• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

What 5e got wrong

Combat is key. Con doesn't play a vital role in dialogue because it doesn't need to; it's universally important when it comes to combat. The point I was making is that the ability scores should be as equal as possible when it comes to combat mechanics, because those are the only rules that are extremely fleshed-out and detailed; they are far less subject to DM interpretation.


All ability scores are useful in combat, just not for all classes. The sorcerer, bard, and paladin all get combat use out of Charisma, and being asked to make Charisma saving throws means that having it as a dump stat hurts.
Doing otherwise... well, let's look at that after this:


I'm not begging the question. The reason for this is obvious - it's bad for game balance when there are overt gaps in usefulness between the stats. It creates a clunky system where you have to hog-tie class specific mechanics to emphasize "weak stats" for certain classes, which in turn leads to goofy build non-options and pigeonholing game-play. For example, playing a high-Int fighter typically requires making a suboptimal character, because Fighters get very little value from the Int stat. As a result, you almost never see high-Int fighters, despite the fact that if it were the real world, one's Intelligence would definitely play a role in how effective a fighter they were. The same is true regarding Str for wizards. If you're in combat, physical strength and reflexes are going to be important.

The ideal way to design a game is for every stat to carry unique mechanical benefits irrespective of class, so that character building is engaging and you can build a diverse array of potential characters without gimping their ability to support a party.

A good way to handle Int, as an example, would be to tie some type of Tactics mechanic to it, which may work something like how Hero Points work in the normal rules. This would serve as an incentive to buff up Int instead of, say, Con.
That makes for a very complex game.
Players have to learn the details for six different ability scores, how they related to various abilities, and then choose how to assign ability scores. That is a LOT more complicated than having one or two key scores for each class that the game can tell you to prioritize. Making characters becomes much harder. 5e was meant to be a simpler game in that regard.

It also gets unwieldy in a tabletop game. There's a LOT of RPGs out there and I can't think of one that gets as heavy into ability scores like that, with lots of optimization choices for each class. Because it's complicated and works better in a video game where the computer can manage the numbers and interactions. Video games universally tend to be more complicated in terms of character (look at all the stats and numbers in Warcraft, with Hit, armour, resistances, crit chance, etc), but much easier to play and manage as the math is done behind the scenes.
Really, most tabletop games are getting even less complicated than D&D. As rules lite as it is, D&D is still a pretty crunch system compared to the various FATE powered games out there.

It's also harder to balance. Which seems to be a big thing with you.
Perfect balance is impossible. It's an illusion. If given three ostensibly perfect choices, one will always be slightly better. Even if only situationally. Look at Rock Paper Scissors. All theoretically have the same chance of winning, yet people have won Roshambo tournaments multiple years in a row despite only having a 33% chance of winning any given game. The odds of that are astronomical. Because there's imbalance.
The more complicated the system, the greater imbalances exist. When you have a complicated system where each ability score has a different bonus in combat and every player has to prioritize and unlimited freedom to build their characters with any stat combination, that is phenomenally more complicated.
Do the math. An average 5e fighter will have a high Strength or Dex, Con as their second, the other of Dex or Str as a third and Int/Wis/Cha as wild cards. There are really two functional builds: Str>Con>Dex, Dex>Con>Str. Maybe as many as four if you put Con to tertiary. Assuming all stats have to be high and are equally valuable, that means there are 46,000 different combinations. And they all have to be balanced with each other. That's just not possible. And with a million more players looking at a game than designers, it's only a matter of time before the flaws, broken combinations, and imbalances are found. One stat or stat array emerges as just plain better. And unlike a video game, D&D cannot patch to fix content.
The balance is soooooo much harder.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

No, I'm not. At all.

Wizards study distinct arcane formulas, according to established rules, to use (generally) known spells in a relatively safe, predictable manner.

That bears no resemblance to what I described.
But a class built around bargaining for power with an extraplanar entity does? It seems strange to me that you're so eager to radically reinvent the warlock, but insist on such a narrow conceptualization of the wizard. Is it so unthinkable that the class which actually uses Intelligence to cast spells might be the one to engage in "magical hacking"? What do you think a wizard's formulas are, anyway, if not code to "jack into magical power sources"? And who ever said that wizardry was safe? It's one of the oldest adventure tropes in the book for a wizard to screw up an experiment and inflict some strange and terrible fate upon himself and/or others.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
But a class built around bargaining for power with an extraplanar entity does? It seems strange to me that you're so eager to radically reinvent the warlock, but insist on such a narrow conceptualization of the wizard. Is it so unthinkable that the class which actually uses Intelligence to cast spells might be the one to engage in "magical hacking"? What do you think a wizard's formulas are, anyway, if not code to "jack into magical power sources"? And who ever said that wizardry was safe? It's one of the oldest adventure tropes in the book for a wizard to screw up an experiment and inflict some strange and terrible fate upon himself and/or others.

Not sure why you're so worked up about this, but ok.

Anyway, you clearly didn't get what I was saying. At this point I don't really care if it was my wording or your reading. c'est la vie.
 


Shasarak

Banned
Banned
Would you just leave this thread already? The majority of your posts have failed to contribute anything whatsoever to the conversation.

I thought that he was allowed to post because he is an award winning/popular game designer?

Is that not the criteria for posting now a days? o_O
 

Aribar

First Post
You're actually arguing that it's totally okay for WotC to spend years writing elaborate rules for their game, then publish that game for purchase with horribly imbalanced rules, as long as they don't tell us it's balanced and try to prevent players from rewriting them for their games? I mean, really? Are you serious? That's so irrational I don't even know how to argue against it.

I mean, maybe we're getting lost in the semantics of the term "balance" here, which I already suggested in a previous post. But, I urge you to re-think what you just asserted. Or, if I'm misunderstanding, clarify your meaning.

I think it's okay because D&D has (outside of 4E and maybe Basic?) never been known for being a balanced game. I think the typical D&D fan cares more about the "feel" given by their interpretation of the rules rather than the actual rules themselves. They don't care that even a level 20 character specialized in something will fail a Moderate skill check almost half the time, it feels right and doesn't bother them. 5E really doubled-down on this with the super-awkward "natural language" of the rules where half the clarifications literally amount to "ask your DM" and just isn't designed for gamers like you or me. We're likely better served by sticking with 4E, or going to 13th Age (especially since it can do the Death To Ability Scores thing really well!), or Strike!. Would it have been awesome if 5E built upon 4E instead of being "3E+some 2E elements II: Electric Boogaloo"? I think so, but that's not what we got and even very early into the public playtests that was apparent.
 


TwoSix

"Diegetics", by L. Ron Gygax
But a class built around bargaining for power with an extraplanar entity does? It seems strange to me that you're so eager to radically reinvent the warlock, but insist on such a narrow conceptualization of the wizard. Is it so unthinkable that the class which actually uses Intelligence to cast spells might be the one to engage in "magical hacking"? What do you think a wizard's formulas are, anyway, if not code to "jack into magical power sources"? And who ever said that wizardry was safe? It's one of the oldest adventure tropes in the book for a wizard to screw up an experiment and inflict some strange and terrible fate upon himself and/or others.
That's kind of a fun thought, actually. A society where warlocks are the respected practitioners of arcane magic, because they're mentored by respectable extraplanar entities. Wizards have to teach them themselves how to make it work, which is why they have so many divergent effects available to them, rather than focusing and learning the classics. It's also why their magic is so draining, and it takes a whole night just to get their ability to cast back, while a warlock only has to take a quick break to meditate and refocus to get all their magic back. Heck, wizards can barely manage the trick to cast minor magic repeatedly, unlike the numerous magical effects a warlock can learn to cast over and over again!
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
Edit: I just spotted a quote in the post above mine where you mention tactics tied to Intelligence. It's a thought, I guess, but I think it would have to stay in the optional rules section of the DMG. I'd also have to wonder what kind of tactics it would allow for which can't already be done by anyone in the game.
One rather abstract way of modeling superior INT in combat that I vaguely recall from some game in the 80s (can't even remember which) was initiative. You use a declaration phase separate from an action phase. In the declaration phase, everyone states their action for the round in ascending order of INT, so the 'smartest' character gets to know what everyone else is doing before deciding what to do. Then, you resolve actions in descending order of DEX (or standard rolled initiative order or whatever). Even simpler and more abstract would be to add INT to initiative instead of or in addition to DEX.
 

Awesome Adam

First Post
That sounds like a feat
TACTICIAN - Add Intelligence Modifier in addition to the Dexterity Modifier when making ability checks to determine initiative order.
 

Remove ads

Top