D&D (2024) First playtest thread! One D&D Character Origins.

[Aldarc]

Please read what I write and don't build strawmans. In all my posts I specifically compared characters of equal standing and not "bottom 0.1% to top 0.1%"
The top 0.1% of humans will of course be tougher than the bottom 0.1% of dwarves. Thats what the standard array is for.
But when you compare the top 1% of dwarves to the top 1% of humans (top meaning characters that trained their endurance), the dwarves will be thougher because of their race. Thats consistent and just logical. One does not suddenly stop being a dwarf just because you become an adventurer.
The same way the middle or bottom 1% will also have the dwarves just a little bit tougher when compared with each other.

Also, see the edit above.

How are we defining "tougher"? Dwarves are hardier by virtue of being more resistant against poisons and having 1 HP more than a human of equivalent stats per level.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Doesn’t actually matter, reroll on a 1 is +0.5 average whether you’re rolling a d4 or a d100.

Doing this in my head, and typing on my phone, while walking the puppy early in the morning.

If you reroll ones, and have to keep the new result, then when computing the average you are replacing the ones with the old average. I.e. for a d4 tge average expected result is ( ( 1 + 2 + 3 + 4)/4 + 2 + 3 + 4)/4, or (2.5 + 2 + 3 + 4)/4. Looks to be like that increases the average expected result by 1.5/4, or 0.375. The general pattern is an increase of (AVG-1)/4. So 2.5/4 for d6, 3.5/4 for d8, etc.

But wait! Although smaller dice get a smaller increase, we really care about the percent increase. That’s ((AVG-1)/D)/AVG which… I’m having trouble simplifying in my head.

Let’s see, replace both averages with D / 2 + 0.5, because we want to solve for D, and…we have a quadratic. (See? There was a use for those after all!) I’ll finish this when I can sit down.

EDIT: Oh, duh, there’s a simpler way: the increase is (D - 1)/2D, which gets larger with larger values of D.

So re-rolling 1s is more advantageous for larger dice. But not by much.

Unless I made a mistake.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What would they even change that they haven't already changed for levelUp?

• Character origins: already different in LevelUp
• Feats: already different in LevlUp
• Spells: Already different in level up

I guess they could change conditions to match? Changing the crits and 1 & 20 rolls is a non issue (as it cost nothing one way or the other to implement or remove). So I don't think you have to worry about LevelUp much, it is already Advanced 5e.

I'm worried because I expect the majority of other 3pp products to be retooled to conform with this, as has been the case every time WotC made a noticeable change to the way they do things. I cite as evidence Nix's Monster Manual Expanded series, which is as we speak being re-tooled to conform to MMotM.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I assume you are advocating for their removal from classes at 4th, 8th, 12th, etc levels then?

I advocate for their removal. I think people should just get feats at those levels.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Please read what I write and don't build strawmans. In all my posts I specifically compared characters of equal standing and not "bottom 0.1% to top 0.1%"
The top 0.1% of humans will of course be tougher than the bottom 0.1% of dwarves. Thats what the standard array is for.
But when you compare the top 1% of dwarves to the top 1% of humans (top meaning characters that trained their endurance), the dwarves will be thougher because of their race. Thats consistent and just logical. One does not suddenly stop being a dwarf just because you become an adventurer.
The same way the middle or bottom 1% will also have the dwarves just a little bit tougher when compared with each other.

Also, see the edit above.

But that assumption is incorrect. Adventurers, by definition, are weird. You are going to see massive over-representation of the unusual ends of the bell curve--both the weird because they hyper-exemplify their physiology, and the weird because they radically differ from it. Ordinary selective pressure (adventurers with poor stats do not survive as long as ones with good stats) and self-selection pressures (adventurers with low Strength are rarely going to pursue a career path as a Barbarian and other similar patterns) will provide a strong filter. Further, folk who fit in perfectly with their society's expectations aren't likely to gallivant off as adventurers, risking life and limb when they could pursue a much safer vocation.

We are, necessarily, going to be comparing weird dwarves to weird non-dwarves, because they're adventurers. And the weird dwarf adventurers who choose to become bookish Wizards aren't going to be the ones who exemplify typical dwarf strengths, are they?

It's not a matter of "you stopped being a dwarf when you became an adventurer." It's "adventurers are already a weird, self-selected group that doesn't conform to social and, frequently, characteristic norms." Dwarves that already didn't fit in are the ones most likely to become adventurers in the first place. By your phrasing, it is "dwarves who decide to stop being dwarves" that are particularly likely to become adventurers. (There will, of course, also be at least partially-stereotypical dwarves who become adventurers, but it's pretty much inarguable that wandering adventuresome dwarves are deviating from the stereotypical dwarven culture's values, seeing as they're leaving their family and clan behind and usually living above ground most of the time!)

This is, of course, completely separate from the two excellent arguments from @Remathilis (why are ASIs tied to advancing class level if they are always inherent and never obtained through life experience and training? Surely your arguments indicate those should be removed too, and that's not going to happen) and @Aldarc (dwarves already are inherently tougher and hardier, as they have higher HP and a resistance to poisons and poison damage--why are ability scores also needed when these features exist?)

 

[TwoSix]

Let’s see, replace both averages with D / 2 + 0.5, because we want to solve for D, and…we have a quadratic. (See? There was a use for those after all!) I’ll finish this when I can sit down.

Reroll 1s and keep result for 1dN adds (N-1)/2N to the average result (N+1)/2. The ratio of the difference to the average is (N-1)/[N*(N+1)]; like you said, it gets smaller with increasing die size.

 

[Cadence]

But that assumption is incorrect. Adventurers, by definition, are weird. You are going to see massive over-representation of the unusual ends of the bell curve--both the weird because they hyper-exemplify their physiology, and the weird because they radically differ from it. Ordinary selective pressure (adventurers with poor stats do not survive as long as ones with good stats) and self-selection pressures (adventurers with low Strength are rarely going to pursue a career path as a Barbarian and other similar patterns) will provide a strong filter. Further, folk who fit in perfectly with their society's expectations aren't likely to gallivant off as adventurers, risking life and limb when they could pursue a much safer vocation.

We are, necessarily, going to be comparing weird dwarves to weird non-dwarves, because they're adventurers. And the weird dwarf adventurers who choose to become bookish Wizards aren't going to be the ones who exemplify typical dwarf strengths, are they?

It's not a matter of "you stopped being a dwarf when you became an adventurer." It's "adventurers are already a weird, self-selected group that doesn't conform to social and, frequently, characteristic norms." Dwarves that already didn't fit in are the ones most likely to become adventurers in the first place. By your phrasing, it is "dwarves who decide to stop being dwarves" that are particularly likely to become adventurers. (There will, of course, also be at least partially-stereotypical dwarves who become adventurers, but it's pretty much inarguable that wandering adventuresome dwarves are deviating from the stereotypical dwarven culture's values, seeing as they're leaving their family and clan behind and usually living above ground most of the time!)

Which still doesn't explain why the most extremely strong Goliath PC in history is no stronger than the most extremely strong Halfling PC. Or the most extremely dextrous Elf PC is no more dextrous than the most extremely dextrous Dwarf PC etc ..

But it's not like the ASIs at level one did much at all for that anyway. And if I'm going to grouse about unrealistic anywhere it's folks swimming or climbing as easily with a couple hundred pounds of gear on as without it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Yeah I think that we may see all subclasses at level 1 at least playtested

I would LOVE if we atleast playtest all classes working off the warlock chasie (2 subclasses, a bunch of at will and encounter abilities, and mini feats every few levels)

 

[Ixal]

But that assumption is incorrect. Adventurers, by definition, are weird. You are going to see massive over-representation of the unusual ends of the bell curve--both the weird because they hyper-exemplify their physiology, and the weird because they radically differ from it. Ordinary selective pressure (adventurers with poor stats do not survive as long as ones with good stats) and self-selection pressures (adventurers with low Strength are rarely going to pursue a career path as a Barbarian and other similar patterns) will provide a strong filter. Further, folk who fit in perfectly with their society's expectations aren't likely to gallivant off as adventurers, risking life and limb when they could pursue a much safer vocation.

We are, necessarily, going to be comparing weird dwarves to weird non-dwarves, because they're adventurers. And the weird dwarf adventurers who choose to become bookish Wizards aren't going to be the ones who exemplify typical dwarf strengths, are they?

It's not a matter of "you stopped being a dwarf when you became an adventurer." It's "adventurers are already a weird, self-selected group that doesn't conform to social and, frequently, characteristic norms." Dwarves that already didn't fit in are the ones most likely to become adventurers in the first place. By your phrasing, it is "dwarves who decide to stop being dwarves" that are particularly likely to become adventurers. (There will, of course, also be at least partially-stereotypical dwarves who become adventurers, but it's pretty much inarguable that wandering adventuresome dwarves are deviating from the stereotypical dwarven culture's values, seeing as they're leaving their family and clan behind and usually living above ground most of the time!)

This is, of course, completely separate from the two excellent arguments from @Remathilis (why are ASIs tied to advancing class level if they are always inherent and never obtained through life experience and training? Surely your arguments indicate those should be removed too, and that's not going to happen) and @Aldarc (dwarves already are inherently tougher and hardier, as they have higher HP and a resistance to poisons and poison damage--why are ability scores also needed when these features exist?)

Only that dwarves do not stop being dwarves (unless you have floating ASI). The "weird" in your eyes, bookish wizard dwarf still has a better constitution than the weird, bookish human wizard because of his racial heritage.

 

[Aldarc]

Which still doesn't explain why the most extremely strong Goliath PC in history is no stronger than the most extremely strong Halfling PC. Or the most extremely dextrous Elf PC is no more dextrous than the most extremely dextrous Dwarf PC etc ..

But it's not like the ASIs at level one did much at all for that anyway. And if I'm going to grouse about unrealistic anywhere it's folks swimming or climbing as easily with a couple hundred pounds of gear on as without it.

Don't Goliaths get proficiency in Athletics and Powerful Build, which increases their carrying capacity? A Goliath will count as Large for determining how much they can carry, but a Halfling will count as Small for the same.