|
12 months ago ::
Jun 12, 2012 - 1:22PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jun 12, 2012
|
Reading over the packet, I have to say most of it looks really good but one thing that troubles me is the handful of automatic success mechanics. Dealing damage on a miss, always saying hidden with missed ranged attack and things of this nature.
I really dislike these because they feel to much like video game mechanics which I'd argue can be a negative. Failure, on some level is a positive for the table top RPG experience in a way that it isn't in a video game. In a video game, when you fail it is nothing but a road block or a delay. By contrast a failure in D&D can represent an opportunity. A lot of great RPG stories come about when something goes wrong and the party has to react to it. I think mechanics that can't fail ever or eliminate all variables, as opposed to just being very reliable or can only fail under pressure, should be avoided where possible. I don't think these are necessary at all and like in an CCG, players are going to naturally want to try and maximize their ability to "win", and eliminating variables is often the best way to do that, however when you do so it take away a lot of excitement from the game. As the quote goes (assured) "Victory is Boring".
They say however you should always offer an alternative when being critical of something so lets look at automatic damage for example and how we could get a similar feel in 5th without making it a 100% sure thing hopefully getting all the positive of the concept without the negative of assured success. In 3rd edition we have a separate AC for touch attacks. This was mostly so wizards, with their normally crappy to hit, could still successfully strike enemies with to hit attacks. I'd like to throw out similar concept but one that favors fighters.
To explain in Warhammer whole armies can have power armor, which is extremely good protection making it difficult to kill the army any units in the army with very powerful attacks which by pass armor. So how do they get the particularly tough characters stand out? Well one method they employ is to give these characters an invulnerable save, which can never be breached but are often slightly less protection than normal armor. So lets apply this concept to D&D 5.Next.
All characters could have their normal AC and a resistance stat (a touch ac, dodge, shock, toughness, whatever WotC decides fits into D&D best) similar to the old touch AC but more class specific with resistance being easier for some classes to get than others. Instead of attacks that cannot miss, attack that breach a character resistance but not their AC still deal some damage. The idea being that a paladin might have a high resistance, allowing them to go toe to toe with opponent where as a cleric, whom has lower resistance would end up being slowly beaten down from the shock of blows to their armor that the tougher warrior classes shrug off.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 12, 2012 - 1:49PM
#2
|
|
|
Personally i like automatic things. Though i agree that sometime great things comes from failure.
And a "touch attack" is just a Dex save.
guides
Show
my builds
Show
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.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 12, 2012 - 2:05PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jun 12, 2012
|
Personally i like automatic things. Though i agree that sometime great things comes from failure.
And a "touch attack" is just a Dex save.
Thanks for getting the conversation going, though sadly I'll have to disagree about a touch attack being a dex save. There are lot of things you can do to give yourself bonuses to your attack to help ensure a successful touch attack like catching the enemy by surprise or flanking and things like that. In general it is better when you make the roll as it is much easier to use tactics and options to give yourself bonuses than it is to try and raise the DC an opponent needs to make their save which tends to be pretty arbitrary based on their class and magic items unless you happen to cast a curse on them or something like that. That makes a touch attack more interesting in my mind and adds more to the game than a dex save.
Edit: To be clear I'm not saying you can never have an automatic mechanic, I did like maximizing a spell now and then, but I feel they should be few and probably more for the higher levels. And right now I'm seeing a lot in the play test which is all low level stuff and don't really require anything to get that automatic effect.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 12, 2012 - 5:47PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
I like the automatic mechanics. They are simple, clear, beneficial, and can often speed up the game by reducing the need to roll. You can stick me in the “I don’t agree with the OP” category.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 12, 2012 - 6:22PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2005
|
Here's my thinking:
Given: There exist some things that should clearly be automatic, such as walking down a flat path without tripping and falling on your face. I've failed that one myself once or twice, but in the course of normal gameplay that sort of thing shouldn't even come up.
Corollary, taken by the rules as they currently stand (and unlikely to change): There are some things that are automatic for some people, some of the time. An ogre smashing down a rotted wooden door shouldn't have to roll anything, but a kobold doing the same might.
Corollary: If your level of skill is sufficient at a task, you shouldn't have to roll. This is more arbitrary, but when you have a rogue scheme bonus to disarming traps that stacks with a similar background bonus and you're trying to disarm a kobold bear-trap, an auto-success might be reasonable.
Corollary: You could have a feat or class feature that basically says, "I'm a badass at this specific task." An auto-success all the time would probably be too much, but always "rolling" at least a 10, or staying hidden when you fail to ambush someone, or even doing a little bit of damage on a miss seems like a reasonable extension.
Now, I will agree with the OP that this stuff should as a rule be reserved for higher levels. But I'm not against a class having one or two minor things like this from the get-go to help define them. Rogue reliability is a great example.
"Edison didn't succeed the first time he invented Benjamin Franklin, either." Albert the Alligator, Walt Kelly's Pogo Sunday BookThe Core Coliseum: test out your 4e builds and fight to the death.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 12, 2012 - 6:28PM
#6
|
|
|
For automatic flavor, Id be comfortable with anything requiring a d20 roll of 7 or less being automatic. But once needing 8 or more it seems worthwhile to roll for it.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 12, 2012 - 6:42PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Nov 30, 2003
|
I like the automatic modifer damage on a miss and staying hidden when you miss. It makes bad roll not feel like everything leading up to it was a wasted effort. Like when my 3.5 rogue spends a couple rounds setting up an ambush position only to roll a "2" for the one sneak attack he gets out of it.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 12, 2012 - 7:04PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Apr 21, 2004
|
I like the automatic modifer damage on a miss and staying hidden when you miss. It makes bad roll not feel like everything leading up to it was a wasted effort. Like when my 3.5 rogue spends a couple rounds setting up an ambush position only to roll a "2" for the one sneak attack he gets out of it.
Yeah nothing would suck more than attacking once every 2 rounds is to have to hide after missing. Getting sneak damage right now is hard enough without having to hide after a miss.
I also, agree if you are skilled in something I shouldn't have to roll to do something simple. For example, I do IT for a living. So a lot of things I do and take for granted as easy (I don't roll for) but my mom has a hard enough time turning on her laptop.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 12, 2012 - 8:12PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2001
|
I also disagree with the OP.
In a contest, say arm wrestling, if one participant has a Str 18 and the other has a Str 9, there should be no roll; the Str 18 character should win hands down, instead of Str 18 (+4 mod) rolling a natural 2 and the Str 9 (-1 mod) winning on a natural 8. That contest just shattered my suspense of disbelief.
If the characters come across a stuck wooden door, the strongest character would push it open (DC 15). Given enough time (i.e. non-combat), a character with Str 18 should be able to open it with out a check. (However, anyone on the other side would be able to set up for an ambush while the strongman batters the door in.) In turn, a thief (such as the one in the playtest with a Dex 17) who decides to pick a cheap lock (DC 11) gets a total of +6 to the check. If he has a sufficient amount of stress-free time (again, non-combat), he should be able to open it without a check as it is only a roll of 5 for him to succeed.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 13, 2012 - 6:39AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jun 12, 2012
|
Forgive me for not responding to everyone but since most people echoed similar sentiments I'm just going to respond to two people whom I feel pretty much encapsulate the majority of responses. If you don't feel I addressed your point please feel free to reiterate it. I like the automatic modifer damage on a miss and staying hidden when you miss. It makes bad roll not feel like everything leading up to it was a wasted effort. Like when my 3.5 rogue spends a couple rounds setting up an ambush position only to roll a "2" for the one sneak attack he gets out of it.
Well...I got nothing I can really say to that since it is opinion and style of play. To me, failure is part of the game. If things don't go unexpectedly sometimes I don't even see the point of playing. I'm perfectly capable of telling stories where my characters win all the time without D&D's help.
Don't get me wrong rolling a 2, can indeed be frustrating but that goes for D&D as well as any other game. It is no less frustrating to roll a 2 in Warhammer, Exalted or to draw the wrong card in Magic but it is necessary to have the possibility of failure in the game. Personally I find the idea that I'm hidden no matter what I throw even if I miss in insane breach of logic I personally can't get past. How well I'm hidden shouldn't have anything to do with hitting or missing but rather about how good I spot I found to snipe the enemy from. Too many of these win even when you fail mechanics, particularly at low levels, just seem like putting on god mode in a game; briefly thrilling but ultimately dull. Generally speaking I'd prefer not to see these sort of things until around level 10.
However I'm certainly not going to be the guy who tells people they shouldn't enjoy that, if eliminating the odd failure by 2 makes the game more fun for you, then it makes the game better for you. We can argue which is more logical all day but in the end this is a game where people throw fire balls and laugh off arrows to the face, so clearly Fun > Logic as a general rule. I can only speak for myself and the experience I would enjoy most and I think that just differs here.
I also disagree with the OP.
In a contest, say arm wrestling, if one participant has a Str 18 and the other has a Str 9, there should be no roll; the Str 18 character should win hands down, instead of Str 18 (+4 mod) rolling a natural 2 and the Str 9 (-1 mod) winning on a natural 8. That contest just shattered my suspense of disbelief.
There is a difference between simply not being required to roll by the GM, which would be the case here, and succeeding no matter what I roll. In this case the GM should just declare it no contest and move on unless there was some dramatic reason like the warrior was exhausted after fighting his was through hell to get to said arm wrestling contest.
But lets take the concept of success regardless of dice here. So if the character succeeds they slam the strength 9 guys arm into the table where as if they fail they only inch towards victory. What is the point than? Maybe I'm missing it, but having a roll determine if I inch towards victory or not just dominate my foe is pretty pointless which is how I see things like always successful attacks.
If the characters come across a stuck wooden door, the strongest character would push it open (DC 15). Given enough time (i.e. non-combat), a character with Str 18 should be able to open it with out a check. (However, anyone on the other side would be able to set up for an ambush while the strongman batters the door in.) In turn, a thief (such as the one in the playtest with a Dex 17) who decides to pick a cheap lock (DC 11) gets a total of +6 to the check. If he has a sufficient amount of stress-free time (again, non-combat), he should be able to open it without a check as it is only a roll of 5 for him to succeed.
On this point I agree actually, after a fashion, which is why in previous editions one could aways take a 10 on unstressed tasks which I actually like. Or in other game systems rolls such as these do not determine if the character succeeds or not since it should be a matter of determination as opposed to skill but rather how long it takes to complete the task. A character with strength 18 should be able to batter down a door given enough time, but there is a world of difference is just saying "well you are strong so the door just breaks" and making people play it out where dramatically appropriate.
Where we really disagree here (I think) is that I feel the GM should be deciding when it is appropriate to hand wave these things and move the game along vs what we have now which is a mechanic that rewards you for failing (even in the middle of very chaotic or difficult situations were success would be far from assured).
So in summation:
*Is a dice roll an arbitrary thing? Absolutely.
*Are there time when the GM should step in because a roll would be trivial, the system fails to logically address the situation or the PC failing at the task would be ridiculous? Of course.
*Is there a place for these sort of things in the game: Yes and implemented properly I think certainly agree can be very exciting. I was a fan back in 2E when the Kensai had the ability to maximize their damage on attacks a few times a day for example.
*Should a level 3 character be "too good to fail" on every attack they make? Well here I think we disagree.
|
|
|
