D&D 5E Starter Set Character Sheet Revealed!

[pemerton]

Forum maths is about as reliable as my guesstimations based on 20 yrs playing experience, there are too many variables to take into account, and working by averages or medians ignores potential max damage, which is also important.

Why is max damage important? Unless there is a reliable mechanic for triggering max damage - which as far as I know there is not for most spells, which are save based rather than attack based - then max damage on a spell that involves rolling 6d8 or 10d6 or whatever is basically irrelevant. It is sufficiently improbable as to be ignorable.

For the high-level Evoker max damage ability, [MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION] checked the maths upthread and it didn't make a huge difference.

 

[Hussar]

Harpies are monstrous creatures that have no parallel in the real world, and "average" humans - if you assert that the average human is a level 1 commoner - are kind of chumps. The games rules don't actually go into specifics, but you could either play it that harpies are much tougher than they appear, or that the average adult harpy you encounter in the wild is likely to be a fairly skilled combatant.

It's not as though a harpy is just born (hatched?) and automatically has 7 hit dice and proficiency with all simple weapons.

But, according to 3e rules, a standard, base, weakest Harpy is several times tougher than an average human or Orc.

So how does this simulation work?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But, according to 3e rules, a standard, base, weakest Harpy is several times tougher than an average human or Orc.

It's a monstrous creature with no comparison in the real world. So one fantasy creature is tougher than some other fantasy creature. That's not inconsistent with anything.

 

[Pickles JG]

For the high-level Evoker max damage ability, @Remathilis checked the maths upthread and it didn't make a huge difference.

Not that I really care about the potential OP ness or otherwise of Action surge (to me it's about the only interesting thing about that fighter) but the damage calculations cited compared Fireball, an AOE, to single target attacks & spells. The potential spike damage there is massively more than just 6 points different.

Still burst damage is not the be all & end all of combat effectiveness especially when it is not repeatable.

 

[Pickles JG]

That's pretty much the definition of inconsistent, from an in-game perspective. You have different things happening within the game world, without any in-game explanation for why it happens.

They are only inconsistent from the point of view of someone external to the game world. Someone in the game world might notice that some individuals never got badly injured but it would not be predictive to them. They might notice that this party of guys 4 dudes never got maimed but they would explain it as good luck that might run out at anytime.

They would not start speculating that perhaps these individuals were somehow different from the other people around them & had some sort of plot protection. They are no more aware that they are NPCs in a game world than characters in a novel are aware that they not actually real. And a novel can be internally consistent despite nothing in it happening for any reason other than because the novelist writes that it does.

Role Playing Game rules describe how some things in the game world might happen; they do not prescribe everything in the game world that does happen.

 

[pemerton]

They are only inconsistent from the point of view of someone external to the game world. Someone in the game world might notice that some individuals never got badly injured but it would not be predictive to them. They might notice that this party of guys 4 dudes never got maimed but they would explain it as good luck that might run out at anytime.


They would not start speculating that perhaps these individuals were somehow different from the other people around them & had some sort of plot protection.

Exactly!

The claim of inconsistency is true only if supported by an extremely strong simulationist premise, such as that every distinct procedure used at the table to make a decision about the content of the gameworld correponds to some distinct in-game causal process. But obviously most players of D&D don't use such a premise (I'm not even sure that most players of RuneQuest accept such a strong premise!), and so are not going to agree with the claim of inconsistency.

Role Playing Game rules describe how some things in the game world might happen; they do not prescribe everything in the game world that does happen.

Also true, at least for most RPG systems. (Again, I'm not sure that even ultra-simulationinst games like RQ, Rolemaster and Classic Traveller presume anything strong enough to contradict this.)

 

[Ruin Explorer]

< snip >

Whoa buddy, that's an awful lot of simmering hostility and intense hypocrisy for a post which doesn't actually have a generally applicable point or convey any information of value, and that matches up with your previous posts, so welcome to ignore! I'm fine with some significant rudeness if someone has a point or an argument, as many of the rougher fellows here do, but that's not the case here.

They are only inconsistent from the point of view of someone external to the game world. Someone in the game world might notice that some individuals never got badly injured but it would not be predictive to them. They might notice that this party of guys 4 dudes never got maimed but they would explain it as good luck that might run out at anytime.

They would not start speculating that perhaps these individuals were somehow different from the other people around them & had some sort of plot protection. They are no more aware that they are NPCs in a game world than characters in a novel are aware that they not actually real. And a novel can be internally consistent despite nothing in it happening for any reason other than because the novelist writes that it does.

Role Playing Game rules describe how some things in the game world might happen; they do not prescribe everything in the game world that does happen.

Precisely. So long as the rules make sense from a sort of in-world perspective, and don't produce obviously bizarre results, they're likely fine. Especially as they'd be right - that good luck CAN run out, as so many D&D characters have discovered!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If that's an actual, serious concern for your table...find another group to play with.

Sometimes I think you have no sense of fun.

Do you not think that a game where all the Fighters kind of acted like the guy from Crank would be, well, hysterical? Because having played dozens of RPGs over the years, it sounds pretty damn amusing to me. I might even go the other way! Remove the short-rest restriction entirely! Get HP back for doing insane, dangerous things!

I jest, of course, but not so much as one might think. It could be fun.

Life is too short to have to deal with powergamers that are that silly about using loopholes in the game to play the system.

What if they're making the game more fun in the process?

Sure, for a serious, atmospheric game, I'd probably not run it that way (but I think I'd probably just re-write that rule to make the SW reactive or THP or something), but I feel like you need to lighten up a bit!

Fortunately, I doubt that's a real concern. Punpun and the bag of rats was never really used at people's tables, and I doubt this would be either. It's covered by the common sense rule.

Comparing Crank-Fighter to Pun-Pun is like comparing fireworks to the Tsar Bomba, dude. Both Pun-Pun and Bag of Rats were indicative of real rules problems which did need addressing, and indeed, the latter was addressed, as I recall (and probably the former, but I never followed it closely).

This seems to be just a bit dubiously written. I imagine the actual in-book ability has a clearer limitation, or will obtain one.

 

[Obryn]

Well, the lack of dismemberment is at least partially explained with Gygax's assumption that anyone capable of surviving a direct hit from a sword is wearing armor at all times (or, in the case of wizards and monks, they're magic). And, while that's not always literally true, it's true enough to cover the vast majority of situations that arise during gameplay.

If you want to write in complicated dismemberment rules to more accurately model the effects of swords and axes against unarmored targets, then that's left as a personal exercise.

But the point is, we're NOT talking about the situations that arise during gameplay. It's about combat and warfare (at least in this example) that you're not gaming out.

 

[VengerSatanis]

(but I think I'd probably just re-write that rule to make the SW reactive or THP or something)

That sounds like a good idea. Months ago, I came up with something vaguely similar in concept. I wanted to simulate a battle I had seen on the Vikings show (season 2). Without going through my PDF of The Islands of Purple-Haunted Putrescence, it was basically this: when a character is first wounded, he gets a +2 to attack (and damage, I think) for one round. On the flip side, when he's down to a quarter of his hit points (it might have been single digits), then he gets a -2 for the same. Cause a fight gets real when your opponent has made you bleed. That's the moment of adrenaline rush. And when you've been beaten bloody and about to drop, let's face it - you're strength and agility suffer.

Anyways, sorry about my disrespectful and dismissive tone last night. That's why I left this discussion.

I also feel like my part of the argument is at an end. The following is something I just wrote at the Next google+ community. Pretty much sums up where I'm at...

I probably should have said "at Apprentice Levels" but didn't think of it at the time. 1st and 2nd level are supposed to be where you're learning your trade/class, finding your way, etc. Sounded like your character was supposed to be more like average NPC Bob the fighter.

It's fine. After all this discussion (where I've listened to the other side even while defending my own position/feelings), my expectations have now been managed.

Where I thought Basic was going to start at 1 with everything from the books allowing you to add and add until you got to 10, Basic is starting around 4 or 5 and the Advanced set will allow a DM to scale his campaign or version of D&D back to 1, all the way to 10, or somewhere in between.

That's not terrible. It might actually be great when it's all said and done (all the books are out), but it was a little shocking to see. I'm not alone, either. Plenty of experienced Next gamers are up in arms about it on various RPG forums, etc. Hopefully, we'll all still be able to come together this fall.

Have a good weekend and game on!

VS