@Axoren Hrm. I've seen conversations about this sort of thing but no, like, guides proper that I can recall. A lot of indie designers use Creative Commons licenses because they're pre-made and easy to understand, but I've seen some people saying that CC doesn't quite cover all the edges cases TTRPGs should be considering.
It's also useful to know that, broadly speaking, game mechanics aren't intellectual property: only a specific implementation of them is (usually, that means the text itself)
2
Of course there's also just... copyright... which is what you do if you don't want anybody else playing with your stuff. (but they can still do a defensible end-run around copyright by re-writing the concept in their own words, because that's transformative and you can't copyright ideas, only their expressions)
For example, 4e uses a lot of the d20 System mechanics but re-wrote them so that they're no longer licensed under the SRD.
Evil Hat consolidated its control of the Fate engine by re-writing the rules in-house; that's what Fate Core is.
@Glazius multiclassing is an option; anything in Xanathar's is an option. I don't permit hex blade patrons. They were an over correction to a few minor problems with pact of the blade.
As to 'warlock traps' the class loses some flexibility if the Short Rest pacing tool isn't applied.
how involved the patron is with the character is, I have seen, a table level decision. A few 'locks are quite involved, and a few are not in part due to DM energy level, or lack thereof
The Enchanted Forest Chronicles had a Frying Pan of Doom which, if wielded by the proper hero, turned anyone hit over the head with it into a gigantic poached egg.
I had a very interesting discussion with my players on the effects of the Zone of Truth in D&D 5e.
They have committed a murder \ killing in self defense and will be trialed for it and we talked about whether the Zone of Truth is balanced.
We were discussing the use of Zone of Truth as part of a ...
Hrm. Thinking about how a lot of great action scenes in films use environmental doom clocks, and a lot of mediocre ones use literal doom clocks, and whether there's a way to improve doom clock implementation in TRPGs by using that observation.
There are some table-level mechanics which come to mind, like 13th Age's escalation dice. And one of the things that excites me about Sun's Ransom is that it has a physical doom clock on the table which is also the countdown to success and directly represents the narrative link between them within the story.
@AncientSwordRage Falsy strings include "no", "nay", "naynay", "nope", "hellnaw", "nowayjose"
@Glazius that's an interesting observation
@BESW This is very important to know! (What should be common knowledge but isn't is that this applies also to concept-level of fiction: in particular, rip-offs that are original writing of their author are not copyright infringement no matter how badly stolen the main plot is)
Thinking about the combat wheelchair vaguely reminds me of the Oddworld series of video games, where several of the portrayed species have (from our point of view) unusual limb arrangements causing them to prefer non-walking locomotion, and at least one game has one of the protagonists use a wheelchair to increase their mobility
@Glazius I'm actually puzzled why the Warlock template doesn't 'mechanise' the pact's other side of the coin. In other systems it would be an opportunity for a mechanisation - perhaps a Duty (and possibly other traits) in GURPS, a Compel in FATE.
Well, because there really is no other side of the coin? Or rather, it's entirely up to the DM. In ultimate terms, Warlock isn't a notably more powerful class for a dedicated player.
Okay, I'll elaborate. DnD has historically had the problem that whenever you have classes with trade-offs like this, either players come up with ways to bypass or seriously mitigate the "but", in which case they wind up with overpowered characters who circumvent their obligations on uninteresting technicalities, or they try to play them straight, which often results in annoyance to themselves and their parties.
I'd say DnD is overall not a conducive framework for making this type of bargain consistently produce interesting enough results.
@vicky_molokh-unsilenceMonica D&D 5E has the same free-form multiclassing that 3E did where you can gain a level from any class when you level up, and all its associated powers. For that reason a lot of classes split up their "beginning abilities" over the first three levels. I think it's two levels of Warlock that gets you a decent amount of utility from the Warlock's kit? Since a lot of their abilities are written to scale off total character level rather than warlock level specifically.
Finally, this is partially conjecture on my part but it's always seemed to me that after the memetic backlash against the relatively regimented DnD 4e, WotC adopted a policy of making their game mechanics as laissez-faire as possible. They've done away with a lot of rules that rule out or hinder certain playstyles explicitly, and instead they have this thing where the books kinda suggest that this and that may happen if you rebel against your patron or violate your oaths...
...but it's all up to the GM so no one's actually forced into playing it that way. Except maybe by their GM :-)
I've always wondered about "Duty" picks in games like, hmm... Deadlands:Reloaded springs to mind? I'm working off memory here so pardon if there are any inconsistencies on my part here
So DL:RL is based on the Savage Worlds engine. You can get extra points in character building by picking Hindrances, IIRC the maximum is one major, one minor (you can choose more, but no extra points for that by what I recall).
Some of the Hindrances are fairly clear mechanical things: eg. my character had a phobia of cats, causing me to suffer a -2 malus on all rolls when cats were present. (Phobia can be picked as a major hindrance too, which causes more substantial effects)
Other hindrances are very fiction-specific and more narratively interesting: eg. your character can be Wanted, or Ill (even terminally so), or have a Duty.
So one of the things I always wanted to know is... DL:RL is a fairly DnD-like game in the sense that combat is dangerous and can take a while (especially so before the stun rule patch). So usually you'd want the player characters together. How is one supposed to reconcile a character's Duty obligation with other characters who don't share that Duty? the books never told me.
One example is being in the military, so I guess if someone wants to play a soldier, then everyone else should too or just be comfy hanging around the garrison until the soldier gets R&R for monster hunting.
Anyway end of our anecdote: since the game rewards picking Hindrances but there wasn't a particularly established framework* for rewarding them showing, we had a party where most had the Major Hindrance of being illiterate.
(* the book, I recall, suggests awarding Fate Chips to players role-playing their Hindrances, but it is treated as a GM purview thing much like DnD 5e Inspiration, rather than a real mechanic like Compels are in Fate)
For part-time duties? Pretty much the same way you always do with other traits, I'd imagine. Like when part of the PCs has wings and part doesn't. Or when one PC has an Enemy. Or like when not all PCs can swim. Or when some PCs have additional objectives in a mission.
For full-time duties? I don't think a full-time duty is appropriate unless the campaign is set in a garrison or the like. Obviously Disadvantage pick appropriateness varies by campaign.
@vicky_molokh-unsilenceMonica The real challenge is to make those part-time duties feel like they're a Hindrance (specifically, a Hindrance to the player who took it instead of the whole party)
@kviiri Yeah, this is one of those "ad hoc balance character power with RP requirements" things that doesn't work out. Especially in earlier examples of it, I can't remember one system that actually offered non-adversarial guidance for how to actually do it. It was just... assumed that a good GM would know.
I mean, if we're being technical, Fate doesn't really offer guidance for how to actually do it either. If somebody's playing Karrin Murphy, the GM could just attempt to compel her out of literally every scene in the adventure by pulling on Unbelieving Bureaucracy and saying that the force is stretched thin right now thanks to POLICE_REASON_X so she's a desk jockey for Homicide until further notice.
But that's a bullshit thing to do to somebody who's supposed to be part of the main cast of a story.
But a neat thing that could happen in a story is that she can't be there for an early investigative scene where her presence would make things go a lot smoother, and everybody else has to work out how to make do without her.
To make that specific scene happen you'd compel her out of it probably in the same way.
@kviiri This is a challenge, but so is ensuring that positive traits become a benefit for the PC and not for the whole party (one of the more famous examples: one PC takes Wealth/Resources/Independent Income/&c.). For things like Duties, it's usually achieved by giving objectives that (a) the PC can do without external help and (b) if help is gotten from the others, then the two-way street of help is kept in mind.
(And if all PCs help each other with one another's flaws, always as a two-way street, there is no problem.)
In mission-driven campaigns, such a Duty should probably often be in form of additional objectives that only apply to the Duty-bound PC, in addition to the general mission objectives.
So e.g. 'Everyone must perform Hostile Extraction and return to the Evac Vehicle; also Alex needs to Playtest This Zap Gun From R&D in the process'.
@Glazius Well there my heuristic is usually 'is this Compel worth about as much as a single Invocation'? Unfortunately, IME as a player, Compels often seem like their oomph far exceeds the worth of one Invocation, so it's at times smarter to just refuse.
@vicky_molokh-unsilenceMonica ...oh, huh. It's not in Core. Weird. It was older tech that was also around in Robo - when the GM thinks it's important they can compel with N > 1 points, and the PC either spends N or takes N.
@BESW But yeah, that's the missing piece. You have infinite plot juice and are responsible to the table for how you use it, because it's always your call to use it. You're not being tasked by the rules to be the balancing factor to player power.
@vicky_molokh-unsilenceMonica That's the one, yeah.
But... again, that's the only window on it, it's not an option otherwise.
@Glazius The warlock multiclass (dip/splash, take one/two/three levels) is a power gamer's multiclass technique in 5e to take advantage of cantrips scaling with total PC level, not 'level within the class' such that the incremental increase (at level 5, 11, 17) of power from Eldritch Blast comes along with very few levels of warlock taken. Example being Paladin 9 Warlock 2 gets the same eldritch blast power as Warlock 11.
@Glazius Beyond that, WoTC made a slight over correction to perceived problems with the Pact of the Blade with the Hexblade Warlock patron that offered to sub in Charisma stat for all attacks, making Dex and Strength irrelevant. (Single Ability Dependency). This makes the "splash/dip" into that particular sub class almost a meme ...
@KorvinStarmast 'Why would you want to stick to your chosen class' is certainly a question which, if asked too often, is a sign of something being off.
@vicky_molokh-unsilenceMonica There are a number of interesting RP reasons to multiclass, and there are some mechanical reasons to do the same (I did a Monk 1 Druid X a while back since I wanted the AC boost, but he did have the hermit background), and there are sometimes emergent reasons (as the campaign progresses) where a character feels moved to branch out. In our weekend group, we lost the rogue player to real life and our cleric player retired his cleric. He brought in a MC Sorcerer/Warlock whose MC...
... was wholly based on narrative issues with a Shadow Lord the party had been dealing with. (Some kind of shadowfell demon thing the DM dreamed up) That shadow lord's rival is our Warlock/Sorc's patron
@KorvinStarmast I meant the opposite. 'So you got your Eddy Blast, why do you stay a Warlock afterwards?' and 'You got Spell Level 5 and all the spells you need, why stay a Warlock afterwards?' are questions that seem to pop up from time to time, and that seems like not a good sign to me.
@vicky_molokh-unsilenceMonica vicky, most classes in D&D 5e are a little bit front loaded, and not all capstones (level 20 abilities) are of equal value. (The Bard 20th level capstone is underwhelming, to say the least)
How was multiclassing in 4e? Was it overpowered because some classes were front-loaded (as in 5e), or underpowered because it required multiple level dips before unlocking anything useful (as in 3.5e)? Or was it an actual lateral shift in power that offered a reasonable level-for-level tradeoff?
@AncientSwordRage When it comes to high level one shots, I tend to choose Monk since I don't need any magical weapons to bypass immunities and resistances, I can move all over the map, and stunning things helps the rest of the party a lot. Personal Preference.
@MikeQ You couldn't multiclass. You took a feat that gave you a junior version of another class's starting abilities, and that unlocked being able to take feats that let you swap out an encounter/daily/utility power for your multiclass, and the paragon paths and feats from your multiclass.
There was also "paragon multiclassing" which gave up the customary critical hit rider and action point rider from a paragon path in order to get an at-will from your multiclass and your paragon powers from the multiclass instead.
While I am not a huge fan of 5e multiclassing, I like the flexibility if offers to players and DMs in terms of variety; and in any case power gamers are gonna power game. That's a human behavior thing, not a game mechanics thing
One of the narratively consistent MCs that I had put together (campaign Died, so it's no longer active) was a Paladin, Oath of Ancients, Warlock, Archfey Patron, Chain Pact. My hope was to get to Paladin 7 Warlock 3 by 10th level. But we didn't get to level 10 before RL intervened...
@KorvinStarmast Imagine the full-caster prestige class problem, but instead with every class. The structure of powers meant that trading out powers from your main class was the only mechanically sound way to get it done.
@MikeQ So, the thing 4e called "multiclass" was as Glazius explains above; but there was a provision for something much more mechanically similar to 3e-style multiclassing.
It was called "hybrid," and it was a choice you made at level one which affected every choice thereafter: you pick two classes and get most of the main features of each, but some were truncated or left out. You then qualified as both classes for all feats, paragon paths, items, etc., and every time you got to choose a class power you could choose from either class's list.
Hybrid classes tended to be awful if you just went into them on a whim; taking the multiclass feat was often much better because hybridizing only worked if you had a clear plan that relied on the synergies of the two classes, while multiclassing tended to open up options without closing doors.
But if you had a specific vision for the character.... I saw some absolutely wild hybrid builds.
Troggy made very good use of multiclassing into paladin as a warlock; he got the paladin's "if you attack anyone except me, you take damage and a penalty to hit" as a once-per-encounter power instead of an at-will power, and his warlock pact gave him an at-will that made him invisible for one round to whoever he hit.
And I used hybriding to make a character for a friend who wanted to never roll an attack, which was impossible to do without full access to the power list of two different classes.
Yeah, hybrids gave you free power selection but in exchange your starting class features were a cut-down version of class features from both your classes, and you could spend feats to get them back.
Hybriding worked really well or not at all, it was the only real case of "trap" options in the whole edition (with the arguable exception of two classes, one of which is the one that was better off as a multiclass feat). But I don't consider it a trap because it was clearly labeled "USE WITH CAUTION MAY EXPLODE."
Pathfinder hybrid classes were way different than the 4e hybrid classes. They were all full progression, and most of them had some thing that made them a unique choice, rather than just being an alternate form of multiclassing
Hybriding a rogue and a ranger also produced the only 4e character I ever had to ask to retire because it was too powerful and made the rest of the group have less fun.
It exploited one of the rare cases of a later 4e gimmick retroactively supercharging an earlier one beyond reason: Essentials made a new Ranger class whose powers still counted as Ranger powers but instead of being their own attacks, they had the character use basic ranged attacks with extra bonuses.
Like the Brawler (Fighter/Monk hybrid) had the ability to pick up half a dozen combat feats at will for a number of rounds per day, or the Investigator (alchemist/rogue hybrid) which had the ability to roll exploding d6's on certain skill checks
Which my friend combined with a set of rogue feats and weapon choices that, together, let him spam multiple attacks which inflicted multiple powerful debuffs in exchange for reducing the damage he dealt.
He could make a target slowed, immobilized, prone, dazed, and unable to teleport.
never used it but the gimmick was building to charge as often as possible (there was a fairy feat that you could take that gave combat advantage whenever you charge, sneak attack triggers on combat advantage)
plus all the feats that synergize with charging, and all the things you could branch off from that, the damage and combat utility was stupid XD
definitely a one trick pony to be fair, but so was that ranger really
I'm shocked, shocked, that charge builds were busted in 4e (Well, not actually, since charge builds have been busted in every singe edition with charging rules)
I found hybrids distasteful if only because I have an innate dislike for when multiple systems start to occupy the same region of in-universe conceptual space
And we collaborated on a scary push-and-punish Fighter whose core was pure Fighter; we only gave him a multiclass feat to get him to qualify for a PrC.
the push fighter was also single class until he picked up a multiclass feat that he didn't strictly need for the push build really
@BESW jinx
XD
not that I'm saying he shouldn't have taken it or anything, I think it was a good choice
but if we were only trying to do a push fighter mechanically and weren't making any choices at all based off of anything else he would have been perfectly min maxed as a single class fighter anyway
I once made a Shaman who multiclassed into Cleric despite being in a setting where access to divine powers was literally impossible, because I found an alternative multiclass feat which technically-if-you-squinted let me instead get item proficiencies from it.
In pathfinder, I once played an alchemist that had, through the means of a several feats long chain, gained the Pounce ability (it lets you make a full attack when you charge), and through an archetype, granted himself full progression Sneak Attack in place of his standard bombs. He would then proceed to use Beast Shape to polymorph himself into an octopus, "sprint" at the enemy, and hit them for 8 attacks of basically irrelevant base damage, plus 5d6 SA damage on a hit
and avoid mediocre or downright terrible choices like picking seeker or vampire
To be fair, you could have made a serviceable seeker, but that would be with the same level of effort it would take to make a very powerful character with almost any other class
Vampire though,.. vampire was a ridiculous mess
I couldn't even tell you how powerful you could make one
Vampire felt like it would be much more powerful in a campaign with less focus on tactical combat than 4e generally assumed. Which was a very interesting choice, and I would've appreciated it more if it'd been clearly labelled as such.
It was a lot of cool stuff that just didn't synergize tactically the way other classes did with their features.
@NautArch I think that the problem is that the two wizards (the players) are tactically inept. He ought to have one controller ally and one ranged attacker ally, but it seems he feels that they aren't picking up their share of the workload. So my guess is "party optimization and coordination" problem
@KorvinStarmast There's definitely some of that, too - and the question is odder when they ask for multiclassing ideas, but also say the DM doesn't want that.
@KorvinStarmast I'll let someone else give you the official answer, but technically you can't 'help' the hand, it's not a creature.
The thing about the vampire was that if you were taking any damage at all, you had to be spending more of your tactical choices on surviving than on winning, compared to any other class.
And if you weren't taking damage, most of your tactical choices were useless.
Outside of tactical interactions, though, you had all the cool vampire stuff like shapechanging, in a couple of different flavors depending on whether you wanted to be the suave manipulator type or the feral predator type.
And the problem with the seeker was that its specialty was supposed to be control: imposing debuffs and/or dealing damage to multiple targets. But the effectiveness of its debuffs lagged three or five levels behind other controller classes and its multi-target abilities were limited and/or unreliable compared to other controllers.
That is, while other controllers were learning how to stop enemies from moving, the seeker was still just slowing them down; while other controllers were attacking every creature in nine squares, the seeker was attacking up to three creatures provided the first two attacks didn't miss. And so on.
@NautArch yeah, I suspected that it's a step too far. Not enough stats to qualify as a creature, and 'hand is an object' but it is doing what a creature does ... and it's also a magical effect ...
(On the other hand, the fact that it was so easy to see and define why and how the seeker failed to pass muster, is a testimony to 4e's design coherence.)
@NautArch yeah, but I wonder if, in the case of an ogre or a winter wolf, the Hand can help me. I guess not, since "help action" isn't one of the things the spell says that it does.
@NautArch And, I am old enough that talking to myself is almost expected, hence a self answer. 😂
I also figure that the question is useful since if I can think that it might work, someone else may likewise arrive at the same estimate ...
But what I wanted to be true is that my expertise rolls over into the Hand's shove ... but I can't find a way to make that true. I'll ask my DM, but he's most likely to roll his eyes and ask me if I want a burger with that cheese ...
@NautArch Not to you, sure, but OP hasnt clearly stated what problem they actually need help with
Theoretically, if I were creating a custom monster that had a healing touch ability, and wondered what the +N should be, I would find it helpful to know that 5/6 of extant examples followed a partiuclar pattern.
@NautArch I did not claim that it was what was actually going on.
> We cannot say "this is how it is supposed to be, and the example from Eberron is incorrect". We can only state factual observations about the existing data, as I have.
@NautArch Our answers are saying the same thing, but mine includes an survey of the existing data.
I think you can further support your answer, Thomas armor, by pointing out that half proficiency bonus is used somewhere else, so there's at least some sort of precedent
@NautArch actually, early in this site's 5e life someone offered an answer to show how double proficiency worked/expertise for monster ability scores ... so analysis of monster stats against known game values isn't an opinion. Informed analysis, by experts.
@NautArch Very much disagree; correlation is a form of support if one shows where it comes from. This is done all the time by comparing what one spell does with a similar spell in the 'similar but different' element of an answer
@NautArch No, taking what's published and applying both analysis and reasoning. part of a good answer is "well, if you thinkg there's a pattern there isn't, and here's why" ...
Though the discrepancy argues pretty firmly against the conclusion, I don't know that there is a better explanation available to us within scope of the question; maybe it should be closed for "needs more focus" to be properly answerable?
@NautArch FWIW, I think the approach you are taking is too literalist for the topic we address on this stack. (Don't disagree that we sometimes see patterns that may not be explicit nor mathematically rigorous)
@KorvinStarmast OP is specifically asking for how is this calculated. If we can't answer with a clearly supported method, then we shouldn't be guessing at patterns we see.
I think it's very easy to (implicitly) jump from "this pattern exists" to "it is intended". IIRC, that's one of the underlying issues which made designer intent off-topic
I play a puzzle game, and people have found hundreds of rabbit holes and patterns. In fact, the game even discusses historical examples of people finding patterns where (to most humans) there are none. Humans are exceptionally good at making meaning and this process is all but indistinguishable from actually finding meaning. Just go look at the history of science and phlogiston and newton's physics and so on... We find patterns, a lot
@ThomasMarkov Okay, I may be a bit harsh and I'm backing down :) But I do think you should lead with the unknown and not with the pattern.
@KorvinStarmast That was y first comment to them. I have a feeling they are wanting to use this for their own NPC and trying to figure out how it was done.
But also, death of the author and all that jazz, what WotC intended may not matter at all. Time to find all possible patterns and run with it (which would be a really good answer ngl)
@NautArch Yeah, I saw the comment. And we have any number of answers that start with "it's not clear" or "rules are not specific" that is the same thing.
@Medix2 Actually, Naut's first comment to the asker is where my brain went: What Problem Are You Trying To Solve? (My brain was "why does this matter, just play the NPCs as they are or change them if you don't like them" but I don't want to get the DaleM treatment so I didn't answer)
@KorvinStarmast If they are making their own, an answer to that effect wouldn't be downvoted. But it's in how you say those things and how you support them.
@ThomasMarkov Still can't upvote, but I'm sure you fine with that :P I just think you're putting more emphasis on an incomplete observed pattern rather than the fact that we simply don't know.
@NautArch since they have not bothered to respond to your comment, nor mine that is along the same lines, I'll not bother. We have sufficient response at it is.
I just realized that I can't import my bard from one campaign to yours (on Beyond) where Ranger Hal is, which I tried to do last night since our DM only has core ... so I'll hand jam my Tasha's Tattoo and GFG into that char sheet and not try. We play on Foundry, and some of the others want my DDB updates in case they have to cover for me on a night when I can't make it. Blah.
From the Fairy (UA) race, Fey Passage:
You can squeeze through a space as narrow as 1 inch wide.
And the rules for squeezing in basic rules:
A creature can squeeze through a space that is large enough for a creature one size smaller than it. Thus, a Large creature can squeeze through a passage...
@BESW I'll let him know to look to 4e and Fate Core for that kind of licensing. I think the most important thing he'll want is being able to say "I made this", reserve the right to market it as a product in the future, and preserve the content he's including with the system. He has spent the past month writing over 200 distinct skills for something like 14 different class specifications, and he has the basis for a setting to accompany the setting.
He's done enough work that it would be a shame for someone else to take it wholesale and pass it off as their own because he didn't properly protect his IP
@BESW I just read that article, and the headline is a lie. It didn't go into the why at all, it just went on about it getting introduced and what the backlash was. The only thing it said in regards to the "why" was a throwaway line about "on the internet, there's always a vocal minority"
I can't imagine a combat wheelchair being used in the ways that they have them depicted. Wouldn't you fold up your wheelchair and put it on your back while you climb rope? It would make it much easier the climb the closer it is to your center of gravity. Very important considering you're doing all the work with your arms.
ABC News and many other news agencies often run A/B tests for article titles, giving a sub-sample of visitors one title and the remaining get the original. If the "B" title performs well in that sample, they change to it. The original article writer probably didn't have any say in the title as it is now and it's all due to the editor trying out spicier titles to maximize views.
I mean, the article wasn't bad (although it also wasn't especially good either), and the backlash definitely did happen and shouldn't have, but the articles title is misleading click-bait
@Axoren I haven't said anything about the person that wrote the article. All I've said is that the headline is a lie
