I thought the expectation that "I kick the door in!" just works would be the opposite of "mother may I".
In 3e or 4e the DM would just pick a DC so it's just as much, if not more up to him whether something works.
D&D 5E Considering the D&D Next Playtest in Light of the WotC Seminars
- Thread starter bpauls
- Start date
I thought the expectation that "I kick the door in!" just works would be the opposite of "mother may I".
In 3e or 4e the DM would just pick a DC so it's just as much, if not more up to him whether something works.
No, I got the idea that "setting the DC" means that the Wizard rolls an attack, which acts as a DC. Basically an opposed roll.
I don't generally like opposed rolls, because they take longer to resolve, but OTOH this makes magic "wilder" so I'm certainly keeping an open mind until I can playtest it.
BryonD
Hero
I'm highly torn over this.
For one thing, I've always been very down on the way ability checks, feats of strength such as door bashing in particular, are handled in 3E. I'm good with the high variability of a linear 1d20 random result for most things, but there are places where it really fails. Door bashing is certainly on such place. Reliable and consistent "this just works" is highly welcome.
I'd be happy with "I bash the door" having three default spheres of response.
* It crashes in
* It holds steady like you were not there
* It creaks but doesn't give. Do you wanna go all out? (...reaches for dice) eyes
On the other hand, I'm holding my breath that they don't go to far with this. I'm very cool with the idea that every 1st level character has a minimum capacity for being sneaky and a simple ability based system defines that. The "nothing sneaky about me" knight can still try to sneak at L1. And the sneaky rogue at L1 will be no more sneaky except that he (probably) has a better Dex and (almost certainly if his is a "sneaky" rogue). Since he does have these things, he is more sneaky. Works good at L1 and you have some range of the same three tiers (Automatic, roll for it, and no hope) Though outside of extremes I'd hope the DM would still roll every time just to keep from giving away too much information.
I'm a little concerned about the possible implications for how this works past L1. Obviously the same rogue at L12 should be more sneaky than he was at L1. Now "skill ranks" handles this fine, but there are other ways to skin this cat. It sounds like it may be more matter of buying more bonuses along the way. Either way can be fine on that front.
But that "nothing sneaky about me" knight should be no more sneaky at L12 than he was at L1. If his Dex has nudged up, then cool, he is a touch more "sneaky", but aside from that it should be unchanged. Some of the stuff I've read could be seen as implying that there is still a level based normalizing. That would be a major problem. But we will see. I'll remain optimistic for now....
Osgood
Adventurer
I really don't like the opposed roll notion either--there's something wrong with the idea that a natch 20 could still miss, and doesn't a DM have to do enough rolling already?. I suppose you could hose rule that monsters "take a 10" on their save. For that matter, the monsters could "take a 10" on their attacks, putting all spellcasting rolls in the hands of the player.
Mattachine
Adventurer
I keep reading the phrase "skills are just modified ability checks" in 5e playtest reports and statements from the designers.
That is essentially how skills have been since their inception in AD&D 1.5 (late AD&D). Granted, 3rd edition allowed ones skill ranks to greatly outstrip the ability score bonus, and fourth edition added the scaling modifier. Nonetheless, they were still ability checks.
Sorry, it isn't new or revolutionary.
That is essentially how skills have been since their inception in AD&D 1.5 (late AD&D). Granted, 3rd edition allowed ones skill ranks to greatly outstrip the ability score bonus, and fourth edition added the scaling modifier. Nonetheless, they were still ability checks.
Sorry, it isn't new or revolutionary.
Mattachine
Adventurer
Additionally, though I like the more narrative style of play being used at the playtest, I think they are only experimenting with it.
I can see (and have played in) a D&D game that avoids die rolls except in combat--I'm not sure I like it, though.
I can see (and have played in) a D&D game that avoids die rolls except in combat--I'm not sure I like it, though.
BryonD
Hero
I wouldn't say "revolutionary".
But I think you are missing a fundamental distinction.
In 3E skill ranks are the foundation of the design. Abilities are just a modifier.
In 4E 1/2 level is the foundation and abilities are just the modifier.
A system founded on ability checks can have some significant differences.
Certainly it doesn't make any difference if your stealth check is figured as X + Y or Y + X. But when you are defining the rest of the system it can have important implications.
Charles Dunwoody
Legend
Interesting read.
Last edited:
Salamandyr
Adventurer
Oh, I don't mind wizards being killed by housecats. I just don't like it as a balancing mechanism for Wish.
But, yeah, with the theif aparently able to stealth without a roll, 'incompetence' may not be the right word.
The house cat didn't even have stats until Monster Manual 2. It wasn't part of core design at all.
UngeheuerLich
Legend
I like, that they are going back to some sort of taking ten/twenty mechanic in a more explicit form.
When I figured out, that tkaing ten and twenty was the expactation, 3.5 skil system suddenly worked... (and you never became skill point starved, weven as a fighter)
Too bad, wizard somehow forgot in 4e and made rolling the most used mechanic in a skill challenge...
When I figured out, that tkaing ten and twenty was the expactation, 3.5 skil system suddenly worked... (and you never became skill point starved, weven as a fighter)
Too bad, wizard somehow forgot in 4e and made rolling the most used mechanic in a skill challenge...
The Shadow
Hero
Javelin of Fire isn't the only wizard at-will, there are others. I would be astonished if Magic Missile isn't one of them - it seems a natural.
GMforPowergamers
Legend
I am unsure if I want it as a daily or an atwill... But I want it
Alaxk Knight of Galt
First Post
This is a minor complaint, but I'd perfer that the At-Will feats use classic spell names. Switch Javelin of Fire to Scorching Ray and I'd be a happy camper.
Otherwise, that's an extremely interesting read. I look forward to 5th Edition.
Also, I hope that the At-Will feats are not just combat spells, but a mix supporting all three pillars (Combat, Exploration, and Roleplaying)
Otherwise, that's an extremely interesting read. I look forward to 5th Edition.
Also, I hope that the At-Will feats are not just combat spells, but a mix supporting all three pillars (Combat, Exploration, and Roleplaying)
Last edited:
Keep in mind that early in the history of the game the PCs weren't necessarily heroes. More often unless the story called for it, they were tomb raiders, explorers of ruins, and treasure seekers who might along the way fall into being heroes.
I've played and DM'd the variant styles and like being able to set that tone with the campaign, not being stuck with it by the rules. It is a personal preference thing and nothing against your preferred play style.
JonWake
First Post
'Mother May I' is a completely made up thing, and about as insulting as calling 4e a 'Boardgame with Narration'. It's not a thing--it's a thing crappy DMs do. Crappy 4e play is no more a metric of gameplay than crappy not-4e play.
And it sounds like the DM has some information that the players don't have, like say, a list of passive perception scores or climb checks for an area, and the players don't have to roll because their ability scores are above this base level. If these levels are consistent (which is the point of having them written down), the players learn that there are some things they can just do.
SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS
Explorer
I really dislike the fact that the casting mechanics are diferent from attacks, a missed oportunity to make a more unified game. One more cool thing from 4e that is abandoned in 5e.
JonWake
First Post
Unified does not mean better. If magic acts differently mechanically, people will use if differently. If it's unreliable, or prone to occasional overwhelming force, it becomes a new tool, different than an arrow or a sword. The mechanics reflect the fiction, change the gameplay style, and force new choices on the players.
Similar Threads
