D&D 5E L&L for November 24th

[delericho]

If it's simpler to remove fort, ref and will saves, and just use the abilities (which it is), why not just remove saving throws as some separate type of check, and just have them be ability checks? After all, having an ability check and an ability save be different things means you have to keep track of two modifiers instead of just one

Indeed. And having "ability scores", "ability checks", and "ability saves" all be different things is going to cause endless confusion. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised to find that causes more trouble than removing the Fort/Ref/Will categories saves us.

And then there's the question of why they insisted on keeping 1-20 ability score ratings, which is a really dumb sacred cow.

Maybe. But it is a sacred cow, so WotC have to act accordingly.

 

[Minigiant]

Although removing the Fort/Ref/Will line from the sheet make PCs and NPCs easier to create and read, it hurt the math so bad because of the gigantic monster that is the d20. 1d20+2 vs a DC 14 fireball. Good luck nonrogues.


So they were forced to patch it with skill dice and later proficiency....
...which added more numbers. Then they weakened the DCs as well to 8+modifier.

Deletion is a double edged sword in game design.
If you just want to use ability mods, create better ability mods.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Although removing the Fort/Ref/Will line from the sheet make PCs and NPCs easier to create and read, it hurt the math so bad because of the gigantic monster that is the d20. 1d20+2 vs a DC 14 fireball. Good luck nonrogues.

1d20 + 2 against DC 14 gives the defender a 45% chance to succeed on his save. That's a pretty good chance. I doubt most wizards are pleased to see their spells get saved against nearly half of the time.

 

[Minigiant]

1d20 + 2 against DC 14 gives the defender a 45% chance to succeed on his save. That's a pretty good chance. I doubt most wizards are pleased to see their spells get saved against nearly half of the time.

1d20+2 vs DC14 is kind. Throw in the fact that few monsters had Dex high than 12 and most casters do eventually get a bonus to their save. It quickly devolves to 30% success chance for almost everyone.

Then you have "skills" where if you don't give bonuses, the skill system is just pure raw luck.

That's the flaw of simple deletion. Deletion without adjustment leads to bad gaming. Especially when you seek for a simple game. You cant cut stuff out and be surprised that the attack, skill, and save systems are all wonky.

 

[Zaukrie]

Funny, I found the 4e solution very elegant. You attack AC or one of three other numbers. I fail to see the advantage of this system at all.

 

[TwoSix]

1d20+2 vs DC14 is kind. Throw in the fact that few monsters had Dex high than 12 and most casters do eventually get a bonus to their save. It quickly devolves to 30% success chance for almost everyone.

Then you have "skills" where if you don't give bonuses, the skill system is just pure raw luck.

That's the flaw of simple deletion. Deletion without adjustment leads to bad gaming. Especially when you seek for a simple game. You cant cut stuff out and be surprised that the attack, skill, and save systems are all wonky.

I'm not an ardent Next defender or anything, but I'm failing to see the problem caused by a 30% success rate for saves. To my mind, it's only a problem if the spells are too powerful to justify that high of a success rate. I think a D&D that plays well would feature spells that are usually successful, and that those spells aren't too powerful.

 

[Gundark]

Well, I wasn't that impressed by the article, either, but I wouldn't go throwing it as far as I could inside an athletics track...

You'll have to forgive me, English is only my first language

 

[I'm A Banana]

I've often been of the opinion that elegance is overrated. You can design a very elegant game with a coin-flip or a rock-paper-scissors mechanic, but elegance by itself does doodley-squat for making a game fun to play (any more than flipping a coin or rock-paper-scissors is a fun game to play). Were someone to describe a bit of my design as "elegant," I'd feel mildly disappointed, like "Oh. Great, yes, thank you, but...so...what's so great about that?" There's more that I need to find out what works and what doesn't.

Now, D&D has been a game whose inelegance has historically been a problem, so a dose of elegance is a Good Thing when applied to D&D specifically. Elegance may be overrated, but it's got a job to do, and D&D has needed that job done. Every edition of D&D could probably stand to be more elegant than it is.

Removing rules is a good starting point, but I think when applied recklessly, it becomes baby-with-the-bathwater stuff. I really like how big issues shine through by pinging on multiple topics, and how that can point at underlying issues that can be solved.

Both Advantage/Disadvantage, and removing Fort/Ref/Will, are good things for the game (though it's less clear to me that ability saves are the best answer once you've removed F/R/W), so I think they're on the right course here.

 

[DEFCON 1]

You can design a very elegant game with a coin-flip or a rock-paper-scissors mechanic...

Agreed. Which is why all the suggestions of "Well, if you're gonna remove X, why not remove Y, Z, A, & B while you're at it?" are kind of silly. You can remove anything and everything to make it "simpler" or "more comprehensible" or by some definitions "more elegant"... but at some point you end up losing the fun part of the actual game.

The rolling of the dice to generate random results is part of the game. In many ways, it's almost the most important part. So the developer's job is to create the methodology of that which produces not only interesting results, but whose very process is engaging for the players to visualize, do, and describe. That's why "dice pools" became en vogue years ago... because rolling lots of dice all at once and then sorting amongst the good and bad ones added to the enjoyment of the process for many players (who up to that point were probably only rolling one or two dice at a time at most in other RPGs.)

So no... just because you remove X to make things "elegant" does not ipso facto mean that then removing Y, Z, A & B will make things "more elegant". You can and do reach a point of diminishing returns. And thus it's up to the developers to figure out where that point is and not cross it.

 

[Minigiant]

I'm not an ardent Next defender or anything, but I'm failing to see the problem caused by a 30% success rate for saves. To my mind, it's only a problem if the spells are too powerful to justify that high of a success rate. I think a D&D that plays well would feature spells that are usually successful, and that those spells aren't too powerful.

According to my mage playtesters before proficiency was added, that was the problem. The preconcieved desires and personal preferences created a game where everyone failed saving throws against big effects and people in good armor are unhittable.

The desire for a simple game created a weird one due to deletion without replacement. It wasn't design finesse, it was design with a greataxe.