D&D 5E What needs to be fixed in 5E?

[Saagael]

Look at Jean Reno's character from The Professional- most people would stat that character as purely a combat monster. OTOH, my version would divert character building points away from combat abilities into horticulture and a couple of other things. Why? Because being a top-level assassin is what he does, but his love for his precious potted plant says something about who he is.

I think the idea of a character sheet is to give mechanics to what a character can do. You don't need mechanics to say you've got a green thumb. Who a character is hardly is represented by what's on the character sheet; its represented by how they interact with the world, i.e. Non-mechanical, and off the character sheet.

I find it odd that "rounding out a character", to you, seems to require moving resources (skills, feats, ability points, whatever) from in-game mechanical functions (attacks, skills, etc) to non-mechanical fluff. Adding options for that non-mechanical fluff means that someone, at some point, will have to trade off being a "well-rounded character" for "combat/non-combat focused". The system Abdul et al. are talking about (and indeed, what we have with 4e) allows for both to exist at the same time. You can be focused in combat/non-combat and still be a well-rounded character.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

FOR YOU!

I could show you a stack of my RPG characters going back to 1982- various editions of D&D, RIFTS, HERO, GURPS, Stormbringer...the list goes on- and most of them will have secondary talents, professions, instruments, art supplies, non-magical books, skills in crafts, cooking, obscure languages, etc., because for me, having those options was not a "sucker's bet", it was part of rounding out those characters. What they did when out of combat or adventuring informed me how they would react in certain situations (in combat or social).

Options are not a "sucker's bet" unless you think the only reason for a PC's numbers is combat/non-combat efficacy. Me? I'm digging deeper.

Look at Jean Reno's character from The Professional- most people would stat that character as purely a combat monster. OTOH, my version would divert character building points away from combat abilities into horticulture and a couple of other things. Why? Because being a top-level assassin is what he does, but his love for his precious potted plant says something about who he is.

And I'm as interested in the latter as the former, so diverting those character building resources makes sense to me.

Example: one of my mire recent 3.5Ed characters spent the bulk of his skill points on Rope Use, Languages, History, KS: Architecture, and KS: Engineering- because besides being an adventurer, he was a historian/archaeologist.



Why?

How does my liking to pick up Underwater Basket Weaving or Obscure Tribal Burial Rituals negatively affect your ability to choose Bluff?

Is it the whole "choosing between useful and useless skills from the same resource pool" thing?

Do what was suggested to me: don't divert resources from that finite pool- just write it down on your character sheet. You won't be as good at it as someone who actually diverted resources to gain that level of skill, but your PC will be customized, and you won't feel like a sucker.

I don't disagree with you at all about wanting to have characters with depth. I think we simply disagree about what mechanically is the best way to support those concepts. I don't think forcing the player to reduce the character's capacity at the core adventuring competencies of the game is the way to do that personally.

The Professional is a good example. Sure, he's a horticulturist. He's also basically the world's deadliest assassin. I'd feel better about creating that character in a system where his personality traits and background don't have to be juggled up against the mechanical aspects of the character that give that "deadliest guy around" thing teeth. No amount of adding extra skill points to a one-tier system really IMHO accomplishes that because the players are ALWAYS heavily motivated to drop on yet another goody that adds to the character's combat and adventuring resources, and at some point you've got so many options you can take that even in that realm all the characters start to overlap too much.

This is why IMHO the 2-tier approach of Skills for core adventuring options and backgrounds for basic character development parameters seems to make sense. The character can be a horticulturist, and even back that up to some extent with a useful skill or two like Nature, and his assassinating functions are where his more tightly regulated mechanical resources can go. The possibility still exists to use options that help support the RP side of the character (like taking the Nature skill) but it isn't the only option.

 

[Saagael]

Most of the "customization" in 4e characters is done with feats, rather than skills. Skills are general, wide-sweeping things, while feats are specific and do a better job adding that solid character depth.

Example: one of my mire recent 3.5Ed characters spent the bulk of his skill points on Rope Use, Languages, History, KS: Architecture, and KS: Engineering- because besides being an adventurer, he was a historian/archaeologist.

Take the feat "Linguist", as well as the History and Thievery skill (perhaps grab Thievery with a multiclass into Artificer to really drive home the "engineering" feel). Using rope is a basic adventurer thing and, IMO, doesn't warrant its own skill.

The upside to this is that you get the benefit of having some side-benefits. Being an "engineering" guy also means you've got the bonus of being handy with locks and traps. You don't have ranks or checks for languages, you just know them.

I think with the next edition, these kind of "character depth" issues should be addressed with the feats/talents split, so that feats are combat related, and talents are non-combat related, and skills remain largely the same as they are.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

FOR YOU!

I could show you a stack of my RPG characters going back to 1982- various editions of D&D, RIFTS, HERO, GURPS, Stormbringer...the list goes on- and most of them will have secondary talents, professions, instruments, art supplies, non-magical books, skills in crafts, cooking, obscure languages, etc., because for me, having those options was not a "sucker's bet", it was part of rounding out those characters. What they did when out of combat or adventuring informed me how they would react in certain situations (in combat or social).

Nothing stops you from doing that with your 4e character but your own imagination. I have stuff like that on my sheets too, in every edition, in (almost) every RPG I've played. What of it? What's stopping you from doing it in 4e?

Look at Jean Reno's character from The Professional- most people would stat that character as purely a combat monster. OTOH, my version would divert character building points away from combat abilities into horticulture and a couple of other things.

That just doesn't make sense, in game or out. That's why separate pools need to exist. It's hard to justify calling someone the deadliest assassin around if you've had to blow a bunch of resources on fluff that could have been spend more efficiently defining your primary archetype.

Why? Because being a top-level assassin is what he does, but his love for his precious potted plant says something about who he is.

You've just described a two-tier skill system here.

And I'm as interested in the latter as the former,

I am too. Most of us arguing here are (I think). The part that really fails to make sense is the sacrifice. In this regard the 2e system of proficiencies and background skills makes more sense than 3.x style skill points.

so diverting those character building resources makes sense to me.

This is where it doesn't make sense to me. You should not need to burn an "game" useful resource to garner a (mostly) RP benefit. That's bad design. Resources are stretched thin enough as it is. For example, unless you had a ridiculously high Int, in 3.x, there simply weren't enough skill points to make a well-rounded human being, let alone an adventuring character, and forcing you to burn some on giving your character depth was just a horrible design choice. My groups always houseruled more skill points (and largely ditched the idea of cross class skills) but that didn't really solve anything, because with a lot of players, those points just went into combat stuff, and that was a little unbalancing. If there had been a separate extra pool for, as AA called them, the "CraPPer skills" I would have had much less of an issue with it.

Though skill points were still far too fiddly for my tastes. Trying to build a character above first level was a complete nightmare.

Example: one of my mire recent 3.5Ed characters spent the bulk of his skill points on Rope Use, Languages, History, KS: Architecture, and KS: Engineering- because besides being an adventurer, he was a historian/archaeologist.

Nothing stops you from building a character like this now, except that in addition to languages and History, you might have a few others as well, and it would be fair to say some amount of Dungeoneering. The other stuff is easily covered by fluff and RP. That's only an issue if you have an unimaginitive DM that won't allow it.

Is it the whole "choosing between useful and useless skills from the same resource pool" thing?

Do what was suggested to me: don't divert resources from that finite pool- just write it down on your character sheet. You won't be as good at it as someone who actually diverted resources to gain that level of skill, but your PC will be customized, and you won't feel like a sucker.

Or, you know, just write it on your sheet at full value because for the one time per campaign that it's going to come up it won't matter as far as balance is concerned. Or, more logically, have a separate pool for that junk.

Why does it have to be "my way or the highway" with you? You refuse to give at all, but expect the reverse? We've heard a lot of criticism from you. How about you come up with something besides, "use the skill system from D&D 3.x"? I challenge you to come up with a workable compromise on this like I have. Something that gives depth of character but doesn't penalize you for doing so.

And yes, the 3.x method is penalizing you for representing depth with mechanics. The game is balanced on the assumption that characters will take every possible advantage. It has to be, because given the option, some players will go that way, so modules and tournament play have to account for that.

I see no reason why any future versions of the game can't include those skills, but I see no convincing reason why it should not be a separate pool.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I am too. Most of us arguing here are (I think). The part that really fails to make sense is the sacrifice. In this regard the 2e system of proficiencies and background skills makes more sense than 3.x style skill points.

This. Thus my earlier semi-tangents on long skill lists not even being good simulation. The vast majority of people just aren't like that--that they make huge sacrifices in their core competencies to have any breadth. Sure, there are a few--so few that they stand out and people comment on them.

I've noticed two types that make serious trades in this respect:

1. People that aren't quite as talented (or some other drawback) as their peers, but nonetheless intend to excel in their chosen field, no matter the cost. If being a good doctor (for them) means having no appreciable hobbies, then that's that. And right down the hall will be 3 other good doctors who are well rounded.

2. Some people at the very pinnacle of their highly competitive profession. Any edge is crucial, and they'll sacrifice whatever it takes to get it. A lot of these retire early or burn out, though.

So in a decent two-tier system, I can see some room for marginal trades across tiers. These trades should be at least as inefficient as the old Basic D&D trade two points out of good but unnecessary stat for one point in a prime stat. You can be 90% adventurer and be well rounded, or you can be a 92% adventurer and sacrifice half of the well-roundedness. If you are one of those nigh-monomanical adventurers whose entire town was torched by orcs and you have trained for noting but vengance since age 2--then you can maybe go 95% and sacrifice almost all well-roundedness. You'll have problems in a lot of social settings, but hey. On the flip side, if someone wants to be a jack of all trades, let them drop down as low as 85% to 80% to be so well-rounded that they make perfect spheres feel inadequate.

It should be a poor enough swap, that most people won't do it. That would be a fairly accurate reflection of the way humans act when it comes to these trades--as well as a fairly accurate reflection of what they get when they make these trades.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Nothing stops you from doing that with your 4e character but your own imagination. I have stuff like that on my sheets too, in every edition, in (almost) every RPG I've played. What of it? What's stopping you from doing it in 4e?

in other games, when I do, I get full value for my choices. If I choose to make my PC a flute virtuoso, that skill works the same as any other in the game.

in 4Ed, without a Perform skill, calling myself a flute virtuoso is meaningless. There are no mechanics for it.

Look at Jean Reno's character from The Professional- most people would stat that character as purely a combat monster. OTOH, my version would divert character building points away from combat abilities into horticulture and a couple of other things.

That just doesn't make sense, in game or out. That's why separate pools need to exist. It's hard to justify calling someone the deadliest assassin around if you've had to blow a bunch of resources on fluff that could have been spend more efficiently defining your primary archetype.

It may not make sense to you, but it does to me.

A skill- any skill- takes time to learn. That means time not spent doing something else. Reno's character is, without a doubt, the deadliest human on the screen for that entire movie, racking up a nice bodycount with gun, blade, and explosives. He is also quite clearly devoted to his plant. He takes on-screen risks to ensure its safety. It matters to him.

He has taken time out of his life as Bad Ass Assassin to learn how to care for it. That means he didn't learn something else. What that lack is is unclear, though it may be reflected in his interactions with Natalie Portman's character. Or it may be that he's not so good with poisons.

He's also not a farmer. He loves his plant and cares for it well, but his green thumb is limited.

So transferring a few skill points in an RPG from his assassinitude to give him the ability to care for his plant to the fullest is not nonsense, its rounding out his character.

You've just described a two-tier skill system here.

Absolutely not.

You get your skill points (or whatever the resource would be called) from the same place. The skills work the same regardless of type. You merely decide which ones you want- all combat-related, no combat-related, or a mix. You decide the utility you get from taking those skill points and using them to be a master baker or a quintessential con artist.

The other stuff is easily covered by fluff and RP.

I disagree- its a skill, and it should work like any other skill in the game.

Why does it have to be "my way or the highway" with you?

Why does it have to be "my way or the highway" with you?

The inclusion of the "CraPPer skills" (as you and others call them) that function identically to the other skills in no way impacts your ability to avoid taking the "CraPPer skills".

OTOH, the exclusion of the "CraPPer skills" directly has an effect on my ability to choose them if I so choose to do.

You refuse to give at all, but expect the reverse? We've heard a lot of criticism from you. How about you come up with something besides, "use the skill system from D&D 3.x"? I challenge you to come up with a workable compromise on this like I have. Something that gives depth of character but doesn't penalize you for doing so.

Actually, I didn't suggest using 3.X's system. I just think its better than 4Ed's. I prefer HERO's system, personally.

But the key to your position and mine is this: I don't see giving a PC depth of character at the expense of combat efficacy to be a penalty. Its a tradeoff like any other.

I see no convincing reason why it should not be a separate pool.

Just like I see no convincing reason why it should be a separate pool.

 

[keterys]

I, for one, would _much_ rather be able to write in my character's back story and background and roleplay him as I choose. Without having to worry if I have the requisite points to match some esoteric claims to skill values. Or even if such skills exist.

In that respect, I consider 4E's skill system an improvement over 3E's, and both an improvement over Hero's (at least in 3e, basket weaving makes you less effective at Spotting, Athletics - _some_ other skill, etc - in HERO, Basket Weaving makes you less effective at anything at all you'd put points into)

Then again, I'd be _very_ okay with literally writing _anything_ folks want into their RP persona and mechanics. You want Basketweaving +17, put it in. You spent a summer learning a language? Toss it on.

I'd have to dig up my notes, but I want to say the dnd variant I was working on some ways back used stat checks instead of skills, with PCs describing themselves in a few keywords (ex: the "Blacksmith" could call on that for physical tasks, enduring heat, whatever) and anything remotely fluffy being literally "write whatever you want - if that means Krunk the barbarian has less than Oswald the Librarian, then that means that each gets their time in the spotlight (comedically or expertly) equally.

Look at something like FATE (Spirit of the Century, Dresden Files) for a good example of use of keywords to reward a concept without having to track individual skill points or force a DM to care whether someone's taken Underwater Basketweaving so they make sure that comes up in the campaign

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

...stuff...

It's pretty clear that neither side is going to see eye-to-eye on this matter, so I'm done.

I don't agree with you, and you don't agree with me (and the others). It's boiled down to both sides wanting to handwave the other sides' point of view on the matter. Just like the last time this came up.

And I'm ok with that. It's a big wide world of gaming out there. I just don't want to see them ruin what I (and many others apparently) consider to be one of 4e's best advancements in order to try to satisfy a market segment that likely won't care anyway.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I just don't want to see them ruin what I (and many others apparently) consider to be one of 4e's best advancements in order to try to satisfy a market segment that likely won't care anyway.

Nice parting shot- if we didn't care, we wouldn't discuss this.

Anyway, the discussion of very mechanics of the game* just reinforces my earlier statement: 5Ed will likely just widen the divide between those who like what 3.5Ed was and what 4Ed is.





* to be perfectly clear, I'd be fine with 4Ed style skills if there were more of them. No need to change the mechanics, just bring back the missing ones.

 

[keterys]

Interesting - which ones do you consider missing?