# Seminar Transcript - Reimagining Skills and Ability Scores



## Morrus

This is the transcript of the final seminar of DDXP 2012: Reimagining Skills and Ability Scores. The role of skills has fluctuated throughout the life of _Dungeons & Dragons_, and ability scores have been of varying importance in each edition. Find out what the design team has done to reimagine these aspects of the game, and how they arrived at a system to marry the two concepts more closely together. Seminar includes Monte Cook, Bruce Cordell, and Robert Schwalb, and is followed by a Q&A session. 

This transcript is paraphrased, with some responses shortened. It is compiled from various tweets (thanks especially to Critical Hits and Rolling20s for their live tweeting - I suggest you check out their Twitter feeds) plus WotC's live chat feed, and other sources.

*Greg: You've talked about the importance of ability scores in D&D in the recent past. What kind of things are you planning for ability scores for the next iteration of D&D?*

Monte: We wanted to distill down the essence of D&D. We wanted to make sure that the ability scores and their modifiers had a big influence. Looking at all the editions of the game, you can easily see that ability scores are really important. Often times, people will use ability scores to help them define their character, or they'll have an idea for a character and then look at the scores first to make them fit that idea.

A couple of days ago I talked a little bit about how we want the core mechanic of the game to be the interaction between the DM and the player. And one of the great tools for that is the ability score. So what we want is to empower DMs and players so that if you want to attempt to do something "I want to open the door" then the DM doesn't have to even have you roll, he can just look, see you have a 17 strength and says "Yeah, you burst through that door". We want to get past some of the mundane rolls and not tie up a lot of table time with that and move on to the more interesting stuff and the table narrative. 

Bruce: An example I saw yesterday was a rogue going into a room and looking for traps. You can describe what you're doing and roleplay what you're doing. If he says I look in the jar and I know there's a gem in the jar, I'm not going to have him roll. However, if something is more hidden, like a secret compartment on the shelf I would look at their intelligence and see if he can just automatically find it or if he's looking in the exact right place. However, if he's doing that check in the middle of some other stressor like fighting, then I'd have him roll.

Rob: Earlier this week I had some players fighting some kobolds in the room. One of the guys wanted to jump over a pit, he had a 15 strength so I let him just do it - it wasn't that big of a jump and it sped up combat. It's very liberating to be able to do that kind of thing and just keep the flow going. 

*Greg: Another thing we've been talking about recently is saving throws and what you guys think about them and the future of D&D?*

Monte: Making a saving throw against something has become something that's really a part of D&D. So again, what we've done is tie those into the ability scores. For example you'll make a strength saving throw or wisdom saving throw against a certain effect and so far it's become a big part of some effects and abilities. The attacker makes a check and that sets the DC for your saving throw.

Rob: Right now, Cha is linked to saves for fear and charm effects. However, if you describe it well, you could use different stat. For example the big monster is grappling you, you might use dexterity to save and get out. But you can also have some other ways of getting out that grapple. Maybe there's a gem on that creature's head and you can make an intelligence saving throw to realize that if you mess with it, the creature would die and let you go. 

*Greg: How the the different ability scores matter for different characters or classes?*

Monte: Different ability scores will still be important to different classes, but there's also plenty of room to focus on all the ability scores. For example if you want to be a charismatic fighter, there's definitely room for that.

Rob: What we want to do when looking at how we handling ability scores in D&D Next is to make sure that the ability scores have their own area carved out. It should make sense to the players why the ability scores are linked to the things they are and make sense in the world.

Monte: Another thing that we're trying out is not only having races give you ability scores changes, but the classes also give you bonuses. It makes sense that if you're a cleric that you would get that bonus to wisdom - you've had training or experience that help you out there.

Bruce: I also see it as kind of puzzle pieces or guiding. I can pick the half orc and lets say that gives you a +1 strength. I can then look at the classes and see that fighter gives me a +1 strength and see the synergy there. 

Monte: It allows you to make the weird choices, too. Half-Orc Bard gets Cha bump, so you're still a good Bard.

*Greg: Speaking of ability scores, how are you guys planning on ability scores generation?*

Monte: (joking) It'll be 2d6 -10.

Rob: Looking at all the iteration of D&D, the classic way of doing ability skills is rolling. So the very basic we're working from are 4d6 drop the lowest for each stat. But since we're also looking at the modularity, those core books will also have options for other ability score generation which might be point buy, point arrays and other things.

Monte: Or you can just buy your DM a pizza and get all 18s. 

*Greg: Talking about ability scores leads easily into skills. What are you guys tossing around for skills and their uses?*

Bruce: Looking at the playtest characters here, you might have noticed that a class or a theme might have given you a bonus to skill, but you didn't have a skill list. Normally if you were to call for a check, you would just call for the ability score - like a dexterity check for sneaking up. But if you have a class or character feature that gives you a bonus to sneak, you would add that in. There are a lot of different expressions for skills. Trained, sneaking at full speed (stealth twice). Lots of options.

*Greg: Could you talk about some of the challenges you faced while building the current skill system idea? *

Bruce: What we started with was actually a lot like what we've come to now, but it didn't reflect your ability scores directly, it was a bit more derived. It was accomplishing its goals but it didn't necessarily look or feel like the heart and soul of D&D, which is one of the challenges we always bring ourselves back to. So we changed it and we're running with this idea now. 

Monte: With skills it hasn't necessarily been easy to pick how skills have iconicly worked in D&D, because each edition has changed the way those kinds of abilities work. So we really keep going back to how do we make this feel like the most D&D that we can. We're really looking forward to feedback on this one so we can see if people agree or if they feel something else has a better D&D feel. 

Rob: It's been a difficult problem for a while. In 3E and 4E skills were sort of the doorway to interaction with the world.

Monte: In previous editions, ability scores played into skills. We want skills to play into ability scores. Maybe more open-ended.

Bruce: If skills are not the portals to ability scores, but rather the tweaks to them, we can add interesting tiny skills. More flavor. Because the ability scores are the core, we can make any little skills we want.

Monte: It means that if you're a DM and you don't even want to deal with skills, you can totally do that.

*Greg: So some players want to be able to use a bluff skill to say convince the ogre to join the party, roll and then bluff it. Other players want to come up with an elaborate story about working with the hobgoblins and acting as their emissary. What are you doing to cater to both of those different play styles? *

Monte: On the one hand you want to reward the guy who's done the RP to support his actions. But on the other hand, we don't want to train players to know how to use swords to attack in the game. In other words, you want to reward behavior but you don't want to penalize people for not playing a certain way. We shouldn't force players to be penalized because they can't be personally eloquent on the fly.

What we've done now is we have this thing called "advantage" that a DM can hand out if the players set themselves up with a good description.

*Greg: Bring a real sword to the table, get advantage? *

Monte: (joking) Absolutely.

Bruce: If you just want to roleplay, ignore the ability scores, and let the roleplaying win the day.

Monte: Player/DM interactions is the most important thing. Interact first, go to making checks second. Yeah, the DM rules would focus on a few things. First you would look at the character and the situation and if it all fits, you don't have to look at the ability score or the dice. If it's not clear at that point though, then the next step would be looking at the appropriate stat and comparing it to the DC. 

*Greg: So what's the current difference between feats and skills?*

Rob: As of *right now* skills specifically interact with your ability scores, outside of, and a little inside combat. A feat is bigger and chunkier and changes the ways you interact with the game. A skill would be something that's a reflection of a stat or a specific feature of a stat. A feat is more like a feature that is beyond that, more unique and not inherent to an ability score. 

Bruce: Adding to that, a feat might provide a bonus that is always on, or a power or ability. Feats are always on, (e.g. Toughness), skills are used situationally. Feats are the territory that lie beyond ability scores.

Rob: Feats also cover stuff that would be like your at-will powers. For example if you saw the _javelin of fire _at-will in the playtests, that was from a magic feat. 

*Greg: What about players who want to be awesome at potion-making, or blacksmithing?*

Monte: We have themes for that. Kind of like kits in 2E. They reflect your background and life before adventuring. If you want to continue to improve in that theme (with feats, etc), you can continue to express the story of your background. Or, instead of focusing on a theme, you can choose skills and feats to sort of customize your own theme.

*Greg: How do you envision building a character going?*

Monte: What we're working with now is that you pick you stats, class, race and then you also have a theme. So you might be a commoner, a noble, a knight, aprentice, etc. These themes would offer you skills. As you go up in level you could expand on that and express the story of your background and character by picking more options that support your theme. But if you want to get into a more complex character development system (modular option), then you could pick other features and things to basically build your own theme. 

*Greg: Any favorite themes?*

Greg: Are there any themes you really liked or things from themes you've really enjoyed?

Monte: We're doing a lot of really cool things with themes. For example, you could have a planetouched theme that would give you some extraplanar stuff.

Bruce: This is on the edge of what we're thinking of, but maybe something like being a deva would actually be a theme instead of a race. There's a more basic one that I really enjoy is the pubcrawler. You're that guy when you walk into the bar everybody knows your name, and it has some other flavor like that. It doesn't really speak to the combat or some other character areas, but it really helps inform who that guy is.

Rob: I like the idea of possibly taking what might have been classes in other editions and making them themes. For example, I love avengers, but an avenger themed Paladin is really cool too. It opens up the space for working with a class from a previous edition that there might not be space for as it's own class, but still has some great flavor. 

Monte: The themes work well with the open-ended skills system. We can make skills just for specific themes.

*Greg: It sounds like this is something that could be one of the options a DM could apply or not apply based on the way the DM wants to run it?*

Monte: Yeah, as I was saying earlier if you wanted to play the most basic version of the game you could ignore themes completely. 

*Greg: Anything specific from previous editions that you really want to see in the next game?*

Bruce: I really like the warlock, that there are several different pacts that you can choose right out of the gate. The customization is a bit more complex, but being able to choose from a strong number of pacts is very important to me and I hope that as it exists in our current playtest, we can move forward with that.

Rob: The electrum piece. I want to bring back the Great Wheel of cosmology. That would be awesome to have back.

Monte: There really are a lot of things. I want the ritual system to be expressed in some way. I love the idea of magic existing in a lot of different forms in some way. Part of D&D is those really classic magic items that we all know, the flame tongue, the holy avenger, the wand of wonder. All of that has to be in the game for it to really feel like D&D to me. The Ritual system expressed in some way (magic in many different forms), and iconic magic items.

*Greg: You've talked about a scale of running a game with a lot of magic items or no magic items. Since we're talking about ability scores today, how do you see magic items affecting/not affecting ability scores?*

Monte: There will always be room for stat-boosting items. But they might play a different role. Maybe a hard cap on non-magically augmented ability scores. Mortal limits. Can boost with magic. I think there's definitely room for a things like the gauntlets of ogre power and have items that could affect stats, but we're looking at having caps on what those items could raise your stats to. 

*Greg: How will mundane equipment be in the game - more the standard? How will that affect the game and what else goes along with that? *

Monte: Mundane equipment is important and we're trying some different things there. For example, at this point nobody starts with the ability to have plate armor.

Bruce: One of the things we're doing is moving things more to a silver standard instead of a gold standard. We also have mundane implements for some caster classes that are their equivalent of a fighters sword or their slightly better armor. This opens up space for some interesting magic items that help you in rituals. but if you have a magic item, maybe it's a totem that has a little creature in it that is summoned to help you and do other cool things. A mundane wand might be 100sp, like the fighter's scale mail.

*Greg: To what degree do you see weapons playing a roll in D&D? Should you have to change weapons for fighting different foes - how do you see weapons playing out in the next interation?*

Monte: Something I'd like to see is characters that are good with weapons become more broad with a number of different weapons or maybe any weapon he comes across. We're defining weapons not by specific names, but but their categories. So you wouldn't say I'm really good with a battle axe, you'd say I'm really good with axes. So you could be good with axes, swords, and bows for example.

If a fighter is good with swords, and they find a really good axe in a dragon's horde for example, I'd love for him to be able to just pick that axe up and be good with it - not have to worry about ignoring it because you didn't make the choice to be an axe guy. 

*Greg: What kind of transparency are you looking for when it comes to Monsters and abilities. Should players know what they're facing when they see something, or is some of the information hidden?*

Monte: We were just talking about throwing in some extra abilities to monsters. So you might have a normal orc, or you might decide to make him a vicious orc that would add an attack that to a nearby creature when the monster dies. That kind of thing could be added in by a DM on the fly because it doesn't really change the challenge too much or make you rewrite anything. It might give you a little bit of an experience bonus if/when you defeat it too. 

*Greg: Alright, we're opening the floor up to questions. *
*What is going to be the differentiation between weapons? In previous editions it could have been keen, two handed, damage die, etc.* *In the playtest, classes had critical features, not weapons. *

Rob: We're looking at accuracy and damage expression right now. In addition to the damage type, we're also looking at damage types like slashing, piercing, etc. In addition the plan right now is that we're going to have some weapon specialization benefits. So if you're specialized in a certain weapon type, it opens up all sorts of neat little benefits, some of which are the at-will kind of attacks we've seen in 4E. 

*A couple days ago you were talking about having different iterations of the cleric - with the cleric being a class that is melee and casts some healing, but having the priest be more of a guy channeling holy magic and being a cloth wearer. Do you have any plans to have a magic class that caters more to people who don't like the Vancian wizard - maybe some other arcane casting option?*

Monte: Yes, definitely. We're interested in magic classes that handle their abilities or magic differently than the Vancian style wizard. 

*Are races going to have positive and negative ability mods or just positive?*

Monte: We're looking at having both positive and negative modifiers for races.

*What kind of things are going to change or advance in your character as it levels?*

Bruce: We think that there's a lot more, if you don't scale things quite so dramatically, there's a lot of room for interesting things to happen. For example, equipment stays interesting for longer, monsters stay interesting and challenging for longer. There's a lot that opens up when you don't boost abilities scores as much through progression.

Monte: Not having ability scores advance as quickly also makes magic items more relevant at higher and lower levels. Because level will mean less dramatically for things like attack bonus, those things will scale a lot less, we can play around with you having other options to improve your ability scores or skills so those choices really matter instead of just having them advance as you level. The current playtest system allows us to do fun things with scaling. Attack bonus scales less, so ability mods mean more.

*Sounds like D&D Next puts a lot of work on DM. What are your thoughts on bringing in new DMs?*

Monte: We want to work hard to provide actual meaningful guidance on how to be a good DM. We want to embrace the 4E idea of quick prep time. New monster, 5 mins. High level NPCs in 10 minutes. Lots of 4E ideas. Decoupling the idea that NPCs have to advance or be built in the same way as PCs.

Bruce: By giving power to the DM and a very robust rule set we can make it easier for the DM to make a calling and not feel like he's lost at sea. This will keep the game going and improve things for everyone.

Monte: We're not just giving more power to the DM, we're giving more power to the players. In a way we're giving more power to the players, and not just the characters. We're giving the player the ability to come out with his crazy ideas and say I want to do this. And instead of giving the DM lots of concrete rules, give him rules for making calls and keeping the action and roleplay going. So when a player goes I want to jump up onto this table and kick the magic helmet off the monsters head, the DM will know that he can just let it happen because of the ability score and/or require a roll for some of the things that are going on. 

*How is XP going to be rewarded? XP for gold, or alternative advancement mechanisms?*

Rob: We want to provide a bunch of different options for how DMs can reward the players for doing different things. So yeah, we'll have an experience table for the monsters, but we'll also have information for doing things like giving XP for quests, or giving XP for exploring a whole area, or give experience for finding the hidden treasure. There are things we're doing so that you can reward your players for what you or they are trying to accomplish in the game. 

*Are the themes limited to certain classes? *

Bruce: Simply, no. Whatever makes sense.

*I'm very interested in how race will interact with ability scores. Can this be explained? *

Trevor: What we're running with now is that a race might grant something like a +1 bonus to a specific stat. This could change of course. 

*Will you be using themes to limit class sprawl? *

Bruce: Yes, we can use themes to express non-core classes.

Rob: It's useful to take classes that are mechanically similar, and differentiate them with themes.

*Will we see a return of the "gritty" low levels? *

Trevor: I've heard a lot of people talking about how at first level they are concerned with their characters dying. Probably not the lethality that original or early D&D had, but surviving at low levels and beyond is something that players will be careful of it they're doing more dangerous tasks. 

Monte: We're looking for a lot of feedback on this idea. Is this theme better as a class, or vice versa? Give feedback!

*Ritual and magic components - do they have a place in the game?*

Bruce: As we're looking at it right now, rituals are the only thing that really have magic components. We think they have a place in the world that's archetypical but rituals might be the best place for that. 

Rob: We assume that when a Wizard is casting, there are gestures and components, but they're not explicit.

Monte: One of the great things we can do with a ritual system, is that we can have the components for some crazy ritual to be actually a quest - go find this rare component so that you can use this ritual. It opens it up to be important to the story.

*Will gridded combat be something that groups need to have in mind in order to plan their characters? How are you going to include tactical combat and class features that care more about tactics than the theater of the mind style games would provide?*

Monte: In every edition of the game, the DM has had the ability to play out the the combat in a theater of the mind style, or pull out a grid and miniatures to be more more precise. Nothings changed with that - a DM will still be able to do that. But if you want to make things more tactical, then the DM would choose to apply the tactical rules module. The DM would let his players know that when he's setting up the campaign, and then there are certain options that would or might be flagged as specifically useful in a game using the tactical rules module.

Bruce: Those options would also still be useful in the theater of the mind kind of games as well. While an option might be flagged to make it easy to find and use if your game is using the tactical rules module, it's just as useful in other game styles as well.

Monte: And this tactical rules module that we're envisioning would be covered in the initial book release. 

*Will the open playtests only be in stores, or available for home play?*

Trevor: We're not really set in stone for how the open playtest would work, but it sounds like it would be available for home play. 

*How do you feel about skill challenges going forward?*

Rob: (jokingly) I really want skill challenges to die in a fire. The plan was great for those, but I always felt it subtracted too much from the narrative. I think we can do complex skill checks within the narative and provide a robust amount of information to help the DM just weave them into the story.

Monte: The only thing I would add is that I don't want to take away from the idea of a player saying "I want to do this thing". And the DMs response isn't just "well make the check and you do it". Instead I want to encourage or empower the DMs and the players to describe what they're doing and what happens in response. You see a lot of interesting story and conversations at the table when someone comes up with a cool way to cross that pit.

*Greg: Do you think there's room for that player or players who might not be comfortable with really roleplaying out what they're doing when they do these kind of skill interactions.*

Monte: Oh yes, if you want to roll the dice and make your check, you can still do that. But I think that once that player dips his or her toe in that water and starts describing their actions, things will open up and that kind of activity will continue. You see it happen at tables all the time

*Alright all. That ends the coverage of the last of the seminars. The designers are packing up and doing a bit of mingling. Thanks much to all of you for joining our live coverage and putting your questions out there. For those that we didn't get to answer, we are gathering the questions and we will get them in front of R&D to see which ones we can answer in future articles and other areas. Stay awesome everybody.*


----------



## Deadboy

Hmmm... Just as much excites me as disappoints me.

I like themes being integral parts of the game. I like the idea of a lot of things being taken care of without a roll (though sometimes those rolls can be hilarious when they go poorly, but I also understand the chance of that discourages many players from doing certain things), I like the new take on saving throws, and getting At-Wills through weapon choice sounds like it could be neat.

I'm worried that the Avenger will be reduced to a theme, I don't like rolling for ability scores and don't feel that should be the default (especially after the results of the poll; point buys had the clear majority), and I'm not sure I like the way the intend to handle the skills, by making them little more than tweaks to ability score rolls.

I'm starting to wonder if maybe what maybe my best approach to D&D in the future  is to strive to be a Renaissance Man of D&D editions - Be willing to play any, because each has its own niche... Though I get the feeling that for all its flaws, 4e will continue to be my favorite.


----------



## Siberys

I'm a little worried about the "at-will feats" bit - I hope every class gets at least one for free. Otherwise it'll feel like too much of a feat tax. First house rule? I dunno. Gotta see the playtest first.


----------



## Dragonblade

Two things concern me:

1) With the new emphasis on stat importance, rolling is a horrible idea. To always be second best to the guy that rolled better than you did for the life of your PC? No thanks. Point buy absolutely has to be the default for this.

2) Feats. It sounds like feats will be incredibly important to customize your PC beyond your choice of class and theme. So how fast do you get one? Considering it sounds like bonuses won't advance much, I'd like to see a feat EVERY level. And you should start with more than one or two.


----------



## MatthewJHanson

My favorite part is that NPCs/monsters do not need to built like PCs. It makes game prep and designing so much easier.

I also think themes sound interesting.

Seems like taking 10/passive skills are the default. Which I'm good with.

The abilities/skills reminded me of how Dragon Age works. Everything is an Ability (skill) check (I.e. Strength [Climbing]). If you have a bonus in that Skill (called focuses in DA) you get a bonus, otherwise its just an ability check. It seems to work well in Dragon Age.

The part that I liked the least was that for one attack you roll an attack and a saving throw. I'm okay with attack rolls for spells, I'm okay with saving throws against swords, but having both just slows the game and increases swingy-ness. (Pathfinder changing opposed grapples to rolling Combat Maneuver Attack vs. Static Combat Maneuver Defense was a good thing.)


----------



## Dragonblade

Siberys said:


> I'm a little worried about the "at-will feats" bit - I hope every class gets at least one for free. Otherwise it'll feel like too much of a feat tax. First house rule? I dunno. Gotta see the playtest first.




Exactly! If feats are as important as they sound when it comes to customizing your PC, then you need to get them pretty frequently, otherwise you pretty much are paying a feat tax.

If feats are few and your precious few feats have to be spent on things you need as opposed to things you think would be cool from a story aspect, that would be frustrating.

Multiple feats for 1st level PCs, plus a feat every level sounds good to me.


----------



## Dragonblade

Going back to feats, perhaps they have different types of feats. Like Major feats that you only get one every two levels and Minor feats that give smaller situational bonuses and such but you get those every level.

It sounds already like there will be class specific feats. Like Arcane feats that give casters at-will attacks and such, so maybe having different types of feats that are acquired in different ways is a model they are looking at.


----------



## Dragonblade

Oh and racial penalties need to die in a fire!

I get that some races are naturally better in some areas and providing a bonus acts as positive reinforcement when playing classes that use that particular stat. So playing a halfling fighter as opposed to say a rogue is already a sub-optimal choice.

Therefore, having a racial penalty is like being double punished for playing against type. I'd like to make more races viable to play more classes, not less.

Let's not mechanically punish players more than necessary for trying to be creative and playing against type.


----------



## Morrus

Dragonblade said:


> Oh and racial penalties need to die in a fire!
> 
> I get that some races are naturally better in some areas and providing a bonus acts as positive reinforcement when playing classes that use that particular stat. So playing a halfling fighter as opposed to say a rogue is already a sub-optimal choice.
> 
> Therefore, having a racial penalty is like being double punished for playing against type. I'd like to make more races viable to play more classes, not less.
> 
> Let's not mechanically punish players more than necessary for trying to be creative and playing against type.




I've always been of the opposite school of thought.  I've always wanted race to be more important than it is.

Usually, it has a bit of an effect at first (not much) and by 5th level there's no difference to note between a hafling and a half-orc.  But I WANT there to be a real noticeable difference between those two choices for the entire character life.  A half-orc should be big and strong, and halfling should not (unless you do some weird stuff).

I'd go further.  I'd make the usual modifiers +/- 4.  You KNOW that's a half-orc.  He's big and strong, whatever career he chooses.  The halfling is never going to be as strong as a half-orc.

I think I'm in a minority there.  Certainly Monte Cook doesn't agree with me.


----------



## A'koss

MatthewJHanson said:


> The part that I liked the least was that for one attack you roll an attack and a saving throw. I'm okay with attack rolls for spells, I'm okay with saving throws against swords, but having both just slows the game and increases swingy-ness.



Are you sure you have that right? Saves vs melee attacks?


----------



## Dragonblade

Morrus said:


> I've always been of the opposite school of thought.  I've always wanted race to be more important than it is.
> 
> Usually, it has a bit of an effect at first (not much) and by 5th level there's no difference to note between a hafling and a half-orc.  But I WANT there to be a real noticeable difference between those two choices for the entire character life.  A half-orc should be big and strong, and halfling should not (unless you do some weird stuff).
> 
> I'd go further.  I'd make the usual modifiers +/- 4.  You KNOW that's a half-orc.  He's big and strong, whatever career he chooses.  The halfling is never going to be as strong as a half-orc.
> 
> I think I'm in a minority there.  Certainly Monte Cook doesn't agree with me.




Sure, I agree with you, but I think there are better ways to express that through other racial abilities.

If the half-orc is stronger, you can let him carry more, or lift more than another PC with the same strength. He gets a bonus to any check involving strength.

This adds flavor and mechanical distinction without punishing player class choices based on race. A game where all fighters are half-orcs because the mechanics are so far tilted in their favor that it would be stupid to play a fighter as any other race makes for a pretty boring game, IMO.


----------



## 1of3

It was save vs. attack. I'm guessing you either get a save or there is a damage roll. So it's always two rolls.


----------



## Morrus

I love the idea of not having a skill list at all.  It's simply the ability scores, with bonuses to certain actions, and those actions are open-ended and infinite in possibility.

STR 15 (+2 when climbing, +3 when opening jars)
DEX 12 (+2 when doing backflips)
CON 10 (+4 against poison)
INT 14 (+2 when researching, +2 when dealing with the history of Abba)
WIS 9 (+4 when resisting compulsion due to stubbornness)
CHA 10 (+2 initial impression due to good looks, +2 when dancing)


----------



## Ichneumon

Overall, more goodness than a bowl of bran flakes. Not sure about ability rolling as the default, though.


----------



## Roman

I really like this a lot - the new edition appears to have real potential for me.


----------



## Argyle King

"Monte: Making a saving throw against something has become  something that's really a part of D&D. So again, what we've done is  tie those into the ability scores. For example you'll make a strength  saving throw or wisdom saving throw against a certain effect and so far  it's become a big part of some effects and abilities. The attacker makes  a check and that sets the DC for your saving throw."


Pretty similar to an idea I had posted here on Enworld a few times.  That makes me feel good.


----------



## tuxgeo

Not yet addressed (or even decided?): 

1. Will characters still need 13 in a stat to multiclass (e.g. 13 INT for Wiz)? (If it's going more toward the 3E style, that requirement might disappear.)

2. Are the ability modifiers going to be the same as in 4E -- 8-9 = -1, 10-11 = 0, 12-13 = 1, 14-15 = 2, 16-17 = 3, 18-19 = 4, 20-21 = 5, 22-23 = 6, 24-25 = 7?
Or might they flatten that out a bit: 6-8 = -1, 9-12 = 0, 13-15 = 1, 16-18 = 2, 19-21 = 3, 22-24 = 4?

3. Are the ability modifiers going to add to attack rolls? If not, that might reduce some people's tendency to optimize class selection based on race.


----------



## LurkAway

Dragonblade said:


> If the half-orc is stronger, you can let him carry more, or lift more than another PC with the same strength. He gets a bonus to any check involving strength.



That would lack internal consistency to me. If a half-orc is strong, he's strong. Doesn't seem cohesive to me that high strength is only expressed in limited discreet situations, like being able to carry more. Also, practically speaking, it's easier/simpler to remember, orc = strong, than orc = strong in certain conditions and here are those conditions.

As per another thread, I don't have a problem with racial modifiers based on genetic/morphological traits (avoids the humans in funny suit syndrome) -- it's the cultural/environmental traits that I'd like to be able to decouple from the equation.


----------



## Knightfall

I really, really like the direction the designers are taking this new iteration. And I really like that negative racial modifiers might make a comeback. I know that a lot of people hate them, but it just doesn't feel like D&D to me without them.

Race should not just be a benefit, IMO. There has to be some drawbacks that go with it. However, I'm fine if the designers decide to make it optional. But it _should_ be an option.

Add now, if you choose a class that goes against your race's stereotypical role, it will provide a boost to offset the racial penalty.

Want to be a half-orc bard? Sure. You might have a -1 to Charisma based on your race, but being a bard gives you a +1 to Charisma to offset it. This PC might not be as good as a elven bard who might gain a +1 from race and a +1 from the class, but the character still has its place in the game.

The only concern I have about the idea of gaining a ability score bonus due to class is multiclassing. Do you get the class bonus(es) for every class to take or only for the class that you take at 1st level?


----------



## Invisible Stalker

I also would like racial bonuses and penalties to be stronger.

I do like what I'm hearing in general as a DM.

4d6 drop the lowest is my preferred method of generation, so I'm glad that's still around.


----------



## Knightfall

Morrus said:


> I love the idea of not having a skill list at all.  It's simply the ability scores, with bonuses to certain actions, and those actions are open-ended and infinite in possibility.



It's a great concept and it allows for a lot of customization. You seem to want to use +2 as your baseline, but another DM might want to use +1 or +3.


----------



## Knightfall

Another aspect I really like: The idea of ability score caps for mortal characters. If you want to go above those numbers, you have to quest for a magic item that will allow you to do so. Awesome!

Another thought:

I wonder how Large-sized characters will work regards to ability score bonuses/penalties. Will all small, medium, and large characters use a +1/-1 default or will larger PCs have +2s?


----------



## Stalker0

I generally like the ability score idea they are going with, my only real concern is will ability scores be too important?

For example, in 4e one of the "issues" people quoted was because your primary ability score was so important you would always do your best to raise it, even only taking races that had a bump to that score.

If the majority of your attack,damage, and even saves is your ability score, would that phenomena be even worse?


----------



## Ahnehnois

I liked a lot of what I saw in this transcript. The basic flexibility of the skills and the six saves I think are both doable and new.



Siberys said:


> I'm a little worried about the "at-will feats" bit - I hope every class gets at least one for free. Otherwise it'll feel like too much of a feat tax. First house rule? I dunno. Gotta see the playtest first.



Reserve feats in 3e worked great. They were nice, but hardly mandatory. I hate feat taxes, but you seem to be assuming that an at-will ability is necessary to play an effective character. I hope that isn't the case.



			
				Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Two things concern me:
> 
> 1) With the new emphasis on stat importance, rolling is a horrible idea. To always be second best to the guy that rolled better than you did for the life of your PC? No thanks. Point buy absolutely has to be the default for this.
> 
> 2) Feats. It sounds like feats will be incredibly important to customize your PC beyond your choice of class and theme. So how fast do you get one? Considering it sounds like bonuses won't advance much, I'd like to see a feat EVERY level. And you should start with more than one or two.



I kind of agree with these points. Throughout D&D, there has always been a bizarre cognitive dissonance associated with rolling ability scores; you preach balance balance balance and then someone rolls (or "rolls") great ability arrays. Rolling can be fun; I do it for my non-D&D games sometimes, but it is hard to see balance coming out of it.

I'm also strongly in favor of the feat every level approach. It's easy to remember, and it lets you advance a character without giving him a 5% increase in chance to hit or a new set of spells every level.


> Oh and racial penalties need to die in a fire!
> 
> I get that some races are naturally better in some areas and providing a bonus acts as positive reinforcement when playing classes that use that particular stat. So playing a halfling fighter as opposed to say a rogue is already a sub-optimal choice.
> 
> Therefore, having a racial penalty is like being double punished for playing against type. I'd like to make more races viable to play more classes, not less.



This one I disagree with. I want race to really matter. I don't want my halfling fighters to be anywhere near as strong as my human fighters (let alone my half-orcs). What's more important is that each class isn't totally dependent on one ability score. If there's advantages to playing a strong bard, then a half-orc can be an effective one. If combat allows Dex to be important, a halfling fighter can be effective. Similarly, the big casters need more MAD so mental stat mods aren't such a big deal.


----------



## I'm A Banana

I'm a little wary about the "skills are just situational bonuses" thing. There's a possibility of things like (exaggerating for effect) "+2 to Intelligence at night, under a gibbuous moon, when wearing purple, but not in front of someone to whom you are indebted, and only while the King of Gerunthy still reigns from the Throne of Skulls."

Too narrow and weird, right? And what if a bonus-seeking player munchkins the situation to max out their fiddly little bonuses? Or if they seek bonuses that hit a certain situation, or ability score?

This is probably a solvable problem, but it is something to watch out for. It would be really easy under this system to grant bonuses that are too fiddly, or too broad, or easily exploitable. The burden on the DM to keep these in line would be pretty great.


----------



## avin

I'm open minded. Even being a skill-system fanboy I can easily deal with no skills and, to be honest, when I started we never used skills on D&D.

Themes? Cool. 
Ritual for creating magic items such as Flametongue? NICE!
Will read it again.

The only little bit I didn't like is CHA save against fear


----------



## Kaodi

I despise the idea of " charisma " now somehow equalling " courage " . This is in direct contravention of so many real world examples where charismatic leaders turn out to be complete cowards.

Rolling as default, as has been mentioned, is not something I am a fan of. 

And I am not sure, as a game balance issue, how it is going to work out for flavour choices to once again compete with game choices in feats...

Not saying I do not see things I like do, but I feel the first two problems I have mentioned are important...


----------



## Siberys

[MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION]; It's not that I think it's necessary. I just think "out of spells, switch to crossbow" was lame and needs to go the way of the dodo.


----------



## Remathilis

Ladies and Gentlemen, the future of D&D is... Castles & Crusades

6 saves?
No skills?

Somewhere, [MENTION=10177]Treebore[/MENTION] is laughing maniacally...


----------



## the Jester

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I'm a little wary about the "skills are just situational bonuses" thing. There's a possibility of things like (exaggerating for effect) "+2 to Intelligence at night, under a gibbuous moon, when wearing purple, but not in front of someone to whom you are indebted, and only while the King of Gerunthy still reigns from the Throne of Skulls."
> 
> Too narrow and weird, right? And what if a bonus-seeking player munchkins the situation to max out their fiddly little bonuses? Or if they seek bonuses that hit a certain situation, or ability score?
> 
> This is probably a solvable problem, but it is something to watch out for. It would be really easy under this system to grant bonuses that are too fiddly, or too broad, or easily exploitable. The burden on the DM to keep these in line would be pretty great.




Well, my homebrewed system uses something very like this. Basically, you choose a "secondary skill" for your character that describes what you did before you became an adventurer (or what you do alongside adventuring). You might choose blacksmith, farmer, weaver, sculptor, diplomat, historian, messenger, cartographer, thief, goldsmith, priest or whatever- it's your old job.

Now, let's say the dm calls for a Charisma check as you navigate through a halfling shanty town. If the dm agrees that your secondary system applies directly, you get a +3 bonus to your ability score when you make your check; if it applies indirectly, you get a +2 bonus. So if your secondary skill was thief or messenger, you might ask the dm if you get +3 ("Sure," I would reply if I were the dm); OTOH the dm might say, "Well, messengers only come to this area rarely- you only get +2." (Or he might deny you outright, if you were a diplomat or goldsmith.)

In practice, this is very easy to adjudicate, and as long as you give the pcs the choice of what the skill is, subject to dm approval, they probably won't get screwed by it.

Re: All the people worried about rolling stats- point buy will be there as an option. Just use it. Rolling has always been either the primary, or at the very least a primary, means of stat generation by RAW; in practice, many groups prefer point buy, but that certainly isn't every group. (I'll never allow point buy in my campaign, for instance.)


----------



## Ahnehnois

Siberys said:


> [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION]; It's not that I think it's necessary. I just think "out of spells, switch to crossbow" was lame and needs to go the way of the dodo.



A lot of people happen to enjoy that element of the game. If you don't, it seems like it would be easy to give at-will abilities out for free, either as an explicit option or as the first 5e houserule.



			
				Kaodi said:
			
		

> I despise the idea of " charisma " now somehow equalling " courage " . This is in direct contravention of so many real world examples where charismatic leaders turn out to be complete cowards.



Honestly, I would argue that those leaders aren't really that charismatic (in D&D terms). Charisma has always been associated with courage. Remember when the paladin was mandated to have high charisma? It wasn't because all paladins were attractive wordsmiths. What ability score does represent courage? Wisdom? Wisdom and courage are definitely not the same thing either.

Besides, similar issues exist with other ability scores. Agility, reflexes, and coordination are not the same. It's entirely possible to have great aim but be slow to action. The ability to remember things is not the same thing as critical thinking (what is an autistic savant's int?). Willpower and perception are not the same thing. When you have a system based around six ability scores, you're going to have to have broad definitions of them.


----------



## Morrus

Siberys said:


> [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION]; It's not that I think it's necessary. I just think "out of spells, switch to crossbow" was lame and needs to go the way of the dodo.




Meh. I just reskin the crossbow. It's a zap with exactly the same rules and stats as a crossbow.


----------



## Invisible Stalker

Morrus said:


> Meh. I just reskin the crossbow. It's a zap with exactly the same rules and stats as a crossbow.




mundane missile: at will spell that does 1d4 damage and almost never hits


----------



## Siberys

That would be fine by me, but I've dealt with people who won't accept reskinning in their games. I do it all the time, but what of those situations where things must be represented exactly mechanically or the DM won't let it fly?

Like I said, first houserule if I end up running the system, and there isn't an option built in. :|

EDIT: Also, what Invisible Stalker said.


----------



## Remathilis

Morrus said:


> Meh. I just reskin the crossbow. It's a zap with exactly the same rules and stats as a crossbow.




Leave it the the Zeitgeist guy to think of reskinning crossbows...


----------



## Morrus

Invisible Stalker said:


> mundane missile: at will spell that does 1d4 damage and almost never hits




Just change the Xbow fluff to sound magicy.

I'm a big fan of reskinning fluff without changing mechanics. You can make massive changes that way without affecting anything. Everyone should do it all the time. It should be an essential part of gaming.


----------



## Kaodi

Ahnehnois said:


> Honestly, I would argue that those leaders aren't really that charismatic (in D&D terms). Charisma has always been associated with courage. Remember when the paladin was mandated to have high charisma? It wasn't because all paladins were attractive wordsmiths. What ability score does represent courage? Wisdom? Wisdom and courage are definitely not the same thing either.




I think that we have a real problem if the word " charisma " in D&D does not at some level mean the same thing as " charisma " in real life. And in real life, charisma and cowardice go together _all the time_. 

And, in fact, certain Socratic dialogues do actually present arguments for courage and wisdom being akin to one another. I do not think I have ever seen one that argues charisma and courage having a similar relationship.


----------



## avin

Morrus said:


> Rob: The electrum piece. I want to bring back the Great Wheel of cosmology. That would be awesome to have back.




Now this is interesting.

While I'm a huge Planescape fan, and would welcome back the Great Wheel, I think cosmology should be also modular, because some people hate the GW.

If the GW is back I would change a few bits:

- Faerie and Shadow as parallel is fine. I like it. But kill Feywild and Shadowfell's names.

- I like the Astral Sea as presented in 4E, but not that other planes are inside of it, instead, there are ways to other planes from there, as a transitive plane.

- Elemental Chaos must die as a plane but should exist as a nexus of elemental planes, as it should be.

That said, hope they show us lots of cosmologies...

...and bring Yugoloths back.


----------



## LurkAway

> What we've done now is we have this thing called  "advantage" that a DM can hand out if the players set themselves up with  a good description.



Do you remember the "player advantage" threads???

Sounds like we may have an official answer: Yes, charismatic players get an "Advantage".


----------



## Ahnehnois

Kaodi said:


> I think that we have a real problem if the word " charisma " in D&D does not at some level mean the same thing as " charisma " in real life. And in real life, charisma and cowardice go together _all the time_.
> 
> And, in fact, certain Socratic dialogues do actually present arguments for courage and wisdom being akin to one another. I do not think I have ever seen one that argues charisma and courage having a similar relationship.



Public speaking, persuasion, deception, and romance (i.e. the things that charismatic characters are good at) all require a great deal of courage, perhaps more than facing a fear spell.

I won't deny that very attractive or engaging people can be cowards on the inside, but I'm okay with the charisma save implementation they're proposing.

Besides, as I indicated, the other ability scores have meanings that don't always match up with their common language meanings as well. Do you have similar objections to Wisdom being used for Spot checks? I don't think most people would associate being wise with having keen eyes. Nor would they associate intelligence with the ability to search for traps (frankly, D&D is missing a "perception" ability and wisdom and intelligence are used as fillins; perhaps it's missing courage as well).


----------



## LurkAway

> Rob: Right now, Cha is linked to saves for fear and charm  effects. However, if you describe it well, you could use different  stat. For example the big monster is grappling you, you might use  dexterity to save and get out. But you can also have some other ways of  getting out that grapple. Maybe there's a gem on that creature's head  and you can make an intelligence saving throw to realize that if you  mess with it, the creature would die and let you go.





Stalker0 said:


> I generally like the ability score idea they are  going with, my only real concern is will ability scores be too  important?






Kaodi said:


> I think that we have a real problem if the word " charisma " in D&D does not at some level mean the same thing as " charisma " in real life. And in real life, charisma and cowardice go together _all the time_.
> 
> And, in fact, certain Socratic dialogues do actually present arguments for courage and wisdom being akin to one another. I do not think I have ever seen one that argues charisma and courage having a similar relationship.



See, this is what really worries me. Ability scores become really important, which creates strong incentives to use a certain ability score that you have a high score, and then players and DMs have arguments about whether this or that ability score is valid for that situation.


----------



## Sunsword

MatthewJHanson said:


> The part that I liked the least was that for one attack you roll an attack and a saving throw.




I think if the result of the spell is a hit, the DC for the Save will be the total of the roll.  I don't think it will require an additional roll.  Or if the spell Auto Hits, you'll roll to generate the DC.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky

Wow, I hated almost everything that I read...  It just seemed like a giant pile of really horrible ideas.


----------



## teitan

I kinda miss the old NWP system. It was simple and easy to use, just not enough by the default. We allowed BOTH bonus languages and NWPs to be used simultaneously rather then extra NWPs taking from your languages.


----------



## Sammael

Aaaaannnnndddd... it's gone. My interest in D&D Next, that is. We have several deal breakers here, but the two critical ones are:

1. Using ability scores for everything instead of skills (this is COMPLETELY the opposite of what I want in ANY role-playing game)

2. NPCs don't follow the same rules as PCs.

I want the characters to grow, expand, become more skilled in certain disciplines. The last thing I want is for the character's ability scores to determine how good he is at doing stuff.

Besides, guys, the myriad tiny bonuses IS NOT COOL. It's one of the most frequently cited things people HATE about 3.x. 

*sigh* back to developing Fatebinder, I guess. At least they are doing the opposed rolls and moving to a silver standard, just as I did.


----------



## Zaukrie

I liked a lot of what I read here. Given how much I generally like Monte and Mike and Bruce's work, no real surprise to me, frankly.

The only part that made me nervous was the same one as Matthew....will I have to track variable save DCs as a result of attacks or stuff? I want easier bookkeeping, not harder.

I like that several ways of generating your stats will be presented. I like that they talked again about flattening the power curve. Lots of good stuff in this chat.


----------



## Windjammer

Wanting saving rolls back is certainly a step in the right direction.

Making them static target numbers in 4E (apart from that other 'roll above 10' mechanic which was, misleadingly, called 'saving roll') took away something relatively 'iconic' in the game.

Still, like many, many, many other things I found lacking in 4E, little experience with the game makes it dead-easy to port it back into the game. In our games, I use Fort/Reflex/Will save rolls all the time - you simply detract 10 from the PC's saves and you got their modifier on their die roll. So in combat we use the static saves (speeds up play), but for outside-combat stuff we use the 3.x-type saving rolls. 

It's surprising how a minute change like that brings back something we loved a lot in 3.x. Accumulate these differences, and 4E quickly gets closer to something that 'feels' like the D&D game you played before (since 2000 at least). 

I'm really curious about the playtest document, because I want to see a change in the design where I don't go 'oh, I don't need an _edition change _for that - I can port it into my 4e games already, thank you'.


----------



## Sammael

Morrus said:


> Just change the Xbow fluff to sound magicy.
> 
> I'm a big fan of reskinning fluff without changing mechanics. You can make massive changes that way without affecting anything. Everyone should do it all the time. It should be an essential part of gaming.



Not me. I positively hate reskinning. It's lazy design.


----------



## Blacky the Blackball

Morrus said:


> I love the idea of not having a skill list at all.  It's simply the ability scores, with bonuses to certain actions, and those actions are open-ended and infinite in possibility.
> 
> STR 15 (+2 when climbing, +3 when opening jars)
> DEX 12 (+2 when doing backflips)
> CON 10 (+4 against poison)
> INT 14 (+2 when researching, +2 when dealing with the history of Abba)
> WIS 9 (+4 when resisting compulsion due to stubbornness)
> CHA 10 (+2 initial impression due to good looks, +2 when dancing)




Which is almost exactly how Dark Dungeons handles skills!

They're just bonuses to ability checks in certains situations. Dark Dungeons does have a default list of skills, but encourages you to make up your own in an open-ended manner too.

Needless to say, that's got me really excited at 5e now.


----------



## Morrus

Sammael said:


> Not me. I positively hate reskinning. It's lazy design.




"Design"? "Lazy"? 

I asked my DM if I could refer to my Xbow as a magical zap for flavour purposes. This is "lazy design" on my part, and "positively hated" by you?

I'm glad we don't game together! I'd hate my flavour choices to arouse such a strong emotion as hatred in those near me!


----------



## Sammael

Remathilis said:


> Ladies and Gentlemen, the future of D&D is... Castles & Crusades
> 
> 6 saves?
> No skills?
> 
> Somewhere, [MENTION=10177]Treebore[/MENTION] is laughing maniacally...



Dang it, I _still_ can't give you more XP, and I've been spreading them around like crazy. Can somebody cover me?


----------



## Blacky the Blackball

Invisible Stalker said:


> 4d6 drop the lowest is my preferred method of generation, so I'm glad that's still around.




I prefer "3d6, optionally reroll the lowest die (or dice if there's a tie)".

The distribution curve is pretty similar to "4d6 drop lowest", but it's a bit better at avoiding overly low scores while simultaneously giving out fewer overly high scores (but still more than straight 3d6 rolls do).


----------



## Sammael

Morrus said:


> "Design"? "Lazy"?
> 
> I asked my DM if I could refer to my Xbow as a magical zap for flavour purposes. This is "lazy design" on my part, and "positively hated" by you?
> 
> I'm glad we don't game together! I'd hate my flavour choices to arouse such a strong emotion as hatred in those near me!



It's not a problem with you, it's a problem with your DM. You are perfectly entitled to _ask_ for stuff like that.

If a player asked me a similar question, I'd likely say "So, you'd like to have an at-will attack that dealt magical damage equal to crossbow damage; we need to consider the implications of that - ignoring DR, interactions with spell resistance, no need for ammunition, no need to worry about _warp wood_, fire-based magic, and so on. I'm not opposed, but you'll have to make a tradeoff of some sort. Either that, or just invent an illusion cantrip that turns your crossbow bolt into a 'magical zap' for the purpose of appearances."

BTW, you make it sound like it's only a flavor choice. Now, I don't play in 4E, so I'm not sure if it'd be only a flavor choice there, but in 3.x it's a WHOLE LOT MORE than just a flavor choice.


----------



## quindia

I have really liked what has been revealed so far. I like that rolling for stats is slated for core - it indicates that stats might be slightly less important (and not every character has an 18 or 20 in his primary stat). It only requires a sidebar to add point buy or array as an option - the reverse would not be as easy to implement if the assumption was a maxed out primary stat.


----------



## Ed_Laprade

The silver standard FTW! Although, given how they keep saying that they want this to 'feel' like D&D I doubt that it'll stick. But I hope that it does, as D&D economy just doesn't make sense otherwise.


----------



## Morrus

Sammael said:


> It's not a problem with you, it's a problem with your DM. You are perfectly entitled to _ask_ for stuff like that.
> 
> If a player asked me a similar question, I'd likely say "So, you'd like to have an at-will attack that dealt magical damage equal to crossbow damage; we need to consider the implications of that - ignoring DR, interactions with spell resistance, no need for ammunition, no need to worry about _warp wood_, fire-based magic, and so on. I'm not opposed, but you'll have to make a tradeoff of some sort. Either that, or just invent an illusion cantrip that turns your crossbow bolt into a 'magical zap' for the purpose of appearances."
> 
> BTW, you make it sound like it's only a flavor choice. Now, I don't play in 4E, so I'm not sure if it'd be only a flavor choice there, but in 3.x it's a WHOLE LOT MORE than just a flavor choice.




Of course it's just a flavour choice. Same mechanics. Different flavour. I don't know how to be clearer than that. Same mechanics.

Where you added in the extra superpowers, I don't know. It's using a crossbow, but calling it a zap. It's nothing more than a choice of verbiage. It's "I'd like to have a crossbow, I just wanna say 'zap' when I use it".

And this is in Pathfunder, not 4E.


----------



## avin

Sammael said:


> 1. Using ability scores for everything instead of skills (this is COMPLETELY the opposite of what I want in ANY role-playing game)




What about 2E AD&D? 

Joke aside, while I'm a heavy defender of skill-based systems, I can live without 3.5 skills, let's see how it unfolds.



Sammael said:


> 2. NPCs don't follow the same rules as PCs.




That's the best part for me. As long they look "similar" at the end (I don't want a lv 1 PC Bard with 6 HP and the NPC version with 20) it's welcome at my table.

Maybe 4E Monster Builder spoiled me, but I started a Pathfinder game a few months ago and one thing kinda turned me down, the time I waste when I need to upgrade or downgrade antagonists... heck, even on GURPS I can do it faster.

I just don't have that time in my hands to create ellaborate monsters anymore... but it's just me.

And for those who like creating NPCs as PCs I don't think 5E won't miss opportunity to do that. 

Even on 4E was possible, while not recommended, so it would surprise me if a so called modular game doesn't have this option.

Hear me Mike and Monte?


----------



## avin

Morrus said:


> Of course it's just a flavour choice. Same mechanics. Different flavour.




As a fellow reflavourist (what?) you got me curious, how do you handle bolt charges? Is it for free or the "bolts" you buy are some magical component?


----------



## Sammael

Morrus said:


> Of course it's just a flavour choice. Same mechanics. Different flavour. I don't know how to be clearer than that. Same mechanics.
> 
> Where you added in the extra superpowers, I don't know. It's using a crossbow, but calling it a zap. It's nothing more than a choice of verbiage. It's "I'd like to have a crossbow, I just wanna say 'zap' when I use it".
> 
> And this is in Pathfunder, not 4E.



So, it's a crossbow. That works _exactly_ like a crossbow. But makes a 'zap' noise? I guess that's fine but it's not at all what I got from your initial statement - I understood that you wanted to have a "magic zap" instead of using a crossbow.


----------



## stonegod

Seems like we are regressing. These are largely pre-4E modes. 

If ability scores are going to be über alles, then magic items that boost them are going to be the main ones in demand. I remember it getting so bad in 3E that they had to introduce the multi-functions items so you could have both your needed booster and something interesting. It's just going be to an magic item tax. (Mortal limits just make the demand even moreso)

Of course, we haven't seen the math yet, but even a +1 bonus to a stat is likely going to affect attack, defense, and skills.

Concerned. Not turned away, but concerned.


----------



## Morrus

avin said:


> As a fellow reflavourist (what?) you got me curious, how do you handle bolt charges? Is it for free or the "bolts" you buy are some magical component?




It's a crossbow. I just say zap when I use it. I don't handle anything. It uses the crossbow rules exactly.


----------



## Plane Sailing

Morrus said:


> I love the idea of not having a skill list at all.  It's simply the ability scores, with bonuses to certain actions, and those actions are open-ended and infinite in possibility.
> 
> STR 15 (+2 when climbing, +3 when opening jars)
> DEX 12 (+2 when doing backflips)
> CON 10 (+4 against poison)
> INT 14 (+2 when researching, +2 when dealing with the history of Abba)
> WIS 9 (+4 when resisting compulsion due to stubbornness)
> CHA 10 (+2 initial impression due to good looks, +2 when dancing)




SO... are these your personal D&D stats, Morrus?


----------



## Morrus

Sammael said:


> So, it's a crossbow. That works _exactly_ like a crossbow. But makes a 'zap' noise? I guess that's fine but it's not at all what I got from your initial statement - I understood that you wanted to have a "magic zap" instead of using a crossbow.




That's what reskinning means. It's still a crossbow. There's just a flavour change. Fluff, nothing more. Astonishingly trivial, yet it affects my immersion in a positive way.


----------



## Plane Sailing

Morrus said:


> Of course it's just a flavour choice. Same mechanics. Different flavour. I don't know how to be clearer than that. Same mechanics.
> 
> Where you added in the extra superpowers, I don't know. It's using a crossbow, but calling it a zap. It's nothing more than a choice of verbiage. It's "I'd like to have a crossbow, I just wanna say 'zap' when I use it".
> 
> And this is in Pathfunder, not 4E.




It sounds as if the a question that he's got in mind includes mundane things such as ammo - if you've got a crossbow and 20 quarrels, you can't carry on shooting once you've used them all up. What happens with a zap?

(clearly for games that don't track ammo it isn't an issue, equally for games that do track ammo it could be)

Cheers


----------



## Sammael

avin said:


> What about 2E AD&D?



It sucked? I mean, there were the optional professions and NWPs, but they used the eldritch "roll under" mechanic and you got so few NWP points that NWPs were rarely useful.

But even those ultra-lame NWPs were better than what Monte & Co are proposing here.



> Joke aside, while I'm a heavy defender of skill-based systems, I can live without 3.5 skills, let's see how it unfolds.



I can live without the bajillion 3.5 skills (I use a reduced set of only 28 in my system, and that includes the combat skills, spellcasting skills, and skills that replace saves), but no skills at all = complete and utter dealbreaker for me.


----------



## Siberys

[MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] - My problem, with that example at least, is the rules assumptions about that. I may not build a dextrous mage, but if I want to be good at "casting" a "basic spell", I have to be dextrous if I'm using the crossbow rules and want to be at all effective with them, even if flavor-wise it doesn't matter.

If attacks, damage, &c are decoupled from ability scores, reflavor away! It's just I'm afraid those little mechanical barriers I liked to see removed with the advent of at-wills in 4e will make a return. :|

Otherwise, I totally agree with you about reflavoring.


----------



## Morrus

Plane Sailing said:


> SO... are these your personal D&D stats, Morrus?




I used to be able to do backflips, but no more. I do have a good alcohol tolerance, though.  I know little about Abba - or any music, really - but you can sub in Doctor Who there. Average on jars, but a bonus when shouting at people who commit social transgressions. I get the stubbornness and good looks, but a penalty on the dancing!


----------



## Morrus

Plane Sailing said:


> It sounds as if the a question that he's got in mind includes mundane things such as ammo - if you've got a crossbow and 20 quarrels, you can't carry on shooting once you've used them all up. What happens with a zap?




I still have a crossbow with 20 ammo. It's gone when it's used. As I said, it's a fluff change, not a mechanics change. Mechanics remain identical. I just say "zap" instead of "thwang".


----------



## JeffB

Morrus said:


> "Design"? "Lazy"?
> 
> I asked my DM if I could refer to my Xbow as a magical zap for flavour purposes. This is "lazy design" on my part, and "positively hated" by you?
> 
> I'm glad we don't game together! I'd hate my flavour choices to arouse such a strong emotion as hatred in those near me!




  I  came to the conclusion years ago that I wouldnt want to game with 99% of gamers based on their messageboard posts at least. Peeps get way too wound up about their make believe  elves and fairy princesses


----------



## Ainamacar

I'm liking the basic idea of the skill system (sympathies for those that don't), but I think we're still lacking some key information.

Bonuses to skills aren't necessarily numerical bonuses, although they can be.  If I've read the transcript correctly, for example, double-training Stealth let a character move their full speed while hiding.  In fact, non-numerical bonuses are better than numerical ones when they permit you to do things without a roll that others would need a roll to do or couldn't attempt in the first place.  This makes sense with the emphasis on whether one should even require a roll in the first place.  That could be decided by the raw ability score, but it can also be decided by training. Rather like a more flexible version of skill tricks from 3.5's Complete Scoundrel.  Those sorts of value-added options could also keep the disparity in skill check bonuses between characters within a reasonable range.  I'll be interested to see how high bonuses are allowed to go.  The variance of the d20 is quite large, so trusting a bonus to reliably show competence vs. another character usually requires a fairly large bonus, and with it all heaps of trouble.  That's a good reason to take skill training in a less numerically oriented direction.


In my homebrew game we name our own skills, each of which contains 3 basic proficiencies.  (For example, my character has the "Rough History" skill which for him encompasses Begging, Urban Survival, and Weaponry plus anything else that makes  sense with the backstory.  He also has "Cleric of Bahamut", which  covers First Aid, Leadership, and Theology and anything else relevant to that part of the character.  It also means his knowledge of theology, for example, is limited to what a cleric of Bahamut would have reason to know).  However, the main effect of training these skills is to allow for more reliable (if limited) success without greatly increasing one's maximum potential, while the main affect of larger ability scores is the opposite.  (This is success-based dice pool system, so it comes directly from the math.)  These skills apply to any check using any ability score that can be justified.  When the connection is tenuous, the DM can choose to grant half the bonus.  In our homebrew a creature of average human dexterity with 2 ranks of training is basically on par with someone with superhuman natural ability (ability scores 10 and 20 in D&D terms), but the trained character achieves the average result much more reliably.  I think similar characteristics could be achieved in D&D Next by making skill training less about a +n bonus, and more about what training lets a person achieve apart from or in addition to a check.


----------



## Hawke

I really hate feats in 4E.  Beyond the obvious feat tax choices, the remaining are truly irritating for how little they do affect things.  I do like the racial feats that modify powers and do neat things and dislike the ones that are just another way to get +1 on a roll with a specific weapon or whatever. 

I'd love to see all feats be more meaningful and as described either be always on (but w/o being a feat tax always on +1 to attacks or damage - too boring and fiddly) but like an at-will power or ability (think Moves in Apocalypse World) might make more sense. 

In any event, I'm not necessarily encouraged by the chat when it comes to feats, though I do like the skills ideas.  Skills like Lady Blackbird style game play, tag up a bunch of +1s for abilities and go from there.


----------



## Dice4Hire

Morrus said:


> I've always been of the opposite school of thought.  I've always wanted race to be more important than it is.
> 
> Usually, it has a bit of an effect at first (not much) and by 5th level there's no difference to note between a hafling and a half-orc.  But I WANT there to be a real noticeable difference between those two choices for the entire character life.  A half-orc should be big and strong, and halfling should not (unless you do some weird stuff).
> 
> I'd go further.  I'd make the usual modifiers +/- 4.  You KNOW that's a half-orc.  He's big and strong, whatever career he chooses.  The halfling is never going to be as strong as a half-orc.
> 
> I think I'm in a minority there.  Certainly Monte Cook doesn't agree with me.




I certainly agree with this. 

I like the idea of classes giving an ability score bonus. Training is important. I also want races to not be pigeonholed like they were too much in 4E, with the double +2 bonuses, but when it comes to races and classes each race should have something they are better at at something a bit worse. 

And really, having a half-giant and a halfling the exact same at a muscle based class is ridiculous. Now, having the 4th level halfling just as good a fighter in every single mechanical way as the 1st level half-giant, I can fully support.


----------



## Klaus

avin said:


> As a fellow reflavourist (what?) you got me curious, how do you handle bolt charges? Is it for free or the "bolts" you buy are some magical component?



I'm not [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] (nor do I play one on TV), but I did something similar in 3.x, based partly on a dwarf mini from Chainmail (remember those communist dwarves?):

You purchase a "rod" with a charged "crystal". It is quite hefty, so you have to wield it two-handed (crossbow). It also takes some effort to build up the charge (reload action). After 20 shots, your crystal is drained and you have to buy a new one (i.e., you run out of bolts and have to buy another sheaf). Although magical in origin, the shot is quite physical, so it bypasses magic resistance, but is subject to DR.

Y'know, stuff.


----------



## Morrus

Dice4Hire said:


> I certainly agree with this.
> 
> I like the idea of classes giving an ability score bonus. Training is important. I also want races to not be pigeonholed like they were too much in 4E, with the double +2 bonuses, but when it comes to races and classes each race should have something they are better at at something a bit worse.
> 
> And really, having a half-giant and a halfling the exact same at a muscle based class is ridiculous. Now, having the 4th level halfling just as good a fighter in every single mechanical way as the 1st level half-giant, I can fully support.




Exactly. In real life, you can't train a housecat to be as strong as a grizzly bear. They both have traits that the other doesn't. The cat is nimble as hell with lightning reflexes. The bear is enormous and unstoppable.

If they don't want races to matter, make them just unlisted open ended fluff. Describe your race how you want. This +1 crap is just weak half measures. Who gives a crap about +1 after first level? 

If race matters it's worth +4. If it doesn't, write it out and leave it to open ended fluff text.

I guess it's clear I'm in the "race should be a major defining characteristic" camp. At LEAST equal to class. 

We're talking house cats and grizzly bears here, people! No career is gonna make them similar to each other!


----------



## Starglyte

Amazing, the one seminar I wasn't really interested in turned out to have the info I was hoping to get out of DDXP. I like what I see personally. From my perspective, it looks like it will make my games faster and easier to use. 

Not sure about racial penalties, if nothing else we shouldn't be penalized for making a Halfling Barbarian. Now ability boosts from Classes, that is more like it. If you want to make a Dwarf Wizard, here is the stat that goes with the Wizard package. 

I like their idea of themes. I was thinking the other day that Barbarian would make a great theme, but because of the Barbarian class, I figured they wouldn't have one. Now, I am not so sure.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Sammael said:


> Aaaaannnnndddd... it's gone. My interest in D&D Next, that is. We have several deal breakers here, but the two critical ones are:
> 
> 1. Using ability scores for everything instead of skills (this is COMPLETELY the opposite of what I want in ANY role-playing game)
> 
> 2. NPCs don't follow the same rules as PCs.
> 
> I want the characters to grow, expand, become more skilled in certain disciplines. The last thing I want is for the character's ability scores to determine how good he is at doing stuff.
> 
> Besides, guys, the myriad tiny bonuses IS NOT COOL. It's one of the most frequently cited things people HATE about 3.x.
> 
> *sigh* back to developing Fatebinder, I guess. At least they are doing the opposed rolls and moving to a silver standard, just as I did.



Hmhmmh... they have skills... in a way you can have any skill you like... just write it on your character...

Ability scores as the backbone of skills is like ADnD 2nd edition. If you learnt a skill, it is just a roll against your stat... it actually worked well enough.

Also, when a race can give a +1 to stat xxx, stats will play a different role in attacking and defending. And if your stats maybe actually don´t affect those things (too much) you can actually roll stats, and assign them as you want. Influencing what area of skills you are good at. Pick a theme and done.

NPCs don´t need to follow the same building rules as PCs and maybe should not. But the result needs to be comparable! This is what I don´t like too much with 4e NPC rules. Attack and damage, defense and HP all are not like PC stats.

If the rules are: a npc fighter has xx hp and an attack score of xx. Damage and AC by weapon and pick 2 martial at will feats, it is ok, as long as xx is comparable to how PCs look.


----------



## interwyrm

If ability scores are random AND determine combat efficiency, I'm not going to switch to 5e. It's not fun feeling completely ineffective in the team... I know, I've played a poison focused character in a mod full of undead.


----------



## Morrus

Starglyte said:


> Amazing, the one seminar I wasn't really interested in turned out to have the info I was hoping to get out of DDXP. I like what I see personally. From my perspective, it looks like it will make my games faster and easier to use.
> 
> Not sure about racial penalties, if nothing else we shouldn't be penalized for making a Halfling Barbarian. Now ability boosts from Classes, that is more like it. If you want to make a Dwarf Wizard, here is the stat that goes with the Wizard package.
> 
> I like their idea of themes. I was thinking the other day that Barbarian would make a great theme, but because of the Barbarian class, I figured they wouldn't have one. Now, I am not so sure.




A halfling barbarian should be DEX based. A half orc barbarian should be STR based. Both should be equally viable. The half orc should be obviously stronger and the halfling obviously nimbler.

That's not penalising. Both are equally effective - but in different ways. It's differentiation, not penalization.


----------



## Primal

Dragonblade said:


> Going back to feats, perhaps they have different types of feats. Like Major feats that you only get one every two levels and Minor feats that give smaller situational bonuses and such but you get those every level.
> 
> It sounds already like there will be class specific feats. Like Arcane feats that give casters at-will attacks and such, so maybe having different types of feats that are acquired in different ways is a model they are looking at.




Well, Pathfinder does have Traits which are "half feats" (+1 trait bonus to something, usually) related to your background, race and class. I wouldn't mind racial themes and feats, because I feel race should play a bigger part in the game than it does now; maybe racial feats and racial powers could even be part of the standard level progression (every 5th lvl you'd get a racial feat, for example?). 

I dread that there will be "feat tax" for picking up at-will powers; if that is true, I wouldn't mind getting a feat every level.


----------



## Tortoise

Sammael said:


> Not me. I positively hate reskinning. It's lazy design.




I disagree. It is effective and efficient DMing. What's more important to you, spending more time preparing or more time playing?

If a quick reskinning can get you the effect you want in an instant, why waste time building something?

It is a tool, a means to an end, not laziness.

However, to each his or her own.


----------



## Ichneumon

We haven't yet seen what wizards who choose to forgo the at-will feats get. They might gain equally compelling feats or class features, which would turn this aspect of the game from a tax to a choice.


----------



## Lanefan

Sammael said:


> Not me. I positively hate reskinning. It's lazy design.



Who cares if it's lazy design, as long as it's effective?

In fact, effective design that takes minimal-to-no effort is the best kind! 



			
				Morrus said:
			
		

> And this is in Pathfunder, not 4E.



Pathfunder?  Does that mean it's making too much money? 

As for the rest of the transcript:

- Two big thumbs up for rolling for abilities!

- Those who are worried about people over-focusing on ability scores might want to tone down the worry until we know what ability scores are going to give what bonuses.  If the bonus curve is flattened out it won't matter nearly as much: for example, in 3e the 3-18 curve held a -4 to +4 bonus range; and stats could very easily go outside that range in both directions.  But if in 5e the same 3-18 bonuses only go from -2 to +2 and it becomes much harder for stats to get outside 3-18 (which is what it's beginning to sound like) then who cares?

- I'm not at all excited to see feats staying around - all they seem to do is add two unnecessary things: complication, and power bloat.  A feat each level is fine if there's only 10 or 12 widely-spaced levels to the game, but if it goes 1-30 I for one don't want to have to remember all those bloody feats I have at 27th!  (I found when playing mid-level warrior-types in 3e I either -A- constantly forgot what feats I had, or -B- spent too much time referring to my character sheet and thus losing focus on what was actually going on in the game)

- Two thumbs way up if 2e ability checks are to replace (most if not all) skills.  Much simpler!   

- Charisma representing courage makes sense if courage is looked at as an offshoot of willpower, which the game by definition seems to want Charisma to reflect.  I don't agree with it, but I can see their line of logic.  Personally, as courage can be sort-of reflected in a way by every stat except Str and Dex, I think I'd prefer to see fear saves/checks based on a best-of, or worst-of, or average-of the other 4 stats. (nice side effects: instant difficulty scaling, also instant variations on types of fear)

Lan-"testing the floor with a 10-feat pole"-efan


----------



## DaveMage

Not much that impressed me in the report except:

1. electrum pieces
2. Great Wheel

Maybe the fluff will be worth a look even if the rules don't do anything for me.


----------



## Starglyte

Morrus said:


> A halfling barbarian should be DEX based. A half orc barbarian should be STR based. Both should be equally viable. The half orc should be obviously stronger and the halfling obviously nimbler.
> 
> That's not penalising. Both are equally effective - but in different ways. It's differentiation, not penalization.




If you mean Barbarian as a theme, then I agree with you. But if you mean Barbarian as a class, while I can see different class builds using separate pirmary abilities, I am not convinced that worked out the way they wanted it too in 4E.


----------



## Rechan

> The attacker makes a check and that sets the DC for your saving throw.




Ewww. Instead of resolving things with _one_ action, now you have to add a second action? That's going to add double the time just to resolve something.

This also means that monster ability scores are really important.  Something that I haven't been giving my monsters in a long time (not  bothering doing the math/balancing to give them scores).

I really dislike the significance of Ability scores. Earlier editions you needed really high ability scores to be competent in your class's features (hitting, spellcasting), now it's also important to just do things like jumping over pits et al. That means that if you're like me and like somewhat balanced ability, you're not going be good at anything.


----------



## stonegod

Never cared much for the Great Wheel ("Cheese Wheel of Alignments" in our group). It's a story element, not a mechanical one, and should be represented as such.


----------



## RoboCheney

I like the emphasis on themes and backgrounds, but the bit on stats and skills just seem like bad ideas.

4e has pretty much the right skill list for D&D--its lean, condensed, and covers about everything you'll encounter on the average adventure.  So . . . that's getting trading for tons of little conditional modifiers?

If I'm a rogue, am I only as good as my ability scores?

With stats being so essential, I'll feel bad for anyone unlucky with their dice on character creation night!

I hope this all fits together in the playtest docs, right now D&D Next is looking like a serious regression from the lessons learned in the last decade of RPG design.

OK, enough being negative, everyone carry on . . .


----------



## Warunsun

DaveMage said:


> Not much that impressed me in the report except:
> 1. electrum pieces
> 2. Great Wheel
> Maybe the fluff will be worth a look even if the rules don't do anything for me.



Happy to see the return on the electrum piece. I have used it in all of  my Greyhawk games regardless of it's absence in some editions. I also  used it in a Forgotten Realms campaign in 3E. 

 While the traditions of the missing planes from the Great Wheel are  important to me and the classic setup was very special to D&D I have  to admit that the new setup for the Astral Sea a.k.a. The Astral Plane  in  The  Plane Above: Secrets of the Astral Sea is amazing. That book is  worthy of reading by a Dungeon Master of any AD&D edition. It has a  lot of informational bits on locations and ideas instead of numbers.  There are mechanical numbers too but not as much as your average 4E  book. I really like the description and feel of the Astral Plane in 4E.  It is really strong. If you haven't read it let me summarize that they  have married the best aspects of Spelljammer from 2E and Planescape to  create a wonderful way to get around on the plane. So much more  interesting than the stereo instructions given by the 1st edition Manual  of the Planes about a grey endless void. They also jettisoned all the  stupid crap from Spelljammer so while you sail the Astral sea on boats  you don't worry about crystal spheres, phlogiston, or outer space.

 Another thing missing from 4E planes is lackluster support of Asgard. Odin or Thor might smite the folks that decided that.

So I guess I am saying I want to see all of the original D&D classic planes return. However, there is still room for the Astral Sea, Elemental Chaos, the Shadowfell, and even the Feywild. And I would like a less rigid structure. Astral Sea works well.


----------



## mach1.9pants

Rechan said:


> [/SIZE]Ewww. Instead of resolving things with _one_ action, now you have to add a second action? That's going to add double the time just to resolve something.
> 
> This also means that monster ability scores are really important.  Something that I haven't been giving my monsters in a long time (not  bothering doing the math/balancing to give them scores).
> 
> I really dislike the significance of Ability scores. Earlier editions you needed really high ability scores to be competent in your class's features (hitting, spellcasting), now it's also important to just do things like jumping over pits et al. That means that if you're like me and like somewhat balanced ability, you're not going be good at anything.




I will reserve judgement about both of these
1. Many RPGs have opposed rolls for most things and are quick enough
2. Until we see the ability score bonuses/penalties and the 'DCs' (or whatever they maybe) it could well be that someone with a good spread of abilities is optimal because he can still pretty much achieve everything in a way that doesn't work in 3E. If the abilities are pretty much all equally important in the 3 main areas of DnD (combat, social, exploration) then if you min/max you may well be a huge disadvantage

Not that this is relevant when you roll your abilities: everything based on abilities and rolling for them? Recipe for some very OP and UP PCs!


----------



## Rechan

mach1.9pants said:


> 1. Many RPGs have opposed rolls for most things and are quick enough



I've only encountered 3 RPGs that had roll/counter-roll, and they _always_ felt slow to me. So perhaps there are some out there which are quick and have it, but I've never seen them do both in play.


> 2. Until we see the ability score bonuses/penalties and the 'DCs' (or  whatever they maybe) it could well be that someone with a good spread of  abilities is optimal because he can still pretty much achieve  everything in a way that doesn't work in 3E. If the abilities are pretty  much all equally important in the 3 main areas of DnD (combat, social,  exploration) then if you min/max you may well be a huge disadvantage



That's the other side of the coin - MAD. Whenever ability scores are so prevelent, you either get MAD or you get 'the highest primary score at the detriment of all else".


----------



## Sir Robilar

Has it been announced yet how basic ability checks are made in this system?  2E's roll under mechanic or the later approach of d20 + ability modifiers against a set DC? Can't find the information...


----------



## trancejeremy

Dice4Hire said:


> And really, having a half-giant and a halfling the exact same at a muscle based class is ridiculous. Now, having the 4th level halfling just as good a fighter in every single mechanical way as the 1st level half-giant, I can fully support.




The trouble is, when you deal with things like halfings and half-giants, you are trying to apply logic to things that just don't make sense.

3 1/2' tall, 70 lb creatures would never, ever survive a fight with anything bigger. They just don't have the mass to inflict much damage or take any of it. 

Similarly, giants (even half-giants) would simply fall over thanks to their great weight. I mean, 7' is about as humans can get without having really bad health problems (unless they are fairly svelte, Shaquille O'Neal for instance is only 300 pounds and has avoid the health problems that plagued people like Andre the Giant)

So my point is, if you handwave away the laws of nature and allow such creatures to be adventurers, you can't then be too picky when there are results that don't make much sense.


----------



## Reynard

Rechan said:


> [/SIZE]Ewww. Instead of resolving things with _one_ action, now you have to add a second action? That's going to add double the time just to resolve something.
> 
> This also means that monster ability scores are really important.  Something that I haven't been giving my monsters in a long time (not  bothering doing the math/balancing to give them scores).
> 
> I really dislike the significance of Ability scores. Earlier editions you needed really high ability scores to be competent in your class's features (hitting, spellcasting), now it's also important to just do things like jumping over pits et al. That means that if you're like me and like somewhat balanced ability, you're not going be good at anything.




I like opposed rolls: they tend to ramp up the uncertainty, and more uncertainty is better, IMO. If, frex, the attacker has a +10 (on a d20) and the defender has a d20+2 instead of a AC of 12, tension increases and the probability of an unexpected result goes up. That's just more fun to me. Granted, it isn't necessarily D&D, but it could be.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone

Yay! Electrum pieces!

As to the rest ... we'll see how it is implemented.

I think ability-focused skills can speed up the game, as long as they don't have the unintended consequence of over-weighting ability scores, which has long running implications for everything from stat generation to magic item distribution.

The save vs. attack thing seems ... awkward.  Why take one roll and make it two?  I thought 4E was particularly effective in this regard, streamlining rolls.  Actions should be resolved with the fewest rolls possible, and where possible the PCs should make the roll.  So if there is a rolled saving throw mechanic, it should be against things with fixed DCs.  If you go down the opposed roll route, how do you feel about rolling a defense rather than attacking a static AC?

Silver standard make for better economics, but will take some significant recalibration for everyone.

Themes?  Novel, but I've never felt we needed rules for character background; this was always an area for roleplaying to shine.


----------



## Morrus

Sir Robilar said:


> Has it been announced yet how basic ability checks are made in this system?  2E's roll under mechanic or the later approach of d20 + ability modifiers against a set DC? Can't find the information...




DC has been mentioned in various contexts. The chances of it not being d20 + mod are so small that I promise to eat my hat if it's not that.


----------



## Greg K

Dragonblade said:


> Oh and racial penalties need to die in a fire!



Hell, no!



> Therefore, having a racial penalty is like being double punished for playing against type. I'd like to make more races viable to play more classes, not less.
> 
> Let's not mechanically punish players more than necessary for trying to be creative and playing against type.




Not everyone considers it a punishment. Nor is it necessarily creative to play against type based on what you are proposing. If you want to be creative, find creative ways in play to make the concept work.


----------



## Hawke

Morrus said:


> I've always been of the opposite school of thought.  I've always wanted race to be more important than it is.
> 
> Usually, it has a bit of an effect at first (not much) and by 5th level there's no difference to note between a hafling and a half-orc.  But I WANT there to be a real noticeable difference between those two choices for the entire character life.  A half-orc should be big and strong, and halfling should not (unless you do some weird stuff).




I've always felt that, too.  What about one of the following:

-Level Progression - Just as your class gets features or abilities, so does your race as you level.  Closer to Gamma World, I suppose, but perhaps with not equal affects... but you just know at level 9 your next racial feature is available.

-Theme option - pick it instead of a different theme to really emphasize your racial features at the expense of some other theme. 

-Full Class Option - available to multi into with maybe 10 levels worth if you really want to show some benefits based on your races. 

Obviously some races are easier than others.


----------



## Aldarc

The Great Wheel? Rolling for ability scores? Rolling for saves? There are a lot of other "little things" in this latest report that now have me worried that 5e is taking too many conservative steps backwards and being far less modular than they were advertising.


----------



## epochrpg

Wow.  It seems as if they read my mind, and used it to make all their design notes.  After reading this, I imagine the last staff meeting went something like this: 



> "What things from 4e does Chris wish would "die in a fire"?  Okay be sure not to put that in there.  What things from BECMI, 2e, and 3.x did Chris like?  Okay be sure to put all those things in there.  We really want to ensure Chris likes this game; it is our #1 design goal."


----------



## SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS

Reynard said:


> I like opposed rolls: they tend to ramp up the uncertainty, and more uncertainty is better, IMO. If, frex, the attacker has a +10 (on a d20) and the defender has a d20+2 instead of a AC of 12, tension increases and the probability of an unexpected result goes up. That's just more fun to me. Granted, it isn't necessarily D&D, but it could be.




Yes, and the AC roll can be simply a dex save with some mods for the armor...


----------



## Erdrick Dragin

Once again, just like with 4e, I feel the same way with this 5e or "D&D Next" or whatever they want to color it up as. I am feeling more disappointment the more I hear.

This isn't starting to sound like "Everyone from every edition can play the way they want from their favorite edition at the same table." 

No, instead, this is starting to sound like,"Everyone at the same table can play with half of what their edition did best, but they're going to be stuck compromising and dealing with the other half that's not from their edition."

It's like this, WotC:

If I cannot take my 3e character sheet, EXACTLY THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, and play it in D&D Next exactly the way I would have in 3e...then there's no point in playing this 5e. 

Anyone else see my point? I mean, it's starting to sound like we're still better off playing what we have with our preferred edition, because it's sounding like I have to muddy up my 2e or 4e or whatever character sheet somewhat just for it to be able to work in D&D Next. 

When I can see my Paladin/Cavalier/Fighter Human from 3.5e character sheet, completely untouched and unmodified, be able to work in this edition, than I'll believe WotC. 

Otherwise, it's all just dust in the wind again.


----------



## 1Mac

On the "save vs. attack", it could be that the players always roll vs. a static NPC modifier, whether they are rolling saves or attacks. That's how I'd do it.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

It's certainly a potential concern, but I don't think we have enough information to truly worry about Attributes being over-valued (yet).  I think the shallow power-curve might make up a lot of what people imagine would be trouble with rolling stats or getting stat-increasing items, or any of the rest.

Unlike recent editions it sounds like it will be more viable to play with a mixed-level party.  Perhaps in the same way the game will support mixed-optimisation. I hope so, anyway.

I like most of what I hear so far, at least enough that I'm eager to give it a shot and see how it works in play.

I'm surprised more people don't realise that none of how it "sounds" matters - it's how it plays.  You can't tell that unless you give it a try.  An open mind helps too.

Though I'm not surprised that the cautious optimism that's been the standard so far is starting to border on early edition-wars now that we've seen the smallest barest hint of what's to come (even with it all being subject to change).  That's the internet for you.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Erdrick Dragin said:


> *
> If I cannot take my 3e character sheet, EXACTLY THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, and play it in D&D Next exactly the way I would have in 3e...then there's no point in playing this 5e. *




If it's a deal-breaker for you to have to play with a new character sheet (of all things) I think you'd really better just stick to the version you're currently playing.

Honestly, I don't know what you were expecting... did you mistake the idea that you'd be able to play characters in the style of various editions to being able to literally play characters from various editions?


----------



## MatthewJHanson

Sunsword said:


> I think if the result of the spell is a hit, the DC for the Save will be the total of the roll.  I don't think it will require an additional roll.  Or if the spell Auto Hits, you'll roll to generate the DC.




Say you want to cast fire ball.

In 3e/Pathfinder attacker makes no roll and the target makes one roll to avoid damage.
In 4e the attacker makes one roll to hit and the target makes no roll.

It sounds like in 5e the attacker will make a roll to set the DC, then the target will make a roll to try to beat that DC.

So in total there are more dice being rolled for each attack.



			
				A'koss said:
			
		

> Are you sure you have that right? Saves vs melee attacks?




Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was just saying I'd be okay if they did have the defender roll to avoid melee attacks (but not the attacker). I didn't get the impression that it's their plan. (And static AC is probably too much of a sacred cow).


----------



## Siberys

Erdrick Dragin said:


> *If I cannot take my 3e character sheet, EXACTLY THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, and play it in D&D Next exactly the way I would have in 3e...then there's no point in playing this 5e.
> 
> Anyone else see my point?*




Uhhh... No, I don't see your point. If you could port your sheet straight over, why not just play 3e or PF? What's the point of a new edition, then? If you are so perfectly satisfied with 3e, you aren't in the target market.

I may not be up for the new edition, but I'm going to be a little more reasonable than that with judging it; 4e (my currently preferred edition) will only come up for comparison's sake, a bar to determine whether to switch or not, not as an exact ideal.


----------



## Deadboy

I'm hoping the stuff about hard-capping ability scores and "mortal limits" doesn't make it into the final version of the game. I liked that my character grew from a slightly above average person to a literal demi-god with ability scores in the 20s or even 30s.

I don't want to have to have stat boosting items making me look like a magic Christmas tree just so I can exceed mortal limits.


----------



## Aldarc

MatthewJHanson said:


> Say you want to cast fire ball.
> 
> In 3e/Pathfinder attacker makes no roll and the target makes one roll to avoid damage.
> In 4e the attacker makes one roll to hit and the target makes no roll.
> 
> It sounds like in 5e the attacker will make a roll to set the DC, then the target will make a roll to try to beat that DC.
> 
> So in total there are more dice being rolled for each attack.



IMHO, this sounds absolutely terrible.


----------



## Gilwen

Morrus said:


> I love the idea of not having a skill list at all. It's simply the ability scores, with bonuses to certain actions, and those actions are open-ended and infinite in possibility.
> 
> STR 15 (+2 when climbing, +3 when opening jars)
> DEX 12 (+2 when doing backflips)
> CON 10 (+4 against poison)
> INT 14 (+2 when researching, +2 when dealing with the history of Abba)
> WIS 9 (+4 when resisting compulsion due to stubbornness)
> CHA 10 (+2 initial impression due to good looks, +2 when dancing)





That is exactly what I am excited about. If 3E had dumped skills and did this I would have never moved on to 4th!


----------



## MacMathan

Rolled attributes as default does not play well with face to face organized play at all or online play for that matter.

Since a lot of new blood finds the game through organized play(if not what's the point) and I think online should be a healthy part of that too there will be the "default" and what players may have actually learned as the default at their first intro to the game.

Gotta say this is my least favorite transcript yet.


----------



## Thraug

Rolling for stats in a game where stats have ANY impact on gameplay has the potential to ruin games.

Player-A and Player-B roll something close to: 11, 10, 10, 10, 7, 5
Player-C rolls something close to: 18, 18, 17, 15, 13, 12


I can assure you that Player-A and Player-B will not be happy with their low stats, especially compared to Player-C's awesome stats
A and B "accidentally" die and a new set of stat rolls need to be made for their new characters
Assuming the GM is cruel and rezzes A and B, they will most likely conveniently "lose" their character sheets and not recall what their stat rolls were
The DM wrote down what they rolled for stats? A and B stop showing up to play.
Char-C dies, can't be rezzed, and his new char rolls: 9, 8, 7, 6, 6, 3

A similar problem:


Player-A rolls 13, 12, 11, 11, 11, 10
Player-B rolls 11, 10, 9, 9, 9, 6
DM allows B to make a new char
Player-A is jealous and wants to reroll
All sorts of unhappiness and rerolling occurs

Sounds like fun to me.

Yes, exaggerated examples, but close to what happened in a 3e game I played in.


----------



## TarionzCousin

Morrus said:


> DC has been mentioned in various contexts. The chances of it not being d20 + mod are so small that *I promise to eat my hat* if it's not that.



I really, really hope that they don't make us roll under ability scores. But if they do, this will be some consolation.

Filmed and shown on EN World TV, of course!


----------



## Lanefan

Deadboy said:


> I'm hoping the stuff about hard-capping ability scores and "mortal limits" doesn't make it into the final version of the game. I liked that my character grew from a slightly above average person to a literal demi-god with ability scores in the 20s or even 30s.
> 
> I don't want to have to have stat boosting items making me look like a magic Christmas tree just so I can exceed mortal limits.



You might want to stick with 3e, then; as that's the best edition so far for such things to happen.

I'd like to see the 3-18 range be exceeded (up or down) by regular PC types only in unusual circumstances or by unusual (and very expensive and fragile) magic items.

That said, I'd also like to see some rules/guidelines/whatever dealing with PC divine ascension and how to play them once there - maybe a later "Immortals" book or something.  And that's where the mortal limits go out the window 'cause hey, you're not mortal any more! 

Lanefan


----------



## Blacky the Blackball

Morrus said:


> DC has been mentioned in various contexts. The chances of it not being d20 + mod are so small that I promise to eat my hat if it's not that.




You're almost certainly correct, but my worry is that if they're reducing bonuses across the board (which the hints seem to show) then d20 + mod may end up with a random factor that's far too great compared to the ability factor.


----------



## Spinachcat

Gamma World 4e did stats really nicely. Put 18 in your prime stat, put 16 in your secondary stat and roll 3D6 down the line for the rest. It was fast, simple and nobody complained. 

The silver standard is a terrible idea. D&D has always been on the gold standard and gold piece is one if its cool factors. 

And the 4e Cosmology was the most gameable. Much better than the Great Wheel because in 4e, the planes bled over to the prime world and allowed much more interaction with planes at lower levels.


----------



## Blackwarder

All in all I like it.

I tony get all the aghast about abilities replacing skills, that is only in the core rules and you will have a module to add skills to the game as much as you would like, honestly I'd much prefer to use ability checks for skills and have skills be extra cool things instead of a flat +x to check.
That way two players could sit around the table, one of them use the skills module and the other don't and they still play the same.

For example, the climb skill could add the ability to automatically climb a wall at twice the climb skill, or double climb could give you the ability to climb vertical walls like a spider at 10' per round etc etc.

Thumbs up to racial penalties and more importantly for scalding bonuses and penalties to +1/-1 instead of +2.

Warder


----------



## Wormwood

Erdrick Dragin said:


> *When I can see my Paladin/Cavalier/Fighter Human from 3.5e character sheet, completely untouched and unmodified, be able to work in this edition, than I'll believe WotC.
> *



*

Except they never promised that.*


----------



## vagabundo

This seminar left me a little cold - or at least lukewarm - and I expected as much. They touched on a load of stuff that I hate from previous editions, but it's all about the implementation. 

The reports from DNDxp give me hope because the games seems to run really well and at the end of the day that's what I want. Well that and easy prep time; yey for quick NPC creation (for people who want npcs to use the PC rules why don't you just use the pc rules??You don't need much more that what's already there).

- I hope all the small skill mods don't get too fiddly. 
- I hope feats aren't the dumping ground for all sorts of crap. We have optional modules for unusual subsystems now. Keep them focused, interesting and non fiddly.
- I hope there isn't a huge focus on lots of dull magic items. I'm part of the Keep Our Magic Items Magic (KOMIM) campaign (now accepting new members); _you find a +1 kopesh... bah throw it on the magic weapons wagon._

I'm excited about themes. I wonder if the warlord is a theme or a class. I'm excited about weapon groups, but I hope they import some of the weapon properties from 4e like Brutal rather than just new At-Wills. 

/END RANDOM BRAIN DUMP...


----------



## Klaus

Thraug said:


> Rolling for stats in a game where stats have ANY impact on gameplay has the potential to ruin games.
> 
> Player-A and Player-B roll something close to: 11, 10, 10, 10, 7, 5
> Player-C rolls something close to: 18, 18, 17, 15, 13, 12
> 
> 
> I can assure you that Player-A and Player-B will not be happy with their low stats, especially compared to Player-C's awesome stats
> A and B "accidentally" die and a new set of stat rolls need to be made for their new characters
> Assuming the GM is cruel and rezzes A and B, they will most likely conveniently "lose" their character sheets and not recall what their stat rolls were
> The DM wrote down what they rolled for stats? A and B stop showing up to play.
> Char-C dies, can't be rezzed, and his new char rolls: 9, 8, 7, 6, 6, 3
> 
> A similar problem:
> 
> 
> Player-A rolls 13, 12, 11, 11, 11, 10
> Player-B rolls 11, 10, 9, 9, 9, 6
> DM allows B to make a new char
> Player-A is jealous and wants to reroll
> All sorts of unhappiness and rerolling occurs
> 
> Sounds like fun to me.
> 
> Yes, exaggerated examples, but close to what happened in a 3e game I played in.



Do what I did back in 2e: roll a "campaign array", and every player uses that.


----------



## TrickyUK

Really looking forward to D&D Next. I hear people saying they are worried that it is pulling too much from previous editions, but this is what excites me the most. I played 4e from the moment it was released and enjoyed it for a couple of years - I still play in a 4e game now. But it was starting to feel stale and souless (not necessarilly the game's fault as I think my group just jumped on the 4e band wagon because it was the new 'shiny' and we were actually still enjoying v3.5). Anyway, the past few months we've been playing Pathfinder and actually realised that, even with its faults, it felt more like the D&D game we have been playing for over 10 years - 4e is a good system, but just didn't feel like D&D. Now, 5e sounds like it's going to capture the 'good ol' D&D feel but also build some of the design success of 4e.


----------



## Thalionalfirin

Klaus said:


> Do what I did back in 2e: roll a "campaign array", and every player uses that.




I've done something similar.

Everyone rolls a set and then each person can choose a set of rolls from whatever was rolled.  If everyone chooses the same set. so be it.


----------



## GrayLinnorm

One thing I'd love to see return is XP per hit point, which takes into account that a monster with 104 hp is tougher than one with 13 hp.


----------



## Drowmage

Racial penalties need to die in a fire!


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Morrus said:


> I love the idea of not having a skill list at all.  It's simply the ability scores, with bonuses to certain actions, and those actions are open-ended and infinite in possibility.
> 
> STR 15 (+2 when climbing, +3 when opening jars)
> DEX 12 (+2 when doing backflips)
> CON 10 (+4 against poison)
> INT 14 (+2 when researching, +2 when dealing with the history of Abba)
> WIS 9 (+4 when resisting compulsion due to stubbornness)
> CHA 10 (+2 initial impression due to good looks, +2 when dancing)




Ugh, so now we have to scanning all over our character sheet to see which things we have bonuses for every time we do something that requires a check? Please no. One of the nicest things 4e ever did was putting a straight list of 17 numbers on your sheet that you can figure out before play and just roll against. 

I'd much rather see the 4e skill list where basic bonuses can be collected and if you want to have some specific advantages at doing certain things, then there can be other bonuses, but that will be a much shorter list for a given PC. 

Nothing slowed AD&D games down more than 'search for the bonus' which was usually written down somewhere in tiny handwriting jammed into the 'notes' section of your character sheet. It got old fast and just generally discouraged game designers from bothering with those sorts of things, which was too bad.


----------



## Morrus

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Ugh, so now we have to scanning all over our character sheet to see which things we have bonuses for every time we do something that requires a check?




Not really.  You have six ability scores which cover everything, plus you know your character knows a lot about Orcish history and has a knack for swimming.  Easy as pie.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

Don't think I like opposed rolls for many attacks such as Fireball, it reminds me of certain spells that were rays, had save negate and could be affected by spell resistance.

I prefer if it was just one set of rolls for Fireball, either targets roll to save or attacker rolls against targets.  With caster having something like: 
Intelligence (Save: 18, Attack: +8)

So that at the beginning they can choose one or the other for who's going to roll and it still be mathematically the same.


----------



## sheadunne

Too much importance on ability scores. 

I certainly like using all 6 ability scores as saves, and do so in my games already, but hate the importance of ability scores for skills. Ability scores for me are just a measure of character potential and not a fixed gage of character power. 18 Str, you are potentially a strong person, but if you don't train, you're going to suck at swimming. 16 Int, you are potentially a smart person, but if you don't read those books and study hard, you're gonna suck at knowing things. While I am a firm believer that no + should ever exceed the dice rolled (so no d20+23), I think they can do a better system than relying on ability scores for everything, especially skills. Training should matter more than raw potential. There also should be a greater differential between numbers than +2 to show skill in an area. If you're a 1 and I'm a 10 that's a difference. If you're a 6 and I'm a 4, not enough different to bother with. 

I also don't want to bother negotiating with players every time a skill is used. "but my +2 in orc military history means I get a +2 on goblin history because they fought several wars against each other." "But my +2 make-up artist allows me to paint my face in such a way that allows me to use it with a stealth check." Too much of that is really going to get annoying. Too much history has past since the DM rules all system. While I still use it to a greater or lesser extent, as do we all, I don't want it to be the primary method for resolving every little +2 in the game. I'm hoping this is a exaggeration and that the play-test product will have more meat on its bones. 

As always, I reserve the right to change my mind, as do we all!


----------



## MatthewJHanson

Regarding random ability scores: 

These are default because default is for new players. I've taught a couple people to game trying to use both random and point buy. I've found that some people in point by quickly get overwhelmed by it, since it involves a lot of math work, and they do not know the system well enough yet to know if the decisions they are making are good. Random rolls are much faster and less stressful for new players. I'm sure there will be a point by option for us pros, and I'm sure that organized play will use that option.

Regarding looking for lots of bonuses:

There will probably be stacking rules. In Dragon Age you only get one bonus for having a focus, so if you know a lot about history and a lot about dungeons, you only get the one bonus for knowing about the history of dungeons. I expect 5e will have something similar.


----------



## Nebulous

Invisible Stalker said:


> I also would like racial bonuses and penalties to be stronger.
> 
> I do like what I'm hearing in general as a DM.
> 
> 4d6 drop the lowest is my preferred method of generation, so I'm glad that's still around.




i'm all for racial bonuses and penalties.  I don't think a halfling should EVER have an 18 STR.  Give them something to offset it. Sure, half-orcs are strong, but non-charismatic.  As for score generation, they will provide half a dozen ways to do that in the core, we can all find one we like.  There's a certain thrill to rolling 4d6 and dropping the lowest, but it can certainly leave you some 6's and 7's sometimes.


----------



## Nebulous

Erdrick Dragin said:


> *
> 
> It's like this, WotC:
> 
> If I cannot take my 3e character sheet, EXACTLY THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, and play it in D&D Next exactly the way I would have in 3e...then there's no point in playing this 5e.
> 
> 
> *




I don't really see why you need to change editions at all then. If 3.5 is fully satisfying to you, then don't worry about 5e. I don't think most people have the assumption that they can take 1e/2e/3e/4e characters and play them verbatim in 5e.  They will all have to be translated, and i think the designers are trying to build in enough options to make that translation/emulation as seamless as possible.  I know, it's a tall order.


----------



## Nahat Anoj

Kaodi said:


> I despise the idea of " charisma " now somehow equalling " courage " . This is in direct contravention of so many real world examples where charismatic leaders turn out to be complete cowards.



I think Charisma should mostly deal with guile and social situations. A Charisma "save" would be your ability to smooth out any botched social situations ("What my friend Lurg the Malodorous *meant* to say was ... ) or come up with a convincing lie on the spot. I'd also be okay if it was a generic "luck" stat.

IMO, the "courage" stat should be Constitution, which I believe should be reinterpreted to any quality that gives a character staying power and endurance. This can come from physical vitality, zeal, drive, or whatever.


----------



## Jhaelen

Morrus said:


> Not really.  You have six ability scores which cover everything, plus you know your character knows a lot about Orcish history and has a knack for swimming.  Easy as pie.



It's only easy as pie as long as it's only a handful of things your character is good at.
However, from a DM's point of view it's nice since the burden of remembering a thousand fiddly bonuses is on the player.

Having a potentially infinite list of 'skills' was one of my major dislikes in 'The Burning Wheel'.


----------



## stonegod

Ultimately, I believe the "rolled stats" issue is a red herring: They've already mentioned they will have non-rolled modules for point buy and this issue has been a solved problem since 3.x that I don't see them regressing on.


----------



## Agamon

stonegod said:


> Ultimately, I believe the "rolled stats" issue is a red herring: They've already mentioned they will have non-rolled modules for point buy and this issue has been a solved problem since 3.x that I don't see them regressing on.




I pressed reply and then saw that you posted exactly what I was going to.  Way too much hand-wringing and cries of dismay for a game in alpha.

I also have to admit I feel myself get a little dumber every time I read a phrase like "deal-breaker" or "die in a fire".  I like to think that roleplayers have better vocabulary than the comment section of the average blog.  Disappointing.


----------



## Tilenas

What a pickle, this one. Whatever they do in the end, they are going to call the Thousandfold Nerdrage unto their heads. Myself, I want to say a million things, but simply don't know where to start...


----------



## Sir Robilar

Blacky the Blackball said:


> my worry is that if they're reducing bonuses across the board (which the hints seem to show) then d20 + mod may end up with a random factor that's far too great compared to the ability factor.




That's what I was worrying, but after thinking about it some more: It wouldn't be so bad if most of the time ability checks weren't rolled but the outcome would be decided by the DM with a mere glance at the ability scores. 

An example how this could work: Finding a hidden treasure could have an Intelligence DC of 15. The Wizard with Int 17 wouldn't have to roll to find it. The cleric with Int 13 could be allowed to roll for finding it (rolling a d20 and adding his Int modifier of +1 against a DC of 15). Anyone below Int 10 would not be allowed to roll but could find the treasure regardless by clever roleplaying.


----------



## stonegod

I'm all for a always-on "take 10/passive" sort of mechanic with occasional option to roll. Certainly would speed up PbP (which is why I've adopted it here).


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

trancejeremy said:


> The trouble is, when you deal with things like halfings and half-giants, you are trying to apply logic to things that just don't make sense.
> 
> 3 1/2' tall, 70 lb creatures would never, ever survive a fight with anything bigger. They just don't have the mass to inflict much damage or take any of it.
> 
> Similarly, giants (even half-giants) would simply fall over thanks to their great weight. I mean, 7' is about as humans can get without having really bad health problems (unless they are fairly svelte, Shaquille O'Neal for instance is only 300 pounds and has avoid the health problems that plagued people like Andre the Giant)
> 
> So my point is, if you handwave away the laws of nature and allow such creatures to be adventurers, you can't then be too picky when there are results that don't make much sense.




Exactly! It is a fantasy game, quit getting your logic mixed with my peanut butter 

Honestly, if you can't imagine yourself being a strong halfling, then you shouldn't play a strong halfling! 

The problem with ability penalties is they are PROscriptive. They tell me what I cannot do with this game. Oh, maybe they're a bit lower key about it than "halflings can only be level 4 fighters and never wizards" but as soon as you tell someone they're not supposed to do something that's just a buzzkill.

Ability bonuses OTOH are PREscriptive. They tell me "hey, its extra cool to be an elf wizard" and I liked the way in 4e you got to be able to have an otherwise unachievable ability score if you had the +2 bonus. I want to be able to play my halfling wizard and be able to be good at it. On top of that I'm rewarded by being a dexterous halfling wizard. I can thus get a reward for paying attention to the halfling archetype but still be a unique halfling. After all, I'm an adventurer, not a gardener.


----------



## thzero

I really dislike the idea of yet another implementation of a skills system, as of course it helps break the crunch from previous versions.  But I guess there is enough issues with the current systems... too simplistic (4E, or at least for me), and too open-ended (3E).  One which really just is a frustrating mess, the other is way too open-ended with DCs that don't have the same progression across all skills (i.e. Minor, Easy, Moderate, Hard, Very Hard, Heroic, etc).

I suppose the idea of flipping around and apply skills to abilities when you try and do something can get away from both of those.  As long the skills can be fairly fine-grained i.e. instead of "nature" skill, you break it down into different skills such as knowledge, survival, etc. but not to the level of 3E where you had to take both spot and listen, or hide and move silently.

But really if they are going to re-implement the skills system, I'd much rather see it, combat, and magic all rolled into one instead of three different checks.   So if I'm trying to attack with my sword, I roll an attack skill that maybe I get a bonus because I have proficiency sword.  If I want to cast, I roll the casting or magic skill, etc.  Or I suppose in the parlance of the article, I'd roll an ability that is modified by the appropriate skills.

Charisma as a basis for fear saves, really?  What dictionary are they using for the definition of words, not the one I am using.  Just because the designers try and make every ability useful, doesn't mean it should randomly apply to things just to make use of it.

That all being said, it seems the more I read the less I'm interested.  Not making any true judgement until I've seen something actually in writing to putz around with, but I question the wisdom of all these optional "modules".  As a "brand", there has to be a core "D&D" experience; what is that?  It seems to be getting lost in all the talk about needing to support every Tom, Dick and Harry's vision of the game.


----------



## catsclaw227

I am getting the impression that people are taking the transcript and extrapolating some specific rules and assuming that these rules will be RAW when they haven't even presented any specifics.  Most of what I read were the ideas and thoughts about the the direction of the game, and yes, they have some bare bones rules they are working with, but can we pause and remember that they are likely a full year away from specifics?  

The rules are still going to go through the feedback cycle of the open playtest.  It is entirely possible that things like roll for Abilities as default might change to being the option instead.  It is also possible that they still might have some skills or more likely a skills module for those that want them.

I can't understand why some are flat out saying that this is gonna suck and they'll never play it when they haven't even seen the rules that haven't even been finished yet...

EDIT to my commenters:  I understand this is nothing new... but I do think someone should point it out once in a while.


----------



## thzero

catsclaw227 said:


> I am getting the impression that people are taking the transcript and extrapolating some specific rules and assuming that these rules will be RAW when they haven't even presented any specifics.




That is the nature of the beast when there aren't specifics.  Heck, even when there are specifics, things still get extrapolated out.

With all these "optional modules" that are being bandied about, sure hope they allow use to do a "publish-on-the-fly" version of the books so that we can get a version with all the option modules built into it.  Lot less having to go lookup through various source books (physically or electronically) for a rule and remember which book, etc. overrides what.

Something akin to jQuery UI's "build your own version" (i.e. jQuery UI - Configure your download).


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Lanefan said:


> You might want to stick with 3e, then; as that's the best edition so far for such things to happen.
> 
> I'd like to see the 3-18 range be exceeded (up or down) by regular PC types only in unusual circumstances or by unusual (and very expensive and fragile) magic items.
> 
> That said, I'd also like to see some rules/guidelines/whatever dealing with PC divine ascension and how to play them once there - maybe a later "Immortals" book or something.  And that's where the mortal limits go out the window 'cause hey, you're not mortal any more!
> 
> Lanefan




Yeah, I wasn't super fond of the 4e stat boosts either. They ARE pretty cool for an epic PC, but otherwise they seemed more trouble than they were worth. You were already an 18 STR fighter and at 8th you became a 20 STR fighter. It didn't feel like much of a difference really, especially when every other fighter was 20 or 22 STR at that level too. Either way you're 'very strong'. 

Maybe you'd get one stat boost at 'paragon' and then a bunch more during epic play where the rules could be pretty different.


----------



## LurkAway

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Exactly! It is a fantasy game, quit getting your logic mixed with my peanut butter



When people poke fun at in-game logic and nods to realism, and I'm not sure if it's intended as carte blanche statement that fantasy needs no logic, I tend to switch  tactics. I'd say something like: if you watch a fantasy movie like LoTR,  and you see a hobbit in a contest of raw strength against Aragorn, and  the hobbit is a match for a heroic warrior twice his size (again in a  contest of pure strength -- no cheating sneaky hobbits) and the audience  laughs at how ludicrious it appears, then that silliness is not _cinematic_ if you prefer that over "realistic".



> Honestly, if you can't imagine yourself being a strong halfling, then you shouldn't play a strong halfling!



What if my 7" tall minotaur PC must interact with an equally strong 4" halfling PC?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Morrus said:


> Not really.  You have six ability scores which cover everything, plus you know your character knows a lot about Orcish history and has a knack for swimming.  Easy as pie.




No, I know I have a +3 ability bonus for STR and a long list of possible bonuses to various things that come up once every 6 months and have to be added to that so I can come up with the modifier for swimming (after we discuss if swimming the river would use the STR or the CON bonus). Whereas in 4e I look at the skill section of my sheet and it says Athletics +9. I can also be a good swimmer in 4e without having a high STR score. IRL I'm a pretty good swimmer, but I'd be kidding myself if I said I had a high STR or CON. 

Not that there aren't theoretical upsides and downsides to 4e-style skills, but they are far easier to handle in play and thus get used a lot more than in any other system I've run. I think people who spend a lot of time thinking about the game worry about this kind of thing FAR more than players do. Most of them are not that concerned about things like swimming and climbing happen to get lumped together than they do about the easy fun of just knowing where to find the one number they need in the current situation.

The same issue comes up with ability scores as defenses. It is MUCH quicker to have a number fully calculated on your sheet for each defense already. Saying "I'm doing away with defenses and using ability scores" means actually you are just refusing to give the defenses a name, because they'll still exist mechanically in play, except by not writing them on our sheet and putting a label on them we both slow play down and lose the ability to refer to them again in other rules. This is the "middleman falacy". Those 'middleman numbers' DO exist and logically WILL exist. Pretending they don't exist is simply a loss to playability and rules clarity, straight up.

IMHO those numbers will resurface pretty soon (and maybe they do exist now for all I know, you'd be more able to say than I).


----------



## Plane Sailing

Might be interesting to compare this seminar with information from Legends and Lore articles such as Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Skills in D&D)

and Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Difficulty Class Warfare)


----------



## thzero

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I can also be a good swimmer in 4e without having a high STR score.




And in 1e (yes, it had skills), 2e, 3e.  Not to mention any number of other skill based systems.

But using your argument, 4e is "flawed" because some people are better swimmers than they are acrobats, but 4e lumps them both together.  All game systems are abstractions, so there has to be a limit to how fine-grained the skills are otherwise you get an overly complex game that isn't really usable.  



AbdulAlhazred said:


> Not that there aren't theoretical upsides and downsides to 4e-style skills, but they are far easier to handle in play and thus get used a lot more than in any other system I've run.




I think you give way too much credit to the "4e-style skills" considering, they are in reality a reduced variant of the 3e skills, which in turn are variants of other systems anyways.

But I really can't think of many games that don't have skills.  All the d20-variants, Hero, Action, Savage Worlds, GURPS (well of course), Storyteller, d6, etc.

DragonsAge RPG uses a system much more like what seems to have been being mentioned in the transcript.  die roll + Ability + "modifier".  But in reality thats all the 4e, 3e, etc. skills are anyways.  They have been just written down.  There isn't anything that says the 5e rules can't have a set of fairly commonly used skills that are predefined, nor does it mean a player can't setup a bunch of predefined skills himself based on the background of his character.


----------



## Klaus

thzero said:


> And in 1e (yes, it had skills), 2e, 3e.  Not to mention any number of other skill based systems.
> 
> But using your argument, 4e is "flawed" because some people are better swimmers than they are acrobats, but 4e lumps them both together.  All game systems are abstractions, so there has to be a limit to how fine-grained the skills are otherwise you get an overly complex game that isn't really usable.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you give way too much credit to the "4e-style skills" considering, they are in reality a reduced variant of the 3e skills, which in turn are variants of other systems anyways.
> 
> But I really can't think of many games that don't have skills.  All the d20-variants, Hero, Action, Savage Worlds, GURPS (well of course), Storyteller, d6, etc.
> 
> DragonsAge RPG uses a system much more like what seems to have been being mentioned in the transcript.  die roll + Ability + "modifier".  But in reality thats all the 4e, 3e, etc. skills are anyways.  They have been just written down.  There isn't anything that says the 5e rules can't have a set of fairly commonly used skills that are predefined, nor does it mean a player can't setup a bunch of predefined skills himself based on the background of his character.



Just for clarity: you're wrong. Acrobatics is keyed off Dexterity, Athletics (Climb, Jump, Swim) are keyed off Strength.


----------



## thzero

Klaus said:


> Just for clarity: you're wrong. Acrobatics is keyed off Dexterity, Athletics (Climb, Jump, Swim) are keyed off Strength.




Thanks for the correction.  Nevertheless, the point still stands, i.e. just because someone is an Olympic long jumper doesn't mean they are also an Olympic swimmer.

Personally I'd like to see something I've seen in systems from eons ago...

Athletics would be a generic skill, with subskills (or specializations of) Acobatics (DEX), Climb (STR), Jump (STR), Swim (STR).  Make it more expensive, in terms of training/experience/etc, to gain the general skill and less expensive to gain the specialized skill.  That way you get a generic set of skills for players who want them, but a more fine-grained for those that want them.  It's still a die roll + ability + modifier, i.e. ranks in either generic or specialized skill.  Guess that also sorta goes along with what was being talked about it in the transcript though.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

LurkAway said:


> When people poke fun at in-game logic and nods to realism, and I'm not sure if it's intended as carte blanche statement that fantasy needs no logic, I tend to switch  tactics. I'd say something like: if you watch a fantasy movie like LoTR,  and you see a hobbit in a contest of raw strength against Aragorn, and  the hobbit is a match for a heroic warrior twice his size (again in a  contest of pure strength -- no cheating sneaky hobbits) and the audience  laughs at how ludicrious it appears, then that silliness is not _cinematic_ if you prefer that over "realistic".
> 
> What if my 7" tall minotaur PC must interact with an equally strong 4" halfling PC?




No system is going to make that go away. If you want realistic then you'd determine the height and mass of your PC and then derive a minimum STR you would use as a base, etc. Even with a +4 STR for goliaths and a -4 STR for halflings there's a rather large range in which the halfling can be higher STR than the goliath.

If you have to interact with a halfling that is as strong as your goliath then you RP it. That's going to be true with ANY system. As the guy I responded to said, it is a FANTASY world. Halflings and goliaths are already physically impossible in the real world. There simply ARE no rules that will establish realistic interactions there because there are none to be had.

So why again are you punishing me because I want to play a halfling fighter? Goliaths in 4e have +2 STR, so they are almost always going to be stronger than halflings, yet I CAN play an 18 STR halfling fighter if I really want to. You could play a 10 STR goliath rogue too. 

I want to be able to play against type, and I don't want to be actively punished for it. I'm already playing a class/race combination that has some distinct limitations (in 4e I can't even use a longsword unless I give up my shield and I have to pay a lot more for a high STR, and my DEX and CHA bonuses are of considerably lesser utility than they would be for say a rogue). 



thzero said:


> And in 1e (yes, it had skills), 2e, 3e.  Not to mention any number of other skill based systems.
> 
> But using your argument, 4e is "flawed" because some people are better swimmers than they are acrobats, but 4e lumps them both together.  All game systems are abstractions, so there has to be a limit to how fine-grained the skills are otherwise you get an overly complex game that isn't really usable.



I don't follow your argument. In 4e certainly swimming is lumped in with the REST of Athletics. Yes, I can't be a good swimmer and a crappy climber, but I can live with that fine.



> I think you give way too much credit to the "4e-style skills" considering, they are in reality a reduced variant of the 3e skills, which in turn are variants of other systems anyways.
> 
> But I really can't think of many games that don't have skills.  All the d20-variants, Hero, Action, Savage Worlds, GURPS (well of course), Storyteller, d6, etc.
> 
> DragonsAge RPG uses a system much more like what seems to have been being mentioned in the transcript.  die roll + Ability + "modifier".  But in reality thats all the 4e, 3e, etc. skills are anyways.  They have been just written down.  There isn't anything that says the 5e rules can't have a set of fairly commonly used skills that are predefined, nor does it mean a player can't setup a bunch of predefined skills himself based on the background of his character.




Not sure what I'm giving 4e too much credit for. It makes skills a nice simple thing that is always worked out on your sheet and its pretty easy to remember what you're good at as its a short general list. 

And yes, 5e could provide a standardized list of skills much like the 4e skill list as defaults, except if you can bargain different ability scores that does mean there's no fixed total bonus. It is nice having those fixed numbers written down. Still, most of the time it will work OK. It is a question of is it easier to have the set list and a bit quicker easier play or is it worth it to have slightly more complexity? 

There could be other considerations too. If there are no really core defined skills and other such 'middleman' numbers then the game can only grant bonuses to more general things or to very specific things. Granting ability score bonuses is slippery because they will be REALLY valuable and they twiddle a lot of numbers, which can be a pain if the bonus goes away for some reason during play. Super specific bonuses (say to just swimming) are cool. OTOH they can be hard to track down if you start accumulating very many of them, and in any case the 4e system could handle those as well. 

There are pluses and minuses to any approach. In general I tend to favor ease of play, which IMHO was a real strength of 4e's core systems (they managed to spend all that they gained with combat effects, but that's another story).


----------



## Morrus

AbdulAlhazred said:


> No, I know I have a +3 ability bonus for STR and a long list of possible bonuses to various things that come up once every 6 months and have to be added to that so I can come up with the modifier for swimming (after we discuss if swimming the river would use the STR or the CON bonus). Whereas in 4e I look at the skill section of my sheet and it says Athletics +9. I can also be a good swimmer in 4e without having a high STR score. IRL I'm a pretty good swimmer, but I'd be kidding myself if I said I had a high STR or CON.




:shrug:  OK, we're imagining very different things, I guess.  Your description doesn't resemble what I'm imagining.  We'll just have to wait and see how it turns out; it's not like either of us actually knows.


----------



## OpsKT

Dragonblade said:


> Two things concern me:
> 
> 1) With the new emphasis on stat importance, rolling is a horrible idea. To always be second best to the guy that rolled better than you did for the life of your PC? No thanks. Point buy absolutely has to be the default for this.
> 
> 2) Feats. It sounds like feats will be incredibly important to customize your PC beyond your choice of class and theme. So how fast do you get one? Considering it sounds like bonuses won't advance much, I'd like to see a feat EVERY level. And you should start with more than one or two.




On 1 -- Indeed! Castles & Crusades uses a straight 3d6, roll six abilities, put them in the order you want method, and that makes characters on average THAT DIE. Don't get me wrong, I love the old school feel, but if I want a long term game, we either need to start at level 2 or 3, or use the 4d6 drop lowest from regular v3.5. 

What I do like about that method however is that you don't really need a huge list of skills. What would it fall under? Is it a primary ability for your class? Roll vs 12 or vs 18. DONE. It is easy and quick to get back into the narrative. 

On 2 -- If I had to choose between Feats and Skills to be 'not in' by default, I'd rather it have been Feats. The abuse (or failure to get the right ones) of Feats has been the direct cause of most every character that annoys the piss out of me. 

Honestly, I'd rather see BOTH Feats and Skills as optional modules, and them to put in class Talents a la d20 Modern/Saga Star Wars. I think that is a much better way to customize your class to feel the way you want.


----------



## thzero

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I don't follow your argument. In 4e certainly swimming is lumped in with the REST of Athletics. Yes, I can't be a good swimmer and a crappy climber, but I can live with that fine.




Not everyone can, which is somewhat the point to 5e, to allow more choice on how much detail you want.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> Not sure what I'm giving 4e too much credit for. It makes skills a nice simple thing that is always worked out on your sheet and its pretty easy to remember what you're good at as its a short general list.




The point was so does the vast majority of RPG systems out there (non-rules light mind you).



AbdulAlhazred said:


> It is a question of is it easier to have the set list and a bit quicker easier play or is it worth it to have slightly more complexity?




It's the same thing.  Either its been pre-defined for you, or you do it yourself.  Either way its a wash.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> If there are no really core defined skills and other such 'middleman' numbers then the game can only grant bonuses to more general things or to very specific things.




This to me would be a bad thing.  It goes back to my "brand" comment.  At some point the game has to set down some baseline rules that everyone can follow and add options to.  With that baseline, it would IMO need to, must really, have a set number of defined commonly used (both in combat and out of combat) skills.


----------



## LurkAway

AbdulAlhazred said:


> If you want realistic then you'd determine the height and mass of your PC and then derive a minimum STR you would use as a base, etc. Even with a +4 STR for goliaths and a -4 STR for halflings there's a rather large range in which the halfling can be higher STR than the goliath.



Do you remember the nods to realism L&L article and threads which differentiated between "realism" and nods to realism? I'm not a purist simulationist. I don't care if katanas do more damage than longswords. Like many people (but we never did get to see the poll results for the nod to realism article, so who knows what percenatage), I do enjoy a game that at least makes some effort to acknowledge some amount of nodding to realism.



> As the guy I responded to said, it is a FANTASY world. Halflings and goliaths are already physically impossible in the real world.



But by appealing to real-life or nothing, that statement is too black-and-white to have any meaning to me. Just because fantasy is fantasy, it doesn't mean anything goes -- if it did, I could take it to the opposite extreme and insist on pink elephants riding unicycles side by side with a fierce warrior called Bob the Barbarian side by side with a shotgun wielding cowboy. The fact that racial modifiers have existed in D&D for years is indicative that D&D players are interested in a middle-of-the-road approach.



> I don't want to be actively punished for it.



I guess for the same reason that I'd be required to put up with a warlord in the party even if I intensely dislike warlords. That is, the player isn't trying to actively punish me by playing a warlord, it's not personal, and I don't think it helps to frame it that way.


----------



## yoshikawa666

I don't like the idea of mortal limits for stats + more importance of ability stats + stat-boosting items. Those 3 things together sounds kinda bad, IMHO.
I'd rather pick 2 out of these 3.


----------



## Lidgar

I have read.

And I have judged.

And it is _still_ Good and Spiff.

However, judging from the comments in this thread, Marty, Bruce and Co. sure have their work cut out for them...


PS - Woot! to a simpler skill system and NPCs.


----------



## WizarDru

I generally liked everything I heard there.  Implementation will be everything, but Monte has usually excelled in this area and playtesting is strong and on-going.  More importantly, it sounds like they're informed by previous editions in a way that reminds me more of 3E's advancements of the game from what went before.  

The only thing I didn't like and I suspect I am alone in was the comment that Rob (and presumably the whole of the team) felt that skill challenges needed to 'die in a fire'.  While I admit they were flawed somewhat mechanically, I really LIKE the idea of skill challenges.  One of the best things I've ever done under 4E was a skill challenge and to hear them described so negatively is the one thing I wasn't thrilled to hear.  But I suppose under this system, I could cobble together something similar under 5E.

The only concern from what I heard was something that's an issue under 3E and 4E: progressively larger stacking bonuses.  If skills, feats, advantages and such combine with spells to make so many small bonuses that it gets hard to track stuff, it won't feel like as much of an advancement.  Hopefully they realize this and keep them compartmentalized or otherwise find a way to make them manageable.


----------



## WizarDru

Argh.  Double-post.


----------



## avin

Aldarc said:


> The Great Wheel?




They never said TGW is returning. I would love it, but expect to see a 4E + GW mix...



Erdrick Dragin said:


> If I cannot take my 3e character sheet, EXACTLY THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, and play it in D&D Next exactly the way I would have in 3e...then there's no point in playing this 5e.




That doesn't make sense at all. Really. 3E is a damn fine game, but they never said we would be able to use our old sheets.

That's just not reasonable. 



Spinachcat said:


> And the 4e Cosmology was the most gameable. Much better than the Great Wheel because in 4e, the planes bled over to the prime world and allowed much more interaction with planes at lower levels.




Prime World is a horrible concept. Call it Prime Plane and we can start talking.

Plane Bleeding is something I use since before 3E in another systems... it's a good idea... 4E cosmology has some nice ideas... but another full hand of dull ideas such as everything is caused by Gods vs Primordials, Elemental Chaos, etc... but it's just me.

That's why I think we should have a somewhat modular cosmology.



catsclaw227 said:


> I can't understand why some are flat out saying that this is gonna suck and they'll never play it when they haven't even seen the rules that haven't even been finished yet...




Well put.


----------



## Mallus

thzero said:


> Nevertheless, the point still stands, i.e. just because someone is an Olympic long jumper doesn't mean they are also an Olympic swimmer.



This would be more relevant if D&D was a game about Olympic athletes. 

It's more of a game about the protagonists of home-grown fantasy adventures stories, who are typically a broadly-competent bunch, with the caveat each has a few specialties and weaknesses. 

In adventure stories, even the bookish librarian pal of the dashing, whip-wielding archeologist has to ford a raging river or cross a wind-whipped rope bridge on occasion.  



> Athletics would be a generic skill, with subskills (or specializations of) Acobatics (DEX), Climb (STR), Jump (STR), Swim (STR).  Make it more expensive, in terms of training/experience/etc, to gain the general skill and less expensive to gain the specialized skill.



This makes the system more complicated, and narrows the target audience down to people who like engaging with complex mechanics. At the very least it bloats the character sheet with a lot of default skills (or worse, it omits default competencies, making each PC broadly inept). 




WizarDru said:


> One of the best things I've ever done under 4E was a skill challenge and to hear them described so negatively is the one thing I wasn't thrilled to hear.



One of the best things I've ever done in any campaign, ever, was to create a (mostly) false religion around a giant pig (whose later tenets included Communism) using a Skill Challenge. It was, literally, a campaign-defining event!

But even so, I was never thrilled w/the implementation. 



> The only concern from what I heard was something that's an issue under 3E and 4E: progressively larger stacking bonuses.



This worries me a bit, too. I want the numbers to stay small and manageable --and whatever situational modifiers the DM assigns to stay relevant-- throughout the campaign.


----------



## thzero

Not really, its just as relevant whether it be fantasy or sci-fi or adventure genre.  And yes, even that wizard pal of the fighter has to cross the raging river and generally he's going to fail at it, unless he gets lots of help or has a fly spell or other magical device that circumvents the need for skills.



Mallus said:


> This would be more relevant if D&D was a game about Olympic athletes.






Mallus said:


> This makes the system more complicated, and narrows the target audience down to people who like engaging with complex mechanics. At the very least it bloats the character sheet with a lot of default skills (or worse, it omits default competencies, making each PC broadly inept).




Actually it doesn't.  It does both.  If you don't want skills, don't use them and just roll against the abilities.  If you want generic grouped skills, use them and roll against ability + skill.  And if you want more fine-grained skills, use them.  Hardly "bloats" the character sheet anymore than it did or does in 3e or 4e (4e skills may not bloat as much, but it has bloat elsewhere); it may actually decrease the bloat.  It is not very hard at all, isn't all that different than what 3e/4e have now, and its tiered so it fits in well with what the stated goals of 5e are which is to allow for varying degrees of complexity for different groups.

Quite a few older gaming systems have used it (one that springs to mind off the top of my head is WEG's d6).  A similar mechanism is used in some parts of M&M2/3e.



Mallus said:


> This worries me a bit, too. I want the numbers to stay small and manageable --and whatever situational modifiers the DM assigns to stay relevant-- throughout the campaign.




I can agree with this for sure.  To me two of the issues with the 3e/4e skill system are the open-ended bonuses, and the lack of a standard progress across all skills.

The issue, which is probably the reason for it, is the nature of D&D which is to fight really big, bad monsters which may have really large modifiers on abilities or high ranks in a small subset of skills.   Not to mention deities.  Putting a limit on the range of the overall skill bonuses make its a bit harder, in a linear system, to represent the beyond human nature of these monsters and deities.


----------



## fumetti

Morrus said:


> I've always been of the opposite school of thought.  I've always wanted race to be more important than it is.
> 
> Usually, it has a bit of an effect at first (not much) and by 5th level there's no difference to note between a hafling and a half-orc.  But I WANT there to be a real noticeable difference between those two choices for the entire character life.  A half-orc should be big and strong, and halfling should not (unless you do some weird stuff).
> 
> I'd go further.  I'd make the usual modifiers +/- 4.  You KNOW that's a half-orc.  He's big and strong, whatever career he chooses.  The halfling is never going to be as strong as a half-orc.
> 
> I think I'm in a minority there.  Certainly Monte Cook doesn't agree with me.




Agreed.  Race should be as big of a decision as class.


----------



## Warunsun

avin said:


> Plane Bleeding is something I use since before 3E in another systems... it's a good idea... 4E cosmology has some nice ideas... but another full hand of dull ideas such as everything is caused by Gods vs Primordials, Elemental Chaos, etc... but it's just me.



I am not sold on the whole _Dawn War_ concept. The reason is because usually every campaign world has its own creation myth. Does it make sense that every world has its own creation myth in a planer campaign where you would be visiting different worlds? Absolutely not. In that case _Dawn War_ is just another competing version of it.

But outside of the Dawn War the 4E set up of the planes is actually damn nice. I really enjoy it. The connection is amazing. The only other bit of fluff I have some doubts with is making all demons count as elementals. I don't like that but whatever. I am sure in 5E that demons will be demons alone again. I would love to see all the missing planes return and be accessible via the Astral Sea or the Elemental Chaos. They find a way to tie the Ethereal Plane back in I am sure as well. It can all be good.


----------



## fumetti

Die rolls for ability stats?  Maybe for noobs.

I haven't rolled a character's stats since the mid-1980s.

I create a character and his basic abilities as if it was the protagonist in a novel.  I develop the personality and how I want to play the campaign (combat or role-playing).  Advantages and disadvantages are balanced within the character concept, before stats are determined.  

Then I pick the stats.


----------



## avin

Warunsun said:


> The only other bit of fluff I have some doubts with is making all demons count as elementals. I don't like that but whatever. I am sure in 5E that demons will be demons alone again.




I need to start bribing alpha testers to feedback towards this and the return of Yugoloths.

And Modrons.

There's no D&D without Modrons as a core race.

What what?


----------



## thzero

Yeah, right.  I've been rolling them since the early-1980s. :|  Just because you don't roll for stats doesn't mean others don't.  And really I have never met many GMs that just let you pick the stats; at very least they give you point-buys.

This isn't a my way or the highway type of thing.



fumetti said:


> Die rolls for ability stats?  Maybe for noobs.
> 
> I haven't rolled a character's stats since the mid-1980s.
> 
> I create a character and his basic abilities as if it was the protagonist in a novel.  I develop the personality and how I want to play the campaign (combat or role-playing).  Advantages and disadvantages are balanced within the character concept, before stats are determined.
> 
> Then I pick the stats.


----------



## Aldarc

avin said:


> They never said TGW is returning. I would love it, but expect to see a 4E + GW mix...



I know, but it has me worried, especially when factored into a lot of their other musings.

Edit: I would not be opposed to the Great Wheel and the 4e Cosmology returning, but I would want them in a Planes supplement and neither presumed as core. Cosmologies should be particular to settings.


----------



## Klaus

avin said:


> They never said TGW is returning. I would love it, but expect to see a 4E + GW mix...
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't make sense at all. Really. 3E is a damn fine game, but they never said we would be able to use our old sheets.
> 
> That's just not reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> Prime World is a horrible concept. Call it Prime Plane and we can start talking.
> 
> Plane Bleeding is something I use since before 3E in another systems... it's a good idea... 4E cosmology has some nice ideas... but another full hand of dull ideas such as everything is caused by Gods vs Primordials, Elemental Chaos, etc... but it's just me.
> 
> That's why I think we should have a somewhat modular cosmology.
> 
> 
> 
> Well put.



I love the 4e cosmology.]

I love that we have the middle world, with its twin reflections (one light, one dark).
I love that we have the Astral Sea (which looks amazing, and should be the basis for any future Spelljammer), with these "Hyperboreas" and "Elysium Fields" and "Mount Olympus" floating in it, and that you can sail past the edge of the world into the stars where the gods dwell. 
I love the Elemental Chaos, churning and roiling in endless fury (remember: Gaea emerged fully formed from Chaos, as well).
And below all of Creation, you have the Abyss, the End of Things, the shard of entropy bent of undoing the planes, like a black hole trying to consume everything.


----------



## Sammael

avin said:


> I need to start bribing alpha testers to feedback towards this and the return of Yugoloths.
> 
> And Modrons.
> 
> There's no D&D without Modrons as a core race.
> 
> What what?



I believe most of the anti-Modron lobbyists are no longer with WotC, so there may yet be hope.

As for the Great Wheel / 4E Cosmology, despite being a big fan of Planescape, I freely admit that the Great Wheel has flaws and that there are some cool things that can be scavenged from the 4E Cosmology.

However, one thing I really disliked was the concept that all planes must be adventure-friendly. No, they bloody well shouldn't be, some of them should be the most soul-sucking life-draining hope-crushing breath-stealing places EVAR. And that's _precisely_ their charm. Not every place exists solely to be adventured in.


----------



## epochrpg

One thing I think may be neat to do with this "make up your skills" approach is what to do in Specific vs. General type skills.  Taking a queue from Cartoon Action Hour, in the case of a tie, the more specific skill wins.  So if someone with Melee ties with someone with Swords, Swords wins, and if someone with Swords ties with someone with Rapier, Rapier wins.  The same could be applied to this skill system.  You could take Athletics to do swimming and climbing, but  if you pick just "climbing" you get an edge over someone else using a more generic term like "athletics".


----------



## avin

Sammael said:


> However, one thing I really disliked was the concept that all planes must be adventure-friendly. No, they bloody well shouldn't be, some of them should be the most soul-sucking life-draining hope-crushing breath-stealing places EVAR. And that's _precisely_ their charm. Not every place exists solely to be adventured in.




Where do I sign?

I think a group of low-to-mid level adventurers could venture Gehenna (as an example) and, with luck, find no real trouble when they arrive... but it should be clear that it's a hostile place... as they spend time in there they start to change and that change reflects on their mood... sooner or later natives will find them, they will die from some hazard... or the evil itself will do that job from inside out.

But Gehenna should never be an adventuring ground for them.


----------



## avin

Klaus said:


> I love that we have the middle world, with its twin reflections (one light, one dark).




That doesn't work well for a game where people come from different worlds, tho. In fact, 4E idea of one world in the center of the multiverse is (_in my opinion, which is not better  or worst than everybody else_) is as bad as the sun turning around earth... I don't want a snowflake special world... I'm with Galileo here, out with geocentrism... 

And I didn't find GW so intrusive. All 4E fluff goes around primals vs gods. I was tired of seeing references of it everywhere on monster manual. It was worst than Blood War for a mile and half. Or then when race X was from World and mutated on Shadow or Fey... Geocentrism again...

If 5E insists on this, it will fail to appeal to a lot of gamers... which it's not what's planned.

Thus 5E cosmology should be modular or as neutral as possible.


----------



## howandwhy99

Gauntlets of Ogre power as capped stats. As I understand it Gauntlets of Ogre Power grant the wearer Ogre Strength. Maybe that's 18/00 or whatever the new system uses, but a PC already with 18/00 STR would gain no bonus. A creature with even greater strength might view the gauntlets as a cursed item as they limit his or her STR.

Additionally, the 6 different kinds of Girdles of Giant Strength could be included as well with STR's 19-24.

And, if your a crafty kind of PC, you can see how gaining more powerful items might mean paying or adventuring for more powerful components. So that Storm Giant girdle isn't exactly an early project, IYKWIM. 

If they go with 25 as the mortal cap, more important A.S. bonuses, and stat boosting items like the above, then we are very much looking at a throwback game. Now I doubt they'll go to curvilinear stat bonus progressions, but I don't see them emulating 3e or 4e with such.

(also, hurray for the silver standard. Now what can I get for twenty dollars?)


----------



## SkidAce

fumetti said:


> Die rolls for ability stats?  Maybe for noobs.
> 
> I haven't rolled a character's stats since the mid-1980s.
> 
> I create a character and his basic abilities as if it was the protagonist in a novel.  I develop the personality and how I want to play the campaign (combat or role-playing).  Advantages and disadvantages are balanced within the character concept, before stats are determined.
> 
> Then I pick the stats.




What I tried to say in my exp comment was that I roll and develop character from there.

So the way you chose is not just for noobs.


----------



## Siberys

[MENTION=6762]avin[/MENTION] - I _think_ you mean geocentrism...

Unless you mean heliocentrism as "the sun is the center of creation", not "the sun is the center of the solar system"...


----------



## avin

Was in shower when noticed that used heliocentrism instead of geocentrism. My bad, sorry.

Sent from my X10a using Tapatalk


----------



## avin

Siberys said:


> [MENTION=6762]avin[/MENTION] - I _think_ you mean geocentrism...
> 
> Unless you mean heliocentrism as "the sun is the center of creation", not "the sun is the center of the solar system"...




Yes, see my post... a shame... my mother would curse me...

Sent from my X10a using Tapatalk


----------



## Primal

stonegod said:


> Ultimately, I believe the "rolled stats" issue is a red herring: They've already mentioned they will have non-rolled modules for point buy and this issue has been a solved problem since 3.x that I don't see them regressing on.




I truly hope so, because I've played in a few AD&D/3E campaigns in which my best stat was 14 or 15, and another guy had that as his lowest stat (and DM always supervises rolls, so there was never any cheating involved). If they are going to further emphasize the importance of ability scores, point-buy works far better in terms of balance, even though it usually does encourage stat optimization.

I can live with DA-style focuses, although I hope there will be some sort of official skill/focus list. I'd still prefer 4E/PF style skills that were divorced from stats; for example, if I search a wall for secret doors, my rogue could add his Dex bonus to Perception (using his sense of touch to "feel" any cracks/outline of a door). Or you could use Con for Nature/Survival/Athletics when you're trying to outrun opponents in a forest. 

I am concerned about saving throws, however; seems a bit too open-ended for me, and I don't think it's necessarily a good idea to have 6 saving throws in the game (or randomly roll the DC). Playing the Devil's Advocate here, if the wizard can use Int saving  throw to escape grapple, why couldn't your fighter suggest Str or Con  against Fireball (or, practically, every spell)? Or could you, perhaps,  also use Int, saying "My guy is so bright that he *so* could see that  fireball coming, so I want a Spellcraft check to get me an Int or Wis saving  throw -- besides, I told you I was hanging outside the room, didn't I?"  What does this "clever/good play" Monte mentioned mean anyway?  

Honestly, what was wrong with 4E Defenses? Besides, I don't see any problem using the 3E/PF saving throw system alongside Defenses... if you get hit by a condition, "save ends" would just become "save ends (Fort DC X)", or something.


----------



## Warunsun

As far as skills go the simpler the better for me. I thought they  improved skills each and every edition. First edition skills were a  train wreck with 3 major competing sources and they contradicted  "secondary skills" in the DMG. Second edition skills still sucked and the mechanics was screwy but  at-least it was in the PHB. Third edition skills were a lot better but  I felt there was too many. Fourth edition skills was down to small set  of largely adventuring skills and they worked and were simple. If fifth  edition skills are workable and even simpler than 4E skills I simply  will love it. There are room for background skills especially in a  simple system. However, I would like to keep the list of skills very  small and workable so if having background skills is going to kill that  then skip it.

 I like skills and skill use but want it simple.


----------



## Primal

Aldarc said:


> IMHO, this sounds absolutely terrible.




It is indeed a lot slower; we tried it in 3.5, and combats took forever. Especially at level 15+ it was a pain to roll DCs and opposed defense rolls (vs. attacks). Never again in D&D, never again...


----------



## Aehrlon

Dragonblade said:


> With the new emphasis on stat importance, rolling is a horrible idea. To always be second best to the guy that rolled better than you did for the life of your PC? No thanks. Point buy absolutely has to be the default for this.



Strongly disagree; some element of randomness adds to realism... if your Wizard has a higher INT score than mine, that doesn't automatically make him a better character; what if my higher CON score makes mine more durable.  I wouldn't have "Stat Envy". Rolling adds some 'realism' to the game.  I know, realism in a fantasy game, heheh, but still...  If worried about too much of a disparity between characters, limit the randomness somewhat (3 are rolled for, 3 assigned) or have a Low Threshold of some sort.


----------



## Hawke

Primal said:


> It is indeed a lot slower; we tried it in 3.5, and combats took forever. Especially at level 15+ it was a pain to roll DCs and opposed defense rolls (vs. attacks). Never again in D&D, never again...



Only way it might work is if the DM didn't roll.  Monster attacks were static values, you rolled your "save" or whatever and if you beat the value, his attack failed.  (You dodged it, it didn't break your skin, you understood it was an illusion and it failed to affect you, etc)


----------



## catsclaw227

avin said:


> catsclaw227 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't understand why some are flat out saying that this is gonna suck and they'll never play it when they haven't even seen the rules that haven't even been finished yet...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well put.
Click to expand...



My grammar has a lot to be desired, but I am glad you got the gist of what I am saying.

(If I could give it to you I would, but I must spread XP around...)

I mostly want to hear from people that actually played the D&Dn-v0.01 rules at DDXP.  Most of what I have read was excitedly optimistic.


----------



## Aehrlon

Dice4Hire said:


> I like the idea of classes giving an ability score bonus. Training is important.



I agree... furthermore, I would like to see races get their fair shake of Skill Bonuses; your halfling should be better at stealth than a human.  Cut down the amount of skill point given out and you won't have god-like bonuses at LV 10 (3.5D&D).  I'd also like to see some sort of "Adventuring" skill that all characters have that covers basics such as lighting a fire, lantern, etc. basic riding, using ropes, setting up a camp, some dungeoneering basics.  Seriously, shouldn't ALL adventurers know those things??


----------



## Hautamaki

Racial ability scores: It seems to me obvious that members of different races should have wildly different averages when it comes to their ability scores.  In the past, this was often dealt with via a simple +2/-2 modifier to certain ability scores.  But with people freely able to arrange ability scores however they liked, these sorts of racial modifiers usually get sort of 'lost in the mix'.

Another way to do it may be to not allow players to assign their rolled scores however they like.  On the contrary, ability scores must be rolled in order.  Of course, this could easily wind up giving you scores that are highly inconvenient for your previously planned out character concept.  So you could allow a player to re-roll 1 or 2 scores if they wish (but they must keep the re-rolled scores whether they are higher or lower).

If you do this, you wouldn't be constrained by 4d6 drop 1 roll for all scores.  4d6 drop 1 gives you the HUMAN range of scores.  However, for a dwarf, you could be rolling say 5d6 drop 2 on constitution, and a straight up 3d6 for charisma.  This would give different averages for different ability scores without going above or below the 3-18 standard limits.


----------



## TrickyUK

My earlier post may have sounded slightly off topic, not helped because I falied to make a point.

Rolling ability scores has its flaws and poor rolls have ruined may players' games. The point buy system is what we use and I can't see this not being included - but if not, then house rule.

I like races to feel different and as no race should be perfect, having bonuses and penalties is fine with me. To support this, the reliance on ability scores needs to be more critical else any penalised score would be a dump stat, and hence not really a penalty. This is one of elements of 4e that contributed to my feeling of not D&D.

I don't think that D&D has ever really mastered non-combat skills and so I remain hopefull that the next iteration will be improved and what I've heard so far sounds OK.


----------



## Klaus

avin said:


> That doesn't work well for a game where people come from different worlds, tho. In fact, 4E idea of one world in the center of the multiverse is (_in my opinion, which is not better  or worst than everybody else_) is as bad as the sun turning around earth... I don't want a snowflake special world... I'm with Galileo here, out with geocentrism...
> 
> And I didn't find GW so intrusive. All 4E fluff goes around primals vs gods. I was tired of seeing references of it everywhere on monster manual. It was worst than Blood War for a mile and half. Or then when race X was from World and mutated on Shadow or Fey... Geocentrism again...
> 
> If 5E insists on this, it will fail to appeal to a lot of gamers... which it's not what's planned.
> 
> Thus 5E cosmology should be modular or as neutral as possible.



But I *like* the campaign's world to be the center of the cosmos. It is the battleground worth fighting for (for whatever reason).

As for Primordials vs. Gods, you're forgetting the Gods vs. Tharizdum, Gods vs. Gods, Primal Spirits vs. Gods, Primordials, and Aberrations, Arkhosia vs. Bael Turath, Nerath vs. Gnolls, Demons vs. Gods. There are plenty of top-level wars going on in the 4e cosmology.


----------



## stonegod

Tricky110974 said:


> I like races to feel different and as no race should be perfect, having bonuses and penalties is fine with me. To support this, the reliance on ability scores needs to be more critical else any penalised score would be a dump stat, and hence not really a penalty. This is one of elements of 4e that contributed to my feeling of not D&D.



Dump stats have existed as long as I can rember: Fighters with Int 8 and Wizards with Str 6 in my 2E games. 3/4E did tend to make one/two stats more important per class, but dumping is not new. 

A balance needs to be reached. If every stat is important, no stat will be special, to misquote a fine movie. If I can't afford to give my Fighter a good strength lest his low Int kill him, everything will be 12s. Trade offs give choice: I know a low score may hurt me, but there is a gulf between hurt and debilitate. 







> I don't think that D&D has ever really mastered non-combat skills and so I remain hopefull that the next iteration will be improved and what I've heard so far sounds OK.



The 3/4E styles seemed fine to me. What did they do wrong (or conversely, who did it right)?


----------



## talok55

I am so glad they say that skill challenges need to die in a fire.  They sounded okay in theory but ended up being one of the most metagamey, immersion killing things in any edition of the game.


----------



## Grazzt

Aehrlon said:


> I'd also like to see some sort of "Adventuring" skill that all characters have that covers basics such as lighting a fire, lantern, etc. basic riding, using ropes, setting up a camp, some dungeoneering basics.  *Seriously, shouldn't ALL adventurers know those things??*




Yep. Hence why you don't need a skill for it. DM can hand wave it, especially the camping, starting a fire, lantern parts. No need for a skill for that.


----------



## thzero

Grazzt said:


> Yep. Hence why you don't need a skill for it. DM can hand wave it, especially the camping, starting a fire, lantern parts. No need for a skill for that.




Actually it's called "Survival', at least in 3E, 2E and 1E (via the wilderness survival guide), although 1E did break it down into fishing, foraging, and a few other skills too.  And no, not all "adventurers" may have it.  City based adventurers probably don't have it or at least their "adventuring" skills may be different, i.e. gather information, appraise, etc. that might be useful in those settings.

Blanket statements, and to the OP, like this defeat the purpose.  Letting the system allow you to play this way is good, but making it so that I can't play with more detail should also be just as cool.


----------



## thzero

Primal said:


> It is indeed a lot slower; we tried it in 3.5, and combats took forever. Especially at level 15+ it was a pain to roll DCs and opposed defense rolls (vs. attacks). Never again in D&D, never again...




Perhaps its because I played a lot of M&M with it this way; now granted M&M doesn't have the iterative attacks either.  I have used in it Conan though, replacing the static 10 in defense with a d20 and it worked out ok.  But again while there are iterative attacks going on, there is a lot less things happening in combat due to lack of magic items and all the D&D spells.   

That all being said I'm not necessarily sure its a good thing to have for the base D&D experience, but as an option, especially if you are doing a magic light campaign it would be nice to have.


----------



## TrickyUK

stonegod said:


> Dump stats have existed as long as I can rember: Fighters with Int 8 and Wizards with Str 6 in my 2E games. 3/4E did tend to make one/two stats more important per class, but dumping is not new.
> 
> A balance needs to be reached. If every stat is important, no stat will be special, to misquote a fine movie. If I can't afford to give my Fighter a good strength lest his low Int kill him, everything will be 12s. Trade offs give choice: I know a low score may hurt me, but there is a gulf between hurt and debilitate. The 3/4E styles seemed fine to me. What did they do wrong (or conversely, who did it right)?




Agree that dumping is not new, but I never noticed such an impact until 4e, where I saw so many characters that were focused on 1 or 2 scores only (dependant upon class/powers) and very rarely skills. This led to situations where a player would simply say, 'My character can't do that." with the reasoning that he need a character that could be effective in its role and use its powers.

Making no score special may have some potential, with balance, as it was mentioned that the class would supplement those abilities that were required: a fighter gets a bonus to Str therefore, hopefully, avoid debilitated characters.

I am running PF and the skills seem to work, but I spend most of the time (as GM) winging the outcomes of skill use. I think it has to do with the how the results of skill uses are handled. Most adventures pivot on combat encounters and skills fill in the space between. Making skills and their use have more effect on the game would be a step in the right direction for me. I will admit that I do try and make skill use more critical (a failed roll can result in something similar to a failed saving throw, as far as story progression goes) but the rules don't seem to lend themselves inherently to this type of application.

If skills and saving throws are going to tied to ability scores as hinted in the seminar then this is OK for me.


----------



## dimonic

*Race and ability scores*



Morrus said:


> I've always been of the opposite school of thought.  I've always wanted race to be more important than it is.
> 
> Usually, it has a bit of an effect at first (not much) and by 5th level there's no difference to note between a hafling and a half-orc.  But I WANT there to be a real noticeable difference between those two choices for the entire character life.  A half-orc should be big and strong, and halfling should not (unless you do some weird stuff).
> 
> I'd go further.  I'd make the usual modifiers +/- 4.  You KNOW that's a half-orc.  He's big and strong, whatever career he chooses.  The halfling is never going to be as strong as a half-orc.
> 
> I think I'm in a minority there.  Certainly Monte Cook doesn't agree with me.




I have really enjoyed how 4e has made race important - and yet it has managed that without a negative modifier, and a +2 to two stats - and a class feature or two that continue giving regardless of your level, and then racial feats that continue to accentuate the differences. I generally play characters that choose the racial feats and even racial paragon paths - I have a human wizard - adroit explorer, for example, and really play up the human feats.

I won't mind if there is a negative stat, but I would like two positive for the one negative. It also seems like there will be a stat boost for class slection as well, so +4 is probably way overkill. I think -2, +2, +2 for the race would be overkill, because it would stack with a +2 for class. Of course every player would have a 22 in their prime stat through this. Using -1, +1, +1 and +1 for class seems a little measly. 

I like the feel -2, +1, +2 for race, and another +1 for class.


----------



## Morrus

dimonic said:


> I have really enjoyed how 4e has made race important - and yet it has managed that without a negative modifier, and a +2 to two stats - and a class feature or two that continue giving regardless of your level, and then racial feats that continue to accentuate the differences. I generally play characters that choose the racial feats and even racial paragon paths - I have a human wizard - adroit explorer, for example, and really play up the human feats.
> 
> I won't mind if there is a negative stat, but I would like two positive for the one negative. It also seems like there will be a stat boost for class slection as well, so +4 is probably way overkill. I think -2, +2, +2 for the race would be overkill, because it would stack with a +2 for class. Of course every player would have a 22 in their prime stat through this. Using -1, +1, +1 and +1 for class seems a little measly.
> 
> I like the feel -2, +1, +2 for race, and another +1 for class.




Whether it's a positive or negative modifier is just nomenclature.  I think poeple get too hung up on the word "negative".

You can achieve the same effect by lowering the baseline, and handing out more positive modifers - just some races don't get them for some abilities.  Same mathematical result, but now a bunch of folks are happy because they're not getting a negative modifier.


----------



## Tilenas

> Melkor:
> 4D6 drop the lowest as default is my preferred method as well. It IS D&D.




Disagree. 3D6 in order, crumble up character sheet, rinse, repeat IS D&D ;-)


----------



## WizarDru

Mallus said:


> But even so, I was never thrilled w/the implementation.




Agreed.  I think the tools given were poorly executed...had WotC actually worked more on them, I think they would have truly been an innovation worthy of regular use.  But too often, skill challenges were used sloppily or as just a combat using skills instead of powers.  Piratecat's 4E story hour showed some stellar uses of the skill challenge format, redefining IMHO what they could be and how they could work.  I wish the 4E team at WotC put as much effort into theirs.



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> This worries me a bit, too. I want the numbers to stay small and manageable --and whatever situational modifiers the DM assigns to stay relevant-- throughout the campaign.




Exactly.  The manageability issue is a big one, too.  In the 3E at high levels, a player might have bonues from items, spell effects, feat, class abilities and how knows what else.  4E just had tons of statuses and niggling effects.

I just don't want the game to come to a screeching halt every time someone has to figure out their situational skill value ("_Well, normally my jump is 10', but I have the Marshallow Climber skill and it's Winter, so I'm at +8' until Lunchtime!_")


----------



## gweinel

*skill (less) system...*

It seems that they haven't decided 100% yet what the skill system will be. 

In today's rule of three: Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article... 



> What does this mean going forward? It means we're still working on it. Skills are clearly important to many players as a customization element. The questions remaining in my mind are, "How can we create a system that provides the customization players get out of skills, while still making it easier for DMs—and players who don't want to use a skills system—to adjudicate actions at the table.




They want to make a skill-less system but i am not sure if it will gonna make it to the end. 

Regarding skills, imho, the thing of greatest important is character customization. I don't know how classes/races/themes work on the skills but  in such system i am afraid the homogeneity of the characters. Every elf fighter with noble theme would have exactly the same skills? This is something i wouldn't like happening. The difference between a human noble and and dwarf noble would be only on the racial skill modifiers? This sounds awful too. 

Now on the other hand a character may have choices: The elf race has 10 racial skill bonuses (that would be a +2 to perception, +2 nature, +2 arcana, etc etc) and you must choose 4. The noble theme has 6 theme skill bonuses and you can take 2. The fighter class has 12 class skill bonuses and you can take 6. This kind of treatment of a skilless system is something that i would like more. 

And after that what about advancing? If i would like to learn a new skill? It would be a feat? I hope not. I think noone took feats for skills.
A more organic skill advancement would be a guideness: "After you lvl up discuss with your dm what skill your character would like to take/raise (or what is appropriate - story based) and put a +2 on that skill. If it is not on your race/class/theme then put a +1. A solution like this is more of my liking. 

In any case i would suggest to make one or two good skill modules more since as i see everyone wants a different skill system


----------



## WotC_Trevor

Okay, there's a lot of great stuff in here but I'm going to try to respond to just a few things that I might be able to clear up. Here's my obligatory bit about how we're still playtesting and designing and any of this stuff could change. 


Stalker0 said:


> I generally like the ability score idea they are going with, my only real concern is will ability scores be too important?
> 
> For example, in 4e one of the "issues" people quoted was because your primary ability score was so important you would always do your best to raise it, even only taking races that had a bump to that score.
> 
> If the majority of your attack,damage, and even saves is your ability score, would that phenomena be even worse?



So ability scores are important, but I don't think maxing out an ability score will be as uber important as it has been in some editions. You get stats, and then you choose your race and class. You race could give you a stat bump, and then your class could give you a stat bump too. So if you want to synergize you can, which could bring you a lot closer to that hard stat cap without rolling or point buying that 18.

Another thing that goes into making these stats important but not "OMG I NEED 18S IN EVERYTHING!!11!!" goes along with that ability score ceiling. By shrinking the distance of ability score growth, they can condense the scale of challenges as well. So a +1 or a +2 to a specific stat or skill check really makes a difference.

I'm hopeful that we'll see through playtesting that while stats are still important, people won't feel left behind or that they need to max a stat to feel useful or to have fun. 



Sammael said:


> Aaaaannnnndddd... it's gone. My interest in D&D Next, that is. We have several deal breakers here, but the two critical ones are:
> 
> 1. Using ability scores for everything instead of skills (this is COMPLETELY the opposite of what I want in ANY role-playing game)
> 
> 2. NPCs don't follow the same rules as PCs.



Ability scores are still used for skills. You need to jump across chasm - the DM looks at your strength stat and if it's high enough, you make it. If not, then maybe he has you make a strength roll. If you get a bonus to strength rolls made to jump, then that gets factored in. It's still a strength roll though, so it's based on your stat.

And for NPCs not following the same rules as PCs, the idea is that those NPCs don't have to follow the same rules - not that you couldn't build an npc or monster that did. Maybe I don't understand the underlying issue with that one but I think uncoupling NPC or monster creation from the same rules that PCs might use when creating their characters makes things easier for the DM. I haven't had any difficulty running these monsters or seeing how they work, even with this idea behind it. 



interwyrm said:


> If ability scores are random AND determine combat efficiency, I'm not going to switch to 5e. It's not fun feeling completely ineffective in the team... I know, I've played a poison focused character in a mod full of undead.



One of the options for ability score generation is the roll 4d6 drop the lowest, but it's not the only option. I would suspect that the area on stats when we're all done with this will have a main option that it suggests (which might be the 4d6 roll) and some other options such as point buy and array along side it.  



Sir Robilar said:


> Has it been announced yet how basic ability checks are made in this system?  2E's roll under mechanic or the later approach of d20 + ability modifiers against a set DC? Can't find the information...



We're running with the d20 + mods rolls at the moment.



gweinel said:


> It seems that they haven't decided 100% yet what the skill system will be.



We definitely have not, but hopefully people understand that we're not set on things yet as we're still in the very early stages of playtesting. Everything is still an idea, some tested more than others. That's what this is all about.

That said, I can definitely envision a base skill system like the one they've mentioned working in our final version - perhaps with a more robust, optional skill module in the initial release as well, one that reflects the specific skills and ranks like the most recent D&D editions. Time will tell though.


----------



## Stalker0

WotC_Trevor said:


> Another thing that goes into making these stats important but not "OMG I NEED 18S IN EVERYTHING!!11!!" goes along with that ability score ceiling. By shrinking the distance of ability score growth, they can condense the scale of challenges as well. So a +1 or a +2 to a specific stat or skill check really makes a difference.
> 
> I'm hopeful that we'll see through playtesting that while stats are still important, people won't feel left behind or that they need to max a stat to feel useful or to have fun.
> .




Hehe, after all the big posts and articles I've written, this few sentences is the one that gets read by WOTC

Trevor your point makes a lot of sense. I think another avenue I would like WOTC to consider in the point buy realm is to return to 3e point buy scores. I felt that one reason 4e was more min/maxed was because raising a 13 to a 14 (getting the +2) costs 2 points instead of 1. That meant if you were raising a stat you might as well push it hard.

In 3e, you could get a 14 fairly cheap in point buy terms, so having a character with a lot of "average" stats wasn't a bad way to go.


----------



## tuxgeo

Morrus said:


> Whether it's a positive or negative modifier is just nomenclature.  I think poeple get too hung up on the word "negative".
> 
> You can achieve the same effect by lowering the baseline, and handing out more positive modifers - just some races don't get them for some abilities.  Same mathematical result, but now a bunch of folks are happy because they're not getting a negative modifier.




Probably close enough; but not exactly the same, because Point-buy's "Higher=Costlier" effect would actually give slightly different arithmetic results. 

For an example contrasting "negatives" against "lower baseline, positive only," try this one using Third Ed.'s "tough" 28 Point Buy (starting from scores of 8): 

METHOD 1 - "WITH NEGATIVE ADJUSTMENTS": 
Elves get +2 DEX and -2 CON. Make a high-CON elf using the "tougher" 28 total Third Edition points, getting these scores before applying racial adjustments: 
# STR 10 # DEX 16 # CON 15 # INT 10 # WIS 12 # CHA 10 # 
(Those unaugmented scores of 10-16-15-10-12-10 would cost 2+10+8+2+4+2, which add up to the specified 28 points by 3E rules.) 

After racial adjustments, the FINAL SCORES for that Level 1 PC would be: 
# STR 10 # DEX 18 (=16+2) # CON 13 (=15-2) # INT 10 # WIS 12 # CHA 10 # 


METHOD 2 -- "LOWER BASELINE, POSITIVE ADJUSTMENTS ONLY": 
Give Elves +2 DEX & +2 WIS, but lower the point-buy by 4 to 24 instead of 28, because we're giving out 2 bonuses of 2 for a net gain of 4, instead of leaving it balanced at 0 with a +2 canceling out a -2. 

To get those SAME FINAL SCORES, SUBTRACT both bonuses to get point-buy scores of: 
# STR 10 # DEX 16 (=18-2) # CON 13 # INT 10 # WIS 10 (=12-2) # CHA 10 # 

For that, the point-buy in 3E terms would be 2+10+5+2+2+2 = 23, not the 24 that we would expect by subtracting 4 from 28. 

Where did the extra point go? It's that 15 we started with: it cost 2 buy points to raise from 14, but took only 1 adjustment point to drop it back down to 14 when we were converting from "negatives" to "lower baseline, positive only."


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Klaus said:


> I love the 4e cosmology.]
> 
> I love that we have the middle world, with its twin reflections (one light, one dark).
> I love that we have the Astral Sea (which looks amazing, and should be the basis for any future Spelljammer), with these "Hyperboreas" and "Elysium Fields" and "Mount Olympus" floating in it, and that you can sail past the edge of the world into the stars where the gods dwell.
> I love the Elemental Chaos, churning and roiling in endless fury (remember: Gaea emerged fully formed from Chaos, as well).
> And below all of Creation, you have the Abyss, the End of Things, the shard of entropy bent of undoing the planes, like a black hole trying to consume everything.




Yeah, I gotta say that the 4e Cosmology is boss. It is very much a riff on western classical mythology with some very nice strong underlying concepts and powerful themes. Amusingly the custom cosmology I created for my main homebrew back in the 80's is almost indistinguishable from the 4e version. It is great for spawning really good thematic high level story arcs. 

I also liked the general consolidation of different variations of bad guys. There are still plenty of them and room for more, but there is a lot less "stuff just for the sake of more stuff" in there.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Morrus said:


> Whether it's a positive or negative modifier is just nomenclature.  I think poeple get too hung up on the word "negative".
> 
> You can achieve the same effect by lowering the baseline, and handing out more positive modifers - just some races don't get them for some abilities.  Same mathematical result, but now a bunch of folks are happy because they're not getting a negative modifier.




There is a difference. Say I give races that are strong a +2. Now, for a race that doesn't get a +2 they will be as good at being a fighter as most of the other races, and a few will be better. OTOH if a few weak races get a -2 then those races are worse fighters than almost all other races. People aren't too worried about playing a race that is as good as most of the other races for a given class. People will very rarely play one that is worse than 90% of the other races.

One way is prescriptive, it says "hey, play this if you want to be the best at X", the other is proscriptive, it says "hey, don't play this, it isn't good enough to bother with."

I don't think it is impossible to make a good system that has a few small penalties but if Orcstein has to buy an 18 INT just to get a 16 and every other race can have an 18 (even if its cheaper for a few) then Orcstein is a lot less viable seeming option. Plus his +2 STR is not worth much to him, so he's hit doubly, triply really because buying that 18 that is now a 16 means he's dropping other stats to do it.

OTOH if there is no penalty then Orcstein is still not as good a wizard as Elfstein who pays for a 16 and gets an 18, but at least he's par on his ability to be a wizard. Sure, he's weird for an orc, but he's a PC, not your run of the mill orc.


----------



## Shemeska

Sammael said:


> I believe most of the anti-Modron lobbyists are no longer with WotC, so there may yet be hope.
> 
> As for the Great Wheel / 4E Cosmology, despite being a big fan of Planescape, I freely admit that the Great Wheel has flaws and that there are some cool things that can be scavenged from the 4E Cosmology.
> 
> However, one thing I really disliked was the concept that all planes must be adventure-friendly. No, they bloody well shouldn't be, some of them should be the most soul-sucking life-draining hope-crushing breath-stealing places EVAR. And that's _precisely_ their charm. Not every place exists solely to be adventured in.




The 4e cosmology didn't do much for me, but I probably would have been less hard on it if it didn't come off as pastiche of the Great Wheel too often. It would have been perfectly fine as the cosmology for a specific setting, but trying to junk the Great Wheel and use the 4e planes as a replacement -retroactively in all the campaign worlds for 4e even- it felt hamhandedly imposed and didn't feel like what I was used to the D&D cosmos being.

Like Sammael said, it felt too centered on the PCs and PC ability to "adventure!" in the planes - all of them, like they were all big extraplanar dungeons waiting to be delved, their inhabitants slain, and their treasure taken. I never got the overwhelming sense of mystery, beauty, and terror that I got from the Great Wheel with its sense of a vast, infinite cosmos where the PCs were tiny by comparison. And from that perspective in the Great Wheel, to be very existential about it, if you looked at that as being free to make your way in the cosmos, it made any great PC success in those vast, alien landscapes even more incredible.

The planes existed before the mortal world, and while mortal belief can shape some of them, they aren't tailor made for PC travelling, segmented into neat tiers like carnival rides with a plastic glabrezu holding up its hand saying that adventurers must be this level to adventure in this layer of the Abyss which will have encounters tailor made to fit their level. The planes are dangerous for the unwary, but yet you can go there with the right tools or knowledge at very low level, but you had better be prepared for it not being pleasant, or normal, or designed around shallow mortal perceptions.

That said, I'm not averse to cherry picking some 4e people and places for inclusion into the Great Wheel, including a number of things that Rob Schwalb and Brian James did in a few places.

But I want my Blood War, yugoloths, guardinals, factions and all that other GW awesomeness back.


----------



## avin

Shemeska said:


> But I want my Blood War, yugoloths, guardinals, factions and all that other GW awesomeness back.




Blood War is mentioned as a Cold War in 4E... I don't think it's all that bad concept for some campaigns. You know, Cold War can be a serious playground for some fiends... 

Yugoloths must come back. No doubt about it. 4E's forced duality (gods vs primordials, demons vs devils) should go away.

Guardinals, sure.

Factions were mentioned here and there, outside of Sigil IIRC.

I wouldn't mind Planescape coming back...


----------



## Kalontas

Reading that makes me feel like they're just pissing all over everything I liked about 4E. The more I read about 5E, the more disappointed I'm becoming. My favourite race (Deva) as a THEME? One of my favourite classes (Avenger) as a theme? This coupled with earlier reveals of "no power sources" and Vancian magic just makes me feel like this edition was specifically targeted to alienate me - or people like me.

For all I know next they will announce that if you don't like anti-heroes you can't play the new edition, because they will be enforced on everyone. Yeah, I know it's a ridiculous statement, it's supposed to be.


----------



## talok55

Funny. That's exactly the way many of us felt with the roll out to 4E. It's not that pleasant a feeling.  At least they are not specifically saying that your favorite edition was badwrongfun like they did in the roll out of 4E.  It's still early in the game, they may yet have a number of 4E like options even if they aren't core.


----------



## Kalontas

talok55 said:


> Funny. That's exactly the way many of us felt with the roll out to 4E. It's not that pleasant a feeling.  At least they are not specifically saying that your favorite edition was badwrongfun like they did in the roll out of 4E.  It's still early in the game, they may yet have a number of 4E like options even if they aren't core.




And that's exactly what they said they will avoid. That they will want to unify everyone this time - so stuff that both 3E and 4E people will like. All I see so far is "we're remaking 3.5 with some names borrowed from 4E".


----------



## Blackwarder

WHy not make a anger as a theme? It sounds like a great idea to me and I had avengers in my groups for years, it makes much better sense to make it a theme to add to some of the other classes, the closets it will be to a 4e avenger will probably be avenger paladin or an avenger cleric but I totally dig they idea of an avenger wizard.

Also, some of the races are also more suited for themes, not sure about devas being a theme, it's the first I heard of it, but anything that will make the bloated race lists smaller is a good thing in my book. 

Warder


----------



## john112364

I kind of like the concept of Devas as a theme. Think about it: the 4e Deva was all about them being reincarnated over and over. Why not be reincarnated as different races instead of the same race? I think the concept is very flavorful. (If that's what is actually going to happen. Remember it's still early in the playtesting stage). And the same with some class concepts. Anyone with a religious flavor could take an oath and become an avenger. Like the afore mentioned wizard/avenger. Cool concept.


----------



## Wardook

Loving everything that I am seeing so far. 4D6 drop the lowest is my groups preferred method. I really like the role playing/ on the fly feeling that I am getting. Let's see if it translates to the actual game. I got the same feeling from the pre 4e info and was disappointed. I fall into the grognard, Modav Red Box, changed to Pathfinder group. Not trying to start an edition argument, they are all good for their own reasons.


----------



## Sammael

The point here is this: devas were made up for 4E. They had no precedent in prior editions, didn't have 30+ years of traction, and their flavor was quite different than most other races. They don't really fit with the classic D&D-isms, which D&D Next is all about.

I really hope that they will release a full fledged 4E sourcebook soon after the release of 5E so that people who like the 4E races and classes don't feel left out. At least with 5E that will be possible, unlike what happened with 4E.


----------



## avin

Kalontas said:


> Reading that makes me feel like they're just pissing all over everything I liked about 4E. The more I read about 5E, the more disappointed I'm becoming. My favourite race (Deva) as a THEME?




Kalontas, isn't Deva a "theme" even o 4E? I mean, I don't have the fluff around me now but I remember them as reincarnations of ANY race, not just a specific race.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Sammael said:


> The point here is this: devas were made up for 4E. They had no precedent in prior editions, didn't have 30+ years of traction, and their flavor was quite different than most other races. They don't really fit with the classic D&D-isms, which D&D Next is all about.
> 
> I really hope that they will release a full fledged 4E sourcebook soon after the release of 5E so that people who like the 4E races and classes don't feel left out. At least with 5E that will be possible, unlike what happened with 4E.




I think that's a HIGHLY dubious assertion that they "don't really fit". If there's anything about D&D it is what an utterly ecclectic kitchen sink it is. Everything fits. If stuff has to have 30 years of history behind it before it is allowed to stay in the game, that's a game I'm not wasting money on. Everything can fit and nobody gets to say THEIR favorite thing gets a bye simply because its old and not because it is GOOD.

As for races and classes I don't really care that much which book they're in myself. I just think that the smart set of priorities is what is cool and not "well, that wasn't added until 2008 so we're not going to touch it for 3 years" or something. Dragonborn are cool, Devas are cool, lots of things are cool, and lots of those things were pretty popular with players in 4e. My bet is they'll be popular with players in 5e as well. If a few traditionalists are always going to get to be the guardians of what is and isn't going into D&D, then heck, it will be the D&D community that has made itself stale and irrelevant. People will move on, either to other games or 3PP content, etc.


----------



## Sammael

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Dragonborn are cool, Devas are cool, lots of things are cool, and lots of those things were pretty popular with players in 4e. My bet is they'll be popular with players in 5e as well. If a few traditionalists are always going to get to be the guardians of what is and isn't going into D&D, then heck, it will be the D&D community that has made itself stale and irrelevant. People will move on, either to other games or 3PP content, etc.



If there were just a few traditionalists, WotC wouldn't be designing a new edition right now. Which is, at it's core, pretty much a retro-clone of itself - FAR closer to Castles and Crusades than to 4E.

Since WotC does have a marketing department, I'm guessing that this time, they did a bit of research on what the majority of players actually wanted. 

Bear in mind that I won't mind devas and dragonborn if they appear in a sourcebook. But I'll never allow them at my table except in a Planescape game (where anything goes).


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Sammael said:


> If there were just a few traditionalists, WotC wouldn't be designing a new edition right now. Which is, at it's core, pretty much a retro-clone of itself - FAR closer to Castles and Crusades than to 4E.
> 
> Since WotC does have a marketing department, I'm guessing that this time, they did a bit of research on what the majority of players actually wanted.



I'm getting tired of this tune though. First of all nobody has demonstrated what the relative popularity of 4e vs any other edition is. All that has been demonstrated is that WotC promised Hasborg that it would make boku big bucks more than any other edition ever did, and it hasn't. So this kind of reasoning is built on a vast and very shaky house of cards.

Even if it IS true, which I think to a certain extent it is, extending that logic all across the entirety of 4e to basically say "anything I don't like from 4e must be that unpopular crap" is an EVEN MORE HUGE reach and IMHO rises to point of being just meaningless.

So, sorry, "I don't like DB and they're in 4e so they're unpopular crap that should be dropped" is just the worst kind 'reasoning' there is. As for WotC and its marketing my guess is they're quite a lot more sophisticated in their ability to decide what people do and don't like than 4e -> bad, 1e -> good. 



> Bear in mind that I won't mind devas and dragonborn if they appear in a sourcebook. But I'll never allow them at my table except in a Planescape game (where anything goes).




Which is of course fine and dandy, but in my case 5e isn't really fully usable to us until these races exist because we use them, so the book for them to be in to please me and my gaming buds is the PHB. If they're not in that book, well, we might not buy that book right away. If they're not going to show up at all, I dunno, maybe we'll make our own or maybe we'll just keep playing 4e, which BTW is perfectly popular around here and I could keep running it for years from all indications.


----------



## Kalontas

Sammael said:


> The point here is this: devas were made up for 4E. They had no precedent in prior editions, didn't have 30+ years of traction, and their flavor was quite different than most other races. They don't really fit with the classic D&D-isms, which D&D Next is all about.
> 
> I really hope that they will release a full fledged 4E sourcebook soon after the release of 5E so that people who like the 4E races and classes don't feel left out. At least with 5E that will be possible, unlike what happened with 4E.




[MENTION=6762]avin[/MENTION]: they have unique biology and separate racial statistics, so for all intents and purposes, they are a race. In 4E, that is.

D&DNext is not supposed to be about being "classic", it's supposed to unify fans of all editions, and "4E" definitely count as one of "all editions". "Being made up for 4E" is thus as valid as "being made up for 3.5" or AD&D.

Even discarding that, Devas were meant to be a continuation of the Aasimar under new name and distinct appearance.

Again, discarding that argument, the fact they're so different is what makes them unique and attractive. Not everyone wants to play the same near-human races all the time. Some people actually prefer more unique options. What Devas lack in uniqueness in appearance, they make up for it with their uniqueness in behaviour and style. As such, they're one of the flagship children of 4E: giving people a multum of options, so everyone can enjoy themselves. And degrading such an option to a theme is (to me personally, as a 4E fan) a spit in the face or (to the industry) a sign of hypocrisy: they unite every edition supposedly, but "oh, without that corker of 4E, hehe, nobody played that, right?"


----------



## Siberys

[MENTION=6762]avin[/MENTION] - No, Deva are all continually reincarnated angels.

I just don't want there to be a bunch of competing themes, where possible. ideally for me, race, class, and theme would all be roughly equivalent; that way, dual classing or hybriding would be done like "Human Fighter Wizard"; one could then do a "Deva Paladin avenger" by dropping race; &c.

I dunno, that's how /I'd/ do it, anyways.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Siberys said:


> <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention --> @avin <!-- END TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention --> - No, Deva are all continually reincarnated angels.
> 
> I just don't want there to be a bunch of competing themes, where possible. ideally for me, race, class, and theme would all be roughly equivalent; that way, dual classing or hybriding would be done like "Human Fighter Wizard"; one could then do a "Deva Paladin avenger" by dropping race; &c.
> 
> I dunno, that's how /I'd/ do it, anyways.




Yeah, the problem is if a LOT of things are just foisted off into theme then they are all mutually exclusive. Each and every thing that is exclusive with other races should be a RACE, not a theme. 

Not only that but the whole 4e deva is nothing like a theme. Devas don't have any overlap with other races. They are a 'race' of beings (admittedly not a culture and not a biological race exactly) that stands alone. It would make ZERO sense to talk about a 'human deva' or an 'elf deva'. What if I wanted to be a deva pirate or a deva knight too? It simply doesn't make sense except as a race.

I could see Revenant as something besides a race, some sort of 'template' or something, but it actually made sense mechanically in 4e as a race that was an overlay on another race. You could be a human revenant, but you weren't exactly a human, yet you still had all the other customization choices that any character has (again, as a theme revenant makes less sense, why can't I be a revenant pirate). Honestly I wouldn't expect anything as fringe as a revenant to be in the core books (it is not in any 4e book until HoS, before that it was a DDI race for a long time).

Of course maybe what this begs us to ask is if there's a more sophisticated possibility than just "you have a theme" because there are certainly a lot of times when it feels like there are 'overlays' that I'd like to have on my character that aren't mutually exclusive.

I almost feel like a better design for ALL this kind of stuff, PPs etc included would be something like the player and the DM agree on when it is thematic for a PC to have a specific 'overlay'. Maybe it can list some conditions that the PC should meet thematically (IE Pirate: you are a member of a crew of freebooters and have some familiarity with shipboard life and crewing a vessel). Once the player and DM agree, then the PC 'evinces' that overlay (IE they get access to the things that overlay can provide). There are no limits on the number and types of overlays a PC can evince (some might be mutually exclusive of course). 

This way you could be a Vampire and a druid and an elf at the same time. Vampire is an overlay. Culture can be one too, as is background, etc. Each of these things can contribute any number of swaps the character can use. Some might also grant something outright, but that would probably be pretty rare since there would be no limits to how many overlays you could have in theory. Of course the DM could take them away too, and some overlays might even be bad. Curses could be overlays, etc. Anything that can be systematically character defining.


----------



## avin

I wouldn't mind Devas as a race, at all, except that ig Great Wheel is restored Wizards will have to find a new name for them, unless they want to change GW's fluff.

I wouldn't mind changing their names too.

In fact, in my 4E Planescape game there was Devas (this race we're talking about) and the True Devas... just like sometimes people use the same word for different things.


----------



## Roland55

Morrus said:


> DC has been mentioned in various contexts. The chances of it not being d20 + mod are so small that I promise to eat my hat if it's not that.




Would you consider eating my hat instead?

It's a nice Panama hat I actually picked up IN Panama last year.  Smells quite good and still pretty clean.

OK, just trying to lower the tension level.


----------



## LurkAway

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Not only that but the whole 4e deva is nothing like a theme. Devas don't have any overlap with other races. They are a 'race' of beings (admittedly not a culture and not a biological race exactly) that stands alone. It would make ZERO sense to talk about a 'human deva' or an 'elf deva'. What if I wanted to be a deva pirate or a deva knight too? It simply doesn't make sense except as a race.



Well, to each their own, but when I first read the deva fluff, I imagined it was a deva soul being reincarnated, and the body was merely a new shell. In that sense, a deva elf and deva dwarf makes just as much sense as the idea of karmic reincarnation and being reborn in any new body, male, female, human, animal. IMO having a deva soul is a wonderful theme, like having dragon blood or being fey-touched.

For the sake of unity, I'd be OK with a compromise in which there's a Deva race like in 4E, and the Deva theme is used when a Deva soul is reborn in a non-deva body.

IIRC, the tiefling was initially created in 2e/Planescape, then tweaked in 3e, then reimagined in 4e. Considering that some consolidation must occur, I don't know that any D&D element, including those from 4e, is going to survive unchanged into 5e. And if one doesn't want to let go of 4Eisms, then 4E will still be supported anyway as a viable alternative.


----------



## Zustiur

AbdulAlhazred said:


> So, sorry, "I don't like DB and they're in 4e so they're unpopular crap that should be dropped" is just the worst kind 'reasoning' there is.



I agree with you, but I still don't want them in the first players handbook.
I think that's what people are forgetting here. You can't fit everything in the first book. Unless you make it like say, The Encyclopaedia Britannica 'book'.
I love devas and dragonborn, even if they did take a while to grow on me. But I don't want them right at the start. They always felt like really rare races to me. Common races need to be available first. The same applies to tieflings. 
We all have to bear in mind that somethings will not be available at the start - It just can't be done. SOMETHING has to be left out. It is logical therefore to leave out the things which appear in the fewest editions. Devas and Avengers only appeared in 4E, and even there they weren't in the first PH. 

The community is a bit too focused on the extremities right now. WotC are trying to unite a very large group of disparate people. That's no easy task, especially when 4E put many of those people in a very anti-WotC mindset. We, and they, need to focus on the actual core of the game first. Whether devas or avengers play a big part in your games or not is not a criterion for putting them in the initial release on 5E. If they play a big part in EVERYONE's games, then we need to look at it. 

2E started with 6 races. 3E started with 7. 4E started with 8. If 5E continues the trend and starts with 9, that's still only a very small portion of the available player races we've seen across all editions. People get too caught up in forming an opinion on an edition before it is 'complete'. The first 3 books simply cannot contain everything. The sooner we accept that the better. There is really no point in judging 5E by the races we see in PH1.

Also, please bear in mind that some of the things people are picking up on are just random thoughts thrown out by the developers - they haven't categorically said avengers would be a theme, they just suggested it as an option.

To me personally, having a deva soul in a reincarnated body as a theme make perfect sense. That doesn't mean this is the option they will go with though.
As for Avengers, I always saw them as an alternative to paladins. Turning them into a kit or prestige class or some other variant form of paladin makes perfect sense to me. If that's called a 'theme' now, then so be it.

Every edition of DND takes common English words and twists them a bit. In this instance it looks like theme is going to be one of those words. From what we've heard thus far (which is very little!) 5E theme is very different from 4E theme.


----------



## merelycompetent

What Zustiur said.

I'm a big fan of the various old school subraces of elves - sylvan, grey, grugach - and dwarves (mountain, hill), and halflings (tallfellow, hairfoot). But I don't want them all in the core PHB for 5E. I don't want them excluded from the game, either. Same for tieflings, devas, dragonborn, and other 4E races. I'd be OK with a Greyhawk Sourcebook, focusing on 1E-style play, or a Shadowfell Sourcebook focusing on 4E-style play, that includes these respective races.

Heck, if 5E core scratches my gaming itch well enough, I'm more likely to buy *both* those sourcebooks and harvest the Shadowfell for ideas to use in my 1E-style campaign.

Hmmm... Shadowfell farming and mining... gives me ideas...

(Edit: Trying to clarify that I'd rather see the subraces in a sourcebook, not in a core, for my old school style of play)


----------



## Agamon

Unfortunately, uniting the fans can't mean every single thing from every single book from every edition in the 5e PHB.

Hopefully there will be advice on DIY classes, races, etc in the DMG for everyone that absolutely must have something that's not in the PHB for their particular game.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Zustiur said:


> I agree with you, but I still don't want them in the first players handbook.
> I think that's what people are forgetting here. You can't fit everything in the first book. Unless you make it like say, The Encyclopaedia Britannica 'book'.
> I love devas and dragonborn, even if they did take a while to grow on me. But I don't want them right at the start. They always felt like really rare races to me. Common races need to be available first. The same applies to tieflings.
> We all have to bear in mind that somethings will not be available at the start - It just can't be done. SOMETHING has to be left out. It is logical therefore to leave out the things which appear in the fewest editions. Devas and Avengers only appeared in 4E, and even there they weren't in the first PH.
> 
> The community is a bit too focused on the extremities right now. WotC are trying to unite a very large group of disparate people. That's no easy task, especially when 4E put many of those people in a very anti-WotC mindset. We, and they, need to focus on the actual core of the game first. Whether devas or avengers play a big part in your games or not is not a criterion for putting them in the initial release on 5E. If they play a big part in EVERYONE's games, then we need to look at it.
> 
> 2E started with 6 races. 3E started with 7. 4E started with 8. If 5E continues the trend and starts with 9, that's still only a very small portion of the available player races we've seen across all editions. People get too caught up in forming an opinion on an edition before it is 'complete'. The first 3 books simply cannot contain everything. The sooner we accept that the better. There is really no point in judging 5E by the races we see in PH1.
> 
> Also, please bear in mind that some of the things people are picking up on are just random thoughts thrown out by the developers - they haven't categorically said avengers would be a theme, they just suggested it as an option.
> 
> To me personally, having a deva soul in a reincarnated body as a theme make perfect sense. That doesn't mean this is the option they will go with though.
> As for Avengers, I always saw them as an alternative to paladins. Turning them into a kit or prestige class or some other variant form of paladin makes perfect sense to me. If that's called a 'theme' now, then so be it.
> 
> Every edition of DND takes common English words and twists them a bit. In this instance it looks like theme is going to be one of those words. From what we've heard thus far (which is very little!) 5E theme is very different from 4E theme.




As far as classes go I didn't get any big thrills from the Avenger concept myself either, or even ever seen one played. Some people do apparently like them a lot for their sort of anime big-sword-guy concepts I guess. 

Obviously not every race is going to make it into the PHB, but notice that gnomes and half-orcs didn't even rate a mention in 2e until a good bit later either, so its not like 4e's racial mix was that odd, they just added a couple of fun new races. I have seen a lot of players seem to like Dragonborn. Tiefling, not so much, but DB would be real nice to keep right off. 

Basically though 3e and 4e intersect at a set of races that are clearly in. The rest are up for debate, but with 9 races you can have what, human, elf, dwarf, half-elf, halfling, gnome, half-orc, dragonborn, and one other (could be eladrin, but doesn't have to be). Truthfully that doesn't leave a lot of the really basic stuff behind. Clearly there's going to have to be another book with more races pretty fast. There will need to be one with more classes too. They're sure not going to wedge in every good one even if some are turned into themes. 4 editions has a lot of stuff in it.


----------



## Zustiur

Exactly. While I quoted your post, I was reacting more to the people making statements like, "If Deva isn't in, 5E isn't for me".

Also, I cannot award you XP at this time.


----------



## Khaalis

Zustiur said:
			
		

> Every edition of DND takes common English words and twists them a bit. In this instance it looks like theme is going to be one of those words. From what we've heard thus far (which is very little!) 5E theme is very different from 4E theme.



Agreed. What it looks like is more akin to “Specialties” from _Fantasy Craft_, where you have a Race, Class and Specialty.  Some example specialties… acrobatic, adventurer, archer, aristocrat, cavalier, fencer, etc.  

In this same vein, something like the Avenger or Assassin could be seen as themes or classes. It depends on if they have a role that is niche enough to carve out a class, or if they are a broad stroke idea that could be applied to many classes.  For instance FC has an Assassin class that is Not a typical ninja style, but more a secret agent style. That makes for a unique class niche. Otherwise anyone who kills for money is an assassin.

On a side note, another option that WotC could/may look at is something like species feats, such that you have a base race, say Elf, and then species feats that create all of the sub-races like wood elf, drow elf, etc. It allows for a potentially huge selection of races with a LOT less overhead (page count) etc.


----------



## Aehrlon

AbdulAlhazred said:


> As far as classes go I didn't get any big thrills from the Avenger concept myself either, or even ever seen one played. Some people do apparently like them a lot for their sort of anime big-sword-guy concepts I guess.



I play in a 3.5 game where one player runs one; it's an OK class & he seems to enjoy it.  The basics in a Core Rulebook seems most likely, whether it's race or class (or "theme").  Also, we're way off topic as this thread is entitled "Re-imagining Ability Scores".  I wonder if they will stay with the classic 6??


----------



## Kalontas

Zustiur said:


> Exactly. While I quoted your post, I was reacting more to the people making statements like, "If Deva isn't in, 5E isn't for me".
> 
> Also, I cannot award you XP at this time.




If you're talking about me, it's not an instant "If Deva isn't in PHB1, 5E is not for me". It's more of a "right in the first seminars they're talking abour DEGRADING Deva to a theme". It's one thing to just not touch a subject and leave the possibility of its conversion later; it's another telling that one of the iconic concepts of a certain edition is degraded right off. It also personally stung me more because it's my personal favourite.


----------



## TrickyUK

Kalontas said:


> If you're talking about me, it's not an instant "If Deva isn't in PHB1, 5E is not for me". It's more of a "right in the first seminars they're talking abour DEGRADING Deva to a theme". It's one thing to just not touch a subject and leave the possibility of its conversion later; it's another telling that one of the iconic concepts of a certain edition is degraded right off. It also personally stung me more because it's my personal favourite.




I don't see any degrading. Just re-classifying. There have been many comments on race/class bloat in 4e. A bit of rationalising would be welcomed.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Tricky110974 said:


> I don't see any degrading. Just re-classifying. There have been many comments on race/class bloat in 4e. A bit of rationalising would be welcomed.




Well, in all fairness all editions from 2e onward (and even 1e to some extent depending on how much Dragon stuff or whatever you were willing to use) has had loads of races and potentially a lot of classes. I don't think we need a lot of really weird stuff in any core material. OTOH certain 4e races were fairly well-liked, including deva, dragonborn, goliath, and shifter IME. I'd be happy to see those 4 well supported in 5e. Tiefling probably counts too for some people, though I haven't seen much interest in it personally. Minotaurs seem to have been popular with some people as well, but I think 'monstrous' type races can certainly wait for some 3PP or later supplementary stuff.

Clearly no one race list is going to satisfy everyone. Classes likewise. I could see a number of those being themes or some sort of subclass or whatever. I think races don't work too well as themes though, it seems pretty limiting and just oddly asymmetrical and likely to lead to more complications to do the same thing more than one way. There are 'race-like' options, Vampire, Werewolf, or Revenant from 4e (I guess the Kalashtar and Shade too for that matter) that could be theme-like.


----------



## stonegod

AbdulAlhazred said:


> (I guess the Kalashtar and Shade too for that matter) that could be theme-like.



Kalashtar can only be "theme-like" for humans assuming themes are applied that way. (Why not shifters theme on humans too if going that way?) Me, I think shifers/kalashtar are fine as full races. Core? Likely not (kalashtar are very setting tied, shifters not so much).


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

stonegod said:


> Kalashtar can only be "theme-like" for humans assuming themes are applied that way. (Why not shifters theme on humans too if going that way?) Me, I think shifers/kalashtar are fine as full races. Core? Likely not (kalashtar are very setting tied, shifters not so much).




Eh, I could see shifter as a theme, maybe you can get 'minor themes' or something with a different name. Make them all 'overlays'. A theme is one type, but the game is open to other types and you can have multiples of some types, or at least one of each of several types if the narrative tells you the character might fit that overlay. Then you can be a human shifter pirate devotee of Bast. Yeah. Kalashtar really is pretty much the same sort of thing. It would let you layer on any type of undeath etc. The DM is ultimately responsible for how things work. Heck, advanced rules can be overlays too. Want to use 4e fighter? Yeah, you can add that layer to your character. 

We obviously know though that some stuff has to remain 'the same' in some sense. If you meet 4 orcs in 4e mode and 4 orcs in 1e mode the likely outcomes should be pretty similar. Otherwise you're stuck with games that don't really share compatibility. You can make an adventure but it will not work the same in a general sense of the flow of things with different modules. 

Ability scores are pretty obvious, 18 always means you're darn strong, maybe at the limit for humans. Skills, well, it seems like you DO want to start out with a short list of defined names of skills in core. Make it 20 and then each PC can get 4 and that's pretty much all you need for '4e or 3e' modes except actual rules for each skill and rules for how you get them. 

This will be really hard to get right though. If you CAN get it right and make everyone happy. Large if.


----------



## Kalontas

Tricky110974 said:


> I don't see any degrading. Just re-classifying. There have been many comments on race/class bloat in 4e. A bit of rationalising would be welcomed.




As far as we know so far, themes have much less impact on the overall gameplay and are far less important overall for the character. Nobody presents his character as "level 10 human noble fighter". Everybody will just go "level 10 human fighter".

Also on a conceptual level, making deva a theme strips good part of its fluff - their unique appearance and certain racial features that just won't work in a theme.


----------



## avin

Kalontas said:


> Also on a conceptual level, making deva a theme strips good part of its fluff - their unique appearance and certain racial features that just won't work in a theme.




Why? I want a working Deva (just renamed) in 5E but appearance it's not a problem theme or race. Racial features? Immortal Origin, Memories of a Thousand Times...  why can't this mechanics work?


----------



## Khaalis

Kalontas said:
			
		

> As far as we know so far, themes have much less impact on the overall gameplay and are far less important overall for the character. Nobody presents his character as "level 10 human noble fighter". Everybody will just go "level 10 human fighter".



We really have no idea how important the themes are. However, IMHO this is something we should voice strongly. Themes SHOULD be almost as important as Race and Class. If I take a "Noble" Fighter, I want them to be *Noticeably* different from say someone who takes something like a "Bodyguard*" Fighter. I don't want the distinction to be simply a little paragraph long Fluff blurb. I want the Theme to actually work as a template to change my Fighter mechanics to reflect the difference between a Noble and Bodyguard. I WANT people to say "I am a Human Noble Fighter" or "I am a Human Bodyguard Fighter". I DON'T want themes to be so insignificant that they don't even get mentioned when describing the PC.

_*: Disclaimer. This is a made up example. There has been no such theme mentioned, it is simply a term used for this example._


----------



## TrickyUK

The talk of themes for 5e and how they interact with race/class makes me think that 5e core will be similar to original 1e.

Core Races: Human, Elf, Dwarf, Half-elf, Halfling, Gnome (can't remember exactly what races were in 1e, but you'll have the usual suspects).
Core Classes: Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue (these sound like the class groups from 2e (Warrior, Rogue, Wizard and Priest).

There perhaps should be some distinction between themes (for class) and templates (for race, but may be confused with monster templates). But in sticking with the modular design, I feel that the core will be a fairly tight baseline. And IMO the modules will not expand the core (new races/classes) just deepen it (themes).

OTH, you may end up with Core elements and expanded elements (but I hope not both with some additional elements using themes and some being optional races/classes), we'll just have to wait and see.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Khaalis said:


> We really have no idea how important the themes are. However, IMHO this is something we should voice strongly. Themes SHOULD be almost as important as Race and Class. If I take a "Noble" Fighter, I want them to be *Noticeably* different from say someone who takes something like a "Bodyguard*" Fighter. I don't want the distinction to be simply a little paragraph long Fluff blurb. I want the Theme to actually work as a template to change my Fighter mechanics to reflect the difference between a Noble and Bodyguard. I WANT people to say "I am a Human Noble Fighter" or "I am a Human Bodyguard Fighter". I DON'T want themes to be so insignificant that they don't even get mentioned when describing the PC.
> 
> _*: Disclaimer. This is a made up example. There has been no such theme mentioned, it is simply a term used for this example._




This can get tricky though. Noble being a theme is unlikely to be limited to fighters. Thus the features it presents are going to be mechanically neutral WRT to role and need to be suitable for any class (IE not elaborations on the mechanics or features of any specific class). 

I'd think there could be room for a second category of 'extension', something like 'mastery' or something that would be a bit narrower, so a 'sword master' would be a suitable add-on for weapon using classes, and might even be useful to a few others (swordmage or cleric perhaps) that use weapons in a secondary way.


----------



## SkidAce

Khaalis said:


> We really have no idea how important the themes are. However, IMHO this is something we should voice strongly. Themes SHOULD be almost as important as Race and Class. If I take a "Noble" Fighter, I want them to be *Noticeably* different from say someone who takes something like a "Bodyguard*" Fighter. I don't want the distinction to be simply a little paragraph long Fluff blurb. I want the Theme to actually work as a template to change my Fighter mechanics to reflect the difference between a Noble and Bodyguard. I WANT people to say "I am a Human Noble Fighter" or "I am a Human Bodyguard Fighter". I DON'T want themes to be so insignificant that they don't even get mentioned when describing the PC.
> 
> _*: Disclaimer. This is a made up example. There has been no such theme mentioned, it is simply a term used for this example._




I think I understand your point, but for me I want something a little less than that.

Mechanically, the noble and the bodyguard should be almost the same, they could fight side by side and comment on each others skills.  

Differentiating them by theme mechanically "could" get carried away....noble, bodyguard, gladiator, pirate, swashbuckler, barroom, peasant, street....etc etc.  Too much work.

I think there should be an emphasis on theme as background, and IMHO, fluff.

I am not against very minor differences, but at their core...they fight.  The rest is just style*.

Too many mechanics for all the varied themes there could be would be brain overload for me, and I don't see the need in the first place.



*the way I see it.


----------



## catsclaw227

Kalontas said:


> And degrading such an option to a theme is (to me personally, as a 4E fan) a spit in the face or (to the industry) a sign of hypocrisy: they unite every edition supposedly, but "oh, without that corker of 4E, hehe, nobody played that, right?"




Seriously?  No one is spitting in your face.  This is the kind of hyperbole that ignites edition wars, and this is something that I hope EVERYONE wants to avoid with this new edition.  At least WoTC appears to be trying to avoid it.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> Not only that but the whole 4e deva is nothing like a theme. Devas don't have any overlap with other races. They are a 'race' of beings (admittedly not a culture and not a biological race exactly) that stands alone. It would make ZERO sense to talk about a 'human deva' or an 'elf deva'. What if I wanted to be a deva pirate or a deva knight too? It simply doesn't make sense except as a race.
> 
> I could see Revenant as something besides a race, some sort of 'template' or something, but it actually made sense mechanically in 4e as a race that was an overlay on another race. You could be a human revenant, but you weren't exactly a human, yet you still had all the other customization choices that any character has (again, as a theme revenant makes less sense, why can't I be a revenant pirate). Honestly I wouldn't expect anything as fringe as a revenant to be in the core books (it is not in any 4e book until HoS, before that it was a DDI race for a long time).




I like 4e Devas, 4e Dragonborn, 4e Tieflings.  Not as enthusiastic about Shardminds or that Treemen race or even Vampires (as a race) or Revenants (as a race).

But it's possible we're making too many assumptions about what being a "theme" entails.  Maybe they are deeper than 4e themes with more uniqueness and customization.  Maybe there are options in each theme you choose between, so you can be a human deva pirate, or an elf deva knight, and as races they might be wildly different or even very similar.



Zustiur said:


> I agree with you, but I still don't want them in the first players handbook.
> 
> I think that's what people are forgetting here. You can't fit everything in the first book. Unless you make it like say, The Encyclopaedia Britannica 'book'.
> I love devas and dragonborn, even if they did take a while to grow on me. But I don't want them right at the start. They always felt like really rare races to me. Common races need to be available first. The same applies to tieflings.
> 
> We all have to bear in mind that somethings will not be available at the start - It just can't be done. SOMETHING has to be left out. It is logical therefore to leave out the things which appear in the fewest editions. Devas and Avengers only appeared in 4E, and even there they weren't in the first PH.




This is a reasonable post...  We're not going to get everything in the first book and with this in mind, people shouldn't start screaming that WoTC or "Hasborg" has stolen their dog and kicked their cat.  With the release of 4e, people went all gnome crazy because they had to wait a few months for the race to be released in a book and the vitriol that was being spewed was utterly classless.

Let's hope that people can be patient, or maybe WoTC can release a "back-of-the-napkin" release schedule for races and classes so people can get an idea for when their favorite bits will be released - noting the fact that the release schedule is not set in stone.

Or better yet, in our digital age, maybe some get released online first (for playtesting) and then added to a print book later.



Zustiur said:


> To me personally, having a deva soul in a reincarnated body as a theme make perfect sense. That doesn't mean this is the option they will go with though.
> 
> As for Avengers, I always saw them as an alternative to paladins. Turning them into a kit or prestige class or some other variant form of paladin makes perfect sense to me. If that's called a 'theme' now, then so be it.
> 
> Every edition of DND takes common English words and twists them a bit. In this instance it looks like theme is going to be one of those words. From what we've heard thus far (which is very little!) 5E theme is very different from 4E theme.




Yea, my point above is that we really don't know what qualifies as a theme yet.  

BTW -- even though I liked the 4e deva, I think it can work just fine as a theme.  Maybe even subclasses all become themes.  

Imagine the race "elf" and then there are themes for "drow", "eladrin", "wood", etc...  You can do "human" and have themes for "northman", "easterner", "desertfolk".

Or even more radical, you can have a race called "beast" and have "hobgoblin", "bugbear", "goblin", "orc" be themes.  And a race called "reptilian" and theme it up with "kobold", "dragonborn", "lizardman".  (Though, I dunno about whether these can work, or if it would really tick people off...)


----------



## thzero

catsclaw227 said:


> This is the kind of hyperbole that ignites edition wars, and this is something that I hope EVERYONE wants to avoid with this new edition.  At least WoTC appears to be trying to avoid it.




I gotta agree with what you said catsclaw in your entire post.  

For myself I'm not really a fan of the Devas, Dragonborn, etc. but hey if they fit in your world, great.  That being said, if they were an integral part of 4E, then they should probably end up in some manner in the next edition whether it be in the initial books or supplements who knows.



catsclaw227 said:


> And here is some reason...  We're not going to get everything in the first book.  And it is not a reason to start screaming that WoTC or "Hasborg" has stolen your dog and kicked your cat.




And if they don't end up catering to your specific wants, there is NOTHING that says you can't continue to play your chosen existing edition.


----------



## MrBeens

The worrying thing for me about rolling for stats being the default is that the rest of the game has to be balanced against something (monsters etc) so the base systems are going to have to take into account that characters are going to have wildly differing stats.
This means 1 of 2 things - either the differences in stats are not going to be that important (in which case why bother?) or encounter and monster design is going to be a lot looser or difficult for DMs. I can see published adventures being very difficult to design well (or have to include lots of variance in encoutner setups etc).

What is also worrying me is that the standard responce to people not liking a particular thing is "don't worry, there will be a module for that".


----------



## catsclaw227

MrBeens said:


> What is also worrying me is that the standard responce to people not liking a particular thing is "don't worry, there will be a module for that".




This may be less troublesome than you think.  Obviously, not everything will be available at launch.  But if there's a decent OGL/GSL/5eLic then 3rd party companies can thrive by creating the content you might be looking for.  And if WoTC is going to do what they say, then the "module" approach will still fill your needs, whether in 3 months or 6-12 months.  In the meantime, wing it!


----------



## thzero

MrBeens said:


> The worrying thing for me about rolling for stats being the default is that the rest of the game has to be balanced against something (monsters etc) so the base systems are going to have to take into account that characters are going to have wildly differing stats.




Well rolling for stats has been in D&D since day one!  So I don't quite understand the beef about it.  You can always use the other options, but really D&D isn't a point-buy system.  And all they can do is give it their best shot at balance.  As we saw in 3.X, it was like chasing your own tail and everyone has their own opinion about it.  Not to mention sometimes its just not obvious even during play testing that something is out of whack; happens a lot with software.



MrBeens said:


> This means 1 of 2 things - either the differences in stats are not going to be that important (in which case why bother?) or encounter and monster design is going to be a lot looser or difficult for DMs. I can see published adventures being very difficult to design well (or have to include lots of variance in encoutner setups etc).




Probably neither.  Stats will be important; that is really one of the cornerstones of D&D.  And really I think people overstate the importance of both encounter and monster design.  The latter matters little, if the monster ends up being tough, well too bad, gain a few levels before you go after it.  And for encounters, well, the DM can always fudge things if he's feeling nice and the encounter is too hard or such.



MrBeens said:


> What is also worrying me is that the standard responce to people not liking a particular thing is "don't worry, there will be a module for that".




Well, to some extent, that *is* the stated goal of the 5e design.   No matter how much the the designers and developers try, 5e won't be for everyone.  If they try that, it will just be a losing battle for them.  IMO if they get the core essence of both 1e-3e and 4e (just because 1e/2e have far more in common with 3e and 4e is just its own animal) plus add some new twists of their own, then it may just succeed.

And yes, like everyone else, if someone doesn't like a particular piece, or feels that X, which wasn't included, must absolutely be in the game, there is always "rule zero" aka house rules!


----------



## thzero

catsclaw227 said:


> In the meantime, wing it!




Ding ding ding, we have a winner winner chicken dinner.


----------



## Aehrlon

thzero said:


> Well rolling for stats has been in D&D since day one!  So I don't quite understand the beef about it.  You can always use the other options, but really D&D isn't a point-buy system.  And all they can do is give it their best shot at balance.  As we saw in 3.X, it was like chasing your own tail and everyone has their own opinion about it.  Not to mention sometimes its just not obvious even during play testing that something is out of whack; happens a lot with software.
> 
> ...Probably neither.  Stats will be important; that is really one of the cornerstones of D&D.



I completely agree; rolling stats is the way to go; most I know who play in Edition X of D&D do the 4d6, drop the lowest & arrange as desired. This does not normally yield wildly differing stats & also tends to have few stats below the 10-11 range and a few more in the 13-14 range.  Some randomness is just the way is has been since day one and should continue to be used IMHO.  If your stats are a little better than mine, good for you!  You won't hear me whining about it


----------



## thzero

Aehrlon said:


> I completely agree; rolling stats is the way to go




Not exactly what I said... I personally like the die rolling, because I've been doing it in D&D for eons.  But the point-buy abilities has been in the game for quite some time too.  Its just as viable for the game too, even if its not a true point-buy system (ala True20, Hero, GURPs, etc).  And if a DM allows people to pick their stats that is cool too.


----------



## Aehrlon

Oh, I understood what you were saying & I was agreeing with the rolling part (but notice I had the entire quote so I didn't mis-quote you).  I too have played in D&D games where stats have been rolled up (nearly 30 years now).  And I'm not saying the point buy system is without merit; it keeps things exactly equal... but unless you're using one of the more generous methods, it's hard to have more than one good stat.  In my opinion, D&D characters are heroes & as such should have _a chance_ at a few exceptional stats.


----------



## thzero

Aehrlon said:


> In my opinion, D&D characters are heroes & as such should have _a chance_ at a few exceptional stats.




I would definitively agree with that.


----------



## triqui

Kaodi said:


> I think that we have a real problem if the word " charisma " in D&D does not at some level mean the same thing as " charisma " in real life. And in real life, charisma and cowardice go together _all the time_.



I disagree. George Washington or  Alexander the Great were both charismatic and brave, just to name a few. 

Remember also that "charismatic" is not necessarelly the same than "eloquent". Batman speaks very little.

Just change "charisma" for "personality". Does it work?


----------



## thzero

triqui said:


> I disagree. George Washington or  Alexander the Great were both charismatic and brave, just to name a few.
> 
> Remember also that "charismatic" is not necessarelly the same than "eloquent". Batman speaks very little.




Just because they are some examples of charismatic and brave, doesn't mean there aren't as many examples of charismatic and craven.



triqui said:


> Just change "charisma" for "personality". Does it work?




Not really, no.  Personality is subjective.   Charisma seems to be the "measurement", and I use that loosely, of how effective a character can be, stat-wise, in social situations.  Eloquent or lack thereof is more a factor of how the player views the character.


----------



## triqui

Kalontas said:


> As far as we know so far, themes have much less impact on the overall gameplay and are far less important overall for the character. Nobody presents his character as "level 10 human noble fighter". Everybody will just go "level 10 human fighter".
> 
> Also on a conceptual level, making deva a theme strips good part of its fluff - their unique appearance and certain racial features that just won't work in a theme.






Idisagree. I often present my character as a 10th level pirate. The fact that he can be a 10 level fighter, a 10 level rogue, a 5/5 fighter/rogue, or a urban ranger vairant is not that import to define what the character is. Just what the character do.


----------



## triqui

thzero said:


> Just because they are some examples of charismatic and brave, doesn't mean there aren't as many examples of charismatic and craven.



 but still refuse the sentence which I was quoting, that says charisma *always* pair with cowardice




> Not really, no.  Personality is subjective.   Charisma seems to be the "measurement", and I use that loosely, of how effective a character can be, stat-wise, in social situations.  Eloquent or lack thereof is more a factor of how the player views the character.



 that's an oversimplification. Charisma has always been the stat that shows how efective a cleric can turn or destroy undeads, or more recently (post 3e) how effective a Sorcerer Finger of Death or Fireball are.  Turning undeads is not a social interaction.

Saying that Carisma is the measurement of how good you are in social interactions is like saying Dexterity is the measure, stat wise, on how good you are dodging. What about archery? Or disabling devices? Or being sneaky?

Just becuse Charisma modifies Bluff it does not mean all Paladins are good liers. A character with ten ranks in diplomacy and Charisma 9 is eloquent, while a character with Cha 18 and no ranks in diplomacy may not be, even if he can try to convince just for strength of character or sheer force of personality.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Kaodi said:


> I think that we have a real problem if the word " charisma " in D&D does not at some level mean the same thing as " charisma " in real life. And in real life, charisma and cowardice go together _all the time_.
> 
> And, in fact, certain Socratic dialogues do actually present arguments for courage and wisdom being akin to one another. I do not think I have ever seen one that argues charisma and courage having a similar relationship.






> The term _*charisma*_ (pl. _charismata_, adj. _charismatic_; from the Greek χάρισμα,  meaning "favor given" or "gift of grace") has two senses: 1) compelling  attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others, 2) a  divinely conferred power or talent.




And from Weber:



> Charisma is a certain quality of an individual personality by virtue of  which he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with  supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or  qualities. These are such as are not accessible to the ordinary person,  but are regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary, and on the basis  of them the individual concerned is treated as a leader.<sup id="cite_ref-20" class="reference">
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charisma#cite_note-20</sup>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charisma#cite_note-0




So, really, I think there's clearly a way that Charisma in D&D relates to the dictionary term, but it still means an almost entirely different thing. In any case, to sum up a personality in 1 number, or even 3 numbers, is pretty much just not going to work. Cha can tell you any of many things you want it to, but it ends up amounting to some sort of measure of a PC's ability to influence people.


----------



## Aehrlon

All 'real world' arguments aside, IMO the Charisma stat in the D&D game is a combination of inner-strength of character/force of will against enemies (not related to Will saves)/& to some extent, magnetism/physical attractiveness... if that makes any sense to you all, my fellow D&D aficionados.  The CHA stat in game terms rolls all of this into one encompassing Ability score that rates your overall score among these parts.  I think it can be determined by the DM & player just how much of each facet of the CHA score is handled for their specific character.


----------



## Erik le Rouge

I'm so happy about this new edition, I wish they would ditch 4e completely in the fire, but I'm happy with the compromise of having a bit of every edition, at least it's far from it and they kept themes one of the few things I found really interesting in 4e.

I'm happy that racial negative modifiers are coming back (I like systems like GURPS with racial disadvantages).

I like that skills are based on abilities (I was always an AD&D 2e big fan).

I have good hopes I will reknew with D&D soon.


----------



## Lwaxy

Morrus said:


> Bruce: An example I saw yesterday was a rogue going into a room and looking for traps. You can describe what you're doing and roleplay what you're doing. If he says I look in the jar and I know there's a gem in the jar, I'm not going to have him roll. However, if something is more hidden, like a secret compartment on the shelf I would look at their intelligence and see if he can just automatically find it or if he's looking in the exact right place. However, if he's doing that check in the middle of some other stressor like fighting, then I'd have him roll.
> 
> Rob: Earlier this week I had some players fighting some kobolds in the room. One of the guys wanted to jump over a pit, he had a 15 strength so I let him just do it - it wasn't that big of a jump and it sped up combat. It's very liberating to be able to do that kind of thing and just keep the flow going.




I've been doing it that way forever  It's common sense to me.


----------



## thzero

Aehrlon said:


> All 'real world' arguments aside, IMO the Charisma stat in the D&D game is a combination of inner-strength of character/force of will against enemies




Not really, "inner-strength" would be Wisdom, i.e. the d20 definition of

Wisdom describes a character’s willpower, common sense, perception, and intuition. While Intelligence represents one’s ability to analyze information, Wisdom represents being in tune with and aware of one’s surroundings. Wisdom is the most important ability for clerics and druids, and it is also important for paladins and rangers. 


Whereas Chrismas has its d20 definition as

Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness. This ability represents actual strength of personality, not merely how one is perceived by others in a social setting. 

I always thought it was a bad choice to use Charisma for spellcasting with the sorcerer.  Bard, ok, maybe.  But not really Sorcerer.



			
				triqui said:
			
		

> Charisma has always been the stat that shows how efective a cleric can turn or destroy undeads




Yes, sure, in 3e.  Not that I recall in 1e or 2e, it was just the cleric (or paladin) level.


----------



## Aehrlon

thzero said:


> Not really, "inner-strength" would be Wisdom, i.e. the d20 definition of...  Wisdom describes a character’s willpower, common sense, perception, and intuition. While Intelligence represents one’s ability to analyze information, Wisdom represents being in tune with and aware of one’s surroundings. Wisdom is the most important ability for clerics and druids, and it is also important for paladins and rangers.



Well, I see what you are saying but I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say.  I was saying, the Charisma Stat in D&D (to me anyhow) is an Inner Strength of Character.  I agree with you that the Wisdom Stat is an inner-strength but of WILL.  To me, the two are different.  WIS, raw strength of will; lets you destroy/control undead.  CHA, strength of Character, having convictions, being a natural leader, someone who "talks the talk AND walks the walk"... of true noble character.  That's the difference to me.  Heheh, all of this is IMHO so take it with a grain of salt.  All that being said, I believe that WIS should be the ability that affects turning undead for Clerics and CHA should be the one for Paladins...


----------



## thzero

Aehrlon said:


> Well, I see what you are saying but I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say.  I was saying, the Charisma Stat in D&D (to me anyhow) is an Inner Strength of Character.  I agree with you that the Wisdom Stat is an inner-strength but of WILL.  To me, the two are different.  WIS, raw strength of will; lets you destroy/control undead.  CHA, strength of Character, having convictions, being a natural leader, someone who "talks the talk AND walks the walk"... of true noble character.  That's the difference to me.  Heheh, all of this is IMHO so take it with a grain of salt.  All that being said, I believe that WIS should be the ability that affects turning undead for Clerics and CHA should be the one for Paladins...




Nah I understood thats what you were saying.  However, I have always thought the designers made a mistake with making the Charisma Stat being the "inner strength" of the character, which it always had seemed to be due to its use in turning undead, bard and sorcerer magic, etc.  This flies in the face of the definition they provide for Charisma and the standard English definition.  It was like they were trying to find a reason for Charisma not to be a dump stat on just about every class.

I can see WIS being the stat for turning undead on both Clerics and Paladins.  The Paladin has other uses for Charisma (not to mention, he needs a lot more skill points so he can get decent diplomacy, etc. skills).  I'd use WIS for the Sorcerer's spell stat.  CHA maybe for Bard, questionable though depending on how much of the Bard's magic is "performance based".


----------



## Aehrlon

Here's another idea: combine the two.  Start with 3 static stats, say a 12, a 14 & a 16; everyone gets these.  Then roll 4d6 dropping the lowest for the other 3 stats.  You have 'a chance' of an exceptional stat or 2 but can't be drastically more powerful then your other adventuring companions.


----------

