PDA

View Full Version : Class HD vs Racial HD



Sneaksta
03-05-2009, 02:04 AM
Here I go.....

Ok, One of my big problems with all D&D systems, is the class HD. as follows

Why is it that a 1st level Halfling can take more damage than a 1st level Dwarf Wizard??? Because the Dwarf is a book reader???

I don't think so........ Here is my perspective... argue with me, PLEASE.... LOL

I think HD should be beased on race, with maybe a +1 mod or a -1 mod for class. This showing the strenuous physical demands of like a Fighter class, or rogue class.....

For instance, like the above Halfling vs. Dwarf.... Halfling are small, Kinda childlike,... Dwarves are medium, and really pretty Hardy folk.

Whatever the class, Halfling should be 1d6 HD and the dwarf 1d10..as follows with my racial chart...

Gnome= 1d6
Halfling= 1d6
Human= 1d8
Elf ( all kinds ) 1d8
Dwarves ( all kinds ) 1d10
Barbarians 1d12
and if I left any Base Race out, Strike me down, Because im Half-toasted with Liquer....... Hmmm... New Class????

Now, I think this is more realistic , in the ways of stature, and way of life in the worlds.....

Warrior classes may have a +1 mod per level, casters maybe a -1 mod.


I'm not going to go in to tooooo... Much detail, But I think this would be a much fair'er system than the pre-arranged class HD system.

Do you Agree/Disagree???

Please, Pray Tell, and we will argue about it 'till the next Gen-Con... Hehehehehehehehhehe:laugh:

DMMike
03-05-2009, 10:00 AM
The basis of your problem is a misconception of what hit points are. In the case of a halfling fighter and a dwarven wizard, the halfling is indeed small and possibly fragile-looking, while the dwarf has, in all likelihood, three times the mass of the halfling. But which of those characters is a professional survivor of physical punishment?

Hit points don't measure how thick your character is or how well his body resists cold - they just tell you how many bumps, hacks, and fireballs until your character is done. A fighter is better prepared to deal with this than a wizard is.

Don't forget that there are other measures of survivability - saving throws, energy resistance, ability scores, and spell resistance. Just because a halfling does well in one category, it doesn't mean that the dwarf can't do well in another.

ronpyatt
03-05-2009, 10:02 AM
I'm not sure that answers the question.

Just off the top of my head, I'd assume that the Half-toasted race is the result of some interesting hotbread and some human performing banned magic with a lot of alcohol to keep the flames burning and the spectators running scared. HD for a Half-toasted would be 1d4 or at the very least place a -2 HP to the HD of any class the Half-toasted character might select. Depending on the edition of D&D, this would most likely affect THAC0, Charisma, Constitution, Dexterity, and depending on the specific spices used while kneading: Intelligence or Strength. Also the character may be vulnerable to water or yeast magic. It's hard to tell if there would be any armor restrictions, but wizard or barbarian would be the preferred classes for such a race.

GC13
03-05-2009, 10:30 AM
:confused: I'm sorry, what?

kirksmithicus
03-05-2009, 12:33 PM
D&D states that HP are an abstraction of a characters survivability, not just simply his ability to take physical damage or wounds. I think this is completely idiotic and grew out of the fact that neither TSR or WoTC couldn't come up with an adequate system, and simply threw out the "HP are an abstraction" argument to cover their asses because they didn't want to deal with it. The attack and AC system is an abstraction as well. I'm of the opinion that a good many abstractions are necessary to keep from bogging the game down. However, a game primarily about combat should not have abstracted the games two main combat features, attack and defense. Maybe abstracting these things makes combat easier and quicker, which is debatable. One thing is for sure though, it makes combat kinda boring. I would rather have a system in which combat took longer, so long as combat was more interesting and exciting. Maybe we could abstract combat some more. Here an example, "you encounter 10 Orcs", okay you guys roll a 12 and the Orcs rolled a 5. So the Orcs are all dead and you take their stuff. That would certainly be quick and easy, and you wouldn't even need HP.

I know, nobody agrees with me on this, but oh well.

Dimthar
03-05-2009, 12:49 PM
http://www.penandpapergames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6815&highlight=minion

This is my take on Hit Points ...

Isn't Hit Points one of those Topics that create eternal discussions? 4E system (HP) makes a lot of sense to me... IMHO

.

kirksmithicus
03-05-2009, 01:03 PM
Lets do alignment next :deadhorse:

I love a good game of kick the dead horse.

Valdar
03-05-2009, 01:41 PM
Any time you apply simulationism to D&D, you fail. D&D is not a simulation, it's a narrative game, so game aspects and narrative aspects are all that's important, and simulationism struggles to keep up.

Dwarves should be tougher than halflings, you say? Well, they are- they get a bonus to Con. It's only a +2, because this is a narrative game, and if it were any higher, then all Fighters would either be Dwarves or ineffective. The narartive needs to leave open the possibility of Fighters of different races that aren't just comic relief, but actual heroes.

Also, what game are you talking about? The only game I've heard of that had Barbarian as a race was Everquest.

kirksmithicus
03-05-2009, 02:44 PM
D&D is not a Narrative game. At best, it is a poor Simulationist game with some narrative to tie all the combat together. At worst it's purely Gamist.

Narrativist refers to decisions based on what would best further a dramatic story or address a central theme. This terminology often confuses those who have not read the articles on which the model is based, and thus assume that any game in which mechanics act directly on story is narrativist.

According to this definition D&D would be out.

The reason for the struggling simulationism of D&D is because of poor rules. This is not a problem that needs to be, or is inherent to all RPG's. A Simulationist game is not necessarily bound to overly complex mechanics that slows game play to a mind numbing pace, and are difficult to learn, it's just often the case. Call of Cuthulu can also be considered a Simulationist game with a strong focus on Narration, that has a relatively easy rule set.

I think that Sneaksta is trying to make his game reflect fantasy literature, in which each race has its unique traits that makes them stand apart. These have been sacrificed in D&D for game balance. Game balance isn't always a good thing.

Sneaksta
03-05-2009, 04:08 PM
All good points, Y'all. Sorry about the Barbarian being on the list, but I added them for a simple Reason. That is about the only class where the HP I think are dead on. I think Barb should be a sub-race not a class. And being such, whatever class you actually pick... wizzie, shaman, etc the HD should be 1d10just because the Barbs lead a very rough, nomadic, always in the elements life.

Back to the halfling Fighter... Yeah he has more training, can take a few more bumps and scrapes, fireballs etc than a wizard, but realistically, IMO, he should still only get a d6.. plau maybe a +1 or 2 mod.. being as I dont care if you are the worlds toughest halfling, yer still small. a strong human can still punt yer arse... smaller bones, smaller just about everything.

Same reason I think a dwarf should get a d12. Yeah they are still medium, but , no matter what they do, they are stalky, hardy folk.. growing up in the mines, etc has it's toll.

"But they have better saves, etc etc etc......" comes with the class, and what do ya know, this shows where a class is more hardened, and can take more bumps,scrapes,fireballs.. so why do we need the Hit Die to try and do the same job??? I think the saves pretty much balance this fine on their own..

IMO the HD should be racial, as this is more realistic to me... There is a bit of DM Fiat available here, if the player can be really rather convincing why they should get a higher HD, but Hey.....

My campaign is going racist HD, and all of my 5 players looked at me with wide-eyes, and questions about.." Hey, you know, that sounds excellent, and makes perfect sense.."

my 2 coppers... ( worth literally almost nothing in this economy :D)


(( Thanks Kirk' .... one of my points , I just couldn't get it out... and there is such a thing as Over-balancing))

Valdar
03-05-2009, 04:09 PM
D&D is not a Narrative game. At best, it is a poor Simulationist game with some narrative to tie all the combat together. At worst it's purely Gamist.



Well, if you run D&D that way, then sure, you don't have very much narrative. A good group will play a more interesting game than that, though, and both DM and players will make decisions based more on story than on dice and rules.

And, what exactly is simulationist about D&D? HPs don't represent anything specific. Neither does Armor Class. A 3e Wizard can cast Magic Missile a certain number of times, and then he can't? What exactly does that represent- his inability to remember how to do a spell four times when he's only studied it enough to do it three times?

Sneaksta
03-05-2009, 04:19 PM
Well, if you run D&D that way, then sure, you don't have very much narrative. A good group will play a more interesting game than that, though, and both DM and players will make decisions based more on story than on dice and rules.


Thanks Val.. another point...

A good group will play..... I see more realistic adventures here...
Now i think this may force the players to actually think about how they play their characters. Sure they may be an Uber halfling Fighter, but even so, do ya think that character is gonna be the only driving force in a battle? nothing like a flat halfling..... The said player might actually think about what he wants to do, instead of just miming the uber fighter..." he jumps in the middle, attack, attack, attack, dodge... ... he gets 1 more move right???"

I want to see..." Halfpint sprints in, tumbles thru the Ogre's legs, kneecaps him,m and dodges aside, awaiting the ogre's reactions.... "

Now that looks alot better :)

Sascha
03-05-2009, 04:46 PM
Thanks Val.. another point...

A good group will play..... I see more realistic adventures here...
Now i think this may force the players to actually think about how they play their characters. Sure they may be an Uber halfling Fighter, but even so, do ya think that character is gonna be the only driving force in a battle? nothing like a flat halfling..... The said player might actually think about what he wants to do, instead of just miming the uber fighter..." he jumps in the middle, attack, attack, attack, dodge... ... he gets 1 more move right???"

I want to see..." Halfpint sprints in, tumbles thru the Ogre's legs, kneecaps him,m and dodges aside, awaiting the ogre's reactions.... "

Now that looks alot better :)

Wouldn't that be independent of the hit point situation though? Narrating actions in more exciting language can be done with any rules set, regardless of said system's placement in design theory.

More power to in-combat description, in any case ;)

Sneaksta
03-05-2009, 04:50 PM
Treu, but I am using this experiment to try to force them from the norm..
like, yeah, they might have an uber warrior halfling... meaning he can easily whomp up the room full of other halflings... lol..

I want them to actually start taking into account the fact that they may be playing a Halfling fighter, not just a fighter.
Also the fact that, 5 to 1, in realistic cases, a 1st level half-fighter wouldn't be able to stand toe to toe with a 1st lev human-Fighter, being bigger, more mass, thicker bones, longer reach, faster base movement, etc. , Unless he actually thinks it through, and devises a neato plan. I want my game to reflect this, and I think racial HD kinda helps sort this stuff out.

I may be losing my original train of thought here, but I will see where the experience leads my guinea pigs ( party)

Sascha
03-05-2009, 05:52 PM
Treu, but I am using this experiment to try to force them from the norm..
like, yeah, they might have an uber warrior halfling... meaning he can easily whomp up the room full of other halflings... lol..

I want them to actually start taking into account the fact that they may be playing a Halfling fighter, not just a fighter.
Also the fact that, 5 to 1, in realistic cases, a 1st level half-fighter wouldn't be able to stand toe to toe with a 1st lev human-Fighter, being bigger, more mass, thicker bones, longer reach, faster base movement, etc. , Unless he actually thinks it through, and devises a neato plan. I want my game to reflect this, and I think racial HD kinda helps sort this stuff out.

I may be losing my original train of thought here, but I will see where the experience leads my guinea pigs ( party)

Hmm, I think I see where you're going with this. Follow-up thought: wouldn't those differences be better modeled in Ability score adjustments? Seems to be a more direct corollary than hit dice (with the added bonus of one of those abilities modifying hit points, themselves). Interesting experiment, though; hope it works for ya ^_^

ChaunceyK
03-05-2009, 06:00 PM
Back to the halfling Fighter... Yeah he has more training, can take a few more bumps and scrapes, fireballs etc than a wizard, but realistically <snip!> a strong human can still punt yer arse.

Maybe its because I've been so depressed lately over a personal issue, but this just struck me as one of the funniest things I've heard in a long time. THANK YOU!!!
:pound:

Now, as for my 2 coppers, I'd say if you're striving for the ultimate in realism (while maintaining the HD concept), maybe do something like have a specific HD for each race with bonuses/penalties based on both CON & class. If you're a Fighter type, for instance, you get a bonus because you're uprooting trees in your spare time. If you're a Mage, you get a penalty because you're always sitting around with your nose in a book & your thumb up your...well, you get the picture.

Honestly, that's the best suggestion I can think of if you really are striving for realism above all else.

Valdar
03-05-2009, 06:02 PM
I want to see..." Halfpint sprints in, tumbles thru the Ogre's legs, kneecaps him,m and dodges aside, awaiting the ogre's reactions.... "

Now that looks alot better :)

Yeah, but now Halfpint's a Rogue. Tumbling and dodging aren't that compatible with plate armor.

You could evoke the very realistic view that a Halfling is not going to ever have the reach or upper body strength to take down a Human. Realistically, a competitive, 5'4" martial artist facing an ordinary 6'6" thug is going down, and probably knows it. But if you apply this to D&D, you'll find that an adventure titled "Steading of the Hill Giant Chief" is going to be more deadly than one called "Tomb of Horrors". Your 6'6" guy going up against a 10'6" hill giant is doomed, however well trained- that's the same fight as a 4' guy against a 6'6" guy (read as: 7-year-old vs. Hulk Hogan). And Dragons? Forget about it.

Anyway, it's your game, but it seems like tying HD to race instead of class will just make people only play the tough races- you'll have to put in other drawbacks otherwise.

Sneaksta
03-05-2009, 06:22 PM
Yer welcome, Chauncey :cool:
As for the con and class mods, i think i may have mentioned earlier that racial, plus a +/- 1 mod for casters vs fighters etc... kinda. But

Valdar, well that was an example.. maybe Halfpint ducks thru the legs, and once yer behind the Ogre, dodge to the side is more of a figure of speech for move out of reach...

And as for the players only picking the tougher races, well, i plan to tailor the EXP giving around ingenuity and risks taken and RP, more so then on just what they kill. Aka playing a Gnome smart, and keeping him alive has it's advantages... and is tough.. therefore exp boosts.

Good points...although, it is kindof hard to imagine a halfling in plate, to be honest..... :laugh: although he would make an excellent catapult missile....
--- Merged from Double Post ---

Hmm, I think I see where you're going with this. Follow-up thought: wouldn't those differences be better modeled in Ability score adjustments?

I look at the ability score adjustments are more for separating their mindsets/physical builds etc... I still think size and general race lifestyle should have a greater impact on the race HD...

But I really Like yer thoughts on these points, People ! ;)

Keep 'em coming.

Dimthar
03-05-2009, 08:42 PM
Sneaksta, I think tying the HD to the race is faulty for the following reason, Level does not have anything to do with "Race".

Using the same race example, what makes a 8 Level Human Fighter (64 HP) better than a 1 Level Human Fighter (8 Hp)? Perhaps training and experience (Both Class Related)?

Your ability of Taking/Avoiding Damage a.k.a Hit Points is directly improved by the knowledge gained in your Class.

Your premise is that WLADIMIR KLITSCHKO will kick Manny Pacquiao's ass, both Fighters, same level.

But Manny Pacquiao will kick a NFL Tackle's ass any given day. One Fighter, the other not, same level.

Sneaksta
03-05-2009, 08:52 PM
:(Almost everyone reads what they want to, and ignore's the rest....

Once again, the small guy can win, but sometimes toe to toe is suicide., play smart, live long!

And repeatedly ignored was the racial HD with a +/- 1 point class mods.


man i hate repeating myself.... repeatedly.

tesral
03-05-2009, 08:53 PM
Lets do alignment next :deadhorse:

I love a good game of kick the dead horse.

I hate Alignment

And it's beat a dead horse, beat. And you're bound to get the ASPCDA on your case.


Meanwhile, back at the Topic:

What race is Barbarian? I am curious about that one myself.

ChaunceyK
03-05-2009, 09:10 PM
What race is Barbarian? I am curious about that one myself.

I imagine it to be somewhat of a cross between Human and Neanderthal...bigger & more brutish than a normal Human, but with higher communication skills than a Neanderthal.

Dimthar
03-05-2009, 09:13 PM
: And repeatedly ignored was the racial HD with a +/- 1 point class mods.

Let us go back to basics:

In general Toughness = Constitution (Regardless of Race)

In general a Fighter = better at taking/avoiding damage.

In general Levels = Class advancement

So if you raise levels, you are improving your CLASS features.. Your +/- 1 Class Mod does not reflect that difference, a 10 Level Human Wizard will have 70 HP and a 10 Level Fighter will have 80 HP (Not too big a difference). And if you augment the Class Mod to a +/- 2 or +/- 3 then you are effectively just complicating something that is already simple in the current system.

.

Sneaksta
03-05-2009, 09:19 PM
I like the fact that a 10th level wizzie would have 70hp and a fighter 80-90hp based on the mods.....

The reason i like this is that, just because the human wizzie is a bookreader should have little bearing on the fact that he is a human, instead of being totally penalized by the class.. 40 hp? LOL making it a little bit closer to real IMO.

And what race is Barb? it's not. I think it should be a sub-race for all the basic races tho..... because, yeah be a barbarian... but being a barb is more than just choosing to be a Barb one day. Being a Barb is growing up living that lifestyle.

Dimthar
03-05-2009, 10:43 PM
The reason i like this is that, just because the human wizzie is a bookreader should have little bearing on the fact that he is a human, instead of being totally penalized by the class.. 40 hp? LOL making it a little bit closer to real IMO.
.

Perhaps I am getting all wrong, but I fail to see Why the Wizard is "penalized by the Class" by only getting 40 Hp.

Every time you raise your level you "Gain" Features, you don't loose them. The Fighters gain a lot of HP and a lot of Attack Bonuses, the Wizards gain a few HP, a few Attack Bonuses and SPELLS. Both are rewarded, none of them are penalized.

If you are stating that Hit Points = Only Damage Taken then I understand your position. But when Hit Points = Damage Taken and/or Avoided (Soak), the Wizzie just don't get as many HP simply because being a bookreader does not improve your fighting skills as good as joining the military.

You suggest that +/-1 HP is enough to account for the above, but the Wizzie is getting spells which are way more powerful than the Fighters attack bonuses.

It was mentioned before, RACE is reflected in Ability Modifiers. In a Point Buy System a Dwarf will have more CON than a Halfling. if having the same starting scores (before Racial Modifiers), ergo the Dwarf Fighter will have more hit points than the halfling fighter.

I also hate repeating my self but using the same race example, what makes a 8 Level Human Fighter (64 HP) better than a 1 Level Human Fighter (8 Hp). CLASS LEVELS!

Sneaksta
03-06-2009, 12:22 AM
If you are stating that Hit Points = Only Damage Taken then I understand your position. But when Hit Points = Damage Taken and/or Avoided (Soak), the Wizzie just don't get as many HP simply because being a bookreader does not improve your fighting skills as good as joining the military.


My point is that HP have almost absolutely nothing to do with Fighting skills. And I know of several bookreaders, that have masters degrees, who could wipe the floor with me an 2 of my buddies.

My point is that regardless of what class someone chooses, most humans are about the same more or less in how much of a beating the body can take. Yeah, nominally bookreaders have been boxed in with the assumption that because they spend so much time studying, that they are physically weaker than, say, yer average laborer. Well Maybe. But what does that have to do with hitpoints?

For instance, jjbob and bilpatsy grow up together as friends.. same town, did the same things, same exercise, running etc. so, say when they are 16, and decide to go apprentice or adventure or whatever, Jjbob, the bigger boy, decides he wants to learn magic. Bilpatsy decides the life of a warrior suits him...

So, now, as i understand it ( snicker) Bilpatsy has more hitpoints a month into training( just enough to be 1st lev fresh ) and JJbob now has 4 or less, just because he decided to start reading a book. Nevermind the fact that JJbob was able to whoop Bilpatsy's arse everyday of the week, now he is a big wussy. Because he chose to be a mage...

Sorry, That doesn't Fly with me.

This is my experiment, to see what happens when released from the handed down norm of race/class. I will see what happens. Stick to yer set in stone pages if ya want to.

( Yeah that makes me sound like an A-hole, but my point of posting this thread is to open a few eyes, maybe think on it, not come up with every possible reason why it can't happen......................)

tesral
03-06-2009, 02:31 AM
Constitution as was pointed out. That score has a great deal to do with total hit points. Often more than hit dice. Con is not a function of Class.

My current Warlock 8 /Cleric 3 now has 84 hit points at 11th level. Hit die? I don't think so. 33 of that is Con, right up and proper. Yea, I have been rolling like thunder. But, nearly half my HP count is due to choosing a 16, my second best roll for Con. Had I stuck with pure Warlock, a d6 average would be 66, a full half of that from Con.

So if Burly Bob the Magician has a Con of 16, because he is burly. and Slender Sam the fighter has an 11 because he is a little guy, Bob gets an average of 5 HP a level. Sam also averages 5, even with the better hit die, because he isn't build like a wall.

So in spite of training like a fiend to withstand damage, Con tells. Con is the HP equalizer for race and or build. The game already has a method of dealing with HP factors other than class.

Sneaksta
03-06-2009, 07:05 AM
Thanks, Tesral that was a well exampled explaination. BUT not everyone rolls like thunder.. hehe.

I am just thinking more of the law of averages here. Yer normal run of the mill humans and what not. Sure there are going to be those that are way above par. Great point, but with most of my party being lucky to have 1 roll above 15 ( yeah i know, but they rolled 'em lol) I am going to try my little experiment out fer a few sessions.

I set this out as an odd idea, I will see how it goes, and depending will decide after i see it in action.... It may well be that they just turn into powerhouses or just not.

And Con will still be a factor for anyone that slaps their good score there.
On One hand, it would be refreshing to come across a Wizzie who , hey, can't fight his way out of a box, but can take a whoopin. ( more often than not, the mage is one of the first to die, if there is any real damage being delt, or just picked outa the crowd as a great risk to the enemies)

On the other hand, time will tell.

ChaunceyK
03-06-2009, 07:25 AM
I think the bottom line here is this...its all fantasy. If someone wants to have the ONE halfling in the world with the strength & stamina of the mighty Hercules, then why not? Its all gaming, and its all in good fun. A character who stretches far beyond the norm for his race or class is a welcome change of pace. Sure, there's potential for everyone at the table wanting to do it then, but who cares? Again, its all just fun.

In fact, I remember back in the old days (my old days, anyway), we were rolling up a Thief (they weren't Rogues then). He had 2 perfect 18's, so not only did he get the 18 Dex, we gave him an 18 Str as well (shooting for a better chance at Backstabbing rather than greater HP). And remember, there were no Brutal Scoundrels back then...a Thief was simply meant to be a nimble sneaksta (pun very much intended) who had no place being stronger than an actual Fighter.

So again, I say its all fantasy anyway, go ahead & have fun with it by making your own character "the exception" to his own racial/class rule.

Sneaksta
03-06-2009, 07:33 AM
Thanks, Chauncey..

The greatest point of all. It's a Fantasy. Have fun...

( btw in the ol'e days of your ( yes pun intended) weren't the books scraped out on bark, ir maybe stone tablets??..... just a thought :lol:

ChaunceyK
03-06-2009, 09:27 AM
( btw in the ol'e days of your ( yes pun intended) weren't the books scraped out on bark, ir maybe stone tablets??..... just a thought :lol:

That wasn't until years later...we just used cave drawings. :p

tesral
03-06-2009, 09:32 AM
Thanks, Chauncey..

( btw in the ol'e days of your ( yes pun intended) weren't the books scraped out on bark, ir maybe stone tablets??..... just a thought :lol:

I think my original copies are on Papyrus.




Thanks, Tesral that was a well exampled explanation. BUT not everyone rolls like thunder.. hehe.

I am just thinking more of the law of averages here. Yer normal run of the mill humans and what not. Sure there are going to be those that are way above par. Great point, but with most of my party being lucky to have 1 roll above 15 ( yeah i know, but they rolled 'em lol) I am going to try my little experiment out fer a few sessions.

Not to be pedantic, but my example was not about hot dice. It was about choice. I chose to place my second best stat into Con. If you want a lot of hit points, pick a good number for your Con. My Friday game has a perfect counter example too. The Magician that didn't put a good number in Con. the guy is a glass everything. He has less than a third my hit points. The Monk Ranger is nearly as bad again not having put a good number into Con. In the long run a good Con will show more than the hit die you have.

Average hit points per die are only one apart. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 for 4, 6, 8, 10 ,12. While the dice can screw you. You can have a 12th level Barbarian, d12 hit die with 12 hit points. There is a "1" on that die. Highly unlikely, but it can happen. Your Con score delivers a consistent bonus every level. Learn to know and love your Con score.

Racial adjustments for stats handles the issue as far as I can see. Switching the hit dice to race is a complication in search of a problem. No one is stopping you, but I see no reason to do it.

Valdar
03-06-2009, 12:02 PM
( Yeah that makes me sound like an A-hole, but my point of posting this thread is to open a few eyes, maybe think on it, not come up with every possible reason why it can't happen......................)

You asked for opinions, we gave them. Sorry they weren't the ones you were looking for.

My point in all of this is that while it's fun to play game designer, making changes to the rules because they "make sense" from a simulationist standpoint, without regard to the game effects, changes the way the game plays out in unpredictable ways. Your house rule will essentially remove from the game:

a) gnomes and halflings as PC races, and
b) the reliance of the artillery types on the heavy types, thus breaking down the party's need to cooperate (which is already ailing in earlier editions of D&D after level 5 or so).

So basically, without further balancing, you'll be looking forward to a party of Human Wizards with this change.

Sneaksta
03-06-2009, 12:09 PM
Opinions are great, just not the same ones repeated 10 different ways.. lol.

No , It's all good, but i seam to recall saying that it was an experiment I am running, and i'd see how it goes, not that im pushing it....

Thanks for the Input All, ....

Dimthar
03-06-2009, 12:56 PM
Be confident that I thought about your proposal, and my conclusion was that it was more flawed than the current system. (Not that I can come up with a better one, I am even too Lazy to try).


My point is that HP have almost absolutely nothing to do with Fighting skills.

Under that light, then there is no justification at all for gaining Hit Points as you raise levels.

If You are either Burly Bob or Slender Sam. Where is the reasoning for justifying that today Bob and Sam can be killed by a Kobold's Sword and 3y later they can withstand a full fire blast from an Ancient Red Dragon?

D&D System ties Hit Points to "Fighting Skills (Class Levels)", even Mages improve them as they gain more experience and training. These gains in HP are balanced against all the other class related features (Thac0, Saving Throws, Feats, Spells, etc.)

And to go beyond that, in 4th ED. Race / Con have very few to say in your HP as you raise levels, Hit Points are now a mix of Toughness/Fighting Skills/Morale. It even got away from hit dies, to make this difference more evident.

Let us know how it went with the experiment...

.

Lucian-Sunaka
03-06-2009, 01:16 PM
Like we were discussing in the chat, the big reason that's a problem is that human, or worse, dwarf, wizards become gods. And here's something else to consider, you know how you spoke of the halfling darting in and being super nimble? That's the general way a halfling fighter would be designed, because of their strength penalty. A basher type fighter as a halfling is generally a poor idea.

What your really describing, is a halfling rogue. AKA the race's favored class. It's favored because they make better rogues, +2 dex, +1 attack, +1 more attack with thrown weapons (which includes slings) that spread just screams rogue, and as you would expect, it's got a smaller hit die than a fighter would.

In a straight up bashing fight, a halfling bruiser would likely lose to a human, for one reason. Strength. The human doesn't have a strength penalty, so every hit is dealing at least one, possibly two more damage. A dwarf fighter has as much average HP as a human barbarian because dwarves get the +2 con. Really, the system is far from perfect but it lines up rather well as is.

(And they are right about the difference between a first level character and a fifth level character being class levels. If they weren't recieving training, nothing would be changing. If you took a level in wizard, you got d4+con (and con is huge, I've got a dwarf ninja with more HP than the human Knight in that party.) if you took a level in fighter, you get d10+con. It's just that simple.

Valdar
03-06-2009, 05:38 PM
D&D System ties Hit Points to "Fighting Skills (Class Levels)", even Mages improve them as they gain more experience and training.

I see Mages as taking advantage of "under the hood" magics to keep themselves alive- all those little spells that every mage learns, so no need to keep track of them.

Heck, even the Fighters must be relying on some sort of magic to survive the punishment that they receive. You can explain away a lot of hit points as "avoiding damage", but when you're shrugging off a 50' fall, there's something more than training going on there.

kirksmithicus
03-18-2009, 11:46 PM
Well, if you run D&D that way, then sure, you don't have very much narrative. A good group will play a more interesting game than that, though, and both DM and players will make decisions based more on story than on dice and rules.

And, what exactly is simulationist about D&D? HPs don't represent anything specific. Neither does Armor Class. A 3e Wizard can cast Magic Missile a certain number of times, and then he can't? What exactly does that represent- his inability to remember how to do a spell four times when he's only studied it enough to do it three times?

Sorry to necro, but I just had to add some more to this. I love to tell stories, exciting stories in my games, whether they are D&D or another game system. However, a Narrativist game, is a game in which the story, and combat, and everything else that happens is not driven by dice. It is a collaborative effort of story telling between the GM/DM/Storyteller or whatever he may be called, and the players. (Purely Narrativist games are rare) They all talk it out and decide what would be the best way to advance the story, this includes combat. That is a Narrativist game. Simply describing what happens in combat or between combat, no matter how richly or detailed that description, does not make a game Narrativist, it makes it detailed, well described maybe with some Narrativest tendancies.

Everything about the D&D rules makes it a simulationist game, it tries to model real world events or actions using rules and dice. The rolls have cause and effect, success or failure. Sure HP and AC are abstraction that are hard to pin down. When you are out of HP you still die, and when the DM rolls over you AC you get hit. You roll the dice and shit happens. It's a bad simulationist game verging on gamist because game mechanics like HP, AC and your spell example are not and cannot be adequatly explained as either Narrativist or Simulationist (simulating even the laws of nature in a fantasy world), so they must be Gamist in nature.

Nearly all RPG's are a combination of all three aspects. In my opinion, D&D is primarily Simulationist, followed by Gamist. Like you say though, only a good group can turn it into more of a Narrativist game, something that I don't think it naturally lends itself to.

tesral
03-19-2009, 12:12 AM
One reason I don't really like the Simulation, Narrative, Gamist triangle. Me, I would say D&D is more gamist. It makes no effort at simulation, but seeks an easy system that works without simulating anything. As a simulation d20 makes good pancakes.

Thunderbolt is a simulation game. A decent one too. However no one will accuse it of being quick.

gdmcbride
03-19-2009, 01:11 AM
One reason I don't really like the Simulation, Narrative, Gamist triangle. Me, I would say D&D is more gamist. It makes no effort at simulation, but seeks an easy system that works without simulating anything.

Actually you strike really close to one of my central complaint about the GNS model -- loaded language. You can either be creating an epic story that really moves your players (a narrativist), a simulationist (which is the overly broad everything else category), or a miserable contemptible power gamer (err...I mean gamist).

Which one do you want to play?

That is like asking on a questionaire -- do you prefer juicy delicious flame-broiled Burger King burgers or do you prefer McDonalds burgers even after learning about the record levels of feces found in the meat?

There is a right answer and that defeats the point of a descriptive taxonomy.

Gamist -- in the sense of a game that is focused on smooth playable enjoyable fun and completive game play -- is not a bad thing. D&D 4th edition has done a lot to make the actual play of its game smoother (particular for a DM who actually follows all the rules).

The rules are much more focused on the central theme of the game -- exploring dungeons, killing monsters, taking their stuff. Things outside of that arena are largely gone ... profession skills, craft skills, class features that affect non-combat aspects (remember when the rogue got skill mastery?).

D&D (especially 4th) is solidly gamist. What is D&D trying to simulate? D&D has story yes but that story is only revealed by killing monsters and taking their stuff (i.e playing the game).

D&D is gamist and we don't want to call it that because the loaded language of the GNS makes gamist sound like a bad word.

Simple as that. The GNS model has its uses. It is a way to try to categorize RPGs where once we had none. But let us not forget its flaws.

Gary

tesral
03-19-2009, 01:51 AM
Like alignment GNS has too many definitions.

Valdar
03-19-2009, 12:02 PM
...a Narrativist game, is a game in which the story, and combat, and everything else that happens is not driven by dice.

How is that even a game at all?
--- Merged from Double Post ---

Things outside of that arena are largely gone ... profession skills, craft skills, ...

They're in PHB2.

gdmcbride
03-23-2009, 06:01 PM
They're in PHB2.

No, they are not.

The craft skill just to pick an example, you know this craft skill (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/craft.htm), is gone from 4th ed.

I assume you are referring to the backgrounds chapter.

So in D&D 4, how long does it take to create a non-magical suit of plate mail? An arrow? A tent? A musical instrument?

You can debate whether the 3.x rules were well written or the value of having those rules at all, but you cannot argue those rules are present in D&D 4.

They are gone. Surely you know this. Why are you being so disingenuous?

In D&D 4th if its not about killing adversaries and taking their stuff, it gets almost no rules love. Killing adversaries and taking their stuff is precisely defined down to the last square, the last inch of movement, the last second of time. Anything else is greatly deemphasized and largely absent from the rule set.

This is not a bad thing. It is a design choice of the new edition.

Gary

tesral
03-23-2009, 07:04 PM
In D&D 4th if its not about killing adversaries and taking their stuff, it gets almost no rules love. Killing adversaries and taking their stuff is precisely defined down to the last square, the last inch of movement, the last second of time. Anything else is greatly deemphasized and largely absent from the rule set.

This is not a bad thing. It is a design choice of the new edition.

Gary


I consider it a bad thing. A world is more than Adventurers, monsters, and victims.

Valdar
03-23-2009, 10:56 PM
No, they are not.

The craft skill just to pick an example, you know this craft skill (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/craft.htm), is gone from 4th ed.

I assume you are referring to the backgrounds chapter.

So in D&D 4, how long does it take to create a non-magical suit of plate mail? An arrow? A tent? A musical instrument?

You can debate whether the 3.x rules were well written or the value of having those rules at all, but you cannot argue those rules are present in D&D 4.

They are gone. Surely you know this. Why are you being so disingenuous?

In D&D 4th if its not about killing adversaries and taking their stuff, it gets almost no rules love. Killing adversaries and taking their stuff is precisely defined down to the last square, the last inch of movement, the last second of time. Anything else is greatly deemphasized and largely absent from the rule set.

This is not a bad thing. It is a design choice of the new edition.

Gary

Um, surely you've noticed that there isn't a specific skill for every little thing a character can do? There's no Ride, Search, Spot, Listen, Climb, or Swim anymore- by your logic, characters can no longer do those things either?

There are rules for having a crafting background in PHB2, and the effects on the existing skillset are listed- so no, there's no skill called "Craft", but there are rules for having crafting skills. Expecting there to be a Craft: Blacksmith in 4e is looking at the game with 3e blinders on- that's not how skills work anymore. The need to maintain long lists of marginally useful skills is gone (thankfully)- the challenges of an adventure now are fitted to the existing skill list, not the other way around- this is why there hasn't been a single new skill in any of the materials that have come out since the first release.

If there's a point in an adventure where the party needs to make a sword, then you can use the rules for skill challenges; it may use skills like Perception, Athletics, and Nature, and a character with a crafting background will get a leg up according to the rules in PHB2 (compare to 3e, where the 10th level fighter with a few points in Craft will surely fail a level-appropriate Craft check). The sword will get created at the speed of plot, and success will be determined at least as much by the players' creativity and teamwork as the numbers on their character sheets. Personally, I find this a lot more interesting than tossing a single D20 and succeeding or failing solely on how you initially built your character, but to each his own.

Of course, the 3e method gets the crafting out of the way faster and gives you more time for combat...

gdmcbride
03-24-2009, 01:51 AM
Um, surely you've noticed that there isn't a specific skill for every little thing a character can do? There's no Ride, Search, Spot, Listen, Climb, or Swim anymore- by your logic, characters can no longer do those things either?


I didn't say characters couldn't swim, listen or ride a horse. I didn't say it. I didn't imply it. The fact that you are accusing me of promoting such brain-dead nonsense is the worst sort of straw man and frankly insulting.

Obviously someone is making the armor. All I said is that there are no rules for how it would be done -- no idea for how long it would take, how you would distinguish a master craftsman from a bumbling amateur, indeed how you negotiate the task in the framework of a skill challenge. The game has masterwork armor in it, but there are no rules for how to actually create masterwork armor. What does it take to create a suit of Elderscale Armor for example?

I know exactly how long it takes, in this system, to transform a suit of non-magical platemail into +1 veteran's plate. I know precisely how much time, precisely how much money, and precisely how much effort and components. The system is incredibly precise about that -- but incredibly vague about actually making the platemail.

That does strike me as a little odd.


There are rules for having a crafting background in PHB2, and the effects on the existing skillset are listed- so no, there's no skill called "Craft", but there are rules for having crafting skills. Expecting there to be a Craft: Blacksmith in 4e is looking at the game with 3e blinders on- that's not how skills work anymore. The need to maintain long lists of marginally useful skills is gone (thankfully)- the challenges of an adventure now are fitted to the existing skill list, not the other way around- this is why there hasn't been a single new skill in any of the materials that have come out since the first release.


Calling crafting skills marginally important is making some big assumptions about a given DM's fantasy world. In a world where all weapons are illegal thanks to the wicked overlord in charge, crafting arrows and swords covertly could be deadly important.


If there's a point in an adventure where the party needs to make a sword, then you can use the rules for skill challenges; it may use skills like Perception, Athletics, and Nature, and a character with a crafting background will get a leg up according to the rules in PHB2. The sword will get created at the speed of plot, and success will be determined at least as much by the players' creativity and teamwork as the numbers on their character sheets. Personally, I find this a lot more interesting than tossing a single D20 and succeeding or failing solely on how you initially built your character, but to each his own.

Of course, the 3e method gets the crafting out of the way faster and gives you more time for combat...

Under skill challenges in the DMG, there is no example of a sword being made or plate mail or indeed any act of item creation. Your bit about swords getting made at "the speed of plot" is cute. Of course magic items or alchemical items don't get made at that speed. They have precise, exact reliable speeds of creation regardless of plot.

The only creation example is creating magic items and alchemical items and that by the way doesn't involve a skill challenge. It involves a ritual and is automatic (no check -- PHB pg. 304). Creating normal items is more difficult and prone to failure than creating magic items? Creating a sword involves a risk of failure but making alchemist's fire that explodes when mishandled has no risk? That is a puzzling bit of game design. Of course, I won't fault D&D 4th edition for that bit, since you are entirely making this up on your own. The game says NOTHING about using skill challenges for crafting.

In the background rules in the PHB II it does mention blacksmithing.

"If your character's background includes an apprenticeship to a blacksmith, for example, your DM might give you a bonus to Diplomacy checks when your character interacts with the baron's blacksmith, or a bonus to a Perception check when particular training could help your character notice something awry...If your character worked as a blacksmith, you don't need a skill check to make a horseshoe, or to earn a subsistence living as a blacksmith. There might be circumstances in which a well-defined background can give your character an edge in the game EVEN WHEN THE RULES DON'T COVER THE SITUATION." -- PHB II, pg. 182 (emphasis mine)

Just admit it. There are no rules for making normal items in 4th edition. This isn't an accidental omission either. There has already been an equipment book -- a perfect place to put such rules. You can improvise something, of course, but there are no official rules or guidelines. Why is that so hard to admit?

Gary

Valdar
03-24-2009, 09:21 AM
Just admit it. There are no rules for making normal items in 4th edition.

I never said there were- that was you strawmanning me. All I said was that there were crafting and profession skills in PHB2. Scroll up- you said those skills- not those game mechanics- didn't exist, and I pointed out where they are, and you objected that since no skill was called Craft and no hard times were given for making swords, that I was being disingenuous. So I explained that there were a lot of skills that you can use without there being specific names or rules for them (Ride, Search, Spot, etc.), and how they should work in a correctly run game of 4e.

Does that make sense? Yes, skills work very differently now, so there are no exact rules for turning out mundane weapons and armor. Nor are there exact rules for harvesting grain, weaving cloth, animal husbandry, buying a castle, or running a city, but if a DM wanted to make any of those part of the plot of a game, the tools are there, and frankly I think specific rules for them would limit DM creativity (and make for some really heavy books.)

gdmcbride
03-25-2009, 11:15 PM
All I said was that there were crafting and profession skills in PHB2.

There are NO crafting or profession skills in the PHB2 for D&D 4th edition. That is the statement I objected to in the first place and I'm objecting to it again.

To be more precise, there is nothing that duplicates what the craft and the profession skills did in 3.5. Nothing. You cannot, for example, make non-magic plate mail armor without improvising creation times and relative levels of craftsman skill and creation costs.

I have already shown how the tools that exist in D&D 4th edition (skill challenges, which I note you've stopped referring to specifically) are unsuited for making mundane items and are inconsistent with existing item creations subsystems (like magic item enchantment and alchemical creation).

That remains my whole point.

Gary

Valdar
03-26-2009, 11:15 AM
There are NO crafting or profession skills in the PHB2 for D&D 4th edition.


Yes there are. You've even quoted them in this thread.



To be more precise, there is nothing that duplicates what the craft and the profession skills did in 3.5.


If that's what you meant, you should have tried to "be more precise" to begin with, rather than arguing against something I didn't say.

Lots of stuff is different in 4e. You aren't going to find something that "duplicates" skill points, your save vs. petrification, or the Chaotic Neutral alignment either. Those things didn't work as well as the designers thought they would, and out they went. A skill called "Craft" is also something that doesn't work in 4e- skills are much broader than that now, and something as specific as making a type of mundane gear doesn't make sense under the new skill challenge system.

Anyway, I'm getting bored with explaining to you how 4e works. If your premise is that 4e is all-combat because there isn't a hard time given for making a sword, fine.

fmitchell
03-27-2009, 09:37 AM
Does that make sense? Yes, skills work very differently now, so there are no exact rules for turning out mundane weapons and armor. Nor are there exact rules for harvesting grain, weaving cloth, animal husbandry, buying a castle, or running a city, but if a DM wanted to make any of those part of the plot of a game, the tools are there, and frankly I think specific rules for them would limit DM creativity (and make for some really heavy books.)

So, just like Original D&D, then?

Heck, Call of Cthulhu doesn't have exact rules for playing Anne-Rice-style vampires instead of human investigators, but if a GM wanted to make that part of the game, the tools are there. The game designers didn't add actual rules for them, though, because that would limit GM creativity.

EDIT: Yes, I'm being overly sarky. I haven't seen PHB2, but by your own admission, characters might have a "crafting background" but the DM must decide whether and how fast a character can actually craft something. One might simply handwave; another might require a skill roll, or a skill challenge, based on what the individual DM chooses as most plausible.

Just as the authors of CoC never thought of playing vampires in a Lovecraftian game, the designers of D&D 4e never thought players crafting mundane items would ever arise in their "4dventure Game". Any competent GM/DM can improvise "house rules" for situations outside the published rules, but credit goes to the GM, not to the game designers nor to the supposed prescience of The Rules.

Valdar
03-27-2009, 10:31 AM
EDIT: Yes, I'm being overly sarky. I haven't seen PHB2, but by your own admission, characters might have a "crafting background" but the DM must decide whether and how fast a character can actually craft something.

Sure- that's fair to say. The original statement was that there were no "craft or profession skills" in 4e, and I mentioned where the rules were for giving your character those skills. I don't think it's too much of a leap from "being a blacksmith gives you bonuses to Athletics or Perception" to "when there's blacksmithing to be done, Athletics and Perception come into it", and "since it's noncombat, use the noncombat rules", hence my custom skill challenge description, completely with no prompting from WotC on how to run it.

This can be done for every other endeavor, as well. My game has recently had a character use History to win a Chess game, with a bonus to the roll since she could argue that her background would have included learning such a game. All without there being a Games(Chess) skill.

--- Merged from Double Post ---

So, just like Original D&D, then?
Just as the authors of CoC never thought of playing vampires in a Lovecraftian game, the designers of D&D 4e never thought players crafting mundane items would ever arise in their "4dventure Game". .

I wouldn't call a custom skill challenge a house rule- they're meant to be open-ended, so by that definition any use of them beyond the three examples given would be a house rule. Almost like saying that putting orcs and goblins in the same fight is a house rule, since no encounter description explicitly lists both...

Anyway, as quoted, the PHB2 does in fact anticipate that your Blacksmith might do some Blacksmithing...

I think I've extensively covered both what was actually said, as well as what was actually meant- Is there anything further to discuss here?

fmitchell
03-27-2009, 10:50 AM
The original statement was that there were no "craft or profession skills" in 4e, and I mentioned where the rules were for giving your character those skills.

Except it's a leap to call those "skills"; they're bonuses to existing skills for vaguely defined situations, stated in the context of "adventuring". Gary's whole point is that each DM must decide how the "Blacksmith background" applies to actual blacksmithing. Yes, you've improvised skill checks and even skill challenges to decide how fast and how will a smith smiths (for example), but those are YOUR house rules. The WotC rules as written don't help you with those decisions at all.

"Not limiting DM creativity", I've found, is frequently an excuse for missing rules. As a GM, I'd like to create astounding worlds, memorable characters, and sweeping story arcs. I don't want to expend my DM creativity on an estimate for how long it takes to make arrows, especially at the gaming table. At the very least, I'd like to know how many nights it takes the mysterious arrow-making pixies to complete their work, and whether they can get time off from their shoe-making gigs.

Now, if you're happy improvising rules in that way, more power to you. But WotC's "crafting backgrounds" don't fit Gary's criteria (or mine) for "crafting rules": explicit aids for a DM to decide how long it takes to make a mundane item, and how well a character can do so.
--- Merged from Double Post ---
To put the "crafting skill" argument in perspective, here's the original point:


The rules are much more focused on the central theme of the game -- exploring dungeons, killing monsters, taking their stuff. Things outside of that arena are largely gone ... profession skills, craft skills, class features that affect non-combat aspects ...

The point is that by FAR most of the page count in the PHB concerns Powers only used in combat, and rules for running combats. The PHB defines skills mainly in how they can help explore dungeons/wilderness, with a few catch-all knowledge skills like History.

Sure you can extend the use of skills outside "adventuring", but D&D 4e's rules as written rely on DMs to improvise and "house-rule" those uses. Compare to 3.x, which was a mess but at least gave more explicit support.

tesral
03-27-2009, 11:18 AM
Sure you can extend the use of skills outside "adventuring", but D&D 4e's rules as written rely on DMs to improvise and "house-rule" those uses. Compare to 3.x, which was a mess but at least gave more explicit support.

Most damming is those rules did exist, they took them out.

I like to do more with my Character than kill the monster Take the treasure.

Valdar
03-27-2009, 12:29 PM
Now, if you're happy improvising rules in that way, more power to you. But WotC's "crafting backgrounds" don't fit Gary's criteria (or mine) for "crafting rules":


Also a fair statement. As I keep saying, 3e-style (or GURPS-style, for that matter) craft skills don't work in 4e, so it's no big surprise that you won't see them. The reason for this is that having this level of granularity for skills doesn't work given D&D's flat probability curves and level-based progression- tossing a few points in a craft skill will not allow you to succeed at a level-appropriate skill check in any but the very lowest levels. So while it looks like you're adding character development by spreading your skill points around, what you're actually doing in game terms is making your character less able to do anything- and if a game is punishing you for having a more interesting character, then that game needs to change. This isn't my opinion- this is the opinion of the designers for 4e, as I understand them from blogs I've read.

Instead, there's a short skill list that's to cover every situation, and each character picks a few of these skills, and has a decent chance to succeed at a level-appropriate skill check. This is how 3e was supposed to work, but there were too many skills for any character to have a decent shot at having the right skill for a given task, so the 4e skill list was reduced and condensed, in the same way that the eleven races of Elves were reduced and condensed into two (oops, I mean three). Adding more distinct skills at this point will only reproduce the previous problem, thus your crafting background modifies the existing skills, rather than adding new ones.



The point is that by FAR most of the page count in the PHB concerns Powers only used in combat, and rules for running combats. The PHB defines skills mainly in how they can help explore dungeons/wilderness, with a few catch-all knowledge skills like History.


The skill challenge rules are in the DMG, not the PHB. And given that the previous version of the game took up most of the PHB for spells that only half of the classes had access to, I'd say this is an improvement.

Anecdote: In a recent skill challenge I ran (which the party failed), one player lamented that skill challenges are too "swingy", in that a few bad rolls can doom the enterprise. It occurred to me later that all non-combat endeavors up until now, in every game I've ever played, have been determined by a SINGLE die-roll. (Also, skill challenges have the leeway to be swingy, because unlike combats, you can easily survive failing them.)

This is something that always bothered me about D&D and other games- combat takes dozens of rolls and lots of cooperation, but the Thief only gets one roll when it's time to do his thing, and nobody gets to help? Skill challenges are a big step forward for the non-combat side of the game- only one step mind you, because you're still only rolling 7-10 times and not managing any sort of resource, but still an improvement over a single d20 for all things non-combat.

So the non-combat rules in 4e don't look like other games and will take some getting used to, so it's tempting to overlook them. It's facile to ignore them and then claim that 4e has no non-combat rules, though.

gdmcbride
04-01-2009, 06:57 PM
Anyway, I'm getting bored with explaining to you how 4e works.

That sounds like the end of any useful discussion.

Gary

Valdar
04-01-2009, 07:59 PM
That sounds like the end of any useful discussion.

Gary

By which I meant, if you're going to obsess about one omission, and ignore all the progress made in the new edition, go for it. It probably speaks to something else major that you don't like about 4e, and haven't figured out how to say.

gdmcbride
04-01-2009, 08:29 PM
By which I meant, if you're going to obsess about one omission, and ignore all the progress made in the new edition, go for it. It probably speaks to something else major that you don't like about 4e, and haven't figured out how to say.

Your attempts at personal attacks are laughable and frankly of no interest to me.

Go bait someone else, please.

Gary

fmitchell
04-01-2009, 10:23 PM
Since this conversation is effectively over, let's rack up the logical fallacies:

Excluded Middle (Valdar)


As I keep saying, 3e-style (or GURPS-style, for that matter) craft skills don't work in 4e, so it's no big surprise that you won't see them. The reason for this is that having this level of granularity for skills doesn't work given D&D's flat probability curves and level-based progression- tossing a few points in a craft skill will not allow you to succeed at a level-appropriate skill check in any but the very lowest levels.

Just because the 3.x mechanisms have problems doesn't mean they "don't work". For example, GMs could provide separate "background skill" and "adventuring skill" budgets.

Straw-manning (Valdar)


So the non-combat rules in 4e don't look like other games and will take some getting used to, so it's tempting to overlook them. It's facile to ignore them and then claim that 4e has no non-combat rules, though.

No one has made that claim. Everyone accepts the existence of skills and Skill Challenges for trap-disarming, negotiating with kings, tracking prey, sneaking past guards, etc.

Straw-manning redux (Valdar)


By which I meant, if you're going to obsess about one omission, and ignore all the progress made in the new edition, go for it.


The lack of crafting mechanics (not skills) was listed as an example of how non-adventuring activities get short shrift.

Bulverism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism) (Valdar)


It probably speaks to something else major that you don't like about 4e, and haven't figured out how to say.

Ah, the old "of course you would say that" trick. I think Gary has been fairly eloquent on what he does and does not like about D&D. He's not the one zeroing in on one claim and trying hard to disprove it.

Alleged Strawmanning, possibly Equivocation or Quoting Out Of Context (gdmcbride and Valdar)


I never said there were- that was you strawmanning me. All I said was that there were crafting and profession skills in PHB2. Scroll up- you said those skills- not those game mechanics- didn't exist, and I pointed out where they are, and you objected that since no skill was called Craft and no hard times were given for making swords, that I was being disingenuous.


I didn't say characters couldn't swim, listen or ride a horse. I didn't say it. I didn't imply it. The fact that you are accusing me of promoting such brain-dead nonsense is the worst sort of straw man and frankly insulting.

Obviously someone is making the armor. All I said is that there are no rules for how it would be done -- no idea for how long it would take, how you would distinguish a master craftsman from a bumbling amateur, indeed how you negotiate the task in the framework of a skill challenge. The game has masterwork armor in it, but there are no rules for how to actually create masterwork armor. What does it take to create a suit of Elderscale Armor for example?

It's obvious you two have completely different ideas of what "crafting skills" mean. Gary doesn't care about the 3.5 "Craft (Armor)" skill as long as there's some defined rules for a character to create a suit of Armor. Valdar, on the other hand, cites the following rule (also quoted by Gary):


"If your character's background includes an apprenticeship to a blacksmith, for example, your DM might give you a bonus to Diplomacy checks when your character interacts with the baron's blacksmith, or a bonus to a Perception check when particular training could help your character notice something awry...If your character worked as a blacksmith, you don't need a skill check to make a horseshoe, or to earn a subsistence living as a blacksmith. There might be circumstances in which a well-defined background can give your character an edge in the game EVEN WHEN THE RULES DON'T COVER THE SITUATION." -- PHB II, pg. 182 (emphasis Gary's)

Valdar asserts that this suffices as "crafting rules": use the character's bonus and improvise a Skill Challenge on existing skills, and the character has made a suit of armor (or not). Gary wants something more concrete, that includes time to create an item, material costs, and comparative quality of the items made.

This seems to be the heart of the argument. Each party has completely different criteria for "crafting rules". Neither is "right" in any objective sense. If the situation seldom if ever comes up, the Valdar's preferred method is sufficient. If, on the other hand, characters in a campaign regularly make or fix their own equipment, or hold down day jobs, then the DM needs rules as specific as Gary describes.

Argument by assertion (Valdar)


To be more precise, there is nothing that duplicates what the craft and the profession skills did in 3.5. Nothing. You cannot, for example, make non-magic plate mail armor without improvising creation times and relative levels of craftsman skill and creation costs.

I have already shown how the tools that exist in D&D 4th edition (skill challenges, which I note you've stopped referring to specifically) are unsuited for making mundane items and are inconsistent with existing item creations subsystems (like magic item enchantment and alchemical creation).


Yes there are. You've even quoted them in this thread.

Um, no. See the point above.

Appeal to Ridicule (fmitchell)


Heck, Call of Cthulhu doesn't have exact rules for playing Anne-Rice-style vampires instead of human investigators, but if a GM wanted to make that part of the game, the tools are there. The game designers didn't add actual rules for them, though, because that would limit GM creativity.

The analogy is far from perfect, and mockery doesn't contribute to the argument. (But it amused me.)

tesral
04-02-2009, 11:11 AM
By which I meant, if you're going to obsess about one omission, and ignore all the progress made in the new edition, go for it. It probably speaks to something else major that you don't like about 4e, and haven't figured out how to say.

Progress....

Depends on how you measure progress. I didn;'t see any. I saw change, and change for the sake of change. A side step, but no progress. The apple has changed into an orange. It is not a better apple. One can argue it's a pretty good orange. However, that does nothing for the lost appleness.