Monte Cook IS working on 5th edition...

[Fuchs]

I like the idea of having skills and magic meet in the middle for almost everything else, I just don't think it works for Athletics.

Unless you go anime athletics, and give running on walls and jumping off them better maneuverability than flying through wings or spells.

[Falgund]

Or unless spells/powers that give flying (or other movement abilities) scale with the Athletics skill.

[ModelCitizen]

Yeah, those sound reasonable too.

My point is just that Option 3 lets you keep plugging in skill ranks but doesn't try to give you anything level-appropriate in return. I'm probably being too nitpicky though. The question was about rules vs MTP and Climb was just an example.

[shadzar]

Do you need new material constantly though?

sadly some do because of this new age wanting a "new shiny" all the time, and the hype factor and pop factor have become more ingrained into people since the 80s with advertising and everyone trying to follow someone else.

the company of course helps with this, though they dont need to these days, to try to get people to "catch 'em all'.

i think it was the WotC forums someone said "we buy books of rules so expect there to be plenty of them like option 3"....

Gary wrote something along the lines of "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules."

well maybe some people today DO need to have it let known.

[hogarth]

My point is just that Option 3 lets you keep plugging in skill ranks but doesn't try to give you anything level-appropriate in return.

The idea that 20 ranks in Use Rope should give you the equivalent of a 9th level spell needs to go die in a fire.

[Username17]

My point is just that Option 3 lets you keep plugging in skill ranks but doesn't try to give you anything level-appropriate in return.

The idea that 20 ranks in Use Rope should give you the equivalent of a 9th level spell needs to go die in a fire.

20 ranks of Use Rope costs as much as a 9th level spell. So if you let people take 20 ranks of Use Rope, they should be dropping the equivalent of Quickened Dancing Chains on a regular basis. If you don't want people to cough up 20 ranks on Use Rope and get a 9th level spell effect in return, you need to change the paradigm so that Use Rope works more like Speak Language and players can't spend 20 ranks on it.

Now as to the Monte Cook article: my impression is that he was strawmanning completed rules. The way he wrote it up it made option 3 look a lot more cumbersome than it really was, and a lot of stuff was left out of option 2 to make it look more streamlined than it really was. Option 3 for example takes the time to tell you how to generate your Climb Bonus (which would presumably be standardized for skills and not appear in the actual skill description), while Option 2 not only leaves out how to calculate those things but also makes a high level function call to Combat Advantage, that is completely unexplained in the context of 5e.

So while it was written to show Option 2 as being streamlined, actually Option 2 is unplayable. While Option 1 and Option 3 can both be used out of the box.

-Username17

[CatharzGodfoot]

There's no good point on magic's "slider" where Climb is still relevant. No matter what Spider Climb does, flight will eventually push climbing off the list of things PCs care about. If players are allowed to make nontrivial investments in Athletics/Climb/Jump/whatever then climbing and jumping need to get awesome really fast and cap out early. (That doesn't mean they have to get awesome for everyone, just characters who make a serious investment in being good at them.)

I like the idea of having skills and magic meet in the middle for almost everything else, I just don't think it works for Athletics.

If that were true, flying things would not have evolved (or retained) the ability to climb well, because doing so would be totally useless next to flying. But look at woodpeckers, beetles, and bats. All flying creatures that also rely on being strong climbers, because flight is not the optimal answer in all situations.

The D&D movement rules have made flight the final answer, but that isn't the only possible set of rules.

[RadiantPhoenix]

If flight abilities granted Average or lower maneuverability more often, climb would still be relevant. I am not sure if this is what people actually want.

I think the right solution is to make flight gain some benefit from athletics, though, so people are encouraged to have both.

[shadzar]

The D&D movement rules have made flight the final answer, but that isn't the only possible set of rules.

i still dont see where flight is the final answer. is everyone playing in vast open fields or something?

or is this why the ability to fly in 4th was made some dinky encounter power that makes flgiht useless?

i would think teleporting would be the final answer to movement myself...

[Leper]

Gary wrote something along the lines of "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules."

Yeah.

He was fond of saying things like that. Another (less quoted) variant is "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need us to make the rules."

Then again, he also said things like "Advanced roleplayers will naturally gravitate towards the wizard class," and "got any coke? I need a bump."

He was a likeable guy, but his every word was not gospel truth brought down from on high. Hell, if you want to listen to someone who was both likeable and a competent game designer, you can always try Arneson.

[ModelCitizen]

If that were true, flying things would not have evolved (or retained) the ability to climb well, because doing so would be totally useless next to flying. But look at woodpeckers, beetles, and bats. All flying creatures that also rely on being strong climbers, because flight is not the optimal answer in all situations.

The D&D movement rules have made flight the final answer, but that isn't the only possible set of rules.

No one said climbing was completely useless. Continuing to offer climbing advancement past the point of flight is useless. The ability to climb shit (even really well, like Spider Climb) is an appropriate ability at pretty low level and it diminishes severely in effectiveness once flight shows up. You're still allowed to have and use the ability in mid levels, there's just no reason to try to offer better versions of it (or arbitrarily delay the good climbing abilities just so you can offer better versions later).

[Previn]

Continuing to offer climbing advancement past the point of flight is useless.

The only reason you think this is because in 3.x the Fly spell is unarguably better than climbing in every way. If the Fly spell had a poor maneuverability, there would always be points where climbing was a better option than flight if available.

If 20 ranks in climb gave you the equivalent of Spider Climbing, you could then stand on the ceiling or side of a cliff and engage those below you with full attacks, where as you couldn't do that with a poor maneuverability Fly. Climbing up a 10' wide chimney 100' tall would be a simple task for a climber, but impossible for the Fly spell if it had poor maneuverability.

[shadzar]

Gary wrote something along the lines of "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules."

Yeah.

He was fond of saying things like that. Another (less quoted) variant is "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need us to make the rules."

Then again, he also said things like "Advanced roleplayers will naturally gravitate towards the wizard class," and "got any coke? I need a bump."

He was a likeable guy, but his every word was not gospel truth brought down from on high. Hell, if you want to listen to someone who was both likeable and a competent game designer, you can always try Arneson.

attacks aside and strictly to the point...


you have to admit that current owners dont want people to know that they dont need them...this is a reason for the edition treadmill as it stands now.

contrary to those claiming demise of D&D because 2nd edition, and neglect LW involvement in fucking up the company TSR totally.

unlike ENworld and WotC forums, the Den have at least some people that understand you dont need some copywritten published product to play, and there exists"fan created" material that is jsut as good if not better than the "official" material.

sadly its all 3rd so even what i have read is mostly useless to me...BUT, the OGL is what made 3rd come over better than 2nd because the lawsuits didnt exist when you are given the right to use the system to make and sell your own stuff! which is what 2nd would have had you do if not for the wicked bitch.

Take the time to have fun with the AD&D rules. Add, create, expand, and extrapolate. Don't just let the game sit there, and don't become a rules lawyer worrying about each piddly little detail. If you can't figure out the answer, MAKE IT UP! And whatever you do, don't fall into the trap of believing these rules are complete. They are not. You cannot sit back and let the rule book do everything for you. Take the time and effort to become not just a good DM, but a brilliant one.

At conventions, in letters, and over the phone I'm often asked for the instant answer to a fine point of the game rules. More often than not, I come back with a question--what do you feel is right? And the people asking the questions discover that not only can they create an answer, but that their answer is as good as anyone else's. The rules are only guidelines.


Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

we will just have to see if anything new is WORTH buying as the move back towards 2nd edition progresses, and if too many Cook's spoil the stew.

[ModelCitizen]

Continuing to offer climbing advancement past the point of flight is useless.

The only reason you think this is because in 3.x the Fly spell is unarguably better than climbing in every way. If the Fly spell had a poor maneuverability, there would always be points where climbing was a better option than flight if available.

If 20 ranks in climb gave you the equivalent of Spider Climbing, you could then stand on the ceiling or side of a cliff and engage those below you with full attacks, where as you couldn't do that with a poor maneuverability Fly. Climbing up a 10' wide chimney 100' tall would be a simple task for a climber, but impossible for the Fly spell if it had poor maneuverability.

Poor maneuverability is a pain in the ass to run. PCs need to be able to fly, because tons of iconic monsters have flight and if melee combat is supposed to be a viable strategy you need to be to able to get to them and hit them with your sword. And if we're going to have fights in the air those fights should play cleanly.

And anyway, you think someone should have to wait 17 levels to get fucking Spider Climb? It's a second level spell, and it's not some gigantic game-breaker that needs to be deliberately moved out of the playable level range.

[tzor]

Then again, he also said things like "Advanced roleplayers will naturally gravitate towards the wizard class," and "got any coke? I need a bump."

Gary was into coke? I always thought he was a mt dew kind of guy.

[tzor]

No one said climbing was completely useless. Continuing to offer climbing advancement past the point of flight is useless.

I'm going to disagree with you here. It's not "useless" but extreemely specialized at that point and very limited in use. The idea is that climing is the ability to travel in a vertical direction while maintaining contact with a surface. Both points are equally valid and necessary at times. Flying only considers the first point.

Examples:

You are in a cone shaped structure that sourrounds a whirlwind with speeds of 100 MPH. Any attempt at flying will get you smacked by the wind and thrown into the wall. Your only hope is to climb up the wall with the wind trying to tear you off of the wall. I'd call that a very high level type of climb.

You have just sucessfully flown to the back of the bug huge friuckin' dragon. You need to jam a dagger in the one weak spot in his armor. The dragon, for his part insists on doing a barrel roll while flying at full speed. He's too big to technically grapple, you really can only hold on to his scales. I'd call that a "climb" roll of really exceptional difficulty because you will be upsidedown at one point.

[RadiantPhoenix]

You have just sucessfully flown to the back of the bug huge friuckin' dragon. You need to jam a dagger in the one weak spot in his armor. The dragon, for his part insists on doing a barrel roll while flying at full speed. He's too big to technically grapple, you really can only hold on to his scales. I'd call that a "climb" roll of really exceptional difficulty because you will be upsidedown at one point.

Opposed check: Climb vs Tumble.

[Swordslinger]

You have just sucessfully flown to the back of the bug huge friuckin' dragon. You need to jam a dagger in the one weak spot in his armor. The dragon, for his part insists on doing a barrel roll while flying at full speed. He's too big to technically grapple, you really can only hold on to his scales. I'd call that a "climb" roll of really exceptional difficulty because you will be upsidedown at one point.

That'd be cool if the rules supported any of that.

Unfortunately determining if you hit the weak spot depends more on the threat range of your weapon as opposed to any kind of climb check.

[tzor]

That'd be cool if the rules supported any of that.

Well D&D TE would support that, but "Tzor's Edition" is never going to be written, so I can't help you there.

Well it would be a highly modified climb v tumble since the advantage would go to the dragon.

It's also a specific example of the "I'm fighting something way above my size class" problem. You can also say you need a climb check to climb up the giant to the point where you can classically "back stab" or "sneak attack" him. Note he too is moving around a lot during this check.

(Let me bend low to allow the kobolds to high five me for that idea.)

[Previn]

Poor maneuverability is a pain in the ass to run.

Which has nothing to do with anything? It's also pretty easy to run.

PCs need to be able to fly, because tons of iconic monsters have flight and if melee combat is supposed to be a viable strategy you need to be to able to get to them and hit them with your sword. And if we're going to have fights in the air those fights should play cleanly.

Iconic monsters have their flight changed to. PCs now have a greatly reduced, or entirely eliminated need to fly against a number of opponents. We're talking about designing a new edition here, not going bad to the same mistakes and problems of 3.x.

Cleanness of the rules has nothing to do with how powerful flight is.

And anyway, you think someone should have to wait 17 levels to get fucking Spider Climb? It's a second level spell, and it's not some gigantic game-breaker that needs to be deliberately moved out of the playable level range.

In 3.x it's a second level spell. In 5e who knows. The level you get Spider Climb in a new edition can be changed relative to it's power. And as my usual disclaimer now has to go: The numbers presented in a fictional example to demonstrate a point aren't set in stone and likely are little more than random number. And you should feel bad for trying to drag that up as a point when you already clearly don't get the much larger and important point that being discussed.

[ModelCitizen]

Iconic monsters have their flight changed to. PCs now have a greatly reduced, or entirely eliminated need to fly against a number of opponents. We're talking about designing a new edition here, not going bad to the same mistakes and problems of 3.x.

Previn's vision of D&D: We took dragon's wings away because it wasn't fair to the Climb skill.

In 3.x it's a second level spell. In 5e who knows. The level you get Spider Climb in a new edition can be changed relative to it's power. And as my usual disclaimer now has to go: The numbers presented in a fictional example to demonstrate a point aren't set in stone and likely are little more than random number. And you should feel bad for trying to drag that up as a point when you already clearly don't get the much larger and important point that being discussed.

I can't carry on an argument about a hypothetical system you make up as you go along. Especially not when you use terms that have an established meaning in d20 and only d20, then claim you were talking about the other pretend system when you get caught saying something stupid.

[Swordslinger]

Previn's vision of D&D: We took dragon's wings away because it wasn't fair to the Climb skill.

You can actually nerf flight without removing it. Just make it so you basically can't do it in constrained caves, because you'll end up running into a wall or banging your wing against the side.

I attribute most of the power of flight to the battlemap which leads everyone to believe that caves have this clear open terrain. No stalagmites or stalactites, walls that are entirely smooth and even, and generally everything to the advantage of the flyer. If you take into consideration the wingspan required for that kind of flight. it should really limit what most large winged beasts are doing.

[Stubbazubba]

I agree, that there should be a real chance of bringing yourself down if you try and fly inside a cave, taking damage appropriately, if we are to nerf flying a bit. This chance can be reduced with a better Athletics score, for instance.

That being the case it seriously calls into question the wisdom of dragons hiding in caves or dungeons or anything. They should probably stick to burninating the countryside.

[Dr_Noface]

I don't think you should just shoot down Previn's idea. There are a lot of possible restrictions that can be initially placed on flight that could be slowly removed by levelling. For example:

i) poor maneuverability
ii) slow speed
iii) requires concentration or spent actions to maintain
iv) Ranged attacks while aloft are more difficult
v) Must be shapechanged into an appropriate flying form (that limits spellcasting, other offensive/defensive options)
v) flight only lasts a few rounds at a time

could be used in various combinations depending on the nature of the class/monster ability that grants flight.

Heck, you could even make it so that characters having both solid ranged and melee attacks exist.

[Previn]

Iconic monsters have their flight changed to. PCs now have a greatly reduced, or entirely eliminated need to fly against a number of opponents. We're talking about designing a new edition here, not going bad to the same mistakes and problems of 3.x.

Previn's vision of D&D: We took dragon's wings away because it wasn't fair to the Climb skill.

You have a fascinatingly limited view of the world and disturbing lack of ability or vision when it comes to design.

As an -example- :

The dragon can keep it's wings, speed and current maneuverability. We reduce it breath weapon to 1 per encounter and put in rules for attacking a creature with reach that attacks you (by say striking at the limbs it's using to hit you), and remove things like the fly-by attack feat. If the dragon wants to get physical, even with it's reach and flight, it's going to be taking some attacks back from the melee people, even dumb guy with a sword.

At that point the only things you're really worrying about is the dragon casting spells, or dropping things, both of which are mechanics already in blatant need of fixing for a variety of reasons.

I can't carry on an argument about a hypothetical system you make up as you go along. Especially not when you use terms that have an established meaning in d20 and only d20, then claim you were talking about the other pretend system when you get caught saying something stupid.

Reading comprehension? I'll try to be more clear. I said 20 ranks as an example at random. It's a familiar number that you can use your already existing knowledge of the d20 system to understand what I'm talking about.

You then said that level 17 was too high of a level. If I had said 'fine, 10 ranks' you could again complain about the level being off. So I then say 'fine, 5 ranks', and you now complain about getting it too early.

So, rather than listen to vomit about what level something should or should not be balanced at, I point out that you missed the point entirely that where something is balanced at is subjective to other things, and that those things that cause problems now, like flight making climb obsolete very quickly can in fact subject to, and very likely to change.

You however can't seem to understand that and think you have some sort of valid point when you don't.