Announcements

Looking for the Missing Worlds Media store? https://store.missingworldsmedia.com/

Join the conversation on Discord: https://discord.gg/Z6D3ssP

Missing heals

166 posts / 0 new
Last post
Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Dark Cleric wrote:
Dark Cleric wrote:

I follow WoTC relatively closely and I haven't heard anything about a 6th Edition. I don't think that will be anytime soon as they are still releasing 5E content. I think 5E is WoTC's stride IMO. It's easier to immerse yourself, as a player and DM, in the game because of the streamlined character management and rules. In the beginning, I thought this would detract from the feel of the game; for example 3.5E where you had to constantly update all your skills and modifiers because there were 123854237 inputs. But 5E, again IMO, is the best edition yet. After playing you don't feel like you've lost anything and actually I feel like because of the streamlined play that it is funner and easier to do what you want to do.

So you're willing to rely on the "everlasting sanctity" of 5e DnD when it's being published by a company that's released somewhere around 16-18 versions of MtG (not to mention maybe 50+ expansions to the basic game) over the last 25+ years? You're a better man than I Gunga Din. ;)

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

rookslide
rookslide's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 54 min ago
kickstarter
Joined: 09/25/2013 - 10:26
Radiac wrote:
Radiac wrote:

I don't think 100% of anything should ever be anything, to be honest.

Deeeeep man...

Jk I didn’t really don’t have anything to add this first line just hit me very funny!

"A sad spectacle. If they be inhabited, what a scope for misery and folly. If they be not inhabited, what a waste of space." ~ Thomas Carlyle

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
In 5e D&D you can get

In 5e D&D you can get unlimited magic missiles. A high level wizard can get the ability to cast a 1st level spell at will, though magic missile is a poor choice for such a thing when spells such as shield (reaction for +5 AC, so essentially once a round they can have +5 AC)

You also get a 2nd level spell at will too.

These must be cast at the lowest level possible so damage spells are usually very weak options.

At that point there's nothing game breaking about being able to do 1d4 damage at will unavoidable (except for shield or a rakshasha's spell nulification).

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Dark Cleric
Dark Cleric's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 16 hours ago
Joined: 05/14/2018 - 12:26
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Dark Cleric wrote:

I follow WoTC relatively closely and I haven't heard anything about a 6th Edition. I don't think that will be anytime soon as they are still releasing 5E content. I think 5E is WoTC's stride IMO. It's easier to immerse yourself, as a player and DM, in the game because of the streamlined character management and rules. In the beginning, I thought this would detract from the feel of the game; for example 3.5E where you had to constantly update all your skills and modifiers because there were 123854237 inputs. But 5E, again IMO, is the best edition yet. After playing you don't feel like you've lost anything and actually I feel like because of the streamlined play that it is funner and easier to do what you want to do.

So you're willing to rely on the "everlasting sanctity" of 5e DnD when it's being published by a company that's released somewhere around 16-18 versions of MtG (not to mention maybe 50+ expansions to the basic game) over the last 25+ years? You're a better man than I Gunga Din. ;)

I don't know about "everlasting sanctity" but yes, I enjoy 5E and think it is the best one I have played so far. Who cares if they release 1000 editions? You are not required to buy them or play them; but there are people who want more and will buy them. If you find a version/edition you like stick to it. You aren't required to stay up-to-date with the latest edition to enjoy the game. But I love all the current stories, most of which I haven't even played but I read through the entire adventure book, like Storm King's Thunder, and it was as good as reading a novel for me. I have a strong imagination so I was easily able to 'play' through the adventure while reading through it. I'm happy they decided to create so much content for this edition. I've never touched MtG but since it is more popular than ever I'm sure the market is happy WoTC have done what they have done with it.

This is similar to the argument people have about Hollywood and all the reboots and extended movie splits (for example the latest Avengers being split into two movies). They say Hollywood should 'sunset' some classic movies and not reboot them, because they were really good or something. But it's a move...it was made for profit. If they can make more money on a reboot, meaning they can make something enough people will want, then why wouldn't they? There's no reason to NOT do something in the entertainment industry if there is a want/need for it and you can make a profit, with the exceptions being reasons unique to individuals.

Compulsively clicking the refresh button until the next update.

Dark Cleric
Dark Cleric's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 16 hours ago
Joined: 05/14/2018 - 12:26
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

In 5e D&D you can get unlimited magic missiles. A high level wizard can get the ability to cast a 1st level spell at will, though magic missile is a poor choice for such a thing when spells such as shield (reaction for +5 AC, so essentially once a round they can have +5 AC)

You also get a 2nd level spell at will too.

These must be cast at the lowest level possible so damage spells are usually very weak options.

At that point there's nothing game breaking about being able to do 1d4 damage at will unavoidable (except for shield or a rakshasha's spell nulification).

I think the change to cantrips was one of the best changes to any D&D edition. Wizards will now -never- run out of spells they can use to damage enemies. And it hasn't caused them to become OP any more than they were before. Everything has been balanced for the most part. Gone are the days, if you are playing 5E, where after 2 magic missiles you were out of harmful spells for the day. "ok guys, I wasted my only harmful spells on these kobolds that were only guarding the entrance to this cave...I'll just...use a crossbow or something now...with my 12 Dex...".

Compulsively clicking the refresh button until the next update.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

In 5e D&D you can get unlimited magic missiles. A high level wizard can get the ability to cast a 1st level spell at will, though magic missile is a poor choice for such a thing when spells such as shield (reaction for +5 AC, so essentially once a round they can have +5 AC)

You also get a 2nd level spell at will too.

These must be cast at the lowest level possible so damage spells are usually very weak options.

At that point there's nothing game breaking about being able to do 1d4 damage at will unavoidable (except for shield or a rakshasha's spell nulification).

Ah... Well then thanks for pointing out yet ANOTHER reason why 5e DnD is effectively broken as far as I'm concerned. ;)

P.S. To be fair as you point out you're probably only talking about being able to do little 1d4 "zaps" at that point but it's just the "principle" of the thing (unlimited auto-hits) that annoys me. ;)

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Dark Cleric wrote:
Dark Cleric wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

In 5e D&D you can get unlimited magic missiles. A high level wizard can get the ability to cast a 1st level spell at will, though magic missile is a poor choice for such a thing when spells such as shield (reaction for +5 AC, so essentially once a round they can have +5 AC)

You also get a 2nd level spell at will too.

These must be cast at the lowest level possible so damage spells are usually very weak options.

At that point there's nothing game breaking about being able to do 1d4 damage at will unavoidable (except for shield or a rakshasha's spell nulification).

I think the change to cantrips was one of the best changes to any D&D edition. Wizards will now -never- run out of spells they can use to damage enemies. And it hasn't caused them to become OP any more than they were before. Everything has been balanced for the most part. Gone are the days, if you are playing 5E, where after 2 magic missiles you were out of harmful spells for the day. "ok guys, I wasted my only harmful spells on these kobolds that were only guarding the entrance to this cave...I'll just...use a crossbow or something now...with my 12 Dex...".

Hate to burst your bubble on this but I played with DMs who instituted robust cantrip systems as house rules 25-30 years ago. We didn't need WotC to invent 5e DnD for that. ;)

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Dark Cleric wrote:
Dark Cleric wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Dark Cleric wrote:

I follow WoTC relatively closely and I haven't heard anything about a 6th Edition. I don't think that will be anytime soon as they are still releasing 5E content. I think 5E is WoTC's stride IMO. It's easier to immerse yourself, as a player and DM, in the game because of the streamlined character management and rules. In the beginning, I thought this would detract from the feel of the game; for example 3.5E where you had to constantly update all your skills and modifiers because there were 123854237 inputs. But 5E, again IMO, is the best edition yet. After playing you don't feel like you've lost anything and actually I feel like because of the streamlined play that it is funner and easier to do what you want to do.

So you're willing to rely on the "everlasting sanctity" of 5e DnD when it's being published by a company that's released somewhere around 16-18 versions of MtG (not to mention maybe 50+ expansions to the basic game) over the last 25+ years? You're a better man than I Gunga Din. ;)

I don't know about "everlasting sanctity" but yes, I enjoy 5E and think it is the best one I have played so far. Who cares if they release 1000 editions? You are not required to buy them or play them; but there are people who want more and will buy them. If you find a version/edition you like stick to it. You aren't required to stay up-to-date with the latest edition to enjoy the game. But I love all the current stories, most of which I haven't even played but I read through the entire adventure book, like Storm King's Thunder, and it was as good as reading a novel for me. I have a strong imagination so I was easily able to 'play' through the adventure while reading through it. I'm happy they decided to create so much content for this edition. I've never touched MtG but since it is more popular than ever I'm sure the market is happy WoTC have done what they have done with it.

This is similar to the argument people have about Hollywood and all the reboots and extended movie splits (for example the latest Avengers being split into two movies). They say Hollywood should 'sunset' some classic movies and not reboot them, because they were really good or something. But it's a move...it was made for profit. If they can make more money on a reboot, meaning they can make something enough people will want, then why wouldn't they? There's no reason to NOT do something in the entertainment industry if there is a want/need for it and you can make a profit, with the exceptions being reasons unique to individuals.

I'm just saying there are many reasons why we still play ADnD...

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Dark Cleric wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

In 5e D&D you can get unlimited magic missiles. A high level wizard can get the ability to cast a 1st level spell at will, though magic missile is a poor choice for such a thing when spells such as shield (reaction for +5 AC, so essentially once a round they can have +5 AC)

You also get a 2nd level spell at will too.

These must be cast at the lowest level possible so damage spells are usually very weak options.

At that point there's nothing game breaking about being able to do 1d4 damage at will unavoidable (except for shield or a rakshasha's spell nulification).

I think the change to cantrips was one of the best changes to any D&D edition. Wizards will now -never- run out of spells they can use to damage enemies. And it hasn't caused them to become OP any more than they were before. Everything has been balanced for the most part. Gone are the days, if you are playing 5E, where after 2 magic missiles you were out of harmful spells for the day. "ok guys, I wasted my only harmful spells on these kobolds that were only guarding the entrance to this cave...I'll just...use a crossbow or something now...with my 12 Dex...".

Hate to burst your bubble on this but I played with DMs who instituted robust cantrip systems as house rules 25-30 years ago. We didn't need WotC to invent 5e DnD for that. ;)

You don't need them to, but now it's hard baked into the rules so if you play with a different group they're more likely to be playing by the rules than some house rules other DMs use.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
Lothic wrote:

Hate to burst your bubble on this but I played with DMs who instituted robust cantrip systems as house rules 25-30 years ago. We didn't need WotC to invent 5e DnD for that. ;)

You don't need them to, but now it's hard baked into the rules so if you play with a different group they're more likely to be playing by the rules than some house rules other DMs use.

And therein lies the fundamental problem: What if the version 5e has baked in for something like that sucks (or to be more fair) doesn't meet with everyone's approval? Sometimes it's simply easier to play with a system where you have to add a few things instead of having to "rework" some dumb things.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
Lothic wrote:

Hate to burst your bubble on this but I played with DMs who instituted robust cantrip systems as house rules 25-30 years ago. We didn't need WotC to invent 5e DnD for that. ;)

You don't need them to, but now it's hard baked into the rules so if you play with a different group they're more likely to be playing by the rules than some house rules other DMs use.

And therein lies the fundamental problem: What if the version 5e has baked in for something like that sucks (or to be more fair) doesn't meet with everyone's approval? Sometimes it's simply easier to play with a system where you have to add a few things instead of having to "rework" some dumb things.

If you don't like the majority of a system then don't play it?

For what it's worth though, I prowl around some D&D forums and so far with 5th there's not really been anything in it that's disliked by any large number of people (granted this would be a small sample size so it's not exactly extensive).

I can't think of a single thing in it that I'm like, "this rule is dumb", it has no complicated grapple rules, or THAC0, or things where like, a lasso doesn't effect someone in full plate (story I heard from.a friend).

And it has a lot of older rules and optional rules right there in the books, so if say you didn't like how the game handles resting and healing there's optional rules in the DMG for like, three different ways to run it.

And saying to someone new "we're running 5th edition but using these optional rules" sits better with folks than "we're playing this but we have some house rules/homebrew rules." Mostly because it's more likely to be balanced if it's in the core books (more likely, not guaranteed).

I still suggest checking it out before writing it off. Maybe join a game if your FNGS has adventurer's league or something.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Project_Hero]If you don't
Project_Hero wrote:

If you don't like the majority of a system then don't play it?

I keep saying we don't yet you guys keep trying to sell 5e like it's actually worth the trouble lol.

Project_Hero wrote:

And saying to someone new "we're running 5th edition but using these optional rules" sits better with folks than "we're playing this but we have some house rules/homebrew rules." Mostly because it's more likely to be balanced if it's in the core books (more likely, not guaranteed).

You do realize this is absolutely, totally 100% just your opinion on this. I've seen people say they'd rather play with folks using an older system that's been tested/evolved for decades rather than one WotC just brewed up a few years ago. That and, well, WotC... *shrugs*

Project_Hero wrote:

I still suggest checking it out before writing it off. Maybe join a game if your FNGS has adventurer's league or something.

Heh by the time I'd ever get my group to try 5e WotC would likely be gearing up for 6e. Look I get that lot's of people currently like 5e (as they say fourth time's the charm) but that doesn't mean -everyone- has to.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
No, not everyone has to but

No, not everyone has to but you just seem to be writing it off completely for some very flimsy reasons.

*Shrugs*

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

No, not everyone has to but you just seem to be writing it off completely for some very flimsy reasons.

In the interest of full disclosure I was actually curious enough a few years ago to buy the 5e PHB. I hadn't even bothered buying anything from 3.5 or 4.0 so you can at least appreciate that I was going out of my way to give WotC another chance (and some more money which even by that point I had sort of semi-vowed never to do again).

I probably carefully read maybe half of it and skimmed the rest. Suffice it to say it's been collecting dust on shelf ever since...

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Dark Cleric
Dark Cleric's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 16 hours ago
Joined: 05/14/2018 - 12:26
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Dark Cleric wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

In 5e D&D you can get unlimited magic missiles. A high level wizard can get the ability to cast a 1st level spell at will, though magic missile is a poor choice for such a thing when spells such as shield (reaction for +5 AC, so essentially once a round they can have +5 AC)

You also get a 2nd level spell at will too.

These must be cast at the lowest level possible so damage spells are usually very weak options.

At that point there's nothing game breaking about being able to do 1d4 damage at will unavoidable (except for shield or a rakshasha's spell nulification).

I think the change to cantrips was one of the best changes to any D&D edition. Wizards will now -never- run out of spells they can use to damage enemies. And it hasn't caused them to become OP any more than they were before. Everything has been balanced for the most part. Gone are the days, if you are playing 5E, where after 2 magic missiles you were out of harmful spells for the day. "ok guys, I wasted my only harmful spells on these kobolds that were only guarding the entrance to this cave...I'll just...use a crossbow or something now...with my 12 Dex...".

Hate to burst your bubble on this but I played with DMs who instituted robust cantrip systems as house rules 25-30 years ago. We didn't need WotC to invent 5e DnD for that. ;)

How is this bursting my bubble? And what is my bubble in this case? my opinion?

Most tabletop players I know haven't been playing with the same group for years, so having a common rule set to follow makes playing together FAR easier and more enjoyable. Lots of home brew changes are bound to be more negative than positive in a group that aren't already friends unless it was specifically stated before the formation of the group what the home brew rules would be.

Since you seem like you're out of the loop as far as modern day D&D is concerned, most people today play in adventures leagues. They go to a local gamestore, or go to a forum on RPG sites to find other players in their area and play at their house, or they play online (which has become quite popular). Big home brew changes wouldn't do well in any of these scenarios; adventurers league doesn't allow home brew, and most people looking for a group in a store or online want to play the game...not someone else's version of the game.

Compulsively clicking the refresh button until the next update.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Dark Cleric wrote:
Dark Cleric wrote:

How is this bursting my bubble? And what is my bubble in this case? my opinion?

It just seemed like you implying that a system of cantrips was some kind of "revolutionary new thing" that 5e invented. As they say there's really nothing new under the sun.

Dark Cleric wrote:

Most tabletop players I know haven't been playing with the same group for years, so having a common rule set to follow makes playing together FAR easier and more enjoyable. Lots of home brew changes are bound to be more negative than positive in a group that aren't already friends unless it was specifically stated before the formation of the group what the home brew rules would be.

Since you seem like you're out of the loop as far as modern day D&D is concerned, most people today play in adventures leagues. They go to a local gamestore, or go to a forum on RPG sites to find other players in their area and play at their house, or they play online (which has become quite popular). Big home brew changes wouldn't do well in any of these scenarios; adventurers league doesn't allow home brew, and most people looking for a group in a store or online want to play the game...not someone else's version of the game.

And frankly I don't really care how "other people" play their own games - I've been fortunate enough to play dozens of table-top RPGs with the same extended group of people for a few decades now. To each their own I'd say...

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
5e borrowed the cantrips

5e borrowed the cantrips thing from Pathfinder. As far as I know that's the first published source of all day every day cantrips.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

5e borrowed the cantrips thing from Pathfinder. As far as I know that's the first published source of all day every day cantrips.

Pathfinder? You're kidding with that right? Cantrips (as used in a DnD context) are at least as old as "double-digit" Dragon magazines from the early 80s. I frankly don't feel like looking up the exact issue they were introduced in at this point but you get the general idea.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

5e borrowed the cantrips thing from Pathfinder. As far as I know that's the first published source of all day every day cantrips.

Pathfinder? You're kidding with that right? Cantrips (as used in a DnD context) are at least as old as "double-digit" Dragon magazines from the early 80s. I frankly don't feel like looking up the exact issue they were introduced in at this point but you get the general idea.

I meant having cantrips being an unlimited thing. Like, being practically at-will abilities for casters.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Foradain
Foradain's picture
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 31 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/25/2013 - 21:06
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

5e borrowed the cantrips thing from Pathfinder. As far as I know that's the first published source of all day every day cantrips.

Pathfinder? You're kidding with that right? Cantrips (as used in a DnD context) are at least as old as "double-digit" Dragon magazines from the early 80s. I frankly don't feel like looking up the exact issue they were introduced in at this point but you get the general idea.

Not as used in a 5e D&D context. The cantrips of Dragon Magazines # 59-61 and the Unearthed Arcana used the existing spell preparation slots. 3e and 3.5 D&D both gave casters a certain number of "cantrip slots" per day, like other spell levels. I had not heard that Pathfinder cantrips didn't, but I'd like to know if any of them are offensive spells. If they aren't, then 5e did that first. What 5e did was not only to make them the equivalent of the "At-will" powers from 4e in that they could be cast all day long, barring something preventing casting, but also that some of them were the equivalent of basic weapon attacks. In 5e (and 4e, much as I hate to credit that system with anything) a first level wizard is no longer a one-shot magic item.

Edit: Sorry, Project_Hero, I didn't notice you answering while I was researching. ^_^

Foradain, Mage of Phoenix Rising.
Foradain's Character Conclave
Millennium City Refugee.
Avatar courtesy of Satellite9

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
No worries.

No worries, Foradain, you explained it much better than I.

Also 5e cantrips increase in power as your character levels, making them an always viable option in combat. Once your huge spells run out of course.

Not that wizards shine really in the damage department. The best sustained DPS of 5th edition is the fighter. Best Nova ability is the sorcerer, paladin, or the sorcadin (paladin/sorcerer multiclass).

Edit: Jeeze, with all these d&D players on the forums we should get a play by post game going.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

5e borrowed the cantrips thing from Pathfinder. As far as I know that's the first published source of all day every day cantrips.

Pathfinder? You're kidding with that right? Cantrips (as used in a DnD context) are at least as old as "double-digit" Dragon magazines from the early 80s. I frankly don't feel like looking up the exact issue they were introduced in at this point but you get the general idea.

I meant having cantrips being an unlimited thing. Like, being practically at-will abilities for casters.

Foradain wrote:

Not as used in a 5e D&D context. The cantrips of Dragon Magazines # 59-61 and the Unearthed Arcana used the existing spell preparation slots. 3e and 3.5 D&D both gave casters a certain number of "cantrip slots" per day, like other spell levels. I had not heard that Pathfinder cantrips didn't, but I'd like to know if any of them are offensive spells. If they aren't, then 5e did that first. What 5e did was not only to make them the equivalent of the "At-will" powers from 4e in that they could be cast all day long, barring something preventing casting, but also that some of them were the equivalent of basic weapon attacks. In 5e (and 4e, much as I hate to credit that system with anything) a first level wizard is no longer a one-shot magic item.

Yes I understand - I've seen the cantrip concept "reformulated" in several other contexts over the years. For example as you said in the original Dragon Magazine/Unearthed Arcana version they were set up such that you could memorize 4 cantrips in "exchange" for the normal memorization of a single 1st level spell. I saw another version of it (might have been from another Dragon/Dungeon magazine article) that was based on a convoluted combination of Intelligence and Constitution to determine how many you could cast per day (which in that case typically amounted to many dozens of times). I've even seen a version that was sort of like a special kind of "moon magic" that would let you cast certain types of "minor" spells (effectively cantrips) at will but dictated which specific spells were available on any given day based on phases of the moons involved.

As far as the general idea of "unlimited magic" for magic users goes I've seen rules that allow magic users to cast many dozens of higher level spells in a short period of time in exchange for going into forced "hibernations" for weeks at a time afterwards. Heck I've even played in campaigns that essentially removed the "number of spells per level" limitations in favor of burning HPs for spells - basically as quickly as you could be healed you could be tossing out spells non-stop.

Look, I'm not trying to be difficult or argue about anything with all this. All I'm saying is that DnD has been around long enough now that if it's "in 5e as a core rule" it was probably in somebody else's house rules 20 years ago. Nothing wrong with acknowledging the rich heritage of that.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
It might have been in someone

It might have been in someone's house rules. Which is why I stated published source.

The ones you've mentioned weren't unlimited cantrips at all, more just alternatives to normal spellcasting.

The modern cantrip usage in Pathfinder and 5th just let's you cantrip any time you can take an action. Heck in 5th if a spell has a casting time of one bonus action you can also cast a cantrip on your turn (provided that cantrip has a casting time of one action).

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

It might have been in someone's house rules. Which is why I stated published source.

The ones you've mentioned weren't unlimited cantrips at all, more just alternatives to normal spellcasting.

The modern cantrip usage in Pathfinder and 5th just let's you cantrip any time you can take an action. Heck in 5th if a spell has a casting time of one bonus action you can also cast a cantrip on your turn (provided that cantrip has a casting time of one action).

Several of the examples I just cited came from published gaming articles and other game sources. But I will freely admit it's hard to remember all the exact sources from decades past. ;)

At any rate if you seriously want to believe that Pathfinder was the "original official inventor" of the idea of unlimited cantrips then enjoy that belief. As you said I can almost guarantee you without any degree of uncertainty that somebody was using that in their own house rules decades earlier. *shrugs*

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Interdictor
Interdictor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/22/2013 - 05:26
Just to chime in on the RPG

Just to chime in on the RPG front - as someone who has played every incarnation of D&D over the years (as well as various other RPG systems), I prefer 5th edition out of the lot. AD&D 2nd ed. has a lot of great settings, but then it's that glut of splatbooks that ultimately killed TSR. 1st edition (at least one of the various printings) was quaint, but as I tried it a decade and more after it's release it was unsatisfying. 3rd edition solved many of the issues I had with 2nd ed, and it ushered in the D20 goldrush of the early 2000's (ultimately a positive in my opinion), but it became unwieldy at higher levels of play (and Pathfinder certainly doesn't simplify matters). 4th certainly felt the least like D&D, but after my group dropped that expectation and ran it in a homebrew setting, we found it was fun in it's own right. To me 5th edition feels like a streamlined 2nd, with some things from 3rd and 4th added in.

About the only version I haven't played (aside from a few of the various "1st ed" printings) is a game of 2nd edition with full use of the Players Option books released just before TSR kicked the bucket. Those seemed pretty interesting to me - from a system-hacking perspective.

Oh yeah, and that thing about unlimited Cantrips/Orisons and the like has been a houserule at many of the tables I gamed at back in the day.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Interdictor wrote:
Interdictor wrote:

Just to chime in on the RPG front - as someone who has played every incarnation of D&D over the years (as well as various other RPG systems), I prefer 5th edition out of the lot. AD&D 2nd ed. has a lot of great settings, but then it's that glut of splatbooks that ultimately killed TSR. 1st edition (at least one of the various printings) was quaint, but as I tried it a decade and more after it's release it was unsatisfying. 3rd edition solved many of the issues I had with 2nd ed, and it ushered in the D20 goldrush of the early 2000's (ultimately a positive in my opinion), but it became unwieldy at higher levels of play (and Pathfinder certainly doesn't simplify matters). 4th certainly felt the least like D&D, but after my group dropped that expectation and ran it in a homebrew setting, we found it was fun in it's own right. To me 5th edition feels like a streamlined 2nd, with some things from 3rd and 4th added in.

Oh yeah, and that thing about unlimited Cantrips/Orisons and the like has been a houserule at many of the tables I gamed at back in the day.

Oh I've never denied that WotC "saved" DnD from TSR and has probably made tons of money off the various versions it's tossed out over the years. Just not into anything that seems to combine "d20" and "DnD" which is semi-ironic considering there have been other d20 systems we've actually enjoyed. Oh well.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Gorgon
Gorgon's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 05/15/2014 - 11:46
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:
dreamcatcher wrote:
Lothic wrote:

A system like AD&D is "subtle" about it because it mostly allows the DM to control just how much happens "automatically" or not. The problem with enshrining that kind of stuff into the rules (like d20 and/or 5e manages to do) is that, well, it becomes enshrined in the rules and when the DM wants to do something differently he/she is suddenly having to "break the rules" to make things work the way they want.

Ironically the point is that the more you codify into the basic rules of a game system the more the DM has to "fight" those rules to suit their needs. It may be counter-intuitive to some people, but I've seen it in practice too many times not to accept the general validity of the notion.

No, its baked into the rules in AD&D. 100% Pick Pockets is 100%. High enough stats make you immune to certain conditions or spell effects; no roll, no rng. Being certain races provides similar benefits. Certain spells provide automatic success, with no defense,

No DM worth their salt should ever let things "happen automatically" just because the rules said they ought to. There's always "something" that should/could modify chances based on circumstances. Sure if a 20th level thief is pickpocketing a 1st level guy then yeah maybe the DM would allow an auto-success for that. But if that same 20th level thief was trying to pickpocket a 40th level magic user there's no way the DM should let that be 100% regardless of what any book says.

The key point is that the DM allows/disallows these things, not a rule in a book.

You can always have house rules like "alwaus 1% fail chance".

Actually you can be more brutal with 20 is always crit and hit, and 1 always miss and fumble (skip next round). This makes it more logical where a high level can't solo an army or platoon of lowbies, either way, though encounters with smaller numbers can be lopsided.

I remember CoH's "streakbreaker" where 6 misses in a row, or 4 or whatever, was impossible. I used to watch for that, knowing the next attack would ne a guaranteed hit, and move an out of order whomp up if possible.

__________________

The very existence of the taunting tank irritates, for it requires idiotic AI that obeys the taunt.

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
5e don't need fumble rules.

5e don't need fumble rules. Thanks to bounded accuracy even a level 20 character will have trouble fighting armies. Not even including Crits.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

5e don't need fumble rules. Thanks to bounded accuracy even a level 20 character will have trouble fighting armies. Not even including Crits.

So you're saying 5e kept the idea of "critical hits" but dropped the negative effects of "critical failures"? Figures.

Did it also supply the rules for handing out "completion trophies" for finishing dungeons as well lol.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

5e don't need fumble rules. Thanks to bounded accuracy even a level 20 character will have trouble fighting armies. Not even including Crits.

So you're saying 5e kept the idea of "critical hits" but dropped the negative effects of "critical failures"? Figures.

Did it also supply the rules for handing out "completion trophies" for finishing dungeons as well lol.

Critical misses still happen with attacks but never in any version of D&D (that I'm aware of) have fumble rules been part of the core game.

Fumble rules are stupid anyway as they just penalize non-casters in an already caster biased game.

Rolling a 1 on a skill check isn't an automatic failure anymore. But if you roll a 1 on your death save it counts as 2 failures, a 20 on the other hand get's you conscious at 1hp. It's a cool time.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 21 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

Rolling a 1 on a skill check isn't an automatic failure anymore.

Seriously? Why even have dice anymore?
Personally, that doesn't sound entertaining in the slightest. But to each their own. Everyone plays for their own reasons.

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Cobalt Azurean wrote:
Cobalt Azurean wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

Rolling a 1 on a skill check isn't an automatic failure anymore.

Seriously? Why even have dice anymore?
Personally, that doesn't sound entertaining in the slightest. But to each their own. Everyone plays for their own reasons.

Because rolling a 1 and ending up with a 5 will still likely fail? You can't get outrageous bonuses to skills any more, so I think that at max level, with max stat (minus any improvements from magical items/effects), when rolling a 1 you get a result of 12 (that's +5 from stat, 6 from prof. bonus, and a 1 rolled) which won't pass any like, medium or higher difficulty check.

It just means that highly skilled individuals won't fail an easy task 5% of the time.

But most DMs probably won't even bother getting you to roll for an easy task when you're level 20.

I mean like, imagine a master thief, can steal fire from the gods without them noticing, fails a simple padlock 5% of the time? That makes zero sense.

Edit: also. Critical skill fails just empowers casters more. Why pick that lock and have a chance to fail when you can just cast a spell for it? There's a reason caster classes are statistically the most powerful, and that's partially because they put more hurdles up for non-casters.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 21 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
Cobalt Azurean wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

Rolling a 1 on a skill check isn't an automatic failure anymore.

Seriously? Why even have dice anymore?
Personally, that doesn't sound entertaining in the slightest. But to each their own. Everyone plays for their own reasons.

Because rolling a 1 and ending up with a 5 will still likely fail? You can't get outrageous bonuses to skills any more, so I think that at max level, with max stat (minus any improvements from magical items/effects), when rolling a 1 you get a result of 12 (that's +5 from stat, 6 from prof. bonus, and a 1 rolled) which won't pass any like, medium or higher difficulty check.

It just means that highly skilled individuals won't fail an easy task 5% of the time.

But most DMs probably won't even bother getting you to roll for an easy task when you're level 20.

I mean like, imagine a master thief, can steal fire from the gods without them noticing, fails a simple padlock 5% of the time? That makes zero sense.

Edit: also. Critical skill fails just empowers casters more. Why pick that lock and have a chance to fail when you can just cast a spell for it? There's a reason caster classes are statistically the most powerful, and that's partially because they put more hurdles up for non-casters.

That's assuming that the failure was entirely on the person. In games/systems I've played in the past, critical failures could happen as a function of equipment, like snapping a lockpick. Or maybe their ego got the best of them, got over-confident, and didn't do a thorough check of the whatever before starting. It's not always a case of "they're not skilled enough" or masters of such and such can't fudge things up. It's just less statistically possible, ergo dice rolls.
As for combat casting, if mages were engaged in combat, unless they previously had a skill (such as Combat Casting, which I don't know if it even exists anymore as I'm not wholly versed in 5E), they took a penalty (which the skill helped to offset). And mages were almost always OP in the end-game, usually followed by monks. Again, this is based on previous systems that I was familiar with.

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Monks in 3.5 were one of the

Monks in 3.5 were one of the weakest class options.

But anyway a highly skilled individual having the same chance at failure as someone barely trained makes zero sense.

And combat casting only counts if the caster takes damage (or a handful of other things). And oh boy, casters have a single solitary skill that will come up only sometimes. Where as a rogue skills is most of what they do and they'll come up all the time.

They got rid of concentration checks in 5e and replaced it with just a Constitution save but now it only effects certain spells; concentration spells. Casters can only have 1 concentration spell going at a time (mostly spells with effects longer that 1 round) and it they take damage they make a con save of a DC of I think 10 or half the damage taken whichever is higher, fail and the spell stops. Which can be a bit rough for them as no caster so far has constitution as one of their proficient saves, so they're stuck with whatever their con mod is, if any as con is usually a 3rd choice for stats for casters, behind their casting stat and dex.

Oh, but casters can now use their casting stat for spells that require attack rolls. Which helps them be less MAD.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 21 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

But anyway a highly skilled individual having the same chance at failure as someone barely trained makes zero sense.

Everyone has the same basic chance in that anyone can roll a 1, absolutely true, but if I'm a level 1 rogue with 1 point in lockpicking and I roll a 3 against a difficulty of a 10 (not counting dex modifier), yes I'm going to fail. However, a higher level person with 10 points in lockpicking rolls against the same difficulty rolls the same 3, they're going to pass the check. But, once again, it's not just about skill. Other factors, as previously mentioned, can be in effect or can happen. It's about lesser probability, which is why there are dice rolls to begin with.

Clearly you feel differently than I do, and I don't wish to go down the same path as others who endlessly engage in repeating themselves ad nauseam to belabor their personal perspective, so I'm going to bow out at this point.

Thank you for the info on the changes in later editions.

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
My problem with skill fails

My problem with skill fails can be summed up thusly.

A 20th level rogue and a 1st level rogue have to pick the DC 5 locks of 20 doors. There is a chance, and not really that small of a chance that the level 1 rogue can make it through the doors faster than the level 20 one (not counting any additional abilities the level 20 rogue may have). In no narrative, or realistic sense does this make any sense.

Even at his absolute worst the guy who can pock the lock on the pearly gates should by any metric have an easier time with such easy doors.

Edit: just thought about it and a commoner, or even a creature with as many negatives as it can have while still being considered alive can beat a level 20 character at a skill challenge 5% of the time, with the critical failing of skills. A freaking cow could out tumble a god damn 20th level rogue if that rogue happens to roll a 1. Think about that.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 1 hour ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

My problem with skill fails can be summed up thusly.

A 20th level rogue and a 1st level rogue have to pick the DC 5 locks of 20 doors. There is a chance, and not really that small of a chance that the level 1 rogue can make it through the doors faster than the level 20 one (not counting any additional abilities the level 20 rogue may have). In no narrative, or realistic sense does this make any sense.

Not even in a comparable/equivalent tortoise and hare scenario?

Quote:

Even at his absolute worst the guy who can pock the lock on the pearly gates should by any metric have an easier time with such easy doors.

And they will have an easier time, in general. Yes there may be some time where they won't but there are no such guaranties in life and neither should there be in games imo.

Quote:

Edit: just thought about it and a commoner, or even a creature with as many negatives as it can have while still being considered alive can beat a level 20 character at a skill challenge 5% of the time, with the critical failing of skills. A freaking cow could out tumble a god damn 20th level rogue if that rogue happens to roll a 1. Think about that.

And you still treating it like the "rolls 1" is the only thing that matters. Taking your example cow if the only way they can successfully tumble is to roll a 20 then the combined chance of the cow rolling 20 and you rolling 1 is not 5% (if I remember my statistics correctly).

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Depends on what you're doing

Depends on what you're doing to tumble. But that was just an example, pick any skill that can be used untrained and a barely living creature can beat a level 20 character at it 5% of the time.

And with the tortoise and the hare example I'd say the hare is making a conscious player choice to rest (or whatever the hare does to lose) it shouldn't be "well, you rolled a 1 so I guess your character is taking a nap, or whatever."

And no, at a DC 5 the doors are equally difficult to both the level 1 and level 20 neither can fail to lock pick them unless they roll a 1.

All the level 20th characters levels, magic items, massive bonus to the relevant skill means nothing on a 1. They could have trained their entire existance to be the best at that skill and it means nothing 5% of the time. That's a lot of bull.

Conversely in 5e a 20th level character has a minimum skill roll of 7 in a skill their proficient in, that's with no stat mod. They can beat an untrained person at DC 5s all the time. Rogues can get even better, thanks to an ability they have their minimum for a proficient skill at level 20 is 16 (with 2 abilities it can be 22). So they're that damn good ™ always, because they're big damn heroes. At level 20 the rogue is like, a master thief, the best assassin, or whatever he is.

So like, they can't fail at tasks which are beneath them. Which makes so much more sense than being able to fail at a trivial task 5% of the time. Like if I was a D&D character I'd have probably like, zero ranks in whatever check would be related to cooking, yet I somehow don't catastrophically fail at doing so 5% of the time.

But I get it, D&D isn't a simulation. It's not supposed to be realistic. It's supposed to let you be a big damn fantasy hero, and nothing says fantasy hero like failing at a task so simple that success is practically guaranteed.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
But I get it, D&D isn't a
Project_Hero wrote:

But I get it, D&D isn't a simulation. It's not supposed to be realistic. It's supposed to let you be a big damn fantasy hero, and nothing says fantasy hero like failing at a task so simple that success is practically guaranteed.

I suppose as always it boils down to how your group wants to play a game. I tend to like game systems that account for the theory of quantum mechanics that tells us ANYTHING is possible, even improbable failure.

I think most of your problem here boils down to a matter of degrees. TBH I actually think that forcing a 20th level character to have a 5% chance to fail is probably a bit excessive - the failure chance should probably not be that high for him/her in most cases. On the other hand your implied notion that the same 20th level character should actually have a 0% chance of failure in ALL cases is also laughably stupid and stretches suspension of disbelief to the limits. NOTHING at NO TIME can and should EVER BE automatically successful 100% of the time. To me the idea a character can automatically succeed doing anything 100% of the time is FAR, FAR more unbelievable than the idea that a 20th level character could fail 5% of the time.

So sure maybe the 20th level character ought to only fail maybe 1% of the time or even 0.1% of the time. That percentage chance should be VERY, VERY SMALL but it should never be ZERO. It's the sad fact that games systems like 5e fully embraces the idea that all sorts of things should auto-succeed that makes them utterly contemptible and silly to me. Auto-success should be a very special limited case thing, not something the game let's you do every other action.

P.S. BTW this argument also extends to MMOs like CoT. An MMO where I know I can never fail/miss would become extremely boring extremely quickly.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
If a character has such a

If a character has such a slim chance at failure it's essentially an impossibility then it's better mechanically to have them just not be able to fail at the thing.

Not many things auto succeed in 5th, just things that are no longer challenges to characters of that caliber. A 1st level rogue with proficiency and a good mod in a skill can and likely will fail a DC of 15 or even less. But once that rogue starts getting levels not only does he gain a greater skill ceiling but also raises his skill floor. Things that were once challenging for them aren't any more. It shows character growth. Having the same chance to fail a DC 5 check regardless of level or ability doesn't.

Usually as a DM you wouldn't be attempting to challenge a character with anything below them anyway. You wouldn't give the level 20 rogue a DC 5 lock to pick.

Like, I wouldn't make a person roll to kill a helpless opponent. Why make them roll for a super easy task.

I've played many games that don't have an intrinsic chance to miss. They're still fun and enjoyable. Misses usually happen so infrequently in most games that have them anyway so they might as well not be there, especially for normal attacks. I'd much prefer the enemy have like, a block chance, or a dodge chance as opposed to my character just being a complete moron and attacking in the complete wrong direction ala CoX. And I'm fine with how CoT is going to seemingly handle it. Attacks don't miss unless, they get dodged, blocked, or something has lowered your accuracy. Feels right. Feels Superheroic. Feels very comic book.

You might be talkit to the wrong person about the accuracy thing. I've been playing Hyrule Warriors for the past like, week. It feels great to play as a practically unstoppable bad ass.

Edit: even if attacks can never fail or miss it works both ways. The enemies can't miss you either. Just means you have to strategize more and not let dumb luck be the key to victory. Strange how that doesn't seem different at all from how one would play CoX.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

If a character has such a slim chance at failure it's essentially an impossibility then it's better mechanically to have them just not be able to fail at the thing.

Why? Are you equating a high level character to an omnipotent god-like being? All mortal beings have a chance to screw-up, even the "World's Best" expert at anything.

Project_Hero wrote:

Not many things auto succeed in 5th, just things that are no longer challenges to characters of that caliber. A 1st level rogue with proficiency and a good mod in a skill can and likely will fail a DC of 15 or even less. But once that rogue starts getting levels not only does he gain a greater skill ceiling but also raises his skill floor. Things that were once challenging for them aren't any more. It shows character growth. Having the same chance to fail a DC 5 check regardless of level or ability doesn't.

Characters should grow and get progressively better at what they do. I simply don't think they should be able to get "so good" that they never fail. Top-seeded sports professionals still miss shots and/or lose games.

Project_Hero wrote:

Usually as a DM you wouldn't be attempting to challenge a character with anything below them anyway. You wouldn't give the level 20 rogue a DC 5 lock to pick.

Like, I wouldn't make a person roll to kill a helpless opponent. Why make them roll for a super easy task.

I told you that auto successes should be handled as special cases. Sure if a 20th level fighter wants to randomly cut a peasant in half that should likely succeed. But as you yourself imply that probably isn't going to be the "typical" thing that 20th level fighter is going to be wasting time with.

Project_Hero wrote:

I've played many games that don't have an intrinsic chance to miss. They're still fun and enjoyable. Misses usually happen so infrequently in most games that have them anyway so they might as well not be there, especially for normal attacks. I'd much prefer the enemy have like, a block chance, or a dodge chance as opposed to my character just being a complete moron and attacking in the complete wrong direction ala CoX. And I'm fine with how CoT is going to seemingly handle it. Attacks don't miss unless, they get dodged, blocked, or something has lowered your accuracy. Feels right. Feels Superheroic. Feels very comic book.

Again just because things don't (or even shouldn't) happen very often doesn't mean they should NEVER happen.

Project_Hero wrote:

You might be talkit to the wrong person about the accuracy thing. I've been playing Hyrule Warriors for the past like, week. It feels great to play as a practically unstoppable bad ass.

Yeah it might feel great for a time. But frankly that would end up boring the crap out of me eventually. Might as well play tic-tac-toe instead.

Project_Hero wrote:

Edit: even if attacks can never fail or miss it works both ways. The enemies can't miss you either. Just means you have to strategize more and not let dumb luck be the key to victory. Strange how that doesn't seem different at all from how one would play CoX.

A system should be fair regardless. Either no one should miss or everyone (PCs and NPCs alike) should have reasonable chances to miss. Seems simple enough to me.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Top sport professionals still

Top sport professionals still lose games... Against other sports professionals. They likely wouldn't lose a game vs. some schmuck, unless they did so on purpose.

And that's really the whole crux of it. Characters in 5th are still challenged by appropriate challenges. But they're not by tasks that are now beneath them.

It's pretty much just a method to speed up gameplay. The rogue wants to pick the lock on the inn? Alright, you do so. You can't possibly fail at that task so there's no sense for rolling. Also it feels great to be a rogue and have it so you can't get lower than a 15 on a task you're supposed to be awesome at. Rolled a 1 and -still- am stealthier than my party... Too bad the enemies have a passive perception of 17 and they saw me anyway.

Auto successes are -still- handled as special cases. Mostly when attempting something trivial to that character. There's just actual rules in there in case any DM has a stick up their butt about having the player roll for everything.

Why shouldn't things that have a negligible chance of failure just not be failable in a game? Seems like more work to make something have the slimmest chance of failure than to just have it succeed. Like, do you get mad at fallout when you can just succeed at lock picking if your skill is high enough? Like, you worked for that crap, reap the rewards.

Have you ever played a fighting game in your life? The attacks there hit 100% of the time unless the enemy blocks or avoids it. Still fun. Still enjoyable.

Like literally the only thing that changes is there's no longer the chance for things to catastrophically fail against a group you know you can easily take... And in CoX they had that in there too, as attacking something far above your level was next to impossible to land a hit on.

Like, I am seriously failing to see the actual quantifiable difference in gameplay between having 0% miss chance and 5% miss chance. The only difference is sometimes your attacks don't work, but sometimes the enemies don't either, so that evens out. You still need to plan to take down a group, or run in guns blazing. The only thing that changes is the very rare cases where you and your foe are on your last legs, they miss, you hit, you win (or vice versa)... But here's the thing... You still get that with evasion powers! If both you and your foe have evasion, drumroll, it's just like any other game with miss chance!

It's almost as if a random miss chance adds practically nothing to the game. Especially if damage numbers are randomized a bit, and they have Crits. It amounts to the same bloody thing. Only difference I can see is if you run into a foes with a huge level difference instead of "miss" popping up it's "1" or "0".

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

Auto successes are -still- handled as special cases. Mostly when attempting something trivial to that character. There's just actual rules in there in case any DM has a stick up their butt about having the player roll for everything.

Rules printed in books are ALWAYS secondary to the decisions of a DM. If you don't like how your DM plays play with another DM.

A DM who likes to use auto-success a lot during RP and the rules of the game you're playing don't necessarily allow for it is pretty much the same as a DM who thinks auto-successes are silly even if the rules of the game you're playing allow for them. Same, same.

I simply continue to think that games that bend-over-backward to allow their characters to be omnipotent are just a little too far fetched to be taken seriously. *shrugs*

Project_Hero wrote:

Why shouldn't things that have a negligible chance of failure just not be failable in a game? Seems like more work to make something have the slimmest chance of failure than to just have it succeed. Like, do you get mad at fallout when you can just succeed at lock picking if your skill is high enough? Like, you worked for that crap, reap the rewards.

I might actually accept your premise that spending a few seconds to roll dice for something with a tiny chance for failure might be "annoying" to humans playing a table top game. But your arguments of "playtime wasted" make absolutely no sense in a computerized game settings. The main strength of a computer is to be able to make huge numbers of calculations per second. Based on this alone there's simply no reason why a computer-based game should not account for "improbable yet still possible" chances for failure. It's not like computer game players are having to physically roll dice thousands of times a second so what's the real excuse for not accounting for it?

Project_Hero wrote:

Have you ever played a fighting game in your life? The attacks there hit 100% of the time unless the enemy blocks or avoids it. Still fun. Still enjoyable.

Enjoyable for you perhaps. I think in 48 years I've played the type of "fighting games" you're talking about perhaps one hour's worth. The fact that they are as you say "100% hit" likely didn't help my total indifference to this particular type of game.

Project_Hero wrote:

Like, I am seriously failing to see the actual quantifiable difference in gameplay between having 0% miss chance and 5% miss chance. The only difference is sometimes your attacks don't work, but sometimes the enemies don't either, so that evens out.

Things can fail in life buttercup, get used to it. ;)

Project_Hero wrote:

It's almost as if a random miss chance adds practically nothing to the game.

It let's you know you're not playing god-like omnipotent beings. That's all I'm asking of that.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Atama
Atama's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 22:32
Try auto failures.

Try auto failures.

I was in a 2E AD&D game many years ago where I was playing a character who had the “Weapon Master” template with his axe. It was a combat option that let you get into deep specialization, and represented being one of if not the best in the world at fighting with that particular weapon.

I was in a fight with some Drow swordsman and rolled a Natural 20 and the DM said I’d missed. When I asked why he said it was because it was parried. He just felt like having this NPC be unhittable. It bugged me because I’m supposed to be so good with my weapon and I’m literally not even allowed to try to harm some enemy. Even when by the rules my roll should have been an automatic hit on anything, even if I wasn’t very skilled.

That was a lousy campaign anyway. Sometimes the “DM is always right” rule doesn’t work very well.

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
So 100% hit chance =

So 100% hit chance = omnipotent now? That's news to me. Your character can still be defeated. You can still lose even if they can not fail at one specific thing.

I'm sure fighting games would be a better test of skill with some BS random miss chance thrown in there. Just like, 5% of the time your attacks just do nothing and leave you wide open allowing your foe to get a counter attack in. Yep. Perfect. Now that's a game people will love.

"Things can fail in life buttercup, get used to it."

Ah, yes. Games = life. Of course.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Atama wrote:
Atama wrote:

Try auto failures.

I was in a 2E AD&D game many years ago where I was playing a character who had the “Weapon Master” template with his axe. It was a combat option that let you get into deep specialization, and represented being one of if not the best in the world at fighting with that particular weapon.

I was in a fight with some Drow swordsman and rolled a Natural 20 and the DM said I’d missed. When I asked why he said it was because it was parried. He just felt like having this NPC be unhittable. It bugged me because I’m supposed to be so good with my weapon and I’m literally not even allowed to try to harm some enemy. Even when by the rules my roll should have been an automatic hit on anything, even if I wasn’t very skilled.

That was a lousy campaign anyway. Sometimes the “DM is always right” rule doesn’t work very well.

Oh god, I hate it when DMs do that. Thankfully I haven't played with any that do, but I've heard such wonderful stories.

The DM probably just didn't want his super special awesome bad guy to be slighted.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

So 100% hit chance = omnipotent now? That's news to me. Your character can still be defeated. You can still lose even if they can not fail at one specific thing.

A character being able to do any particular action with a 100% success rate... yeah I'd consider that to be about as close to "god-like" as you could get. Not sure how you could define that any differently. *shrugs*

Project_Hero wrote:

I'm sure fighting games would be a better test of skill with some BS random miss chance thrown in there. Just like, 5% of the time your attacks just do nothing and leave you wide open allowing your foe to get a counter attack in. Yep. Perfect. Now that's a game people will love.

That might be a type of game a person could "respect" as being reasonably accountable to the physics of the universe we live in. You want a game with 100% attack rates? Play chess.

BTW, why are you even still talking about fighting games here? I already told you they are "Apples and Oranges" different to RPGs anyway.

Project_Hero wrote:

"Things can fail in life buttercup, get used to it."

Ah, yes. Games = life. Of course.

Games that simulate a system where people are fighting each other is enough of a "subset of life" to be accountable for things that can happen in that setting, like potential failures.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
Atama wrote:

Try auto failures.

I was in a 2E AD&D game many years ago where I was playing a character who had the “Weapon Master” template with his axe. It was a combat option that let you get into deep specialization, and represented being one of if not the best in the world at fighting with that particular weapon.

I was in a fight with some Drow swordsman and rolled a Natural 20 and the DM said I’d missed. When I asked why he said it was because it was parried. He just felt like having this NPC be unhittable. It bugged me because I’m supposed to be so good with my weapon and I’m literally not even allowed to try to harm some enemy. Even when by the rules my roll should have been an automatic hit on anything, even if I wasn’t very skilled.

That was a lousy campaign anyway. Sometimes the “DM is always right” rule doesn’t work very well.

Oh god, I hate it when DMs do that. Thankfully I haven't played with any that do, but I've heard such wonderful stories.

The DM probably just didn't want his super special awesome bad guy to be slighted.

A GOOD DM is always right because he/she earns that respect. A DM that plays like an asshat isn't worth playing with. *shrugs*

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

So 100% hit chance = omnipotent now? That's news to me. Your character can still be defeated. You can still lose even if they can not fail at one specific thing.

A character being able to do any particular action with a 100% success rate... yeah I'd consider that to be about as close to "god-like" as you could get. Not sure how you could define that any differently. *shrugs*

Project_Hero wrote:

I'm sure fighting games would be a better test of skill with some BS random miss chance thrown in there. Just like, 5% of the time your attacks just do nothing and leave you wide open allowing your foe to get a counter attack in. Yep. Perfect. Now that's a game people will love.

That might be a type of game a person could "respect" as being reasonable accountable to the physics of the universe we live in. You want a game with 100% attack rates? Play chess.

BTW, why are you even still talking about fighting games? I already told you they are "Apples and Oranges" different to RPGs anyway.

Project_Hero wrote:

"Things can fail in life buttercup, get used to it."

Ah, yes. Games = life. Of course.

Games that simulate a system were people are fighting each other is enough of a "subset of life" to be accountable for things that can happen in that setting, like potential failures.

I can with 100% accuracy place my hand on a large flat surface in front of me 100% of the time. I guess I'm a god now. I can also with 100% accuracy hit something in front of me that makes no attempt to move. Praise unto me for I am a God.

Fine, no fighting games? Skyrim. It's melee doesn't have any bs RNG miss chances. You swing at it you hit it.

Ah yes, the great simulation of a world of magic and monsters that has made up rules. I suppose taking turns is a thing that happens in real life too. If I can suspend my disbelief enough to believe a man can wield a sword bigger than he is in one hand I think I can handle him not missing with it too.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

I can with 100% accuracy place my hand on a large flat surface in front of me 100% of the time. I guess I'm a god now. I can also with 100% accuracy hit something in front of me that makes no attempt to move. Praise unto me for I am a God.

You know very well you're making a laughable attempt to conflate "non-combat, no risk" auto successes with "combat/risk environment" auto successes. If CoT is going to let us pick locks (or heck even pick our noses) in non-combat situations then sure, let's have all the auto-successes you want. Transition to combat? Different animal completely.

Project_Hero wrote:

Fine, no fighting games? Skyrim. It's melee doesn't have any bs RNG miss chances. You swing at it you hit it.

As modified by the REST of the combat system you're conveniently leaving out of this equation that mitigates/regulates 100% hitting.

Project_Hero wrote:

Ah yes, the great simulation of a world of magic and monsters that has made up rules. I suppose taking turns is a thing that happens in real life too. If I can suspend my disbelief enough to believe a man can wield a sword bigger than he is in one hand I think I can handle him not missing with it too.

Add in the uncertainties of risk-oriented combat and you've finally got it.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
So a character with a weak no

So a character with a weak no-miss attack is God like now. Cool good to know. I guess any Pokemon that learns swift is a god now.

The only times I miss on Skyrim is because either I messed up or the game did. If something is on target it hits. It doesn't stick into the bad guy then you see a little "miss" pop up.

Final fantasy games. Most offensive magic is 100% accurate.

If a game didn't have a miss chance, and I wasn't aware of it to begin with, I probably wouldn't even notice and I definately wouldn't even care.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Project_Hero]So a character
Project_Hero wrote:

So a character with a weak no-miss attack is God like now. Cool good to know. I guess any Pokemon that learns swift is a god now.

Why can't you accept the idea that any time a RPG actually ALLOWS an auto-hit attack it's usually because it's very low power, has only a few number of charges, or is otherwise controlled/limited by the game system. This is the exact definition of DnD's Magic Missile (of ANY edition you care to examine).

Project_Hero wrote:

The only times I miss on Skyrim is because either I messed up or the game did. If something is on target it hits. It doesn't stick into the bad guy then you see a little "miss" pop up.

Final fantasy games. Most offensive magic is 100% accurate.

Do I even have to state the obvious in Skyrim's case? It's a single player game. In a MMORPG that has any potential to have a PvP element if it allows for "auto-hits" at all they are again going to be heavily restricted/controlled by all sorts of systems of dodges, damage reduction, buffs/debuffs, etc.

Project_Hero wrote:

If a game didn't have a miss chance, and I wasn't aware of it to begin with, I probably wouldn't even notice and I definately wouldn't even care.

Such a game was likely "properly balanced" such that the auto-hits didn't actually otherwise break the game.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

Such a game was likely "properly balanced" such that the auto-hits didn't actually otherwise break the game.

Wow! You mean you can actually make a game around the fact that all attacks automatically hit!? Groundbreaking! Revolutionary! The exact point I've been trying to make!

Ya don't need a random miss chance.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
Lothic wrote:

Such a game was likely "properly balanced" such that the auto-hits didn't actually otherwise break the game.

Wow! You mean you can actually make a game around the fact that all attacks automatically hit!? Groundbreaking! Revolutionary! The exact point I've been trying to make!

Ya don't need a random miss chance.

I never said you couldn't make a game based on auto-hits. I've just been making the point that in order to make that work you usually have to add multiple layers of convoluted, overlapping rules/mechanics to balance it all out. So sure RNG is not the -only- way to build a game. It just happens to be the simplest, most efficient way that's been proven for nearly 50 years.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
And?

And?

So?

"It's been done this way for ages, that means it should never be thought about or changed. Even if that change could end up being better."

That's more or less what I'm getting from you here.

And you don't need a lot of complicated mechanics. You can just lower all damage by a certain percentage to compensate for the miss chance. Done. That's the quickest and dirtiest way to remove a miss chance.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

And?

So?

"It's been done this way for ages, that means it should never be thought about or changed.

Well when something is simple, streamlined and has worked for decades there's usually not much NEED to change it.

Project_Hero wrote:

Even if that change could end up being better."

If it's "potentially better" why has virtually ALL table-top RPGs ever made ended up with "dice" in some capacity? The obvious assumption is that at some point somebody tried to make a RPG that wasn't based on some version of a RNG and the general consensus was "this sucks".

Project_Hero wrote:

That's more or less what I'm getting from you here.

Uh, yes.

Project_Hero wrote:

And you don't need a lot of complicated mechanics. You can just lower all damage by a certain percentage to compensate for the miss chance. Done. That's the quickest and dirtiest way to remove a miss chance.

So you'd be fine with a system that was based on everyone auto-hitting as long as ALL the attacks only did like 1 HP Damage per hit? Wow great solution there...

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Atama
Atama's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 22:32
I can’t even with 100%

I can’t even with 100% certainty sip from a glass every time. Sometimes I fumble. That’s why I keep a napkin handy!

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
I've seen varient rules for D

I've seen varient rules for D&D that turn AC into damage reduction. Gee look at that, lowered damage that isn't an auto hitting 1hp attack.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

I've seen varient rules for D&D that turn AC into damage reduction. Gee look at that, lowered damage that isn't an auto hitting 1hp attack.

But! But! I thought variant/house rules were EVIL. Isn't that what makes 5e so wonderful because you don't need any extra evil house rules? ;)

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Wolfgang8565
Wolfgang8565's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 5 min ago
Developer
Joined: 10/31/2014 - 14:51
Still going on with this? I

Still going on with this? I think Project Hero is just trolling at this point.

-----------

Graphic Designer

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Never said or claimed that

Never said or claimed that house rules were evil. Also I think this varient was in an Unearthed Arcana as a varient rule.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Wolfgang8565 wrote:
Wolfgang8565 wrote:

Still going on with this? I think Project Hero is just trolling at this point.

I'm the one trolling?

Yeah. Ok.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
Wolfgang8565 wrote:

Still going on with this? I think Project Hero is just trolling at this point.

I'm the one trolling?

Yeah. Ok.

Darn! I wanted to be accused of trolling this one to maintain my Dev-imposed "chronic terrible behavior" title... ;)

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

rookslide
rookslide's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 54 min ago
kickstarter
Joined: 09/25/2013 - 10:26
Maybe they are both trolling

Maybe they are both trolling and their lines are hung up now! Can’t get out without cutting a line!;-)

"A sad spectacle. If they be inhabited, what a scope for misery and folly. If they be not inhabited, what a waste of space." ~ Thomas Carlyle

Wolfgang8565
Wolfgang8565's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 5 min ago
Developer
Joined: 10/31/2014 - 14:51
I'm sure you'll get your turn

I'm sure you'll get your turn soon Lothic. :)

-----------

Graphic Designer

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Wolfgang8565 wrote:
Wolfgang8565 wrote:

I'm sure you'll get your turn soon Lothic. :)

Thanks. As long as I know I'm still in contention I can turn on the "Maximum Effort" to do better. :)

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Atama
Atama's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 22:32
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
Wolfgang8565 wrote:

Still going on with this? I think Project Hero is just trolling at this point.

I'm the one trolling?

Yeah. Ok.

Darn! I wanted to be accused of trolling this one to maintain my Dev-imposed "chronic terrible behavior" title... ;)

Asking to be accused of trolling is clearly trolling!!!

(There you go Lothic.)

dreamcatcher
dreamcatcher's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 23 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/03/2013 - 17:12
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:
dreamcatcher wrote:
Lothic wrote:

A system like AD&D is "subtle" about it because it mostly allows the DM to control just how much happens "automatically" or not. The problem with enshrining that kind of stuff into the rules (like d20 and/or 5e manages to do) is that, well, it becomes enshrined in the rules and when the DM wants to do something differently he/she is suddenly having to "break the rules" to make things work the way they want.

Ironically the point is that the more you codify into the basic rules of a game system the more the DM has to "fight" those rules to suit their needs. It may be counter-intuitive to some people, but I've seen it in practice too many times not to accept the general validity of the notion.

No, its baked into the rules in AD&D. 100% Pick Pockets is 100%. High enough stats make you immune to certain conditions or spell effects; no roll, no rng. Being certain races provides similar benefits. Certain spells provide automatic success, with no defense,

No DM worth their salt should ever let things "happen automatically" just because the rules said they ought to. There's always "something" that should/could modify chances based on circumstances. Sure if a 20th level thief is pickpocketing a 1st level guy then yeah maybe the DM would allow an auto-success for that. But if that same 20th level thief was trying to pickpocket a 40th level magic user there's no way the DM should let that be 100% regardless of what any book says.

The key point is that the DM allows/disallows these things, not a rule in a book.

dreamcatcher wrote:

like Magic Missile, same as in 5e. I like how you ignored that in earlier dialogue.

Actually I specifically pointed out how that was "balanced" because you could only cast a certain number of those per day. If a magic user could cast an unlimited number of magic missiles per day there would be absolutely no way they'd be allowed to be auto-hit. Again this point was in reference to the idea of having "auto-hit" powers in a game like CoT without considering any effect of related buffs/debuffs.

dreamcatcher wrote:

That's just the surface stuff. With the books on hand and some time I could put together a pretty long list.

And my point would be the same: No DM should ever let a player "rules lawyer" him/her into thinking that "auto-success" is a forgone certainty.

dreamcatcher wrote:

If you have an opinion, cool, and you have a preference, also cool, but ignoring inconvenient aspects of the system in favour of pushing your argument is uncool.

Again you've simply missed the -actual- point of my original argument: The DM ALWAYS has the final word regardless of how many "auto-success" features are printed in a book. I simply think d20/WotC takes the "subtle" idea of auto-success and tries to make it something that ought to happen as often as possible.

dreamcatcher wrote:

As stated, I prefer 2e myself, but I also recognise it's downsides or similarities to systems I'm less fond of, because that's the reality.

Again even if both systems "allow" for auto-successes one system unfortunately glorifies the concept as something that should be fundamentally happening as much as possible instead of being a "special case only" thing.

You were the originator of the argument that one system is better than another so to back step and shift the focus to a supposed ideal of behaviour is disingenuous at best.

Defaulting to a facile argument based on the principle of a DM (correctly) having the final say is just an excuse for validating your point of view. I could use the same argument for any role-playing system in existence to counter your complaints about those systems, and you would have no valid counterargument. So that's a pointless excercise.

Your statements about 5e are clearly emotional in context and not based in fact. They represent your own personal bias, which you're entitled to, but I'm hardly going to treat it as de facto truth, and neither should anyone else.

As to how this relates to your original point of view on auto-hit systems, your general opinion on the matter has been exceedingly clear since your first post; it simply wasn't relevant to my point of contention regarding your fallacious argument.

Moreover, I think your use of DnD a poor choice to make your point, since the system is fundamentally based on a set of principles which should no longer be governing our thinking when designing PC games, but that is just my opinion.

Personally, I will reserve judgement until I actually get my hands on the system. If it's fun and engaging, I won't care how it's done. If it isn't, I'll provide an appropriately critical analysis.

of Phoenix Rising
Am I

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
dreamcatcher wrote:
dreamcatcher wrote:

You were the originator of the argument that one system is better than another so to back step and shift the focus to a supposed ideal of behaviour is disingenuous at best.

Defaulting to a facile argument based on the principle of a DM (correctly) having the final say is just an excuse for validating your point of view. I could use the same argument for any role-playing system in existence to counter your complaints about those systems, and you would have no valid counterargument. So that's a pointless excercise.

Well I've only been playing dozens of table top RPG systems for a few decades now so what could I possibly know about the subject in general? As far as 5e goes I'm not actually sure that I've ever specifically claimed that any one specific version of DnD is "better" than the other. I've given plenty of reasons why my group has not bothered to adopt 5e and if you read into those reasons that I think 5e is necessarily the "inferior" product that might be your problem, not mine. I think I even acknowledged on this thread at one point that 5e has undeniably made a ton of money for WotC. I guess the ultimate definition of "success" is mostly based on the way each individual chooses to define that word. A simple analogy here is the movie industry - there are plenty of blockbuster movies that have made hundreds of millions that are critically considered among the worst movies ever made. Just saying.

dreamcatcher wrote:

Your statements about 5e are clearly emotional in context and not based in fact. They represent your own personal bias, which you're entitled to, but I'm hardly going to treat it as de facto truth, and neither should anyone else.

Anybody who's ever played (or at least read the books for and given thoughtful reflection on) virtually every version of DnD ever made since Chainmail like I have is going to have a learned opinion about which version(s) of the game they prefer. How would someone in my position NOT have an opinion on the matter? Your sad attempt to cast my knowledge and experience on the historical background on the subject as somehow merely an "emotional bias" that would imply my statements on the overall matter should be considered invalid is at least amusing in its audacity and impotence.

Yes, I've openly stated that my group and I don't prefer the last several WotC versions of the game. That's not an "emotional" position, it's simply a factual one. We don't think these rules are worth adopting for various completely legitimate reasons. Sorry to burst your apparent bubble on the idea that everyone must mindlessly love 5e just because WotC wants us to. *shrugs*

dreamcatcher wrote:

As to how this relates to your original point of view on auto-hit systems, your general opinion on the matter has been exceedingly clear since your first post; it simply wasn't relevant to my point of contention regarding your fallacious argument.

Calling various statements that you don't like "fake news" doesn't make it fake. Just makes it something you don't agree with. Please keep that point clear.

dreamcatcher wrote:

Moreover, I think your use of DnD a poor choice to make your point, since the system is fundamentally based on a set of principles which should no longer be governing our thinking when designing PC games, but that is just my opinion.

For what it's worth I never started down the path of referring to any version of DnD on this thread. I'm pretty sure I've basically been responding to Project_Hero's first mention of things "just automatically happening" in 5e as a relatively weak justification for why that's the way MMO's like CoT should work.

dreamcatcher wrote:

Personally, I will reserve judgement until I actually get my hands on the system. If it's fun and engaging, I won't care how it's done. If it isn't, I'll provide an appropriately critical analysis.

If CoT allows for "reasonable chances for failure" regardless of how the underlying mechanics of the game accomplishes that I'm sure it'll be fine. If it becomes too easy to sail through the game without any "overt sensation" of risk/challenge/accomplishment involved then it'll become boring and that would be unfortunate.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Doomguide
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/14/2014 - 21:05
Things like auto hitting

Things like auto hitting would also make some powers (in CoX) much less useful. Really need to hit with 'X' time to hit Build Up or Aim. Want to get away with having less Accuracy enhancements in your power, time to use Tactics etc. My Cold/Ice defender could pop a combo of powers (PBU, Aim and Tactics) and his To Hit was around +188% more than enough to land Benumb with no accuracy at all slotted. If he wanted to hit Mako while the guy was in Elude ...

The point of this is the lack of something in one area opens up the possibility of something else in a different area. Which in turn leads to more significant player choices overall as a result. Generally that's a good thing.

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 17 hours ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Doomguide wrote:
Doomguide wrote:

Things like auto hitting would also make some powers (in CoX) much less useful. Really need to hit with 'X' time to hit Build Up or Aim. Want to get away with having less Accuracy enhancements in your power, time to use Tactics etc. My Cold/Ice defender could pop a combo of powers (PBU, Aim and Tactics) and his To Hit was around +188% more than enough to land Benumb with no accuracy at all slotted. If he wanted to hit Mako while the guy was in Elude ...

The point of this is the lack of something in one area opens up the possibility of something else in a different area. Which in turn leads to more significant player choices overall as a result. Generally that's a good thing.

I think you have a point. Making accuracy less than 100% allows the existence of powers that have an accuracy increase in their description rather than requiring enhancements to add accuracy. And this in turns adds more factors that can be used in tweaking the game for play style, difficulty and balance.

However, now that the devs have already stated that accuracy will be 100% , I wonder if this is water under the bridge. We can still have powers that provide accuracy increase. In fact, in the 10% of powers we have already been shown there are already examples of powers that provide accuracy increases. For example, there is the following power from the Fighting Prowess melee set:

Quote:

Riposte (tier 4): A set utility that buffs the accuracy and damage of all abilities for a short duration. It also can allow for small portions of damage mitigated by any defense to be deflected back to a selected target within range which can trigger additional very light defense buffs. Recharge Extremely Long

So this level of tweakery is already part of the system.

Furthermore, I think this also simplifies the combat system by making accuracy vs. evasion an arms race of sorts. So rather hitting being the result of a random number generator, it is instead the result of the build strategy of the characters in question. In my opinion, I think this is a better place for the game to be.

I just hope that the effects of evasion and also of accuracy are significant enough to warrant slotting respective enhancements for them. A 2% increase is probably not going to be worth it, but a 20% chance definitely would.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
The devs have stated

The devs have stated somewhere that having over 100% accuracy will garner bonuses. Like I think crit chance?

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 17 hours ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

The devs have stated somewhere that having over 100% accuracy will garner bonuses. Like I think crit chance?

I should hope so, otherwise extra accuracy would be wasted.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 1 hour ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

The devs have stated somewhere that having over 100% accuracy will garner bonuses. Like I think crit chance?

I should hope so, otherwise extra accuracy would be wasted.

Don't remember them saying it needed to be over 100% for Accuracy to have other effects, just that it would provide more effects than just counteracting evasion (Protection?).

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 15 min ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
blacke4dawn wrote:
blacke4dawn wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

The devs have stated somewhere that having over 100% accuracy will garner bonuses. Like I think crit chance?

I should hope so, otherwise extra accuracy would be wasted.

Don't remember them saying it needed to be over 100% for Accuracy to have other effects, just that it would provide more effects than just counteracting evasion (Protection?).

The way it currently works is as Evasion results in a greater Evade chance, the Crit range actually begins to reduce.

Improving Accuracy not only reduces the Evade chance but then also reverts the reduced crit range.

Now a few things may be misunderstood about Accuracy and the hit chance.

The base system is that no matter the accuracy value, the power will hit. Miss chance is a separate function than Accuracy.

Miss chance is tied to your Awareness. Awareness is also connected to your Perception Range. Which also can effect your effective targeting range and also opposes Stealth.

Doing stuff like he old game did where the base miss rate was 25% for PCs (and then subsequently they add Beginner’s luck tonoff set that because people hated missing in the beginning and eventually could slot to offset the reduced Beginner’s Luck until it was gone). More importantly, for the vast majority of the game, to-hit buffs, and accuracy existed to the point where most people had. 95% hit chance. Then, high school nd builds had built that out to deal with higher con foes and npc ranks making debuffs at the even-level con range irrelevant.

Be that as it may, our system says there is no base Miss Chance and a Power will hit with some varying degree effect, unless mitigating effects counter.

If we don’t want NPCs being hit every time, we give them some base Evasion value.

If a player character doesn’t want to be hit every time, they have several options at their disposal:

Evasion Reaerves, pick an Archetype with access to an Evasion based Power Set (this could be a Protection or Support Set), get an Evasion based Tertiary Set, craft or purchase from crafters an Evasion temp power, craft and stock a base buff station for temp buffs.

There are also other factors in mitigating effects: combining reduction effects. Having layered protections such as Subtraction, Defense, Resistance, and Regen or Healing can become quite potent. In a teamin environment it may not be out of the question between a player characters’ build and other powers on the team to have layered protections which result in very sufficient mitigation. Not to mention how Mastery Powers May come into play with the right combinations on a team.

One other key difference is that the old game was rather skewed in two different ways.

Players began to rely on building around avoiding being hit as much as possible because it was more efficient for sustainment. The devs ended up designing around this. One dev said (after the shut down) that this was one of the mistakes they made allowing such builds to occur and not coaxing players to build other efficient ways of gaining sustain.

Meanwhile most npcs were designed with the intent to be hit and reduce that damage with very little exceptions to this design. Resulting in relying upon to-hit debuff as the most effective means of reducing player capability of being hit.

We are attempting to build ina way where there is more than one “best” option to play and more than one way for us to design encounters.

With the above example of using a couple of self buff powers and slotting to achieve s high degree of to-hit / accuracy combo which - no matter what could still miss, and for the most part was over kill for the situation, now there may be certain encounters or moments in encounters where stacking accuracy bonuses actually means something other than not having to slot accuracy in the first place.

Now you don’t have to slot for it as a basic way to play but there may be a darn good reason for stacking up certain powers for that improved accuracy.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.

Pages