D&D 5e: For real this time?

[zioth]

SorO - where do you see the 20 cap for ability scores? The closest I can find is a cap for starting scores, and there are magic items which clearly bring you above 20.

More on the topic of magic items: I think they did a great job describing each item in detail. Sure, it's up to the DM and players to make use of the descriptions, but it's a good motivator.

I also like how they did away with magic item slots. The way it works now is, "if it makes sense to wear it, then you can." So no more anklets conflicting with boots, or 2-ring limitations. You can even wear multiple hats if you don't mind looking silly. In a high-magic campaign, this will make it even more likely that PCs look like Christmas trees, but given that they encourage DMs to make magic items rare, that will probably be an uncommon problem.

I also like the pricing. The guidelines put anything over 15k in value as as an artifact. That means that wealth won't scale exponentially, which I think is a good change. I also like that items don't have specific prices. It's up to the PCs to find a buyer to pay what they think items are worth. On the other hand, I really like the flexible but predictable magic item creation rules in 3E, and this makes that impossible.


My biggest complaint is still about skills. Your skill die is based on level, and nothing else. That means your proficiency in a skill is (d20 + [level-based factor] + [ability score]). What this basically means is, two characters with the same level and skill have almost exactly the same proficiency in that skill, and the skill die is small enough that there's very little difference between having a skill and not having it.

To give an example, two characters have the same ability scores, and one has a skill. Both characters are level 10. The skilled character averages 15 on a skill roll, with a range of 2-28. The unskilled character averages 10.5, with a range of 1-20. The skilled character has a low probability of making very low or very high rolls, so most rolls will be in the 5-23 range. So a skilled character:
- Is less likely to make a fool out of himself by rolling really low.
- Has a higher average roll.
- Is not by any means out of the range of the unskilled character.

The first two are nice. The third isn't. A terrible level 1 painter (abilty score of 8, unskilled) can roll as high as 15, which is just as good as an average painting by an excellent level 1 painter (ability score of 15, skilled - average=16).

Of course, the more I write about this and think about it, the less convinced I am that I'm right. Maybe I'll give this skill system a shot. It's a step up from 2E proficiencies, anyway. It does get rid of the ridiculous disparity in 3E between low level and high level characters.

[SorO_Lost]

SorO - where do you see the 20 cap for ability scores? The closest I can find is a cap for starting scores, and there are magic items which clearly bring you above 20.

A score of 10 or 11 in an ability is average for a human adult. A score of 18 is the highest that a normal person usually reaches. Adventurers can have scores as high as 20, and monsters and divine beings can have scores as high as 30.

&

The character might gain new feats. Additionally, at certain levels, you choose two of your character’s ability scores to increase by 1 each, abiding by the rule that a character’s ability score cannot go above 20.

& causality to a certain extent.
* Maximum Starting is 15 Point Buy or 18 Rolled.
* Races grant +1.
* Leveling grants a total of +5, but as noted it cannot be used to exceed 20.
* Monk sets to 20.
* Gauntlets of Ogre Power (uncommon) set to 19 if below.
* Ioun Stones (very rare) grant +1.
The magic items item that *might* allow you to have more than 20 you are referring to is a Belt of Giant Strength which increases your score if it is below a set value. They are 21 (rare), 23 (very rare), 25/27 (legendary), and 29 (artifact). Think it'll change in a future release?

I do.

[ksbsnowowl]

The magic items item that *might* allow you to have more than 20 you are referring to is a Belt of Giant Strength which increases your score if it is below a set value. They are 21 (rare), 23 (very rare), 25/27 (legendary), and 29 (artifact). Think it'll change in a future release?

I do.

That's pretty much how the Girdles of Giant Strength worked in 2e.

[SorO_Lost]

I wonder if they know that?
*shrugs*
The right hand & left hand thing they got going on is so terrible that even if someone did the rest wouldn't.

You know the terrible part? The items encourage dumping your primary stat. Let's say the rules will update and allow the Belt to actually function. You're starting at level 8 or whatever it takes to own a Rare. The Encounter pattern undoubtedly will be designed to expect you to have around 21 Str so you are going to have to buy the item no matter what. But set to trait can be abuse, dump Str in PB or give it your lowest roll. Focus on HP or rounding your Saves. Increasing 8 Str to 21 costs exactly the same as increasing an 18 to 21.

It's probably why nothing else uses a system like that.

Edit - Oh Pelor. I just had a scary thought. What if I'm wrong. The Belt is a new addition to the play test, they forgot to remove the cap. If you look at it from this angle, and the fact this items are +8~+20 in value they absolutely have to plan around PCs having 28+ Str (27 item & ioun stone, discounting artifact). It'll be like 4th, Christmas Trees required. Want a "low magic game"? Good luck, cops fine you for littering if you toss magical items at hobos.

[DonQuixote]

But set to trait can be abuse, dump Str in PB or give it your lowest roll. Focus on HP or rounding your Saves. Increasing 8 Str to 21 costs exactly the same as increasing an 18 to 21.

Assuming that the DM allows this behavior and decides to give you the item, yes, this is possible.

But if someone came to my table with a Strength-based character with Strength as his lowest ability score, I'm not sure why I would feel possessed to enable such ridiculousness.

[zioth]

The rarity of the item is a factor -- you don't get it unless the DM says you do -- but SorO's right. Some DMs will keep handing out magic items freely, making STR a dump stat. Even in more standard games where items are rare, imagine being a fighter who invested a lot in that 20 STR. It would stink to get that belt, and realize you could have had a strength of 8 and put more points in CON or DEX.

I hope they remove the cap, and turn the belt into a bonus, but I also hope they continue to avoid from ridiculously high scores. One way to do it is to say that you can raise your score higher than 20, but you have to use both of your level-up bonuses to raise it one point. So now you have to decide between a well-rounded character, and superhuman ability scores.

One more problem with the cap is that a wizard with a polymorph spell will have higher physical attributes than a fighter can ever hope to have, even with magic items.

[Bauglir]

Caps are bad, diminishing returns are good, basically. And don't do things like, "Monsters get to be better than you, because nyeh", because it tells me you aren't going to accommodate unusual PCs any better this time around than in 3.5.

[zioth]

I don't think it's that big of a problem. A monster having a higher strength score than you doesn't mean you can't beat it. It makes sense that the collossal red dragon is going to be stronger than a PC. I don't argue for caps, because players shouldn't feel like they've "maxed out" their characters, or that they have to diversify their abilities, but monsters being better than characters in one area or another isn't a big deal.

Let's look at the numbers the game actually encourages, to understand the designers' logic. Standard array with two starting bonuses gets you (16,15,13,12,10,8). Point buy can't raise a score above 15, so that's pretty much the same. You get a bonus to two scores every 4 levels. This means that there will only be one point which can't get used for a primary score. You end up with (20,20,14,12,10,8). Without caps, you could have had (21,20,13,12,10,8) instead, which is almost exactly the same.

The problem is, they let you roll 4d6 instead, which is likely to give you at least one 16 or 17. Then, you're wasting more points. They should either remove the caps, raise them, or remove the option of rolling attributes.

[zioth]

Concentration

The concentration rule is interesting. You need concentration to keep someone polymorphed or under the affect of energy resistence. In fact, I think that most of the long-duration spells require concentration. But concentration is not the same thing as in 3E. You keep your concentration unless:

• You cast another spell that requires concentration. In other words, you can't cast have Polymorph and Energy Resistence active at the same time.
• Losing conciousness. This makes the wizard a primary target as soon as he casts a powerful, long-duration spell.
• Getting very distracted. However, most concentration checks seem to be DC10 or lower. You just need a high constitution score, which isn't such a bad idea anyway. It does kind of destroy the "sickly wizard" type though.

I think there's a need for feats that let you concentrate on more than one spell at the same time.

This rule is another piece of evidence that they're going for much lower magic and weaker spellcasters than in 3E.

[DonQuixote]

I think there's a need for feats that let you concentrate on more than one spell at the same time.

I think there's very much a need for no such feats to exist ever.

Edit: I also have to disagree with the general attitude towards caps.  The ability score cap is one of my favorite things about 5e thus far.

[Bozwevial]

Edit: I also have to disagree with the general attitude towards caps.  The ability score cap is one of my favorite things about 5e thus far.

Here's hoping it doesn't end up like this.

(click to show/hide)

[SorO_Lost]

imagine being a fighter who invested a lot in that 20 STR. It would stink to get that belt, and realize you could have had a strength of 8 and put more points in CON or DEX.

It'd be abysmal. Get an Uncommon Magic Item and regret playing your entire character the way you did.

Maybe there is a euphemism in there somewhere. An artist's rendition of the in and outs of drug abuse and how D&D is just another trip in life.
I feel is entirely relatable to the design team...

[Bauglir]

I actually don't understand why Hercules can't be as strong as a colossal dragon. It isn't about whether or not you can beat the monsters, it's about creating unnecessary boxes that characters have to fit inside, based on "common sense". Maybe they're trying to create a game that actually stays within the bounds of heroic, but not superhuman, characters, but that becomes a reason to be less interested in D&D for me.

A hard cap tells me that, as a designer, you're unwilling to invest the effort to examine the implications of your rules when you extrapolate out of your original assumptions, and then rebalance those rules accordingly. Instead, you're saying, "No, you can't do that." That's a good thing to do with a lot of games, where breaking assumptions can break down any semblance of reason, but tabletop roleplaying games are one of the few genres where you're fighting against your medium when you take that approach. That players are able to use the rules to play a variety of different kinds of game is a strength of the format.

If you want to get a similar outcome, you need to structure your pricing scheme for ability score increases in a way that provides a disincentive to exceed the cap you're looking for too early, or have a floating cap that depends on some other aspect of your character (such as level). Create a system where your cap arises naturally out of the general rules, and make it obvious - include a sidebar, or something, so you don't see people falling into traps.

[zioth]

I think there's a need for feats that let you concentrate on more than one spell at the same time.

I think there's very much a need for no such feats to exist ever.

Could you explain your reasoning? Mine is that, by allowing only one long-duration spell at a time, they have basically gotten rid of the concept of a "buff." It's an effective way of weakening spellcasters, but it might be unnecessarily limiting.

[oslecamo]

For all of those complaining that PC ability scores are too low right now, I would like to point out the highest Str score in the 5e bestiary I saw was a 26 Str for the pit fiend, at level 20 (and even then just 17 AC). Among the biggest dragons none has more than 25 Str. Most monsters do have under 20 Str. So yes, 20 Str is already superhuman by 5e's standards. You're stronger than an ogre, stronger than a minotaur, stronger than an earth elemental.

I think there's a need for feats that let you concentrate on more than one spell at the same time.

I think there's very much a need for no such feats to exist ever.

Could you explain your reasoning? Mine is that, by allowing only one long-duration spell at a time, they have basically gotten rid of the concept of a "buff." It's an effective way of weakening spellcasters, but it might be unnecessarily limiting.

It is necessary. One of the main reasons casters are borked in 3.X is that they can stack so many magics at once they should be checking for radiation poisoning or overdose.

Just like in stories you don't hear of the great fighter going with multiple dozens of magic items, you don't hear about the great wizard going around with multiple dozens of personal buffs at once.

[Bauglir]

Eliminating buff-stacking is probably a good thing. It cuts down on the edge you can get by hunting through books for dozens of small effects (this rarely makes the game more interesting at the table, and makes it harder for people who've barely got time to play the game, much less to do stuff away from the table, have fun) and makes it easier to construct encounters because you don't have such a wide range of potential meanings for, say, CR 16.

It cuts out some character concepts, which is why I'd hope to see it compensated for by character options that enhance buffs ("You can grant an ally under the effects of your spells a +1 attack bonus in addition to that spell's effects" sort of things), and options that allow for efficient, on-the-fly buff-swapping (so you can still play your prepared-for-everything character).

Anyway, that's why I'd agree with Sir Quixote; dunno what his reasoning is, exactly.

For all of those complaining that PC ability scores are too low right now, I would like to point out the highest Str score in the 5e bestiary I saw was a 26 Str for the pit fiend, at level 20 (and even then just 17 AC). Among the biggest dragons none has more than 25 Str. Most monsters do have under 20 Str. So yes, 20 Str is already superhuman by 5e's standards. You're stronger than an ogre, stronger than a minotaur, stronger than an earth elemental.

I care less about the fact that they're too low, and more about the fact that they have an arbitrary hard cap. What would be better is a guideline that tells you where Strength 20 fits into the world, and then rules that go, "You can't exceed Strength 20, unless" and then have some conditions like a feat that raises your cap by 6 and increases your score by 1 with a prerequisite of Strength 20, etc. I don't know if that fits the balance, it's just supposed to illustrate that you should have options that allow you to reach any score you damn well please, provided sufficient investment of character-building resources.

Otherwise, you're saying, "It doesn't matter how awesome you are, it doesn't matter if you're higher level than Zeus himself, you're still going to lose if you arm-wrestle a Pit Fiend."

[oslecamo]

Be a barbarian or a cleric with righteous might, gaining advantage on Str checks. There, now you can arm-wrestle the Pit Fiend head on.

Considering that, as already mentioned, most of the time 20 Str automatically means you're stronger than your opponent, I'm perfectly fine with there no being mechanics for PCs over the cap. If anything, they can save that for splatbooks. Or what, you wanted the alpha version to already allow you to stat Zeus big brother that curb-stomps pit fiends for breakfast? When Zeus himself still doesn't have stats?

[SorO_Lost]

I think you're off by a lot there. Maybe stop reading the Spellcaster & Kobolds entries. If it's a melee style monster is exceeds 20 Str by 9th level. Even at cap you're barely stronger than an Earth Elemental (1str9@6th) or Owlbear (18str@5th).

Also Grappling a Balor is just as misleading if not worse. Yes it has 26 Str (avg 18.5), yes 20 Str & Advantage (avg 18.82) is comparable. But Balors don't Grapple, they use their Whip to deal
2d6+8 slashing +4d6 Fire, then drags you next to it to deal 3d8+8*2 via Longswords, then 6d6 next round because you stood near it. You want to Restraint it? It's Flaming Body hits you twice and Multiattacks while you still have yet to deal damage, plus your odds of success are one in four. Worse tactic ever.

[Bauglir]

Or what, you wanted the alpha version to already allow you to stat Zeus big brother that curb-stomps pit fiends for breakfast? When Zeus himself still doesn't have stats?

No, I want them to not explicitly forbid it as an option. Which a cap does. They don't have to actually give us the tools to make it practical in the alpha, or even in the published Core. They can save it for an Epic Level Handbook, but they should lay the groundwork for that in Core so they don't have to write rules that say, "Starting at level 21, ignore all these rules in earlier sourcebooks". They should let you start "ignoring" them whenever you'd naturally reach that point in your character's development.

I also don't want a game that automatically ends at 20, or forbids nonhumanoid characters. I don't want a game that forces singleclassed characters, or requires a PC to be decked out in enough bling to make a pimp-themed supervillain feel underdressed. I don't want a game that assumes your enemies are Chaotic Evil, or that reduces every character to different shades of "Move enemy, deal damage, impose -1 penalty for 3 rounds". I want characters to have meaningful non-combat decisions to set themselves apart from each other.

There's a lot of things I want. 5E seems to be delivering on some. They're reducing the assumed dependence of PCs on magical gear, for instance. On the other hand, the skills revision isn't doing it for me. The last paragraph wasn't an exhaustive list, nor was it a list of things that are wrong with 5E. It was a short, general list of things I want or don't want in a roleplaying game. I'm going to talk about conflicts with what I have as an ideal, whatever the other merits of the system are.

[DonQuixote]

I think there's a need for feats that let you concentrate on more than one spell at the same time.

I think there's very much a need for no such feats to exist ever.

Could you explain your reasoning? Mine is that, by allowing only one long-duration spell at a time, they have basically gotten rid of the concept of a "buff." It's an effective way of weakening spellcasters, but it might be unnecessarily limiting.

Primarily that, last I checked, unregulated buffing was responsible for wizards being able to out-fighter fighters.

Edit: On the "nonhuman characters" argument, which seems to be the primary argument against the stat cap, why not just simply have different stats for the PC version of a monster?  It would simplify a lot of other problems.