Survey (A5E) Survey Results #1: Broad Outlines

[Charlaquin]

I'm sure you can easily elaborate on "an assortment of fiddly ribbons"

Those were @Haldrik ’s words, not mine.

or even a good number of areas where the designspace left in 5e is not being utilized that could justify your claim that"There’s plenty of design space outside of +1 to hit. Don’t be silly."....

Sure. Take a look at the origins playtest packet. There’s a bunch of examples of character build options in there that don’t rely on micro-modifiers to d20 rolls, nor do they require an elaborate system of matrixes for determining difficulty class.

While doing so keep in mind that "plenty" implies a significant number so you should have no problem listing five or ten meaningful examples of design space since you are pulling from the entire system while I can name that many limiting myself to just weapons & armor 5e overly simplified from past editions alone & many of those allowed expanded designspace within other niche areas of the system.

...what are you even talking about?

 

[Haldrik]

I'm sure you can easily elaborate on "an assortment of fiddly ribbons".

Just in case you are asking for examples of "an assortment of fiddly ribbons":

Halffeat ≈ four proficiencies.

In place of a halffeat:

Choose four proficiencies from the following list.
• skill
• tool
• language
• one weapon of your choice (If you choose this option four times, you gain proficiency with all martial weapons and simple weapons.)
• shield
• light armor
• medium armor (if you have light)
• heavy armor (if you have medium)
• cantrip
• darkvision (costs two proficiencies)
• trance (aware of surroundings while resting)
• advantage to saves versus charm
• increase your maximum hit points by 1 point

And so on with many meaningful ribbons. Where a halffeat is about four proficiencies, a ribbon is one, two, or three proficiencies.

 

[Lanefan]

Can you give me an example of the design space that's not being utilized? As it is now, the advantage/disadvantage mechanic covers everything with a very broad brush.

The argument, I think, is that adv-disadv is both too broad a brush (i.e. used too often) and at the same time not broad enough (more granularity and range would be nice).

Usign a d20 roll as an example, all adv-disadv can do is skew the bell curve higher or lower while remaining within the range 1-20. Sometimes, however, it'd be nice to be able to get results outside this range with or without skewing the bell curve e.g. a straight +2 instead of advantage to push the linear d-20 range to 3-22, or - and here's a new twist - advantage AND +2 thus giving both a skewed bell curve and a 3-22 range.

This sort of thing - using adv-disadv, plus-minus, and any other modifiers one can find each individually or in combination for different situations - allows one the design space to tweak things far more finely than does simple adv-disadv. And yes, as a direct result this means there'll be times when a specific combination of factors leads to more complication due to a bunch of bonuses and-or penalties applying all at once; and if this happens occasionally then so be it. The trick is to make sure these overlaps don't happen as often as they did in 3e.

 

[glass]

Which I acknowledged in my post.

No, you didn't. But going back and re-reading your check I had not missed it, I did notice something else. You talk about situational modifiers (other than disadvantage) going into the DC - in otherwords, putting it all on the GM. Frankly, when I am GMing I have enough to think about!

There’s plenty of design space outside of +1 to hit. Don’t be silly.

It was not nonsense, and you’re being extremely disrespectful right now.

You started this tangent by accusing people who like PF2 of being "folks who like to fiddle", and later doubled down with comments like "don't be silly". When you show that level of disrepect, it is not ideal that people resond in kind, but it is also not all that surprising.

_
glass.

 

[Stalker0]

Usign a d20 roll as an example, all adv-disadv can do is skew the bell curve higher or lower while remaining within the range 1-20. Sometimes, however, it'd be nice to be able to get results outside this range with or without skewing the bell curve e.g. a straight +2 instead of advantage to push the linear d-20 range to 3-22, or - and here's a new twist - advantage AND +2 thus giving both a skewed bell curve and a 3-22 range.

This mechanics do exist in dnd, they are just rare. Look at Guidance, Bless, Bardic inspiration...there are ways to push past the bell curve, they are just intentionally rare and limited.

 

[Charlaquin]

No, you didn't.

In 5e, you do d20 + ability modifier + proficiency bonus and sometimes + item bonus.

It’s right there.

But going back and re-reading your check I had not missed it, I did notice something else. You talk about situational modifiers (other than disadvantage) going into the DC - in otherwords, putting it all on the GM. Frankly, when I am GMing I have enough to think about!

Yes, which is why 5e is also an improvement, because it makes DC setting much easier, which I also talked about in my earlier post.

You started this tangent by accusing people who like PF2 of being "folks who like to fiddle", and later doubled down with comments like "don't be silly". When you show that level of disrepect, it is not ideal that people resond in kind, but it is also not all that surprising.

First of all I didn’t start this tangent. I had said my piece nearly a month ago, and Haldrik quoted me again out of the blue. Second of all I did not “accuse” anyone of liking to fiddle. I said it’s a good thing that systems like PF2 exist for those who do like to fiddle. If you don’t like to fiddle, and you still like PF2, great. Have fun however you like. Third of all it is silly to claim that 5e doesn’t have the design space for character customization beyond descriptive details like hair and eye color.

 

[glass]

It’s right there.

That says nothing about those number in PF2 being precalculated (it says nothing about those number in PF2 at all, since it is talking about 5e).

_
glass.

 

[Charlaquin]

That says nothing about those number in PF2 being precalculated (it says nothing about those number in PF2 at all, since it is talking about 5e).

_
glass.

I see. I misunderstood your comment then. When I read,

The proficiency bonus, ability bonus, and item bonus are all precalculated and written onto the character sheet, just the same as they are in 5e.

I thought you were pointing out that both editions include proficiency bonus, ability bonus, and item bonus in the calculation, not that both editions include space on the character sheet to pre-calculate.

Yes, both editions do allow players to pre-calculate those three sources of bonus, which is why I said I don’t find those three sources of bonus particularly egregious. The bigger issue, as I said before is the conditional bonuses and penalties, status bonus and penalties, and “all other untyped penalties” part of the equation, which by nature can not be precalculated as they are situational.

 

[glass]

Yes, both editions do allow players to pre-calculate those three sources of bonus, which is why I said I don’t find those three sources of bonus particularly egregious.

So you were padding out the list of "fiddly math to do every time you roll a d20" to make PF2 appear worse than it was. Hence my calling you on it. EDIT: Anyway, this bickering has gone on more than long enough. I will not respond to you on this matter again unless you say something truely remarkable and unexpected.

_
glass.

 

[Charlaquin]

So you were padding out the list of "fiddly math to do every time you roll a d20" to make PF2 appear worse than it was. Hence my calling you on it. EDIT: Anyway, this bickering has gone on more than long enough. I will not respond to you on this matter again unless you say something truely remarkable and unexpected.

_
glass.

No, I listed them under the formula for checks in PF2 because that’s what the book does. I also listed them in 5e’s formula, in acknowledgment that they are part of the ability check math in 5e as well. Don’t assume intellectual dishonesty on the part of people who disagree with you.