New Edition: Continuity vs. Ralroading

[Voss]

Part of the problem is that D&D has a pretty fucked up assumption. You're good with a sword because you're strong, and then you get better with the sword as you go along (levels). Same with magic, but with Int and levels.

But Conan isn't good with a sword because he's strong. He's good with a sword, and he happens to BE strong. And so is Fafhrd. But the Grey Mouser is also good with sword, but isn't particularly strong at all. He happens to be nimble and clever.

So, seriously. Either ditch them, or add whatever stat the character archetype makes relevant. Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser duel fairly inconclusively several times, IRC. If they're both 8th level and doing 8th level attacks, they can either add nothing, or Fafhrd adds his 18 Strength and the Grey Mouser adds his 18 Int.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

I'll also put my vote in for K's idea of not tying ability scores to a characters attacking Schtick.

Ability scores are a players best way of visualizing their characters personality and the way in which they can interact with the world. I think disallowing players from playing the character they've imagined is a very bad thing. I'm not talking about genre or thematic choices like the zombie robot dinosaur cowboy ninja's or whatever. I just mean their ability scores; their pretend selves.

I think I understand what Frank is saying.

Things in the setting have to be different one from another or everything is a surprise every time. And everything being a surprise is just like nothing being a surprise.

Wizard spells should be different from Psionic effects. Not power wise, they should just be different. Because if everyone is unique then noone is unique.

I think what he is saying here is that he doesn't want a wizard looking character to suddenly beat everyones ass with a big sword, or turn undead, or to monk-jump everywhere because then you can't tell what anything is or can do. For a more extreme example, lets take a monster. I think Frank doesn't want a gargantuan beefy monster to suddenly start casting spells because his ability scores aren't tied to anything.

But I don't think that it has to be like that. Character abilities would be tied to their class and mundane equipment. So as soon as you see someone you know what they can do. Besides, in normal dnd if you see a nondescript person, he could have any one of his three mental ability scores be extremely high and you wouldn't know the difference. You would only guess which score is super high once he started casting spells. I don't see how knowing which ability score is high by viewing a charcter cast a certain spell is important.

As for monsters, it is easy. They are already made in the Monster Manual. It doesn't matter that the Cloud giants super badass melee attack isn't modified by his strength score. You already know he is a fucking badass in melee because he is 18 feet tall, has a huge sword, and walks around like he knows what he's doing.

I think it all comes down to tells. As long as the players know what creatures are and can do by looking at them (as much as they should anyways) then it is fine. The tells don't have to be ability scores, they can be anything.

Besides, ability scores aren't good tells anyways. You can't tell what a creature can do mentally by looking at him. And even physical ability scores don't mean much. There are class abilities that use Str, Dex, and Con to attack, damage, or anything else depending upon the class abilities you have.

Just make a mechanic where players can sense motive/spot what creatures are/can do and you are fine.

[RandomCasualty]

1197953349[/unixtime]]
I think what he is saying here is that he doesn't want a wizard looking character to suddenly beat everyones ass with a big sword, or turn undead, or to monk-jump everywhere because then you can't tell what anything is or can do. For a more extreme example, lets take a monster. I think Frank doesn't want a gargantuan beefy monster to suddenly start casting spells because his ability scores aren't tied to anything.

The big problem is that I'm not really sure what a "wizard looking character" would be. I mean, if it's just some guy in robes carrying a staff, that could easily be a monk too. Similarly, almost anybody might have fighter training.

I think about the only way to achieve what Frank wants is actually more through exclusion based design. Something like arcane spell failure where if you see someone in heavy armor you can pretty much be sure that they're not a mage. Gradually you exclude various abilities to try to narrow down what they might have. But as things are, in an open multiclass system, you really can just be about any mix of classes. Even if you can cast spells, that doesn't mean that it's all you do. So as far as humanoids go, you really can never be 100% sure what someone's abilities might be.

For monsters, it's really just a DM design thing. If you want a big strong looking minotaur thing can beat people with an axe. Or it might have a petrifying breath weapon like a gorgon. Or it might be the magic bullman that shoots energy bolts out of its eyes. D&D monsters are fucking weird like that. Especially at high level, you're going to have a wide variety of powers you can use and single theme monsters generally don't survive long.

Really I think you just have to accept that people are going to make characters that look different from the generic archetype. Unless you want to go all 1st edition and demand certain restrictions (clerics can only use blunt weapons, mages can't wear armor at all, rogues limited to studded leather, etc. ) you're going to have people come in all shapes and sizes.

Ability scores don't really help much with that. All they basically do is make it tough to be strong, fast and good looking at the same time.

[Username17]

Here's my concept in more detail:

• 
  
• A character of any total level has a certain number of ability slots of various types.
  
  
• Abilities are divided up into arbitrary schools with prereqs, and you need to select a number of abilities from the school before you can take signature powers.
  
  
• But all that only matters if you want it to, because the classes are pre-selected groups of abilities that are reasonably synergystic and effective.

That gives people the ability to make a character of Level N extremely quickly. You just grab Assassin or Warlock at whatever level and all your choices are pre-made. You can also write new classes at any time and have that be a useful adjunct to the game (as it simplifies the creation of NPCs with unique power choices).

But the organic character will still end up growing in a weird unique way because they'll break off the rails and take campaign appropriate powers instead of the preselections for any class. And since they are doing it piecewise rather than all at once, the fact that it takes longer than looking at the Ranger entry and thumbing down to level 7 isn't a big deal.

And that covers some great customization options while still not putting us in the "You must spend at least 5 hours to make a character" territory. Which is, I think, as good as we can get.

---

But when you're handing out customization like that you seriously need to have arbitrary restrictions on what things can't be mixed. Once you see someone shoot "Insidious Bolts of Madness" at fools you don't want their next spell to be "Care Bear Stare" because that doesn't make any sense. And while grouping some things into the "can't go together" pile is required, I think it is helpful to have some thngs "not go together well".

The specifics of attributes or not I will take to the rules thread.

-Username17

[Draco_Argentum]

I see what you're saying. I just don't see why the setting document can't do that. There is no mechanical need for these restrictions by your own admission. So I think it would be a failing to hard code it into the mechanics. It would be better to leave the mechanics open and write a setting over the top. That way people can write their own settings easily.

[NoDot]

I suppose this might be a good place to interject the idea that I've been kicking around for a while.

There are classes, but they are generic and few. Few as in the six classes form D20 Modern (Strong Hero/Fast Hero/Tough Hero/etc.). Classes are nothing more than a set of Skill, BAB, and Saves. Each level, the class gives out a talent. Yes, each level, and no bonus feats anywhere-save those for leveling up.

Each Talent act like a Sphere from the Tome of Fiends, in that they scale with character level instead of class level. Talents are what defines a character's abilities. Magic? It's a set of Talents. Psionics? It's a set of talents. Martial techniques? They're a set of talents. Everything is a talent or a feat. The lines blur with the feat that lets you take a talent you meet the prerequisites for, and prerequisites shouldn't be very high-a handful of levels (like two) in a particular class or specific feats or talents. DMs restrict what's around by restricting which talents and feats are allowed in his/her game.

OK, there's a rough draft. How bad did I do?

[Username17]

1197979262[/unixtime]]I see what you're saying. I just don't see why the setting document can't do that. There is no mechanical need for these restrictions by your own admission. So I think it would be a failing to hard code it into the mechanics. It would be better to leave the mechanics open and write a setting over the top. That way people can write their own settings easily.

Game systems imply settings. Truly universal roleplaying systems do not actually work. The predjudices of the game orld dictate the availablility and value of abilities. Razor sharp claws are not worth as much if people routinely carry guns. Knowledge and trivia is not worth as much if people have wireless internet. And so on and so forth.

Before you can really generate a fair assessment of the value of an ability, you must have an idea of how common or uncommon that ability and counters to it are in the setting. And that means that whether you admit it or not you have created a setting just by riting down a series of abilities with associated costs.

So no, you can't just throw down a bunch of abilties and then ration them out according to the whims and dictates of individual setting documents. Or rather you can, but that is not going to work.

-Username17

[Username17]

There are classes, but they are generic and few.

At that point you might as well not have classes at all. Basically at the point here playing "A Fighter" involves a lot of work writing the character, you have failed at life. Class based design excels at only two things:

• Generating things of a specific power level quickly.
  
  Keeping things at the same "power level" from falling off the RNG relative to each other.

So if you make people select from a big list every time they want to take another level of Ranger, you have failed at life. If you provide a bunch of abilities which provide large stacking numeric bonuses, you have failed at life.

-Username17

[Draco_Argentum]

1197979578[/unixtime]]
Game systems imply settings. Truly universal roleplaying systems do not actually work. The predjudices of the game orld dictate the availablility and value of abilities. Razor sharp claws are not worth as much if people routinely carry guns. Knowledge and trivia is not worth as much if people have wireless internet. And so on and so forth.

Oh I agree. We're saying swords are a valid life choice for a start. Melee is not just for people who want to get dead fast. High level dudes really do own armies.

I don't think those setting choices are on the same level as saying what sort of magic works well with swordsmanship.

[NoDot]

At that point you might as well not have classes at all.

Without classes, you have the issues of how you generate BAB, Saves, and Skill Points (and perhaps Skill Lists).

Basically at the point here playing "A Fighter" involves a lot of work writing the character, you have failed at life.

Playing "A Fighter" under my ideas is like playing the RoW Fighter: you should be able to pick blindly (which the new guy will effectively do if not assisted) and still have a viable character.

So if you make people select from a big list every time they want to take another level of Ranger, you have failed at life.

This isn't precluding example selections and/or pre-built selections. (Also, "Ranger" wouldn't be a class; "classes" would be more like the classes of D20 Modern. If there's another way to handle the BAB/Skill points/Saves every level, that could work too.)

If you provide a bunch of abilities which provide large stacking numeric bonuses, you have failed at life.

No large stacking bonuses, just a set of techniques that you can preform/spells you can cast/powers you can manifest. Since they only change at level-up, it shouldn't be more complicated (at worst) than a Sorcerer.

[Bigode]

1197980124[/unixtime]]

1197979578[/unixtime]]
Game systems imply settings. Truly universal roleplaying systems do not actually work. The predjudices of the game orld dictate the availablility and value of abilities. Razor sharp claws are not worth as much if people routinely carry guns. Knowledge and trivia is not worth as much if people have wireless internet. And so on and so forth.

Oh I agree. We're saying swords are a valid life choice for a start. Melee is not just for people who want to get dead fast. High level dudes really do own armies.

I don't think those setting choices are on the same level as saying what sort of magic works well with swordsmanship.

Draco: we do need to discuss common/worthwhile/so on ability combinations because those will determine the tactical synergies available (a systemic matter before one of setting, AFAIK), that'll determine what combat styles you'll need to use as balance metrics, to some length before whipping a setting.

Frank: on generic systems, well, you may know I still consider myself a GURPS player, despite messing way more with d20 in the past few years, in good part due to the OGL; let's suppose the Base Set (take your "favorite" edition between 3rd and 4th) contained a bunch of (dis)advantage costs and skill difficulties, with explicit mention that those values would be changed as needed in setting books, and possibly do-it-yourself GM advice. It bears considering that the 4th Edition does have an implied setting, the Infinite Worlds of 3rd's Time Travel.

[Username17]

Without classes, you have the issues of how you generate BAB, Saves, and Skill Points (and perhaps Skill Lists).

How's this for a resolution: You Don't.

The Duelist attacks with an Épée, the Firelord attacks with a Firebolt. Why would they have different attack bonuses? As K noted, the only practical effect of giving out different attack bonuses to the Duelist and the Firelord is that you have to go back and create a separate Armor Class for Magicians to be able to hit (Touch AC). So instead of having Fighter Attacks which go against Fighter Armor Bonuses and Wizard Attacks which go against Wizard Armor Bonuses, why not cut the crap and put the numbers on the same shelf?

By making the attack bonuses the same, you can get the same variance you want by making the Armor Classes go up and down (targets you are supposed to fight with Hellfire can have a weaker AC against that, and targets you are supposed to fight with steel can have a weaker AC against that). And then you can skip the variance you don't want (Rogues takig advantage of DMM: Persistent: Wraithstrike to combine a Fighter Attack Bonus with a "For Wizards Only" Armor Class on the target).

-Username17

[Crissa]

There is the question: Do you want situations in which a character's main combat schtick doesn't work?

In Warcraft, this is considered balanced, because every party has five people, and every class has two or three forms of damage.

But do we want a game in which you walk into battle and say, 'Oh, it's a Troll. Only firebolts work today!'

-Crssa

[Yahzi]

At that point you might as well not have classes at all.

Totally!

I'm also an old GURPS player. No classes there! Classes suck! Nyaaaah!

But, when I was populating my world and stating out every single wizard that lived in it (ya, I'm like that), I noticed that I grouped all the spells into little bunches, and then put them in trees, and then created five different "professions" for my wizards, which just so happened to reflect five different power levels.

But they weren't classes. Or levels. No, because that would be wrong. It's GURPS! We don't need no stinkin' classes!

[tzor]

1198036724[/unixtime]]There is the question: Do you want situations in which a character's main combat schtick doesn't work?

The simple answer is YES, provided that the situation is possible for all characters in the party. There is a strong element of team in the game; it's important for the team to be strong. The notion of being able to help other out and triumph in spite of individual weaknesses makes both a better story line and a better role play session. ("Don't worry Superman, the Batmobile is lead lined, you will be safe as we drive through the Kryptonite Gas Cloud because I also have an internal air supply.") When players can be completely self sufficient at all times the game becomes boring.

[Username17]

The more complex answer is "sort of."

Puzzle monsters should exist, but the trolls should be possible (if difficult) to defeat even without fire. Nothing in all of D&D history is as annoying as the Wind Walker.

-Username17

[Koumei]

Which one is the Wind Walker? What kinds of fantastic stupidity are we looking at?

[tzor]

1198069518[/unixtime]]The more complex answer is "sort of."

Puzzle monsters should exist, but the trolls should be possible (if difficult) to defeat even without fire.

I completely agree. One of the things that annoyed me slightly in Gygax's recent module for the C&C system was how he felt he had to rewrite the C&C core lycanthrope in order to get to the idea of the "you must have X in order to play" mentality. As written the C&C werewolf is vunlerable to silver. He rewrote it to give it completely immunity to anything that wasn't silver. Big difference!

The idea of a puzzle monster should be that the monster is very difficult to defeat unless you know the secret of the puzzle. But the idea of a puzzle anything is to some extent playing with fire. Puzzles often require something to be "intitutively obvious" to the players, but as the old physics joke goes, whenever someone writes, "It is intitutively obvious to even a casual observer," you can rest assured that it's not obvious at all and the only reason why he is writing this is because he doesn't want to spend three volumes in a vain attempt to explain it to you. Players will miss the most obvious of puzzles.

[Jacob_Orlove]

1198069674[/unixtime]]Which one is the Wind Walker? What kinds of fantastic stupidity are we looking at?

You couldn't kill it without using the Shatter spell, iirc.

[RandomCasualty]

True puzzle monsters should be one shot creatures. They shouldn't be in the monster manual or something, they should just be something special that you make up for one quest and then never see again. Because once you've solved the puzzle, they're pretty boring.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Well, the classic werewolf is a puzzle monster, but it's a puzzle to be solved out-of-combat. The way you beat it is to find out who in the community is secretly a wolf, and kill them when they're in human form. A combat encounter with the beast has the tactical goals 'withdraw without losses' and 'mark the creature for later recognition.' That's not the same as a puzzle designed to be solved in combat time, like a Final Fantasy Tactics enemy, which takes 1/4 damage from the front arc or some such. Puzzles can really differ in both difficulty and reward, after all.

I agree that the party should be able to go out and brute-force the werewolf, at significant risk. That just trades one kind of resource (time and patience) for another (tactics and injury tolerance). That way a group of hack & slashers can ignore the 'boring' detective work and just go Hellboy on the thing and crow about how awesomely badass they are to bring down such a beast; while a group that enjoys the detective work can focus on that and congratulate themselves on how much risk they saved themselves.

[Username17]

1198069674[/unixtime]]Which one is the Wind Walker? What kinds of fantastic stupidity are we looking at?

They take damage from slow as if it were a fireball, and they may die as if struck by finger of death when struck by control weather. They are otherwise immune to all forms of attacks physical or magical. And they are really fast, naturally invisible, and hit like hammers.

I might have gotten the spell effects mixed up. Either way, it's totally fucked because there's no guaranty that having the appropriate spell will actually kill the damn thing.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1198087792[/unixtime]]
They take damage from slow as if it were a fireball, and they may die as if struck by finger of death when struck by control weather. They are otherwise immune to all forms of attacks physical or magical. And they are really fast, naturally invisible, and hit like hammers.

I might have gotten the spell effects mixed up. Either way, it's totally fucked because there's no guaranty that having the appropriate spell will actually kill the damn thing.

Gygax loved that shit. I remember the original demilich in tomb of horrors. There was only like a few random shit that hurt it. A shatter spell, a power word kill, or a vorpal sword. Also for whatever reason if the rogue fired valuable gems at it with a sling, then it would take some minor damage too (why, I don't know).

The worst part about Gygax's quests is that you never got a chance to figure any of this shit out, except in combat. And if you didn't have the right weapon or spells, you were dead.

Now I really have no problem with puzzle monsters with crazy immunities and a few vulnerabilities, but god, give the PCs a chance to figure out what they were. Gygax just made you guess. Meanwhile every round you had to make a save versus death or lose your soul.

[Koumei]

How the fuck does a Vorpal sword have any special benefit against a flying skull? Vorpal swords are renowned for their ability to remove heads (specifically of the Jabberwock), and this thing is only a head; it is already as removed as it's going to get!

For the Emperor's sake, can someone get Gygax a permanent LSD drip so that he stops writing and can just sit there in his happy little world of hallucinations?

Also, that Wind Walker sounds incredibly stupid, beyond previous levels of stupidity.

[Crissa]

It takes amazingly little LSD to put a human into a hallucinogenic state; and it's small enough to be absorbable through the skin. Doses thousands of times larger merely elongate the state rather than deepen it, although in animal trials some have become catatonic. However, that has never been seen with humans, and the only death known to be caused by only LSD was a dose so large that it was merely the amount of crystalline powder being put in the bloodstream that made it lethal - any substance known to man would've killed at that dose.

The known creators of the drug are still alive and well.

Not that I'm suggesting anything.

-Crissa