D&D 5E what is it about 2nd ed that we miss?

[The Crimson Binome]

That is very weird. I can think of a tiny handful of powers that are (a) AoE, (b) do damage without rolling to hit, and (c) aren't daily powers.

It was a monster power, if that helps. We were fighting some Drow, and one of them set down something like a blanket of webs that was crawling with magic spiders. It was memorable to me because we were on an escort mission to rescue some Dwarven miners, and they all died in the first action of the first combat, without so much as a single die being rolled.

That was about the point when I became an NPC rights activist. I could deal with some simplifications to NPC stats, for the purpose of gameplay, but this is when I knew that 4E had crossed the line. (My first hint that this would be the case came during an earlier campaign, when my Goblin Warlock was one-shotting giants as a minor action with no attack roll, using his... I want to say it was a "rod of reaving" ... some sort of Warlock implement that dealt one damage when you applied a curse.)

 

[The Crimson Binome]

No step back at all, actually. No version of D&D has ever come close to modeling a reality. They model a fantasy. Mostly pretty badly, depending on exactly what you're going for with your fantasy.

In 2E, an ogre has stats that don't change depending on the level of the PCs who are looking at it. That is an objective reality, and 4E fails to provide an objective reality.

Checks happen when the DM says they do. If 'being a good blacksmith' means never 'failing a DC 15 check' and the DM decides a blacksmith with a +5 doing routine work on a daily basis doesn't need to make checks, then +5 is a good blacksmith, if he calls for a DC 15 when a PC tries to do some blacksmithing, even a PC with a +10 has a chance of failing - I guess that's why he's an adventurer.

Checks happen when there is uncertainty. If your blacksmith has +13 to blacksmithing, then a DC 15 check is uncertain, and a roll is required. Ergo, a smith who doesn't fail at DC 15 tasks must have a CR of at least 13 in order to guarantee a proficiency bonus of +5.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In 2E, an ogre has stats that don't change depending on the level of the PCs who are looking at it. That is an objective reality, and 4E fails to provide an objective reality.

I'm sorry, but it's really not an objective reality - the ogre doesn't exist. Objectively.

An ogre in that context is an imaginary challenge to a party of imaginary adventurers. Whether it's in 2e, 3e, 4e, RuneQuest or some other system, it's still just that. Each system will give it different stats to be used in resolving that challenge as part of play, that doesn't make any one set of stat an objective reality, or even a reality. Depending on the system, that resolution may be more or less 'objective,' in some sense though 'mechanistic' might be a better way of putting it, if you happen to be able to run it strictly by the book with dice rolls in the open. Otherwise, if the DM makes any judgment call, for instance, it's not so objective anymore. 5e tends to lean on DM judgment a lot.

But the stats of the ogre in the game aren't an objective description of what an ogre /is/, but of what challenge it poses to an adventuring party. Prior to 3e and CR, there wasn't even quite a formal attempt to quantify that challenge. Maybe, arguably, exp value. But not so much HD, even though they were often equated with level.

Checks happen when there is uncertainty. If your blacksmith has +13 to blacksmithing, then a DC 15 check is uncertain, and a roll is required.

Not in 5e, no. The DM decides if there is uncertainty, then if there is a check and what the DC is. The check does not make the decision, the DM does. If the DM decides the village blacksmith can make horseshoes and nails all day without a check, he can, and does. Whether he's stated out or not, whatever his bonus to blacksmithing may be if he is given stats. I a PC uses blacksmithing tools for something, same process, the DM decides if there's uncertainty, if there is, calls for a roll and assigns a DC.

Ergo, a smith who doesn't fail at DC 15 tasks must have a CR of at least 13 in order to guarantee a proficiency bonus of +5.

Or the DM just doesn't call for checks when he does something routine, and, because he's a blacksmith blacksmithing every day DC 15 checks are routine.

 

[Ristamar]

Checks happen when there is uncertainty. If your blacksmith has +13 to blacksmithing, then a DC 15 check is uncertain, and a roll is required. Ergo, a smith who doesn't fail at DC 15 tasks must have a CR of at least 13 in order to guarantee a proficiency bonus of +5.

CR 13? That seems unnecessary. Given 5e's asymmetrical monster design (relative to PCs), if I wanted to boost a smith's skill while being a stickler for keeping monster CR in line with the proficiency bonus, I'd just make a Blacksmith "NPC" with a couple of special abilities:

Expert Smith: The blacksmith's proficiency bonus is doubled when using Smith's Tools.

Reliable Craftsmanship: The blacksmith's skill is refined enough that when he makes an ability check with his Smith's Tools, treat a d20 roll of 9 or lower as a 10.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Except you can still fire one arrow and drop a minion, which simply isn't possible against anyone else of that approximate skill level.

"That approximate skill level" would be about 10 levels lower for a standard monster, though, so you might just be able to if you bust out something hard-hitting enough or crit or whatever.

Whether you choose to model that toughness through AC or HP is going to have a tremendous effect upon how the life of that creature actually plays out, which means the two models are irreconcilable.

Except that the life of the creature isn't what it's combat stats model, at all. It's stats model the challenge it posses to a PC party.

(Not to mention things like area effects, and falling damage, which are always instantly fatal regardless of the minion's supposed toughness.)

Not quite. While in 5e you can do enough save:1/2 damage with an AE to auto-kill a low-enough CR monster, a 4e miss:1/2 AE (and virtually all damaging attacks, AE or not, in 4e required an attack roll) doesn't kill minions on a miss. Minions were actually more durable, that way.

I do very distinctly recall AoE attacks that did damage without requiring an attack roll, even if it was only 4 damage, because that was sufficient to kill all minions on the scene.

Prior to Essentials, AE attacks that did damage without any attack roll were zones that did damage to a creature in them under a certain circumstance, most often, ending their turn in the zone. So they were suicide for minions to stand in, but didn't auto-kill them instantly.

Post-Essentials you had attacks that didn't have attack rolls, but still did damage, like the errata'd Magic Missile. Those behaved more like save:1/2 spells in all other editions, in that you could auto-kill lesser foes with them.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Reliable Craftsmanship: The blacksmith's skill is refined enough that when he makes an ability check with his Smith's Tools, treat a d20 roll of 9 or lower as a 10.

That's a Rogue ability, right? I knew I was forgetting about something.

I take it back, then. You can use existing mechanics to build a blacksmith NPC class that can still succeed without being CR 13.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Not in 5e, no. The DM decides if there is uncertainty, then if there is a check and what the DC is.

In a roundabout way, perhaps. The DM determines the DC of a check, whether that's 0 or 10 or 15. The DM might evade the issue by assigning lower DCs to the blacksmith, based on a variety of factors.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In a roundabout way, perhaps. The DM determines the DC of a check, whether that's 0 or 10 or 15. The DM might evade the issue by assigning lower DCs to the blacksmith, based on a variety of factors.

There's no DC needed unless a roll is called for. That's the basic 5e resolution system, it's based first on DM judgment, then on dice rolls if the DM judges there is uncertainty. No uncertainty, no roll, no DC, no theoretical problem with a blacksmith being less than 13th level.

An NPC blacksmith doing his day to day blacksmithing doesn't require a roll, he's just doing his routine, daily work (and why would the DM want to make a bunch of rolls for him?) - even if some or many of those tasks are things the DM would require a PC to make a check to accomplish.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I agree. 2e had lots of novels that were written specifically based on the game mechanics. I guess 3e kept trend roughly the same. Over at GitP forum I still see people trying to stat out Elminster in the novels. Or how Rich deliberately hides the Class of some of the NPCs in the story, which drives some readers mad. Have you ever tried to tie the 2e mechanics back to protagonists in the novels?

Not so much the protagonists, but definitely a lot of minor side characters. It was interesting to hear their take on wild magic and Vancian casting and the like. I'm not really a fan of such high magic settings, in general, but I do appreciate how well Salvatore was able to stick to the rules.

So 2e "Level" was a general indicator to track of increasing HP and Attack Bonus. Which I suppose can mean "general martial-threat from a person of that class". So I have a few questions:
- In your 2e games, could your PC learn the Class of the enemy character?
- In your 2e games, could your PC learn the Level of the enemy character?
- Does this formula " Level = HitDice join BAB" get ignored for caster classes?

In 2E, classes hewed very close to obvious archetypes. You can tell the Ranger from the Paladin because the former is dressed like Robin Hood and the latter is loudly proclaiming the virtues of whatever. Fighters and Thieves could be determined by their weapons and armors, if they weren't one of the above.

Level could be inferred from a variety of details, and skilled combatants might have a reputation, but it was also possible for a reputation to be exaggerated. The only sure sign of level was to actually hit someone, and see how they reacted - if you stab someone in the back, and they don't even flinch, then you're in for a tough fight.

- Do you think it is viable to calculate the Challenge Rating for an individual PC?
- How do you feel on existing classes or monsters that may break this system? Like 5e Intellect Devourer, which is supposedly a level 2 monster that can SaveOrDie Level 20 martial classes? Would it bother you if these exceptions were to exist in your 2e game?
- What about THACO? Is it possible to model 2e setting-mechanics without THACO?

I'm not a fan of the CR mechanic, because of how it interacts with proficiency bonus, so I'm fairly certain that you can't calculate a CR for an individual PC. And even if you could, your CR can change if you swap the armor or weapon you're wearing, which creates a big circular headache.

I'm also not a big fan of Save-or-Die abilities, but the Intellect Devourer demonstrates one of the fundamental flaws of 5E - namely, that status effects work equally well, regardless of level. Weak characters with status effects contribute disproportionately to their supposed-level or CR. That's somewhat tangential to my point, though, which specifically correlates toughness to martial fighting ability as an observable reality within the game world; an Intellect Devourer or Mind Flayer is more like a spellcaster, in that their offensive potential is much higher than their martial ability or toughness would indicate.

- Do you feel that 5e "acceptably matches" this model of "martial-based levelling mechanics found in 2e settings"?
- Do you think that WotC can marry the D&D Brand to "2e Setting-Specific Resolution" and still attract new gamers?

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. The jury is out on 5E. It's probably trying to be close to the way 2E did it, but PC classes have grown so much more complex that the differences are kind of overwhelming.

You can kind of squint and see that a NPC Mage is supposed to be the same as a level 9 PC Wizard, but if I want to create an NPC Warlock (for example), then I don't have any rules for which abilities it should have or what should be glossed over. It's kind of just vague "make something up" advice, which isn't useful to me in determining what the one true representation of those abilities (with scaled down resolution) should actually be.

 

[Shasarak]

No step back at all, actually. No version of D&D has ever come close to modeling a reality. They model a fantasy. Mostly pretty badly, depending on exactly what you're going for with your fantasy.

Reality is bad at modeling reality. One person can get shot several times without taking fatal damage while another drops dead of no apparent cause. That is not realistic at all.