D&D 5E Rule of Three: 7 Feb. 2014

[Obryn]

The fighter very good against caster types accordning to my playtests. An NPC caster of mine using the mage class dumped alot of spells on the fighter and was still kills. The weakening of spells and the reduction of spell slots makes a caster nova not very effecient against fighters who can make saving with proficincy and advantage to not die.

It's not perfect but not many things can beat a full fighter without a massive level/HD advanatge. It seems that is how they want them to be. Near unstoppable juggernauts. Some guy who everyone is in awe of because they are crazy powerful and not wanted to be on the enemy's side.

Some will like this. Others will hate it.

I do think the Advantage to Saves mechanic is great - my favorite thing in the Next fighter by far. And yeah, for PvP it's useful. It falls a good deal short of the flexibility and power of the mage, but at least they can take on wizards by then.

I do think it kicks in too late, though. It's something I'd like to see earlier.

 

[Bluenose]

Which is more than the never it has ever been affected by the spellcasting power of one person.

And in many cases (especially Genghiz Khan) the leader was leader because they were a kick-ass fighter. In other cases (Gustavus Adolphus, Richard the Lionheart, Charles Martel) they didn't have to fight their way up - but their personal skill in battle and ability to take to the front lines was a huge factor in raising the morale of their troops. (I think that the 30 Years War was the final European war where this was the case; gunpowder weapons make it too easy for a peasant thirty yards away to take down any warrior). Arthur and Lancelot in the myths, and Conan in the stories were all very much leaders in this school.

I'd dispute Genghis, to be honest. Great organiser, diplomat, and tactician, but I've never really heard his personal combat prowess was anything special. Timur, on the other hand, went from leading a small group of banditsto having a small army by the process of challenging other leaders to fights, beating them, and forcing them to follow him. And kep them happy by winning battles and providing loot.

Right, because the king appearing on the field with his flag held high never raised moral. Only when he killed 56 enemies the soldiers on his side, in the middle of the battle, notice...

Depends on the King in question. It didn't seem to do Alte Fritz much good at Kunersdorf. Morale isn't exactly easy to quantify or "simulate".

 

[I'm A Banana]

Human perception is so unhinged. How in the world did the WotC designers successfully pitch the lofty notion that one, modular ruleset chassis would not just appease, but please all of the deep divisions of D&D. We cannot even carve out the same perception with respect to the nature of the the existence of something that appears completely, and innocuously, self-evident to all three groups.

Solid post, and I think, part of what makes this hobby so awesome and so occasionally aggravating at the same time: no such thing as a consistent experience shared by all.

That's human nature, too. Think of any religious or political issue: two people can look at one thing and see all sorts of different and exclusive interpretations.

Which is why I think NEXT would be smart to embrace the idea that none of these people are wrong. They're all right. They all deserve the game that works for them. Group A deserves a game where all the classes are on roughly comparable footing. Group C deserves a game where fighters are outclassed. Group B could probably play either game and be happy.

So since there's no right answer here, what do you design for? Practical considerations. Things like, "It's always easier to unbalance a game than to balance it" means that the classes should likely be comparable out of the gate. You can always give out more spells or whatever, or enable that as options for DMs that like it.

Seems like the direction they're leaning in to me.

Which means that, in terms of being able to overcome the challenges a typical adventure tosses at the party, the Fighter is going to be as good as the wizard, but different. Assuming WotC does their jobs well. And WotC has a history of delivering well on the goals they give themselves. It's only a question of if they have the right goals. Here, I think they do.

 

[Minigiant]

I do think the Advantage to Saves mechanic is great - my favorite thing in the Next fighter by far. And yeah, for PvP it's useful. It falls a good deal short of the flexibility and power of the mage, but at least they can take on wizards by then.

I do think it kicks in too late, though. It's something I'd like to see earlier.

Well it matches up with the time casters get their more powerful spells and have spare slots for low lewel utility magic. Defy Death aka "1-UP" is late expert when caster get 5th level spells. Indominable is mid paragon when casters get their 1 6th slot and 1 7th slot. And they stack into something fierce.

Frankly it's the fighter's toughness that makes them more of a threat than their attack. It's like the 3e Monk Done Right.

 

[Manbearcat]

Good post. (Couldn't XP, sorry.)

But I don't think it's particularly mysterious to understand where these distinctions arise. In games where the players either don't have or don't exert much system mastery, or the DM uses a strong hand in creating encounters to emphasize spotlight balance, LFQW simply isn't going to arise as a perceivable issue. And that playstyle often overlaps with your 3rd rail, where players have internalized non-balance as being part and parcel of the class definition.

<snip examples>

Do I like this particular approach? Not really. But I've become sensitive to just how ingrained certain expectations of the D&D experience are to a wide swath of gamers. My enjoyment of constant evolution and new concepts often leads me to be the odd man out in my play group's preferences.

No I agree that the genesis and evolutions of the groups isn't particularly difficult to unpack. What I find mostly hard to get my head around (and here I'm going to respond to @Kamikaze Midget 's post as well), is how WotC designers successfully pitched the incredible scope of D&DNext (one D&D to unite all of these wildly different groups) with literally dozens of LF/QW-like issues gripping the greater D&D community by its collective throat. That one issue is toxic...with multiple dug-in, mutually exclusive positions...and its barely scratching the surface of the divide.

I don't have faith that this can work and I'm truly not a cynic. I just don't see how its possible, given the deep diversity within the greater D&D community, to create enough coherent, seamless, non-reverberating "unplug, plug-in" modules with predictable (quantifiable) results and apply them to the 5e chassis to create multiple play experiences that don't just appease but actually delight the various subgroups. It just seems cost and time prohibitive to attempt such an undertaking.

It has always seemed deeply easier (less time and cost prohibitive) to create multiple, exclusive games (where you aren't agonizing over dozens of 2nd and 3rd order, perhaps unquantifiable, feedbacks) and then support them via a DDI analogue, Dragon/Dungeon, and something like PF APs.

I know what I personally have enjoyed over the years with various D&D and non-D&D systems and they are so deeply different (mechanically-wise, GM-principle-wise, genre-wise, long term committment-wise) that I can't imagine trying to bridge those gaps with one system. I, personally, would never undertake such a task to build that game for myself...one person...of which I'm (thankfully!) intimately aware of every switchback and pratfall of tastes, interests and expectations (and most importantly, why those things are the way they are). Now take that dynamic and multiply the population to be pleased by a kajillion, and distance yourself from your understanding of the ins and outs of said population by a very large degree...then add on the extra fun factor of tribalism and all that comes with that (such as irrationally and vindictively willing to sink the ship because you want non-tribesmen to suffer or to be excluded merely because they don't play or your team...or some perceived wrong or slight). Yeah. No thanks.

And while I'm selling despondency, I'll take a moment to switch gears and agree with @Neonchameleon that any hope at all for 5e lies within the designers profound understanding and explicit canvassing of each and every moving part of the system. If something is built on a particular founding, it needs to be conveyed clearly to the consumer; eg if Monks are supposed to suck because "that is what Monks do (!)", then it needs to be on the tin. Then, of course, you have the problem of page bloat and/or a certain cross-section of people complaining that the rulebooks read like an engineering manual and castigating the edition for that (and refusing to play it)! Ack!

Best of luck guys (truly...I would love to eat lots of crow here)!

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't have faith that this can work and I'm truly not a cynic. I just don't see how its possible, given the deep diversity within the greater D&D community, to create enough coherent, seamless, non-reverberating "unplug, plug-in" modules with predictable (quantifiable) results and apply them to the 5e chassis to create multiple play experiences that don't just appease but actually delight the various subgroups. It just seems cost and time prohibitive to attempt such an undertaking.

The question is: what is the goal of their design?

I don't think this is quite it. Coherent? Seamless? Predictable? Quantifiable? The moment you accept the fact that all lemonade is local, you've acknowledged the futility of many of those goals. People will not play the same game at two different tables ever, and if you're embracing that idea, pursuing a monolithic play experience is quixotic. I'm not sure that's the plan, here.

What I see as more likely is that they take a sort of "game within a game" style. The rules that will be published this summer will be a "D&D-branded" selection of rules that hang on a flexible math-chassis (probably one not too dissimilar from 4e). That'll be one "flavor" of D&D.

But much like Gamma World could hang out on 4e's mechanical chassis, I think those books will be some rules that hang out on 5e's mechanical chassis. And if the 5e undercarriage is as robust as 4e's, I don't think they'll have any problem accepting diversity akin to (or even greater than) the heyday of d20, with a much clearer picture of how the changes change the math and how the math drives the experience.

The idea isn't to make an idiot-proof, consistent, equitable, perfect gaming system. The idea is to empower individual DMs to make the game their own by giving them the tools to perfect the system for themselves (and some easy options to choose in the default game if they don't particularly want to). Which is likely going to include a solid rule base, but is also likely to not be tethered to it.

If they deliver on their promise, the fact that they have mandated, for instance, passive perception/active trap stealth won't ever need to show up in my games. And maybe Wish never shows up in others'. And that's all fine because the game is ours to change.

 

[pemerton]

For raising morale you do not need to be a very good fighter. Status is more important.

Are you talking about the real history of non-gunpowder military forces? If so, what is your evidence? Most of what I have read about Richard the Lionheart suggests that his personal prowess, as well as his reputation for chivalry, played a role in his ability to be an effective leader.

But when it comes to D&D, I think myth, legend and fiction are more important than history. How does Aragorn, or Boromir, raise morale? By being an awesome warrior. How does Conan raise morale? Because of his prowess. If fighter's can't influence others, and therefore the world, by their displays of prowess, then the game is failing in its evocation of the genre it claims to be inspired by.

 

[Primal]

The idea isn't to make an idiot-proof, consistent, equitable, perfect gaming system. The idea is to empower individual DMs to make the game their own by giving them the tools to perfect the system for themselves (and some easy options to choose in the default game if they don't particularly want to). Which is likely going to include a solid rule base, but is also likely to not be tethered to it.

If they deliver on their promise, the fact that they have mandated, for instance, passive perception/active trap stealth won't ever need to show up in my games. And maybe Wish never shows up in others'. And that's all fine because the game is ours to change.

I can speak only for myself and the guys I game with, but like I've said on other threads, we just don't have *time* to tinker with the system. It's hard enough to find time to *play*, let alone try to write your own adventures. It was so much easier 20-25 years ago, but these days you've got lots of responsibilities at work and home. We get to play maybe once a month or two, so 6-12 times per year.

I want a complete game that gives me enough options and complexity, and yet is at least moderately easy to run. I don't want to spend time on rewriting or experimenting with stuff.

IMO Next reminds me a lot of AD&D with Skills & Powers books thrown into the mix, sans feats. Although with CPs (Character Points) you could actually create that Aragorn-like ranger who picks Lay on Hands from the paladin's list. Anyway. I still have my binders full of house-rules; I could always play AD&D, if I want to try a simpler and more streamlined system than 3E, 4E or Pathfinder. Or, even better yet, I could just buy an indie RPG or a D&D retroclone.

As far as modularity goes, 4E and Pathfinder have moving parts that don't dramatically affect gameplay, yet enable more versatility and character customization. For example, you can have a core fighter at the same table with a cleric who uses variant channeling and has an archetype plus a couple of traits. In 4E you might have a knight adventuring with a dhampir runepriest and a shadar-kai blackguard who only has boons. It looks to me that it won't be as simple in Next, since every DM is supposed to make the game their "own", and explore different optional rules (modules, dials, switches, etc.). You guys don't use the tactical combat module and feats, yet you use the skill module and mana point switch? Alright, I guess I'll have to create a new wizard for your game, since mine is incompatible with your table rules.

I know that every group house-rules stuff a bit (we had whole binders back in AD&D). Not every 4E DM accepts Essentials characters, or a Pathfinder GM might ouright reject gunslingers or hellknights at his table. It happens. However, it looks to me that Next seems to *encourage* this sort of stuff by its design philosophy, i.e. by providing a simple set of core rules and tools/modules for DMs to tinker and rewrite stuff with. Didn't Mike even publicly say so in a L&L article a few weeks ago, that DMG will include optional modules/dials/switches/whatever and that they're encouraging people to experiment with Next? IMO that means that it's once again harder to play at other DMs' campaigns, because the rules might vary a lot from group to group (as it often did, at lest IME, when we were playing AD&D).

Anyhow, I want something more than a bastard child of 3E and AD&D, with some genes stolen from 4E. And the core game looks to be a bit too simple and bland for my group's tastes without tinkering and/or adding modules. It may run smoothly and quickly, but if I want that, I still have my house-ruled BECMI on my bookshelf.

Maybe I'm just not part of their target demographic? *shrug*

 

[I'm A Banana]

I can speak only for myself and the guys I game with, but like I've said on other threads, we just don't have *time* to tinker with the system.

Which is why the game is provided to you out of the gate as D&D. Simple, newbie-friendly, elegant, well-balanced, and optimized for the "typical D&D experience."

It'd just be a mistake to assume that any part of the rules being published this summer is something that you are stuck with for 5e's duration, that it is somehow authoritative, or that the supplements in the future won't contradict or dramatically alter something that was published in the past, and leave it up to the DM to change it (or not).

 

[Lokiare]

Well it matches up with the time casters get their more powerful spells and have spare slots for low lewel utility magic. Defy Death aka "1-UP" is late expert when caster get 5th level spells. Indominable is mid paragon when casters get their 1 6th slot and 1 7th slot. And they stack into something fierce.

Frankly it's the fighter's toughness that makes them more of a threat than their attack. It's like the 3e Monk Done Right.

Lets just clarify some things. I'm looking at the last packet (of the play test, not the late release stuff from the cons) and what I'm seeing is:

They have to make a DC 15 Constitution save lets be generous and give them a 16 Constitution score for a bonus of +3. That's a 45% chance of succeeding on the first roll. To succeed on two rolls in a row its a 20.25% chance. For three its 9.1125%. At best the fighter might survive one to two hits and remember these hits can come along at any given time even on the same round.

Fighter drops to 0 makes a save, gets hit again, makes a save, gets hit again fails the save, and goes down all in one round before the healer or the Fighter have a chance to act.

Now lets look at the Wizards spell list at level 8:

Blight - 8d8 necrotic damage half on a save. That's enough with a lucky roll to take out an injured fighter (Average hp for a fighter with +3 con bonus is 68, max damage for the spell is 64). It can certainly take out just about anything that they would be facing at that level.

Evard's Black Tentacles - Area is difficult terrain, Dex save or become restrained and take 3d6 damage. Then take 3d6 damage every round with no save for the duration or until you break free with a Strength check against the spells DC, which is going to be around 15. Which means a 50/50 chance for a Fighter, but other classes and monsters will be in there a while. A fighter can take 3d6 to 9d6 on average before they get out.

Polymorph - Change a target into any beast in the bestiary if they fail a wisdom save (not many creatures or the Fighter has a high wisdom bonus). The target gets the attacks of its new form (which means the Fighter turned into a squirrel get a +1 bonus to attack and -4 for strength mod and deals 1 damage or whatever and must provoke opportunity attacks to get in range to attack[no its not statted out in the bestiary, but I'm sure something like that will be]). Alternatively the Wizard can turn its familiar into a truly fearsome beast to fight off the Fighter while they stand back and cantrip them to death.

Wall of Fire - Encircle a target (with them just inside the wall for the dex save) so they have to take a minimum of 10d8 damage (5d8 with no save) to get out of it.

Now they can cast these spells for half the combats of the day so lets look at their next lower level of spells:

Blink - Half the time when its not your turn you can't be targeted or affected. Very useful if you have a lower level concentration spell going. Oh 0.25% chance of being completely untouchable for 2d6 hours.

Slow - Choose 4 targets, half speed, -2 AC and Dex saves, drops down to one action per round, move or act, but not both. Instant Fighter -> Orc spell.

Stinking Cloud - make a Con save or lose your actions this round.

Wow, what a nice trade off for maybe surviving another round or two (if your really really lucky) as a Fighter. I'm sorry but if a Wizard unloaded on a Fighter at that level the Fighter would go down just from statistical probability alone. Setting the PvP issue aside (because that's generally not how the game is played), most enemies the group will encounter will be devastated too from these things.

Remember the last packet still assumes 4 encounters as an adventuring day so the Wizard can can cast two 4th level spells, three 3rd level spells, three 2nd level spells, and four 1st level spells. Which means if they used half their spells for utility they still had around 1 to 2 spells per encounter. So Blink and Flaming Sphere or any number of combos could be used. While the Fighter is still flailing around trying to kill enemies one at a time (or two at a time if they are lucky with their second attack).

I'm sorry, but the casters still come out miles ahead.