D&D 5e: For real this time?

[VennDygrem]

@VennDygrem
I don't want to sound like an old school d20 booster, but it seems to me that the "take 10" system is a fairly elegant way of getting at that.  If you can make the Jump by taking 10, then don't bother picking up the dice.  I don't think it was implemented all that well -- that general principle, for example, is something that we use and I don't think it's really codified or underscored in the rules.

This may just be a taste thing, and 5E may be catering more towards old-school D&D than my inclinations run.  I just don't want to make it too difficult to create, for some reason, a really athletic Wizard. 

Thinking about your comments, it's possible that people have leaned a little too hard on skill checks, especially inexperienced DMs.  I've had people make me roll when I was offering someone their asking price for a product.  I was like "I'm not haggling, I'm paying the man what he wants."  I've had other experiences:  you don't necessarily need to intimidate the last soldier in a group into surrendering, he may just realize that it's better than being dead.

That's definitely valid. It's really up to the DM, and how they run the game. For what it's worth, I think it's incredibly easy to make an athletic Wizard in 5E, assuming you give the Mage the belt of Giant Strength you found instead of to the Fighter.

[Unbeliever]

^ that just sounds like a big step backward to me.  Or, more precisely, a step back to the AD&D/2E that I cut my teeth on.

That's totally unfair, though, so take it with a grain (giant pile) of salt.  I haven't read the 5E materials.  And, I'd prefer to have relatively little character customization through magic items, as opposed to my hoary recollections of AD&D where that was essentially where all the action was, especially if you weren't a caster and so didn't even have spells to pick to customize your character. 

There's a whole movement that feels differently, though.  And, if 5E wanted to reach back to a more AD&D style, which I thought 4E did in a great many ways, then that's at least a vision of the game and a coherent approach.  It will leave people like me behind, perhaps looking for another fantasy game if I ever really get good and tired of some hacked form of 3E.  I don't expect I am their target audience. 

[VennDygrem]

Actually, I should have been more clear in that my comment was a tongue-in-cheek reference to something I don't care for. Because they put a hard limit on ability scores, they realize that they've cut out one of the better-known magic items, and end up making something that specifically breaks their own rules. Not sure how it alters things but no melee character worth their salt would NOT try to get their hands on a belt of giant strength.

[linklord231]

Actually, I should have been more clear in that my comment was a tongue-in-cheek reference to something I don't care for. Because they put a hard limit on ability scores, they realize that they've cut out one of the better-known magic items, and end up making something that specifically breaks their own rules. Not sure how it alters things but no melee character worth their salt would NOT try to get their hands on a belt of giant strength.

Do Belts of Giant Strength give pluses or do they set your stat to whatever, like they did in older editions?

[zioth]

The Belt of Giant Strength sets your strength to a specific value, like in AD&D. I think this is a bad idea, because it will make players feel like they wasted an important resource. Imagine giving up a ton of advantages to get your character up to 20 strength, and then finding a belt that boosts it to 21, and realizing that you could have gotten feats and better ability scores all around if only you'd known that you'd come upon that magic item. This item has already been discussed extensively earlier in this thread.
 
So analyzing where various parts of the game come from:
 
AD&D elements:
- Philosophy of magic items (rare, and nearly impossible to buy and sell)
- The Power of the DM: In 3.5, there were so many rules that the DM didn't have to make a lot of rules decisions. From what I've heard, 4E takes that to an even greater extreme, making D&D almost videogame-like in its precision. 5E goes back to earlier editions, where the DM has to make a lot of decisions. For example, the DM decides which ability score to use for a saving throw, or what kind of ability check to make and when it's appropriate. I think this will make the game go a lot more smoothly with a good DM, but may result in arguments with an inexperienced DM. I wouldn't be surprised if some precision is added before the final game is published.
 
D&D 3.5 elements:
- Ability scores. The same values and modifiers are used as in 3.5, though there's now a cap.
- Spell balance. The power of the various spells relative to the power of PCs has a similar balance to 3.5.
- Skill checks: While skills have been removed, equivalent checks are based on ability bonuses, as opposed to AD&D's "I have a proficiency and therefore I'm good at skill X."
 
Pathfinder-inspired:
- Per-level class abilities: Earlier playtests gave non-casters a very small list of class abilities at level 1, and that was it. The latest playtest has very few dead levels.
- Paths: Each class has multiple paths, much like Pathfinder's archetypes. This adds a nice bit of customization, and the paths have different enough abilities that, for example, playing an Enchanter is significantly different from playing an Evoker.
 
Hybrid 3.5/AD&D
- Feats: While feats have a lot of the same effects as 3.5 feats, they often act more like 2E's proficiencies.
 
New elements (or 4e, since I never played 4e):
- Spell saves and durations are no longer variable based on caster or spell level. This is a simplification of 3.5's math-heavy spell variables, and an improvement on 2e's tendency to give each spell its own special save modifier.
- Magic item flavor. Both the descriptive text and the powers of items are much more interesting than in previous editions.
- Lore: While skills are gone, knowledge skills still exist in the form of lore. This system is new to the latest playtest, and needs work.
- Backgrounds: Each character has a background, which is often a profession, which provides mostly role-playing bonuses, and gives the character a place in the world. Systems like this exist in other RPGs, but it's new to D&D.

[Unbeliever]

Actually, I should have been more clear in that my comment was a tongue-in-cheek reference to something I don't care for. Because they put a hard limit on ability scores, they realize that they've cut out one of the better-known magic items, and end up making something that specifically breaks their own rules. Not sure how it alters things but no melee character worth their salt would NOT try to get their hands on a belt of giant strength.

I actually caught the tone, and should have mentioned it in my earlier post.  I was being lazy and rambly.

Thanks Zioth for the breakdown.  I think it's really helpful for those of us who haven't studied the emerging system.  As I believe I did earlier in this thread, I'd quibble with the rarity of magic items in AD&D based on my extensive but also long-forgotten experience in that system.  But, it's just that, a quibble, with absolutely nothing I can think of riding on it.  Also, AD&D had a secondary skills system that was like professions, but I think it was optional and hand wavey. 

Looking over that list, I'm not exactly against the idea of trying to cherry-pick the "good" (based on the designer's judgments) of all the previous iterations.  From this thread I gather that the implementation, or what the designers adjudge to be "good" may leave me a bit cold. 

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Cherry Pick or "Cherry" Pick , for now.

Maybe full on conversion later including the gimpy stuff.
Put it in an Optional box, and a separate tag box that
says the Grogs are not allowed to have it be Optional.
  ... No matter what !!
 

It looks like in general there really is no vision for 5E so far. They're experimentally pandering to the audience rather than trying to sell their dream.

For all of 4E's limitations, they had a dream they believed would work, and that sold. Here....

Trying to compete with other TRPGs is a losing strategy.

...I think something's gone terribly offtrack.

That is worrying, though I wonder if they mean Pathfinder?

... Trying to cooperate with Previous Editions of D&D ...

Yes?  Please??

[bhu]

AD&D elements:
- Philosophy of magic items (rare, and nearly impossible to buy and sell)
- The Power of the DM: In 3.5, there were so many rules that the DM didn't have to make a lot of rules decisions. From what I've heard, 4E takes that to an even greater extreme, making D&D almost videogame-like in its precision. 5E goes back to earlier editions, where the DM has to make a lot of decisions. For example, the DM decides which ability score to use for a saving throw, or what kind of ability check to make and when it's appropriate. I think this will make the game go a lot more smoothly with a good DM, but may result in arguments with an inexperienced DM. I wouldn't be surprised if some precision is added before the final game is published.
 

A return to DM burnout due to constant player arguments.  Oh goodie.

I say this because in my experience it doesn't matter if the DM is experienced or not.  If the players are inexperienced you still get fights.  If the player or DM happen to be asshats, you still have fights.  I actually liked that part of 3.5 because it made my life a helluva lot easier.

[Bard]

A return to DM burnout due to constant player arguments.  Oh goodie.

I say this because in my experience it doesn't matter if the DM is experienced or not.  If the players are inexperienced you still get fights.  If the player or DM happen to be asshats, you still have fights.  I actually liked that part of 3.5 because it made my life a helluva lot easier.

This.
Plus, at least for some people, me included, that's a huge turnoff even without that aspect, when everything works fine. I like the feeling of the rulebooks setting the workings of the world, the "physics" behind it so to say, even if it's much more.. how the sandbox I'm put in works and what I have to work with. I feel that every time the DM has to make a rule decision it detracts some of the immersion and enjoyment I feel. Even if it's in my favor

I do realize it's more a matter of personal taste than the quality of the game itself tho.

[Unbeliever]

@Bard and Bhu

This is my take on such things, and I'm curious to what extent you agree or disagree. 

I find that relatively clear rules are very important in order to give me, the player, a sense of agency and a sense of what the character I've created can do.  It is important to me, in making decisions, to know how easy it is for my character to do something even quite mundane, such as jumping a fence.  That will inform my decisions as well as the dramatic tension of a scene.  Is the leap a routine one for this character?  Or is the leap across that chasm a giant risk, worthy of slow motion? 

The same applies for taking hits, etc.  Does leaping in front to take that arrow represent a sacrifice, or is it trivial?  If my character steps up to stop those 3 guards from tormenting that half-orc child, am I taking a serious risk, or am I demonstrating that not all those with power use it for ill? 

Without a clear rules structure on basic tasks, as a player I find it hard to (a) translate the character I have in my head to the table in an intelligible way, a way that the other people participating can get a handle on it.  And, (b) find it hard to interact with the world and make meaningful decisions.

[zioth]

I don't think 5E completely destroys the kind of determinism you're looking for, Unbeliever. There are enough guidelines even now (and there will be more in the final rule book, no doubt) for a moderately intelligent DM to figure out what to do. A jump is going to require a strength check. If you're trying to jump a great chasm, the DM might decide that it's a Very Hard (DC25), Formidable (DC30) or Nearly Impossible (DC35) check. These names and numbers are laid out in the "DM Guidelines" pdf. If you're a barbarian with a strength score of 20, trying to jump over a puddle without getting wet, the DM will call it a Trivial (DC5) check and not require you to roll.
 
This system isn't nearly as precise as 3E, but I think it will work pretty well. A beginner DM can read the document and have a good enough idea of how things work to run a game. Actually, since the rules are so much simpler, such a DM will probably make a lot fewer mistakes than in 3.5, or *gasp* Pathfinder, which, while a nice system, seems to have tripled the number of rules players and DMs need to know off the tops of their heads.
 
Arguments are likely in more obscure situations. You're trying to climb a mountain while rocks are tumbling past you. Is that a strength check or dexterity? Which attribute should some saving throw be based on? And is some skill check really hard enough to require a roll?
 
 
One new thing I just noticed: The XP table is quite nice, certainly a lot better than the confusing 3rd edition calculations. You just choose whether the encounter is going to be easy, average or tough, look up the reward in a table based on the average PC level, and give each PC that much XP. This means you can't suddenly jump ten levels when you accidentally cause a cave-in which kills a red dragon, and people may like that or dislike it, but it certainly makes things easier.

[Bard]

@Unbeliever: I totally agree

@zioth: at this point is a bit early to tell, I will wait for the skills to come back in in the beta packages. As it is now, with only attributes, it lacks the basic ability to fine-tune the character skills (duh, there are no skills) and that is a big issue to me.

I want a difference to exist between someone that is naturally inclined to do something (high stat), someone that is not (low stat) someone that dabbles in it (a couple of skill point) and someone dedicated in training/studying it (lots of skill points) and everything in between.

[zioth]

I agree. I really like 3.x's skill system for that reason. Having every 20 STR fighter (translation: every fighter, since it's easy to hit the cap) have exactly the same skill is annoying. The same problem existed in 5e's original skill system.
 
The interesting thing is, 5e could easily just plaster in 3E's or Pathfinder's skill system unmodified as an optional rule. The systems are pretty compatible in that regard.

[Bard]

I think I posted it somewhere already, unsure if it was here, but if they rebooted 3.5 with some of the Pathfinder stuff and ToB classes instead of the basic ones (or some initiator version of the basic melee ones), I'd start throwing money at them already (Maybe with Eberron swapped in as main setting as an added bonus )

[bhu]

@Unbeliever:  I don't have people make rolls for mundane tasks that don't affect the game or plot in any meaningful way.  There;s no point in slowing things down.  But I also have a rl group full of hotheads and rules lawyers who pounce on any form of perceived ambiguity and are willing to argue it to fucking death if necessary, sometimes splitting the group in the process.  3.5 stopped some of that cold precisely because it spelled things out, even if some of it could have been written better.  The players were perfectly capable of making informed decisions, they simply chose not to.  Standard set up was them all making their characters in secret, starting off not knowing one another , and spending most of the game trying to conceal from each other what they were capable of.  I sent mild encounters against them because they were so tactically incapable an opponent that actually thought would tpk them.  They'd been playing since Basic, and I joined them somewhere around the end of 2E.  The DM fiat 2e used to decide tasks translated to "How much does the DM like you?"  Or alternatively "How badly does the DM need this roll to fail to railroad the party into defeat." 


In short I played with a bunch of asshats.  They've matured a little over the years but not by much, and most of the other local gamers are like them: It's everyone for himself and the DM against us all.  In such an environment DM fiat doesn't work.  Granted explicit rules dont work much better, but it's more difficult to convince people to let you railroad them when the rules explicitly state otherwise.

[Unbeliever]

@Unbeliever:  I don't have people make rolls for mundane tasks that don't affect the game or plot in any meaningful way.  There;s no point in slowing things down.

Just to shore up my own point:  the question of whether a task is mundane or trivial should be a function of the rules.  Leaping that chasm or running along that tightrope might be so mundane as to not bother for Haley (OOTS) or Drizzt (Drizzt), but might present a serious issue for Durkon or Bruenor. 

From what I understand, 5E doesn't necessarily have this problem, or at least not drastically.  But, it's the argument in favor, I think, of relatively crystallized rules.  And, it applies broadly.  Is standing up to a Red Dragon a feat of suicidal bravery or a perfectly reasonable calculated risk?  Stuff like that. 

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Skills need to have its own Encounter equivalent.
And the maths have to work as effectively as combat.

[Nytemare3701]

@Unbeliever:  I don't have people make rolls for mundane tasks that don't affect the game or plot in any meaningful way.  There;s no point in slowing things down.

Just to shore up my own point:  the question of whether a task is mundane or trivial should be a function of the rules.  Leaping that chasm or running along that tightrope might be so mundane as to not bother for Haley (OOTS) or Drizzt (Drizzt), but might present a serious issue for Durkon or Bruenor. 

In either of those cases, the DC is still the same. The task does not change, only the character's capability to do it.

[Demelain]

@Unbeliever:  I don't have people make rolls for mundane tasks that don't affect the game or plot in any meaningful way.  There;s no point in slowing things down.

Just to shore up my own point:  the question of whether a task is mundane or trivial should be a function of the rules.  Leaping that chasm or running along that tightrope might be so mundane as to not bother for Haley (OOTS) or Drizzt (Drizzt), but might present a serious issue for Durkon or Bruenor. 

In either of those cases, the DC is still the same. The task does not change, only the character's capability to do it.

Agreeing with this. The DC for a task is should be independent of a character's ability/level - that's what it means to be better at something than someone else. You have a better chance to succeed at the same task.

We don't need a page 42.

[Unbeliever]

@Unbeliever:  I don't have people make rolls for mundane tasks that don't affect the game or plot in any meaningful way.  There;s no point in slowing things down.

Just to shore up my own point:  the question of whether a task is mundane or trivial should be a function of the rules.  Leaping that chasm or running along that tightrope might be so mundane as to not bother for Haley (OOTS) or Drizzt (Drizzt), but might present a serious issue for Durkon or Bruenor. 

In either of those cases, the DC is still the same. The task does not change, only the character's capability to do it.

I don't know if we're disagreeing at all, but that was sort of my point.  I'd just add to that that they need to be transparent too. 

(click to show/hide)

I find that relatively clear rules are very important in order to give me, the player, a sense of agency and a sense of what the character I've created can do.  It is important to me, in making decisions, to know how easy it is for my character to do something even quite mundane, such as jumping a fence.  That will inform my decisions as well as the dramatic tension of a scene.  Is the leap a routine one for this character?  Or is the leap across that chasm a giant risk, worthy of slow motion? 

Otherwise what happens is I think I'm playing Haley, that's how I've built my character, and I make decisions based on that, but I'm really playing Durkon.