Uniting the Editions, Part 2 Up!

[Mokona]

Does player B make an ability check to swing across, player F make an Athletics check, and player T make a Rope Use check?

What if they're not trained in any of these, is it worse than a simple ability check? Do they all use the same DC? Is player B going to be hosed because he's using a less complicated system and doesn't get a "+3 for trained" bonus? Is player T hosed cuz he chose "Rope Use" but didn't invest enough points in "Swing" skill also?

To me, the idea that each character would have a different approach to builds is a little odd but I can easily imagine how it would work.

1. Even in 3e, each skill is a group of "related activities" that you're trained at doing.
2. Each choice (ability checks, 3e skills, 4e skills, &c) is a different way of defining "what counts as related activities".
3. Monte's team has the task of balancing different methods.

Therefore, in the example, perhaps for the OD&D character he could be good at all Dex skills whether they use a rope or not. The 3e character is equally good because he has rope use trained and this would apply regardless of if the rope application seemed to be based on Str, Dex, or no ability at all (aka tie a knot). The 4e character is also equally good because he is trained in Acrobatics (aka swinging on a rope versus Athletics which is climbing on a rope) but in this case happens to be a Wizard and is bad at all other physical activities (the player took Acrobatics based on some wonky background concept ).

It is possible to make this system work, though tricky. One player "groups" the situations they can handle by the prism of Str-Cha. Another player "groups" the situations they can handle by the prism of niche specializations. A third player "groups" the situations they can handle by the prism of skills that are a blend of attribute flavor and training flavor (aka 4e).

Balance comes in making sure that each character is "skilled" in an equal number of circumstances that the party encounters as long as they're all playing the same class. I.e. a party of 100% rogues where each rogue would shine in skill checks an equal number of times across the life of the character no matter how they each "grouped" challenges, aka skills. Once you throw multiple classes into the mix it will be hard to discern balance if 5e uses the 3e conceit that skill points per level was part of the balancing mechanism between different classes (without actually using points in all systems).

 

[Ratskinner]

Monte wrote:


So I'm trying to envision this as pertains to skill checks, and I'm finding it a little odd. Let's say we have the following:

* Player T, who has a long list of skills and feats (a la third edition).
* Player F, who has a short list of skills, feats, and utility powers (fourth edition).
* Player B, who just has ability scores and AC (original D&D).

They come up to several obstacles, including a stuck door (that DC 13 door that showed up before) and a chasm that can be crossed with a rope, like Luke and Leia in Star Wars. They decide to cross the chasm first.

Does player B make an ability check to swing across, player F make an Athletics check, and player T make a Rope Use check?

While we really can't know at this point I'd conjecture the following:

We seem know that backgrounds will be a part of the base game, so my guess is they take the place of all those feats and skills in less-complicated characters:
Player T: Recounts his feats/skills, DM (possibly) gives him difficulty to roll
Player F: Same, with a lesser consideration on his chosen Background
Player B: DM decides if Background applies and how much.

For all of them, it sounds like some sort of ability check is the basic skill roll, but how that's adjudicated is still somewhat hazy.

 

[BluSponge]

This kind of decision -- what granularity is right on skills for the game -- seems to fall more into a DM's decision about what the campaign will be like than it does the choice of individual players. But Monte presents it as a player choice that the DM doesn't need to worry about. That doesn't seem 100% right to me, anyone else feeling dubious about that?

Completely agree. I'm also concerned that given how feats and skills interacted with the game system in 3/3.5, that player choice in this regard would require the DM to incorporate certain modules into his game, or otherwise completely invalidate player choice.

It seems to me that just as with every edition before, the DM should make a "menu" of options available to players prior to the start of the game. Just as today a 4e GM might say, "no PHB3" or a 3.5 GM might say, "no third party books", the 5e GM could say, "no xxx modules." it sets broad parameters in which the players can then adapt their characters. If 5e is as modular as Mike Mearls suggested in the seminars, the group could experiment with different modules through the course of the campaign, keeping those that worked for the group, and discarding others without any ultimate impact oh the characters and play.

Tom

 

[Alzrius]

Despite the promises of modularity, I suspect that certain options won't be viable for certain decisions if what you want your character to do runs counter to how much complexity you're looking for in your character - this seems particularly true if what you want is a "blend" of themes from various editions.

For example, Monte wrote that some players could choose not to have feats at all. Okay, but (IIRC) another article said that spellcasters who wanted to have their spells usable at-will (rather than using Vancian casting) needed to take feats for that.

What if I want a simplistic, no-feats wizard who can use at-will spellcasting? It sounds like I'm just out of luck.

 

[tecnowraith]

What stood out for me from the article was this "Six ability scores ranging from 3 to 18" and what is applies to, character generation only or level progression?

 

[BluSponge]

What if I want a simplistic, no-feats wizard who can use at-will spellcasting? It sounds like I'm just out of luck.

Not necessarily. It really depends on the feat progression scheme they use. Taking 3/3.5 as a basis, you could simply houserule a module that allows wizards every three levels to choose one of their spells that they can cast at-will. This is where the modularity concept really shines. Because now I can take the core classes and, instead of instituting the full feat scheme, I can cherry pick a few and make them extra class abilities. It's the difference between playing full on 3e and playing 2e with a few extra bells and whistles. And if the developers do their jobs right, it should all be relatively balanced.

Tom

 

[Alzrius]

Not necessarily. It really depends on the feat progression scheme they use. Taking 3/3.5 as a basis, you could simply houserule a module that allows wizards every three levels to choose one of their spells that they can cast at-will. This is where the modularity concept really shines.

Does it? Because what you've described is a house rule, not a feature of the system itself. To me, house rules are what you implement when the system isn't able to give you what you want on its own.

In other words, what you're describing is a patch to a break in the system, not a feature of the system.

 

[Oldtimer]

What stood out for me from the article was this "Six ability scores ranging from 3 to 18" and what is applies to, character generation only or level progression?

I reacted to that very same thing. In 4E starting ability scores range from 8 to 20, and can eventually reach into the high twenties.

I agree that six ability scores (die, Comeliness, die) form a common ground, but the range of those scores has varied a lot through the editions.

 

[Alzrius]

I agree that sex ability scores (die, Comeliness, die) form a common ground, but the range of those scores has varied a lot through the editions.

Hey, my characters have always had a high sex ability score.

 

[Ratskinner]

Feature not a Bug

Does it? Because what you've described is a house rule, not a feature of the system itself. To me, house rules are what you implement when the system isn't able to give you what you want on its own.

In other words, what you're describing is a patch to a break in the system, not a feature of the system.

Having a system which is easy to houserule is a big part of returning power to the players and DMs. We are people not computers, sitting around a table for the purpose of enjoying ourselves in this strange endeavor. "A rule for everything you might ever want to do" is something computers need, not people.

Also, AFAICT. It seems to me like you could easily take the "Advanced" or "Complicated" character module and rebuild your wizards to have "at-wills" and just declare that to be your base class.