"'Kill it before it grows'...he said 'Kill it before it grows'..."

[ferratus]

I'm generally of the opinion that rolling for PC's is more fun because you get to meet your character. However, it is not fun to have a sub-optimal build in a system where monsters do a certain amount of damage at a certain level.

1e/2e is a lot forgiving of random rolls because bonuses and penalties generally only came into play at extremely high or extremely low rolls. 3e and 4e in contrast made playing with low primary scores for your class almost impossible. However, 2e had the problem that you had to roll exceptionally well before you felt like a hero or were above average in a particular skill.

A lot of the problems I have with random rolls could be solved by questing. If a warrior has sub-optimal strength, let him eat the heart of a dragon to gain courage and power. If a wizard can't understand her next level of spells, have her make a potion from the fluids of an mind flayer elder brain. If a fighter doesn't have the charisma to attract followers at 9th level, let him quest for the legitimacy of a "rod of lordly might".

Just stick a cap at 18 (the peak of mortal human potential) and away you go. I could live with low rolls if I can do something about them, but as an eternal sentence of suckitude, it just sucks.

 

[Felon]

True, but since we're discussing making a D&D that unifies, you have to take into account that there are a lot of people out there with a very particular opinion of what is D&D. Substantial changes, like removing the ability scores, from how D&D has always worked are the ones that have to bear the burden of proof that the changes are definitely better or you end up with some of the same problems 4e has - too different, people seek a game more in tune with their criteria of what D&D is.

D&D 5e will not be a game that unifies. When you have people with, as you say, a very particular opinion of what D&D is, and that way is not concerned with good mechanics or gameplay that anyone else will have fun with, and instead craves returning to old, familiar ways that foist a lot of randomness and arbitrary restrictions down the throats of players, then you're going to get a game that somebody doesn't like. If people are intractible, they will not meet you in the middle.

For instance, it isn't hard to understand why ability scores are kind of superfluous. Games that don't use ability scores exist, and all they need to replace them are essentially things that both 3e and 4e had to offer (i.e. feats and skills). However, no amount of proof will convince somebody who's simply mired in the past.

I also don't think that Kamakaze Midget's notions about making rules more modular is going to remedy the issue. The set-in-the-ways folks will resent that very modularity, and people who want the game to have a cohesive core structure don't want a game that's a giant jigsaw puzzle. I still have an entertainment center I bought last year that I haven't put together. I love character-building options, but as far as rules of gameplay go, I don't want my game to require as much effort as that entertainment center.

In short, you can't please everyone, and even with burdens of proof met, it's going to simply be a matter of some folks willing to make concessions while others refuse. There will no shortage of axes to grind. Ability scores will be in, racial class restrictions are gone for good.

 

[Felon]

The same is true of save-or-die, or myriad other rules elements. If the core element of 5e design philosophy is modularity, there is every reason to expect the design team to embrace that by not assuming you are using any particular rule except in certain contexts (forex, a particular module or campaign setting). That probably can include numerical ability scores.

So, when an adventure gets published, it essentially has to pick which set of modular rules it plays by, and flags itself as being not for all those players who don't use those rules? I think we're going to see folks take issue with that. Big, big issues.

If house rules are the only rules, there's little in the way of absolutes for the game.

House rules have certain limitations. The assumption is that I must be in a position to call my shots, and am in a sufficiently stable gaming environment that the time it takes to unload a bunch of house rules is worthwhile. Having a stable, structured core system is essential to some of us.

 

[billd91]

For instance, it really isn't hard to demonstrate why ability scores are superfluous. Games that don't use ability scores exist, and all they need to replace them are essentially things that both 3e and 4e had to offer. However, no amount of proof will convince somebody who's simply mired in the past.

No amount of proof will probably convince anyone who feels ability scores actually have value either or who believe that's a core part of D&D's identity compared to these other games that don't have ability scores. It's not simply a case of being mired in the past.

 

[Felon]

No amount of proof will probably convince anyone who feels ability scores actually have value either or who believe that's a core part of D&D's identity compared to these other games that don't have ability scores. It's not simply a case of being mired in the past.

It is reasonable to be open to proof. It is reasonable to reject insufficient proof. It is unreasonable to reject proof out-of-hand before it has been presented. All of the proceeding is tautological. If proof is rejected out-of-hand because it's against tradition, then that's coloquially referred to as "stuck in the past" or "set in your ways".

Put a different way, if you feel ability scores continue to have value, then the question is would an alternative that provided the same value even be entertained prior to the decision to reject it?

Where we run into unresolvable conflicts is in the area of human fickleness. On certain topics, there are limits on the rational mind's ability to compromise. They have personal tastes that lie outside of reason. I can't stand wet, slimy onions in my food. When it comes to onions, I'm set in my ways. No doubt when i was a kid I was exposed to them in some fashion, and they came as a nasty surprise. I can sit down at a table and eat a meal someone else has taken the time to prepare, but I'm sure not emjoying each worm-ridden mouthful. Personally, I think of games as being subject to utter rationality and open to endless experimentation. It's part of why I love them. But, others don't and that's where compromise fails and you have to move on with the project.

 

[zoroaster100]

I agree with Vayden. The OP says he doesn't want point buy even as an option. I require it as at least an option, because that is the method I prefer for campaigns I run. If the next edition provides certain things I dislike as options, I can probably live with that, but for example, I could not deal with different experience tables for different classes as the default. I could at most deal with that as an option (which I would never use in my campaign), but the default, if there is a default, has to be same experience table for all characters, for me to be happy.

That is why I'm very skeptical about the way the new edition has been described. It sounds amazing if one edition could truly make everyone happy, but I find it hard to believe one rule set can be so open and flexible it can accomodate so many conflicting tastes. I am willing to look at what they've come up with to see how they hope to accomplish such open ended options without making the game really complex for DMs, requiring DMs to make a million decisions about what rules options to use before the game even starts.

 

[Dausuul]

Well, let's put things in perspective here. There is no way 5E is going to please everybody. That should be obvious. And anyone whose attitude is, "I don't want X even as an option" is unlikely to be pleased by a game whose stated goal is to provide a variety of options.

However, I think those people are a small minority of the fanbase (and I'm not seeing where the OP said he objected to having a point-buy option). Take the Vancian/non-Vancian thing. There are several threads now where the adherents and detractors of Vancian magic are waging all-out war... yet pretty much all of them acknowledge, "As long as there's an arcane caster class that fits my preference, it's fine if there's another one that doesn't."

 

[Roland55]

In the beginning, I didn't like rolling dice for my character. Especially not that original rule -- I only wanted to play a fighter and I couldn't be assured of getting one (well, not a very good one).

Over time, I've learned to enjoy playing just about every class developed. I've even learned how to actually "role play," and thus enjoy the challenge of characters with very average scores ... even sub-average ones.

So finally, I'm content with both ends of this spectrum: rolling die and point buy.

If this is to be an edition for all of us, why not include both ends somewhere in the game?

 

[thedungeondelver]

Well I'll certainly admit to a degree of stridency in my original post, but I will say I want those things to be options - I, unlike some, don't want options to be taken away from people. If they want to enjoy their George W. Bush era RPG elements, then by all means!

I think what people are missing about a 5e is that it's not an opportunity for a Great Purge against the old guard, like every prior edition was. It's an opportunity for everyone who likes D&D to have a modicum of official "support" again.

And I've well spoken on the subject of the lack of import of that support in the past, but now that the great ship WIZARDS OF THE COAST has turned back and we see it sailing towards us, crew with ropes and life preservers in hand, is it wrong to say "I hope they toss a ladder down for me"? Well, I mean, obviously it is to some folks. But overall, it's going to be a good thing.

 

[Mythmere1]

Disagree with you on the first two.

1. There should be multiple options to generate ability scores, just like there has been for most of D&D.

2. XP as a measure of reward should be of equal value to each player regardless of what type of character he or she plays. XP is, after all, a metagame concept. If you want to simulate easier or harder learning for classes, bake that into the level structure, not the XP system, and (for example) give rogue-types more benefit per level relative to wizards.

I'm with you on dumbing down threats. Rust monsters should eat weapons and armor.

1. Agreed, but it would be nice to have the game's functionality built around 3d6 straight (whether generated by points or dice). There's no point to basing it around 3d6 with additional numbers fudged in there. 3d6 has enough of a probability spread to just keep it simple.

2. Interesting idea. As an old schooler, this would work for me. It's NOT what has been done with a same-xp-same-level structure before. Innovative idea.

3. For me, the question's whether save-or-die exists, not whether save-or-inconvenience is in there as well. Tactically, they aren't actually substitutes for each other, they are different tactical problems. Save-or-inconvenience is about being able to keep going until Joe recovers, which is perfectly fine. The problem with save-or-inconvenience is if it becomes complicated enough to create bookkeeping problems that slow things down with lots of die rolls. "Recover in 1d4 rounds" contains enough randomness to work well. A series of seven saving throws over 14 rounds is a PITA. But eliminating save-or-die entirely is the hallmark of a game with over-complex character generation. Although the 1e method of giving those creatures MUCH lower hit dice and the option of saving throw bonuses should also be followed, or the save-or-die mechanism ceases to be a tactical enhancement and starts to be annoying or destructive.

Certain elements of the game should be deadly, or the feeling of accomplishment at success is reduced. Save or die is a variation that adds depth, which is why I'd keep it -- but that's the same reason I wouldn't rule out save-or-inconvenience, either. The goal of the game design should be the largest possible variation in terms of tactical decisions that come from the DM's repertoire (outside the character sheet). The nature of the character sheet complexity is another question entirely that I won't go into here. I think one can get over-complex very easily on that issue.