Something Awful leak.

[AbdulAlhazred]

You keep acting like this is some kind of new, additional burden being placed upon you. You had six stats and AC from the very beginning. In fact, you originally had five saving throw categories as well.

3E reduced that number - you now had your six stats, your AC (and some variants) and your three saves.

In 4E you had six stats, AC, and three "defenses".

Now you just have six stats and AC.

Why is this somehow adding complexity?

Is this simply concern about the possibility of having to use a low stat for defense?

Here's the real problem with this whole concept. It IS 7 defenses and they ARE separate things from the ability scores. This will be true unless you assume that there will NEVER EVER be any adjustments to those numbers. Are you telling me that no race, class, or item will EVER statically modify those numbers? REALLY? Because if it does then I need to have a box on my sheet where I can write down that modified number. What is that box going to be called? How will the rules refer to it? Will they call it "that number that is your ability score plus modifiers?", lol. No, it will be a DEFENSE, and it will be IN ADDITION TO the ability score. Failing to give it a name just makes things WORSE, not better. This is the idiot logic by which we seem to be operating so far with 5e. Pardon us if we're NOT impressed.

In all fairness maybe these design mistakes will be corrected. Still, given that they stem from statements made BY the designers, we can be pardoned for rolling our eyes at this nonsense.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That is assuming a lot. Even in 3.5 you didn´t have all those modifiers at once. And actually it was never hard to track. It is harder in 4e, because those modifiers change every other round.

In 3.5 you could just use a pencil and write down what is effecting you.

The only problematic thing in 3.5 is that other stats are derived from your attributes. So if someone only changes your dexterity, you have to adjust:

initiative
AC
reflex
ranged attacks
tumble skill
maybe a DC for a maneuver

Again, where are you going to 'pencil in' this number? In a box on your sheet called "effective dexterity" or something? Now how many numbers am I remembering? It isn't 10 (4 stats plus 4 defenses), it is now 15! Again this is because you WILL HAVE STATIC MODIFIERS to your defenses. WILL HAVE. This is inevitable.

Now, lets imagine what you would have if you DID NOT have static modifiers. Instead you'd have to have modifiers to your ability scores directly. Every single effect would have to directly change them. You'd STILL have to write this adjusted number down, but NOW all the things that are derived from it would ALSO change!!!

There's simply no way that this change is an improvement. It might SEEM like one to you now without a lot of reflection, but believe me, I did the exercise of actually sitting down and saying "OK, suppose the rules look like this, what does my sheet look like, and how does this play?" and the answer is it makes things more complicated to 'remove' the 3 stat-based defenses. I know that might seem counter-intuitive to people, but ACTUALLY SIT DOWN AND INVENT A CHARACTER and you will see. Imagine this character with bonuses and penalties and items and etc on his/her sheet and you'll very quickly see that 'eliminating defenses' is the 'missing number falacy'. Just because you remove a number from your sheet does not make that number go away.

 

[Hassassin]

Here's the real problem with this whole concept. It IS 7 defenses and they ARE separate things from the ability scores. This will be true unless you assume that there will NEVER EVER be any adjustments to those numbers. Are you telling me that no race, class, or item will EVER statically modify those numbers?

From what we've heard, race and class adjust the ability scores themselves.

*If* there are a significant number of adjustments to the "defenses" that don't adjust the ability scores, you have a point, but we simply don't know yet.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Ah, the beauty of 1e.

In the run of play - as a player - I only really ought to* keep three things memorized: to-hit bonus, damage bonus, and AC. My actual stats only come into play on an ability check, and it's trivially easy to glance at my sheet to see what a given stat is if I don't happen to remember it.

* - but often don't, as they are also trivially easy to look up.

What this issue speaks to more is one of being able to keep the character sheet clear, simple, and on one side of one page (equipment list, finances, and experience record can go on the back as they are rarely if ever referenced during play).

Lanefan

Except of course a 1e/2e sheet is no more simple than a 4e sheet is. You won't sneak that one past me! lol.

You are also forgetting a FEW numbers in there, like all your saving throws. At the very least you wanted to write down the modifier for each one. Again, if you look on the official 1e sheet (I have the 'goldenrod' sheet in front of me) it has spaces for this.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

From what we've heard, race and class adjust the ability scores themselves.

*If* there are a significant number of adjustments to the "defenses" that don't adjust the ability scores, you have a point, but we simply don't know yet.

And again, if this is true then it is WORSE because now I have to change all the numbers related to my ability scores every time one of them changes, which will no doubt happen often. Sure, these will be 'transient' modifications, but that just makes it worse because it means I've got to EVERY SINGLE TIME something happens in the game that involves one of the things on my sheet remember to tot up all the transient modifier's effects to whatever score(s) effect that. At least if a modifier in 4e added to my WILL defense for a turn I know it ONLY effects that, and not also my CHA modifier and my reaction bonus and etc.

Again, you might think at first glance "wow this is less numbers" but this is still the "invisible number fallacy". You can hide the lack of this invisible number by pretending it doesn't exist, but one way or the other you pay for it in play.

 

[Hassassin]

And again, if this is true then it is WORSE because now I have to change all the numbers related to my ability scores every time one of them changes, which will no doubt happen often.

An ability score increase in 4e also has a lot of consequences. So *if* the frequency of ability modifications increases significantly, or there is a new class of defense-only ability modifiers, this removal of the three defenses will make things more complicated (other things equal).

Now, what makes you think either of those will be true when they have mostly framed this change as simplifying things?

 

[GreyICE]

Try understanding what I wrote before you claim ignorance on MY part. And maybe learn how to comport yourself appropriately on this forum.

You do not have "defenses" - like, say, a Fortitude Defense based on your Str or Con. You have your Strength stat. An attack targets your Strength stat, and you defend with that.

The way you (and some others) are acting, it's like you have to calculate six additional defenses on top of your stats. Which does not appear to be the case.

It doesn't MATTER whether you calculate 6 additional defenses, or just use the stats straight. 6 NADs is the opposite of streamlined, elegant design, especially when those NADs will be determined, according to the default book, by 4d6d1!

That's the problem here. There is nothing streamlined, elegant, or balanced about that design. It's messy, stupid, random, and it's going to randomly kill off characters for no discernible reason.

This is stupid design, messy faux-realistic design and stupid messy faux-realistic design is pretty much the polar opposite of 4E design.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

An ability score increase in 4e also has a lot of consequences. So *if* the frequency of ability modifications increases significantly, or there is a new class of defense-only ability modifiers, this removal of the three defenses will make things more complicated (other things equal).

Now, what makes you think either of those will be true when they have mostly framed this change as simplifying things?

Again, you're missing the point. There are 2 choices here:

A) Permanent and/or transient modifiers apply to ability score - In this case I have to either 1) have a space on my sheet for this 'adjusted score' or 2) recalculate this number every time I use it. AND on top of this there are a LOT more times when my ability scores change than in 4e, which ONLY EVER happens at level-up. Now if I say remove my ring or a buff wears out I have to recalculate EVERYTHING that depends on that score.

B) Permanent and/or transient modifiers only apply to 'defenses' - In this case the defenses have to exist as explicit things on my sheet, or AGAIN every time I use my ability score as a defense I have to recalculate.

So, which is it? BOTH A AND B are worse than what 4e has, inarguably. This is the problem. Every variation of A and B are ALL worse than what 4e has. There is simply no way around this.

And are you seriously trying to imply that the game will simply blanket eschew ANY modifier of any kind to defenses and there will be NOTHING but static modifiers to ability scores than only change with level up? There's going to be NO SUCH THING as a ring of protection that increases my 'Charisma Defense'? Nothing, ever, in the whole game? No spell which does so, no item that I might remove or lose, no situation where these defenses will be adjusted at all? Really? Seriously? Have you thought about this?

EDIT: and lets assume that the game DOES eschew all modifiers to defenses. Why would this be a good design? Is it really worth removing an entire dimension of game design from 5e simply because someone decided it would be 'easier' (dubiously) to not have those numbers? Does that make sense? What about modularity? You're telling me that this core decision allows for options in the game when those options are either precluded or made much more awkward and less useful because of such a decision made in the construction of the core rules? Isn't the purpose of those core rules to FACILITATE the addition of options to the game that people want?

 

[Votan]

Again, you're missing the point. There are 2 choices here:

A) Permanent and/or transient modifiers apply to ability score - In this case I have to either 1) have a space on my sheet for this 'adjusted score' or 2) recalculate this number every time I use it. AND on top of this there are a LOT more times when my ability scores change than in 4e, which ONLY EVER happens at level-up. Now if I say remove my ring or a buff wears out I have to recalculate EVERYTHING that depends on that score.

B) Permanent and/or transient modifiers only apply to 'defenses' - In this case the defenses have to exist as explicit things on my sheet, or AGAIN every time I use my ability score as a defense I have to recalculate.

So, which is it? BOTH A AND B are worse than what 4e has, inarguably. This is the problem. Every variation of A and B are ALL worse than what 4e has. There is simply no way around this.

And are you seriously trying to imply that the game will simply blanket eschew ANY modifier of any kind to defenses and there will be NOTHING but static modifiers to ability scores than only change with level up? There's going to be NO SUCH THING as a ring of protection that increases my 'Charisma Defense'? Nothing, ever, in the whole game? No spell which does so, no item that I might remove or lose, no situation where these defenses will be adjusted at all? Really? Seriously? Have you thought about this?

I think that this matters more for transient bonuses than permanent ones. Which kind of brings up another design idea that I am beginning to like -- declaring war on the transient bonus. It maximizes complexity and, when it is +1 or +2, does so for a very small shift in the odds.

 

[Dausuul]

Again, where are you going to 'pencil in' this number? In a box on your sheet called "effective dexterity" or something? Now how many numbers am I remembering? It isn't 10 (4 stats plus 4 defenses), it is now 15! Again this is because you WILL HAVE STATIC MODIFIERS to your defenses. WILL HAVE. This is inevitable.

No, it is NOT inevitable. 4E has the equivalent in Passive Insight and Passive Perception, and after four years of crunch-bloat I am not aware of a single thing that modifies Passive Insight independently of Insight, or Passive Perception independently of Perception. Likewise, 4E has exactly zero effects that modify your ability scores.

If the designers can muster the discipline to achieve that in 4E, I see no reason they can't do something similar in 5E. 3E was an object lesson in why cascading modifiers are bad.