Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon 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 Next
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
*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!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
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
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
Archive Forums
Hosted Forums
Personal & Hosted Forums
Personal/Hosted Forums
Towards 5E - An Advanced Ruleset
Hello and Welcome to Towards 5E
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="Herremann the Wise" data-source="post: 4505530" data-attributes="member: 11300"><p>Firstly, thanks Ryan for having a look at this! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" /> I have no idea where this is going to go but let's see.</p><p>I'd like to turn these points into threads of their own but for the moment, I'll just give an abbreviated response.</p><p></p><p>At the moment (in 3.x/4E), spells fail if the target makes their save/you can't beat their defences. I'm not too sure whether you mean: don't give the casting of magic a chance to fail? I was contemplating a skill check of sorts (with a variable DC determined by the spell) for certain spells to be cast by a wizard (but certainly not all spells).</p><p></p><p>I have a very rough system of magic thought out which I'll detail in a further thread.</p><p></p><p>Effectively, it splits casters into three primary groups (with the possiblity for secondary groups):</p><p>- Wizards (For the imaginative-style player who wants flexibility and utility and a reduced focus on resource management)</p><p>- Sorcerers (For the power-player who enjoys the careful management of mana and the optimizing of the power gained from it)</p><p>- Warlocks (For the player who wants a darker different sort of magic, like a summoner but completely different in terms of mechanics - cost is the word here)</p><p></p><p>- It does away with the Vancian system: If you know how to perform a spell, you can cast it. There are restrictions to casting certain spells and to casting in general but most spells (particularly utility style) can simply be cast.</p><p></p><p>- It does away with spell levels: If you are willing to pay the cost, or are willing to risk casting a spell, you can do it - success is variable and can depend on a couple of factors.</p><p></p><p>Anyway, I'll detail it on another thread for discussion.</p><p></p><p></p><p>How many magical bonuses and effects (particularly plus-based) can be transferred into non-magical skills/feats/abilities learnt? Rather than getting a +1 ring of protection or a +2 cloak of resistance, or a +2 sword, why not have characters earn such bonuses through skill instead? The carrots of magic instead turn into the carrots of levelling/advancing a character's skill set. Leave magic to be special and different.</p><p></p><p>A magical sword should be "special" because it's magical (be it obviously so or not). How many times have you seen a +2 sword in a group getting handed down to some character who barely has proficiency with it, all because the main fighters in the group have better swords with more plusses. Or they sell it for some coin (several thousand gp doesn't go that far once you hit that level either). Let the mundane quality (be it poor, standard, superior, masterwork or exquisite) handle the plus/bonus side of things. Leave magic to be... magical. </p><p></p><p>And so it is. Gets back to the flavor/mechanic symbiosis thing. Not always easy to do but at least you should look like you're trying.</p><p></p><p>You've hit upon a very important thing here. In D&D, there is very little variation in terms of losing. You either lose a character or two or have a TPK or you are forced to teleport out if you can - but generally don't if it means leaving a character behind. The idea of conventional escape is almost nonexistent because all the damn monsters are quicker than the PCs. Caltrops are fine but the DM can quickly tire of this trick. Stalemates are non-existent and the thought of mutual withdrawal is simply not there. Conventional escape however is the one I'm thinking of though that needs to be supported by the rules moreso than what it currently is.</p><p></p><p>Just a quick clarification in terms of getting rid of the safety net that I was talking about. What I mean here is the expectation from the players that the DM is not going to throw something "bad" at them but that encounters will be fair (if sometimes challenging). Is there anything wrong with an encounter thats success is based upon the PCs working out it's too tough and tactically withdrawing? If all combat encounters can be won by charging and bashing effectively, what does this encourage in the players?</p><p></p><p>What this encourages is almost an autopilot response from the players of "let's roll initiative; let's dust these guys up; let's throw everything at them until they're dead". Players don't look for tactical advantage because generally it's simply not necessary. Optimized builds and powerful powers/abilties/spells will generally win the day, like a blunt stick no matter how clumsily wielded. Having mobility on the skirmishing field of battle is fine, but not if the players aren't going to be thinking in the process. In my opinion 4E > 3E in this respect, even if the tactics are spoonfed through powers - and a little boardgame-like to boot.</p><p></p><p>I suppose I'd like players to think when it comes to an encounter, rather than assume that bursting into melee will be good enough because it always is.</p><p></p><p>Now that miniatures have reached a certain saturation, I wonder? Is the expectation of battlemap/miniatures now a hurdle to getting new and young blood into the game. If you could do it with just pen and paper and have it supported by the rules, might this actually get more players involved and then have these players looking at miniatures when they're ready for the investment? I have no idea?</p><p>Hey, I'm Australian...<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite9" alt=":eek:" title="Eek! :eek:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":eek:" /><img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /></p><p></p><p>True. </p><p></p><p>As well as giving the DM some good direction.</p><p>Agreed!</p><p></p><p>I agree, and I also think I have a possible answer to making the game play like this. It all relates to the core mechanic, the range of DCs possible and the fact that we roll a d20 (which only has 20 levels of variation). Perhaps this deserves a thread of it's own but in short:</p><p></p><p>- Imagine that a complete novice has a +0 modifier to perform a skilled action</p><p>- What they can achieve ranges from a DC of 1 or lower (always successful) to a DC of 20 (the very limit of their capability) to a DC of 21 or above (impossible).</p><p>From this, a lot depends on scale but let's follow this through:</p><p>- A master (the highest level of ordinary achievement and capability in something) is defined as someone who can consistently do what a novice finds impossible (that would be a bonus of +20 or higher).</p><p>- What is the ceiling of achievement, even for a master? If you try to keep things as compressed as possible (having a master at +20), then your ceiling is a DC of 40. Anything over and above this becomes meaningless (at least in terms of what is mortally possible within the game structure).</p><p>- Using your 70/30 psychological success preference (rather than the 50/50 I had scribbled down), a master will expect to be successful up to a DC of 27, after that things start becoming difficult/frustrating even for a master.</p><p>- Now lets think of all the DCs involved in the game in terms of this scale: armor class, knowledge check DCs, skill check DCs, saving throw DCs and imagine this being standardized across the range.</p><p>- Also imagine having modifiers somewhere between +0 and +20 for everything.</p><p>I think if you do this, you have a system that can cope with it's own scale, and the fact that a d20 is your random factor (and not a d30 or 3d6 and so on). The d20 naturally restricts your range.</p><p>Anyway, as I said, maybe something for another thread.</p><p></p><p>Anyway Mr RangerWickett, thank you very much for your advocacy of the devil - very much appreciated. Your responses have spawned many ideas in my head.</p><p></p><p>Best Regards</p><p>Herremann the Wise</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Herremann the Wise, post: 4505530, member: 11300"] Firstly, thanks Ryan for having a look at this! :D I have no idea where this is going to go but let's see. I'd like to turn these points into threads of their own but for the moment, I'll just give an abbreviated response. At the moment (in 3.x/4E), spells fail if the target makes their save/you can't beat their defences. I'm not too sure whether you mean: don't give the casting of magic a chance to fail? I was contemplating a skill check of sorts (with a variable DC determined by the spell) for certain spells to be cast by a wizard (but certainly not all spells). I have a very rough system of magic thought out which I'll detail in a further thread. Effectively, it splits casters into three primary groups (with the possiblity for secondary groups): - Wizards (For the imaginative-style player who wants flexibility and utility and a reduced focus on resource management) - Sorcerers (For the power-player who enjoys the careful management of mana and the optimizing of the power gained from it) - Warlocks (For the player who wants a darker different sort of magic, like a summoner but completely different in terms of mechanics - cost is the word here) - It does away with the Vancian system: If you know how to perform a spell, you can cast it. There are restrictions to casting certain spells and to casting in general but most spells (particularly utility style) can simply be cast. - It does away with spell levels: If you are willing to pay the cost, or are willing to risk casting a spell, you can do it - success is variable and can depend on a couple of factors. Anyway, I'll detail it on another thread for discussion. How many magical bonuses and effects (particularly plus-based) can be transferred into non-magical skills/feats/abilities learnt? Rather than getting a +1 ring of protection or a +2 cloak of resistance, or a +2 sword, why not have characters earn such bonuses through skill instead? The carrots of magic instead turn into the carrots of levelling/advancing a character's skill set. Leave magic to be special and different. A magical sword should be "special" because it's magical (be it obviously so or not). How many times have you seen a +2 sword in a group getting handed down to some character who barely has proficiency with it, all because the main fighters in the group have better swords with more plusses. Or they sell it for some coin (several thousand gp doesn't go that far once you hit that level either). Let the mundane quality (be it poor, standard, superior, masterwork or exquisite) handle the plus/bonus side of things. Leave magic to be... magical. And so it is. Gets back to the flavor/mechanic symbiosis thing. Not always easy to do but at least you should look like you're trying. You've hit upon a very important thing here. In D&D, there is very little variation in terms of losing. You either lose a character or two or have a TPK or you are forced to teleport out if you can - but generally don't if it means leaving a character behind. The idea of conventional escape is almost nonexistent because all the damn monsters are quicker than the PCs. Caltrops are fine but the DM can quickly tire of this trick. Stalemates are non-existent and the thought of mutual withdrawal is simply not there. Conventional escape however is the one I'm thinking of though that needs to be supported by the rules moreso than what it currently is. Just a quick clarification in terms of getting rid of the safety net that I was talking about. What I mean here is the expectation from the players that the DM is not going to throw something "bad" at them but that encounters will be fair (if sometimes challenging). Is there anything wrong with an encounter thats success is based upon the PCs working out it's too tough and tactically withdrawing? If all combat encounters can be won by charging and bashing effectively, what does this encourage in the players? What this encourages is almost an autopilot response from the players of "let's roll initiative; let's dust these guys up; let's throw everything at them until they're dead". Players don't look for tactical advantage because generally it's simply not necessary. Optimized builds and powerful powers/abilties/spells will generally win the day, like a blunt stick no matter how clumsily wielded. Having mobility on the skirmishing field of battle is fine, but not if the players aren't going to be thinking in the process. In my opinion 4E > 3E in this respect, even if the tactics are spoonfed through powers - and a little boardgame-like to boot. I suppose I'd like players to think when it comes to an encounter, rather than assume that bursting into melee will be good enough because it always is. Now that miniatures have reached a certain saturation, I wonder? Is the expectation of battlemap/miniatures now a hurdle to getting new and young blood into the game. If you could do it with just pen and paper and have it supported by the rules, might this actually get more players involved and then have these players looking at miniatures when they're ready for the investment? I have no idea? Hey, I'm Australian...:o:p True. As well as giving the DM some good direction. Agreed! I agree, and I also think I have a possible answer to making the game play like this. It all relates to the core mechanic, the range of DCs possible and the fact that we roll a d20 (which only has 20 levels of variation). Perhaps this deserves a thread of it's own but in short: - Imagine that a complete novice has a +0 modifier to perform a skilled action - What they can achieve ranges from a DC of 1 or lower (always successful) to a DC of 20 (the very limit of their capability) to a DC of 21 or above (impossible). From this, a lot depends on scale but let's follow this through: - A master (the highest level of ordinary achievement and capability in something) is defined as someone who can consistently do what a novice finds impossible (that would be a bonus of +20 or higher). - What is the ceiling of achievement, even for a master? If you try to keep things as compressed as possible (having a master at +20), then your ceiling is a DC of 40. Anything over and above this becomes meaningless (at least in terms of what is mortally possible within the game structure). - Using your 70/30 psychological success preference (rather than the 50/50 I had scribbled down), a master will expect to be successful up to a DC of 27, after that things start becoming difficult/frustrating even for a master. - Now lets think of all the DCs involved in the game in terms of this scale: armor class, knowledge check DCs, skill check DCs, saving throw DCs and imagine this being standardized across the range. - Also imagine having modifiers somewhere between +0 and +20 for everything. I think if you do this, you have a system that can cope with it's own scale, and the fact that a d20 is your random factor (and not a d30 or 3d6 and so on). The d20 naturally restricts your range. Anyway, as I said, maybe something for another thread. Anyway Mr RangerWickett, thank you very much for your advocacy of the devil - very much appreciated. Your responses have spawned many ideas in my head. Best Regards Herremann the Wise [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
Archive Forums
Hosted Forums
Personal & Hosted Forums
Personal/Hosted Forums
Towards 5E - An Advanced Ruleset
Hello and Welcome to Towards 5E
Top