Zero Buzz on 5E...Is It Dead Out The Gate?

[Voss]

Instruments give me a headache all around. They sub for spell components, but take up both hands in most cases, and sometimes also the mouth. The flute player shouldn't be able to do anything, unless it is a material component only spell. And any spell that has material components that cost money is impossible to use without a free hand in any case, because you can't sub those out.

On this note, does anyone know what the difference is between situations that call for a performance check and situations that call for a musical instrument proficiency check. They seem like they would be identical with some very rare exceptions: fiddling contests with Old Scratch in Georgia and reciting the Iliad.

My instinct is to houserule out the perform skill, replace it with streetwise because I think the game will hurt from the absence of that skill, and treat poems, songs, etc. as "tool" proficiencies.

That said, if there are real rules on the subject then I'd be happier with them.

Haha, no. Real rules for skills aren't happening.
As to the first question... no idea, except for the obvious: things that aren't musical instruments use performance.

My personal preference would be to ditch musical instruments as discrete, individual 'tools' and keep performance. Because honestly separate skills for hundreds of individual things is fucking dumb, and your attempt to busk or impress nobles or whatever can have whatever fucking flavor text you want. If it were Orchestra Simulator 2014, I might care about individual instrument skills, but its D&D, so I really.... don't.

If your background says you're good with pennywhistles, harps and poetry I'm just willing to accept that. I wouldn't want someone who's proficient in weaponsmith to have to tell me that they're specifically proficient in 5lb hammers, 10lb hammers, tongs and anvils, as well as making longswords, maces and knives, so I've no idea why you'd want to insist people list that they are proficient by instrument, songs, poems & etc.



But I'm afraid streetwise doesn't make any sense either- it is a quality, not a skill. If you want to do 'street' activities, check whatever real skill that would actually apply to whatever you're doing. Shaking down a gang is intimidate, pulling information is deception or insight, or whatever. I'd hate to see a hundred different variations of etiquette: street, nobility, clergy, drow, woodsie elves, & etc as well, which is what opening the box marked streetwise basically amounts to.

[ishy]

So taking a potion is a minor action?
So you could pop a potion a round if you have a free hand?

[Voss]

So taking a potion is a minor action?
So you could pop a potion a round if you have a free hand?

There is no such animal- there are actions and bonus actions (and the latter are defined by abilities).

Getting something from your backpack is listed as a possibility as your one 'not-an-action' on your turn, as is 'popping food into your mouth'. So you could possibly do it over the course of two rounds for free. But "some magic items always require an action to use" (p70, Basic rules), and I have no idea if potions use that or not.

Ah. It does. p49, in the equipment list- drinking a potion of healing specifically requires an action.

[pragma]

My personal preference would be to ditch musical instruments as discrete, individual 'tools' and keep performance. Because honestly separate skills for hundreds of individual things is fucking dumb, and your attempt to busk or impress nobles or whatever can have whatever fucking flavor text you want. If it were Orchestra Simulator 2014, I might care about individual instrument skills, but its D&D, so I really.... don't.

I was keeping them in my particular house rule because I'm trying to minimize the number of edits I have to do to the game in order to avoid having to make judgement calls about perform vs. musical instruments. The two possibilities are to eliminate the perform skill or eliminate "performance proficiencies," and I knocked out the skill because the bard has a whole lot of performance proficiencies as part of the class description and I don't know how to replace those since it already has the perform skill.

That discussion is separate from streetwise, but I conflated the two because I wanted to keep the number of charisma skills the same as well. However, as was pointed out earlier, the substitution of perform for streetwise doesn't necessarily map cleanly onto the classes. That means I'd have to think about each class rather than just doing a substitution, which fails my design goal of not thinking a ton when I introduce the skill.

But I'm afraid streetwise doesn't make any sense either- it is a quality, not a skill. If you want to do 'street' activities, check whatever real skill that would actually apply to whatever you're doing. Shaking down a gang is intimidate, pulling information is deception or insight, or whatever. I'd hate to see a hundred different variations of etiquette: street, nobility, clergy, drow, woodsie elves, & etc as well, which is what opening the box marked streetwise basically amounts to.

I use streetwise the way Shadowrun uses the Etiquette skill: it represents the ability to blend into a crowd without standing, work a room, subtly ask around about information, etc. It's a good skill to have around for information gathering montages, and distinct from deception and intimidation: it's not clear that there's a social skill that maps cleanly onto "knowing how not to be an asshole in a wide variety of environments." The book suggests using a straight charisma roll to do that, but given the fuckery of the skill system I'm hesitant to make something I find valuable to the game a straight attribute roll.

So I find the skill useful and would like it in the game, but don't want to unbalance the presumable well thought out skill lists.

Maybe the right thing to do is eliminate the perform skill from class skill lists, and replace it with the ability to choose a performance tool (so i don't have to pick new tools for the bard). Then add streetwise to every class' skill list as an option.

[fectin]

So you're set, as long as you drum on your shield, or have a swordflute?

[Voss]

So you're set, as long as you drum on your shield, or have a swordflute?

Not really. That brings up a debate about being able to make up tools, rather than choosing them off a list.

But it is entirely moot. If your bard has a trumpet (or whatever) tied to his belt and a free hand to touch it, you can cast spells with material components. You don't have to dick around with any sort of exotic shenanigans.

The rules are literally just 'you must have a thing that counts as spell components'* and 'you must have a free hand.' There are zero other elements in play.**


*Which is a focus item or spell component pouch. Or, if you're a freak, the actual spell components for each and every spell you can cast.

**This is likely to seriously offend Real Roleplayers and some DMs. But as written, a bard never has to play an instrument, just have one around, like some sort of harp-shaped security blanket.

I use streetwise the way Shadowrun uses the Etiquette skill: it represents the ability to blend into a crowd without standing, work a room, subtly ask around about information, etc. It's a good skill to have around for information gathering montages, and distinct from deception and intimidation: it's not clear that there's a social skill that maps cleanly onto "knowing how not to be an asshole in a wide variety of environments."

There isn't one. The trick is (and this is admittedly hard for a lot of players to grasp) just don't be an assshole in any social situations. But I don't see any need for another skill on top of deception, persuasion or intimidation to be introduced to info gathering montages. I honestly don't see any benefit in making that a special system with its own special snowflake skill. You're schmoozing. Those are the schmoozing skills.

As for etiquette <group>- as I said before, that is an annoying can o' worms, that leads to infinite lists of Etiquette:<groups>. It is a background detail for a character, not a skill. (Come from nobility? Then you know those rules. Elaborate background as a criminal or street rat? Then you know some useful tidbits). The skill system is overstressed and filled with enough bullshit as is.

Simplifying the existing lists of bullshit (notably musical instruments and individual 'gaming tools' is honestly better than adding more lists of bullshit in every way I can conceive of.

[ishy]

There is no such animal- there are actions and bonus actions (and the latter are defined by abilities).
[. . .]
Ah. It does. p49, in the equipment list- drinking a potion of healing specifically requires an action.

Sorry with minor action I meant:

"Second, you can interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, either during your move or your action.
Other examples listed in the sidebar of interacting with an object include:
-get/put an item from/in your pack/the ground
-drink a potion

Was just wondering if anything interesting can be done with that.

[Voss]

There is no such animal- there are actions and bonus actions (and the latter are defined by abilities).
[. . .]
Ah. It does. p49, in the equipment list- drinking a potion of healing specifically requires an action.

Sorry with minor action I meant:

"Second, you can interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, either during your move or your action.
Other examples listed in the sidebar of interacting with an object include:
-get/put an item from/in your pack/the ground
-drink a potion

Was just wondering if anything interesting can be done with that.

Not really. Playing iaijutsu master and constantly switching between empty hand for casting and weapon attacks is about it.

Turning a key and opening a door are even listed as separate things.

Though you can hand items off between characters, which means relays are damn silly in D&Dland. With 5 people (of average speed), an object can travel 300' in 6 seconds (assuming they dash as their action), which is about 34 miles per hour, with the people moving about 6.8 mph.


I actually can't find 'drink a potion' on that sidebar list. picking up an item, yes,

[Hicks]

But the 38 mph key is a problem in any system with sequential movement resolution; as far as I know there is no way around it without using the nightmare that is simultaneous movement, and that slows turn resolution down to a crawl.

[Voss]

True. It just seem extra amusing when it is a trivial happenstance that can just happen in passing and not even be the focus of your efforts. It is literally a non-action to accelerate an item to ludicrous speed while the party jogs in a staggered formation.

[animea90]

"Second, you can interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, either during your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move, as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack a monster."

Other examples listed in the sidebar of interacting with an object include:
-draw or sheathe a weapon
-open or close a door
-get/put an item from/in your pack/the ground
-give an item to someone
-pull a lever
-drink a potion
-poke the floor with your 10' pole

Well this makes a sword+shield caster easy, as you can just sheathe your weapon to cast and draw it to attack.

[animea90]

But the 38 mph key is a problem in any system with sequential movement resolution; as far as I know there is no way around it without using the nightmare that is simultaneous movement, and that slows turn resolution down to a crawl.

Its not a nightmare unless you are playing on grids. In a gridless game(like Exalted) movement is handled fairly well. Its only really an issue if someone is playing a kiting character.

Now, Exalted has plenty of other issues with turn resolution, but those are not a result of simultaneous movement.

[pragma]

I use streetwise the way Shadowrun uses the Etiquette skill: it represents the ability to blend into a crowd without standing, work a room, subtly ask around about information, etc. It's a good skill to have around for information gathering montages, and distinct from deception and intimidation: it's not clear that there's a social skill that maps cleanly onto "knowing how not to be an asshole in a wide variety of environments."

There isn't one. The trick is (and this is admittedly hard for a lot of players to grasp) just don't be an assshole in any social situations. But I don't see any need for another skill on top of deception, persuasion or intimidation to be introduced to info gathering montages. I honestly don't see any benefit in making that a special system with its own special snowflake skill. You're schmoozing. Those are the schmoozing skills.

I was all set up to reject this line of reasoning at first glance, but on a second reading I agree that persuasion could cover a lot of the "asking around without causing trouble" aspects that I was ascribing to the streetwise skill. It can also cover "who to talk to without causing offense." The only thing the skill doesn't really seem to describe is "blending into a crowd/social stealth," which I can lump under insight if I really feel the need. So, fair enough, I'll yield on this.

That said, as you mentioned, some concept of local knowledge is really important for these kind of social interactions. Leaving that to MTP seems fine.

As for etiquette <group>- as I said before, that is an annoying can o' worms, that leads to infinite lists of Etiquette:<groups>. It is a background detail for a character, not a skill. (Come from nobility? Then you know those rules. Elaborate background as a criminal or street rat? Then you know some useful tidbits). The skill system is overstressed and filled with enough bullshit as is.

We are in violent agreement that this is a terrible idea. Introducing a list of etiquette "group" skills would dilute social skills to meaninglessness, and add a bunch of ambiguity about what to roll when.

Simplifying the existing lists of bullshit (notably musical instruments and individual 'gaming tools' is honestly better than adding more lists of bullshit in every way I can conceive of.

I agree that gaming tools are pretty dopey in the sense that we don't have a world to hang them on.

But I think there's a kernel of merit to allowing some of these tool proficiencies because it gives players some creative control, which may add to verisimilitude for them. By enforcing that 'you only know how to play so many instruments' mechanically, a bard's player may 'feel' more accomplished that they start with three compared to a performing rogue's one.

That said, if it ever becomes the case that real resources are required to create that feeling, then players are obviously going to ditch that feeling in favor of concrete mechanical benefits.

Comparing the bullshit lists we've discussed so far, you only need any one instrument proficiency or gaming tool proficiency to be able to perform or gamble. Consequently, I don't mind having those proficiencies, which allow you to customize the character, instead of the perform or gamble skill abstractions. The etiquette "X" list that we both hate is different because you'd require _multiple_ types of etiquette to be a successful talker, and that would presumably sap resources to acquire.

I also just thought of another interpretation of musical instrument proficiencies, which is that they'd allow you to add proficiency bonus twice to a perform check. The rules are unclear on the point:

If you have proficiency with a given musical instrument, you can add your proficiency bonus to any ability checks you make to play music with the instrument

So a bard with the perform skill would make a Charisma (Perform) check with the lute he's proficient with and +proficiency from the skill and +proficiency from the tool, giving him the equivalent of expertise when playing instruments.

The pro I see to this interpretation is that starting bards are better musicians than other classes because of the free instrument proficiencies. The con is that singers can never perform as well as maraca players.

[Voss]

Hmmm. There is a lot of information about from people who somehow managed to get the book two weeks early- because, apparently, Canada*. A fair number of things have changed from the alpha.

Quite a few of the warlock invocations are worse (as they require use of a spell slot), monk starting damage got worse (down to a 1d4) and various spells up an disappeared, including the economy breaking Amaneusis cantrip. And the paladin find steed spell no longer scales up for higher levels, so no unicorns/nightmares, which is a shame.

Here is the wizard spell list in full, for example
http://i.imgur.com/4tYeMpQ.jpg

More than a dozen spells changed levels (feeblemind stands out at fucking 8th), a couple new spells appeared (Demiplane), and some spells just vanished- notably anything with 'Mass XXXX' (mass hold person, mass charm monster), plus Army of the Dead. Apparently they couldn't pin those mechanics down.

The spells before the wizard set are the 5th-9th warlock spells. Its interesting to see what overlaps with wizard and what they get that wizards don't (Conjure Fey and Glibness). Notably they lost access to trap the soul (which they had in the alpha doc), which seems a shame for the warlock.


The new (to the final version of 5e) cantrips:
Blade ward apparently give resistance (1/2 damage) to bludgeoning slashing and piercing damage for a round, and true strike gives advantage on the next attack.

*some stores in Canada apparently got shipments early, and quite a few places just stocked the shelves with em. Fuck sale dates, 'tis Canada.

[PhoneLobster]

And the paladin find steed spell no longer scales up for higher levels, so no unicorns/nightmares, which is a shame.

...
...
How...
...who...
...why would anyone ever think that was a positive change?

Really "hahaha... major ongoing definitive class feature, level appropriate for 1 level ever... ahhahahahahaha... balance..."

Hm. Reading that last line I imagine the guy who made that decision is the one with the eyepatch from Harvey Birdman... ha ha.

[Voss]

And the paladin find steed spell no longer scales up for higher levels, so no unicorns/nightmares, which is a shame.

...
...
How...
...who...
...why would anyone ever think that was a positive change?

Really "hahaha... major ongoing definitive class feature, level appropriate for 1 level ever... ahhahahahahaha... balance..."

Well, if it makes you feel any better, it isn't a class feature (and certainly not a definitive one anymore). It's a level 2 spell. so isn't even castable until level 5.

But yeah, it was tiered in the alpha version so you could eventually call a giant eagle or bat as a steed, and then a unicorn or nightmare. Granted, those were set to levels where it came really late (flying critters at 13, nightmare at 17), but yeah, I don't see how 'Fuck you, no nice things at all' is an improvement.

Though admittedly, as a ritual, warlocks could grab it through a class feature and a specific invocation and call up the bat at 7th level and nightmare at 9th level, but if they did it for that reason, they 'fixed' the wrong problem.

[PhoneLobster]

Well, if it makes you feel any better, it isn't a class feature (and certainly not a definitive one anymore). It's a level 2 spell. so isn't even castable until level 5.

Not particularly. Telling the paladin they can just forget about the whole bonded mount thing but they get to cast "summon horse" starting at level 5 is pretty damn stingy.

But really it's the whole downgrade from "summon steed marginally more level appropriate than just a horse" that is just so... mind boggling... in it's stinginess.

It's just so blatantly a move in the direction of "Stop having nice things" with no obvious reason.

It stuck out to me because without having read any of these rules even so it's just so clearly a "wrong way go back" type of moment that I find it hard to believe they just shrugged and went and did it anyway for no reason at all.

[Insomniac]

How is it that this company did a skill system worse than 3.5, Pathfinder and 4E with 3 years to work on it? This Instruments crap just seems like really lazy handwaving because somebody didn't wanna work.

"Yeah, yeah, yeah. We'll get some lame-os to run the numbers for us. Whatever."-Mearls

[Ferret]

Ugh, nerfing find mount is weak sauce.

Edit: I'm surprised I haven't seen a scan of the retail PHB yet. Guess it'll be over the weekend.

[Voss]

I've seen individual pages. The impression I'm getting is they're excited at the attention and don't want too many other people butting in on their dick waving in various Internet forums.

[animea90]

Well, if it makes you feel any better, it isn't a class feature (and certainly not a definitive one anymore). It's a level 2 spell. so isn't even castable until level 5.

Not particularly. Telling the paladin they can just forget about the whole bonded mount thing but they get to cast "summon horse" starting at level 5 is pretty damn stingy.

But really it's the whole downgrade from "summon steed marginally more level appropriate than just a horse" that is just so... mind boggling... in it's stinginess.

It's just so blatantly a move in the direction of "Stop having nice things" with no obvious reason.

It stuck out to me because without having read any of these rules even so it's just so clearly a "wrong way go back" type of moment that I find it hard to believe they just shrugged and went and did it anyway for no reason at all.

Mounts have always been a tricky one in tabletop games, because you can't use them in a significant portion of encounters. So you have to figure out how to balance the class to include using the mount and not using it.

[Voss]

I actually like it as change to a spell. Its just this thing you can do, and you can keep it around or summon it from wherever (it isn't a mundane animal, but rather a celestial, fey or fiendish spirit in the form of a horse or elk or whatever). It doesn't have to be this ridiculously elaborate creature with levels of its own and a dozen abilities of its own.

DM reactions to animal pets can vary wildly, and can be a wild headache for all involved. Campaigns are also tricky, and having a 'legitimate' class feature that does nothing is a pure drawback to a class. Taking 10 minutes to call up your helsteed (or celestial paragon of all horses) on the other hand, is rather cool.


On that note. The ranger's favored enemy is probably the most stupid version yet. Pick a creature type (or 3 specific races of humanoid). You get advantage on wisdom or int checks against them (i.e. perception and investigation and history). Oh and a bonus language of (one of) the race(s).

What, you were expecting more?

[animea90]

I actually like it as change to a spell. Its just this thing you can do, and you can keep it around or summon it from wherever (it isn't a mundane animal, but rather a celestial, fey or fiendish spirit in the form of a horse or elk or whatever). It doesn't have to be this ridiculously elaborate creature with levels of its own and a dozen abilities of its own.

DM reactions to animal pets can vary wildly, and can be a wild headache for all involved. Campaigns are also tricky, and having a 'legitimate' class feature that does nothing is a pure drawback to a class. Taking 10 minutes to call up your helsteed (or celestial paragon of all horses) on the other hand, is rather cool.


On that note. The ranger's favored enemy is probably the most stupid version yet. Pick a creature type (or 3 specific races of humanoid). You get advantage on wisdom or int checks against them (i.e. perception and investigation and history). Oh and a bonus language of (one of) the race(s).

What, you were expecting more?

IIRC the developers really don't like favored enemy as an ability and want to get rid of it, but once again, they want to keep "iconic" abilities so they just make them useless instead.

[Rawbeard]

what the fuck? really?

[Lago PARANOIA]

@Voss, animea90
4E D&D developers tried this shit all of the time. You know, things like purposely naming their powers Sleep or Disintegrate or Phantasmal Killer even though those effects functioned little like they inherited from. Or most cogently, the alignment system.

Again, you'd think that they'd have figured out by now that people would rather you not adapt an ability at all than to adapt it poorly. If the ranger class was otherwise well-made and they dropped favored enemy, less people would whine than them adapting it poorly.

But that's what Mike Mearls and friends get for living in the 4E D&D bubble. That edition enabled a lot of weird shit and dabbled in a ton of design mistakes that aren't recreated in other games and aren't obvious unless you play games with different design principles.