D&D 5E Will there be such a game as D&D Next?

[UngainlyTitan]

[MENTION=55664]ABDULa[/MENTION]lharazed; I see that as a glass half full/empty type situation. Let me illustrate with anecdote, personally I am a little clumsy, my brother is 4 years younger and we grew up on a farm. The brother was very fond of cowboys and Indians and spent several years following me around the farm in hiding a launch an ambush at inopportune times. A bit like Cato and Inspector Cleausau in the Pink Panther movies. The result I got very good at spotting hidden people, recognising I was being followed and stealth (for counter ambush) myself. So while I was still poor at general dex and wisdom type stuff I was really good with sneak, split and search.

As long as the base game and general rules emphasise that the DC numbers are set by reference to the attributes and the narrow skills are areas where the character have worked at honing a skill I really don't see a problem.
I would be more concerned, but think it is early days yet, about the absence of action points and some coupon that allows the player to up the tempo of the encounter.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes.

I would be perfectly happy to see a damage/hit points/wound system where being hit actually reduced character abilities. The Condition Track from SW Saga was a step in that direction. Two people battering each other nearly to standstill before one finally stops the other seems more dramatic than one where two people who carry on operating at perfect efficiency no matter what keep smacking each other until one falls down.

I'd even buy into a "Wound Table" where you'd be expected to roll after a character was reduced to zero hit points, with what body parts you end up missing and the consequences of that spelled out.

I find players are quite wrapped up in the drama of "will my character still be standing after this hit".

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

@ABDULa lharazed; I see that as a glass half full/empty type situation. Let me illustrate with anecdote, personally I am a little clumsy, my brother is 4 years younger and we grew up on a farm. The brother was very fond of cowboys and Indians and spent several years following me around the farm in hiding a launch an ambush at inopportune times. A bit like Cato and Inspector Cleausau in the Pink Panther movies. The result I got very good at spotting hidden people, recognising I was being followed and stealth (for counter ambush) myself. So while I was still poor at general dex and wisdom type stuff I was really good with sneak, split and search.

As long as the base game and general rules emphasise that the DC numbers are set by reference to the attributes and the narrow skills are areas where the character have worked at honing a skill I really don't see a problem.
I would be more concerned, but think it is early days yet, about the absence of action points and some coupon that allows the player to up the tempo of the encounter.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

I think that illustrates nicely why 4e skills work. You don't have a high DEX, but you are trained in Stealth and Perception! The problem with the narrow niche skills is that they ignore both utility in the game, and the use of skills/background as a way to help define the character's areas of interest/focus. Having Spot, Listen, and Find Traps makes little sense generally. For one thing you wouldn't normally hone just one of those skills without the others. Secondly you want to use them together, to have a character that is highly observant as his shtick. Now, Find Traps is more technical, so you can have say Perception, AND you can always have in 4e parlance a skill power or a feat that lets you specifically deal with traps. It may be that a guy can then have ordinary perception and still be really excellent at finding traps. But you won't end up with a guy that can spot things in general but has no ability at all to find traps even though its well within his shtick and logically would follow from his observational skill/training.

Mainly I find the 4e skills to be really useful because they let you define some things that YOUR PC focuses on, ways that he solves problems. This helps to define what sort of character he is in ways that class doesn't, and helps let you escape a bit from the narrowness of mere class (and thus makes 4e's narrower classes more powerful).

 

[Ratskinner]

I quite like backgrounds and the approach to skills they support, but think overlaying the 3E-style skill descriptions isn't making the most of that framework. If my background is "Knight of the Realm" that should feed into my skill checks on its own, without needing to mediate through those narrow skill descriptors.

To put it another way, if you're going in the "free descriptor" direction, go all the way!

I tend to agree. Although, I still wouldn't mind a specific "benefit" for each background. (The "you can expect free housing from other Nobles." stuff). In particular, I like it for the background providing a bonus to checks that you might not get with a list of narrow skills.

 

[Ratskinner]

Yes.

I would be perfectly happy to see a damage/hit points/wound system where being hit actually reduced character abilities. The Condition Track from SW Saga was a step in that direction. Two people battering each other nearly to standstill before one finally stops the other seems more dramatic than one where two people who carry on operating at perfect efficiency no matter what keep smacking each other until one falls down.

I'd even buy into a "Wound Table" where you'd be expected to roll after a character was reduced to zero hit points, with what body parts you end up missing and the consequences of that spelled out.

I don't think we need the whole Condition Track, but I've been advocating for a system like that last sentence for a while now.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't think we need the whole Condition Track, but I've been advocating for a system like that last sentence for a while now.

Well, I dunno. I think this can quickly get a bit silly and creates unwanted behavior in a lot of games. I like the good old-fashioned way of dealing with it. If the narrative sensibly makes something happen, then it happens. Sure it probably is cool to make bad things happen on critical hits or 0 hit points, or whatever, but rules serve narrative not the other way around. When my sister's dwarf stuck his hand in a chest with a spring blade trap on it and took 10 points of damage, guess what got cut off?

 

[pemerton]

I still wouldn't mind a specific "benefit" for each background. (The "you can expect free housing from other Nobles." stuff). In particular, I like it for the background providing a bonus to checks that you might not get with a list of narrow skills.

I like that stuff too, and would also like to see it worked up a bit more - eg explain more how the benefit a background confers can be earned via play/resource expenditure during the game itself. (A bit like how BW relates starting gear to resources checks, or starting relationships to repeated successful Circle checks.)

 

[Ratskinner]

Well, I dunno. I think this can quickly get a bit silly and creates unwanted behavior in a lot of games.

Could you explain a bit more about how "0HP triggers a roll on the wounding table" creates unwanted behavior and gets silly....anymore than 4e's death mechanics, anyway.

If the narrative sensibly makes something happen, then it happens. Sure it probably is cool to make bad things happen on critical hits or 0 hit points, or whatever, but rules serve narrative not the other way around. When my sister's dwarf stuck his hand in a chest with a spring blade trap on it and took 10 points of damage, guess what got cut off?

That's just my problem with HP. They don't serve the narrative. They serve the game(ist) end of things. Hence Schrodinger's wounds and all that. Your example is telling because your actually ignoring the function of the HP mechanics to impose narrative restrictions. (At least, I assume you imposed some penalties for being handless.) Just try telling a PC that they lost a hand to a 10-point wound in a regular fight and see what happens...I doubt it will be pretty.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Could you explain a bit more about how "0HP triggers a roll on the wounding table" creates unwanted behavior and gets silly....anymore than 4e's death mechanics, anyway.

The problem is you will have the players who want to avoid scratching their PC at all costs, and then you will have the ones that get a kick out of hobbling around with various missing body parts, etc. Its FINE when things happen that are cool, but particularly having players seeking out that sort of experience gets a bit weird, and it is common. Then there's just the "Oh, I don't want to play without an arm" etc.

That's just my problem with HP. They don't serve the narrative. They serve the game(ist) end of things. Hence Schrodinger's wounds and all that. Your example is telling because your actually ignoring the function of the HP mechanics to impose narrative restrictions. (At least, I assume you imposed some penalties for being handless.) Just try telling a PC that they lost a hand to a 10-point wound in a regular fight and see what happens...I doubt it will be pretty.

But I don't want my narrative served up by random dice rolls that much. Dice are great for creating some uncertainty and doing things in an unbiased way. OTOH I don't think the constant 'thrill' of being one hit from being blind, hobbled, etc is that great. It wears off pretty soon for one thing, and the 3rd or 4th time you have to running around to find some way to glue your arm back on it has lost its narrative charm.

In the case with the Dwarf in my story it was great. The player loved it (this happened to have been way back in the 1970's with maybe 1e, but I think Holmes Basic). The character subsequently became famous, survived all his exploits with one hand (variously adapted into a hook, then a soul sword, then I guess eventually back into a hand at the end). My sister STILL has that character, though it is retired and kicks back in various tap rooms in a town in my campaign most of the time, along with several other equally venerable PCs.

The point is, it was appropriate, it was fun, and it made a great story. I don't think I was ignoring the function of hit points at all, I was emphasizing ONE ASPECT of hit points. I could have as easily said "oh, you pull back your hand barely in time, used up some luck, eh?" and been done with it of course. In a regular fight I probably wouldn't impose that kind of wound because there's not the narrative coolness to it, and its a common situation. The chest trap was uncommon. I like to have unusual circumstances work out in quirky ways, it is fun for the players. I wouldn't balk at having a similar thing happen in combat, but I'd only do it in a dire memorable fight against a big opponent and only as a result of some really nasty blow, say a solo with a big magic axe hits you and takes you from above bloodied to down under unconcious, BAM! Now maybe you lost a hand. There's fortune involved, but also discretion.

I just never liked the dice deciding story stuff like that for me. I'm no genius but I can tell a fun little story like that, and I can use the dice for inspiration, but not direction. Also, meh, you got your hand chopped off. Obviously its going to hamper the PC in the short run, but they can adapt. I'm not going to force them to go all way out their way to do it by imposing penalties, unless they insist on trying things that are ridiculous without a hand. Once it heals up the character will be fine, they'll just have to pay a few gold to get their shield or axe or whatever to work with that hand, and etc. I'm not trying to simulate reality here, the object is to add something unique to the character that helps make it memorable and fun.

 

[Ratskinner]

The problem is you will have the players who want to avoid scratching their PC at all costs, and then you will have the ones that get a kick out of hobbling around with various missing body parts, etc. Its FINE when things happen that are cool, but particularly having players seeking out that sort of experience gets a bit weird, and it is common. Then there's just the "Oh, I don't want to play without an arm" etc.

Aha...I think your envisioning a much more specific wounding table than I am. I'm thinking one that just says "KO-Light-Serious-Critical-Mortal(?)" You'd still maintain the narrative specifics at table. Although certain events like the traps, assassinations, certain monster abilities, etc. could have specific effects when dealing an injury.