News:

TESTEMONAIL:  Right and Discordianism allows room for personal interpretation. You have your theories and I have mine. Unlike Christianity, Discordia allows room for ideas and opinions, and mine is well-informed and based on ancient philosophy and theology, so, my neo-Discordian friends, open your minds to my interpretation and I will open my mind to yours. That's fair enough, right? Just claiming to be discordian should mean that your mind is open and willing to learn and share ideas. You guys are fucking bashing me and your laughing at my theologies and my friends know what's up and are laughing at you and honestly this is my last shot at putting a label on my belief structure and your making me lose all hope of ever finding a ideological group I can relate to because you don't even know what the fuck I'm talking about and everything I have said is based on the founding principals of real Discordianism. Expand your mind.

Main Menu

D&D 5e released!

Started by Cain, April 01, 2010, 10:55:56 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Doktor Howl

Molon Lube

Cramulus

#46
Quote from: The Commander on May 31, 2011, 08:48:44 PM
I understand the desire to balance play. I've certainly been in my fair share of games where I've sat around while someone else was busy because they had the skills and abilities needed at that time.  But isn't that the point of having different classes to begin with?  Bards are supposed to do the talking because thats what Bards do.  Rogues do the sneaking, wizards do magic, and fighters do the fighting.  You pick a certain class specifically so you can specialize in something that no one else is as particularly good at, otherwise, why bother?

It's not like every character is equally skilled at every task. Everybody still has a niche. But you no longer get told, "Sorry, this is the rogue's encounter, why don't you just hang back so you don't fuck everything up?"




Quote from: Cramulus on May 31, 2011, 06:53:14 PM
But what about intentional choices to become bad at combat?  There is more to adventuring than combat...and I like the flexibility that 3e provided in terms of being able to create a character with that in mind that could still be useful.  But lets take it a step further...what if I want to create a character who is terrible at everything, but has a fun personality or that provides challenges for the party to overcome?  The new system prohibits that from ever being an option.  When looking at the system and playtesting it, I saw no way I could intentionally create a "skill monkey" or a "charisma monkey" who only entered combat as a last resort.  I remember asking someone about it, and he said "But why would you want to be bad at combat?"

There are still a million ways to build a character that is poor at combat encounters. Like you could build a fighter with a 10 in strength, or just take feats/powers that won't come up too frequently. Or choose a suboptimal fighting style, like a rogue with a two handed sword (can't sneak attack), or a fighter who insists on using a dagger.

If you want to play in a campaign where you're constantly talking your way out of combat, that sounds like something that you'd discuss with your GM as a part of campaign concept, not necessarily character build.

To build a 4e character specialized in avoiding combat, I'd take skill training in diplomacy, bluff, and sneak.


Quote
Quote
In terms of the skill system limiting character concept / role play ---
There is nothing stopping you from having a character who is well versed in some certain topic or skill - for example, you can have a character who is a shipwright even though there is no "shipwright" skill on the sheet. Those types of skills usually have little bearing on combat, so I think it was a good design choice to not make people choose between character concept and combat efficacy.

I guess I am confused by this.  I dont see it framed as a choice between concept and combat efficacy...they are not neccessarily opposing qualities. Combat efficacy is part of character concept, not in competition with it, just like skill competancy or magic ability is part of the characters overall concept.

Ahh, I had assumed you were talking about the removal of some of the more obscure Lore skills from the skill system. Like in 3e, you could spend skill points to be well versed in heraldry and nobility. In 4e, if you want to be well versed in heraldry, you just tell your GM that you're well versed in heraldry... there's no need to spend anything on it.

A lot of people carry around this idea that if you're really into role playing, your character sheet will have a lot of "role playing" skills (as opposed to skills which can be used in combat). I agree that tjpse aren't mutually exclusive. This is sometimes called the Stormwind Fallacy. The gist of it is that a game's rules do not prohibit roleplaying - how much you role play is up to your group, it has barely anything to do with the game's rules and how you build your character. So to say that a system limits role playing is a fallacy. Again, I hold up the campaign I'm running which has an emphasis on RP and almost zero likeness to WoW. The only substantive difference between my 4e campaign and the numerous 3e campaigns I've run is that the combat is more interesting (IMO) and moves a lot faster.  :p

The Commander

Quote from: Cramulus on May 31, 2011, 09:08:44 PM
It's not like every character is equally skilled at every task. Everybody still has a niche. But you no longer get told, "Sorry, this is the rogue's encounter, why don't you just hang back so you don't fuck everything up?"

I guess I don't have a problem with the standing by and waiting.  Half the time we are still consulting as a group anyway, so it is actually pretty rare that I have *nothing* to do.

Quote from: Cramulus on May 31, 2011, 06:53:14 PM

There are still a million ways to build a character that is poor at combat encounters. Like you could build a fighter with a 10 in strength, or just take feats/powers that won't come up too frequently. Or choose a suboptimal fighting style, like a rogue with a two handed sword (can't sneak attack), or a fighter who insists on using a dagger.

If you want to play in a campaign where you're constantly talking your way out of combat, that sounds like something that you'd discuss with your GM as a part of campaign concept, not necessarily character build.

To build a 4e character specialized in avoiding combat, I'd take skill training in diplomacy, bluff, and sneak.

But these ideas strike me as building a character who is poor at combat despite the game rules and not in concert with the game rules.  However, I concede the difference between the two is pretty subtle.

Quote
Ahh, I had assumed you were talking about the removal of some of the more obscure Lore skills from the skill system. Like in 3e, you could spend skill points to be well versed in heraldry and nobility. In 4e, if you want to be well versed in heraldry, you just tell your GM that you're well versed in heraldry... there's no need to spend anything on it.

A lot of people carry around this idea that if you're really into role playing, your character sheet will have a lot of "role playing" skills (as opposed to skills which can be used in combat). I agree that tjpse aren't mutually exclusive. This is sometimes called the Stormwind Fallacy. The gist of it is that a game's rules do not prohibit roleplaying - how much you role play is up to your group, it has barely anything to do with the game's rules and how you build your character. So to say that a system limits role playing is a fallacy. Again, I hold up the campaign I'm running which has an emphasis on RP and almost zero likeness to WoW. The only substantive difference between my 4e campaign and the numerous 3e campaigns I've run is that the combat is more interesting (IMO) and moves a lot faster.  :p

My thoughts on this are kind of similar to what I mentioned above.  I'm sure I can role play the hell out of a game no matter what the rules are.  But I don't want to do so despite the rules.  I want the rules of the game to enhance and facilitate and reinforce the roleplaying that I do.  I'll admit, I've only had limited experience playing the game when it initially came out, but my initial impression was definitly that the rules were not designed to enhance that aspect of the game.
The Commander
DIA
Discordian Intelligence Agency

Freeky

Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 31, 2011, 09:01:30 PM
Quote from: The Commander on May 31, 2011, 08:48:44 PM
There is more to adventuring than combat

:crankey:

I STILL think the play bit in the Thief's Council adventure arc was brilliant and interesting.  :(

But combat is still the meat and bones of adventuring, and PHAT LOOT is the ligaments and blood.

PopeTom

Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 31, 2011, 09:01:30 PM
Quote from: The Commander on May 31, 2011, 08:48:44 PM
There is more to adventuring than combat

:crankey:

There is for example the killing of the little Orc and Goblin children in the nursery.
Thank the gods of Lawful-Good there's no Geneva Convention in D&D. :)
-PopeTom

I am the result of 13.75 ± 0.13 billion years of random chance. Now that I exist I see no reason to start planning and organizing everything in my life.

Random dumb luck got me here, random dumb luck will get me to where I'm going.

Hail Eris!

The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: PopeTom on May 31, 2011, 11:23:34 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 31, 2011, 09:01:30 PM
Quote from: The Commander on May 31, 2011, 08:48:44 PM
There is more to adventuring than combat

:crankey:

There is for example the killing of the little Orc and Goblin children in the nursery.
Thank the gods of Lawful-Good there's no Geneva Convention in D&D. :)

My guys just usually accidentally the AOE and then there's no problem.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Cain

Of course there is more than combat!  How can anyone forget looting corpses.

Fuck knows why a Carrion Crawler feels the need to carry gold coins in its stomach or wherever - it's not like it is going to pop out to the corner shop for a loaf of bread and some milk anytime soon - but bless em, they do.

Freeky

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 01, 2011, 12:39:54 AM
Quote from: PopeTom on May 31, 2011, 11:23:34 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 31, 2011, 09:01:30 PM
Quote from: The Commander on May 31, 2011, 08:48:44 PM
There is more to adventuring than combat

:crankey:

There is for example the killing of the little Orc and Goblin children in the nursery.
Thank the gods of Lawful-Good there's no Geneva Convention in D&D. :)

My guys just usually accidentally the AOE and then there's no problem.

"Party favors!"
"Do we know you?"
"EXPLODO!"
"Just get inside."

Freeky

Quote from: Cain on June 01, 2011, 01:08:19 AM
Of course there is more than combat!  How can anyone forget looting corpses.

Fuck knows why a Carrion Crawler feels the need to carry gold coins in its stomach or wherever - it's not like it is going to pop out to the corner shop for a loaf of bread and some milk anytime soon - but bless em, they do.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:  Truth.

Cain

D&D economics are a libertarian wet dream.  Everyone uses gold (and everyone means everything) and while everything is horribly expensive at the start, if you loot enough dungeons, you will be rich, and therefore everyone poor isn't trying hard enough.

The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: Cain on June 01, 2011, 01:12:28 AM
D&D economics are a libertarian wet dream.  Everyone uses gold (and everyone means everything) and while everything is horribly expensive at the start, if you loot enough dungeons, you will be rich, and therefore everyone poor isn't trying hard enough.

Being dice-bit is a matter of personal responsibility.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.