Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Next playtest post mortem by Mike Mearls and Rodney Thompson. From seven years ago.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 8770967" data-attributes="member: 7006"><p>No worries... I didn't think you were referring to me personally on your post. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>But to try and answer your question... seems to me that the game just wants to be simpler whenever possible. And explaining how well you use a weapon based off of your STR or your DEX is the simplest option, because the reasoning for it makes logical sense. But trying to do that explanation for all six ability scores and make them seem understandable and reasonable from a non-magical standpoint is more difficult. Not impossible of course... just more difficult.</p><p></p><p>So is it wrong that WotC chooses to go simpler in this case? To not go deep into the weeds trying to explain how/why a character's force of personality or their intellect allows them to be a really good swordfighter even if they are a weakling and clumsy oaf? Obviously it can be done... but it just needs more word-count and page space to do so. So is that explanation and allowance to certain players to be able to "play what they want" worth the complexity and loss of space? I think every designer and player will have a different opinion on the matter.</p><p></p><p>I will say though that for me personally... if we really wanted to get across the idea that someone could be a quality swordfighter even if they were "weak" and "clumsy"... I think it'd be easier to just add an "Attack" ability score to the game. One that just tells us who good of a weapon-user you are and isn't aligned to any of the other six ability scores at all. That way you don't have to bother with trying to justify any explanations for using a different ability for your attacks... you can just be a good swordfighter regardless of what your ability scores are.</p><p></p><p>That's what Mutants & Masterminds did originally I believe, and it seemed to be okay. The only major result though was that I suspect every single combat character probably maxed out their attack and defense scores because why wouldn't they? Which also is probably fine for most players... except for the few that thinks that sort of standardization is "boring". But so be it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 8770967, member: 7006"] No worries... I didn't think you were referring to me personally on your post. :) But to try and answer your question... seems to me that the game just wants to be simpler whenever possible. And explaining how well you use a weapon based off of your STR or your DEX is the simplest option, because the reasoning for it makes logical sense. But trying to do that explanation for all six ability scores and make them seem understandable and reasonable from a non-magical standpoint is more difficult. Not impossible of course... just more difficult. So is it wrong that WotC chooses to go simpler in this case? To not go deep into the weeds trying to explain how/why a character's force of personality or their intellect allows them to be a really good swordfighter even if they are a weakling and clumsy oaf? Obviously it can be done... but it just needs more word-count and page space to do so. So is that explanation and allowance to certain players to be able to "play what they want" worth the complexity and loss of space? I think every designer and player will have a different opinion on the matter. I will say though that for me personally... if we really wanted to get across the idea that someone could be a quality swordfighter even if they were "weak" and "clumsy"... I think it'd be easier to just add an "Attack" ability score to the game. One that just tells us who good of a weapon-user you are and isn't aligned to any of the other six ability scores at all. That way you don't have to bother with trying to justify any explanations for using a different ability for your attacks... you can just be a good swordfighter regardless of what your ability scores are. That's what Mutants & Masterminds did originally I believe, and it seemed to be okay. The only major result though was that I suspect every single combat character probably maxed out their attack and defense scores because why wouldn't they? Which also is probably fine for most players... except for the few that thinks that sort of standardization is "boring". But so be it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Next playtest post mortem by Mike Mearls and Rodney Thompson. From seven years ago.
Top