D&D 5E Non choices: must have and wants why someone that hates something must take it

[Kobold Stew]

The average strength will lead to bad rolls when it comes to the sailing checks, <snip>

um, source? You're now making up ways that a generic ref is going to arbitrate sailing checks?

What's the date of the documents you are working from and are they public?

I've cited page and column numbers -- we're looking at the same page, as you know.

Unless you simply are not looking at the documents as well as not looking at the posts of your interlocutor. Really bad form.

Here is another link that characterizes the small sword as a short sword. http://www.medievalmartialarts.co.uk/broadsword-backsword-rapier-longsword Read the difference between a short sword and a rapier and the description of a short sword.

Again, you've not responded to the argument that's been presented to you. I'm playing a fantasy game where different weapons from different eras must all coexist and have their combat ability defined by a handful of platonic solids. There are more worlds than are tempt of…

Of course all of this swashbuckler talk is missing the point.

What if you want to build a Native American spear fighter?

What if you want to build a heavy armor brawler?

What if you want to build lightly armored pole arm warrior?

What if you want to build a very mobile long bow archer?

We can throw a number of archetypes out there and ask the same questions. What happens is that 5E requires people to sacrifice effectiveness for character concept. Something that I don't think it should do.

"Swashbuckler" was a good archetype, and I'll agree with you that Next does not model spears well (by which I of course only mean "to my taste". But you know what? I can make it work.

Let's pretend these are all archetypes. I think I can make any of them work with the limited rules we have. Will they out tank a tank (or out buck our swash)? Absolutely not -- because they are different archetypes.

There are some fighter archetypes that are under-supported in the current rules, that are mechanically less viable than others.* And… so what?

The premise of this thread is that there were no real choices, and on the issue of the fighter (the real point we are discussing), you have failed to make your case.

Further, you're not reading things said to you, and you're shifting the ground of the argument as you go. That's not a conversation.




* For several play test packs, I've felt that way about the retiarius (net-and-trident fighter), which is not as mechanically effective as I would like, for example.

 

[N'raac]

Don't know. If they were like me, lots. I've equipped sword & board warriors with shortswords, longswords, morning stars, flails, hammers, scimitars, maces...maybe every one handed weapon that wasn't a dagger.

With the exception of the short sword, most of those look like competitive weapons against one another, without a lot of work comparing them.

(But I know I am atypical.).

Still, people kill people with arrows or bolts even today, despite the widespread availability of firearms:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...-attack-kills-1-man-injures-another-1.2538825

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...less-was-killed-arrow-through-heart-v20761994

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/man-killed-father-in-wyoming-bow-and-arrow-attack/

http://www.post-gazette.com/local/r...-at-Somerset-County-home/stories/201110110268

On average, people kill people with the things they 1) are most comfortable with and/or 2) what they have on hand.

The cites seem to me like "this is what I had, so this is what I used", not paid mercenaries. The first comments on how unusual the crossbow as a weapon is. The second is the odd one out, while the others seem like "crime of passion" and hunting weapons were what they had available.

A sorcerer in no armor with a dagger would not be suffering non-proficient armor based skill and non-proficient combat penalties with his weapon, and probably wouldn't have a Toad familiar (for the HP).

No, but he would also not have the AC and hp advantage, would he? If he's taking non-proficiency penalties, then he didn't use feats on these items either.

The real point of options books in HERO is different than for games like D&D.

With D&D supplements, you're expanding options.

With HERO supplements, you're mostly saving players & GMs time and preventing option paralysis. Additionally, some play a role in standardizing the way things work within a campaign, illustrating what a typical elf or halberd looks like.

Result - Hero has markedly pulled back, and their experience says those books don't sell very well. Their licensing opportunities aren't used all that often. Meanwhile, splatbooks by WotC and third party publishers are all over the place. Some of that is better market penetration, of course. But the splatbook obviously enjoys success in the marketplace. Adventures, meanwhile...they're not really great sellers, and WoTC doesn't do many, while Hero pretty much backed off from that market entirely.

 

[Ashkelon]

This has come up time and time again, expertise feats, and at will damage cantrips are the two I've seen the most (4e and 5e respectively) but there are other things.

Person A says "I don't like X (where X could be anything) I want it out of the game now."
Person B says "I like X and want it in game, if you don't like it just don't use it."
then comes the confusing part
Person A says "If I can take X I have to because it is the best option"
Even if person B-F then claim (as I have) "I don't take X all the time, but when I want to, I want the option"
Person A will come back with "It's too much of a non choice."

[sblock=expertise] when I pointed out not only did my entire table never all take expertise feats, and even listed character builds that were fun and rocked and had no need (where hitting just fine) I was told my group that was handleing above level challenges must not be good at optimizing [/sblock]

[sblock=cantrips] in another thread the argument is being made that ray of frost is a must have, evenif you want to play a sage with no offensive spells [/sblock]

What I don't understand is, if you don't like something, how can you feel forced to take it? It makes no sense to me.

how can something that some people like, some people don't like be made to not ruin the game for either set. Making them optional isn't even good enough for some who don't like it...

I don't like the great weapon master feat. I don't like how it gives you a minus 5 penalty to attacks. I don't like how it gives you a free action attack on a crit. I don't like how it gives you a free action cleave. I also feel forced to take it anytime I play a weapon user.

I like greatsword users, and I feel like I am putting myself at a serious disadvantage by not choosing Great Weapon Master as one of my first feats. It increases my damage by about 50%!!!! That is way too much for any single feat to do. So, I have a hard choice to make. Not choose the feat and deal significantly less damage, or take it and be significantly more useful to my party. It feels like a non choice. I feel forced to take the feat, even though I strongly dislike it.

 

[Lokiare]

Just going to say if you're looking for a swashbuckler type of character (be it the rogue way or the fighter way), I would not worry too terribly much about it.

Also, no first level fighter is getting plate. Hell, no 3rd level fighter is getting plate. Plate costs 5000 GP. At first level, and the 175 GP you receive at 1st level, you would be able to buy chainmail IIRC, which would put you at a 16. A shield would add 2 AC, so that would be 18.

Sure and then at level 2 or 3 after aquiring 10,000gp from the average adventure they will easily upgrade to 20 AC if not higher (depending on DM and magic item acquisition).

While Loki's argument is (mostly) valid as it currently stands, understand that the public playtest documents were never intended to be looked at beyond broad strokes. The overarching flaw of detailed numerical analysis of the public documents is that the numbers were never intended to be finalized, just the general concepts.

The problem is we've seen what they do with math, where in 4E the CharOp board found glaring mistakes right after the release of each product. Things that should have been caught right away. Heck we see that in each play test document. I have no hope that WotC will make a mathematically sound game on their own. Hopefully they will hire a few mathematicians to go over their work before releasing it and test every combination of features with every other combination of features for math flaws.

My group is split between hardcore powergamers / optimizers / whatever you want to call them, moderately experienced players, and brand new players. The optimized characters aren't terribly much better than the sort of more flavorful characters, and are easily even or weaker once you bring in non-combat encounters. Which, since I'm running pregenerated adventures, isn't due to me tilting the game towards roleplaying or exploration to counter any imbalances in the game.

Just my two cents.

Are they intentionally trying to break the game? Because I can point out a number of things that will throw the game out of wack in play. Its more balanced than 3E, but no where near as balanced as 4E and to me 4E wasn't all that balanced, but it was a step in the right direction.

um, source? You're now making up ways that a generic ref is going to arbitrate sailing checks?

Really? That shouldn't be in contention at all. Turning the wheel uses quite a bit of strength especially if you are going against the current. Trimming the sails must be a charisma check in your world right? Because pulling on a rope bearing 100+ pounds of pressure is more about looking good than having strength. Holding a rope that has several hundred pounds of wind pressure pulling on it while you are trying to tie it off must be Wisdom right? Climbing in 4E is considered an Athletics check but in other editions it was dexterity based so that's a 50/50 split. I would wager that about half of the checks you are going to make are going to be Strength based and the other half are going to be Dex based.

I've cited page and column numbers -- we're looking at the same page, as you know.

Unless you simply are not looking at the documents as well as not looking at the posts of your interlocutor. Really bad form.

Nice try to paint me in a bad light. Doesn't work though. I had problems before with working from different documents and I do read every post people who discuss things with me put out there. I am making sure we are looking at the same documents before I proceed so there is no confusion.

Again, you've not responded to the argument that's been presented to you. I'm playing a fantasy game where different weapons from different eras must all coexist and have their combat ability defined by a handful of platonic solids. There are more worlds than are tempt of…

The fancy words aren't going to win the argument. I talk in normal non-fancy words so my arguments are easier to understand for people that don't know all the facy technical words.

To reply to your argument though, I've responded to every argument put to me despite the logical fallacy of the shot gun approach that people have been firing them at me. If I missed one feel free to point it out. I'll make a direct response to it so you won't miss it.

If you are implying that D&D doesn't rank weapons based on size, then you would be wrong. All large heavy weapons deal 1d10, 1d12, or 2d6 damage. All medium one handed weapons deal 1d8. All light small weapons deal 1d6. All one handed extremely small weapons deal 1d4. Its very easy to see why the small sword would go in the 1d6 category. Since Short Sword isn't a real sword or even a category, only a description of any sword that is short, we can easily fit the small duel sword into that category. The only thing that doesn't match is that the small duel sword is peircing only and the short sword is slashing and peircing, but then again they have the rapier as peircing only when it was actually slashing and peircing.

"Swashbuckler" was a good archetype, and I'll agree with you that Next does not model spears well (by which I of course only mean "to my taste". But you know what? I can make it work.

Let's pretend these are all archetypes. I think I can make any of them work with the limited rules we have. Will they out tank a tank (or out buck our swash)? Absolutely not -- because they are different archetypes.

There are some fighter archetypes that are under-supported in the current rules, that are mechanically less viable than others.* And… so what?

The premise of this thread is that there were no real choices, and on the issue of the fighter (the real point we are discussing), you have failed to make your case.

Further, you're not reading things said to you, and you're shifting the ground of the argument as you go. That's not a conversation.




* For several play test packs, I've felt that way about the retiarius (net-and-trident fighter), which is not as mechanically effective as I would like, for example.

No, due to bounded accuracy there are some archetypes that are completely unworkable like the light armored fighter that has to use strength. That ends up badly with some dead characters. I've proven with facts and math over and over that many common archetypes are not viable. Now if you'd care to post some facts we could discuss it.

The nature of arguments is you present new evidence as old evidence is countered or ignored. Its not 'shifting the argument' its covering more ground and furthering the discussion. Its basic discussion practice.

 

[Cybit]

Sure and then at level 2 or 3 after aquiring 10,000gp from the average adventure they will easily upgrade to 20 AC if not higher (depending on DM and magic item acquisition).

There are no adventures currently where a single PC will gain 10000 GP by level 3 or 4 unless everyone else decides to not take their share of the money. (Magic Items notwithstanding).

Though, ultimately, they will achieve plate, so we can say that at some point, a SnB fighter will reach AC 20. That said, I will repeat my earlier statements about not worrying about swashbucklers. I'd be more worried if something does have a specific archetype laid out in the playtest and it was vastly underpowered.

The problem is we've seen what they do with math, where in 4E the CharOp board found glaring mistakes right after the release of each product. Things that should have been caught right away. Heck we see that in each play test document. I have no hope that WotC will make a mathematically sound game on their own. Hopefully they will hire a few mathematicians to go over their work before releasing it and test every combination of features with every other combination of features for math flaws.

They have very good mathematicians currently working on tweaking the numbers, pretty much some of the best you can find for games (The MtG developers). Also, unfortunately for them, several of their playtesters have advanced mathematics degrees, so they're stuck hearing from them as well. (The downside of being located near Seattle, as it were)

Also, CharOp routinely uses very charitable interpretations of the game rules.

Are they intentionally trying to break the game? Because I can point out a number of things that will throw the game out of wack in play. Its more balanced than 3E, but no where near as balanced as 4E and to me 4E wasn't all that balanced, but it was a step in the right direction.

A couple of them are; but I also did ban multiclassing for the time being. MC'ing is getting the hybrid treatment based on the public packet. IE, you can allow it, but understand it does mess with the game in some powerful ways.

Also, as I pointed out earlier, the public playtest documents were not intended to be detailed numerical tests. You're going to find issues with the numbers in the public playtest, since the intent of the packets were primarily to gauge feel and very basic math, as opposed to detailed DPR calculations.

4E was very balanced w/ respect to 3E. I think 5E is striking a balance between the two. Outside of a few problematic areas, none of my players have hit that point of "damn, I want to be thematically X, but Y is too damn powerful to pass up". I also have 4 primary spellcasters in a group of 6 players, and neither of the non-spellcasters feel useless. Hell, some of the spellcasters sort of feel useless.

 

[Argyle King]

Also, as I pointed out earlier, the public playtest documents were not intended to be detailed numerical tests. You're going to find issues with the numbers in the public playtest, since the intent of the packets were primarily to gauge feel and very basic math, as opposed to detailed DPR calculations.

I somewhat understand that.

However, on a more personal level, it's hard to know what the feel of the game is (or what the intended feel is) without being able to accurately gauge the design direction of the mechanics, and without being able to gauge which aspects of the playtest are working as intended and which aren't. I'm very much a person who believes that fluff and crunch should have a coherent relationship; I likewise believe crunch can contribute to the feel of a game.

 

[Cybit]

I somewhat understand that.

However, on a more personal level, it's hard to know what the feel of the game is (or what the intended feel is) without being able to accurately gauge the design direction of the mechanics, and without being able to gauge which aspects of the playtest are working as intended and which aren't. I'm very much a person who believes that fluff and crunch should have a coherent relationship; I likewise believe crunch can contribute to the feel of a game.

Understood, but I think part of the problem is that it seems people expected a Pathfinder-esque playtest, where the entire game would be laid bare before launch. That works for Pathfinder, which is a modification of a game on OGL, and that has been played for years prior to launch. Not as much for 5E; which is a whole new system. Remarkably similar to older systems, sure, but not a wholesale conversion of one. Also, I think they believe that it is very easy to get lost in the minutiae of feedback (should fighters get a +1 or +2 with this ability, hrrrm) when you get into that level of feedback, and lose sight of the forest as a whole.

As for fluff and crunch having a coherent relationship - that's probably the single most defining guideline in terms of overall design. Based on conversations with the designers / developers at PAX Prime 2012 & 2013, and various other places (geeky bars ftw), the very general idea is this (in no particular order):

1) Does it make sense in world?
2) Is it fun?
3) Is it balanced?

Only when all three of them are met are they really locking something down / calling it done. The first two seem to be what they center the public playtest around; since that's something that is harder to determine on a broad scale. Math can help with the third, but it's hard to step back as a developer and see if the first two make sense to people besides yourself and your friends (who might agree with you due to self-selection).

I don't doubt that there will be something somewhat broken at launch, such is the nature of the game, and frankly, no amount of testing will catch everything, period. slips through the cracks, no doubt. But the hope (for me) is that such things will be rare and errata-able, and life will go on. My hope is that the game will be fun, the game will make me feel like I'm in a world, and I won't have to feel like I'm useless because I don't optimize. If it does those three things for me (and is easy as hell to DM, but I sort of know that's the case already), I will be happy.

I also really, really find the idea of trying to expand the overall RPG pie rather than targeting a niche ala PF / 13th Age / other systems a much more admirable goal. There are unfortunately not many new TT players that aren't 2nd generation fans (IE their parents get them to play it), and I do not want the TT RPG to die with us.

That said, I do hope that they release one last public playtest document in April or something, just to fire up enthusiasm again / mass sanity checks. But I don't know if that will happen or not.

 

[Mistwell]

Sure and then at level 2 or 3 after aquiring 10,000gp from the average adventure they will easily upgrade to 20 AC if not higher (depending on DM and magic item acquisition).

This is so far off from reality that, once again, I question whether you've read the rules.

My group is at 3rd level now, and each PC has collected around 500gp each. They have a few potions, and one magic weapon.

And given I wrote the script here at EnWorld to use the treasure random generation from the books, I am probably the guy who knows the most about what treasure you should expect from the 5e playtest outside of WOTC and their consultants themselves.

10,000 between the entire party seems really far off, much less each individual having that! The treasure amounts are just nothing at all like 3e or 4e.

 

[Argyle King]

Understood, but I think part of the problem is that it seems people expected a Pathfinder-esque playtest, where the entire game would be laid bare before launch. That works for Pathfinder, which is a modification of a game on OGL, and that has been played for years prior to launch. Not as much for 5E; which is a whole new system. Remarkably similar to older systems, sure, but not a wholesale conversion of one. Also, I think they believe that it is very easy to get lost in the minutiae of feedback (should fighters get a +1 or +2 with this ability, hrrrm) when you get into that level of feedback, and lose sight of the forest as a whole.

As for fluff and crunch having a coherent relationship - that's probably the single most defining guideline in terms of overall design. Based on conversations with the designers / developers at PAX Prime 2012 & 2013, and various other places (geeky bars ftw), the very general idea is this (in no particular order):

1) Does it make sense in world?
2) Is it fun?
3) Is it balanced?

Only when all three of them are met are they really locking something down / calling it done. The first two seem to be what they center the public playtest around; since that's something that is harder to determine on a broad scale. Math can help with the third, but it's hard to step back as a developer and see if the first two make sense to people besides yourself and your friends (who might agree with you due to self-selection).

I don't doubt that there will be something somewhat broken at launch, such is the nature of the game, and frankly, no amount of testing will catch everything, period. slips through the cracks, no doubt. But the hope (for me) is that such things will be rare and errata-able, and life will go on. My hope is that the game will be fun, the game will make me feel like I'm in a world, and I won't have to feel like I'm useless because I don't optimize. If it does those three things for me (and is easy as hell to DM, but I sort of know that's the case already), I will be happy.

I also really, really find the idea of trying to expand the overall RPG pie rather than targeting a niche ala PF / 13th Age / other systems a much more admirable goal. There are unfortunately not many new TT players that aren't 2nd generation fans (IE their parents get them to play it), and I do not want the TT RPG to die with us.

That said, I do hope that they release one last public playtest document in April or something, just to fire up enthusiasm again / mass sanity checks. But I don't know if that will happen or not.

The three goals you listed are things which I feel are suited to my tastes.

I guess maybe my problem is that I cannot gauge whether #1 is happening or not. That is for a lot of different reasons. My exposure to Forgotten Realms has been minimal. I know the general highlights (famous characters, general background of the setting, etc,) but I couldn't say what makes sense in the context of the world. I have no idea what is even supposed to make sense in the context of the world; what kind of fantasy is Forgotten Realms supposed to capture? I think I have some idea from the tiny little bit of FRs I have played between 3rd, 4th, and now 5th, but all three of those editions also appear to have different styles and different visions, so that's not exactly helpful. All I can say is that it felt somehow almost too defined in 3rd; I am in the minority of people who felt that the story behind the changes (but not necessarily the mechanics) in 4th were cool; 5th doesn't yet have any particular flavor for me at all beyond just being a fantasy game.

Another reason behind why I cannot tell if something makes sense in the context of the world is because I'm not sure what style of game the designers want it to be. Something that makes sense in the context of a high fantasy world doesn't necessarily make sense in a gritty pulp sword & sorcery story. Without having a better idea of what parts of the math are more or less normal, I have little idea about what the intent is. ...though, ironically, I also simultaneously feel like I do have a sense of the game's direction from some of the design choices and polls and discussions, but there are times when I'm not sure that what is being said and the game I have in front of me match up, so then I'm not sure. I'm not sure what the intended direction is, and I'm also not sure if there are two different directions, and I'll end up feeling like I did during early 4E when I felt as though the fluff of the game and the crunch of the game were trying to tell me two different stories.

I cannot comment on the Pathfinder playtest or what it was like. I did not participate in it. I do not expect WoTC to give the game away for free, so I understand the playtest packets not being the finished game. That being said, one of the complaints I have about the playtest is that I'm often coming away from the sessions without much in the way of an impression of the game. What am I supposed to feel about the game? What is the intent behind why I have access to the material I do? Am I supposed to feel as though the game has a particular style? Is it within the design parameters of the playtest that I often come away with a general sense of nothingness... apathy isn't quite the right word, but it's the closest I can come up with right off the top of my head. I certainly do have likes and dislikes, but, overall, it's just kind of a blank experience for me a lot of the time.

I can say that I highly enjoyed the adventure which I just finished up last week... I can't recall the name, but it's the one with the Yeti fight at the beginning. I had fun, but I can't say that it's because of the game itself that I had fun. The adventure was good; very good, but I feel as though I would have been just as happy to play the same adventure with a different mechanical framework. I'm not saying that with intent to say something negative; as said, I have a very good opinion of the adventure itself. I'm just wondering what impression is supposed to stick with me after I play a session of 5th Edition. If the intent was to get a feel for the game, I'm not sure that I'm getting it. Maybe I am, but I don't recognize it because it's not clear to me what feel I'm supposed to be looking for...?

 

[Kobold Stew]

Really? That shouldn't be in contention at all. <snip> I would wager that about half of the checks you are going to make are going to be Strength based and the other half are going to be Dex based.

I'll take that bet.

Trimming the sails, plotting a course, running the tides, discerning the weather, rationing resources, noticing the ship following you on the horizon would all be Wisdom or Intelligence checks.

Maintaining good order among the crew, swinging into battle ostentatiously along a rope might be Charisma checks.

Holding the sails in position throughout a storm, staying awake during a watch might be Constitution.

Those are all more or less mundane examples. Previous versions of the skill rules represented the diversity from professions better, I feel. But who knows what the final package will hold?

Nice try to paint me in a bad light. Doesn't work though. I had problems before with working from different documents and I do read every post people who discuss things with me put out there. I am making sure we are looking at the same documents before I proceed so there is no confusion.

Which is why the post immediately after you indicated which documents you were reading, I gave you a specific page and column number.

<snip> Since Short Sword isn't a real sword or even a category,

This was my point; we agree.

only a description of any sword that is short, we can easily fit the small duel sword into that category. The only thing that doesn't match is that the small duel sword is peircing only and the short sword is slashing and peircing, but then again they have the rapier as peircing only when it was actually slashing and piercing.

Sure, we "can" -- just as we "can" call it a rapier. Let the player decide! There's no one right answer: the player has a concept, and decides for herself whether short sword or rapier fits that concept. My point is you do not need to straightjacket your case.

No, due to bounded accuracy there are some archetypes that are completely unworkable like the light armored fighter that has to use strength.

So we're moving on now? We agree that swashbuckler is viable? Good.

You are right that "the light armoured fighter that has to use strength" is going to be less effective than one that can use Dex. I might question whether that's an archetype, but you've defined your case so that it's not even a question.

The Rogue who has to use Intelligence (e.g. "Gentleman Thief") or the Mage who has to use Constitution ("not really an archetype but it my concept") are also less effective than some alternatives. That proves nothing.

That ends up badly with some dead characters. I've proven with facts and math over and over that many common archetypes are not viable. <snip>

You've presented hypothetical cases. What about your play experience? Have you played or DM'd fighters that have died? Were their builds optimized or not? What did you learn from that experience?

What I've learned (relevant to the subject of the thread) is that a diversity of builds are equally effective, and that the system lets me create a more diverse level-1 character than any previous system (using core materials). That's what excites me -- the fact that apparently suboptimal builds can work just fine. When characters die, it's not because they were poorly built, but that bounded accuracy means a lucky roll or two will hurt anyone, optimized or not.

And when I've run sessions, it's shown me that players get jazzed and pick up nuances in their characters that help create immersive rp in a way I've not seen before. I've seen better and worse characters die, but death has on the whole been pretty low. (That's just an observation, and may or may not be typical).