Examples of things 5e DOES have that promotes cooperation.
Icy Rays / Hold Person- Does nothing for the wizard, so allies must help. Defender / Hold the line - Protecting eachother is cooperation. Healing / Death Ward - Sort of... Battle Psalm - Classic support Shield of Faith - Very nice example. Return the favor of the defender. Silence / Sleep - Sort of.. ...
I think that it's...
I really want the rogue to do cool things that make enemies easier to take down/makes it harder for enemies to do what they want.
I'd much rather see the rogue blind someone, hamstring them, cut the straps to their armor, etc than sneak about then kidney stab, rinse repeat, or have to play DM may I to do...anything.
That kind of cooperation would work for me. Coop by doing cool things that also make it easier for your buds to do their cool things.
The rogue in the last playtest I ran did exactly this. All that was needed was creativity and some opposed ability checks. We got dirt in the eyes, flaming oil, a stolen belt (causing pants to fall), even one instance where the rogue jumped on the back of the Ogre like Wesley on Fezzik in Princess Bride. Rogue: "I try to cover his eyes as he is grabbing for me!" Ogre: "Get off me, you two-legged tick!"
What the playtest rules don't have is a list of codified things you can do. It's up to you the player to be resourceful and come up with stuff that is effective, flashy, and fun.
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Modular design is good. It allows the system to be scalable and adaptable for each group's needs. Some groups may wish to add more complexity, while others will desire less. For example, optional rules may be added for more detailed critical hits and locations, which may add more dice rolls, and complexity, which may slow down game play. Some groups may not wish to incorporate those rules, because the tradeoff in detail for slower game play may be unacceptable.
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way. Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken. Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken. King Fisher Does an excellent job at keeping an enemy disabled in a few ways. Strong. Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading. Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered. Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square. Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong. Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked. Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic. Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation. Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses. Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat. Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent. Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof. Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it. Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways. Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful. The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken. Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken Unnamed Avenger|Runepriest/Hammer of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered. Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5. Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong. Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight, only far more broken. Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken. Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.
one problem i found is the current 1 action in 5th edition.
in 4th edition you had actions that would deal damage and where benifitial to other players. or had room to use minor actions to benifit other players.
in 5th you only have 1 action, either you attack and deal damage. or you use a improvised action to set up a enemy to give combat advantahe or knock them prone or somthing like that.
and as it seems on these low levels in the playtest dealing damage is always the best option. becouse the fighter using his action to give the rogue advanage deals less damage then the fighter just making his attack and letting the rogue attack without combat advantage.
I don't give a damn which is easier for the designers. Their job is to make a good game, not an easy to design game.
I am talking about the poor shmuck that has to go through the list of ommisions to make his game the "simple" version, when it doesn't need to be that way.
the simple rules players doesn't need to read the complex rules set. the complex rules player does. so why does the simple rules player HAVE to read the complex rules set to make his game simple?
The simple rules player doesn't have to read the complex rules. They can simply go to the Playing Rules Light, section, and go from there. Class and race entries will be almost entirely the same, and the few places where things need to be detailed for both, but are different, can simply be presented in the same chapter, clearly demarcated, just like having space in feat and space in squares side by side, with one in parentheses.
The thing is, simple rules are easy. Balance rests on the mind of the DM and the good behavior of the group, not so much on the rules, but where it does rest on the rules, it's simpler to achieve. With complex rules, balance is harder. That is why it is better to hammer out those more complex rules right away, and assume them in the math and balance of the game, and then figure out how to simplify it. Because the groups playing shouldn't have to sit there and figure out if their game is balanced, where it's balanced, etc, it should just work for them, right out of the box.
Pretty much the only way to ensure that both groups have a game that works for them, right out of the box, is to design the game to handle both, from the start, which means figuring out the complex rules. Doesn't need to go as far as 4e full complexity, but it has to be greater complexity than Basic DnD. Then you include the rules for playing Basic DnD in the same books as those complex rules, in a way that the simple guys don't have to read a bunch of stuff they don't need.
But the books are going to be full of stuff any given group doesnt' need. that's the nature of modular rules. The books can even be formatted to visually favor the simple rules, who cares. But the core game has to be built in a way that considers what the complex rules are going to do, and how they'll interact with the foundation of the game. You cannot just tack that stuff on later and hope it works, or you get a giant pile of crap.
the bolded statement, unfortunately for you, is how modules are going to work. i'm sorry you think it'll turn the game into a pile of crap (especially since you have nothing to back that up with) but thats the way the cookie crumbles.
what you are asking for is a foundation that tosses the old gamers aside (because those old guys aren't important, right?) and assumes that DM free mechanics should be the norm.
you are asking for the basement and the first 3 stories of a highrise to be "the foundation" i am asking for much less to be the foundation, this is what it boils down to.
i have no problem with releasing simple rules AND complex rules, but the focus right now is the simple rules, if you only care about the complex rules, then wait your turn. fortunately for us, basing the simple rules on guidelines means that they CAN'T translate badly (liek you are suggesting) because there is not enough rule to muck up the process.
i don't see why any of the problem you see can't be fixed by a module. don't like lack of skill checks? skill check module! don't like lack of powers? power module! don't like lack of x? x-module! every aspect of this game is so easy, so vague, so up to DM fiat, that the rules can simply be applied without anything getting mucked up in translation. it wont work like that the other way around.
You don't seem to understand how modularity works. If you are going from 1-15 in complexity, you cannot make the base game assuming 1, and balancing for 1. And it's clear that isn't what they're doing. Themes and backgrounds are layers of complexity that can be stripped away to get at a different, simpler playstyle than the core game, around which the rest of the game is designed. So, right now it's at 3, with guidelines to go down to 1, and the promise of guidelines to move up higher.
What it needs to be is closer to the middle, but on the low side of the middle, with guidelines for moving in both directions in the core books.
Further, character complexity is expected to vary from character to character, which means that the core game, the monsters, and how it all interacts has to be balanced for something approaching a middle ground.
Modular design generally has to consider the future complexity of the system or each module brings greater instability and its interaction with other modules bring uncertain effects to the game. If you want evidence there are plenty of modular based RPG's in the past that have screwed this up. It's likely that DrBadWolf is simply relying on experience and anecdote to create an inductive argument that this process generally heralds messy and imbalanced games.
Observation and logical analysis, but yeah. Pretty much.
If you're going to make both GURPS and GURPS Light, you first make GURPS, while keeping Light in mind, and then work out how Light can work, while allowing people to move fluidly from Light to full GURPS, fiddling back and forth till it all works. If you try to tack either on after the fact, it will be less good than if both are assumed to exist from the start, and if you build at a higher level of the full eventual game as the core design, it is much easier to build that core in a way that allows for both ends of the spectrum to work correctly.
@autolycus : I like that. I really do. It's not remotely a thing that the rogue specifically has going for it, though. Every character can, and has in my playtests, done stuff like that.
The rogue should be better at it than others, and be able to do things in that vein that others usually can't do.
And be less damage focused.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
If that were true, then D&D would not even exist because of all the new players who failed at playing the game back in the 70s/80s. Somehow they managed to enjoy themselves and create the phenominon that is still with us today.
Humans haven't changed so much in the last 30 years that they suddenly can't play a game that requires proactive imagination.
No, not using cooperative or tactical options first time doesn't mean they "fail" and won't ever play again. It means they won't use those options at first. They will still have fun, but in my experience it's been fairly safe, reliable fun.
Generally, experienced players can behave more tactically because they have had time to understand all the niggly little rules in the Skills, Combat and Magic chapters. They have had more opportunities to try outside-the-box thinking, and understand how things synergise - how to make an effective team.
I thought 4E was trying to let you know that you can do other things other than simple "I hit it with my axe", and make those options more attractive right off the bat. BUT, it did go too far in codifying everything and feel a little prescriptive at times. Whereas, in 3E, when you invented a combo using different abilties, skills, feats and spells it was AMAZING. But, everyone had to be experienced enough to know how to set it up.
Can some walk me through the Math that says "it's Better for the fighter to attack than provide flanking"? As I understand it, flanking provides advantage. Which means, if the fighter and thief are attacking one enemy, then the fighter can Provide flanking to let the thief roll twice. If the fighters attack is less Than the thief, and one hit will kill, then it's better to provide advantage, no? Now, if there are many enemies, it's better for the fighter to attack, because the party can get two hits. And, if the party can't kill the monster in one hit, then it's probably better for the party to attack twice so they can hit twice. But, that seems to be a question of "do we want flanking an enemey to be better than attacking an enemy" in general. On the one hand, it provides teamwork. On the other hand, hooting people is fun, and moving to flank and passing isn't. So, perhaps they've got it set right - some times it's Better to flank, but generally, the game rewards you for having fun (attacking).
Every time 4e comes up on these forums I get annoyed all over again at the 4e design team for it's presentation based mistakes....
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
