- Clerics have Divine Domains
- Fighters have Fighting Style and Martial Archetypes
- Rogues have Rougish Archetypes
- Wizards have Arcane Traditions
I'm sorry, are you confusing the 2E's "Alternate Class Kit" as a 4E thing? None of which are even in the basic book because they selected one thing from each?
But I will say that 5E is chock full of elements from 4E. Again, I am not saying that makes it equivalent to 4E. But 4E is probably the single most influential edition in terms of sheer number of mechanics adopted/expanded.
Considering you don't seem to actually understand what elements came from 4E, I'm finding this not surprising that you see things.
5E's hit dice,
Not an equivalent to Health Surges, and have an entirely different use, heck even if it was they didn't even keep the 4E name.
death saves, weapon proficiencies, skill system class archetypes, ritual spells, saving throws, inspiration, and likely other stuff that I just can't think of off the top of my head came from 4E innovations. 5E owes a great deal to 4E.
My god you are serious. Weapon prof comes from 3, death saves are just renamed saves from 2E, skill system class archetypes is 2E, saving throws have been in since 1st! Inspiration had another name and are just basic rerolls.
streamdragon wrote: So because swordsmen basically fly in Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, you're okay with my fighter doing that? I mean, going through any amount of swordsman action media can generate some ridiculous powers. Like Zoro cutting through steel in One Piece, or all sorts of anime series where people cut through buildings and crap.
Manchu wrote: If we're playing Basic and I am DMing, you don't need permission from me to try anything. This is not because there is a rule for everything but because you getting to try whatever we agree makes reasonable sense given the setting is the fundamental premise of the game. My role as the DM is to figure out what is the most reasonable way to test whether your attempt is successful and then to narrate the consequences.
streamdragon wrote: And I'd also say that there are plenty of movies showcasing the power of wizards. Surely you're also, then, okay with limiting wizards to an arbitrary set of powers that Hollywood thinks fits them?
Manchu wrote: Magic, however, requires a long list of permissions (the spell text) because it breaks the laws of nature.
streamdragon wrote: Even if, as I assume, you mean "the laws of nature in the game setting which let dragons fly", then arbitrarily deciding that those rules don't allow a swordsman to do the same ridiculous stuff that a wizard can (or at least their own version of ridiculous stuff) is beyond assinine.
"Non-casters can cast spells" does not follow from "dragons can fly."
You can creatively describe using your at-will powers in 4E just like you can make explosion noises when your queen takes a pawn. None of this changes that 4E (and chess) are permissive rule sets while something like B/X is not.
You can creatively describe using your at-will powers in 4E just like you can make explosion noises when your queen takes a pawn. None of this changes that 4E (and chess) are permissive rule sets while something like B/X is not.
Considering that there was no rule change between them that said either is permissive or otherwise.. And there's that insulting chess metaphor again.
Generally, as said that would mean the fighter would have nothing to show for itself in non 4E, it'll vary so hard from DM to DM, you may have awesome mcoolkid as your DM and he'll let you suddenly swing cutting winds for 3X your damage or you'll have the dude who will give you a slightly higher DC for maybe +2 damage if you land on them from atop a chandelier.
It's poor writing, it's poor decisions, and generally it doesn't help a class at all, to put it bluntly, it's bad rules to make something mechanical and leave it as a position of strength vs imagination.
streamdragon wrote: So because swordsmen basically fly in Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, you're okay with my fighter doing that? I mean, going through any amount of swordsman action media can generate some ridiculous powers. Like Zoro cutting through steel in One Piece, or all sorts of anime series where people cut through buildings and crap.
Manchu wrote: If we're playing Basic and I am DMing, you don't need permission from me to try anything. This is not because there is a rule for everything but because you getting to try whatever we agree makes reasonable sense given the setting is the fundamental premise of the game. My role as the DM is to figure out what is the most reasonable way to test whether your attempt is successful and then to narrate the consequences.
streamdragon wrote: And I'd also say that there are plenty of movies showcasing the power of wizards. Surely you're also, then, okay with limiting wizards to an arbitrary set of powers that Hollywood thinks fits them?
Manchu wrote: Magic, however, requires a long list of permissions (the spell text) because it breaks the laws of nature.
streamdragon wrote: Even if, as I assume, you mean "the laws of nature in the game setting which let dragons fly", then arbitrarily deciding that those rules don't allow a swordsman to do the same ridiculous stuff that a wizard can (or at least their own version of ridiculous stuff) is beyond assinine.
"Non-casters can cast spells" does not follow from "dragons can fly."
You can creatively describe using your at-will powers in 4E just like you can make explosion noises when your queen takes a pawn. None of this changes that 4E (and chess) are permissive rule sets while something like B/X is not.
1. Again, what prevents the fighter from doing things that break the laws of nature, other than "because Hollywood told us"? Nothing, except this innate sense that fighters should not be doing special things while wizards and casters should.
2.
streamdragon wrote: Even if, as I assume, you mean "the laws of nature in the game setting which let dragons fly", then arbitrarily deciding that those rules don't allow a swordsman to do the same ridiculous stuff that a wizard can (or at least their own version of ridiculous stuff) is beyond assinine.
3. Again, nothing in 4e says that "I attack" has to be just that. Nothing, including the Basic Attack power card, says that you can't describe, narrate, and let the GM rule. Nothing.
nomotog wrote:When did people get the idea that 5ed would appeal to 4ed players? I mean I guess it can appeal to some in the same way people can like cats and the color red, but it was very clear from the very start of 5ed that 4ed was going to be treated as a mistake.
Longer even! Saving throws have appeared in every edition under one guise or another. From the classic Big Five to 3E's Ref/Fort/Will, the mechanic has dramatically changed over the years. As you know, 4E reconstructed the Ref/Fort/Will saves into Defenses. This left saves as a dissociated d20 roll against a set DC. 5E took that disassociated roll and combined it with its Proficiency + Ability Mod mechanic, which was also influenced by 4E mechanics.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Considering that there was no rule change between them that said either is permissive or otherwise.
Please explain why it is insulting, especially after I have explained that the metaphor is meant to show that 4E (a) is a permissive rule set that (b) aspires to clarity and balance.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @steamdragon:
(1) Magic breaks the laws of nature. Non-casters do not use magic. Non-casters cannot break the laws of nature.
(2) As I mentioned, when I run Basic, someone playing a Fighter can attempt anything that is reasonable given the setting. For example, let's say you are playing a Fighter trying to sneak out of a prison. I tell you that you make it out of your cell but you can see a guard at the end of the hallway. He has his back to you. You tell me you want to sneak up on him and cut his throat with the knife he left on a nearby table. I ask for a DEX check to see if you can approach without being heard. You roll under your DEX but just barely. I make the ruling that you snuck up on him without a problem but he noticed your blade under his chin in just enough time to grab your wrist. Now I ask you to roll an opposed STR test against him. You roll very high and he only gets a low number even with his modifier. I narrate that you plunge the dagger into his throat, spray blood all over the walls (and get a good amount on yourself!) while the guard shudders and goes limp. You didn't need a class skill for Move Silently, you didn't need a Sneak Attack or some kind of 'Assassinate' class ability, you didn't even need to make and attack roll or roll damage. Yes, whether you like this style or not, this is how many people play D&D and some have done for 30 years.
(3) Sure, we agree. Again, 4E is still permissive which is not true of every edition.
Manchu wrote: How do you know what your character can do in 4E?
Page 6 - 4th Ed PH. wrote: The DM makes D&D infi-nitely f lexible—he or she can react to any situation, any twist or turn suggested by the players, to make a D&D adventure vibrant, exciting, and unexpected.
It’s a storytelling game where the only limit is your imagination.
In an adventure, you can attempt anything you can think of. Want to talk to the dragon instead of fighting it? Want to disguise yourself as an orc and sneak into the foul lair? Go ahead and give it a try. Your actions might work or they might fail spectacularly, but either way you’ve contributed to the unfolding story of the adventure and probably had fun along the way.
Page 286 - 4th Ed PH wrote: The list isn’t exhaustive—you can try to do anything you can imagine your character doing in the game world. The rules in this section cover the most common actions, and they can serve as a guide for figuring out what happens when you try something not in the rules.
(2) As I mentioned, when I run Basic, someone playing a Fighter can attempt anything that is reasonable given the setting. For example, let's say you are playing a Fighter trying to sneak out of a prison. I tell you that you make it out of your cell but you can see a guard at the end of the hallway. He has his back to you. You tell me you want to sneak up on him and cut his throat with the knife he left on a nearby table. I ask for a DEX check to see if you can approach without being heard. You roll under your DEX but just barely. I make the ruling that you snuck up on him without a problem but he noticed your blade under his chin in just enough time to grab your wrist. Now I ask you to roll an opposed STR test against him. You roll very high and he only gets a low number even with his modifier. I narrate that you plunge the dagger into his throat, spray blood all over the walls (and get a good amount on yourself!) while the guard shudders and goes limp. You didn't need a class skill for Move Silently, you didn't need a Sneak Attack or some kind of 'Assassinate' class ability, you didn't even need to make and attack roll or roll damage. Yes, whether you like this style or not, this is how many people play D&D and some have done for 30 years.
This works perfectly well in 4th ed.
Your fighter sneaks up behind the guard. Do you have stealth? Nope. No problem, you just don't get the +5 bonus for being trained (page 178). I tell you to roll an opposed skill check with the guard's perception (Page 178). You match his. I narrate that this means you get up behind him but he notices the blade and grabs it. I advise you to make an 'escape' attempt (page 288) to get your blade free (contested Athletics vs his Fortitude). You roll high and beat him. You plunge the blade into his chest. The guard shudders and goes limp.You didn't need a class skill for Move Silently, you didn't need a Sneak Attack or some kind of 'Assassinate' class ability, you didn't even need to make and attack roll or roll damage. Yes, whether you like this style or not, this is how I play D&D and have done for 28 years.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Page 42, 4th Ed DMG wrote:
Actions the Rules Don’t Cover
Your presence as the Dungeon Master is what makes D&D such a great game. You make it possible for the players to try anything they can imagine. That means it’s your job to resolve unusual actions when the players try them.
A whole section on helping you to figure out how to handle things not covered by the rules. Huh. That's wacky.
Say I am playing a first level Rogue in 4E. The party is fighting some goblins and it is my initiative. The DM asks what I do. I say I do Three Tiger Kick. The DM replies, no you may not do Three Tiger Kick because that is a X-level Encounter Power for Class Y. I say, okay, well I want to kick him in the face three times and I want my foot to glow with heavenly light and do radiant damage. The DM replies, no you can't do that because that is too many actions and oh by the way what rule allows your feet to emit radiant damage. Okay, I say, I just want to kick him in the face three times. The DM says, no, you are not allowed to do that because, absent permission from the rules to the contrary, an attack is a standard action and you only get one of those so three kicks is two too many.
Now -- as I have said many times -- there is nothing bad or wrong about this. It's a permissive rule set with, and I really like Buzzsaw's term here, an "escape hatch" of interpretive rulings in case a player wants to do something about which the rules are effectively silent. But it is not the only way to play D&D.
So let's say we are playing Basic. You are a Cleric. The party is fighting some goblins and it's your turn so I ask you what you want to do. You tell me that you want to to do Three Tiger Kick. I would ask you what that is. You tell me it is when you take a running jump and kick somebody in the face three times. I ask you where you learned how to do this. Maybe you tell me your Fighter studied with some monks as a kid. Or maybe you tell me it's just something he heard about in stories about monks. Giving me background information and a detailed description about what you are attempting informs my ruling about the test you need to succeed and what the consequences will be. Or, if I was bad DM, I would just say "no you can't do that."
Manchu wrote: Say I am playing a first level Rogue in 4E. ...The DM says, no, you are not allowed to do that because, absent permission from the rules to the contrary, an attack is a standard action and you only get one of those so three kicks is two too many.
Then you have a bad DM who isn't following the rules as written in the 4th ed PH and DMG.
Page 42 of the DMG: "Your presence as the Dungeon Master is what makes D&D such a great game. You make it possible for the players to try anything they can imagine. That means it’s your job to resolve unusual actions when the play- ers try them." "Attacks: If the action is essentially an attack, use an attack roll. It might involve a weapon and target AC, or it might just be a Strength or Dexterity check against any defense. For an attack, use the appropriate defense of the target. Use an opposed check for anything that involves a contest between two creatures."
Yep, what you just wrote is almost how I used to run 4E. But what if one of the players objects to the ruling about not needing an attack or damage roll to slit the throat? They have good grounds to do so: the rules already cover how you attack someone and how much damage that can do. The Rogue might object, for example, on grounds that the Fighter is trespassing in Rogue territory there (class imbalance).
I can imagine another good reason to object to this as well, one which Buzzsaw brought up earlier, when he said that my DM had either not really thought through the opposed DEX checks or wouldn't allow us PCs to try it, ostensibly because it was too powerful, broken, etc. What if the guard snuck up on my PC? Could he just kill my PC based on a couple of non-combat. non-damage rolls?
My response would be -- no, of course not, the story is about the PCs. Guards are just dungeon furniture. Heck, let's say the Guard was a "minion" to use the 4E term; he only had 1HP so no worries, right? Of course, that's a post hoc rationalization but nevermind. None of these excuses/explanations are going to cut the mustard with someone who wants to play the "beautiful tactical combat" of 4E because rulings, that is calls that depart from using the rules as written, undermine the clarity and balance of the game's design.
A good DM would say 'Okay, three dragon kick, that sounds like a Dexterity type attack because you are deftly striking three times to hurt your opponent. Make a dex attack without proficiency bonus for your weapon against the target's AC"
pretre wrote: Then you have a bad DM who isn't following the rules as written in the 4th ed PH and DMG.
Great example of permissive rule set logic: a bad DM is one who does not follow the rules as written.
pretre wrote: A good DM would say 'Okay, three dragon kick, that sounds like a Dexterity type attack because you are deftly striking three times to hurt your opponent. Make a dex attack without proficiency bonus for your weapon against the target's AC"
Sounds good to me. Like I keep saying, I like rulings. I also realize that rulings aren't for everyone.
Yep, what you just wrote is almost how I used to run 4E. But what if one of the players objects to the ruling about not needing an attack or damage roll to slit the throat? They have good grounds to do so: the rules already cover how you attack someone and how much damage that can do. The Rogue might object, for example, on grounds that the Fighter is trespassing in Rogue territory there.
We can play the what if game all day. What if one of your Basic players objects to how you rule on something?
I can imagine another good reason to object to this as well, one which Buzzsaw brought up earlier, when he said that my DM had either not really thought through the opposed DEX checks or wouldn't allow us PCs to try it, ostensibly because it was too powerful, broken, etc. What if the guard snuck up on my PC? Could he just kill my PC based on a couple of non-combat. non-damage rolls?
That same problem exists in Basic as well. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
My response would be -- no, of course not, the story is about the PCs. Guards are just dungeon furniture. Heck, let's say the Guard was a "minion" to use the 4E term; he only had 1HP so no worries, right? Of course, that's a post hoc rationalization but nevermind. None of these excuses/explanations are going to cut the mustard with someone who wants to play the "beautiful tactical combat" of 4E because rulings, that is calls that depart from using the rules, undermines the clarity and balance of the game's design.
Rulings are built into 4th Ed. I provided you the quotes from the book. Are you missing that the book actively provides you with the ability to rule on any action the players want to perform? Where in Basic D&D is the quote for allowing that? Or are you just assuming because there is no permission that permission is given?
pretre wrote: Then you have a bad DM who isn't following the rules as written in the 4th ed PH and DMG.
Great example of permissive rule set logic: a bad DM is one who does not follow the rules as written.
pretre wrote: A good DM would say 'Okay, three dragon kick, that sounds like a Dexterity type attack because you are deftly striking three times to hurt your opponent. Make a dex attack without proficiency bonus for your weapon against the target's AC"
Sounds good to me. Like I keep saying, I like rulings. I also realize that rulings aren't for everyone.
Except you've been saying that D&D 4th Ed doesn't allow rulings. It is clear from the rules that it does. My example used the DMG's sample for how to make a ruling on something not covered by the rules. It tells DMs that that is their job. To make rulings for things not covered by the rules. So you are wrong about 4th ed not allowing this or being, in any way, more 'ruling friendly' than Basic. I bet Basic has nothing covering rulings. I'll have to dig up a book though.
I can imagine another good reason to object to this as well, one which Buzzsaw brought up earlier, when he said that my DM had either not really thought through the opposed DEX checks or wouldn't allow us PCs to try it, ostensibly because it was too powerful, broken, etc. What if the guard snuck up on my PC? Could he just kill my PC based on a couple of non-combat. non-damage rolls?
That same problem exists in Basic as well. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I disagree because rulings are not the same as rules. Rulings are case-by-case whereas rules apply more universally. The issue is, someone playing 4E could object that a ruling is unnecessary and harmful in a case when a rule already covers it. That's a perfectly valid objection regarding 3E or 4E. It cannot be a valid objection in Basic because Basic simply doesn't have a huge set of permissive rules covering tons and tons of situations and even the rules it does have (for example, the saving throws) require interpretation by the DM to be used in all but the most narrow circumstances.
Manchu wrote: Say I am playing a first level Rogue in 4E. The party is fighting some goblins and it is my initiative. The DM asks what I do. I say I do Three Tiger Kick. The DM replies, no you may not do Three Tiger Kick because that is a X-level Encounter Power for Class Y. I say, okay, well I want to kick him in the face three times and I want my foot to glow with heavenly light and do radiant damage. The DM replies, no you can't do that because that is too many actions and oh by the way what rule allows your feet to emit radiant damage. Okay, I say, I just want to kick him in the face three times. The DM says, no, you are not allowed to do that because, absent permission from the rules to the contrary, an attack is a standard action and you only get one of those so three kicks is two too many.
Now -- as I have said many times -- there is nothing bad or wrong about this. It's a permissive rule set with, and I really like Buzzsaw's term here, an "escape hatch" of interpretive rulings in case a player wants to do something about which the rules are effectively silent. But it is not the only way to play D&D.
So let's say we are playing Basic. You are a Cleric. The party is fighting some goblins and it's your turn so I ask you what you want to do. You tell me that you want to to do Three Tiger Kick. I would ask you what that is. You tell me it is when you take a running jump and kick somebody in the face three times. I ask you where you learned how to do this. Maybe you tell me your Fighter studied with some monks as a kid. Or maybe you tell me it's just something he heard about in stories about monks. Giving me background information and a detailed description about what you are attempting informs my ruling about the test you need to succeed and what the consequences will be. Or, if I was bad DM, I would just say "no you can't do that."
I find it strange that you go into the background stuff for your Basic version of the game, but not the 4e version.
Assuming you use the same backstory for your Rogue as your Cleric, I could easily rule as follows:
You want to kick the goblin in the face 3 times. I can see that an unarmed attack would normally do d4 damage, and a basic attack can be done unarmed. While the X level (insert class here) with the actual Three Tiger Kick power would be doing X[W] (where x is likely at least 3), you do not have that power. Instead, you would do a basic attack and to simulate three kicks instead of one, I would bump your damage up to d8 and let you use DEX (you are a rogue, after all, and this seems like a fairly agile move!) for your To-Hit and Damage rolls. So there you have it. 4e Three Tiger Kick as performed by a rogue.
There is also the "rebranding" version of this. "Spinning Blade Leap" lets you move and attack, which easily fits the narrative of jump kicking someone three times in the face! You use your power, we both agree that instead of "You leap into the air, leanding atop your foe. You stab down and leap off." that you "Leap into the air, delivering one, two kicks to your foe's face. As you leap away, you deliver a third and final kick straight to their chin."
There you have it. 2 different ways to pull a Three Tiger Kick in 4e.
pretre wrote: Except you've been saying that D&D 4th Ed doesn't allow rulings.
No, I haven't. What I have said is that 4E is a permissive rule set. It has rules for almost everything. The purpose of doing that was to foster clarity and balance. Objecting to rulings that diverge from rules is perfectly valid. In 4E, a player can say to the DM "no you are not allowed to do that."
pretre wrote: What if one of your Basic players objects to how you rule on something?
If I don't think it can be resolved fairly quickly, I would let her know that I will hear her out after the session is finished.
So, exactly like a 4th ed DM would handle it.
disagree because rulings are not the same as rules. Rulings are case-by-case whereas rules apply more universally. The issue is, someone playing 4E could object that a ruling is unnecessary and harmful in a case when a rule already covers it. That's a perfectly valid objection regarding 3E or 4E. It cannot be a valid objection in Basic because Basic simply doesn't have a huge set of permissive rules covering tons and tons of situations and even the rules it does have (for example, the saving throws) require interpretation by the DM to be used in all but the most narrow circumstances.
Someone in basic could rule that something is unnecessary and harmful because there are no rules for it. So, where is the permission to go outside of the existing rules in Basic. Page and quote please.
pretre wrote: Except you've been saying that D&D 4th Ed doesn't allow rulings.
No, I haven't. What I have said is that 4E is a permissive rule set. It has rules for almost everything. The purpose of doing that was to foster clarity and balance. Objecting to rulings that diverge from rules is perfectly valid. In 4E, a player can say to the DM "no you are not allowed to do that."
And they would be wrong. I have already quoted you where they are explicitly allowed to do that and anything else to interpret the rules and make rulings. Why are you ignoring that?
pretre wrote: So, exactly like a 4th ed DM would handle it.
Sorry do you think we having an argument on this point? I think the proper argument we have is whether the player can say that the DM is not allowed to do something. I absolutely think the player can object. If the DM 'cheats' or otherwise disregards the rules in 4E, then the "beautiful tactical combat" is gone. If the reason someone plays 4E is for the "beautiful tactical combat" then it makes sense that they would assume no 'cheating' is allowed. See Buzzsaw's strong objection to the how my DM played the goblin in 5E.
pretre wrote: So, where is the permission to go outside of the existing rules in Basic. Page and quote please.
The request is amusingly paradoxical considering Basic is not a permissive rule set.
Please explain why it is insulting, especially after I have explained that the metaphor is meant to show that 4E (a) is a permissive rule set that (b) aspires to clarity and balance.
First because as Petre has been showing you, it's not a permissive, it has exactly the same rules when it comes down to it as 3E and earlier, you've been trying to deny it despite him easily quoting you rules otherwise.
Second: It's a VERY common insult towards 4E by saying it's not DnD at all and more relatable to other things, wargames, chess, etc.
The request is amusingly paradoxical considering Basic is not a permissive rule set.
Then where's the ruling for 4E's permissive rule set?
streamdragon wrote: While the X level (insert class here) with the actual Three Tiger Kick power would be doing X[W] (where x is likely at least 3), you do not have that power. Instead, you would do a basic attack and to simulate three kicks instead of one, I would bump your damage up to d8 and let you use DEX (you are a rogue, after all, and this seems like a fairly agile move!) for your To-Hit and Damage rolls.
I think this is an awesome homebrew martial power. Is it At Will or Encounter? And don't I have to level to get new powers? What level power is this?
No, that's one rule. Just as a basic attack in any edition of D&D allows you to swing your sword.
streamdragon wrote: While the X level (insert class here) with the actual Three Tiger Kick power would be doing X[W] (where x is likely at least 3), you do not have that power. Instead, you would do a basic attack and to simulate three kicks instead of one, I would bump your damage up to d8 and let you use DEX (you are a rogue, after all, and this seems like a fairly agile move!) for your To-Hit and Damage rolls.
I think this is an awesome homebrew martial power. Is it At Will or Encounter? And don't I have to level to get new powers? What level power is this?
It's adjudicating an action not covered by the rules. See my earlier quote of the DMG. You keep ignoring that 4E specifically allows you to do this and it is not 'cheating' or 'homebrew' as you so eloquently put it. It is a ruling as provided for in the DMG.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: First because as Petre has been showing you, it's not a permissive
As you can see, I very much disagree with pretre. But even if I thought that you and pretre are correct about 4E not being a permissive rule set (+ "escape hatch"), I still don't think saying a game has a permissive rule set is an insult.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Second: It's a VERY common insult towards 4E by saying it's not DnD at all and more relatable to other things, wargames, chess, etc.
I do not say that 4E is "not D&D." I do say that 4E is more like a board game or a war game than other editions of D&D.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: First because as Petre has been showing you, it's not a permissive
As you can see, I very much disagree with pretre. But even if I thought that you and pretre are correct about 4E not being a permissive rule set (+ "escape hatch"), I still don't think saying a game has a permissive rule set is an insult.
It's not an insult but you have been saying that 4E has less freedom than basic. This is demonstrably false. 4E has all of the 'escape hatch' that Basic and previous editions has plus it provides rules for more actions. You have more freedom and more abilities than any previous edition.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Let's put it this way.
Basic - You can do anything (infinite options) plus the 50 things that are listed in the PHB. 4E - You can do anything (infinite options) plus 500 things that are listed in the PHB.
pretre wrote: Just as a basic attack in any edition of D&D allows you to swing your sword.
Again, that is not how I play Basic. Here's how I play basic: the player describes to the DM what she wants to attempt and the DM rules on how to test whether she succeeds and then narrates the consequence. The text on attacks is not a permission for the player but a guideline for the DM.
pretre wrote: You keep ignoring that 4E specifically allows you to do this and it is not 'cheating' or 'homebrew' as you so eloquently put it. It is a ruling as provided for in the DMG.
I don't ignore it. Indeed, I told you that's almost how I used to DM 4E myself. As with the press release thing, you keep wanting me to mean X when I don't. What I have said is that the great thing about 4E is the clarity and balance of its rule set and how I can understand why players (like Buzzsaw) might object to using rulings when there are rules. I think that is a valid objection.
pretre wrote: Because you are asserting that Basic is something. I am asking you to back that up.
You keep asking me to tell you where Basic gives me permission to play it the way that I do, the way that I have explained I think it is best played given the rules, and I keep telling you that Basic is not a game that grants permission about anything. At this point, I'm yelling through soundproof glass. I am not trying to "win the argument," I am just trying to clarify my point of view.
pretre wrote: you have been saying that 4E has less freedom than basic
I have contrasted a permissive rule set, which invokes limitations by definition, against a non-permissive rule set, which does not.
pretre wrote: Just as a basic attack in any edition of D&D allows you to swing your sword.
Again, that is not how I play Basic. Here's how I play basic: the player describes to the DM what she wants to attempt and the DM rules on how to test whether she succeeds and then narrates the consequence. The text on attacks is not a permission for the player but a guideline for the DM.
But that's not Basic. That's how you play Basic. Nothing in Basic says that is the way to play the game. So hence when you say '4E is permissive and Basic is not' you aren't based in fact. You could be playing any game system and just adjudicating each roll, it has nothing to do with how Basic is structured.
I am not trying to "win the argument," I am just trying to clarify my point of view.
And yet you keep trying to tell us what 4th is and what we really mean. Example, you're using Buzzsaw's earlier statements as proof of how 4th edition players don't allow rulings when that wasn't at all what he was saying.
pretre wrote: you have been saying that 4E has less freedom than basic
I have contrasted a permissive rule set, which invokes limitations by definition, against a non-permissive rule set, which does not.
Except this whole 'permissive rule set' thing is only in your mind. Show me where 4E is a permissive rule set. 4E allows you to do whatever you want and the DM adjudicates. Basic only has rules. Where is the adjudication mechanism or 'escape hatch' in basic. The reason you need rulings in Basic is because if you play Basic as written you can't do practically anything. So players had to create the idea of 'rulings' in order to make it work even though there is no basis in the book for rulings.
To be clear, I mean Basic as 'Old D&D'. Next Basic says the DM can do whatever.
streamdragon wrote: While the X level (insert class here) with the actual Three Tiger Kick power would be doing X[W] (where x is likely at least 3), you do not have that power. Instead, you would do a basic attack and to simulate three kicks instead of one, I would bump your damage up to d8 and let you use DEX (you are a rogue, after all, and this seems like a fairly agile move!) for your To-Hit and Damage rolls.
I think this is an awesome homebrew martial power. Is it At Will or Encounter? And don't I have to level to get new powers? What level power is this?
I could, and probably should, have phrased that as "As part of the attack you do X". I was merely trying to give a concise description of the power as presented, in case you weren't familiar with it. This is largely irrelevant, as it comes down to the same thing: rules for combat. All editions have them, you just apparently choose to ignore them in Basic in favor of descriptive gameplay. That doesn't change that the Basic PDF covers "I attack" as well as limitations and permissions for movement.
The power, as I said, is simply an arbitrated Basic Attack. An example of doing exactly what you described for other editions: Taking what the player said he wants to do and deciding on a ruling that allows them to do it.
I guess I could go through Holmes, Moldvay, Mentzer, and the Rules Cyclopedia to quote a bunch of "what is roleplaying?" language like you have with 4E. I know that's what you want me to do and what you think I have to do.
But I think that's irrelevant. The various instances of Basic D&D don't even contemplate a permissive RPG rule set. Just as a matter of history, this idea did not develop until the 2000s and does not seem to have been conscious (or at least very serious) design goal until the latter half of that decade. The paradigm of D&D has hugely shifted between 1974 and today. That shift is what makes this discussion possible. Trying to find the terms of this discussion, here in 2014, in publications from decades ago is foolish.
The structure or shape or whatever you want to call it of a rule system has implications for the way it is played. Just to give a simple example, a system that simulates something complex with very few rules naturally relies more on rulings while a system with very many rules has preemptively defined the space where rulings would otherwise happen.
streamdragon wrote: Taking what the player said he wants to do and deciding on a ruling that allows them to do it.
S do I have Three Tiger Kick as an At Will power from now on?
This game is unlike chess in that the rules are not cut and dried. In many places they are guidelines and suggested methods only. This is part of the attraction of ADVANCED DUNGEONS 8 DRAGONS, and it is integral to the game. Rules not understood should have appropriate questions directed to the publisher; disputes with the Dungeon Master are another matter entirely. THE REFEREE IS THE FINAL ARBITER OF ALL AFFAIRS OF HIS OR HER CAMPAIGN. Participants in a campaign have no recourse to the publisher, but they do have ultimate recourse - since the most effective protest is withdrawal from the offending campaign.
First edition D&D. So just like 4th ed, you are allowed to go outside the rules if necessary but the DM adjudicates those rulings.
streamdragon wrote: Taking what the player said he wants to do and deciding on a ruling that allows them to do it.
S do I have Three Tiger Kick as an At Will power from now on?
That makes sense. The DM provided a ruling. You were allowed to do it. Just as your fighter in your basic game is allowed to sneak up on guards and cut their throats whenever he wants.
pretre wrote: The reason you need rulings in Basic is because if you play Basic as written you can't do practically anything.
Yes, if you play Basic in the same way that you would play rule sets published decades later then Basic will seem awful. This exact thing happened to me. Then someone pointed out to me that Basic was not intended to be played like rule sets published decades later. It's just a simple thing, and I guess I was dumb for not realizing it, but the realization was a real enlightenment moment for me.
Manchu wrote: But I think that's irrelevant. The various instances of Basic D&D don't even contemplate a permissive RPG rule set. Just as a matter of history, this idea did not develop until the 2000s and does not seem to have been conscious (or at least very serious) design goal until the latter half of that decade. The paradigm of D&D has hugely shifted between 1974 and today. That shift is what makes this discussion possible. Trying to find the terms of this discussion, here in 2014, in publications from decades ago is foolish.
Show me in 4th ed where you are only allowed to do the things in the book. (Permissive rule set). It doesn't exist. In fact, the book says that you can do whatever you want.
streamdragon wrote: Taking what the player said he wants to do and deciding on a ruling that allows them to do it.
S do I have Three Tiger Kick as an At Will power from now on?
That makes sense. The DM provided a ruling. You were allowed to do it. Just as your fighter in your basic game is allowed to sneak up on guards and cut their throats whenever he wants.
But the Fighter from my example of Basic is not allowed to do that whenever he wants. He is allowed to attempt it whenever he wants but how the DM rules on how to test it can change. This is different from 4E. If I have a power, I can use it (all other permissions being equal).
streamdragon wrote: Taking what the player said he wants to do and deciding on a ruling that allows them to do it.
S do I have Three Tiger Kick as an At Will power from now on?
That makes sense. The DM provided a ruling. You were allowed to do it. Just as your fighter in your basic game is allowed to sneak up on guards and cut their throats whenever he wants.
But the Fighter from my example of Basic is not allowed to do that whenever he wants. He is allowed to attempt it whenever he wants but how the DM rules on how to test it can change. This is different from 4E. If I have a power, I can use it (all other permissions being equal).
So Basic is a Permissive Rule Set: You only have permission to do what the DM allows you to do. Just like 4th ed or any other game with a DM.
pretre wrote: Show me in 4th ed where you are only allowed to do the things in the book.
Here's my last attempt to tell you this: The thing that you want me to say is not the same thing as what I am saying. If I don't reply to your posts ITT from now on, it is because you have not yet figured this out.
pretre wrote: Show me in 4th ed where you are only allowed to do the things in the book.
Here's my last attempt to tell you this: The thing that you want me to say is not the same thing as what I am saying. If I don't reply to your posts ITT from now on, it is because you have not yet figured this out.
You've said that Basic is not a Permissive Ruleset and 4th is. And yet you can provide no proof of either statement. If that's not what you're saying, what are you saying? Because at least I (and I'm thinking others in the thread) are completely confused by what you're saying since you apparently are intending to say something that the words you are typing are not portraying.
Manchu wrote: The structure or shape or whatever you want to call it of a rule system has implications for the way it is played. Just to give a simple example, a system that simulates something complex with very few rules naturally relies more on rulings while a system with very many rules has preemptively defined the space where rulings would otherwise happen.
pretre wrote: The reason you need rulings in Basic is because if you play Basic as written you can't do practically anything.
Yes, if you play Basic in the same way that you would play rule sets published decades later then Basic will seem awful. This exact thing happened to me. Then someone pointed out to me that Basic was not intended to be played like rule sets published decades later. It's just a simple thing, and I guess I was dumb for not realizing it, but the realization was a real enlightenment moment for me.
Manchu wrote: The structure or shape or whatever you want to call it of a rule system has implications for the way it is played. Just to give a simple example, a system that simulates something complex with very few rules naturally relies more on rulings while a system with very many rules has preemptively defined the space where rulings would otherwise happen.
Just because a game relies more on rulings does not mean that a player can do more. A game with more rules and the ability to make rulings can do just as much; it just happens to have more thing defined that don't need rulings.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The long and short of it, however, is that you are stuck on the idea of Permissive Ruleset which doesn't seem to exist in any form in a D&D book. Don't believe me? Click on your name and check your previous posts. Count the number of times you refer to 4th as a permissive ruleset with no proof and contrast Basic as non-permissive.
As well, you continue to explain how things are more free in Basic by providing examples of Gameplay which we show you can easily be done in 4th (or any edition of D&D) because they all allow you the same freedom to make rulings (and in fact tell you that that is the DM's job).
If you're not trying to make the point that 4E is Permissive and Basic is not and that Basic has more freedom than 4E than I have no idea what you are trying to do because your posts have all been aimed in that direction.
streamdragon wrote: Taking what the player said he wants to do and deciding on a ruling that allows them to do it.
S do I have Three Tiger Kick as an At Will power from now on?
That makes sense. The DM provided a ruling. You were allowed to do it. Just as your fighter in your basic game is allowed to sneak up on guards and cut their throats whenever he wants.
But the Fighter from my example of Basic is not allowed to do that whenever he wants. He is allowed to attempt it whenever he wants but how the DM rules on how to test it can change. This is different from 4E. If I have a power, I can use it (all other permissions being equal).
How did I describe your "Three Tiger Kick"?
As an arbitrated basic attack.
Do you still have the ability to make a basic attack?
I am honestly not sure what point you are trying to make. I/we (as in the player who wanted to kick someone in the face and myself) did not create a new power. There is no card, no new power, nothing to pencil down. It was an arbitrated attack, no different than your 5e Cleric who went into the detailed description of their monk-ish background. I know you can understand this, so I am fairly confused on what exactly you are trying to prove or make me realize. The rogue wanting to Three Tiger Kick someone in the face would ask to do it again, I would probably allow. They could use their use of Three Tiger Kick to justify taking a Multi-Class(Monk) feat if they so desired. They could use it to justify retraining their character theme from _______ to "Monk Disciple" (I have no idea if that is a thing).
Put simply: There is no difference between the ruling made in your 5e version that allowed a Cleric to Three Tiger Kick and my 4e ruling to allow the Rogue to Three Tiger Kick. None. I get the feeling you are trying to point out some sort of innate difference between the two situations, there isn't. Both were rulings (to use your word) made by a GM to allow a character to Three Tiger Kick someone in the face.
Your attempt to differentiate between the attack and the stealth ruling is also baffling. A skill roll, or essentially stat roll without skill training, is no different than an attack roll. Roll die, add bonus, attempt to make target number. How is it any different if it's "Roll stealth" or "Roll Dexterity (Stealth)"? It isn't. It's the same thing, used the same way, with the same options. You seem to have created some difference in your head that a ruling in one edition is somehow permanent, whereas a ruling in another edition is malleable; there is no difference. Both are as malleable as the GM making the ruling.
streamdragon wrote: You seem to have created some difference in your head that a ruling in one edition is somehow permanent, whereas a ruling in another edition is malleable; there is no difference. Both are as malleable as the GM making the ruling.
A-men!
Now I have to argue vicariously through streamdragon. Can I PM you stuff to post in the thread so Manchu will respond to me again? I'd sock-puppet it but don't want to get baned.
Manchu wrote: The structure or shape or whatever you want to call it of a rule system has implications for the way it is played. Just to give a simple example, a system that simulates something complex with very few rules naturally relies more on rulings while a system with very many rules has preemptively defined the space where rulings would otherwise happen.
Just because a game relies more on rulings does not mean that a player can do more. A game with more rules and the ability to make rulings can do just as much; it just happens to have more thing defined that don't need rulings.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The long and short of it, however, is that you are stuck on the idea of Permissive Ruleset which doesn't seem to exist in any form in a D&D book. Don't believe me? Click on your name and check your previous posts. Count the number of times you refer to 4th as a permissive ruleset with no proof and contrast Basic as non-permissive.
As well, you continue to explain how things are more free in Basic by providing examples of Gameplay which we show you can easily be done in 4th (or any edition of D&D) because they all allow you the same freedom to make rulings (and in fact tell you that that is the DM's job).
If you're not trying to make the point that 4E is Permissive and Basic is not and that Basic has more freedom than 4E than I have no idea what you are trying to do because your posts have all been aimed in that direction.
I really have to agree with this, unless there's some arbitrary rule that says something, it pretty much is user defined in your own mind Manchu, which is not a legal, enforceable rule at the table.
I personally would say that, at least in DnD, and especially in a version that is as apparently rules heavy as 4E is/was, it is a "permissive ruleset" from the point of view that, if your character sheet specifically details an ability to do something, so long as the prerequisites are met, you have "permission" to do that thing/ability.
If you want to do something above and beyond what's on that sheet, you need DM permission.
Biggest one that comes to my mind was an encounter in a cave/tunnel system. Our party was effectively blocked, so our rogue says (half jokingly) that she was going to matrix/ninja run along the wall, do a side flip, and land directly behind the bad guy, giving my character (and hers) combat advantage.
She didn't count on our DM sayin, "OK, roll a Dex check to see if you do all that, on a DC 25 (honestly don't remember what he established the DC at, but it really didnt matter, because she rolled a 1, which put her prone, right infront of a second baddie)"
In my own example, the character wants to do something that is not specifically outlined on their character sheet (as in an At-will, Encounter, or Daily power, or other ability listed somewhere on the sheet), but the DM felt that the action would not break the game/encounter or whatever. Now, if a group of people were playing something like "Ghostbusters, the RPG" and wanted to "cross the streams" then the DM may have to rule against that, or place such a severe penalty/difficulty in order to dissuade the PCs from doing that action.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: If you want to do something above and beyond what's on that sheet, you need DM permission.
Yep! The whole point of having a DM is to allow this. Something that doesn't have a DM only allows you to do the things in the rules (like say 40k or chess) whereas anything with a DM allows you to do anything in the rules AND anything the DM allows (like say any version of D&D).
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I personally would say that, at least in DnD, and especially in a version that is as apparently rules heavy as 4E is/was, it is a "permissive ruleset" from the point of view that, if your character sheet specifically details an ability to do something, so long as the prerequisites are met, you have "permission" to do that thing/ability.
If you want to do something above and beyond what's on that sheet, you need DM permission.
I don't understand this distinction, because it is equally true of ALL editions. In Basic, 2e, AD&D or 3.pf if my character has an ability, I have permission to use that ability. If I'm a wizard and have memorized Charm Person, I have permission to cast Charm Person. If I have not memorized it, I do not have permission. I would have serious issues with a GM who said "No, you can't cast Charm Person even though you have it memorized, because I said so and for no other reason!" This is no different than 4e powers, save that all classes get powers. If I am playing a fighter with the ability to Sunder (technically all characters have the ability I guess), I have permission to attempt to sunder things. This doesn't change. In Basic, 2e or AD&D, even if the actual system doesn't exist the way it does in 3.pf/4e, I still have the ability to attack an object.
Anything I don't explicitly have permission to try is covered by GM Ruling, and this too is no different in any edition from one to the next. Let's take a different example:
Lifting a gate. AD&D has this covered under Strength explicitly as a percentage chance of success. I have Permission to attempt to lift every single gate I come across, maybe bend a few bars. This is not a stat in 3.pf/4e/5e; nowhere on my character sheet does it detail my chance to Bend Bars/Lift Gates. I do not have explicit permission. It is, however, listed as an example use of Strength in all three of those editions with some editions even going so far as to suggest DCs/Target Numbers for you. In all examples of lifting gates, the GM has final ruling. In AD&D as a DM I might decide that the gate is particularly heavy, or perhaps old and especially stuck, and so impose a penalty to your percentage. In later editions using DCs, I may take the sample DC of a heavy iron portcullis and give it +2 for being old and rusted.
Neither edition is any more or less locked into specific numbers, or free of GM ruling than the other.
I don't understand this distinction, because it is equally true of ALL editions. In Basic, 2e, AD&D or 3.pf if my character has an ability, I have permission to use that ability.
This basically was my distinction I guess what I was trying to say is that, at least in 4E, a lot more specific instances are covered in the BRBs (PHB, DMG, etc) than possibly were in previous editions (I honestly don't know, I've only read through the 4E stuff)
I'm just going to use 4E as an example because that is the edition we have been talking about. I am not saying the following is exclusive to 4E. At the very least, this is also true of 3E.
4E gives the player permission to do things via the mechanic of the (N)PC/monster and their various kinds of "actions." An "action" is a formal, abstract mechanic; that is, it primarily exists as a feature of playing the game. It is not necessarily tied to anything that gameplay simulates, if indeed the gameplay simulates anything. In many games (for example, chess) this is known as a "move." What you get to do with your "move" is defined by other permissions: the rook can do this, the pawn can do that. Similarly, 4E permits the player to use the PC's actions in certain ways. This is the fundamental premise of 4E. Absent superseding permissions, each player gets to do what they are allowed to do under the rules as a matter of right. It is therefore possible to cheat in 4E.
This is not the fundamental premise of Basic D&D To be clear, I am talking about the game published in 1977 and the games following from it, not 5E. I believe this also applies to AD&D; Alpharius can clarify here. Basic actually works the other way around from 4E. Instead of starting with formal, abstract mechanics, Basic game play begins with narrative description. (In chess terms, it's like a player saying "my queen tries to make three loops around your pawn.") Then a referee, the DM, figures out how to simulate this narrative with mechanics, which is called a ruling. The DM has some mechanics from book to use as guidelines. There are not really any "moves" (as described above) to speak of, at least not in the sense of having a predetermined menu of permitted "actions" available. The closest you can get to cheating in something like this is meta-gaming, the in-game use of out-of-game knowledge.
As I hope you can see the big difference here is between when the mechanics show up. In 4E, the mechanics are laid out before hand and playing the game is a matter of executing them. In Basic, it becomes clear that the mechanics you start with are not sufficient to cover everything that happens so the mechanics that actually get used are generated during the game play as rulings.
Now, despite claims to the contrary, I have posted ITT that rulings are possible in 4E. I have even explained that I used them myself when I ran 4E. But I do understand why players would object to rulings in 4E. Rulings are not a part of the fundamental premise of the game. They do not really contribute to the "beautiful tactical combat" that is 4E's major accomplishment. The ability to use rulings in 4E can validly be seen as an "escape hatch" to cover the relatively small space (at least concerning combat) not aleady covered by the rules.
Wow this discussion is hard to follow. Like I can't tell what half the people are talking about if they are talking about anything.
The idea of a permissive rule set is kind of a neat one. D&D next did have a ideal that they wanted to try. The idea was to have players do more things then was was on their character sheet. It was often the case in past D&D games that you would look to your character sheet to figure out what to do or what you could do. If it wasn't on your sheet, you didn't do it even though you actually could do it. D&D next tried to brake out of this with ieas like bound accuracy and using attribute rolls over other kinds of rolls.
Manchu wrote: Instead of starting with formal, abstract mechanics, Basic game play begins with narrative description.
This is false. Basic starts with actions. (Actions, page 27 under combat. There are 5 actions provided for, including Morale checks, movement, missile fire, magic spells, melee). The beginning of the Basic book allows you to make rulings outside of those just as any edition of D&D does.
The closest you can get to cheating in something like this is meta-gaming, the in-game use of out-of-game knowledge.
Also false. You can misrepresent your current status (HP cheating or stat cheating), you can cheat roll, you can use items you don't have, you can even use powers you don't have (i.e. spells that you didn't memorize), etc so on. The same as you can in 4th ed. In fact, I can't think of a way to cheat in 4th that you couldn't in Basic.
As I hope you can see the big difference here is between when the mechanics show up. In 4E, the mechanics are laid out before hand and playing the game is a matter of executing them. In Basic, it becomes clear that the mechanics you start with are not sufficient to cover everything that happens so the mechanics that actually get used are generated during the game play as rulings.
The mechanics of 4th are not sufficient either. That's why the book specifically tells you that and tells you how to work around the points that are insufficient.
Basically, our disagreement is one of degree and not kind. Basic is the same as 4th just with less rules. They work the same: I.e. you use the rules when they apply and rule when they don't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nomotog wrote: It was often the case in past D&D games that you would look to your character sheet to figure out what to do or what you could do. If it wasn't on your sheet, you didn't do it even though you actually could do it.
Which is weird since now that I've looked back at Basic and AD&D, I am positive that every edition of D&D (Basic through 5th, including 4th) has specifically allowed you to do things not on your character sheet with DM permission. That is, in fact, a core part of EVERY edition of D&D.
That's true, nomotog. In that sense, 5E was taking a cue from older editions where you did not have a predetermined menu of permitted options (whether or not you also could do other stuff).
Manchu wrote: That's true, nomotog. In that sense, 5E was taking a cue from older editions where you did not have a predetermined menu of permitted options (whether or not you also could do other stuff).
Except even Basic did have a predetermined menu of permitted options... That, again, just like the ability to do anything, is the core of D&D. (Page 27 basic rulebook for predetermined menu of options. It's even bulleted.)
AD&D was actually much more loosy-goosy and would be a better example.
nomotog wrote: It was often the case in past D&D games that you would look to your character sheet to figure out what to do or what you could do. If it wasn't on your sheet, you didn't do it even though you actually could do it.
Which is weird since now that I've looked back at Basic and AD&D, I am positive that every edition of D&D (Basic through 5th, including 4th) has specifically allowed you to do things not on your character sheet with DM permission. That is, in fact, a core part of EVERY edition of D&D.
I can't speak for editions before 3ed. The thing was that you always could do things outside your sheet. Even without explicit permission. You just didn't do it because you knew if you moved outside the framework of the game it wouldn't work out for you. Try to use a skill that doesn't exist (or isn't on your sheet.), and your all of a sudden your making a check at a horrible disadvantage.
nomotog wrote: It was often the case in past D&D games that you would look to your character sheet to figure out what to do or what you could do. If it wasn't on your sheet, you didn't do it even though you actually could do it.
Which is weird since now that I've looked back at Basic and AD&D, I am positive that every edition of D&D (Basic through 5th, including 4th) has specifically allowed you to do things not on your character sheet with DM permission. That is, in fact, a core part of EVERY edition of D&D.
I can't speak for editions before 3ed. The thing was that you always could do things outside your sheet. Even without explicit permission. You just didn't do it because you knew if you moved outside the framework of the game it wouldn't work out for you. Try to use a skill that doesn't exist (or isn't on your sheet.), and your all of a sudden your making a check at a horrible disadvantage.
If you ask to do something reasonable, you should get a reasonable chance to succeed. If you try to do something unreasonable, you should have little chance to succeed. That again, is every edition.
nomotog wrote: It was often the case in past D&D games that you would look to your character sheet to figure out what to do or what you could do. If it wasn't on your sheet, you didn't do it even though you actually could do it.
Which is weird since now that I've looked back at Basic and AD&D, I am positive that every edition of D&D (Basic through 5th, including 4th) has specifically allowed you to do things not on your character sheet with DM permission. That is, in fact, a core part of EVERY edition of D&D.
I can't speak for editions before 3ed. The thing was that you always could do things outside your sheet. Even without explicit permission. You just didn't do it because you knew if you moved outside the framework of the game it wouldn't work out for you. Try to use a skill that doesn't exist (or isn't on your sheet.), and your all of a sudden your making a check at a horrible disadvantage.
If you ask to do something reasonable, you should get a reasonable chance to succeed. If you try to do something unreasonable, you should have little chance to succeed. That again, is every edition.
Well no. That is more of a DM trait. D&D doesn't 't really do a reasonable or not reasonable thing. It's more difficulty Vs ability.
nomotog wrote: Well no. That is more of a DM trait. D&D doesn't 't really do a reasonable or not reasonable thing. It's more difficulty Vs ability.
Yes, anything that requires DM approval will be dependent on DM. Even difficulty vs ability is wholly within the DM's realm to determine. Many editions provide guidelines for that level of difficulty (4th included) but ultimately it has always been up to the DM.
nomotog wrote: Well no. That is more of a DM trait. D&D doesn't 't really do a reasonable or not reasonable thing. It's more difficulty Vs ability.
Yes, anything that requires DM approval will be dependent on DM. Even difficulty vs ability is wholly within the DM's realm to determine. Many editions provide guidelines for that level of difficulty (4th included) but ultimately it has always been up to the DM.
Well no again. Ability has been more or less inside the players domain. They are the ones who pick their feats and abilities. The player is the one who says their fighter has 18 str. The DM really gets little input into that. Normally*. Difficulty is more or less the domain of the DM though. You get some guidelines, but it's up to the DM to pick. (Edit: actually Dc aren't always inside of the DMs domain. 3ed had the skill DCs inside the players handbook after all.) Also the issue of DM approval is another contributing factor to the 4 corners problem. If it's explicitly on your sheet you don't need approval. Normally*. If it's not on your sheet, it's much more vague.
nomotog wrote: Well no again. Ability has been more or less inside the players domain. They are the ones who pick their feats and abilities. The player is the one who says their fighter has 18 str. The DM really gets little input into that. Normally*. Difficulty is more or less the domain of the DM though. You get some guidelines, but it's up to the DM to pick. Also the issue of DM approval is another contributing factor to the 4 corners problem. If it's explicitly on your sheet you don't need approval. Normally*. If it's not on your sheet, it's much more vague.
Well, I said 'difficulty VS ability' but fair enough. I definitely see your point.
Ahtman wrote: I can't wait to see what happens when the actual PHB comes out if just the Basic pdf creates all this discussion.
That's a really good point. We know that the PHB will contain more options but if it is more of the kind of options that are previewed in the Basic PDF then I don't think there will be any implication on the current versatility of 5E, i.e., that it can be played as a permissive rule set, a non-permissive rule set, or something in between. The real question is, what will feats be like?
Now that we've talked about it, I don't think that there is a 'Permissive Ruleset' version of D&D*.
* Under the assumption that a permissive ruleset is a ruleset where you can only do things that you have been given specific permission to do by the rulebook(like Chess or 40k).
nomotog wrote: Wow this discussion is hard to follow. Like I can't tell what half the people are talking about if they are talking about anything.
The idea of a permissive rule set is kind of a neat one. D&D next did have a ideal that they wanted to try. The idea was to have players do more things then was was on their character sheet. It was often the case in past D&D games that you would look to your character sheet to figure out what to do or what you could do. If it wasn't on your sheet, you didn't do it even though you actually could do it. D&D next tried to brake out of this with ieas like bound accuracy and using attribute rolls over other kinds of rolls.
I don't think this is true at all... Certainly, the players in the party would each look to their player sheets to determine what PC would be best suited to a task presented to them, but I don't think they were looking for what "could" be done.
For instance, the party comes across a locked door.... the Fighter in the party thinks that she's strong enough to break down the door (so that player checks her strength modifier), the Rogue chimes in that the door is locked, and they think they can pick the lock, thereby not alerting any potential enemies on the other side of the door (so he is looking for his Dex modifier), the Cleric believes that his deity will deem him a worthy candidate, and use divine intervention to open the door for the party (so checks their Cha, or Wis... I dunno). None of these characters have a specific ability that says "open door this way", rather the party sees a situation (a closed/locked door), and is deciding how to move beyond the situation.
pretre wrote: Yep, and any of those characters can give it a shot even if there is no set rule for it.
Agreed, if the party felt so inclined, they could have the Wizard try and bash the door open (in which the DM would probably have them do a STR check.... which could be interesting )
nomotog wrote: Wow this discussion is hard to follow. Like I can't tell what half the people are talking about if they are talking about anything.
The idea of a permissive rule set is kind of a neat one. D&D next did have a ideal that they wanted to try. The idea was to have players do more things then was was on their character sheet. It was often the case in past D&D games that you would look to your character sheet to figure out what to do or what you could do. If it wasn't on your sheet, you didn't do it even though you actually could do it. D&D next tried to brake out of this with ieas like bound accuracy and using attribute rolls over other kinds of rolls.
I don't think this is true at all... Certainly, the players in the party would each look to their player sheets to determine what PC would be best suited to a task presented to them, but I don't think they were looking for what "could" be done.
For instance, the party comes across a locked door.... the Fighter in the party thinks that she's strong enough to break down the door (so that player checks her strength modifier), the Rogue chimes in that the door is locked, and they think they can pick the lock, thereby not alerting any potential enemies on the other side of the door (so he is looking for his Dex modifier), the Cleric believes that his deity will deem him a worthy candidate, and use divine intervention to open the door for the party (so checks their Cha, or Wis... I dunno). None of these characters have a specific ability that says "open door this way", rather the party sees a situation (a closed/locked door), and is deciding how to move beyond the situation.
The rouge would be looking at their pick-lock skill not their dex ability. The big part comes in in that in 3ed that pick-lock skill could be several points higher then a simple dex check.
nomotog wrote: The rouge would be looking at their pick-lock skill not their dex ability. The big part comes in in that in 3ed that pick-lock skill could be several points higher then a simple dex check.
In 3E, certain skills could only be used if you had ranks in it; for example, Open Lock. If you come to a locked door or chest, you need to refer to your character sheet about what can happen next. I don't have 4E books in front of me and I cannot recall if any PC could make a Thievery check (I know 4E, broadly speaking, had a training requirement to even attempt certain skills).
In HackMaster, you could attempt certain skills untrained, but if you critical fumbled, you were never allowed to train in it, and had to mark that on your character sheet.
Manchu wrote: In 3E, certain skills could only be used if you had ranks in it; for example, Open Lock. If you come to a locked door or chest, you need to refer to your character sheet about what can happen next. I don't have 4E books in front of me and I cannot recall if any PC could make a Thievery check (I know 4E, broadly speaking, had a training requirement to even attempt certain skills).
"You have picked up thieving abilities and can perform
tasks that require nerves of steel and a steady hand:
disabling traps, opening locks, picking pockets, and
sleight of hand.
The DM might decide that some uses of this skill
are so specialized that you are required to be trained
in it to have a chance of succeeding."
So 4th was less restrictive than 3rd when it came to picking locks, picking pockets, etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kronk wrote: In HackMaster, you could attempt certain skills untrained, but if you critical fumbled, you were never allowed to train in it, and had to mark that on your character sheet.
pretre wrote: Yep, and any of those characters can give it a shot even if there is no set rule for it.
Agreed, if the party felt so inclined, they could have the Wizard try and bash the door open (in which the DM would probably have them do a STR check.... which could be interesting )
pretre wrote: Yep, and any of those characters can give it a shot even if there is no set rule for it.
Agreed, if the party felt so inclined, they could have the Wizard try and bash the door open (in which the DM would probably have them do a STR check.... which could be interesting )
pretre wrote: Yep, and any of those characters can give it a shot even if there is no set rule for it.
Agreed, if the party felt so inclined, they could have the Wizard try and bash the door open (in which the DM would probably have them do a STR check.... which could be interesting )
You must be unfamiliar with the Muscle Wizard.
Or the spell Knock and the ability to obscure casting.
"Watch while I force open the door that the puny Fighter was unable to open!"
Manchu wrote: Nomotog, you are correct. In 3E, max ranks in a skill is Level + 4. A skill check is d20 + relevant ability modifier + skill ranks.
That is just with skills. You couldn't just go by that though because of feats and classes, magic items, ect ect could all bump your skill checks even more.
nomotog wrote: I know there is a webpage about what I am talking about. Let me see if I can find it.
And maybe that’s really the takeaway here. The rules are not the sum total of the game. The game is larger than that. Breaking the rules, circumventing the rules, or ignoring the rules does not take you out of the game. The game encompasses that type of play. It’s built upon it, in fact. So why shouldn’t the design of the game also be bigger than the rules? Why shouldn’t those kind of assumptions be taken into account? It puts the responsibility back in the hands of the players, rather than the DM or the designer. Success or failure lies within their own hands again.
Monte Cook wrote:In the early days, the game’s mechanics rarely provided solutions to the problems the characters faced. Players stretched beyond the bounds of the rules and looked for solutions not covered in the books. Player ingenuity was always the key to winning encounters. And very often, the DM didn’t actually have a set solution in mind ahead of time. He expected the PCs to come up with something on their own.
This isn’t true of more recent expressions of the game. There are few encounters that can’t be won simply by using the PCs’ straightforward powers and abilities.
What he doesn't cover is why there is a difference.
Manchu wrote: Nomotog, you are correct. In 3E, max ranks in a skill is Level + 4. A skill check is d20 + relevant ability modifier + skill ranks.
That is just with skills. You couldn't just go by that though because of feats and classes, magic items, ect ect could all bump your skill checks even more.
I was only responding to this:
nomotog wrote: The rouge would be looking at their pick-lock skill not their dex ability. The big part comes in in that in 3ed that pick-lock skill could be several points higher then a simple dex check.
So I certainly did not mean that your skill roll could not be modified by any other means. (If nothing else, there was always the +/-2 "circumstances" rule of thumb.) The point is that 3E (and 4E) had a list of skills you could try (or could not even try) regardless of your ability scores, which contributed to the play style of looking to the character sheet to determine what you could do. The idea of "optimization," which applies to gameplay as much as character building, was also an issue here.
Same here, even despite us having the reverse experience in terms of when we played which edition. As I mentioned above, system matters:
Manchu wrote: The structure or shape or whatever you want to call it of a rule system has implications for the way it is played. Just to give a simple example, a system that simulates something complex with very few rules naturally relies more on rulings while a system with very many rules has preemptively defined the space where rulings would otherwise happen.
Monte Cook wrote:In the early days, the game’s mechanics rarely provided solutions to the problems the characters faced. Players stretched beyond the bounds of the rules and looked for solutions not covered in the books. Player ingenuity was always the key to winning encounters. And very often, the DM didn’t actually have a set solution in mind ahead of time. He expected the PCs to come up with something on their own.
This isn’t true of more recent expressions of the game. There are few encounters that can’t be won simply by using the PCs’ straightforward powers and abilities.
What he doesn't cover is why there is a difference.
Ahhh Monte Cook, the guy who helped overpowered Wizards, That he prefers loose rules and Simulationist writing is rather odd considering his other views.
I'm just going to straight disagree considering he believes the classes that are forced to use "Imagination" as a crutch aren't worth even playing ingame, his Ivory Tower thought of game design is rather abhorrant.
Monte Cook was the lead designer on D&D Next/Fifth Edition until he resigned in April 2012, citing "differences of opinion with the company." He also emphasized "that [his] differences were not with my fellow designers, Rob Schwalb and Bruce Cordell." On the same day, Mike Mearls (the new lead designer) published a response, declaring his surprise at Cook's resignation, arguing that "[n]o one voice can rise above the others, unless it is the voice of D&D fans as a whole," and naming "the entire D&D Next team – Bruce Cordell, Rob Schwalb, Jeremy Crawford, Rodney Thompson, Miranda Horner, and Tom LaPille." Cook had only covered two of those names in his blog post.
Citing that I changed my opinion cannot prove that I am emotionally committed to that opinion.
When I first started reading the 5E PDF, it struck me as way too "interpretive" to be 4E-compatible. I posted that opinion ITT. Playing the game initially seemed to confirm my opinion. My friend's lament for the "beautiful tactical combat" of 4E also seemed to confirm my opinion. In trying to understand his reaction,* I started to analyze an instance of our gameplay from a perspective emphasizing the rules as written, beginning with the hypothesis that our DM had disregarded Opportunity Attacks. Reflecting further, with the rules in front of me, I found that our gameplay was very much in harmony with the tactical combat rules as written, which are all lifted from/inspired by elements of 3E and 4E.
I started to realize that my initial opinion could be based on me reading Basic into 5E. Indeed, I noticed that very few (almost no) 5E mechanics come from B/X, BECMI, or the Rules Cyclopedia. It was clear I needed others' perspectives. Specifically, I needed to see how people who would read different editions into 5E would interpret the gameplay. So I wrote a critical reflection of the game -- noting both the narrative surface and all the mechanics that at least could be running underneath. I left open the possibility that the DM was using the tactical combat rules or disregarding them because I genuinely did not know.
The DM got back to me, as I related here, that he was not consciously using the rules. In his own words, "I just made up what I wanted the goblin to do and he did it." I am fascinated that what he "just made up" was so closely in sync with the what the PDF outlines. Alpharius, who I asked as an AD&D afficianado, said it had an old school feel and intention. ZebioLizard2 and pretre seemed to think it sounded like run of the mill gameplay. One OSR booster on another site said it sounded "awfully crunchy" to him but was pleased to learn that nobody talked rules during play. Buzzsaw, skeptical before the release and convinced after that 5E was not 4E enough (and with whom I emphatically agreed at that time), told me the DM either misused the rules or cheated and then explained the proper way to play 5E.
Seeing this "rules, not rulings" approach applied point-by-point to 5E, a game I initially thought was more about "rulings, not rules," convinced me I had been wrong: here was the very proof that 5E was substantial enough to be played like 4E, namely as a miniatures skirmish game with (as Buzzsaw put it) a roleplaying "escape hatch" to cover whatever was not explicitly permitted/not permitted by the rules as written. While I am still not convinced that the game can be played simultaneously as an interpretive game and as a determinative game, I now see that it can at least be played either way. Whether that means it can replace any or all previous editions is completely personal.
I know admitting that you changed your mind after hearing out other people's opinions is considered running up the white flag on the internet. So be it. My initial opinion about 5E was wrong. I must admit, liking 5E more as a result -- especially after being so skeptical about it (from the opposite perspective of Buzzsaw and ZebioLizard2) for so long -- takes the sting out of it.
* This friend told me in June he would not buy any 5E products because he spent so much on 4E. After our first session, he enthusiastically exclaimed that he hated to do it but he wanted to get the 5E core books. The next day, he posted on facebook that 5E was "inferior" and the "beautiful tactical combat" of 4E was gone. So that's what I was trying to understand by reflecting on our gameplay and seeking others' opinions, specifically people who seem to prefer 4E.
nomotog wrote: When did people get the idea that 5ed would appeal to 4ed players? I mean I guess it can appeal to some in the same way people can like cats and the color red, but it was very clear from the very start of 5ed that 4ed was going to be treated as a mistake.
IIRC, the marketing line was 5E was supposed to bring in fans of every edition. When I originally heard this, I was severely skeptical. But seeing a bunch of people who prefer a bunch of different versions get around a table and have fun with it has really challenged that skepticism. Of course, I also see people here and elsewhere who want to stick to what they are already doing.
It's important to point out that you rather completely avoided answering the only question I asked: what is the bone thrown to the 4e player in the basic rules?
The reason I ask is not to play a game of gotcha, but first as a means of helping you to understand that the reasoning of your evaluation is compromised by your emotional involvement. You say you've changed your mind, but you really haven't: you started off at "5E is my favorite version of D&D" and "4E... is a wonderful skirmish game, but it's not what I call a good RPG", and now... "Can 5E be played as a permissive skirmish miniatures/board game with or without room for rulings like 3E and 4E? Buzzsaw has helped me see that, yes, this is also possible."
Buzzsaw wrote: Since my point is that moving through an occupied square is very different form simple movement, which is what the rules cover, my point is the DM decided he wanted to do something and simply did it.
First, yes the DM decided what he wanted to do and did it. Second, what he did was completely in line with the rules.
Third, there are no such things as "occupied squares" in our game. We aren't playing super chess so there are no squares at all. Our characters are not pawns on a board. They are people experiencing a story in a setting. That experience arises from known quantities (mechanics) smashing into unknown ones (randomness). That's pretty standard for table top games but what makes our game different is the setting is too complex to be perfectly described in every aspect at every level of granularity by a predetermined rule set. And even if it was that simple (some people might reasonably judge it so), we prefer that the setting entail a certain bias toward what we find interesting and fun. So we have rules, yes, but they are best understood as guidelines from which we can reason, via ruling, about specific instances of anything.
So what happened in our game is:
A cornered goblin in mortal fear took the only escape route available -- through the enemy. Its enemies tried to stop it but it was too slippery and quick.
What I find so cool about 5E is that during play we talked about what was going on like that. Provoking OAs, the Disengage action, Combat Tests as Reactions ... all those mechanics were active. The motor was running silently under the hood. If anybody at the table had wanted to, and I say this as something of a RPG "gearhead," they could have popped the hood and seen all the parts whirling right along. But nobody did because we were into the scene, the setting, the action.
At this point (two days ago?), your point is that is that what the DM "did was completely in line with the rules." This demonstrated "What I find so cool about 5E" and how " The motor was running silently under the hood".
Allow me make a momentary aside: as a technical matter, I did not show that 5e can handle 4e style combat, I simply showed that the people in Manchu's example were using what rules they had wrong. As to the rules and their tactical quality, I am quite dismissive. End of aside.
Notice, at first you are "fascinated that what he "just made up" was so closely in sync with the what the PDF outlines", and so your example shows how 5e can provide "Tactical play".
Ah, but then "Buzzsaw..., told me the DM either misused the rules or cheated and then explained the proper way to play 5E," and that "convinced me I had been wrong: here was the very proof that 5E was substantial enough to be played like 4E"!
I would point out that you've now accepted my previously disclaimed rules interpretation without so much as a "okay, you were right on that", but here I am magnanimous, for I understand that you are a man in love.
Love, you say? Indeed. As I point out above, you have constructed a framework in your mind where any possible outcome from your example supports your point, and what is that but a man besotted? It calls to mind nothing so much as a girl receiving flowers from her lover...
Girl: "Oh, you brought me lilies, your care and thoughtfulness in finding my favorite flower shows how much you love me!" Lover: "Uh.... actually, they were just the flowers near the register." Girl: "Oh... But don't you see? You knew what I would want without even thinking about it, we're in synch you love me so much!" Lover: "... yes."
So it is with Manchu's example. What the DM "did was completely in line with the rules", which shows how tactical 5e can be. What's that? Oh, the DM got it completely wrong and ignored several rules? That "is nicely proving that 5E can handle 4E-style combat"!
This is why I ask that you go outside of yourself: to find the bone thrown to the 4e fan in these basic rules. Put aside your own feelings: only a small portion of even the first round of rules are out, and already "5E is my favorite version of D&D". Look now with the eyes of one who is not so enamored. Show us...
Buzzsaw wrote: The signal to the people that hate vancian casting like poison and loathe having only simple martial classes. The gift to the people that though the warlord was aces and who prowled the CharOp boards looking for insights.
You say that "Buzzsaw has helped me see that," "5E [can] be played as a permissive skirmish miniatures/board game with or without room for rulings like 3E and 4E". For my part I do not see it; so put yourself in our frame of reference that we may feel your love.
Manchu wrote: Monte Cook was the lead designer on D&D Next/Fifth Edition until he resigned in April 2012, citing "differences of opinion with the company." He also emphasized "that [his] differences were not with my fellow designers, Rob Schwalb and Bruce Cordell." On the same day, Mike Mearls (the new lead designer) published a response, declaring his surprise at Cook's resignation, arguing that "[n]o one voice can rise above the others, unless it is the voice of D&D fans as a whole," and naming "the entire D&D Next team – Bruce Cordell, Rob Schwalb, Jeremy Crawford, Rodney Thompson, Miranda Horner, and Tom LaPille." Cook had only covered two of those names in his blog post.
It would make sense then, he repeatedly butted heads with Mike Mearls back in 3.5, but he had far more clout and so his thoughts pushed further into the game.
My opinion was that 5E could not be played like you play 4E. Now I think it can be. My opinion changed. I do not agree with you that my DM cheated or played the game wrong in the goblin example. This is because 5E can also be played in ways other than your style of playing 4E.
Buzzsaw wrote: for I understand that you are a man in love
Speaking of love and emotional commitments: 4E is "by far and away" your favorite edition and was "deeply satisfying" for you. It was "dramatically different" from previous editions so the idea that 5E would look back to them "left you cold." The nearing release date for 5E sapped your "cautious optimism." And on release day, "whatever slender hope" you maintained could "be well and truly buried." But it goes further than disappointment: you feel "actively antagonized" by "elements of 5E" because 5E "requires a certain amount of contempt" for "4E sensibilities."
Spoiler:
Buzzsaw wrote: Fourth was the edition for me; I have played and collected since 2nd, but 4th was deeply satisfying for me in a way that was dramatically different from previous editions.
Buzzsaw wrote: much of the lead-up to 5th, with the emphasis on capturing the "feel" and character of previous editions, has left me rather cold. I will say that the art is quite good though!
Buzzsaw wrote: I will confess that as 5 approaches retail, whatever cautious optimism I had for it to be an evolution that would take the elements of 4e that I found evolutionary and revolutionary and improve on them... well, let's just say I'm not so optimistic anymore.
Buzzsaw wrote: I'd also say that 4e is far and away my favorite edition.
Manchu wrote: These Basic rules will not get you to 4E, however.
Having digested the PDF, I completely agree.
Whatever slender hope I may have maintained can be well and truly buried now.
Buzzsaw wrote: To say that 4e players are left in the cold is to misstate it: 4e players are actively antagonized by elements of 5e.
Buzzsaw wrote: 5e isn't just unable to be reconciled with 4e sensibilities, but requires a certain amount of contempt for them.
I think you and 4E need to get a room, dude ... and far away from nasty ole 5E! As for a bone, what bone will do? Can there be any substitute? Any element of 4E incorporated into 5E will never be enough for someone so passionate about 4E. As you yourself said,
Buzzsaw wrote: The idea that 5e is made more like 4e with the inclusion of healing surges is like the idea that 40k would be more like WM/H by incorporating some form of the focus-allocation system. [...] 4e is no more a collection of certain specific elements (like healing surges, or at-will powers or whatnot) then WM/H is the focus/fury mechanic.
and
Buzzsaw wrote: When I played 2nd, or early 3rd, I was well accustomed to having to house rule rules of various sorts.. and it irritated me. Looking back I can't believe the efforts we made to make rules that we thought were terribly written work. More to the point, having played 4e, I know that I am unwilling to go back to that type of product.
TBH your, er, heartfelt fulminations really did help me out to understand that 5E could be stripped of roleplay and made into a miniatures skirmish game, so I appreciate that. And I am especially grateful for the "escape hatch" metaphor for how 4E handles rulings. But now we're at the point where you don't want to talk to me but rather to some fictional version of me that can only post the things you want to disagree with. As with pretre, I am not into shouting through the soundproof glass at you.
5E casting is a little different than what you might be used to, Alpharius. First, the casters have At Will cantrips. Second, while there are still spell slots and spells prepared per day, these things are now independent. A Wizard, for example, can prepare INT modifier + Wizard level spells (minimum one) per day. So let's say my first level Wizard has INT 16 ... and therefore can prepare four spells per day. My Wizard only has two level one spell slots per day, however, meaning she can cast any of those four spells once per each slot. She can even cast the same one twice. That is, the spell does not "dissolve" from her mind upon casting it, as per traditional Vancian casting.
Monte Cook wrote:In the early days, the game’s mechanics rarely provided solutions to the problems the characters faced. Players stretched beyond the bounds of the rules and looked for solutions not covered in the books. Player ingenuity was always the key to winning encounters. And very often, the DM didn’t actually have a set solution in mind ahead of time. He expected the PCs to come up with something on their own.
This isn’t true of more recent expressions of the game. There are few encounters that can’t be won simply by using the PCs’ straightforward powers and abilities.
What he doesn't cover is why there is a difference.
Your guess is as good as mine. My guess is skill lists are part of the problem. The early play tests didn't have them and that came with a very open feeling. When you have a big list of skills, it gives you the impression your meant to use them and maybe the impression your meant to use only them. (Actually well I am on the topic, why are skills in the players guide? I mean they have DCs and everything too. That seems like something that should be in the DMG or some kind of monster manual only for skills.)
nomotog wrote: When you have a big list of skills, it gives you the impression your meant to use them and maybe the impression your meant to use only them.
I think you are quite right about that. And it indicates the larger issue of when the mechanics come into play: are the rules there already, waiting to be executed on by the players, or does the player describe what his character does and then the DM makes a ruling on how it is tested? Older editions entail more of the latter and newer editions entail more of the former. A long skill list is an example of rules ready to be executed, or the newer mode.
In newer editions, skills go in the PHB because they are "player options" -- a feature of character customization that you use during character generation and leveling.
nomotog wrote: When you have a big list of skills, it gives you the impression your meant to use them and maybe the impression your meant to use only them.
I think you are quite right about that. And it indicates the larger issue of when the mechanics come into play: are the rules there already, waiting to be executed on by the players, or does the player describe what his character does and then the DM makes a ruling on how it is tested? Older editions entail more of the latter and newer editions entail more of the former. A long skill list is an example of rules ready to be executed, or the newer mode.
In newer editions, skills go in the PHB because they are "player options" -- a feature of character customization that you use during character generation and leveling.
5Ed feels like more of the latter though too. Actually the first house rule I am thinking of for 5ed is tanking out skills, or at least the skill list.
Why are the DCs in the PHB though? It would be like including the Ac of a goblin in the PHB? (OH I really really hope they do something like a monster manual for skill checks.)
A skill mechanic/skill list doesn't create the problem by itself.
So for example, Call of Cthulhu has a pretty long skill list. But I've never heard someone playing CoC say "I make a library use check." Instead, I hear players say something like, "I am searching the card catalog for any mention of strange radiation from meteors." And then the Keeper says something like, "okay, make a library use check and, wait aren't you an amateur astronomer? okay you get a bonus," etc.
In other words, CoC has plenty of mechanics "at the ready" -- including a long ass skill list -- but for whatever reason (I will have to think more on this) people seem to play it by describing what their character does and then letting the Keeper make a ruling on what they need to roll.
nomotog wrote: 5Ed feels like more of the latter though too.
Sorry, I guess I should clarify, by the "latter" do you mean the older mode or the newer mode?
Manchu wrote: A skill mechanic/skill list doesn't create the problem by itself.
So for example, Call of Cthulhu has a pretty long skill list. But I've never heard someone playing CoC say "I make a library use check." Instead, I hear players say something like, "I am searching the card catalog for any mention of strange radiation from meteors." And then the Keeper says something like, "okay, make a library use check and, wait aren't you an amateur astronomer? okay you get a bonus," etc.
In other words, CoC has plenty of mechanics "at the ready" -- including a long ass skill list -- but for whatever reason (I will have to think more on this) people seem to play it by describing what their character does and then letting the Keeper make a ruling on what they need to roll.
nomotog wrote: 5Ed feels like more of the latter though too.
Sorry, I guess I should clarify, by the "latter" do you mean the older mode or the newer mode?
I am thinking that 5ed is more like the older model then the newer model, but that is more from my play test experience and it's a bit of a mix.
It could just be how things are described in the book, or the impressions that exist. 5ed dose outright say you describe the action in narrative terms then pick your attribute based on what you describe.
"Hate" and "Vance" shouldn't ever be in the same sentence - the man is a literary genius!
Vancian magic wasn't a horrible system when it first debuted. It has since been refined in so many different ways that are superior to it.
The Wheel of Time RPG actually used a similar system, but allowed overcasting at a risk. It alleviated, somewhat, the issue of casters at low level being a "one and done" group.
5e's system seems an interesting blend between the 3.pf Wizard and the 3.pf Sorcerer: You prepare a number of spells, but can then cast any number of those spells in any combination up to your limits per day. It's an interesting blend that only increases the versatility of casters above previous levels. Which is an impressive feat in an of itself.
Also sorry for losing track of my previous conversation thread. Lost power and this thread has gained pages.
"Hate" and "Vance" shouldn't ever be in the same sentence - the man is a literary genius!
Vancian magic wasn't a horrible system when it first debuted. It has since been refined in so many different ways that are superior to it.
The Wheel of Time RPG actually used a similar system, but allowed overcasting at a risk. It alleviated, somewhat, the issue of casters at low level being a "one and done" group.
5e's system seems an interesting blend between the 3.pf Wizard and the 3.pf Sorcerer: You prepare a number of spells, but can then cast any number of those spells in any combination up to your limits per day. It's an interesting blend that only increases the versatility of casters above previous levels. Which is an impressive feat in an of itself.
Also sorry for losing track of my previous conversation thread. Lost power and this thread has gained pages.
With the warlocks infinite casting for certain levels of spells like cantrips, or evocation masters level 1 and 2 spells.
Vulcan casting is something that grows on you over time. Like a fungus. It's bothersome because it doesn't work how you would expect magic to work, so the more it is how magic works, the more it feels like how magic works.
nomotog wrote: Vulcan casting is something that grows on you over time.
Spoiler:
I think contemporary technology has sort of changed the way people think of magic. Instead of chanting and waving your arms around and throwing powdered gith jaffers into a fire, it's point-and-click "expelliarmus!"
Manchu wrote: I think contemporary technology has sort of changed the way people think of magic. Instead of chanting and waving your arms around and throwing powdered gith jaffers into a fire, it's point-and-click "expelliarmus!"
Greatly depends on the person who is playing the casting character... The best group I was in, the mage player was generally high on some AWESOME medications (seriously... he kept being sent to the hospital for severe pains, the doctors couldn't figure out what was wrong with him, so sort of said, "here's some vicodin, let's see if that works... no?? well, here's some percocet... Crap, that didn't work either!?...well, lets try this cockatil, and see what happens"
The plus side was, we always knew when he was talking in his "real" voice as opposed to his "character" voice (his model had to hop around like some robot chicken sketch), so yeah, naturally his mage became the Deadpool of casters.
So what does that mean in terms of playing a caster?
Witty, silly, deadly?
What pretre said.... Think of how (apparently) Harry Potter has to incant a particular phrase in order to cast a spell??? Well, that's what ours did... but more hilarious/witty and overall, Deadpool-esque.
Ah, point-and-click "power" style. I don't think casting in older editions was designed to simulate that. "Vancian" just describes one aspect (the disappearing memory issue). For example, older editions have spell interruption (casting is declared before initiative starts). This seems to imply that magic is more cumbersome than using a voice activated laser pointer.
Manchu wrote: Ah, point-and-click "power" style. I don't think casting in older editions was designed to simulate that. "Vancian" just describes one aspect (the disappearing memory issue). For example, older editions have spell interruption (casting is declared before initiative starts). This seems to imply that magic is more cumbersome than using a voice activated laser pointer.
It depends, originally that used to be so but then they dropped it eventually.
The novels were usually point and click with a vocal command and handwave as well, even the ones wrote inhouse.
They are, but if I remember right you have to jump through a lot of hoops to do it- delay your action, have a prepared spell of the same school, and then roll dice.(3.x and pathfinder anyway, just now starting up a fourth campaign so I don't have much experience with fourth's magic system yet).
Could be a bit off though, because it's like sundering/tripping/disarming: no one ever does it in my games. I just occasionally use it against players to remind them of options other than "Cast spell" or "Hit it with my sword".
Sinful Hero wrote: They are, but if I remember right you have to jump through a lot of hoops to do it- delay your action, have a prepared spell of the same school, and then roll dice.(3.x and pathfinder anyway, just now starting up a fourth campaign so I don't have much experience with fourth's magic system yet).
Could be a bit off though, because it's like sundering/tripping/disarming: no one ever does it in my games. I just occasionally use it against players to remind them of options other than "Cast spell" or "Hit it with my sword".
And of course, you still need to be a spellcaster to do it.
Also with the amount of spell-slots wizard types gained the 'amount' never really mattered too much.
Sinful Hero nicely covered 3E. I will jump in for 5E: spells cannot be interrupted in the old school sense (i.e., before the caster's initiative and before the spell has been cast). Ongoing spells (rituals and spells with Duration: Concentration) can be interrupted once they have been cast on the caster's initiative.
Spells are definitely interruptable in 3.X and onwards, and moreso in Pathfinder than the others. If someone is standing in melee range of you and you try to cast, you have to take a check and if you fail you can get attacked in some versions or lose the spell in others. In Pathfinder it's actually pretty hard to pass those checks sometimes, and fighter types can get a "step up" ability to stop you from five foot stepping away. Feats like "disruptive" up the DC of the concentration check as well.
In 4th, they weren't really interruptable specifically, but the rules included a lot of interrupt or redirecting mechanics to allow you to deal with spells. The other issue is that of course in that edition everyone had "powers", not just the wizards, so the power difference between classes generally wasn't so big.
I found the 5th edition interruption rules quite dramatic in the playtest. A player blinded a Beholder, interrupting it's Flesh to Stone effect that it had inflicted on our Gnome Barbarian, and he reanimated and gutted the unlucky Beholder.
There are several reasons 3.pathfinder is called "Caster Edition", and spell casting only being able to be cancelled by casters is just one. For a mage hunter organization I had in a campaign I had to invent ways to make them anything but a joke.
Da Boss wrote: Spells are definitely interruptable in 3.X and onwards, and moreso in Pathfinder than the others. If someone is standing in melee range of you and you try to cast, you have to take a check and if you fail you can get attacked in some versions or lose the spell in others. In Pathfinder it's actually pretty hard to pass those checks sometimes, and fighter types can get a "step up" ability to stop you from five foot stepping away. Feats like "disruptive" up the DC of the concentration check as well.
In 4th, they weren't really interruptable specifically, but the rules included a lot of interrupt or redirecting mechanics to allow you to deal with spells. The other issue is that of course in that edition everyone had "powers", not just the wizards, so the power difference between classes generally wasn't so big.
I found the 5th edition interruption rules quite dramatic in the playtest. A player blinded a Beholder, interrupting it's Flesh to Stone effect that it had inflicted on our Gnome Barbarian, and he reanimated and gutted the unlucky Beholder.
Concentration checks are a joke. D20+max ranks+high modifier made them irrelevant in most of my games. I believe the core PHB even had feats that allowed a caster to ignore many of the penalties associated with casting in combat. I know there were several that boosted concentration checks and they were always mandatory.
This mechanic skews an otherwise flat distribution (a d20 of course has 5% probability of landing on each number) to one side.
The net impact is interesting, in that the equivalent bonus depends on what you need to roll. For advantaged rolls, at the low end (because you're picking the best of two), the equivalent bonus can be as large as about +5, meaning your odds of rolling that number or higher are about 25% higher with advantage.
It's going to take some thought and practice to get a feel for the appropriate time to grant advantage/disadvantage.
I hate to explain something funny, but when i went through manchu's previous statements, it's because he responded to my claim of "investing quite a lot of emotion" with "laughy-face Seriously what?"
Hence the humor: by going through his previous statements, I A) established an incongruity, and 2) showed how there was no reasonable way to reconcile the incongruity.
Contrariwise, going through my earlier statements to... uh, 1) establish my point of view and B) that... demonstrate that my PoV has remained constant?
If one wants to argue that I consider 4e the superior product? Go right ahead, I very clearly do. Think I take them to bed to have my way with it? ... That would be silly. (NSFW)
Ultimately an argument is like a trial, and there are two ways to look at the matter. Back in my law school days I had plenty of classmates who thought that the point of a trial was scoring points, a game, of legal legerdemain and verbal one-upsmanship. I belive it to be something different: an argument is a crucible, in it we burn away irrelevancies until we are left with a pure product, the truth.
So let's burn away the irrelevancies and focus on the one thing, the one answer that Manchu either cannot or will not provide but that underlies the entire point. How do you get from A to B?
A
Manchu wrote: You are right, however, that we agree that the Original. First, Second, Third, and Fifth Editions of D&D are ultimately incompatible with Fourth Edition.
B
Manchu wrote: My opinion was that 5E could not be played like you play 4E. Now I think it can be. My opinion changed. I do not agree with you that my DM cheated or played the game wrong in the goblin example. This is because 5E can also be played in ways other than your style of playing 4E.
To say "My opinion changed" tells us nothing about the path. Something, something, bridges these two statements, but what is it?
Some days ago, I contended that "The idea that 5e is made more like 4e with the inclusion of healing surges is like the idea that 40k would be more like WM/H by incorporating some form of the focus-allocation system. [...] 4e is no more a collection of certain specific elements (like healing surges, or at-will powers or whatnot) then WM/H is the focus/fury mechanic."
In time Manchu would agreed completely, going further even to state "that the Original. First, Second, Third, and Fifth Editions of D&D are ultimately incompatible with Fourth Edition."
He was right and we were in complete agreement: there is something fundamentally different about 4e, a fundamental, underlying design decision that has implications in design at all levels. Don't believe me, take a read of this thread. It's a response to the article by Robert J. Schwalb talking up 5e. It's 30+ pages long and illustrates, with many, many examples, of what 4e players think of 4e and what makes it great.
In trying to reconcile Manchu's statements, in trying to bridge the gap, the only thing that makes any sense is... well, something that Manchu and I also agreed on;
Buzzsaw wrote: What's happening is that our perspectives are so divergent that there are things that you find good and well done, that I find tedious and inept.
Yep, I've been explaining that ITT for something like a month or more.
So, if that is true (and I very much think it is), everything becomes clear. When Manchu says "5E [can] be played as a permissive skirmish miniatures/board game with or without room for rulings like 3E and 4E", we must understand "like... 4E" not to means anything like the 4e that 4e fans like. What is meant is that, in order to emulate 4e "5E could be stripped of roleplay and made into a miniatures skirmish game", that 4e is "super chess" and so forth.
In other words, when Manchu says that "I think [5e] can be [played like you play 4E].", he... kinda doesn't mean much of anything. He knows that 4e is a whole lot more then just "a miniatures skirmish game" or a version of D&D "stripped of roleplay", heck just read his post directed at Steamdragon.
Now it's all well and fun to have a go at Manchu's arguments and have happy fun link time, but there is something serious here addressed to people that are 4e fans;
Don't be confused that Manchu is saying "My opinion was that 5E could not be played like you play 4E. Now I think it can be": it's rather clear this doesn't mean much of anything that a 4e player thinks of as embodying 4e. It's given away with the next sentences: "I do not agree with you that my DM cheated or played the game wrong in the goblin example. This is because 5E can also be played in ways other than your style of playing 4E."
For something to be like 4e, in even the most cursory regard, explicit rules have to... be rules. As I pointed out first with regards to movement, the disengage action, and then with regard to occupied spaces, Manchu's example is an example of getting the rules wrong.
If you liked 4e for being 4e, read the free PDF. If you like the same elements of 4e that I do the likely outcome is to realize that 5e is severely tactically lacking, fights fairly aggressively to remove the heroic mode of play, embraces mechanics that were once happily buried for some classes and strips complexity from other classes.
Well, I have decided to "review" 5E by playing it in addition to reading it/discussing the text. Fortunately, I know a good amount of people who have had the time and the enthusiasm to make this possible. Tonight, I wrapped my second session of 5E. Different group, new adventure, new character, played over skype.
I have played Labyrinth Lord and Swords & Wizardry (OSR retroclones) online with most of these guys in the past. They are a very solid bunch of OSR players and to my knowledge they focus on RPGs rather than board games or war games. Unlike with my first session, where we dove into the Starter Set, this DM ran things entirely off the cuff. Now the primary reason I myself began experimenting with improv DMing (years ago, using 3.5) was to practice avoiding railroading players. But I quickly discovered its logistical advantages. Adults have to take whatever opportunity they get to roll dice. A week night session scheduled the day before with five adult players with full time jobs in four different time zones might only be possible if you can swing no prep -- and especially when the DM has two little ones.
At the same time, this style entails its own skill set and can be pretty tricky, emphatically so when it comes to rules-heavy games like 3E/PF and 4E that are best played with "designed" encounters. I am pleased to report, although it comes as little surprise, that the 5E rules did not "fight" the DM on this. And despite a session half as long as my first one (played in-person with guys who have strong board gaming and war gaming cred, using a published module on a regularly-scheduled gaming night) we covered approximately twice as much adventuring.
Just like with the first session, when I played a Dwarven Wizard, I decided to play what some might consider a weird "build" -- a Dwarven Rogue. Now whatever one might argue about the Dwarven Wizard (who can cast in medium armor with no penalties at first level, as long as you play a Mountain Dwarf), the Dwarven Rogue is definitely sub-optimal compared to, say, the Halfling Rogue. I am not normally a min/maxer although I certainly felt the pressure to do it in 3E/4E. I felt no hesitation going with this in 5E, however, because the high score in the standard array is 15 (+2), which is totally respectable thanks to the Proficiency mechanic and standard DCs. I'd be okay with this even if we were playing in the "rules, not rulings" style.
Indeed, 5E characters feel very capable. Unlike the characters I have played in OSR games, I think 5E PCs could go out looking for trouble. The guys even mentioned they thought the power level of first level spells was maybe too high. It struck me that first level spells might be more akin to 4E-style first level daily powers. Our Wizard seemed to prove the point by killing two Goblins with Magic Missile. Sure seemed like artillery to me!
Now here's my secret -- after feeling like I played the first session expecting old school D&D, I decided to go into my second session looking at things from a 3E/4E point of view. I didn't push anything on the others; I just wanted to see how they would handle a rule set that can support bonus actions, opportunity attacks, and generally more finely-regulated structured time in combat. I was not shocked or really even disappointed that we didn't end up using these mechanics except on one issue: the DM split the the scene during combat.
What I mean is, we were in initiative fighting the two Goblins mentioned above. The Elf Fighter went first and moved to outflank. Then the goblins shot at us. Then our Wizard fried them. At that point, combat was pretty much over -- except that the DM returned to the Elf Fighter (that is, went back to the top of initiative) who had managed to sneak up on a Hobgoblin in the brush. The Elf went, then the Hobgoblin, then the Elf again. Wait a minute? What about everyone else?
I spoke to the DM very briefly about this after the session. He told us he was thinking of it cinematically: the scene had shifted to one between the Elf and the Hobgoblin, especially considering the Elf had moved to outflank. Indeed the Hobgoblin was only there because the Elf had outflanked (improv DMing). That's a perfectly reasonable old school way of doing things. But my character never had a chance to try anything.
He got hit with a goblin arrow but only lost 4 of 10 HP. If I had a turn, you can bet I would have followed up with my Elf buddy to continue the sweep and maybe gotten a piece of the action. The thing is, as I mentioned above, my PC felt capable so I wanted to get stuck in. If I had just lost 4 HP in an old school game, especially as a Thief, I would be tremendously relieved to have missed out (if I was even still conscious/alive) on any further violence. But not so in 5E. This is the first time I felt the 5E design seem to pull a bit to the 3E/4E side of things, although not hard.
Or this could just be a case of "aw, my guy didn't get to try something cool." All the same, it was a very fun session. We discovered and looted an ancient tomb, fought some stinking Golinoids, and chatted up some NPCs. That's two for two fun sessions, played in different styles with different groups, which is a good scorecard for a game.
This second session was especially good on the RP front. One of the benefits to improv DMing is that the players are not so focused on "beating" or "figuring out" the adventure so there can be more emphasis on in-character interaction. In my first session there was very little character-driven RP. This time, we did more of that. Characterization takes time but I feel like, even from a DM perspective, RPGing really gets good when players stop talking to the DM and amongst themselves -- and PCs start talking to PCs and NPCs. That's where I want to get with 5E or any RPG.
I like the cinematic approach. We've done it before in games. And it's our DMs way of steering the experience without railroading.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also! This idea of Improv DMing sounds like it lends itself well to 5th. It was tough to do anything but "just as planned" in 4th for me.
@Manchu.
I think the Improv part is actually outside of edition. Ignoring rules for narrative effect and improving adventures is a staple of many DMs and I don't think that any system or edition has a monopoly on that. It may be more difficult to do when balancing encounters, but as a DM I've done it in 1st through 4th (looking forward to 5th), along with WoD and other RPGs.
More important to the actual discussion is your feelings of the mechanics of what happened. After all, ruling is universal; you can do that with any ruleset. Rules interactions are unique. I find those very interesting. The fact that combat was over so quickly is very instructive. I'm wondering if the fighter felt as powerful or just the wizard. I'll have to try it myself to see how things go or if that was a fluke.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Speaking of which, how is the monster creation, in 4E it was like a breeze, 3E was far more messy, how would you think it feels now?
melkorthetonedeaf wrote: This idea of Improv DMing sounds like it lends itself well to 5th. It was tough to do anything but "just as planned" in 4th for me.
Agreed on all points. I never had much success with improv DMing 4E because encounter balance is such a big part of combat. It would probably take deep familiarity with the 4E monster manuals and plenty of experience with XP budgets. IME a significantly unbalanced 4E combat feels like putting on a tuxedo to walk the dog ... or showing up at court in a swimsuit.
pretre wrote: I don't think that any system or edition has a monopoly on that.
Sure. As I mentioned above, I started practicing these skills by running 3.5. Since then, I tried them with PF, 4E, Mouse Guard, WEG Star Wars, B/X, Swords & Wizardry, Labyrinth Lord, and now 5E. I think it was more difficult with 3E and 4E than, for example, with B/X. I am not sure yet where 5E falls. I think the question of whether spells are too powerful in 5E probably came up because fighting two Goblins and an ad hoc Hobgoblin is probably not an ideally balanced encounter.
pretre wrote: I'm wondering if the fighter felt as powerful or just the wizard. I'll have to try it myself to see how things go or if that was a fluke.
How many players in the party? That seems like a low-load for most balanced parties in any system unless they have class-levels or the equivalent. (Also, keeping in mind the Hob wasn't even part of the encounter originally.)
Here are some further thoughts about my second session of 5E and about initiative in 5E. As a reference, the characters are:
- Kilgar, a Dwarf Cleric - Brother Jug, a Dwarf Rogue (me) - Kanos, an Elf Fighter - Fenstred, a Human Wizard
In preface, I am not pursuing the "correct" answer. To begin with, the PDF does not establish a hard rule on initiative. I do not think it goes into enough detail to even suggest a hard rule. I therefore believe the call the DM made during play was "correct" precisely for that reason. It is the DM's purview to make rulings. This is especially significant in the context of improv-style DMing. My thoughts here are therefore purely "academic" and are not a proposal for laying down a hard rule for future our sessions much less an argument for how 5E "should" be played at every table.
Initiative forms the skeleton of structured time. The PDF states or implies three basic principles about initiative: First, the players roll for initiative when combat begins. Second, initiative order remains the same from turn to turn throughout the combat. Third -- and this is mere implication -- initiative ends when combat ends.
The most obvious question is how to define "combat." The PDF implies a circular definition: combat begins when initiative is rolled and initiative is rolled when combat begins. As a matter of reasoning, however, we can say that combat, whatever it might be, is what triggers the initiative mechanic. So even on this fundamental question, 5E currently requires a DM ruling based on the narrative circumstances. Importantly, surprise is encompassed by initiative: the order is already determined but surprised PCs/NPCs/Monsters cannot take any action on their turn in the first round.
With these elementary insights, I can start analyzing the DM's call. The most important fact from "behind the screen" is that the Hobgoblin did not exist out of game until Fenstred killed the two Goblins. That is to say, the DM likely thought the combat that triggered initiative was over. In this case, the DM picked the narrative back up on a beat that triggered a new inititiative: Kanos spotted the Hobgoblin from his hiding place in the brush, which was the result of improv DMing. I believe the DM made a call that Kanos automatically had initiative because he was in hiding. But even so, the surprised Hobgoblin would not be able to act on the first round (which, as I recall, he didn't). The second round would therefore begin with Kanos's next turn.
Here is how it looked to me from the other side of the screen: Fenstred killed the Goblins and then (I thought) Kilgar took his turn to move and make a Wisdom (Medicine) check on Brother Jug. In my understanding, we were still in initiative. I even mentioned that Kilgar made the check as his action when the DM asked what the Medicine skill does. Next, the DM narrated Kanos spotting the Hobgoblin and asked for an attack roll with advantage.* This is where I became confused: if this was Kanos's turn again, then we were on the second round of combat. But what happened to Brother Jug's turn? When the DM asked for the second attack roll from Kanos, I was even more confused: what happened to Fenstred, Kilgar, and Brother Jug's turns on the second round?
Now here is my Monday morning quarterback DMing, assuming two combats. According to the PDF, surprising an opponent does not mean you have top initiative. So, when Kanos spots the Hobgoblin, I ask for him to roll initiative. This (a) let's all the players know that the previous combat has ended and a new combat has begun and (b) clarifies who is involved in the new combat. I think this is especially important because it allows the players and the DM to avoid metagaming. While the players know that a new combat is beginning, do the PCs know it, too? In this case, both Kanos and the Hobgoblin were heretofore silent. Fenstred, Kilgar, and Brother Jug would not know that Kanos had spotted another enemy. The question is, what would they (not the players) do given Kanos had not come back?
It obviously depends on how much time had passed. This is where starting a new combat becomes less inefficient than continuing the established one. Once the players are not in initiative, they no longer know (without asking the DM) precisely how much time passes in-game from narrative moment to moment. Reasoning from the narrative at issue, Kanos spotted the Hobgoblin either right as the Goblins died or immediately thereafter. Here again, the DM made a call (probably unconsciously). But that ruling could be obviated by the initiative rule.
If this was an encounter planned by the DM beforehand, involving two Goblins and one Hobgoblin, Fenstred killing the two Goblins probably would not have ended the first combat and therefore Kanos spotting the Hobgoblin would not have started the next combat. There would have been only one combat, where Fenstred killed the two Goblins in one six-second interval and Kanos attacked the Hobgoblin** at the top of the following six-second interval. After Kanos took his first shot at the Hobgoblin, initiative would pass to Fenstred, Kilgar, and Brother Jug. At that point, the other players would consider whether to press the attack or if their PCs even know to do so. My idea was that Brother Jug would charge into the brush to support Kanos because I had characterized him earlier in the session as working this way with Kanos: acting as noisy bait to provide his comrade with a clear shot. The DM and the players probably knew/assumed Kanos did not need help -- but that has nothing to do with how the characters would act.
Okay -- so that's the academic part -- now the reality check: as the DM asked me, did he break the game? Absolutely not, not even close. This was a few minutes of a two-hour session. The only reason I noticed it at all was because the "shape" of the 5E rules suggests that the players should be seizing and using the mechanics, unlike in an OSR game where the players just narrate what their PCs attempt. And this was our first combat with a new system so of course I was scrutinizing it like a laser beam for the purposes of getting acquainted with 5E. Mearls, et alia, have been designing this game for a long time, suggesting they probably thought about every little nuance (I therefore assume apparent lacunae are intended), and I am just eager to sink my teeth into it!
* Surprise does not confer advantage on combat roles. The benefit for surprise is being able to act on a turn when your opponents cannot. ** All other things being equal. In the actual session, the Hobgoblin did not attack with the Goblins because he did not yet exist out of game.
I am. The other PCs wouldn't have even known there was another combat taking place. I think the DM ran it well.
I hadn't even gotten to the combat section of the PDF, but the initiative rules seem clunky. I've done away with initiative altogether before in Pathfinder by just ranking everyone's Dex mod or conferring some bonus or another.
It is tricky because there really are two ways to look at it:
Here's the factual out-of-game chronology: the DM made up one combat, let's call it Encounter 1, with all the PCs and two Goblins and immediately after that combat ended (with the death of the two Goblins) he made up another combat, Encounter 2, with Kanos and the Hobgoblin.
In my experience, the DM announces a combat by calling for initiative from the players involved. This is a matter of practical etiquette. I did not know there was a new combat, or that I was not involved, because the DM did not say as much. At least one other player (the guy playing Kanos) said he assumed it was two encounters in play. He probably was also thinking of it 'cinematically.' The issue with cinematic thinking is a good director knows characters who aren't on the screen at the moment are still doing things. Not breaking back-to-back encounters into multiple instances of initiative helps the DM keep that in mind.
I just wish they would put something else in the core books. Unfortunately, they appeal to all the Edgemasters out there because it speaks to their own dark, twisted soul and ostracism from "normal" society.
For the record- I don't like Gnomes either. Halflings are good enough for a core small race, unless they also include goblins, kobolds, or some other non-super magical race in the core book.
So a buddy of mine decided to buy the starter kit, and we gave it a spin. Three players cleared the first adventure with not too many problems. Honestly, it felt like a dumbed-down 3.pfndr. Maybe it was because it was a starter kit, but we didn't play any differently than any of the other campaigns we've ever played.
Still signed up for an event at Gencon and I'll see how it goes with the full rules, but just based on the starter kit I'm not seeing any pulls to convert.
Sinful Hero wrote: we didn't play any differently than any of the other campaigns we've ever played
What were you expecting?
Something a little more unique. When I say it didn't play any differently, I meant any differently than every other 3.pfndr game I've ever played/run. Fourth feels very unique in comparison to 3.pfndr. Other RPG systems feel unique. 3.pfndr is pretty much my baseline: it's what I started with and played the longest so I'm the most familiar with it. The starter kit felt exactly the same.
Sinful Hero wrote: I pretty much did skip fourth. Just now starting up a campaign- I'm hoping all the bandwagoners offload their old fourth books for cheap on eBay.
Why you gotta be derogatory about it?
Some people move to the new edition when it comes out. For example, I just sold my 6th edition 40k rulebooks because I don't need them anymore. Does that make me a bandwagoner? Does selling a lot of my 3rd/3.5 splat when I moved to 4th make me a bandwagoner? Geeze.
Why did you sell off your books? It's not like the pages turned to dust. Unless you needed them to buy the newer books, but one can usually save up for a few weeks/months and buy them that way.
By the way, if you're bandwag...selling your fourth books send me a PM.
Space and a realistic assessment of what I would use in the future. I had pretty much everything 3 and 3.5 put out for splat (excepting non-core settings). I was never going to use them and they took up a recockulous amount of space. I kept the complete books, the big 3 and a couple ones I really liked. I then sold and made a huge amount of money back on the rest.
I will play the new game before deciding on my fourth (or rather my group will) but chances are that I will keep the core stuff for that as well.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Keeping mine pretty much, though man you sound pretty hostile considering people can move on if they want.
I apologize if I came across as hostile or aggressive. It was not my intention, bandwagoner was the closest term to people who move wholesale to a new edition. Although I did use it as a small tease the second time.
Space and a realistic assessment of what I would use in the future. I had pretty much everything 3 and 3.5 put out for splat (excepting non-core settings). I was never going to use them and they took up a recockulous amount of space. I kept the complete books, the big 3 and a couple ones I really liked. I then sold and made a huge amount of money back on the rest.
I will play the new game before deciding on my fourth (or rather my group will) but chances are that I will keep the core stuff for that as well.
I could use anything other than the core(Already have the PHB, DMG, and MM1). I prefer Monster Manuals though. If you do decide to part with them, I would probably be interested. Although if you can get more for them through eBay you won't hurt my feelings.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Keeping mine pretty much, though man you sound pretty hostile considering people can move on if they want.
I apologize if I came across as hostile or aggressive. It was not my intention, bandwagoner was the closest term to people who move wholesale to a new edition. Although I did use it as a small tease the second time.
How about 'player' or 'current edition player'? I know it's a couple more syllables, but...
I could use anything other than the core(Already have the PHB, DMG, and MM1). I prefer Monster Manuals though. If you do decide to part with them, I would probably be interested. Although if you can get more for them through eBay you won't hurt my feelings.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Keeping mine pretty much, though man you sound pretty hostile considering people can move on if they want.
I apologize if I came across as hostile or aggressive. It was not my intention, bandwagoner was the closest term to people who move wholesale to a new edition. Although I did use it as a small tease the second time.
How about 'player' or 'current edition player'? I know it's a couple more syllables, but...
It didn't spring to mind, and I didn't assume bandwagoner would be taken with a negative connotation. Not every 'player' is the same(obviously), and 'current edition player' sounds a little janky.
I could have used much worse too- rats(from a sinking ship), or carpet-baggers, but I'm a just a nice guy like that.
I still have to ask, what big differences are there between 3rd and 5th?
I freely admit to being a bandwagoner, wagoneer?, whatever, when it comes to D&D. This is because I am interested in D&D as it develops and not stuck on a particular edition. I think it is exciting when a new edition comes out.
As to big differences between 3E and 5E: IMO, 5E does not put an emphasis on min/maxing and power gaming. The Proficiency mechanic allows more freedom to play whatever kind of character and still feel capable/effective, therefore allowing for greater focus on playing the character rather than playing the character's stats.
Manchu wrote: I freely admit to being a bandwagoner, wagoneer?, whatever, when it comes to D&D. This is because I am interested in D&D as it develops and not stuck on a particular edition. I think it is exciting when a new edition comes out.
A-men!
As to big differences between 3E and 5E: IMO, 5E does not put an emphasis on min/maxing and power gaming. The Proficiency mechanic allows more freedom to play whatever kind of character and still feel capable/effective, therefore allowing for greater focus on playing the character rather than playing the character's stats.
A big I did notice- except for pure damage whatever the fighter could do I(the cleric) could do better. Fighter could throw a rock to distract the goblins, or I could use thaumatergy to rustle some leaves and not worry about missing. Fighter could light a torch, and just not use his greatsword or shortbow, or I could cast light on his weapons. His bow can run out of arrows- Sacred Flame could not. Those are just the cantrip spells.
The differences between martials and spellcasters only seemed to grow wider based on the starter kit compared to 3rd. Based upon my impressions anyway.
Outside of 4E, there is no such thing as a "martial" class. In 5E, there are casters and non-casters.
I don't see the need to pit classes against each other, which is a lesson from 4E (and less likely to have been learned by those who ignored 4E). The PC classes form a team. The Fighter brings different strengths to the team than the Cleric and, at least given the options presented in the PDF (let's see the inevitable War Domain), the Cleric cannot just replace the Fighter.
Manchu wrote: Outside of 4E, there is no such thing as a "martial" class. In 5E, there are casters and non-casters.
I don't see the need to pit classes against each other, which is a lesson from 4E (and less likely to have been learned by those who ignored 4E). The PC classes form a team. The Fighter brings different strengths to the team than the Cleric and, at least given the options presented in the PDF (let's see the inevitable War Domain), the Cleric cannot just replace the Fighter.
Well I certainly hope so, considering that was exactly the problem in 3E
Manchu wrote: Outside of 4E, there is no such thing as a "martial" class. In 5E, there are casters and non-casters.
I don't see the need to pit classes against each other, which is a lesson from 4E (and less likely to have been learned by those who ignored 4E). The PC classes form a team. The Fighter brings different strengths to the team than the Cleric and, at least given the options presented in the PDF (let's see the inevitable War Domain), the Cleric cannot just replace the Fighter.
Agreed... because in 4E, the Fighter, and other melee centric "Martial" classes can "Mark" enemies, which the cleric cannot... These marks do a TON of different things, depending on abilities, etc. I know my 4E Warden could automatically grab/grapple enemies, or make a striking attack against any marked enemy that doesn't attack the Warden (basically the NPC monsters take a penalty or disadvantage to attack someone other than the character, while they are marked)
I've found that every class, at some point brings something seriously unique to the party that is useful at some point, and is quite often used a lot (ie, a rogues thievery abilities, cleric's healing, bard's songs... etc)
Manchu wrote: Outside of 4E, there is no such thing as a "martial" class. In 5E, there are casters and non-casters.
I don't see the need to pit classes against each other, which is a lesson from 4E (and less likely to have been learned by those who ignored 4E). The PC classes form a team. The Fighter brings different strengths to the team than the Cleric and, at least given the options presented in the PDF (let's see the inevitable War Domain), the Cleric cannot just replace the Fighter.
When I say 'martial' I mean non-spell casting class. It's something our group has always done, since the days before fourth. At first level, we could have replaced the fighter with another cleric and be better off. His only role was "slightly more damage, but less versatility."
Sinful Hero wrote: At first level, we could have replaced the fighter ...
It's not a discussion worth having, especially not in 5E where 300 XP is Level 2.
In your opinion it's not worth having you mean. The acquisition of more spells and spell slots will only excaberate the problem. If the fighter had the same equipment as the cleric, there would be no difference between the classes other than the cleric having spells-a clear advantage. In 3.5 at least the fighter had the advantage of extra feats- translating into disarm/sundering/tripping bonuses, or clear damage/attack bonuses such as power attack and/or weapon focus.
In all editions but 4th all classes are about the same at level 1: poor to hit, poor saves, and poor AC; it isn't so much opinion as basic math. You need to get a few levels before differences start really popping out.
I posted exactly what I meant. At first level, 5E Fighters are better at fighting that 5E Clerics. More importantly, a class is more than a single level.
This just comes down to spell envy. As always, anyone who wants to play a PC that casts spells should play a caster.
I think that may be over simplifying things.
The difference between casters and non-casters in 3.5 was not 'spell envy'.
We'll have to see when the PHB and such comes out if it is much the same.
Unfortunately, 3E was a "game mastery" rule set. Good options and bad options were hidden throughout the books. A lot of people got loads of enjoyment by finagling optimized builds. I say "unfortunately" not because this is badwrongfun but rather because it made the game a lot less fun for people who just wanted to play a character. There was tremendous pressure to min/max and power game. Spell envy, what you might call "caster privilege" from the opposite perspective, was not new to 3E. But it is the most famous aspect of that pressure.
As I explained above, this is not the case with 5E as things stand. And, as I also explained above, I doubt this will change unless it is an issue of feats. But, and this is pure speculation, I think 5E feats will be pretty different from 3E/4E feats, which offered small bonuses to further "tune" your PC's niche, i.e., min/max fuel. I bet 5E feats will look more like backgrounds.
As a min/maxer DM of a group of min/maxers that sounds fairly boring.
I've run and played many games where no one ever reaches fifth level. Lower level games are my bread and butter, and every level matters to me.
I'm still holding judgement until the full rules drop, but based on the information I have so far I'm not interested in dropping money on this edition.
Manchu wrote: Yep, it sounds like PowerGamer, er, PathFinder is more your speed.
It seems so.
I do like to branch out with stuff like Golden Sky Stories, Engine Heart, and such every now and again. Back in high school we kept our own forum where we'd take turns telling a story through posts. No dice, just roleplaying.
Apparently a pre-printing version of the PHB leaked onto the net. I have no interest in seeking it out or downloading it, but I have seen some comments on it. Apparently there are a lot more options for characters, as we sort of expected. It sounded like most thought the difference was great enough that they felt the free Basic rules were a bit of a disservice to the actual release.
Apparently one of the options for Warlocks pacts is with a "Great Old One". No euphemisms or dancing around it, it is actually called a "Great Old One".
Eldritch Knight, you mean? That's supposed to have spells, it's an arcane class
Isn't it a martial archetype for Fighters?
Right, a prestige class focused on making your fighter know spells. I imagine there's a bunch of split 'Archetypes' like that that dip into other classes bailiwicks.
I'm not sure why that matters, as you could still multiclass Wizard with Fighter in 4th, not to mention Blade Singer and Swordsage. Besides I thought you were stuck in 3/PF? It seems odd to play PF all the time while still recognizing others as better, but it certainly speaks well of you to recognize that the other system was best. Other than the page image, I'm not sure why we are using spoiler tags for some of this.
I'm not sure why that matters, as you could still multiclass Wizard with Fighter in 4th, not to mention Blade Singer and Swordsage. Besides I thought you were stuck in 3/PF? It seems odd to play PF all the time while still recognizing others as better, but it certainly speaks well of you to recognize that the other system was best. Other than the page image, I'm not sure why we are using spoiler tags for some of this.
I don't even know what edition we're talking about anymore.
Multiclassing was always an option, but now they appear to be printed in the fighter section it seems odd. Not saying it's a bad thing though, I'm all gung-ho to buy it now. I'm easily pleased.
Sinful Hero wrote: Multiclassing was always an option, but now they appear to be printed in the fighter section it seems odd. Not saying it's a bad thing though, I'm all gung-ho to buy it now. I'm easily pleased.
It's a prestige class. It's just in the fighter section because it's a fighter prestige class. How many 3/3.5/pathfinder prestige classes for fighters have spells? Not a big deal.
Automatically Appended Next Post: My wife will be happy. She was never satisfied with the 4th ed Bard, but the 5th looks very 3rd. Ha, numbers!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oooh Bards can steal spells from any class. that's going to only get better with more splat.
Oh, I was wrong about the archetype thing. It's basically a kit or sub-class of Fighter. You can either be a Battle Master or an Eldritch Knight. Well, I guess that's one way to avoid spell envy. Maneuvers or Spells.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sinful Hero wrote: They're not traditional prestige classes. They're like choosing sword and board over a two handed fighter. They're different ways to play a fighter.
Yep, I realised that while you were typing. Very interesting. (You ninja, you!)
It seems a little ham-handed(we'll just give spells to EVERYBODY), but I guess it works. Everybody can sling spells if they want to. At a glance the manuever archetype seems to make a fighter the wizard of combat.
Sinful Hero wrote: It seems a little ham-handed(we'll just give spells to EVERYBODY), but I guess it works. Everybody can sling spells if they want to. At a glance the manuever archetype seems to make a fighter the wizard of combat.
Yeah, I like that one a lot better. Fighters should be the wizards of combat.
Also, keep in mind this is allegedly the alpha. Who knows what is still in.
Sinful Hero wrote: It seems a little ham-handed(we'll just give spells to EVERYBODY), but I guess it works. Everybody can sling spells if they want to. At a glance the manuever archetype seems to make a fighter the wizard of combat.
Yeah, I like that one a lot better. Fighters should be the wizards of combat.
Also, keep in mind this is allegedly the alpha. Who knows what is still in.
Starter set came in today' will read it later. My favorite part is that one player was complaining that Fighters were better archers than Rangers in 3E and one of the pre-mades is a Fighter Archer. I know who is "randomly" getting that one.
I heard some earlier rumors saying that they've gone back to bloodless weapons for Clerics, and that all the divine classes - including Paladin - are now lumped in to that. So, no swords or axes. Any truth?
Manchu wrote: Do you think you will be DMing or playing? I assume DMing given you purchased the Starter Set but if not, what kind of character do you want to play?
I'll probably try to DM this time. Maybe later I will escape - we started an adventure in 4th edition ages ago and everyone enjoyed it (just not the rules) so maybe we'll be able to convert that story into 5th edition somehow. I played a Rune Priest in that one.
Seaward wrote: I heard some earlier rumors saying that they've gone back to bloodless weapons for Clerics, and that all the divine classes - including Paladin - are now lumped in to that. So, no swords or axes. Any truth?
I am so excited for the new D&D, after largely missing out on 4e edition as I was playing other RPGs instead. I've already got my campaign for the next academic year (at the uni society) planned out: I call it Ragnarok's Return.
On Monday we are doing the second session of the Starter Box adventure, after finishing the Goblin cave encounter with only two near-TPKs, so hopefully level 2 treats the players more kindly! I know that D&D 1st level can often be grim, but I wasn't expecting quite how bad things could get. I mean, luck obviously played a part in it. But one of the Fighters went down almost instantly in the final fight, and Wolves turned out to be majorly dangerous for the players.
Actually, I think that the most dangerous thing was the player who brought along an impulsive Halfing fighter who kept rushing ahead without the rest of the group. That rapidly went south for him...
Only skimmed the Basic (waiting for PHB and I have Starter) but if Evil is an option I would wonder if it doesn't mean what it did in earlier editions? In Hackmaster Chaotic Evil is a legal option for PC's, but it just essentially means a "might makes right" attitude, and not mustache twirling evil.
The fact that it has 'evil' written after it is to combine two things:
1) A random d6 roll.
2) A quick choice for each alignment.
So you can use the chart in two ways. I think that even the evil options are not out and out JokerMad! levels of evil, but instead are broad ideas that shouldn't conflict with alignment.
This is all just IMO, and if you like it then that's cool... I'm not one to hate on people for liking something different.
But, in the two pictures shown (samurai chick, and hippy, arab, buddhist monk dude) don't really jive right with me.... If you look at the samurai chick, it looks like she should be a larger male fighter with a round body, thick arms/legs of a well fed fighter, etc.... But then you get to the face, and she's 100 lbs, soaking wet after Thanksgiving dinner. It's kind of similar with the "hermit" picture for me... He appears to be some form of desert dwelling nomad with his head wrap, robes and whatnot. But then he's got prayer beads like a monk. I dunno, it's like his parts don't appear to add up to a singular whole in my eyes.
Manchu wrote: Since when is alignment choice a question of "legality"?
As long as people have answered a question with a question.
We have a rule about not spamming the forum around here.
The question was whether or not they are defining evil in a way that was different from past iterations and has nothing to do with the 'legality' of playing an evil character. Perhaps I misunderstood what, or who, you were responding to, but it seemed you ignored the question and were purposefully confrontational and rude, which is a violation of Rule 1, which we also have around here.
Sinful Hero wrote: No boob plate, no boob window, no mini skirt, and no 'come hither' pose... I thought it was quite well done!
Lol, I don't have a problem with there not being what you mention (as I do also like a bit of realism, even in a fantasy setting)... it's really the proportions that are so off.
Ahtman wrote: The question was whether or not they are defining evil in a way that was different from past iterations and has nothing to do with the 'legality' of playing an evil character.
Well, you brought up the issue of "legality," which is what provoked my question. Perhaps I misunderstood. I will admit to being totally confused by the Hackmaster reference. Disregarding that altogether, I can rephrase my question as: How does evil being "an option" (for PCs), which it always has been, imply that 5E adopts a new definition of evil? Or we can skip that, because I sincerely did not and do not mean to offend you or to answer a question with a question, so here's my best guess at what you want to know:
Q: Is Evil different is 5E compared to previous editions? A: No.
Alignment is different, however. 4E linear spectrum alignment is gone and it's back to Cartesian plane alignment. But like 4E, and unlike 3E and previous, alignment seems to pretty much do nothing mechanical (but then again we haven't seen the Paladin yet).
As to the art ...
The Tiefling looks unfinished. It has nothing to do with whether or not she's got boob plate or whatever. And the Samurai, I gotta agree with steamdragon and Ensis Ferrae, it's just a kind of bad drawing totally independent of any PC considerations. WotC showcasing non-Western tropes and avoiding sexism is irrelevant to whether a drawing looks finished or has believable proportions. Here's another example from earlier ITT:
Manchu wrote: Now, how about that art. I'm a little concerned. The pose seems awkward. Lower body shows forward momentum but upper body is at rest. Why's she holding her stick like that. Not trying to be a debbie downer but it just looks a bit weird.
Actually I believe the samurai is one of the more well-proportioned drawings- if you overlay the "stick" outline it matches her body well. It's the baggy bloomers and having her feet cut off at the ankles that throws off the perspective.
Here's a pic of a similar set of armor that makes the legs look short- the 'skirt' rides low on the hips(and in the case of our samurai girl her feet are cut off at the ankles contribute to the problem)
Ran some of the Started Set the other night and I am generally happy with it. It seems to be like AD&D but with lessons from 3rd and bits of 4th incorporated into. Outside one player constantly complaining the entire night that he should have spotted some goblins even though his Perception check (22)* was less than their Stealth (23), everything went smoothly.
*He was upset that a 19 on the die didn't mean auto-success, essentially. He had an evening of being one short, such as trying to calm some wild wolves with Animal Empathy, a skill he had been mocking all evening, and rolled a 14 when he needed a 15. Next he fed the wolves, which lowered the difficulty and then rolled a 2.
This looks like it might be an ok alternative to Pathfinder; as I honestly really dislike Pathfinder.
Gonna have to chime in on the whole 4e thing after reading this entire thread and say I agree with Prete and Buzzsaw.
Personally 4e was my favorite edition and while I didn't get the chance to play Basic or 1e I feel that at least for me 4e had the flexibility to do what most other editions could not. I belief personally that for an RPG to provide such a large foundation for players or DM's to fall back on if they were not as good at illustrating or portraying scenes or in game rule mechanics is far more useful then simply relying on the DM to determine how exactly well something works.
A tighter rules system simply means that those who min/max will have characters that better reflect the persona of who they Role Play imho.
Besides in any game there are those who want to subvert the rules to their favor, and wouldn't it be harder if there where LESS rules? If a DM makes a ruling that later a character uses AGAINST the game and the DM has no rules to fall back on to support it not happening, wouldn't that ruin the immersion of said game?
At the end of the day I feel in my opinion DnD is not simply JUST a Role Play. It is also a GAME, and as such even though the DM has say over rulings the goal is to have some system of rules to use in assisting your game that can or not be used.
I just wish my group wasn't so hell bent on using Pathfinder as I really dislike the clumsiness of the amount of feats, skills and other things 3e 3.5 and Pathfinder seem to share. Hopefully this will be some sort of middle ground I can persuade them towards.
If this is an accurate account it seems to have a lot of choices in one book this time around. I think each has different paths/archetypes but I forgot to ask about that.
If this is an accurate account it seems to have a lot of choices in one book this time around. I think each has different paths/archetypes but I forgot to ask about that.
One could only assume/imagine that if they follow their previous routes (as in, 4E) each class will have 2-3 "Paths" to follow, with PHB2 adding a couple of new races, some new classes w/ "Paths" and some new "paths" for a couple of PHB classes to expand on (usually this is the fighter, cleric types or the "big" classes) with PHB3 following the same route as well.. Then they'll release a Martial/Divine/Natural classes book with still more options for just about any class you can imagine
I should have been clearer; when I was referring to PHB 1 et al I was comparing it to the 4E books. All the classes and races I listed are (supposedly) in the PHB coming out in August.
Victorraven wrote: for an RPG to provide such a large foundation for players or DM's to fall back on if they were not as good at illustrating or portraying scenes or in game rule mechanics is far more useful then simply relying on the DM to determine how exactly well something works
Board games are even better at this.
Victorraven wrote: If a DM makes a ruling that later a character uses AGAINST the game
In the games you are talking about, DMs make calls, not rules.
Ahtman wrote: it includes the following (going by memory):
I had heard Warforged were in. If they aren't, I know a lot of people who will be happy ... and a lot who won't!
They're swapping the default setting to Forgotten Realms, right? Warforged wouldn't make a ton of sense there.
I have to say, the more I read about 5th, the more I like it. Seems nice and low powered. Our next campaign was going to use E6 rules due to magic starting to balloon out of control in the current one, and we'd like a more Tolkienesque feel, but 5th might be a viable alternative.
Played the starter on Saturday. Finished the Goblin Caves.
Cantrips are great for casters. My wife was annoyed that she only had two spells, ran forward and stabbed a goblin, only to realize that she had cantrips that did damage!
Fighters seems really cool. Second wind being per encounter is awesome! Action surge too (Haven't tried this yet).
I DMPC'd the Cleric, and felt like healing was low but then we remembered second wind, so that'll change on the next game.
Halfling Thief was a beast (getting advantage a lot is reallllly helpful at low level).
Only 4 spell slots/day at Level 20 (contrast with Wizard, 22 slots/day), max 5th Level, not to mention only 15 spells known. I wonder what an "Invocation" is ...
So I was thinking back on the new 5e system and realized I'd seen it somewhere before: a houserule for 4e I wanted to try, but never implemented. Once again, Wizards seems tapped into my brain!
Manchu wrote: Only 4 spell slots/day at Level 20 (contrast with Wizard, 22 slots/day), max 5th Level, not to mention only 15 spells known. I wonder what an "Invocation" is ...
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140303 wrote:A warlock forges a pact with an otherworldly patron. That patron grants the warlock magical power in the form of a limited number of spells—far fewer than either the sorcerer or the wizard. However, a warlock also gains a number of innate magical abilities called eldritch invocations. These invocations allow a warlock to cast spells as rituals, to gain unique magical powers, and to use specific spells at will. Invocations are the warlock's signature magical ability. You can think of them as cantrips or feats on steroids—powerful abilities that a warlock can use again and again.
A warlock uses spells in a slightly different manner than other arcane casters. The warlock gains a small number of spells per day, but all those spells are cast at a spell slot level determined by the warlock's level. A high-level warlock casts fewer spells than a wizard of the same level, but each of those spells is cast at a heightened level of potency. Warlocks select spells from the class's spell list, in addition to gaining bonus spells based on the entity with which they forge a pact.
Alpharius wrote: Since that sounds an awful lot like a sorcerer, what makes a 'Sorcerer' a 'sorcerer' in D&D 5E then?
From the same article:
When looking at D&D's three arcane casters—the wizard, the warlock, and the sorcerer—you can see a trend emerge. As students of magic, wizards have the most flexibility in how they employ that magic. They master more spells and can prepare a wider range of spells. When faced with a specific situation, a wizard has the best chance of having the right spell for the job.
Sorcerers are specialists who master fewer spells, but who can shape and amplify those spells to make them even more effective. When faced with a specific situation or challenge, a sorcerer twists spells to suit that challenge.
Though warlocks have less flexibility in their spellcasting than wizards or sorcerers, their capacity for supporting their spellcasting with unique tricks and focus gives them an edge. A warlock faced with a specific situation doesn't worry about having the right spell at hand, but instead uses the class's unique features and advanced spellcasting power to overcome any challenge.
Also:
A quick glance at the sorcerer's advancement table might seem to undercut our intention to make the class more distinct from the wizard. The sorcerer and wizard both cast an identical number of spells per day at each level. However, lurking on the sorcerer's class table is a column that summarizes the class's unique mechanic: sorcery points.
A sorcerer is a natural conduit for arcane energy. Sorcerers can augment spells, conjure energy from thin air, and produce unique magical effects derived from the source of their innate power. Sorcery points represent this ability to channel arcane magic. Sorcerers expend this resource to cast additional spells; to alter spells to increase range, damage, or other variables; or to invoke the benefits of their arcane origin. For example, sorcerers with a draconic heritage (a staple concept of the class) can create magical wings, shield themselves from harm with dragon scales, and withstand more physical punishment than other arcane spellcasters.
It's true that wizards and sorcerers cast the same number of spells as a baseline. However, by spending sorcery points, a sorcerer can easily surpass the wizard's limits. The wizard's advantage remains flexibility. Even as a party's sorcerer casts a limited number of spells more often or with improved effects, a wizard will always bring a much more diverse range of magical options into every adventure.
If I remember correctly, didn't 4e have 'Psion Points' or something like that that allowed the psionic classes to alter their spells?
Seems to be an inverse relationship of versatility vs. effectiveness. A warlock has few spells, but can augment them greatly based on their patron. A wizard has a huge variety of spells, but they're baseline. Sorcerers seems to be a conceit to both - not as many spells as the wizards, but more than the warlock. Not as capable of changing spells as the warlock, but more so than the wizard.
Of course, all this remains to be seen until the PHB comes out. Glad that I'm near one of the D&D Premier stores, so I can get it early.
Manchu wrote: I dunno if anything about 5E is Tolkienesque. Have you looked at The One Ring?
"Tolkienesque" in the sense that wizards won't wind up teleporting people into the nearest sun as a routine means of ending conflict or stopping time to cast spells that make them as unto gods. Magic appears to have been dialed down.
Sorry if this was already answered, but either in Basic or Starter, Advantage was referred to as a +5 modifier in an example (?), but was defined as rolling two d20 and taking the better of the two in the Advantage section. Is this a typo or what? Thanks in advance.
ced1106 wrote: Sorry if this was already answered, but either in Basic or Starter, Advantage was referred to as a +5 modifier in an example (?), but was defined as rolling two d20 and taking the better of the two in the Advantage section. Is this a typo or what? Thanks in advance.
The only +5 I saw was 3/4 cover. Advantage is roll 2.
When using passive perception to determine if something is noticed, normally WIS mod + 10, you add +5 for advantage or -5 for disadvantage. That is the only +/- 5 I can recall.
Ahtman wrote: When using passive perception to determine if something is noticed, normally WIS mod + 10, you add +5 for advantage or -5 for disadvantage. That is the only +/- 5 I can recall.
Thanks. Was there a reason they did this instead of roll two d20's? I wasn't following the playtesting.
Ahtman wrote: When using passive perception to determine if something is noticed, normally WIS mod + 10, you add +5 for advantage or -5 for disadvantage. That is the only +/- 5 I can recall.
Thanks. Was there a reason they did this instead of roll two d20's? I wasn't following the playtesting.
Passive perception doesn't use any dice rolls, it just compares (mostly) fixed numbers.
I was struck at how the community was surprised that someone from Wizards of the Coast was able to attend [the "Queer As A Three-Sided Die" panel at GenCon in 2013]. I had always felt that we were a fairly progressive company, but it drove home that people can’t read our minds. Our intentions don’t mean anything unless we reflect them in our work and our actions.
That is why I am making the proverbial hajj to Indianapolis this year. I managed to get into a few "official" sessions of 5E so I will be sure to report on those but non-attendees are as likely to know any GenCon news as attendees, maybe even more likely to know it first.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Example of 5E feat:
Finally got around to looking through the basic rules with at a bit more than a casual glance. I like what I see mostly. There is a clean efficiency to what they've presented here. It feels like a trimmed and toned successor to 3.X. I can certainly see where 4th-edition fans would be turned off as there scarcely even a nod to it's existence in the product.
I'll reserve final judgement for the players guide to see how I think it holds up under the weight of additional options. I share some of the sentiments I've seen fearing this is going to continue to be lopsided for casters. They've left some things open enough I think some good DMing could work around most problems in that vein, but the inclusion of things like Knock and Find the Path is worrying.
I'd certainly like to give the ruleset a test session or two if my group gives me a chance. The beta play test (in a much earlier iteration than this), left a sour taste in some of their mouths however. It may be a tough sell even with this being a very different game than that was.
Chongara wrote: Finally got around to looking through the basic rules with at a bit more than a casual glance. I like what I see mostly. There is a clean efficiency to what they've presented here. It feels like a trimmed and toned successor to 3.X. I can certainly see where 4th-edition fans would be turned off as there scarcely even a nod to it's existence in the product.
I'll reserve final judgement for the players guide to see how I think it holds up under the weight of additional options. I share some of the sentiments I've seen fearing this is going to continue to be lopsided for casters. They've left some things open enough I think some good DMing could work around most problems in that vein, but the inclusion of things like Knock and Find the Path is worrying.
I'd certainly like to give the ruleset a test session or two if my group gives me a chance. The beta play test (in a much earlier iteration than this), left a sour taste in some of their mouths however. It may be a tough sell even with this being a very different game than that was.
Magic's probably not going to quite break in core, but once the splats start bulging their way out of someone's tumescent wand, I think it's probably pretty likely that they'll explode back up to deific power again. Maybe not quite as hard as 3.5, so it might, for example, be limiting them to teleporting only one god per round into the nearest star.
Then again, maybe they'll maintain some semblance of balance.
Chongara wrote: Finally got around to looking through the basic rules with at a bit more than a casual glance. I like what I see mostly. There is a clean efficiency to what they've presented here. It feels like a trimmed and toned successor to 3.X. I can certainly see where 4th-edition fans would be turned off as there scarcely even a nod to it's existence in the product.
I'll reserve final judgement for the players guide to see how I think it holds up under the weight of additional options. I share some of the sentiments I've seen fearing this is going to continue to be lopsided for casters. They've left some things open enough I think some good DMing could work around most problems in that vein, but the inclusion of things like Knock and Find the Path is worrying.
I'd certainly like to give the ruleset a test session or two if my group gives me a chance. The beta play test (in a much earlier iteration than this), left a sour taste in some of their mouths however. It may be a tough sell even with this being a very different game than that was.
Magic's probably not going to quite break in core, but once the splats start bulging their way out of someone's tumescent wand, I think it's probably pretty likely that they'll explode back up to deific power again. Maybe not quite as hard as 3.5, so it might, for example, be limiting them to teleporting only one god per round into the nearest star.
Then again, maybe they'll maintain some semblance of balance.
Core is broke what 3.X, mostly at least. All the most egregious differences in power-level were in core, with splat offenders mostly being limited to relatively narrow gimmicks (Uber Charger), outright editing mistakes (Shivering Touch) , non-functional systems (Truenamer), or broad applications of narrowly intended designs (Nightsticks). If it's going to break anywhere it's going to break in core. Typically it seems as a system matures the creators getting a much better sense of how it works "In the wild", later content taking this into account and being more tuned to real play experiences.
Hmm, interesting: looking at the table of contents, it strikes me that each class is relatively similar in terms of pages alloted (3-5). Which implies a general parity... except,
Ya know... the one weapon that I disagree with being "Martial" is the axe.... If a PC is wielding a standard axe (by this I mean, not a battle axe, or some other strangely named weapon), they should know how the feth to use it.... as a "simple" weapon, they aren't going to be fancy, or have many flourishes with the weapon, it'd be a simple "chopping wood" exercise of fighting.
There's a massive difference between chopping a tree down with a logging axe and hewing someone in platemail with a battleaxe, both in the styles of axes and in how you use them.
Eh, I find the divide on things like that to be largely a legacy of a poorly thought out system then anything else. True, indeed there is a difference between a battle ax and a woodcutter's ax, but there are two things that represent skill: proficiency and class bonus. A class geared towards fighting will always be better then a class that is not, even if they are both using weapons they are proficient in, so the reason for strong (and arbitrary) restrictions on weapon use seems pretty silly much of the time.
Certainly there are weapons where a lack of training should all but disqualify a character from using it, but an ax scarcely seems to fall into that category. Rapiers, spiked chains, blowguns and even bows, okay, each of those needs a lot of hard effort before you can use then to any degree (and with regards to the spiked chain, without hurting yourself). But an ax? A reasonably intelligent sapient can learn to use an ax in an afternoon. It may take a lifetime to master, but, again, that's down to class advancement, rather then proficiency.
Not that much of this matters, this is the playdough edition after all.
In 5E, being proficient with a weapon means you get to add your (level- not class-dependent) proficiency bonus to attacks with said weapon. Therefore, my Dwarven Wizard gets to add her STR modifier and proficiency bonus to melee attacks she makes with a battleaxe ... because she is a Dwarf. All other things being equal (which they are admittedly not), she can wield a battleaxe as well as a Fighter. Here the rules are explaining something about Dwarven culture.
The weapon proficiency mechanic appears to simulate whether the PC knows how to use a given implement as a weapon. The designers do not seem to think lots of experience chopping kindling amounts to knowing how to fight with an axe. By contrast, a mace is essentially a stick that is heavier on one end than the other -- even including fancy maces like the one pictured. It makes sense that most (although not all) adventures would know how to use an unbalanced stick as a weapon.
Of course, anyone can pick up an axe and use it as a weapon without a penalty in 5E. She just might not get to add her proficiency bonus to the attack roll.
I guess what I was trying to say is that, at least in 4E, a lot more specific instances are covered in the 
