Some interesting thoughts here. I have two issues that have come up so far in the current packet:
1) Zombie Fortitude is ridiculously powerful If you run this ability rules-as-written your Zombies can go to one hit point and become invulnerable (especially if the cleric blows turn undead early on in the fight) since - as it's written - the ability allows zombies to continuously recover from the final attack against them. Am I missing something or has anyone else come across this?
2) (I think I'll just disable backgrounds completely if they stay like this in the finished product)
1) We fought a group of 8 zombies and only one of them saved once. If your players are doing very low damage, the zombie will live for a long time. However one good hit from a fighter that looks like 1d10+1d4+5 (Avg damage is 13) and the zombie will fail that save over half the time. Again, with 8 zombies we only had one stay up once.
2) I like the backgrounds and this 'bypass.' It is sorta the point. If something is too heavy, then you should probably think about tweaking it. Otherwise it just adds rp and problem solving abilities.
Currently running a playtest, weekly, online D&D Next Session using a virtual table system called roll20.
I like the backgrounds and this 'bypass.' It is sorta the point. If something is too heavy, then you should probably think about tweaking it. Otherwise it just adds rp and problem solving abilities.
I guess I am too "old school."
To me, "bypass" abilities, auto-success abilities, etc., completely remove RP and problem solving.
If I set them in a seedy town, with dangeorus elements on their tail, subtle currents in the political and religious circles, and detailed NPC personalities to enrich and liven the setting, when the player show's me an "I win" button, a skill or trait that makes all the above inconsiquential, it undermines roleplay and the fun of having a rich environment.
Similarly, if I set up a Tomb of Horrors type dungeon, with logic problems, clever traps, and riddles, only to have another play point to a Auto-Succeed feature, again it's a detriment to the verve of a campaign that isn't just about Attacks vs AC and Damage.
I really don't like this trend to "bypass" DCs, RP, and challenges... and, quite honestly, I think more than a few players prefer to solve the Hobbit Riddle on their own over having it given to them for free.
I could be wrong, or maybe I have a more intellectual group of players, but the majority of them seem to enjoy the chance to think and/or roleplay their way through various trials set before them instead of having the game be decided on whether or not some auto-success feature is in the group.
I just see them as extra resources. I do understand where you're coming from and why it must be frustrating. To me it is a non issue. If your whole campaign is the worry or struggle over food in wilderness, then I get it, disallow guide or change it in some way as appropriate. However, likely that situation doesn't allow the guide to use his ability anyway. If your whole game is about someone figuring out how to get a room at a inn and such, then I get it. Dont' get me wrong, players will still have to role play those environments. They might always be able to find a place to perform, but the quality of that place might depend on role play or dice rolls. Success yes. Degree of success? not so much.
You might always be able to find fruits and berries, but the distance out of the way you might have to go might be larger than you wanted if you make a poor survival roll. Although honestly, I doubt I'd use this one here. The guide has to have been through the area or studied a map of the area to get this nuance.
Okay, so your character knows where to find a bounty board and how to get some information on a bounty. If you don't want them to be able to do that for some particular bounty, don't set that bounty up for them. Last time a character went to a bounty board, they decided against investigating it due to local ruffian types in the area.
I actually find that the backgrounds increase rp, and rp ideas in certain situations. If you want your guild theives to have to roll innuendo checks to talk in secret sign language, so be it. I for one will be using the backgrounds. I love the flavor and don't see the "I don't have to roll" as being the biggest deal. And most of the time it isn't really "I don't have to roll" quite so directly as you have laid it out to be. It 'can' be if you just want to skip past that part of the role play, but it doesn't have to be. Of course, a lot of stuff can be skipped in rp anyway.
I didn't realize that finding an inn or feeding yourself in the wilderness requires thought or roleplay for a group that doesn't want it to require thought or roleplay. It is quite nice to be able to know that you can requsition a horse for borrow as a knight. It makes sense. It doesn't require a roll, you just do it. It makes sense that people are intimidated by known thugs of the underworld who like to hurt others. I wouldn't try to force those guys to pay for food either. Yeah they skip an intimidate check. But so what? That doesn't change the role play of the situation. Just in place of the roll there is an auto success. The degree of that success can still depend on a roll. Which is a lot of what most people do in a group anyway.
As an example, if a player tells a really awesome and convincing story to a person who wants to believe him. He's automatically succeeded. His die roll just tells the degree of his bluff/diplomacy/whatever check.
Currently running a playtest, weekly, online D&D Next Session using a virtual table system called roll20.
I like the backgrounds and this 'bypass.' It is sorta the point. If something is too heavy, then you should probably think about tweaking it. Otherwise it just adds rp and problem solving abilities.
I guess I am too "old school."
To me, "bypass" abilities, auto-success abilities, etc., completely remove RP and problem solving.
If I set them in a seedy town, with dangeorus elements on their tail, subtle currents in the political and religious circles, and detailed NPC personalities to enrich and liven the setting, when the player show's me an "I win" button, a skill or trait that makes all the above inconsiquential, it undermines roleplay and the fun of having a rich environment.
Similarly, if I set up a Tomb of Horrors type dungeon, with logic problems, clever traps, and riddles, only to have another play point to a Auto-Succeed feature, again it's a detriment to the verve of a campaign that isn't just about Attacks vs AC and Damage.
I really don't like this trend to "bypass" DCs, RP, and challenges... and, quite honestly, I think more than a few players prefer to solve the Hobbit Riddle on their own over having it given to them for free.
I could be wrong, or maybe I have a more intellectual group of players, but the majority of them seem to enjoy the chance to think and/or roleplay their way through various trials set before them instead of having the game be decided on whether or not some auto-success feature is in the group.
In addition, in your situations.
seedy town: only the one commoner in your group will be able to get out of that. The rest of the group is on their own luck and rp. If they're all commoners, well, yeah I guess they could all get out. Which would be pretty lame. A group with all the same background. BORING! I'd probably veto that just out of sheer boredom.
other example: hobbit, tomb of horrors, clever traps, logic problems: what background auto solves these? Mabye I missed one that I should be angry about afterall!
Currently running a playtest, weekly, online D&D Next Session using a virtual table system called roll20.
risking earlier comments resurrection, I have to agree with the vast majority of the feedback stated in this thread. Mages are not too weak (aside from the moderately better starting HP), Rogues are way weaker (& did not need to be tweaked or powered down quite so much in my opinion), Sneak Attack is this version is wrecked; please fix it. Expertise dice are an interesting idea but it could slow things down a little bit, especially with newer players. Same goes for the Critical hit rules: it went from far to simple & weak (Max DMG) to a mechanic that changes. The increasing/scaling part of the critical hits it something I like. Much of the faster scaling we saw in earlier versions of the game have been cut back or eliminated entirely (many spells). While I'm not entirely on-board with this I do understantd the math involved and see the logic... it eliminated the "linear fighter vs quadratic mage" dilemma. Keeps classes fairly well balanced.
Skills really can be condensed. Perception, Athletics for Balance, Tumbling, Swimming, etc.
On Guide & Salt of the Earth. Guide first: can't you know how to survive in multiple types of terrain & environments? Look at Army Special Forces, Marine Recon or Navy SEALs; they can survive in practically every environment. Unless running a particular adventure that Survival in an especially harsh environment is part & parcel to the story, why does foraging/trapping/hunting for enough to eat & drink have to take away from the game & role-playing your heroes?? It doesn't & I think that's what the developers had in mind. Same thing with Salt of the Earth. Won't work everywhere, especially, oh, say an elf in an all dwarf town... but otherwise, it's a decent mechaninc for some of the more mundance parts of the game. I always DM that the PCs are the heroes... they don't start out that way but the story is almost entirely centered around them and they need to have a chance to shine.
You guys are right, of course, especially from your more modern point of view. RPGs are much more mechanics oriented and traits that automate or minimize "mundane" or roleplay elements is the norm.
I am, regretably, an ol' grognard type... prone to awful bouts of "remember the days" and perhaps even a smattering of traditionalism mixed in. I loved 4E, but find myself hearkening back to the simpler days of OD&D/AD&D for its facile fun.
So I still look at skills as a roleplaying tool, not a crutch. I look at backgrounds as an opportunity to expand and enrich a character and world, not for mechanics to make play easier or to move the story past the "boring" NPC interactive parts.
I realize that it doesn't quite fit in with a generation that's used to cooldowns on powers that have 100% reliability. Failure is not supposed to be an option if you have and use various features. There's elegance in that as well (and I have enjoyed its application myself).
Ironically, what generated the examination of various EASY BUTTON inclusions in Next didn't come from my critical eye, but from a player in one of my campaigns. He enjoys the Ranger/Scout type, who's outdoor survival skills and adaptability in the wilds is the heart of the roleplay he enjoys most. He was the one who balked most at the idea that a background circumvented the roleplay and design of his character. It was no longer about wise decisions on skill selection and careful consideration on ability score placement. It was all or nothing based on a trait.
Similarly, the clever, from-the-streets Rogue with a Guild Thief background was as a huge disadvantage in her element versus the Commoner Fighter because the street kid didn't have the same auto-win button the common farm boy did.
It's not going to make or break the game and I'm allowing players to use it as they see fit. That said, I'd still rather see traits as more an augmentation than an automation feature within backgrounds.
I've played D&D for over 20 years and never loved 4E.
I find backgrounds increase role play. The limited scope of 'easy buttons' makes the situation not likely to 'ruin' someone's character. Certainly a guide in a hostile environment still needs his survival to survive. But if he's done his homework (which requires RP), at least he can feed and water a party "for free." Except he already had to do the RP rolls to allow this to even happen.
If your guild rogue is at a 'huge disadvantage' because it doesn't have an auto-win in a guilded city, then there are certainly issues. The fighter is also not 'free and clear' just because he found a place to hide. Just like the rogue wouldn't be. The rogue has several avenues to find a hiding place in a guilded city. Sure, he has to make rolls, but he has a lot more options as well once things go south. In addition, when the fighter is convincing commoners to hide him, there are still some rp moments. While the commoners will do so as he is one, who else over hears? What story does he tell? How does he convey the story? There's plenty of work to be done, even if his "diplo" check is an auto-succeed.
I'd love to hear about number of instances where the background has auto-won in an ongoing campign where the entire party is involved. More importantly, how often has the same background trait been involved. Because I feel like backgrounds will increase rp. It hasn't happened in our camps yet. But we haven't traipsed through a wilderness yet (which most certainly would have some auto-wins), or run in our own city yet.
Currently running a playtest, weekly, online D&D Next Session using a virtual table system called roll20.
Playing a Mountain Dwarf Rogue Guide currently and I haven't found the ability to find food for six people inhibitive to my character's role or my roleplaying. In fact quite the opposite. I still have him scout ahead, track suspicious spore, and report back. But now can say I find food along the way, bits here and there. It frees the DM from having to focus what I would consider unneccessary time on finding food by rolling and the consequences of us, I guess, starving in a game that's supposed to be about the characters. In fact we ended up escorting twenty gnomes that we rescued from some orcs and I ended up needing to find food for all of them, by rolling Survival. I felt the Trait: Wanderer empowered me and made me feel more like a compentent Guide then relying on rolling to find food, failing, and then wondering why I am a guide. I really liked the idea that my charcter has an eye for terrain and landmarks also. In short I found none of the Background Traits to be particularly inhibiting to roleplaying but quite the opposite.
As I said, I come from an era that goes as far back as to remember when you didn't even have skills to rely on. It was all imagination generated.
Suffice to say, it wouldn't work today for most, clearly.
I know this probably sounds awful to some, but there has been a few modules in the past where sources of food and water being limited have been a part of the plot, an obstacle to overcome. Again, though, taking away that aspect of the adventure isn't likely to ruin it. There are always other dangers to toss at players.
As for roleplay, it's hard to argue with hyperbole. I never said backgrounds inhibited roleplay. In fact, I am on record as saying the introduction of fairly straightfoward, inspirational background options helped stimulate the little grey cells in most cases. However, like classes (and everything else), just because the majority woks well doesn't mean that within the feature, every single aspect can't be further fine tuned.
At the risk of being criticized for adding unnecessary detail to what's clearly a mundane, useless campaign feature (eating, drinking, keeping track of rations, etc), I am going to offer a possible alternative to the Guide Trait - Wanderer:
As it currently exists Guide Trait - Wanderer: You have an excellent memory for maps and geography and can always recall the general layout of terrain, settlements, and other features around you. In addition, you can find food and fresh water for yourself and up to five other people each day, provided that the land offers berries, small game, water, and so forth.
A possible alternative Guide Trait - Wanderer: You have an excellent memory for maps and geography and can usually recall the general layout of terrain, settlements, and other features around you. In addition, you can typically find food and fresh water for yourself and up to five other people each day, provided that the land offers berries, small game, water, and so forth. Benefit: Nature Lore checks to remember terrain, features, and aspects of local geography and places of distinction are made against an Easy (DC 10) difficulty task. Survival checks to find adequate food and water are Trivial (DC 7) for oneself, with additional food being found to feed others for each point success above 9 to a maximum of 4 additional people (thus, a Survival check score of 12 would feed one plus three additional people). The DM can adjust the DCs accordingly, if circumstances would make either easier or more difficult to succeed at.
Again, before you jump on me for ruining roleplay by introducing possible failure or unnecessary mechanics to the beloved backgrounds, I am just pointing out that it's a possible solution, not a necessary one.
As odd as this sounds, I actually have some players who enjoy the devil in the details. They like having things like keeping track of Arrows, Sling Bullets, and Rations be a part of their characters maintenance. Again, I point to Paul who plays a Fighter with Survival as a background, and he put Wisdom as his second highest score to reflect the character's awareness and attention to detail when it came to practicality. It was he who wanted the element of doubt, skill, and planning to be a part of his characters survival.
I'd have no problem DMing the game as is for all of you who'd prefer to ignore mundane tasks (in fact, I do run at least one campaign where those aspects are completely ignored in favor of more enjoyable aspects to that group of players - quite honestly, my wife strongly dislikes anything that slows down the action or excitement). Even if they introduced possible failure, it wouldn't change my DMing style for groups who don't enjoy minutia - I'd still largly ignore aspects that don't contribute the the enjoyment of the players.
It sounds like, though, they are on the right track with traits that grant infallible benefits. If it keeps players happy and enthusiastic, I am 100% on board and hope they continue to introduce more no-risk traits.
As the guy who's playing a Thug said, "It's great having to never pay for anything ever again." He's certainly having fun smashing down doors and smashing up places because he's got a Bad Reputation. That groups hasn't had to pay for meals, drinks, stays, or damages... ever.
My only thoughts on this two-page side conversation is that in my games "guide" would be useless because we don't track food or water or anything like that. So regardless of whether or not it's an "I win" or "useless," we all agree this type of mechanic needs some tweaking.
It is similar to the idea of the feat that allows double rolls for HP I called out in my first post. This is useless if you don't roll for HP, which is not just an optional rule - it's one of two possible rules. Why account for one and not the other?
