Is it time for 5E?

[shadzar]

I think we are discussing similar things in 2 threads, and that is confusing me a bit. Maybe not you in another thread, but I seem to be getting them mixed up they are so close, so losing track of what is going on between them and they seem to be bleeding over into each other...

I will come back here and read this to figure out later as I back track through both threads I think are merging in subjects of discussion and see if I can separate the ideas between the two.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Yeah, 5E is so far in the future it is hard to see what is going on over there.

 

[LeStryfe79]

Dungeon General's Warning: 5ed Causes Cancer. Playing 5ed By Pregnant Women May Result in Fetal Roleplaying, Premature Lay Offs, and Low Dice Rolls.

 

[MrMyth]

Does the PHB give the impression that PCs can't do anything useful or interesting out of combat, or that PCs can't use their powers, including attack powers, out of combat? No - I've quoted the text where it expressly says the exact opposite.

Can't give more xp to pemerton, but... yeah, total agreement, and excellent job with showing exactly what is actually in the book.

 

[Stormonu]

Thanks.

So they use the same dice as creating the ability scores instead of jsut a d20 to change the probability a bit.

They still use a series of checks based on the ability score to do it.

Now that we know this, what were we using it to discuss again?

Well, I stating they weren't standardized (the C1 uses a bell-curve check, the S2 uses a linear check) and I don't actually remember ability checks as skill checks being discussed in the 1E DMG or PHB (again, don't have my books with me - if someone knows, just point me to it). Third, back in the day, players were rewarded if the wizard/cleric/druid had memorized "just the right spell" for the situation - using up a precious spell slot for a jump spell or a fly spell would have allowed someone to easily clear either obstacle*. Nowadays, with individual character resources much expanded (i.e., more abilities, powers, items, spells, etc.) it has become the norm to punish having an "I win button" or prevent the use of an oft-available resource from constantly dominating play. For ex., if you have 5 different "encounters" in one day, and you can only use Finger of Death in one of them, it doesn't break the game as when you can do it every encounter, every day.

This was a big problem in 3E - moreso with noncombat spells actually, stemming from the fact that restrictions on spellcaster powers were greatly relaxed. 4E tried overcompensate by scaling back the power and splitting the troublesome noncombat stuff out to rituals and making it cost money and time to retard their use. I personally feel this was the wrong way to go about it, but WotC has seemingly abandoned the premise of drawbacks of any type, as has most of the current fanbase.

* of course, it probably would have only given one person a free pass, and more often than not the cavaet of "don't split the party, you don't know who is waiting for you on the other side" would get the lone individual into deeper trouble)

 

[shadzar]

Yeah taking anything away from PCs, except their gold, is bad and not fun. I recall someone discusing Jump and such...so let's jsut say a 5th eidtion would need things that make sense that all people could do physically without having to rely on things a body can do and was built to do.

The skills definately could be refined/simplied without so many things to mes with and just going back to ability checks, rather than ability scores just being a scale for modifiers.

 

[pemerton]

I don't actually remember ability checks as skill checks being discussed in the 1E DMG or PHB (again, don't have my books with me - if someone knows, just point me to it).

To the best of my memory, it isn't in either book. I think it is suggested in the "GM troubleshooting" section of the Moldvay Basic rules - but again, that is from memory only.

The skills definately could be refined/simplied without so many things to mes with and just going back to ability checks, rather than ability scores just being a scale for modifiers.

Doesn't this depend on how big you want the typical differential in a party to be?

For example, consider a first level untrained skill check, with a stat spread from 8 to 18 (pretty typical for 3E or 4e), against a DC of 10 (pretty typical for 1st level in either of those systems). The 8 has a 50% chance of success (with a -1, succeeds on 11+). The 18 has a 75% chance of success (with a +4, succeeds on 6+). The 18 will fail 1 time in 4. The 8 will fail twice as often - 1 time in 2.

A roll-under-stat mechanic gives the 8 a 40% chance of success (succeeds on 8 or less) and the 18 a 90% chance of success (succeeds on 18 or less). So the 18 will fail 1 time in 10. The 8 will fail 6 times as often - 3 times in 5.

Which ratio of failure propsects between strong and weak PCs makes for a better game? This isn't something to be worked out just on the basis of nostalgia or simplicity. It takes at least a bit of maths, and then a lot of playtesting to work out.

I can certainly see why the 3E and 4e designers (and the 2nd ed Skills and Powers designers, for that matter) thought they had reasons for going the way they did. A challenge in an adventure where one PC is six times more likely than another to fail is a difficult one to GM - if only the strong PC has to deal with it, it runs the risk of being nothing more than a tedious roadbump, and if every PC has to deal with it, disaster is likely. Reducing the difference in the propsects of individual PC failure makes it viable to set up a challenge which only 1 PC has to deal with, but which need not be the strong PC, and also a challenge which every PC has to deal with to at least some extent.

 

[Sorrowdusk]

I honestly dont know if its time for 5E. But I hope the game actually sticks around so that somebody sees a 15E. How long do you guys think it will last after 35 years? I personally hope it persists, not that I would advocate it lumber along in some stagnated zombie like form for the sake of the name but...

 

[shadzar]

Which ratio of failure propsects between strong and weak PCs makes for a better game? This isn't something to be worked out just on the basis of nostalgia or simplicity. It takes at least a bit of maths, and then a lot of playtesting to work out.

Like your DCs, the DM could add modifiers as well, so could any number of other things.

You just don't need a "skill" or "feat" to be able to "jump". I liken it to the firebuilding NWP. Some things you should just have if you want them without much silly crap telling you NO!

If conditions are OK, and nothing to disturb you, then anyone that wants should be able to build a fire. As conditions worsen, you use your "DC"s to modify the roll if one would be needing.

So anyone can jump, the just need to apply the proper skill to check against, and should there be something difficult about it for some reason, adjust the DMs modifier, excuse me, the DC accordingly.

This carries over to levels, to represent growth.

I find it funny and somewhat silly a "skill" called "jump", as it make me think with earning "ranks" in it, someone is sitting, well standing around jumping to practice or jumping over things and all manner of other ways to practice.

I would see maybe an acrobat type person doing that, but can also see a party, over time, swatting the person "skipping" around out of the air cause they get tired of it.

Sheer ice, or Greased ground, then no jumping as you can barely stand.

So long as the rule is applied consistently, and the advantage or disadvantage applied makes sense to the world/action; it really isn't that hard, and you don't need a table fof 60+ DCs or whatever to tell you how to adjust things.

The more tables and such for a game their is that players want to look things up on some table to pick the next best action based on the lists of tables, the more likely I am as a DM to use other numbers that what is in the table, IF I ever use that table, in order to force the players to play the game, not the mechanics.

If a DM is trying to look up all manners of lists for me to be able to jump, I will just say screw it and try something else.

The easier things are, the better the gameplay, and least players and DM alike get distracted form it.

But what is easy for some won't be for others, as you present without something you may feel the rules weren't playtested as it doesn't give you enough range of success~failure that may not be to your taste being so small.

I think if D&D survives to the year 3011 for Qubert Farnsworth et all to play, we are likely looking at D&D 148.0, giving editions roll out about every 7 years now, and we are likely to see 5th edition in some form by the end of this year...143+5=148

 

[Raven Crowking]

Sorry about the partial cross-post.

I do not want to see 5e any time soon. IMHO, if WotC's management is wise, they will avoid 5e for another 2-3 years at least.

With all of these doom-n-gloom threads out right now, I hope that WotC pulls itself together, dusts itself off, and revitalizes itself by producing more interesting adventure material.

And dropping the Delve format. The Delve format reduces the value of their offerings, to me at least, by a significant degree. The Delve format reinforces a lot of the negative opinions/arguments re: 4e IMHO. Please, WotC, please drop it!

Let's return to the Forbidden City with a poster-sized, detailed map! I would gladly pay for a boxed set, if the overview maps were well designed, and not scaled to minis. You can include tiles for combat if you like, but the overview should be beautiful and useful as an overview! I am certain that I am not alone in finding this idea exciting.

Rules may be more profitable, but well-written adventures and setting keep people interested in the game.

And, you know what? You can sell good adventures to people who don't use your system. People are playing 4e with Pathfinder adventures; people are playing Pathfinder with 4e adventures.

(And, I hope, the obvious argument about making earlier edition adventures available again here is...obvious. Not only to generate goodwill, but because "Return to X" means so much more when X is available to compare it to!)

If the adventures are kick-ass, and make good use of the ruleset, they can also make those same folks interested in the rules that inspired said kick-ass adventures.

Remember those people I mentioned, using Pathfinder adventures in 4e? They can also make those same folks interested in the rules that inspired said kick-ass adventures. It is always easier to run an adventure in the system it was written for. Kick-ass adventures imply kick-ass a system. If you aren't producing excellent adventures, and your competition is, that has to hurt your bottom line.

For what it's worth, IMHO, a good adventure is not a story or a series of encounters. It is a setting or a situation that naturally spawns good stories and encounters. If the encounter must occur as the designer envisions it, well, it leaves the GM in a hard position. Does the GM constrain player action so as to perseve the encounters as written, or does the GM rewrite the encounters on the fly?

(1) Emphasis on minis (and hence on using the battle maps as drawn), and (2) the Delve Format itself, encourages the GM to constrain player action. This is bad for the game, and bad for the adventure you are trying to sell. You can't do much about (1) without rewriting the rules (and, as I said, I think that is a bad idea), but you can do something about (2).

Please.



RC