5th. Edition suffers from some of the most terrible decisions in modern game design. What I have just said among them. Making combat so streamlined a wizard can now wield a staff just as proficiently as a fighter.
What?
In 5e, a staff (quarterstaff) is wielded with Strength. Most wizards, even with simple weapons proficiency (which appears to be what you are complaining about), will have a lower STR than most fighters. They will not be as proficient. (Though, they could use the new True Strike cantrip to essentially attack with INT...but that's a magic spell built explicitly for that now.)
Edit: not to mention extra attacks, weapon mastery, and all the other class/subclass features fighters get that make them better with weapons...
You do realize in earlier editions STR also impacted attack and damage rolls were you wielding a staff? (On that point though now any rogue with a Finesse weapon and a DEX as high as that of a fighter of the same level fights as proficiently as that fighter. Same attack and damage bonuses. But also the same proficiency bonuses. It's nonsense. And is bad game design.)
I am talking about how those old tables and then THAC0 accounted for fighters' being naturally better in combat. This is why every class had a different table.
In 5th. Edition a wizard and a fighter get exactly the same proficiency bonus when it comes to wielding a weapon both can use.
It never used to be like that.
Because each class had what was the equivalent of a "proficiency bonus" calculated in to how well the class would perform in combat.
At least some bloody thought was given to how a martial class would obviously improve at a greater rate than a wizard when it came to wielding a weapon both can use.
Have you never in your life opened an old edition?
"There is no reason to do it" is not an argument for why something is bad. They had their reasons.
Oh? What were they?
And note that I'm talking about mechanical reasons. Historical reasons explain how they got there, but they do not actually make the mechanic better.
If you go back and rewrite old D&D so that AC goes up, literally nothing changes. The numbers go up. That's it. No part of the system changes for the better or worse, except that AC is now more intuitive.
That's why I say "there's no reason to do it".
Are there mechanics that could justify it? Sure, but D&D didn't have them, and it'd be a weird mechanic where turning it around couldn't be done. ("We complicated the simple calculation to simplify the complex one" would be a reason.)
Or it wouldn't have been designed that way in the first place. It did not begin with THAC0.
The only time I recall mentioning THAC0 here was to comment that it was backported to the extant system, and also that you could do a THAC0-style calculation for any linear system.
5th. Edition suffers from some of the most terrible decisions in modern game design.
I mean, it's got some bad decisions, but it's reasonably good at what it sets out to do. It also wasn't a modern design ten years ago, and wasn't trying to be. Also, the baggage required by the goal of "be a D&D" probably precludes modern design.
I don't think I've ever seen that explanation before, but it's not implausible.
Never seen that explanation before? I practically gave it earlier in the thread. Mentioning rankings with 1 being better than 2 and so on. A point I had made you kept ignoring to sustain your mantra about how such "bad game design" it was and how there was "no reason" for it.
If you'd ever heard that explanation before, you'd've been arguing it with vigor. And it's still a historical reason why it ended up that way.
Original D&D is both a revolutionary invention and also a mess of a system with lots of bad, questionable, and just plain weird design decisions. Many can be explained by the fact that they were way out in uncharted territory. We've learned a lot since then, and some of the choices that may have made sense at the time turn out to have been bad. They also may well have known some of them were bad at the time, but they didn't have a better idea. Once they started publishing, the choices they made get inertia. They may be bad, but that doesn't mean it's worth the discontinuity of fixing them.
Also, for somebody who wrote:
You will get no such "impassioned defense" from me. I think ascending AC is a thing of beauty.
You're certainly doing your best to defend it.
It is bad game design when a fighter and a wizard wield a weapon both can use as proficiently as one another. STR is moot. What came before at least took that into account. It is why there were different tables for different classes. It is why fighters were really the only class that really advanced in terms of martial prowess. What you call "bad game design" I call game design that had the sense to understand a fighter would improve at a greater rate than a wizard when it came to wielding a weapon both can use. Both those tables and in turn THAC0 and the fact classes advanced at different paces reflected that much more realistically than does 5th. Edition. TSR at least gave some thought to how a character belonging to a class that is martial by nature would fight more proficiently. Wizards' obsession with "balance" and with nursing the sore egos of those who get stroppy when their non-fighter characters can't be as capable as any fighter in combat? Arming as they have wizards with spammable damage? Making any rogue with a high enough DEX and a Finesse weapon in hand practically another fighter? The design team at Wizards spend more time coming up with more and more needless options and second-rate campaign books than they care to spend even a moment wondering to themselves how to simulate combat at least marginally realistically.
You call THAC0 "bad game design" and say that there was "no reason" for it. How 5th. Edition now handles combat is bad game design. For reasons But terrible ones.
Instead, the disappointment of backgrounds as written in the PHB comes from the design direction not being "Build Your Own" as standard, instead suggesting to players (especially to brand new players) "Take one off the shelf, it's easier. Here's a bunch of mechanics, fit your fluff around it." Sure, it is easier, but it's (arguably) not as much fun nor as tailored to a specific backstory. I'd go as far to say that the efficiency gain is not only not worth it, I think it's detrimental; this is exactly where you want a little design friction to slow down your players to think a little more on their background/backstory and then pay that off by allowing them to select each mechanical bit that make sense of their fluff.
I don't disagree in general, but things like that need to be done in collaboration with the DM for the most part, so it's already beyond the scope of what should be presented in the PHB. Even in the example you gave, you had to homebrew an origin feat for the character -- which is great! -- but the PHB needs to provide those "off the shelf" options, for a variety of reasons
If the DMG comes out and there are no rules for custom backgrounds, then my reaction will rise to the level of concerned. Right now, I don't see the limited choices as anything more than a slight inconvenience that can be worked around, as you did
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
"There is no reason to do it" is not an argument for why something is bad. They had their reasons.
Oh? What were they?
And note that I'm talking about mechanical reasons. Historical reasons explain how they got there, but they do not actually make the mechanic better.
If you go back and rewrite old D&D so that AC goes up, literally nothing changes. The numbers go up. That's it. No part of the system changes for the better or worse, except that AC is now more intuitive.
That's why I say "there's no reason to do it".
Are there mechanics that could justify it? Sure, but D&D didn't have them, and it'd be a weird mechanic where turning it around couldn't be done. ("We complicated the simple calculation to simplify the complex one" would be a reason.)
Or it wouldn't have been designed that way in the first place. It did not begin with THAC0.
The only time I recall mentioning THAC0 here was to comment that it was backported to the extant system, and also that you could do a THAC0-style calculation for any linear system.
5th. Edition suffers from some of the most terrible decisions in modern game design.
I mean, it's got some bad decisions, but it's reasonably good at what it sets out to do. It also wasn't a modern design ten years ago, and wasn't trying to be. Also, the baggage required by the goal of "be a D&D" probably precludes modern design.
I don't think I've ever seen that explanation before, but it's not implausible.
Never seen that explanation before? I practically gave it earlier in the thread. Mentioning rankings with 1 being better than 2 and so on. A point I had made you kept ignoring to sustain your mantra about how such "bad game design" it was and how there was "no reason" for it.
If you'd ever heard that explanation before, you'd've been arguing it with vigor. And it's still a historical reason why it ended up that way.
Original D&D is both a revolutionary invention and also a mess of a system with lots of bad, questionable, and just plain weird design decisions. Many can be explained by the fact that they were way out in uncharted territory. We've learned a lot since then, and some of the choices that may have made sense at the time turn out to have been bad. They also may well have known some of them were bad at the time, but they didn't have a better idea. Once they started publishing, the choices they made get inertia. They may be bad, but that doesn't mean it's worth the discontinuity of fixing them.
Also, for somebody who wrote:
You will get no such "impassioned defense" from me. I think ascending AC is a thing of beauty.
You're certainly doing your best to defend it.
It is bad game design when a fighter and a wizard wield a weapon both can use as proficiently as one another. STR is moot. What came before at least took that into account. It is why there were different tables for different classes. It is why fighters were really the only class that really advanced in terms of martial prowess. What you call "bad game design" I call game design that had the sense to understand a fighter would improve at a greater rate than a wizard when it came to wielding a weapon both can use. Both those tables and in turn THAC0 and the fact classes advanced at different paces reflected that much more realistically than does 5th. Edition. TSR at least gave some thought to how a character belonging to a class that is martial by nature would fight more proficiently. Wizards' obsession with "balance" and with nursing the sore egos of those who get stroppy when their non-fighter characters can't be as capable as any fighter in combat? Arming as they have wizards with spammable damage? Making any rogue with a high enough DEX and a Finesse weapon in hand practically another fighter? The design team at Wizards spend more time coming up with more and more needless options and second-rate campaign books than they care to spend even a moment wondering to themselves how to simulate combat at least marginally realistically.
You call THAC0 "bad game design" and say that there was "no reason" for it. How 5th. Edition now handles combat is bad game design. For reasons But terrible ones.
So, instead of pigeonholing via backgrounds, you want pigeonholing of a different, but more acceptable to you kind because...realism....in a game where you can teleport, dragons breathe psychic energy, and space penguins are Ferengi.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
It is bad game design when a fighter and a wizard wield a weapon both can use as proficiently as one another. STR is moot.
What's moot is arguing rules with someone who apparently doesn't even understand the rules they're criticizing
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The question was whether there'd be guidelines or not. Anyways I don't see why DDB wouldn't support them considering how insanely straightforward 2024 backgrounds are. Don't even need custom background benefits any more, just pick 3 abilities + some skills/tools + some starting equipment + 1 origin feat.
The question was whether there'd be guidelines or not. Anyways I don't see why DDB wouldn't support them considering how insanely straightforward 2024 backgrounds are. Don't even need custom background benefits any more, just pick 3 abilities + some skills/tools + some starting equipment + 1 origin feat.
Sure, but most of the time it doesn't actually work in the character creator.
"There is no reason to do it" is not an argument for why something is bad. They had their reasons.
Oh? What were they?
And note that I'm talking about mechanical reasons. Historical reasons explain how they got there, but they do not actually make the mechanic better.
If you go back and rewrite old D&D so that AC goes up, literally nothing changes. The numbers go up. That's it. No part of the system changes for the better or worse, except that AC is now more intuitive.
That's why I say "there's no reason to do it".
Are there mechanics that could justify it? Sure, but D&D didn't have them, and it'd be a weird mechanic where turning it around couldn't be done. ("We complicated the simple calculation to simplify the complex one" would be a reason.)
Or it wouldn't have been designed that way in the first place. It did not begin with THAC0.
The only time I recall mentioning THAC0 here was to comment that it was backported to the extant system, and also that you could do a THAC0-style calculation for any linear system.
5th. Edition suffers from some of the most terrible decisions in modern game design.
I mean, it's got some bad decisions, but it's reasonably good at what it sets out to do. It also wasn't a modern design ten years ago, and wasn't trying to be. Also, the baggage required by the goal of "be a D&D" probably precludes modern design.
I don't think I've ever seen that explanation before, but it's not implausible.
Never seen that explanation before? I practically gave it earlier in the thread. Mentioning rankings with 1 being better than 2 and so on. A point I had made you kept ignoring to sustain your mantra about how such "bad game design" it was and how there was "no reason" for it.
If you'd ever heard that explanation before, you'd've been arguing it with vigor. And it's still a historical reason why it ended up that way.
Original D&D is both a revolutionary invention and also a mess of a system with lots of bad, questionable, and just plain weird design decisions. Many can be explained by the fact that they were way out in uncharted territory. We've learned a lot since then, and some of the choices that may have made sense at the time turn out to have been bad. They also may well have known some of them were bad at the time, but they didn't have a better idea. Once they started publishing, the choices they made get inertia. They may be bad, but that doesn't mean it's worth the discontinuity of fixing them.
Also, for somebody who wrote:
You will get no such "impassioned defense" from me. I think ascending AC is a thing of beauty.
You're certainly doing your best to defend it.
It is bad game design when a fighter and a wizard wield a weapon both can use as proficiently as one another. STR is moot. What came before at least took that into account. It is why there were different tables for different classes. It is why fighters were really the only class that really advanced in terms of martial prowess. What you call "bad game design" I call game design that had the sense to understand a fighter would improve at a greater rate than a wizard when it came to wielding a weapon both can use. Both those tables and in turn THAC0 and the fact classes advanced at different paces reflected that much more realistically than does 5th. Edition. TSR at least gave some thought to how a character belonging to a class that is martial by nature would fight more proficiently. Wizards' obsession with "balance" and with nursing the sore egos of those who get stroppy when their non-fighter characters can't be as capable as any fighter in combat? Arming as they have wizards with spammable damage? Making any rogue with a high enough DEX and a Finesse weapon in hand practically another fighter? The design team at Wizards spend more time coming up with more and more needless options and second-rate campaign books than they care to spend even a moment wondering to themselves how to simulate combat at least marginally realistically.
You call THAC0 "bad game design" and say that there was "no reason" for it. How 5th. Edition now handles combat is bad game design. For reasons But terrible ones.
So, instead of pigeonholing via backgrounds, you want pigeonholing of a different, but more acceptable to you kind because...realism....in a game where you can teleport, dragons breathe psychic energy, and space penguins are Ferengi.
Yeah I'm having a hard time following the logic here.
AD&D and 5th edition are probably the two closest editions of the game in terms of philosophy and design of any other two editions, though I lump 1e and 2e into one game/system, the same as I do with 2014 and 2024 5e.
The key binding philosophies of 5e which AD&D shared are
Bound Accuracy: Both had fixed systems where difficulties do not ramp. Meaning a skill/ability check in 5e at 20th level has the same DC as a skill/ability check at 1st level. This is true about 1e as well, it just did the math differently (roll under instead of over).
Sub-Classes: Both AD&D and 5e believed in sub-classing. In 5e this happens at 3rd level, in AD&D you have kits. The principle behind this design is the same, you have a core class and than you have a specialized version of that class that gives it thematically driven special abilities.
Weapon Mastery: Both systems developed Weapon Mastery for martial classing to specialize them, recognizing the need to allow Martial classes to develop unique combat options as a result of weapon training.
Specialized Defenses (Saving Throws): Both systems have 5 Saving Throws, creating specialized defenses in which classes gain additional benefits making certain classes better at defending different types of magic and effects. In AD&D this was done by having special progression of these defenses by class and level, while in 5e we do this through special abilities. But these two systems are the only ones that have 5 saving throws to broaden the types of effects and defenses to effects possible.
Singular Progress: Both systems have singular progression, meaning that once you create your character, you are on rails. The only exception in 5e is Sub-Class, which you choose at 3rd level rather than 1st level the way you did with kits. Beyond that, there are very few choices you make as you level up, you just "get stuff" at certain levels based on a pre-defined progression. Feats are the only unique element in 5e added as a base rule in revised 2024, but I see this the same as the Optional 2e books like Options & Skills which introduce very similar concepts. A kind of evolution of the system to give players more choices as they progress. In both cases however you can simply choose to play without them.
Now as far as design quality, I don't see how anyone could possibly argue that things like THAC0, Descending Armor Class, Weapon and Non-Weapon Proficiencies, Race-Class-Level restrictions and all that stuff in AD&D was somehow "better design". That's just silly, they were great designs for their time and I certainly have a nostalgic affection for them and I do think there is something to be said about the Archetype philosophy behind them, the setting architecture built into them that keeps AD&D in the tolkeinesque ideology, and the Gygaxian advice for DMing... all great things worth studying and understanding if you want to be a better DM, but better design?
Actually 3rd ed was great. The restrictions there to help make things unique, while also allowing for a stupendous amount of interaction and choice. It also helped to illustrate how each class would progress uniquely, ie different skill pts, how well and often the base attacks you got per round, saving throw progression. Overall, much better than 5e and and certainly 2024 in terms of letting each have its strengths and weaknesses. And multi classing was a whole lot better.
Instead, the disappointment of backgrounds as written in the PHB comes from the design direction not being "Build Your Own" as standard, instead suggesting to players (especially to brand new players) "Take one off the shelf, it's easier. Here's a bunch of mechanics, fit your fluff around it." Sure, it is easier, but it's (arguably) not as much fun nor as tailored to a specific backstory. I'd go as far to say that the efficiency gain is not only not worth it, I think it's detrimental; this is exactly where you want a little design friction to slow down your players to think a little more on their background/backstory and then pay that off by allowing them to select each mechanical bit that make sense of their fluff.
...but things like that need to be done in collaboration with the DM for the most part, so it's already beyond the scope of what should be presented in the PHB. Even in the example you gave, you had to homebrew an origin feat for the character -- which is great! -- but the PHB needs to provide those "off the shelf" options, for a variety of reasons
If the DMG comes out and there are no rules for custom backgrounds, then my reaction will rise to the level of concerned. Right now, I don't see the limited choices as anything more than a slight inconvenience that can be worked around, as you did
Interested in how you phrased: "..but things like that need to be done in collaboration with the DM for the most part, so it's already beyond the scope of what should be presented in the PHB."
Aren't all books within the scope of what the DM can weigh in on? It's not like the PHB is for players only and the DM has no say on the choices within? And even if you don't include the DM in the minutiae of your choices as a player at creation, at some point the player is going to let them know what they're thinking of playing (if no group session 0) — and even then the DM can still weigh in and offer direction: "Hey man, that's like the 3rd wizard in the party... don't you want to play something else to stand out? I'll tell you, there's no tank and there's no healer." or "Yeah, so I totally get you want to be an evil cleric openly worshipping Bane, but for the vibe of this game... we're not going for interparty conflict, everyone else are like clerics and paladins of good gods cos the main bad is this super evil dude, so maybe we can think a little more around this...?" or "Hey, we're deep in the desert... no water for thousands of miles in any direction, so it just doesn't make sense if you're a 22 year old sailor... <beat> unless you can tell me how you got to this desert? Also, there are no big bodies of water in this adventure... were you hoping to be sailing in this adventure and that's why you chose Sailor?"
Isn't character creation always a collaboration/conversation with the GM from the start? Opinion: shouldn't it be?
I haven't been in a group where character creation was wholly done in isolation of the GM (in just about any system... oh wait: shoutout to OG Paranoia where I honestly didn't care as GM what the players chose, chuckle - that game is Chaotic Neutral perfected)... maybe ever in 40 years of running games (#gladly forever GM). My years behind a screen is not meant to say I know any more than my own experience, so I'm sure not collaborating with the GM at character creation does happen (at other tables) and maybe even for good reasons... but for me: Session 0 where everyone knows what's going on, balanced party composition for those campaigns that are a little more demanding, players working together to figure who they can be together, the style of campaign — is it urban, megadungeon, overland, oversea, metaverse... are all things the GM knows that would benefit the players in knowing, when they make their characters. ("There's not going to be a lot of mounted sea horse jousting in this adventure, so choose appropriately ...") or even just those rare campaign restrictions ("Okay everyone, all the gods are dead... no divine magic in this campaign unless it comes from Nature, so choose appropriately...") So, isn't always useful for the GM to be involved in player character creation, even if only to steer that player towards the fun.
Cannot overstate the importance this is never a GM overreach; the players' choices are vital, but if the player is making choices that won't ever see play or work against the style of campaign or accidentally crowd out another player's established vibe, it's really important for the GM to speak above the table and let everyone know so they can choose the things that 1) makes the most sense 2) have the most fun. It's all about managing expectations.
"...homebrew an origin feat for the character."
You give me too much credit. chuckle. I filed off the name "Musician" called it "Cook" and removed musical instrument proficiencies. Also, the player just liked what the feat did and had recently watched an Ember actual play with GCN, which gave her the idea of "can't cooking also be good for the group". My hours in Monster Hunter World agree with her summation. ;) chuckle.
"...DMG comes out and there are no rules for custom backgrounds."
Glass half empty speculation: I'll take a guess that the custom rules for Backgrounds in the DMG are no more than a page, probably less. If they are any more and are somehow more in depth with mechanical game balance guidance, how to make new Origin Feats that fit custom backgrounds, how to theme backgrounds around different campaign styles, why not mix certain abilities across the ASI bonuses, how to make variations of the existing backgrounds, or even guidance on how they made the first 16... awesome, fantastic... totally understand why they kept it separate - Good DM Fodder for campaign/world preparation. But, my inner nerd tells me it's going to be short and simple, perhaps even underwhelming; which if that is indeed the case... if it's so short, why on earth isn't it just in the PHB so that the players have that too? As the DMG is around the corner (and pre-ordered), we'll all know shortly.
Hey, thanks for the nice chat AntonSirius.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Rule for drama. Roll for memories. If there isn't a meaningful failure condition, do not roll. Ever. (Perception checks, I'm .... clunk, roll, roll, roll, stop... 14, looking at you... maybe?)
I dont know man, I try really hard NOT to get involved in what players want to play. My perspective has been: Here are the sources/options available, go ham. If you want help, ideas, advice, etc I am down to give you my best. But if you want to make a super optimized or a super flavorful (not necessarily exclusive but for this lets say they are), I dont mind either way. I do warn people I run my games in the old school mentality, death is going to be a real possibility and so be aware of your choices. Beyond that, I want my players to enjoy themselves. Why have options in the rules or expanded rules if not to be used....seems a waste of lots of creativity and effort.
That all said, I do dont like choices that are simply skins of the same base mechanics or features, or bonuses. Its why I am so disgusted by the new Races/Backgrounds, esp Backgrounds. WAY too generic. It it were up to me, each background would be unique with giving different amounts of ASI, languages, skills, and perks. Well, actually Races would still have the ASIs, but keeping to the 2024 design, you get what I am saying.
I suppose my idea comes down to, as the DM, to give the players the space to make their own choices and be there for when they ask questions. If someone wanted to be a sailor background in a desert campaign, maybe they were captured or sent to prison in the desert far from home. There done. Sure the player needs to know water water wont be a big part of the game, at least at first, but if they are cool and /or really want that sailor background ok go for it.
Actually 3rd ed was great. The restrictions there to help make things unique, while also allowing for a stupendous amount of interaction and choice. It also helped to illustrate how each class would progress uniquely, ie different skill pts, how well and often the base attacks you got per round, saving throw progression. Overall, much better than 5e and and certainly 2024 in terms of letting each have its strengths and weaknesses. And multi classing was a whole lot better.
3e was a fine game, I enjoyed it, but it was way too complicated and had way too many simulationism-focused rules. It was especially hard on DM's. Its like here is a monster, it has 15 different feats and 40 spells, none of which we have listed in the MM, as well 9 different special powers which you can look up in the back of the book and all with rules exceptions. Being a DM in 3e was basically a memorization challenge and the worst part was that there were 15 new splash books released every day and your players bought them and demanded that you add them to the game so they can be X or Y prestige class.
I literally had to make a house rule that no one was allowed to buy splash books without my consent, if you did, it was automatically banned for life no exceptions. It was the only way to get the crap under control. It was actually kind of a nightmare.
Which is why I stressed the "no overreach on the GM's part" - don't help them come up with their idea... but understand what they expect so that you can let them know if their idea is going to be fun in the game you're preparing. They're idea is usually playable or may need just a smidge of post rationalisation ('You were on a boat and then got captured by Sand People") that's good if they can help come up with in-world reasoning to help buy into it, but it's also good to know what they expect their choices to mean in the setting. Let's say a player chose the Noble background with the presumption that they'd be in ballrooms and courts hobnobbing with the rich and famous... when in fact it's more Tomb of Annihilation style with a big megadungeon at the end and the rest of the time is in a foetid, undead riddled jungle filled with blue gas. It's just a quick chat in Session 0 to let them know choosing Noble is totally cool... could be hilarious to see a Noble in the jungle, suffering under all that heat and mud, but this game they're about to play isn't one centred on Game of Thrones court dynamics. If they thought it was, would be good to set them (and everyone) straight. If everyone is on the same page as to the type of thing about to played, it's better for everyone — and that relies on GM participation, usually in a session 0 (when things like class, species and background come up), that's all I'm saying.
If you're playing a Sand Box style game in a generic "everything is On" fantasy setting, with a cast of NPCs to fill in skill gaps, or West March style number of players, and its up to the players to find the plot hooks and adventure threads, then I freely admit that the GM is is less likely to be overly concerned with party composition and campaign-style compatibility. In which case, I'd do what you've outline which is to explain how lethal or not the world is and that it is entirely up to them to explore the world and find the adventure.
Rule for drama. Roll for memories. If there isn't a meaningful failure condition, do not roll. Ever. (Perception checks, I'm .... clunk, roll, roll, roll, stop... 14, looking at you... maybe?)
Actually 3rd ed was great. The restrictions there to help make things unique, while also allowing for a stupendous amount of interaction and choice. It also helped to illustrate how each class would progress uniquely, ie different skill pts, how well and often the base attacks you got per round, saving throw progression. Overall, much better than 5e and and certainly 2024 in terms of letting each have its strengths and weaknesses. And multi classing was a whole lot better.
3e definitely had some positives. For me the save system which 5e largely copies is its downfall. BECMI-2e while I wont say the save system was perfect, the idea in all areas as you progressed you got significantly better at making your saves and it eventually became expected of you as a legendary hero, or for the legendary monsters to make their saves was an important balancing point. Even when monsters with magic resistance, saving on like a 4 people would complain about how a save or die spell ended a boss fight. Now its expected they will fail their save and end a fight so they hamfisted legendary resistances into it instead of fixing the core design flaw or monsters needing to roll a 19 to save as they are weak in wisdom or whatever.
3e definitely had some positives. For me the save system which 5e largely copies is its downfall. BECMI-2e while I wont say the save system was perfect, the idea in all areas as you progressed you got significantly better at making your saves and it eventually became expected of you as a legendary hero, or for the legendary monsters to make their saves was an important balancing point. Even when monsters with magic resistance, saving on like a 4 people would complain about how a save or die spell ended a boss fight. Now its expected they will fail their save and end a fight so they hamfisted legendary resistances into it instead of fixing the core design flaw or monsters needing to roll a 19 to save as they are weak in wisdom or whatever.
That one's at least partly a matter of taste. If high-level monsters are expected to make their saves, then save-or-nothing spells are bad, and will only be tried if the unlikely success results are really good, which leads to a very high variance situation, where neither result is satisfying. If monsters have saving throw strengths and weaknesses, then a well-prepared party can take advantage of that, and be rewarded by making their fights easier.
5e's spells of that type are also generally less powerful -- they're usually an advantage, not a win, because even if you can disable a monster for a round, you can't kill it outright in that time, and they have repeated saves. Legendary resistances both help prevent anticlimax, and give the feel of the enemy having defenses you can burn through. They're not great, but there's probably no good solution -- once you have disabling spells, it's nearly impossible to strike the right balance between "they don't work" and "you just win now". (And it probably can't be solved at all outside of a single table -- play styles and group mixes are too varied.)
As for players, the varying strengths and weaknesses in character saving throws are the balancing factor. It allows enemies to have mass-disabling effects where they are dramatic and useful, but not TPK. Some of the PCs will still be standing, and they can scramble to hold out until their friends recover. (And, if they're well-prepared, help them do so.)
At least some bloody thought was given to how a martial class would obviously improve at a greater rate than a wizard when it came to wielding a weapon both can use.
Why is that obvious? Classes in general aren't realistic, and realistic training has enough diminishing returns that the specialist often improves slower than the novice (just from a much higher baseline), and the higher baseline is mostly represented via stats in D&D. D&D is at best accidentally related to reality, the point is to provide engaging gameplay (which is a reasonable aesthetic argument, but that's all it is).
At least some bloody thought was given to how a martial class would obviously improve at a greater rate than a wizard when it came to wielding a weapon both can use.
Why is that obvious? Classes in general aren't realistic, and realistic training has enough diminishing returns that the specialist often improves slower than the novice (just from a much higher baseline), and the higher baseline is mostly represented via stats in D&D. D&D is at best accidentally related to reality, the point is to provide engaging gameplay (which is a reasonable aesthetic argument, but that's all it is).
Also, if wizards were actually as capable with weapons as martials were, we'd see wizards fighting with weapons a lot more often than we do. But there's more to the combat system than that one number, so we don't.
Some of the abilities assigned to the backgrounds don’t even really make sense thematically. Noble’s, who notoriously don’t do manual labor have STR (rather than DEX, perhaps). Sailors don’t have CON? Acolyte, which I envision as a cloistered religious scholar, have CHA?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You do realize in earlier editions STR also impacted attack and damage rolls were you wielding a staff? (On that point though now any rogue with a Finesse weapon and a DEX as high as that of a fighter of the same level fights as proficiently as that fighter. Same attack and damage bonuses. But also the same proficiency bonuses. It's nonsense. And is bad game design.)
I am talking about how those old tables and then THAC0 accounted for fighters' being naturally better in combat. This is why every class had a different table.
In 5th. Edition a wizard and a fighter get exactly the same proficiency bonus when it comes to wielding a weapon both can use.
It never used to be like that.
Because each class had what was the equivalent of a "proficiency bonus" calculated in to how well the class would perform in combat.
At least some bloody thought was given to how a martial class would obviously improve at a greater rate than a wizard when it came to wielding a weapon both can use.
Have you never in your life opened an old edition?
It is bad game design when a fighter and a wizard wield a weapon both can use as proficiently as one another. STR is moot. What came before at least took that into account. It is why there were different tables for different classes. It is why fighters were really the only class that really advanced in terms of martial prowess. What you call "bad game design" I call game design that had the sense to understand a fighter would improve at a greater rate than a wizard when it came to wielding a weapon both can use. Both those tables and in turn THAC0 and the fact classes advanced at different paces reflected that much more realistically than does 5th. Edition. TSR at least gave some thought to how a character belonging to a class that is martial by nature would fight more proficiently. Wizards' obsession with "balance" and with nursing the sore egos of those who get stroppy when their non-fighter characters can't be as capable as any fighter in combat? Arming as they have wizards with spammable damage? Making any rogue with a high enough DEX and a Finesse weapon in hand practically another fighter? The design team at Wizards spend more time coming up with more and more needless options and second-rate campaign books than they care to spend even a moment wondering to themselves how to simulate combat at least marginally realistically.
You call THAC0 "bad game design" and say that there was "no reason" for it. How 5th. Edition now handles combat is bad game design. For reasons But terrible ones.
I don't disagree in general, but things like that need to be done in collaboration with the DM for the most part, so it's already beyond the scope of what should be presented in the PHB. Even in the example you gave, you had to homebrew an origin feat for the character -- which is great! -- but the PHB needs to provide those "off the shelf" options, for a variety of reasons
If the DMG comes out and there are no rules for custom backgrounds, then my reaction will rise to the level of concerned. Right now, I don't see the limited choices as anything more than a slight inconvenience that can be worked around, as you did
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
They're going to be in the DMG, it gets brought up at the 8 minute mark of the DDB video on character origins.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
So, instead of pigeonholing via backgrounds, you want pigeonholing of a different, but more acceptable to you kind because...realism....in a game where you can teleport, dragons breathe psychic energy, and space penguins are Ferengi.
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
What's moot is arguing rules with someone who apparently doesn't even understand the rules they're criticizing
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
That doesn't mean DNDBeyond will support it. He just said that they can work with their DM to come up with something unique. Well....duh.
The question was whether there'd be guidelines or not. Anyways I don't see why DDB wouldn't support them considering how insanely straightforward 2024 backgrounds are. Don't even need custom background benefits any more, just pick 3 abilities + some skills/tools + some starting equipment + 1 origin feat.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Sure, but most of the time it doesn't actually work in the character creator.
Yeah I'm having a hard time following the logic here.
AD&D and 5th edition are probably the two closest editions of the game in terms of philosophy and design of any other two editions, though I lump 1e and 2e into one game/system, the same as I do with 2014 and 2024 5e.
The key binding philosophies of 5e which AD&D shared are
Now as far as design quality, I don't see how anyone could possibly argue that things like THAC0, Descending Armor Class, Weapon and Non-Weapon Proficiencies, Race-Class-Level restrictions and all that stuff in AD&D was somehow "better design". That's just silly, they were great designs for their time and I certainly have a nostalgic affection for them and I do think there is something to be said about the Archetype philosophy behind them, the setting architecture built into them that keeps AD&D in the tolkeinesque ideology, and the Gygaxian advice for DMing... all great things worth studying and understanding if you want to be a better DM, but better design?
That is a real stretch.
Actually 3rd ed was great. The restrictions there to help make things unique, while also allowing for a stupendous amount of interaction and choice. It also helped to illustrate how each class would progress uniquely, ie different skill pts, how well and often the base attacks you got per round, saving throw progression. Overall, much better than 5e and and certainly 2024 in terms of letting each have its strengths and weaknesses. And multi classing was a whole lot better.
Interested in how you phrased: "..but things like that need to be done in collaboration with the DM for the most part, so it's already beyond the scope of what should be presented in the PHB."
Aren't all books within the scope of what the DM can weigh in on? It's not like the PHB is for players only and the DM has no say on the choices within? And even if you don't include the DM in the minutiae of your choices as a player at creation, at some point the player is going to let them know what they're thinking of playing (if no group session 0) — and even then the DM can still weigh in and offer direction: "Hey man, that's like the 3rd wizard in the party... don't you want to play something else to stand out? I'll tell you, there's no tank and there's no healer." or "Yeah, so I totally get you want to be an evil cleric openly worshipping Bane, but for the vibe of this game... we're not going for interparty conflict, everyone else are like clerics and paladins of good gods cos the main bad is this super evil dude, so maybe we can think a little more around this...?" or "Hey, we're deep in the desert... no water for thousands of miles in any direction, so it just doesn't make sense if you're a 22 year old sailor... <beat> unless you can tell me how you got to this desert? Also, there are no big bodies of water in this adventure... were you hoping to be sailing in this adventure and that's why you chose Sailor?"
Isn't character creation always a collaboration/conversation with the GM from the start? Opinion: shouldn't it be?
I haven't been in a group where character creation was wholly done in isolation of the GM (in just about any system... oh wait: shoutout to OG Paranoia where I honestly didn't care as GM what the players chose, chuckle - that game is Chaotic Neutral perfected)... maybe ever in 40 years of running games (#gladly forever GM). My years behind a screen is not meant to say I know any more than my own experience, so I'm sure not collaborating with the GM at character creation does happen (at other tables) and maybe even for good reasons... but for me: Session 0 where everyone knows what's going on, balanced party composition for those campaigns that are a little more demanding, players working together to figure who they can be together, the style of campaign — is it urban, megadungeon, overland, oversea, metaverse... are all things the GM knows that would benefit the players in knowing, when they make their characters. ("There's not going to be a lot of mounted sea horse jousting in this adventure, so choose appropriately ...") or even just those rare campaign restrictions ("Okay everyone, all the gods are dead... no divine magic in this campaign unless it comes from Nature, so choose appropriately...") So, isn't always useful for the GM to be involved in player character creation, even if only to steer that player towards the fun.
Cannot overstate the importance this is never a GM overreach; the players' choices are vital, but if the player is making choices that won't ever see play or work against the style of campaign or accidentally crowd out another player's established vibe, it's really important for the GM to speak above the table and let everyone know so they can choose the things that 1) makes the most sense 2) have the most fun. It's all about managing expectations.
"...homebrew an origin feat for the character."
You give me too much credit. chuckle. I filed off the name "Musician" called it "Cook" and removed musical instrument proficiencies. Also, the player just liked what the feat did and had recently watched an Ember actual play with GCN, which gave her the idea of "can't cooking also be good for the group". My hours in Monster Hunter World agree with her summation. ;) chuckle.
"...DMG comes out and there are no rules for custom backgrounds."
Glass half empty speculation: I'll take a guess that the custom rules for Backgrounds in the DMG are no more than a page, probably less. If they are any more and are somehow more in depth with mechanical game balance guidance, how to make new Origin Feats that fit custom backgrounds, how to theme backgrounds around different campaign styles, why not mix certain abilities across the ASI bonuses, how to make variations of the existing backgrounds, or even guidance on how they made the first 16... awesome, fantastic... totally understand why they kept it separate - Good DM Fodder for campaign/world preparation. But, my inner nerd tells me it's going to be short and simple, perhaps even underwhelming; which if that is indeed the case... if it's so short, why on earth isn't it just in the PHB so that the players have that too? As the DMG is around the corner (and pre-ordered), we'll all know shortly.
Hey, thanks for the nice chat AntonSirius.
Rule for drama. Roll for memories.
If there isn't a meaningful failure condition, do not roll. Ever. (Perception checks, I'm .... clunk, roll, roll, roll, stop... 14, looking at you... maybe?)
I dont know man, I try really hard NOT to get involved in what players want to play. My perspective has been: Here are the sources/options available, go ham. If you want help, ideas, advice, etc I am down to give you my best. But if you want to make a super optimized or a super flavorful (not necessarily exclusive but for this lets say they are), I dont mind either way. I do warn people I run my games in the old school mentality, death is going to be a real possibility and so be aware of your choices. Beyond that, I want my players to enjoy themselves. Why have options in the rules or expanded rules if not to be used....seems a waste of lots of creativity and effort.
That all said, I do dont like choices that are simply skins of the same base mechanics or features, or bonuses. Its why I am so disgusted by the new Races/Backgrounds, esp Backgrounds. WAY too generic. It it were up to me, each background would be unique with giving different amounts of ASI, languages, skills, and perks. Well, actually Races would still have the ASIs, but keeping to the 2024 design, you get what I am saying.
I suppose my idea comes down to, as the DM, to give the players the space to make their own choices and be there for when they ask questions. If someone wanted to be a sailor background in a desert campaign, maybe they were captured or sent to prison in the desert far from home. There done. Sure the player needs to know water water wont be a big part of the game, at least at first, but if they are cool and /or really want that sailor background ok go for it.
3e was a fine game, I enjoyed it, but it was way too complicated and had way too many simulationism-focused rules. It was especially hard on DM's. Its like here is a monster, it has 15 different feats and 40 spells, none of which we have listed in the MM, as well 9 different special powers which you can look up in the back of the book and all with rules exceptions. Being a DM in 3e was basically a memorization challenge and the worst part was that there were 15 new splash books released every day and your players bought them and demanded that you add them to the game so they can be X or Y prestige class.
I literally had to make a house rule that no one was allowed to buy splash books without my consent, if you did, it was automatically banned for life no exceptions. It was the only way to get the crap under control. It was actually kind of a nightmare.
Yeah, totally shadow_2099. I don't disagree.
Which is why I stressed the "no overreach on the GM's part" - don't help them come up with their idea... but understand what they expect so that you can let them know if their idea is going to be fun in the game you're preparing. They're idea is usually playable or may need just a smidge of post rationalisation ('You were on a boat and then got captured by Sand People") that's good if they can help come up with in-world reasoning to help buy into it, but it's also good to know what they expect their choices to mean in the setting. Let's say a player chose the Noble background with the presumption that they'd be in ballrooms and courts hobnobbing with the rich and famous... when in fact it's more Tomb of Annihilation style with a big megadungeon at the end and the rest of the time is in a foetid, undead riddled jungle filled with blue gas. It's just a quick chat in Session 0 to let them know choosing Noble is totally cool... could be hilarious to see a Noble in the jungle, suffering under all that heat and mud, but this game they're about to play isn't one centred on Game of Thrones court dynamics. If they thought it was, would be good to set them (and everyone) straight. If everyone is on the same page as to the type of thing about to played, it's better for everyone — and that relies on GM participation, usually in a session 0 (when things like class, species and background come up), that's all I'm saying.
If you're playing a Sand Box style game in a generic "everything is On" fantasy setting, with a cast of NPCs to fill in skill gaps, or West March style number of players, and its up to the players to find the plot hooks and adventure threads, then I freely admit that the GM is is less likely to be overly concerned with party composition and campaign-style compatibility. In which case, I'd do what you've outline which is to explain how lethal or not the world is and that it is entirely up to them to explore the world and find the adventure.
Rule for drama. Roll for memories.
If there isn't a meaningful failure condition, do not roll. Ever. (Perception checks, I'm .... clunk, roll, roll, roll, stop... 14, looking at you... maybe?)
3e definitely had some positives. For me the save system which 5e largely copies is its downfall. BECMI-2e while I wont say the save system was perfect, the idea in all areas as you progressed you got significantly better at making your saves and it eventually became expected of you as a legendary hero, or for the legendary monsters to make their saves was an important balancing point. Even when monsters with magic resistance, saving on like a 4 people would complain about how a save or die spell ended a boss fight. Now its expected they will fail their save and end a fight so they hamfisted legendary resistances into it instead of fixing the core design flaw or monsters needing to roll a 19 to save as they are weak in wisdom or whatever.
That one's at least partly a matter of taste. If high-level monsters are expected to make their saves, then save-or-nothing spells are bad, and will only be tried if the unlikely success results are really good, which leads to a very high variance situation, where neither result is satisfying. If monsters have saving throw strengths and weaknesses, then a well-prepared party can take advantage of that, and be rewarded by making their fights easier.
5e's spells of that type are also generally less powerful -- they're usually an advantage, not a win, because even if you can disable a monster for a round, you can't kill it outright in that time, and they have repeated saves. Legendary resistances both help prevent anticlimax, and give the feel of the enemy having defenses you can burn through. They're not great, but there's probably no good solution -- once you have disabling spells, it's nearly impossible to strike the right balance between "they don't work" and "you just win now". (And it probably can't be solved at all outside of a single table -- play styles and group mixes are too varied.)
As for players, the varying strengths and weaknesses in character saving throws are the balancing factor. It allows enemies to have mass-disabling effects where they are dramatic and useful, but not TPK. Some of the PCs will still be standing, and they can scramble to hold out until their friends recover. (And, if they're well-prepared, help them do so.)
Why is that obvious? Classes in general aren't realistic, and realistic training has enough diminishing returns that the specialist often improves slower than the novice (just from a much higher baseline), and the higher baseline is mostly represented via stats in D&D. D&D is at best accidentally related to reality, the point is to provide engaging gameplay (which is a reasonable aesthetic argument, but that's all it is).
Also, if wizards were actually as capable with weapons as martials were, we'd see wizards fighting with weapons a lot more often than we do. But there's more to the combat system than that one number, so we don't.
Some of the abilities assigned to the backgrounds don’t even really make sense thematically. Noble’s, who notoriously don’t do manual labor have STR (rather than DEX, perhaps). Sailors don’t have CON? Acolyte, which I envision as a cloistered religious scholar, have CHA?