D&D 5e: For real this time?

[DonQuixote]

On the one hand, it means you don't have to hunt down every last bonus to AC and to hit just to stay relevant.  On the other hand, it means that a level 20 character will have just as much trouble hitting a goblin as he did at level 1.  Even if he kills it in one hit now, it might still take 4 swings just to connect.

Yeah, but it's worth remembering that four swings is still less than thirty seconds.

They say that the goal is to make it easy for DMs to make rulings for improvised scenarios, implying that such scenarios should be expected to come up often.  In my opinion, there should be explicit rules for 95% of situations, because it prevents DM abuse and unifies the experience between gaming groups.  For example, what if at one table a DM decides that jumping over a pit is a feat of heroic strength, and has his players roll a strength check to jump over it.  Then the next group over decides that jumping over a pit is a very agile and acrobatic thing, and has the PCs make Dex checks to clear the chasm.  If there isn't a clear rule for what kind of skill jumping is, then this situation is not only possible but likely.

I read that section as having to do with determining the DC of a check, not the ability score associated with it.  In fact, in the "How to Play" document, "leaping over a chasm" is listed under the checks associated with the Strength score.

Second, they say "Now, we want to avoid situations where DMs feel bound by the numbers. ("Hey," says the player, "you said it was an iron-bound wooden door and I rolled a 17, what do you mean I didn't break it down?")"  This closely relates to the issue above, in that different groups aren't even playing the same game any more.  They're giving too much power to the DM - if you were playing in a group with a perfect DM, this wouldn't be a bad thing, but in my experience it just leads to railroading, the illusion of choice, and other DM douchebaggery.

At the same time, if the DM is convinced that the door is that difficult to break down, he could just apply situational modifiers in D&D 3.5.  The sort of DM who won't let you through the door no matter what is going to hold that position no matter the system.  It's a question of how much time you want to spend establishing that you cannot get past the door: Do you want to spend half an hour attempting all kinds of shenanigans, or do you want to make a few checks and establish that the door is firmly shut?

This one is actually very close to how I already run skills, since I don't feel like restricting players to the list of skill uses.  For example, in my last campaign, an important NPC had his heart ripped out.  This would not necessarily be a problem, except that the Archivist only had access to raise dead at the time.  While most of the party mourns the loss of a rather important political figure, the Artificer/Renegade Mastermaker turns to me and asks: "Wait, can I just...sort of...make him a new one?"  I was unable to find any Craft DCs for making a heart, but--by the gods--she was slowly replacing her body with machinery.  How could I not allow it?

[caelic]

They say that the goal is to make it easy for DMs to make rulings for improvised scenarios, implying that such scenarios should be expected to come up often.  In my opinion, there should be explicit rules for 95% of situations, because it prevents DM abuse and unifies the experience between gaming groups.  For example, what if at one table a DM decides that jumping over a pit is a feat of heroic strength, and has his players roll a strength check to jump over it.  Then the next group over decides that jumping over a pit is a very agile and acrobatic thing, and has the PCs make Dex checks to clear the chasm.  If there isn't a clear rule for what kind of skill jumping is, then this situation is not only possible but likely.

Is that necessarily a bad thing?  The flip side to that is, "Hey, my character's a world-class acrobat!"  "Yes, but the rules clearly state that Jumping can only be a Strength check."

 

Second, they say "Now, we want to avoid situations where DMs feel bound by the numbers. ("Hey," says the player, "you said it was an iron-bound wooden door and I rolled a 17, what do you mean I didn't break it down?")"  This closely relates to the issue above, in that different groups aren't even playing the same game any more.  They're giving too much power to the DM - if you were playing in a group with a perfect DM, this wouldn't be a bad thing, but in my experience it just leads to railroading, the illusion of choice, and other DM douchebaggery.

If you don't trust your DM, the game's going to fail, period.  I don't care how many thousands of pages of explicit rules the game has.  Either you trust the DM to run his game and make calls appropriate to that game, or you get a new DM. 

[linklord231]

It's a bad thing because the character you make should be viable at any table, not just with DMs who base acrobatics off Dexterity.  If you want to make a character who is a world class acrobat, then the rules of the game should tell you how such a character should look.  I should be able to create a character at home, and bring him to any table, and not have him be subject to the DM's idea of how the world works for his core mechanic to function. 

Obviously, if you don't trust your DM to not be a dick then you should find a new game.  My problem is that the rules of the game are written in such a way as to encourage new DMs to make up rules on the spot, and to just say no to things that are "inappropriate" or "impossible".  That's all well and good for veteran DMs who have the experience necessary to know what kind of rulings would benefit the game as a whole and know what actions should automatically fail, but for new DMs that's horrible advice. 

I look at the rules they presented in the playtest and fear for the people that are going to be turned away from the hobby because their DM was an asshat and abused his power.  Power corrupts, and this rules set makes it remarkably easy for new DMs to fall into that trap. 

[Sinfire Titan]

It's a bad thing because the character you make should be viable at any table, not just with DMs who base acrobatics off Dexterity.

I would like to point out that this mentality can cause issues as well. Each DM is going to run the game differently in order to match his personal preferences. Hopefully this means being generally helpful to the players while having a steady hand, but you never know. I've read a couple of horror stories on SA's TG section that involved players bringing in characters from another DM's campaign because the DM they wanted to play under was dumb enough to allow it, and none of those ended happily.


I know, I know, slippery slope.

[Jackinthegreen]

It's a bad thing because the character you make should be viable at any table, not just with DMs who base acrobatics off Dexterity.

I would like to point out that this mentality can cause issues as well. Each DM is going to run the game differently in order to match his personal preferences. Hopefully this means being generally helpful to the players while having a steady hand, but you never know. I've read a couple of horror stories on SA's TG section that involved players bringing in characters from another DM's campaign because the DM they wanted to play under was dumb enough to allow it, and none of those ended happily.


I know, I know, slippery slope.

Slippery slope mostly because there's so much difference between the crappy characters and the truly powerful ones in 3.P.  I have yet to hear of a DM disallowing a 4.0 character, but that likely has more to do with my lack of 4.0 investment than anything else.

[Keldar]

Judging solely from the playtest packet, things in general are going to be simpler.  Building and leveling characters will be faster.  It looks to me like the system invites you to focus more on the game, rather than the meta-game.  And I'm really okay with that.  I want to focus on my character, not my character sheet.

Then you may like this news.

Basically, bonus to to-hit and AC will be pretty rare, what  scales is mostly damage and HP. So suposedly you won't have to worry anymore of keeping up with most numbers on your sheets, because what you get at first level, is what you're gonna use for most of your career.

That is basically what 4e was shooting for.  Only by doing away with the window dressing of bonuses increasing over levels this time, they eliminate the risk of another major math fuck up.  And feat taxes to patch the error.


The next playtest survey was sent out last week, if anyone hasn't checked their mail.

[Rejakor]

I love how in this thread people are listening to the things mike mearls is saying he's going to do/has done, and assuming he actually succeeded at that.

I'm pretty sure all this marketing buzzword talk of 'simplifying' and 'tailoring to your, specific, the client needs' and whatnot is just going to be a messy set of half a set of straitjacket rules, and a half set of plum nothing, 'make it up yourseeeeelllfffff' style, and the absolute worst of both worlds.

[caelic]

It's a bad thing because the character you make should be viable at any table, not just with DMs who base acrobatics off Dexterity.  If you want to make a character who is a world class acrobat, then the rules of the game should tell you how such a character should look.  I should be able to create a character at home, and bring him to any table, and not have him be subject to the DM's idea of how the world works for his core mechanic to function. 

You've just summed up the design philosophy behind first edition AD&D.  It's a nice theory, but it's never really worked out in practice--mainly because it's impossible to write a truly comprehensive set of rules for something as inherently open-ended as a tabletop roleplaying game.

[Ziegander]

I love how in this thread people are listening to the things mike mearls is saying he's going to do/has done, and assuming he actually succeeded at that.

I'm pretty sure all this marketing buzzword talk of 'simplifying' and 'tailoring to your, specific, the client needs' and whatnot is just going to be a messy set of half a set of straitjacket rules, and a half set of plum nothing, 'make it up yourseeeeelllfffff' style, and the absolute worst of both worlds.

Uh... a lot of us, maybe most of us, have agreed that it seems like a super messy stance to take, from the beginning of this thread. Now, we're talking about the playtest materials, in which a lot of stuff is messy, something we've also acknowledged, but y'know, some stuff is actually neat. I don't know where you're getting that this thread is some Mike Mearls circle jerk. I think you might literally be the first person to bring his name into this thread.

[Demelain]

As a counterpoint to "DMs making stuff up is bad", I'd like to point out that the inverse is also frequently true among less-gentlemanly groups. My groups once came close to imploding because the DM did not anticipate our party killing a caravan of nomad traders - the goods were negligible in value, the sticking point came when one of our players pointed out the (previously established) number of camels in the caravan. We went to sell them, and the DM lowered their price to keep us in line with the wealth that the campaign was set up for. But this guy just wouldn't have it - he had read Sandstorm and KNEW how much a camel was worth. It turned into a huge thing between him and the DM, over "cheating, railroading DM" and "metagaming jackass".
Quite frankly there are things that the players absolutely don't need to know. Should the players have a reasonably accurate idea of how hard something is? Yes. But the DM also needs to be able to adjust these things to suit his campaign.
More importantly for new DMs (which appears to be a main point of contention with the loose rules) is that you emphasize the collaborative nature of the game. I talk to my players after every session to get an idea of which parts they liked, disliked, and any mechanics they felt were too unbalanced (one way or the other). Was it hard to get them to do this at first? Very. But after the near schism between my friend (at the time DM) and my cousin (rules take priority), I wanted to head off possible problems by establishing a time and reputation for impartial feedback.
Tl;dr Being a new DM will always suck, the answer isn't straight-jacketing his rules, the answer is accelerating his training towards veteran DM.

[Unbeliever]

It's important to distinguish between things your character would almost assuredly know that you, the player, might not, and things that might be annoying metagame-wise. 

An example of the former is "can I jump this chasm?"  Is it trivial for me, difficult, risky?  That's something any heroic protagonist just knows.  And, it's something you, the player, need to know to actually play the game.  Not just in a sense of not wanting your treasured PC to plummet to their doom for no reason.  But, in the sense that without that kind of knowledge there's no sense of drama or storytelling. 

Furthermore, things like that are necessary to distinguish characters from each other.  Batman is stealthy as all hell and good at breaking and entering.  Superman is not.  We need these things reflected in their character sheets.  d20 does this in a pretty straightforward way.  Batman's stealth skill rolls are so high relative to the average person that he'll virtually never fail (and he has Skill Mastery for added insurance).  I can say my character is a "master thief" b/c when I look at his Open Locks skill and compare it to the DCs of locks, I know that he can reliably beat them.  I know that my Ranger can track like Aragorn b/c of the rough DCs described in the DMG, or that my Ninja is a master acrobat b/c he can walk a tightrope in the rain while blindfolded. 

This is one of the great strengths of the d20 system (WoD, for instance, sort of sucks at it). 

@Demelain's Story
In my humble opinion both DM and player were metagaming.  Assuming the PC had been hanging around in a desert environment, most likely guarding caravans, for any period of time, knowing the price of a camel is not exactly secret knowledge.  It's not like quoting the save DCs of various monster abilities or anything.  It's common knowledge in that environment.  The DM was metagaming by using a very heavy-handed WBL approach.  He could have more subtly corrected it as time went on.  Or, he could, I suppose, have argued that they were flooding the market for camels, and therefore driving the prices down, though that'd have to be an awful lot of camels to do it. 

Where the player fell down was that he was, I assume, not playing his character.  He was playing a murderous psychopath, and a petty one at that.  I mean, had he just adventured for a while he would have made a lot more money than a bunch of camels. 

[Demelain]

 

Where the player fell down was that he was, I assume, not playing his character.  He was playing a murderous psychopath, and a petty one at that.  I mean, had he just adventured for a while he would have made a lot more money than a bunch of camels.

To be fair, he was in fact playing a NE Cleric of Nerull "that hears murderous whispers". My main point of contention was that he felt the need to argue the value of the camels with the DM, because he knew what half a camel was worth (Camels! If you need to break expected wbl, I can spontaneously create walls of permanent salt). The DM went from "they're used camels" to "it's a lot of camels, you should be glad he's willing to buy so many at once" to "listen, I'm not ready hell you to have that much money" and we finally reached "let go of the camel shit or get the fuck out". We spent six hours arguing the price of camels, economics, rule zero and metagaming.
If anything good came out of the episode, it's crazy Hassan, used camel merchant.
we're begining to diverge from the topic, though, so..

In short, I think there need to be hard rules for basics of skill checks (jumping X feet) but not necessarily for all modifiers (scree, an unfavorable wind, your mum cheering for you, etc.). The rules definitly don't need to explicitly define 95% of the possible situations. I am comfortable with WotC's first playtest. It has most of the needed rules for the included adventure, and hopefully through feedback they'll hear not only how the skeleton skill system is work but ALSO how DMs ruled in cases that the rules didn't cover, hopefully including the most common/successful methods into their base rules.
I for one am cautiously optimistic for DDN.

[Unbeliever]

^ totally agree with this.  And, again, d20 is nice about this.  You have a rough sense that a circumstance bonus is usually +/-2 (side note, I really wish DMs, including myself, would bust out with a +2 circumstance modifier sometime, I always just see penalties), scaling up to +/-5 for extreme circumstances. 

I think circumstance mods are the great untapped resource of the d20 system.  But, in a lot of ways they aren't needed -- various feats and spells have their own built-in scree-types of effects. 


P.S.:  I feel for you.  I've had a similar marathon gab session over a Rifts game of all things, and the rest of us at the table were just all "get on with it already!"

[veekie]

Still completely missing the point

As an example of the differences between casters and other characters, a wizard is far more powerful in comparison to a fighter if every monster you expect to fight during an adventure charges the group at once. A fireball damages almost every critter, and web catches them all in its grasp. Meanwhile, the fighter and rogue work through a few enemies at a time. When you compress fights, a wizard's and cleric's combat spells become much more powerful.

In comparison, imagine if the party fought one monster at a time. The wizard might never opt to cast a spell, since something such as fireball is less effective overall if it blasts only one critter. The fighter, on the other hand, can cut a swathe through the party's enemies, hacking them down one at a time.

You'd think they'd have worked this out during 4E itself already.

[Keldar]

Still completely missing the point

As an example of the differences between casters and other characters, a wizard is far more powerful in comparison to a fighter if every monster you expect to fight during an adventure charges the group at once. A fireball damages almost every critter, and web catches them all in its grasp. Meanwhile, the fighter and rogue work through a few enemies at a time. When you compress fights, a wizard's and cleric's combat spells become much more powerful.

In comparison, imagine if the party fought one monster at a time. The wizard might never opt to cast a spell, since something such as fireball is less effective overall if it blasts only one critter. The fighter, on the other hand, can cut a swathe through the party's enemies, hacking them down one at a time.

You'd think they'd have worked this out during 4E itself already.

Fail, just fail.

[littha]

It is not even a complicated fix on the part of damage spells... Just make damaging spells divide the damage between targets. You could even have rules for making the area smaller so that you could throw a more intense fireball at a single target or the big explody one at a whole group.

You would still need to tune the damage, ideally the wizard is doing less damage total per attack than the fighter but has the option to hit multiple targets.

[Libertad]

My computer warned me that the WotC page with the article had insecure content.

Seriously, Wizards, at least make sure your site is safe enough to visit first!

[chinchillaofdoom]

  At least this time they didnt have their board mods furiously denying they were even contemplating the idea of a new edition One minute before the announcement, like they did for 4th ed...

[veekie]

5E Interview

[veekie]

Its pretty bad if the designer is saying "The feel of the rules is always going to trump the mathematical soundness or the asthetics of them.".

Thats whats important to GMs and Players. Designers are supposed to be handling the mechanical soundness.