D&D 5E So 5th edition is coming soon

[KarinsDad]

And I tend to find that (ignoring a plot completely and moving in a different direction) pretty annoying unless I get some heads-up that such a move will be coming into play.

Annoying? Why?

Why is it more important that what the DM wants the PCs to do is more important than what the players want the PCs to do?

It's not the DM's PCs. It's the players PCs.

Granted, constantly doing this would get old real fast, but it should be rare enough that a DM could be flexible about it.

But if we're in the middle of a story, and then decide "Hey, I can turn invisible and fly! Let's drop this and go rob people in Major City X!," then I get perturbed. I'm fully aware that "Don't play with those kind of players" is the best advice, but even good players can have a bad night and flake off.

Well, I suspect that most players tend to not do this in the middle of a story. I cannot recall seeing it in a recent game. They might go off on a wild goose chase, but that's ok as long as they players think that they are staying within the story.

I cannot recall a situation where the players just said "Screw it. The Mayor is being a pain in the butt. Let's blow this town and move on.", but over the decades, it probably has happened in one way or another in some of our games.

I could easily see it happening though and as a DM, I would just let that story arc fall by the wayside. I wouldn't get perturbed with the players and I definitely wouldn't try to force them to play that storyline or punish them for quitting mid-story. I created a cool cave complex for them to explore and they didn't go there? Oh well.

It happened early on in one of the WotC podcasts. The DM even got to the point where he drew the map with (IIRC) sarcophaguses on it and the players said "Hmmmm. That looks scary. Let's not go in there." and they walked away.

That might annoy you, but I would just blow it off as the players making their own decisions for their PCs, regardless of what specific thing I prepared.

Sometimes, it's better to just let the players decide instead of deciding for them.

Your "warrior in a well" example is telling. Why does that situation require water breathing or levitate? Why aren't you tying a rope to the halfling and throwing him in after him?

Yes, it is telling. You're assuming that the Fighter wants to come back out right away, even in the middle of a combat.

The fighter falls in and the players decides to explore the real deep water of the well before coming back. Maybe the encounter is in mop up mode up above (assuming the PCs are in an encounter) or whatever.

With the current rules, he's quasi-prevented or at least discouraged in one way or another from doing that.

That's what I am opposed to. The fact that as a player, I say:

Fighter: "Since I fell in anyway, I'm going to explore this deep underwater well a bit."

And the response from the DM is:

"The well is only 15 feet deep. You find nothing."

or

"The well is really deep. Give me Endurance checks as you sink down further and further."

I want the ability as a player to sometimes have the option to control this situation to some extent. If I have a Potion of Water Breathing, I can go down into the water and explore without worrying about the pesky Endurance checks.

Without the option of such a potion, I'm stuck with a bunch of crap like:

1) Get group consensus that they want to allow the Fighter to split from the party (and hope the DM isn't one of those who bought into the whole "never split the party and punish players for trying it" schtick).

2) Get the party Wizard to cast Water Breathing on you via ritual. Ok, first I have to convince him, or possibly even negotiate something with him to get him to do so. Then, it takes 10 minute of in game time to cast the ritual.

3) The Fighter could even be in a situation where getting back is difficult, so he wants to explore first, then head back and he cannot do so because the Wizard is needed to cast the ritual.


There is a certain amount of "this is how the game should be played" and not doing so is bad/wrong fun from our gaming community at whole precisely because the designers put in game design roadblocks to certain options.

If someone wants to breath underwater, it takes 10 minutes and requires the PCs to include a ritual caster in their group. Why? Because someone thought of a cool idea called rituals and didn't take into account the possibility that the game might actually play smoother and have some more awesomeness to it if the players could just decide that the PC does something immediately because he prepared ahead of time instead of waiting 10 minutes of in game time.

I'm not opposed to rituals. I'm opposed to rituals being the only way to do certain relatively harmless game actions that should be allowable quickly and easily.

And since 4E came out, I can count the number of rituals used in my various games on two hands. They are hardly ever used as they are currently implemented in our games. That will vary from group to group, but they almost seem like a wart on the system for me. They aren't a cool way to get things done, they are almost an afterthought where the vast majority of time if they are even considered an option, a player says "Do we have xzy ritual?", the answer is often no. Ok, let's try something else.

 

[TwoSix]

Well, I suspect that most players tend to not do this in the middle of a story. I cannot recall seeing it in a recent game. They might go off on a wild goose chase, but that's ok as long as they players think that they are staying within the story.

I cannot recall a situation where the players just said "Screw it. The Mayor is being a pain in the butt. Let's blow this town and move on.", but over the decades, it probably has happened in one way or another in some of our games.

I could easily see it happening though and as a DM, I would just let that story arc fall by the wayside. I wouldn't get perturbed with the players and I definitely wouldn't try to force them to play that storyline or punish them for quitting mid-story. I created a cool cave complex for them to explore and they didn't go there? Oh well.

Sometimes, it's better to just let the players decide instead of deciding for them.

I don't disagree with you in theory, although I think you're glossing over how annoying it is. Maybe it just happens to me more, perhaps. I have had several players over the years who revel in causing storyline chaos. I still don't see the need to provide class abilities to make it easy to change plot direction midstream, however. (Fly, Teleport, Water breathing, Invisibility)

Yes, it is telling. You're assuming that the Fighter wants to come back out right away, even in the middle of a combat.

Why I would try to pull the fighter out of a well in the middle of combat? Seems downright suicidal.

The fighter falls in and the players decides to explore the real deep water of the well before coming back. Maybe the encounter is in mop up mode up above (assuming the PCs are in an encounter) or whatever.

With the current rules, he's quasi-prevented or at least discouraged in one way or another from doing that.

That's what I am opposed to. The fact that as a player, I say:

Fighter: "Since I fell in anyway, I'm going to explore this deep underwater well a bit."

And the response from the DM is:

"The well is only 15 feet deep. You find nothing."

or

"The well is really deep. Give me Endurance checks as you sink down further and further."

I want the ability as a player to sometimes have the option to control this situation to some extent. If I have a Potion of Water Breathing, I can go down into the water and explore without worrying about the pesky Endurance checks.

But no matter what item you have, you (as a player) don't have that power to determine the situation.

As a DM, if I want you to go down the well, I'll make sure that you have the ability to go down the well. If there's nothing down the well, I don't care how many Water Breathing potions you buy, there's nothing down the well.

Maybe this is just playstyle difference, but why would you explore a well in the first place, without an indicator that it's important?

Without the option of such a potion, I'm stuck with a bunch of crap like:

1) Get group consensus that they want to allow the Fighter to split from the party (and hope the DM isn't one of those who bought into the whole "never split the party and punish players for trying it" schtick).

2) Get the party Wizard to cast Water Breathing on you via ritual. Ok, first I have to convince him, or possibly even negotiate something with him to get him to do so. Then, it takes 10 minute of in game time to cast the ritual.

3) The Fighter could even be in a situation where getting back is difficult, so he wants to explore first, then head back and he cannot do so because the Wizard is needed to cast the ritual.

Re: 1) I'm not seeing how getting group consensus is crap. And yes, being one of those players who is like "I'm going to swim in this well. DM, what do I see? Nothing? Why don't you support my creative play!!" while the other players twiddle their thumbs is someone whose playstyle I am happy to squash.

Re: 2) Party cooperation is cooperative. Seems excessively whiny to me. What kind of player isn't going to cast Water Breathing on you if you pay him the gold for it?

Re: 3) Pull him up, cast the ritual, drop him back? That took me, what, 15 seconds of narration?

There is a certain amount of "this is how the game should be played" and not doing so is bad/wrong fun from our gaming community at whole precisely because the designers put in game design roadblocks to certain options.

If someone wants to breath underwater, it takes 10 minutes and requires the PCs to include a ritual caster in their group. Why? Because someone thought of a cool idea called rituals and didn't take into account the possibility that the game might actually play smoother and have some more awesomeness to it if the players could just decide that the PC does something immediately because he prepared ahead of time instead of waiting 10 minutes of in game time.

It's entirely possible they thought that it didn't make the game more awesome. None of your examples really pinged my awesome-o-meter, sadly.

And as a secondary point, if you want to be able to breathe underwater with an item, have you tried talking to your DM? I'd stat one up for you, no problem. Hell, I might let you make one with an Arcana or Nature check and some ingredients.

But, I'm perceiving your main opposition (if I'm putting words in your mouth, I apologize) to be that you want that freedom to decide you have Water Breathing as a player, the same way you'd pick your next feat.

Sorry, but if the line has to be drawn somewhere in regards to player vs DM empowerment, I'll take 4e's position every time.

 

[KarinsDad]

I don't disagree with you in theory, although I think you're glossing over how annoying it is. Maybe it just happens to me more, perhaps. I have had several players over the years who revel in causing storyline chaos. I still don't see the need to provide class abilities to make it easy to change plot direction midstream, however. (Fly, Teleport, Water breathing, Invisibility)

I might be glossing over it. I've been a DM for over three decades (currently DMing two games) and it doesn't really phase me. Possibly because it's a rare occurance and possibly because I've had a lot of practice changing mid-stream when necessary.

Why I would try to pull the fighter out of a well in the middle of combat? Seems downright suicidal.

You and I definitely play a different type of game. We had an encounter that started with the party Controller falling into a 20 foot pit trap a few months back and 8 foes starting charging from around some corners. The first thing the PCs tried to do (which took some time and effort to get out rope, drop weapons, etc.) is to get her out of the pit so that a) they would be at full strength fighting and b) Controllers tend to have area effect powers. I'm not sure that would change much if it were a Fighter with our group. The Fighter is the one who holds off the NPCs for the PCs. Without him, the encounter is riskier. Each role is important.

You seem to have a strong feeling that the DM knows best. "Why would you do that?"

But no matter what item you have, you (as a player) don't have that power to determine the situation.

Sure I do. If you go overboard with your "I AM THE DM, THOU SHALL LISTEN TO ME" spiel and totally ignore what the players want their PCs to do, I'd just vote with my feet and walk out the door.

As a DM, if I want you to go down the well, I'll make sure that you have the ability to go down the well. If there's nothing down the well, I don't care how many Water Breathing potions you buy, there's nothing down the well.

Maybe this is just playstyle difference, but why would you explore a well in the first place, without an indicator that it's important?

I had an indicator that it was important. My PC fell into it and it was filled with water. That doesn't mean that it's important, but it means that I as a player decide for my PC to check it out. You as DM don't make that decision.

You seem to have this real hangup about "why would you want to go do that?".

The answer is because I do. You as DM don't need any more reason than that. I also don't want to be spoon fed all of my clues by the DM and only go explore what he explicitly tells me is interesting to explore.

I think you and I might butt heads as DM and player because I'd be going off looking in the corners and you'd be annoyed that I didn't take your unsubtle hint that you would have told me the corners were important if they were important.

I have an issue with making PC decisions with out of character information supplied by the DM. Some players love that. shutter

As DM, you make the world and story decisions. I'll make the decisions for my PC, thanks.

Re: 1) I'm not seeing how getting group consensus is crap. And yes, being one of those players who is like "I'm going to swim in this well. DM, what do I see? Nothing? Why don't you support my creative play!!" while the other players twiddle their thumbs is someone whose playstyle I am happy to squash.

Group consensus is crap when my PC has to ask "Mother may I?" every time I want to go check something out. Rituals enforce the "Mother may I?" mentality. It's not about the creative play. It's about having the ability to have the PC do what I want to have him do, not what the other players want or what the DM wants.

As a player, I usually do get group consensus and follow what the group wants to do. But, I don't like it being shoved down my throat and that's what rituals do, either because the PCs do not have the ritual, or because the players want to discuss whether they want to waste the resources to do so.

Potions don't have that "decision by committee" issue. If I bought the potion and I want to go explore the water, I just go have my PC do that.

Re: 2) Party cooperation is cooperative. Seems excessively whiny to me. What kind of player isn't going to cast Water Breathing on you if you pay him the gold for it?

A strongly opinionated player might not. Who knows? You seem to be under the assumption that all players always just get along fine and none of them roleplay. A crotchety old Wizard PC could easily roleplay "You want to do what? Bah. Stop fooling around. We've got places to go".

Your players do actually roleplay in character, don't they? That does mean disagreements and sometimes minor lack of cooperation, doesn't it? Or do your players play that they are playing a game where all of the PCs have to be cooperative with each other all of the time?

Again, your opinion appears to be "this is how PCs should act, this is how PCs should be played".

Err, no. The player makes that decision.

Re: 3) Pull him up, cast the ritual, drop him back? That took me, what, 15 seconds of narration?

You missed the point. Re-read what I wrote. There COULD be a situation where it is difficult to get back and the Fighter doesn't want to put in that effort until after he explores. As an example, the pit has grease on the sides and poisonous sharp spikes sticking out. The Fighter might want to go explore first, and then have the party pull him out of the pit.

With the WB ritual being the only possible solution, that's not a good option.

It's entirely possible they thought that it didn't make the game more awesome. None of your examples really pinged my awesome-o-meter, sadly.

Does that matter? Is it important that I didn't come up with a cool example, or is the point I was asking what was important?

And as a secondary point, if you want to be able to breathe underwater with an item, have you tried talking to your DM? I'd stat one up for you, no problem. Hell, I might let you make one with an Arcana or Nature check and some ingredients.

You know. I paid over $800 on 4E gaming material and my entire group probably paid over $1500. There's something wrong with the fact that my DM would have to stat up a pretty standard sounding non-unbalancing item that has been in the previous editions of the game for decades.

Sure you could go do that as DM. But then again, you shouldn't have to.

But, I'm perceiving your main opposition (if I'm putting words in your mouth, I apologize) to be that you want that freedom to decide you have Water Breathing as a player, the same way you'd pick your next feat.

It's not about Water Breathing. It's about spending my PC's gold to NOT buy yet another magic weapon or armor, but to buy worthwhile consumable items to prepare ahead of time. For the most part, the consumable items in the game system are pretty darn lame.

The game revolves around "personal powers" as if the PCs were superheros and not "initiative, imagination, and preparation" as if the PCs were actually people struggling to survive.

The game revolves about all problems being a nail, so use the hammers we gave you.

Sorry, but if the line has to be drawn somewhere in regards to player vs DM empowerment, I'll take 4e's position every time.

That's fine. I'm just discussing this to get people to think outside the 4E box since it is a 5E thread.

 

[Doctor Futurity]

For starters, I would want
1. Dragonborn and Tieflings as PC races removed from the PHB and brought back in a supplement.
2. Warlocks also removed from PHB and brought back in a supplement
3. Less broad skills
4. skill points back for PCs and the removal of the +1/2 level bonus
5. Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies made optional (and introduced in a supplement) or removed
6. Hit Points:
a. Hit Points made less abstract and a condition track for hit point loss ; or
b. hit points removed for a M&M/True20 Toughness Save
7. Martial Powers handled more like Malhavoc's Book of Iron Might by Mike Mearls. This would cut back on power bloat or at least give a system for building attack maneuvers. It would allow the players to describe what they are trying to do with their attack and the DM would look up a small chart of modifiers based on the condition inflicted or alternate ability score used as an attack modifier to determine the attack penalty and then apply appropriate drawbacks (target gets AoA, target gets a save, attacker falls prone, etc.) that reduce the penalty.
8. Drawing from Savage Worlds, combine several conditions into a single one like Savage World's Shaken.
9. An option for the disease track to model long term injury
10. Action Points to work like M&M Hero Points/True 20 Conviction
11. Healing: more distinction between magical and non-magical healing
12. a pantheon of original deities if the are not going to use Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms as the default. If they are going to use Greyhawk, use the pantheon created by Gygax and leave out the Suel deities.
13. Rituals that work like the TV shows Buffy and Supernatural and the comic book, Hellblazer

This is why no one will ever be happy. Of your many preferences, my "ideal 5th edition" would look like this for contrast:

1. Dragonborn and Tieflings as PC races stay core, being distinctly D&D and unique (i.e. not confused with other fantasy games)
2. Warlocks alsstay core; the 4E warlock is one of the coolest new features of 4E
3. Less broad skills (agreed)
4. skill points remain like they are in 4E, much easier to manage than in prior editions
5. Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies remain as is
6. Hit Points: reduce the HP bloat, but otherwise remain as-is (and absolutely no save-based damage mechanic, pleeeeaaaase)
7. Martial Powers consolidated back to a specialized feat-style mechanic that the various fighter classes can all draw from.
8. Ignore Savage Worlds for design ideas; SW is far too simple in design for my tastes.
9. An option for the disease track to model long term injury (YES! AGREED!)
10. Action Points to work like M&M Hero Points/True 20 Conviction (Hmm..yeah, this would be kinda cool, agreed--especially the Conviction rules)
11. Healing: works fine for me, but I am not sure how the rules confuse magical and non-magical healing so maybe I am missing something here.
12. They've been using original deities since 3.0, and though I like the 4E pantheon as a generic sampler, I'd much rather see D&D go back to having a robust Deities & Demigods book which lists 6-8 real-world pantheons and maybe one or two fantasy pantheons (FR and Eberron, for example)
13. Rituals that are quicker and/or cheaper to cast.

 

[TwoSix]

You seem to have a strong feeling that the DM knows best. "Why would you do that?"

Actually, I just have a strong feeling that I know best. Otherwise, I wouldn't keep posting on message boards.

Sure I do. If you go overboard with your "I AM THE DM, THOU SHALL LISTEN TO ME" spiel and totally ignore what the players want their PCs to do, I'd just vote with my feet and walk out the door.

I don't actually use a thunderous voice for that. Bribery is much more effective, and I never trained Intimidate.

I had an indicator that it was important. My PC fell into it and it was filled with water. That doesn't mean that it's important, but it means that I as a player decide for my PC to check it out. You as DM don't make that decision.

You're right, that isn't my decision to make as a DM. But you can bet that, out of game, I'm going to get annoyed pretty quickly that you're spelunking in wells while the party is dungeon crawling, especially if the reason is "Well, it was there." (pun intended)

You seem to have this real hangup about "why would you want to go do that?".

The answer is because I do. You as DM don't need any more reason than that. I also don't want to be spoon fed all of my clues by the DM and only go explore what he explicitly tells me is interesting to explore.

Trying to understand my player's actions is a hangup? That's...interesting. I have a need to understand why your character does what he does. Your character's motivations drive the plot! If your character's motivation is utterly whimsical, I'll at least know not to tailor any plots around your character, since the character's backstory will be satisfied with searching well-placed wall fixtures and toiletry.

I think you and I might butt heads as DM and player because I'd be going off looking in the corners and you'd be annoyed that I didn't take your unsubtle hint that you would have told me the corners were important if they were important.

I think we agree on something.

I have an issue with making PC decisions with out of character information supplied by the DM. Some players love that. shutter

As DM, you make the world and story decisions. I'll make the decisions for my PC, thanks.

I think you're making assumptions about my playstyle. I make strong efforts to assure that players keep IC and OOC information. I do, though, talk to my players about what they want out of the game and what they want to accomplish for their characters.

Group consensus is crap when my PC has to ask "Mother may I?" every time I want to go check something out. Rituals enforce the "Mother may I?" mentality. It's not about the creative play. It's about having the ability to have the PC do what I want to have him do, not what the other players want or what the DM wants.

We'll have to agree to disagree here. I think cooperation and teamwork is the core of the game.

As a player, I usually do get group consensus and follow what the group wants to do. But, I don't like it being shoved down my throat and that's what rituals do, either because the PCs do not have the ritual, or because the players want to discuss whether they want to waste the resources to do so.

Potions don't have that "decision by committee" issue. If I bought the potion and I want to go explore the water, I just go have my PC do that.

There may be a personality issue here as well. You come across as more of the "rugged individualist" type. I'm very much a socializer, and I almost always prefer compromise over conflict. That's why I like groups I DM to act harmoniously. I've learned over the years to make very clear that your "lone wolf" go-it-alone character background isn't going to work in my game.

A strongly opinionated player might not. Who knows? You seem to be under the assumption that all players always just get along fine and none of them roleplay. A crotchety old Wizard PC could easily roleplay "You want to do what? Bah. Stop fooling around. We've got places to go".

Your players do actually roleplay in character, don't they? That does mean disagreements and sometimes minor lack of cooperation, doesn't it? Or do your players play that they are playing a game where all of the PCs have to be cooperative with each other all of the time?

My players disagree all the time. Hell, they've actively ambushed each other a few times. I had some sessions where I never actively talked to the entire party, because they were separated and plotting against each other.

But the key difference for me is they never do it alone. It's always at least 2 against the group (which is never more than 6). I've been pretty successful about setting up story arcs where even characters who gravitate towards soloing recognize the benefits (or near necessity of cooperation).

Again, your opinion appears to be "this is how PCs should act, this is how PCs should be played".

Err, no. The player makes that decision.

Your freedom to act as you wish ends at the point where it impinges upon the other player's good time. So yes, I feel justified in having certain expectations of character behavior. Actively wasting my time and the other player's time with trivialities like dowsing in the dungeon is a decision I don't like. I won't stop you, but don't think I'm going to roll for treasure down there.

You missed the point. Re-read what I wrote. There COULD be a situation where it is difficult to get back and the Fighter doesn't want to put in that effort until after he explores. As an example, the pit has grease on the sides and poisonous sharp spikes sticking out. The Fighter might want to go explore first, and then have the party pull him out of the pit.

With the WB ritual being the only possible solution, that's not a good option.

So? He's stuck in a situation he didn't prepare for. The relative difficulty or facileness of preparing for it is meaningless. There's nothing in the well. Having a Water Breathing potion doesn't make anything appear in the well. The whole point of having that Water Breathing potion seems to be "I could explore there if I wanted to!?" Umm, yay?

Does that matter? Is it important that I didn't come up with a cool example, or is the point I was asking what was important?

More awesome is always awesome. So moderately important, yes. Not damning, just disappointing.

You know. I paid over $800 on 4E gaming material and my entire group probably paid over $1500. There's something wrong with the fact that my DM would have to stat up a pretty standard sounding non-unbalancing item that has been in the previous editions of the game for decades.

Sure you could go do that as DM. But then again, you shouldn't have to.

Except that the system was designed around the point that those powers weren't meant to be openly available to the PCs? It's like a reverse 10th amendment. "All powers not seceded to the players shall be granted to the DM."

It's not about Water Breathing.

Well, there goes my argument.

It's about spending my PC's gold to NOT buy yet another magic weapon or armor, but to buy worthwhile consumable items to prepare ahead of time. For the most part, the consumable items in the game system are pretty darn lame.

The game revolves around "personal powers" as if the PCs were superheros and not "initiative, imagination, and preparation" as if the PCs were actually people struggling to survive.

The game revolves about all problems being a nail, so use the hammers we gave you.

But the PCs are superheroes, who don't need to prepare much because they're awesome.

Besides, you CAN prepare. As much as you want. If your DM doesn't give you large benefits because of that, your DM is kind of a jerk. I sure would, because what I care about most is that my players give a crap about the game. But your preparation goes through the DM, not through the PHB.

That's fine. I'm just discussing this to get people to think outside the 4E box since it is a 5E thread.

"What's in the box, man? What's in the box? No, oh no, no no no...."

Although we appear to be diametrically opposed in our opinions, this debate has been a pleasure. So thank you!

 

[Greg K]

This is why no one will ever be happy. Of your many preferences, my "ideal 5th edition" would look like this for contrast:

1. Dragonborn and Tieflings as PC races stay core, being distinctly D&D and unique (i.e. not confused with other fantasy games)

I see nothing distinctly D&D about them. I

2. Warlocks alsstay core; the 4E warlock is one of the coolest new features of 4E

I like them. I just see nothing heroic about characters that make pacts with the infernal or far realm entities- in my opinion they are more appropriate adversaries.


[/quote]8. Ignore Savage Worlds for design ideas; SW is far too simple in design for my tastes.[/quote]

I thought the same, initially. However, it is deceptive.

Backgrounds and Common Knowledge. It is discussed under knowledge skill for things characters might know without taking a skill. However, Common knowledge can also be used for things like weapon familiariy (e.g., think of the Shindig episode of Firefly when Mal tries to duel with swords) and cultural weapons

Combat Simple?
In addition to the maneuvers, you have Agility Tricks, Smart Tricks, Test of Wills.
Here are some examples of what you can do
Called Shots for various effects that d20 requires feats or powers
Charge: Run and Attack (possibly w/ Wild Swing)
Disarm: Maneuver described in the book
Feint: Taunt in combat to gain bonus and, if target shaken you have increased chance of extra damage and they may lose action.
Grappling: Maneuver described in the book
Push/Trip: Depending on what you are trying to to do a) Agility Trick, b) opposed strength; c) Attack and, on a raise, give up extra damage to move opponent back 1" or fall prone; d) or this new maneuver from the Savage Worlds Brand Manager push/Trip maneuver to push/pull/knock prone opponents
Sunder: Called Shot vs. Weapon
Power Attack: look at Wild Swing

12. They've been using original deities since 3.0, and though I like the 4E pantheon as a generic sampler, I'd much rather see D&D go back to having a robust Deities & Demigods book which lists 6-8 real-world pantheons and maybe one or two fantasy pantheons (FR and Eberron, for example).

Actually, the majority of the default pantheon in the 3e PHB, Complete Divine and other Complete books date back to the Greyhawk, Non Human and Suel pantheons that first appeared in Dragon magazine between issues 59-76 and and created by Gary Gygax, Roger Moore, and Len Lakofka respectively.

As for 4e, most of the default deities are not newly created for 4e.
Bane: Forgotten Realms
Bahumut: goes back to 1e
Tiamat: goes back to 1e
Gruumsh: Non Human deity first appeared in Dragon
Lolth: goes back to 1e
Kord: Suel deity from 1e era Dragon Magazine
Moradin: Nonhuman deities first appeared in Dragon during 1e
Obad hai: Greyhawk deity (goes back to 1e Dragon Magazine)
Pelor: Greyhawk deity (goes back to 1e Dragon)
Rao: goes back to 1e Greyhawk and was created by Gary Gygax
Sehanine Moonbow: AD&D 2e Monster Mythology
Vecna: another Greyhawk being created by Gygax back in 1e

 

[KarinsDad]

You're right, that isn't my decision to make as a DM. But you can bet that, out of game, I'm going to get annoyed pretty quickly that you're spelunking in wells while the party is dungeon crawling, especially if the reason is "Well, it was there." (pun intended)

You are the DM. You are the only person at the table who knows if there is something in the well or not. The players don't have a clue.

So as DM, you have a few options to allow the player to find out what's there:

1) Before the PC does anything, you can cut to the chase and can flat out tell the player "there is nothing there".

2) You can allow the PC to search and then tell him "there is nothing there".

3) You can allow the PC to search and you can add something interesting to your game (or have already added it).

But the one thing you shouldn't do is:

4) "Will you stop pissing me off? There's nothing there. If there had been something there, I as DM would have told you."

You keep mentioning how you would get annoyed pretty quick.

Again, I'm asking, why?

Why are you so opposed to certain player play styles that you react so negatively to them?

Do your players only search at the locations with big X's marked on them? And then, only if the entire team walks over and does it???

Trying to understand my player's actions is a hangup? That's...interesting. I have a need to understand why your character does what he does. Your character's motivations drive the plot! If your character's motivation is utterly whimsical, I'll at least know not to tailor any plots around your character, since the character's backstory will be satisfied with searching well-placed wall fixtures and toiletry.

You need to understand generalities about my character's motivations in order to create plots and subplots. You do not need to know every tiny detail as to why I make the decisions I make as a player. As a player, I can make one decision one day for my PC and a different decision in the exact same scenario on another day.

You do NOT need to know on a given day why my PC wants to explore a well that he just fell into. As DM, you just accept that my PC wants to do that and you allow him to. And you ESPECIALLY do not get annoyed at me because you do not understand why my PC is doing a fairly common activity. It's sufficient that I understand why my PC is doing what he is doing. You don't need to understand why I am doing a trivial action like that.

I think you're making assumptions about my playstyle. I make strong efforts to assure that players keep IC and OOC information. I do, though, talk to my players about what they want out of the game and what they want to accomplish for their characters.

Again, there is a difference between understanding the overall motivations and goals of the PC and understanding one specific tiny instance of the PC saying or doing or trying something.

My PC might want to become a Sorcerer King: Overlord of the Entire World. That's a overall goal. It doesn't mean that he doesn't want to explore the well at x point in his career. The two are probably mutually exclusive and you as DM do not need to understand how they relate or even if they relate.

Quite frankly, and not to be insulting here, you seem to need to be in control. Needing to understand why players make the decisions they do, especially if it's not a decision that you as a player would make. I can only say, take a deep breath, let the player play how he wants to, you don't need to understand why he's doing what he wants to do, you just have to be an impartial adjudicator of it.

Not a cop. Not a director. Not a judge. A referee.

We'll have to agree to disagree here. I think cooperation and teamwork is the core of the game.

You might have missed what I wrote. I stated that I cooperate the vast majority of the time. But, it is totally in character for all of my PCs to want to go do what they want to do without permission from the DM or the rest of the group on occasion.

Cooperation and teamwork is a part of the game. But, it is not the only thing when it comes to PC behavior.

There may be a personality issue here as well. You come across as more of the "rugged individualist" type. I'm very much a socializer, and I almost always prefer compromise over conflict. That's why I like groups I DM to act harmoniously. I've learned over the years to make very clear that your "lone wolf" go-it-alone character background isn't going to work in my game.

Yeah, you are obviously misunderstanding what I am saying. I never do a lone wolf thing as a general rule.

I just maintain the right (not privilege, right) to do it once in a blue moon when I feel like doing it. As one person in six at the table, I'm entitled to have fun my way once in a while and not be straight jacketed into playing "within certain parameters", just like the other five people at the table are entitled to have fun their way once in a while.

I'm not talking about going nut-so here, I'm talking about my PC going off and doing something that I want him to do for a short period of time while the other players do not interact. Not often, but once in a while. It's my turn in the spotlight.

If the DM gets annoyed at me for searching the well, then he does. But, he shouldn't be surprised if I tell him to calm down, don't be so serious, and have some fun.

My players disagree all the time. Hell, they've actively ambushed each other a few times. I had some sessions where I never actively talked to the entire party, because they were separated and plotting against each other.

But the key difference for me is they never do it alone. It's always at least 2 against the group (which is never more than 6). I've been pretty successful about setting up story arcs where even characters who gravitate towards soloing recognize the benefits (or near necessity of cooperation).

It's not about soloing. It's about personal choice. The vast majority of the time, cooperation is used. But sometimes, a PC should just be allowed to be himself without the DM getting annoyed at him for doing his own thing without any other PCs tagging along. That's ok in a game. Honest.

Your freedom to act as you wish ends at the point where it impinges upon the other player's good time.

Well, I'm not talking about going way out of bounds here. I'm talking about having the spotlight for 10 minutes once in a while. If that impinges upon the other player's good times OR your interpretation as DM of the other player's good times, then I would ask the group to seriously take a step back and chill out. Have some fun. Take a bathroom break. But, don't be so serious.

So yes, I feel justified in having certain expectations of character behavior. Actively wasting my time and the other player's time with trivialities like dowsing in the dungeon is a decision I don't like. I won't stop you, but don't think I'm going to roll for treasure down there.

Is it that important to keep "the party on track" and "everyone involved" every second of every session?

To me, players will police themselves. If a PC does something too egregious, the other PCs will lay the smack down on him. You as DM don't have to worry about this stuff.

Let each player play how he wants. If it goes out of bounds, the group will take care of it. You don't have to be the PC behavior police here. It's not your job and making it your job is one way to alienate some players.

So? He's stuck in a situation he didn't prepare for. The relative difficulty or facileness of preparing for it is meaningless. There's nothing in the well. Having a Water Breathing potion doesn't make anything appear in the well. The whole point of having that Water Breathing potion seems to be "I could explore there if I wanted to!?" Umm, yay?

No. The point is that when I decide my PC needs to go exploring underwater, I can do so if I prepared ahead of time.

You're seriously missing the entire point.

WotC has designed the game system to make it difficult for the "boy scout" player who wants to "be prepared".

WotC Customer Service: "Sorry, you cannot play that way. Have a nice day."

In fact, Pazio is making a TON of money because of some of the metagame artificial and limiting design decisions by WotC. I have a guy who played in my group for 8 years get up and stop gaming with us because he didn't like the way 4E was so restrictive. He gave it a fair shake run for a year, but in the end, he left.

Personally, that annoys the heck out of me that I want to play one game system and he doesn't to the point that we don't game together anymore.

Why? Because the 4E rules are so inflexible when it comes to some pretty standard D&D stuff.

Like scrolls. Decent one charge items are NOT going to break anyone's game and I hope that WotC gets smart enough to put them back into 5E.

But the PCs are superheroes, who don't need to prepare much because they're awesome.

They're only awesome in combat, and only so because every problem is a target and powers are designed to kill targets.

Heaven forbid that someone wants to cast something simple like a Darkness spell, in or out of combat.

WotC: "Nope, nope. Section 12, subsection 3, paragraph 4, PCs cannot cast spells outside of the ones we give them and charged items are a thing of the past. It is illegal to cast both Shield and Feather Fall on the same day without a boatload of feats or without giving up the option of a higher level spell."

Seriously? I cannot have both Shield and Feather Fall memorized unless I go through a bunch of hoops???

WT?

I cannot tell you how restrictive that is for some of us. And some players might not even see how that would be restrictive because 4E is all they know (or what they are so used to now).

A whole set of spell options (and preparedness) for a given day thrown out the window because of the current rule set. This is easily something that WotC could fix for 5E without unbalancing the game.

Besides, you CAN prepare. As much as you want. If your DM doesn't give you large benefits because of that, your DM is kind of a jerk. I sure would, because what I care about most is that my players give a crap about the game. But your preparation goes through the DM, not through the PHB.

The game is designed to make it difficult to prepare. Yes, I can do it in some minor ways if the DM bends over backwards to help, but then again, even the Online Character Builder will make it difficult to get such things on my character sheet.

Although we appear to be diametrically opposed in our opinions, this debate has been a pleasure. So thank you!

Debates are cool.

 

[TwoSix]

You are the DM. You are the only person at the table who knows if there is something in the well or not. The players don't have a clue.

So as DM, you have a few options to allow the player to find out what's there:

1) Before the PC does anything, you can cut to the chase and can flat out tell the player "there is nothing there".

2) You can allow the PC to search and then tell him "there is nothing there".

3) You can allow the PC to search and you can add something interesting to your game (or have already added it).

But the one thing you shouldn't do is:

4) "Will you stop pissing me off? There's nothing there. If there had been something there, I as DM would have told you."

You keep mentioning how you would get annoyed pretty quick.

Again, I'm asking, why?

Why are you so opposed to certain player play styles that you react so negatively to them?

Do your players only search at the locations with big X's marked on them? And then, only if the entire team walks over and does it???

Don't have time to reply to everything, it's definitely bed time, but a quick thought.

How IC do you justify searching random wells? Especially if, as a DM, I've given no reason for you to think that there would be something there?

I agree, as a player, you have the right to do whatever comes into your head. I'm not a monster. But I would like to see justification in-game for it. Because I can't see the scenario playing out in any way other than the character saying "Well, I just think there might be something at the bottom."

 

[Matt James]

This thread needs a torpedo of truth cast from a Warlock--mean't to slay trolls.

 

[KarinsDad]

Don't have time to reply to everything, it's definitely bed time, but a quick thought.

How IC do you justify searching random wells? Especially if, as a DM, I've given no reason for you to think that there would be something there?

First, I don't have to justify it IC. You seem to be really hung up on that. Players justifying the actions of their PCs. That really is a form of the DM trying to take control for something he doesn't understand. Don't worry about that.

Second, if I felt like justifying it, it's pretty simple. It's a pit trap (or a well or whatever) into water. There's a chance that one or more other creatures fell into it sometime since it was built. OOC, it's a either a trap or an NPC source of water that the DM put into the encounter just last night when prepping the game. IC, it's potentially a whole lot more, an object that might have been there for decades with a history. If creatures have ever fell into it, then there's a chance that there is treasure, a key, gems, or all kinds of things at the bottom. Or even nothing.

There could be a side shaft leading to a monster that the bad guys in the room above feed by dropping victims or enemies into it.

It could be the way to a hidden treasure vault. Nobody thinks to have to swim to the treasure vault.

It's a physical exit from the room that is unaccounted for until my PC searches it and the DM tells me that it does not continue on and even then, I might send the better perception Rogue down to check it out.

As a PC, my character doesn't know. But, there's a good chance that many of the types of PCs that I play (or one of their allies) would go check it out to find out.

I don't limit my gaming exploration to 2 dimensional grids. My PCs look up at ceilings, look behind doors, check out shafts and potential exits.

I play explorers, not just combat monsters (well, they are combat monsters too, but that's not the only thing they are).

I agree, as a player, you have the right to do whatever comes into your head. I'm not a monster. But I would like to see justification in-game for it. Because I can't see the scenario playing out in any way other than the character saying "Well, I just think there might be something at the bottom."

Well, I've played the game for over 3 decades and just gave you a few possibilities (what you called justifications) above for something that you totally didn't see coming.

Gaming experience counts a lot when playing and making PC decisions. I haven't seen it all, but I've seen a lot.


You really should try to get over this player justification thing. It's a mental block to other possibilities and other ways to have fun. Players have different amounts of experience playing the game, different mental abilities, and different motivations for playing. You don't need to know what the player (or the PC) is thinking, only what the PC is doing, unless of course there is a magical way for NPCs to read the PCs mind or some such, or if the PC is attempting to Bluff, then the player should tell you that if you cannot figure it out on your own.

As DM, players shouldn't have to justify to you. Hence, be a referee, not a director. Directors need to know tiny motivations and how the actors stand and which foot is in front of the other and all kinds of tiny details. DMs don't. They just need to have the world react to the actions of the PCs in a reasonable manner and how the world is acting outside the influence of the PCs. They don't need to know why the PCs are doing what they are doing. For the big stuff (I'm saving the princess because I'm a Paladin), they'll already know and for the small stuff (I'm searching the pit with water in it), it doesn't matter. And they don't need to try to strongly influence the PCs actions via OOC communications to the players either.

I've also seen a lot of players pipe up OOC in game with what their PC is thinking as well. Personally, I'm not too keen on that. I'm not reading a book. My PC shouldn't know what his PC is thinking and neither should I. It will unduly influence my thought processes and hence, my PC. If his PC tells me what he is thinking IC, great. Not OOC.

But for me, roleplaying is best when everyone doesn't know what everyone else is thinking. Then, the game has mystery and unexpected things can happen. Nothing wrong with the PCs saying what's on their minds, but IC (where possibly, NPCs can overhear them or at least know that they are whispering), not OOC. I've seen a lot of games where the players discuss combat tactics OOC quite a bit as well and I'm not too keen on that either. A little bit, no problem. But, players and DMs should let each player play his or her own PC the way he or she wants without the dictionary of OOC advice (unless of course the player is a novice, then the other players should sometimes offer advice, but they should be careful not to overdo it).