D&D 5E "But Wizards Can Fly, Teleport and Turn People Into Frogs!"

[Ahnehnois]

So, if I am to boil this down into an incredibly simplified version, characters essentially have "Mana" or "Fatigue" from which they draw their powers. This sort of system is a granularity I would absolutely revel in having in D&D.

Great!

Honestly I enjoy the system because it's A: simple, you have X points and spells/powers that cost Y value of them. You can create a wide variety of different powers that all function on the same basic mathematics X points minus Y power cost and different systems for utilizing this power

In my mind, beyond the centralized aspect, there's also the issue that X points and Y cost actually mean something in the game world. And it's easy to adjust what they mean.

On the 4e commentary part, I'm not sure by what you mean by "+4 in anything", like...to hit? To skills? Well, at 20th level you are usually trained in 3-4 skills(that's a +5 bonus) and have a +10 bonus to them for 1/2 level, and then whatever the appropriate mod is(+4 isn't unreasonable for a skill with a high score behind it), so 19+/- In a trained skill is pretty normal. Perhaps I'm missing the connection, but given the limited skill list, and the fact that it serves a different purpose than in your above system. So...clarify?

So my point is that if you wanted to, in 3e you could have a 20th level character take up singing or arcane knowledge or psychic power and pick up, for example, 4 ranks (You could take more or less). You'd be as good as a 1st level character. You could (if you had a lot of skill points to spare) be as good as the norm for your character level, or anything less than that.

However, the standard modifier precludes that. If you're a 20th level character, you have +10 to start with in everything. Even if you're a really stupid barbarian, you likely know more about arcana than a 1st level wizard. Unless you're 1st level, it's impossible to be a beginner at anything. You basically have two choices; you can be good at a task for your level by being trained and having the right ability mods, or you can be bad at it for level, by not having those bonuses.

The same issue is present in earlier versions of D&D mostly with attack bonus. Even in 3e, your wizards get a better attack bonus than barbarians if they have a level advantage. I'd argue that that should never happen (unless you're playing a wizard who actually does melee combat, like Gandalf). Sure, there are other modifiers besides your BAB, and damage and other abilities are relevant too, but I don't see why someone who isn't actively training in something needs to get better at it. With the (3e) skills approach, you only get better at something when you choose to and invest into doing so. So my issue with 4e is that given the choice between hard-coded level-based bonuses, and level-independent skill bonuses, the made everything like the former rather than the latter. It does allow you to readily predict what a character of X level can do (which some might argue is good for balance), but you lose flexibility, granularity, and simulation. The range of bonuses a character can have at any particular thing is smaller. Characters are more homogenous. To me, that's not worth it.

 

[pemerton]

if you wanted to, in 3e you could have a 20th level character take up singing or arcane knowledge or psychic power and pick up, for example, 4 ranks (You could take more or less). You'd be as good as a 1st level character.

<snip>

However, the standard modifier precludes that. If you're a 20th level character, you have +10 to start with in everything.

<snip>

The same issue is present in earlier versions of D&D mostly with attack bonus. Even in 3e, your wizards get a better attack bonus than barbarians if they have a level advantage. I'd argue that that should never happen

I'm not sure if you're aware of the many RPGs that seem to have exactly the system you are looking for: Runequest, HARP, Rolemaster (which is currently in an open playtest of a revised edition) plus out-of-print systems like Chivalry & Sorcery.

I don't think it is likely that 30-odd years after the event D&D is going to be changed to resemble these systems. But I've been wrong before.

 

[pemerton]

So my issue with 4e is that given the choice between hard-coded level-based bonuses, and level-independent skill bonuses, the made everything like the former rather than the latter. It does allow you to readily predict what a character of X level can do (which some might argue is good for balance), but you lose flexibility, granularity, and simulation. The range of bonuses a character can have at any particular thing is smaller. Characters are more homogenous.

This is a non-sequitur. The relevant measure of homogeneity is not a number on a sheet, but rather what is possible, in play, from deploying that player resource.

If one PC has a +1 in skill X, and another +20 in that skill, but all this measures is how good a PC is at lighting a fire with flint and tinder, I don't se a game with a great degree of flexibility or dramatic power.

 

[Ahnehnois]

In 4e, for instance, classes are predominantly for PCs. In AD&D, NPCs are often built using classes, but with many differences from PCs (eg different stat requirements, or an inability to progress in level, etc).

But nonetheless, even with the 4e approach, there are still NPC wizards that use the wizard rules right?

How do they handle their fighters running out of hit points - a pretty serious resource constraint!

They try not to let that happen and they pack some healing items.

ICE's Spacemaster: Privateer uses a similar system for psionics. AD&D 2nd ed also had a skill-based psionic system. And there are others too.

There are also 3e skill-based magic systems out there (as there is one of everything somewhere).

They have their strengths (flexibiity) but also notorious weaknesses (easy to break).

Indeed. My point was that while they're easy to break, they're also easy to fix. Skills have ranks. Feats have requirements.

For example, applying this approach to 3e magic, Tramsmutation would be a feat, and Polymorph would be a feat that has Transmutation as a prereq. You'd then have to take ranks in a Polymorph skill in order to do anything. This requires a lot more purpose and resource investment than simply learning one spell (or power). Moreover, feats have prerequisites. The Polymorph feat might require a certain number of ranks in a wide variety of knowledge skills pertaining to different creatures. A certain number of ranks in a specific skill might be required to change into a specific creature (ranks in Planes for a demon, for example). With the point-based cost to actually use the ability, the Polymorph feat could have an option to make the cost into Con damage (as a default, or under certain circumstances), which would sort of bring back the old system shock rule. The Polymorph skill itself would have to be rolled to actually change anything, and like all skills could be subject to a variety of modifiers some given in the skill description, some circumstance modifiers from the DM.

Could you still break it? Sure. But I don't define balanced as "unbreakable". These types of rules are breakable, but also fixable, because of their modularity and transparency. If you really wanted to, you could make polymorphs NPC-only, or just ban that feat. Could you hack the 3e or 4e magic systems to produce similar results? Yes, and people do, but it's a lot of work. Doing it this way makes everything explicitly optional (which was supposed to be the 5e way IIRC), and makes it clear to the DM what allowing each set of abilities means. That way, rather than having the printed rules enforce a particular style and method of balance, the DM chooses what is appropriate for his campaign.

In theory, this approach is how the fighter was constructed, but in practice, the fighter has too many dead levels and the feat options aren't compelling, again which is largely because there aren't enough things for him to be good at. But there's no reason this approach couldn't be done (and done right) for all classes.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I'm not sure if you're aware of the many RPGs that seem to have exactly the system you are looking for: Runequest, HARP, Rolemaster (which is currently in an open playtest of a revised edition) plus out-of-print systems like Chivalry & Sorcery.

I don't think it is likely that 30-odd years after the event D&D is going to be changed to resemble these systems. But I've been wrong before.

My response to this is pretty standard. 4e looks nothing like 3e (for better or for worse). There were other games (feel free to list some) that had some of the features of 4e. Anyone could have played those other games to get the experience of, say, metagame class abilities. Some did, most didn't. Then 4e adopted them. So, as always, my point is this: if 4e can be D&D, what can't?

This is a non-sequitur. The relevant measure of homogeneity is not a number on a sheet, but rather what is possible, in play, from deploying that player resource.

If one PC has a +1 in skill X, and another +20 in that skill, but all this measures is how good a PC is at lighting a fire with flint and tinder, I don't se a game with a great degree of flexibility or dramatic power.

Since there is no skill for that, I don't see your point. The number on a sheet is what determines what is possible of a character in play. Why else would we spend so much time on those numbers?

 

[MarkB]

But nonetheless, even with the 4e approach, there are still NPC wizards that use the wizard rules right?

No, not really. You could build a PC wizard and use him as an NPC, but it's not how the DMG suggests building NPCs, and not a method used in published adventures.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Why would you want to use the PC rules for an NPC? There's enough option paralysis among players, and the DM usually needs to control multiple NPCs once combat breaks out.

You can, however, use a variety of equivalents. The DMG1 has some rules for that, but they were deprecated with the changes to the monster math. You can of course use the equivalent.

Here's an example:


Eladrin Enchanter
Level 5
Controller
Medium fey humanoid, eladrin
XP 200
HP 59
Bloodied 29


Initiative +3
AC 19
Fortitude 15
Reflex 17
Will 19
Perception +5; low-light vision
Speed 6
Immune sleep
Resist ---
Vulnerable ---


Saving Throws +5 against charm effects
Action Points 0



Traits
Ritual Caster (arcane): The enchanter can master and perform rituals of 5th-level or lower. The enchanter can perform the Call of Friendship ritual.
Standard Actions
(mb) Longsword (weapon) * At-Will. Atk: +10 vs AC. Hit: 2d8+4 damage.
Hypnotism (arcane, charm, implement) * At-Will. Atk: Ranged 10; +8 vs Will. Hit: The target uses a free action to make a melee basic attack against a creature of the enchanter's choice, or the enchanter slides the target 3 squares.
Sleep (arcane, implement, sleep) * Encounter. Atk: Area burst 2 within 20; +8 vs Will. Hit: The target is slowed (save ends). First Failed Saving Throw: The target falls unconscious (save ends). Miss: The target is slowed (save ends).
Move Actions
Fey Step (teleportation) * Encounter. Effect: The eladrin teleports 5 squares.
Triggered Actions
Orb of Imposition (arcane) * Encounter. Trigger: A creature that the enchanter has cast sleep on rolls a saving throw against sleep. Effect (Free Action): The triggering creature takes a -2 penalty to the saving throw.
Skills Arcana +11, Diplomacy +9, History +11, Insight +10
Str 10
Dex 13
Wis 16


Con 11
Int 18
Cha 14


Alignment any
Languages Common, Elven
Equipment longsword, orb, spellbook, arcane reagents
Rituals Brew Potion, Call of Friendship, Calm Emotions, Comprehend Languages, Deep Pockets, Detect Secret Doors, Endure Elements, Fastidiousness, Lesser Telepathy, Magic Mouth, Secret Page, Tenser's Floating Disk, Tongues
Notes The eladrin claim to have invented enchantment magic, making many eladrin enchanters arrogant and overconfident. The enchanter will often try to speak to a potential ally alone and use Call of Friendship on them.
Tactics The enchanter is usually accompanied by guards (such as elf noble guards). The eladrin uses them to block potential attackers while sowing confusion amongst the enemies with its powers.

In every edition, PC and NPC math worked differently. It wasn't explicitly stated, but in 2nd Edition, most NPCs didn't have the full stat block. They might have one or two high stats and few or even no NWPs listed. Rogue NPCs generally used the generic thief skill table (with modifications for race) while PCs would custom-select theirs, perhaps leaving out boosting the already high Climb Walls skill for something more adventuring-relevant.

In 3rd Edition, NPCs had insufficient gear (to avoid Monty Haul problems). They often had advantages, especially if they were casters. (An NPC spellcaster does not need to be an adventurer, and might only prepare a few combat spells, or might prepare a lot, plus a Teleport to get them to safety.) They generally had point bought stats, and they were often lower than the point bought stats (or rolled stats) of the PCs.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Why would you want to use the PC rules for an NPC?

The same reason you'd use them to build a PC, presumably.

 

[MarkB]

The same reason you'd use them to build a PC, presumably.

But you don't build NPCs for the same reasons you build PCs. They serve different functions both game-mechanically and narratively.

 

[Ahnehnois]

But you don't build NPCs for the same reasons you build PCs. They serve different functions both game-mechanically and narratively.

I do. Every D&D wizard I've ever seen written (2e and 3e) has been a member of the wizard class, has had levels in that class, and has learned, memorized, and cast spells in the same way that a PC wizard would. Because they're both wizards. Who's playing the wizard is irrelevant. I'm aware that 4e has had a paradigm shift in this regard and treats character classes more as rewards for the player and less as descriptions of the character. To use the term "character class" for 4e is somewhat of a misnomer, as it isn't necessarily describing the character.

But frankly, the topic was raised tangentially quite a few pages ago, and I don't see the relevance.