Include this in 5e or I will FUCK YOUR FACE

[erik]

Maaaaany character creations that I've walked new players through have come to a halt while they tried to be a pro right out of the gate and read all their options and consider them all carefully.

Really? I game with some guys who are perpetual noobs, one is a posterboy for option paralysis (we seriously spend some games explaining his options, why&which moves are optimal for him, every turn. *sigh*)... but only posterboy ever has option paralysis at character creation and honestly he could have only 2 options and still be paralyzed, so I think I can throw out designing for this guy since there is no solution for him anyway.

If someone insists on being a pro right out of the gate and has to devour the entire rule book and consider them before making a single character, then there will be no pleasing these folks with removal of options. In fact they may be deriving enjoyment from this time spent and would lose interest in a simpler set of options. So I don't think these people can be or need to be designed around, and in fact you may be doing them a disservice if you tried.

If you have many races, you need to split them into a "Basic" list and an "Advanced" list so that people can pick from some reasonable choices that won't accidentally gimp them later on. Then, on their second or third character (and without having to buy more books) they can pick off the advanced list if they want.

I'm pretty sure people hate having things called "Basic" and "Advanced". "Basic" sounds contemptuous, "Advanced" sounds overly demanding. There's no real justification as to why any particular race on that list would have to be segregated in such a way either. One is not exceptionally more demanding than another.

[shadzar]

Shadzar, why do you hate fun and new ideas?

Point of order, steampunk isn't new. The Difference Engine dates back to 1990, and some of Jules Verne is arguably steampunk, which is over a hundred years old.

Steampunk is *trendy* right now. Not new.

Is it fun or applicable to D&D? It can be, but I don't know if I'd introduce it as a "standard" element to D&D. A specific setting or two or seven is fine. Even the "default setting" wouldn't be out of order. But I'd definitely make it a flavor/module. Otherwise it would be like expecting Dark Sun tropes to be universal in D&D.

im not looking it up but Charles Babbage came before ENIAC and UNIVAC as his difference engine was the predecessor of the modern computer, and he the grandfather thereof.

but at least you see the point. and also why tinker gnomes dont work for some people even because they are more closely working with Eli Whitney and his punch card systems and such that dont fit with the base of D&D fantasy.

D&D fantasy has a specific place, and doesnt need to copy WoW, or other cross-bred genres.

Miyazaki D&D wouldnt have gotten as far with people as Gygax D&D did, but you CAN turn Gygax D&D into Miyazaki D&D if you want to, while it is harder to turn Miyazaki D&D into Gygax D&D.

i explain more in the other thread about PC races in response to sake for those that need more explanation.

[John Magnum]

I think 1990 is a typo for 1890.

[shadzar]

I think 1990 is a typo for 1890.

im pretty sure it is too, but others that dont know Babbage may read that and not want to look it up so wanted to put something out there as for it being a mistake while addressing that he gets the point of why all things dont fit in all settings or time-frames.

steam-punk being a catchy term for steam-powered tech level is WELL after where D&D sets itself up to be afterall.

[Stormgale]

Big O notation doesn't mean anything to them because they are literally of the opinion that human minds are magic and we look at dice and get results instantaneously and without any effort or thought.
.

Do you know what the purpose of Big O notation is? cause this is exactly the problem it was designed for.

Big O notation for those uninitiated is the idea that in a doing a process (usually involving quadratics) that the computation time is only significantly affected by the largest power

e.g. if something takes 3n+n*n*n the value of n to the power of 3 will soon easily dwarf 3n once your reach a suitable size of n

So yes the big O notation is important, for exactly the opposite reason you think... Pattern matching requires computational time yes but it requires significantly less than anything else going on, it takes me more computational time to read the page of my character sheet than it does for me to match a set of dice?

The other thing you are forgetting to do is that the human brain cannot be accurately modelled computationally yet (hence why we do not have machines that can think yet), we have multiple various cheats and fuzzy logic which allow us to match die sets far more easily than a computer does, as we do not do individual comparison operations.

[erik]

An aside, which may be relevant.

The other thing you are forgetting to do is that the human brain cannot be accurately modelled computationally yet (hence why we do not have machines that can think yet)

That is an unnecessarily high standard to be holding onto. For example we've determined that it proportionally takes the average person (i.e. excluding people with damage to the brain affecting this task) longer to rotate an imagined 3d object in their mind, the more rotation is required to achieve their result. That gives us some understanding that can be applied to how long it will take to process different inputs even if we don't have a perfect model.

In the case of counting up matched dice, meh. I believe from personal experience it took me longer than simply looking for a particular number, but I don't have access to any large pool of timed trials for this task.

It probably, almost certainly, takes longer to count up matches, but I don't think it takes an inordinate amount of time to do so. That does imply a minor cost of time in the mechanic, and there doesn't seem to be a benefit to that cost. The big problem to me is that the system is either very simple with a really crappy range, or you can widen the range by making it so complex that it isn't a useful predictive tool anymore.

And dammit, how did this get into the fuck face thread from the math iz ovurated thread?

[ModelCitizen]

The other thing you are forgetting to do is that the human brain cannot be accurately modelled computationally yet (hence why we do not have machines that can think yet), we have multiple various cheats and fuzzy logic which allow us to match die sets far more easily than a computer does, as we do not do individual comparison operations.

The human brain also performs multiple operations in parallel, which makes it misleading to talk about considering each combination in sequence. Matching doubles take does longer than counting successes, but probably not because the human brain has to check every combination one after the other. (Or sort the list and then check adjacent elements if you wanted lower big-O complexity, but there's no reason to believe the brain does that either.)

[Neurosis]

Item 6 convinced me that my own game needs to have somekinda fucking cats too.

My game already did : P.

Cat of Ulthar (Typical)
Might: 4
Celerity: 15
Vitality: 4
Omni: 12
Brilliance: 12
Conviction: 12
Life Points (Vit X 12): 48
Evasion Factor (Cel/3): 7 (+2 Size)
Reaction: 6d6 + 9
Tuning Points: 144

Attacks: Vorpal Blade at 13 Dice for 1d6 + 6 (decapitates if successes rolled = 2 x Target EF)
or Claw at 10 Dice for 1d6 + 2 or Bite at 10 Dice for 1d3 + 4.

Skills: Melee Combat 11, Unarmed Combat 10, Ranged Combat 6, Barter 8, Athletics 8, Diplomacy 10, Legerdemain 9, Security 9, Intimidate 8, Literacy 6, Survival 10, Technology 6, Sorcery 6, Stealth 12.

Harmonics: Royal Mien 5, Rift Wind 5.
Mysterious Prehensility 4: A Cat of Ulthar can wield melee weapons of any size in its beast form with its tail, as long as it meets the other prerequisites to use them. Additionally, these weapons can be sheathed or stored in a pocket dimension. The same is true of attuned spell charms which can easily be readied or stored from a pocket dimension with the tail while in beast form.

Prepared Spells: Captivate x 3, Cloak x 2, Dominate (Naked Casting Only), Fantasy (Personal) x 2,
Non-Detection x 2, Scry x 2, Magick Detection x 4, Seek Rodents x 2, Seek Water x 2, Hold x 3,
Shield (Personal) x 2, Shield (Barrier) x 2, Bladewand x 1 (12 Charges).

Special:
Nine Lives: The first nine times a Cat of Ulthar would sustain fatal damage (be reduced to 0 Life Points or be incapacitated in a way that would make being killed unavoidable or inevitable), instead, it doesn't, and escapes without harm. Any Cat of Ulthar randomly encountered has already used up (1d6 - 1) + 1d3 of their Nine Lives. After losing a "life", while Cats of Ulthar could continue the fight, and retaliate immediately, they never do, instead preferring to leave to quietly contemplate what they almost lost, and what they did lose, for quite some time.
Slippery: Cats of Ulthar roll 15 dice to avoid being grappled or escape from a grapple. Additionally, the Reach bonus of any creature adjacent to a Cat of Ulthar is negated if and when that creature attacks the Cat.

Description: It wouldn't be hard for the ignorant to mistake this creature for a completely ordinary, helpless, harmless house cat--almost always black in color. It has the exact same size, shape, general appearance and basic personality. Generally speaking, cats of Ulthar allow others to assume they are nothing but ordinary housecats, as this suits their purposes fine--and they view ordinary housecats as closer to equals than most other bloodlines. Although sometimes, there is a small hint, as certain cats of Ulthar like to "wear" their status in the form of brilliant gold and rare diamond jewelry, collars, and bangles, and woe be it to the adventure who tries to relieve them of these treasures.
Cats of Ulthar differ from ordinary housecats in many ways. They can speak fluently (and charmingly) in the tongues of all the major bloodlines, for one thing. For another, they are all immortal, heroic questing warrior-poet princes and exiles, hailing from the distant land of Ulthar, in an area of the Splinter "many, many levels away". The Cats of Ulthar are a full shape-shifting bloodline, and can assume a man-feline form and a devilishly handsome human form, although they rarely deign to do so; they prefer to remain in their beast form at all times out of tradition. Many mistakenly believe them to be a "lost" bloodline like the Pyx and the Tauros, and they allow this misunderstanding as well as it suits them.
Avatars who, believing a Cat of Ulthar to be an ordinary cat, help it, have made an almost unthinkably powerful friend; Avatars, believing a Cat of Ulthar to be an ordinary cat, refuse it aid, ignore it, or worse, mistreat it, have made an unbelievably dangerous enemy, and perhaps their very last mistake. The most experienced Players and other native adventurers in the Realm have developed the habit of treating cats with kindness, just in case, just on the off chance. Either way, for good or ill, the Cats of Ulthar pay their debts.

Not PC playable, sadly. Far too powerful for that.

[mllaneza]

The thing the "lol just match dice" people is, especially from the something awful angle which is pretty much what Mllaneza is presenting, is that they are literally claiming there is NO computational cost here.

Nobody is claiming zero computation cost. Literally nobody. What I'm claiming for matching systems is that the computational cost isn't appreciably higher than rolling a d20, checking your attack bonus and situational modifiers and then comparing it to your target number.

If you want to use the word literal, literally no gaming mechanic has a zero computational cost. Pretending people are claiming that is just as silly as I'd expect from a 3am post.

[Dr_Noface]

*reads*

[Blasted]

Templates make things terrible. Having optional templates makes an additional step in chargen. GURPS chargen takes a lot of time ...

The whole point of class-based systems is that they break up the choices to discrete list selections in series. Templates violate that and undermine the game because you can have zero of them or more than one. That changes it from "which race do you want (1 from X)?" to "would you like this template (repeat for all templates in the game)?"

The worst idea in 3e was actually skill points, because they slow down chargen for new players and don't provide any real character diversity for experiences players.

I'm advocating 1 or 0 templates.

I think chargen time is a non issue for games that last longer than a single session.
Experienced players turn up with a sheet ready, or can do one at the time, inexperienced players get walked through. Even GURPS (though I haven't played since the 90s) has never been a big issue. I think it's one of the least worries the system could have.

[DSMatticus]

The thing the "lol just match dice" people is, especially from the something awful angle which is pretty much what Mllaneza is presenting, is that they are literally claiming there is NO computational cost here.

Nobody is claiming zero computation cost. Literally nobody. What I'm claiming for matching systems is that the computational cost isn't appreciably higher than rolling a d20, checking your attack bonus and situational modifiers and then comparing it to your target number.

If you want to use the word literal, literally no gaming mechanic has a zero computational cost. Pretending people are claiming that is just as silly as I'd expect from a 3am post.

Then you would be wrong, depending on what "appreciably higher" means since that's fairly subjective. Matching is objectively slower than d20 or die pool. Whether or not it's slower enough that you should care about it, who knows, but probably yes. ORE has really shitty resolution times, and you can easily have hundreds of rolls a night in a typical session.

But more importantly: the system sucks to begin with and takes longer. ORE creates a fucking terribad probability distribution that you can't actually fucking use for anything without a fuckton of handwavium because neither DM's nor player's have any idea what the probabilities are like.

Neither one of those is damning on its own; you might take a less useful RNG for faster resolution times (roll under), and you might take slower resolution times for a more useful RNG (can't really think of any; the most useful RNG's tend to be the fastest; elegant is usually another word for pointlessly complicated). But there are exactly zero circumstances where you can take a less useful RNG for slower resolution times and not be a moron. If A is worse than B for all metrics, then A is just straight up worse and you toss it out.

ORE doesn't do anything that anyone should care about, and it does it more slowly than the alternatives. It should go away.

[Ektagliaresia]

Templates make things terrible. Having optional templates makes an additional step in chargen... That changes it from "which race do you want (1 from X)?" to "would you like this template (repeat for all templates in the game)?"

That's a simplistic heuristic for chargen, whereas one could otherwise conceive of a character concept, then try to build it within the options of the game (skipping over most options entirely). Unless you already desire to play a monstrous PC, you don't need to consult the templates.

Also, placing templates in the MM vs the PHB helps. I can think of 3 likely situations in which someone would use the, say, Telekinetic Animal template:

*A new player asks to play an animal PC: The DM (or other player), having read the MM, directs the player to the template.

*An experienced player wants to play an animal PC: They know where to look.

*A player through every character option and arrives at Telekinetic Animal: This would probably occur only if the player had a lot of time on their hands to begin with.

[JonSetanta]

You could start with an at-will Mage Hand and upgrade to true TK when they reach the appropriate level (as if the character were a Wizard acquiring the spell)

[ModelCitizen]

@Blasted and Ektag: Why have templates for PCs when the game already has feats? Somebody wants to play an undead gnome or a fire elf, sure, but why not make that a feat?

If you want to make optional templates that are truly optional then they have to be net zero value. That has never worked ever. There will always be some way to trade something you don't care about for something you do. You'll inevitably have at least some templates that are free powerups for some character type and create a game where all the divine casters have Ooze-Blooded or some shit. But if you implement Ooze-Blooded as a feat it always has an opportunity cost. Even if you do fuck up and make it a bit too strong, it's easier for a player who really doesn't want to play a slime cleric or whatever to convince himself he's not losing anything by taking some other feat instead.

[Blasted]

@Blasted and Ektag: Why have templates for PCs when the game already has feats? Somebody wants to play an undead gnome or a fire elf, sure, but why not make that a feat?

You could. I'm having fun with templates ATM, so that was my first thought.

If you want to make optional templates that are truly optional then they have to be net zero value. That has never worked ever. There will always be some way to trade something you don't care about for something you do. You'll inevitably have at least some templates that are free powerups for some character type and create a game where all the divine casters have Ooze-Blooded or some shit. But if you implement Ooze-Blooded as a feat it always has an opportunity cost. Even if you do fuck up and make it a bit too strong, it's easier for a player who really doesn't want to play a slime cleric or whatever to convince himself he's not losing anything by taking some other feat instead.

Character abilities are always more effective for one class than another. That's a more fundamental issue which I'm not currently interested in addressing.

Feats don't address that any better. Some feats are better for certain character types, to the point where if you have class Y, but don't take X, you're missing out. Adding a template opportunity cost is not difficult, you could do the 'take a template or get Z bonus'. If it's a bonus feat, then it may as well be called a feat instead of a template.

[Seerow]

Templates wouldn't be terrible if you had a restriction to one template, and picking up a template causes you to lose some things you normally get in exchange for the template benefits (basically making all templates sort of like Dragonborn). But when you can just slap extra stuff on top of what you normally get, and can slap as many templates as you want, it's basically guaranteed to be broken one way or another.

[erik]

Thing about templates is that unless having one is mandatory then they have to have something they are equivalent to so that there can be some sort of equitable relationship between characters who have a template and those who don't.

3e made templates worth levels (multiples usually), which turned out shitty.
Making a template worth a feat (and feats worth more than half a limp dick), could turn out alright. I honestly wouldn't mind having only a few feats if they actually did something significant.

Having a feat that says "You are undead!" or "You are a construct!" is about on the mark. Granted those creature types need an overhaul but you can certainly make them into something playable without losing their appeal.

[Stubbazubba]

Yeah, I'd make it a Feat; you can, of course, select it as a feat at first level, so that you can start playing a Dwarf/Construct right at the start, but also so that you can become a Vampire later on.

Of course, this gets to the nebulous definition of what a feat is and just what it should do.

[erik]

Of course, this gets to the nebulous definition of what a feat is and just what it should do.

If that's the next shadzar thread, I'm blaming you.

Yeah, I'd make it a Feat; you can, of course, select it as a feat at first level, so that you can start playing a Dwarf/Construct right at the start, but also so that you can become a Vampire later on.

Now, construct-feat'd races, I'd probably cast it as something like cyborgs, since otherwise it makes absolutely no sense to pair it up with a race's modifiers.

Automaton people as a race would be something their own. Interchangable parts, iron man shite 24/7, mas machina.

Vampirism does make sense as a feat as well, likewise lycanthropy since that's also something that can acquired over the course of adventuring.

[Parthenon]

You want to have vampirism and lycanthropy a feat? What? Isn't one of the point of vampirism and all but WoD werewolves that you can be turned?

Unless... the actual turning weakens you in other ways, draining you spirit or other such made up rationale, and replaces an existing feat.

Hmmm... No, I can get behind that. Depending on the power of feats in general that sounds like it could work nicely.

[Username17]

When K and I were polling people while writing Races of War, we found that people nearly universally wanted feats to be big, character defining things that mattered for their whole career. Having a feat "You're a vampire now, and you get vampire powers as you level up" would be a good example of that.

Unfortunately, I think the word "feat" has been shat upon too much by Pathfailure and 4e. I mean seriously: Pathfinder has a feat that gives you +2 to attempting an optional combat maneuver that still never works and would be objectively inferior to disarm if it ever did. 4rries actually write diatribes about how a feat that gives you +1 to-hit with specific weapons (plus fucking one!) is overpowered because everyone takes it.

The sad fact is that if you say "feats" today to the gaming public they assume you are talking about bullshit bonuses you select that make everyone sad by being so fucking meaningless. I think moving forward that you need to bury the word "feat" for at least an edition so that you can reclaim selectable traits as being something people are supposed to care about. Call them "virtues" or "talents" or "features" or some shit.

-Username17

[Midnight_v]

"Perks" - is what they use in Modern Warfare, and they are "generally" huge game swinging things, and they scale to pro, they're by no means balanced with each other buuuut... yeah still stronger than feats.

On the subjects of "cats"... I had only "1" game where some guy wanted to play a sentient cat.
Having never encountered that before i was like "WTF?" I was genuinely unaware of the existence of furries and the like so I didn't get it.
I said: play a druid, he was like "No, a house cat... with psionics." I was like: Hey MM-guy, is there an intelligent cat out there somewhere this asshole can play.
MM guy: 3, one in Faerun, intelligent animal template, and in a 3rd party supplement called: "Oathbound".
He went with the Oathboand halfling "Cat people".

I still thought it was fucking stupid, but sure I'll work it in if it makes you shut up and play.

Later, when this guy dm-ed he told me "NO HALF-ORCS!" because blah blah blah rape acient heritage.

When 4th ed came out and there were no playable half-orcs, no hobgoblins etc... that really tipped it from buy this to analyze this and it sucked. . .
So, Race of the Horde, in the main book is a must for me. . .
Can't please everyone. . .
but I'm suprised to see how popular the cat people have become.
Is a shifter good enough for that? Halfling shifter, or does it have to be an independent familar.
I still feel like "Uhm fuck you..." about it but if its here to stay, we might as well provide for it I guess.

[shadzar]

but I'm suprised to see how popular the cat people have become.

well they are about 20 years late cause catgirls have come and gone, the new age otakus just have big numbers because of recent anime popularity.

the thing peopel dont understand is EVERYTHING CAN be in D&D, but doesnt need to be there from the start, or in the core game. whoever makes it just needs to be ready with expansions ready at release, because D&D isnt something new and people wont get into something new when it lacks something they want and have used for years.

orcs wont work for everyone, so you need the base to be simple, and then add anything onto it from orcs, to cats, to whatever.

[erik]

Yeah, I use the word 'feat' since this right here is my audience. In actual usage it would likely have to be something new because the old term never lived up to its name. Maybe 'feat' could be invigorated as part of the hype for the new edition, but I don't see it happening this go-round.

'Perks' would be good for giving a nod to some of the gamer fanbase, except that it would enable people to make the TTRP emulating CRPG comments that plagued 4e.