Legends & Lore: What Worked, What Didn't

[Desdichado]

Hyperbole for hyperbole: yes!

Nice try, but I used his exact example specifically to difuse the mistaken attempt to paint my post as hyperbole.

The reason I ask is because the D&D game hasn't been--for a long time, if indeed it ever was--a game designed to simulate that kind of "dumb luck" event. Just like it isn't meant to simulate a gritty medieval disease-ridden society or whatever either. It's entirely possible that this complaint is rooted in the notion that D&D isn't Rolemaster, or D&D isn't Harn (to paraphrase.) D&D does, on the other hand, do a pretty decent job at meeting its own design goals and simulating its target genre.

To the extent that PCs had to worry about falling off of ladders while doing a routine trip to clean out the rain gutters of the castle, it would actually be considerably worse at emulating its chosen genre.

 

[DMZ2112]

Nice try, but I used his exact example specifically to difuse the mistaken attempt to paint my post as hyperbole.

It isn't really relevant to whom the hyperbole belongs, although it is true that if [MENTION=6701422]Plaguescarred[/MENTION] was not being at least slightly facetious my attitudes on the subject are probably not quite as severe as his.

The things that make heroes heroes have to involve a risk of failure, even for heroes, or they would not be heroic. By extension, the possibility of critical failure exists for the same reason that the possibility of critical success exists -- perspective.

The reason I ask is because the D&D game hasn't been--for a long time, if indeed it ever was--a game designed to simulate that kind of "dumb luck" event.

D&D has never been designed to simulate much. "Pointy end goes in the other man," and that's about it. A Dex check made to climb a wall is what it is, and failure is what it is. I grant you that a ladder should provide such a bonus to that check as to render it virtually impossible to fail, unless the ladder is for some reason actually a living remorhaz. But if there is no ladder, and the wall is treacherous, the Dex check serves. Or does not serve, which I suppose is the point.

 

[The Choice]

1. Two magic missiles per day isn't exactly "commanding the very forces of reality to do his bidding."
2. A 1st level fighter is not supposed to be a "master of all things combat."
3. I don't think I'd want to play a game where you can "reliably trip an enemy."
4. By "mid level" I meant around level 4.

About that 2nd point you make : The 1st edition AD&D player's handbook grants the title
of "Veteran" to 1st level fighters. Their class description in that book is rather anemic (all
of the class descriptions are), but they do make it clear that "[...] Fighters are the strongest
characters in a fight [...]"

The 2nd edition PHB describes them as "[...] a combatant, a weapons expert, and, if they
are intelligent, cunning strategists and tacticians [...]" The expression "master of weapons"
is also used a few times.

So, yeah. They are masters of at least most things combat-related. Also, I expect a master
of at least most things combat related to reliably trip an enemy if that is a tactic s/he favours.

Edit: Note that I am working from a 1988 French printing of the 1st edition AD&D PHB and a French
printing of the 2nd edition PHB from an unknown year, that I had to translate back into English.
Any difference in wording from the original versions can be blamed on me.

 

[GX.Sigma]

About that 2nd point you make : The 1st edition AD&D player's handbook grants the title
of "Veteran" to 1st level fighters. Their class description in that book is rather anemic (all
of the class descriptions are), but they do make it clear that "[...] Fighters are the strongest
characters in a fight [...]"

"Veteran" is not the same as "master" (and level titles aren't an end-all-be-all anyway, since "warrior" comes at 2nd, which sounds like a downgrade from "veteran"). According to the DMG, a "serjeant" is a 1st level fighter, and is described as "the leader of a small body of troops, a non-commissioned officer equivalent." (A lieutenant is 2nd-3rd, and a captain is 5th-8th level).

The 2nd edition PHB describes them as "[...] a combatant, a weapons expert, and, if they are intelligent, cunning strategists and tacticians [...]" The expression "master of weapons"
is also used a few times.

The same book also describes wizard as being able to "vanish in an instant, become a wholly different creature, or even invade the mind of an enemy and take control of his thoughts and actions," which is also not true at 1st level.

 

[Savage Wombat]

You know, fighters would have a better rep if the ability to effectively wield almost every weapon in the entire book proved to be relevant to game play.

 

[Argyle King]

The reason your sarcasm is ridiculous is because a player doesn't have to select spells from the entire spell list at once. And magic items are usually distributed in limited quantities by the GM. But the choice of weapon/power would be virtually unrestricted.

What's being proposed here, as I understand it, is that every halberd, flail and falchion has 2-3 'powers' associated with it. Which means that when a player is rolling up a warrior they are going to have spend ages agonizing over whether a great-axe with powers A & B is better or worse than a battle-axe with powers B & C. Since most martial classes have access to virtually the entire catalog if medieval weaponry from the start of the game, this is going to be a pretty overwhelming up-front choice.

If weapon types had to be 'unlocked' (perhaps with feats) that might be different, but again you are then starting to have a game that doesn't look like traditional D&D to most folks.

2-3 powers for each weapon?

I can't speak for anyone else, but that's not at all what I was expecting. Something as simple as "this weapon's design makes tripping easier; a wielder proficient in its use gets their proficiency bonus to trip attempts."

I understand not wanting to overwhelm people with choices, but I prefer to avoid pointless choices. There are too many examples of feats, spells, powers, and weapons from previous examples which have little to no reason for existing; I'd prefer for 5th Edition to avoid that. As a matter of fact, one of the things I liked most about 4E's cosmology is that it gave some of the redundant D&D creatures a reason to exist by shunting some of them to the Shadowfell and Feywild.

 

[Derren]

All this could be avoided by making the combat system is little bit more complex so that it actually supports different advantages of weapons besides damage die and crit. But oh no, we can't have complexity now, can we? What would the new players think?

 

[Sage Genesis]

Weapon powers might have worked. They just weren't willing to go all the way.

Legends of the Wulin does it, but there are only 8 types of weapons on the list (Sword, Heavy, Spear, Flexible, Ranged, Paired, Unarmed), with the options of buying special proficiency to combine the effects of two types. That certainly is manageable. If the list is as detailed as the D&D list... not so much.

Legends of the Wulin... now there is a name I hadn't expected to see mentioned here.

D&D came very close to replicating something similar as LotW did with some traits, feats, and powers in 4e. All light blades could have one certain trait, all axes another, and so on. And then it's a simple matter of separating the big (greataxe) from the medium (battle axe) and the small (hand axe). If you define enough types and are willing to include a few unique ones like lances and nets, you could go a long way. You'd maybe lose a few minor weapons along the way like the kama, but really who cares? As long as we have the big ones like the longsword and the quarterstaff it's all good.

 

[Primal]

The reason your sarcasm is ridiculous is because a player doesn't have to select spells from the entire spell list at once. And magic items are usually distributed in limited quantities by the GM. But the choice of weapon/power would be virtually unrestricted.

What's being proposed here, as I understand it, is that every halberd, flail and falchion has 2-3 'powers' associated with it. Which means that when a player is rolling up a warrior they are going to have spend ages agonizing over whether a great-axe with powers A & B is better or worse than a battle-axe with powers B & C. Since most martial classes have access to virtually the entire catalog if medieval weaponry from the start of the game, this is going to be a pretty overwhelming up-front choice.

If weapon types had to be 'unlocked' (perhaps with feats) that might be different, but again you are then starting to have a game that doesn't look like traditional D&D to most folks.

Why the h*** would I want another set of 'traditional' D&D? After 25 years I expect the game to be a bit more innovative than a mixture of 2E and 3E, with maybe with a little of salt and pepper on top of it all. Advantage/Disadvantage is probably the most innovative mechanic in Next, and it isn't anything groundbreaking or something we haven't seen in other RPGs (not to mention previous editions or Pathfinder). Frankly said, I expect way more from D&DN to convince me to buy it. If I want to play traditional D&D with simple and streamlined rules, I got my BECMI and AD&D books. Or I could buy an OSR game, some of which feature much more innovative mechanics than Next (for example Whitehack).

What is so complex or bothersome if weapons have 1-3 keywords listed next to them? They could even be listed as "Optional Properties" in the table, or even as a separate rules module. Or maybe they would apply to whole weapon groups, e.g. 'Flails: you get +2 on disarm and trip maneuvers. Heavy flail also has 10 ft. reach'. IMO that isn't even nearly as complex or "paralyzing" to new players as picking their feats or spells. And not as important as a choice as them, either; especially considering that quite a few DMs don't hand out magic weapons according to wish lists or feat choices, at least the ones I've gamed with. So even though you originally wielded a morningstar, you can switch to wielding a halberd or a greatsword later on (especially if we're assuming you haven't burned any feats on your first weapon).

Anyway, that's how I see it...

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

What is so complex or bothersome if weapons have 1-3 keywords listed next to them? They could even be listed as "Optional Properties" in the table, or even as a separate rules module. Or maybe they would apply to whole weapon groups, e.g. 'Flails: you get +2 on disarm and trip maneuvers. Heavy flail also has 10 ft. reach'.

The problem is once you start adding things like this to the game then it often becomes what the game is about.

I found my 3.5e games got bogged down a lot by small modifiers that weren't all that complex. But there were so many of them and they were such a small bonus that they tended to get forgotten on a regular basis. Whenever someone forgets to apply a modifier, however, my players love to point out how much smarter they are to the other players so that was all combat ever became:

Player 1: "I trip the monster. (rolls a 12). That's 20 total."
Player 2: "Wait. I know you have a 16 strength and a 5 BAB, so isn't that 22?"
Player 1: "Plus 3 for strength, plus 5 for BAB. That's 20."
Player 2: "Aren't you using a flail?"
Player 1: "Yeah? So what?"
Player 2: "All flails give +2 to trip attempts."
Player 1: "What? I didn't read that."
Player 2: "Yeah, it's right here. Flails give +2 to all trip attempts."
Player 1: "Hmm, I didn't realize that. Fine, then it's 22."
(Next turn)
Player 1: "I trip him again. (rolls a 10). That's 18 total."
Player 2: (only half paying attention to the roll) "Did you add the flail modifier?"
Player 1: "Crap. I forgot. That's 20 then."
(Next turn)
Player 1: "I trip again. (rolls a 10). That's 20 total."
Player 2: (only half paying attention to the roll) "Remember flail?"
Player 1: "Yes. I rolled a 10, plus 5 BAB, plus 3 strength and 2 from flail."
Player 2: "Ok, ok. I was just making sure since you forgot the last 2 rounds."

Then repeat this process for every modifier in the game....in every round of combat in the game.