New Legends & Lore

[Derulbaskul]

The article felt a bit hollow, to be honest.
(snip) What purposes do these Mearls articles serve? (snip)

My response to this article was that it was a desperate attempt to find content for the website. (Rather like Ampersand, the most pointless column in gaming.)

If Paizo wanted feedback on this, Erik or James or Jason would have simply posted on a messageboard. Heck, before WotC turned Dragon and Dungeon into e-turds, Mearls himself would have just posted on a messageboard.

And like a messageboard post the poll was poorly designed.

 

[Jhaelen]

I'm not sure what to make of this article.

Firstly, I feel the 'calculation' of complexity to be flawed. Just counting the decisions you have to make isn't the whole story, since these decisions might be easy or difficult (which also depends on the number of available options) and have a low or a high impact on a character's overall effectiveness.

Second, he's talking about 'simple table look-ups'. You've got to be freaking kidding me, Mr.Mearls! I guess, next he's going to try to tell me that Rolemaster is less complex than a World of Darkness game, because in Rolemaster everything is resolved by looking up values in tables and in World of Darkness you need to do math (counting dice!).

Now, this may be a personal problem, but I _hate_ lookup-tables. They're inconvenient and inelegant and imho a good indication that a rpg system is a bad one. You cannot usually memorize them easily so you end up flipping books all the time, which sucks.

I vastly prefer simple, consistent calculations over tables.
E.g. 'calculating' passive perception and insight isn't even something you have to calculate during character creation. You just have to remember that you have to add 10 to your skill bonus to determine it. Similar things apply to bloodied/surge vales.

My favorite example is the original Runequest rpg: Everything can be calculated on the fly. The only look-up table is the one to determine which body part you hit.

I'd say Runequest is about as complex as Rolemaster, but the former is vastly more playable (at least imo).

Finally, I don't care all that much about the degree of complexity (as long as it's still playable!). I care more about all characters having the same complexity. Hence my preference of 'Classic' 4e over Essentials.

Imho, A better way to provide for players who feel complexity is too high is the approach taken in the DSA/TDE rpg:
Character Creation is extremely complex. Using Mr. Mearls way of measuring you need to make about a hundred decisions or more (it's a point-buy system).

But the player's handbook also includes about two dozen fully developed character 'archetypes'. You can play one of them without changing a single thing or you can customize them.

'Classic' 4e already offered something like this with it's recommended builds. A useful addition might have been to also offer advice on what to pick at higher levels.

Essentials builds were created with a similar idea in mind: Reduce options by offering a 'tighter' archetype with some of the decisions being eliminated in favour of powers every character using that build gets.

 

[Klaus]

I agree, builds hit a sweet spot. In fact, I think some 4e classes should be builds.

And your second paragraph points at another thing: options don't have to mean additional layers of complexity and decision points. Melee Training is a single feat that makes every slayer (one of the simplest 4e classes so far!) dramatically different.

I think a big takeaway is just that the decisions you make should be significant.

Which is something I think 4e could stand to learn a little more in terms of actual play, too!

I think many of the more "niche" feats, for instance, would be better off as "floating" options that most characters could take during a fight (not unlike the Fortune Cards, which are essentially floating benefits).

 

[Mercurius]

At what level should PCs become superhuman?

I agree, an important question for them to ask and answer. One of the biggest criticisms of 4E has been that it effectively starts PCs off as seasoned adventures which disallows "off the farm" style campaigns. Now I personally never want to play a 1st level magic-user who has 1-4 HP, casts one magic missile spell, and then is left thumping away with a quarterstaff, but 4E took it to the oppostive extreme; I would even say that a 1st level character in 4E is equivalent to at least a 3rd level character in 1E.

How about a 1st level magic-user that has 10-15 HP, can cast a few spells including some kind of at-will power, cantrip, and can use different weapons? Sort of a slightly toned down 4E and something a bit closer to what I would imagine a newly graduated apprentice mage would be like.

But in terms of "superhuman," one of the things that I think 4E got right is the tier system. Heroic Tier are your standard, common adventures trying to make a name for themselves in the world. Once they get to Paragon tier they are known heroes--not quite legendary but certainly noteworthy. Epic tier are living legends. So in your example, I would think that Aragorn would have gone from the middle of Paragon tier to the beginning of Epic during the course of LotR; Han Solo from late Heroic to upper Paragon; Conan all the way through the levels, depending upon which story you're talking about.

And as for your long jump example, it may be that the designers simply didn't realize the world record. I would suggest that this is the sort of thing that the DM makes up a DC on the fly for, although he or she would have to know the world record...that's where Google is a useful tool!

 

[Riastlin]

One of the biggest criticisms of 4E has been that it effectively starts PCs off as seasoned adventures which disallows "off the farm" style campaigns.

I agree that 1st level PCs in 4ed are clearly more powerful than they ever have been before. I think one way around this though might be the use of the "flashback". Start your campaign off with a look at the past, at how the PCs got together in the first place, and how they acquired their skills and powers etc. Obviously, this will likely only be good for a small number of initial encounters (otherwise what's the point of char gen) but I think it is a way to find the middle ground.

On the flip side, one nice thing about the 4ed 1st level PC is that it, in theory, provides more incentive for players to actually think about their character's backgrounds from the outset. A lot of the players I have played with in the past never really bothered with background until at least a couple levels had passed. Too many PCs wound up in the graveyard right off the bat for them to get too invested in their characters too early.

 

[Dausuul]

[snip: lots of good stuff]

I must spread some XP around before giving it to Mercurius again.

With regard to the aspect/talent thing: I think we already have the essential mechanic for this, it just needs to be redesigned a bit. Backgrounds seem to fit the bill pretty well. Just change them so instead of stacking on other mechanics (+2 to this skill, that skill is a class skill, resist random damage type), they're defined on their own terms. Something like:

Noble Birth: You start the game with two suits of fine clothing, your choice of warhorse or riding horse, a donkeyhorse, and a non-combatant maid or manservant. If the DM allows it, you may have a connection to a noble house; you cannot use this as a source of money (your family either cannot afford it or is unwilling to indulge your habit of going out adventuring), but you can request aid and shelter from your family when in their territory.

This is obviously just a rough sketch. Admittedly, handing out free equipment is a kind of stacking mechanic, but I don't think a free horse and spiffy clothes are too big a deal.

 

[Evilhalfling]

What would the game be like without feats?
Assuming I wanted to reduce the character building minigame, but still allow a variety of concepts.

What sort of customization would you still want in addition to class/race/build?
1. Specific effects could be added to each weapon.
2. Clerics & paladins would need more abilities based on choice of god.
3. ???

Backgrounds work well to expand/concentrate skills - perhaps 2 generic background benefits per character?
Some new form of multi-classing would be needed
A way to earn weapons not standard for class.


Most feats are simply bonuses to hit and damage in certain circumstances. Or increasing an existing class/race ability.
these could either be factored into the math, (inherent bonuses) or removed entirely (defense and hp deflation). I have found that far more often they are maximizing choices rather than concept building choices.

 

[renau1g]

I must spread some XP around before giving it to Mercurius again.

With regard to the aspect/talent thing: I think we already have the essential mechanic for this, it just needs to be redesigned a bit. Backgrounds seem to fit the bill pretty well. Just change them so instead of stacking on other mechanics (+2 to this skill, that skill is a class skill, resist random damage type), they're defined on their own terms. Something like:

Noble Birth: You start the game with two suits of fine clothing, your choice of warhorse or riding horse, a donkeyhorse, and a non-combatant maid or manservant. If the DM allows it, you may have a connection to a noble house; you cannot use this as a source of money (your family either cannot afford it or is unwilling to indulge your habit of going out adventuring), but you can request aid and shelter from your family when in their territory.

This is obviously just a rough sketch. Admittedly, handing out free equipment is a kind of stacking mechanic, but I don't think a free horse and spiffy clothes are too big a deal.

IIRC the 3.5e FR player's guide (whatever the actual title was called) had bonsues like this for your background locations. Something like fire resistance 2 from Calimshan, an extra scroll of 2nd level if you were from one of the high-magic places, a suit of armor or fine bow if you were from Cormyr, etc.

I really liked them a lot. Something they tried with FR this edition but I'd like a bit more generic like you mention Dausuul

 

[DEFCON 1]

But that's never where we've been in 4E. Where are you getting this idea that 4E supports every possible concept? It does no such thing. See my above examples of unsupported concepts--the necromancer with multiple permanent minions; the non-Vancian caster of any kind whatsoever. And that's after 3 years of splatbooks. If you restrict yourself to the original Player's Handbook, there are tons of unsupported concepts, from the single-weapon swashbuckler to the shapeshifter to the swordmage.

Then apparently you're making my point.

Unless I misunderstood... you originally said you wanted a streamlined, easy-to-use D&D game that was class-based but designed from concept first... with enough game mechanics in the background to support those concepts. Because apparently you couldn't do that with 4E because you had to come at it from game mechanics first point of view, and there were just too many options to choose from and made your eyes glaze over.

And my point was always that you can't have it both ways. You can't have a streamlined game that is class-based AND has enough game mechanics to support what you come up with. The fact that we have 4E as-is with every splatbook thus far published and you rightly point out several concepts (like your necromancer) that still can't be made... tells us that what you originally posted about wanting is statistically unlikely (if not impossible) to design and put into a single book.

If I'm genuinely misrepresenting what your original desire to see a new D&D game to be was... please let me know because I'd be happy to amend my comments.

 

[delericho]

Now I personally never want to play a 1st level magic-user who has 1-4 HP, casts one magic missile spell, and then is left thumping away with a quarterstaff,

I certainly wouldn't want to go back to the days of the 1-4 hp Wizard with one spell! I would agree that this is closer to what I would probably prefer:

How about a 1st level magic-user that has 10-15 HP, can cast a few spells including some kind of at-will power, cantrip, and can use different weapons? Sort of a slightly toned down 4E and something a bit closer to what I would imagine a newly graduated apprentice mage would be like.

Although, I would suggest they would do well by first setting a baseline, probably using a standard human guardsman, then set the 1st level Fighter to be "a cut above" that. And then balance the 1st level Wizard against that. Trying to establish the fantastical class first sounds like it could cause problems.

Anyway...

I do feel that between over-optimisation and (especially) stat inflation, the game has ended up compressing the low end of the scale to a point where PCs really get too much too soon. IMO, the game should either recalibrate the DC values to be a bit higher, or (perhaps better) undo some of the inflation that has occurred.

I think WotC would do well to give some serious thought to what DC represents the pinacle of real-world human achievement (DC 30 actually seems pretty good), and then some further thought to what level PCs should be able to achieve this DC. IOW, what are the equivalent levels for Einstein, or Tiger Woods, or Bill Gates, or Bill Clinton?

(They need to be a bit careful with this. Make the equivalent level too high, and you risk making PCs seem boring by comparison. But if the level is too low, then PCs become superhuman too quickly, and the game risks becoming too cartoony. IMO, both 3e and 4e tend to be a bit too permissive.)

But in terms of "superhuman," one of the things that I think 4E got right is the tier system. Heroic Tier are your standard, common adventures trying to make a name for themselves in the world. Once they get to Paragon tier they are known heroes--not quite legendary but certainly noteworthy. Epic tier are living legends.

Agreed. And to be honest, I think most groups work assuming this is the case. It's just that when you start digging into the numbers and try to marry them up with some sort of reality that everything really starts looking exaggerated.

So in your example, I would think that Aragorn would have gone from the middle of Paragon tier to the beginning of Epic during the course of LotR; Han Solo from late Heroic to upper Paragon; Conan all the way through the levels, depending upon which story you're talking about.

Indeed. With the exception of Conan, that pretty much ties up with my feel of where these characters should be. (Conan's a bit more tricky, as you say.) I would suggest also that the characters in the Black Company should mostly be low-mid Heroic, Batman is high Paragon, and Achillies is an example of the Epic. Does that seem about right?

And as for your long jump example, it may be that the designers simply didn't realize the world record. I would suggest that this is the sort of thing that the DM makes up a DC on the fly for, although he or she would have to know the world record...that's where Google is a useful tool!

Yep, no argument there. It's just that I would feel rather better if, when designing 5e, they did spend a bit of time with real-world achievements, and calibrated the DCs (and level range) accordingly. As I said, I know D&D isn't in any way a reality-simulator, but I'd still feel better if it had a bit more of a grounding in reality.