D&D Next

[GreenGoo]

Perhaps, but the game is hardly balanced as is, and if you're going to critically fail when flailing about 5 times a round, then you get what you get, especially if you can critically succeed too.

Anyway, wasn't a serious suggestion. However, I don't think we need random inspirations propping up the occasional miss either.

[Blackhawk]

Perhaps, but the game is hardly balanced as is, and if you're going to critically fail when flailing about 5 times a round, then you get what you get, especially if you can critically succeed too.

Not when it majorly impacts one character in a party and not the others - that kind of rule doesn't make for a good experience. It also creates a scenario where the better a warrior gets, the more skilled they get, the faster they get, the more they are going to suffer a mishap (because they're attacking more often.) Having a master warrior seriously screw up once every 24 seconds is... not good.

[GreenGoo]

Perhaps, but having disadvantage on 1 of 5 attacks is hardly much of a disadvantage. If you don't want to punish the entire party for mr. ginsu critically failing twice in a row, make it 3 times. Or 4. Or have it spread like a plague from 1 party member to the next.

[Blackhawk]

1 in 20 attacks, at four or five attacks per round. And Disadvantage is, mathematically, a huge penalty.

And for those classes that use extra attacks, those extra attacks are the source of increasing damage as they level, while a caster gains damage directly (they gain extra magic missiles, more powerful fireballs, etc.)

Now, as an alternative, give a character that rolls a 1 the option to take a penalty in exchange for Inspiration, but that penalty has to be narrated by the player in a suitable manner to qualify.

[GreenGoo]

1 in 20 attacks, at four or five attacks per round. And Disadvantage is, mathematically, a huge penalty.

And for those classes that use extra attacks, those extra attacks are the source of increasing damage as they level, while a caster gains damage directly (they gain extra magic missiles, more powerful fireballs, etc.)

Huge penalty on 20% of the attacks he/she gets, for the next round only. We know it's a penalty. That's the point. Let's say that disadvantage is always a miss (mathematically it's not, but let's say), that means his attacks are reduced by 20% for a single round. How ever will he survive?

My original point was that 5e is already weighted heavily in the players favour, and this snowballs as they level. You're arguing that it's unfair to ginsu bros because other classes aren't equally penalized. So what?

Or you can mitigate a bad roll by giving inspiration to another party member. By the same math, you're giving inspiration out every 1 in 20 attacks, with 4 or 5 attacks per round. It will be raining inspiration. Unneeded and reduces the value of inspiration by the sheer abundance of them.

Not to mention rewarding the party for a single player making a single poor roll seems a bit...too easy, imo.

Now, as an alternative, give a character that rolls a 1 the option to take a penalty in exchange for Inspiration, but that penalty has to be narrated by the player in a suitable manner to qualify.

Perhaps, as narrative tools can be useful for sparking imagination, but I still feel that the game could use more ways to fail, or for failure to be more impactful. It's not like I'm calling for an instant crit hit next round *against* the player who crit failed.

[Blackhawk]

As long as the 'more ways to fail' is spread equally between the players (not the characters - the players), I'm fine with that. And there are lots of optional rules out there to make D&D grittier and more realistic (and if you want a game that is truly balanced between sides, realistic, and gritty, where players failing is a feature, you probably shouldn't be playing D&D - go play some Mythras or classic Warhammer.) I just can't get behind any rule that singles out one player for extra frustrations. Picking one or two players out to have a worse experience while the rest do not is a shitty thing to do. There are plenty of ways to add exciting failure to games that don't involve singling the same player out every time (see Fate.)

I'd also argue (yes, me) that combat encounters in D&D aren't balanced in favor of the players or against them.* That element of the balance is 100% in the hands of the GM, and is a big, big part of the session design process. If it plays out unbalanced in the players' favor, it's because the GM designed the encounters that way. If the players have no chance, it's because the GM designed the encounter that way. `

What really sets the balance in an encounter, more than damage numbers, more than total hit points, more than levels, is actions. As in how many actions each side is taking. Messing with the action economy (by penalizing some players who have characters whose design is built around more actions rather than more powerful actions) is more unbalancing than the simple penalty would suggest.

*Noting that D&D is heroic fantasy, and there is a certain amount of bias toward the players inherent in heroic fantasy. Without that bias, it wouldn't be heroic fantasy anymore. If the Stormtroopers can actually aim, Star Wars becomes The Expanse. Still good, but a completely different beast. A balanced encounter in heroic fantasy is going to result in the heroes winning at a cost, but winning nonetheless. It's why D&D has such lenient recovery rules - it allows the players to pay the price for being heroic over and over.

[GreenGoo]

Yes, balancing encounters is a design aspect, and not easy.

I'd say that there are enough rules systems in place to mitigate failure already.

The problem of course is that there are players who like playing soulsborn games with self imposed handicaps such as ironman, or even no hit, because souls-likes aren't hard enough for them, and other players who play games on story mode difficulty, and use guides for the "hard" parts.

There is no question D&D has moved away from the former (level 1 magic-users with a bad d4 hp roll) to the latter (max hp with death saves), as just a couple of examples. To be clear, both styles are completely valid. Everyone plays games for fun after all. How we define fun is obviously different for everyone.

I don't feel 5e needs to mitigate a bad roll for one player with a major bonus to another when it happens. It's not that I disagree with a "fight harder" rationale, it's that I disagree that a crit failure is much of a failure at all, especially if you get another 3-4 more attacks at the same time.

Both games can have balanced encounters. That doesn't make them equal as far as player success or failure is concerned. Or more clearly, what success or failure looks like.

[Blackhawk]

And now we're agreeing (mostly.) Way to ruin a good debate!

I don't feel 5e needs to mitigate a bad roll for one player with a major bonus to another when it happens. It's not that I disagree with a "fight harder" rationale, it's that I disagree that a crit failure is much of a failure at all, especially if you get another 3-4 more attacks at the same time.

Which is why, if you look at the 5e rules, there is no such thing as a 'critical failure.' That didn't survive from earlier editions. A natural 1 on an attack roll (and only on an attack roll) is a guaranteed miss regardless of stats. It also causes extra owies on death saves. And that's it. Ability checks? "Make me a DC 11 Acrobatics (Dex) check with a +3 bonus." *player rolls a 1* "With the +3 bonus and your +8 skill, that's a 12. You succeed."

A 1 is an automatic miss on attacks, or a 1 is just another number on the die. That's all.

The problem of course is that there are players who like playing soulsborn games with self imposed handicaps such as ironman, or even no hit, because souls-likes aren't hard enough for them, and other players who play games on story mode difficulty, and use guides for the "hard" parts.

There is no question D&D has moved away from the former (level 1 magic-users with a bad d4 hp roll) to the latter (max hp with death saves), as just a couple of examples. To be clear, both styles are completely valid. Everyone plays games for fun after all. How we define fun is obviously different for everyone.

I completely agree. But I'd add that trying to play a game that plays like the former with a system that isn't designed for it isn't a great approach. There are games that absolutely embrace that style and are great at it, but 5e isn't. 5e (along with Pathfinder 2 and Savage Worlds) is about action-movie heroics, and pushing it too far from that tends to result in a very clunky system. For the kind of gritty game you describe, look at Mythra, or GURPS, or Warhammer (older versions), or (based just on impressions) Shadow of the Demon Lord. Just like if you want to play a heavy narrative- and story-driven game, 5e isn't your best choice, as the rules will actually get in the way. Instead, look at Dungeon World or FATE. If you want both, maybe Burning Wheel.

Sure, you can drive enough wedges into D&D to play those styles of games, but it'll never work as well as one designed for it (sort of like trying to mod Skyrim into Kingdom Come: Deliverance - it'll work somewhat, but not well, and it will always feel forced.)

[Blackhawk]

As an aside, I just came across my house rules as they were when my group switched from D&D 5e to Pathfinder 2e (which gets the "D&D feel" better than 5e does.) This was where we ended up after five years. Most were discussed with the players and included with their approval, and some are more about how we play than actual mechanics. Included for the hell of it, screenshotted directly from my 5e OneNote notebook (due to the hassle of formatting things for the forum.)

Spoiler:

And here is my inspiration system, drawn from 5e's rules with some Savage Worlds concepts and flavor inspired by old Torg. I got 100 wooden disks and wrote the information on them (how many of each one there were is listed on the right.) A friend who also used my system did it on popsicle sticks in a cup, with the information on the end that was down.

Each player would start each session with 2. They'd get a new one every time they did something particularly cool that fit the scene, pulled off an exciting move (the kind of stuff that made the table cheer or laugh), did some roleplaying that pushed the story forward, good RP (like doing something detrimental to themselves because it was in-character), and just on the GM's whims. The idea was to get them constantly flowing back and forth. The overall bonuses were considerably reduced from vanilla Inspiration (although there were a few rare ones that were more powerful.)

Spoiler:

[GreenGoo]

Critical failure and guaranteed miss are synonymous in 5e, as far as I'm concerned. The conversation started when it was suggested that a guaranteed miss should have a positive result to mitigate it. Hell, in that version, you could call rolls of 1 a "critical inspiration" result if you want.

RPG's all have their own tone and game design goals. I don't think tweaking them is a problem. Clearly, you do not either. That's exactly what house rules are. It's hardly unreasonable to suggest moving the tone of a game in a direction you prefer. I don't see this as somehow problematic.

For some, they can move to dungeon crawl classics or old school essentials (I don't know anything about either of these, I just see them tossed around for old schoolers). For others, they can add inspiration on rolls of 1.

I find your pushback on all of this a bit odd. It's not like I spent any time coming up with the rule or expect you to like it. I just don't find your reasons why it's a problem to be compelling. There are 5+ versions of D&D and the next version is on its way. Some wildly different from others. Surely some alterations to 5e are not doomed to failure because of your reasoning.

[Blackhawk]

I am starting to wonder if I'm losing my ability to communicate ideas clearly, as the isn't the first time recently that someone has attributed me with something entirely different than what I argued. With everything else going on with my brain, I wouldn't be surprised. If so, I apologize.

Critical failure and guaranteed miss are synonymous in 5e, as far as I'm concerned.

And that's fine, and you're welcome to use it that way in your games, but the rules don't agree. Critical failure rules are a thing. They don't exist in this game.

The conversation started when it was suggested that a guaranteed miss should have a positive result to mitigate it.

And I didn't argue that doing so was a good idea. The only thing I argued against was your alternative, as it singles out individual players for different treatment.

RPG's all have their own tone and game design goals. I don't think tweaking them is a problem. Clearly, you do not either. That's exactly what house rules are. It's hardly unreasonable to suggest moving the tone of a game in a direction you prefer. I don't see this as somehow problematic.

Again, that's something I never contested. Moving the tone in the direction you (and your players) prefer isn't just reasonable, it's necessary. It's a key element of GMing. What I did say was that if you take it too far from what D&D was designed for, it gets clunky. Anyone's still free to do so. Of course they are. The other thing that I said is that for certain types of gameplay, there are systems on the market now that are designed around (or close to) those types of gameplay, and it makes more sense to use those. It's what they specialize in, and they have layer upon layer of mechanics designed to support those things. Not that anyone is required to or that they're somehow wrong if they don't.

I mean, if you want spaghetti so badly that you're altering your ramen to be more like spaghetti, that's your business. But I may point out that there's an equally affordable Italian place right next door. That doesn't mean that you can't still sit there putting ketchup on your ramen.

I find your pushback on all of this a bit odd. It's not like I spent any time coming up with the rule or expect you to like it. I just don't find your reasons why it's a problem to be compelling. There are 5+ versions of D&D and the next version is on its way. Some wildly different from others. Surely some alterations to 5e are not doomed to failure because of your reasoning.

Partially because it sounds like we were arguing about different points. And partially because the argument of whether penalties on 1s is a good thing or a bad thing is a discussion that's been debated and analyzed since the 5e playtest (back when the title of this thread was still accurate.) The end of all of that discussion is a pretty solid case (accepted by most, including most of the industry, which is why 5e changed it) that there's no way to make a penalty on poor attack rolls into a fair, useful rule when it applies heavily to some players, less to others, and not at all to still others.

But mostly because debating RPG rules is fun. It's part of the hobby. There are whole forums that consist mostly of people debating the fine points of the rules, what's a good idea, and what isn't.