The Gaming Den

they jsut read the 4th edition forums where they were told time and again about how to design ANYTHING the rule is always: K.I.S.S.

I actually love the bit about "why not just use ability scores to make saving throws?" That's so fundamentally stupid that it's hard to even describe it. I mean, seriously? Seriously? You have to ask why you'd use a level-based quantity instead of a level-independent quantity to determine whether your character fucking dies or not?

-Username17

Ability checks were one of the things I totally didn't miss about AD&D.

sp you want saving throws to be race based, not level based? because class and race is all you get things from, and race is the only thing that isn't level dependent.

shadzar wrote:sp you want saving throws to be race based, not level based? because class and race is all you get things from, and race is the only thing that isn't level dependent.

No, the point is that you want a level-based value.

i still like PPD/RSW/etc for saves. you save against the thing hitting you, not it saves against you....

Flat, you realize ability checks is all skills are right? they are based on some ability that you have and modified, just as NWPs were. there has been no real change to that, even if the ability itself is not disclosed within the rules like AD&D did.

what they have to do with saves, i am not sure. i couldn't even bother after last week to read L&L yet, but better try it now vbeore i sober up.

FrankTrollman wrote:I actually love the bit about "why not just use ability scores to make saving throws?" That's so fundamentally stupid that it's hard to even describe it. I mean, seriously? Seriously? You have to ask why you'd use a level-based quantity instead of a level-independent quantity to determine whether your character fucking dies or not?

It could work, so long as they were willing to make ability scores actually scale. If anything, that paradigm might be good for D&D, since if you have the fighter actually get superhumanly strong from gaining fighter levels, you'd reinforce that he's Hercules instead of Boromir.

Not that Mearls actually did any of that, but I think the design philosophy could have some merit if done right.

I think the number of players who would accept a paradigm where high level fighters were all Hercules strong is pretty big. I think the number of players who would accept a paradigm where all high level Halfling rogues were Hercules strong is pretty small.

There's a limit to how much you can have your "not dying" numbers diverge at high level before it stops being a campaign game and starts being a parody of Scanners. So if you're using the attributes as a stand-in for people not dying to level appropriate attacks, then those attributes can't diverge that much. So if there's some level that all the Fighters have to be Hercules strong, then a few levels later all the Wizards are going to have to be as strong as Hercules as well.

It's the fundamental logic that got us huge Acrobatics bonuses on high level Dwarven Clerics in 4th edition. It's a fundamental constraint of things that scale by level and are also bound to not diverge too much. And Mike Mearls' answer of "fuck it, let's just have the numbers that make you not die not scale" is not an option worth considering.

-Username17

then class prime ability score = score + level

FrankTrollman wrote:I think the number of players who would accept a paradigm where high level fighters were all Hercules strong is pretty big. I think the number of players who would accept a paradigm where all high level Halfling rogues were Hercules strong is pretty small.

True, but you may not need to be Hercules, and keep in mind every class can have a separate set of ability modifiers. A rogue by and large would still have a crap strength but would be using escape artist to get out of grapples instead of powering his way through them. He probably wouldn't be able to smash through walls the way a high level fighter could, but that's fine. He's using a finesse weapon so his dexterity gets used for attacks.

Now constitution is probably something that has to go up for everyone, but given that constitution is entirely passive anyway, and people were okay with scaling hit points and fortitude saves, I don't see any reason why you can't have halfling rogues with 30 con. It's just another way of emphasizing everyone is superhuman at that level, which is something the game should be doing anyway.

The only thing I see that may be difficult to believe is the high-dexterity wizard. But you could handle that by not giving the wizard dexterity bonuses, and having him rely on buff spells. People would be okay if the wizard required magic to be fast or to resist poison, and you'd also have the added bonus of slightly curbing wizard power at higher levels by forcing them to burn slots to stay competitive physically.

strength = fighter
int = wizard
wis = cleric
dex = rogue (spit)
cha = ?
con = ?

basically covers the class groups right there. first class si what gets the bonus in the case of multiclass characters. gestalt need nothing extra they are dumb and off the RNG anyway...

FrankTrollman wrote:So if there's some level that all the Fighters have to be Hercules strong, then a few levels later all the Wizards are going to have to be as strong as Hercules as well.

Can you explain this reasoning? I'm not following why wizards have to get that strong as well.

Previn wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote:So if there's some level that all the Fighters have to be Hercules strong, then a few levels later all the Wizards are going to have to be as strong as Hercules as well.

Can you explain this reasoning? I'm not following why wizards have to get that strong as well.

If Fighters are becoming Hercules strong because Strength is used as a defense (as opposed to a separate saving throw), then a few levels later the Wizard needs to have a similar strength just to be on the same playing field as the Fighter (who is no Hercules++ strong) when it comes to surviving things that target strength.

Yeah my level 1 Rogue's Wisdom is 9.

I don't think he will ever be passing a save related to that stat.

Example:

In a level system, it may be considered desireable to ensure that high level characters are 'better' at common tasks than low-level characters. Under such a system, everyone gets a bonus to skills equal to half their level.

At 20th level, then, a Wizard would have a +10 to open locks (plus whatever other bonus, such as Dexterity). A Rogue might have a +20 (plus whatever bonus). But take something like 'Jump'.

A Fighter with Strength +5 and no 'training' will have a +15 at 20th level. A Wizard with a Strength +0 and no 'training' with have a +10 at 20th level. The Wizard is performing better than a low-level Fighter, despite being pasty and weak.

Some of this is mitigated by assuming that characters can and will advance a primary attribute... If the Fighter has +20 Strength, then other characters won't be close to the same absolute or relative ability - but you're also likely to be right of the RNG and have some characters in a situation 'impossible to fail' with others 'impossible to succeed'.

Usually, a fairly small divergence of critical numbers is desireable. The differences between the Saving Throws of your 'best' and 'worst' characters should be in a narrow band, or else the 'worst characters' will suffer defeat frequently while the best characters never suffer defeat... A level based system helps ensure that - such as 3.x saving throw modifiers. Those get twisted with double-dipping for the +2 at 1st level and all kinds of other ways, but in a straight +2 at 1st to +12 at 20th level, it mostly works that way - the only divergence would be based on attribute, which tend to fall in a narrow band.

Something else that Mearls is doing here: he's being really fucking dishonest.

Not surprising, but his 'simple' attributes= saves isn't what actually happens in next.

You've got attributes = saves.
+ save proficiencies (which scale from +1 to 6) and classes either have 1 or 2 of these.
+spell bonus (+various +1s and +2 from things like prayer and haste and whatnot)
+ class bonuses (paladin auras, which are another (+1 to 6)
+magic item bonuses (rings of protection, robes of archmagi, another +1 or 2)
+potion bonuses (heroism) yet another +2.

So the 'simple' Next saves range from -1 to somewhere around 25ish. It might cap somewhere south of 30, but I don't feel like tracking them down and figuring out what stacks and doesn't, and exactly everything you can pile on. Oh, and advantage on top of all the fiddly bonuses that advantage supposedly replaces...

FrankTrollman wrote: It's the fundamental logic that got us huge Acrobatics bonuses on high level Dwarven Clerics in 4th edition.

High level Dwarven Clerics in 3e/PF can dodge fireballs better than low level rogues though, 'cause their reflex save goes up. Same with the high level Dwarven Clerics in AD&D who dodge dragon's breath and death rays.

OgreBattle wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote: It's the fundamental logic that got us huge Acrobatics bonuses on high level Dwarven Clerics in 4th edition.

High level Dwarven Clerics in 3e/PF can dodge fireballs better than low level rogues though, 'cause their reflex save goes up. Same with the high level Dwarven Clerics in AD&D who dodge dragon's breath and death rays.

I'm pretty sure this is even true in AD&D, though I don't remember the details of the save chart well enough to be 100% certain.

OgreBattle wrote:High level Dwarven Clerics in 3e/PF can dodge fireballs better than low level rogues though, 'cause their reflex save goes up. Same with the high level Dwarven Clerics in AD&D who dodge dragon's breath and death rays.

Yeah, discounting magic items, a lvl 18 cleric with 10 dex has a higher bonus than a lvl 1 rogue with 16 dex.
Though, I've never had a game go beyond level 16 sadly.

In AD&D you don't dodge dragon breath, you withstand it. It's a grit-your-teeth save. And high level Dwarf Clerics are not all that good at it with their level limits and bonuses not applied there. Fortunately, low level Thieves are even worse, though it's suggested they could weasel a Dex (reactions) mod to the save if they're right at the edge of the effect.

Death rays are a save vs Death (it's a priority system, Death first, spells acting as the final catch-all), which also doesn't get dex mods unless you weasel one, and Clerics get about +8 to them at level 1. Thieves, again, have poor Death saves. Infact, Thieves just have poor saves in AD&D, the only thing they win at is the HD defence race, because they're higher level than everyone all the time.


@L&L: that's a great column. Removed all those fiddly bonuses and replaced them with the advantage system. Annnnnnd then added a bunch of fiddly bonuses back in on top of that.

The insight we gained from the playtest surveys helped to guide us as we decided what to cut, what to slim down, what to keep, and what to expand upon.

The squeaky wheel gets the oil, then. People didn't like d20+d12 because the math didn't work, so they made it d20+6 and didn't give anyone time to complain about it. Problem solved.

I hope you all feel bad about deliberately messing with their surveys. Can anyone find where they might have helped lead the game astray? "Greatest troll ever" award on offer.

that is cause thieves in AD&D are supposed to be hiding behind the dragon where it can't see them (Bilbo Baggins). this is why the thief class has always been screwed up because it tries to emulate something that it can never come close to as a thief isn't born with the One Ring as part of its class.

tussock wrote:In AD&D you don't dodge dragon breath, you withstand it. It's a grit-your-teeth save.

I don't think it is ever clarified to that extent. I certainly don't remember any flavor text associated with the saves or charts; just 'your roll was good (over the listed number): you take half damage'

phlapjackage wrote:This quote from Mearls says it all right here:
"An approach that attempts to put a minimum amount of effort, tracking, and work into an RPG"

I honestly thought that was just a subtle dig at pathfinder where every class needs some kind of shitty class pool to do some terrible accounting with.

ishy wrote:

phlapjackage wrote:This quote from Mearls says it all right here:
"An approach that attempts to put a minimum amount of effort, tracking, and work into an RPG"

I honestly thought that was just a subtle dig at pathfinder where every class needs some kind of shitty class pool to do some terrible accounting with.

That would be ironic, given Mearls' primary authorship of Iron Heroes, where every class had a shitty class pool to do terrible accounting with.

And 4e as well, which loved its round by round tiny pieces of non-standardized shit. For everybody, and so terribly done that they weren't even consistent about which part of the turn ended effects.