D&D 5E L&L D&D Next Goals, Part Two

[Klaus]

Hm, an interesting prospect - it limits your maximum, but it get's tricky when you know the DC of something you're trying to do (if rolling a check is still involved). This isn't solved by a flat bonus really either though. I *still* want to see their original skill mastery idea (roll no lower than X) incorporated into the core skill system - that way, when you improve a skill, you can't massively screw it up and you might get a better result than someone who hasn't improved the skill (your bonus constrained by flat math). Then, for a skill trick, I would say that you can't use the mastery aspect - you might roll terribly, but you still get your bonus to try it.

While it may seem tricky when the DC isn't too hard, it opens the door for overall awesomeness in high-level play. For instance, let's say you have a skill trick that lets you climb a wall at double speed if you reduce your skill die by two steps. A high-level character won't try it while climbing a glacier wall, but he will zip up trees routinely.

And here's another idea for an optional rule (inspired by Dragon Fist):

Turn ability score modifiers into dice. +1 is still +1. +2 is +1d4. +3 is +1d6. +4 = 1d8 and +5 = 1d10. This way, a skill check becomes 1d20 + 1dx + 1dx, thus creating an actual bell curve.

 

[jrowland]

I like what the article says, it confirms how I interpreted his previous comments and articles and shows the DDN is moving in a clear design direction.

Playtest packets are a mix of basic/expert/advanced rules and they really must be so. A linear approach would only lead yto a lot of backtracking since the 3 "versions" are meant to to be compatible.

This thread talks about skill die a bit, so lets use that as an example. If Skill die are included as an advanced rule, they have to be able to collapse down into an expert and basic version as well as the basic version of skill use has to be able to expand out to expert and advanced.

Simply removing skill die takes care of the basic version, but what if you have a mostly "advanced" game with a new player who brings a "basic" fighter? They are overwhelmed by the expert version and so truly want to play the basic version. Rather than force Skill die on them, how do you make them viable in a party that uses them? Simply "dropping" skill die for that character is not viable...they will likely fail more often.

This is why the playtest can seem bipolar (tripolar?) at times..its trying to find systems that can be expanded and collapsed, balance them, make sure they are "fun" and not strictly mechanical, etc.
Like Mearls said, skill die are far from ready for prime time, and in the discussions of skill die, we should endeavor to include them as long as they are on the table, but do so in such a way that is inclusive.

If you think a static bonus is better than a skill die, fine. How do we go from static bonus to skill die simply and elegantly, that is the task.

 

[TerraDave]

Both the hangout and article are a relief, as they show the designers know the danger of too much fiddle-faddle. The focus on basic/core and the planned revisions to martial damage are both anti-fiddle-faddle.

Down with fiddle-faddle!

 

[Kobold Avenger]

This article has reiterated to me why Basic was never going to be something I wanted, it's fine for some boardgame-like set. But playing a long-term campaign with lots of role-playing and story is something that clearly falls within Standard to Advanced rules.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Down with fiddle-faddle!

YES! DOWN WITH FIDDLE FADDLE!!!

GO CRUNCH 'N MUNCH, OR GO HOME!!!

 

[DEFCON 1]

This article has reiterated to me why Basic was never going to be something I wanted, it's fine for some boardgame-like set.

Anyone else find this amusing? The version of Next meant to emulate the original roleplaying game is claimed to be the "boardgame-like" one?

I've heard a lot of stuff about Original D&D... but "It's like a boardgame!" ain't one of them.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I am seriously concerned about people who want an advanced dnd but don´t want others to have a basic version with lesser choices.

I guess, we are testing parts of core, parts of advanced, parts of basic dnd. I would not consider it crippled.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I never cared about the original D&D, when I started, it already had the word "Advanced" in front of the name.

 

[fjw70]

I am seriously concerned about people who want an advanced dnd but don´t want others to have a basic version with lesser choices.

Nothing to be concerned about. Mike understands the need for the basic game. A few internet complainers won't change that.

 

[TerraDave]

YES! DOWN WITH FIDDLE FADDLE!!!

GO CRUNCH 'N MUNCH, OR GO HOME!!!

Actually, I always liked