D&D 5E Starter Set Character Sheet Revealed!

[pemerton]

it's easier for us to strip out some rules then for rules monkeys to add them in...

<snip>

they have to design the game to.... and I hate to say this.. the lowest common denominator

I think this is needlessly pejorative.

They have to design the game to some specification rather than another. There is nothing inherently virtuous about a game lacking second wind or action surge. And there is nothing "lowest common denominator" about having them in the game.

They are very simple ways of giving the player of a fighter "moves", much like the player of a rogue has "moves" (via cunning action) and the player of a spell-caster has "moves" (via choosing which spell to cast).

They are not the only way to give a fighter player moves - another possible system has been sketched a handful of posts above this one - but they happen to be the one that the designers have settled on.

VS, that's not a bad little idea. Nice and fun. But, that can be added to any system, which means that it actually isn't related any edition of D&D in any way, shape or form.

Old school games lacked a lot of the roleplaying advice which was intuitive for some.

<snip>

Roleplaying isn't like science or engineering. It's an art form, and that makes it interpretive.

<snip>

AD&D's blank canvas seemed to give old school gamers more license to just make stuff up. Of course, a blank canvas goes both ways. It can also be interpreted as featureless.

I think there is more going on than just the "blank canvas".

In a system of called shots for a minor penalty (eg increased natural fumble range), can a player declare as a called shot "I cut off its head"? Which permits bypassing the hit point system altogether (as well as the need for a vorpal sword, which is the most powerful magic weapon in the game and has as its sole power the ability to decapitate).

And then the next question is, can an NPC make the same action declaration and bypass a PC's hit points?

In other words, the presence of the hit point system in D&D, with the obvious implication that bypassing that system via SoD is a big deal, is a major barrier to introducing free-form stunts. Because it interposes a mechanical barrier between intention and realisation - the attacker is always intending to win the combat, but a successful to it roll is not enough to realise that intent until the opponent's hp have been run down.

the reason harpies have that many HP is because they are meant to be a threat to an X level party, not because of any sort of in world reason - but, apparently that makes for a consistent world?

How is that consistent? In what way does a completely arbitrary set of decisions with absolutely no backing in the game world or even remote nods to things like physics or biology result in consistency?

The whole point of simulation is you can answer the why questions. That's the reason you use sim based play. If you cannot actually tell me why a harpy is tougher than an orc or even a large giant like an Ogre, then how can you claim any consistency? Ogres have more HP than orcs because ogres are bigger than orcs. That makes sense. Bigger things have more HP. Ok, consistent. But, it's not actually true. Things that are much smaller also have more HP - a harpy is tougher than an ogre.

Good post.

In Rolemaster, the harpy would have fewer concussion hits than the ogre (concussion hits in RM are one aspect of meat - attrition of them represents bruising and bleeding; other parts of meat are represented via a fairly intricate system of crit-delivered debuffs). But to represent its magical nature it might have a high defensive bonus (somewhat analogous to a 3E deflection and/or enhancement bonus) or critical reduction (somewhat analogous to DR/+X in 3E). In other words, the mechanics are presented in such a way as to answer the "why" question.

 

[hbarsquared]

Wow.

I've seen D&D and ENWorld through 3.5 edition changes (->3e, ->3.5, ->4e, ->5e).

This is no bag on anyone in particular in this thread but...

Amazing how the arguments and dialogue are the same... only the actors change.

 

[VengerSatanis]

Oh, fair enough VS. I tend to agree. I like rules light games. I was simply commenting that when people talk about the lack of options in AD&D, they're talking about mechanical options that are part of the system. It's not that you can't do what you're talking about, you certainly can. It's that doing so isn't actually part of the system that they are talking about. I mean, there's no reason you cannot bolt that system onto 3e or 4e either. It would work just as well there as in AD&D.

Although, I would say that the lack of a battle map and mechanics related to using a battle map (or a tabletop and lengths of string) does have a limiting factor on tactical options. Theater of the Mind combat tends to be a lot less tactical, IMO. Not better or worse, just less tactical in nature.

No reason at all, once people realize that it's all roleplaying, making stuff up and doing cool stuff.

The tactics are different. AD&D is less precise, like a watercolor. Whereas, 3/4e would be more like an architectural blueprint. You get the dimensions right but lose the poetry. If 5e can give us the best of both worlds, that would be awesome. I hope so.

VS

 

[VengerSatanis]

In a system of called shots for a minor penalty (eg increased natural fumble range), can a player declare as a called shot "I cut off its head"? Which permits bypassing the hit point system altogether (as well as the need for a vorpal sword, which is the most powerful magic weapon in the game and has as its sole power the ability to decapitate).

And then the next question is, can an NPC make the same action declaration and bypass a PC's hit points?

In other words, the presence of the hit point system in D&D, with the obvious implication that bypassing that system via SoD is a big deal, is a major barrier to introducing free-form stunts. Because it interposes a mechanical barrier between intention and realisation - the attacker is always intending to win the combat, but a successful to it roll is not enough to realise that intent until the opponent's hp have been run down.

That was just addressed in a blog comment. I have since revised the original post to reflect my views on the subject. I'll copy/paste them here...

1. The environment should always be taken into account. If one is in the desert, there's going to be sand to throw in someone's face versus an ice cavern that might collapse, bringing glacial chunks down on enemy heads. Those who pay attention to their environment and use it creatively to narrate their actions should be rewarded.

2. A player can't demand some kind of auto-kill like decapitation or piercing a villain's heart with an arrow... even with a 15% chance of critical failure. GMs should keep in mind that cutting off a giant's head is the intended end-result; however, the action is hacking at the giant's neck. Big difference.

VS

 

[Hussar]

/snip

In Rolemaster, the harpy would have fewer concussion hits than the ogre (concussion hits in RM are one aspect of meat - attrition of them represents bruising and bleeding; other parts of meat are represented via a fairly intricate system of crit-delivered debuffs). But to represent its magical nature it might have a high defensive bonus (somewhat analogous to a 3E deflection and/or enhancement bonus) or critical reduction (somewhat analogous to DR/+X in 3E). In other words, the mechanics are presented in such a way as to answer the "why" question.

It gets even wonkier when you look at it. A halfling commoner 1 and a human commoner 1 have exactly the same HP. ((Well, actually, any class would work) despite the fact that the halfling weighs about 30 pounds and the human about 150. So, why do they have the same HP, when something 5 times bigger than a human, say a grizzly bear (and 750 pounds of grizzly bear is a HONKING big grizzly), has 51 HP, twenty five times more than either the halfling or the human?

Obviously size doesn't really matter in 3.5 D&D. Or rather, size is applied in very inconsistent ways.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

How is that consistent? In what way does a completely arbitrary set of decisions with absolutely no backing in the game world or even remote nods to things like physics or biology result in consistency?
[...]
You can find all sorts of inconsistencies in D&D. That's because D&D has never actually been a sim game.

You have it backwards. A harpy doesn't have 31 hit points because it's CR 4; a harpy is CR 4 because it has 31 hit points. The game stats (hit points, strength score, maneuverability, etc) all have explicit in-game meaning, and the meta-game stats like CR are only descriptive of.

Is it inconsistent for a harpy to have more hit points than an ogre? Not necessarily, because hit points have a lot of factors to them. It wouldn't even be inconsistent if harpies had higher strength than ogres, because chimps are stronger than humans in spite of being smaller - there are a lot of reasons for why something might be strong or weak, even though strength itself is fairly well defined.

It's just saying, that whatever this these stats mean - whatever the reality within the game world that is being reflected with these stats - they are consistent.

What you seem to be confusing for inconsistency is actually just verisimilitude. There are tons of things within the game world, even discounting the elves and dragons and whatnot, that don't follow the laws of reality. They don't follow the complicated laws of our reality, or the story logic from any particular novels. But they don't have to be. Adherence to outside sources is not a requirement for internal consistency.

 

[BoldItalic]

Wow.

I've seen D&D and ENWorld through 3.5 edition changes (->3e, ->3.5, ->4e, ->5e).

This is no bag on anyone in particular in this thread but...

Amazing how the arguments and dialogue are the same... only the actors change.

Most of the arguments seem to boil down to:

1. "I'm smarter than you"
2. "No you aren't, and he said so"

It's displaced sexual agression, fighting with words.

Plus ça change ...

 

[pemerton]

A harpy doesn't have 31 hit points because it's CR 4; a harpy is CR 4 because it has 31 hit points. The game stats (hit points, strength score, maneuverability, etc) all have explicit in-game meaning, and the meta-game stats like CR are only descriptive of.

Is it inconsistent for a harpy to have more hit points than an ogre? Not necessarily, because hit points have a lot of factors to them. It wouldn't even be inconsistent if harpies had higher strength than ogres, because chimps are stronger than humans in spite of being smaller - there are a lot of reasons for why something might be strong or weak, even though strength itself is fairly well defined.

It's just saying, that whatever this these stats mean - whatever the reality within the game world that is being reflected with these stats - they are consistent.

This doesn't actually explain what it quantity, within the gameworld, is being measured.

This is a problem even for STR, actually - because in D&D the fastest swimmer is also the strongest weightlifter, whereas this is not actually true for human beings. But it is an even bigger issue for hit points. What biological property does the harpy exhibit to a greater degree than the ogre?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

This is a problem even for STR, actually - because in D&D the fastest swimmer is also the strongest weightlifter, whereas this is not actually true for human beings.

Even aside from that not being true (your ability to swim is set by your Strength-based check, but your speed is set by your move speed), that's not an actually inconsistency within the game world. I'll grant that it's inconsistent with real life, but that's never been a primary concern.

So the ruleset describes a world where the best swimmer is also the best climber, and is built like Beowulf rather than Michael Phelps. What's your point?

 

[pemerton]

Even aside from that not being true (your ability to swim is set by your Strength-based check, but your speed is set by your move speed), that's not an actually inconsistency within the game world. I'll grant that it's inconsistent with real life, but that's never been a primary concern.

So the ruleset describes a world where the best swimmer is also the best climber, and is built like Beowulf rather than Michael Phelps. What's your point?

My point - which is (as far as I can tell) the same as [MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION]'s - that this is a way of approaching the game that has basically no textual support in any edition of D&D, and that frankly I find pretty bizarre.

The humans of the gameworld are humans; the longswords are longswords; the carts are carts; the horses are horses. The point of the rules is to enable resolution of declared actions involving these beings, not to frame an alternative universe in which the same labels are used but the things themselves are radically different.

Also: what biological property does hit points measure, which a harpy exemplifies to a greater degree than an ogre?