D&D 5E L&L for November 24th

[Gundark]

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20131125

Discuss!

 

[Falling Icicle]

This article gives some interesting insights into their design process. It does beg some questions, though.

If it's simpler to remove fort, ref and will saves, and just use the abilities (which it is), why not just remove saving throws as some separate type of check, and just have them be ability checks? After all, having an ability check and an ability save be different things means you have to keep track of two modifiers instead of just one (since some things can modify saves but not checks, or vice versa). It can also cause some rules confusion and debates, i.e. "does this bonus apply to ability checks and saves, or just checks?" Using his own logic, it would be better to remove the "jargon" of saving throws and just have ability checks. Of course, they won't do that because then people would be like "OMG there are no saving throws?! That's not D&D!"

And then there's the question of why they insisted on keeping 1-20 ability score ratings, which is a really dumb sacred cow. The ability modifier is what actually matters, and having the score has caused no end of confusion for new players in my experience. I have to keep reminding them that they just use that +2 in front of their Dexterity, not the 14. Keeping the 1-20 score is just a mindless appeal to tradition. And this also rears its ugly head whenever it comes to increasing ability scores. People will quickly notice that odd number scores do absolutely nothing for their characters. It's a waste of a point. It's nothing but a speedbump to a real bonus. I really think they should just get rid of the ability scores and just have the modifiers as your score. Of course, they won't ever do that either, because, tradition.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Well, he's right that elegance can't be aimed for, but he's horribly wrong when he gives an example of something made 'more elegant' in the current rules.

Quite simply, elegant rules make sense. Internal sense, in that they seem in keeping with other rules and follow the logic of the ruleset as presented. External sense, in that players can grasp them with some intuition, and that they follow the playstyle suggested by the ruleset.

 

[Sage Genesis]

Well, he's right that elegance can't be aimed for,

He doesn't say that, though? He says it's a shifty or slippery goal, but not impossible to achieve. Agreed that his examples are bad.



To me, the change in saving throws is less elegant than it was in 4e. Although Next's method might be slightly easier to calculate on your sheet I find it more cumbersome at the actual table. The acting party has to declare the action and then hand the resolution back to his target(s), who all have to make rolls and calculations, before handing the turn back to the acting party. In 4e the acting party can declare and roll all at once, which is quicker. Not by hours or anything, but to me it's noticeably easier to make the acting party roll the d20.

I also find it hard to tell exactly when something has to be an Intelligence save, a Wisdom save, or a Charisma save. Or maybe it has to be an ability check instead of a save (a relevant difference if somebody has, say, a Ring or Protection or the like)? I fail to see how this is more elegant than Will.

And really, were there that many people who couldn't figure out how to calculate saves/defenses before? You could easily streamline 4e's defenses down to "10 + either of this ability score + half level". This is really not that big of a stumbling block.

Finally, I really don't see how advantage could've come from 4e action points. Few people I know spammed the same power twice with an action point. Given that the better powers are encounters or dailies, this is even kind of hard to do. Advantage is really just a re-roll in disguise, action points allow you to set up a combo with your own powers. They're really not the same thing.

 

[Argyle King]

I think having ability checks rather than saves is one of my favorite changes you made for Next. Not only does it make saving against things easier, it also allows saves to be used for a wider variety of things. It also makes your character's abilities actually mean something; while dumping a stat is still possible, it becomes a choice which is actually a tough choice because that ability you dumped might be something you need in some situations. To me, that aids in fostering width and breadth of play rather than the strict linear and vertical advancement of 3rd and 4th. I also believe that the 3-save system added an extra layer of complexity which didn't really add anything to the game.

I wish initiative would be divorced from Dex though. I understand the rationale behind it, but Dex tends to be one of the stats in D&D that is a little too good compared to some of the others. I believe divorcing initiative from it would help level the playing field some. I also believe that reaction speed isn't necessarily the same thing as dexterity, so there are some thematic reasons for why initiative wouldn't be tied to Dex. I propose that initiative might instead be tied to the level of character; more seasoned and experienced adventurers would have a better feel for when danger is afoot. Feats such as improved initiative could still exist, and perhaps there would be an option or path for the rogue to add his Dex mod to initiative checks... you might even be able to make a warlord-ish path for the fighter who is able to give his Cha or Int mod to an ally's initiative; representing leadership in the case of Cha or tactical knowledge in the case of Int.

 

[Klaus]

This article gives some interesting insights into their design process. It does beg some questions, though.

If it's simpler to remove fort, ref and will saves, and just use the abilities (which it is), why not just remove saving throws as some separate type of check, and just have them be ability checks? After all, having an ability check and an ability save be different things means you have to keep track of two modifiers instead of just one (since some things can modify saves but not checks, or vice versa).

You answered your question right there: some things affect checks (active use of ability scores) and some affect saves (passive/reactive use of ability scores).

 

[Balesir]

Discus

Well, I wasn't that impressed by the article, either, but I wouldn't go throwing it as far as I could inside an athletics track...

 

[Quartz]

I think he meant Cybermen rather than Daleks.

 

[Falling Icicle]

You answered your question right there: some things affect checks (active use of ability scores) and some affect saves (passive/reactive use of ability scores).

Only because they designed it that way. If saving throws were just checks, there wouldn't be things that only affected one or the other.

 

[Klaus]

Only because they designed it that way. If saving throws were just checks, there wouldn't be things that only affected one or the other.

Yes, but "things that only affected one or the other" was a desired goal.