The double standard for magical and mundane abilities

[Tony Vargas]

This is getting off topic, though. We all agree that there are different ways to play the game, and I have yet to see that 5E will exclude either side.

Sadly, in a lot of ways.

5e fails the sim 'purist for system' approach by being so Rulings-not-rules DM-driven (on which count it also presumably fails 'gamists'). It fails the verisimilitude/meat-hp crowd with Second Wind and HD and overnight healing.

Prettymuch, as with every edition, it 'fails' anyone not willing to cut it a tiny bit of slack.

(It's also got a tough path to balance and modularity, given the basic structure we've seen so far, but that's less about how you play the game, and more about qualities of the system, itself.)

Unless you want fighters to pull off the kind of mythic stunts they do in legend, of course. Those people are missing out.

Well, /of course/ we want fighters to pull off epic stunts from myth, legend, literature and the broader fantasy genre! CaGI, for instance, neatly models a classic genre bit. You've got your Inigo Montoya, right there. It's great stuff. It's gone from 5e, and there's very little to indicate that much of it may be coming back with the Battlemaster.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Take a game like Dread for example. It's a horror game where the resolution mechanic is if the PC tries to do something that the GM thinks may succeed or fail, then they pull a block from a Jenga tower. If the tower falls then the PC dies. If the tower doesn't fall and they get the block then the PC succeeds. The GM never pulls because there would be no tension there. In fact, the GM pulling would draw away from the player tension, thus going against the goal of creating a frightening game mechanic. The GM simply isn't participating on the same level as the PCs.

I'm familiar with Dread, and it falls squarely into the category of "story games that I can't take seriously". I would hesitate to even call it a role-playing game, since so much of it is governed by you-the-player rather than the character itself. It's not even so much that the ever-increasing chance of failure would bother me, as much as the tangible feeling that my skill at Jenga is what governs the game resolution. It's like if my skill at dice rolling was a factor in how well I did at D&D.

Which isn't to say that it's a bad game, of course. It's just not one that I can take seriously as a role-playing game. Kind of like Feng Shui (although that one is for different reasons entirely).

 

[The Crimson Binome]

5e fails the sim 'purist for system' approach by being so Rulings-not-rules DM-driven (on which count it also presumably fails 'gamists'). It fails the verisimilitude/meat-hp crowd with Second Wind and HD and overnight healing.

I'm still holding out hope that the modular healing dials will be able to salvage it from a meat-point perspective.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I'm familiar with Dread, and it falls squarely into the category of "story games that I can't take seriously". I would hesitate to even call it a role-playing game, since so much of it is governed by you-the-player rather than the character itself. It's not even so much that the ever-increasing chance of failure would bother me, as much as the tangible feeling that my skill at Jenga is what governs the game resolution. It's like if my skill at dice rolling was a factor in how well I did at D&D.

Which isn't to say that it's a bad game, of course. It's just not one that I can take seriously as a role-playing game. Kind of like Feng Shui (although that one is for different reasons entirely).

If you'll be at DragonCon, I invite you to play a game of Dread with me!

But, if Dread is too out there, another example might be Dungeon World. In DW, the resolution mechanic is 2d6+mod with 6 or lower being failure, 7-9 being success at a cost, and 10+ being total success.

Only players make rolls. The GM never picks up dice. If a monster is trying to hit a player with its claws, the PC might fight back, which would indicate a Hack & Slash move (roll+STR). On a very basic level*, you might say that on a 6- the monster hits, on a 7-9 they hit each other, and on a 10+ the PC hits. If a PC tries to climb a dangerous cliff, they might also make a roll+STR. On a 6- they fall, on a 7-9 they can climb but something goes wrong (say - they drop some of their things halfway up), and on a 10+ they reach the summit.

Since the GM never rolls, then if an NPC tries to climb the cliff, there is no resolution mechanic for that. A PC might try to intervene, in which they may roll. But, there is no method for the GM to determine success/failure for an NPC on his own other than using the fiction of the game to decide whether or not it makes sense for the NPC to reach the top. The same would be true of the old man hiding from the goblin.

You may also not like Dungeon World, and even though it is my favorite RPG ever I will not hold that against you. I don't like GURPS but I am thrilled other people do, so that would be pretty hypocritical!

I'm not trying to convince you of anything in particular, by the way. I just find all of this fascinating.

* This is a very simplified system. Dungeon World is far more varied than what I've outlined here.

 

[Mort]

Well, /of course/ we want fighters to pull off epic stunts from myth, legend, literature and the broader fantasy genre! CaGI, for instance, neatly models a classic genre bit. You've got your Inigo Montoya, right there. It's great stuff. It's gone from 5e, and there's very little to indicate that much of it may be coming back with the Battlemaster.

Actually, a battlemaster fighter can start with (an admittedly nerfed) version of CaGi. If they hit a creature and expend a superiority die that creature must make a wisdom save. On a failed save that creature suffers disadvantage when attacking anything other than the fighter until the fighters next turn. Not quite the same - and only a single target, but it's available as early as 3rd level and it is a sign that the designers are willing to go there.

 

[evileeyore]

So you get to keep the D&D name and the rest of us can go play the off brand.

/spittake

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha... ahah... oh man... haha... woooo...heh.

Now I get it.

It's not even so much that the ever-increasing chance of failure would bother me, as much as the tangible feeling that my skill at Jenga is what governs the game resolution. It's like if my skill at dice rolling was a factor in how well I did at D&D.

It is. You probably simply fall into the statistical middle, you roll adequately. Some people almost always roll hot. I am the opposite. For some reason when I toss the dice the results tend to be terrible. I roll below 9 on a d20 almost 75% of the time.

It's why I try to play characters that either never have to rollt he dice (Wizzies) or can bene stack (Rogues) when I play D&D.

The next time you play ask yourself this question every time you roll: If every my every roll were a failure (or just abysmal for damage), would my character still be "succeeding"?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It is. You probably simply fall into the statistical middle, you roll adequately. Some people almost always roll hot. I am the opposite. For some reason when I toss the dice the results tend to be terrible. I roll below 9 on a d20 almost 75% of the time.

Every edition of D&D has treated the dice as a purely random element. If your method of rolling produces a noticeably biased result, over a significant sample size, then you're doing it wrong.

The next time you play ask yourself this question every time you roll: If every my every roll were a failure (or just abysmal for damage), would my character still be "succeeding"?

It's certainly possible to hedge your bets if you're "feeling unlucky", but I would not be playing such a probability-based game if I truly believed that my chance of success varied significantly from what the math says.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Actually, a battlemaster fighter can start with (an admittedly nerfed) version of CaGi. If they hit a creature and expend a superiority die that creature must make a wisdom save. On a failed save that creature suffers disadvantage when attacking anything other than the fighter until the fighters next turn. Not quite the same - and only a single target, but it's available as early as 3rd level and it is a sign that the designers are willing to go there.

That's nothing like CaGi, but it /is/ comparable to the 'mark' that all 4e fighters could apply automatically every time they made an attack roll, at all levels. (The mark was -2, which is not as big an effect as disadvantage, but, again, automatically applied with every attack, not expend a short-rest-resource and only work on a failed save - /and/ the fighter also had a feature that 'punished' an enemy ignoring the mark with an immediate attack).

Now, that looks like an insane nerf, on the surface, but I can see the game-design necessity behind it... under certain assumptions.

/If/ the designers are still using traditional roles 'behind the curtain,' then the role of the fighter, is indisputably that of high DPR. And, /if/ there is another class (Paladin, perhaps?) that has the closet role of 'tank,' and is supposed to be better than the fighter at locking enemies into fighting it, then it would make sense to profoundly nerf this vestigial fighter's mark like that. By the same token, a Striker Fighter has little call for a maneuver like C&GI. It's a maneuver that can kill a lot of trivial monsters over an area, which is little more of a controller thing (though controllers rarely want enemies next to them), and it's a /very/ potent defender ability, since it draws multiple enemies /to/ you, and, as a defender, you're supposed to be difficult to disengage from.

Otherwise, yeah, it's just another example of the double-standard being redoubled. The fighter goes from hundreds of maneuvers to 16, restricted to one sub-class, and those maneuvers are nerfed by comparison even to automatic class features. The wizard not only goes back to casting lots of Vancian spells, he casts them spontaneously, /and/ keeps his at-will attack spells. Even if there is a deep, arcane (pi) game-design reason for such a profound disparity, no one could honestly deny how bad it looks on the surface.

 

[billd91]

Y'know, I never thought of that Manbearcat. it's a good point. Memorization and casting is supposed to be difficult. So difficult that you require extensive training to do it. But, once you've had that training, you absolutely cannot ever fail to succeed in doing it (unless something outside prevents you) every time you try. But a rogue trying to hide, despite his extensive training in it, fails fairly often.

It is a good point. Why is "extensive training" acceptable in one case for automatic success, but not in others?

Different contexts. A character, whether rogue or not, hiding is hiding in relation to an outside observer. If not, what's he hiding from?
A spellcaster memorizing his spells is not doing something to be affected by an outside observer - unless one is inserted into the situation, something that's an option occurrence. Same, ultimately, with spellcasting. The spell will be successfully cast - unless he gets interrupted by someone.

 

[billd91]

So require casters to make an arcana check to successfully cast any spell, and base the DC on spell level. Problem solved. I wouldn't object to playing in a game with that as a house rule.

I think I would. If we had a rule like that, we get into lack of parity in the other direction. Does a fighter need to make a check to even swing his sword? No, he doesn't. He has to make a check to fully affect his target, not start the action. Contrast with a wizard - most spells that affect people have some kind of check involved too - a to hit roll for pinpoint targeted spells, a save for ones that affect an area.