D&D 3E/3.5 The New Playtest: Why return the failed 3e mechanics?

[B.T.]

If you give me level 1 characters that can be killed in a single hit, it won't be an issue of starting at a higher level -- I won't bother with that version of D&D.

KO'd is not dead, bro.

To get people currently buying Pathfinder to buy 5e.

Cynical, but true.

 

[ferratus]

As a side note, I hope that the D&D design team tries to take a swing at all the failed mechanics of previous editions. Varied BAB might be fixable with flatter math and more varied AC bonuses (+4 and + 15 AC in the same adventure) among monsters. Proficiencies might be fixable if it is coupled with a more general skill resolution mechanic (trained skills and ability score skill resolution).

There are two examples right there of D&D mechanics I never wanted to see again that look alright with that modification. Most bad mechanics were introduced because the designer wanted to introduce something cool, but flubbed it up. Maybe a fresh set of eyes, and copious amount of playtesting, can set it up so that it properly implements the original designer's vision.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Thankfully. In what kind of game do you swing an axe and somebody and not have "killing them" as one of the possible outcomes?

Dungeons and Dragons?

Fighter rolls a 10 on hit points at first level in AD&D. A PC without an 18 strength (IIRC 17 is +1/+1 to hit and damage) literally can not kill him by swinging a longsword (d8) or axe at him for a whole minute. Makes the supposed padded sumo of 4e look fast and gritty.

Speaking of failed mechanics from 3E returning, is there something I am missing, or is there not much reason to play a fighter over a war domain cleric?

You're missing something. The expertise dice used for damage resistance means that the fighter is the toughest thing going. And across a day far and away exceeds the healing the cleric can provide.

 

[billd91]

To get people currently buying Pathfinder to buy 5e.

Or because, based on their sales information, some 3e-style mechanics seem to be what the market wants.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Or because, based on their sales information, some 3e-style mechanics seem to be what the market wants.

You just re-stated what I said. They lost some market share to Pathfinder, so they're trying to sell 5e to Pathfinder fans by making it 3e-like. That includes bringing back some "failed mechanics" as the OP put it.

So, I think we've answered his question.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

You just re-stated what I said. They lost some market share to Pathfinder, so they're trying to sell 5e to Pathfinder by making it 3e-like. That includes bringing back some "failed mechanics" as the OP put it.

So, I think we've answered his question.

To clarify my initial point, I don't considered 3e mechanics in general to be failed. More variable class mechanics, flexible fighter roles, etc. all seem great to me, and even the stuff I don't love, like Vancian casters, I understand the reason they'd include. I'm just scratching my head as to why, since the first playtest, they've reintroduced a few very specific mechanics from 3e that they themselves have declared mistakes (like the non-scaling Toughness feat and differently-scaling BAB tables).

 

[Nagol]

The other possibility is that the original 'fix' addressed a symptom and now they're addressing the root cause in the engine, the original 'fix' is no longer necessary and the excised mechanics can be brought back if they have other value.

I'm not participating in the playtest so I can only speculate.

Take for example the bounded accuracy. Multi-classing between high and low BAB classes should have less impact on ability to land a blow now since the level of variation is reduced, no?

 

[billd91]

You just re-stated what I said.

No I didn't. And I think the differences in what we said aren't subtle.

 

[nightwalker450]

The BAB difference is pretty minor from the looks of it (granted we only have 5 levels to look at right now). A difference of 2-3 points isn't too bad at end levels.

Toughness in here is giving quite a leg up on hit points/healing than it had in previous editions. But the question is will it continue to be viable as more feats are introduced. They need to stick with a power level for feats and avoid the power creep.

 

[Tony Vargas]

No I didn't. And I think the differences in what we said aren't subtle.

The only difference is that you were less precise in saying 'the market,' rather than calling out the specific market segment that might demand the return of failed mechanics simply because they were present in 3e.

To clarify my initial point, I don't considered 3e mechanics in general to be failed.... I'm just scratching my head as to why, since the first playtest, they've reintroduced a few very specific mechanics from 3e that they themselves have declared mistakes.

It really doesn't matter if a given mechanic was good or bad, if it's demanded by a substantial enough fraction of the fan-base, what are they going to do? Tell them "keep playing Pathfinder, we don't want your money?"