D&D 5E Casters should go back to being interruptable like they used to be.

[Vaalingrade]

That would make just about every card or board game in history designed for three or more players count as a design fail; as the first player knocked out is forced to stop playing before any of the others are.

Sorry, not buying this premise.

Most modern board games actively avoid this by having a round/time limit and/or win conditions rather than dropoffs.

Because of the whole 'players not getting to participate' being a fail state' think.

 

[MerricB]

That would make just about every card or board game in history designed for three or more players count as a design fail; as the first player knocked out is forced to stop playing before any of the others are.

Catan
Carcassonne
Ticket to Ride
Euchre
Canasta
Uno
Pandemic
Brass
Terraforming Mars
Great Western Trail

The list goes on and on and on of games that do not have player elimination.

The longer the game is, the more of an issue player elimination becomes. Consider Diplomacy, which you can be eliminated after the first hour of a 4-6 hour game. What then for the rest of your afternoon?

Is player elimination a flaw that must be avoided at all cost? By no means! But it is something that deserves design consideration.

I have a feeling that character death/missing actions in early forms of the game were ameliorated by the control of henchmen and hirelings; if your primary character dies, you have a secondary character you can still control. But I'm not 100% on that. I do know that as the game has developed, it has moved more and more towards control of a single (complex) character, making player elimination less and less desirable as a trait.

(I might have killed the rogue in our group last night. But I knew they had revivify...)

Cheers,
Merric

 

[Clint_L]

I have a feeling that character death/missing actions in early forms of the game were ameliorated by the control of henchmen and hirelings; if your primary character dies, you have a secondary character you can still control. But I'm not 100% on that. I do know that as the game has developed, it has moved more and more towards control of a single (complex) character, making player elimination less and less desirable as a trait.

(I might have killed the rogue in our group last night. But I knew they had revivify...)

Cheers,
Merric

We almost never had character deaths. The deadliness of 1e gets vastly overstated.

 

[ECMO3]

And where does niche protection fit in - the idea that each class is good at a few things nobody else can do (or do nearly as well) and not good at a lot?

I don't particularly like the concept of niche protection, especially in relation to classes. While it should be easier to build a certain way because of class, I don't think classes should have niches that other classes can't achieve. I think subclasses are a better place for niche protection, or more accurately a better place to put mechanics beyond what other players can do in the constraints of bounded accuracy.

For example a Fey Wanderer Ranger with max Wisdom and high charisma is mechanically the best face you can build. If you build a character for that purpose no other PC can match it, including Bards and Charisma Rogues. But Ranger as a class is not even average when ic comes to being a face.

Same with Rune Knight. That can be one of the best skill builds in the game, outrunning just about everything, again including Bards and all Rogues except a Scout. But Fighters are nothing special when it comes to skills.

That is the kind of "niche protection" I prefer, and part of that is ensuring class mechanics do not put you so far behind another class that it can't be made up.

In that respect I don't think classes should put other classes out of reach though. I like the fact that a Fighter or Barbarian on class mechanics alone is not way better in melee than a Cleric or Wizard can be if devoted to that. In terms of a Niche, if we want the ultimate melee build it should be largely on subclass, not on class mechanics.

 

[ECMO3]

I included the list, I just counted each step of exhaustion separately as each has its own debuff effect, and no step of exhaustion impacts the ability to cast save or buff spells until exhaustion 6..(which causes the 'dead' status effect)

So..
Exhaustion 1-5
Frightened
Prone
Grappled
Poisoned
Restrained

Ok that is 6, although Restrained or Exhaustion-5 will affect how you can cast Plane Shift, so you would not be "completely unaffected" WRT that spell.

Though we could also add
Deafened and..to a lesser extent

Which would be 7

Blinded (for non-sight targeted spells),

Which is all the spells you listed, except Blink, Fireball, Plane Shift and Forcecage.

And this would be 8, and I will point that while you can cast Fireball and Forcecage while blinded, you would not be able to see where you are casting it on or who is in that area and as such it is incorrect to say you would be "completely unaffected".

So you are up to 8 conditions and down to 1 spell you are "completely unaffected" casting - Blink

and
Charmed (for any buffs or saves spells against targets other than the charmer)

Charmed will prevent you from targeting the charming creature with a harmful spell, which includes Maze, Plane Shift, Hold Person and Dominate Monster, but we already eliminated those anyway and this would be 9 conditions.

So to correct your statement above:

Someone casting Blink is "completely unaffected by the caster having 10 9 different status effects"

That quite a bit different than your original claim.

 

[ezo]

I don't particularly like the concept of niche protection, especially in relation to classes. While it should be easier to build a certain way because of class, I don't think classes should have niches that other classes can't achieve. I think subclasses are a better place for niche protection, or more accurately a better place to put mechanics beyond what other players can do in the constraints of bounded accuracy.

For example a Fey Wanderer Ranger with max Wisdom and high charisma is mechanically the best face you can build. If you build a character for that purpose no other PC can match it, including Bards and Charisma Rogues. But Ranger as a class is not even average when ic comes to being a face.

Same with Rune Knight. That can be one of the best skill builds in the game, outrunning just about everything, again including Bards and all Rogues except a Scout. But Fighters are nothing special when it comes to skills.

That is the kind of "niche protection" I prefer, and part of that is ensuring class mechanics do not put you so far behind another class that it can't be made up.

In that respect I don't think classes should put other classes out of reach though. I like the fact that a Fighter or Barbarian on class mechanics alone is not way better in melee than a Cleric or Wizard can be if devoted to that. In terms of a Niche, if we want the ultimate melee build it should be largely on subclass, not on class mechanics.

While I understand your view, personally I feel almost entirely the opposite on just about every point you made.

A bard should be the best face possible, for example. However, I think you should be able to build a very viable face with other classes or subclasses, which could easily fill the role if there was no bard in the party or the bard player didn't want to play that role.

Over all, if a maximize for effect bard face = 100%, other classes should be able to reach 75-85% at best. This makes them very viable, as I said, but not as good as what the bard is capable off.

It is a big reason why I don't like feats that step on the toes of classes. Expertise is a class feature for Bards and Rogues, so feats like Prodigy and Skill Expert interfere with that. I don't mind other classes having double proficiency in a skill that makes sense for that class, such as Athletics for Fighters, Arcana for Wizards, Survival for Rangers, Nature for Druids, etc., but beyond that I don't care for it myself.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Ok that is 6, although Restrained or Exhaustion-5 will affect how you can cast Plane Shift, so you would not be "completely unaffected" WRT that spell.



Which would be 7



Which is all the spells you listed, except Blink, Fireball, Plane Shift and Forcecage.

And this would be 8, and I will point that while you can cast Fireball and Forcecage while blinded, you would not be able to see where you are casting it on or who is in that area and as such it is incorrect to say you would be "completely unaffected".

So you are up to 8 conditions and down to 1 spell you are "completely unaffected" casting - Blink




Charmed will prevent you from targeting the charming creature with a harmful spell, which includes Maze, Plane Shift, Hold Person and Dominate Monster, but we already eliminated those anyway and this would be 9 conditions.

So to correct your statement above:

Someone casting Blink is "completely unaffected by the caster having 10 9 different status effects"

That quite a bit different than your original claim.

1. I stand by exhaustion at different levels being 5 separate debuffs as that is exactly how it happens. It would be exactly the same as if it were on a scale from say "weary" to to "catatonic". And it's not like you can clear the exhausted condition past level 1 with a single spell or effect.

2. Even without that differentiation, your starting point was 7, which (IMO) is not that big a difference really. It's a bit like saying

"that guy's so rich he has 10 houses",

and someone correcting you by saying

"I call BS.. he only has 6 houses and a 5 unit beach condo"

3. Several of the spells you downgrade don't downgrade from completely unaffected to useless; they downgrade all the way to..mostly unaffected (at least until we bring in blinded)

4. Even removing those spells that are minimally effected by these conditions, there is still a spell from that "top of my head, nowhere near exhaustive" listing that a caster can execute while:

Blind,
Deaf,
Poisoned,
Prone,
Grappled,
Frightened,
Charmed,
Restrained, AND
Exhausted..nigh..unto..death
In the middle of an active warzone

With no peronal risk and no reduction in effect..at all.

..and I don't think it'd be all that difficult to find more.

 

[ezo]

Deleted.

 

[Lanefan]

Catan
Carcassonne
Ticket to Ride
Euchre
Canasta
Uno
Pandemic
Brass
Terraforming Mars
Great Western Trail

I've only played two on that list (well, three, but Canasta was so long ago that I've forgotten everything about it). Of those, Uno is a scorekeeping game where you play either x number of hands or until someone reaches x score; and I'm sure I've been eliminated or wiped out in Catan.

The longer the game is, the more of an issue player elimination becomes. Consider Diplomacy, which you can be eliminated after the first hour of a 4-6 hour game. What then for the rest of your afternoon?

Exactly, but as that elimination is part of the game I don't see this as a problem. Ditto Roborally, or Risk, or poker: do well and you're playing all day; suck and you're out* quickly.

The same goes for RPGs, with the huge difference being that with a typical RPG there's almost without exception one or more avenues to get back in to the same game rather than have to wait for another one to start. Roll up another character, or wait to be rescued, or wait for the spell to wear off - one way or another, you can and will get back into that game at some point if that's your desire.

Given that, and that sometimes sitting out for a while is a baked-in part of RPG play, I've no ear for people complaining if they miss a combat turn.

* - buy-ins at poker notwithstanding; and poker is quite unusual this way.

I have a feeling that character death/missing actions in early forms of the game were ameliorated by the control of henchmen and hirelings; if your primary character dies, you have a secondary character you can still control. But I'm not 100% on that. I do know that as the game has developed, it has moved more and more towards control of a single (complex) character, making player elimination less and less desirable as a trait.

The complexification of character generation sure hasn't helped.

(I might have killed the rogue in our group last night. But I knew they had revivify...)

A fine example of an avenue to return to play in the same game.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't particularly like the concept of niche protection, especially in relation to classes. While it should be easier to build a certain way because of class, I don't think classes should have niches that other classes can't achieve. I think subclasses are a better place for niche protection, or more accurately a better place to put mechanics beyond what other players can do in the constraints of bounded accuracy.

For example a Fey Wanderer Ranger with max Wisdom and high charisma is mechanically the best face you can build. If you build a character for that purpose no other PC can match it, including Bards and Charisma Rogues. But Ranger as a class is not even average when ic comes to being a face.

Same with Rune Knight. That can be one of the best skill builds in the game, outrunning just about everything, again including Bards and all Rogues except a Scout. But Fighters are nothing special when it comes to skills.

That is the kind of "niche protection" I prefer, and part of that is ensuring class mechanics do not put you so far behind another class that it can't be made up.

In that respect I don't think classes should put other classes out of reach though. I like the fact that a Fighter or Barbarian on class mechanics alone is not way better in melee than a Cleric or Wizard can be if devoted to that. In terms of a Niche, if we want the ultimate melee build it should be largely on subclass, not on class mechanics.

I'm almost the other way around: class should define niche. Subclasses, I think, are best either made into freestanding classes of their own (if there's room, which there is for a few) or ditched (most of them). What this specifically means is that if you want to play in a specific niche, then either play that class or accept that you're playing against type and be prepared for an uphill struggle.

I'm very much against the "jack of all trades" build where a character can more or less turn its hand to anything and be competent at it even if not expert.

Why? Because if I'm good enough at everything to get by, why do I need to hang around with these other bozos? I don't need a team because I am a team; and I'll go it alone. Hardly speaks of teamwork and party play, does it?

But if every character has clear strangths and major deficiencies then there's a reason to adventure with a group: you can cover off each other's weaknesses and in so doing become greater* than the sum of your individual parts.

* - unless everyone decides to play the same class, in which case it's on the players in-character to find other means of covering their weaknesses.