D&D 5E (2014) Poll: What is a Level 1 PC?

[JamesonCourage]

Why not have those classes? Those classes take design time and book space.

True. Not a lot of space, in all probability. A few pages. Time will vary greatly; I can do a lot in a day, and I can only imagine how it'd go with a team (even two people to bounce ideas off of at all times would be greatly helpful). So, yeah, you've got a point, just not a strong enough one to offset me thinking it would be nice to have. Then again, I see those classes as important, and I'm guessing you don't, so that makes sense. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

Additionally, if you provide these classes, then presumably these classes are going to be used in the game. You then need to rejigger the game to balance against a group that is some percentage non-combat, with that percentage being anywhere from zero to one hundred. How do you possibly write any supplements for this? Particularly modules. Do you put disclaimers on the front? "For a group of X characters, level Y to Z with a ratio of combat to non-combat characters of 3:2"

You just made the game unbelievably complicated to design for. In every version of D&D, there was a default baseline. AD&D tended to default to 5-7 PC's (sometimes 6-8) with a two level variation. Not a big problem since a smaller group would likely be higher level, a larger group, lower and the difference between levels not so pronounced. 3e and 4e default to 4 or 5 PC's of a given level with pretty specific guidelines as to how to slide the difficulty up or down.

Now, add in classes that add very little to combat and try to design an adventure. Or a setting guide. Or a monster book.

Why try to cater to playstyles that have never been supported by the game and are actually quite contrary to what the game is about? I've never understood this idea that D&D must cater to every single gamer. If you want a game about investigation and intrigue with very little combat, why on earth would you use D&D to play that campaign? If I want to run a hard SF game based on Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy, I'm going to turn to GURPS, because GURPS is heavy on the simulation side, and very, very fine grained for the kinds of things that will likely come up in that campaign.

OTOH, if I want to do a Princess of Mars campaign, I'm going to turn to Savage Worlds or D&D (or possibly Gamma World) because those systems will do that campaign much better justice. It's swash buckling high adventure. GURPS doesn't do that very well but SW or D&D does. What's wrong with looking at D&D and saying, "Yes, this is a heroic fantasy RPG, has always been a heroic fantasy RPG and that's apparently what people want out of D&D"?

I could see some sort of 3rd party supplement or side supplement a la Unearthed Arcana for something like this. But in core? Why? It does not fit with the game and stands out like a sore thumb.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Additionally, if you provide these classes, then presumably these classes are going to be used in the game. You then need to rejigger the game to balance against a group that is some percentage non-combat, with that percentage being anywhere from zero to one hundred. How do you possibly write any supplements for this? Particularly modules. Do you put disclaimers on the front? "For a group of X characters, level Y to Z with a ratio of combat to non-combat characters of 3:2"

I can't answer this, because I'll never understand it. I understand what you're saying, but do you need to say "if you have 4 Rangers, the wilderness exploration parts will be super easy"? No, it's kind of assumed since you have four Rangers, and they do well in that area. The same applies in any other field; by choosing that class with those abilities, of course certain parts will be easier. Make that clear in the class description, and I feel like you're set. If people want to "upset balance" by choosing certain classes, that's on them. Make it clear in the class description what classes do, and let people make informed decisions, but I see know reason to worry about it too much.

Then again, I've never used (and probably will never, ever use) any module, so I can't even comment about them. I've glanced a couple over, but found them incredibly underwhelming. I don't know. They just did not click with me. So, I can't answer you too much on that front.

You just made the game unbelievably complicated to design for. In every version of D&D, there was a default baseline. AD&D tended to default to 5-7 PC's (sometimes 6-8) with a two level variation. Not a big problem since a smaller group would likely be higher level, a larger group, lower and the difference between levels not so pronounced. 3e and 4e default to 4 or 5 PC's of a given level with pretty specific guidelines as to how to slide the difficulty up or down.

Now, add in classes that add very little to combat and try to design an adventure. Or a setting guide. Or a monster book.

Can't you just design to 4 (or 5, or 3, or 6-8, or whatever) combat classes, like normal, and put that in the description? Instead of (5-7 characters level 4-6) just have (5-7 combat classes of level 4-6)? Does this somehow not work? People will know that the adventure works with those numbers, and that varying from that will hamper/help them in obvious ways (less combat characters = harder combat, more = easier combat). Is that somehow hard? I don't know, because, again, I don't have experience with modules.

Why try to cater to playstyles that have never been supported by the game and are actually quite contrary to what the game is about?

Because people enjoy that style, and have been trying to use the system that way to varying degrees for a long time, and part of 5e's goals is to let people play in their preferred style? I still don't get this question.

I've never understood this idea that D&D must cater to every single gamer. If you want a game about investigation and intrigue with very little combat, why on earth would you use D&D to play that campaign?

What if your group plays mostly one game system, and you want to use it in different ways for different campaigns? Or, like my group, someone wants to focus on combat, while someone else wants to focus on being a sage? And, in D&D's unique scenario, you have a blanket unifying game system; it's the most popular, and people often default to it, so make it more broad for more styles? I don't get your reasoning about as much as you don't get mine. As always, play what you like

 

[Lanefan]

Because the PC framework involves feats and skills.

Well, not in my game it doesn't.

And this brings up an assumption I freely admit to making: that generating a PC is dirt simple to do. If it isn't, I'll twist the system until it is.

Not by my estimate. The 1e peasants in are probably AC 10, THAC0 20, about 2hp, and with a weapon that can one shot them. Hit on a 10, first hit wins. Not going to last much more than a round. The Fighters are probably AC 16, THAC0 19, and have a 50% or so chance of surviving the first hit. By my estimate of 1e the fighters take about three times as long as the peasants.

(Yes, I know 1e doesn't have THAC0 but that's what it amounts to).

It doesn't have AC 16 either.

Why try to cater to playstyles that have never been supported by the game and are actually quite contrary to what the game is about? I've never understood this idea that D&D must cater to every single gamer. If you want a game about investigation and intrigue with very little combat, why on earth would you use D&D to play that campaign? If I want to run a hard SF game based on Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy, I'm going to turn to GURPS, because GURPS is heavy on the simulation side, and very, very fine grained for the kinds of things that will likely come up in that campaign.

Why? Because I and my players already know one RPG system - that being D&D - and it is (or should be) way less effort to bend that one to our needs than it is to learn a whole new one.

Lanefan

 

[Bluenose]

Because people enjoy that style, and have been trying to use the system that way to varying degrees for a long time, and part of 5e's goals is to let people play in their preferred style? I still don't get this question.

D&D Next is also going to need rules for plasma guns and powered armour, because there are some people who want to play in that style (which is a genre rather than a style, if I'm understanding your use of the term correctly, though I would argue that Hard-SF Mercenaries is a style in your terms), and the fact that D&D has never supported that style before is apparently not a reason not to make it do so now.

Why? Because I and my players already know one RPG system - that being D&D - and it is (or should be) way less effort to bend that one to our needs than it is to learn a whole new one.

Lanefan

I'd rather put my effort into making a good campaign, using a set of rules that's genre-appropriate, than spend time twisting a set of rules that isn't genre-appropriate to make a bad fit. Trying to make D&D do Lord of the Rings, Morte d'Arthur, or the Three Musketeers would seem like a real waste of my time. Either you'd change so much of the rules that you might as well use a different game because you'd spend so much time learning the new rules, or you'd end up with something that had a few names from your source but otherwise couldn't be told from any other generic D&D scenario.

 

[JamesonCourage]

D&D Next is also going to need rules for plasma guns and powered armour, because there are some people who want to play in that style (which is a genre rather than a style, if I'm understanding your use of the term correctly

Yeah, you just about made my argument for me. As always, play what you like

 

[Mallus]

Additionally, if you provide these classes, then presumably these classes are going to be used in the game. You then need to rejigger the game to balance against a group that is some percentage non-combat, with that percentage being anywhere from zero to one hundred.

Exactly.

The simplest and best way to handle non-combat oriented PCs is to design a system which acknowledges PCs are adventurers first --which in D&D strongly implies, if not flat-out necessitates, combat capability-- and something else second.

Classic AD&D handles this pretty well; after choosing their class --ie, adventuring skill set-- players can roll on the secondary skills table, which determines their normal-person skills, ie, armorer, jeweler, sailor, etc. (while it's a random roll, there's no harm is simply letting the player pick their secondary vocation).

The assumption is the PC is both these things, at the same time, with no ridiculous costing scheme which forces them to, for example, be a less capable dungeon-delver in order to be a better tailor.

NPC tinkers and tailors don't need levels (NPC soldiers and spies do, but that's why you give certain NPCs fighter and thief/assassin levels).

Pay attention to this next bit, it's important!

Common NPCs need to be describable in mechanical terms; things like HP, AC, saves, attack values, skills, etc. They *do not* need a full-fledged chargen system --ie, leveling-- which hardcode explicit relationships between those values.

Picture a master artisan, a glass-maker. HP 6, AC: 11, BaB +0, FORT +2, REF +1, WILL +1, Craft: glass-blowing +15.

She's described in 3e terms, but without using 3e's advancement procedures. Notice how much more realistic she is? There's no direct relationship between her hit points/combat ability and her ability to create really pretty glass vases?

Can anyone explain to me how forcing her into 3e's leveling scheme would make her, and, by extension, the campaign she plays a bit part in, better?

 

[Ahnehnois]

Think about it this way. A wild boar, in any version of D&D, can and will toast most 1st level characters. Yet, we hunted wild boars with spears all the time. And it didn't take a bunch of guys whittling down the boar. It took one guy with the proper tool - a boar spear.

A wild boar would probably also toast you and me. The RL hunters you're getting at are probably pretty skilled, and would not be represented in D&D as commoners, nor would they remain 1st level for all that long.

Why would you make a PC class whose basic premise runs counter to the basic premise of the game? Non-combat PC classes are pointless. D&D is not a simulation game and never has been. Sure, you can play that inn-keeper, but, at the end of the day, what's the point?

We sure go through a lot of trouble to simulate things in this non-simulation game.

This is a Heroic Fantasy Game.

Combat is synonymous with heroism?

Whether you want to lean on a Sword and Sorcery tradition, or an Epic fantasy tradition or somewhere in between, D&D has not ever been a game about mundane medieval people living mundane lives.

Anything other than combat is mundane?

People complain about how much 4e changed the game and you want to rewrite the entire premise? I'm thinking that's not going to fly very well.

The entire premise is that you're playing out an imaginary story in a group setting. That won't change.

Then again, you're right that any new direction (perceived or acual) is likely to anger some people.

Classes are the basis for combat mechanics. Remove the combat elements of a class and there isn't a whole lot left. Skills are about it. Possibly a few feat choices that only relate to skills. Everything else is combat. So, again, why use a system for something that it's not meant to do?

Perhaps the system should be meant to do skills better.

Additionally, if you provide these classes, then presumably these classes are going to be used in the game. You then need to rejigger the game to balance against a group that is some percentage non-combat, with that percentage being anywhere from zero to one hundred. How do you possibly write any supplements for this? Particularly modules. Do you put disclaimers on the front? "For a group of X characters, level Y to Z with a ratio of combat to non-combat characters of 3:2"

Wow, that sounds really hard!

It is already the case, though. As an open-ended game, D&D already varies this much, and rulebooks either accept that or ignore it.

In every version of D&D, there was a default baseline.

Hands up everyone who adhered 100% to that baseline. 90%? 50%? 5%?

Why try to cater to playstyles that have never been supported by the game and are actually quite contrary to what the game is about?

What is the game about?

I've never understood this idea that D&D must cater to every single gamer. If you want a game about investigation and intrigue with very little combat, why on earth would you use D&D to play that campaign?

Because D&D is the definitional tabletop rpg, the only one available at most vendors, the only one that even most genre nerds have ever heard of, and the only one that most of its players will ever play.

This doesn't have to always be true, and 4e has gone a long way towards raising the profile of other rpgs, but at the moment D&D is still the only game in town for most of us.

 

[Steely_Dan]

We sure go through a lot of trouble to simulate things in this non-simulation game.

That's the line right there; D&D has never "simulated" anything.

Totally different game.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Picture a master artisan, a glass-maker. HP 6, AC: 11, BaB +0, FORT +2, REF +1, WILL +1, Craft: glass-blowing +15.

She's described in 3e terms, but without using 3e's advancement procedures. Notice how much more realistic she is? There's no direct relationship between her hit points/combat ability and her ability to create really pretty glass vases?

Can anyone explain to me how forcing her into 3e's leveling scheme would make her, and, by extension, the campaign she plays a bit part in, better?

Player: I want Craft (Alchemy) +15. I want to make firebombs or something.
DM: You're first level. Take your skill ranks. You'll be there in a few levels.
Player: I want it now.
DM: You can't have it now.
Player: Well, how did that NPC get it then?
DM: Years of hard work and dedication.
Player: But what level is that NPC?
DM: ...
Player: If that NPC has Craft +15, I want it.
DM: No. (Or yes. Or something else. Equally problematic regardless, albeit for different reasons).

***

Player: I sneak past the guard. 28 Hide, 32 Move Silently.
DM: The guard draws his weapon and raises the alarm.
Player: What, he can't be more than a 2nd level character.
DM: Yeah, but his whole job is spotting so he's really good at it.
Player: I call BS.

***

Player: I Bluff the priest with a 35. Np, I definitely did not loot that grave. It was that halfling over there! I saw him do it!
DM: He sees right through it and claps you in irons.
Player: Wait, what? My lie was totally convincing.
DM: Yeah, but I just arbitrarily gave him +50 Sense Motive because I hate when my important NPCs get duped.
DM: Wait, did I just say that out loud?

***

The game is better because having every character built the same way balances the game, and prevents these and numerous other nonsensical and potentially disruptive scenarios.

If you don't build all characters the same way, any notion of balancing them against each other is pretty much out the window. Have you gained some realism in the example above? Yes. But the cost to the game element of an rpg is pretty substantial.

Common NPCs need to be describable in mechanical terms; things like HP, AC, saves, attack values, skills, etc. They *do not* need a full-fledged chargen system --ie, leveling-- which hardcode explicit relationships between those values.

Well, here's the issue. You're right that NPCs don't need that. But PCs don't either. Those relationships simplify the character creation process for beginners, but I don't see why they're necessary for those of us on these boards.

So the counter question: how does forcing a PC into 3e's leveling scheme make the game better?