D&D 5E D&D Podcast: A1 Playtest (Part 2)

[Li Shenron]

As it should. Put a mountain of muscles with the dexterity of an olympic gymnast on the ring against 5 average joes, without weapons involved, and you probably have 5 average joes KOed.

Indeed, but the reason why I don't like the current trend with ability scores, is that I don't think I want every Fighter in the game to be a mountain of muscles. Currently, a lot of Fighters will be a mountain of muscles (let's say 18+) at first level. Almost all Fighters will be the mountain of muscles before level 10.

I just don't like that. I like thinking that experience & skills matters more for adventurers (for monsters and savage creatures, it's another matter). Thus it doesn't feel good to me if every Fighter easily gets in 4-5 levels of adventures the same +5 bonus that it will cost him 20 levels of adventuring life to get.

Overall, I think the +10 range (+5 from level, +5 from stat) is already quite a stretch, in the context of bounded accuracy. Let's assume however this +10 total is ok.

My problem is that while 50% from experience and 50% from natural talent can be acceptable, I just don't like that every Fighter PC will be Conan, and that it will be so just in a matter of a few levels.

Fortunately it's not difficult to HR this. For my tastes, rolling 3d6 and banning all ability stat increase by level would be right. Then I'll be leaving stat increase possible only via magic items such as tomes, or powerful spells, and these can be given out as quests rewards.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

As it should. Put a mountain of muscles with the dexterity of an olympic gymnast on the ring against 5 average joes, without weapons involved, and you probably have 5 average joes KOed.
If you don't like this possibility, don't roll for abilities. I'm tired of the game rules being slavish to the sacred balance sacrificing things like "fun" and "suspension of disbelief" in its name. It's the DM works to make sure any character can shine in his game, by tailoring the challenges for his gaming party.

I think skill should matter way beyond pure strength. Take Mr Mountain of Muscles who has never picked up a sword in his life and put him in an ring with expertly trained swordsman and who should win? Right now, Mountain of Muscles is better at fighting than a level 20 fighter.

Strength should matter, but training and skill should matter a LOT more. Right now a 20 strength Wizard with a dagger can beat a 10 strength fighter with a longsword more often than now. The Wizard has +5 to hit for 1d4+5 damage. The Fighter has +1 to hit for 1d8. Stats are just too important.

I'm tired of the game rules being slavish to the sacred balance sacrificing things like "fun" and "suspension of disbelief" in its name. It's the DM works to make sure any character can shine in his game, by tailoring the challenges for his gaming party.

It's rather the opposite. I'm not sure what is "fun" about one person being so much better than everyone else simply because they rolled high. It isn't fun for me. Balance CREATES fun by making me feel like I'm useful, even if I only have a 14 strength.

Also, if a DM has to "work" in order to make sure any character can shine, then the game has already failed. When I DM, I don't want to work. I want to have fun. I have fun by NOT working.

Plus, I question the validity of the statement in the first place. I worked my butt off on a number of occasions to make sure every player shined. It didn't work. The 19 strength 2e character with the +2 full plate defeated every monster in the campaign nearly solo. The rest of the party used to just do nothing during their actions because they felt they would just be getting in the way.

And a 19 strength gave you LESS benefit in 2e than it does in D&D Next.

 

[Aloïsius]

This is why a rogue is not a fighter is not a wizard. Niche protection is important IMHO. I have no problem with my PC being useless in a fight against ogres brutes as long as I'm the one who will shine against incorporeal fiends, and vice-versa.
And if the party is made only of one class (let's say fighters), there is still a difference between an archer and a swordman. Stats only say how much you are good at doing your job, they should not allow you to do someone else job. It's probably a problem with bounded accuracy, but I doubt it will be that much a problem. If I play a wizard, I don't play it to kill the monsters with a dagger.