D&D 5E D&D Next Q&A: 12/06/13

[DEFCON 1]

I belong to the camp that thinks reducing the concepts of "attacks", "checks" and "saving throws" down even further is an unnecessary oversimplification. It's three concepts. Compared to many other editions' methodology it's still very simple to grasp and put into practice. And as Klaus has said... it gives us more avenues for making characters better or worse in certain situations, but not in all.

 

[Dausuul]

- Wizard that has no self-defense skills and is physically frail: low Con, like Raistilin. Now, if that same Wizard cast "Protection from Poison" (kust made up), that'd bump his Con saves, but not his hp. If saves and checks were the same thing, the spell would boost his Con, which would have the side effect of boosting his hp.

Con penalty or not, the wizard will still gain hit points with each level. A 20th-level wizard with Constitution 8 has more than four times the hit points of the toughest 1st-level fighter. And I would assume "Protection from Poison" only provides benefits against poison specifically; if you give a general boost to Con saves, you're getting protection from poison, disease, death spells, and anything else that calls for a Con save.

- Juggler who can't pick a pocket: Good Dex, but no Sleight of Hand proficiency.

Sleight of Hand is the skill that's used for both. Not having Sleight of Hand proficiency hurts you just as much with juggling as it does with picking pockets.

Or even better, Sleight of Hand proficiency being used with Charisma (for showmanship), but poor Dex (the proficiency offsets the lack of natural coordination).

- Blind character with good hearing: good Wisdom and/or proficiency in Perception, but automatically fails Perception checks based on sight.

- Nearsighted: character has disadvantage on Perception checks relying on sight beyond what he can hold, unless he is wearing spectacles.

You just made up a bunch of new mechanics to handle these situations. Do you propose to put those mechanics in the rulebook? I would hope not--it would be ridiculous to jam all these things in, when the vast majority of PCs won't ever need them.

What I'm getting at is that just because you can write distinctions like these into the rules doesn't mean it's worth the bother. If very few people are interested in making characters who are clumsy but have excellent manual dexterity, we don't need rules for it in the book. On the rare occasion that somebody's got his or her heart set on such a concept, the DM can homebrew a solution.

Similarly, I see very little point in having rules to separate out Dex saves from all the other things you use Dex for. Sure, you can in theory imagine a character concept which involves being generally clumsy (poor unarmored AC, poor Stealth and Acrobatics checks, low initiative, et cetera) but skilled at avoiding area effects and rays (good Dex saves). But in practice, how often is anybody going to hit on that concept when thinking up a character?

 

[Sadras]

As time has worn on, I think its become increasingly clear that the traditional six ability scores were actually a bad set to choose. Of course, we'll never see the game abandon them. In particular, I don't know why we don't have a "Faith" stat for the Divine classes.
...................Of course, the real solution, IMO, is to dump ability scores entirely. Almost any set you choose will have these problems in one way or another. So why not wrap the relevant material into the classes and races? That way you can skip the whole step of generating scores and then fiddling with them to make sure your fighter is athletic, your cleric wise, or your whatever whatevery....but that's wayy off course for where Next went.

Actually, in my opinion, the best solution would be to adopt a superior system like White Wolf's especially for abilities and skills. In fact, they did somehow allude to a similar system for the skill checks in their last playtest packet. That was funny!

Since we are aiming for a simpler game, I do not think it is best to make the classes even more complex with additional fiddly bits. The main issue discussed here (Wisdom) can easily be overcome with making charisma the Willpower stat and leaving Wisdom for awareness, since most of us agree charisma does need a lift for importance.

The rest of the granularity can be overcome with a "Flaws/Merits" module which will create those characters that are great in one aspect of their ability but to the detriment of another aspect in the same ability, but that should be reserved for modular play as not every group would want that level of detail.

 

[Ratskinner]

Actually, in my opinion, the best solution would be to adopt a superior system like White Wolf's especially for abilities and skills. In fact, they did somehow allude to a similar system for the skill checks in their last playtest packet. That was funny!

I'm sorry, did you say White Wolf's system was superior? I confess bafflement.

Since we are aiming for a simpler game, I do not think it is best to make the classes even more complex with additional fiddly bits. The main issue discussed here (Wisdom) can easily be overcome with making charisma the Willpower stat and leaving Wisdom for awareness, since most of us agree charisma does need a lift for importance.

I'm fair sure (as others have already mentioned) that there are plenty of questionable cases/circumstances with all the "mental" stats. The physical stats are significantly less troublesome, but even then I know I've personally run into issues with Constitution and Dexterity each covering too many things that at times seem like they are conflicting or otherwise inadequate (slightly variable by edition). I'm not sure how eliminating one complicating step to character development makes the game more complicated. At worst, I'm suggesting moving some elements into class or race description, not creating new ones.

Your suggestion seems to boil down to dumping Wisdom for Perception, and perhaps upgrading Charisma (not clear what you'd rename it). Perhaps you just omitted it, but what would you use as the "prime" stat for Clerics and other Divine types? Otherwise, I'm certainly not opposed to such a change, since Wisdom/Charisma are (IMO) clearly the worst offenders when it comes to poorly chosen ability scores.

The rest of the granularity can be overcome with a "Flaws/Merits" module which will create those characters that are great in one aspect of their ability but to the detriment of another aspect in the same ability, but that should be reserved for modular play as not every group would want that level of detail.

I could actually be very happy with such a system, so long as its fairly open-ended or freeform. Then again, that could be handled like 13th Age handles its Backgrounds, and there's already suggestions in the wild for using 13th Age without ability scores.

 

[Sadras]

I'm sorry, did you say White Wolf's system was superior? I confess bafflement.

Yes I did. In fact D&D has become increasingly closer and closer to that system. First they introduced skills as the ability system alone was not good enough. They aligned those skills with very specific abilities. Now the latest playtest packet explains that depending on what the character wants to do, skills are not always going to be attached to one specific ability - this is very much like WW.

Then you have people on this forum speaking against the actual ability score saying we should drop it, in favour of just modifiers =WW. And lets not forget the game within a game fan-made E6 and P6 which cap the level to stop the ever bloating of HP which requires the entire system to keep expanding numbers wise to deal with the ever growing number of HP. WW starts with a cap.

I'm fair sure (as others have already mentioned) that there are plenty of questionable cases/circumstances with all the "mental" stats. The physical stats are significantly less troublesome, but even then I know I've personally run into issues with Constitution and Dexterity each covering too many things that at times seem like they are conflicting or otherwise inadequate (slightly variable by edition). I'm not sure how eliminating one complicating step to character development makes the game more complicated. At worst, I'm suggesting moving some elements into class or race description, not creating new ones.

Your suggestion seems to boil down to dumping Wisdom for Perception, and perhaps upgrading Charisma (not clear what you'd rename it). Perhaps you just omitted it, but what would you use as the "prime" stat for Clerics and other Divine types? Otherwise, I'm certainly not opposed to such a change, since Wisdom/Charisma are (IMO) clearly the worst offenders when it comes to poorly chosen ability scores.

Your "Faith" suggestion is something I have been toying with for years. Perhaps Clerics could have a Faith Score and a Combat Score (BAB) they could select one they would want to improve as they rise in lvls.

They could become more fighter or priestly (spells), is that what you meant by including it in the classes as opposed to laying it all on the ability?
You would have to do something similar then maybe for the other spellcasters.

I could actually be very happy with such a system, so long as its fairly open-ended or freeform. Then again, that could be handled like 13th Age handles its Backgrounds, and there's already suggestions in the wild for using 13th Age without ability scores.

Agreed.

 

[Ratskinner]

Yes I did. In fact D&D has become increasingly closer and closer to that system...<snip>

Interesting perspective.

Your "Faith" suggestion is something I have been toying with for years. Perhaps Clerics could have a Faith Score and a Combat Score (BAB) they could select one they would want to improve as they rise in lvls.

They could become more fighter or priestly (spells), is that what you meant by including it in the classes as opposed to laying it all on the ability?

That's one way to do it. Mostly I'd just skip the Ability Score -> Ability Bonus -> Attack Bonus steps and wrap in the expected bonii to the base bonus for the classes. So a Fighter or Barbarian might get:

Mighty Thews A warrior is athletic..(blah blah blah). Take +2 to all checks and saves where your physical conditioning and strength would be helpful.

A wizard might have:

Arcane Lore You've studied many dusty tomes..(blah blah blah). Take +2 to all checks and saves where your knowledge of magic and magical beings would be helpful.

You could even have say M such abilities listed for the class and have the player pick N of them (where N<M), perhaps allowing something like Arcane Lore to be split into different areas.

Ideally (IMO), instead of an ability score block, the character sheet would just have a list of Traits, Talents, Backgrounds, whatever you wanna call'ems:

Examplis the Mage

• +3 Secretary of the Dark Arts club at Slartibartfast University (a freeform Background)
• +2 Street Juggler when I was a kid (a freeform Background)
• Arcane Lore: +2 to checks & saves for magic knowledge.
• Abjurer: +3 to checks, saves, & attacks against extraplanar beings and attacks.

Of course, that's starting to get pretty close to my favorite system, Fate. Its also leaving the D&D sacred cow pasture, so some folks would object to it....and we aren't going to see it with Next, for sure.

You would have to do something similar then maybe for the other spellcasters.

Sure. Arcane types could have "mana", etc.

 

[Sadras]

....Of course, that's starting to get pretty close to my favorite system, Fate. Its also leaving the D&D sacred cow pasture, so some folks would object to it....and we aren't going to see it with Next, for sure.

Interesting, I like what I see. Now you have me intrigued - I must familiarise myself with the FATE system.

 

[Ratskinner]

Interesting, I like what I see. Now you have me intrigued - I must familiarise myself with the FATE system.

Not to advertise, but it is available in PDF form as a "pay what you want" from rpgnow and a few other places, I think.

 

[Nagol]

Yes I did. In fact D&D has become increasingly closer and closer to that system. First they introduced skills as the ability system alone was not good enough. They aligned those skills with very specific abilities. Now the latest playtest packet explains that depending on what the character wants to do, skills are not always going to be attached to one specific ability - this is very much like WW.

And other systems like the Uni-system (AFMBE, etc.)

Then you have people on this forum speaking against the actual ability score saying we should drop it, in favour of just modifiers =WW. And lets not forget the game within a game fan-made E6 and P6 which cap the level to stop the ever bloating of HP which requires the entire system to keep expanding numbers wise to deal with the ever growing number of HP. WW starts with a cap.

Earlier versions of D&D capped ability scores, saving throws, to-hit bonuses, hit points, "effective" levels, and even number of resurrections.

 

[Scars Unseen]

I haven't been able to fully grok narrative systems like FATE so far(I own Spirit of the Century, Kerberos Club and Strands of FATE), but I definitely steal some of the ideas for house ruling. For instance, I really want to do away with HP system in favor of Stress and Consequence, and I think that descriptors like Aspects would be an interesting alternative to rolling ability scores(instead of getting a variable bonus depending on you score, it would be more of a ternary state like advantage and disadvantage).