Well, Mike Mearls got promoted. Any hope for 5e?

[Lago PARANOIA]

No, they don't. It's okay for one player to be the MVP and make everyone else feel small in the pants, as long as the Top Dog position gets rotated fairly among players. It's not okay for one person to hold onto the Hackmaster +12 for the next two years and muscle out anyone else getting the spotlight, meaning that you either need to escalate the magical item drops (which is impractical), keep the bonuses fairly low (which sucks out their coolness), or give a time limit on uber magical items.

Furthermore, I'm also totally okay with having normally challenging combats trivialized by a special advantage as long as the resolution is quick--so no 2 hours spent pulling off the wings of flies. Pwning the goblins in a 4-part challenge of the adventure 'rescue the princess' doesn't cheat you out of combat, it just means you get a head start on your next adventure because you finished the adventure one hour early. That's really the most infuriating part of j/cRPGs is that they assume that the only way you'll have fun is by meeting the adventure benchmarks so of course you can't insta-gib the final boss or rescue the princess underneath his nose.

[DSMatticus]

It's okay for one player to be the MVP and make everyone else feel small in the pants

That doesn't really sound fun, not in the combat minigame, which is the biggest part of D&D. Especially if the MVP seat lasts the entire session. That's just terrible.

Furthermore, I'm also totally okay with having normally challenging combats trivialized by a special advantage

That was kind of my point. Because the combats are trivialized, you'll move on to non-trivial combats; the idea that you can give a bonus to a player that makes him capable of beating harder challenges and not expect the challenges to get harder is kind of like the idea of not handwaving the goblin cave when you have the Sword of Goblin Pwning. The actual things your players will spend session time on are the things that challenge them. And if your players get 'challenged' at different points, then encounter design is hard and player performance is imbalanced (MVP-scenario).

[Lago PARANOIA]

That doesn't really sound fun, not in the combat minigame, which is the biggest part of D&D. Especially if the MVP seat lasts the entire session. That's just terrible.

Combat already has MVPs, unless the classes/tactical setup is so bland that things would have played out the same with a different configuration. If you're doing an 'against the frost giants and their zombie pets' adventure then the Fire Mage is going to shine. If you're doing an 'against the stone golems and their earth elemental masters' adventure then the rogue is going to feel small in the pants.

The actual things your players will spend session time on are the things that challenge them. And if your players get 'challenged' at different points, then encounter design is hard and player performance is imbalanced (MVP-scenario).

1) Every encounter being designed to provide a fair challenge breaks suspension of disbelief after awhile. It's a common trope in adventure fiction, especially serials, for heroes to engage in unchallenging combat that does little other than to show off how badass they are. It adds depth to the world by showing that there are layers to it beyond the perspective the PCs usually face; and it's definitely preferable to the 'heroes stumble upon hungry ancient red dragon while exploring N00b Cave'.

2) Even defining things in strictly tactical-combat setup terms (which I definitely don't think is the only appeal of D&D) the memory of curbstomping certain challenges will persist and make players feel empowered. The dead easy combats, as long as they don't derail the gaming session, are important because it makes players actually feel like they're advancing rather than existing in a world where everything is a perfectly balanced struggle. I don't know about you, but I'd get bored/frustrated with long-running games like Sudoku or Super Mario World quickly if they didn't have levels or sessions that didn't go 'huh, that was easier than I expected!'

[Swordslinger]

It might be ok if there was a clear and consistent logic to the power levels of the items that are rare, uncommon, common etc. But as always the rules are let down by poor implementation and the designers apparent ignorance about real power levels.

They seriously would have been better asking the Charop board to evaluate the items and classifying them that way.

Yes. That much is true. As with most things 4E, the underlying systems and principles are generally good, but the implementation leaves something to be desired.

Still I really feel like a basic rarity system like the 4E one is the future of magical item distribution. There's basic stuff that you can craft/buy, good stuff you can find, and an occasional unique magic item you get that's character defining.

[shadzar]

What do I think is the absolute best way to handle magical items?

1) They shouldn't be necessary for you to function AND give you an option of not having them.

I disagree with some of the things you said in the whole post, but want to just address this part.

They arent necessary, and you DONT have to have them. the problem is a point will come where the level gaining stops due to nothing being left to fight.

You know, it really SHOULD be that way.

Take vampiers and werewolves, that have clearly established mythology that is expected. Silver bullet, white apsen stake through the heart....these were in D&D. Silver weapon was needed to hurt and kill a werewolf. But finding a silver weapon was a bit of stretch for the game, so to bypass these supernatural defenses, a magic weapon counted for ALL mythology ways of harming/killing these monsters. Just being magical +1 removed this. That is all it should be needed, but of course the greater the plus the minor little bit extra damage and success chance to damage you have.

That is part of it, as for the rest of magic items like rings, etc.. they should really be needed and a DM can easily remove them from the game. If everyone has a +1 weapon, they should be able to hit and hurt anything within it, due to the translation of the supernatural defenses into the D&D world, and everyone should be able to find a +1 weapon before too long...at least the PCs.

[ishy]

Magic items shouldn't have stats like +1/2/3/4/5 in the first place. They are boring, people don't really care about it and well it makes no sense from an ingame perspective anyway.


And if you have items that you can find, the most important part is that they don't suck.
The Apparatus of the Crab in the dmg for example is actually quite a cool item, but once you tell anyone what it is worth, they'll sell it immediatly to buy stuff that really helps them.
And it is way worse for items that are really expensive and that aren't interesting or useful.

[Swordslinger]

And if you have items that you can find, the most important part is that they don't suck.
The Apparatus of the Crab in the dmg for example is actually quite a cool item, but once you tell anyone what it is worth, they'll sell it immediatly to buy stuff that really helps them.
And it is way worse for items that are really expensive and that aren't interesting or useful.

That's actually a nice benefit of the rarity system in that you can make something like that unpurachaseable but a low item level, so that people don't have incentives to sell it.

[shadzar]

Magic items shouldn't have stats like +1/2/3/4/5 in the first place. They are boring, people don't really care about it and well it makes no sense from an ingame perspective anyway.


And if you have items that you can find, the most important part is that they don't suck.
The Apparatus of the Crab in the dmg for example is actually quite a cool item, but once you tell anyone what it is worth, they'll sell it immediatly to buy stuff that really helps them.
And it is way worse for items that are really expensive and that aren't interesting or useful.

This isnt really a problem with the game again...just dont give out +2 and up items as the DM... then people wont be dealing with figuring out the math instead of playing the game, same for the item and its value.

But you will hit the problem where the +2 and up items came from, you will reach a point where the math breaks down and all levels become the same, so you need something to give to the PCs IF you want to continue to level and have any challenge with combats.

[erik]

If magic items did not have prices, and did not have bonus tiers that would be a huge improvement upon DnD.

You could still find and craft things, but require XP or some non-physical currency component for crafting. I'd like it if generally items are found (stolen), crafted or bartered for. Buying at a store really takes the magic out of it.

You could randomly find some cool stuff, and conceivably use it your whole career rather than trading it out for the next bigger bonus item.


I feel a compulsion to respond since the pets are fed, family sleeping early and I need no sandwich.

This isnt really a problem with the game again...just dont give out +2 and up items as the DM... then people wont be dealing with figuring out the math instead of playing the game, same for the item and its value.

But you will hit the problem where the +2 and up items came from, you will reach a point where the math breaks down and all levels become the same, so you need something to give to the PCs IF you want to continue to level and have any challenge with combats.

That is exactly wrong. Having items scale up makes the math break down faster as you have more and more bonuses going up.

It is true that you'd have to incorporate changes to monsters on any major magic item change since the assumption is that you do have a certain X bonus at each level and that you do keep swapping out items. Most system overhauls require monster overhauls, but with a new edition that is assumed anyway. So you will be able to factor in that items do not keep scaling up incrementally.

If you remove a lot of the oomph from items and the requirement to play the upgrading game, then the math does not break down as quickly *and* levels are more important rather than all the same. You can slay the mighty monster not because you had top gear, but because you are a badass hero.

I could see having 2 tiers of bonuses... magic and epic/artifacts. That's fine. But having magic scale with fine granularity and be salable really screws up items and the game as a whole.

[shadzar]

If magic items did not have prices, and did not have bonus tiers that would be a huge improvement upon DnD.

They didnt really START with prices, but 3rd made the "cost" into an actual buying price.

The "cost' was there initially because XP was gained from GP value of treasure, so even magic items needed a GP value to convert to XP.

That oculd easily be removed so there is NO price to buy them and selling one would be up to a PC and whether they want that item to maybe be used against them or others weaker than them, as well as whatever someone may be able to find someone to pay for it.

[shadzar]

Skills in D&D

Thankfully Mearls is no longer a designer, but hoping his new position doesnt actually lead any kind of design cause his ideas are failures, as this newest article shows.

He is basically continuing the biggest problem of fake choices and options, and recreating the fire-building NWP.

I get where people couldnt understand something so simple that a rogue got climb walls under AD&D as part of a class, skill and confused them so they tried with skills and feats to give everyone these fake choices and limits of things to do, because people couldnt understand the class specific climb walls, didnt mean only rogues could climb walls.

The problem was that people see a thing like climb-walls, and think they cannot try because they dont have the option, and thought only rogues could climb walls as part of their class abilities, which was wrong thinking by ANY and all players, and again becomes the fire-building NWP, because if you dont pick it, you obviously cant build a fire.

The complexity of something so simple is just adding more fake choices, which actually limits gameplay. You dont need these feats/skills/NWPs to give a bonus to do something, but should have a flat ability that people can do...which goes back to the ability scores, and using a simple check.

A wizard with a climb walls skill that somehow raises with levels because of skill points or something, is in violation of verisimilitude because the wizard hadnt been climbing walls, so how the hell did he get better at it?

unable to fall because some skill called "cautious climber" also removes the player form making choices, that determine the direction of the game, but the rules determine things for the players and DMs alike. Such as a natural 20 being an automatic hit was optional, then too this no-falling crap doesnt belong either.

again good Mearls is no longer designing, because this concept should never even been spoken by a competent designer of a game where the player decides what action to attempt, and the dice decide pass or fail as the baseline. you should NEVER remove the option of failure, else you make passing moot and worthless.

also, how in the hell can someone be "out of practice" for designing things for a game, that they should be playing all the time? by playing and running the game you should always be IN practice for designing because it must be done on the fly.

seriously, things like this are a reason his comments from GenCon exist...

They need to get back that trust. If players hate what WotC publishes they’ll stop buying it.

do people trust WotC still to make it, I think is what Mearls is and has been thinking for a while, and how to get back that trust, while keeping monetized...

This part says that WotC should NOT be trusted at all...

We expect more because we’re creators – we’re much more intellectually engaged with our game than most people are with their games.

Maybe more financially engaged, cause your income depends on it, but the fumes of online wars about various things and amount of discussions on places like TGD, DragonsFoot, ENWorld, etc, etc, etc prove WotC by sheer numbers of people is LESS intellectually involved, unles they mean intellectually in the sense of IP (intellectual property).

[CapnTthePirateG]

So why the hell are there percentile chances to climb walls and build fires? Either

1) Everyone can climb the wall, but only the rogue has a percentage chance to fail. This fucks the rogue.
2)No one but the rogue can climb the wall.
3)These stupid rules make no sense, break out the MTP.

Concerning the article:

We don’t hide things like the rules for climbing or jumping in the skills chapter. We just have rules for how to climb, and then perhaps a skill that makes you better at climbing.

Wait, what the shit? Aren't the rules for climb in the skill chapter usually?

Oh wait, this climb skill fucking sucks.

If the DM rules that climbing a surface requires a check, you usually make a Strength check to pull yourself up. Your DM might instead ask for a Dexterity check to climb a swaying surface, or a Wisdom check to find the handholds on an invisible wall of force.

Remember how you could bullshit your way through skill challenges by claiming you knew enough history to intimidate some thugs? Now you just bullshit your way through all the skills. Your wizard clearly uses intelligence to climb, because he uses advanced vector calculations to use what little physical strength he has to the best advantage. That swashbuckler intimidates with a flurry of fast movements rather than awesome charisma, so he uses Dex. Either just flat out say "you use your best ability score" or drop the flexibility bullshit.

The climb traits strike me as the 3.5 skill traits. You could seriously take cautious climber and never give a shit about making climb checks again. Seriously. You don't fall, and you only move at half speed, and in some kind of combat escape thing, I suspect there'd be other options than just climbing in the open. Spider climb is kinda cool.

Overall, a few good ideas, dubious implementation.


"

[Ravengm]

Overall, a few good ideas, dubious implementation.

Nice to meet you, my name is Mike Mearls.

[Ice9]

The idea of skills that improve on basic actions instead of enabling them in the first place, and give out options/advantages instead of raw numbers, sounds like it might be good. Not surprisingly, the implementation is rather crap.
One thing though, you'd want to preserve the ability to eventually become a legendary climber who just scampers up that oiled wall of glass like it was nothing, without everyone doing so at 1st level.


Tangentially, I've seen one good explanation for the percentile thief skills, although I don't know if it's actually in any book or just somebody's house rule. The idea is that the % chance is to do things that would normally be impossible. So anybody can hide when they have a good spot - the thief has a chance to hide in an empty hallway. Anybody can climb a wall that has something to hold onto - the thief has a chance to scale smooth stone. And so forth.

[Stubbazubba]

Including some kind of viable horizontal advancement option is definitely a good idea, but pass/fail mechanics is not.

[shadzar]

Tangentially, I've seen one good explanation for the percentile thief skills, although I don't know if it's actually in any book or just somebody's house rule. The idea is that the % chance is to do things that would normally be impossible. So anybody can hide when they have a good spot - the thief has a chance to hide in an empty hallway. Anybody can climb a wall that has something to hold onto - the thief has a chance to scale smooth stone. And so forth.

Pretty much this IS the reason the rogue skills existed as such. ANYBODY could do these things, but the rogue did them in spectacular, unusual, and unimaginable ways, because it was core to the function of a rogue to need to do these things in "the harshest condition" for doing them.

Your empty hallway is by far the best example of why the thief had the skill, but others could hide behind statues and such. Basically the thief could hide in plain sight.

Really good example.

Here is what the book says that is similar...

All [rogues] are skilled in climbing and clinging to small cracks and outcroppings--even more skilled than the hardy men of the mountains. They are alert and attentive, hearing things that others would miss.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Tangentially, I've seen one good explanation for the percentile thief skills, although I don't know if it's actually in any book or just somebody's house rule.

I believe that's the Castles & Crusades take.

[Psychic Robot]

okay if you're going to be stupid and try to make any stat apply to any skill then just make it not rely on stats. in fact maybe we should just get rid of stats mearls you stupid hack, why aren't you fired yet

[sake]

So when is the 'Mearls not designing anymore thing going to kick in? Cause the last few classes they've put out, the Binder, Vampire, and Bladesinger are so bad that they've actually made me long for the days back when the PHB3 and it's the Seeker, Runepriest, and fucking this class might as well only have two goddamn powers Psion came out, which all seem like flawless masterpieces of design by the current standards.

[CapnTthePirateG]

Not to mention the necromancer mage, a steaming pile of crappy powers which in no way resembles anyone's actual conception of a necromancer. "You get 1 skeleton, and a pile of shitty blasting powers, which you have no incentive to use."

Best way to play a necromancer: play an enchanter mage, with the secondary mage thing necromancy for your undead bro, and stack save penalties onto that slumber of the winter court power. You know, the one that only cares if you fail your first save and thus all the supposedly fixed save penalties help you auto-win.

But hey, 4e is the one true balanced edition, right?

[sake]

Never quite saw the problem with the wizard tossing around actual hard action denial effects that last for a duration you might actually care about, instead of piddly attack penalties, slows, or limited forced movement that can't even be used offensively without someone bitching about it being overpowered... but, yeah, they never did get that controller role thing quite right did they?

[ishy]

I actually really dislike the new proposed skill system because it looks to similiar to what pathfinder is doing. Which is basically, many many shitty options combined with some good ones. So now if I have 10 skill points to spend or something, and with 4 splatbooks, I'd have to read through 40 pages or something just to assign some skills.

[CapnTthePirateG]

Never quite saw the problem with the wizard tossing around actual hard action denial effects that last for a duration you might actually care about, instead of piddly attack penalties, slows, or limited forced movement that can't even be used offensively without someone bitching about it being overpowered... but, yeah, they never did get that controller role thing quite right did they?

...but...but if you use murder pinball or throw someone off a cliff, that might make your combat last less than three hours, and we can't have that!

[Lago PARANOIA]

I think there's a very hard limit onto providing horizontal advancement. It's not a panacea to the problem of magical item bonuses, for many reasons.

1) Horizontal Advancement can recycle into Vertical Advancement if it goes far enough. The classic example is a Wizard with Overland Flight. Against pure melee monsters, there's really no difference between giving him a +20 to defenses and that spell. Horizontal Advancement also combos into Vertical Advancement, too. For a DMF Overland Flight on its own is perfectly fine horizontal advancement. So is developing a credible ranged schtick. Getting both at the same time causes problems.

2) Horizontal Advancement takes up too much mental space, especially if it's a complete deviation from what a character does. A Ring of Detect Thoughts will open up a lot of potential roleplay and problem-solving avenues and isn't really much better for an inquisitor-style paladin or a gladiator-style fighter to own. However it's also likely and predictable that the fighter will end up using the Ring of Detect Thoughts less--not because it's less useful for the Fighter, but because it doesn't fit their overall idiom.

3) Horizontal Advancement can piss in the cheerios of other characters. A ring of telekinesis, goggles of detect thoughts, and a shield of project image are perfectly fine magical items that don't create any gamebreaking combos on their own or put together. However, if the party cleric equips all of these things and ends up using them it'll end up making the psion feel small in the pants. The cleric can do all of their important things and do shit on top of that. Even though this wouldn't be the case if the game didn't throw out so many magical items.

The only real solution to that is if the psion is allowed to get magical items that will give them some own horizontal advancement, only now he's pissing into the cheerios of the party ranger. And even if you do the same for the ranger and whoever else so that no one has an edge, the best case is that you have a party full of redundant schticks and characters that feel all of the same.


Don't get me wrong, Horizontal Advancement is really important and fun. A heroic fantasy system that couldn't support people getting flying carpets is really bogus and sad. But it should not be the only or even the primary way of balancing a magical item system.

[Gx1080]

Same discussion than in some MMO sites, people need to get over their kneekerk-armchair-designer reaction to clases and levels and understand that they are there for a reason. Namely: They work. And a skill-based system is waay too easy to screw up (a lot more of gimps and Supermen) and is not too friendly to begginer players.