5e isnt even D&D....

Neurosis · Post by **Neurosis** » Tue May 08, 2012 5:01 pm

And we aren't talking weird min/max excursions. We're just talking two humans using point buy, one of whom bought up the stat in question and the other of whom did not: a Sleep Spell that can threaten the one character is an irresistible force to the other. That's what a broken RNG looks like.

Ah, I totally get it now. I've run into the same problem myself trying to set enemy and PC ATK and DEF values for computer RPGs I've made. It's a tricky pickle!

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Tue May 08, 2012 5:08 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:
Passive perception, mastery based auto-success, stat based auto-success, and now the rogue's class based auto-success and a rather consistent picture is showing up. 5e is not a game about adding up bonuses and rolling a die. It is a game about trying to convince the DM that the task should be below your success threshold and then not rolling a die.

-Username17

If I thought he was more cunning, I would say he's trying to make a game for the shadtards and "REAL ROLEPLAYERS" of the world, something where bullshitting the DM is the major battle of the game.

CapnTthePirateG · Post by **CapnTthePirateG** » Tue May 08, 2012 6:13 pm

Which will have the by-product of being easily broken by their natural enemies: us.

ModelCitizen · Post by **ModelCitizen** » Wed May 09, 2012 6:08 am

Theoretically, having your bonus increase more slowly than your auto-success threshold could be a way to handle checks where the whole party rolls and even a single success or failure decides the entire outcome.

Say a party of five has to make a Perception check. If at least one of them succeeds the party as a whole sees whatever it is, so if the party as a whole has any reasonable chance of failure then each individual character has to fail most of the time. You would actually want individual characters to jump from auto-success to like 20% or 30%.

DC 18 Perception check, spoilering for length:

Party A
Cleric 18 Wis (+4)
Ranger 12 Wis and 4 ranks Perception (+5)
3 others with 10 Wis (+0)

Probability of Success = 1 (cleric auto-succeeds)

Party B
Cleric 17 Wis (+3)
Ranger 12 Wis and 4 ranks Perception (+5)
3 others with 10 Wis (+0)
Probability of success = 1 - 0.7 * 0.65 * 0.85^3 = 0.72

The party as a whole goes from auto-success to 72% success, which is a pretty reasonable progression.

This could also be useful for the reverse problem with skills like Stealth and Disguise. If five people all have to roll a Stealth check one of them is going to fail most of the time. But if the DCs for basic Stealth are low enough that you can auto-succeed with a 10 or 12 Dex, then only the dude who dumped Dex even has to roll (and still has decent chance of success) so it might actually be possible to sneak a whole party of adventurers past a guardpost.

I don't think this is what the 5e devs actually intended. If they'd come up with this they probably would have done a L&L article about it. It probably wouldn't even work because it relies on skill bonuses staying in very tight ranges. Eh.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Sat May 12, 2012 12:24 am

Goblins Care Only About Your Axe
http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/bl ... t_your_axe

Assuming we move forward with this line of thinking, we’ll end up with a core conflict resolution system that can encompass both TotM and the grid. Imagine a combat system not too different from previous editions that relied almost solely on the use of the grid, but tweaked so that it works seamlessly for those fights where minis are not used or expected.

so basically 2nd edition AD&D?

things in the books are given in human terms of distance like feet and yards, and the map with a "grid" has a legend telling you how big each square or hex is.

cone that goes 20 feet out, is then measure on the "grid" 2 squares or 4 depending on the scale of the "grid".

why was this ever changed in the first place?

it is the MOST reasonable thing i have heard about 5e. the only thing that makes any sense also. much better than 4th edition that suspects you are playing D&D in the world of Tron or a Holodeck where there is always a visible grid.

unless you are making a full on miniature game, the majority of the game should exist in TotM, as you call it, but people with common sense like to cal it imagination.

CapnTthePirateG · Post by **CapnTthePirateG** » Sat May 12, 2012 1:07 am

Wait, what the hell was the point of that article? You could seriously just have a fight with minions that lasted a round by saying "Roll attacks, You kill them. Next!"

wotmaniac · Post by **wotmaniac** » Sat May 12, 2012 3:23 am

Imagine a combat system not too different from previous editions that relied almost solely on the use of the grid, but tweaked so that it works seamlessly for those fights where minis are not used or expected.

This is actually self-conflicting.
What he's really saying here is "ignore the grid rules if your running a 1-dimensional encounter" .... which is not exactly revolutionary, despite the picture he's trying to paint.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Sat May 12, 2012 4:28 am

1d would be a straight line and even a corridor is 2d with length and width.

it is meaning more that 3d play can be had without having to have a grid to stack mini on to show height.

basically since they cant find a way to rip people off on minis, that people will allow them to be ripped off for, they have to take the idea of required minis OUT of the game. aka stop trying to make a miniature game like WFB or WH40k, since people want that kind of combat, but dont want to pay the kind of prices for GW minis, nor do they want to paint them, and WotC wont be able to sell a $30 prepainted behold in high enough quantity that GW sells its Carnifex unpainted, assembly required for. so they need to mvoe away from mini based rules because they fail with minis, and with HASBRO as a parent wont let Reaper or WizKids (owner of the old Ral Partha) to make minis for them since HASBRO is a game company and makes its own pieces for greater profits to themselves.

wotmaniac · Post by **wotmaniac** » Sat May 12, 2012 6:31 am

shadzar wrote:1d would be a straight line and even a corridor is 2d with length and width.

it is meaning more that 3d play can be had without having to have a grid to stack mini on to show height.

Fuck -- really, dude?
"dimension" also means "an aspect or feature" -- stop being stupid.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat May 12, 2012 6:40 am

Not to mention that Mearls is actually describing something that literally only has one dimension. If you can play it without the grid, then there are no Pythagorean distances, everything is merely closer or farther away. The positions of everything could be plotted on a line - which is indeed one dimension.

-Username17

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Sat May 12, 2012 7:18 am

it isnt Mearls, but Bruce's blog... Cordell i am guessing.

wotmaniac · Post by **wotmaniac** » Sat May 12, 2012 8:20 am

shadzar wrote:it isnt Mearls, but Bruce's blog... Cordell i am guessing.

You excel at missing the point .... which was that this is yet another example of a WotC spokesman demonstrating his idiocy.

FrankTrollman wrote:Not to mention that Mearls is actually describing something that literally only has one dimension. If you can play it without the grid, then there are no Pythagorean distances, everything is merely closer or farther away. The positions of everything could be plotted on a line - which is indeed one dimension.

-Username17

To be fair, you can use relative spacial relations .... but mashing the 2 things together in the same game is fucking stupid. Unless you want to write 2 different whole versions of the "same" game, you can't have tactical options that simultaneously require the accuracy of a grid and still have MTP combat -- trying to toggle between the two is completely asinine.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Sat May 12, 2012 8:52 am

wotmaniac wrote:
shadzar wrote:it isnt Mearls, but Bruce's blog... Cordell i am guessing.

You excel at missing the point .... which was that this is yet another example of a WotC spokesman demonstrating his idiocy.

except this is something that will directly address and solve a MAJOR problem with 4th, if done right. without a grid directly implanted in the rules for ALL the mechanics, a grid can be USED, when wanted. the book wont read like UltraSmurfs, Eldar, etc where you get out your 18 inch ruler to have to play any more, or buy shitloads of minis. it doesnt prevent you from using a grid or battlemap either, as it was fully capable with 2nd using, as mentioned, distances and a grid of some sort can be measured off in whatever scale. 10 feet indoors and 10 yards outdoors, if you want. that simple lose of grid-based terminology in the rules, while still allowing for grid use, will go a LONG way to show this isnt about selling minis, it isnt going to be focused on tactical miniature placement, and combined with removing nonsense like "once per encounter" powers, it will return to the imagination range, or as he calls it TotM. a wizard will be able to fly for a duration longer than a combat, without arguements or having to page 42 it. likewise he can make others fly anytime. spell durations can be longer than combat, to allow for use of a full "encounter" but not bound by it, and can still be ended at anytime the caster chooses. this even means that fighter dailies wont exist to prevent some "special move" to only happen once, because it moves away form the grid-based encounter design.

you miss the bigger connections to things that have been said, and the possibilities for making D&D an RPG again, rather than a WFB clone using D&D IP, or Advenced DDM that 4th edition is.

Mearls wouldnt have been smart enough to even think to remove the need for grid. i remember his playing BD&D he commented on adding things that caused "moving 1 square", in that L&L article.

correct me if i am wrong, but does 3.x give measurements in "squares", inches (like 1st, ) or feet, like 2nd did?

...You Lost Me · Post by **...You Lost Me** » Sat May 12, 2012 8:24 pm

So he's saying we need a system where you can use a grid but not use a grid when you want to?

... and this system totally is feasible and works? What? Can someone explain this to me slowly?

koz · Post by **koz** » Sat May 12, 2012 10:46 pm

...You Lost Me wrote:So he's saying we need a system where you can use a grid but not use a grid when you want to?

... and this system totally is feasible and works? What? Can someone explain this to me slowly?

Here:

Mearls.
Is.
A.
Fucktard.

Explained. Slowly.

CapnTthePirateG · Post by **CapnTthePirateG** » Sat May 12, 2012 10:47 pm

The same way all these modules work in complete balance!

With LOTS of hashish!

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Sat May 12, 2012 11:50 pm

...You Lost Me wrote:So he's saying we need a system where you can use a grid but not use a grid when you want to?

... and this system totally is feasible and works? What? Can someone explain this to me slowly?

do you, when unplugged, know the range or distances of everything in the world we live in, or do you "eyeball" stuff with guesstimates on distances?

that is imagination.

you can have distances and stick with them with NO grid. this is how MANY wargames work like Warhammer. there is no grid, you just measure things with a ruler, like 1e.

the grid jsut removes the need for a ruler to measure and everything is already measured...but forces things to lock-in place.

if you know a magic missile can travel up to 50 feet away, and you are in a 40 foot long hallway with someone you are aiming at.. you dont need ANY other measurements. 40<50.

since you have those measurements for guesstimations, and relative distances you can easily play. then if you WANT a grid, you can just put a grid onto it with X squares = Y feet.

so things will not be mentioned in terms of a grid existing, but a grid CAN be used easily. ALL maps have a scale, and that is all the grid is, so if you cant say this may has a scale of 1 square = 10 feet and then know that magic missile can go 5 squares, and the hallway is only 4 squares long...you got problems.

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Sun May 13, 2012 12:36 am

...You Lost Me wrote:So he's saying we need a system where you can use a grid but not use a grid when you want to?

... and this system totally is feasible and works? What? Can someone explain this to me slowly?

The idea is that if you take a feat like Combat Reflexes (that's very grid-dependent in 3E), then it does something else useful if you're not using a map.

ModelCitizen · Post by **ModelCitizen** » Sun May 13, 2012 4:39 am

...You Lost Me wrote:So he's saying we need a system where you can use a grid but not use a grid when you want to?

... and this system totally is feasible and works? What? Can someone explain this to me slowly?

From the perspective of someone playing 3rd or AD&D, he wants things to work more or less like they do now (maybe a bit less grid-dependent than 3.5). He's not proposing some radical overly ambitious new combat system. He's saying 4e went too far with its dependence on the battle grid and he wants 5e to go back to the way it was before.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sun May 13, 2012 5:57 am

hogarth wrote:
...You Lost Me wrote:So he's saying we need a system where you can use a grid but not use a grid when you want to?

... and this system totally is feasible and works? What? Can someone explain this to me slowly?
The idea is that if you take a feat like Combat Reflexes (that's very grid-dependent in 3E), then it does something else useful if you're not using a map.

I think the idea is actually that Combat Reflexes does exactly the same thing without a grid, but then you magical teaparty whether enemies are provoke AoOs from you.

Basically, 2nd edition AD&D actually was played with and without a grid all the time. And it wasn't that there was some special versions of all your abilities that kicked in when there wasn't a grid, it was that the game didn't really work very well.

-Username17

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sun May 13, 2012 6:14 am

FrankTrollman wrote: I think the idea is actually that Combat Reflexes does exactly the same thing without a grid, but then you magical teaparty whether enemies are provoke AoOs from you.

Plenty of people ran 3.x that way, too - whether tabletop and people can't be fucked using grids, or using IRC or whatever. Generally this meant that AoE spells hit "around X number of them", and that AoOs only happened when you were "in melee range" (ie one of you had actually engaged the other in melee) and so on.

It reduced the tactical depth and made a bit of a mess of things, yes, but it was kind of doable - especially if everyone is on the same page at the start and doesn't invest too heavily in AoOs, Bullrushing and all that.

Compare to 4E where nearly every power slides people a couple of squares and that shit is really supposed to matter.

Blasted · Post by **Blasted** » Sun May 13, 2012 6:36 am

FrankTrollman wrote: Basically, 2nd edition AD&D actually was played with and without a grid all the time. And it wasn't that there was some special versions of all your abilities that kicked in when there wasn't a grid, it was that the game didn't really work very well.

-Username17

There was a thread on the dragonsfoot grognard forum recently about all the little math rules in 1E. What was actually ascertained was that people ignored the inconvenient rules and if you disagreed you were wrong.

So I'd say that not only did the game not work very well, but people ignored it anyway. Then we get the shadzards of the world pretending it was the best ruleset evar.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sun May 13, 2012 7:11 am

Yeah, the amount of rules ignoring that went on in AD&D was intense. Part of that was simply the suggested dynamic where the rules were hidden in the DMG and the players weren't supposed to even read that book. So it was kind of like live action Paranoia, where in order to help the DM adjudicate a complicated scenario, you had to admit to knowing what the rules were, and that was illegal. So you pretty much had one dude having to figure out all the interactions with all the other people at the table at least pretending to not have the slightest fucking idea how any of that shit worked. Is it any surprise that many DMs simply said "fuck it" and ran things off the top of their head rather than try to memorize how all the abilities functioned on the off chance that a player might want to use them?

But another big chunk was that when you got down to the actual nitty gritty, it was all pretty incoherent. Irresistible Force met Unmovable Object all the time, and many abilities and interactions were written up twice with different rules or not at all. So it wasn't just that the DM was being tasked with remembering the rules for all the abilities that all the players had or might get in the future, it's that even those rules weren't consistent or coherent.

I would like to say that even Mike Mearls isn't so fucking stupid as to hide the interactivity of basic actions in a book the PCs aren't supposed to read. But if you'll recall, the 4e DMG actually has a land mine that if you attempt to use the Intimidate skill for anything at all during a "social" challenge that you automagically fail and cost the party an attempt.

-Username17

CapnTthePirateG · Post by **CapnTthePirateG** » Sun May 13, 2012 7:16 am

Which doesn't make any sense. If you are a powerful necromancer (or whatever) and you need the duke to do something, why is "Do as I say, fool or I'll make your corpse dance" not likely to work? I mean, sure, it's insulting and possibly dangerous, but if you helped defeat the Demon Lord McEvildoer in personal combat, it's pretty easy to see that you can make good on that threat.

Also, where Mearls is concerned, I doubt we can bound his stupidity.`

Wrathzog · Post by **Wrathzog** » Sun May 13, 2012 8:15 am

CapnTThePirateG wrote:Which doesn't make any sense. If you are a powerful necromancer (or whatever) and you need the duke to do something, why is "Do as I say, fool or I'll make your corpse dance" not likely to work? I mean, sure, it's insulting and possibly dangerous, but if you helped defeat the Demon Lord McEvildoer in personal combat, it's pretty easy to see that you can make good on that threat.

No, it makes perfect sense. Generally speaking, people don't go around threatening authority figures or other people for that matter. It's a bad idea 95% of the time and you're only going to convince people that you're a colossal dick.

Worst case scenario is that he calls your bluff and you kill him (or maybe you don't, doesn't matter). Not only is he unable (or unwilling) to help you, chances are that you're going to have to fight your way out of his keep.

The issue is that Intimidate is supposed to somehow be as useful as Diplomacy or Bluff in a social encounter, but it's not and it never will be. Using it for help will quickly becomes self-defeating. You don't make or keep friends and allies by being an obnoxious douche bag.
Frankly, it should be taken out of the game.