Let us shine.

[Number48]

Why the hell does every thread devolve into "4E does it this way" and "3E does it this way"? I want to talk about 5E here and a concept I feel is very important. That concept is that each character should get a chance to shine in his own element, by himself, and that this moment to shine shouldn't happen too often because it's a special thing.

I don't want to argue if we should play 4E or play 3E. That ship has sailed.

Simply have moments in a game where a character can say, "this is what I'm here for" and save the day (hopefully). It should happen naturally, not feel forced and should never feel like the other guy, whose area of expertise this isn't, can actually do it better with minimal effort. I would even daresay that the choice of character should be clear and he should be able to do it alone.

I am not talking about combat. I am not talking about difference of powers in combat. I am not talking about getting a critical hit in combat.

What I am talking about is the A-team. When a situation calls for a smooth-talking guy to schmooze his way in, we know who gets the job, who nearly always gets it done and who has to do this one alone. D&D is not the A-team, I don't want this to be an every-encounter thing, but there are plenty of other examples. If I'm playing the "Face" character, I don't want Murdoch to pull out a scroll and use Charm or Knock or Invisibility to do what I do, but better. When it's time for me to schmooze my way in, I also don't need everybody along at all times. Sure, in D&D we do things together most of the time. But every once in a while, I want to showboat. I want to show why I'm Face and your Mr. T.

Remember, this is a simple idea I want to see in 5E, not argue about whether 3E or 4E does it better. If you agree or disagree that you want it in 5E, let us know. If you have ideas about how it should be implemented in 5E, I'd love to hear it.

 

[FireLance]

Why the hell does every thread devolve into "4E does it this way" and "3E does it this way"?

Because your very first statement in the thread was:

A problem with 4E is that all characters were equal. Totally, totally equal.

It doesn't bode well for the thread when you start it off with what is essentially a demonstrably incorrect statement. After all, the Charisma 18 bard trained in Diplomacy has a +9 bonus to Diplomacy checks at 1st level, while the Charisma 10 fighter gets a +0 bonus instead. So, in any situation which requires smooth talk, you can expect the bard to do the lion's share of the work. The fighter still gets a chance to make that DC 12 or even that DC 15 Diplomacy check if he really needs to, but the bard is still the better person for the job.

And as a related point, equality of opportunity does not mean equality of outcome. One thing that I hope they retain from 4e is equality of opportunity, down to the possibility of picking at-will, encounter and daily powers for all classes (and the possibility of not doing so for those who want them). However, the outcomes can be vastly different depending on the luck of the dice, player skill and player choice (the initial choice of powers, in particular, being a very major factor).

I guess most of those who feel that 4e classes play the same focus on the equality of opportunity (especially when it comes to gaining powers), while those who do not focus on the very different outcomes.

 

[Mallus]

I'll still trying to wrap my head around why mechanically identical PCs can't "shine".

Doesn't how you play a character matter?

For the record, I'm thinking about this in the context of AD&D, not 4e (or 5e). In AD&D, it's pretty easy to wind up with mechanically-similar characters (because the system provided fewer ways to mechanically differentiate them).

 

[keterys]

Why the hell does every thread devolve into "4E does it this way" and "3E does it this way"?

As Firelance points out... it's your fault.

Hurdles to the A-Team/Heist separate specialties thing:
1) D&D spells often duplicate and replace that stuff (ex: Charm, Knock, Find Traps, Invisibility, Flight, etc)
2) Adventure design is rarely as apportioned as the tv shows between talky / sneaky / breaky / beaty / etc portions. Pretty often, a little bit of talking, and a whole lot of beating, will solve all your problems.

 

[Li Shenron]

Why the hell does every thread devolve into "4E does it this way" and "3E does it this way"? I want to talk about 5E here and a concept I feel is very important. That concept is that each character should get a chance to shine in his own element, by himself, and that this moment to shine shouldn't happen too often because it's a special thing.

I don't want to argue if we should play 4E or play 3E. That ship has sailed.

Well... the main heads of 5e are saying that they are in fact looking at all previous editions to design 5e. So it kind of makes all sense to look also at how 3e and 4e did relative to this topic, and see in what they succeeded and what they failed.

If one edition got something pretty well, we won't say "that ship has sailed" because that something most likely will be in 5e, although not necessarily as the only option.

Simply have moments in a game where a character can say, "this is what I'm here for" and save the day (hopefully). It should happen naturally, not feel forced and should never feel like the other guy, whose area of expertise this isn't, can actually do it better with minimal effort. I would even daresay that the choice of character should be clear and he should be able to do it alone.

I am not talking about combat. I am not talking about difference of powers in combat. I am not talking about getting a critical hit in combat.

What I am talking about is the A-team. When a situation calls for a smooth-talking guy to schmooze his way in, we know who gets the job, who nearly always gets it done and who has to do this one alone. D&D is not the A-team, I don't want this to be an every-encounter thing, but there are plenty of other examples. If I'm playing the "Face" character, I don't want Murdoch to pull out a scroll and use Charm or Knock or Invisibility to do what I do, but better. When it's time for me to schmooze my way in, I also don't need everybody along at all times. Sure, in D&D we do things together most of the time. But every once in a while, I want to showboat. I want to show why I'm Face and your Mr. T.

Remember, this is a simple idea I want to see in 5E, not argue about whether 3E or 4E does it better. If you agree or disagree that you want it in 5E, let us know. If you have ideas about how it should be implemented in 5E, I'd love to hear it.

But all this is very reasonably to me, in fact I personally didn't have in mind only combat, but also combat.

For example I had in mind all those cases where magic becomes problematic. Antimagic areas, curses, wild magic, silence, grappling monsters, spell resistance/immunities, or simply running out of (combat) spells are cheap examples of situations where the fighter-types must be the heroes. Unfortunately these are all negative circumstances, the fighters get to be the heroes because the spellcasters are blocked Of course that's not nice, but fighters are good at fighting (if they're good at something else it is because the player has customized the PC beyond the obvious class choices), so there isn't much to do beyond making once again the fighters quite better than spellcasters in combat. If the rules don't do this, then it's up to the DM (provided of course, that the gaming group feels there is such need).

 

[Li Shenron]

If I'm playing the "Face" character, I don't want Murdoch to pull out a scroll and use Charm or Knock or Invisibility to do what I do, but better.

One more thing about this one sentence...

I agree that if the spellcasters have "a spell for everything", then everybody may have nothing left to do.

Let's keep in mind however that many of those spells are (mostly) intended to give the whole party an ability that otherwise they don't have it covered. No Rogue in the party? One spellcaster may consider to learn a trapfinding spell. Nobody with decent Charisma-based skills? Someone get a couple of charms. No strongmen to bash doors and thief to pick locks? Get Knock. *

Troubles ensues if you already have PCs which want to do those, but someone else steps on their toes with spells. How to handle this?

- You could just have less known spells per caster. But as far as I remember, everyone rejoiced at every new edition giving more and more versatility... At least I hope that once and for all they stop the absurdity of divine casters knowing all their spells automatically

- You could at least make scrolls and other spell-replicating items less easy to buy or craft, because these are certainly going to be used for those types of spells. However again a lot of gamers won't accept this easily.

- You could give casters less spells per day or some other kind of trade-off or even make those spells less reliable so that utility spells are a more significant waste of defensive/offensive spells.

(EDIT)

* I wonder if other people notice however how imbalance there is here... One spell can sometimes almost provide for an entire missing character type. (That's a bit of an exaggeration, but I think you get the point )

 

[Tony Vargas]

Why the hell does every thread devolve into "4E does it this way" and "3E does it this way"? I want to talk about 5E here and a concept I feel is very important.

Next time, you might want to talk 5e you might want to either (a) not mention older eds, at all, or (b)mention something a prior ed did well, and how 5e might build on that, rather than something you didn't like in a prior ed, and how 5e might 'fix' it.

You want positive, lead with positive.

That concept is that each character should get a chance to shine in his own element, by himself, and that this moment to shine shouldn't happen too often because it's a special thing.

Nod. Iconic roles have always done this, to an extent. But, if you get too situational and extreme, you start to shove the game into a formula, restricting the DM's options or imbalancing classes badly.

If you make some class really good at one task, and another really bad at that task, but really good at another, then when the DM decides that the former task is going to be a major focus of the campaign for several levels, the latter character becomes garbage. At some points, it dawns on the DM that one of his players is moping, and he compromises his campaign concept to 'give him something to do.' If the player is at all perceptive, that might annoy him even more than having nothing to do. It's a dynamic I've seen happen over the years. I doubt it's unfamiliar to most gamers.

 

[Plane Sailing]

What use does a fighter have for INT in editions 0-3.5?

Well in 3+ it was important for Combat Expertise, and valuable feat chains that built from that.

 

[Plane Sailing]

One more thing about this one sentence...

I agree that if the spellcasters have "a spell for everything", then everybody may have nothing left to do.

Let's keep in mind however that many of those spells are (mostly) intended to give the whole party an ability that otherwise they don't have it covered. No Rogue in the party? One spellcaster may consider to learn a trapfinding spell. Nobody with decent Charisma-based skills? Someone get a couple of charms. No strongmen to bash doors and thief to pick locks? Get Knock. *

I think that 3e introduced this problem with so-cheap-it's-practically-free scroll writing.

It made it easy for wizards to have lots of those utility spells on hand without the cost of taking up a valuable spell slot.

I don't remember people complaining in every previous edition how 'chime of opening' trod all over the rogue, although in the terms people speak of now, it 'did'.

Plus, many rogues have been quite happy to have magic disarm the traps and open the locks so they avoid the poison needle/ scything blade / exploding thingy. 1e and earlier rogues had an appalling life expectancy because they were expected to to this really dangerous job, on their own, while their mates hid up the corridor!

Bottom line, IMO; the problem isn't with spells which allow a one-off overcoming of a problem that another class would do. It is of scrolls which ,are it trivial to do so, along with a problematic bloody-minded ness amongst players who desire to trample on each others roles.

 

[Number48]

Sure, I get it. Mea culpa. It's all my fault.