D&D 5E How Can D&D Next Win You Over?

[billd91]

Strength was a trap in AD&D. Unless it was higher than 18(51) it really didnt do a whole lot.

Unless you happened to track encumbrance or had to open doors. I guess Strength could have been dispensed with under the condition that you house ruled those concerns away.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Unless you happened to track encumbrance or had to open doors. I guess Strength could have been dispensed with under the condition that you house ruled those concerns away.

Never tracked encumbrance playing AD&D, spanning 6-10 DMs. I don't remember open doors checks being that common, either. My experience was combat and story focused, high heroic style, with rarely a foot stepped in a dungeon.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Never tracked encumbrance playing AD&D

Good, somebody hanging around with a castle on his/her back.

I am sure you can see how some of us don't dig that?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Good, somebody hanging around with a castle on his/her back.

I am sure you can see how some of us don't dig that?

Same as I'm sure you can see how some of us have zero concern for game world realism and think it does nothing but get in the way of the good parts.

 

[CleverNickName]

Same as I'm sure you can see how some of us have zero concern for game world realism and think it does nothing but get in the way of the good parts.

I prefer a happy medium, myself: I'll track encumbrance until the character has a handy haversack or something similar, and then I let it slide. As long as I have some sort of plot device that lets me hand-wave it, I'm golden.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Same as I'm sure you can see how some of us have zero concern for game world realism and think it does nothing but get in the way of the good parts.

What good parts would those be, in your opinion?

 

[pemerton]

Many of the posters who want fighters to to have spellcaster-esque limited resources and 4e powers.

Ah, you mean like the barbarian's rage spell from the 3E PHB.

Other than keywords, exploits are identical to spells.

Other than keywords, an Entangle spell in 3E is identical to a Tanglefoot bag. Other than keywords, an Evard's Black Tentacle spell in 3E is identical to a fighter grabbing you. But nothing very interesting follows from that, given that keywords are the principle means that 3E and 4e use to mediate between mechanics and fiction.

If you removed the names, keywords, and flavour from 4e powers, there would be a lot of overlap and it would be hard to tell a spell from a prayer from an exploit.

If you removed the names, keywords and flavour from AD&D spells and AD&D combat, there would be lot of overlap and it would be hard to tell things apart - it would all just be rolling dice and calling out numbers! I don't think that proves very much, other than that names, keywords and flavour are pretty integral to roleplaying mechanics. (Especially in D&D, which is mechanically based on long lists of effects (be they weapons, spells, monsters, etc) which, at themost basic mechanical level are based primarily around tweaking the numbers.)

As long as you entirely ignore what is going on in the world exploits are identical to some spells. Which is like saying that as long as you entirely ignore the order of the letters, Finnegan's Wake is identical to Twilight is identical to Lord of the Rings is identical to the 1e DMG. Because they are both made up of letters and spaces.

This too.

MBut if they can only use it once a fight or per day for no reason other than "because spell can only be used 1/day too" then it's a spell, just not a magical one.

Do we have to do this in every thread?

The 1/enc and 1/day limits don't operate in the fiction. They operate at the metagame level ("gamist", in [MENTION=59096]thecasualoblivion[/MENTION]'s terms). As [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] said, it's a pacing mechanic.

We all get it that you don't like metagame mechanics. But it doesn't help to communicate that when you describe the mechanics in a way which no one who actually likes and uses them agrees with.

it's a description of how much [mana/stamina/mojo/etc.] your character has

That's one reading. It's not the most natural - I prefer the metagame reading - but whatever floats your boat!

Imagine a 3E barbarian who starts the day, gets surprised by a fireball, fails his/her save and is down to single digit hit points. And still has all his/her rage left for the day. Is s/he tired (low hit points) or pumped (full rages)? However you answer that question, I suggest you use the same method for answering the question about a 4e fighter high on encounters but low on dailies.

Or alternatively, appreciate that these are really metagame mechanics.

The reason that fighter powers are spells is not because fighters have a use-limiting mechanic, but because they have the same one as spells.

D&D has a long tradition of using the same mechanical structure for diffrent fictional elements. In AD&D, for example, a cleric's saving throws represent prayer and divine grace, a thief's deftness and subtlety, and a fighter's sheer toughness - yet they all use the same mechanic.

3E is the only version of D&D to insist that everything which is different in the fiction be different in the mechanics, and even then it doesn't carry through on the promise: barbarian rage is mechanically the same as spell use, and the distinction between EX, SU and SP abilities is in some cases explicabe only by reference to flavour and keywords.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Good, somebody hanging around with a castle on his/her back.

I am sure you can see how some of us don't dig that?

Oh ffs. "Don't track encumberance" goes with "Don't be ridiculous". It's a gentleman's agreement to carry something that seems reasonable. Armour matching class and a backpack. It doesn't fit very well with greyhawking style but works for heroic style.

And the total difference between a strength of 9 (fighter minimum) and a strength of 15 is a little carrying capacity, 3 points of open doors, and 6% bend bars/lift gates. As you aren't a tank, merely a killer, you can get away with lighter armour and polearming or ranged weapons. Even a 17 Str is only +1 to hit and +1 damage.

Yeah, I really don't see a reason not to dump strength as a fighter unless you're going to roll on the exceptional strength table. (Now strength as a Fighter/Cleric or even straight fighter is quite important - you want that plate armour and shield).

Thought experiment: Party of two fighters, a cleric, a thief, and a wizard vs party of three fighter/clerics, a fighter/magic user, and an illusionist/thief. Unless the first party is all human (and so can ignore level limits), I'd say that the second party is more useful under almost all circumstances. It has a much better battle line, a better utility guy/scout, and far, far more magic.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Oh ffs. "Don't track encumbrance" goes with "Don't be ridiculous". It's a gentleman's agreement to carry something that seems reasonable. Armour matching class and a backpack. It doesn't fit very well with greyhawking style but works for heroic style.

And the total difference between a strength of 9 (fighter minimum) and a strength of 15 is a little carrying capacity, 3 points of open doors, and 6% bend bars/lift gates. As you aren't a tank, merely a killer, you can get away with lighter armour and polearming or ranged weapons. Even a 17 Str is only +1 to hit and +1 damage.

I never mentioned encumbrance relating to attack bonuses; my how you reach for your what-seems-to-me your apparent anti-pre-4th Ed campaign, why do you play this game (as it seems for 38 years it has been abhorrent to you)?

 

[Ahnehnois]

Ah, you mean like the barbarian's rage spell from the 3E PHB.

Exactly, yes. Doesn't matter what edition number it's from. This is why they made a non-daily triggered rage variant. Bo9S, 3.0 Power Critical, etc. etc. are all examples of fighters with spells. It just wasn't something that came up very often before 4e, because most martial characters were free of these limitations.

We all get it that you don't like metagame mechanics. But it doesn't help to communicate that when you describe the mechanics in a way which no one who actually likes and uses them agrees with.

You do realize that the same could be said of terms like "15 minute adventuring day" "linear fighter/quadratic wizard" and a variety of similar terms commonly used on these boards, right?

Imagine a 3E barbarian who starts the day, gets surprised by a fireball, fails his/her save and is down to single digit hit points. And still has all his/her rage left for the day. Is s/he tired (low hit points) or pumped (full rages)? However you answer that question, I suggest you use the same method for answering the question about a 4e fighter high on encounters but low on dailies.

I stopped imagining this and rewrote rage to remove the daily element.

Or alternatively, appreciate that these are really metagame mechanics.

Like XP? Metagame mechanics have a place for some people, but usually they're optional, not ingrained in the core rules.

In what way is a resource that can be renewed on a daily basis not a daily mechanic? Each healing surge can be used once each day.

Healing surges are indeed spells-ahem-daily mechanics. Hit points have had variable recovery times over the editions; before 3e it could take weeks to recover them, and the rate of recovery was generally unrelated to how many you had. In 3e, it could still take more than a day; various official hp variants also changed this.

The 5e hp in the playtest were truly daily, thus the controversy over them.

The common mechanic of powers is real, enough, but it implies nothing about the nature of powers - powers can be granted by martial skill, by divine dispensation, by arcane magic, by racial talent, by magic items, by boons granted by greater powers, and so forth. Even a simple 'Melee Basic Attack' is a power.

The word does not necessarily imply supernatural, but it indicates that someone is doing something that is extraordinary and specific. Classically, nonmagical characters all perform the same actions; some are simply better at particular ones than others. Any ability that is specific to a character should be a spell, because there is no logical reason for any nonmagical character to have any exclusive options for what actions they can attempt (again, this has been an increasing problem with several versions of the game).

he conclusion that power implies that exploits are supernatural is, indeed, something that exists only in the minds of those groping about for something about 4e to hate.

No one (or, at least, virtually no one) is looking for that. Personally, I just call 'em like I see 'em.

If I had had great rather than bad experiences with fighters with spells (such as the PHBII knight, which really derailed a sesssion with its daily mind-control ability or the barbarian running out of rage nonsense) and if believed this was a fun and simple and effective game mechanic, I would say so. I don't, so I say so. Nothing more to it than that.