The Gaming Den

Do people even want skills to be in the game to that extent, though? Most of the time when people want to do a high-level physical stunt that could be conceivably related to a skill they just use a disconnected superpower to do it.

I do, but I know that plenty of other people don't for perfectly reasonable design reasons. My point wasn't that it was the best way to do skills, but that if you're going to do skills in the "adding ranks gives you new stuff to do" way you need to do it evenly for all of them or things start turning into trap options later on.

So, for 5e most combat skills should just use your BAB or your saves. Tumble? Ref save. Climb? BAB, like grapple for big targets. Class abilities, talents, feats, normal procedure, whatever.

Most non-combat skills don't need a mechanic. 3e says you take-20 and win, so just win and save everyone the hassle. Climb? Limit = Mv. Deserves a fall chance? Saving throw. Monks and Rogues can climb 100', or whatever. Jump? Mv/2. Want to build something? It takes a forge, anvil, hammer, and 3 weeks.

Rogues get to use their saving throws to find and disarm traps, pick pockets, detect ambushes, be shady, bla bla bla. Skill points are ass, slow down character creation, clutter up monsters, and half the players don't even use them (nor want them to be special).

You do super-jumps by having Wuxia class abilities, spells, or magic items. Having fiddly rules for jumping and climbing in a game where we float at 3rd level and fly at 5th is madness, same with riding, swimming, and so on. Dwarves and Gnomes can't swim, haw haw.

Diplomacy? Random attitude table, talking gets you +Cha. Intimidate? Class ability (everyone wants their Orc Brb to do it) with a save. Bluff? Yes you do, but they get a save. PHB just got 15 pages lighter, not to mention the MM.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Do people even want skills to be in the game to that extent, though? Most of the time when people want to do a high-level physical stunt that could be conceivably related to a skill they just use a disconnected superpower to do it.

One can just as easily fold the awesome superpowers into the skill system, though--instead of having external spells/feats/etc. replace skill checks or augment them with new uses, just let X ranks in the appropriate skill do the same thing, so for instance instead of Spider Climb effectively saying "You can now climb without Climb checks, your Climb ranks were a waste," just have X ranks of Climb grant you a climb speed of [whatever] and let Spider Climb treat you as having that many ranks of Climb during the spell's duration. If the problem with skills is that they're obsoleted by something at a given level, make those somethings part of the skills themselves.

But if what you really want is the abilities then why have ranks? You could cut out the middleman and let people buy Spider Climb directly.

We can still call these ability progressions "skills" and still have slots you use to buy them, there's just no number attached to each skill. If you put one proficiency slot into Stealth you get the Trained stealth abilities. If you put in a second slot you also get the Advanced stealth abilities. If you ever need to roll something to use one of them you roll a Reflex save.

(This may not be the same as Swordslinger, Lago, or Tussock's suggestions, I'm not sure.)

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx ... l/20111101

rules should be rules or a conversation betweent he designers and the players?

well this also plays well into the Rule of 3 article.....

rules should be rules as it were..or instructions and data...simple and dry.

but there should be more than jsut rules. you need some sort of fluff to inspire people. those not looking for fluff can just use a stat block, and others can use the fluff. there needs to be a mix. this allows the fluff to explain the crunch.

4th edition powers can be re-fluffed, but the problem is people expect the fluff to work, so a power saying it does something specific in its fluff, sticks with many people; while others may just toss it out.

lets look at some examples:

Elf wrote:-finds secret door on a 1 or 2 rolled on a d6
-live d1000 years
-85% chance on d100 to resist sleep or charm related spells

ok, this is how to interact with dice....very dry and non-inspiring.

Elf wrote:Elves live a long time and are mostly immune to sleep and charm related effects. They have a knack for finding their way around so a hidden doorway is easier than most for them.

ok...so how do you play them?

Elf wrote:Elves live d1000 years and are 85% resistant to sleep and charm related effects. They can find hidden doorways on a 1 or 2 on a d6.

um? ok i have to find the gameplay info, and it does do much to inspire me. if this were much larger i wouldnt be sure to be able to find everthing i need to play elves hidden int he text, and be so lost looking for the data that i wouldnt really enjoy the passage on elves at all because it would jsut be trying to find the information hidden in the text.

Elf wrote:Elves live a long time and are mostly immune to sleep and charm related effects. They have a knack for finding their way around so a hidden doorway is easier than most for them.

-finds secret door on a 1 or 2 rolled on a d6
-live d1000 years
-85% chance on d100 to resist sleep or charm related spells

hey i get some inspiration, and can clearly find the information as well. after i have gotten my feel for the way elves are represented i might not need to look back at it, but it is always there to explain in more inspirational means why the rules exist as they do and i can work with them.

now when needed i can quickly find the statblock so if i need something it is ready at hand without having to guess.

best of both worlds.

contrary to rule of 3, which thinks that dry is best with jsut a single line of flavor text like 4th edition powers have.

the flavor can be much more evocative for those who wish to understand the design of elves in the game, and draw inspiration from it, and those just wanting rules can skip over it.

sure you could make a flavor-free book of jsut stat blocks for those that want it, and a crunch-free book for those that want jsut fluff, but the problem is extra SKUs, people ahving to buy extra books, costs for additional art unless you use the same art between them....its really best to have both in a single book,a nd where page count becomes a problem, then you have to decide what to leave for another book.

this is why earlier editions had FEW core classes/raes, etc so they could give enough of crunch and fluff to everyone. not to hold out other parts so they become optional, but because to include enough for all things means a VERY large book to just play the game, making a new player picking up a PHB can get information overload, with a hefty cost as well.

in some care more is less in terms of options. and you really need fluff to go with the crunch.

games workshop found a VERY happy median with this and even went fluff heavy when the fluff REALLY means nothing in the game itself. each race has a 20 page books to detail the entire army (save for space marines) and rules for all the options, as well fluff on them and even painting guides.

20 pages for roughly the same amount of stuff that comprises all the classes and races needed for D&D....give or take some tables.

4th edition has wasted real estate on the pages where other things could be placed, but like 2nd edition it used this as a separator. 2nd really shined with the MM and MCs because it devoted a single page to each monster. this gives the stats and how to use them if you want, otherwise how they were designed.

I personally just like to see some mechanics attached to the race or class. One of my biggest pet peeves with gaming is having flavor text that does not match the mechanics.

Most of the time flavor text tends to make things worse in my opinion, because you sound all awesome then realize you only get a +2 bonus.

For those who have shadzar on "Ignore", there's a new column:
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx ... l/20111101

I think Monte has a good point, personally: rule books shouldn't read like stereo instructions, even if that's the easiest way to present material in a precise manner. That was one of my big turn-offs with 4E.

hogarth wrote:For those who have shadzar on "Ignore", there's a new column:
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx ... l/20111101

I think Monte has a good point, personally: rule books shouldn't read like stereo instructions, even if that's the easiest way to present material in a precise manner. That was one of my big turn-offs with 4E.

It's an important thing to consider, but the ultimate suggestion of 'decide what is right on a case-by-case basis' isn't especially useful.

CatharzGodfoot wrote:It's an important thing to consider, but the ultimate suggestion of 'decide what is right on a case-by-case basis' isn't especially useful.

The implication I got from the article was "4E swung a little too far from the kind of books you'd like to sit down and read for fun, so the pendulum is going to swing in the other direction now, although we'll still try to present rules clearly".

hogarth wrote: I think Monte has a good point, personally: rule books shouldn't read like stereo instructions, even if that's the easiest way to present material in a precise manner. That was one of my big turn-offs with 4E.

I actually rather liked that about 4E. In the sense that the rules were written in concise bullet points, well organized and it was easy to find something you wanted.

It's nice to put flavor text into examples of how the rules work in play, but I don't feel like you want flavor bogging up the rules explanation itself. All too often you run into problems where a PC has a misunderstanding because he reads flavor text instead of the actual rule text.

That being said, I would like to see more flavor put into magic items. I don't mean bullshit backstory or something, but actually how the item works. All too often magic items have just become "Say a magic word and shit happens."

I want magic oils you can pour onto the ground that forms into a troll or capes you have or lightsaber wands that can absorb force effects.

Swordslinger wrote:

hogarth wrote: I think Monte has a good point, personally: rule books shouldn't read like stereo instructions, even if that's the easiest way to present material in a precise manner. That was one of my big turn-offs with 4E.

I actually rather liked that about 4E. In the sense that the rules were written in concise bullet points, well organized and it was easy to find something you wanted.

It's nice to put flavor text into examples of how the rules work in play, but I don't feel like you want flavor bogging up the rules explanation itself. All too often you run into problems where a PC has a misunderstanding because he reads flavor text instead of the actual rule text.

That being said, I would like to see more flavor put into magic items. I don't mean bullshit backstory or something, but actually how the item works. All too often magic items have just become "Say a magic word and shit happens."

I want magic oils you can pour onto the ground that forms into a troll or capes you have or lightsaber wands that can absorb force effects.

(a) There should never be a conflict between flavour text and rules text. And I don't think that's an impossible goal, either. It just means you can't be sloppy when you write the flavour text.

(b) When I say that 4E books read like stereo instructions, I primarily mean power descriptions and magic item descriptions (which constitute roughly 147.3% of the PHB, by my estimates), not combat rules and so forth.

http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/21399.html

reports again Pathfinder is #1 RPG, and 4th edition players dont really want to play RPGs that much...or take much time playing them, while Pathfinder players want to spend more time with their RPG.

wonder if WotC noticed this before when it cut its product line down, and Monte will do something about this or speak to it next week?

D&D 4.0 appealing to new players and people that don’t want to get super-involved in an RPG, and Pathfinder the choice of players that want to spend more time on playing.

people not wanting to get super-involved in an RPG are not likely to buy books, so if 4th edition concepts stay it only can mean full digital for 5th edition except for a small core for the new players.

hogarth wrote:(a) There should never be a conflict between flavour text and rules text. And I don't think that's an impossible goal, either. It just means you can't be sloppy when you write the flavour text.

(b) When I say that 4E books read like stereo instructions, I primarily mean power descriptions and magic item descriptions (which constitute roughly 147.3% of the PHB, by my estimates), not combat rules and so forth.

b. it isnt just pwoers, the most of it reads poorly as there is too little on anything. "if you play elves you want to:" then listing off racial features, isnt really fluff for the quoted part.

a. it means you have to make the mechanics make sense, and if you cannot give a goo explanation in a single paragraph of a few lines about a mechanic, then probably best not to use the mechanic.

some mechanics like "+2" dont really need flavor text, but a description to tell people once again the difference between short, long, bastard, great swords other than number of hands required and damage dice...would go a LONG way.

like the swords you could write the fluff first to get the idea of WHAT the thing is, then it should direct the mechanics.

like my elf example...the elf lives a long time...then later mechanically saying this long time is d1000 years.

i think the mechanics are getting tweaked like MtG cards, and then just some fluff attacked like flavor text on a MtG card. this is not the way to make something work. the facts the powers LOOK and READ like MtG cards is the very case where inspiration is not presented to use them. MtG isnt played to inspire with the cards...it is played to WIN! D&D components shouldnt be to inspire someone into a tournament mindset to win...they should be made to inspire to want to use them because they are interesting.

if a fireball and ball lightning did the same damage with only different damage types.. then what is the point in using one over the other? just for the keyword? not very inspiring.

the effect and visual conjured by the flavor text can be a high determining factor in choice if the spells act the same way...and someone might be inspired more to use lightning and someone else fire. this also helps to create better characters based on inspiration rather than characters based on mechanics.

i just dont think D&D is currently designed by people that do both. one group comes up with the mechanics, while another is tasked to add flavor, and it comes out poorly. works for MtG...but again MtG you dont play with the vlaour...jsut the cards abilities. so WotC shouldnt use the same method for D&D as it seems they do.

hogarth wrote: (b) When I say that 4E books read like stereo instructions, I primarily mean power descriptions and magic item descriptions (which constitute roughly 147.3% of the PHB, by my estimates), not combat rules and so forth.

Well power descriptions I really don' have a huge problem with. Powers are powers, and should be described in as concise a notation as possible. Fireball in 3E isn't remarkably different from fireball in 4E. Both are just area bursts of fire that damage everything uniformly in a given area.

That really can just be a simple line listing how much damage it deals. Adding extra flavor text about how a big ball of fire can light objects on fire is generally just a waste of time, as any DM should be logically adding consequences like that. Unless you're actually lighting a PC on fire, which is difference since that isn't a default assumption in the rules.

Similarly, I really don't need much flavor to describe "Smashing Blow" I just need to be able to know what it does. In many cases the description anyway relies on the effect. Bashing a 1 hit point goblin for 15 damage is going to be a lot different description wise than bashing a 300 hit point dragon.

Most of the problem with 4E powers wasn't in how they were presented, but just in the fact that they were boring in general. Whether you flower them up with a ton of flavor text or not is pretty irrelevant. If you make interesting powers, people will tend to like them.

Now the one flavor consideration that is very important is that powers should translate easy into descriptions. 4E tended to violate this principle the most and I feel it was what really turned people off of it from a flavor standpoint. You had taunting powers that somehow were able to taunt gelatinous cubes and giant bees.

It also had flavor mismatch issues, such that a 10x10x10 cube of gelatinous goo somehow had a better reflex defense than a goblin warrior.

Swordslinger wrote: Most of the problem with 4E powers wasn't in how they were presented, but just in the fact that they were boring in general. Whether you flower them up with a ton of flavor text or not is pretty irrelevant. If you make interesting powers, people will tend to like them.

Maybe I'm looking back with rose-coloured glasses, but I remember when I was a kid I thought that the Fireball, Lightning Bolt, Shout and Cone of Cold spells were pretty neat, notwithstanding the fact that mechanically they're pretty similar.

If you're going to abstract away all the things that make them cool (e.g. fireballs don't explode, lightning bolts don't conduct, shouts don't deafen, and cones of cold don't freeze stuff), you might as well use a single abstract 'area damage effect' that allows you to specify a type and an area template.

If you're going to retain what actually makes the abilities interesting, writing them up separately totally makes sense.

Swordslinger wrote:That really can just be a simple line listing how much damage it deals. Adding extra flavor text about how a big ball of fire can light objects on fire is generally just a waste of time, as any DM should be logically adding consequences like that. Unless you're actually lighting a PC on fire, which is difference since that isn't a default assumption in the rules.

This isn't flavor text, it's rules text. A magical fireball may well burn people while leaving the surrounding terrain completely untouched. Note that in the 3.5e description of fireball it's explicit that a fireball creates "almost no pressure," so despite the fact that modern audiences might think fireball = magical grenade, you can't use fireballs to blast open a cave-in or whatever.

I've had GMs go both ways, but in my experience, you can't leave "obvious" side-effects of a magic spell unstated, because there are no "obvious" side-effects, since most people follow the trope that magic obeys its own rules about things.

CatharzGodfoot wrote:If you're going to abstract away all the things that make them cool (e.g. fireballs don't explode, lightning bolts don't conduct, shouts don't deafen, and cones of cold don't freeze stuff), you might as well use a single abstract 'area damage effect' that allows you to specify a type and an area template.

If you're going to retain what actually makes the abilities interesting, writing them up separately totally makes sense.

Mostly I prefer to just leave it to the DM as far as handling these special effects. You may want to have some kind of rules about what happens to electrical attacks that contact water or cold spells that freeze water, but that should mostly just be in the details of the electricity descriptor in general, not one specific spell.

It strikes me as a pretty big waste of space most of the time. I don't need to be told that scorching ray, fireball and inferno breath can all light shit on fire. It just gets very redundant and even worse, people get the wrong impression if a game designer mistakenly leaves this stuff out.

Now if you're writing a spell however that leaves everything but the enemies untouched, some kind of seeking holy fire for instance, that does belong in the spell description, or at least have its own special descriptor.

This seems like the kind of thing that could be solved with keywords / tags. Give spells the appropriate tag - [Fire], [Cold], [Ninjas], whatever. Not every spell needs a tag; you could have a "Heat Wave" spell that does fire damage but doesn't have the [Fire] tag because it doesn't otherwise behave like fire.

Then have a section at the beginning of the spells chapter where the effects of those tags are laid out - fire ignites things, cold makes a layer of ice, lightning conducts, ninjas leave a cloud of smoke and discarded shurikens behind, and so forth. With multiple tags, you can distinguish spells - Rain of Flames [Fire] ignites things, but has no other effects. Crimson Bomb [Fire] [Explosion] [Smoke] also knocks people down and deafens them, and leaves a cloud of noxious smoke behind.

An advantage of doing it this way is that groups can pick how detailed they want to go. You can use the specific rules associated with the element, or just adjudicate relevant details on the fly.

CatharzGodfoot wrote:If you're going to retain what actually makes the abilities interesting, writing them up separately totally makes sense.

you just summarized the entire article with that sentence.

some people just want the crunch, and they can easily skim over the flavor...other find the crunch uninspiring in and of itself...no matter how creative they are.

because one DM flavoring crunch one way, then another moving to another flavor means a disconnect...and this can even be so within the same group when people dont see these things form any common ground...the fluff helps keep common ground because that lightning bolt you all can see jumping form one person to the next, and the breathe/cone everyone shares the same image of close enough it doesnt take time during play to go over it each time for someone to make sure they are seeing and responding to the same thing.

saying a fireball does X damage in Y area/volume, doesnt really give anything, but the explosion means a concussion wave that the players can play off of as well the DM.

you dont really need precise rules for that concussion wave to say who it knocks down or whatever (roll an ability check)...but you get a MUCH more cinematic feel, to borrow form 4th...with the flavor.

the flavor gives everyone that wants it the doors blowing open from the explosion, while no flavor or choosing to avoid it, doesnt FORCE people into having the doors be blown open because of the mechanics.

people get to play how they want to, rather than be forced into a playstyle that may be equivalent to eating a piece of cardboard.

Swordslinger wrote: Well power descriptions I really don' have a huge problem with. Powers are powers, and should be described in as concise a notation as possible. Fireball in 3E isn't remarkably different from fireball in 4E. Both are just area bursts of fire that damage everything uniformly in a given area.

That really can just be a simple line listing how much damage it deals. Adding extra flavor text about how a big ball of fire can light objects on fire is generally just a waste of time, as any DM should be logically adding consequences like that. Unless you're actually lighting a PC on fire, which is difference since that isn't a default assumption in the rules.

Eh, Fireball is clearly a giant explosion but what about a spell like this:

Wrath of Imix
Range: Long
Area of Effect: 20' burst
All creatures within the burst take 1d6 fire damage per caster level, to a maximum of 10d6 (Reflex half).

That could be a giant explosion, or it could be a curse that directly applies fire damage to each creature, I don't know. That makes the DM kind of a dick if he arbitrarily decides it starts a fire in the sacred druid forest, so it defaults to whatever is least likely to introduce complications and that's boring. So even if Wrath of Some Canon Dude is supposed to be a weird creature-only effect that can't start a brush fire, it should state that to acknowledge that other fire abilities don't work that way.

You're right about Smashing Blow though. Well, unless there's some way it could mean "you are British and greatly approve of this bag of cocaine."

ModelCitizen wrote: Wrath of Imix
Range: Long
Area of Effect: 20' burst
All creatures within the burst take 1d6 fire damage per caster level, to a maximum of 10d6 (Reflex half).

That could be a giant explosion, or it could be a curse that directly applies fire damage to each creature, I don't know. That makes the DM kind of a dick if he arbitrarily decides it starts a fire in the sacred druid forest, so it defaults to whatever is least likely to introduce complications and that's boring. So even if Wrath of Some Canon Dude is supposed to be a weird creature-only effect that can't start a brush fire, it should state that to acknowledge that other fire abilities don't work that way.

Generally there are two types of spells. Spells that friendly fire and spells that don't. Now spells that are capable of friendly fire (ie. all creatures) create some kind of explosion or effect that covers the entire area of the spell, because you cannot choose to exclude targets. Therefore, yeah you burn down a druid grove if that happens to be in the area.

Spells that target only enemies basically let you determine who you want your enemies to be. So unless you wanted to burn down the grove, you can avoid doing so.

Swordslinger wrote: Generally there are two types of spells. Spells that friendly fire and spells that don't. Now spells that are capable of friendly fire (ie. all creatures) create some kind of explosion or effect that covers the entire area of the spell, because you cannot choose to exclude targets. Therefore, yeah you burn down a druid grove if that happens to be in the area.

Spells that target only enemies basically let you determine who you want your enemies to be. So unless you wanted to burn down the grove, you can avoid doing so.

If you're talking about bursts affecting the environment in 4e, as far as I know it doesn't matter whether you say creatures in burst or enemies in burst. All that matters is whether you say objects in burst. (And not even that, really. Most parts of the terrain aren't objects if you want to get rules-lawyery about it.)

4ePHB1 Fireball's flavortext does explicitly say it's an explosion, but flavortext isn't supposed to have any mechanical effect and its Target line doesn't say anything about objects or terrain.


E: I'm looking at wizard powers right now and I just realized what I don't like about 4e power blocks. Power block pages don't have art. Twelve pages of wizard powers, one picture.

ModelCitizen wrote:E: I'm looking at wizard powers right now and I just realized what I don't like about 4e power blocks. Power block pages don't have art. Twelve pages of wizard powers, one picture.

One of the things that personally put me off 4E a little bit was their graphical presentation style. The bright colors and the stark boxes combined with the reduced complexity of certain core mechanics gave the game materials a very distinct "Fisher-Price" feel in some ways. They also made some changes to their artwork styles, favoring cleaner art and brighter colors as well as using the "colored bars" motif in many new places. It's entirely subjective, obviously, but I really found that it affected my impression of the product pretty strongly.

echo