Rule of Three: May 22

[KidSnide]

I like that the rogue is always above average in skills.

I think I like that in theory. Skills should be an essential part of the rogue niche in a traditional D&D dungeon crawl party.

But I have played in a large number of games where exploration and interaction are significantly more important than combat. So I hope that rogues do not dominate skills so much that everyone needs to splash a level of rogue to avoid being dominated outside of combat. One of the aspects I like about 4e is that every class gets a decent shake at out-of-combat activities.

(I'll admit to being in the minority. I'm so bored by slow 4e combat, that my 4e game has largely gone combat free.)

-KS

 

[TerraDave]

As several posts have noted, the math doesn't quite add up...at least not until we learn something else thursday.

I thought the big thing here was: char gen in two months.

In general, I wonder how they will be rolling things out. A new class or race a week? A

new batch of monsters or an adventure in a month?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'd prefer rolling 2d20, pick the highest, to roll 1d20, take roll or 10 whichever is highest. If I'm going to roll, I'd like at least the possibility of outright failure, however slight. There might be some cases I'm not considering, however. I'd have to see all the different situations with the both options to know.

I don't mind the big jump from auto success to real chance of failure, though. That's actually fairly realistic. Once you reach a point where you succeed most of the time with something on the margins (which is what we are discussing here), then the jump to "practically never fails" is usually a small one. There are exceptions, like free throw shooting in basketball, but I think they are exceptions most of the time, and unlike the free throw, most of the exceptions are due to opposition.

 

[Steely_Dan]

I very much like the idea of ability score modifiers being the score -10, 16 Str gives +6, so the 16 is your modifier taking 10 (10.5).

In 4th Ed I have even stripped out the 1/2 level bonus from all character's and monster's attacks, defences and skills, and am using ability score -10 for attacks attacks and the score itself for defences, working wonderfully so far.

 

[Dausuul]

As several posts have noted, the math doesn't quite add up...at least not until we learn something else thursday.

If you do the simple, sensible thing and have ability checks be "1d20 plus ability score," the math adds up just fine. With a 16 Strength:

1d20+16 versus DC 16: Auto success.
1d20+16 versus DC 17-18: 5% failure chance (assuming natural 1 always fails).
1d20+16 versus DC 19: 10% failure chance.

Et cetera.

 

[Steely_Dan]

It all sounds very good to me, creative things that should just work, automatic successes that make sense, grids for when you want to emphasise a certain aspect of a special encounter (not necessarily the most important one).

My big, burning question about 5th Ed, is Ability Scores.

 

[TerraDave]

If you do the simple, sensible thing and have ability checks be "1d20 plus ability score," the math adds up just fine. With a 16 Strength:

1d20+16 versus DC 16: Auto success.
1d20+16 versus DC 17-18: 5% failure chance (assuming natural 1 always fails).
1d20+16 versus DC 19: 10% failure chance.

Et cetera.

Could be. We will know in two days.

 

[Steely_Dan]

If you do the simple, sensible thing and have ability checks be "1d20 plus ability score," the math adds up just fine. With a 16 Strength:

1d20+16 versus DC 16: Auto success.
1d20+16 versus DC 17-18: 5% failure chance (assuming natural 1 always fails).
1d20+16 versus DC 19: 10% failure chance.

Et cetera.

I don't want any modifier to a d20 going to such really high numbers (d20+37 becomes weird, to say the least) like in 3rd Ed.

I prefer a d20 roll with a smaller modifier.

 

[am181d]

Why do you think D&DN even has a "Strength modifier?"

Because my first level fighter with 10 hit points will not have a +16 to damage.

There is no chance that this will be in the playtest rules on Thursday.

 

[Dausuul]

I don't want any modifier to a d20 going to such really high numbers (d20+37 becomes weird, to say the least) like in 3rd Ed.

I prefer a d20 roll with a smaller modifier.

How are you getting to 37? I am not aware of any edition of D&D in which it was possible to get an ability score of 37, barring polymorph shenanigans, nonstandard race options, or going past the level cap*. You can get to 36 in 3E if you start with an 18, play a race that gives you +2, put all five of your level-up bonuses into the stat, and get a +6 enhancement item and a +5 tome. In no other edition can you get past the mid- to high 20s.

[size=-2]*The Immortals set in BECMI, or the Epic-Level Handbook in 3E.[/size]

Because my first level fighter with 10 hit points will not have a +16 to damage.

True, but adding a damage bonus is a very specific use of the Strength score. It's not shared by other ability scores--except in 4E, the rogue does not get to add her Dex bonus to backstab damage, nor does the wizard add Int to spell damage. So it's more like encumbrance, a particular derived value for a particular stat, not a generic "bonus for everything."

(Personally, I'd be cheering to get rid of Strength adjustments to damage altogether. But that probably won't happen.)