>D&D 5e divides the game into "three pillars of adventure": exploration, social interaction, combat
>combat still gets the vast, VAST majority of core rules
>instead of giving every class at least 20% capabilities in each "pillar of adventure," dumbass martials like barbarians and fighters still have only the base skills each PC gets, 95% of their class features for combat, and no good reason to try raising Intelligence/Wisdom/Charisma
What was the point of even trying to define these "three pillars of adventure"?
Because the point of a roleplaying system is an arbitration system for what happens during conflict
Other than skill rolls to moderate how various things are performed during an adventure the rest of the game is up to the people playing it
>>44378036
>no good reason to try raising Intelligence/Wisdom/Charisma
Battlemaster
>>44378036
delicious pasta
>>44378127
Only one Battlemaster maneuver uses a mental stat (Rally), and it's completely shit.
>>44378036
Is this... Virt pasta?
>>44378350
No, but it's true.
But can you pander to grognards while having detailed exploration and social conflict mechanics?
>>44378423
>pander to grognards
Like this is something you would want to do
>>44378519
Yeah, why would a business pander to its audience?
>>44378519
Explain the 3.5-style presentation of classes, class tables, and class features, and the spell list which contains a disturbing amount of sentences copied and pasted from 3.5's spells.
>>44378555
grognards and 3.5 have nothing to do with each other
threeaboos are still babies as far as us actual grogs are concerned
>>44378548
Grognards are by definition unpanderable elitists gated from the plebs by being in the game when it was good. They are the old guard, they are the ones that say everything was better way back when.
You could release the same exact books they had with maybe better binding and same exact art and they will not buy it cause they fucking own it already and then they bitch that it's bring in new players who have no fucking idea how to play the game and are now "ruining" the game. The most you would get is a sliver of new Grognards who wish they were born back in the golden age and buy the new old books cause it's the only way for them to get in without hunting down old books.
What systems have good exploration and social mechanics?
>>44378642
The One Ring has really good exploration mechanics.
Legends of the Wulin has great social mechanics.
>>44378619
>better binding
The ability to fold your book flat on the table is an intrinsic part of the experience. You claim your binding is "better" but it will never have the same ease of use of a time-tested 30 year old PHB.
>>44378555
The open game license which briefly became "how to make rpgs" and defined an area of role playing games. It's the only sane thing to do when you created the pile of shit that the role playing industry was stuck with and any reduction in rules leads to "baby roleplaying shit" and an increased clarification or reliance on rules becomes "table top video games". They made their bed and are laying in it while attempting to woo pathfinder players back into the D&D fold.
Grongards are still playing with books they purchased in original box sets before the internet existed while sneering at all these fake editions of D&D that come out.
>>44378642
Dogs in the Vineyard
RuneQuest 6
>>44378350
>Everything critical of a thing I like is the doing of some random tripfag who got banned months ago
Can we please
PLEASE
P L E A S E
stop this fucking meme
Holy fuck not even lanced jack got people so fucking retarded about discussion as this
Why do people forget Time of Battle was a thing?
>>44378651
>The One Ring has really good exploration mechanics.
What is good about them? How do they work?
>>44378755
Because it was a controversial supplement released relatively late in 3.x' history?
>>44378689
I have only seen him post it, didn't know the original source
>>44378350
>Look kid, Im a seasoned player, some might even say that Im one of the best, if not the best, gamer this board has to offer. Dont believe me? I have over 300 hundred board games at my house, over a 100 at my arms reach right now. Card games? I got a deck for every possible combination of cards of M:tg, I even go to tournments and shit. No biggie. D&D? I'm proud to say that as a player I'm always the party leader, maxed as I can be and I'm not afraid of taking that extra edge that puts me ahead of enemies and allies alike. Hell, I got to get paid for having sex with hot girls and killing dragons with my expert builds. I like to shit on the GM one-directional adventures, by solving it with brains and brawl instead of one or the other, wether the party likes it or not. When Im the GM, Im proud to say that NO PARTY ever finished one of my adventures. Think you're gonna face some lazy sleepy goblins? Think again, they are fully trained comandos, that will attack and take full cover before you can do shit. Dont hate the player, hate the game. WH40K? Dont even get me started, kiddo, shit would blow your weaklings mind on how real it gets.
>So, you listen, kiddo, and you listen good, because this will be a free lesson.
>>44378423
>implying there are problems that cant be solved thorugh violence
>>44379170
Now thats Virt pasta!
>RPGs with classes
>>44378642
Burning Wheel looks very well designed, overall and on social interaction. Ive never had a chance to play though, so I cant say how it handles in actual use.
5e is a shit game, we know.
>>44379001
>controversial
I just can't fucking wrap my head around how it made people so butthurt
>martials get nice things
CAN'T FUCKING HAVE THAT NOW CAN WE?
>>44379357
They had nice things in 4e, both in and out of combat.
>>44378036
>What was the point of even trying to define these "three pillars of adventure"?
Marketing.
>>44378036
>Intimidate is now also ruled by Strength stat.
There, now Angry looking barbarians and fighters can be the chewbacca of the party.
>>44378102
kek
Take a look at what modern non-D&D systems do for social and non-combat mechanics.
It will blow your mind - or more probably you'll grumble something about "muh true RPGs".
Then again, 5e was not set out to do anything new but to appease grognards.
>>44379367
From what I understand, 4e got the combat right after the math was fixed, but I'm sure it had its own slew of problems as all D&D games are apt to have.
>>44379291
Am I missing something, because it doesn't seem to me that this is rare or exclusively D&D thing. The Star Wars FFG games have career and specialization (basically classes). Dungeon World has seemingly quite regimented classes. Pathfinder has classes and although that's kind of cheating, since it's based on 3.5, it's technically another game now and another representative of rpgs in general. I'm not saying whether it's good or not, but it's kind of like saying
>playing rpgs with a standard rpg element rather than choosing from the handful of ones without it, pshh
>>44379409
>Then again, 5e was not set out to do anything new but to appease grognards.
Oh hey, you really are still here, Virt!
>>44379429
Classes detract from the individuality of the characters imo
>You want to be a wizard who specializes in ice magic? Hahaha nope, shoot fireballs and magic missles like every other faggoty mage
>>44379473
Nope. As mentioned earlier in the thread, assuming everyone who shares an opinion is one person is moronic. Virt was an asshole, but that doesn't stop 5e being a bland game designed purely to 'feel' like D&D while lacking real vision of its own.
>>44379412
It definitely had the fewest problems of any D&D to date.
>>44379492
You've played bad class based games.
>>44379473
Who the fuck is Virt and why do you become him if you make commonplace observations on D&D?
>>44379518
Yeah that's why my group moved away from D&D and into Savage Worlds
>>44379409
what do they do?
>>44379532
Speaketh not the name of Virtual Optim, lest he come and devour your enthusiasm for RPGs with bitterness and [spoilers]pretend[/spoilers] grognardy
>>44379412
It definetly had it's fair share of problems.
Unfortunately, most of the "problems" the 3aboos focus on is "IT'S NOT 3RD EDITION REEEEE"
>>44379492
>I can't reflavor spells
Oh god how unsolvable this problem is!!!!
>>44378642
eclipse phase
>>44379753
changing from fire to ice have some issues, its no just the color of the ball.
You can use a fireball to lit a fire. an iceball have a lot more mass than a fireball could have or if it's just freezing air it does things like freeze water, locks, make the floor slippery, etc.
Changing the flavor of a spell my change its uses outside and inside combat.
>>44379713
Someone already mentioned upthread the exploration rules in The One Ring.
I'll quote the latest incarnation of WoD, Chronicles of Darkness. Even though it's not perfect by a long shot, it does have a functional rules system for social persuasion, a working chase system (that some people have already hacked for other kinds of 1vs1 contests), an investigation system based on accruing clues that is somewhat similar to GUMSHOE. And all that on top of the basic skill resolution system, and all integrated with a condition system that is meant to encourage roleplaying (as in, it gives mechanical benefits for following certain cues).
Again, it's not the perfect game, just the first example that came to my mind. But still thinking that "the game needs rules for combat, apart that just roll skill checks" is myopic. Hell, 4e tried to do something with skill challenges at least.
>>44379473
I'm not Virt and honestly I don't see anything in that post that you could associate with him except "opinions I don't like".
>>44379867
I was just genuinely curious about the mechanics. I haven't played alot of different games and want to know more about how things out of combat are resolved.
>>44379429
FFG Star Wars are not really classes when you can buy into another without sacrificing much. You buy skill ranks independent of class (including combat ability), stats matter more than specialization, and you are never flat barred from anything but force powers by specialization. The rest you named are all D&D, so congrats on just being a moron.
>>44379886
Toss in Kike Mearls and it sounds just like virt, though virt's opinion was never backed by anything beyond pretending to be much more experienced than he was.
I prefer 5e's lack of rules better than 3.5 diplomacy, but the backgrounds are too narrow and don't even have as great an impact as say... Passions from RuneQuest where you can bolster rolls by beliefs or love, and RQ has many more social skills like oration and courtesy.
>>44379886
It has nothing to do with opinions I don't like. It has to do with calling 5e a system for "grognards" and being super butthurt about it.
>>44379532
He was a notorious shitposter and tripfag who would shit up any and all conversations of 5e with accusations of being "grognards". He would also insist on calling it "D&D Next". Eventually he took off his trip and began posting anonymously, but his MTG reaction faces and particular writing style made him easy to recognize to those who had encountered him. Since you're a newfag, you wouldn't know this, and it could have easily happened in the month or two I haven't checked this board that his shittery has been picked up by other newfags as "commonplace opinions".
What sort of rules do you need for exploration? I'm genuinely curious here. Rules seem like they would necessarily limit the flexibility that a DM needs for exploration and social interactions.
Of course, my only experience with extensive rules for those things is 4e's skill challenges, which were really, really, really retarded.
>>44381453
I still think skill challenges were a decent idea in theory, just executed poorly.
>>44381453
5e's playtest had more detail than the final.
>>44381464
how would you execute them?
>>44381246
>FFG Star Wars are not really classes when you can buy into another without sacrificing much.
Then just means that means they're well designed classes. They still have their own talent trees.
>You buy skill ranks independent of class
Flat out wrong. You get cheaper progression in your career skills. You know what that kind of sounds like? Class skills in D&D 3.5! It just happens to be a better version of it. Of course, you would know all this if you had actually played the game, rathe than just trying to use it as argument fodder.
>>44378036
Having a high strength score or dex can be very useful in exploration. In fact having merely a 16 strength move almost 3 times the push weight of someone with a 8 strength score
>>44381464
Skill challenges were directly translated int 5e and Fantasycraft and a few other games, just with a different name, and it got glowing praise. The changes it needed was not being shoved down people's throat in a game that already had serious contentions.
>>44381586
*Magics behind anon* *Pulls out present* merry Christmas kid *Ho Ho ho's* *Flies away*.
>>44378036
I think it's fine. When people are exploring, or socially interacting, I want to avoid rolling as much as possible. I want players interacting with the scene, poking around, debating unusual details among themselves, acting out attempts to persuade or intimidate someone, verbally whittling down loyalties, and so forth. When these things break down into skill checks or random results, even if there is a detailed system behind it, I think it loses a great deal of player input on the results, which weakens the narrative substantially.
>>44381969
I have to agree. Why poke and prod every item in the room and try to describe your actions in detail when all it comes down to is a spot check that'll decide your fate no matter what your skill rank or description was. Same goes for social. You could have kinda fumbled with charisma with your character and your long and passionate speech is fucked over by your roll of 7 and now you're running from a angry king's Royal guard. Also, traps and ways of blocking them like "I know that arrows will shoot out of these holes when I walk by, so I hold my large solid steel shield to block them when I walk by" only for the arrows to completely bypass your shield on every roll and hit your balls or something.
>>44381969
>>44382148
Then what's the point of bards, rogues, and their tons of skill bonuses?
>>44381957
>>44382255
What's that got to do with my non-rogue/bard trying to survive in a dungeon when he party gets separated from each other?
>>44381969
Look at it from the perspective of people playing a game about pretending to be someone you aren't. I fully agree with the sentiment, but if the system doesn't give you a way of focusing on social or mental tasks, you end up with a party of fantasy heros that are only as good at solving problems as their player. No one can play a genius investigator, unless they are one in real life. No one can play a suave con artist, unless they are one in real life. This may work for a generic fantasy game like dnd, but if you want to run a social game and no one has the ability to say "I wanna be an amazing diplomat" without being a better talking then the lawyer playing the 6 int and cha barbarian, there's something wrong going on.
>>44382255
If you buy into the idea that the system shouldn't be all over skills, then rogues and bards shouldn't be built that way. Give the rogue extraordinary abilities like climbing sheer surfaces without equipment instead of a choice of skills to be mediocre at.
>>44378036
>no good reason to try raising Intelligence/Wisdom/Charisma
Will saves, man.
>>44382499
That's what hirelings are for! The best way to dodge a will save spell is to shove some smuck in the way.
>>44382499
You're better off using the ability score increases on Resilient (Wisdom) instead.
>>44382300
It's a problem of abstraction. Most of us aren't larpers, and even then we wouldn't consider them skilled in combat. It's easier to roll dice to simulate hitting people with sharp sticks and defending against sharp sticks hitting us.
social stuff gets confusing because you have skills that apply to trying to reason with someone even though you as a person can actually just talk and reason with the NPC (through interpretation of the DM). DnD 3+ does a really bad job of instructing you how to distinguish between "everybody roleplay this discussion out" vs. "roll diplomacy to convince X to cooperate with you" so often times the diplomacy roll just becomes used out of convenience. Social skills made more sense in 2.0 where there wasn't really "roleplaying", what you could do with diplomacy was much more mechanically defined. 3.0/3.5 are steaming piles because they were huge innovations and expansions of the original DnD formula that clung to every little fucking thing out of fear of losing its playerbase.
>>44382300
You can play a genius investigator or con artist without reducing it to skill checks or detailed skill systems. Video games allow non-geniuses to do these things all the time without invoking RNG. Obviously no one expects a player to be able to act out these roles flawlessly. The idea, though, is to make it about interesting decisions, a result of player input, not your ability to roll a really good spot check.
For example, the GM might rule that if the player searches the right spot, they will find a key. The player obviously might not be so good at finding things and would overlook it in the dim light. But it doesn't matter, it can be assumed that if the player makes the correct decision, the character then operates correctly. These sorts of things make player input matter, even if not at the same competence as the character would need to operate at and without resorting to rolls for everything.
>>44382634
>Social skills made more sense in 2.0 where there wasn't really "roleplaying", what you could do with diplomacy was much more mechanically defined
Are you talking about AD&D? I don't AD&D had any social skills or perceptive skills at all, except for the rogue detect noise ability, which was fairly limited and meant more for "shut up and let me try to figure out what that sound is" sorts of situations, not typical observation.
>>44382670
So you reduce character concepts into dm arbitrated advantages in certain tasks? So a good investigator character would be able to find something where the dumb barbarian describing the same actions would not? I mean at that point you're just taking something that would normally be decided by rolling and making it dm arbitrated.
>>44382787
Well, it depends. Like the key for example, it doesn't really make sense that anyone would have a strong advantage finding something like that. I'm as capable as a police officer at looking under a doormat and finding a key.
The differences start to come in when specialized knowledge is important. A hunter knows how prey blends into the background, while I would not. I can still find a deer who is trying to hide, but I would probably need to stumble into it. The hunter might spot it at thirty yards out. Is this arbitrary? Somewhat yes, the hunter has an advantage here. But it's pretty true to how things would actually play out, and there's no rolling involved. Player choice (how to go about finding prey) still matters, rather than a simple adjustment of odds.
>>44383180
See, I really like how nWoD(Chronicles of darkness now I guess) does it. Basic shit like checking a door mat obviously isn't rolled for, but more complex stuff is based off a roll with modifiers for actually putting thought into it, like in the pic. Basically, you still rolling based on your character's skill, but if you do things to help or hinder, explicitly including the way you play your character it changed how many dice you roll.
>>44383496
Hm, not disagreeing with you, but doesn't 5e already do this to some degree? It does encourage the GM to apply advantage or disadvantage liberally based on circumstances. Perhaps it isn't vocal enough in doing so.
>>44383746
Wouldn't really know, wasn't arguing against dnd, but against the idea of not using rolls and mechanics for non combat abilities.
Just in general though, looking at 3.5 specifically which is the one i'm most familiar with, the extreme bulk of the mechanics and rules are focused around combat, which makes running anything else an exercise in improvisation (which can be okay) and pretty thoroughly negates a players ability to play anything but a combat monster(which isn't as okay, depending on your group)
Even if 5th ed does more work on situations advantages and disadvantages (doesn't it just use the base take best/worst between the two, making bonuses/penalties linearly sized?) there really should be more mechanics behind social manuvering, investigation and other types of things, because those are areas of the game that I know people enjoy, and being able to play a character that excels in them really does help people get invested, when they have more options in what their characters are good at.
D&D can never escape its godawful dungeon-crawling roots. It's why 4e was the best edition mechanically, and it's why the game as a whole is shit.
>>44381453
The 4e Skill Challenge framework isn't bad. The idea of looking at a set of skills, and figuring out how they could impact the scene/action is a good one. For an example:
Let's say you want the party to seek out and find a hidden jungle temple before NEFARIOUS GROUP X.
(using 4e skill names)
Easy choices: Athletics can be used to push on some speed, outpacing the opposition. Or it can be used to climb above the canopy, granting a bonus to Survival/Perception to navigate. Or perhaps it's a way to make a short-cut (leap across a ravine with a rope, rather than walk a mile to the bridge. Acrobatics can lead the group through a short-cut, or to avoid a danger that would slow you. Survival, of course, is purely actual navigation and fieldcraft, as well as potential abuses, or ways to trick the enemy into NATIVE DANGER Y. Endurance is the "We'll sleep when we're dead" approach of pushing past reasonable limits.
In more obscure uses:
Arcana could be used to read constellations/omens, or to translate native runes and markers you find, leading to more shortcuts, or hidden entrances, or warning you of dangers to avoid.
Thievery could be used to snatch vital gear from the enemies, or to set more direct traps/snares for them.
Religion could be used to recall myths about the temple, its guardians, and hints to shortcuts/upcoming dangers.
Etc, etc.
The basic idea, of "Look at a scene, and think of how each skill could impact it." is solid. As is the idea of "passing these checks is worth experience." The main flaws came from a hard limit on fails that was MUCH harder than a combat (Imagine if any fight said "If you fail three attack rolls, you lose."), and flawed explanation of the idea of being flexible and accepting player input.
>>44379429
>Dungeon World has seemingly quite regimented classes.
Dungeon World is the D20 Modern of Apocalypse World games.
>>44381637
Those are not even close to being the same. Since you are really dense here's a simple guide: class based systems have levels.
You are doing the equivalent of calling RuneQuest a class based game because your career restricts your starting professional skills. FFG SW games allow a 3.5 wizard to have full BAB by giving up skills ranks, or a fighter to have better saves. You can play a very colonist like hired gun or a assassin with the base specialization of splicer.
>>44378036
>What was the point of even trying to define these "three pillars of adventure"?
Because you don't actually need that many rules to dictate exploration or social interaction. For exploration, you simply go somewhere and the DM describes it to you - hopefully he has something interesting to describe. For social interaction, just roleplay. Combat is necessarily the most crunchy of the 3 because a fun little wargame amidst all the roleplaying will make the "action" portions more entertaining.
>>44378036
>>44384663
This.
5e has shitty rules for social interaction, Dungeons and Dragons has since 3 or even earlier (never got that much into the early editions).
Just fucking make it up, God knows the game is barebones as it is and you have to homebrew 30+% of the rules for your experience anyways.
>>44384746
>(never got that much into the early editions)
The earlier editions were 'Charisma gives you a reaction modifier, your race might too, there might be a non-weapon proficiency or two, make up the rest yourself'.
>>44379492
>You want to be a wizard who specializes in ice magic?
Choose cryomage then?
>>44383976
Nice to see someone that gets it. Also, Skill challenges were expanded quite a bit upon in the course of the game, I don't blame them for not getting it perfectly right at the first try, it was after all something new for D&D.
To all the people saying "You don't need rules for exploration/social" - you don't need rules for anything. The fact remains that we were told that the game would emphasize the three pillars of the game, and the books are 90% combat. There is one page on exploration that boils down to "make marching order and roll perception". That is unacceptable.
>>44381331
But it is. They cut out of the game anything that looked like the innovations in game design 4e took from other games, and added nothing. It's a game designed to "unite all D&D players", which means people who are playing games 10+ years old.
>>44381883
>Skill challenges were directly translated int 5e
Where?
>>44378102
>arbitration system for what happens during conflict
>fighting is the only kind of conflict
>if my head isn't being bashed in right now, then everything's hunky-dory and we don't even need rules for it.
>>44384746
>the game is barebones as it is and you have to homebrew 30+% of the rules for your experience anyways.
I'd call it around 60%, since even combat isn't completely spelled out for us, and without guidance, players are essentially forced to make up descriptions for what's going on. People can't even agree on what hit points are supposed to mean.
I'm starting to think that roleplaying systems are just a way to make people buy books to play cops and robbers with their friends.
>>44378036
Mike Mearls is a talentless hack and the hype leading up to 5e was smoke and mirrors for an incredibly garbage RPG.
>>44386548
>I'm starting to think that roleplaying systems are just a way to make people buy books to play cops and robbers with their friends.
We get the games we deserve,
Every time some game designer tries to make mechanics that represent something, he's met with cries of "you don't need rules for that". See how /tg/ gets worked up everytime Gumshoe is brought up. Or the can of worms that is "storygames".
Some games are designed to be cops and robbers because their audience wants cops and robbers.
>>44383496
Holy shit, stealing this for my adventure writing repertoire. This is genius.
As far as exploration, what happened to detailed wilderness exploration? I can open up any retroclone and find wilderness rules that are more elegant and detailed than 5e's.
Or just rules that encourage or reward exploration in general. Research, herbalism and gathering info are all areas where you can get some neat exploration and social play ime.
>>44387933
Oh yeah, if you think this is good try reading, lets see, Reign by greg Stolze, Burning wheel, Something gumshoe and the new CoD rulebook. Getting a really good idea of what's out there can only help, assuming you have the time. Plus all those systems are great.
>>44383746
Yeah, 5e's got pretty similar rules in the DMG for disposition and prior choices impacting social encounters. A lot of the people in this thread are talking out of their ass.
>>44390909
You seriously think one page of "Creatures can be friendly, indifferent of hostile" out of 300 or so is actually comparable to a social system?
>>44379750
The problems that my friends and I had with 4e were pretty massive.
Every class felt the same. The at-will, encounter, daily ability system made all of the classes feel more or less like special sorcerers or wizards. Rogue? Dagger wizard. Monk? Punch wizard. Fighter? Blade wizard. Wizard? Book wizard.
Everything just felt mechanically stale and samey. Sure, having different battlefield roles helps to differentiate the classes, but to people more familiar with vancian magic the mechanics of encounter and daily powers feel distinctly magical. So everything comes across as a special wizard with a unique prestige class.
>>44392218
you sound like a threeaboo who never play anything else except 3.5 DnD and Pathfinder with your pasta
The more I think about it, the more >>44387841
applies.
God dammit.
>>44388659
Some people just don't like exploration and want to 'get to the point' in combat and quests where the target is clearly set.
I want to do an exploration game, because I love making up fantastic worlds for people to appreciate, but sometimes I feel people would actually rather be railroaded through a stage play with their characters as the stars.
>>44392218
Play essentials classes. They are for the faggots who miss doing the same thing over and over again because that's all that martials do, right?
>>44392218
you are the cancer that is killing this hobbie.
>>44392218
Except that's not true at all. Monks are dashing around the battle field punching and kicking and throwing motherfuckers, rogues are setting up complex strings of tactics so he can drop a FUCK TON of damage on one dude, fighters are basically picking a guy and saying "you're going to go where I want and hit who I want or you will pay.", wizards are laying down big swaths of field control, sorcerer are dishing out debuffs and damage in equal measure. Even different characters in the same class feel different. Archer rangers are shooting volleys of death at fuckers, using arrows to climb walls and shit, twin swords are getting in and messy twirling around cleaving fuckers apart, muarders are flogging axes and then slamming in to cut you apart and beast masters are Eiffel towering your bitch ass with his faithful ATTACK RAPTOR!
Not to mention sword mages teleporting around smacking people who hurt their buddies or warlords directing allies on who to smack for the most benefit and clerics blasting people with holy magic and then healing their buddies for smacking that guy.
Yeah, no, everyone feels so fucking samey.
>>44392218
Right? It's like how all the 40k units share a similar stat line, it makes them all feel the same. Everyone one has BS, WS, S,W,I,A, and Armor Saves! Makes Tyranids feel just like specialized Tau!
Tl;dr: similar format does not mean things play similar.
>>44392218
Right? It's like how all the 40k units share a similar stat line, it makes them all feel the same. Everyone one has BS, WS, S,W,I,A, and Armor Saves! Makes Tyranids feel just like specialized Tau!
Tl;dr: similar format does not mean things play similar.
>>44392218
>but to people more familiar with vancian magic the mechanics of encounter and daily powers feel distinctly magical. So everything comes across as a special wizard with a unique prestige class.
>I only ever played 3.5 in my whole life
>>44387841
>he's met with cries of "you don't need rules for that"
But you really DON'T need rules for social interaction.
>>44396045
You don't need rules for anything. But a game can be designed in several ways, and generally the amount of care that goes into a system is proportional to the relevance of that system at the table, and the gameplay that emerges from that.
No one said you MUST have detailed rules for combat. Imagine having a "combat" skill, and resolving encounters with a single combat roll against a set difficulty. Imagine the impact something like that would have on a game.
Why should social skills be different?
>>44396045
You kinda do when you're trying to play the role of a guy is really, really good at talking to people and you're merely okay at it.
It's like saying that the player has to win a fencing bout in order for your attack to hit, or able to pick locks to do so as a thief.
>>44396045
That's not the point. Let's look at social skills in 5e versus a game with a lot of social skills like RuneQuest.
5e has a skill for persuasion, lying, and intimidating. It also has backgrounds that offer a narrow primarily social ability, like finding housing or knowing how to get food or research materials. Sort of the bare bones abilities to get by with so it's effective.
RuneQuest doesn't have the specific social abilities, but has skill capturing language fluency, knowledge of cultures, dancing ability during ceremonies, influencing others, not offending nobles, giving motivational speeches, lying, interacting with criminal enterprises, etc. It also has a simple measure for loyalty, love, faith, etc. Then on top of that it has a system to earn rank and maintain station in cults or brotherhoods, complete with special abilities for higher ranks.
It's not that I feel 5e doesn't have enough rules, it's that simple additions add a lot of layers that give players and GMs more dimension or weight to social encounters.
>>44396045
>you really DON'T need rules
if you can freeform social interaction why not combat?
In my personal case, I try to play out social encounters like this:
I have my players say what they want to say to the NPC they encounter, and take note of what happens.
Does the player go "I tell him we need some help with the wagon wheel." that's fine, but it's not roleplaying, is it?
Does the player go "Ah, yes, good sir. We doth need some help with our wagonth wheelth." that's better.
Then I'll have them roll Deception/Persuasion/Intimidation/Whatever and set the DC according to what they said. In the first case the DC would be 15, but in the second it would be more like 7 or 8.
If the player/character were openly hostile, however, it would be much higher.
>>44396947
Personally I think you suck.
First of all, you are arbitrarily setting a DC on the basis of what you think is the right way to say things.
Second, go read something about "fortune in the middle". The best way to do social rolls is declare intent -> roll -> roleplay result of the roll. In your example the actual performance and the result of the roll have no connection.
Third, "roll to persuade" is not really a social system.
>>44396947
player charisma and social ability is not the same as the PC.
> "Ah, yes, good sir. We doth need some help with our wagonth wheelth."
here you are compensating a skill of the player not the PC. This is a simple case, but persuading, intimidating, etc can be a lot harder than saying something on this lines.
And if a player has high or low language skills IRL this shouldn't affect the outcome of the encounter. But you are. You don't make them lift dead weigh, climb walls or defuse traps, why are you making them persuade, intimidate, seduce or whatever?
>>44379397
But Chewbacca has great charisma. Tons of fans, etc.
>>44397142
>>44397189
Personally, I do this because of two reasons.
All my players -love- to roll for stuff, as minor as it is. Open an unlocked, unstuck door? Roll. Lift a hefty, but otherwise harmless rock? Roll. Enter a store? Roll. Sometimes I'll have players rolling and they don't even know what they're rolling or what they're rolling it for.
The second reason is that a lot of my players also bitch about others not roleplaying, and rather having all of their social interactions end in "Roll Persuasion".
This method satisfies both people. Roleplayers roleplay and roll players roll dice.
You can keep your insults to yourselves.
>>44397270
that's the GM fault. Rolling if for when there is doubt about the outcome of the action.
>>44379492
>shoot fireballs and magic missles like every other faggoty mage
lol, I read that as
>shoot fireballs and magic missles everyday
>>44397189
>You don't make them lift dead weigh, climb walls or defuse traps, why are you making them persuade, intimidate, seduce or whatever?
Roleplaying is a mental hobby that engages the mind, the player's physical ability is irrelevant. If a player isn't smart enough to play a tactician, they they shouldn't play one. If a player isn't charismatic enough to voice their thoughts, then why should they play a socially-focused character?
>>44397997
Because they want to be able to roleplay as a character who isn't them in a roleplaying game, just like the weak ass nerd who wants to roleplay as conan. Why should we enforce players to be able to accomplish every task their characters enforce, but excempt physical action?
>>44378036
>implying athletics isn't the best skill for exploration and social interaction
Get out nerd.
>>44383922
>D&D can never escape its godawful dungeon-crawling roots
This. D&D is simply bad for exploration and social interaction, but since it's the most popular roleplaying system of all time, people think that its flaws are universal.
It's really not hard to think up a system that balances player input, luck and character attributes.
>>44398087
>Why should we enforce players to be able to accomplish every task their characters enforce, but excempt physical action?
Because physical talent can be abstracted without destroying the game's integrity. If a dumb person wants to play an intelligent character, then how am I supposed to be convinced that his character is smart when the player is bad at planning, or remembering things?
>>44392218
>Every class felt the same
>Everythign felt mechanically stale and samey
>4e
>>44378036
Not sure you realize but games don't need rules to do conversation or worldbuilding. They need good GM tips and worlds respectively.
>>44398188
Because as long as they are reasonable at directing their character, the specifics of how the character acts can and should be abstracted. Lets sat you have the players looking into a person who you have as being in a cult. So someone wants to investigate their room, do you make them describe how they check through every single book in the room as you describe the contents of each one by one, or do you let them figure out a clue of them being generally interested in history with an undercurrent of demon lore on a good roll? There's always going to be abstraction in mental and social situations of any reasonable complexity.
Remember:
Players only want one thing, and that's the ability to buillshit through sessions faster so they can be told "you win" with less effort on their part.
Rules that govern how they deal with social encounters and investigations only ruin their ability to win everything, and are thus unfair.
BUT! Of course, this is good when 5E does it. But fuck 4E for not having enough non-combat rules!
>>44397142
>The best way to do social rolls is declare intent -> roll -> roleplay result of the roll.
Fuck you. Roleplay before roll. Period.
You inbred piece of shit.
>>44398598
>people's character ideas should be hindered by their player's ability to do these things
Fuck off.
>>44398598
>"I cut off the hobgoblin's head with a single slash of my sword."
"Sounds good, now make your attack roll."
The correct path is to:
>roleplay attempted action, short of physical feats
>roll for result
>roleplay result.
>>44379397
You idiots do realize that no skill is hard-tied to a specific attribute now, right?
>"Waaaah, I wanna intimidate with my strength skill?"
>"Okay. Tell me how you do so and I'll let you roll Strength(Intimidate)"
>"What? Really? Okay, I'm gonna flex dese nuts all over him"
>"Cool. Roll it."
>>44399933
What exactly do you mean by "roleplay" in that sequence? (It seems like you're using it as a synonym for "describe".)
>>44400585
That's actually a variant, non-default rule.
Since we're on the topic of there being no good reason to raise int/wis/cha, I'll ask YOU, /tg/, to give your opinion on house rules!
My group has been playing for a while with only four ability scores: Strength (which merges the original's Strength and Constitution scores but without giving HP), Dexterity, Intelligence, and Spirit (which covers both Wisdom and Charisma). That has worked pretty well, but even merged together into Spirit the Wisdom and Charisma scores seem to be a dump-stat. Should I fold Int in as well, and make the game tri-stat?
>>44401771
And? How often are you going to run into the asshole that says "NO! IT IS A VARIANT AND NOT ALLOWED!"?
>>44401835
Which rules are you using as your starting point, anon?
>>44378036
>vast, VAST majority of core rules for combat
What's it like being so goddamned wrong? One chapter in the PHB is directly about combat, another 2 are only indirectly related. The subsection on what characters can do outside of combat is almost as long what they can do in combat. Half the Equipment section is for non-combat things.
You could argue the MM is just about combat, I'll give you that..
The DMG is 90% non-combat shit. It's mostly about building worlds/campaigns. The rules sections for what to do outside combat take up the vast majority of rules about player/world interactions.
>no good reason to raise Int/Wis/Cha
Well, there's saves, for one. Then there's the reality that nearly all the fucking skill checks are Int, Wis, or Cha, with Acrobatics, Athleticism, and Stealth being the exceptions.
>95% of dumbass martial class features are for combat
Totem Barbarian is primarily non-combat options. Fighters get the most ability point up's so they can take feats specifically for this. It's also funny that you limited the list to just Fighters and Barbarians, because the only martials that "struggle" with non-combat utility are Fighters. Apparently you forgot about Totem Barbarian. Paladins certainly don't lack non-combat utility, and Clerics are almost full-casters. Rangers have tons of options, and while UA isn't technically "core" it's also fucking free so it hard to argue that you can't include it. Monk has a literal fuck ton of non-combat options, and half of their combat options double as non-combat options.
Are you another dumb motherfucker that didn't actually read any of the books AND has an incredibly limited imagination?
>>44401872
"I'd like to start off with just the default rules first, guys."
>>44402001
>One chapter in the PHB is directly about combat, another 2 are only indirectly related. The subsection on what characters can do outside of combat is almost as long what they can do in combat. Half the Equipment section is for non-combat things.
Uh, no, discounting examples and OPTIONS (equipment shit is just options), the actual core rules are majority combat-focused.
The noncombat rules are much shorter than the combat rules once you get the examples out of the way.
>Well, there's saves, for one. Then there's the reality that nearly all the fucking skill checks are Int, Wis, or Cha, with Acrobatics, Athleticism, and Stealth being the exceptions.
And you're raising Int/Wis/Cha with the same shit you use to raise Strength and pick up feats. Go figure.
>Totem Barbarian is primarily non-combat options.
It's about 60% combat focused all the same.
>Fighters get the most ability point up's so they can take feats specifically for this.
Hell fucking no, they still want to take shit like GWM/Sharpshooter/Shield Master, raise Strength, take Resilient, etc. etc.
>because the only martials that "struggle" with non-combat utility are Fighters. Apparently you forgot about Totem Barbarian.
Totem barbarians don't even have that much noncombat utility. Extremely situational rituals and a single noncombat benefit aren't exactly stellar.
>>44402337
>It's about 60% combat focused all the same.
Clarification: By this I mean the shit you get from Totem Barbarian SPECIFICALLY.
A totem barbarian overall is still, like, 85% combat focused.
>>44399839
>>44401713
More like
Roleplay attempt > roll > Roleplay result
>"I swing my sword, trying to decapitate the hodgoblin"
>Roll
>Okay,you succeeded
>"I hit his neck with full force, slicing through it in a single swing"
Same could be said for social interactions, I like to say that, even on a failure, your character acted properly, but the NPC was unfazed or they simply went about it the wrong way.
Your smart wizard isn't going to have a sudden surge of idiocy, but when explaining something and rolling low, he might simply have used too complex of a vocabulary for the NPC, came off as too arrogant to another character or simply wasn't impressive enough.
>>44402001
>clerics
>martials
>>44402001
>Then there's the reality that nearly all the fucking skill checks are Int, Wis, or Cha, with Acrobatics, Athleticism, and Stealth being the exceptions.
What a great idea. Either you take the stuff you have to in order to be good at the thing your class is supposed to be good at, or you spend most of the game doing nothing because the game doesn't allow you to do anything by virtue of garbage stats.
So what incentive is there to being a fighter instead of say, a wizard? As a wizard you can have good stats for skills and you can be decent at combat, whereas fighters only get to pick one.
>>44402629
Because barbarians and fighters have the best damage output in the whole game?
>>44402675
Congratulations, you get to be the best in dealing damage! You have a single thing going for you.
But in return your survivability sucks, your mobility options are limited, you have no options in combat to speak of other than just attacking (lets not pretend that Battlemasters have much to do), and literally the rest of the game you suck in, unless you want to tank your only reason to exist.
>>44400585
I blame the character sheet and expectations from older editions.
5e's strength in the skill system is the flexible abstraction. Really, using the stat proficiency variant is the best rule.
>>44402708
Fighters and barbarians are super-durable, silly.
>>44378036
Yeah, I have no idea why there aren't like pillar upgrades for every class.
Fighters could easily get bonuses to things like intimidate, military-related checks, and recquistioning / crafting weapons and armor. Hell, they could easily be one of the most durable traveler classes on long-term trips, helping everyone endure harsher conditions and making sure the party doesn't get too winded.
Barbarians could definitely receive bonuses for navigating the wilds and could probably cut down on travel time by being able to endure beaten paths. Maybe even have them tap into some totemic spirit bullshit to get some surprising insights in roleplaying scenarios.
I hate how 5e has so many mechanics for fighting, but combat somehow ends up incredibly streamlined anyway.
At least weaboo fightan magic gave you choices in a fight.
>>44402708
Wizards have the worst survivability in the game, of any edition. In prior editions, being hit could nullify the spell you're casting, in this one being hit nullifies spells YOU'VE ALREADY CAST. You got nothing compared to the Mirror Image and Stoneskin of AD&D. Lets not pretend they get a free lunch.
Having zero survivability puts a cramp on all other elements of the game.
>>44402812
Try playing a totem barbarian.
>>44402812
Great ideas.
Its funny how the barbarian has degenerated to nearly a totally combat oriented class, when the 1e barbarian was probably the best healer (aside from a very high level cleric) and one of the best skillmonkeys.
>>44402820
>Wizards have the worst survivability in the game, of any edition.
I didn't know being this wrong was even possible.
>>44402708
Horseshit : The Post.
>fighters and barbs
>your survivability sucks
...Uh.
>your mobility options are limited
Average to slightly above average. Not really shit compared to Monks and Rogues, but they're geared towards mobility.
>you have no options in combat to speak of other than just attacking
What is grappling, disarming, shoving, and pretty much every other physical thing ever?
>and literally the rest of the game you suck in
Yeah, nah.
27 PB, Variant Human. Con and Str/Dex at 16, and I can go 13/10/10/8. Now, what can I do with that 13 (or even a 14 if I take another 8)? Put it in Wisdom, take the Observant feat and proficiency in Perception. I'm your Pointman now. Charisma, Persuasion proficiency, and perhaps Actor if I'm so inclined. I'm a well known Duelist/Gladiator that can cruise nicely through social situations. Intelligence. I'm a fucking Eldritch Knight, and now all those Int skills aren't too much of an issue for me.
This shit is not hard at all. Just because I picked the guy who hits shit the hardest doesn't mean it's the only thing they can do.
But no, you want to play a smartass who acts all high and mighty around the "dumbass" martial who was probably going to give you advantage on that Arcana/Persuasion/Survival roll, but you had to act like a dick because "muh mental stats". So well done; that +6 you have means jack shit, you just rolled a 2.
>>44402812
>military-related checks, and recquistioning / crafting weapons and armor
>Feature : Military Rank
>You have a military rank from your career as a soldier. Soldiers loyal to your former military organization still recognize your authority and influence, and they defer to you if they are of a lower rank. You can invoke your rank to exert influence over other soldiers and requisition simple equipment or horses for temporary use. You can also usually gain access to friendly military encampments and fortresses where your rank is recognized.
Straight outta the Player's Handbook.
ITT: regular people trying to reason with brain-damaged 3.5 players.
I'm glad that 5e came out. It's a good containment game for the kind of people I dont want near true roleplaying games.
>>44397270
>You can keep your insults to yourselves.
You can leave.
>>44403167
So you're making an Eldritch Knight with 8 Dexterity, 10 Intelligence, and your feats NOT going towards GWM/Sharpshooter/Shield Master/etc.?
Are you sure about this?
You also seem to be forgetting that the fighter's skill proficiencies and background are the same shit that everyone else gets. It's not like the fighter has an edge here or anything.
>>44402629
>As a wizard you can have good stats for skills
For arcana, history and that's it.
Only wisdom- and charisma-based characters have access to outstanding skills.
>>44401877
3.5
>>44403290
What kind of bullshit strawman are you trying to fuckin' build?
I never said the Fighter gets an edge in anything aside from the physical stats, I was telling you that you're full of shit when you say "the Fighter can do one thing and one thing only, haha what a shitty class", because that simply isn't the case.And for the record, my Eldritch Knight takes Polearm Master and turns into a Dragoon at the earliest fucking opportunity, you little faggot.
>>44403365
Making the fighter try to be a skill monkey is just going to result in a mediocre-ass character all around.
>>44402337
>discounting examples and OPTIONS (equipment shit is just options), the actual core rules are majority combat-focused
No, the fucking aren't. Go read the goddamn book again. Unless you a rule to you ONLY means "codified process for rolling dice and how to apply the results", you're totally wrong. How the fuck does "if you wanna do a non-combat thing, establish a DC and roll some die and apply bonuses" need as much of an explanation as combat? OPTIONS ARE FUCKING RULES YOU JACKASS. Do you want a stratified array of how to fucking play pretend?
>i dont like having to make decisions that dont allow me to be perfectly optimized in a single direction
>defensive improvements that provide non-combat benefits outweighed by +1 dmg
>ive never played a fighter and i have no idea what im talking about
Wizard dies on the first fail saved because no Con, can't make Dex, Wis or Cha. None of this takes into account that fighters don't need Nat 20+'s in strength because of proficiency bonuses, class features, and feats. Still doesn't take into account that fighters get more improvements so they can take feats or boost saves. If you can't make a playable fighter with racial bonuses and 14 fucking points, you just suck at the game.
>60% combat focused
The 6th and 10th features are strictly utility. That's 50%.
>fighters cant take whatever feat they want and have to be perfectly optimized
>out of 7 options, 8 if i take human, i cant make 3 conflicting skills make sense, raise my strength, and do one more thing
>fighters need nat 20 str to be gud at dmg with action surge, extra attack, fighting styles, proficiency bonus, and feats
You are fucking bad at this game.
>Totem barbarians don't even have that much noncombat utility
>having to roll die with skill checks is less utility than rolling against spell DC's
>i can optimize a wizard for everything without having to lose stats somewhere else!
Every prepped spell that isn't a dmg spell makes you worse at combat.
>>44403556
Forgot to mention
>fighters and barbarians have to take feats/prep spells to not die instantly in combat
This is the thing you're missing here. Casters have to prep spells to have utility. Every spell you prep that isn't directly impacting combat makes you inherently worse at combat. It's kind of like how, since Barbarians and Fighters have all of their combat abilities baked into their class features and available all the time, they need to trade some of that power to have non-combat utility.
Fucking barbarians don't even need to dump ability score improvements into Str and Con because of Primal Champion. You're telling me you can't figure out how to handle a tiny bit of sub-optimization in ability scores that directly affect combat with the two classes that, according to you, are designed entirely for combat only?
You just suck at this game. Reread your fucking core books, pull your head out of your ass, actually play 5e some instead of just shitting on it, and then grow some damn balls.
>>44403556
>>44403640
Everything you're saying basically amounts to "If I make my barbarian or fighter take noncombat options instead of combat options, I can make them suck at noncombat slightly less!"
I mean... sure, you can, but that's not exactly playing to their strengths, you know?
>>44403508
>Oh shit he saw the strawman
>Better build a different one while completely forgetting what he just fucking said
You're not even arguing a point at this juncture. I'm not even sure you've even played a 5e Fighter at all. Or even looked at the fucking Handbook.
Go back and read my previous post. I already have 16 in Con and Str/Dex, proficiency in Athletics/Acrobatics/both and I haven't got even a fucking quarter of the way through Chargen.
I can have my cake and have a slice of it too. And for some fucking reason, you either can't accept that, or it REALLY fuckin' bugs you.
>>44403556
>Wizard dies on the first fail saved because no Con, can't make Dex, Wis or Cha.
Are you stupid?
>>44378642
Exploration: FATE's mechanics are good, and you can configure them to do almost anything via the Fractal (although that is not quite the same as FATE being able to do anything well). Give the region a stress track and some Skills like Beasts, Bandits, and Inhospitable, a Stunt for when you chain a successful Inhospitable block into a Beasts attack, you're golden.
Social: Chronicles of Darkness. Exalted Third Edition. A Song of Ice and Fire RPG. FATE.
>>44403674
That's not even close to what I'm saying. You can make fighters and barbarians pretty effective outside of combat while still being really effective in combat. You just won't be perfectly optimized for either scenario. Exactly how a full-caster isn't going to be perfectly optimized for either scenario as soon as they prep a mixture of utility and combat spells.
Are casters strictly better at utility than martials? Yea, no shit.
Does that mean fighters and barbarians are only good at combat and shit every where else? Absolutely not, in no way.
>>44403698
I'm using the other jackass's logic of "only perfect optimization matters" against him. As soon as a Wizard preps a defensive spell, they are sacrificing combat efficiency.
>>44403556
>How the fuck does "if you wanna do a non-combat thing, establish a DC and roll some die and apply bonuses" need as much of an explanation as combat?
See but that's the issue. Why should we accept a game that has only that for noncombat rules, when there are dozens of other games that do more interesting things?
>>44403697
>Strength 15+1, Dexterity 8, Constitution 15+1, Intelligence 10, Wisdom 14, Charisma 8
Explain how this is good for skill monkeying again?
>>44403745
If you want to play a guy who can fight good AND noncombat good without sacrificing anything for it, just play a bard.
>>44403749
I understand the idea of using cool rules to help you play a game of make believe, I honestly do. But I don't need a bunch of algorithms for transforming dice rolls to help me have a good narrative or cinematic experience. DnD simply is not the game for you if you want systemic simulation or gamism of narrative.
>>44403752
>those fucking stats
Bro, 4d6 drop lowest averages 13. Unless your GM lets you only roll once and apply in order, you're going to get a better bonus array than 3, -1, 3, 0, 2, -1. Come the fuck on.
>>44403758
This, pretty much, although it's not exactly like Wizard or even Barbarian is really sacrificing much to be pretty damn good at either.
>>44403804
Wizards are good at noncombat by default.
Fighters and barbarians, nnnnnnnnno, not really. Even the totem stuff isn't jaw-dropping or anything.
>>44403752
First off, I never said I was "skill monkeying". That was you.
Drop the 14 to a 13 and push that Dex up to 10. Nobody wants a penalty to Initiative. Athletics proficiency, play to your strengths.
Observant feat, Wis back up to 14, proficiency in Perception and Investigation. 19 motherfucking passive Perception. You've got the sharpest eyes in town that pick up on the smallest things. Let's pick up Insight, while we're at it. We can lipread, and we've got a sense of how and when people lie.
Bam. This guy can smash your fucking shit in with a maul, take a hit and laugh his ass off, and he's a damn good detective to boot. And we've still got a leftover proficiency.
Easy fucking peasy. And bear in mind this is level 1. We haven't even hit all those delicious ASIs.
But fighters can't into not combat, right?
>>44403864
Nothing you're doing with the fighter can't be done with another class, only better.
The cleric's going to be rocking a better Wisdom, the same proficiencies, and, you know, Guidance for +1d4 on basically all skill checks.
>>44403864
>not starting with GWM
'Kay buddy.
Would there be any ways to expand on the non-combat side of 4e?
I want to play something that isn't 3.5 or Pathfinder but my player seem set on sticking with D&D.
>>44403934
4e has the most non-combat stuff out of the D&D games post 3rd. You can expand on them easily using the power format (creating new utility powers, handing out free ones), or using optional rules/guidelines from the DMG 2 for skill challenge systems.
>>44403952
Alright, so the only thing I really need to change is the HP on enemies in MM1?
>>44403817
>wizards are good at non-combat by default
Because they have spells. Their class features mainly augment their prepared spells, or give them a few free spells to cast. Evocation ONLY affects combat. Every non-combat spell a Wizard preps makes them worse at combat, significantly so at lower levels. So much so at lower levels, that your options as a Wizard in combat are frequently 1) cast cantrips that do next to nothing 2) hit things with simple weapons melee, where they die because terrible AC and no HP.
By the time higher levels roll around and Wizards don't have to be so worried about juggle-prepping spells, Barbarians have almost all of their combat features in place. The "default options" you aren't seeing is that Barbarians have significantly better combat options built in, allowing them to take far fewer disadvantages to raising other stats than Str/Con and/or taking feats. Fighters and Barbarians are not as heavily dependent on Str/Con as people think; 16 is just fine for them, especially before racials.
>>44403893
Clerics can consistently do 6d10 damage a round at level 5? Any other class than fighter can consistently do 6d10 damage a round at level 5?
So yea, you've be succeeding slightly more often on skill checks (as you should, because you fucking suck in combat). And the fighter will be slightly worse at skill checks, and vastly superior in combat.
Sounds fair to me, unless you've got a shitty DM that only throws encounters at you.
>>44404012
You seem to be under an assumption that clerics and wizards have scant few prepared spells, that wizards don't have the best ritual mechanic in the game, and that even a single spell can seriously shit up and encounter.
>>44403959
MM1 enemies are also kinda boring DESU, so feel free to add some abilities.
Instead of HP reduction, you can also just lower their defenses and improve their offense by a few points.
A common houserule is handing out the math-fix feats (expertise) for free. Could also use inherent bonuses from Darksun to remove the magic item treadmill.
>>44403893
>Fighter can't do anything other than hit shit, lol what a shit class
>Actually no, I can do this at level 1 and this isn't even taking into account I get a shit load of ASIs to gain what little I lose back
>B-but a specialist can do it better
Well no shit.
But at no point did I say "Fighters can do it better than specialists". All I ever said was that there was enough points for a Fighter to do his job (physical shit) just fine, and have a little on the side to at least give the specialists advantage, and patch his own way through non combat scenarios just fine on his own. It was you that said
>and literally the rest of the game you suck in, unless you want to tank your only reason to exist.
I've stayed in the pocket of the argument the entire time. Please burn down your strawman factory now, for fuck's sake; I wanted to go to bed two hours ago.
Personally, I see the fighter as a wingman. The second pair of eyes to the Monk and Cleric. A rogue's lookout and cover. The bard and paladin's backing vocals. The guy the wizard bounces ideas with when he hits a puzzle he can't quite solve on his own.
The fighter is designed to go into the middle of the fray and fuck shit up. But he can also do those things listed up there, and not lose any of his ability to fuck shit up. If he was part of a band, he'd be the rhythm guitar.
>>44403911
And what, take -5 penalties to hit at level 1? Get outta here.
If you said Polearm Master you might have had a leg to stand on. Or rather, a fucking pole to lean on.
>>44404070
If you're a fighter and you're taking feats like Observant and Actor, you're shitting all over your class's potential.
You might as well just play a bard.
>And what, take -5 penalties to hit at level 1? Get outta here.
Honestly? Yeah. +10 damage is so fucking devastating at level 1 that GWM is totally worth it.
>playing Demisexuals & Doubletrans 5th edition at all
>>44403804
>DnD simply is not the game for you if you want systemic simulation or gamism of narrative.
>buzzwords: the post
>>44404021
If you have a 20 in Wis/Int and lvl 10, you've got 15 spells to prep, plus 5 cantrips. Rituals have next to no impact on combat, go read the ritual spell list.
And I know how great of an impact a good spell can have on combat. I also know that half the difficult enemies in the game have magical resistance baked in and generally solid saves against spells, if not total immunity, meaning most of a Wizard's or Cleric's effectiveness in combat is going to come from utility spells that help the Fighter stay alive and kill things easier. You're gonna be using up a lot of those 15/5 for mediocre combat effectiveness when you could just help the Fighter or Barbarian kill the shit 4 times better than you instead of just 3?
>>44404089
>losing +1 to hit and damage is meaningful when you still get extra attack, action surge, expanded crit ranges, fighting styles, etc that give you a LGS's worth of damage dice a round and a half dozen ways to get advantage on rolls
You honestly believe that anything less than perfect optimization is absolute shit.
>>44404046
I rather like Inherent + non bonus magic items.
So you can get your Flaming Sword and it will let you turn attacks into fire but won't need to be traded out for Flaming Sword +2.
That however IS a bit more 'Eh, eyeball it' with magic item availability though.
>>44404089
If a game is going to have aspects to it that isn't combat only.
It makes sense to take things that will have application outside of combat.
That also do not majorly compromise your ability.
To do combat well.
Because you picked a class that does combat well on it's own.
And even if you don't take role playing feats like Observant or Actor.
And just went maximum KILL NIGGAS EFFICIENTLY.
A fighter can still have use to his party outside of combat.
Through clever application of proficiencies and stat allocations.
That compliment the rest.
Of his.
Fucking.
Party.
That if done correctly.
Will mean that the Fighter will be a motherfucking
ADVANTAGE
ENGINE
You absolute fucking cretin.
Inb4 "u mad". u dumb.
And I'm really fucking tired of you being this dumb for this long.
>>44404090
It just boggles the mind why anyone would want to roleplay a trans character. Trans people don't want to be trans, they want to be cis.
>>44404110
>any word other than basic nouns, verbs, conjunctions and prepositions are bullshit jargon designed to incite emotional reactions
Can this fucking meme die already?
>>44404121
Not really, the guidelines tell you what to take out if you use inherent bonuses, unless you are using the random tables in essentials books, and in that case WTF man?
>>44404114
+1 to hit and damage actually matters MORE the more actions and attacks you have.
>>44404140
>Can this fucking meme die already?
If you use four game desin words stringing them together incorrectly and making no sense, you are going to be called out.
You are the guy who once read a forum post using some big words and now are trying to pass them on to give wight to your argument, but don't actually know wha they mean.
>>44403934
>>44403952
>>44403959
To be honest, if you're going with the skill powers route, you should hand out an extre utility power progression for stuff that's not explicitly non-combat, because I think that's a major weakness of the existing AEDU paradigm; since 4e (and all of D&D) is very combat focused, the U part tends to serve combat and people tend to skip on the non-combat or regret taking combat/non-combat utilities when faced with the other. I'm not saying that characters should have *everything*, but being able to point to a power/feat/et cetera on your sheet and say "I can do this thing in this combat/non-combat situation" is psychologically pretty important.
>>44404114
>Rituals have next to no impact on combat, go read the ritual spell list.
So obviously, a wizard doesn't need to prepare them (because a wizard can ritual cast even when the spells aren't prepared) and still have a shitton of utility.
>>44404070
>The second pair of eyes to the Monk and Cleric. A rogue's lookout and cover. The bard and paladin's backing vocals. The guy the wizard bounces ideas with when he hits a puzzle he can't quite solve on his own.
Also known as: a complete chump whose only contribution is that he's another skill roll in a swingy system. You might as well have said "the fighter only exists in combat."
>>44378036
>I roll my charisma to get what I want from that city guard
No you fucking don't. You talk. Talk like if you were your character.
This is how rolepalying works.
Systems for social interaction are fucking retarded.
>>44404181
It's also worth noting that a familiar can do the exact same thing as a fighter can, aiding with skill checks.
>>44404183
>My charisma 7 wizard can talk just as well as the Charisma 20 Bard because I'm going to ignore the rules and just fluff over it!
>>44404183
>I roll my strength to lift open the iron gate
No you fucking don't. You lift. Lift this table like you were your character.
This is how roleplaying works.
Systems for physical interaction are fucking retarded.
>>44404183
The problem if you go full no social system charisma becomes everyone's dump stat.
>>44404189
>>44404194
Have fun DnD kids. You are playing roleplaying games in the most boring way ever.
Like if playing a completely horrible system like DnD wasn't enough.
>>44404189
>>44404199
Charisma is a stupid stat in the first place.
>>44404162
>systemic is game design jargon
So there's strike one
>systemic simulation of narrative
You're going to have to tell me how exactly I used this wrong, especially given the context established in the prior sentence about using a system of dice rolls to augment outcomes. Because all that says is "a game whose system of rules supports a simulation play-style with a narrative focus", I just chose to use 5 words instead of 14.
>systemic gamism of narrative
Again, all this shit says is "a game whose system of rules supports gamism with a narrative focus".
I didn't use anything wrong. I'll give you that the syntax is a little confusing, I didn't write it at a 8th grade level.
>>44404161
That is true, however having all of the attack options mitigates the loss of offensive advantage you could have, and you get utility/defense advantages instead.
>>44404175
Which leaves you 15/5 to split up among defensive spells, utility spells that would help the Wizard pass checks, and offensive spells that provide marginally above average combat presence. Again, it's all about the trades. Wizards are not combat kings in 5e, but they don't suck there. Equally, Fighters aren't utility kings, but they don't suck there.
>>44404207
I don't play DnD or any DnD-like. Shadowrun is more my thing. And thinking that character's skills = player's skills is the most boring thing ever.
>>44404207
Ok, what system doesn't have social rules/skills then?
>>44404194
Strength is linear. You are either strong enough to do something or not.
Social interactions are nothing like that.
Look at fucking Hitler. You think his Charisma was high? He looked like a complete faggot. A kid that would get bullied at school. Yet his speeches made millions fanatically loyal to him.
>>44404199
Except 5e spells have tons of saves against Charisma, and it's also the casting stat of Bards, Paladins, Sorcerers, and Warlocks.
>>44404231
>charisma is attached predominantly to physical appearance
>the capability to speak effectively, for example, has nothing to do with charisma
You're not super bright.
>>44404231
Because he had high charisma you fucking ostensibly human piece of trash.
End your life, you're too fucking stupid for this world.
>>44404231
It doesn't matter if they're lineal or not. You're suggesting that a character needs to be as charismatic as his player, which is stupid.
Nobody plays roleplaying games to play as themselves. And if you do then wow, you're the worst kind of snowflake
>>44404231
>You think his Charisma was high?
Yes?
Hitler was incredibly charismatic.
>>44404231
>Strength is linear. You are either strong enough to do something or not.
Spoken like someone who doesn't know the first thing about physical exertion.
>>44404231
>Strength is linear. You are either strong enough to do something or not.
What's it like being a hungry skeleton? Can you at least do your pull-ups?
>>44404199
If you go full no social system, you need to get rid of charisma. I would have thought that much would be obvious.
Wow. People really roll for social interactions?
Like, you walk to a guy then roll if you persuaded him? This is pathetic. You could very well play a video game.
In 20 years of playing rpg games I never met a GM who did this. Maybe because I stay away from DnD crap.
>>44404288
Don't fall off your horse. The impact would probably liquefy every bone in your body.
>>44404284
No? Charisma is still important for first impression.
>>44404298
What part of 'full no social system' is unclear?
>>44404288
Before you strawman any more
>how social interactions should work
Player: I roll to persuade that guard to let me through
>Player says what his character would say
GM: Okay, that was well said, so add a +5 bonus to your roll
>how you want social interactions to work
Player: My diplomatic envoy character approaches the guard to persuade him to let me through
>Player fucks up and doesn't know what to say
GM: The guard stabs you
>>44404320
>Stop strawmanning!
>Strawmans loudly
>>44404221
Ahah, oh wow. Go on man, your complete misuse of theory terms is fantastic.
"support simulation with a narrative focus", jesus. Go fucking read some articles before trying to use the big words.
>>44404288
Apparently in 20 years of playing rpg games you learned nothing. Which is fine if that's what you lime, but the world has moved on, gramps.
More examples of interesting social interaction and exploration systems, please.
>>44383496 is neat.
>>44403674
>"If I make my barbarian or fighter take noncombat options instead of combat options, I can make them suck at noncombat slightly less!"
Without sacrificing any combat ability in the fighter you can have a handful of skills at +4.
My fighter has WIS at his third highest char and got survival and perception just fine.
>>44404677
>Without sacrificing any combat ability in the fighter you can have a handful of skills at +4.
...
I guess our benchmarks are pretty different because +4 is pretty fucking low.
>>44404231
Hitler is the poster child for low Appearance, high Charisma character. When somebody ask me the difference, I usually take him as en example.
He looked like a bullied kid that had too many overdose of meth. Twenty seconds after he opened his mouth, you wanted to die for him.
>>44404288
>not asking your players to roleplay their social outcomes after rolling
It's like you hate fun.
>>44404688
>>44404694
+4 at chargen is pretty decent in something you aren't a specialist in.
>>44404707
>>44404718
>>44404536
CoD also has a system of social manuvering. Want something from someone? The game sets up how many "doors" you need to get through based on how much they like you/the impression you gave. Then you have to break through each door, in a process that takes weeks if it's not someone you know before hand, by helping them out and making them like you. Or massive threats, breaking through lots of door but also making them hate you. There's a lot to it, but I enjoy the thought put into it.
>>44405584
Interesting. I'm going to read this over and see if I can incorporate it into my prep for sessions in 5e. It seems like a good framework.
>>44405584
Does it call them "doors"? I like that analogy.
>>44378036
So homebrewfags can invent entirely better systems after months of frustration trying to make D&D better.
That's how we got all those other, better systems after all.
>>44406009
>Does it call them "doors"?
Yup
>>44405892
It's a neat system overall, and I really love how it explicitly states that breaking a door doesn't mean a social roll. Maybe they call you up and ask for a ride, or need their computer fixed, or is at the same party as you. Breaking a door could be anything, from a socialize to computers to animal ken.
>>44406078
Could you explain the interval system to me? How do you represent in game the PCs only being able to roll on a door once per week for instance?
>>44406104
you know that friend who wants to hang out with you all the time? Like, for the past 3 days in a row you've spent like 6hours+ a day with him but he still wants to hog your time today? fuck that guy, right?
Entirely dissimilar from the CoD doors, but I really like Strike! team challenges.
Each challenge (which could be passing a desert, fighting a war, or executing a heist) has a defense and an offense value. Defense describes how hard it is to progress in it, offense describes how perilous it is. The entire PC team also gets a defense/offense value, that they can increase by taking actions that are relevant to the challenge.
Team Pyromancer using his fire to keep allies warm on Mt. Deathfreez would improve the team's defense, while the party tracker finding hidden paths could improve their offense (or he could look for fast paths to improve their offense further, possibly even at the expanse of their safety).
It's very abstracted tho.
Wow I can't believe a bait thread has lasted this long.
>>44406193
There's been some interesting discussion. /tg/ has this weird knack for turning serious threads into trolling, and turning bait threads into gold.
I'm still interested in >>44404536
>>44405584 sounds good and >>44406170 seems interesting. How would Success With a Cost and Twists (and Twists with a Cost) work for social encounters?
>>44396947
>>44397142
>>44398598
>>44402405
Intent (I try to lift the rock, I try to seduce the princess) -> roll -> world changes to match the roll (this is a rock you can lift, the princess is chaste).
>>44406691
Dunno about that, cause I'm the CoD shill, but I have this philosophy on dice rolling. First of all, no rolling on things that wouldn't be interesting if they failed. Players go to do something, and if failing just blocks them out and nothing happens because of it, not even bad things (which are interesting) don't roll it, because on a success the game continues, and on a failure it just gets bad. Secondly, failing forward. Anytime a dice roll fails, make sure it fails in such a way as to still make the game progress. Maybe you flub a roll to get information out of someone. Instead of just cutting that off, maybe the person you were trying to get information about premtively moves against the players because they know the players are looking into them. That way, plot moves forward and interesting things keep happening
>>44406726
it's not that hard to get. Yet grognards and threaboos fail every single time.
>>44406691
The GM Reference has some stuff on that.
A twist in a social encounter could be that you got the info you wanted, but your inquiries lead to you being noticed by people you didn't want to notice you, or somebody stalking the people you talked to attacking you, etc.
A cost could be that you owe the guy for the info, or that the info you got has a flaw (the floorplans are old, the passcodes are changed weekly and it's friday, etc.).
>>44406821
So about the failing but progressing thing, how do you make that not awkward and hamfisted?
I've been GMing for a while, mostly D&D, and I always fall into this trap because I want the players to have fun and keep moving forward. But it results in nonsense like,
>Player: I tell the guard to let us pass, we have an urgent message for the king! Do I roll Persuasion?
>Me: Sure.
>Player: Damn, 4.
>Me: Oh, uh, he lets you pass anyway.
Usually with a minor caveat. "But the guard is angry at you!"
I'd be happy to consider stuff like this an automatic success, the guard would just let the player pass, but my players enjoy rolling dice. I think it feels a little cheap when the result doesn't even matter, and it makes the reverse seem unfair ("The guard tells you he has strict orders not to let anyone pass.", "But I got a 24!").
>>44406949
Huh, it didn't upload for some reason. Here, GM reference.
>>44406691
Success with a cost depends on the situation.
If you intimidated someone into giving you information, success with a cost might mean that they give you the information, but then they'll run off to the guards to tell about your behaviour
>>44406955
I mean that kinda falls under the first part, if failing would just make everything thing stop, don't have them roll for it. That, or have something like the guard getting angry and yelling at them bringing over a higher ranking person who when explained the situation lets them in, for the failing forward.
Basically, if you can't think of a way to make the failure interesting, or result in a failure that still moves the plot forward, just don't do it. The only plus is rolling more dice, and you can fit that in wherever, doesn't have to be where the game stops of the roll gets handwaved anyway
>>44406955
The guard works for the evil Vizier and now they know the character's face, or are alerted to his plans being known.
Get creative.
Also "you just fail" is terrible and you should almost never do it, unless you have a very good justification.
