DnD 5E and FATE Accelerated

[jack]

DnD 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?

Comments

[seekingferret]

My point is that 4E may look like you just use a bunch of preprogrammed moves like an MMO, but the actuality of play tends to drive you to be storyful and flavorful and creative.

What about the default flavor doesn't work for you?

[jack]

What about the default flavor doesn't work for you?

I've tried to describe it and couldn't get it across, I may just have to accept it works well for some people and not for others.

I think partly that I tend to like games where the flavour is more classic fantasy, vaguely tolkien-y, where magic is at least a little bit of a big deal, not assuming that 3/4 of the party will be spamming magic attacks every six seconds. And partly that, most of the spells are described specifically in how they affect combat, to the extent it's hard to decide what they do elsewhere (I think rituals were supposed to be for this but we didn't figure it out?).

Even things like the proliferation of player races mean that it's difficult to play a world other than "massive cosmopolitan with a mix of every possible race everywhere" because one warforged or half-dragon or fae-elf means that that has to all exist in the world. (Also see my comments on battlemaps below.)

But that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with 4e style, it was just very much not what I was expecting at the time. I'm curious how it _does_ work for other people -- do you still have fairly fixed combat vs non-combat distinction or do you manage to transition into combat spontaneously without a prepped map? Do you manage to have non-combat actions during combat? Do you find you can do infiltration-type stuff if needed?

[seekingferret]

do you still have fairly fixed combat vs non-combat distinction or do you manage to transition into combat spontaneously without a prepped map?

The combat vs. non-combat distinction is reasonably hard to fight, but 4E skill challenges can let you bleed between the two... A good 4E skill challenge is hard to design, though, and just about impossible to improvise.

Do you manage to have non-combat actions during combat?

The beauty of skill challenges and the action point economy in 4E is that non-combat actions during combat are actually accounted for in the system's tactical balancing. YES, you are supposed to be doing non-combat actions during combat in 4E combat, and YES, you as the DM are supposed to be presenting opportunities for players to gain advantages in combat through non-combat actions, and YES, if players come up with creative uses of skills and non-combat actions, you ought to encourage it.

Do you find you can do infiltration-type stuff if needed?

Yes. The skill system is not as robust as 3/3.5, so there aren't as many adjudications available for infiltration type stuff, but it's certainly available and used. On the other hand, with the way combat and XP is balanced in 4E, infiltration isn't as rewarded as it is in earlier systems per Lehman's post, so I'm sure there are situations that the typical 4E player wouldn't bother with stealth and an earlier system player might.

Even things like the proliferation of player races mean that it's difficult to play a world other than "massive cosmopolitan with a mix of every possible race everywhere" because one warforged or half-dragon or fae-elf means that that has to all exist in the world

True, but I'd much rather than that a default human world with a random sprinkling of elves. These days my tendency is to ban human characters altogether from my own homebrew worlds more often than not.

(I think rituals were supposed to be for this but we didn't figure it out?).

Rituals is one of my biggest disappointment about 4E. It ought to do exactly what you say, but I've never seen anyone make good use of them for non-combat magic.

[rysmiel]

On the whole, I favour default humanoid player options (and that's easiest with default humanoid societies), for a relatively narrow range of variation in scale, if I am using a D&D-like ruleset at all - by all means have tengu and sasquatch if you find them more interesting than elves and dwarves yet again, but I tend not to favour having lots of half-dragon or warforged around or playable because it's so easy to fall into endless minutia of which weapons they can use and which magic items don't work for them and what to do for balance when everyone other than the mermaid has seven-league boots and so on.

Not that that prevents adventures going on adventures to parts of the world that are very different (or other worlds even more so, and if I wanted warforged in a setting, they'd almost certainly be native to that solar system's Mercury-equivalent.)

[jack]

Thank you, hearing someone else's experiences is really useful!

A good 4E skill challenge is hard to design, though, and just about impossible to improvise.

I loved the principle behind 4e skill challenges, it was one of the things I liked most that it introduced, even though it seemed the execution was usually bungled. I saw some suggestions for how to do the same thing better, but nothing really systematic.

I've a feeling for how I want it to work, but I haven't converted that to any actual specifics. I think the problem is where the players can't just "try anything that seems sensible", they have to play "guess which skills are involved". Whereas a skill challenge should be a way TO model "the players do whatever plan seems sensible" not replace it.

Eg. a one person three successes before three failures skill challenge, a player is hurriedly repairing a ray gun. First success, notice a shorted out component (tech skill). Second success, recharge dead charge cells (tech skill). Third success, reboot controller (tech skill or hacking). First failure overall, means "shower of sparks, reflex save vs 1d6 damage". Second failure overall, "electricity arcs from the power pack into your body, 3d6 damage or fort save for half". Third failure overall, whole thing blows up.

You could also mix up the order of the tasks, or allow/require a perception or tech roll to identify further tasks which could take the place of one of them, or reduce the penalty for failure. But the key is, the player doesn't need to know the "special rules for skill challenges", and yet the encounter isn't completed in one die roll, they know roughly what the risk and benefit is at every stage from the descriptions.

Eg. being pursued across the wilderness. Three successes = reach safety. Each failure = 33% stumble on encounter in wilderness or 33% get caught up by outriders and have to escape again or 33% both. Each two failures = require extra success to find way again.

[seekingferret]

My platonic ideal skill challenge use is how Chris Perkins uses it in the first combat of the adventure he ran for the Robot Chicken writers on youtube when 4E first came out... There's a magic ballista attacking the players, and there are several available skill options they can use to try to deactivate the ballista, including Arcana checks to seize control of it, Disable Device to deactivate it, plus whatever other ideas players can think of. Meanwhile, the ballista is attacking them, and there are other monsters in the room, so there is serious time pressure and a need to do cost/benefit analysis to weigh the benefits of the skill challenge against participating in the combat.

My favorite 4E DM used to do something that was not quite as platonically elegant, but that worked pretty well. He would have multiple objectives/obstacles/traps in a room, each with a number of successes/failures set, that could be approached with the skill challenge mechanics. And he generally set a rule that no two players in a row could use the same skill, and no player could use the same skill twice, but that any skill that could be justified as useful in helping to overcome an obstacle could be rolled, with justification. And generally, a failure would have some consequence that would affect the other obstacles in the room.

So this approach accommodated your theme that the players' plan drives the skill rolls rather than the DM's vision, and it accommodated penalties for failures that still allow for the overall success of the challenge.

Your ideas also make sense, I think, but what makes the whole thing tricky is that it's a lot of options to figure out how to balance. Really elegant and fun when it works right, but just about impossible to improvise well, I think.

[jack]

my tendency is to ban human characters altogether from my own homebrew worlds more often than not.

I am tempted too! :)

I think, I'm not set on THOSE original four races, a world that actually is a mix of dragonborn and warforged is great. But I want to be able to channel a campaign into "these choices are normal, these choices are more unusual".

It ought to do exactly what you say, but I've never seen anyone make good use of them for non-combat magic.

Alas. I don't even know how it worked in 4e, but I quite like it in 5e.

The 4e adventure we finished, the most-experienced player used one ritual, something that told him how to find a way forward through a secret door, and it was pretty cool, even though that was the only use.

(And the rest of your post, I mostly agree but don't have anything to add.)