DnD 5E and FATE Accelerated
Jul. 3rd, 2015 10:36 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackDnD 5e
A while back I bought the 5e DnD ("DnD Next" or "DnD") player's handbook and just now have been reading through it. I actually really like it.
It reminds me of 3.5 but streamlined, with a few of the good aspects of earlier editions and 4e. That's about what I wanted out of DnD!
Many of the combat rules are simplified a bit, but look about equally balanced. Progression is simplified -- feats are more powerful, but optional, you can take them instead of a stat increase. Thus they do more to define your character and less to "here's a feat-tree you have to take".
There's no separate saves, you make a "dex save" or "con save". Your character has a single proficiency bonus which scales with level from +2 to about +5, which is added to everything you character is good at (weapons they're proficient with, skills they're trained with, etc).
They've added some fluff to the front page of the character sheet (personality trait, ideal, bond, flaw) and a suggesting for getting temporary mechanical advantage when your flaw comes into play. I have ideas for those bits up, to focus people further on the bits that actually come up in play (whether they matter mechanically or not).
The classes and races are similar to 3e -- there's the classic races (human, elf, dwarf, halfling) and further races (tiefling, dragonborn, gnome, half-orc) which don't automatically exist in all settings.
Like 4e, all spellcasters have a few infinite use cantrips which function as their standard attack options. I like that all characters have something specific to do in combat. And like 4e, fighter has some abilities beyond "hit it with my axe" to bring into play in combat -- although not many, I think that could be beefed up.
It reverts to generally winging the exact physical layout rather than using a battlemap. Which I like because combat is simpler and faster. Although I admit, it does remove some of the good effects in 4e, that there were many more tactical options for the party to work together, other than "we all hit it repeatedly".
The general power level is flatter between 1st level and 20th level, even more so than 4e. I think this is probably good, since it's almost impossible to balance things at both ends, but it does potentially mean less variation. But it has good effects that a character a few level higher than you" feels like "an adventurer like you, but more experienced" not "a demigod". And that there's less artificial scaling where every PC gets regular stat boosts to increase to-hit and damage-per-second and armour-class -- as does every monster.
It seems like, 1st level is really a tutorial level (although actually, I'd like an EVEN SIMPLER introduction for some newbies) where characters all have stuff they can do, but some of the key class features kick in at second level (eg. rogue has backstab damage at first level, but gets a free disengage/hide action from second which is nearly as class-defining). 4th or 5th feels like a typical point for experienced 3.5e players.
In addition to flattening the power level, the magic-item economy is gone. The classes are designed to be balanced mostly as-is, with a minimum amount of gold and almost no magic items. So you can run a low-magic campaign where the only magic is PC and NPC spellcasters, and add a magic sword for effect when it seems dramatic, not assume that everyone is carting around cartloads of +1 stuff else they're unplayable.
I think it could sensibly by used to run either an old-school "kick in the door and take as much treasure as you can before you die" session or a "mostly about roleplaying with some combat" session which are the sorts I enjoy the most.
4e is probably better for tactical combat -- I like that in theory, but never find it works well for me in practice.
Has anyone actually tried 5e?
FATE core and FATE accelerated
I've also been following a couple of people's suggestions and reading about FATE. IIUC it's based on ideas from FUDGE, based on a very freeform mechanics-light structure. Ideal for "here's a wacky idea about X" or "here's an existing setting (Dresden Files) with clear flavour but vague on specifics, can we adapt that to a game" and producing setting and character sheets with minimal write-up and no need to spend ages trying to balance PC activities.
Basically it sounds really fun if you want an adventure without tactical combat at all (there's still some tactics, but not based primarily on characters specific abilities).
Although some people apparently flounder if they're used to DnD -- there's definitely a "everyone should choose things that are appropriate, not always what would be most effective for the character". (Like Dogs-in-the-Vineyard, it seems it's more fun to pick character traits which come up about half the time -- but some people find it hard to resist arguing that they ALWAYS apply.)
Has anyone actually tried any of the editions of FATE?
A while back I bought the 5e DnD ("DnD Next" or "DnD") player's handbook and just now have been reading through it. I actually really like it.
It reminds me of 3.5 but streamlined, with a few of the good aspects of earlier editions and 4e. That's about what I wanted out of DnD!
Many of the combat rules are simplified a bit, but look about equally balanced. Progression is simplified -- feats are more powerful, but optional, you can take them instead of a stat increase. Thus they do more to define your character and less to "here's a feat-tree you have to take".
There's no separate saves, you make a "dex save" or "con save". Your character has a single proficiency bonus which scales with level from +2 to about +5, which is added to everything you character is good at (weapons they're proficient with, skills they're trained with, etc).
They've added some fluff to the front page of the character sheet (personality trait, ideal, bond, flaw) and a suggesting for getting temporary mechanical advantage when your flaw comes into play. I have ideas for those bits up, to focus people further on the bits that actually come up in play (whether they matter mechanically or not).
The classes and races are similar to 3e -- there's the classic races (human, elf, dwarf, halfling) and further races (tiefling, dragonborn, gnome, half-orc) which don't automatically exist in all settings.
Like 4e, all spellcasters have a few infinite use cantrips which function as their standard attack options. I like that all characters have something specific to do in combat. And like 4e, fighter has some abilities beyond "hit it with my axe" to bring into play in combat -- although not many, I think that could be beefed up.
It reverts to generally winging the exact physical layout rather than using a battlemap. Which I like because combat is simpler and faster. Although I admit, it does remove some of the good effects in 4e, that there were many more tactical options for the party to work together, other than "we all hit it repeatedly".
The general power level is flatter between 1st level and 20th level, even more so than 4e. I think this is probably good, since it's almost impossible to balance things at both ends, but it does potentially mean less variation. But it has good effects that a character a few level higher than you" feels like "an adventurer like you, but more experienced" not "a demigod". And that there's less artificial scaling where every PC gets regular stat boosts to increase to-hit and damage-per-second and armour-class -- as does every monster.
It seems like, 1st level is really a tutorial level (although actually, I'd like an EVEN SIMPLER introduction for some newbies) where characters all have stuff they can do, but some of the key class features kick in at second level (eg. rogue has backstab damage at first level, but gets a free disengage/hide action from second which is nearly as class-defining). 4th or 5th feels like a typical point for experienced 3.5e players.
In addition to flattening the power level, the magic-item economy is gone. The classes are designed to be balanced mostly as-is, with a minimum amount of gold and almost no magic items. So you can run a low-magic campaign where the only magic is PC and NPC spellcasters, and add a magic sword for effect when it seems dramatic, not assume that everyone is carting around cartloads of +1 stuff else they're unplayable.
I think it could sensibly by used to run either an old-school "kick in the door and take as much treasure as you can before you die" session or a "mostly about roleplaying with some combat" session which are the sorts I enjoy the most.
4e is probably better for tactical combat -- I like that in theory, but never find it works well for me in practice.
Has anyone actually tried 5e?
FATE core and FATE accelerated
I've also been following a couple of people's suggestions and reading about FATE. IIUC it's based on ideas from FUDGE, based on a very freeform mechanics-light structure. Ideal for "here's a wacky idea about X" or "here's an existing setting (Dresden Files) with clear flavour but vague on specifics, can we adapt that to a game" and producing setting and character sheets with minimal write-up and no need to spend ages trying to balance PC activities.
Basically it sounds really fun if you want an adventure without tactical combat at all (there's still some tactics, but not based primarily on characters specific abilities).
Although some people apparently flounder if they're used to DnD -- there's definitely a "everyone should choose things that are appropriate, not always what would be most effective for the character". (Like Dogs-in-the-Vineyard, it seems it's more fun to pick character traits which come up about half the time -- but some people find it hard to resist arguing that they ALWAYS apply.)
Has anyone actually tried any of the editions of FATE?
no subject
Date: 2015-07-06 02:24 am (UTC)Heh. This may reflect our age difference, but the "hey, you can give character levels to monsters" innovation in 3e over the 2e "First you'll be up to fighting goblins, then orcs, then hobgoblins, bugbears, ogres, trolls, and hill giants in that order. Theoretically you could have gnolls or people of lizard instead of the orcs but from the context that would pretty much require an understanding of the wilderness rules and nobody likes those. Dragons do come in different sizes, but that range goes from terrifyingly dangerous to really terrifyingly dangerous so do not expect to see one any time soon." paradigm was a real plus. I can see the point of having a streamlined mechanism for generating mooks and minions so that every 4th-level henchman of the 10th-level villain doesn't take as long to stat up as a PC, but you can do that within the broad ambit of 3e with things like Pathfinder's non-player classes.
no subject
Date: 2015-07-06 11:28 am (UTC):) Yes, I've no experience what it was like before that. It definitely makes sense to have extra options for more varied and more powerful monsters, especially for recurring antagonists where a suit of powers the players learn to respect is exciting.
But I'd like to be able to pull from that pool when it actually adds something, and not pretend that starting with six stats really adds anything to the design of the monster you end up with. (And also that having a grab-bag of skills and powers the GM has to remember to use makes it harder for the GM to run the monsters, and makes the challenge much more variable depending on the GM's whim...)
no subject
Date: 2015-07-06 06:16 pm (UTC)But I'd like to be able to pull from that pool when it actually adds something, and not pretend that starting with six stats really adds anything to the design of the monster you end up with.
Sure. I see no reason to default generate stats in detail for every mook and minion, but for important NPCs it can be worth having.
(And also that having a grab-bag of skills and powers the GM has to remember to use makes it harder for the GM to run the monsters, and makes the challenge much more variable depending on the GM's whim...)
That latter is not a bug, though, it's a feature.
Or rather, to my mind it's not so much "whim" as "what works to generate excitement and adventure and really wild things". I've always favoured the DM doing dice-rolling behind a screen, and not giving the players precise counts of the monsters' hit points, frex, rather than vague descriptions of whether they appear to be mildly or moderately or seriously or critically wounded. And it's certainly a plus to protecting your campaign against the dice happening to go really badly; if the first goblin a new player's first character ever fights happens to roll three criticals in a row and kill them during their first session, and the player is someone who would find that particular experience no fun at all, I think it's entirely in the interest of the game for the DM to be able to fudge that. I'm not opposed to killing PCs every now and again, I just think they need to earn it, either by egregious poor decisions which they get fair chances to rethink, or if the player wants to move on and wants their character to go out in a blaze of glory (or, in an ideal world, has bought into the story enough to see going out in a blaze of glory as worth it to stop the main antagonist.)
no subject
Date: 2015-07-07 11:44 am (UTC)Or rather, to my mind it's not so much "whim" as "what works to generate excitement and adventure and really wild things".
Maybe, but some degree of reliability is important to build the continuity of the world, and to some extent the stability of the gameplay. If the players fight a bunch of orcs and the orcs have certain abilities they use in combat, after a certain amount of time the players SHOULD develop tactics to fight the orcs. And if suddenly they meet a new orc and it pulls out an ability they hadn't seen orcs have before, there's a couple of reasons that could be behind it. It could be that they just haven't been in a situation before where the orc would have used that ability, and suddenly they learn a new thing orcs can do, and that's cool. But if there were reasonable situations when the orcs they previously fought should have used that ability and they didn't, then it's unfair and jarring and fiction-breaking for the orc to suddenly develop new abilities.
no subject
Date: 2015-07-07 07:35 pm (UTC)I very much agree with that as a principle. It's an exercise of mutual trust, and I have the kind of meta-level position that if rules are being legalistically nitpicked the desired level of trust is already not being granted.
If the players fight a bunch of orcs and the orcs have certain abilities they use in combat, after a certain amount of time the players SHOULD develop tactics to fight the orcs. And if suddenly they meet a new orc and it pulls out an ability they hadn't seen orcs have before, there's a couple of reasons that could be behind it. It could be that they just haven't been in a situation before where the orc would have used that ability, and suddenly they learn a new thing orcs can do, and that's cool. But if there were reasonable situations when the orcs they previously fought should have used that ability and they didn't, then it's unfair and jarring and fiction-breaking for the orc to suddenly develop new abilities.
It depends on how much separate characterisation you want to give each individual band of orcs, though. I think my reaction above comes from a default playstyle assumption along the lines of "by the fifth or sixth bunch of orcs, there is going to be enough plot going on that that's going to have a major determining effect on how the orcs behave." They they will be directed by an evil wizard who's watched and learned from the party's previous battles with his minions, or infiltrated by a doppelganger with smarts, or carrying the Black Death or something to make them more interesting.
Though I suppose it would be quintessentially Tolkien to play one's small bands of otherwise undirected orcs as having the tactical aptitude of a fencepost. One can get a certain element of variety just from them being too stupid/petty/focused on individual motives to have any consistent small-group tactics,
no subject
Date: 2015-07-07 01:10 pm (UTC)Sorry, maybe "whim" is the wrong word. It sounds like we have very similar play-styles, how much for the GM to adjust the difficulty of a monster when it comes up.
But what I mean is, ideally the GM make a positive choice to do that, and in which direction, not just because the GM has to remember a dozen little details and bits of arithmetic to make the monster work, and the difficulty yoyos up and down according to which bits they remember.
Like, we talked about how the mandatory feat trees for fighters is unfortunate, and it seems even MORE random for monsters -- ideally the monster would have an "attack" saying how it usually attacks, folding in all its usual tactics (ie. use the mandatory feats all the time), not bury that in a stats block and require the GM to figure it out in the fly. And tactics can be even worse, they're often not listed at all, or passed over briefly, but "monster snipes from cover" compared to "monster charges and attacks" can make more of difference to the difficulty than anything else, so should ideally have prominent positioning in the notes and in the GM's mind, not just assumed "make something up and it will be equally good".
no subject
Date: 2015-07-07 07:43 pm (UTC)