Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;771048I was really excited about the Basic download... but this and the grotesque HP inflation seen in the Starter Set (The typical ogre has 59 HP? The typical goblin 7?) are really starting to turn me back towards Labyrinth Lord.

The PCs are doing more damage overall. I did a commentary a few weeks ago about our run in with an Ogre during the playtest. He went down very fast to three characters.

So in general it balances out some.

For reference.
AD&D Ogre: 4d8+1 (19) HD, 1d10 damage. vs PCs doing on average 1d6 damage each. Down in about 2-3 rounds to a 4 person group.
Next Ogre: 5d10+5 (32) HD, 2d8+4 damage vs PCs doing anywhere from a d6 to a d12 of damage each. Down in about 2-3 rounds to a 4 person group.
5e Ogre: 7d10+21 (59) HD, 2d8+4 damage vs d6 to d12. Down in about 3-4 rounds.

.

As feats in 3.x and 4e tended (far too often for me, but then once is far too often for me) to silo off abilities that I thought ANY character should be able to attempt (limiting them to those who took the feat so that those who took the feat got there "money's worth), should I run 5e, feats will not be used unless none of the ones listed WOTC publications do this. Feats should not limit characters in general just so someone who takes a feat can feel their character is special.

IMHO, feats, if used in a game at all, should be limited to adding a bonus to attempts to do things that any characters should be able to try to do with any chance of success above zero or adding abilities that sim,ply cannot be attempted with a non-zero chance of success with special training or special inborn abilities.  These limitations do not seem to go over well with those who love feats, however. From what i seen online and been told by those who like feats offline, they tend to loathe feats that just give a bonus to doing X instead of making it so only characters with feat X can do X.

I'm awaiting the 5e PH and DMG to see how feats are handled both from player facing rules and from advice to the GM.  Given WOTC's track record with feats, however, I suspect that even if they do not silo off everyman abilities in the core rules, they soon will in supplements.

You know, thinking about esthetics of design... I think what I'd like is feats allowing special stuff to happen, or to bundle efforts.

Like a feat that lets you, say, do damage when tripping, or bull rush AND disarm. Or 'if someone attacks you with a weapon and misses, you can take an immediate riposte (AoO).'

Quote from: Will;771221Like a feat that lets you, say, do damage when tripping, or bull rush AND disarm. Or 'if someone attacks you with a weapon and misses, you can take an immediate riposte (AoO).'

All of these are things I would say anyone physically able could try to do with greater than zero chance of success. Therefore I would not welcome them as feats that only those who have taken the required feat can even try to do without upsetting players who took the feat.

IMHO, siloing off combat maneuvers as feats in 3.x is one of the things that lead to the weakening of fighting classes.

Well, either feats let you do things, or they give you bonuses. If they give you bonuses, either they are significant, in which case not having a feat is almost as bad as not being able to do it at all, or they are no very significant, at which point why bother.

I suppose one other way you could do feats is getting some special side bonus when you do certain things, like 'every time you disarm someone, you get Inspiration/XP' or something.

Quote from: Will;771226I suppose one other way you could do feats is getting some special side bonus when you do certain things, like 'every time you disarm someone, you get Inspiration/XP' or something.

I like this idea. Maybe some could be more abstract too, like "when you fight dirty" or "when you take damage while protecting someone or something from harm". That sort of thing. Less about what you CAN do and more about HOW you do things.

Quote from: David Johansen;770893Personally, there's still too many types of objects running around in D&D.  I'd rather see, feats, class, and racial abilities unified as a single object type.  But then I'm a big GURPS fan.

Agreed. Why not just call them all special abilities and treat them the same way?

Quote from: JonWake;770983Minmaxers push the design space of a game to their directions. 3e was a minmaxer's paradise, and though they were never a large contingent, they were loud and persistent. WoTC listened to their complaints and view of the game and created a balanced version that would let the min maxers screw around to their heart's content. However, to account for all the ways someone could break the game, the design space got smaller and smaller. The design tolerances got tighter and tighter.

And since minimaxers tend to not be especially imaginative gamers (assuming they even played the game), builds were all optimized for combat. That led to encount3rdization, and, eventually, 4E.

Quote from: Raven;771076I keep seeing people wanting to turn 5e into B/X or AD&D and I've even caught myself thinking about various ways to nudge it in those directions but in the end I have to remind myself that I already own those games, and derivatives like ACKS, that fully support the old school style of play that I enjoy. So do I really want 5e to do the same thing as those games, or do I want to play 5e for a different experience?

Yeah, there's a point at which you're better off just sticking to a previous iteration of the game. 5E is a new edition. It's going to be different from B/X (and AD&D, 3E, 4E, etc.).

Quote from: RandallS;771225All of these are things I would say anyone physically able could try to do with greater than zero chance of success. Therefore I would not welcome them as feats that only those who have taken the required feat can even try to do without upsetting players who took the feat.

IMHO, siloing off combat maneuvers as feats in 3.x is one of the things that lead to the weakening of fighting classes.

I agree I like how fighting maneuvers in 5e are either open or class features of the fighter which are accessible by multiclassing at worst.

Quote from: Necrozius;771228I like this idea. Maybe some could be more abstract too, like "when you fight dirty" or "when you take damage while protecting someone or something from harm". That sort of thing. Less about what you CAN do and more about HOW you do things.

 I like that mentality because it can get you to try things but the downside is that's it's way too fiddley and passive forcing specific situations or particular triggers to activate.

You could link it explicitly to Inspiration, in that your background is 'dirty fighter' or something.

Given the limits on Inspiration, as far as I understand them, it provides a gentle incentive to doing things a certain way while not being overwhelmed by it such that you ONLY do Disarm.

Quote from: Omega;771200The PCs are doing more damage overall. I did a commentary a few weeks ago about our run in with an Ogre during the playtest. He went down very fast to three characters.

So in general it balances out some.

For reference.
AD&D Ogre: 4d8+1 (19) HD, 1d10 damage. vs PCs doing on average 1d6 damage each. Down in about 2-3 rounds to a 4 person group.
Next Ogre: 5d10+5 (32) HD, 2d8+4 damage vs PCs doing anywhere from a d6 to a d12 of damage each. Down in about 2-3 rounds to a 4 person group.
5e Ogre: 7d10+21 (59) HD, 2d8+4 damage vs d6 to d12. Down in about 3-4 rounds.

.

It is also worth noting that the Ogre may not be the best choice to make this sort of system comparison, as it has two unusual benefits to HP (that actually compound each other): most creatures seem to be getting 1 hit die more than 1E; I think of this as sort of a 'level 0' HD. The ogre got 3 HD more than 1E, presumably because the designers wanted it to be a tougher creature — more small giant than slightly over sized bugbear. And everyone gets a CON bonus per HD, which mostly benefits the physically large, tough creatures (which are generally given high CON, at least that is what it looks like so far). Most creatures seem to have roughly twice their 1E HP (a loose recollection...) whereas the ogre has three times.

Quote from: Haffrung;771229Agreed. Why not just call them all special abilities and treat them the same way?

Sounds good, but often doesn't work out that way.

A Unified mechanics is not always the best solution because two problems. Either you have a sorting problem where you are faced with a giant list of X and become lost in picking items to make your concept. This afflicts GURPS to a high degree. In response GURPS developed templates but they are only extensively developed in supplements.

You could have a powerful generic mechanics that can be easily adapted to resolve just about anything the players attempt. The problem stems from players and referee become frustrated in figuring out exactly how to apply it. Particularly if they have a desire to have a high level of detail in a particular aspect of a campaign. Fate/Fudge is noted for this.

My opinion is that you should have consistent generalized set of mechanics however you have should a layer above that implements the general mechanics for specific aspects of the game focused on that aspect. This includes list of "objects." A spell list should be a spell list not a list of powers that could be spells, ray guns, or superpowers.

Also, it's important to note the difference in ability modifiers to damage when comparing AD&D to 5e.  You were lucky to have a +1 bonus to damage in AD&D if you weren't a fighter.  And if you were, a +2 bonus was good.  Only the super rare had +3 or higher bonuses to weapon damage.  And you never got one with bows and many other ranged weapons.

Contrast that to 5e, where nearly every PC has a +3 bonus to damage since both STR and DEX applies depending on the weapon.  Melee classes get STR, and missile/finesse classes get DEX.

So while a typical 1st level PC in AD&D would do 2-7 or 2-9 points, a 5e 1st level PC is doing 4-9 or 4-11.  Those 3hp mooks in 1e could still last a round sometimes, especially when attacked by someone other than a fighter.  They won't in 5e.

Quote from: jadrax;770980Optimisers can also rip the integrity of a game to ribbons by placing far more emphasis on what is good than what makes sense.

Franky my games don't have room for a Bugbear Slaughterwelder 4/Toeclipper 2/Hoopmonger 3/Paladin 4/Gunslinger 7.

I don't mind players investing in feats, multi-classing, special snow flake races because they have a strong concept that fits the game world. But too often with Optimisation any concept beyond 'win the game' goes straight out of the window.

Having a GM say NO is probably a good thing for a game. Having GM say Maybe and give their PC's context is even better.

GM's that let the rules be the iron-law and do no arbitration based on what they are willing to run take no responsibility for their campaign will have shitty campaigns.

Char-Op is fine to the degree that the GM is fine with it. If you're the GM and not fine with it - what the fuck are you doing letting the players dictate what kind of game you don't want to run?

I, personally, don't let PC's multiclass without a rationale that happens in-game. Most of the time it takes very little rationale - depends. A fighter that wants to learn rogue skills? Easily done. A Monk that wants to become a Barbarian? that's going to be obviously a bit more challenging. When you start getting into classes that have their own odd prerequisites or built-in assumptions, you're gonna have RP your way into it.

But that's just me. I play with a bunch of people in their forties or older... we're kinda past that shit.

Quote from: tenbones;771250Having a GM say NO is probably a good thing for a game. Having GM say Maybe and give their PC's context is even better.

GM's that let the rules be the iron-law and do no arbitration based on what they are willing to run take no responsibility for their campaign will have shitty campaigns.

Char-Op is fine to the degree that the GM is fine with it. If you're the GM and not fine with it - what the fuck are you doing letting the players dictate what kind of game you don't want to run?

I, personally, don't let PC's multiclass without a rationale that happens in-game. Most of the time it takes very little rationale - depends. A fighter that wants to learn rogue skills? Easily done. A Monk that wants to become a Barbarian? that's going to be obviously a bit more challenging. When you start getting into classes that have their own odd prerequisites or built-in assumptions, you're gonna have RP your way into it.

But that's just me. I play with a bunch of people in their forties or older... we're kinda past that shit.

Heh, I couldn't really see a Paladin/Warlock but I sure could see Fighter/Warlock or a Rogue/Warlock or a Barbarian/Sorcerer or even a Paladin/Sorcerer for example.