|
Goffer posted:Could you make a case for Str, Int and Chr being more active ability scores, where as Dex, con and wisdom are more reactive abilities? Like you choose to use your strength to break something, your intelligence to figure something out, your charisma to charm and get along with people. But you dodge things with your Dexerity, you take hits with your con, you perceive what is happening with your wis. The problem with this is that "stuff you actively do" is supposed to be handled by the skill system, and in the meanwhile assigning saving throws to "stuff you react to" still means you're dealing with a situation where almost all spell effects targeted against you need to be handled with a saving throw ... which goes back to the saving throw distribution being completely out-of-whack. You could do something further like reassign all Str saves to Con, all Int saves to Dex, and all Cha saves to Wis, or perhaps let the player pick between Str/Con, Dex/Int and Cha/Wis as paired saves, but in the former case you're houseruling 5e back to a 3e model, and in the latter case you're houseruling 5e back to a 4e model, which clearly identifies the baseline 5e model as having a problem. Digression: There's a bit in 3e's DMG where it's asked what the difference is between handling a situation via a skill check and handling it via a saving throw, and the answer was: there isn't one. It's almost purely projection on our part to assume that skill checks have to mean active effort while saving throws have to mean reactive/passive effort, but setting aside the difference in DCs and scaling, it was even posited that you could run a game by cutting out one system entirely and using the other remaining one exclusively. Don't have a skill system at all, and everything boils down to saving throws, or vice-versa. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 03:10 on Nov 3, 2017 |
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 03:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 00:31 |
|
|
wizard on a water slide posted:The save thing is weird because it's one of the places where 4E's solution - linking Fort/Reflex/Will defense each to two stats and pulling the higher to reflect different ways the character might resist the same types of attacks - was not only elegant but also a logical, iterative design step from 3E after what 3E did to AD&D's saving throw system rather than being "innovative". There were literally feats in 3.5 that, for example, let you use Charisma as your key stat for Will saves; 4E just made the game work that way because it was a good idea. It was a 4E feature that "oldschool" (i.e. 3E) guys should've been totally fine with pulling for 5E. Due to 5e bounded accuracy, you don't need your saves to significantly scale up as you level up, the way they did in 3e and 4e. So having separate Fort/Ref/Will stats becomes redundant. By directly linking saves to stats instead they were able to eliminate a subsystem from the game to simplify it. CON/DEX/WIS are still essentially FRW but easier to explain, and now saving throws are essentially the same as skill checks. They either had the option of going through the entire system to even out saves across all six stats, or keeping 3 good stats and 3 bad stats and giving each PC proficiency in one stat in either column. They chose the latter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
wizard on a water slide posted:The save thing is weird because it's one of the places where 4E's solution - linking Fort/Reflex/Will defense each to two stats and pulling the higher to reflect different ways the character might resist the same types of attacks - was not only elegant but also a logical, iterative design step from 3E after what 3E did to AD&D's saving throw system rather than being "innovative". There were literally feats in 3.5 that, for example, let you use Charisma as your key stat for Will saves; 4E just made the game work that way because it was a good idea. It was a 4E feature that "oldschool" (i.e. 3E) guys should've been totally fine with pulling for 5E. 4E wasn't perfect, honestly, because there was another level of built-in gameyness by splitting saves like that; classes that emphasized your higher stats being in the same save stat were actually at a decent disadvantage compared to classes that mixed it up, because one guy's gonna have +3 fort and +3 ref and one'll just have +3 ref. But it's an amazing system compared to "make six saves and use three while pretending that all six are equally viable, I mean we do it with classes already"
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
Yeah they could have diversified the saves better. There are a bunch of wisdom saves that by their description would be better under Charisma. I better idea would probably have been to make three saves like there was in 3.5 then attach 2 ability scores to each of them. That way they would have all been more or less equal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
The best idea would be to consolidate ability scores, since all CON does is determine your HP number and a type of save that might as well be Strength or Brawniness or Fortitude or whatever you wish to call it, and the INT/WIS/CHA divide is nonsensical. But Sacred Cows and all that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:The best idea would be to consolidate ability scores, since all CON does is determine your HP number and a type of save that might as well be Strength or Brawniness or Fortitude or whatever you wish to call it, and the INT/WIS/CHA divide is nonsensical. "A simplified version of D&D that doesn't have a lot of rules and largely serves as a framework that people can run a game around where the GM has the freedom to make judgements on the fly" https://donjon.bin.sh/m20/Microlite20.pdf They've reduced the three stats to Strength, Dexterity, and Mind and have even made starting HP equivalent to your whole Strength score to avoid low-level rocket-tag knockouts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 04:04
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Due to 5e bounded accuracy, you don't need your saves to significantly scale up as you level up, the way they did in 3e and 4e. So having separate Fort/Ref/Will stats becomes redundant. But they didn’t do that and actually just did that but much worse by hiding it???? Are you loving high? “See now it’s not like FRW and all saves matter. Max Cha. That’ll really help you.” “Pssst gently caress no it won’t and you just hosed yourself over! Ha!” God forbid the game designers, you know, design the game. Guess that happened late on a Friday. I loving wish my job held me to this rigorous loving standard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 05:00
|
|
|
Goffer posted:Could you make a case for Str, Int and Chr being more active ability scores, where as Dex, con and wisdom are more reactive abilities? Like you choose to use your strength to break something, your intelligence to figure something out, your charisma to charm and get along with people. But you dodge things with your Dexerity, you take hits with your con, you perceive what is happening with your wis. Except you also sneak and pick pockets and tumble and shoot and sometimes stab with Dexterity. My favorite illustration as to why the six attribute system is bullshit PHB177 posted:Constitution checks are uncommon, and no skills apply to Constitution checks
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 05:01
|
|
|
esquilax posted:By directly linking saves to stats instead they were able to eliminate a subsystem from the game to simplify it. CON/DEX/WIS are still essentially FRW but easier to explain, and now saving throws are essentially the same as skill checks. If that was the goal, it would have been better achieved by doing the obvious thing and renaming F/R/W saves con/dex/wis saves, then giving everyone proficiency in one of those. Or by keeping fort/will/reflex (you get proficiency in one) and writing a single line about each, like "Reflex: make a check using the higher of your int or dex". Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 05:35 on Nov 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 05:31
|
|
|
Before 3rd edition, the difficulty of a save was based soley on your character's level, not the level of the attack causing the save. Additionally, whilst you can see the underpinnings of why they might have moved to the F/R/W system - e.g the Paralzation/Poison/Death magic save is described as being able to be substituded whenever you might need an extraordinary level of Will or physical fortitue, and Breath Weapon is a combo Dex/Con save, the remaining three - Rod, Staff or Wand; Petrification or Polymorph; Spell - are mapped to situayions rather than stats, and thus got thrown out when the saves were reduced to F/W/R in 3rd. The progression varies across classes too - Warriors start with rubbish saves, but they progress on every 3rd level, and when they cap out at 17+ they're universally good, where other classes start a bit better, but don't progress as fast, and have a few glaring holes in their defences when they stop save progression. From 3rd onwards, you effectively stop progression in everything except your Good or Proficient saves (I know technically your bad save still progresses in 3rd, but vs. the ever increasing DCs it's not really worth talking about). I think that this is another instance where a streamlining move had unintended balance destroying mechanics. I'd be tempted to move the save system back to a 2nd edition style one, or be more generous with proficiencies; All of them for Fighters and Barbarians. 4 for Rogues and Monks. 3 for the various fighty-casters, and the normal 2 for the pure casters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 07:47
|
|
|
There's something to be said about how TSR-era saving throws were better because they didn't care about how you saved against them, only that you did. You didn't get into this weird verisimilitude space where the Fighter is strong and burly so their Fort/Con saves are good, but they they're not intellectuals so their Will saves are bad ... but then Will saves are such a wide category of spells that it leaves them vulnerable to all sorts of debilitating BS. The other aspect to TSR-era saving throws is that they weren't really tied to stats, only to class, and that the level of the caster wasn't always factored into the roll, so a high-level Fighter would: * always be good at avoiding spells regardless of what kind of spell it was (granting that some spells didn't use the Save vs Spells category) * always be good at avoiding spells regardless of their ability scores * always be good at avoiding spells even against high-level casters Angrymog also makes a good point about how "balance" doesn't mean "everyone gets one good save and two bad saves". The Wizard could be bad at all saves and still be dangerous, while the Fighter could be good at all saves simply because they need to be (which hearkens back to how Indomitable used to grant Advantage on all saving throws)
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 08:19
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:There's something to be said about how TSR-era saving throws were better because they didn't care about how you saved against them, only that you did. Yes, that's what I was trying to put my finger on in my head before I posted. The narrative presentation of saves flipped in 3+ gradenko_2000 posted:The other aspect to TSR-era saving throws is that they weren't really tied to stats, only to class, and that the level of the caster wasn't always factored into the roll, so a high-level Fighter would: In fact, the Fighter's spell save at 17 is 6, same as a Wizard's at 16. First level saves look like this across the classes (Paralyzation, Poison, Death magic; Rod, staff, or wand; Petrification or Polymorph; Breath Weapon; Spell) Priests: 10, 14, 13,16, 15 Rogues: 13, 14, 12, 16, 15 Warriors: 14, 16, 15, 17, 17 (Paladins get a +2 bonus to all saves) Wizards: 14, 11, 13, 15, 12 When normal progression caps out (at levels 19, 17, 17, and 16 respecitively, though some classes list for 21+) Priests: 2, 6, 5, 8, 7 Rogues: 9, 6, 8, 12, 7 Warriors: 3, 5, 4, 4, 6 Wizards: 10, 5, 7, 9, 6 Warriors get a save increase every 3rd level, the others have fewer steps - e.g. Wizard saves increase at 6, 11 and 16
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 08:35
|
|
|
Merge Str and Con. Add Luck, it's the Lucky feat but an ability score. Choose one of your mental stats to be your Will save. Choose another to be your Perception/Insight stat. The remaining stat applies a modifier to your Initiative. Splicer fucked around with this message at 12:19 on Nov 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 12:17
|
|
|
Has anyone played with changing the spell level progression for a lower-magic (and therefore more martial-equitable) campaign? I’d have it start out normal but then push back maybe level 2 to 3 by a level to every 3 caster levels, and then every 4 caster levels from 6 to 7 and beyond. It would mean that you wouldn’t get 8th or 9th level spells, but those could be reserved for items/artifacts/elaborate rituals, and who plays 20 levels of 5e anyway? E: Splicer posted:Merge Str and Con. Add Luck, it's the Lucky feat but an ability score. I was going to poke fun at CHA as perception, but if the charisma comes from being able to read people and the mood of a room, I can see it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 12:22
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Has anyone played with changing the spell level progression for a lower-magic (and therefore more martial-equitable) campaign? I’d have it start out normal but then push back maybe level 2 to 3 by a level to every 3 caster levels, and then every 4 caster levels from 6 to 7 and beyond. It would mean that you wouldn’t get 8th or 9th level spells, but those could be reserved for items/artifacts/elaborate rituals, and who plays 20 levels of 5e anyway? There are any number of people who play 3.PF that played the variant that caps out at caster level 6, and Starfinder tacitly admits that maybe casters shouldn't go past 7th-level spells, so go hog-wild.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 12:27
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:There are any number of people who play 3.PF that played the variant that caps out at caster level 6, and Starfinder tacitly admits that maybe casters shouldn't go past 7th-level spells, so go hog-wild. Thank you! Your endorsement unironically means a bunch. Do you think it would require rebalancing pre-written adventures much, or magical items?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 12:28
|
|
|
I don't really have a lot of experience with what the premade adventures demand of parties, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 12:35
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:I was going to poke fun at CHA as perception, but if the charisma comes from being able to read people and the mood of a room, I can see it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 12:39
|
|
|
Angrymog posted:Yes, that's what I was trying to put my finger on in my head before I posted. The narrative presentation of saves flipped in 3+ The AD&D DMG has some pretty interestng things to say about savng throws. Here's the best bit: "Someone once sharply criticised the concept of the saving throw as ridiculous. Could a man chained to a rock, they asked, save himself from the blast of a red dragon's breath? Why not?, I replied. If you acccept fire-breathing dragons, why doubt the chance to reduce the damage sustained from such a creature's attack? Imagine that the figure, at the last moment of course, manages to drop beneath the licking flames, or finds a crevice in which to shield his or her body, or succeeds at finding a way to be free of the fetters. Why not? The mechanics of combat or the details of the injury caused by some horrible weapon are not the key to heroic fantasy and adventure games. It is the character, how he or she becomes involved in the combat, how he or she somehow escapes - or fails to escape - the mortal threat which is important to the enjoyment and longevity of the game". Also a few paragraph specifically about how you shouldn't worry about the details of saves vs spells, which ends: "Magic-users understand spells, even on an unconscious level, and are able to slightly tamper with one so as to render it ineffective. Fighters withstand them through sheer defiance, while clerics create a small island of faith. Thieves find they are able to avoid a spell's full effects by quickness..." (It actually ends there on the ellipsis, too, that's not me cutting the quote off). So yeah, literally "roll the dice and then make something up to describe the result", up to and including narrating how Barry The Brawler didn't get hurt by the fireball because gently caress you, wizard, that's why. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 13:31 on Nov 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 13:26
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:If that was the goal, it would have been better achieved by doing the obvious thing and renaming F/R/W saves con/dex/wis saves, then giving everyone proficiency in one of those. Which is effectively what they did from a design standpoint, since INT/STR/CHA saves are near worthless to a PC. Since you have now directly linked saves to stats, expanding to INT/STR/CHA doesn't add complexity, makes it more cohesive with ability checks, and allows DMs more flexibility in their ad-hoc and homebrew save calls. Keeping saves on 3 stats is as complex as 6 and less flexible. Which also shows the reason why they didn't move a lot of the "CHA save makes more sense" abilities away from WIS - it would have buffed Bard and Sorc (who get CHA plus a good save) and weakened Druid and Wizard (who get WIS plus a bad save). It's honestly pretty easy to understand why they made a lot of these design decisions, even when I disagree. While it simplifies things, the big flaw of making saves act like an ability check is that players have a hard time understanding the difference between the two, which can slow down the table just as much as FRW does and also leads to rule errors.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 14:23
|
|
|
mental stats probably need to be broken down into analogues to physical ones (so 3 instead of 2) but that creates such a mess it's never happen. plus it would hurt casters so we can't have that
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
Hello there goon friends. I'll be DM'ing a whole campaign for my friends in this new 5th edition. I still have my massive Eberron setting/campaign fully fleshed out but I didn't touch it for like 2 years. So... what should I be reading for DM'ing in 5th? Just the DM rulebook? Any other suggestions? Also what happened to the Masterplan, it was such a nice program for 4th. Any similar programs for 5th? Thanks in advance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Which is effectively what they did from a design standpoint, since INT/STR/CHA saves are near worthless to a PC. Since you have now directly linked saves to stats, expanding to INT/STR/CHA doesn't add complexity, makes it more cohesive with ability checks, and allows DMs more flexibility in their ad-hoc and homebrew save calls. Keeping saves on 3 stats is as complex as 6 and less flexible. If they did all of this totally on purpose you guys... why doesn't the PHB say anything like that? Why do they let the assumption stand that all stat saves are pretty worthwhile (by presenting them the exact same way) until you reach a certain level of system knowledge? edit: Hell, some classes specifically get strong saves in the stats you've said were purposefully designed as near worthless. What's up with that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:If they did all of this totally on purpose you guys... why doesn't the PHB say anything like that? Why do they let the assumption stand that all stat saves are pretty worthwhile (by presenting them the exact same way) until you reach a certain level of system knowledge? I guess they probably that they don't need to say it because even if you knew what saves were better, it wouldn't change your decision-making. Of course, it still does, and that's why people dump Intelligence on their Bards but still take 12 Wisdom, or why no one will likely be taking Reslient: Charisma or Strength as a feat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
Nickoten posted:I guess they probably that they don't need to say it because even if you knew what saves were better, it wouldn't change your decision-making. Of course, it still does, and that's why people dump Intelligence on their Bards but still take 12 Wisdom, or why no one will likely be taking Reslient: Charisma or Strength as a feat. Yeah but if you're designing a game with six saves and three of them are basically traps why would you then purposefully assign these trap saves to classes as their boosted save?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
The reason is that Mearls & Co are very bad at design and did not actually plan anything out
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
I don't understand why saves exist and aren't just skills, they work identically to skills. They should have just put reflexes, will, fortitude in the skill list and given classes proficiency in one of them. It's not like all the skills are equally useful either, it doesn't matter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:I don't understand why saves exist and aren't just skills, they work identically to skills. They should have just put reflexes, will, fortitude in the skill list and given classes proficiency in one of them. It's not like all the skills are equally useful either, it doesn't matter. You gotta have saving throws or it isn't D&D!
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:I don't understand why saves exist and aren't just skills, they work identically to skills. They should have just put reflexes, will, fortitude in the skill list and given classes proficiency in one of them. It's not like all the skills are equally useful either, it doesn't matter. There are a lot of effects that give advantage or disadvantage to skill checks. The disadvantage ones in particular would be way too strong if they also applied to saving throws. For example, the hex spell.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
esquilax posted:There are a lot of effects that give advantage or disadvantage to skill checks. The disadvantage ones in particular would be way too strong if they also applied to saving throws. For example, the hex spell. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Nov 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:Yeah but if you're designing a game with six saves and three of them are basically traps why would you then purposefully assign these trap saves to classes as their boosted save? Darwinism posted:The reason is that Mearls & Co are very bad at design and did not actually plan anything out Sorry, I misworded my post but you got to the same conclusion I wanted to! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:They created the distinction and then effects that also make the distinction to match. If there were no distinction created originally, there wouldn't be effects like that. They'd either decide they're okay (they are), or would do other things instead of "vaguely give disadvantage on all skills". It's pretty arbitrary which one is which. (Oh the fire breath attack is a save while grappled is a check because....I dunno that's what we wrote last night, ship it.) I agree - but making the distinction between them grants flexibility in the rules to affect one and not the other. Fully merging the two concepts and adjusting to match would have been better I think - simplifying the system would have been better than the added flexibility (which isn't that much). If it was merged though they shouldn't let hex choose an ability/save to give disadvantage to, that's really easily abused.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
esquilax posted:I agree - but making the distinction between them grants flexibility in the rules to affect one and not the other. Fully merging the two concepts and adjusting to match would have been better I think - simplifying the system would have been better than the added flexibility (which isn't that much). I get your point though. Hex should honestly just not do the ability check thing and be an at-will power ala 4e. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Nov 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
turboraton posted:Hello there goon friends. I'll be DM'ing a whole campaign for my friends in this new 5th edition. I still have my massive Eberron setting/campaign fully fleshed out but I didn't touch it for like 2 years. So... what should I be reading for DM'ing in 5th? Just the DM rulebook? Any other suggestions? Also what happened to the Masterplan, it was such a nice program for 4th. Any similar programs for 5th? Thanks in advance. The PHB is all you really need. The DMG is pretty much a just a bonus with a bunch of extra stuff. (And from the sound of it you are experienced.) Never heard of the Masterplan so I have no idea if I can help you with that. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 01:30 on Nov 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
XGE posted:Shadow Blade (2nd-level illusion) Well, that's an interesting spell 
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 01:41
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Well, that's an interesting spell Thats a pretty good spell for gishes. Also were did you see that preview?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Thats a pretty good spell for gishes. Also were did you see that preview? Leaked photo. Gives EKs the damage option they always wanted, it's useful on ATs (can be thrown, resummoned via Bonus Action while it's still active, no material components so never be unarmed). Nice for Sorcadins as well but that's about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
Rogues (arcane tricksters) can finally ambush in the dark.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
turboraton posted:Hello there goon friends. I'll be DM'ing a whole campaign for my friends in this new 5th edition. I still have my massive Eberron setting/campaign fully fleshed out but I didn't touch it for like 2 years. So... what should I be reading for DM'ing in 5th? Just the DM rulebook? Any other suggestions? Also what happened to the Masterplan, it was such a nice program for 4th. Any similar programs for 5th? Thanks in advance. Uh, hope you enjoy homebrew. There are technically a small number of Eberron materials they made for 5e, but they're all real fuckin' dire, and even if you do use them, 5e is...not made for Eberron. Conspiratiorist posted:Well, that's an interesting spell I "like" that the "fix" to low dexterity damage is "use a spell." ProfessorCirno fucked around with this message at 03:35 on Nov 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 00:31 |
|
|
I'm in the process of creating a new character, my second after playing a rogue swashbuckler, and am looking forward to making the leap from "I stab good/you can't get me" to something a bit more complex. Currently, I've settled on a Warforged caster whose thematic inspiration is 'The Internet'. I figure their strong skills are going to be research based (history, arcana etc), so most likely high Int, so I guess that means it's gonna be a wizard. This makes more sense than anything Wisdom, although a sorcerer wearing a particularly charismatic fedora would be solidly on brand. Starting at first level, I'd like to keep the spell choices on theme: Sleep, Message, Friends, eventually taking Firewall (Wall of Fire) etc etc. Roleplay wise, I'm sure he'll talk in annoying memes and say "gg" at the end of each fight, that's all good. What I'm struggling with, is deciding on an arcane tradition (or sorcerous origin). Because this is my first magicker in D&D, the only thing I've got to go on is a handful of generic guides from ENWorld et al. So I was hoping I could tap into some real-play experience and ask for some ideas/suggestions? I'm quite aware that warforged+spells aren't an optimal match, so any trick or combo to bring me back to average would be rad also.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 04:46
|
|
