Legends & Lore 16 Jan 2012

[Hassassin]

I think any difference that escalates over levels are bad. That'sthe 3E problem with skills, BAB and Saves all over again. We want to use the d20, we have to take into account how well modifiers and DCs scale with them.

But I like level-dependent divergence.

I like characters of different classes to grow supremely skilled at their thing, leaving their comrades far behind. The "scaling skill DC's" are a problem specific to 4e.

(I don't like how defenses scale in 3e, though.)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Mind the concept of level-dependent DCs in 4e. You probably don't like it because of its gameist nature, but it's there.

The level dependent DCs are not a necessity and not even desirable, I think. The tables were useful to define "appropriate" challenges for a given level, but they were not there for "simulation". It's not like Goblins turn into Giants when you grow in level. It's just that you now fight Giants instead of Goblins, and Giants are harder enemies. A 4E failure was to not describe this concept well. Maybe the designers themselves weren't clear themselves - or they thought it was self-evident, which it wasn't to many. This is one of the hope that I think 5E will get better. Explain more of the "behind the scenes" meanings. (One of my favorite parts of the 3E DMG where those "Behind the Scenes" bars.)

But I like level-dependent divergence.

I like characters of different classes to grow supremely skilled at their thing, leaving their comrades far behind. The "scaling skill DC's" are a problem specific to 4e.

(I don't like how defenses scale in 3e, though.)

Well, I don't think level-dependet divergence is desirable. I also think it doesn't really model most fantasy well.

Merry and Pippin become competent Fighters in LotR. They never get as good as Gimli or Aragon or Legolas - but they are more coming into their own and can handle themselves well. And, well, Gandalf, whatever he is, he was a competent fighter as well and it didn't seem that when he returned as Gandalf the White, his ability to fight seemed even weaker compared to Aragon or Gimli than before.

 

[Hassassin]

Well, I don't think level-dependet divergence is desirable. I also think it doesn't really model most fantasy well.

Merry and Pippin become competent Fighters in LotR. They never get as good as Gimli or Aragon or Legolas - but they are more coming into their own and can handle themselves well. And, well, Gandalf, whatever he is, he was a competent fighter as well and it didn't seem that when he returned as Gandalf the White, his ability to fight seemed even weaker compared to Aragon or Gimli than before.

I don't want to get into an argument about statting LotR characters, but I don't think many would argue they started at the same level. So this is orthogonal to what I was talking about and something actually 3.5 models quite well: throw 1st level characters into a party of 5th to 10th level ones and they'll be 3rd level before anyone else gets a level (assuming they survive).

 

[thedmstrikes]

I would like to comment on the recent discussion of the abilities of the one should be as good as the abilities of the group. I have noticed that for the most part the discussion seems to be centered around 3/4/new edition, but I would like to draw your attention to the original versions. In those versions, character design was limited based on the fact that the game is designed as a group game, not a singleton game. To state the point plainly, the group wins as a whole or loses as a whole (whith obvious exceptions such as single character deaths). The design feature was that a group of PCs with divergent skills would pool their resources to overcome their obstacles. The fact that one PC was not good at everything, or even moderately competant at all things, was part of the design. That is how the group dynamic worked. It was never designed around one PC being good at everyhting and all the others where there to assist his/her triumphs/tragedies. They are all equal partners striving to overcome the puzzles in their path to glory. With the newer version, it is still the same dynamic, just with more options. What a lot of groups fail to do during their character generation is work together beyond the who is what class decisions. If they do, then each character would be the "expert" in whatever skill set they keep up and the others would assist them in their "chance to shine". Does this lead to some characters spending time not being able to contribute much to some situations, of course. That will always happen with a group designed around compensating for each others weaknesses with their own strengths. When groups design characters around essential adventuring skill sets as an individual, they often choose the same skill sets and leave others untouched so that no one can contribute significantly in some situations. This is something I have witnessed with a growing increase of occurance with new groups (I move alot so I get new groups frequently).

I am not here to flame anyone's ideas, just offering differential points of view that may overlooked.

 

[BryonD]

Did you like or dislike saves and BAB increasing with level in 3E?

Increasing with level and increasing at a uniform pace at everything for everyone are two different things.

And if you dig deep enough you will find somewhere a post from me advocating that wizards, for example, should gain either NO progress or a much slower (1/3 or 1/5) progress in their BAB.

1/2 for wizards vs. 1/1 for fighters is acceptable to me.
1/3 vs. 1/1 would be an improvement.

1/2 across the board is not value added for anything I seek.

I think it's just an extension of that. Maybe you would prefer if Reflex Saves were also a skill.

I'm not opposed to it, but I see no need for it either.

I believe you could only create a reasonable system for having "skill points and skills for everything" if you also have a mechanic that defines how you gain skills by using them, or explicitely training them.

There are some systems that do a reasonable job of that. But I completely disagree that it is needed.

Any way you slice it, I've got a decade now of showing that the 3E skill system works more than well enough for what I want.

If you don't have all that...

1) For "believable" advancement, they need to track skills used on their own to argue that certain skills should be improved. (And if they didn't want "believable" advancement, why not go with the +1/2 levels anyway).

Because a system that doesn't get hung up on the strict justification for WHY a skill improved is a completely unrelated to the idea that everyone shouldn't progress at everything at one uniform pace.

You seem to be making up complaints I didn't make and attempting to refute those rather than addressing the point I did make.

2) Players have to manage a lot more minitua as they have to remember all skills they may find important. I often find this problematic in games with extensive skill lists, as you have to check manually whether there is a skill you may need to actually describe your character's vision and advancement correctly.

Again, in over 10 years of playing 3E I most certainly DO NOT find this infrequently problematic. Much less "often". Why are our experiences so sharply different?

3) Also, another risk is that with a too detailed skill list, you can't even create characters with "reasonable competence" in skills that you expect them to have. If your resources for improving skills are limited, you will at some point need to make choices were to invest.
In 4E, you can fare reasonable on an untrained skill since you have ability score mod + 1/2 levels. In 3E, you can have a 5 point difference by 2nd level, and it only grows from there. (And mind you, this is not about making the character that can do everything - but just a character that has a reasonable chance to do some of the stuff you associate with the concept, without being a master at it.)

I'd like to see some improvement in 3E in rounding out character skills. No doubt about that. And this point is a valid upside. However, it is a trivial relevance because sacrificing the quality of the system for important skills to slightly improve the system for secondary skills is far from being a win.

Climb is a perfect example for an adventuring skill. Of course you get better at that from adventuring, because you travel through the wilderness and through dungeons a lot and have to climb stuff occassionally!

You just contradicted the point you made before about why this system was more relevant to non-adventuring skills. That was what I was replying to when I pointed out climb here.

 

[Aldarc]

Hooray! I hit my "called shot."

If you can build the core class package with the advanced options, then that should work in terms of balance. You balance out the options, but the core class gets a pre-set package of options that are pragmatically balanced with the "advanced" options. The "advanced" options are more complex because there are simply more choices you can make in crafting your character. But I'm skeptical of "advanced" meaning "more powerful" options.

Monte Cook: "For example, the basic game fighter might have specific level-bases abilities. Things that every fighter has. If you decide to get more customized, you can swap standard abilities for more complex, optional abilities. These are the kinds of things that feats do now. But the complex stuff is balanced with what's in the core. One character is more complex, but not necessarily more powerful."​

Uncanny.

 

[Nivenus]

Hooray! I hit my "called shot."

Monte Cook: "For example, the basic game fighter might have specific level-bases abilities. Things that every fighter has. If you decide to get more customized, you can swap standard abilities for more complex, optional abilities. These are the kinds of things that feats do now. But the complex stuff is balanced with what's in the core. One character is more complex, but not necessarily more powerful."​

Uncanny.

To be fair, I think this has been the general consensus for a few days now.

Still, we didn't know until now exactly what that meant. There's still a lot of details missing, but we have a much clearer picture than we did before.

 

[Aldarc]

To be fair, I think this has been the general consensus for a few days now.

Still, we didn't know until now exactly what that meant. There's still a lot of details missing, but we have a much clearer picture than we did before.

For a few days now, we thought it would be this way, but I'll nevertheless take my 11 day victory from this post.