D&D 5E L&L December 16th Can you feel it?

[Majoru Oakheart]

The thief was originally a third tier combat class behind the fighter and cleric. Every edition, the class has climbed higher up the combat heirarchy until it reached ninja status in 4E. Roles became so reversed that the fighter became the distraction, the pile of meat for things to pound on, while the ninja rogue cut it to pieces. Why does it make sense that a person who sneaks and steals as a specialty knows better where and how to strike than a dedicated warrior? Might as well just make the rogue a warrior class because as it stands, the fighter is just a grunt soldier and the rogue is a special ops expert.

I've posted this before, but during our games NO one wanted to be a Thief in 2e. 3/4 of the game was fighting and they were so poor at it as to be useless. Everyone else could contribute relatively equally when the fighting started(except maybe Bards, but no one wanted to play them for the same reason). Thieves were needed for dungeons, so we always had one...but they were always multiclassed so they didn't have to roleplay hiding under a table for an hour long battle(normally while they wandered into the other room to play SNES games).

The idea was supposed to be that Rogues were also cutthroats, swashbucklers, assassins, dirty fighters, etc. A fighter looks for any opening in their opponents defenses and strikes there in order to land any blow they can. A rogue sneaks up behind the enemy while they are looking elsewhere and slits their throat. It might take a fighter a couple of hits to defeat an enemy because his attacks only manage to hit arms, small cuts in torsos, shoulders, etc...because their enemy is guarding all of their vital organs with their own defenses. A rogue doesn't fight fair. He tosses powder in people's eyes and when they drop their defenses sticks them in the kidney killing them in one blow.

In movies, you see the differences in the archetypes. A fighter shoots a bow at someone and hits them in the shoulder, arm, and middle of the torso with 3 different arrows in rapid succession. A rogue type character aims and throws a dagger directly into someone's throat, killing them immediately.

Essentially, they are both "fighters" in the same way that so are Rangers(fighters who use bows, two-weapons and know how to track), Barbarians(fighters who get angry and come from primitive societies), Paladins(Fighters we also worship gods), and a host of lesser classes who also fill the description of "fighter" from 3e and 4e.

The key is, every class needs to be valuable in every fight. Making any class that is "bad at fighting" or "bad at fighting multiple common classes of creatures" is not good design. These people would not be going on the types of adventures that D&D is about at all. Because they'd die...or would have no desire to ever go on them.

If you begin with the assumption that all D&D adventurers are heroes (or want to be heroes) in the first place, then you are bound to run into problems. When playing a game you win some you lose some. The concept of playing a game in which there can be no loss (or dissappointment) is baffling. Just say "You are the heroes, you win" and call it a day.

I've started with this assumption in every game I've ever played in or ran since I started playing 20 years ago. Haven't ran into any problems with it yet. We've ran into problems a couple of times when players decided to purposefully create characters who were not heroes and did not want to be heroes. Those characters either died quickly or bored the players so much that they rolled up new characters and we moved on with the game.

You can't just say "You are the heroes, you win". In the same way that when you sit down to watch Lord of the Rings, you KNOW that they are going to defeat Sauron because it likely wouldn't be a great story if Sauron won and all the characters were enslaved or killed. You however, don't know HOW they will win. You don't get to see the plot twists as they happen. You know that when their friend secretly turns out to be working for the enemy that they'll manage to defeat their turncoat friend in battle and win the day. But it's not nearly as interesting as being there for the reveal of the secret.

When I ran the boxed set of the Rod of Seven Parts, it went without saying that the PCs would find all 7 parts of the Rod. That was the point of the adventure and there was only 2 ways it could go: They'd find all the parts or they wouldn't. If they didn't find the parts, the adventure was over and we'd stop playing. Since no one wanted to stop playing, we knew the other option was guaranteed. It was just a matter of how and when. They also liked discovering what they were searching for, where the pieces were located, and why they needed them during the game.

Basically, many people play for the How, When, Where, What, and Why. They want questions answered and had fun traveling the path to get to the end.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

If a THIEF player is sleeping until there is a combat you have bigger problems than damage output.

Well, it was a 3e adventure and we had a Wizard with 1 level of Rogue in the same party. His Search skill was better because of a higher Int score, so he had a better chance to find trap than said Rogue. Also, there was only 2 traps in the entire dungeon. It was a dungeon based adventure. We passed all the traps at the beginning of the adventure to get into the dungeon in the first place. After that, it was a series of rooms filled with creatures who were guarding a powerful magic item at the end. The dungeon had been sealed for hundreds of years.

So, the only things contained in the dungeon were undead, oozes, constructs, and summoned elementals. By the end of battle number 2 out of 4, our Rogue just didn't feel like playing anymore because it would literally take him 10-15 rounds of combat to defeat just one of the 5 or 6 monsters who would attack us in each combat, while the Fighter and Wizard were taking a creature out every round or every second round. Given the adventure was entirely combat, it seemed pointless to be awake.

I can't really disagree.

 

[Dausuul]

Do you have examples of actually interesting exploration? Even in 2e, I never found it much fun. I'm too young to have played 1e.

It wasn't any better in 1E.

Exploration can be made fun, but it's hard, because you have neither an active antagonist nor any support from the rules to help you keep the players challenged and engaged. Without those, there is a tendency for players to quickly settle into a routine: Announce everything you can think of to poke with sticks, knock on, listen to, examine with a magnifying glass, peer behind, and cast divination spells on. Roll a whole bunch of d20s. Then move a bit and do it again. In most cases, you are punished for not being exhaustive enough in listing off things to poke/knock/listen to/examine/peer behind/divine, but there is no penalty for being too exhaustive, so the incentive is to throw dice at the exploration scenario until you knock loose all the traps and treasure.

An additional problem is that in many cases, failure at the exploration scenario brings the adventure to a halt. DMs who don't think to plan for this often end up being ridiculously lenient, allowing players to try everything under the sun, because the alternative is no game. Result: No chance of failure, which means no tension.

IMO, most good exploration scenarios add an element of time pressure and provide for failure. When you don't have time to try everything, you have to set priorities and make decisions, which is what makes the game exciting. If you've only got five minutes before the next shift of guards comes on duty, and a search takes one minute, what are you going to search? You only get five chances, better make them count! If you make good decisions, you either find what you're after or find a clue that will help you in subsequent checks. If you make bad decisions, you'll have to pull out and try something else.

But building a whole adventure around scenarios like this is difficult to say the least. In my experience, combat and social encounters make up the bulk of most adventures.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Except they're really not. You really can't equate the versatility of spells with the Rogue's single option - that's like equating a PC to a fork, because they each only do one thing (it's just that the PC's one thing is "run software").

That's only because we are defining Sneak Attack so narrowly. If we instead define it as "a particular combat style that involves capitalizing on weak points, distractions, and fighting dirty" then it simply isn't any more narrow than a fighter's shtick.

The problem is, and this is what the article says almost precisely, that when you define Sneak Attack as hitting things in vital organs, then you have problems with "How do you reach the vital organs of Giants?", "Do Oozes have vital organs?", and so on.

If you define it that narrowly then it's not a good idea for you to base an entire class around it. So, simply don't define it that narrowly and the issue goes away.

If we are using your analogy, instead of equating PCs to a fork, equate it to a kitchen. Sneak Attack, although it only does "one thing"(doing damage), if it is defined as "the ability to know the best way to harm every monster" it becomes much like combining all the Wizard's combat spells together into one class feature where the player doesn't even have to choose the best option, it is chosen for them.

 

[ExploderWizard]

You can't just say "You are the heroes, you win". In the same way that when you sit down to watch Lord of the Rings, you KNOW that they are going to defeat Sauron because it likely wouldn't be a great story if Sauron won and all the characters were enslaved or killed. You however, don't know HOW they will win. You don't get to see the plot twists as they happen. You know that when their friend secretly turns out to be working for the enemy that they'll manage to defeat their turncoat friend in battle and win the day. But it's not nearly as interesting as being there for the reveal of the secret.

I don't game to discover the twists and turns that lead to inevitable victory. I game to play. Seeing if I win or lose is kind of the point of the game. I can understand that others want to play differently but if the mechanics of the game support inevitable victory as a standard then those of use who seek a more objective game will look elsewhere.

 

[steeldragons]

I don't game to discover the twists and turns that lead to inevitable victory. I game to play. Seeing if I win or lose is kind of the point of the game. I can understand that others want to play differently but if the mechanics of the game support inevitable victory as a standard then those of use who seek a more objective game will look elsewhere.

This bares repeating [I can't XP you again. STOP MAKING SENSE, Exploderwizard. Someone cover for me please.]...and is true, I think, of a good amount of people...I won't go so far as to say "most", anymore/today's day and age [and gamers], but definitely a lot of us.

D&D might just be on a course to lose us...Let us go to the OSR...there's plenty of material out there. D&D is, now, an option...not the game.

That might suit lots of folks just fine...but, I suspect (and it is only suspicion) that D&D [the brand/business] wants our money.

 

[TwoSix]

It wasn't any better in 1E.<snip>

But building a whole adventure around scenarios like this is difficult to say the least. In my experience, combat and social encounters make up the bulk of most adventures.

Okay, good to know I'm not crazy, that's most of what my games look like too.

 

[Morrus]

I suspect (and it is only suspicion) that D&D [the brand/business] wants our money.

I promise you that Hasbro wants your money. No suspicion required!

 

[TwoSix]

I don't game to discover the twists and turns that lead to inevitable victory. I game to play. Seeing if I win or lose is kind of the point of the game. I can understand that others want to play differently but if the mechanics of the game support inevitable victory as a standard then those of use who seek a more objective game will look elsewhere.

I guess I just don't understand this. How do you win/lose in a cooperative game? Is surviving winning? Is the goal to see how high of a level you can get before you die?

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Can someone elucidate for me please...and where/why anyone would have a problem with this "feel" for D&D? [EDIT] Or believe this is somehow a different/"better"/new/purposely designed "feel" for D&D? Or the backstab thing...or the other examples he presents/points he's trying to make. I'm just not getting it. [/EDIT]

Let me summarize:

1. They've decided that the "feel" of D&D consists of you making the same decision making process as your character. Your character decides whether Sleep, Charm Person, or Magic Missile is a better option to prepare today. So do you. Your character decides to wear heavier armor in exchange for less mobility, so do you. The implication here is that this is in contrast to some other games that use narrative mechanics(like 4e) where some of the thought process is different for the player than it is for the character(like deciding if this is a good round to use an Encounter power as a fighter).

2. People are looking for different things from their gaming experience. Some players come into the game after having never played D&D before and only watched Fantasy movies or read fantasy books. The wizards in these stories often cast spells quite differently from D&D wizards. So, his first point was that in order to make D&D Next "feel" like D&D, they might have to alienate some people who are expecting magic to work some other way(the implication being that in order to make magic work like it does in Fantasy stories, you'd have to use some sort of mechanic that would require you to use a different decision making process than your characters does...something like 4e). But they'll consider alternate methods of making these people happy.

3. As part of this, they want you to make decisions at the same speed as your character. A character has 2 seconds to decide what attack to use against the monster. The rules should be fast enough that you can make the same decision in the same amount of time. It shouldn't take minutes to resolve a single attack because that attack only takes seconds in game. However, if a mechanic is supposed to simulate something that might take months to do in game, it can be more complicated and take more time to resolve.

4. The things described in the game should make sense with the mechanics that go with it. Plate armor protects more than Leather armor. Giants are stronger than orcs. Mechanics shouldn't become so abstract that they become disconnected from what is happening in the game world. Neither should they become so detailed and realistic that they cause problems like the game slowing down or getting bogged down in unimportant details. The example given is Rogue's Sneak attack. Define it in too much detail and you need to worry about whether it works on undead or whether you can use it if a creature is really tall. If you leave the ability more abstract, it just works on everything without worrying about the details of how it works. He says this balance is very complicated and hard to find.