I assume that if a PC gets killed that their replacement should be at or near equivalent level to the rest of the party?
It depends on the GM. Modern style GMing usually has the player start at or near the same level (1-2 levels behind). However, some DMs do prefer a harsher penalty for losing a character, up to starting at 1st level.
Personally, you are already losing a character, so why am I going to punish you further?
I assume that if a PC gets killed that their replacement should be at or near equivalent level to the rest of the party?
It depends on the GM. Modern style GMing usually has the player start at or near the same level (1-2 levels behind). However, some DMs do prefer a harsher penalty for losing a character, up to starting at 1st level.
Personally, you are already losing a character, so why am I going to punish you further?
I'd think that starting a character more than 1 or 2 levels behind the group is just setting them up to die again, and be nearly useless in the meantime until that happens.
+4
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
The store Westmarches campaign I run does actually do this. If you die it's back to level 1. This has actually been working very well so far.
However mechanics for starting at higher levels exist in the world, especially once we get players in the level 5-10 range.
The store Westmarches campaign I run does actually do this. If you die it's back to level 1. This has actually been working very well so far.
This is basically the only case where it might make sense - where there are multiple groups running so that there's always a "Level 1 Party" doing goblin caves you can play with.
I'd be pretty frustrated if I had to start over at level one in west marches, but given that you probably need to instill the incredibly dangerous and free nature of the game, it's probably better to set expectations in that way.
Plus, once the store as a whole "unlocks" the level 5 start, that will be a really really cool community moment.
The store Westmarches campaign I run does actually do this. If you die it's back to level 1. This has actually been working very well so far.
This is basically the only case where it might make sense - where there are multiple groups running so that there's always a "Level 1 Party" doing goblin caves you can play with.
Sure, if you have the opportunity to take your new level 1 PC, hop two tables over and say, "Hey guys. |Looks like I'm with you now, lets do this!" then sure.
But if its your home game and/or regular group and all your buddies are level 7 and you have to roll up next week with a newb...that's not very fun all at all, I think.
While I like that 5e is really good at handling mixed level parties I'm generally one to just keep the whole party on the same level because it makes remembering what everyone should have access to very easy
My party decided to pull an epically stupid move on tuesday: open two big doors at the same time, with the cleric double checking to make sure that her door was in fact not trapped via a detect traps spell and either ignoring or blithely not understanding the implication of my question regarding whether that was a vocal spell or not.
What followed was the players facing two groups of enemies with two npc's each. Which should have been fairly easy for the party that is a mix of level 2s and 3s and 7 members strong... except these were duergar and in the case of the one room had had the opportunity to hear the players outside and prepare an ambush of sorts; as such the players found themselves facing a regular duergar, a caster, the spy I mentioned from before and their leader.
Luck was with them though; since I was trying to keep tabs on three pages at the same time I missed that both the spy and the leader had multi-attack, but even so their was enough damage flying around that two players were KO'd (perfectly in fact; they were at 0 hps and as such counted as being unconscious and not dying), and the leader wound up agreeing to withdraw peacefully as a result.
****
On the topic of player death: I give my players a really simple out in that they go back to whatever baseline level the dungeon seems to be ranked at; as such for forge of fury a death means going down to level 2/301xp.
Now this may seem cruel, but in the case of my table I have anywhere from 6-9 showing up and as such they have a big edge on most fights due to action economy, but beyond that the fact that death has an actual consequence and players will need to be more cautious in the dungeon (this is made more clear by virtue of the fact that they aren't required to kill everything so much as catalogue the dangers in the dungeon to a reasonable extent).
Further, if/when they complete this dungeon if they aren't at the minimum level for the next one I will bump them up.
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
I don't see any value at all in the new character not coming in at the same level as the rest of the party.
Considering how flat the maths are in 5E, other than threats of instant death to higher CR creatures, most level 1 players still contribute very well to the low level fights that the party manages. This is ironically, where 5Es math bounding clearly and actually works in practice. Plus there have been some incredibly interesting battles focused around protecting level 1 PCs from being instantly squished/murdered by higher level creatures. Also when you have six groups in a day, it's fairly easy to jump into a lower level game. I've done it this way to encourage valuing of characters and being cautious of the world around them. It's pretty much worked exactly as it should: Players are super careful about venturing into the unknown and the world feels appropriately dangerous, with immense satisfaction when former terrors (like Perytons) are now easily handled encounters.
Essentially, I've made Dungeons and Dragons Dark Souls.
However, the consideration for things once you switch tiers (from level 1-4 to 5) is already present and built into the game world. Players who want to progress so they can make 5th level characters will be able to. At a natural consequence in the world for their actions. Also it's worth noting that higher levels introduce access to revivify, raise dead, resurrection etc. Like in earlier editions, there is a point where death is simply a speedbump.
The other important thing to remember, is that there are (And absolutely should be) situations wherein the players shouldn't go for combat as a solution to an encounter with potentially hostile NPCs.
Take my group for example: they're contracted right now to explore and at the very least catalogue if not eliminate any threats inside of an old dwarf fortress. After they made their way into one room, they came across some Duergar who were angrily asking them why they were there. At this point, the players had three choices: Withdraw, parley or fight.
The soreceress in the party was aparently bored and decided to blast one of the stunties in the face and proceded to kick off combat and that fight resulted in one of the players getting Mortal Kombat finished by a huge 30 point crit.
Also, last Tuesday it led to the players getting smashed by a couple of other fights with duergar (I mentioned this in the last post) before being able to make an agreement wherein the two remaining big ones would leave.
Had the players offered a bribe and/or done decently on diplomacy, they could have bypassed combat all together and gotten information on the dungeon to boot and thus expediting their quest.
Instead, they wasted a lot of time and resources fighting.
0
Options
webguy20I spend too much time on the InternetRegistered Userregular
edited June 2017
I think the worst thing D&D has ever brought about is the adversarial DM. Players are conditioned to expect the worst in all encounters, so might as well go in sword swinging. Working together with an NPC? Obviously that NPC will betray the party, nevermind that working with the party is in the NPC's best interest. I have a couple old school players who are always super paranoid. Not 10ft pole into a dungeon paranoid, but close.
I've found it far more enjoyable to just be a Chaotic Neutral DM. The players can never really know when I'm offering a legitimately good idea, or just tossing out random garbage. It works because they know that's what I'm doing, so they never automatically accept or reject any given idea.
I think 4e basically being final fantasy tactics the tabletop was pretty bad for the game. It hurt a lot of the actual rp aspects of the game, it just made everything about combat and min/maxing it. Not that current video game culture regarding min/maxing everything helped either. But now in 5e everyone just assumes everything is about combat and talking anything out or interesting ideas dont even cross peoples minds. Its just "can we drop this guy in the first round of combat and steal his stuff?" It would go a long way to do more to incentivize non-combat solutions to problems. I get that some people just want to fight things, but there are literally thousands of video games to do that in, and other tabletops that do it better than d&d.
The problem is that, at its root, D&D has always been a combat system. That's what it started as. Using it for non-combat stuff like skill challenges and social interaction and exploration has always been harder, because that stuff was never really built into the game until the audience started wanting it some time later in 2nd edition, iirc.
webguy20I spend too much time on the InternetRegistered Userregular
Yea, power gaming has been a thing well before 4th. It may have brought the combat system to the forefront but it didn't take anything away RP wise. D&D is just very RP light when it comes to the rules. It is about the DM and players there. I wish the editions (any of them) had a walk through of level 1 for a group. Highlighting the flow of combat, skill use and examples of good role playing. Give new DMs and players the tools they need when it's time to do some free form RP.
I think 4e basically being final fantasy tactics the tabletop was pretty bad for the game.
Nope.
Welcome to what DnD has *always* been.
The only real difference is that 4e was good at being that, whereas previous editions (and to a large extent 5e) are still the same thing and aren't very good at it.
RP has never been something that was systematized. It's something players choose to do, or not do. You don't need many mechanics for it, and having more than relatively bare-bones mechanics aimed at facilitating it often gets in the way of it. You don't want a really convincing, well-RPed appeal by a player to an NPC to be invalidated by a die roll, nor do you want players to just say "I convince him" and then roll dice until the mechanics have been satisfied. That's not how you make compelling RP. The part you need rules for is the combat, and having good rules for combat does nothing to stop players from RPing appropriately. It's not like there's some sort of budget where you can only 'afford' to allow players to RP if your combat math is ill-conceived and poorly balanced, where 4e spent too much budget on establishing good combat rules and streamlining the DM workload and had to turn off the 'let players RP' switch as a result.
If your 4e tables were exclusively focused on min/maxing and combat to the detriment of RP, that's not a fault of the system, that's just how those players wanted to play. The fact that they still want to play that way in 5e is just more evidence that it was never the system making them play that way.
I think if 4th and 5th ed had been released in reverse order both would be much more successful.
I maintain that if WotC had released Pathfinder rules and called it 4e, and Paizo had released 4e rules and called it Pathfinder, no one would have batted an eye.
I think if 4th and 5th ed had been released in reverse order both would be much more successful.
I maintain that if WotC had released Pathfinder rules and called it 4e, and Paizo had released 4e rules and called it Pathfinder, no one would have batted an eye.
I agree with that.
I think if 5th ed had came out in 2008, you would have seen a splintering with pathfinder due to the OGL, but I don't think they would have NEARLY been as successful as they were, and you would have seen the majority of players stick with Wizards of the Coast. With the RPG craze over the last few years really broadening the landscape I think 4e would have seen a much higher rate of acceptance releasing in 2014.
Though without the way it worked out would we have ever gotten 13th age. I think the world is richer for having that at least.
I think if 4th and 5th ed had been released in reverse order both would be much more successful.
I maintain that if WotC had released Pathfinder rules and called it 4e, and Paizo had released 4e rules and called it Pathfinder, no one would have batted an eye.
I agree with that.
I think if 5th ed had came out in 2008, you would have seen a splintering with pathfinder due to the OGL, but I don't think they would have NEARLY been as successful as they were, and you would have seen the majority of players stick with Wizards of the Coast. With the RPG craze over the last few years really broadening the landscape I think 4e would have seen a much higher rate of acceptance releasing in 2014.
Though without the way it worked out would we have ever gotten 13th age. I think the world is richer for having that at least.
If you want a scenario where there is no Pathfinder then all you have to do is change Wizards completely fucking up the GSL in a way that would have put Paizo out of business. Paizo didn't create Pathfinder out of service to the gronard community or anything, they did it because otherwise they would have been unable to publish a damn thing for around a year which would have put them out of business.
The Pathfinder thing is entirely Wizard's management fault. They sublet their primary player communication modes (Dragon/Dungeon) to a company who did great with them. Then in a surprise announcement they seized them back (because they wanted the online DDI component.) Paizo's plan to deal was to publish a bimonthly adventure thing that would straddle editions. Then Wizards came out with the GSL which forbid exactly that while not making the Dev Kits (alike) things available until like a month before 4e would release. They did all this as everybody was really getting into this online thing and communication for smaller companies was way easier.
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
For those of you asking, I will post more about my store campaign, how it's run and organized in future (when I have more than 5 minutes spare for more than a drive by anyway).
I will also post a picture of the world map they have explored too.
I think 4e basically being final fantasy tactics the tabletop was pretty bad for the game.
Nope.
Welcome to what DnD has *always* been.
The only real difference is that 4e was good at being that, whereas previous editions (and to a large extent 5e) are still the same thing and aren't very good at it.
RP has never been something that was systematized. It's something players choose to do, or not do. You don't need many mechanics for it, and having more than relatively bare-bones mechanics aimed at facilitating it often gets in the way of it. You don't want a really convincing, well-RPed appeal by a player to an NPC to be invalidated by a die roll, nor do you want players to just say "I convince him" and then roll dice until the mechanics have been satisfied. That's not how you make compelling RP. The part you need rules for is the combat, and having good rules for combat does nothing to stop players from RPing appropriately. It's not like there's some sort of budget where you can only 'afford' to allow players to RP if your combat math is ill-conceived and poorly balanced, where 4e spent too much budget on establishing good combat rules and streamlining the DM workload and had to turn off the 'let players RP' switch as a result.
If your 4e tables were exclusively focused on min/maxing and combat to the detriment of RP, that's not a fault of the system, that's just how those players wanted to play. The fact that they still want to play that way in 5e is just more evidence that it was never the system making them play that way.
I wholly agree on the bolded part. I've got a few years of D&D under my belt and experience very much helps, yes. But I don't recall basic D&D from the 80's or 2nd edition teaching me how to role-play. When I really hit my stride in the game with 3rd edition, I never remember the examples being particularly robust in teaching me how to role-play. You know what did? Movies and TV and Books. Especially the (mostly garbage) D&D themed books (Dragonlance and FR and Shadowrun) that gave me a feel for how the setting is supposed to feel.
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
edited June 2017
I learned roleplaying through years playing an NWN persistent world in my teens, on typically faithful Forgotten Realms RP servers. You pick it up pretty quickly when you spend hours just talking to other characters in-character, with our-of-character highly discouraged (or sparse so that it doesn't ruin the in-character flow of conversations).
KayWhat we need...Is a little bit of PANIC.Registered Userregular
I remember being laughed at when playing AD&D 2nd Ed because I liked playing Thieves and Bards, and they were kinda underpowered in combat compared to the majority of other classes.
I just liked doing things that Were Not Combat well.
All I'm going to say is that one of my novice 4th ed group bargained her way out of a dragon fight by convincing it that a previous team member was holding a present for it, both distracting the dragon and getting revenge on the Rogue who left in the night with all their gold
I think 4e basically being final fantasy tactics the tabletop was pretty bad for the game. It hurt a lot of the actual rp aspects of the game, it just made everything about combat and min/maxing it. Not that current video game culture regarding min/maxing everything helped either. But now in 5e everyone just assumes everything is about combat and talking anything out or interesting ideas dont even cross peoples minds. Its just "can we drop this guy in the first round of combat and steal his stuff?" It would go a long way to do more to incentivize non-combat solutions to problems. I get that some people just want to fight things, but there are literally thousands of video games to do that in, and other tabletops that do it better than d&d.
Heh.
Heheh.
Ahahaha-
CURRENT VIDEO GAME CULTURE!
Ahahahaha!
Internet person, the instant 2nd ed AD&D came out people jumped out on the Usenets to say it was too much like your Hacks and your Rogues where you played ten men for a quarter.
New people try to do combat at things in D&D because they're new, and because they spend about two-thirds of character creation writing down all the stats and numbers that will help them in combat, and spend about two-thirds of the rules explanation listening to people talk about the structure and flow of combat.
Also because every DM has to make up their own rules for doing things not in combat from scratch and often on the fly, so it's not like anybody who's played the game but not the DM before is going to be able to suggest something that won't be a total disaster.
New people try to do combat at things in D&D because they're new, and because they spend about two-thirds of character creation writing down all the stats and numbers that will help them in combat, and spend about two-thirds of the rules explanation listening to people talk about the structure and flow of combat.
That's why, when I was printing out the cards for my novices' Dailies, Encounters and At-Wills, I gave them all an additional card along the lines of:
Do Something Cool
At-Will ∙ Standard Action You do something that isn't one of your other actions but seems like a good idea.
[Muffled sounds of gorilla violence]
+8
Options
KayWhat we need...Is a little bit of PANIC.Registered Userregular
edited June 2017
Given that our 4E games (and our 5E games) are usually filled with more RP and intra-party interactions than combat, on one of our off-weeks (today!) I'm running an oldschool dungeon-delve so that the GM gets to play for once and we can try a different style and roll a ton of dice.
Hey guys, I was talking to a friend who is going to build a 5e character for a dischord group that is interested in trying out this edition. The problem is the GM is anal retentive; he has blocked players from taking class options and races from SCAG, VOLO, and UEA, along with blocking Lucky and Pole arm mastery as feat options because he thinks those things are all broken/OP. Interestingly, he is OK with Princes of the apocalypse for some reasons.
As such I was hoping that we could help him workshop a an infuriating 5e character that is in the 2-3 level bracket.
Right now, I've suggested:
human variant fighter dual wileding handcrossbows (mostly viable because the GM hasn't likely read the Erratta)
moon druid that casts moonbeam and dodges all the time.
Anyone got any other suggestions for enraging this GM with low level options?
Hey guys, I was talking to a friend who is going to build a 5e character for a dischord group that is interested in trying out this edition. The problem is the GM is anal retentive; he has blocked players from taking class options and races from SCAG, VOLO, and UEA, along with blocking Lucky and Pole arm mastery as feat options because he thinks those things are all broken/OP. Interestingly, he is OK with Princes of the apocalypse for some reasons.
As such I was hoping that we could help him workshop a an infuriating 5e character that is in the 2-3 level bracket.
Right now, I've suggested:
human variant fighter dual wileding handcrossbows (mostly viable because the GM hasn't likely read the Erratta)
moon druid that casts moonbeam and dodges all the time.
Anyone got any other suggestions for enraging this GM with low level options?
No need to dual weild with crossbow expertise. You shot with a crossbow (the hand CB you're holding) and so you can shoot again with the hand CB you're holding.
To be fair I would bid those class options too. It's just too much to deal with
Hey guys, I was talking to a friend who is going to build a 5e character for a dischord group that is interested in trying out this edition. The problem is the GM is anal retentive; he has blocked players from taking class options and races from SCAG, VOLO, and UEA, along with blocking Lucky and Pole arm mastery as feat options because he thinks those things are all broken/OP. Interestingly, he is OK with Princes of the apocalypse for some reasons.
As such I was hoping that we could help him workshop a an infuriating 5e character that is in the 2-3 level bracket.
Right now, I've suggested:
human variant fighter dual wileding handcrossbows (mostly viable because the GM hasn't likely read the Erratta)
moon druid that casts moonbeam and dodges all the time.
Anyone got any other suggestions for enraging this GM with low level options?
No need to dual weild with crossbow expertise. You shot with a crossbow (the hand CB you're holding) and so you can shoot again with the hand CB you're holding.
To be fair I would bid those class options too. It's just too much to deal with
The thing is, the GM is actually encouraging power builds by by restricting class/race/feat options.
My goal is to expose this issue, particularly since for the most part SCAG and Volo aren't any more powerful then what is already in players handbook 1.
0
Options
Mostlyjoe13Evil, Evil, Jump for joy!Registered Userregular
Honest question time here folks. What 3rd party 5E products do you like to use in your games?
Hey guys, I was talking to a friend who is going to build a 5e character for a dischord group that is interested in trying out this edition. The problem is the GM is anal retentive; he has blocked players from taking class options and races from SCAG, VOLO, and UEA, along with blocking Lucky and Pole arm mastery as feat options because he thinks those things are all broken/OP. Interestingly, he is OK with Princes of the apocalypse for some reasons.
As such I was hoping that we could help him workshop a an infuriating 5e character that is in the 2-3 level bracket.
Right now, I've suggested:
human variant fighter dual wileding handcrossbows (mostly viable because the GM hasn't likely read the Erratta)
moon druid that casts moonbeam and dodges all the time.
Anyone got any other suggestions for enraging this GM with low level options?
No need to dual weild with crossbow expertise. You shot with a crossbow (the hand CB you're holding) and so you can shoot again with the hand CB you're holding.
To be fair I would bid those class options too. It's just too much to deal with
The thing is, the GM is actually encouraging power builds by by restricting class/race/feat options.
My goal is to expose this issue, particularly since for the most part SCAG and Volo aren't any more powerful then what is already in players handbook 1.
That is true. I restrict PHB options that I don't like for a number of reasons but scag et all mainly because I dont want to deal with it.
The only real problem with scag is booming blade (GFB is ok) and it's not so much worse than sharpshooter/crossbow expert/pole arm expert (all of which i am Ok with in part but not in full)
Posts
I would say so, yes. Otherwise you're punishing the player for having his character die.
It depends on the GM. Modern style GMing usually has the player start at or near the same level (1-2 levels behind). However, some DMs do prefer a harsher penalty for losing a character, up to starting at 1st level.
Personally, you are already losing a character, so why am I going to punish you further?
I'd think that starting a character more than 1 or 2 levels behind the group is just setting them up to die again, and be nearly useless in the meantime until that happens.
However mechanics for starting at higher levels exist in the world, especially once we get players in the level 5-10 range.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
This is basically the only case where it might make sense - where there are multiple groups running so that there's always a "Level 1 Party" doing goblin caves you can play with.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Plus, once the store as a whole "unlocks" the level 5 start, that will be a really really cool community moment.
Sure, if you have the opportunity to take your new level 1 PC, hop two tables over and say, "Hey guys. |Looks like I'm with you now, lets do this!" then sure.
But if its your home game and/or regular group and all your buddies are level 7 and you have to roll up next week with a newb...that's not very fun all at all, I think.
What followed was the players facing two groups of enemies with two npc's each. Which should have been fairly easy for the party that is a mix of level 2s and 3s and 7 members strong... except these were duergar and in the case of the one room had had the opportunity to hear the players outside and prepare an ambush of sorts; as such the players found themselves facing a regular duergar, a caster, the spy I mentioned from before and their leader.
Luck was with them though; since I was trying to keep tabs on three pages at the same time I missed that both the spy and the leader had multi-attack, but even so their was enough damage flying around that two players were KO'd (perfectly in fact; they were at 0 hps and as such counted as being unconscious and not dying), and the leader wound up agreeing to withdraw peacefully as a result.
****
On the topic of player death: I give my players a really simple out in that they go back to whatever baseline level the dungeon seems to be ranked at; as such for forge of fury a death means going down to level 2/301xp.
Now this may seem cruel, but in the case of my table I have anywhere from 6-9 showing up and as such they have a big edge on most fights due to action economy, but beyond that the fact that death has an actual consequence and players will need to be more cautious in the dungeon (this is made more clear by virtue of the fact that they aren't required to kill everything so much as catalogue the dangers in the dungeon to a reasonable extent).
Further, if/when they complete this dungeon if they aren't at the minimum level for the next one I will bump them up.
Considering how flat the maths are in 5E, other than threats of instant death to higher CR creatures, most level 1 players still contribute very well to the low level fights that the party manages. This is ironically, where 5Es math bounding clearly and actually works in practice. Plus there have been some incredibly interesting battles focused around protecting level 1 PCs from being instantly squished/murdered by higher level creatures. Also when you have six groups in a day, it's fairly easy to jump into a lower level game. I've done it this way to encourage valuing of characters and being cautious of the world around them. It's pretty much worked exactly as it should: Players are super careful about venturing into the unknown and the world feels appropriately dangerous, with immense satisfaction when former terrors (like Perytons) are now easily handled encounters.
Essentially, I've made Dungeons and Dragons Dark Souls.
However, the consideration for things once you switch tiers (from level 1-4 to 5) is already present and built into the game world. Players who want to progress so they can make 5th level characters will be able to. At a natural consequence in the world for their actions. Also it's worth noting that higher levels introduce access to revivify, raise dead, resurrection etc. Like in earlier editions, there is a point where death is simply a speedbump.
Take my group for example: they're contracted right now to explore and at the very least catalogue if not eliminate any threats inside of an old dwarf fortress. After they made their way into one room, they came across some Duergar who were angrily asking them why they were there. At this point, the players had three choices: Withdraw, parley or fight.
The soreceress in the party was aparently bored and decided to blast one of the stunties in the face and proceded to kick off combat and that fight resulted in one of the players getting Mortal Kombat finished by a huge 30 point crit.
Also, last Tuesday it led to the players getting smashed by a couple of other fights with duergar (I mentioned this in the last post) before being able to make an agreement wherein the two remaining big ones would leave.
Had the players offered a bribe and/or done decently on diplomacy, they could have bypassed combat all together and gotten information on the dungeon to boot and thus expediting their quest.
Instead, they wasted a lot of time and resources fighting.
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198004484595
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
Nope.
Welcome to what DnD has *always* been.
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
The only real difference is that 4e was good at being that, whereas previous editions (and to a large extent 5e) are still the same thing and aren't very good at it.
RP has never been something that was systematized. It's something players choose to do, or not do. You don't need many mechanics for it, and having more than relatively bare-bones mechanics aimed at facilitating it often gets in the way of it. You don't want a really convincing, well-RPed appeal by a player to an NPC to be invalidated by a die roll, nor do you want players to just say "I convince him" and then roll dice until the mechanics have been satisfied. That's not how you make compelling RP. The part you need rules for is the combat, and having good rules for combat does nothing to stop players from RPing appropriately. It's not like there's some sort of budget where you can only 'afford' to allow players to RP if your combat math is ill-conceived and poorly balanced, where 4e spent too much budget on establishing good combat rules and streamlining the DM workload and had to turn off the 'let players RP' switch as a result.
If your 4e tables were exclusively focused on min/maxing and combat to the detriment of RP, that's not a fault of the system, that's just how those players wanted to play. The fact that they still want to play that way in 5e is just more evidence that it was never the system making them play that way.
I maintain that if WotC had released Pathfinder rules and called it 4e, and Paizo had released 4e rules and called it Pathfinder, no one would have batted an eye.
I agree with that.
I think if 5th ed had came out in 2008, you would have seen a splintering with pathfinder due to the OGL, but I don't think they would have NEARLY been as successful as they were, and you would have seen the majority of players stick with Wizards of the Coast. With the RPG craze over the last few years really broadening the landscape I think 4e would have seen a much higher rate of acceptance releasing in 2014.
Though without the way it worked out would we have ever gotten 13th age. I think the world is richer for having that at least.
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
Never change.
If you want a scenario where there is no Pathfinder then all you have to do is change Wizards completely fucking up the GSL in a way that would have put Paizo out of business. Paizo didn't create Pathfinder out of service to the gronard community or anything, they did it because otherwise they would have been unable to publish a damn thing for around a year which would have put them out of business.
The Pathfinder thing is entirely Wizard's management fault. They sublet their primary player communication modes (Dragon/Dungeon) to a company who did great with them. Then in a surprise announcement they seized them back (because they wanted the online DDI component.) Paizo's plan to deal was to publish a bimonthly adventure thing that would straddle editions. Then Wizards came out with the GSL which forbid exactly that while not making the Dev Kits (alike) things available until like a month before 4e would release. They did all this as everybody was really getting into this online thing and communication for smaller companies was way easier.
It is entirely a problem of their own making.
I will also post a picture of the world map they have explored too.
I wholly agree on the bolded part. I've got a few years of D&D under my belt and experience very much helps, yes. But I don't recall basic D&D from the 80's or 2nd edition teaching me how to role-play. When I really hit my stride in the game with 3rd edition, I never remember the examples being particularly robust in teaching me how to role-play. You know what did? Movies and TV and Books. Especially the (mostly garbage) D&D themed books (Dragonlance and FR and Shadowrun) that gave me a feel for how the setting is supposed to feel.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
I just liked doing things that Were Not Combat well.
3DS FCode: 1993-7512-8991
Amen.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
All I'm going to say is that one of my novice 4th ed group bargained her way out of a dragon fight by convincing it that a previous team member was holding a present for it, both distracting the dragon and getting revenge on the Rogue who left in the night with all their gold
Heh.
Heheh.
Ahahaha-
CURRENT VIDEO GAME CULTURE!
Ahahahaha!
Internet person, the instant 2nd ed AD&D came out people jumped out on the Usenets to say it was too much like your Hacks and your Rogues where you played ten men for a quarter.
And 3rd ed was too much like Diablo (except that it was 2nd ed that gave you the initial rules for D&Diablo) and 4th ed was too much like World of Warcraft (except it was 3rd ed that gave you the initial rules for Worlds & Warcrafts).
New people try to do combat at things in D&D because they're new, and because they spend about two-thirds of character creation writing down all the stats and numbers that will help them in combat, and spend about two-thirds of the rules explanation listening to people talk about the structure and flow of combat.
Also because every DM has to make up their own rules for doing things not in combat from scratch and often on the fly, so it's not like anybody who's played the game but not the DM before is going to be able to suggest something that won't be a total disaster.
That's why, when I was printing out the cards for my novices' Dailies, Encounters and At-Wills, I gave them all an additional card along the lines of:
Do Something Cool
At-Will ∙ Standard Action
You do something that isn't one of your other actions but seems like a good idea.
Let's see how that goes down.
3DS FCode: 1993-7512-8991
As such I was hoping that we could help him workshop a an infuriating 5e character that is in the 2-3 level bracket.
Right now, I've suggested:
human variant fighter dual wileding handcrossbows (mostly viable because the GM hasn't likely read the Erratta)
moon druid that casts moonbeam and dodges all the time.
Anyone got any other suggestions for enraging this GM with low level options?
No need to dual weild with crossbow expertise. You shot with a crossbow (the hand CB you're holding) and so you can shoot again with the hand CB you're holding.
To be fair I would bid those class options too. It's just too much to deal with
The thing is, the GM is actually encouraging power builds by by restricting class/race/feat options.
My goal is to expose this issue, particularly since for the most part SCAG and Volo aren't any more powerful then what is already in players handbook 1.
That is true. I restrict PHB options that I don't like for a number of reasons but scag et all mainly because I dont want to deal with it.
The only real problem with scag is booming blade (GFB is ok) and it's not so much worse than sharpshooter/crossbow expert/pole arm expert (all of which i am Ok with in part but not in full)