the bad guys have something in the area of a 15 AC. Going from +4 to +3 is a much bigger penalty.

So, yeah, the halfling melee fighter is getting hosed pretty hard, because he's getting the double whammy of the str penalty PLUS the size penalty. And, let's not forget that the fighter's skills are often based on Str. Which means that the halfling fighter is also taking a hit outside of combat as well.

It's the double whammy that hurts. If it was just the size penalty or just the ability penalty, then no worries. But both together really hurts.