Legends & Lore: What Worked, What Didn't

[LightPhoenix]

The problem is once you start adding things like this to the game then it often becomes what the game is about.

I found my 3.5e games got bogged down a lot by small modifiers that weren't all that complex. But there were so many of them and they were such a small bonus that they tended to get forgotten on a regular basis. Whenever someone forgets to apply a modifier, however, my players love to point out how much smarter they are to the other players so that was all combat ever became...

And with that we come full circle to the versatility of the advantage/disadvantage mechanic. Trip attacks made with tripping weapons have advantage. Simple, easy to remember.

 

[Mistwell]

All this could be avoided by making the combat system is little bit more complex so that it actually supports different advantages of weapons besides damage die and crit. But oh no, we can't have complexity now, can we? What would the new players think?

You're getting not one, but TWO optional modules to increase complexity. That being the tactical combat module, and the customization module. But oh no, we can't have less complexity in the base game now, can we? What would the system mastery players thing?

 

[Mistwell]

for those that like optimization, it doesn't work.

This is a feature, not a bug.

For a simpler game it would be a great optional rule. As a universal rule, it doesn't work.

You have that backwards. The base game should be the simpler one. Optimization should be the optional one. You have 3e for optimization, and Pathfinder for optimization, and there is no way to compete on an optimization level out the gate with two games that have many years of expansion books behind them. Let that be the focus of the customization and tactical combat modules and let the skeleton base game everything is built on remain the simpler version. It's easier to add things to an existing solid structure base game, than it is to subtract things from it.

This ties into the trend that only casters should be complex.

There is nothing complex about "one concentration spell at a time".

The surveys were self selecting. Meaning that as people decided they didn't like what they saw more people left and were replaced by those that liked what they saw.

They said it was tested (multiple times actually), and while a small minority liked it, a majority did not like it. So the people said they didn't like what they saw, and WOTC adjusted to fit that. That's the opposite of your claim, where you say the playtest is full of people who like what they saw.

 

[Argyle King]

And with that we come full circle to the versatility of the advantage/disadvantage mechanic. Trip attacks made with tripping weapons have advantage. Simple, easy to remember.

I generally agree with this. As I said in my earlier post, I only paused at posting that because advantage seem like a much more significant trait than what I'd consider to be "a minor benefit."

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Compared to juggling and remembering 15 spells out of a much larger spell list?

Complexity causes less problems in different parts of the game.

Choosing which spell to cast is at least a decision that you can ponder during everyone else's turns and even for multiple turns. If you forget what a spells does you can look it up between rounds and refresh your memory without slowing down the game.

Complexity in the actual resolution of abilities is where my problems lie. Lots of small bonuses or bonuses that are so circumstantial that they almost never get used just don't help the game.

I actually kind of like the idea of weapons giving you a whole new option in combat: You can't trip people with a normal weapon because that's not an option in the combat system, but since you are using a whip, it has a special attack to wrap around people's legs and trip them.

I would have liked to see this mechanic in practice. However, they say that it was tried and that it became too much to remember. I'll take their word for it. I can see how that would be the case. At least with spells, most monsters don't have them so you only need to remember what the spells do that the monster you are planning on running next week has. Then you can forget them again. If every enemy who wielded a weapon had 1 or 2 extra options that they could attempt entirely based on their weapon choice, I can see that getting hard to keep track of.

e: More to the point, why not draw from BECMI/RC's Weapon Mastery? Great way to give swordy guys some neat tricks, simple, and pretty potent to boot?

Not sure how this mechanic works as I never played BECMI.

 

[howandwhy99]

Make Advantage / Disadvantage optional. Or at least allow back in via a module the ability to play the game by improving one's odds more than one and done.

Keep each weapon unique and valuable. Powers are only one way of designing a game. Weapons, and everything else for that matter, can be highly variable with different benefits and drawbacks. Keep the Fighter's game intact for those who want to play it.

Last bit,
It doesn't take much to alter the Dis/Adv rule to allow increased benefits and drawbacks. +1 Bonus Die. +1 Penalty Die. Subtract Penalties from Bonuses and roll the resulting number either taking the better or worse result depending. This is blunting the game, which is cool for those who want to Keep it simple, Silly. But players loving the new cool mechanic, but more might just end up making it the whole game. There should be other options, options keeping more finesse.

 

[Obryn]

Complexity causes less problems in different parts of the game.

Choosing which spell to cast is at least a decision that you can ponder during everyone else's turns and even for multiple turns. If you forget what a spells does you can look it up between rounds and refresh your memory without slowing down the game.

Complexity in the actual resolution of abilities is where my problems lie. Lots of small bonuses or bonuses that are so circumstantial that they almost never get used just don't help the game.

I actually kind of like the idea of weapons giving you a whole new option in combat: You can't trip people with a normal weapon because that's not an option in the combat system, but since you are using a whip, it has a special attack to wrap around people's legs and trip them.

I would have liked to see this mechanic in practice. However, they say that it was tried and that it became too much to remember. I'll take their word for it. I can see how that would be the case. At least with spells, most monsters don't have them so you only need to remember what the spells do that the monster you are planning on running next week has. Then you can forget them again. If every enemy who wielded a weapon had 1 or 2 extra options that they could attempt entirely based on their weapon choice, I can see that getting hard to keep track of.
...
Not sure how this mechanic works as I never played BECMI.

You're taking a worst case scenario. I don't think "lots of modifiers" is necessarily a great way to do weapon features, but special maneuvers? Sure, why not?

If it was too much to remember, tweak the system. That's their job.

And no reason every monster should get such perks. Symmetric design shouldn't be the default, anyway - and if it's the only option, I'll run, not walk away from Next, because if you want to talk complexity...

For Weapon Mastery, download the Dark Dungeons retroclone for the system. Basically, mastery in a weapon gives you bonuses depending on the weapon, including increased attack, damage, AC, special maneuvers like disarm/delay/deflect, and "despair" effects where you show how badass you are and intelligent enemies flee. And remember, this was all for the "basic" line of rules. You only needed to know what your own weapon did.

BECMI is among the friendliest D&D editions to mundanes because of it.

 

[Bluenose]

It's always bothered me that Wizards can command the very forces of reality to do his bidding from level 1, and yet the class who's supposed to be a master of all things combat can't reliably trip an enemy until about level 12 or so.

I actually don't object to that, because tripping someone isn't exactly easy. A strike at the legs doesn't exavtly help you defend yourself against a counter going towards your torso/head/arms. And I know where'd I'd prefer not to be hit (either place - taking someone's head off in exchange for losing a leg may be a win, but it's hardly a good result).

Compared to juggling and remembering 15 spells out of a much larger spell list?

e: More to the point, why not draw from BECMI/RC's Weapon Mastery? Great way to give swordy guys some neat tricks, simple, and pretty potent to boot?

There's a lot of different ways to handle it, but if something that was in D&D in the 1980s isn't "traditional" enough then I'm not sure what would be considered acceptable.

 

[Derren]

You're getting not one, but TWO optional modules to increase complexity. That being the tactical combat module, and the customization module. But oh no, we can't have less complexity in the base game now, can we? What would the system mastery players thing?

You mean the Tactical Module we have not seen anything from so far?
I am sure they will be supported through the edition instead of ending up as a glorified houserule, mentioned once and never again.

 

[Primal]

The problem is once you start adding things like this to the game then it often becomes what the game is about.

I found my 3.5e games got bogged down a lot by small modifiers that weren't all that complex. But there were so many of them and they were such a small bonus that they tended to get forgotten on a regular basis. Whenever someone forgets to apply a modifier, however, my players love to point out how much smarter they are to the other players so that was all combat ever became:

Player 1: "I trip the monster. (rolls a 12). That's 20 total."
Player 2: "Wait. I know you have a 16 strength and a 5 BAB, so isn't that 22?"
Player 1: "Plus 3 for strength, plus 5 for BAB. That's 20."
Player 2: "Aren't you using a flail?"
Player 1: "Yeah? So what?"
Player 2: "All flails give +2 to trip attempts."
Player 1: "What? I didn't read that."
Player 2: "Yeah, it's right here. Flails give +2 to all trip attempts."
Player 1: "Hmm, I didn't realize that. Fine, then it's 22."
(Next turn)
Player 1: "I trip him again. (rolls a 10). That's 18 total."
Player 2: (only half paying attention to the roll) "Did you add the flail modifier?"
Player 1: "Crap. I forgot. That's 20 then."
(Next turn)
Player 1: "I trip again. (rolls a 10). That's 20 total."
Player 2: (only half paying attention to the roll) "Remember flail?"
Player 1: "Yes. I rolled a 10, plus 5 BAB, plus 3 strength and 2 from flail."
Player 2: "Ok, ok. I was just making sure since you forgot the last 2 rounds."

Then repeat this process for every modifier in the game....in every round of combat in the game.

Well, if a player has trouble writing down his bonuses on a character sheet, he's probably going to have a lot of similar problems in the game, for example forgetting to add modifiers/dice from Bless and other buffs. Or temporary/circumstancial stuff from feats, or rolling two dice because of (dis)advantage. Or to announce that you're doing piercing and fire damage because you switched to using your flaming bow. And let's not even talk about the "super feats" in 5E; lot's of stuff to remember, if you pick several feats and don't write them down. Seriously, though, I don't know about you, but your example above is what happens from time to time, even with veteran players; we're no robots, after all.

In my opinion keywords relating to weapon groups is almost the simplest kind of modifiers you can have, and no harder to remember than other modifiers in the game. If you think it's too much, it'd be simple to ignore 'em; that's why I said it'd could be an optional rules module/dial/switch/whatever.