|
9 months ago ::
Sep 17, 2012 - 6:21AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
Backgrounds - which ought to work similarly, but also come with a trait - are more problematic.
At present, I think that although you can pick and choose your skills, you only get the trait if you take the background. I don't have a problem with that (it can be argued that cherrypicking skills makes for a stronger character and that counters the loss of the trait). Especially since the background traits are generally roleplaying/ interactive hooks, not mechanical advantages.
To be honest I can't really find anything in any of the traits that a DM wouldn't probably do anyway in the name of advancing the story. I'm often confused at why some people will let their players sit there and flounder about for more than ten minutes before throwing them a bone so the game can move forward. From my experience playing with the material, the best use of traits is to give the DM some direction about who gets what information and what players will shine where. If none of the players have any trait that will help them in a given situation then it's likely the DM will create a hook that uses a trait they do have or they'll invent an encounter that pushes the players in the direction they want them to go. Someone new to DMing would probably be greatful for the help and someone new to playing can latch on to it for flavour. *thumbs up*
Multi-class will come in a few packets, and they're looking at restructuring it quite a bit.
Heh my group have all ready started to multiclass with the packets we've got now, 3rd ed style. I've got one player doing a cleric/fighter and another doing a fighter/rogue. It actually works pretty well; I'm interested to see what plans they have for casters.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 17, 2012 - 6:36AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Jul 15, 2008
|
Well, Traits as part of Backgrounds, I think, are a very good addition to the character sheet in many ways. First of all, it negotiates the lack of 'Profession' skills that we saw in 4e. Of course, in 3e/3.5, who the heck honestly spent points into Profession beyond maybe first level? Unless you suddenly took to being a sailor (and made that an important part of the whole campaign), it was a pretty 'useless' skill, and it was hard to justify putting skill points into them, especially if you were a class with very little skill points to begin with.
So, now, we all can have 'professions' of things characters did before the Call to Adventure, or what have you. It's not necessarily a mechanical benefit, but it's still something PC's can chunk in their toolbox. The Cleric of Pelor in my game has called on his Temple Services a few times now, and sure, the DM could have negotiated that benefit with the players eventually, but PC's like having that kind of power at their disposal.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 17, 2012 - 6:46AM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
oh yeah it's cool that these things don't require some kind of investment that makes people resent them. Temple services and their ilk are probably the most useful stuff to be had, where knowing where to find information is probably going to be game driven anyway and so is kinda redundant. I think it'd be pretty easy to divorce the traits from the skill selection almost entirely and just let players pick the one that suits their dudes. One could stipulate that they have to take one of the skills listed in the background to qualify so you don't find yourself with a whole lot of people rocking up for free stuff (heals, shelter, food, servants) without actually having any related skills from their supposed past. Then again, I could see how that'd be a source of conflict. Say you're a noble who shirked your responsibility and you've got servants but actually, they're your older brother's servants sent to keep an eye on you. Sure they'll do as they're told but you also get to deal with the friction of being watched as the bad egg of the family. My inclination is to leave it loose and crush players that decide to use it as a free ride.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 17, 2012 - 6:57AM
#14
|
|
|
While I have yet to have a strong opinion either way concerning advantages & disadvantages, I have found the backgrounds and specialities concept to be somewhat reminiscent of the spirit of kits from 2E, which I always thought was an innovative and fun idea.
I've never really played 2e PnP but I LOVED the kit system when I used it in Baldur's Gate, its what I wished the did with the "essentials" sub-classes in 4e
On the other hand I dislike the feat/skill auto-selecting bits but if I'm interpreting the situation correctly its just an optional thing
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 17, 2012 - 7:15AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2011
|
I think that Advantage/Disadvantage is an excellent mechanic that can add a lot the game, but it is a mechanic that everyone really has to get used to. For DMs especially, it seems that granting advantage/disadvantage is tantamount to saying..."I really expect that your should be able to pull this off...give it a go." As such, it should speed up play and keep the narrative of the game flowing more smoothly.
Although you didn't mention this in your original post, I see Skill Mastery functioning in a similar manner, to speed up play and keep the narrative of the game flowing. Skill Mastery, like Advantage/Disadvantage is basically saying ..."I really expect that your should be able to pull this off...don't sweat it." If for some reason, the DM needs to make it more difficult for the rogue, the DC can be set at 20. This may throw up a speed bump or road block that the PCs need to overcome in another way.
I'm all for ways to make the game move quicker and more fluidly.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 17, 2012 - 7:27AM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Dec 20, 2011
|
Personally I love the simplicity of advantage / disadvantage but its still in its early stages with some hiccups in combinations.
It promotes simplicity and how often its handed out can be mostly DM fiat if need be.
As for backgrounds and specialities, they can be chopped and changed, Mike Mearls said this somewhere, though I'm awful at finding citation. This is a temporary stop gap to give people a feel for the beginning classes (and a great way to railroad us into playtesting certain things).
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 17, 2012 - 8:33AM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
It's interesting how a way to railroad us into playtesting things is also a good tool for teaching beginners how to play.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 18, 2012 - 6:13PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Jan 24, 2006
|
Wow, thanks for all the great info everyone!
So, from the gist of what everyone's saying, Backgrounds are essentially the game picking skills for you and giving you the useless/you'd have it anyway things in the game such as: crafting, proffessions, knowledge skills, and the fact your fighter used to be a blacksmith.
Also, it appears Specialties are just prepackaged feats you'd be better off power wise 'picking yourself'. Also, someone mentioned you could easily cut out both Backgrounds and Specialties.
If all the above is correct, my follow up question would probably be: if everything was implied anyway, and they can all be chucked out with no ill-effect, why do we have them? It appears to be for 'flavor'. If their purpose is for new players, or to hash out 'minor' background things the players might have (like being a former blacksmith) then that's pretty cool! Essentially, we've probably been doing that in my game groups for years. I probably misinterpreted them as 'full fledged' parts of the game and integral to play when they might not be. I actually think the game might benefit from making specialties and backgrounds a more 'solid' choice in the game and more integral to play, kind of like classes and races. They certainly get equal page space on the character sheet.
About Advantage/Disadvantage
It sounds like they're a nifty addition which speeds up play. However, this goes against all of my instincts. For some strange reason I get the feeling they'll completely cause havok, loss of valuable game time, and randomness for no reason in my games.
Yes, you could just roll 2 d20s at the same time, but it'll always be fractionally slower than just rolling one and with the amount of dice rolling usually occuring that can really add up. On top of that, the whole point of rolling a d20 is to get a random result. If the GM wants to skew the results he can just go +10/-10 as he sees fit. I know someone said they didn't like the margins in the game (+2/-1) and I totally agree! The escalating bonuses in previous editions really messed around with the d20 roll almost making it a moot point. That'ls why I like the +7 skill cap so much.
However, assuming the margins are actually reasonable (like below +10 at highest level) I think the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic could much more effectively be replaced by +10/-10 or whatever. If, on the other hand, d20 rolls are to continue to be outrageously whacked out by ridiculous modifiers I can start to see where just about anything would look better than another +2 tacked on (including Advantage/Disadvantage).
Basically, what I'm trying to say is, if the game is similar to the past couple of editions then, yes, Advantage/Disadvantage would be highly effective in curtailing some of the insane curve of bonuses. If the curve is more reasonable, it just seems like a lot of extra work and hassle to me.
The whole point of rolling 1d20 is to get a random result. If you consider the spectrum of all probability to lie on 1d20 from 5 to 100% then throwing in an extra d20 roll just messes things up. If you consider a d20 roll to be on an infinite scale of 'bonuses' then the extra d20 roll is more of a minor factor. However, if the d20 roll is such a minor factor, why do we have it?
***
Anyway, thanks for the great feedback! I learned a lot about how Backgrounds/Specialties/Advantage and Disadvantage were supposed to work.
--David
David L. Dostaler
Author, Challenger RPG (free)
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 18, 2012 - 6:17PM
#19
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
why is it ridiculous for a dwarf fighter to have the magic-user specialty?
Yeah. What?
If all the above is correct, my follow up question would probably be: if everything was implied anyway, and they can all be chucked out with no ill-effect, why do we have them?
For the same reason instant mashed potatoes exists.
Not everyone has the patience to spend several hours carefully piecing together a character.
Race, Class, Background, Specialty. Play!
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 18, 2012 - 6:30PM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
Wow, thanks for all the great info everyone!
So, from the gist of what everyone's saying, Backgrounds are essentially the game picking skills for you and giving you the useless/you'd have it anyway things in the game such as: crafting, proffessions, knowledge skills, and the fact your fighter used to be a blacksmith.
Also, it appears Specialties are just prepackaged feats you'd be better off power wise 'picking yourself'. Also, someone mentioned you could easily cut out both Backgrounds and Specialties.
If all the above is correct, my follow up question would probably be: if everything was implied anyway, and they can all be chucked out with no ill-effect, why do we have them?
To enable new players and those who don't want to bother hand-crafting their characters to quickly and easily select a specialty to give them what they need to play the particular type of character they want to play.
It is a convenience not a way to make your character Uber.
About Advantage/Disadvantage
It sounds like they're a nifty addition which speeds up play. However, this goes against all of my instincts. For some strange reason I get the feeling they'll completely cause havok, loss of valuable game time, and randomness for no reason in my games.
Yes, you could just roll 2 d20s at the same time, but it'll always be fractionally slower than just rolling one and with the amount of dice rolling usually occuring that can really add up. On top of that, the whole point of rolling a d20 is to get a random result. If the GM wants to skew the results he can just go +10/-10 as he sees fit. I know someone said they didn't like the margins in the game (+2/-1) and I totally agree! The escalating bonuses in previous editions really messed around with the d20 roll almost making it a moot point. That'ls why I like the +7 skill cap so much.
However, assuming the margins are actually reasonable (like below +10 at highest level) I think the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic could much more effectively be replaced by +10/-10 or whatever. If, on the other hand, d20 rolls are to continue to be outrageously whacked out by ridiculous modifiers I can start to see where just about anything would look better than another +2 tacked on (including Advantage/Disadvantage).
The advantage of advantage is nowhere near +/-10.
It is a variable bonus which ranges from +/-5 if you need a 10 to hit to around +/- 1 at the extremes (you hit ona 2 or you only miss on a 19). It also 'plays nice' with bounded accuracy - which giving numerical bonuses does not.
For these reasons it is actually mathematically superior to a large numerical bonus.
It also, in my expeirence, takes less time than adding bonuses - or at least not significantly more time.
It is also, in my experience, more fun/ more satisfying than just adding numbers onto the roll.
For these reasons I prefer advantage as a mechanic. In fact, I and several others have been exploring ways to extend the principle of the advantage mechanic (choose the better/worse die) to replace the smaller bonuses and penalties (half cover, buffs, etc) that remain in the game.
The whole point of rolling 1d20 is to get a random result. If you consider the spectrum of all probability to lie on 1d20 from 5 to 100% then throwing in an extra d20 roll just messes things up. If you consider a d20 roll to be on an infinite scale of 'bonuses' then the extra d20 roll is more of a minor factor. However, if the d20 roll is such a minor factor, why do we have it?
It doesn't 'mess it up'. It changes it in a predicatable way that makes the character far more likely to succed on 50/50 attempts and less more liikely (?) to succeed on very difficult attempts. It is also, btw, mathematically identical to granting a reroll on a miss (or - as with 4E halflings - forcing a reroll on a hit) - but faster.
Give advantage a fair shot and then decide whether or not you like it. It's more appealing than you might expect.
Related aside: At our last Encounters session one of the players (who does not play 5N and was unaware of the 5N mechanics) said something to the effect of: "Wouldn't it be cool if combat advantage let you roll two dice and keep the highest one". Really.
Carl
|
|
|
