D&D 5E Final playtest packet due in mid September.

[pemerton]

Many supporters of 4e (pemerton, please clarify or contradict if appropriate) highlight the very specific encounter design mechanics as making the design of appropriately challenging encounters much faster and easier.

4e encounter building guidelines are pretty robust in my experience. It's not about encounters being "appropriately challenging", because what is appropriate is obviously very contextually variable.

It's about predictability. That is, over a wide range of compositions of monsters types, monster numbers, level ranges, etc, 4e's encounter building guidelines provide a good guide to how challenging an encouner is going to be. 4e achieves this not just by having XP labels on monsters, but by having the whole system anchored around a pretty stable and robust mathematical framework.

The contrast for me would be Rolemaster, which has no comparable guidelines, so that (in combination with critical rules) building an encounter was always something of a crapshoot.

In 2e and 3e, I experienced many episodes where class\character imbalance either tore apart a campaign or threatened to do so. (In fact, the current OSR game I'm in is on the verge of such a collapse.)

I've had this issue in AD&D and in Rolemaster. What form is it taking in your OSR game (if you don't mind me asking)?

 

[Cyberen]

Balance is fine but...
1) many DMs enjoy the rules as a pseuso-naturalistic physics engine. In such context, "balance" can only appear as an external metagame consideration.
2) D&D has a pretty heavy tradition of naturalism trumping protagonism
3) I don't believe in achieving "balance" in a context where Fly/Scry/Fry effects are appearing on the Mage spell list at legacy levels. Because of the Compatibility objective, Next can't be balanced. The unfortunate decision of allowing 3e free multiclassing (which constrains each and every level of each and every class to be balanced against each other) creates expectations that can't be fulfilled.
By the way, I am personnally torn between naturalism and protagonism. One-trick ponies are obnoxious, but those profiles do exist in real life, and are even archetypal. Should they be banned for meta game reasons ?

 

[Ratskinner]

I've had this issue in AD&D and in Rolemaster. What form is it taking in your OSR game (if you don't mind me asking)?

We're playing a mishmash game of CnC, BECMI, and AD&D. The guy who did most of the mashing isn't exactly up on modern balance tech (as an grognard, he feels that's all new school <derogative>). For example, he doesn't want to understand that a +2 to AC (or other defense) is worth more than a +2 to hit. Unsurprisingly, since he's a Dwarf fan, the Dwarf class came through the mashing process as a basically unkillable superman. The Dwarf kept all his big bonuses for the DC-oriented CnC, but then we use old-school flat saves. Thus, we have 7th level characters where the Dwarf has only a 5% chance of failing a magic save, but the Wizard has a 45% chance to do so. He refuses to hear any arguments about it though, because "its just simpler, like CnC" or "its traditional".

In play, this takes two forms: First the DM has a lot of trouble coming up with encounters that challenge him without slaughtering the rest of us. Especially since we are closer to the "enter box...roll initiative" style of play. Secondly, the Dwarf player, knowing that he is basically unkillable, wades into combat and runs roughshod over anybody else's plans or activities (mocking all in the process.) The rest of us have all noted that when he's absent, everything just goes smoother. Our last session he was gone, and I was the only one who took any damage. Mostly that was because we all stuck to the plan, and let everyone use all our resources to catch a baddie who had been plaguing the party (and its ancestors) for hundreds of years.

Hope that's illuminating.

 

[Enchanter Tom]

Sounds like a problem with the player and the DM.

 

[Ahnehnois]

My real problem is that "being a good adventurer" is being equated with "being a good combatant." And those who aren't good in combat directly are mocked by Ahnennois' play group as being "bad adventurers." And the thought that this mechanic differentiation would carry over into concepts that get mocked at his table baffles me.

I don't know where you get any of that from. Even if I were running a game with no combat whatsoever, I'd still say a barbarian is better than a bard on principle and in practice. A barbarian is about doing stuff, and a bard is about persuading or influencing or inspiring other people to do stuff. I think it's inherently better to cut out the middle man and do stuff yourself. My group generally respects the more direct approach, which I don't see as being particularly spiteful or prejudicial.

Strength is much better than Charisma (at least if you believe WotC's paradigm for racial adjustments). I distinctly recall one barbarian character I had taking the feat that gives you a huge bonus to breaking objects. Useful in combat? No. Useful? Hell yes. And if you want to look at things in terms of "pillars", barbarians are quite good at exploration, and bards aren't in particular. Speed bonus, survival and perception skills, even trap sense in the 3e version. These are useful things. Charisma skills, conversely, are only useful if there are other creatures around that are amenable to being influenced, and their effects are largely dependent on the NPCs being able and willing to do what he wants. Enchantments have a niche, but are usually illegal and/or likely to draw ire. All of that stuff is very situational.

The other thing about bards is that they're really the only "jack of all trades" class, which makes them a "master of none". Players want 9th level spells or similar high level abilities to be on the table, even if the campaign never goes that far. Being pretty good at a bunch of things isn't as desirable as being really good at one thing and pretty good at some other things. Enchanters and rogues command more respect than bards for that reason. To some extent, these are things that can be patched; and I tried to give the high-level bard something more to strive for when I revised it.

None of this has anything to do with how combat-focused the characters are. If anything, we tend not to hold one-dimensional combat characters in very high regard either.

 

[N'raac]

Balance is fine but...
1) many DMs enjoy the rules as a pseuso-naturalistic physics engine. In such context, "balance" can only appear as an external metagame consideration.
2) D&D has a pretty heavy tradition of naturalism trumping protagonism

On that basis, we need to seriously revisit damage done by ranged weapons, including the armor penetration of an English longbow, don't we? Weapon damage in general, really - a knife strike is perfectly capable of killing a healthy person.

3) I don't believe in achieving "balance" in a context where Fly/Scry/Fry effects are appearing on the Mage spell list at legacy levels. Because of the Compatibility objective, Next can't be balanced. The unfortunate decision of allowing 3e free multiclassing (which constrains each and every level of each and every class to be balanced against each other) creates expectations that can't be fulfilled.

I find multiclassing its own special challenge which must be addressed separately, however perhaps balance requires we use a different multiclassing approach, such as a level adjustment for having one or more additional classes, rather than a straight level for level mechanism. That's a whole different thread(s). Similarly, I think the answer to fry & scry is to restrict the movement aspect. I am still, however, waiting for someone to provide me a (3e) by the rules fry & scry tactic that works at medium levels. Typically, one or more of the following are ignored:

- Teleport requires "You must have some clear idea of the location and layout of the destination.", while Greater Teleport needs " In addition, you need not have seen the destination, but in that case you must have at least a reliable description of the place to which you are teleporting. If you attempt to teleport with insufficient information (or with misleading information), you disappear and simply reappear in your original location." How much information is needed, and how do you get it?

- you can get up to "Studied carefully" by scrying for no less than an hour

- Scry requires knowledge of the target as well. If they save, it fails for the next 24 hours. And it targets a person, not a location.

- Scry gets the target and "about 10' in all directions" - is that enough to target the Teleport? You must arrive (all of you!) within 10' of the fellow?

- If he moves, your Scry moves - you scry on a person, but you need to study a location.

- Scry lasts a minute per level - how do you study an area for an hour? Greater scry lasts an hour per level, but now we're talking a 7th level spell.

There are also easy fixes to Scry & Fry. Give Scrying and/or Teleport longer casting times, making them more ritualistic. Explicitly remove the ability to teleport to a location based on scrying a person (or based on scrying at all). Add a "stunned for one minute after transport" result to Teleport, as you need a bit of time to reorient yourself - if you're just using it for long distance transit, that's not a big deal, but if you have ten rounds between arrival and being combat-capable, this is nowhere near as effective. This could be stunned, unable to concentrate (no casting), nauseous, etc. Maybe its worse for locations you are less familiar with. Make Teleport just a bit less precise - for example, perhaps you arrive somewhere within 100' of your intended destination, not with a precision level measured in inches.

If your carefully studied area requires you to view a 100' x 100' area for no less than an hour, randomly places the caster at a point within that area and leaves all Teleported Stunned for 1 minute, how effective is Scry & Fry? Still too effective? Add "cannot concentrate for 5 minutes". It can be balanced. To my mind, Teleport is the problem - it should be for long distance transport, and leaving the teleporters incapable of combat immediately after teleporting effectively restricts it to that usage.

And the big one - enemies who use the same tactics. That tends to get players more interested in fixing the abuses, whether by a different interpretation or an outright rules change.

By the way, I am personnally torn between naturalism and protagonism. One-trick ponies are obnoxious, but those profiles do exist in real life, and are even archetypal. Should they be banned for meta game reasons ?

Name a few from fiction we are trying to emulate. As PC's, they must be main characters, not sidekicks or briefly appearing characters. Often, those characters who appear initially to be one trick ponies, but have enough popularity to reappear as more than plot devices, tend to get fleshed out and aren't one trick ponies as they grow into being protagonists.

Oh, and if we want to argue "one trick ponies are common in the fiction, so they should be in the game", splitting the party is pretty much universal in fiction, isn't it? There are differences between the various media, and games are their own media. Vast power disparities in character experience/level are pretty common in the source material too. Who gets to start play as the L17 Mentor, and who starts as the L1 (or not even L1) apprentice?

We're playing a mishmash game of CnC, BECMI, and AD&D. The guy who did most of the mashing isn't exactly up on modern balance tech (as an grognard, he feels that's all new school <derogative>). For example, he doesn't want to understand that a +2 to AC (or other defense) is worth more than a +2 to hit. Unsurprisingly, since he's a Dwarf fan, the Dwarf class came through the mashing process as a basically unkillable superman. The Dwarf kept all his big bonuses for the DC-oriented CnC, but then we use old-school flat saves. Thus, we have 7th level characters where the Dwarf has only a 5% chance of failing a magic save, but the Wizard has a 45% chance to do so. He refuses to hear any arguments about it though, because "its just simpler, like CnC" or "its traditional".

I'm surprised your group does not include a lot more dwarves. Consider hiring some henchdwaves, maybe? Seems like that's where this GM bias should lead. May as well focus on defensive bonuses, too. If that's the easiest path to success under the rules, may as well take it. GM bias creates the issue.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

To some extent, these are things that can be patched; and I tried to give the high-level bard something more to strive for when I revised it.

Then I don't understand your objections when many of us suggested that the designers keep this in mind while working on DDN.

I am still, however, waiting for someone to provide me a (3e) by the rules fry & scry tactic that works at medium levels. Typically, one or more of the following are ignored:

Yup.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I see absolutely no problem with saying that two fighters of equivalent level are of (roughly) equal combat effectiveness. The heavier fighter does it with strength and the lighter with more skill and cleverness. (Trust me, I outmass my sensei by almost 60% and hold no illusions about which of us would win that fight.)

I have no problem with saying that a character of superior skill can overcome a deficiency in physical attributes. And D&D does place level-based bonuses as being greater than abilities and static modifiers for size and the like.

So far as I am aware, there is nothing in any edition that defines levels purely as a measure of skill, rather than overall ability.

The conceit of a level in class X being the same as one in class Y is relatively new. After all, there used to be different XP requirements, making it pretty clear that a level in wizard was worth more than a level in thief. And I'm not aware of any edition that defines levels as a measure of overall ability, though it seems to be implied in some cases.

I especially don't like the idea that we are trying to be subtle about it.
...
However, I don't like the idea that I'm supposed to be "reading" this information from a player's choices. Worse, I don't like the idea that someone has to come to the table having read through the game to conclude these things.

I see nothing subtle about it. If the player picks a wizard, he probably expects that with enough training he can do things like change shapes or summon demon lords or grant wishes. If a player plays a barbarian, he probably expects to be an invincible and intimidating combat machine with a connection to the natural world. If a player plays a bard, he probably expects to be a great storyteller and a celebrity.

Even before discussing any mechanical jargon, I can't imagine that a player sees all those concepts as being of exactly equal overall usefulness in any particular campaign. They are obviously different, and which one will play out better obviously depends a lot of what type of game you're playing, as well as a lot of random unpredictable things that happen during play.

If someone was to explicitly desire to play the sidekick or lesser character for some reason, then I don't see why they couldn't start with a balanced system and just refuse to level up, or take some other equally explicit penalty.

Who says it's a penalty? I distinctly recall, for example, that when I was a child, I would ask my father, a nurse, when he was going to get promoted to doctor. Obviously, this never happened. They're separate professions. An experienced nurse often has capabilities in excess of an inexperienced physician, and may even have some unique skills that the physician will never acquire. That said, if we were representing them as classes for an rpg, the doctor class would definitely have more powers than the nurse. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Both of them have value. Where would we be without nurses?

The same is true in any number of contexts, Aragorn is never going to be as good as Gandalf no matter how hard he works, nor is Merry ever going to be as good as Aragorn. Counselor Troi is never going to match up with Captain Picard. Jim Gordon is never going to be Batman.

Neither real life nor any of the fiction we create to relieve us from it is solely about the best and the brightest, nor are opportunities ever equal for everyone. If anything, a class system explicates and encourages inequalities. After all, what does the word "class" mean in real life? I don't think people of a lower class are less valuable or interesting. In the context of a game, I don't think playing a lesser class is bad or wrong.

This experience is very different from mine. In 2e and 3e, I experienced many episodes where class\character imbalance either tore apart a campaign or threatened to do so.

I don't know anything about these particular experiences, but I know that in my experiences with those systems, there have been plenty of times where a character seemed unbalanced, but we later discovered some clause written in the rules that clearly addressed the issue. I have a close to encyclopedic knowledge of 3e, and I miss things. I'm more inclined to believe that faults lie with people rather than rules (which again, I include myself in).

And the other thing I see a lot of is characters that dominate for a little while, and then cede the floor without any special intervention on my part, so I'd wonder how long you think something has to be a problem before it's really a problem. I expect that on most weeks, someone's character does great and another character doesn't.

It is much easier, and more reliable, to start with a "balanced" game and tweak it from there than it is to try and rework a wildly imbalanced system. Thus, starting from a position of balance supports a wider diversity of playstyles than starting from a particular disparity.

I don't know what this "balanced" game would look like, but I doubt I'd play it. I don't see how it's easier to start from an unnatural perspective designed to serve one metagame agenda, and build the roleplaying and the game parts back in.

 

[N'raac]

I don't know where you get any of that from. Even if I were running a game with no combat whatsoever, I'd still say a barbarian is better than a bard on principle and in practice. A barbarian is about doing stuff, and a bard is about persuading or influencing or inspiring other people to do stuff. I think it's inherently better to cut out the middle man and do stuff yourself. My group generally respects the more direct approach, which I don't see as being particularly spiteful or prejudicial.

I assume your group also doesn't see many summoning spells, animal companions, etc., which seems consistent with their martial focus. Of course, if they're using buffing spells or magic items, is that really "doing stuff yourself"?

Strength is much better than Charisma (at least if you believe WotC's paradigm for racial adjustments).

That's the half orc racial adjustment, I assume. I only see half orcs used in warrior roles, and I find the half orc the least versatile race as a consequence. They don't dominate any game I've played (far from it), but a game that focuses on combat strength and/or doesn't place much stock in social skills/interaction (which would include allowing characters to succeed on the social challenges presented without investing in charisma or interaction skills) would clearly favour the half orc more than one where those INT and CHA penalties render the half orc a poor choice for many roles in the game.

I distinctly recall one barbarian character I had taking the feat that gives you a huge bonus to breaking objects. Useful in combat? No. Useful? Hell yes. And if you want to look at things in terms of "pillars", barbarians are quite good at exploration, and bards aren't in particular. Speed bonus, survival and perception skills, even trap sense in the 3e version.

Higher movement seems more combat useful to me (when the Rogue is looking for traps all the way, movement speed is limited in benefit; we move as fast as the slowest member anyway; get a horse). I don't believe I have ever seen PC's in danger of starvation. Maybe those abilities should be more focused in exploration, but I don't find they are. That said, one of the most powerful exploration skills in traditional dungeon exploration is likely Darkvision, and the half orc is one of few races who kept that.

Charisma skills, conversely, are only useful if there are other creatures around that are amenable to being influenced, and their effects are largely dependent on the NPCs being able and willing to do what he wants. Enchantments have a niche, but are usually illegal and/or likely to draw ire. All of that stuff is very situational.

Once again, as useful as the game wants them to be. While the DC is extreme, it is possible to shift the attitude of a Hostile person, implying this is possible. I don't think a hostile person is "amenable to being influenced", so if I set that as a requirement, I reduce the utility of social skills. If I decide that the social skill will not change whether the NPC is willing to do what the PC wants, that seems very different from moving an "indifferent" person to "helpful" (Will take risks to help you; protect, back up, heal, aid) - seems like that shift indicates what he is willing to do changed a lot from "socially expected interaction" [NOTE: that's indifferent, so I must be able to use Diplomacy on someone not even willing to do that, since I can use it on unfriendly or hostile targets.]

Even "friendly" is enough for that NPC to advise, advocate and offer limited help. Having an advisor to the King advocate on my behalf seems pretty powerful.

One issue poorly defined is retries - may actually make things worse, etc., makes sense if you make attempt after attempt after attempt in rapid succession. But it seems like gradually (over days or weeks, perhaps) repeated efforts could gradually move that initially hostile Captain of the Guard to Unfriendly, then Indifferent, and eventually friendly or even helpful. This seems quite consistent with the source material, especially where it deals with characters with great social skills.

But we can also be biased against social skills and dismiss their ability to have significant impact on any important NPC.

The other thing about bards is that they're really the only "jack of all trades" class, which makes them a "master of none". Players want 9th level spells or similar high level abilities to be on the table, even if the campaign never goes that far. Being pretty good at a bunch of things isn't as desirable as being really good at one thing and pretty good at some other things. Enchanters and rogues command more respect than bards for that reason. To some extent, these are things that can be patched; and I tried to give the high-level bard something more to strive for when I revised it.

This is an issue for the Bard, definitely. It's also why we don't see a lot of multiclass spellcasters any more (3e up). However, if the abilities gained by Bards are not sufficient to place them on an even footing with other characters, I'd call that a mechanical issue that should be corrected (that's where I place the multiclass rules as well, btw).

 

[Ahnehnois]

Then I don't understand your objections when many of us suggested that the designers keep this in mind while working on DDN.

I would hope they would do exactly that, "keep it in mind", as one of many things to keep in mind.

Personally, my approach was just to take the bard and give it action economy advantages. Their spells and attacks and stuff will never be as good as those of a sorcerer or a fighter, but multiple actions are really useful, and allow the bard to epitomize his "jack-of-all-trades" concept. I also have them a bonus feats and various skill-improving options to compensate for MAD and lack of skill points. Does that make a bard equal to my new and improved barbarian? I have no idea at this point. They're just different.