Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6651965" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Couple thoughts here (a bit discrete and a bit synergistic):1)  This position is a little tough to swallow after enduring the never-ending cavalcade of histrionics about the verisimilitude holocaust that was the utterly non-prolific Damage on a Miss and 1 measly 7th level Fighter Encounter Power (against 19th other choices) during the 4e era and on through the 5e playtest.2)  Treating GM Force as the answer, more than that...a virtue (you don't have to worry about testing the veracity of your heroic mettle in the crucible of the resolution mechanics because I'll just always spin a yarn when the system's vulnerabilities, which would render that veracity untenable and your archetype illegitimate, stare us in the face), isn't a selling point for a GM like me who abhors the practice.3)  Finally, sure.  Let us accept that I am inclined (I'm not but let us accept it) to do the math through the levels to sort out median ability checks for each archetype (Acrobatics, Arcana, Athletics, Diplomacy, Nature, Religion, Stealth, et al) through the levels.  From there, I can discern what the Medium and High DC should be for the percentages I feel would yield "archetype legitimacy" (let us just say 85 % and 60 % for the sake of argument).  There are still lots of problems:a)  With the deflation of bonuses due to the Bounded Accuracy directive, you have severe contraction of "archetype separation".  In 4e, a Fighter's Athletics check dramatically outweighs (i) the randomness of the d20 and (ii) the Athletics check of the Wizard (and that ilk).  For 5e, neither is true and deeply not true by comparison.  This has an irrevocable effect on (GM Forceless) play.b)  I still have to perform the necessary maths to map a 5e SC analogue to the expectant math success rate in 4e's 1-5 complexities such that the percentage chance of success for the overall challenge achieves relative equilibrium.  This will include sorting out the implication of Advantages and Hard DCs to be deployed.c)  The standard cost in a 4e SC for micro-failure and macro-failure of Healing Surges has no analogue in 5e.  Hit Dice do not remotely carry the same thematic or mechanical implications on pacing generally or the adventuring day and the encounter (ESPECIALLY the encounter) specifically.  Another "failure tax" entirely would need to be sorted out.d)  How does the deployment of other commodities (such as gold but especially daily spell slots) interface with the 5e SC derivative for noncombat conflict resolution?  You can't just carry over how DMG2 handles this (1/10 an of level item in gold for auto-success or 2 successes for a fictional positioning relevant daily expenditure).  You're going to have to figure that out.e)  Secondary Skill Augments?  How do you incorporate that in to the maths?  And what kind of augments?  Advantage?  That seems too powerful but not using Advantage sort of breaks from the spirit of the system.There is a lot more to it than (involving the utility encounter power structure) that but I've spilt enough virtual ink already.Suffice to say, 5e's overall design ethos, GMing ethos, combat resolution system, noncombat resolution system, pacing infrastructure and expectations, and a whole host of other things are not remotely compatible with 4e.  And that is fine.  I do not mind at all.  I enjoy several systems, 4e being one of them.  I'm not going to behave like a jilted lover and lose my mind over lack of current support from WotC.  I'll still run 4e.  I'll run Dungeon World.  I'll run Cortex + Fantasy Heroic/MHRP/SMALLVILLE.  I'll run Apocalypse World.  I'll run Dread.  I'll run Dogs in the Vineyard.  I'll run RC or 1e D&D when I just want to do a one-off dungeon crawl with old friends.I'm actually quite happy that a lot of old 2e advocates have a svelte, modernized version of their beloved system.  They have been waiting for a very long time and they are a very large contingent of lapsed D&Ders.It would just be nice if we could admit this reality at a consensus level and not try to whitewash the whole "Big Tent" messaging by the design team (that engendered and kept the momentum of the good-fath, non-rancorous buy-in into the exhaustive playtest) and the anti-4e crowd during the playtest wringing their hands at everything that remotely resembled 4e in the playtest materials, subsequently fist-bumping every time that material was removed/eroded, while simultaneously trying to quell an obnoxious deluge of a forum assault from unified 4e advocate uproar (which never came for various reasons...thankfully so) with HEY YOU 4E GUY STOP BEING A DRAMA QUEEN AND JUST WAIT FOR THE MODULES IT WILL BE OK...BIG TENT REMEMBER...OK...Cool?</blockquote>

Verification