|
|
Post by cadriel on Jul 13, 2014 19:05:04 GMT -6
I want to draw some comparisons between OD&D and 5e D&D.
Surprise in OD&D is elegant and simple. You roll a six-sided die for each side. If one side or the other rolls a 1 or a 2, that side is surprised.
Surprise in 5e D&D is tightly integrated into the system, but rather inelegant. It only applies when one side or the other is trying to be stealthy. If they are, then it uses a Dexterity (Stealth) check for each character/creature trying to sneak versus the Wisdom (Perception) passive score of each character/creature on the other side. That means that a d20 roll with Dexterity modifier, and possibly Proficiency bonus, has to be made for each character on the sneaky side, and the Perception passive score has to be calculated as 10 + possible modifiers (Wisdom and maybe Proficiency) for each character on the other side. You need to know, for every character involved, an ability score and whether or not they have a Proficiency bonus for a skill (and if so, what their Proficiency bonus is).
There are several areas where play is like this: where OD&D has a simple game solution, usually "roll a d6," for a given scenario, 5e generally has an application of its d20-based universal mechanic. This allows more flexibility but makes the game significantly more complicated. Particularly it means that monsters and NPCs must have full sets of statistics.
OD&D saving throws improve between 40% and 60% between 1st level and the level when they max out (13th for fighters and clerics, 16th for magic-users). 5e saving throws improve, if the character has Proficiency, 20% from 1st level to 17th. However, this is only nominal for saving throws versus spells, which use the caster's Proficiency bonus to modify the saving throw DC. If the character saving does not have Proficiency, their saving throw likelihood may actually be lower at high levels, if enemy casters level up with the PCs. Likewise any ability modifier increases will likely be offset by the wizard's own increases to his Intelligence. Against on-level casters, this is a treadmill at best.
Using floating saving throw difficulty numbers generally creates this problem, because it eliminates the idea of absolute improvement. OD&D made PCs absolutely more likely to save at higher levels. This is a check on the magic-user's power, since his spells will be evaded or semi-evaded instead of allowing him to reign supreme. WotC broke this pattern back in 3e and it contributed heavily to the so-called "caster dominance."
This isn't to say that I dislike 5e; I've not yet played it and would rather keep an open mind about how it works at the table. But it does do some things that I don't care for as they sit on the page. I'm curious if anybody here has experience with surprise or saves in 5e and can share their opinions on how it actually goes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 14, 2014 5:16:47 GMT -6
Using floating saving throw difficulty numbers generally creates this problem, because it eliminates the idea of absolute improvement. OD&D made PCs absolutely more likely to save at higher levels. This is a check on the magic-user's power, since his spells will be evaded or semi-evaded instead of allowing him to reign supreme. WotC broke this pattern back in 3e and it contributed heavily to the so-called "caster dominance." As to characters not improving, remember that a lot of the saves are done on a pretty standard chart: Task Difficulty -- DC Very easy -- 5 Easy -- 10 Medium -- 15 Hard -- 20 Very hard -- 25 Nearly impossible -- 30 As the character improves his stats go up and his proficiency bonus goes up but "medium difficulty" (for example) pretty much stays the same. This means that the characters do improve compared to their environment. |
|
|
|
Post by kirbyfan63 on Jul 14, 2014 12:45:58 GMT -6
Using floating saving throw difficulty numbers generally creates this problem, because it eliminates the idea of absolute improvement. OD&D made PCs absolutely more likely to save at higher levels. This is a check on the magic-user's power, since his spells will be evaded or semi-evaded instead of allowing him to reign supreme. WotC broke this pattern back in 3e and it contributed heavily to the so-called "caster dominance." As to characters not improving, remember that a lot of the saves are done on a pretty standard chart: Task Difficulty -- DC Very easy -- 5 Easy -- 10 Medium -- 15 Hard -- 20 Very hard -- 25 Nearly impossible -- 30 As the character improves his stats go up and his proficiency bonus goes up but "medium difficulty" (for example) pretty much stays the same. This means that the characters do improve compared to their environment. As long as the environment doesn't level up, which it usually does since most of the difficulty ratings were assigned arbitrarily based on what PC level a scenario was created for. |
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Jul 14, 2014 18:39:03 GMT -6
As to characters not improving, remember that a lot of the saves are done on a pretty standard chart: Task Difficulty -- DC Very easy -- 5 Easy -- 10 Medium -- 15 Hard -- 20 Very hard -- 25 Nearly impossible -- 30 As the character improves his stats go up and his proficiency bonus goes up but "medium difficulty" (for example) pretty much stays the same. This means that the characters do improve compared to their environment. The three main saving throw types in 5e are Dexterity, Constitution and Wisdom (mapping to 3e's Reflex, Fortitude and Will). Every spell and save mentioned in Basic uses one of the three. Each character only has saving throw proficiency in one of the three. This means that two of their three save types will improve by 10% or less due to stat increases, and the third will improve by 20% to 30%. This means that even at high levels, a PC is likely to be extremely vulnerable to high level spellcasters, because the save DCs will be going up 20% to 30%, while the PCs only keep pace in 1 of 3 categories. I know that the 5e designers tried very hard to get the game off of its escalation treadmill, and simplify things, but I think that adherence to a unified system is more of a weakness than most game designers see it. Absolute saving throw improvement was a major positive of TSR D&D compared to its WotC competitors, but it doesn't fit the unified system. Neither does a simple system for common tasks like determining surprise, searching for secret doors, etc. The unified system must be used even if it's a bad fit. |
|
|
|
Post by Lorgalis on Jul 14, 2014 20:06:12 GMT -6
Base DC for spells by tier for a wizard with a 20 INT. 8 +5 + 2-6
T1 DC 15
T2 DC 16
T3 DC 17
T4 DC 18
T5 DC 19
Versus
20 + 2-6 + adv/dis or +3 -3 - Base 10 average toss on a 20, with proficiency 12 to 16 or 15 to 19 with adv. This does not include stat bonus so 0 to 5 - seems fairly good.
Worse case without disadvantage, no stat bonus, no proficiency would be 20 roll - also sans any extraneous mods.
I could be way off. Please correct.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 14, 2014 21:51:58 GMT -6
adherence to a unified system is more of a weakness than most game designers see it. Absolute saving throw improvement was a major positive of TSR D&D compared to its WotC competitors, but it doesn't fit the unified system. Neither does a simple system for common tasks like determining surprise, searching for secret doors, etc. The unified system must be used even if it's a bad fit. When 3e came out I remember thinking that saves based on ability scores were a pretty clever thing. But since finding my way back to the original game(s) I've changed my mind on that. Any mechanics based largely on ability adjustments encourage stat growth. Which means you eventually arrive at a 5e-like "build game", and you've lost the iconic, descriptive 3d6 ability scores of D&D. Saves based on ability scores also imply how/why a PC saves. The original mechanism left the how/why of it open to interpretation so the player could invent whatever justification he liked for their (successful or otherwise) saving throws. Since 3e there's been a prescription explanation for all saves. Also, to expand on cadriel's point, make saving throws (and everything else) an expression of the one universal mechanic means any adjustment to that universal mechanic adjusts everything. This might be good if you want to change how advantage works, for example. But if you want to alter specific mechanisms without impacting the rest of the game, then you'll have to introduce a sub-system for that. There's no clear precedent for independent sub systems in a game where the universal mechanic is used for everything even where it is a poor fit. If, on the other hand, the rules already comprised a collection of unrelated sub-systems, it would be much clearer to prospective tinkers that they could hack individual subsystems and/or introduce new ones without impacting any of the other sub-systems. |
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jul 15, 2014 2:32:24 GMT -6
Clever players will divest evil wizards of their spell focus (wand, spell book, component pouch) which will remove the offending wizards proficiency bonus to spell DC's. Very pulp.
Secondly, while saving throws are far from guaranteed successes as they were in high level play in ad&d, failing a save, while it may happen more often, is not a "do of die" effect any longer, so even failing your save vs. disintegration is just "really bad" instead of "automatically dead". Power word kill, power word stun, disintigrate, death spell can really mess you up, but generally you already have to be losing for that to happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 15, 2014 5:30:18 GMT -6
Base DC for spells by tier for a wizard with a 20 INT. 8 +5 + 2-6 T1 DC 15 T2 DC 16 T3 DC 17 T4 DC 18 T5 DC 19 I think you are correct here. I just wanted to add to the T chart to remind folks that each tier is 4 levels. T1 - Levels 01 though 04 - DC 15 T2 - Levels 05 though 08 - DC 16 T3 - Levels 09 though 12 - DC 17 T4 - Levels 13 though 16 - DC 18 T5 - Levels 17 though 20 - DC 19 So some of those "wizards escallate too fast" issues are blunted by the slow progression of the chart. |
|
|
|
Post by Lorgalis on Jul 15, 2014 9:03:07 GMT -6
One other thing is that save or die spells are gone I believe, and the concentration mechanic does not allow casters to pile on spells. I guess in 5e a character can not be good at everything, there is some gap in your armor so to speak.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirbyfan63 on Jul 15, 2014 9:06:08 GMT -6
Clever players will divest evil wizards of their spell focus (wand, spell book, component pouch) which will remove the offending wizards proficiency bonus to spell DC's. Very pulp. Secondly, while saving throws are far from guaranteed successes as they were in high level play in ad&d, failing a save, while it may happen more often, is not a "do of die" effect any longer, so even failing your save vs. disintegration is just "really bad" instead of "automatically dead". Power word kill, power word stun, disintigrate, death spell can really mess you up, but generally you already have to be losing for that to happen. Looks like the designers forgot again that spell casters get more spells as they level up. That is why the absolute value of saves always got better, law of averages says you are still going to fail, plus cumulative spells still hurt if saves only reduced damage or other effects. Same thing with monster abilities, the tougher the monster is, the longer the fight last and the more saves you have to make. |
|
|
|
Post by Ynas Midgard on Jul 15, 2014 16:49:20 GMT -6
@ kirbyfan63
I would like to see an analysis of how 5e handles battle length, i.e. how long an average fight takes between matching level parties. Then we could see if this is an issue or people just assume so "because it was true for previous editions".
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 15, 2014 17:27:34 GMT -6
@ kirbyfan63 I would like to see an analysis of how 5e handles battle length, i.e. how long an average fight takes between matching level parties. Then we could see if this is an issue or people just assume so "because it was true for previous editions". Well, battles are longer because both characters and monsters have more hit points. They don't seem as long as 3E/4E battles, but they are clearly longer than OD&D/AD&D battles. |
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jul 15, 2014 17:53:56 GMT -6
I actually don't know if battles are longer. In 0e with a 20 thac0 vs AC 3 and d6 damage I can see a battle between two knights taking quite a long time.
In 0e/1e a wizard could fly, cast suggestion and summon a wall of force, sequentially and the spells could all build upon each other like a juggernaught rolling down hill, but in 5e he can only maintain one of those spells at a time. This severely restricts the power a wizard has to bring to any encounter. He could not fly out of reach and then dominate the fighter from above, he can either fly...or dominate the fighter. This perhaps balances the saving throws.
From the game perspective nobody likes to "miss" an attack and have their turn be "well, you did nothing" so characters hit more often, but creatures have more hit points. Likewise with spells it isn't, "well, your disintegration did nothing, next turn!"
The fighter who fails such a save now also has means of ameliorating this damage, "second wind" is one as is "survivor" that automatic regeneration that kicks in when under 1/2 health, "indomitable" at 9th level that let's you re-roll a saving throw etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirbyfan63 on Jul 15, 2014 18:12:51 GMT -6
In 0e/1e a wizard could fly, cast suggestion and summon a wall of force, sequentially and the spells could all build upon each other like a juggernaught rolling down hill, but in 5e he can only maintain one of those spells at a time. This severely restricts the power a wizard has to bring to any encounter. He could not fly out of reach and then dominate the fighter from above, he can either fly...or dominate the fighter. This perhaps balances the saving throws. Why would that balance, they are two separate features? Instant effect spells don't have to stack, and you can still cast them while concentrating on another spell. |
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jul 15, 2014 18:18:27 GMT -6
Things unrelated to other things can serve to act as a balance upon a class "in toto". A wizards d6 hit points is also a balancing factor on how puissant his spells are to save against. Wizards can't wear armor in 0e...this balances their spells.
Basically, spells are more successful overall, but impact is lessened somewhat and wizards can now also perform less simultaneous acts of magic at once (you cannot cast suggestion while under the effects of a fly spell for example--weaker in one area, more powerful in another.)
The combination of which means it's ok for fighters to fail more saves vs. spells. This is further ameliorated by the fact that even if a fighter does fail his save (which he will more often), he has means of overcoming the effects of spells, disintegration or suggestion, even when he does fail by expending his own resources (second wind, indomitable, survivor).
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 15, 2014 18:39:16 GMT -6
I actually don't know if battles are longer. In 0e with a 20 thac0 vs AC 3 and d6 damage I can see a battle between two knights taking quite a long time. I charted the combat duration for 0e duels between equal level fighters here. It ranged from an average (across all ACs) of 3 rounds at 1st level, to an average (across all ACs) of 15 rounds at 9th level. Up to 3 or 4 rounds of combat is exciting. 8+ rounds of combat is, IMHO, becoming a dull slog. 15+ rounds of combat is just waaay too long--the ref is better off just throwing Nd6 per side to determine casualties and immediately getting on with the game. in 5e he can only maintain one of those spells at a time. This severely restricts the power a wizard has to bring to any encounter. He could not fly out of reach and then dominate the fighter from above, he can either fly...or dominate the fighter. This perhaps balances the saving throws. I like this feature of 5e. It means the wizard player has a meaningful choice to make. The fighter who fails such a save now also has means of ameliorating this damage, "second wind" is one as is "survivor" that automatic regeneration that kicks in when under 1/2 health, "indomitable" at 9th level that let's you re-roll a saving throw etc. Alas, this kind of thing only makes combat go on for that much longer. I don't mind healing between combats, as this delays the need to end the dungeon exploration part of the game and return to town. But I'm not so keen on healing during combat. Even clerical healing spells shouldn't be functional during the fighting--you should have to retire from combat to receive healing behind the battle lines. In 0e, (up to) 10 rounds of combat will be fought while the cleric casts one cure spell, so completing a cure wounds spell during a battle is pretty unlikely (unless the cleric has a magic wand or staff that cures within one round). |
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jul 15, 2014 18:44:53 GMT -6
To be fair indomitable and second wind are the same as the "charge" ability in ad&d, which is to say a once per encounter ability that requires 1 turn/short rest to regain.
D&D generally assumes fighters will go to great lengths to acquire a potions of healing. All second wind does is get rid of a very video game quality (that's so ingrained in our play style that such a ridiculous device seems acceptable) of fighters chugging magic potions of healing. And frees DM's from having to constantly include such items at churches or in treasure piles for low magic campaigns.
second wind, survivor, and indomitable seem very "Conan-like" bursts of energy that I have no problem of their inclusion in the game. Especially for games that do not include clerics.
There is a very Napoleonic wargame vision that I have of 0d&d without clerics where fighting-men are constantly trudging out of dungeons on crutches heads wrapped in bandages, but I welcome a bit of the Hyborian into the rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirbyfan63 on Jul 15, 2014 18:47:58 GMT -6
Things unrelated to other things can serve to act as a balance upon a class "in toto." The combination of which means it's ok for fighters to fail more saves vs. spells. This is further ameliorated by the fact that even if a fighter does fail his save (which he will more often), he has means of overcoming the effects of spells, disintegration or suggestion, even when he does fail by expending his own resources (second wind, indomitable, survivor). That doesn't balance anything out, because it works for the same the wizard. A save against a spell dosen't hurt as much when you have a lot more to cast as opposed to just a dw. That is why saves became easier as you got up and some of the higher level spells had fixed damage. |
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jul 15, 2014 18:53:22 GMT -6
Does the concentration rule weaken wizards? Objectively Yes.
Do fighter powers strengthen fighters? Objectively Yes.
Are failing saves more often a means of balancing the two above facts? Do failing saves more often, but reducing the lethality of spells a good balance and design philosophy?
That's a subjective opinion. WotC seems to think so, you don't.
I'll tell you that "indomitable" would seem an unnecessary ability if high level characters already had saves of 2+ like many ad&d characters have. But then again if high level characters have excellent saves, why not make the wizard spells save or die...
But then the wizard is left with spells that do nothing except the rare time they do everything...and so we come back to the begining again on design philosophy.
To be honest the combat and character building rules are to me the least interesting. I'm much more interested in exploration rules, rules on item creation and world interaction. 5e I think has some good ideas on potion and scroll making that doesn't leave you counting gold pieces.
5e is perfectly playable with 0e combat and characters if you like the old saving throws use them, but go ahead and use their rules on unarmed combat, or bending bars and lifting gates or whatever. Detailed combat is for dedicated wargamers.
Personally? I would like my spells to "just work". Wizard casts disintegration on you? You are disintegrated, no save! Conan never made his saving throws against wizards, he knew they were dangerous. Of course wizards would be like Jack Vance wizards a powerful wizard would have like six spells, but darn it! They would work.
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jul 16, 2014 9:44:24 GMT -6
I've never understood the attraction of "unified" systems. In all my decades of playing A/D&D, it never occurred to me that "This game would be so much better if all the sub-systems were unified."
I also prefer the "objective, out there" system of saving throws in A/D&D to the "subjective, in here" saving throws of 3rd edition and later.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ynas Midgard on Jul 16, 2014 9:54:49 GMT -6
@ kirbyfan63 I would like to see an analysis of how 5e handles battle length, i.e. how long an average fight takes between matching level parties. Then we could see if this is an issue or people just assume so "because it was true for previous editions". Well, battles are longer because both characters and monsters have more hit points. They don't seem as long as 3E/4E battles, but they are clearly longer than OD&D/AD&D battles. I didn't mean in comparison between editions but within the framework of one (in this instance, 5E), like how the average number of combat rounds between a group of first level characters and appropriate monsters relate to a similar arrangement of fifth or ninth level party combating foes deemed equally challenging for them (now I may have gotten from clear to verbose). |
|
|
|
Post by Ynas Midgard on Jul 16, 2014 9:55:26 GMT -6
I also prefer the "objective, out there" system of saving throws in A/D&D to the "subjective, in here" saving throws of 3rd edition and later. I'm curious; could you elaborate on that? |
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jul 16, 2014 10:24:19 GMT -6
Technically 0d&d uses a unified resolution mechanic; the d6. At the time of ad&d they were experimenting with using all the dice for various resolutions. D12 for one thing, d8 for another d00 and even more convoluted subsystems where you had a stat from 3-18 and that score determined what your d00 score was or even what your d6 score was.
Think about it, you roll 3d6 to determine what your system shock roll was on a d00 or how well you opened a door on a d6!
That's Greyhawk and beyond in a nutshell. For me D20 universal mechanic is closer to 0e than any other system.
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jul 16, 2014 17:58:49 GMT -6
I also prefer the "objective, out there" system of saving throws in A/D&D to the "subjective, in here" saving throws of 3rd edition and later. I'm curious; could you elaborate on that? Sure! Click: gorgonmilk.blogspot.com/2014/01/flexing-five-fold-saving-throw-system.htmlHere's the paragraph that sticks with me: "Three-point-Oh transformed the traditional array of saves seen in the image above into a three-fold system -- namely Fortitude, Reflex and Will. These are fine in their way, but I prefer the original for one major reason: The five saves describe external forces in terms of the character's resistance to them. The three-fold model turns the focus inward -- rather than what the character might be exposed to, they describe him physically in a manner akin to Ability Scores."  |
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Jul 16, 2014 20:19:26 GMT -6
OD&D uses at least two resolution mechanics: roll high on a d20 (combat matrix, saving throws) and d6 (dungeoneering tasks). Only the d20 roll admits of a modifier - the Dexterity bonus to hit.
I don't care for the d20 system's central conceit, which is that abilities all have basically the same impact (+/- 25%) on anything worth rolling for. Sometimes I want it to be bigger, sometimes I want it to be nonexistent.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 16, 2014 20:57:10 GMT -6
OD&D uses at least two resolution mechanics: roll high on a d20 (combat matrix, saving throws) and d6 (dungeoneering tasks). Only the d20 roll admits of a modifier - the Dexterity bonus to hit. I don't care for the d20 system's central conceit, which is that abilities all have basically the same impact (+/- 25%) on anything worth rolling for. Sometimes I want it to be bigger, sometimes I want it to be nonexistent. Not to mention: 3d6 for loyalty rolls (adjusted by charisma), 2d6 for reaction rolls (adjusted by charisma) --> arguably the most significant roll in the game, 2d6 for morale rolls --> critical if you want to win combat, 2d6 for turning undead (cleric level versus monster HD), 1d20 for saving throws, 1d6 for random monster events, d100 for %lair, and determination of what treasure is there (very significant if you're interested in treasure). |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 17, 2014 5:44:30 GMT -6
Well, battles are longer because both characters and monsters have more hit points. They don't seem as long as 3E/4E battles, but they are clearly longer than OD&D/AD&D battles. I didn't mean in comparison between editions but within the framework of one (in this instance, 5E), like how the average number of combat rounds between a group of first level characters and appropriate monsters relate to a similar arrangement of fifth or ninth level party combating foes deemed equally challenging for them (now I may have gotten from clear to verbose). I'm not sure that I can answer that, as I haven't run any battles between 9th level characters. Certainly when both sides have more hit points the battle would seem to drag on, but also both sides can do more damage and this cuts down battle length. Through 5th level or so the two effects seem to cancel out somewhat, but 5th level battles are still longer than 1st level battles. My best comparrison is between other editions, so sorry if that's not helpful to you. I think that 5E battles are longer than OD&D/AD&D at 1st level becasue one hit doesn't often kill anything. I know that higher level 5E battles haven't bored me yet, and 3E/4E battles often did. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 17, 2014 5:49:08 GMT -6
I've never understood the attraction of "unified" systems. In all my decades of playing A/D&D, it never occurred to me that "This game would be so much better if all the sub-systems were unified." I like them, and my players seem to like them as well. My experience of late may be biased by the fact that most of my players aren't interested in pouring over rulebooks, but they used to always be rolling the wrong dice types and now they don't so much. PLAYER: (rolls) I got a 14. DM: Um ... did you roll 2d6 for that? PLAYER: Sorry. Can I keep the 14 for next time I need a d20 roll? Not a big thing, really, but I have some players who I constantly have to tell which dice to roll and whether they want high or low. This frustrates them. I find that some of the newer unified mechanics work better for them. |
|
|
|
Post by scottenkainen on Jul 17, 2014 8:19:46 GMT -6
Isn't it funny how players have always wanted to know whether they need to roll high or low, even though it shouldn't have any influence at all on what the die actually rolls?
~Scott "-enkainen" Casper
|
|
|
|
Post by kirbyfan63 on Jul 17, 2014 8:31:01 GMT -6
Does the concentration rule weaken wizards? Objectively Yes. Do fighter powers strengthen fighters? Objectively Yes. Are failing saves more often a means of balancing the two above facts? Do failing saves more often, but reducing the lethality of spells a good balance and design philosophy? That's a subjective opinion. WotC seems to think so, you don't. I think you missed the point, all of those apply whether or not the saving throws in question are one of the character's good saves. It's not a question of strong spells/strong saves vs weak spells/weak saves because the unified mechanics saving system doesn't let the designers pick strong/weak saves, the game must have both. So it's just a clumsy system. |
|
