Mearls' L&L on non-combat pillars

[pemerton]

I can't believe I'm going to say this, but...maybe 5e should adopt an XP system more along the lines of what the Palladium system has?

When treasure used to be the primary means of gaining XP the pillars balanced themselves out and could be equally rewarding. You could fight, trick, negotiate, and explore as you chose to gain experience.

My concern isn't so much about whether or not you can earn XP for noncombat stuff, but the implication that there is no resolution mechanic for non-combat stuff. (WHereas in 4e, the XP awards for this stuff are strictly mechanically defined, the same as combat.)

 

[ExploderWizard]

My concern isn't so much about whether or not you can earn XP for noncombat stuff, but the implication that there is no resolution mechanic for non-combat stuff. (WHereas in 4e, the XP awards for this stuff are strictly mechanically defined, the same as combat.)

From what I can see of the playtest, there are skills for non-combat play, there are spells that can be used out of combat, etc. What are these for if not to resolve non-combat adventuring?

As far as XP awards go just replace XP for encounters with awards for accomplishing things (with or without combat) and let the players choose their path to achievement without metagame incentive (or disincentive) to either kill everything or avoid combat.

 

[KidSnide]

He also says that

Experience awards for interaction and exploration are more in the realm of the Dungeon Master's hands than a strict, mechanical definition, but both will appear in the final experience point system with full guidelines.​

There doesn't seem to be a lot of hope here for complex non-combat resolution mechanics.

To be fair, when compared to 4e combat, skill challenges are also "more in the realm of the Dungeon Master's hands than a strict, mechanical definition." I imagine we can safely assume that any skill challenge-like mechanic would be optional (to satisfy the old-school play style), but it's not like this statement says that they won't exist as an optional mechanic.

-KS

 

[pemerton]

From what I can see of the playtest, there are skills for non-combat play, there are spells that can be used out of combat, etc. What are these for if not to resolve non-combat adventuring?

The wizard has a bonus in Forbidden Lore. How does this help the player of the wizard deal with the medusa in the Caves of Chaos? Neither the How to Play, nor the DM's Guidelines, nor the module itself, addresses this question.

Those skills might be there for some purpose, but very little is said about how they are to be used in pursuit of it.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The wizard has a bonus in Forbidden Lore. How does this help the player of the wizard deal with the medusa in the Caves of Chaos? Neither the How to Play, nor the DM's Guidelines, nor the module itself, addresses this question.

Those skills might be there for some purpose, but very little is said about how they are to be used in pursuit of it.

Don't have the materials in front of me, but I believe the DM guidelines cover general skill use, setting DCs, and that kind of stuff.

A successful test vs forbidden lore would give information about the creature. What the player does with that knowledge would be up to them.

On a successful skill check:

"Ok you remember reading about the fabled medusa once. According to legend, meeting her gaze will turn a man to stone. Her hair is a mass of writhing serpents said to be deadly venomous."

 

[Mishihari Lord]

While I'm happy that the interaction pillar will continue to be freeform, I'm a little disappointed that there won't be more rules for the exploration side of things. This is a place where they could add cool new rules without the problem of going against previous editions' mechanics because there hasn't been much.

I liked the idea behind 4E's skill challenges, but I didn't care for the execution at all.

As an example of what I would like, I thought Hot Pursuit rocked on toast for adjudicating chases. I would like something similarly involved in 5E for chases. Likewise, rules modules of the same magnitude for climbing, tracking, stealth (especially - I want to play D&D Tenchu), vehicle navigation, and anything else exploration-related I could think of.

If an activity is just a peripheral part of the game, it's fine to just let a roll or two decide it. And it's always okay to freeform it. But if something is going to be a major part of my game, I'd like to have the option of using a well-written, in-depth set of mechanics to help make it fun and exciting.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Ahem.

CH: This might give some hints on other possible modules, but could you see there being a module that more gamifies the social interaction, or the exploration?

MM: Oh yeah, absolutely. You can definitely imagine that. I didn’t use that example by accident: if you’re a tactical gamer, can I make interaction tactical? Can I make exploration tactical? When you’re negotiating or exploring, can I bring that same puzzle from combat to it? There can be a crunchier system for that. We can add more prescribed options to it: do I want to intimidate this guy, or give him the soft sell? That way, you can think about it more tactically. That way you’re saying, so you like this about D&D, let’s extend that to other areas, because that’s what your group is opting into. We’re not trying to make everyone play that way.

Another area where that can pay off is areas covered by other indie games, like Robin Laws’s GUMSHOE, where players have increasing power to affect the narrative. Those mechanics speak more to the player than the character. We can use a rules module that adds that element. It’s a very different way to play D&D, but because it’s only aimed at players who like that, not trying to get everyone in the world who likes D&D to play that way. Only players who say “oh yeah, I definitely want that in my game.”

 

[Tony Vargas]

So wizard spells and cleric spells won't be useful for either interaction or exploration? Right. Gotcha. Can I interest you in a bridge?

Possibly, such spells will be castable as rituals, so not use up the casters' in-combat (vancian) spell resources.

 

[Bluenose]

Possibly, such spells will be castable as rituals, so not use up the casters' in-combat (vancian) spell resources.

So the casters won't have to make the choice of whether to have power in-combat or out-of-combat (note, I'm aware there are spells useful in both situations) but will instead get to be powerful in both situations.

That's nice for the casters.

 

[I'm A Banana]

So the casters won't have to make the choice of whether to have power in-combat or out-of-combat (note, I'm aware there are spells useful in both situations) but will instead get to be powerful in both situations.

That's nice for the casters.

The L&L column mentions that they're comparing what spells can do with what ability checks can do: that a wizard's invisibility and a rogue's sneaking are on the same metric.

Look at the playtest Charm Person. It is weak sauce in comparison to earlier editions, and isn't going to make any spellcaster dominate any social encounter. Advantage on Charisma checks is pretty empty when your CHA is mediocre to begin with.

I think they're going with the idea that spells should be less binary and more in line with what skills can do.