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

[billd91]

I'm not so sure. Lucky shots or attacks that go amazingly well to plan, matching the attacker's intention better than might have been expected, are certainly one thing "critical hits" model. But it's clear that there are other cases where they model other circumstances besides this (I look at RoleMaster's and DragonQuest's critical hit tables to see proof). I think I could make a case for 4e's "critical hit" to be "just" an attack that goes very well to plan - the damage caused is only above the maximum that could theoretically be caused by a "non-critical" attack by virtue of enchantment effects. 3.x's damage multipliers, on the other hand - differentiated by weapon, to boot - seem to be trying to reflect something more.

You are looking for a difference that isn't there. Critical hits in 3e and 4e play the exact same role. What's different is 3e tried to provide different behavior profiles for different weapons - somewhat more common vs less common but doing more damage (both of which even out in the long run) - so that the different weapons chosen actually mean something in play. That's pretty much it.

If you look at the damage most x2 weapons do, it's even comparable to a 4e's crit. 4e does max, 3e x2 weapons get rolled damage twice which tends to average out to very close to the max damage for the weapon. So the difference you're seeing in role is, I believe, manufactured by you.

 

[Sunseeker]

Welcome to the believability problem many of us have with AEDU, particularly the D part for martial exploits. If the PC can force the opportunity once, why can't he force it again? We need a more believable model than the PC can only do so once a day. Fatigue would be a more useful model than the player's narrative control.

Personally this is why I just let my players repeat dailies X times a day(X being how many dailies they have) so it's sorta like spell slots.

But spell slots present the same problem. WHY can Billy the Wizard only cast Fireball once? It's not different in the slightest from ADEU, it's an arbitrary limit based on the power of the spell. If the spell wasn't so powerful, he could do it more often. This is why I liked the UA spell points system, because it's more reflective of a character possessing a finite ability, not a random restriction based on spell level.

So, I'm totally in support of a "Fatigue" or "Mana" system, where players have X+mod/level points in one or both(honestly such a system would do wonders to balance casters, melee, and hybrids of the two). It's modeled in almost every major video game out there, heck we're basically talking about the exact system the Elder Scrolls games use(which is a great system IMO).

We wouldn't need ADEU, iterative attacks or spell slots. Heck, first level characters could start with fireball but it might be the only spell they could cast and they could only do it once a day! I think the game would become a lot more intuitive if modeled as such rather than weird complex systems like vancian casting.

 

[Guest 85555]

Personally this is why I just let my players repeat dailies X times a day(X being how many dailies they have) so it's sorta like spell slots.

But spell slots present the same problem. WHY can Billy the Wizard only cast Fireball once? system IMO).

i don't think it's the same issue. Spell slots represent something actual in the setting. Your character literally memorized spells and loses them when they're cast. Now some people do have an issue with that concept, and I think that us fair, but it doesn't present the same issue as the fighter who can do a move once a day. There is just no in game explanation that connects directly to the once a day limit like you have wizards.

 

[Guest 85555]

restriction based on spell level.

So, I'm totally in support of a "Fatigue" or "Mana" system, where players have X+mod/level points in one or both(honestly such a system would do wonders to balance casters, melee, and hybrids of the two). It's modeled in almost every major video game out there, heck we're basically talking about the exact system the Elder Scrolls games use(which is a great system IMO).

We wouldn't need ADEU, iterative attacks or spell slots. Heck, first level characters could start with fireball but it might be the only spell they could cast and they could only do it once a day! I think the game would become a lot more intuitive if modeled as such rather than weird complex systems like vancian casting.

I do think something like this could work, but I am skeptical it would work for D&D (which is largely defined by its van ism system). What I like about this approach is it can explain things like martial powers in a way that makes sense pretty consistently (provided the individual powers are can be tied to fatigue when used).

 

[billd91]

Personally this is why I just let my players repeat dailies X times a day(X being how many dailies they have) so it's sorta like spell slots.

But spell slots present the same problem. WHY can Billy the Wizard only cast Fireball once? It's not different in the slightest from ADEU, it's an arbitrary limit based on the power of the spell. If the spell wasn't so powerful, he could do it more often. This is why I liked the UA spell points system, because it's more reflective of a character possessing a finite ability, not a random restriction based on spell level.

So, I'm totally in support of a "Fatigue" or "Mana" system, where players have X+mod/level points in one or both(honestly such a system would do wonders to balance casters, melee, and hybrids of the two). It's modeled in almost every major video game out there, heck we're basically talking about the exact system the Elder Scrolls games use(which is a great system IMO).

We wouldn't need ADEU, iterative attacks or spell slots. Heck, first level characters could start with fireball but it might be the only spell they could cast and they could only do it once a day! I think the game would become a lot more intuitive if modeled as such rather than weird complex systems like vancian casting.

The difference is - we don't have anything in the real world approaching a model of magic, so all constructions of magic systems are similarly arbitrary. The system has more armor against charges of unbelievability because none have any more inherent believability than any other. So your best bet is to product something that works reasonably well for the game. People have agreed for years that a spell point system could be a good alternative, but I think most people have found that they're a lot harder to balance than they appear at first blush. I've seen people try simply turning the traditional D&D slots into spell points weighted by the level of the spell, but that just leads to high-level wizards becoming the machine gun mage with fast and effective low-level spells (in 1e and 2e, in particular). The 3e psionics structure was probably the best shot at a spell point system I've seen but it can enable a nova so fast it makes the 15 minute day advocates hang their heads in shame. The slot system and leveled spells approach taken by D&D enables a certain amount of power and sustainability, making sure a spellcaster always has a variety of levels of power at their command. As such, it has its strengths for gaming purposes.

That said, once Billy the Wizard has more than one 3rd level slot in AD&D, he most certainly can cast more than one fireball a day. He just has to prep more than one - something the AEDU structure can't do. So as arbitrary as the pre-4e structure is, it can be considerably more flexible, so as arbitrary systems go, I find it a better framework.

 

[Nagol]

I thought, and I could easily be wrong about this, that the Wizard could fill his "dailies" from his spellbook and thus could have more than 1 Fireball / day in 4e.

 

[Bluenose]

Welcome to the believability problem many of us have with AEDU, particularly the D part for martial exploits. If the PC can force the opportunity once, why can't he force it again? We need a more believable model than the PC can only do so once a day. Fatigue would be a more useful model than the player's narrative control.

Why would the Fighter be forcing the opportunity? It's more likely to be the opponents mistake that makes it possible. Which is also a good explanation for why higher level fighters get more opportunites - they're experienced enough to recognise them when they occur and to take advantage of them.

Some of the more recent version of Runequest/Legend handle this, btw, by allowing someone who gets a higher success level on their attack/parry roll than their opponent to impose certain special effects. Though I suspect the likelihood of D&D switching to an opposed roll system and ditching AC is low.

 

[billd91]

I thought, and I could easily be wrong about this, that the Wizard could fill his "dailies" from his spellbook and thus could have more than 1 Fireball / day in 4e.

Daily and Utility Spells: Your spellbook also holds your daily and utility spells. You begin knowing two daily spells, one of which you can use on any given day. Each time you gain a level that lets you select a daily spell or a utility spell, choose two different daily spells or utility spells of that level to add to your book. After an extended rest, you can prepare a number of daily and utility spells according to what you can cast per day for your level. You can’t prepare the same spell twice. (emphasis mine)

You do fill your daily slot for each daily with 1 of 2 choices from your spellbook. But I don't think they're expecting you to plug your 5th level daily fireball spell into your 9th level daily slot.

 

[billd91]

Why would the Fighter be forcing the opportunity? It's more likely to be the opponents mistake that makes it possible. Which is also a good explanation for why higher level fighters get more opportunites - they're experienced enough to recognise them when they occur and to take advantage of them.

If it's at the fighter PC's will to use the power, that's the fighter causing the opportunity to happen. That's what I mean by forcing the opportunity - taking as he desires and at his will. If the opportunities are serendipitous, isn't that more like the luck factor of achieving a critical hit? That's the direction Paizo has taken (though, sure enough, the PC does have some control over making those situations more likely) and I think it's a direction I appreciate more. It screws with my immersion in the character a lot less.

Frankly, I don't mind some narrative elements in which I, as a player, may decide that I want my PC to pull off a better attack at this moment. But I like them better when I can do so from an in character perspective with a trick maneuver the PC knows (reasonably well modeled with the idea of encounter based powers). And if, by some pool mechanics, I'm out of mojo, I can accept that. But I really do chafe at having somewhere between 1 and 4 special daily maneuvers, each of which I could call on in those instances, but none of which I could use more than once.

 

[Balesir]

Welcome to the believability problem many of us have with AEDU, particularly the D part for martial exploits. If the PC can force the opportunity once, why can't he force it again? We need a more believable model than the PC can only do so once a day. Fatigue would be a more useful model than the player's narrative control.

I don't particularly have a believability problem with AEDU; it's a way to provide occasional openings for martial exploits - it makes sense to me on that basis. Could you use "fatigue" or something instead? Sure, but I think it would add complexity for (to me) little gain. For me, you lose far more removing those opportunities altogether than you do by abstracting the timing to player choice.

You are looking for a difference that isn't there. Critical hits in 3e and 4e play the exact same role. What's different is 3e tried to provide different behavior profiles for different weapons - somewhat more common vs less common but doing more damage (both of which even out in the long run) - so that the different weapons chosen actually mean something in play. That's pretty much it.

Well, the difference is there because 3.x "x2" damage is a probability distribtuion with variability that goes well above the maximum "non-critical" hit level, but am I seeing designer intention where there was none? Quite possibly. That still leaves 4e criticals fitting the "perfect shot" niche quite effectively for my own purposes, though, thanks very much.

Oh, and 4e differentiates weapons pretty effectively without the crit multipliers, so although I can see the utility of that in 3.x, it's not really needed in 4e.

If it's at the fighter PC's will to use the power, that's the fighter causing the opportunity to happen. That's what I mean by forcing the opportunity - taking as he desires and at his will. If the opportunities are serendipitous, isn't that more like the luck factor of achieving a critical hit?

That still leaves out arguably the most common case, though; where the possible opportunity becomes clear, but the fighter needs to make some sort of deliberate gambit to open up a weakness as a result. If I interpret from an opponent's body language and sensory focus what his/her immediate goal is, that doesn't give me an opening - but it does give me a tool with which to plan a deception that may well lead to an opening...

Situation, serendipity and skill are all required, but it's a bit like the "fire triangle". Folk say you need three things for a fire - fuel, oxygen and a source of ignition. But fuel is found all over the place and oxygen is literally almost everywhere, so if you have a source of ignition (a skilled fighter, in this case) you'll almost assuredly have a fire. Likewise, put a skilled fighter into a situation and they will almost certainly find an opening. They probably won't be able to tell you, in advance, what the opening will be - but they'll find one.