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

[Primal]

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).

KM, I don't see much "elegance" in Next. Pathfinder's archetypes are elegant, and quite a few of 4E mechanics, too. The negotiation system in Polaris, the Keys in Shadow of Yesterday, and the conflict resolution in Dogs in the Vineyard... these are examples of elegant design, at least IMO. Simple? Yeah, Next seems to be quite simple, but then again, as I noted above, I already have a few streamlined systems I most likely would enjoy more than Next. I already have my hybridized and house-ruled-as-hell version of AD&D plus S&P.

If I want to buy a new, elegant and newbie-friendly version of D&D, I'll likely go with Whitehack or some other OSR system.

But we love complexity in my group, and *that* is why I noted I don't have to tinker with the core, adding whatever switches, dials and modules need to be added to get the result I want. I honestly doubt I'll be satisfied with the Next "basic"/core rules without any of these moving parts; and I fear that adding them will only result in a variant 3E that doesn't still feel as good as PF or 4E (IMO).

 

[pemerton]

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. [

All fighters have proficiency on CON saves, so at 9th level that's another +3, for a 9 needed to save (60% chance). I don't know if that makes any difference to your overall conclusion.

 

[Thyrwyn]

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.

This is the only one I am going to comment on, but your chances of rolling more than 50 points of damage with 8d8 are ~1%. Eyeballing it (via anydice.com), I'd say that more than 90% of your rolls will be between 26-46. Not the best spell for this argument, as it is very situational and best used against creatures you suspect have weak CON saves. 36 damage is crappy output for your top spell slot, half of that is even worse. . .

 

[Minigiant]

Fighters have proficiency AND advantage to Con saving throws. So with 16 Con, they have 2 chances to beat DC15 with +7 each time they die from HP damage.

 

[I'm A Banana]

KM, I don't see much "elegance" in Next.

I mean, kind of a subjective call, and we don't actually have the books here, but sure. My point was more about how if what you want is a game you don't have to mod, 5e will have that. If that un-modded game isn't something that interests you, 5e will have scads of flexibility. If what you want is something specific to your tastes alone, you might find that a target audience of one table probably doesn't sustain a business.

If I want to buy a new, elegant and newbie-friendly version of D&D, I'll likely go with Whitehack or some other OSR system.

Sounds like you have a lot of options!

But we love complexity in my group, and *that* is why I noted I don't have to tinker with the core, adding whatever switches, dials and modules need to be added to get the result I want. I honestly doubt I'll be satisfied with the Next "basic"/core rules without any of these moving parts; and I fear that adding them will only result in a variant 3E that doesn't still feel as good as PF or 4E (IMO).

I'ma pull a Bill Nye here: What do you imagine could change your mind?

 

[Manbearcat]

KM, I don't see much "elegance" in Next. Pathfinder's archetypes are elegant, and quite a few of 4E mechanics, too. The negotiation system in Polaris, the Keys in Shadow of Yesterday, and the conflict resolution in Dogs in the Vineyard... these are examples of elegant design, at least IMO. Simple? Yeah, Next seems to be quite simple, but then again, as I noted above, I already have a few streamlined systems I most likely would enjoy more than Next. I already have my hybridized and house-ruled-as-hell version of AD&D plus S&P.

If I want to buy a new, elegant and newbie-friendly version of D&D, I'll likely go with Whitehack or some other OSR system.

But we love complexity in my group, and *that* is why I noted I don't have to tinker with the core, adding whatever switches, dials and modules need to be added to get the result I want. I honestly doubt I'll be satisfied with the Next "basic"/core rules without any of these moving parts; and I fear that adding them will only result in a variant 3E that doesn't still feel as good as PF or 4E (IMO).

I'm just going to agree here with everything Primal has above.

I'ma pull a Bill Nye here: What do you imagine could change your mind?

For my tastes personally I would like to see 5e have the kind of elegant, dynamic, unified conflict resolution system (such as Primal mentioned above with DitV...and also 4e) with stable, predictable math that incorporates PC build choices seamlessly and works as coherently with conflicts that escalate to violence as it does with noncombat conflicts. Just that request alone is asking an enormous amount from this system which seems wholly predicated upon (i) adventuring day resource schemes, (ii) task resolution with objective DCs of world elements (rather than subjective environmental challenges that scale with PCs), (iii) and no unity of class builds and elements that would cohere with conflict resolution.

There are plenty of other system components that I want that would require them to cohere with the system, but that one is right at the top.

But that is truly beside the point. I'm but one person (as is Primal)...but one who has plenty of systems that do what I want. Like many TTRPG consumers, a new RPG purchase must (i) pique my curiosity with its pitch, (ii) appeal specifically to a genre I'm interested in, (iii) clearly and expressly divulge its means to meet, or exceed, the demands of my play agenda and expectant play experience. Of those three, the only one met is two. On 1, my curiosity has moved from piqued to abjectly disinterested. On 3, there are only two (peripheral) elements of 5e that play to that interest.

The only TTRPG market of which 5e doesn't have to worry about these things is the community that will purchase and play the next edition no matter what. D&D on the tin is what is important to them, not a honed experience that yields precisely what they're looking for as well, or better, than another system (of which they've already paid for and have already internalized) already does.

Has 5e piqued PF players' interests? Have the designers shown that they have any ability to reproduce the (presumably quality) APs that keep them coming back for more? Are the OSR folks paying attention anymore (if they even were after the first few playtest releases)? Does the design impetus, the engine and component parts clearly and expressly reproduce an old-school, take no prisoners, "Gygaxian skilled play", "step on up", dungeon crawl? I think its pretty well certain that a very generous portion of 4e players (specifically those who aren't moved primarily by playing the currently supported system with D&D on the tin + those who have "complex system fatigue") have had their interest basically flat-lined and have mentally checked out.

The playtest didn't pin anything down for any of those groups I think and, in the end, just seemed to be a vacillating, amorphous collage of "D&D stuff". Nothing noteworthy outside of the "advantage mechanic." And virtually every single follow-up debriefing (Rule of 3 and Legend Lore et al) by the designers has been a meandering (and again, often vacillating and sometimes outright contradictory) monologue lacking in substance or bite.

Where are the "WHOA (!)" moments? Where is the trailblazing and exciting "One Unique Thing(s)", the DW Basic Resolution/Outcome, the DitV Conflict Resolution, the XP for Gold, the Martial Forced Movement, etc etc? Maybe they're to come but if I was running a public playtest and had the bully pulpit (each and every week), I would be highlighting something very specific, potent and revolutionary that is going to charge my audience (eg not "advantage" and task resolution by way of ability checks).

In the final analysis, 5e may eventually cater to one or more of those key three groups above. As of now though, I don't see why any of those folks have reason to have their curiosity piqued nor do I see any evidence that 5e will produce an experience comparable to, or better than, what they currently own and have internalized. That appears to have been the goal. If the goal was "make a new and awesome D&D (!)", my interest would have been dramatically piqued regardless. As is, their goal wasn't particularly interesting "big tent' and I don't see any reason to believe it will turn out.

Interest for AD&D 2e folks who were expecting something different than what they got with 3e? Absolutely. AD&D 2.5 seems to work with 5e. People looking for a pared down "Basic" experience because they have "complex system fatigue?" Surely. People who will play anything because it bears the brand and is currently supported? Self-evidently true. New players? No clue (but give me Dungeon World all the way for that). Will those 3 groups yield enough initial net profit and (immediate) future investment? I don't think so.

 

[pemerton]

Fighters have proficiency AND advantage to Con saving throws. So with 16 Con, they have 2 chances to beat DC15 with +7 each time they die from HP damage.

This is only at 13th level, yeah?

 

[Lokiare]

This is the only one I am going to comment on, but your chances of rolling more than 50 points of damage with 8d8 are ~1%. Eyeballing it (via anydice.com), I'd say that more than 90% of your rolls will be between 26-46. Not the best spell for this argument, as it is very situational and best used against creatures you suspect have weak CON saves. 36 damage is crappy output for your top spell slot, half of that is even worse. . .

Thus the 'injured' qualifier. It still deals around half the hit points of the same level fighter on average. To go from full to bloodied in one round is insane. Especially since they can cast the exact same spell next round and finish the Job.

 

[Lokiare]

This is only at 13th level, yeah?

I did the comparison at eighth level not thirteenth. If you want I can do it at thirteenth?

The Fighter gets proficiency (+3) and Advantage on the roll so that means:

Hit Chance of Failure
1 30.25%
2 51.349375%
3 76.33116687109375%
4 94.3978633831599%

That is pretty nice, but the Fighter can still take 3-4 hits in a single round before they ore the healer can act. It increases their survivability from 2-3 hits to 3-4.

Now lets look at the spells Wizard gains at 13th level: They get one 7th level spell slot, one 6th level slots, and two 5th level slots. Which means they will likely use one 7th in one combat, one 6th in a different combat, and each of their 5th level spell slots in two other combats. For one spell per combat per day.

5th:
Contact Other Plane - Ask up to 5 questions and get plot breaking one word answers: "Who killed the King?", "Where is the enemies hide out?", "Is there a secret door within this complex?"

Dominate Person - Completely control a person if they fail a save for 1 hour, no concentration required.

Feeblemind - Permanently drop a targets Intelligence and Charisma to 3 and prevent spell casting. (its not clear whether the hit point damage is permanent).

Hold Monster - Paralyze anything that fails a round by round Wisdom Save. So Fighters will be paralyzed around 2-3 rounds along with much of the bestiary. For the Wizard (or their party) to wail on with advantage.

Wall of Stone - Permanent wall made out of stone. If you surround a target and they can't climb out or attack over or through the wall, you effectively shut them down until they can break through.


6th:
Banishment - Insta defeat extraplanar creatures that fail a save.

Disintegrate - 60 hp or below and failed save = instant death. Otherwise a failed save deals 17d6 force damage (average 59.5).

Mass Suggestion - "Fighter that pool (or 300 foot deep pit) over there is actually a refreshing spring, go bath in it, don't worry it won't hurt at all." and a failed wisdom save means the Fighter or up to 12 creatures takes a bath in acid for up to 1 day.

Sunbeam - Make sunlight and beams of damaging light that hits everyone in a 50' line. That deals 6d8 radiant damage and blindness half and no blind on a Con save, each round for up to 1 minute.

7th:
Etherealness - Half damage from non-magic attacks, Invisible, no concentration up to 4 hours. Travel up into the air or down into the ground or through walls. What's not to like. That turns just about any non-magic combat into a cake walk and effectively gives the caster twice as many hit points making them rival the Fighter.

Finger of Death - Insta kill 40 hp or lower or deal 12d8 (54) necrotic and if you kill a creature it rises as a zombie under your control.

Mordenkainen's Sword - up to 10 rounds of better than Fighter like bonus's to attack roll and 3d10 damage attacks made without concentration or taking your actions. I'll take one of those. Its like haste on a Fighter, but on steroids.

Plane Shift - A failed Dex and Charisma save and one creature is instantly defeated. Around 25% to 50% chance (depending on ability scores) of taking anything in the game out with a single spell.

Prismatic Spray - 10d6 (35 average) damage of a random type or turned to stone on two failed saves or blinded and then shunted off to another plane or one of the previous and blinded for 1 minutes. Its a little chaotic but it hits multiple targets and can do some serious effects.

{sarcasm}Yep, totally worth surviving an extra round or two in trade for all of that.{/sarcasm}

 

[Minigiant]

This is only at 13th level, yeah?

Yeah. 13th. Lokaire did a comparison for level 8. At level 13 in the start of the paragon tier, the fighter has a ~12% chance of dying when dropped to 0HP if he has 16 Con.

A barbarian gets the same thing while raging at level 12. But the chances of death starts lower and increases each "saved death". First 1% of death, then ~12%, then ~42% then about ~72%.

And you still have to drop their HP first.

My cousin's fighter almost died 6 times in a fight at level 14. An enemy mage dumped spells on him and he just defied dying. After they killed the enemy mage. Then I sicced hobs on him to finish him off again. Those poor spartans didn't have a chance. They'd "kill" him. He'd defy death then shoot them all to the number of Hells of my choice. Then when he DID drop, roll double 4, and start dying, the cleric went all "LOL CLW Round 7". Then the hobgoblins finally retreated. In the paragon tier, when caster start getting the power spells and slots to use them, the swordsman and axeman are pretty tough.