Rule of Three 3/6

[UngeheuerLich]

i hope self healing stays in. Nothing that breaks versimilitude, if there is a rules subsystem that represents wounds, which the fighter can´t heal by himself.

 

[n00bdragon]

I hate when people bring up the Slayer as an example of how a one-trick pony character is equal to everyone else. There are a couple reasons for this:

1. The slayer only works because it breaks design principles built into the core game, namely that characters should always be using an at-will attack rather than basic attacks. To give players extra incentive to make basic attacks in a game where they are otherwise always inferior there are several items and feats which buff up basic attacks. Then along comes the slayer who neatly skirts around having at-will powers via his stances. In other words he is only on par because of intricacies of the rules cannot be assumed to exist in another game.

2. The slayer is only being compared to other 4e classes. The general assumption floating around is that spellcasters will be returned to something of their former glory; if not to the heady days of 3.x then certainly to the level of 1e and 2e (where they still dominated the game). The 4e spellcasters (however you define that, even the fighters could be argued to be straight up magicians of a sort) had none of that. There was a strict definition of what they could and could not do that the slayer got matched up against. If you take that assumption away and bring back the wild world of "choose your own spells from over 9000 splat books" then the ability to hit things, even it's hitting them really hard, starts to look somewhat cretin-ish.

This article really dodges the question of "What kind of steps are you guys taking to make sure we don't see a big difference in complexity between classes like the fighter and the wizard, and what are you doing to avoid the linear fighter/quadratic wizard issue?" by bumbling around for five paragraphs only to say "Well, we don't really think this is an issue" and thus the only conclusion I can make is they're not doing anything about it.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I like the slayer and believe the design is quite well. And making such a character work in 4e shows, that the designers are well worth their money. Of course, in 5e a slayer-like character needs to be designed a little bit defferently. But the core of the argument is:

Simple and complex characters can be equally good over the course of an adventure.

 

[Andor]

This article really dodges the question of "What kind of steps are you guys taking to make sure we don't see a big difference in complexity between classes like the fighter and the wizard, and what are you doing to avoid the linear fighter/quadratic wizard issue?" by bumbling around for five paragraphs only to say "Well, we don't really think this is an issue" and thus the only conclusion I can make is they're not doing anything about it.

He didn't actually say anything, but he neatly summed up the source of the problem, to-wit, that the wizard gets more slots and bigger spells to go in them.

It has already been intimated that spell levels are in but with fixed effects rather than scaling. (Fireball = 5d6 not level-d6.) The final, and obvious, end to that solution is that Wizards do NOT get more slots to stuff their bigger spells into. They'll start with 5 slots and die with 5 slots. Or maybe start with 3 and end with 7, but nonetheless a tiny progression compared to earlier editions.

He didn't say that because it will cause a merdestorm and besides, they almost certainly have not settled on the number yet, especially as it will interface with the wizards modules.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Rule-Of-Three continues to be awesome.

I think it's OK for it to be possible to have a big difference in complexity between the fighter and the wizard, if that is what the player wants.

Complexity Dials! Yaay!

Whether a player chooses to play a complex character or a simple character, making sure that character has parity with the effectiveness of the other members of the party should always be a goal.

I think this is very true, but I also think that it's an important point that "parity" need not be within a single encounter: it can be over the course of an entire day, or a series of encounters, or an entire adventure, or...

things like having multiple options for things to do on their turn, have some expendable resources, have the ability to expend those resources for great effect, and have some ability to customize a fighting style to match their vision of the character. (Note that I chose to focus on combat here, but the same points can apply to exploration and interaction).

More complex exploration and interaction mechanics?! OH YAY, YES PLEASE, DO WANT TO GO TO THERE!

I think there's room in the game for monsters that simply are more dangerous and deadly than others, just as I think there's room in the game for monsters whose purpose is to be interacted with, not fought. I also think it's good for monsters to exist that you don't want to face in a straight-up fight, but that you need to be prepared for or figure out a clever way to outwit rather than going in spells a-blazin'. There needs to be an element of danger in the world in order for the game to feel exciting, and unpredictability is important for sustaining engagement.

I don't think I've heard a thing about 5e monsters yet that I've hated, and this sounds like everything I've always assumed about D&D monsters (but that it seems 4e largely forgot).

The other important element when dealing with monsters that have scary abilities is education. We need to be able to communicate to the DM when a particular monster is suitable for a straight-up fight, and when it should be used more carefully. For example, if a medusa can instantly turn you to stone, that's fine, provided that the DM knows that a medusa shouldn't be just casually tossed into an adventure without first dropping hints to the players (allowing them to be prepared for the medusa when encountered) or being aware of the consequences of using a monster that instantly petrifies foes.

I am smiling like a madman reading that. This has me very optimistic about their thought process. That they think it's totally fine to have instant problems (provided DMs can opt into the scenario) is immensely reassuring.

For example, the fighter might be concerned with things like the preservation of hit points, which not only includes making strategic choices at character creation, but also might involve managing a pool of self-healing resources, or using defense-based options to mitigate damage while still occupying an enemy's attention (thus also mitigating the damage that enemy could do to the fighter's allies). The rogue might be more concerned with the management of risks, moving into a dangerous fray to fell a dangerous foe vs. sitting back and playing it safe, but not dropping an enemy as quickly. However, those need to be meaningful decisions; if it's always simply the right thing to do, there's no real reward for thinking strategically or tactically.

I'm liking this thought process. Different classes are concerned about different things, and nothing is necessarily universal.

Moreover, it's a perfectly valid choice to decide that one wants to eschew all of that and focus more on the narrative of the character. This touches again on the symmetry issue from the first question: giving a class a fulfilling strategic or tactical play option is not about mirroring the options of other classes, but creating a satisfying experience for that class.

Sensible and awesome.

 

[I'm A Banana]

In other words he is only on par because of intricacies of the rules cannot be assumed to exist in another game.

I'm a little befuddled at your implicit assumption that these intricacies of rules are necessary to cause the parity.

The parity was a design goal for the slayer, and they met that design goal using the tools at their disposal (the 4e rules). Under a different system, they'd use different tools, but the goal can be the same. He was mostly, it seemed, making the point that balance in power doesn't necessarily mean you have to use the same design for everything.

There was a strict definition of what they could and could not do that the slayer got matched up against. If you take that assumption away and bring back the wild world of "choose your own spells from over 9000 splat books" then the ability to hit things, even it's hitting them really hard, starts to look somewhat cretin-ish.

Just because the limit is different doesn't mean that there's going to be 9000 splat books' worth of options for one class of character again, or that those options will necessarily be unbalancing. There is no inherent relationship between effectiveness and options. Depths is different then breadth. Getting +1 to attacks is different than getting axe proficiency (or whatever). You don't need to measure every possible option, you just need to define the limits and means for those options (level X effects deal YdZ damage, forex).

This article really dodges the question of "What kind of steps are you guys taking to make sure we don't see a big difference in complexity between classes like the fighter and the wizard, and what are you doing to avoid the linear fighter/quadratic wizard issue?" by bumbling around for five paragraphs only to say "Well, we don't really think this is an issue" and thus the only conclusion I can make is they're not doing anything about it.

Is that what you got from that? Because what I got was "Complexity is something that we think should probably be independent of class, so you can have simple wizard and complex rogues and half-complicated barbarians and semi-complicated fighters all in the same party, all equal, because simplicity and complexity isn't necessarily related to how powerful a character is. How powerful a character is is more mathematical, and 4e gave us some good maths to work from."

 

[Dausuul]

If "damage" is shorthand for "loss of HP", and doesn't necessarily mean "receiving physical wounds", then why shouldn't "healing" be shorthand for "gain of HP", and not necessarily mean "removing physical wounds"?

I don't agree with "damage" not meaning "receiving physical wounds," either. Nor with "hit" meaning "near miss." Nor any other examples of words meaning one thing in English and something totally different in D&D.

This is where I have problems with the "hit points are totally abstract" approach. If hit points are abstract, then the game should use abstract terms for them. Better still, use concrete terms that fit the mechanics. The above suggestion of "morale," or perhaps "spirit," would be a good way to approach 4E-style hit points.

(The way I narrate D&D hit points is that any loss of hit points is physical injury, but the amount of injury is variable. A sword blow for 10 points of damage is a serious wound for a 1st-level fighter, a minor cut for a 15th-level fighter, and decapitation for an NPC commoner.)

What did you think of my Wounds suggestion? If 5E had something like that, and Warlords could heal HP, but not Wounds, whereas Clerics could heal Wounds (and HP) with magic, would that fit your expectations for verisimilitude? What if Warlords had "mind over matter" style abilities that enabled partymates to ignore Wound penalties for a period of time?

That resolves my second issue; the dying PC can get back in the fight, but is not made "all better." Couple it with stripping out the term "healing" for hit point recovery, and I could get behind this system--so long as I can still narrate "hits" as hits and "damage" as injury (maybe just cuts and bruises with no lasting effect, but still injury).

 

[Dausuul]

I am smiling like a madman reading that. This has me very optimistic about their thought process. That they think it's totally fine to have instant problems (provided DMs can opt into the scenario) is immensely reassuring.

Yeah, that made me happy too. I'm a big fan of having certain monsters that are just freakin' unfair by any normal standard. A medusa that, if you don't pick up on the clues approaching its lair, will turn the entire party to stone with one snaky glance. A golem that simply cannot be damaged by weapons or spells and so has to be lured into a deadfall or thrown off a cliff. Wraiths that go through walls and don't even feel your attacks.

I hope 5E makes this a new class of monster--call them "special monsters," maybe, or "advanced monsters," or something. Critters that really force the players to get creative, because if you just draw swords and charge in, you're doomed.

 

[triqui]

Me, I wonder how he can go from talking about "verisimilitude needs" in answer 1 to fighters "managing a pool of self-healing resources" in answer 3.

Because verosimilitude is not the same thing as realism.

 

[triqui]

I don't agree with "damage" not meaning "receiving physical wounds," either. Nor with "hit" meaning "near miss." Nor any other examples of words meaning one thing in English and something totally different in D&D.

This is where I have problems with the "hit points are totally abstract" approach. If hit points are abstract, then the game should use abstract terms for them. Better still, use concrete terms that fit the mechanics. The above suggestion of "morale," or perhaps "spirit," would be a good way to approach 4E-style hit points.

(The way I narrate D&D hit points is that any loss of hit points is physical injury, but the amount of injury is variable. A sword blow for 10 points of damage is a serious wound for a 1st-level fighter, a minor cut for a 15th-level fighter, and decapitation for an NPC commoner.)



That resolves my second issue; the dying PC can get back in the fight, but is not made "all better." Couple it with stripping out the term "healing" for hit point recovery, and I could get behind this system--so long as I can still narrate "hits" as hits and "damage" as injury (maybe just cuts and bruises with no lasting effect, but still injury).

If my level 12 barbarian falls from Empire State and crash into the floor, how powerful is that physical injury?
If said lvl 12 barbarian, being held, suffer an attempt of decapitation (ie: coup de.grace) from a str 10 comoner using a falchion, how bad is that 4d4 injury?
The game is abstract. I think we should largely ignore that and keep moving.