5e isnt even D&D....

[Kaelik]

Sooo ... run away?

I think the idea is that if the group wants to run 4 fighters, even if they are just melee types, the DM and everyone would acknowledge that and make encounters suited to the party, leaving archers/mortars/artillery for boss battles or dramatic moments rather than picking the strategically most advantageous counter.... just to counter the concept of the party.

Basically, the DM would acknowledge that the party wants melee combat, and the players would acknowledge that when the DM wants serious time, she will be playing on their big weakness.

So as far as to your answer "What will the XYZ do against their weakness ABC?" Have a tough battle. I don't really see a problem with it as long as the DM isn't wanking to realism "There would be archers everywhere so I'm going to keep killing you until you learn to play 'right' and play different characters" and the players don't get pissy when the DM pulls out a tough battle "We don't even have ranged weapons, how are we supposed to fight this?".

That is literally the exact opposite of the idea.

The entire point is that the Tome Fighter as a class is capable of dealing with ranged enemies as appropriate. If you made a "module" out of what one party does, a party of all Tome Fighters would be able to complete the module just as well.

[Saxony]

Sooo ... run away?

I think the idea is that if the group wants to run 4 fighters, even if they are just melee types, the DM and everyone would acknowledge that and make encounters suited to the party, leaving archers/mortars/artillery for boss battles or dramatic moments rather than picking the strategically most advantageous counter.... just to counter the concept of the party.

Basically, the DM would acknowledge that the party wants melee combat, and the players would acknowledge that when the DM wants serious time, she will be playing on their big weakness.

So as far as to your answer "What will the XYZ do against their weakness ABC?" Have a tough battle. I don't really see a problem with it as long as the DM isn't wanking to realism "There would be archers everywhere so I'm going to keep killing you until you learn to play 'right' and play different characters" and the players don't get pissy when the DM pulls out a tough battle "We don't even have ranged weapons, how are we supposed to fight this?".

That is literally the exact opposite of the idea.

The entire point is that the Tome Fighter as a class is capable of dealing with ranged enemies as appropriate. If you made a "module" out of what one party does, a party of all Tome Fighters would be able to complete the module just as well.

Kaelik, I was talking to MfA. That's why I put in the line, "even if they are just melee types". Furthermore, attempting to prove someone wrong about Tome Fighters is a lot less effective than actually talking about what they want to talk about (how can melee only characters compare to casters in ranged combat).

I get that Tome Fighters can be good archers and thank you for the recap.

I'm toying with whether or not a character who can reasonably handle every situation is a "good idea". The counter example would be saying "A character who is terrible in one or more situations is a good thing". Is that true, I wonder? Maybe. It might enhance role playing because the player would need to avoid certain situations rather than rely on generalized problem solving abilities which work for everything (halfling rogue needs to avoid big golems). Opportunities for role playing weakness. But too much of that and the character feels weak or the player feels picked on.

What's a good balance between fucking with the party and letting them shine?

[Kaelik]

Kaelik, I was talking to MfA. That's why I put in the line, "even if they are just melee types".

Mfa asked that question of me. Literally just of me. Certainly it was supposed to be insulting, but it was literally aimed at me and only me. When you answer a question directed at me questioning what I meant with "I think the point is..." you are speaking on my behalf.

When you speak on my behalf and say literally the exact opposite of the thing that I was saying, I will post that it is the exact opposite. You can have your own separate conversation with Mfa about how you plan on making some characters incapable of dealing with ranged combats such that a party that doesn't have the "right" classes is a gimp party, but it's not unreasonable for me to clarify that your position phrased as an interpretation of my position is not my actual position.

If you want to talk about your own position, say "I think X" not "I think the idea is X" because the second one makes it sound like you are talking about someone else's idea, IE mine in the context of this conversation.

[Saxony]

Okay Kaelik, fair enough. I can see you not wanting someone derailing your conversation.

[CapnTthePirateG]

Mearls on rogues:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx ... l/20120507

They have skills. Which can be mimicked with spells. And apparently the fact that you can dispel charm person balances out the fact that spells mimic the rogue's schtick.

I have no idea how the hell goal #4 works. So rogues auto-win at skills, clerics and wizards get utility spells...and the fighter gets what again?

And yes, the blaster wizard is the one true wizard. Because fuck you.

[FatR]

Mearls on rogues:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx ... l/20120507

Oh Mearls, way to create shit design goals. Your #1 is a poor fit for team-based game (it will not create fail certainly, but probability is very high), and ##2-3 have the same problem as the fighter goals with the same numbers. #4 might actually work, but only depending on what skills actually do, and examples from ##2-3 aren't promising.

[Username17]

I have no idea how the hell goal #4 works.

Remember when they introduced the idea of automagically succeeding on tests where DC <= Attribute Score? And remember how everyone who was in the slightest bit familiar with a d20 and basic math said that there could only be two possibilities: that the RNG was broken beyond repair at first level or that the game was essentially deterministic at high levels? The reality is that stats vary by more than 10 points high to low, so they've already committed themselves to having the automatic success threshold vary by more than 10. Thus, since either the numeric bonus scales at the same rate as the automatic success threshold (in which case the RNG is busted at level one) or it doesn't (in which case the bonus when you roll necessarily diverges from the effective bonus when you don't roll), the game is fucked in one of two obvious ways.

Well, Mike Mearls has threaded the needle. But handing out large and potentially scaling bonuses to the automagic success threshold for certain classes, he has ensured that the game is simultaneously deterministic and broken even at first level. I didn't think he could do it, but he sure showed me wrong.

-Username17

[Koumei]

the game is simultaneously deterministic and broken even at first level. I didn't think he could do it, but he sure showed me wrong.

Oh you of little faith. Did you not know that his capacity for failure knows no bounds?

[hogarth]

Mearls on rogues:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx ... l/20120507

"Rogues should spend part of each combat running away!"

Awesome.

[Lago PARANOIA]

You know, sometimes I wonder if the current generation of D&D people wished that they used dicepools instead of a linear RNG. The game would still be made of broken, fail, and suck; but the reason for it sucking would not be obvious to most people. At least at a glance.

[OgreBattle]

You know, sometimes I wonder if the current generation of D&D people wished that they used dicepools instead of a linear RNG. The game would still be made of broken, fail, and suck; but the reason for it sucking would not be obvious to most people. At least at a glance.

What if we just played shadowrun with no guns. Some cyberware can be converted into Feats for fightguys.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Shadowrun has a worse melee positioning system than 4E D&D. Hell, it's even worse than Mutants and Masterminds d20. Much worse. That kind of a conversion is a complete non-starter.

[shadzar]

aside form the fact i dont thinks rogues/thieves should exist as a class at all, since it is a lifestyle much like barbarian and nomad....

1. nobody fights fair. fair fighting it where you have ranks of artillery that fire first at the same time, etc... "fair" was the civilized fighting of revolutionary war and shit. also least we forget the saying "all is fair in love and war".

2. everybody is skilled. its just they use different sets of skills. once again an attempt to find a reason for the rogue to exist, when there doesnt need to be a class for it. might as well call the class circus-performer with the acrobatics shit. again things ANYONE should be able to do.

3. oh goody. rogue will use magic to move instantly from one shadow to another. therefore it becomes pointless to think a human rogue exists when they are NOT mundane abilities of humans, or anything that should be gained from a non-magical class. but looking at the fighter, he will also be a magical class and have spells to cast, ala 4th edition powers. WAY outside the realm of the classic rogue, many people want to play and too fantastic which is FAR away from what D&D is. 4.5E anyone?

4. WTF is this? you realize the rogue class isnt needed, so make some stupid concept why it can work. o go along with #3, i like MANY anime and movies and shit, but i dont want to play an RPG about them. i want medieval european fantasy. i dont want this trash fantasy that WotC produces. this is the reason i picked D&D over other RPGs and other games (board, video, cards) and even some other activities when i chose because IT offered what i was looking for. why should i want to play a D&D that isnt D&D and moved far and away from anything that interests me because some new age of gamers want to play a game with the name D&D? i dont want Blueberry-flavored Tang. i drink it because it is orange-flavored. hopefully this means that anyone wanting to get away from feats/skills and their ilk will be able to just ban the rogue and be able to play the game.

A Little More on the Playtest

One thing to keep in mind about these design goals is that they are flexible and open to discussion. A big part of the playtest process tackles having us all make sure that the game feels like D&D.

as a designer, YOU should know what feels like D&D rather than trying to look at ANYTHING WotC did, go back to its roots, and accept WotC might have royally screwed up with its inclusiveness of generic fantasy. go back to the stable, yet modifiable at home, roots of D&D. only then will you be able to build onto it.

sadly you dont know what D&D is, or you would know how it feels, and be able to give that feel after the past decade of discussion about 3rd edition, and also 4th edition. you should have enough information by now. if you question something "feeling" like D&D when you design it, odds are it isnt right for D&D because you had to question it. give people D&D, and let them make their own home game changes. dont force the amalgam of ever tom dick and harry into the game.

If you've played rogues for ten years, ask yourself if the new rogue feels like the class you've played and loved. In addition to testing the core of the game, the early rounds of testing are geared toward making sure that the game is hitting the correct notes for all the classes.

which edition? how about those who have played "rogues" for 30+ years? love how you look like you only want feedback from the past 10 years which was only WotC editions 3.x and 4th. maybe getting the "feel" of D&D and "re-unification" should reach a little farther back in time, not just the new age players, otherwise you have failed in your overall design goals already, and are admitting to that Mike.

also what about the people who have ALWAYS hated the rogue class? shutting out those opinions as well? real narrow feedback you seem to be looking for. BEFORE you design you should have gotten feedback, but of course, that goes over your head as you already have no idea what people want, but have tried to design it already.

well you need to look if the class is even needed. "skill monkey" isnt a class or really a fantasy trope. "rogues" in most of fantasy are fighters, they are wizards, they are ANYTHING, just a lifestyle tacked onto an existing archtype, not unlike assassin. the class was created because it was EASIER to do so to get those trap and lock picking skills in its own class, rather than add them across the board. if you were a decent designer, maybe you would be the first, since you have the time and not the pressure that TSR designers had, to actually do what was attempted in 4th and REMOVE the rogue class and divide out those functions to be able to be used by ALL classes. your definition of a rogue is too gamist.

On May 24th, you'll get to see how we tried to hit these goals, whether we're on the mark at this early stage, and if the target we've aimed for is the correct one.

i can already see you missed the mark, not only with overall design goals as MANY others see, but you are surely not aiming at the right place. be it your incompetence or the overlords of HASBRO not understanding the game, or just to sell the next gimmick game.

in designing a thing, you first must find its function that you are designing it for. D&D is a class-based RPG, so you should seek to find what classes are needed. in nearly 40 years, NOBODY has presented ANY sort of information as to why rogue/assassin/bard/warlord should exist as classes other than they are popular. and that is not a reason the GAME needs them, only a reason the money-making-engine needs them.

there is still and only ever will be 3 classes in my mind, until someone gives VERY good damn reason the others should exist. that is why they existed in OD&D as such, because they cover EVERYTHING depending on how you mix them, and ALL other classes, are solely a mix of those 3 classes:

non-magic user, mundane combatant (fighter)
magic-user (wizard)
divine intervener (cleric)

your own 4th edition power sources only really added 2, and i think they were pretty much nonsense as they fit within those above 3, and even those above 3 some people would prefer to merge into just two.

outside of those 3, the ability to merge them into forms to give different tropes already exist, and ANYTHING else, is something able to be done by those three including but not limited too: picking locks, disabling traps, assassination, playing music.

PLEASE Mike, move over to board games division with Peter Lee, where your extreme gamist needs fit better, and the rigidity of concept is more welcome. and someone let Lee go back to making miniatures cause he is a great artist when you get the software limits out of the fucking way and let him actually fucking sculpt minis!

again i am reminded why decades of accounting software was useless to accountants because programmers dont know accounting and accountants dont know programming. only when they got together to explain things to each other and learn a little bit about their shared jobs, did decent acounting software come about.

as a game designer, Mike, at least learn something about the game you are designing.

[ModelCitizen]

Mearls on rogues:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx ... l/20120507

They have skills. Which can be mimicked with spells. And apparently the fact that you can dispel charm person balances out the fact that spells mimic the rogue's schtick.

I think Mearls got that one right, sort of. Sticking a Charm Person on the king is kind of hard: you have to get him away from his guards, and if makes the save or the Charm wears off or someone dispels it he tries to have you killed. I can't think of a setting where getting caught Charming the king wouldn't be high treason or some equivalent, but it's probably not high treason to just talk to the king and get him to like you. Assuming that Lv1 Beguiler and Lv1 Diplomancer are supposed to be equally good at social stuff, Charm Person should get better short-term results than diplomacy because Diplomacy is a lot safer and easier to set up.

Mearls is still an idiot though because that shit only works for Diplomacy vs Charm Person. I'd love to hear his justification for why the rogue jumping two feet higher is somehow equivalent to flight. (Flight "can be dispelled," duh!)

[Wrathzog]

It feels like he's going out of his way to downplay that the Wizard is going to be keeping a lot of their utility... that does have me worried. We need to see the Wizard's design goals.

[CapnTthePirateG]

I feel like they are deliberately hiding those to prevent the reaction of "ZOMG the wizard is back to god-tier!"

Which I suspect he is.

[Neurosis]

I have no idea how the hell goal #4 works.

Remember when they introduced the idea of automagically succeeding on tests where DC <= Attribute Score? And remember how everyone who was in the slightest bit familiar with a d20 and basic math said that there could only be two possibilities: that the RNG was broken beyond repair at first level or that the game was essentially deterministic at high levels? The reality is that stats vary by more than 10 points high to low, so they've already committed themselves to having the automatic success threshold vary by more than 10. Thus, since either the numeric bonus scales at the same rate as the automatic success threshold (in which case the RNG is busted at level one) or it doesn't (in which case the bonus when you roll necessarily diverges from the effective bonus when you don't roll), the game is fucked in one of two obvious ways.

Well, Mike Mearls has threaded the needle. But handing out large and potentially scaling bonuses to the automagic success threshold for certain classes, he has ensured that the game is simultaneously deterministic and broken even at first level. I didn't think he could do it, but he sure showed me wrong.

-Username17

Mathematically/statistically speaking, you go really fast when it comes to mathematical conclusions that are obvious to you but are (I guess inobviously) less obvious to others.

Sometimes I wish you would slow down and break things down point by point, more of a low level description for the dumber of us.

[Username17]

OK, here's the deal:

The "automatic success threshold" is essentially just like "Take 10" except that you can do it in combat. Now there are two ways this can work:

• Your bonus to the roll rises 1:1 with your automatic success threshold. Not as weird as it at first sounds, they were at one point claiming that stat bonuses were going to be smaller and more like AD&D. So if you have a Strength of 16, you have a +6 bonus and automatically succeed at tasks of DC 16 or less.
  
  The problem is that they've confirmed that they are working on the same 3-18 scale as always and that being one race or another gets you +1 to one stat and -1 to another. If this is the case, the random number generator is completely broken. Let's say that one player has an 18 (maximum is 19 even before we ask whether you can get bonuses from classes, races, skills, spells, or whatever). In order for that player to have even a 5% chance of failure, you need to hit their character with an effect with a DC of 19 or more (since they can take 10 against a DC 18 attack). Now, they only have a +8 bonus, so anything they can fail on at all is something they will fail on 50% or more of the time (since anything less than that they don't have to roll against), which is pretty weird. But let's consider the guy with a stat of 8 (and thus, a -2 to his roll): He can't succeed at this test at all.
  
  And we aren't talking weird min/max excursions. We're just talking two humans using point buy, one of whom bought up the stat in question and the other of whom did not: a Sleep Spell that can threaten the one character is an irresistible force to the other. That's what a broken RNG looks like.
• Your Bonus Does NOT Rise 1:1 With the Automatic Success Threshold. So instead, we're looking at something like 3e's bonus progression where every +2 to the stat gives +1 to your roll. But here's the thing: we already know that giving +2 to the stat gives +2 to the Automagic Success Threshold.
  
  What this would mean is that at a stat of 10 you have +0 and automatically succeed at DC 10 - meaning that you can "take 10" whenever you want. But at a stat of 12 you have a +1 and automatically succeed at a DC 12 - meaning that you can "take 11" whenever you want.
  
  Extend that out a bit. At a stat of 20 (which is almost certainly available at level 1), you can "take 15". By the time you get to 30 (which is almost certainly on the table for high level), you actually "take 20" on every roll. That is to say that anything you can possibly fail on is something that you literally cannot succeed on.
  
  As you go up in level and power, your chances of succeeding on tasks that there is any chance of failing on is lower and lower. And it actually falls to zero in the incredibly conceivable horizon of 30.

So either way is just massively fucked up in its own way. But here's the cherry on the shit salad: Mearls just confirmed that the Rogue gets a bonus to his automatic success threshold. We don't know what it is, but we do know the following:

An Elf who put maximum points into Dex has a 19 Dex. He already confirmed that. If the Rogue gets even a +1 to his automatic success threshold, he needs a DC of more than 20 to be required to roll dice. And since a 10 would be a +0 in either model, we know that "normal" characters cannot succeed at any task that would require Elfy McRogue to roll a d20. So we're in broken RNG territory. But we're also in the second problematic territory as well: because even if roll bonuses normally go up 1:1 with automatic success thresholds, we know that for the Rogue they do not. The Rogue is getting bonuses to his automatic success threshold without getting bonuses to his roll - so he's getting a "take 15" and then a "take 21" and shit even if no one else is.

Mearls has written himself an RNG that cannot avoid sucking no matter what the actual numeric inputs actually are.

-Username17

[RobbyPants]

So either way is just massively fucked up in its own way. But here's the cherry on the shit salad: Mearls just confirmed that the Rogue gets a bonus to his automatic success threshold. We don't know what it is, but we do know the following:

An Elf who put maximum points into Dex has a 19 Dex. He already confirmed that. If the Rogue gets even a +1 to his automatic success threshold, he needs a DC of more than 20 to be required to roll dice. And since a 10 would be a +0 in either model, we know that "normal" characters cannot succeed at any task that would require Elfy McRogue to roll a d20. So we're in broken RNG territory. But we're also in the second problematic territory as well: because even if roll bonuses normally go up 1:1 with automatic success thresholds, we know that for the Rogue they do not. The Rogue is getting bonuses to his automatic success threshold without getting bonuses to his roll - so he's getting a "take 15" and then a "take 21" and shit even if no one else is.

Mearls has written himself an RNG that cannot avoid sucking no matter what the actual numeric inputs actually are.

-Username17

Is it possible he did that on purpose? Perhaps the goal was to make a setup where the rogue would auto-succeed on DCs in the high teens, but have to roll for stuff in the twenties? Meanwhile, other PCs wouldn't be able to do stuff in the twenties? The end result would be not wasting time rolling for "easy" tasks, but rogues still feeling special that only they can do certain things?

Of course, even if that's what he intended, I think it's still likely to fail for several reasons. At a minimum, if they include spells like Knock, all of this will likely be a waste of space, and also, if the group doesn't include any rogues, then there are tasks that the party simply cannot do.

I don't know. I guess I'm just hoping this is obvious enough that he's already thought of it, but I may be giving him way too much credit.

[OgreBattle]

Shadowrun has a worse melee positioning system than 4E D&D. Hell, it's even worse than Mutants and Masterminds d20. Much worse. That kind of a conversion is a complete non-starter.

what if you ignored it

or uh... "throwing axe range" is now melee range.

[hogarth]

OK, here's the deal:

The "automatic success threshold" is essentially just like "Take 10" except that you can do it in combat. Now there are two ways this can work:

• Your bonus to the roll rises 1:1 with your automatic success threshold. Not as weird as it at first sounds, they were at one point claiming that stat bonuses were going to be smaller and more like AD&D. So if you have a Strength of 16, you have a +6 bonus and automatically succeed at tasks of DC 16 or less.
  
  The problem is that they've confirmed that they are working on the same 3-18 scale as always and that being one race or another gets you +1 to one stat and -1 to another. If this is the case, the random number generator is completely broken. Let's say that one player has an 18 (maximum is 19 even before we ask whether you can get bonuses from classes, races, skills, spells, or whatever). In order for that player to have even a 5% chance of failure, you need to hit their character with an effect with a DC of 19 or more (since they can take 10 against a DC 18 attack). Now, they only have a +8 bonus, so anything they can fail on at all is something they will fail on 50% or more of the time (since anything less than that they don't have to roll against), which is pretty weird. But let's consider the guy with a stat of 8 (and thus, a -2 to his roll): He can't succeed at this test at all.

So what? Do you think real life is "massively fucked up" because (the late) Billy Barty can't bench press as much as Arnold Schwarzenegger?

It's a perfectly acceptable design decision to say that some PCs can't accomplish some tasks.

The problem only arises when you have bullshit super-skills like Diplomancy. Nobody really gives a shit if you're just talking about breaking down doors or jumping over pits or whatever.

[Username17]

So what? Do you think real life is "massively fucked up" because (the late) Billy Barty can't bench press as much as Arnold Schwarzenegger?

It's a perfectly acceptable design decision to say that some PCs can't accomplish some tasks.

I think it's a huge problem when they've already established that they are using the same system for lockpicking as they are for saving throws against Charm Person, and thus the "task" that some PCs cannot accomplish could very easily be "not die".

-Username17

[virgil]

With such RNG breaking, why have rolling?

[hogarth]

I think it's a huge problem when they've already established that they are using the same system for lockpicking as they are for saving throws against Charm Person, and thus the "task" that some PCs cannot accomplish could very easily be "not die".

Yes. But the problem is with the 10-20% of skills that are superpowers (e.g. Diplomacy, Stealth, maybe Perception and Disable Device), not the 80-90% of skills that most people are just fine with taking 10 (e.g. Climb, Jump, Knowledge: Carnal of Frank's Mom, etc.). So it's silly to say the skill system is broken when it's clearly a few bad apples. Maybe those shouldn't even be skills in the first place.

With such RNG breaking, why have rolling?

For simulationist purposes. (Oops, I used the "S" word.) There are some tasks in real life where you might succeed only 30% of the time.

[Username17]

With such RNG breaking, why have rolling?

Almost all of Mearls' tirades leading up to 5e seem to go to that very question. He seems to not like rolling a d20 to determine if you succeed or not.

Passive perception, mastery based auto-success, stat based auto-success, and now the rogue's class based auto-success and a rather consistent picture is showing up. 5e is not a game about adding up bonuses and rolling a die. It is a game about trying to convince the DM that the task should be below your success threshold and then not rolling a die.

-Username17