4Next

Like many here I like the design approach of DDN but I think that WOTC have a very partial view about the benefits and nature of 4th edition. They seem to have a very atomistic view of 4th ed seeing its as a collection of discrete mechanics, whereas 4th ed fans have a more holistic view of how the system works as a whole. While this is understandable as part of deconstructing the various editions, I wonder if some of the underlying mechnical elements of 4th ed can be brought into DDN.

Now there is no doubt that 4th ed classes, races and most tactical options will be easy to add on to DDN and appear to be coming in one form of the other. But there are other elements which do not seem to be appearing. Can underlying elements of 4th ed like static defenses (and all spells roll to hit), utility powers, encounter powers, action points, healing surges be drawn in?

I am wondering if anyone has attempted to place 4thed mechnical systems into the DDN playtest rules? I know it is not playtesting per se. Is this possible given the terms of the playtest agreement? Would it produce interesting results?
I think the skill list in 4e is the best we've had so far
At-will cantrips are a must now 
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com
I think the skill list in 4e is the best we've had so far
At-will cantrips are a must now 



I agree, 4e skill list was the best. It combine several skills into one skill so it's a win win.

Now only if we can get rid of Use Rope.  
Hit Dice as healing in next was a nice combo of old school term and 4e surges.
I would prefer to see stances again. Most of the Essentials stuff was a great blend. If some of the unnecessary tactical mechanics could be removed from Essentials it would be a great D&D Next because the map required mechanics could be added back in so easily. 
I think the skill list in 4e is the best we've had so far
At-will cantrips are a must now 



I agree, 4e skill list was the best. It combine several skills into one skill so it's a win win.

Now only if we can get rid of Use Rope.  


Agreed
But lets start by actually getting the 4e skill list back, the skill list in next sucks dragonballs
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com
Like many here I like the design approach of DDN but I think that WOTC have a very partial view about the benefits and nature of 4th edition. They seem to have a very atomistic view of 4th ed seeing its as a collection of discrete mechanics, whereas 4th ed fans have a more holistic view of how the system works as a whole. While this is understandable as part of deconstructing the various editions, I wonder if some of the underlying mechnical elements of 4th ed can be brought into DDN.

Now there is no doubt that 4th ed classes, races and most tactical options will be easy to add on to DDN and appear to be coming in one form of the other. But there are other elements which do not seem to be appearing. Can underlying elements of 4th ed like static defenses (and all spells roll to hit), utility powers, encounter powers, action points, healing surges be drawn in?

I am wondering if anyone has attempted to place 4thed mechnical systems into the DDN playtest rules? I know it is not playtesting per se. Is this possible given the terms of the playtest agreement? Would it produce interesting results?


A number of 4th Ed mechanical systems are currently in 5E, including hit dice (healing surges) and maneuvers (powers).  Action points aren't too much of an issue -- you can basically throw them into any system given their design, regardless if you use the 3.5E Eberron version or the 4E version -- and I'm not going to be surprised if you could import skill powers or utility powers no problem.  Encounter powers however change the dynamics of the system dramatically depending on who you're giving it too: spellcasters would likely become even more powerful due to them having daily abilities already, while certain non-casters might need them just to bring them up to par capability-wise.

And that's the thing: it's not really the mechanics themselves that are the issue in 5E, so much as the dynamics that are delivered by those mechanics.  For instance, by having pure at-will classes and daily-heavy classes with a "dial" to alter the frequency of use to fit setting, that would seem to be an unwise decision because turning dailies to encounter powers amplify those powers considerably, while turning at-wills to encounter powers weaken those powers considerably.  By introducing encounter powers to at-will classes, you also bring dynamics that those who are used to at-will classes would find alienating (see: reaction to Tome of Battle, even though the Warblade was as at-will as you could get with those martial maneuvers).  By introducing encounter powers to daily classes, in addition to empowering daily classes (who are already empowered by at-will cantrips/orisons), you also introduce dynamics that would alienate those who are used to the resource management associated with the Vancian system.

While I hope to run 5E eventually, it seems like I'll have to stick to 13th Age for awhile. 
Show

You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

57047238 wrote:
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging
It is easy to trivialize 4E classes because you can always fall back on the argument that powers are very similar so 4E has nothing to offer. It is an easy out, but what people forget is the flavor behind the 4E classes, and the concepts that were brought to the forefront. I thought they were developing classes based on feel versus pure mechanical distinction. But they only show 4e in small pieces as mechanical distinctions, like the warlord as a specialty or the clerics words or power; that emulate minor actions for leader classes to heal. On the other hand, they limit the fighter utility based on feel or being simple. So it appears they tend to change their approach based on their own bias on what should be in the game, No surprise as that is what developers do. I just expected more in reference to classes.
It's hard to evaluate, because we haven't seen anything remotely concrete in terms of system-level modules. That's not surprising, of course; it's reasonable to want to get one system into place before you start trying to juggle several. But without having seen such a module, it's hard to know what they're planning. Their ambitions regarding modularity seem to have contracted slightly from the initial announcement, which is also something perfectly reasonable, but it still seems to be a big part of the system planning.

There is a sense in which the application of modules does have a cost. For example, there's no question in my mind that attacker-rolls, static defenses is a better system than the one that Next is currently using. If it were possible to spray the playtest packet (and the eventual books) with a magic spray that instantly converted all the material to use attacker-rolls, I'd do it in a heartbeat. It's a strict upgrade from my perspective. However, while it's a strict upgrade, it's not a huge upgrade. An odd hodgepodge of who's rolling is fine. It works okay. It's not broken in any sense. I played with it for a long time, and still do, in the form of Pathfinder. While it's clear to me that I'd change Next to have an attacker-rolls system if I could, it's not clear to me that it's worth doing an extra subtraction every time something targets something other than AC. I'm sure there are people for whom the subtraction is definitely worth it, but I'm not so sure that I'm one of them. I mean, I could be doing it for PF, but I'm not. One of the benefits of attacker-rolls is that it's so much more intuitive, which helps out new guys. New guys, I suspect, are not helped out by cases where their stuff works differently than it says in the book because DM Lesp decided to shift some numbers and rolling around with a module.

Stuff like action points are classic module fodder. They've been done that way in the past, and I'm sure can be done that way again.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.

But lets start by actually getting the 4e skill list back, the skill list in next sucks dragonballs



Now I am in rage. The skill list, the skill list, ARRRGGGHHH!!!

Drive Skill: Are you kidding me? A skill to be train in driving in the medieval fantasy? 
Knowledge Science: I laugh when I saw this. Geez, I wonder what I can do with this? 
Track: Track is now a skill, track is now a skill, omg. I got Search and Survive Skill, but I can't
track somebody because I don't got Track Skill? Wow! 


I think the 5th edition skill list is the best we've ever had, was ecstatic to see Knowledge (Science) added, and never want to go back to Athletics and Acrobatics.
I miss athletics and acrobatics, they had extend use outside of skills for grappling and restraint. It made sense and even better it was simple.
A number of 4th Ed mechanical systems are currently in 5E, including hit dice (healing surges) and maneuvers (powers).  Action points aren't too much of an issue -- you can basically throw them into any system given their design, regardless if you use the 3.5E Eberron version or the 4E version -- and I'm not going to be surprised if you could import skill powers or utility powers no problem.  Encounter powers however change the dynamics of the system dramatically depending on who you're giving it too: spellcasters would likely become even more powerful due to them having daily abilities already, while certain non-casters might need them just to bring them up to par capability-wise.



I guess this is the thing I can see some being easy to add and some harder. I agree that I can easily see action points being added on top for players and some monsters. I can see healing surges being 25% of your maximum hp rather than hit dice. Skills can be played with easily.

But introducing static defenses and implements such as +2 wands seems to be to be more difficult both in terms of the work that would need to be done to destablising the math.

I guess I am interested to see if anyone has actually tried any of these in practice.


I think the 5th edition skill list is the best we've ever had, was ecstatic to see Knowledge (Science) added, and never want to go back to Athletics and Acrobatics.



You do know people are doing to try to get real creative Knowledge Science Skill, because 
if they have the knowledge to know it works then I am pretty sure they have the knowledge to make it. 

With Knowledge Science, 

Craft Duct Tape (I dare a DM to say no to me on this, I dare him I double dare him!)
Craft Drugs (I'm sure it's butting in with craft poison, but oh well)
Craft an Air Conditioner (I will find a way to invent this)
Use Knowledge Science to disable a Balor's flaming body ability with a trap.
Use Knowledge Science to disable a device. 
Use Knowledge Science to lift a heavy object with ropes and pulley. 

Why? Because it's science! 






But lets start by actually getting the 4e skill list back, the skill list in next sucks dragonballs

Now I am in rage. The skill list, the skill list, ARRRGGGHHH!!!

Drive Skill: Are you kidding me? A skill to be train in driving in the medieval fantasy?
Knowledge Science: I laugh when I saw this. Geez, I wonder what I can do with this? 
Track: Track is now a skill, track is now a skill, omg. I got Search and Survive Skill, but I can't
track somebody because I don't got Track Skill? Wow!

Actually, you can track, regardless of what skills you have.  You can also search for tracks (or anything) without the Search skill.

Here (and in your next post) you are making the mistake of thinking "I use Skill X skill to do Y," which is not how 5e works.  Rather, it is "I use my Ability Score X to do Y, and applying Skill Z if it makes sense."

So if you tell the DM you want to invent an air conditioner, that's all you're doing: trying to invent an air conditioner.  The DM might even allow you to use Knowledge: Science to do it, but since the DC is well into the range of complete impossibility (and bounded accuracy dictates you will never beat said DC), it really doesn't matter.

I'm not saying your point about the skill list is invalid.  I'm a huge fan of 4e, and could see going back to the condensed skill list.  (Although I disagree about Use Rope, back in 3.x we always came up with awesome useful things to do with that skill).  However, since everything relies on ability checks and not skill checks, skills are extremely mutable: you can add, delete, or collapse skills to your hearts content.  Sure, you might want to adjust the number of skills available, and you won't be able to use the default backgrounds, but personally I don't see that as a huge stumbling block.

"I want 'punch magic in the face' to be a maneuver." -- wrecan


But lets start by actually getting the 4e skill list back, the skill list in next sucks dragonballs



Now I am in rage. The skill list, the skill list, ARRRGGGHHH!!!

Drive Skill: Are you kidding me? A skill to be train in driving in the medieval fantasy? 
Knowledge Science: I laugh when I saw this. Geez, I wonder what I can do with this? 
Track: Track is now a skill, track is now a skill, omg. I got Search and Survive Skill, but I can't
track somebody because I don't got Track Skill? Wow! 



somehow i doubt you know how to drive a chariot while dodging arrows.

"Trying to run gritty gothic horror with 4e is like trying to cut down a tree with a hammer, likewise trying to run heroic fantasy with 1e is like trying to hammer a nail with a chainsaw."

 
 

 This is what i get when i hit the Quote button:  http://community.wizards.com/%23

 

  



Track: Track is now a skill, track is now a skill, omg. I got Search and Survive Skill, but I can't
track somebody because I don't got Track Skill? Wow! 




sure you can, in next being trained in a skill means you get to roll the skill dice to add to your ability score check.
so yes you can track without the track skill only if you do have the skill training you get a skill dice. 


Track: Track is now a skill, track is now a skill, omg. I got Search and Survive Skill, but I can't
track somebody because I don't got Track Skill? Wow! 




sure you can, in next being trained in a skill means you get to roll the skill dice to add to your ability score check.
so yes you can track without the track skill only if you do have the skill training you get a skill dice. 



I am just saying, some of these skills are overlapping. 

Survival Skill should auto teach you how to track since you need it to hunt animals. 
Search Skill let's you find the tracks and keep following the trail without getting loss. 

What am I saying, the Track Skill shouldn't exist. 

I for one think that ability checks are for broad applicability and skill bonuses should be fore very specific applications of those ability checks.

Any adventurer can tie a knot, and those with higher Dex are better at it, but one member of the party has use rope and he's truly an expert at that specific Dex check; he's the guy you can count on to tie up a Monk trained in escape artist and keep him there. Sure, anyone can learn to drive a chariot, and higher Dex makes you a better driver, but the adventurer who spent ten years as a chariot racer is clearly exceptional. Some people are excellent swimmers, or can jump over a long distance, or are masters of breaking their fall with a flawless tumble to avoid getting hurt, but I do not believe that any one person's background automatically makes them an expert at all three of these.

Skills should be narrow, training in them should not be required to have a reasonable chance at success, but the small set of skills your character does excel at should really be defining for who he is. If you're the guy who can hear a bow drawn from 100 yards, or the guy who can spot an expert assassin sneaking through the shadows, or the guy who can pick out a hidden door on his first try any day, that's something special to your character. Any one person reasoably has a very limited set of these kinds of talents, even though they might be pretty good at a lot of them just from their stats, they're the best at a few.

When you allow someone to be exceptional at seeing, hearing, searching, tracking, jumping, swimming, rolling, persuading, lying, intimidating, riding a horse and driving a cart, all in one character, that becomes ridiculous, and at that point the rules must make it manadatory to be trained in a skill to have a reasonable chance of success, or else a trained person will have an unreasonable chance. So I think it is best that we have a big list of skills with narrow applications, so each character can be renowned for their skills instead of expected to have them.

This is both why I like bounded accuracy and why I favor the current skill list over any other. And I couldn't count the number of times I could have used Knowledge (Science) if I had it in any D&D or Pathfinder game I've played. Use rope is damned useful as well. If you think any skill or ability score is useless, you are just not creative.
More to the point of this thread, I should mention that in the game I'm DMng we've been using Spell Attack Roll vs. Ability Score Defense (10 + mod), instead of Save vs. Spell DC, without any problem so far.  (Roll vs. DC just works much better in play-by-post, since I have a google-docs spreadsheet where the players can enter the results of their rolls and it will calculate whether it hit or miss.)

So that's a (IMO vastly superior) 4e mechanic right there that's fairly easy to implement.

"I want 'punch magic in the face' to be a maneuver." -- wrecan


But lets start by actually getting the 4e skill list back, the skill list in next sucks dragonballs

Now I am in rage. The skill list, the skill list, ARRRGGGHHH!!!

Drive Skill: Are you kidding me? A skill to be train in driving in the medieval fantasy?
Knowledge Science: I laugh when I saw this. Geez, I wonder what I can do with this? 
Track: Track is now a skill, track is now a skill, omg. I got Search and Survive Skill, but I can't
track somebody because I don't got Track Skill? Wow!

Actually, you can track, regardless of what skills you have.  You can also search for tracks (or anything) without the Search skill.

Here (and in your next post) you are making the mistake of thinking "I use Skill X skill to do Y," which is not how 5e works.  Rather, it is "I use my Ability Score X to do Y, and applying Skill Z if it makes sense."

So if you tell the DM you want to invent an air conditioner, that's all you're doing: trying to invent an air conditioner.  The DM might even allow you to use Knowledge: Science to do it, but since the DC is well into the range of complete impossibility (and bounded accuracy dictates you will never beat said DC), it really doesn't matter.

I'm not saying your point about the skill list is invalid.  I'm a huge fan of 4e, and could see going back to the condensed skill list.  (Although I disagree about Use Rope, back in 3.x we always came up with awesome useful things to do with that skill).  However, since everything relies on ability checks and not skill checks, skills are extremely mutable: you can add, delete, or collapse skills to your hearts content.  Sure, you might want to adjust the number of skills available, and you won't be able to use the default backgrounds, but personally I don't see that as a huge stumbling block.




Actually no in 5e you, the player, would say, "I want to use my knowledge of science to build an air conditioner."

The DM says okay make me an int check, and you add your knowledge science die to the roll.

They explain it in this section here:

How Do I Use My Skill Die?
During play, you describe what your character is doing,
and if the Dungeon Master decides that a check is
necessary, you make the check using the ability that the
DM specifies. You determine which of your skills applies
to the situation, and then announce to the DM that you
have that skill and are applying it to the check. For
example, if your charactertriesto sneak past some orc
sentries, the DM might call for a Dexterity check. In this
case, you make a check using your character’s Dexterity
modifier. If he or she hasthe Sneak skill, you announce
that you are using your Sneak skill, roll your skill die, and
add its result to the check.
As a player, it’s up to you to describe clearly any
action that your character istrying to take and how you
expect a skill to apply. You can incorporate the use of
skillsin your task description: “Drawing on my
knowledge of forbidden lore, I study the strange glyph.”
If the DM then calls for a check—most likely an
Intelligence check—you make the check and add the
result of your skill die roll.


 

Here (and in your next post) you are making the mistake of thinking "I use Skill X skill to do Y," which is not how 5e works.  Rather, it is "I use my Ability Score X to do Y, and applying Skill Z if it makes sense."



Hey! Someone who knows how skills work in DDN! I was wondering when someone would get around to mentioning this.

I vastly prefer the DDN approach to 3E or 4E's skills. Attempts being based on ability scores is a much more elegant and open system to a static skill list. Being able to apply skills to the abilities is just added goodness that, technically, can be infinitely expanded. Even if it isn't added to at all, though, using ability checks to resolve tasks makes more sense.
"The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind." - H.P. Lovecraft
Let's see:

  1. Tell the DM what you want to do

  2. DM tells you


  • what ability check to make

  • what the DC of the task is, and

  • if any of your skills apply


  • Make your ability check


    • add your skill die bonus to the roll if your skill applies


  • Compare the result to the DC


  • It's exactly the same steps taken with 13th Age's ability/background checks (replace skill die bonus with background bonus), yet why is it that I prefer 13th Age's backgrounds over 5E's ability/skill checks?

    Perhaps it's because of...



    • Customizability. I feel that 5E's need to define skills, yet at the same time have them apply to any ability check so long as it's sensible to your background is pointless, especially when compared to a background system that allows the group to define what your backgrounds/skills are and use them in the exact same way backgrounds/skills are used in 5E


      • The only saving grace of the 5E background system involves the Trait aspect of the background... but considering how it not only does it appear to be something that can easily be construed from the 13th Age background system (which runs on common sense as well as whatever is discussed with the DM), it pales in comparison to the One Unique Thing of 13th Age.


    • Granularity. One of the biggest complaints about 4E's skill system was the lack of granularity -- you either had training and got a +5 to that ability check, or you had no training at all -- and instead of providing a solution, it could be argued that 5E is making things worse by granting a scaling non-granular skill system within a static DC system.


      • On the other hand, this does allow improvements to be much more apparent, so it's in favor of the players... so long as the dice doesn't roll a 1~4 at high levels, since a natural 1 on the skill die kinda says that in spite of your skill and experience in the world, your background's contribution to the scenario is still only as good as if you were a low level character

      • Interestingly as well, because of the way the skill system is structured, if at level 9 (and feats are enabled) you take the feat that grants you extra skills, you instantly get a far more significant boost to those skills as compared to taking the same feat at level 1, or taking a background that grants those feats.

      • Compare with 13th Age's background system, which also provides a scaling skill system within a DC system that can easily be considered as static.  In that background system, your "skills" are quite granular in design due to the fact that you can assign base values to them, so instead of all skills granting either a +12 [on a lucky roll] or a +1 at the highest level possible, we're looking at a system that grants you a consistent 10+X at the highest level possible.


        • The only reason why backgrounds in 13th Age scale at all is because everything's more or less tied up to levels.  Apply Bounded Accuracy to 13th Age, and you'll have experts in a given field always adding only +5 (or maybe +7, if you take the Epic tier feat), while novices in that same field always adding only +1.



    • Simplicity.  Compare:


      • 5E: add your ability modifier, d20 roll, skill die roll.  Increase the skill die size by one at certain levels

      • 13th Age: add your ability modifier, level, d20 roll, and background.



    Overall, I'm not seeing the elegance of 5E's skill/background system even when compared to 4E's skill system, and I find 3E, 4E, and 5E's skill systems as inferior to 13th Age's background system (which I admit is inferior to FATE's Aspects, from which the system is derived from, although a clear advantage of 13th Age's system is that unlike Aspects, Backgrounds are not tied to any system other than ability scores, so it's much more portable than Aspects).
     

    Show

    You are Red/Blue!
    Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
    Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

    You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

    D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

    57047238 wrote:
    If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
    I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
    This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging
    Here (and in your next post) you are making the mistake of thinking "I use Skill X skill to do Y," which is not how 5e works.  Rather, it is "I use my Ability Score X to do Y, and applying Skill Z if it makes sense."

    Actually no in 5e you, the player, would say, "I want to use my knowledge of science to build an air conditioner."

    The DM says okay make me an int check, and you add your knowledge science die to the roll.

    Are we arguing?  I don't think we're arguing.

    I wasn't trying to portray how you'd describe what you were doing at the game table.  I was merely underscoring the difference in mechanics between DDN and previous editions -- really, more of a difference in mentality more than anything.

    "I want 'punch magic in the face' to be a maneuver." -- wrecan

    Here (and in your next post) you are making the mistake of thinking "I use Skill X skill to do Y," which is not how 5e works.  Rather, it is "I use my Ability Score X to do Y, and applying Skill Z if it makes sense."

    Actually no in 5e you, the player, would say, "I want to use my knowledge of science to build an air conditioner."

    The DM says okay make me an int check, and you add your knowledge science die to the roll.

    Are we arguing?  I don't think we're arguing.  I think we're saying the same thing in different ways.

    I wasn't trying to portray how you'd describe what you were doing at the game table.  I was merely underscoring the difference in mechanics between DDN and previous editions -- really, more of a difference in mentality more than anything.




    It just seemed like you were saying that mentioning skill had nothing to do with it or that mentioning it as a skill check wasn't part of the game when it very much is I was more trying to make sure you got waht was the actual flow of play because it differed from what you had said.  I've had a lot of people that didn't actually grasp how the skill system works in 5e (because they didn't actually read the section I quoted).  I was just making sure you did.  

    Because you say it is, "I use ability score x to accomplis y", and that isn't exactly how it works.  

    You, the player, says, "I want to do X", or, "I want to use my ability with skill Y to do X".

    Then the DM says either, "Okay make me a check with Z ability score", or, "that's impossible"(in the case where he thinks that action is impossible), or "okay it works" (in the case where he determines there was no way for you to fail).

    not arguing just trying to clear things up about the actual flow of play. 

    though I see what you were driving at.  For the most part you as the player are supposed to barely think in terms of mechanics just in terms of what your character would do.  I agree that looking straight at the ability scores should be the direct informer of that decision making process.

    Here (and in your next post) you are making the mistake of thinking "I use Skill X skill to do Y," which is not how 5e works.  Rather, it is "I use my Ability Score X to do Y, and applying Skill Z if it makes sense."



    Hey! Someone who knows how skills work in DDN! I was wondering when someone would get around to mentioning this.

    I vastly prefer the DDN approach to 3E or 4E's skills. Attempts being based on ability scores is a much more elegant and open system to a static skill list. Being able to apply skills to the abilities is just added goodness that, technically, can be infinitely expanded. Even if it isn't added to at all, though, using ability checks to resolve tasks makes more sense.


    I agree on that, but using that mecanics does not prevent the use of a shorter skill list
    Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com
    Well, I have always been fond of the skill lists in 3.5 / Pathfinder
    Well, I actually prefer the pathfinder approach over 3.5

    I am at the moment considering a character concept for a pathfinder rogue
    I expect to put a few ranks in

    Craft Painting:
    In order to have a credible cover story for gaining access to noblemen villas
    In order to seduce rich girls
    In order to document exploration. That gives advantages if you have to write letters to sages or show them a picture of the ruin you are talking about
    In order to help research into ancient mysteries by making it easier to perform research for clues in museum collections

    Craft Carpentry
    In order to have a credible cover story for gaining access to noblemen villas while carrying lots of tools
    In order to be able to install secret doors and compartments
    In order to make it easier to determine the age of ruins
    In order to obtain extra clues (crafting technique or material indicates this stuff was made at ....)

    I am considering Craft basketweawing
    In order to be able to make bags with secret compartments for weapons or illegal stuff
    In order to obtain extra clues in mysteries (crafting technique or material indicates this stuff was made at ....)
    and so forth
    Pathfinder's kind of interesting in the regard that putting a single point into a very niche skill is actually a reasonable choice some of the time, because the first point gets you +4. In 3.5, putting just a point into a niche skill was a lot more questionable, since +1 to a skill doesn't even make you perceptably better at the skill. (For the same reason, putting more than one point into a niche skill in PF is generally questionable.) As a result, Pathfinder characters (especially ones with a large number of skill points) do sometimes end up with bonuses to a lot more niche skills than you'd see in 3.5.
    Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
    yes, i think that the PF way of doing it is vastly superior to 3.5
    I do not have to be supergood at craft painting. Just one skill rank and it is workable for my intensions
    1+3+abi mod + tool bonus.
    I can afford it and it gives a lot more depth to the character
    Pathfinder is actually supercool
    I am considering to combine rogue with bard
    A craft skill plus mending sounds as a good way to repair damaged stuff found in ruins in order to obtain more historical objects there can be sold to museums as art objects

    Craft basketweaving or craft pottery or craft clothing combined with a mending spell.
    Craft clothing could also be cool in order to create clothing with hidden pockets for daggers, small illegal objects and so forth

    Seems to me, that the pathfinder approach is cool because i can for a minor part of my skill ranks obtain good enough skill proficiency in a large amount of skills
    Another thing that's cool about PF is that if you want your character to pick up a skill later in life, he can be meaningfully competant at it without months of time passing first or without having to spend what might be all of his skill points for a level on it.
    Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
    More to the point of this thread, I should mention that in the game I'm DMng we've been using Spell Attack Roll vs. Ability Score Defense (10 + mod), instead of Save vs. Spell DC, without any problem so far.  (Roll vs. DC just works much better in play-by-post, since I have a google-docs spreadsheet where the players can enter the results of their rolls and it will calculate whether it hit or miss.)

    So that's a (IMO vastly superior) 4e mechanic right there that's fairly easy to implement.





    Great to hear! Interesting stuff. This is one of the things I hope WOTC will support in DDN but I am not sure they ever will.

    I guess there are two paths with respect to DDN here if you are a 4th ed fan: complain about DDN or experiment with the DDN playtest.
    Pathfinder's kind of interesting in the regard that putting a single point into a very niche skill is actually a reasonable choice some of the time, because the first point gets you +4. In 3.5, putting just a point into a niche skill was a lot more questionable, since +1 to a skill doesn't even make you perceptably better at the skill. (For the same reason, putting more than one point into a niche skill in PF is generally questionable.) As a result, Pathfinder characters (especially ones with a large number of skill points) do sometimes end up with bonuses to a lot more niche skills than you'd see in 3.5.



     I was over skill points in 3.5 but PF made them interesting again. My players are picking a wide variety of skills now.

     I do kind of like the no class skills in D&DN, the rest of it not so much as I hate the skill dice. PF, 4th ed and SWSE have good skill sytems, 3.5 is ok, 3.0 is a little meh.

    The skills I have seen used the most out of the "suck" skills.

    Perform: Dance
    Perform: Singing
    Craft- Ships, Weapons, Armor
    Profession:Sailor
    Profession:Pilot

     I love the basketweaving example. Probably pointless but if someone wants to be good at basket weaving let them it is their skill point to use. My players were stuck on an island recently and constructed a raft and used profession sailr to get off. One could do the same with ability checks I supppose but the players wanted to be a bt better at it and maybe design their own ship one day (pirate type game).

     Fear is the Mind Killer

     

    My wishes:

    Keep the 4ed skill list and the concept of skill challenge.

    Enough open mind from designer to allow Vanican AND AEDU character in the same party.  And dont know how to balance it, that's their job.

    Healing mechanics of 4ed: Healing surge,  Healing word, Second wind.

    The "Encounter" concept.

    The "bloodied" concept.

    But my true dream is that they keep almost everything form 4ed, but to please the old-timer bring back a VANICAN version of the Cleric and the Wizard, and also bring a no power version of the fighter and rogue.


    My wishes:

    Keep the 4ed skill list and the concept of skill challenge.

    Enough open mind from designer to allow Vanican AND AEDU character in the same party.  And dont know how to balance it, that's their job.

    Healing mechanics of 4ed: Healing surge,  Healing word, Second wind.

    The "Encounter" concept.

    The "bloodied" concept.

    But my true dream is that they keep almost everything form 4ed, but to please the old-timer bring back a VANICAN version of the Cleric and the Wizard, and also bring a no power version of the fighter and rogue.





     Thats a problem right there thoguh for other players.

    4th ed skill list. To small, skill challenges awful- roll play over role play.

    Healing mechanics of 4th ed. Terrible hell no, 2nd wind might be redeemable, AEDU only as an option or for those classes that originated in 4th ed.

    Encounter concept can handle that, bloodied take it or leave it.

     Of course thats only my opinon but I do not want 4.5. D&DN doesn't have to be a clone of an earlier edition and I can get one of those if I want anyway but not 4.5.

     Fear is the Mind Killer

     

    My wishes:

    Keep the 4ed skill list and the concept of skill challenge.

    Enough open mind from designer to allow Vanican AND AEDU character in the same party.  And dont know how to balance it, that's their job.

    Healing mechanics of 4ed: Healing surge,  Healing word, Second wind.

    The "Encounter" concept.

    The "bloodied" concept.

    But my true dream is that they keep almost everything form 4ed, but to please the old-timer bring back a VANICAN version of the Cleric and the Wizard, and also bring a no power version of the fighter and rogue.




    In short, you want to keep playing 4e ?
    Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com
    My wishes:

    Keep the 4ed skill list and the concept of skill challenge.

    Enough open mind from designer to allow Vanican AND AEDU character in the same party.  And dont know how to balance it, that's their job.

    Healing mechanics of 4ed: Healing surge,  Healing word, Second wind.

    The "Encounter" concept.

    The "bloodied" concept.

    But my true dream is that they keep almost everything form 4ed, but to please the old-timer bring back a VANICAN version of the Cleric and the Wizard, and also bring a no power version of the fighter and rogue.




    In short, you want to keep playing 4e ?

    In fact for what I have seen in Next until now, I will continue with 4ed for a long time.
    In fact for what I have seen in Next until now, I will continue with 4ed for a long time.

    And if you'll be considering an alternative to 4E, might I suggest Numenera, Dungeon World, or 13th Age (instead of DDN)?
    Show

    You are Red/Blue!
    Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
    Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

    You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

    D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

    57047238 wrote:
    If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
    I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
    This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging
    It is getting bad when 2nd ed ,3rd ed and 4th ed fans are all recommending different games over D&DN lol.

     Fear is the Mind Killer

     

    It is getting bad when 2nd ed ,3rd ed and 4th ed fans are all recommending different games over D&DN lol.



    IMO it's because they need to either make executive decisions on which direction they want to go,  or create pre-4th and 4th edition variants of DDN.  Trying to mix the two isn't making for a stronger product,  they need to split it and let the market make the decision.

    This current direction just isn't working,  they can make a far more compelling game by creating versions of DDN that have dedicated support for both sides. 
    That has been done before and AD&D ate up D&D as the more complex one. A firm decision either way   
     or even a commitment to a module with a reaosnable amount of time (1st year or whatever) would be something rather than vague and open ended statements.

     Fear is the Mind Killer

     

    That has been done before and AD&D ate up D&D as the more complex one. A firm decision either way   
     or even a commitment to a module with a reaosnable amount of time (1st year or whatever) would be something rather than vague and open ended statements.



    That's actually what I fully expect would happen.  One of the two variants would sell less,  and the majority of the players would slowly covert to the other,  until one of the two variants end up consumed (as you put it).

    The goal though is:  First to not create a system that pleases no one by mixing and matching mechanics,  and Second to let capitalism decide the future design direction of D&D. 

    WOTC stands to lose alot with their current direction of trying to please everyone with one unified edition,  but if they shifted the decision to the Players and released two strong variants,  they could please both sides and not have to be the "Bad guys".