From what I read in the many answers I understood the topic purpose in a little different way.
I now ask everyone: should rules, powers, spells and magical item cover more stuff than just combat related? Do you think classes that has just a few combat related powers and loat of flavorfull powers exist? Should old stuff like rules for castles, how much do they cost and on, be back? Or everythink should just stuck with fighting bonus?
I'd personaly like to see as much spells, powers, feats and ability that are just combat useless, not because made useless because of too long casting time to say one, but just because they have no combat application, or little combat application. I often try yo build characters in 3.5 that has as little combat application as possible. Make them be great explorers and infiltrators, like a spy/rogue, or just a bard that puts everythink hhe has to max his perform to the sake of being the best player of his favourite instrument ever existed. I want as much option as possible to make this kind of characters.
I now ask everyone: should rules, powers, spells and magical item cover more stuff than just combat related?
Sure, as they always did.
Do you think classes that has just a few combat related powers and loat of flavorfull powers exist?
I fail to see how those two are opposites. Combat powers are quite flavorful.
I agree that all characters should have more powers devoted to non-combat pillars and that those powers need to be balanced much in the same way as combat powers.
Should old stuff like rules for castles, how much do they cost and on, be back? Or everythink should just stuck with fighting bonus?
I fail to understand why you say this as if it was a aut-aut question, but whatever. I think rules for castles as done in 4E were not that great because the economical system was terribly bloated. I'd prefer something more balanced than that, but indeed those rules were nice to have around. Couldn't really use them due to imbalance, but at least it didn't impact the rest of the game too much.
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM!
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Do you think classes that has just a few combat related powers and loat of flavorfull powers exist?
I fail to see how those two are opposites. Combat powers are quite flavorful.
Here I did say it in the wrong way. I was actualy trying to ask if some classes who has verry little combat stuff and a loat of out of combat abilities, maybe even of little use out of roleplay, should be arround.
Should old stuff like rules for castles, how much do they cost and on, be back? Or everythink should just stuck with fighting bonus?
I fail to understand why you say this as if it was a aut-aut question, but whatever. I think rules for castles as done in 4E were not that great because the economical system was terribly bloated. I'd prefer something more balanced than that, but indeed those rules were nice to have around. Couldn't really use them due to imbalance, but at least it didn't impact the rest of the game too much.
It's aut-aut because if everything is given to combat little room is left for other things
Whew! Once again read the whole thread to be up-to-date. Great posts guys. Instead of doing multiple-quotes, I'll just address topics and people by name. Apologies if I misspell anyone's name.
Xguild: Excellent posts. Some of the most enjoyable to read in the last 10 or so pages. I think I know what you're saying. Yes, I agree a system can't make or break your role-playing especially if you have experienced players. I must disagree about it being 'entirely' based on the players though. A good system (especially for new players) can 'heavily' skew the role-playing and non-combat aspects of the game, in my experience.
Also, I agree with you completely about 4e and I think your ideas about rules on the abilities-stunts, combat-stunts, and whatnot are excellent. Essentially with Challenger (thanks so much for your help with it, by the way, still have a copy on ice for you) I tried to add a lot of non-combat and utility powers which essentially translate into 'game effects' for the crazy stuff players try all the time like: manufacturing weapons and armor, making magic items and gadgets, going telekinetic, learning new magic, doing stunts in battle, and whatnot. The only problem I see is that no rules can cover all role-playing situations. The rules should always have an element of adjucation on the GM's part because no game design can cover everything.
Someone mentioned the fates system for rewarding role-playing. I like that idea in principal. It's a good concept with a noble purpose. Statistically it ends up having problems but it's a good idea anyway.
Lokaire: Good stuff, as usual. Keep up the fine work.
Raw Sugar: I completely agree with you. You make some excellent points about the combat-to-non-combat roleplaying ratios and whatnot. Don't let anyone bother you. Your points are all valid and bang on.
Aldrien: Totally agree.
Frostball: Yeah, that's a great idea. I'm not sure it works out statistically, but it's pretty much what I'm trying to get at in terms of 'ideas'. Thanks for mentioning it.
Rian Lightblade: Yeah, I totally agree with you on all points. I must just not have made myself clear in the opening statement. Please revise whatever I said to your ideas for improvement. That's what I meant to say.
Scott (some numbers): Yep. Good stuff. I totally agree. If 5e implented all of the things you wrote, I'm sure it would be considerably more epic. Thanks for posting.
The Mormegil: Thanks for keeping the thread 'real'. You made some excellent points. Good work.
Everyone Else: Sorry I missed you! I read all your stuff and I thank you for posting even if I didn't totally agree with what you said or had a difference of opinnion. Making things better doesn't always require total agreement, it requires the sharp-minded people who disagree so as to bring up new ideas to make things better. Thank you.
Thread Topic:
I think we've been getting a little off topic here but I don't care. It's all good to me. I'm still seeing a trend of people saying "Role-playing is completely player based and has nothing to do with the system". and "THere should be no rules on role-playing!" On both counts I agree. However, rules systems 'can' encourage role-playing. Also, I never meant to say more rules on role-playing which would be crazy, but more rules encouraging role-playing kind of like the Fates mechanic mentioned but not as restrictive.
Basically I'm talking about the old +2 for doing well and -2 for not but with more spice. Several people mentioned the old-school way of GMs assigning all actions based on d%. That's a fine way to do things (if it's up your alley) but can't really be assisted by a rulebook or be made to balance in any particular way apart from the individual GM (who's probably awesome if he can pull off that sort of thing).
What I'd like to see is not a 'total up to the GM arbitrary rules call' or on the other end 'use the rules or be called a cheater and a whacko'. I want something in-between or at bare minimum a section in the DMG which explains how to adjucate those 'rules calls' that crop during play more thoroughly. Basically a section to train new GMs to adjucate like us old pros. All the tips, systems, and advice that any good GM picks up over the years.
So far as I've read, everyone seems in favor of that, including Xguild who's pretty much awesome (I linked to your website, Xguild, hope you don't mind).
So here's a brief reiteration of what I'd like to see in 5e:
Faster Combat (yes).
Less Emphasis on Combat through rules and more on ephermeral things like role-playing (yes)
More non-combat orientated powers. Someone mentioned they'd never take a non-combat power because of optimization. I say "Where would you bloody find one in 4e?". I also personally know many players who would play a totally non-combat character (like someone else mentioned) and in my own RPG Challenger (free) not only can you totally non-combat spec your character to be a spy/explorer. There are also whole classes devoted to doing so and I've personally seen people go for them. Players who like non-combat oriented characters aren't stupid either. They still have combat power. No-one is going to take some crummy non-combat feat at the expense of all combat ability. What I'm saying is no-one should have to. There's no reason you can't have your cake and eat it too (in essence a non-combat statted character who doesn't completely suck in battle either).
Massive sweet DM's section with loads of rules on 'adjucating' or just good advice.
Ability to play within the rules effectively without rolling a single dice or all of an adventure. Sure you can do that in 4e, but it's pretty unlikely. I also know lots of people who play epic adventures without any combat whatsoever. Sure, there are those who play RPGs purely for the combat and I have nothing against them. I also, however, know whole groups who will actively avoid combat and just role-play or skill around some exploration and have a blast (rare, but extremely fun). I've never seen this happen in a 4e game yet, though. I'm sure it's possible, the rules just don't suit it, essentially I 'want' 5e's rules to at least accomadate that play style if not actually embrace it.
Yes, sometimes I just want to kill a lot of orcs too, but not as often as 4e's rules might think.
...should rules, powers, spells and magical item cover more stuff than just combat related?
Yes, espeshally some powers and spells. Anything that touches economy, like magic items, is going to be tied to "optimisation vs fluff" because you obviously can't force players to spend X amount of their money on non combat related items. They can have some of the powers players get only applicable to out of combat stuff. And if spells can be swapped around or something like that, then they can be a huge source of out of combat abilities. Skill tricks can also be a resource for this kind of thing too.
Do you think classes that has just a few combat related powers and loat of flavorfull powers exist?
I love support classes! :D But no, no class should be dedicated to mostly out of combat stuff. (assuming that's what you meant by flavorful powers.) D&DN should be like 4e: you see a class, think the fluff is cool, and can build a character with it that plays a large part in combat. Little effort should be required to do that.
However, a character that is mostly support/utility should also be possible with several classes. I love complicated support characters, but I'm the odd one out. Cater to the people who want to just make a character and go, and have options available for people like me to make my non-combative character. I'm the hipster that has to do things differently, I should be the one to do the book digging.
Homebrew Psionics blog posts archive: Spoiler:Show
UPDATED Dec/18/2012: BAMN! Random update with a modest amount of hard rules for Animal Affinity, Telepathy, and Telekinesis. ADDED: Discipline Burn and more "soft" ideas. Dec/13/2012: Small Psionics Homebrew Update, now that I'm done with Finals.
Really old. Nov/02/2012: I'm working on a homebrew Wilder, and so a homebrew Psionics system. Here's a 3 part post with info on where I am in the design process. Part 1, Hard rules/example soulknife discipline: Link. Part 2, Basic ideas/goals on basic numbers and classes: Link. Part 3, Direction/ideas I want to take with specific disciplines: Link.
The question shouldn’t be: Less emphasis on Combat or more Non-combat?
The questions should be: In 4E, was non-combat scenarios seemed to be missing? And should 5E correct this by devoting more game mechanics for out of combat uses?
Forget the differences in play, by various DMs and Groups. In my personal opinion, 4E was very much combat-centric. For example, the PHB Fighter covered 11-1/2 pages. Nine (9) pages were devoted to combat powers, the other 2-1/2 pages were Class traits, Features, and some fluff. About all non-combat in the description came down to the class skills and how many one got. Additionally, most of the feats were combat related.
Arcana has a trained only application of Detect Magic. Acrobatics has a trained only use of Reduce Falling Damage. It would be nice, if each skill had a “Trained Only” use. A few choices for each skill would be nice. Especially, if they were non-combat uses, or applicable to both. They started something like this with Skill Powers in PHB3. But, to get skill powers, you must spend a feat to switch a combat power for a skill power.
In the PHB, they have proposed a skilled, master, and expert level of knowledge applied to skills. So, why not have Skill Powers, that relate to these three levels. Skill Training would be for the Trained. Then, they could change Skill Focus to Skill Mastery. In addition to the +3 on the skill, you would be given master level skill powers to choose from. Then, add a Skill Expertise feat, that gives another +x bonus plus expert level skill powers. Additionally, you could tie these skill powers to the different tiers. So, an untrained person could possibly choose 1 of the “trained only” skill powers, when he/she got to Paragon Level and another at Epic Level. While someone trained could take additional ‘Trained only” skill powers at these levels or get master level skill powers. This gives a PC a reason to invest feats into non-combat areas.
Character Themes only add to this combat-centricity. The powers are combat related. So, there are very few areas in the rules for one to focus more out of combat scenarios.
I have trouble understanding, people having trouble with DM’s using Page 42 as a guideline for PC generated adhoc scenarios. Applying Page 42 guidelines is no different from assigning DC’s for a skill challenge for an adventure. The only difference is one is planned by the DM and the other has the DM assign DCs based on a PC’s request.
As far as, character optimization is concerned: if you have a +3 for your ability score modifier for combat attacks and use a +2 proficiency weapon, you are pretty much on par with a monster of your level (per PSG, pg 112). With combat being up to party level + 4, that is an additional +2 needed. You should be able to get this through various powers, feats, flanking, etc. So, there should be plenty of feats available, to be spent on non-combat related uses.
Personally, I like the Psionic Wild Talents from DSCS, pg 81. You get 3 of these by spending a feat on Wild Talent Master. I just love Mental Tools. Creating the tool you need for any particular job, is a very useful thing. You can help out just about anyone. Need a rake, hoe, pitchfork, chisel, etc. for some particular job, you have it. Talk about: Ace the helpful hardware man! What great role-playing potential. More of these type cantrips, etc. would be nice.
I love support classes! :D But no, no class should be dedicated to mostly out of combat stuff. (assuming that's what you meant by flavorful powers.) D&DN should be like 4e: you see a class, think the fluff is cool, and can build a character with it that plays a large part in combat. Little effort should be required to do that.
VacantPsalm: I love support classes too. I could see a rogue, not a bit good at hitting in combat. By dexterity and training in acrobatics, the character places himself in danger drawing attacks. Then, have an opposed roll: Monster Attack vs his Acrobatics check. The monster may still have to hit his AC on top of it. But, the rogue doesn't attack the monster.
making an intricate rulesystem to promote roleplaying seems really silly. What you want to promote roleplaying is a really simple combatsystem so that combat is fast and the character is at the centre. Once you start adding various bonuses for different styles of fighting/background etc then the rule mechanics become the engine for character creation rather than a tool expressing the concept -and naturally since most of these rules relate to combat players become more and more obsessed with combat because that is when their characters express themselves.
the combat system for a campaign centered around roleplaying should be set up like a minigame of RISK fun, and with an element of gambling/chance.
one "trick" i used as a DM to take focus away from the fighting was to dispense with xp tied to killing opponents and to simply give a base amount of xp depending on how well players handled the plot with rewards to the best roleplayers. Also i made each player write ½-1+ page of background with info on family friends etc that could be bought into the tale to give a more 3d feel to trhe adventurer living on the road and slleping with the sword ready.
If you create a system like 4th edition D&D where every action you take in combat is a power or ability and narration and storytelling is just fluff (or up to GM fiat) having no impact on mechanics unless the GM decides to, the result is that players focus in on the crunch where they feel they have some semblance of control. Which is why often players complain that "4th edition doesn't have any role-playing". A statement I disagree with philosphically in terms of, that shouldn't be the case, but is an undeniable result in every game I have ever played in and GMed despite numerous attempts to force it otherwise both as a player and as a GM, once even getting pissed and asking the players "Why is no one role-playing?". When you bring it up with the 4th edition fan base of course the assumptions Im gaming with idiots, or Im an idiot or what have you which I think is a very lame reasoning. Im an experianced GM and my players are veterans of role-playing that have no trouble in any other game.
I believe the reason this happens is that 4th edition has abstraction in all the wrong places. For example combat is very tactical, very organized, extremly structed and definitively controlled by very explicit rules. By nature players are going to focus in on that part of the game. While out of combat when you look at your character sheet it says almost nothing about who your character is and the expectation is that "You can do whatever you want that is within reason of your background", a decesion that is entirely up to the GM, effectively an unbinding GM fiat system. I write in my background that I was a blacksmith, now I can craft armor and weapons.. how good can I do it? Its up to the GM.. or up to a random unreleated skill like Athletics or something else completetly and utterly vague.
To me this never worked.. you have one aspect of the game that has too little abstraction and one that has too much.
Completely agree. Xguild, you've articulately put my thoughts into words. My thanks.
The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules. -Gary Gygax
IMO, combat in 5e should be relatively fast-paced and resolved quickly, at least compared to 4e. I've spent literally hours on one combat encounter on both sides of the screen and after about 45-60 min the story (why everyone is fighting in the first place) becomes "lost." I think this is the case because there are so many powers and players and DMs alike have a hard time deciding what to do with their three actions when it's their turn.
Here is how I would like to emphasize role playing in D&D.
Social enconters should be handled without dice rolls.
What do you do when the Player who is playing the 20 Charisma, max ranks in Diplomacy Character is having a bad day? And that character is the one who has been designated as the one to speak with the king's vassal in order to get the party to the next story point?
Many characters are better at things, including social dynamics, than the players are. In these cases, you need the rules and rolls to allow that player to show the quality and calibre of the character's contribution to the session, regardless of the player's struggles.
I am NOT advocating that the player should be allowed to just say "I roll Diplomacy. 25. What happens?" But, in my opinion, you need some mechanism for when a player has a brain fart, when they've had a bad day and aren't on their game, or when they are trying to play a character outside their roleplaying comfort zone (or areas of personal knowledge) and that is better at something than the player is at Bluffing, Intimidating, or being Diplomatic, etc.
(FYI - I also believe in the opposite; if a player does an excellent job at non-dice social interaction, the DM should give them (at least) a bonus to the roll, or shift the degree of success one degree easier, or some other similar bonus, even if the player rolled poorly for the character's social interaction roll (but not a 1). Or, if the player does a particularly good job "roleplaying" out the interaction, then drop the need for the roll altogether. But the player's inability to come up with something great shouldn't hinder a good character and the player's ability to come up with something great shouldn't be overly hindered by a character's lack of ability when it comes to social interaction, in my opinion.)
Balance = Equally effective, but different, ways of reaching a goal or overcoming an obstacle.
