Author Topic: D&D 5e: For real this time?  (Read 351855 times)

Offline bhu

  • Uncle Kittie
  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 16305
  • Fnord bitches
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« Reply #760 on: August 04, 2013, 09:24:46 PM »
So if there are no skills now how do you do the things they used to represent? DM fiat?

Offline Raineh Daze

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10577
  • hi
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« Reply #761 on: August 04, 2013, 09:25:40 PM »
So if there are no skills now how do you do the things they used to represent? DM fiat?


For now. They'll probably add them back in somehow later on.

Offline linklord231

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3352
  • The dice are trying to kill me
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« Reply #762 on: August 04, 2013, 09:29:26 PM »
So if there are no skills now how do you do the things they used to represent? DM fiat?

Back during the first playtest, there weren't any skills either.  The DM was just supposed to decide what attribute was best tied to your action, and then come up with a DC based on how difficult the task should be.  I think the table capped out at DC 25, which was for something almost, but not quite, impossible.
I'm not arguing, I'm explaining why I'm right.

Offline Demelain

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« Reply #763 on: August 04, 2013, 09:36:24 PM »
Like 1st and 2nd, I suspect the skill system will be optional/modular.

Offline Raineh Daze

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10577
  • hi
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« Reply #764 on: August 04, 2013, 09:53:02 PM »
I'm not sure they quite get the purpose of modularity, really.

Offline Necrosnoop110

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 989
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« Reply #765 on: August 05, 2013, 09:14:37 AM »
I'm not sure they quite get the purpose of modularity, really.
What is the true purpose of modularity?

Offline Raineh Daze

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10577
  • hi
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« Reply #766 on: August 05, 2013, 09:20:26 AM »
I'm not sure they quite get the purpose of modularity, really.
What is the true purpose of modularity?
Wait, purpose was the wrong word. I'm not sure they get how you do it. You need a working skeleton to stick bits on and design around. This would require that they actually work out the mathematical basics, and go from there. Buuuut... no, they just keep fiddling with numbers. :/

Drunkenly throwing darts in the dark and seeing what sticks is not good design.

Offline Keldar

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • What's this button do?
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« Reply #767 on: August 05, 2013, 11:02:40 AM »
Would it really kill them to hire someone who remembers grade school math?  Or ask one of their kids to figure things out at least.   I'm beyond tired of them fucking up the math, making a mess of the game, then getting offended when people point out how they screwed up.

Seriously, trying to build a game that's "balanced" and refusing to take the elementary steps in design needed to accomplish that goal is insane.  If you want to make a game that way, go make Rifts or something, where balance isn't in their lexicon.

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« Reply #768 on: August 05, 2013, 11:10:03 AM »
Hmmm.  I am not plugged into the 5E thing at all.  There are 2 big reasons that my groups and I keep on playing D&D (though we haven't played for a few months due to business):  we know it really well and monster manuals make it one of the easier games to run.  Take away half of that, and I don't know if I'd be that enamored with the game, given its failings.

I'm a little confused by their approach, from the comments above.  One of the nicest things about the d20 system -- one of the things that I think might account for its market dominance some years ago -- was that the core mechanic was very straightforward and very intelligible.  You have this d20+modifier thing, and then you only need to get a sense of what reasonable target numbers will be, which is sketched out in the DMG, among other places. 

Sure, in a lot of ways charopp can throw those things out of whack -- that's kind of its mission statement -- but it's a very straightforward numbers chasis to hang things on.  A DC 35 check is awesome -- that's Aragorn's tracking in LotR or something -- and then you can hang all the mods around it.  I guess I wonder why they aren't, if I'm understanding things right, leaning heavily on the core mechanic they invented and then hanging all the cool stuff on that numbers chasis. 

Offline Raineh Daze

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10577
  • hi
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« Reply #769 on: August 05, 2013, 11:22:29 AM »
Sure, in a lot of ways charopp can throw those things out of whack -- that's kind of its mission statement -- but it's a very straightforward numbers chasis to hang things on.  A DC 35 check is awesome -- that's Aragorn's tracking in LotR or something -- and then you can hang all the mods around it.  I guess I wonder why they aren't, if I'm understanding things right, leaning heavily on the core mechanic they invented and then hanging all the cool stuff on that numbers chasis. 

Aragorn isn't that good. @_@

Offline Demelain

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« Reply #770 on: August 05, 2013, 11:38:48 AM »
Sure, in a lot of ways charopp can throw those things out of whack -- that's kind of its mission statement -- but it's a very straightforward numbers chasis to hang things on.  A DC 35 check is awesome -- that's Aragorn's tracking in LotR or something -- and then you can hang all the mods around it.  I guess I wonder why they aren't, if I'm understanding things right, leaning heavily on the core mechanic they invented and then hanging all the cool stuff on that numbers chasis. 

Aragorn isn't that good. @_@
I admit that it has been almost a decade since I read LotR, but didn't he at some point sniff dirt and deduce from it that Mary and Pippin had scrambled off into the woods?

Offline Raineh Daze

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10577
  • hi
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« Reply #771 on: August 05, 2013, 11:41:54 AM »
Hmm... well, maybe; but the most he'd be likely to make is DC 32. :p

Offline awaken_D_M_golem

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7639
  • classique style , invisible tail
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« Reply #772 on: August 05, 2013, 05:10:02 PM »
The fighter has been awarded the most useless capstone to have ever lived.

If they hit an enemy with 20HP or less (or is it just less? Can't remember), it dies. This is a 20th level fighter attacking, here. Even within bounded accuracy, hitting something with that little HP is probably going to kill it anyway.

I guessing ... they might have improved the Minion situation.
(I don't know, I might not care much medium term)
So instead of having a 1hp + Cleave style semi-loop, this
set-up will make more sense when monsters are known.
(I'm going by feel / conjecture)
Your codpiece is a mimic.

Offline VennDygrem

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4587
  • Exceptionally Average
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« Reply #773 on: August 05, 2013, 09:42:53 PM »
So if there are no skills now how do you do the things they used to represent? DM fiat?

They're ability checks, in the way that they've always been ability checks (with individual bonuses you invest in). Only now you don't really call them skills as a separate subsystem. You don't generally get a +2 to hide or +5 to jump with this.

One of the things they're trying to do is streamline gameplay in reducing dependency on skill checks. So if someone has a high Strength score, they can probably lift something heavy, jump a basic gap, etc., so they don't have to roll for that; they succeed because they should be able to. The Wizard probably has more cause to roll a check for simple strength-related activities that a Fighter can do on a basic level, or the Fighter might still need to roll to jump especially far, or bash a door in, or something, as the packet says, that there's even a reasonable chance that they could fail at.

Just like how they mention how a player in another edition might give an elaborate, moving speech, but flub their diplomacy check and technically fail. So the idea is that it's more in the DM's court whether an action even calls for a check. If you do something especially well, describe it well, etc., maybe the DM still makes you roll but gives you advantage based on circumstances, rather than a flat skill bonus. There's still the chance that you fail, but greater chance that you may succeed.

I like the concept, and the skills are still there (as part of the ability scores), but there are less... fiddly bits. Some people like fiddly bits. But I think it contributes to slowing things down at the table, and for giving more things for people to argue over at the table. But hell, what do I know?

Offline Libertad

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3618
    • View Profile
    • My Fantasy and Gaming Blog
Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« Reply #774 on: August 05, 2013, 11:07:27 PM »
So I've been wondering, why did they rename the Wizard the Mage?

Offline veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5423
  • Chaos Dice
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« Reply #775 on: August 06, 2013, 12:29:25 AM »
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....
Quote from: Mearls
Trying to compete with other TRPGs is a losing strategy.
...I think something's gone terribly offtrack.
Everything is edible. Just that there are things only edible once per lifetime.
It's a god-eat-god world.

Procrastination is the thief of time; Year after year it steals, till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves; The vast concerns of an eternal scene.

Offline bhu

  • Uncle Kittie
  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 16305
  • Fnord bitches
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« Reply #776 on: August 06, 2013, 02:35:52 AM »
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....
Quote from: Mearls
Trying to compete with other TRPGs is a losing strategy.
...I think something's gone terribly offtrack.

wtf Mearls?

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« Reply #777 on: August 06, 2013, 10:05:11 AM »
@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. 

Offline littha

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2952
  • +1 Holy Muffin
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« Reply #778 on: August 06, 2013, 10:16:12 AM »
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....
Quote from: Mearls
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?

Offline veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5423
  • Chaos Dice
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« Reply #779 on: August 06, 2013, 10:39:15 AM »
Context doesn't help a whole lot.
Everything is edible. Just that there are things only edible once per lifetime.
It's a god-eat-god world.

Procrastination is the thief of time; Year after year it steals, till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves; The vast concerns of an eternal scene.