D&D 5E Legends and Lore October 22nd

[Ratskinner]

Somewhat orthogonal to your rumination on published adventures but the general premise is in-line with something I've been thinking on (regarding PC Build Resource Inflation and the "arms-race" implications therein).

With respect to (i) 3e (including the multi-class rules and Prestige Classes) <snippage>

Boy, that is an awful lot of power for a single class feature and an awful lot of room for intra-feature power imbalance (especially if they decide against augmenting specialties and using this formula for other powerful features...features that don't count as another space-occupying creature).

I tend to agree. The only other solutions available (I think) are to "stretch" all that extra stuff out over more levels...which folks seem loath to do, or to drop companion critters altogether...which folks are even more loath to do. I suppose that they could theoretically duck Narrative, and do something like FATE or BW, but those types of games are generally "not D&D" and lack the space for all the fiddly bits necessary for producing good splat.

Due to the feedback loop of adjusting one aspect of PC build resources and how that affects PC output versus expected monster output versus total encounter output, the quality control effort will need to be extraordinary (for what effectively seems to be a small business - a small franchise of a large corporation that must make a case for its earning potential and legitimize its expense ratios to its shareholders). Bounded accuracy will help them a bit (as they will not have to deal with the 2nd and 3rd order functions of to-hit percentages) but there are so many variables beyond "to-hit" that I'm hesitant to hope for each system (core and the various customized iterations)...especially without group ii having to fiddle with the default assumptions of monsters and/or the encounter formula.

I agree here as well....its one of those nagging bits that floats in the back of my mind. Such an effort is very costly. Costly at a a level that only initial sales of a new edition can support. I keep thinking this is the "farewell" edition and it will be shelved after some initial rather small run of product. Putting out a game that is modular, well-balanced, and customizable to playstyle as well as with a zillion fiddly bits is literally not worth the effort, I fear. Who knows, maybe they'll get the electronic stuff working well this time

.....what? It could happen!?

 

[Manbearcat]

Who knows, maybe they'll get the electronic stuff working well this time

.....what? It could happen!?

A certain John Lennon song comes to mind

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], I could XP Ratskinner but not you. I like your analysis in post 40.

 

[pemerton]

I would like the ranger to be hyper aware of his/her environment. He should be able to hear a troop of orcs from leagues away by putting his ear to the ground. He should be able to predict next week's weather by sniffing the wind. He should be able to guess the direction of the bandit camp by listening for a discordant note in a bird song. He should be able to follow tracks while blindfolded, using nothing more than a spare stick as a guide cane.

In short, his presence in the party should be a game changer

I don't understand what is game-changing in what you describe.

Predicting next week's weather rarely seems that important to me in D&D play. And the other abilities you mention - detecting distant troops of orcs, or tracking foes and spotting camps - seem like the typical fodder of divination spells, fly spells (for spotting distant armies and camps) or even pet falcons in conjunction with speak with animals (for doing the same).

 

[dd.stevenson]

I don't understand what is game-changing in what you describe.

Predicting next week's weather rarely seems that important to me in D&D play. And the other abilities you mention - detecting distant troops of orcs, or tracking foes and spotting camps - seem like the typical fodder of divination spells, fly spells (for spotting distant armies and camps) or even pet falcons in conjunction with speak with animals (for doing the same).

But fly spells and divination spells are game changing--in the sense that the game changes when characters get these abilities. I don't mean to imply that the nature of D&D would change because of these ideas.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Manbearcat , I could XP Ratskinner but not you. I like your analysis in post 40.

Thanks. Any thoughts on this bit here specifically?

What if they have to buff Specialties and/or Backgrounds (or create a 5th portion of character creation through module - eg; 4e thematic/role powers) in order to make this happen (while still working from the premise that group ii will be playing the default core against default monster and encounter output/difficulty)?

<snip>

This is where things get tricky and the designers walk a difficult path. Wanting to maintain a non-complex core (and have it relatively balanced versus a default monster/challenge iteration) and then have layers of complexity (and inevitable potency) added on, balanced against a second iteration of monsters or a different encounter formula is a lofty proposition. Further, it will have odd implications for the implied setting in that, effectively, group i and ii may very likely be playing a bit of a different game on a tier by tier basis. That hasn't really happened in the past as there has been decent symmetry within the implied settings of the editions despite their mechanical differences; eg - goblins/kobolds/skeletons/zombies > orcs/gnolls/hobgoblins/specters/wights > ogres/ghouls/wraiths > giants/vampires > mind-flayers/beholders/death knights > liches/dragons. Does group i forgo fighting goblins, kobolds, skeletons, and wraiths? Do they just fight many of them (as Bounded Accuracy allows for this)? Do they add a template or passive buff to all creatures?

Which of the below do you consider the most likely focus of "expanded play" design? Do you see our groups' (who, assuming they do it correctly and truly, will have expanded breadth and potency of deployable resources) gameplay being resolved by:

- Skipping a tier to higher tiered monsters to meet a new encounter budget?
- Adding more of the same monsters to meet a new encounter budget?
- Using a highly QCed template (and thus re-balanced against the thematic/tactical PC power module) that is embedded in all monsters/hazards blocks (for thematic, tactical powers of their own) and thus maintaining the same encounter budget as the core group?

 

[howandwhy99]

The "Keep Options Open" concept is appreciated. I would say you are heading in the right direction by providing multiple broad spectra of definition within classes. This lays the groundwork without defining builds. It more defines what the class is good at and what it's not so good at and then lets the player be flexible in defining both more thoroughly for each and every character. A kind of fleshing out of idiosyncrasies. I feel this is better than the the feat trees or power branching feat approach, which promotes extensive predetermination and tends to lock players in to a narrow path that can carry over into play. It's also better than the blank approach, which doesn't define a class so much as leave to be anything via simple ability or power accumulation without predetermined definitions of what any class even is. The latter really helps comprehension when running into said classes (or monsters or whatever other generalized categories our game terms define).

The companion category is a solid idea. The only area that might tee off some folks is the Paladin's warhorse (or whatever they decide for as a mount). However, after some iterations of this ability I certainly don't have a problem with keeping it optionally modular.

The at will abilities in older D&D weren't infinite as they might appear by some standards today. They were limited under fatigue rules. Warlock Favors act like spell slots do, but minor effects (in every casting class) do not. Like anything, not just swinging a sword, fatigue might be a limiting factor for play space dealing with longer term actions, basically those outside rounds. Strumming and/or singing do eventually take their tole and getting a song just right might be a rationale for limited per rest mechanics for a song and music caster. What might work to make the class interesting in its own specific way is include diminishing effects for Bardic magical effects depending on how many times it has been done. Perhaps a roll is required after 3+CON mod in a day or something?

 

[pemerton]

But fly spells and divination spells are game changing--in the sense that the game changes when characters get these abilities.

Maybe.

It seems to me to depend a lot on how the game is being run and played.

For example - why would the ranger stick his/her ear to the ground to listen out for orcs, or why would the wizard send his/her falcon familiar into the sky to look for orcs?

If the GM has already forshadowed orcs, then presumably the PCs are likely to meet them in due course in any event. Until I've got a clear sense of what difference to scene framing and/or resolution is made by getting advance warning, I'm not sure how big a deal the ranger's ability is. I mean, the game-changing character of flight is normally understood as pertaining to avoidance of physical obstacles - which your ranger can't do. And the game-changing character of diviniation is normally understood as pertaining to the dissolution of mysteries - which I don't think your ranger is doing (the presence of an army of orcs leagues away seems more like a threat than a mystery).

Or, to go to your tracking or bandit lair examples. In 4e, discovering the bandit lair or finding the person at the other end of those tracks might often be resolved as a skill challenge. The ranger might contribute to that challenge using Nature and Perception skills, while the bard might contribute using Streetwise (to ask people) and Insight (to interpret the significance of what they say), or the Fighter using Endurance (to keep searching) and Athletics (to climb trees, cliffs, spires etc and look around). There is no doubt that these different approaches change the colour of the unfolding action, and that is important to the particular complications that will ensue as the skill challenge is resolved. But none of these skill sets is a "game changer" - the resolution framework doesn't change, and as far as I can see none leads to a radically different or strikingly unique set of complications and subsequent actions in resolution.

For me, your suggestions do a pretty reasonable job of capturing the ranger's particular contribution to the exploration pillar, but don't really go beyond that.

 

[pemerton]

Which of the below do you consider the most likely focus of "expanded play" design?

<snip>

- Skipping a tier to higher tiered monsters to meet a new encounter budget?
- Adding more of the same monsters to meet a new encounter budget?
- Using a highly QCed template (and thus re-balanced against the thematic/tactical PC power module) that is embedded in all monsters/hazards blocks (for thematic, tactical powers of their own) and thus maintaining the same encounter budget as the core group?

I think (i) doesn't work, because as you pointed out, it means that some groups miss out on part of the "D&D story" (eg they start with bugbears rather than rats and kobolds).

I think (iii) would be hugely challenging (as is implicit in your reference to a highly QCed template!)

I therefore think (ii) is the simplest option for combat - particularly given that (as you say) bounded accuracy means that this sort of thing is being contemplated anyway, and (hopefully) will be supported by the final design.

Part of the puzzle here is envisaging what exactly they have in mind for "super specialities". For example, if these work not by just piling on mechanical effectivness, but by somehow increasing the granularity of the mechanical capabilities that are already there (I don't really have any clear idea of what this would look like - for me, at the moment, I'm just putting forward an abstract description) then your option (iii) becomes more viable, because the "template" could simply involve putting monsters through the same "granulator" - though this might give rise to other headaches, because 3E has shown that granularity on the monster build side can be a huge headached for the GM.

Out of combat, I think that the use of backgrounds and other optional features to build up capacity in the other two pillars can perhaps be accomodated as the default in whatever resolution mechanic WotC develops. Because, as I think you suggest, the "old schoolers" who don't want that degree of elaboration in their PCs presumably won't want the mechanic either. So probably fewer headaches here than with respect to combat.

 

[dd.stevenson]

Maybe.

It seems to me to depend a lot on how the game is being run and played.

Point well taken. For the playstyle you cited, my suggestions would not make a big difference.

For me, your suggestions do a pretty reasonable job of capturing the ranger's particular contribution to the exploration pillar, but don't really go beyond that.

Without a doubt my ideas were confined to the exploration pillar.