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

[Dannager]

In other words, you think that characters get better at "stuff" when they level up, and which stuff they happen to be best at is a secondary concern. You're that saying that characters are more homogenous in 4e, but because they should be. Apparently, they were discombobulated in every other edition.

Whereas I'm suggesting that adventuring doesn't inherently make you better at any particular task, you only get better in specific ways and for specific reasons.

But not really, right? Because there are plenty of ways in [insert D&D edition of your choice here] for characters to get better at things they have no "specific reason" for being better at - adding skill points to a skill you've never rolled before, for instance, or taking a level in a class you've never been exposed to in any significant capacity.

The whole point of the half-level bump is that it's assumed that your experience adventuring makes you generally more competent, self-assured, and competent when it comes to lots of things, but at a much-lessened rate compared to the things you choose to specialize in. That's not something to be argued; in fact, it's something that we see happen all the time in real life. People become more comfortable trusting their instincts, or in pushing themselves to their limit, as they find those instincts and limits being tested.

You're arguing against this with no real reason. Half-level bonuses make perfect sense, and they're one of the least controversial changes in 4e. Are you starting to argue against things just because they happen to be in 4e and not [insert D&D edition of your choice here]?

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

On the types of martial effect missing from 5e:

Well, any blow that physically hinders your opponent. Hamstringing them. Giving them a concussion. Kicking them in the groin. Damaging their eyes.

Hamstringing and blinding make sense. "Giving them a concussion" would seem to either be subdual/nonlethal damage or stunning. "Kicking them in the groin" would I guess be some kind of minor "distract" or "disorient" effect - give them some penalties but not make them lose their whole turn, probably. And "giving them a concussion" would probably be a knockout effect.

Active defense (parrying and dodging). Fighters aren't nearly good enough at defending themselves.

Fighters have the Parry power and can get a number of other maneuvers or feats to actively defend themselves or others as a reaction, so I'd say this is actually a strength of the 5e fighter thus far.

And while knockout is in the rules as subdual damage (or nonlethal, whatever), what's wrong with giving out an ability essentially like Hold Person to a fighter? If you crit an opponent (or something) they have to make a save or fall unconscious, even if they still have hp left. The point is that you can bypass hp, which is a Big Deal balance-wise.

Okay, I can see Decapitate as a Power Word: Kill style maneuver that instantly kills a low-HP enemy with no attack roll or save. And maybe Knockout as an attack that does zero damage but renders the enemy unconscious, and then the enemy gets to roll a save every round to wake up.

Almost the entire list of Pathfinder critical hit feats.

Okay, great, so I get to dig around and find a book I haven't looked at in years... Let's see, so that's bleeding, blinding, deafening, sickening, staggering, stunning, tiring, and exhausting.

I already covered bleeding and stunning. "Sickening, staggering, tiring, and exhausting" all point to status effects that don't exist in 5e - and honestly, I'm not sure that 5e needs that many slightly different status effects. I'm also not sold on the basic concept of applying status effects on a crit, since crits are by definition unreliable and that really doesn't give the fighter any level of control.

So that leaves us with this list:
Sever/Break Limb, Blind, Deafen, Hamstring, Decapitate, Knockout, Bleeding Wound, Stun, and some kind of Disorient via especially painful blows.

Now let's see how any of those abilities could look in 5e.

First off, many of them are probably too powerful for normal maneuvers - not because OMG fighters deserve to suck, but because if they WERE available every round a fighter would never do anything other than insta-KO every enemy in sight.

Fortunately, I think the Advantage system could work well here. Steal the bit from the current rogue sneak attack: "When you have advantage (but not disadvantage) on an attack, you can spend X dice and give up that advantage to..."

Let's see if we can quickly make suitable maneuvers:

Hobbling Strike (hamstring/sever limb): You can cut at an enemy's legs, hamstring, feet or knees, crippling their ability to move. On a hit, you can spend dice to reduce the enemy's speed until the end of its next turn. You reduce the enemy's speed by 10 feet per die spent, but cannot reduce their speed below 5 feet. If you spend three or more dice, the blow is deeper and its effect lasts until the enemy has hit points restored. If you spend five or more dice, you sever or shatter a limb completely, and the effect remains until the enemy takes a long rest and has its full hit points restored.

Blinding/Deafening Strike: On a hit, you can spend one die to attack an enemy's eyes , blinding it until the end of its next turn. If you spend three dice, the effect lasts until the enemy has hit points restored; if you spend five, the effect remains until the enemy takes a long rest and has its full hit points restored.

(I almost incorporated deafening into that last one, but I can't actually see how you'd deafen someone in both ears with a single shot.)

Painful Strike: On a hit, you can spend one die to attack your enemy in a vulnerable area, such as the groin or kidney, leaving them in crippling pain. The enemy grants advantage on all checks and attacks and has disadvantage on its saving throws until the beginning of its next turn. If you two or more dice, the effect lasts an additional round per die spent, but the enemy can make a Constitution saving throw against a DC 15 to shake off the effect at the beginning of each turn.

Knockout Strike: When you have advantage but not disadvantage, you can give up that advantage and spend one die to make an attack that immediately knocks the opponent unconscious. If the attack hits, the enemy takes no hp damage, but is rendered unconscious until the beginning of its next turn. If you spend two or more dice, the effect lasts and additional round per die spent, but the enemy can make a Constitution saving throw against a DC 15 to regain consciousness at the beginning of each turn.

Decapitate: When you have advantage but not disadvantage, you can give up that advantage and spend one die to make an attack that immediately kills the opponent. If the attack hits and the opponent has less than 5 hp, that enemy dies immediately. You may spend additional dice to raise the hp cap by 5 per die.

How do these sound? "Decapitate" looks terrible to me, but so does PW:K (which is always worse than a powered-up Magic Missile), so I'm not sure how to fix that.

 

[Ahnehnois]

But not really, right? Because there are plenty of ways in [insert D&D edition of your choice here] for characters to get better at things they have no "specific reason" for being better at - adding skill points to a skill you've never rolled before, for instance, or taking a level in a class you've never been exposed to in any significant capacity.

All of which still require the player to make a choice and invest a resource (and which the DMG suggests you should impose limits on if characters are really going outside their breadth of experience).

That's not something to be argued; in fact, it's something that we see happen all the time in real life.

To the extent that the half-level better-at-everything construct is valid, it is strictly as a game construct. Human learning is pretty well understood and does not generalize in this way at all. Learning how to program computers does not make you even a little bit better at punching people or singing. Nor is it an upward track. Children learn a lot very quickly, but as people age information is replaced and forgotten as well as learned. Increased age brings deteriorating abilities, chronic illness, and the effects of stress (general adaption syndrome). Self-assuredness is generally highest in young people and decreases with age.

Level-based advancement does not resemble "real" life very much at all. It is, arguably, a useful metagame mechanic which gives players a sense of satisfaction by allowing them to earn advancement as a reward for accomplishing goals. Is this a good approach? Maybe. Maybe not. But it's strictly about making the game enjoyable, not modeling reality.

Half-level bonuses make perfect sense, and they're one of the least controversial changes in 4e.

Again, where did that come from? The whole page 42 challenges that fit the character debate is rooted in this concept. Is it less controversial than some other things? Maybe. But that's not saying much. Even 4e's "least controversial" changes are still pretty controversial.

Are you starting to argue against things just because they happen to be in 4e and not [insert D&D edition of your choice here]?

No. Are you simply posting the opposite of whatever I post? Highlighting unimportant points and pulling the discussion away from the original thread topic? It sure looks that way.

 

[Dannager]

All of which still require the player to make a choice and invest a resource (and which the DMG suggests you should impose limits on if characters are really going outside their breadth of experience).

Not all of them. Increase in hit points is automatic, and represents ability to withstand physical harm, psychic harm, roll with abuse, hold onto one's life force, etc. Base attack bonus (in 3e/3.5/PF) goes up even if you never so much as lift a weapon. My point is that this already existed in D&D and that you're only complaining about it because it was extended to more things (even though it makes perfect sense to do so).

To the extent that the half-level better-at-everything construct is valid, it is strictly as a game construct.

Not that anything necessarily needs to be justified beyond that, since we're dealing with a game that tells you up-front that it's going to be abstracting a whole heck of a lot of things.

Human learning is pretty well understood and does not generalize in this way at all. Learning how to program computers does not make you even a little bit better at punching people or singing.

Did you even read what I wrote?

Nor is it an upward track. Children learn a lot very quickly, but as people age information is replaced and forgotten as well as learned. Increased age brings deteriorating abilities, chronic illness, and the effects of stress (general adaption syndrome). Self-assuredness is generally highest in young people and decreases with age.

Unless you're coming at this from the standpoint that experience gains and age ought to be linked, I don't think this has any relevance whatsoever. And, since experience is explicitly designed to be completely independent of age (thus explaining how a PC can go from 1st level to 20th+ level in the span of a year or less): no.

Level-based advancement does not resemble "real" life very much at all. It is, arguably, a useful metagame mechanic which gives players a sense of satisfaction by allowing them to earn advancement as a reward for accomplishing goals. Is this a good approach? Maybe. Maybe not. But it's strictly about making the game enjoyable, not modeling reality.

I would argue that "making the game enjoyable" is probably a good approach when you're talking about game design.

Again, where did that come from? The whole page 42 challenges that fit the character debate is rooted in this concept.

That's not why page 42 was controversial. Page 42 was controversial because some people thought it meant that climbing a wall is just as difficult at 20th level as it is at 1st level. They were wrong, and the controversy was stupid, but it wasn't because of half-level bonuses. It was because of the concept of providing appropriate challenges. Without page 42 and the spittle-storm it managed to conjure up, almost no one would have seen half-level bonuses as controversial.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I would argue that "making the game enjoyable" is probably a good approach when you're talking about game design.

Indeed. And I'm arguing that the more flexible approach is, in general, more enjoyable.

My point is that this already existed in D&D and that you're only complaining about it because it was extended to more things

Yes...

(even though it makes perfect sense to do so).

Well, it didn't make sense to begin with, and makes less sense when so extended.

Unless you're coming at this from the standpoint that experience gains and age ought to be linked

Given that people learn over time and age over time (and characters gain levels over time), I'd say it's pretty clear that they are linked.

 

[MarkB]

In other words, you think that characters get better at "stuff" when they level up, and which stuff they happen to be best at is a secondary concern. You're that saying that characters are more homogenous in 4e, but because they should be. Apparently, they were discombobulated in every other edition.

Whereas I'm suggesting that adventuring doesn't inherently make you better at any particular task, you only get better in specific ways and for specific reasons.

Not much is going to bridge that philosophical divide that I can see.

Indeed. If you can't acknowledge even the possibility that the life of an adventurer could make a person generally more rounded, experienced and better able to cope in a wide variety of situations beyond the limits of a scattered handful of skill points, that's a pretty big divide.

And it's a shame, because that's exactly the sort of life-journey that most classic heroic fantasy narratives portray.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Indeed. If you can't acknowledge even the possibility that the life of an adventurer could make a person generally more rounded, experienced and better able to cope in a wide variety of situations beyond the limits of a scattered handful of skill points, that's a pretty big divide.

I acknowledge the possibility. Even in 100% skill-based games, it is possible (and advisable) to spread those points around. I simply don't think that it should be the only possibility.

 

[Manbearcat]

Here are two different Fighters (I'm not even going to bring in a Wizard, Rogue, or Cleric at this point) through level 3 (spoiling them for space and so people who don't care can move on). Standard array for both. I'm just using human for both (+ 2 to one attribute, + 1 feat, + 1 to Fort, Ref, Will). Attribute bonus goes in their secondary (Dex and Con respectively). 1) What are each of these characters built for/what are they good at and 2) what is going to be the tactical modus operandi for each of these characters? This is within a single class. Do you see "sameness" there? And do you see "more sameness" than ever before in D&D?

@Manbearcat If you ask a yes or no question, you may get a one word answer. That's not a quip, it's what you asked for. Frankly, I wish people would respond that way sometimes when I ask such questions, rather than going off on tangents (this is a wizard thread after all, or it was whenI started posting in it). Could I provide counterexamples and discuss the issue further...[see below]

I didn't ask a yes or no question. What I wanted was an examination of those two builds and a corresponding analysis of the questions (as above):

1) What are each of these characters built for/what are they good at?

and

2) what is going to be the tactical modus operandi for each of these characters?

One emergent output of that examination and reasoning would be the answer to the questions; Do you see "sameness" there and do you see "more sameness" than ever before in D&D?

Now, in the 4e blocks above, I didn't see trained skills (which I thought should be there; am I missing something?).

I didn't include any skills or any non-combat customization (no non-combat skill powers, no rituals, no martial practices, no theme, no background) as none of those are intrinsic to the classes. I can very easily turn either of the above fighters into a highly thematic, highly developed non-combat character but I would be leveraging resources that are class-neutral (or I would be spending class utility slots - which I can of course do). Your contention was that 4e classes had a level of "sameness" to them that is proportionately greater to their historical analogs. I was disputing that. As such, bringing in extra-class customization in order to "prove" intra-class variance would not just be counterproductive, it would be outside of the scope of the premise and would tell us nothing about whether or not the premise has merit. I could take the Tempest above and give them:

Background: Gang Leader (+ 2 Intimidate and Streetwise)
Skills: Athletics, Intimidate, Streetwise, Insight (Human), Stealth (Multiclass Rogue)
Skill Power: Secrets of the City in place of the 2nd level Utility which would allow the character to make Streetwise checks for Arcana, History, Intelligence, or Religion check in a settlement in which they’ve already succeeded on a Streetwise check.
Theme: Outlaw and gain a melee attack rider, a specific terrain/locale where the character can't be tracked and ignores difficult terrain, and + 2 to Intimidate/Streetwise.
A few levels later I could spend a Feat on Martial Practices and get all manner of tricks from Forgeries to Alter Egos and on and on.

I could have included those things and could change different aspects of the character around...but that would reveal nothing about the question of cross-class "sameness" or intra-class "sameness."

[sblock]
"Tank"
Fighter 3
HP: 3d10+6 (27 hp)
AC: 19 (+1 Dex, +8 armor)
Attacks: Greatsword +6 (2d6+3; 19-20, x2), or +3 (2d6+9; 19-20, x2)
Saves: Fort +5, Ref +2, Will +2
Abilities: Str 15, Dex 13, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 8
Feats: Cleave, Diehard, Endurance, Improved Bull Rush, Power Attack
Skills: Climb +3, Intimidate +5, Jump +3
Items: MW Full plate, +1 Greatsword

"Swashbuckler"
Human Fighter (Thug) 3
HP: 3d10 (21 hp)
AC: 16 (+2 Dex, +3 armor, +1 shield)
Attacks: Rapier +6 (1d6+1; 18-20, x2), or +3 (1d6+1; 18-20, x2; +3 AC)
Saves: Fort +3, Ref +3, Will +0
Abilities: Str 12, Dex 14, Con 10, Int 13, Wis 8, Cha 15
Skills: Bluff +10, Climb +4, Gather Info +6, Handle Animal +4, Intimidate +10, Jump +4, Knowledge (Local) +4, Ride +4, Sleight of Hand +10, Swim +4
Feats: Combat Expertise, Persuasive, Run, Weapon Finesse
Items: MW Studded Leather, MW Buckler, MW Rapier, Longbow, 100 arrows, Hat of Disguise[/sblock]

Examining these two guys, the only thing Fighter-specific about them is two combat feats. As an aside, I think you gave him 1 too many feats (1 for 1st level, 1 for human, 2 for fighter). Probably should chuck Improved Bull Rush out of the mix because at level 6 it will be quite worthless for the duration of the character. Presumably the Fighter-specific thing about the first build that differentiates him and thus reduces the "sameness", through 3 levels are the two feats:

1) Power Attack
2) Cleave

Presumably the Fighter-specific thing about the second build that differentiates him and thus reduces the "sameness", through 3 levels are the two feats:

1) Combat Expertise
2) Weapon Finesse

Everything else is just standard build mechanics inherent to all classes; BAB advancement, save advancement, HP, skill points, armor and weapon proficiencies. For the fighter, you have # 1 proficiences, BAB and HPs...however, he shares these with tons of classes so they don't make him special. He does have wretched saves (the worst possible, unlike in AD&D where he was the best) and wretched skills/advancement. Bonus Feats and Weapon Spec is pretty much what separates him.

So, the unique thing about the first guy is trading up to 3 BAB for corresponding damage and a free MBA rider on an adjacent enemy when he reduces an enemy to 0.

The unique thing about the second guy is trading up to 3 BAB for corresponding AC and Dex to hit on melee attacks.

Compare that to the Tempest build who has:


1) The passive and active At-Will ability to dictate target acquisition for enemies and punish them brutally (either in to hit or in damage-in to them) if they ignore the Fighter.
2) Active Tactical mobility that can be deployed At-Will or a big time encounter one.
3) The Active At-Will ability to chase down an enemy on the battlefield and punish him with an MBA + prone if he attempts to ignore the Tempest.
4) Passive At-Will riders to control enemy positioning and improve their own.
5) Active At-Will AoE control of all adjacent enemies (marking) which synergizes with 2 above.
6) Active At-Will and Encounter Multi-Attack Options that let them move, do damage to, and control (marking) multiple enemies around the battlefield.
7) A set of synergistic At-Will and Encounter powers (and a Daily) that lets them get CA and then deploy Striker-level damage abilities (that give Dex + 1 damage).
8) The Tempest class features that buffs their combat style.

All told: Huge tactical mobility, the ability to utterly dictate target acquisition, the ability to utterly lock down multiple enemies all over the battlefield, the ability to dictate battlefield positioning, the ability to deploy striker level damage.

Compare that to the Berserker build who has:

1) The passive and active At-Will ability to dictate target acquisition for enemies and punish them brutally (either in to hit or in damage-in to them) if they ignore the Fighter.
2) The passive At-Will ability to stop adjacent enemies from moving completely. If you're an adjacent enemy, you're stuck there or you're going to spend all of your action economy (and eat an MBA to boot) to get away.
3) At-Will riders that improve survivability dramatically (DR + Temp HPs) and control enemy positioning and improve their own.
4) An active Encounter ability to improve survivability dramatically against a single target or multiple flanking enemies (+ 2 AC/Ref and no CA for flanking).
5) A suite of active immediate actions to further interpose themselves between enemies and allies or outright negate attacks, dictate battlefield position and damage enemies.
6) A large damage/large control/invigorating Daily to deploy in big situations.
7) The Vigor/Invigorate class features that basically gives them temp HPs every round, improving their survivability dramatically.

All told: Massive survivability, the ability to utterly dictate target acquisition, the ability to passively lock anything adjacent down until it is dead, the ability to dictate battlefield positioning, the ability to deploy a suite of protection (self and allies) immediate actions that nullifies an enemy's attacks while simultaneously punishing them.

That was the analysis I was looking for. The only logical conclusion is that there is no sameness there...even within different builds within the same class. The way those two builds work out within the fiction resemble each other in only one fundamental, default way; they each share 1 above. The difference between the classes is infinitely more profound than the above. I can make them even further apart by diversifying them by way of their feats, utility powers, backgrounds, themes (as I did at the top). However, again, that tells us nothing of "class sameness".

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

We're being trolled

 

[Dannager]

Indeed. And I'm arguing that the more flexible approach is, in general, more enjoyable.

No, it's really a matter of striking upon what works best for the game. When it comes to PCs, flexibility is great and you might reasonably consider it to carry a primary importance relative to other considerations. But, as a DM, the flexibility of an NPC is far less important, since they usually have a very temporary, limited impact on the game, and I need to be able to keep track of potentially dozens of them at a time without being overwhelmed.

Well, it didn't make sense to begin with, and makes less sense when so extended.

Abstraction doesn't make sense in a game?

Given that people learn over time and age over time (and characters gain levels over time), I'd say it's pretty clear that they are linked.

Yes, but why are you arguing that the age-based mental degrading we see in the elderly should play a factor in how we design PCs who are - by their very nature as professional adventurers - typically in the prime of their lives? This even holds true for most NPC enemies.