Legends & Lore: What Worked, What Didn't
- Thread starter Plaguescarred
- Start date
EnglishLanguage
First Post
One thing I liked about 4e's character builder. All non-circumstantial bonuses were pre-added up and already applied and written down on the character sheet, so you never had to go flipping through 2 or 3 books just to see what your abilities do.
Majoru Oakheart
Adventurer
Great. The problem is: Did you remember to check your character sheet or are you just working off of memory? If you bonus to hit is +8 and you use that +8 on 80% of your rolls are you going to even remember to apply the +2 because this round you are tripping instead of doing a normal attack? Where is the note on your character sheet? Right beside your weapon or on a page of notes on the back? If you put it right beside is it big enough that you'll see it when you check your character sheet? Even if it is, will you remember that when making a trip attempt you need to look at your modifier AND the note below it or will you just check the modifier absentmindedly and gloss right over the note?
Also if there are 4 more notes below that one saying +2 against Orcs, +2 against people wearing red, +2 against Mimes, +2 vs Sandwiches....and you almost never look at any of them because you rarely fight sandwiches, are you going to forget to check that note the day you actually fight sandwiches?
Even if you do remember to apply it, now there's a modifier you MIGHT have forgotten so now the group has to ask if you've forgotten it, just in case, since they want to make sure you are applying every possible benefit. If you get angry at them for reminding you all the time, they'll tell you they were just trying to be helpful and there's no need to yell. Then forget that you yelled at them and start reminding you again next turn.
All this fails to ask the fairly legitimate question: Is it worth all the hassle just to have a +2 bonus to trips?
Advantage and Disadvantage
Advantage and disadvantage obsfucates the many small +'s and -'s. However this is not desirable. For those that want a quicker game it is desirable, but for those that like optimization, it doesn't work. Since there is no stacking or 1 for 1 cancelation, the (dis)advantage mechanic just takes away a lot of the fun stacking and optimization that used to exist. For a simpler game it would be a great optional rule. As a universal rule, it doesn't work.
Weapon Powers
Again if you had kept the simple weapons with no properties as an optional rule and put in the weapon maneuvers that anyone trained in the weapon could attempt, then that would have added a whole lot to the game. As it is though, it severely limits the game. If you want to do something cool with a weapon you have to hope the DM will let you improvise (the improvise thing is totally up to the DM and some DMs will tell you flat out 'no' others will say 'autosuccess' while others will make you roll multiple checks to succeed) or you have to waste one of your 3-5 feats you get over the course of 17 levels (since many will start at 4th instead of 1st) or you have to grab a specific class with a specific feature, as if only certain people can learn these things.
Concentration
This ties into the trend that only casters should be complex. Its also a balance mechanic to keep neo-vancian casters from being too powerful. In 4E because of the spell recovery structure and the way spells were worded casters did not need to be put in check by arbitrary rules like this one. In other words there are other ways to do this. One is to get rid of the neo-vancian casting mechanic. Of course its biased to make casters more complex and keep the complexity out of the non-casters. Instead of making options so non-casters can be complex or not complex while at the same time making options so casters can be complex or not complex. To me this is just a failure to understand the problem.
Auto Success
This feature is one of the only ones that I mostly agree with. Although it could be worded better where if an action has no negative consequence on a failure that 'eventually' they succeed. Only make them roll when rushed or threatened. For instance climbing a ladder under normal circumstances has no real negative impact. The chance of falling off a ladder is very small if you are careful. However if you are being chased by goblins and being shot at with arrows a check to keep from falling off might be in order.
Feedback
The surveys were self selecting. Meaning that as people decided they didn't like what they saw more people left and were replaced by those that liked what they saw. In other words any information you got from the surveys was likely only to be from the portion of your potential customers that your current packet most matched. So what I predict will happen is that on release you'll get about as much support as 4E and 3E and all editions got on release. Then shortly after that (1-2 years) you'll have a huge drop off and be working on the next edition (or your resumes) in a shorter time than 4E.
Advantage and disadvantage obsfucates the many small +'s and -'s. However this is not desirable. For those that want a quicker game it is desirable, but for those that like optimization, it doesn't work. Since there is no stacking or 1 for 1 cancelation, the (dis)advantage mechanic just takes away a lot of the fun stacking and optimization that used to exist. For a simpler game it would be a great optional rule. As a universal rule, it doesn't work.
Weapon Powers
Again if you had kept the simple weapons with no properties as an optional rule and put in the weapon maneuvers that anyone trained in the weapon could attempt, then that would have added a whole lot to the game. As it is though, it severely limits the game. If you want to do something cool with a weapon you have to hope the DM will let you improvise (the improvise thing is totally up to the DM and some DMs will tell you flat out 'no' others will say 'autosuccess' while others will make you roll multiple checks to succeed) or you have to waste one of your 3-5 feats you get over the course of 17 levels (since many will start at 4th instead of 1st) or you have to grab a specific class with a specific feature, as if only certain people can learn these things.
Concentration
This ties into the trend that only casters should be complex. Its also a balance mechanic to keep neo-vancian casters from being too powerful. In 4E because of the spell recovery structure and the way spells were worded casters did not need to be put in check by arbitrary rules like this one. In other words there are other ways to do this. One is to get rid of the neo-vancian casting mechanic. Of course its biased to make casters more complex and keep the complexity out of the non-casters. Instead of making options so non-casters can be complex or not complex while at the same time making options so casters can be complex or not complex. To me this is just a failure to understand the problem.
Auto Success
This feature is one of the only ones that I mostly agree with. Although it could be worded better where if an action has no negative consequence on a failure that 'eventually' they succeed. Only make them roll when rushed or threatened. For instance climbing a ladder under normal circumstances has no real negative impact. The chance of falling off a ladder is very small if you are careful. However if you are being chased by goblins and being shot at with arrows a check to keep from falling off might be in order.
Feedback
The surveys were self selecting. Meaning that as people decided they didn't like what they saw more people left and were replaced by those that liked what they saw. In other words any information you got from the surveys was likely only to be from the portion of your potential customers that your current packet most matched. So what I predict will happen is that on release you'll get about as much support as 4E and 3E and all editions got on release. Then shortly after that (1-2 years) you'll have a huge drop off and be working on the next edition (or your resumes) in a shorter time than 4E.
Obryn
Hero
Compared to juggling and remembering 15 spells out of a much larger spell list?
e: More to the point, why not draw from BECMI/RC's Weapon Mastery? Great way to give swordy guys some neat tricks, simple, and pretty potent to boot?
Last edited:
I'd rather they build the game for everyone.
One way they could do that is to put keywords on the weapons like 4E did.
TRIPPING: Any weapon with the TRIPPING keyword can be used to trip a target that is within 1 size category of the attacker on a successful hit. The target makes a dexterity saving throw against 10 + the attackers attack bonuses. On a failure they are tripped.
That way for the simple game, they just ignore the weapon keywords. For the complex game they don't. Just like alignment. Everything has an alignment listed, but in some games alignment means nothing.
You have to remember for many people D&D is about simulating that partially mentally retarded clutz that just came off the farm picking up a weapon for the first time and managing not to lop their own head off while they fight off monsters that can kill them with a single hit.
I personally play D&D like the players are hero's, a step above the common man. Having shown extreme talent in one area or another that uniquely suits them for a life of adventure.
So the rules should accomodate both groups. Something like "Farm Boy: -3 to all starting stats. Roll to see if you can walk properly...etc...etc... Hero: Roll only when rushed or threatened...etc...etc..."
Dungeoneer
First Post
I dunno. I'm not defending 5e. I'm not particularly excited about it myself. But the topic is why the 5e they are actually developing doesn't have weapon-specific powers. Given that they are shooting for a very traditional D&D, the kind of re-design that would have been required to accommodate them was never realistically in the cards. That's all.
Argyle King
Legend
You took what I was trying to say to an extreme, so it seems fair I do the same.
Then why have the other weapons in the game?
That's really what it boils down to for me. If there's no difference in what they do, why not just say "little weapons do 1d4, average weapons do 1d6, large weapons do 1d8, and big honkin' two handed weapons do 1d12"? Then just have the player fluff what the weapon is because it doesn't actually matter in play.
I find that pretty boring, and I it also annoys me because, as I said earlier, I dislike when choices really aren't choices... whether that's because they don't matter or whether that's because one is obviously so much better that it makes no sense to choose the other ones. When it comes to D&D weapons and equipment, somehow the game occasionally manages to have both be simultaneously true. I personally dislike that. I understand that others may not have a problem with it, but I do.
As for your question about whether I'd remember things... personally, I would. There's plenty of empty space on my character sheet. If I really have to, I'll use a scrap piece of paper or a notecard. For what it's worth, I was (and I'm not at all making this up) where Pelor had been brainwashed into believing he was the "god of 'sammich,'" so I likely would have been pretty happy with a weapon which got bonuses against sandwiches in that particular campaign. Now, do I believe that's something which comes up often? No, I certainly don't, but it amused me that you picked such a way to make your point since I had actually been in a campaign where it would have mattered.
More to the point, I'm not suggesting to add a slew of modifiers. I'd be happy with just making the multitude of weapons simply not seem pointless. If a +1 or -1 seems too hard to remember, simplify it further by using what is already a common 5th Edition element by saying "this weapon gives advantage on trip attacks." Personally, I paused from saying that as my original idea because I feel that's far too good, and I would believe it to be unbalancing (pun intended,) without some sort of cost. As such, I felt that starting with a minor bonus (such as a simple +1) as a base property for a few select weapons was the better idea.
Dungeoneer
First Post
I'm too lazy to go back and find the appropriate posters to quote, but I think the idea was that there would be powers for each of the the weapon's attributes. So a morning star might give you a trip bonus, PLUS it would have reach, PLUS maybe something to do with blunt force.
Argyle King
Legend
That particular amount of stuff I would agree is too much for the typical D&D experience. (Though, I do play and enjoy other rpgs where more detail than that comes into play.)
I'd be fine with just a simple bonus... or anything really which gave many of the weapons on the list a reason to exist. I'm not opposed to damage type occasionally playing a factor, but I'd hazard to say that aspect of it is more on the DM's end of things than something the player needs to remember. "When Brisbain Balderbeard smashes his hammer into the bones of the skeleton, it seems more effective than the previous attacks made by Stabitha Silverleaf's crossbow." On the player's end, I see it more as "hey, I get a bonus here." That doesn't require hundreds of modifiers or numbers, and I'm not even suggesting that; just a minor benefit to give something a reason to exist. I don't even think it should be as complicated or comprehensive as 4E's keyword system was; just pick some of the weapons which are currently bland and flavorless, and either find a reason for them to exist by looking at their design and seeing what seems reasonable for a minor bonus, replace them with something else which is more interesting, or simply just remove them from the list.
I personally feel that a weapon list which would boil down to dice values without any other defining feature -even among weapons with the same dice value- to be pointless and boring.
Similar Threads
