D&D 5E Considering the D&D Next Playtest in Light of the WotC Seminars

[Mattachine]

I think this is a good and fair point about 4th edition. Monte or Mearls talked about forgetting about the invisible button when presented by so many options. I must confess to forgetting to be creative and thinking beyond the box because I get to entranced with my many powers, magic items and skills in 4th ed... But I must say that the encounter and daily powers of PCs are normally more powerful and reliable than stunts.

For me, people started forgetting the invisible button back in 3e, because the game rules were so vast and specific. Fourth edition initially had the issue you describe--being dazzled by too many powers. After playing 4e for a few years, our group is up to improvising, using combat powers for non-combat effects, skill stunts, and so on. It took a conscious effort on our part to realize that the rules don't cover everything, DMs get to make rulings, and that is OKAY.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

This is the part that has me the most excited:

Skills provided situational bonuses to checks that were also based on ability scores. As Bruce Cordell and Monte discussed in the same seminar, the D&D Next skill system is currently open-ended. Rolling to use any skill is always resolved as an ability check. The skill itself simply provides a bonus to that particular ability check in a specific situation.​

That's how I use skills in my game and it's great. I find that it really helps players think about the fictional situation/game world.

Skill Check for Craft Forum Post using DnD Next.

• Str: A FORCEFUL, TAKE NO PRISONERS FLAME POST or Mod action
• Dex: A quick reply - in before the edits!
• Con: Wall of Text with no spacing no formatting
• Int: Logically correct point
• Wis: Sees the value of both sides of the issue
• Cha: Flashy rhetoric from the poster with 10,000+ posts

Using this, we can now determine what stat was used for each new Enworld post

 

[Cadfan]

'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.

Nonsense.

In some rule sets I know I can kick in a door because I know that doors of this type are so-so hard to kick in, and my strength is such and such, and I know from reading the rule book that my strength is enough to kick in the door in front of me.

In other rule sets I know that I can kick in a door because I know that the last time I saw a door of this type, the DM made a judgment call and let me kick it in. So obviously he'll let me kick it in this time because he's a good DM and hasn't forgotten his previously established standards of door kicking. But if my other friend starts DMing, and I run into a similarly described door, well... its all up in the air again. Maybe he has different opinions regarding the kicking in of doors. Whether I succeed in a task is based on whether the DM lets me succeed, and I find out by asking him whether I may. Even if I have the best living DM on the planet, I am still asking him for permission to complete a task.

Defend the latter as a good way to play if you want. But don't pretend it isn't real, or that it isn't legitimate to dislike it.

As for the rest of what's being discussed... if a first level character with full hit points can die from a single critical hit, that will be a deal breaker. I'm basically just treading water until I see that officially confirmed (one playtester confirmed it, but I'm hopeful that the designers aren't fools). If you design a game that (1) encourages deeply investing in characters with personality and back story, and (2) you make that game so that characters, played properly, will engage in combat with some regularity, and (3) you make that game so that dead characters can't be easily resurrected... then if you make it so that totally random events during inevitable gameplay moments can kill off a fully healthy character who was played without mistakes, you've designed a bad game. End. Of. Debate. If people like this sort of thing, their opinions are wrong.

Admin here. A gentle reminder: making your own case is great, but we'd just as soon not have you tell other people what they're supposed to think. -- Piratecat

 

[JonWake]

So you essentially want to legislate a bad DM out of existence, and make every game of D&D work the same.

1. Not possible.

2. How dull.

 

[Hassassin]

Skill Check for Craft Forum Post using DnD Next.

• Str: A FORCEFUL, TAKE NO PRISONERS FLAME POST or Mod action
• Dex: A quick reply - in before the edits!
• Con: Wall of Text with no spacing no formatting
• Int: Logically correct point
• Wis: Sees the value of both sides of the issue
• Cha: Flashy rhetoric from the poster with 10,000+ posts

Using this, we can now determine what stat was used for each new Enworld post

I wish more posts used skill challenges with both Int and Wis rolls!

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

As for the rest of what's being discussed... if a first level character with full hit points can die from a single critical hit, that will be a deal breaker. I'm basically just treading water until I see that officially confirmed (one playtester confirmed it, but I'm hopeful that the designers aren't fools). If you design a game that (1) encourages deeply investing in characters with personality and back story, and (2) you make that game so that characters, played properly, will engage in combat with some regularity, and (3) you make that game so that dead characters can't be easily resurrected... then if you make it so that totally random events during inevitable gameplay moments can kill off a fully healthy character who was played without mistakes, you've designed a bad game. End. Of. Debate. If people like this sort of thing, their opinions are wrong.

Point 1: Dungeons and Dragons sets zero expectations for the amount of backstory for your character. Investment in backstory various from DM to DM, game to game, and player to player.

Point 2: Proper play does not require regular combat. Combat is one of many means of problem solving in Dungeons and Dragons.

Point 3: We have no knowledge of what Raise Dead will be like in 5th Edition.

Finally: I've played and DMed in many games where the DM has adjusted the lethality level based on the type of game he wants to run. So long as 5th Edition supports house rules, I'm happy with whatever the default lethality rate is.

 

[Fanaelialae]

So you essentially want to legislate a bad DM out of existence, and make every game of D&D work the same.

1. Not possible.

2. How dull.

That's as silly as suggesting that you're advocating that DDN should be completely without rules. Not that I'm saying that, but let's not oversimplify valid points to the point of absurdity.

You can't legislate a bad DM out of existence. I think we can all agree with that. However, a good framework can assist an inexperienced or unexceptional DM to perform better than with a poor framework.

To put that another way, I think we can all agree that it's impossible for WOTC to design an objectively perfect game. Does that then imply that they shouldn't bother designing the best game they possibly can? Clearly not.

Personally, I expect to see "DCs" for commonly attempted tasks. So a shoddy door might be an automatic success with Str 10, while a solid oak door is only automatic with Str 16 (or whatever). If they give us an assortment of good guidelines, we can have the best of both worlds. DMs have a bit of guidance when setting "DCs", which offers a reasonable basis of expectations regardless of whose table you sit at. Simultaneously, because they can't possibly cover every scenario, DMs will still be able to exercise their own discretion in determining those "DCs" (such as for a solid oak door of shoddy design).

 

[Savage Wombat]

As for the rest of what's being discussed... if a first level character with full hit points can die from a single critical hit, that will be a deal breaker.

I distinctly recall some game designer (Monte?) saying that players actually don't like critical hit systems, but they don't realize that. Players are so fond of "Wow! A 20!" moments that they fail to realize that there are lot more monsters in the world than there are PCs, and a lot more chances for the monsters to get lucky on a hit and kill a PC as a result.

The addition of a critical system, in other words, actually worsens the odds against the PCs in the long term. But the players don't want to give up that "lucky" possibility.

(Note: I have one player who is so dependant emotionally on those lucky crits that he invariably plays characters designed to maximize his crit chance. And rolls a d20 chosen so that no one else at the table can easily read what he rolled. Hmm...)

 

[Matt James]

[Edit]

 

[Mattachine]

I also agree that a roleplaying game where a PC can be killed by simple chance is flawed. Even if a player hasn't spent a long time on backstory, they have spent a good bit of thought and time just making the PC. When the PC dies because of one or two unlucky rolls, it is usually very unsatisfying.

I'm not against PC death. I am a player who permakills my PCs when they die in-game (they always refuse to come back via magic). When these deaths are due to falling in combat, either heroically or foolishly, it becomes a great story. When these deaths are due to an instant-death trap (hello, first edition) or a single lucky crit by a monster, it becomes a story about the failings of the game system.

If the game is going to be modular, then "deadlier games" can certainly be a simple option.

*Dangerous crits
*PCs' starting hps are less than or equal to maximum damage from a one-handed weapon
*Instant death effects


I posit that the majority of players would rather a game that doesn't feature these rules.