The Campaign Builder's Guild

Yeah, it basically takes no risks.

It's perfectly serviceable, but so are most of the systems that came before it.

Quote from: sparkletwistFATE and other games that don't strongly stress advancement work this way and I actually rather like it; my advocacy of the "zero to hero" playstyle in this case more because of the weirdness (that you've already observed) with bounded accuracy seems to clash with what has seems like it has been the dominant D&D paradigm for quite a while now.

Absolutely.  It feels to me like the system is trying desperately to please everyone, to try and "unite the gamer clans" - here's our nostalgic AD&D vibe for the OSR people, Inspiration for the storygamers, encounter powers for the 4E players, a bit of char-op for the Pathfinder crowd.  Instead of having a vision and really going for it, 5E comes off as a bit aimless and doddering - defintiely trying to avoid what happened with 4E where there was definitely a vision, just a vision that most people really loathed.

HP is not a measurment of how many times you are actually getting hit, just a measure of how well you are doing in combat. As per the 5E rules, you do not experience any cuts or bruises until you are below half health.

Hit points seem bloated because they are, in a way. HP is how you define character growth. It looks like a lot of HP on paper but once you start fighting monsters, it dwindles quickly (and vice versa). A Red Dragon in the Playtest has an encounter level of 13, which means it is an acceptable challenge for a 13th level party.

First off, you need to beat his Frightful Presence, DC 14. Most characters will not have a WIS bonus or a proficiency bonus, so right off the bat they have a 35% chance of success to stay in melee with it. If they get past that, the Dragon can multi-attack on its turn. Let's say that it hits with all three attacks - there goes 73 HP. A fighter with a +2 CON and half HP has 98 HP, there goes 74% of his HP in a single turn.

The Dragon has 172 HP. The Fighter will lead off with 6 Attacks (3 normally and 3 more from Action Surge). He is probably going to hit with all of his attacks given that the Dragon only has 15 AC (4 STR + 4 Proficiency + 1 Sword = +9, so yeah, most will hit). So there goes 72 of the Dragon's HP (i.e. 41%) in a single round (not counting what the other PCs do).

The massive amount of HP is not the problem. Rocket Tag is. The first to act in initiative will have a decided advantage for the entire encounter.

As for the PDF, remember this is not a complete document. This is merely the first of many updates that will come over the course of 6 months. The document, as it stands right now, is a supplement to the Starter Set, which includes DMing advice, an adventure and monsters (most of whom have been pulled from the MM).

Just to preface this... I am sure some people can make this work for them, and I am just being cranky here.  But even when hyper-abstracted 5E HP makes no sense to me.

Quote from: Elemental ElfHP is not a measurment of how many times you are actually getting hit, just a measure of how well you are doing in combat. As per the 5E rules, you do not experience any cuts or bruises until you are below half health.

...

HP is how you define character growth.

That's kind of my point.

Ultimately HP are still about "durability" even if it's an abstract kind of durability (i.e. dodging attacks).  It used to be that character growth was represented by a whole host of stats going up.  Now it's basically one stat going up, and all that stat really determines is how long you can stay in a fight.

This has weird implications.  It means that Cure Wound spells and potions don't heal injuries half the time.  It means that Fast Healing and Regeneration don't just cause wounds to close rapidly, they rejuvenate a monster's luck and willpower.  It no longer makes sense that only Constitution adds to HP.  If HP really is just a means of measuring "how well you're doing in combat," HP should be modified by Strength (your melee skill - how well you're parrying blows), by Dexterity (how well you're dodging), by Wisdom (how well you read your surroundings, intuition, mental fortitude), even Intelligence (predicting an opponent's blows, psychologizing them).

Armour Class seems curiously redundant: shouldn't Armour really be providing Damage Reduction?

Even when you overburden HP to mean something so inclusive, some things can't really be abstracted away.

Let's say a low-Dex Fighter in heavy armour is charging not a Dragon but two Wizards each lobbing an 8d6 Fireball.  The Fighter has failed all his saves and is engulfed in a blaze of flame as he runs towards the Wizards with swords raised.  He used up his Indomitable uses earlier in the day so those're out but he was at full HP before the fireballs hit him.  He takes 56 damage, taking him down from 115 to 59.  He is still above half health.  According to the abstract nature of HP, despite the fact that this man has now been engulfed in a fiery inferno, he is basically unburned, he just feels a lot less plucky and lucky.  His mental durability has really suffered, but physically this man is fine.

Let's say the Fighter (now healed again, he killed those wizards who failed to burn him) falls into a 50 ft pit full of spikes, fails his reflex save, and loses half his health that way.  Again, are we supposed to believe that he's physically unhurt and not skewered on spikes?  "Man, the worst part of a fall isn't the broken bones - never been a problem for me, I'm lucky like that - it's the blow to my mental fortitude!"

I mean, this isn't unique to 5th edition, this is a problem in most editions of D&D, particularly the newer ones.  But now that HP is being afforded this unusual centrality it makes its general weirdness much more noticeable, IMO.

Quote from: Elemental_ElfHP is not a measurment of how many times you are actually getting hit, just a measure of how well you are doing in combat. As per the 5E rules, you do not experience any cuts or bruises until you are below half health.

Steerpike has done a good job of analyzing why this is kind of hard to wrap one's head around, and I generally agree with his analysis of the topic. It seems like the concepts of "Armor Class" and "Hit Points" strain verisimilitude even more in each iteration of D&D, and 5th edition is no exception.

Quote from: Elemental_ElfA Red Dragon in the Playtest has an encounter level of 13, which means it is an acceptable challenge for a 13th level party.

According to the tiers of play, a level 13 character has "reached a level of power that sets them high above the ordinary populace." The problem is, mathematically... they aren't, really. Bounded accuracy means that attack bonuses and ACs stay low, and the decision to gain most damage increases from an increasing number of iterative attacks means that it becomes blatantly transparent that a high level guy is not anything superlative at all, and often can't even do anything special that can't be done by a group of lower level guys.

For example, let's imagine our terrible dragon is attacking a village. Level 13 characters are of a tier whose members "often confront threats to whole regions and continents," according to the tiers of play. So we should assume this village is basically toast. Or is it? The village militia probably has a few level 1 fighters in it, so that's what I'll use as a benchmark. They aren't going to be stupid enough to try to melee the thing, and they likely can't with the way it's flying around anyway, so let's assume the village managed to round up some archers instead. So, that's a +2 proficiency bonus, +2 for specializing in archery, and we'll say +2 from Dex. They're hitting the dragon more than half the time. Meanwhile, some of the other villagers who can't fight are likely doing things to give them Advantage, which negates the dragon's fear effect, and if anyone is lucky enough to make their save, it is worth approximately +3, so at that point we've got basically +9, just like our level 13 guy! At 1d8+2 damage each time, they'll have to hit the dragon approximately 25 times to kill it; if the dragon is played at all intelligently, they'll scare it away long before that. A militia of 12 archers all blowing their action surge would send the dragon packing in one round. If the dragon gets its attacks off, some villagers will certainly be toast-- but this village of level 1 nobodies has an excellent shot at defending itself against a monster that is supposed to be a match for characters "high above the ordinary populace" who "often confront threats to whole regions and continents" and to me that shows the big problem with bounded accuracy. Epic monsters are just... not impressive.

in the original game, a hero (4th level) was the equal of 4 1st level fighters, a super hero (8th level) was worth 8 normal people.
That's extreme OSR.

A very sound analysis, sparkletwist.

Vreeg, I'm not sure I like the "level = number of people" equivalency because it means you can just replace a hero with a bunch of dudes.  I realize I'm coming more around to sparkletwist's way of thinking, here, in imagining higher level heroes as characters of different fundamental ability than lower-level characters.

I'm going to invoke Tolkien again because he provides so many useful models/examples for things.

Look at the scene where Smaug comes to torch Lake Town.  The impenetrability of Smaug's hide is of central importance, here: his armour is like "tenfold shields," and Smaug styles himself "the Impenetrable."  He is "armoured above above below with iron scales and hard gems."

The small gap in his armour is vital to defeating him, and Bard does it with one arrow.  The men of Lake Town just pelt him fruitlessly: "no arrow hindered Smaug or hurt him more than a fly from the marshes."

How would this translate into game terms?  Smaug's HP isn't that incredible but his AC is insane.  The low-level archers have no chance.  Only 1 in 20 even manages to hit and their damage is paltry.  The intelligence the bird gives Bard gives him an extra to-hit bonus against the dragon, but he still needs to actually hit that tiny spot - most archers would be incapable.  But Bard is a high-level character with Improved Critical and massive attack and damage bonuses with bows.  So with a single critical shot he manages to surpass Smaug's high AC and bring the beast down (maybe this was a case of Death from Massive Damage).

You can't just replace Bard with a bunch of archers.  They will all fail, because they lack Bard's near-preternatural bowmanship.

It's worth noting, though, that if Bard got hit by a fire-blast from Smaug before he managed to get that arrow off, he'd be toastville.  Nothing in the text indicates that Bard is tough or durable.  It's his skill with a bow that's important.  His HP doesn't need to be very high - it might not be much higher than that of the other archers.  It's his other skills that need to be heightened.

In 5E the archers of Lake Town would have a good chance of destroying Smaug in a few rounds.  They'd take heavy casualties but because they hit more frequently they can chip away at his HP till he dies.  The battle would essentially become a war of attrition between Smaug and the archers, where Smaug is trying to take out all the archers before being brought down.  But in the text, Smaug does not give a crap about the archers.  He's just burning and destroying for the hell of it and ignoring the arrows because they pose virtually no threat to him because he has like 32 AC or something.

5E is utterly incapable of playing that scene out, basically.  

a) D&D is always a poor match with Tolkien.  Saying you can't do Tolkien with D&D is like like using Bordeaux to measure the quality of McDonalds.

b) The number of men equivalent is not a suggestion or idea.  It is How Chainmail and 0D&D worked.  Not saying it is right or wrong, but it is how the game was created.  It;s right there, word for word, in the Fantasy Supplement for Chainmail.  Not saying it is right or wrong, but in terms of an actual feel, it is important information.

c) Your analysis of Bard and the Dragon is also incomplete.
Smaug was not any Red Dragon.  He was accounted in the LotR Appendices as being the greatest dragon of the time.  Greatest  Not some level 13 equiv.  Perhaps a regular dragon would have found the townsfolk much harder.
Also, Bard does not kill the dragon merely with his innate skill.  He has something else (other than a gigantic mad-on for thing that killed his grand-sire), a certain black Arrow that shares an uncanny similarity to Beleg's arrow Dailir.
http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Bard_the_Bowman
In D&D terms, I think we'd call this an arrow of Dragon Slaying.  A historical magic item, especially in a story like this, passed on from father to son, made by Thror...I think might be included as a factor in your equation, if one could equate D&D to tolkien.  Bard has a major item that may make up a lot of the difference.

Quote from: LordVreega) D&D is always a poor match with Tolkien.  Saying you can't do Tolkien with D&D is like like using Bordeaux to measure the quality of McDonalds.

Well, OK.  My example was extreme, too.  But we're designing a new edition, right?  To make the rules cooler.  We can throw out the stuff that we don't like.  We can aim for a meal fit for Bordeaux.  We don't need to be bound by what came before.  Otherwise just play a retroclone and be done with it.

Quote from: LordVreegThe number of men equivalent is not a suggestion or idea.  It is How Chainmail and 0D&D worked.  Not saying it is right or wrong, but it is how the game was created.

Oh, sure, I'm not saying your statement was incorrect with regards to old school D&D.  I'm saying that's not necessarily a good thing!  Surely the main point - perhaps the only real point - to a new edition is to provide a better rules-set, or at least a different one.

Quote from: LordVreegc) Your analysis of Bard and the Dragon is also incomplete.
Smaug was not any Red Dragon.  He was accounted in the LotR Appendices as being the greatest dragon of the time.  Greatest  Not some level 13 equiv.  Perhaps a regular dragon would have found the townsfolk much harder.

That's a good point, absolutely.  I agree the Arrow of Dragon-Slaying is a good match.  But the rest of the analysis basically stands: in 5E Smaug would probably be killed by the rank-and-file archers.  At the very least he'd be wounded by them.  You could stat up Smaug different in 5E, I guess, and give him a way higher AC or something, but you'd be going against the grain of 5E's design philosophy; you'd basically be porting in a monster with stats closer to those of a different system/edition.  Hard to say for sure till we see the Monster Manual, but given how miniscule attack bonuses are even at the highest levels I can't imagine that many monsters are going to have super-high ACs.  But I bet the big guys all have tons of HP.

The example is extreme, but what I'm trying to get at is that just scaling HP while keeping everything else fairly static does not lead to especially heroic scenes or particularly scary monsters.  What it does lead to are monsters that can be whittled down through attrition by large groups of inexperienced and ill-equipped warriors.

So... I seem to have maybe started this thread with a careless and hasty tavern post, but I'm ashamed to admit I've only read the last few posts which seem to be... mostly about AC and HP abstractions? Correct me if I'm missing something.

I've always had a bit of a problem with AC, and as for HP not representing actual physical damage, well, it seemed like a super cool idea when I first came across it but the more I think about it the less I like it. If I hit someone with my sword, I want them to get cut, know what I mean?

It's kind of that problem of how to handle damage that I was trying to address, clumsily, with my recent post about systems that take damage straight off core stats - that way you're not tracking just a falling number, but your character is actually getting tangibly hurt. The Riddle of Steel also has a different way of approaching this, by tracking both pain and blood loss during combat - but like most of the combat in that game it's all cool ideas but seemingly way more complex to put into practice than I'd like them to be.

In the end I think my personal solution with tradition HP systems is just to say yup, that does measure real damage. yup, you are just that tough that you can get stabbed 5 or 15 or 50 times or whatever and just carry. on. fighting.
Because as unbelievable as that is, it's somehow more believable to me personally, and DEFINITELY way cooler, than just going "well the troll hits you for 7 damage so you're... I guess just a little flustered by it"

When I said 5E looked good, I guess I was talking more about the broad strokes. I like the idea of a very stripped-down, basic core that can then be added to as much or as little as you want to customise your campaign. I even theoretically like the whole bounded accuracy thing - you're all talking like a level 10 guy being the equivalent of 10 level 1 guys is a bad thing. I think it's great. No, a level 10 character isn't a superhero, but he is definitely a hero. I know they essentially worded it completely wrong in their "tiers of play" thingy, but in my book anyone who can take on 10 dudes in a swordfight and potentially win is totally a hero. I guess that's kind of genre-dependant though.

The things that bothered me more in 5E were the storygamey elements. I get that as the biggest RPG going they're gonna want to have a little bit for everyone and also to maybe follow some recent trends, and I don't even blame them for it or think they've done it badly I just... I kind of wish it was one of the modular things, rather than something that shows up right there in basic. It doesn't feel very D&D to me.
That and, yes, I agree with you guys about the problems with HP.

But, as I sort of doubt I'll ever play 5E as written, the whole thing being perfect is less of an issue for me, I'm just happy that there are some nice ideas in there that I could potentially cherrypick.

Quote from: sparkletwist

Quote from: Elemental_ElfHP is not a measurement of how many times you are actually getting hit, just a measure of how well you are doing in combat. As per the 5E rules, you do not experience any cuts or bruises until you are below half health.

Steerpike has done a good job of analyzing why this is kind of hard to wrap one's head around, and I generally agree with his analysis of the topic. It seems like the concepts of "Armor Class" and "Hit Points" strain verisimilitude even more in each iteration of D&D, and 5th edition is no exception.

The systems may strain verisimilitude for you but most people do not have an issue with them, which is why it never seems to change. If we were to create a more realistic system, then you would have a dozen subsystems all interacting with one another, which is the exact opposite of simple. Personally, I would prefer a nicer middle ground with a system that would allow you to either dodge an attack or use your armor (which reduces damage). Then combine that with a higher lethality HP system where you have a tiny amount of wounds and a larger but still very finite amount of buffer HP that regenerates after each battle (so basically the Wound/Vitality system).

The problem with Hit Points is that they exist to create cinematic battles that last for more than a hit or two. The problem with that is that Wizards can end battles with a single spell, thus negating the cinematic nature of hit points. In addition, if HP becomes bloated then the system virtually requires iterative attacks to maintain the illusion of combat being deadly and keeping it flowing at a decent pace. Once that happens, you make it so that lower level characters have to sit there and whittle away at a higher level enemy for a long time to finally land the killing blow.

You could reduce monster HP but then player HP would have to be reduced as well. Regular Player Character death is not fun nor conducive to a table top RPG. The player characters would have to become uber-special godlings (a la Exalted) to compensate for the stilted mechanics. However that specialness removes many mundane character concepts.

There really isn't a good way to satisfy all parties here, hence why there are hundreds of games out there that tackles the problem in different ways.

Mike Mearls mentioned that the old Wound and Vitality Point system would be included in the DMG. I imagine quite a few people will be using that system. Hopefully they will include other variations on HP as well.

Quote from: sparkletwist

Quote from: Elemental_ElfA Red Dragon in the Playtest has an encounter level of 13, which means it is an acceptable challenge for a 13th level party.

According to the tiers of play, a level 13 character has "reached a level of power that sets them high above the ordinary populace." The problem is, mathematically... they aren't, really. Bounded accuracy means that attack bonuses and ACs stay low, and the decision to gain most damage increases from an increasing number of iterative attacks means that it becomes blatantly transparent that a high level guy is not anything superlative at all, and often can't even do anything special that can't be done by a group of lower level guys.

For example, let's imagine our terrible dragon is attacking a village. Level 13 characters are of a tier whose members "often confront threats to whole regions and continents," according to the tiers of play. So we should assume this village is basically toast. Or is it? The village militia probably has a few level 1 fighters in it, so that's what I'll use as a benchmark. They aren't going to be stupid enough to try to melee the thing, and they likely can't with the way it's flying around anyway, so let's assume the village managed to round up some archers instead. So, that's a +2 proficiency bonus, +2 for specializing in archery, and we'll say +2 from Dex. They're hitting the dragon more than half the time. Meanwhile, some of the other villagers who can't fight are likely doing things to give them Advantage, which negates the dragon's fear effect, and if anyone is lucky enough to make their save, it is worth approximately +3, so at that point we've got basically +9, just like our level 13 guy! At 1d8+2 damage each time, they'll have to hit the dragon approximately 25 times to kill it; if the dragon is played at all intelligently, they'll scare it away long before that. A militia of 12 archers all blowing their action surge would send the dragon packing in one round. If the dragon gets its attacks off, some villagers will certainly be toast-- but this village of level 1 nobodies has an excellent shot at defending itself against a monster that is supposed to be a match for characters "high above the ordinary populace" who "often confront threats to whole regions and continents" and to me that shows the big problem with bounded accuracy. Epic monsters are just... not impressive.

If it bugs you that much then give the Dragon DR 10/magic. Peasants cannot kill a dragon then.

Also, I do not believe the system was designed to account for hordes of peasants attacking and killing a Dragon, in the same way previous iterations of the game did not account for the fact that Dragons were so powerful that it made zero sense why the world was not ruled by them. In 3.x a Kingdom would only have a handful of characters in the teens, let alone approaching level 20. An elder Red Dragon comes down from his mountain cave, there is literally nothing the Kingdom can do to stop the Dragon, even if they threw their entire populous at the beast.

Neither system is perfect. The system you prefer comes down to whether you like high or low fantasy.


@The Smaug/Bard debate: Smaug is not the Red Dragon from the Monster Manual. He is a fully kitted out level 20 Dragon with class levels. If the idea of peasants chipping away at the Dragon's HP bothers you the, like I mentioned above, simply give it DR. It is a simple fix that ensures peasants cannot hurt it regularly and forces the game world to rely on brave adventurers and dudes with MacGiffin Arrows that pierces plot armor to eliminate such elder threats.

Quote from: KindlingSo... I seem to have maybe started this thread with a careless and hasty tavern post, but I'm ashamed to admit I've only read the last few posts which seem to be... mostly about AC and HP abstractions? Correct me if I'm missing something.

No worries.  We've also generally been discussing the way 5E handles leveling, different tiers of adventure, high level vs. low level, that kind of thing.  HP factors in heavily here because of the way 5E scales character stats.

Quote from: KindlingIn the end I think my personal solution with tradition HP systems is just to say yup, that does measure real damage. yup, you are just that tough that you can get stabbed 5 or 15 or 50 times or whatever and just carry. on. fighting.

Because as unbelievable as that is, it's somehow more believable to me personally, and DEFINITELY way cooler, than just going "well the troll hits you for 7 damage so you're... I guess just a little flustered by it"

This is how I handle it in Pathfinder, kind of.  Like, if a character gets wounded by a sword for 8 damage but they have 60 hp, I'll say something like, "You draw your head back desperately, and the sword-cut opens your check just below your eye," or "You parry but fail to deflect the blow, and the blade clips your thigh.  You can feel blood pooling in your boot."  And then go for more severe injuries as HP gets lower.

I also like to narrate missed attacks to suggest how close an attack came to hitting.  So if an attack missed by 1 I'll describe it as shearing off a lock of hair, whereas if it missed by 10 I describe the PC as basically sidestepping the blow.

Quote from: KindlingI like the idea of a very stripped-down, basic core that can then be added to as much or as little as you want to customise your campaign.

Me too.  This remains the best part of 5E's design philosophy, I think.

Quote from: Elemental ElfIf we were to create a more realistic system, then you would have a dozen subsystems all interacting with one another, which is the exact opposite of simple.

Depends.  It'd be easy to make the game more lethal - just reduce everyone's HP a lot.  Make it so that after 10th everyone just gets +Con or something.  Way more realistic right there.

Quote from: Elemental ElfThe problem with Hit Points is that they exist to create cinematic battles that last for more than a hit or two.

High ACs can do the same thing, just fewer numbers get changed.

Quote from: Elemental Elf...the same way previous iterations of the game did not account for the fact that Dragons were so powerful that it made zero sense why the world was not ruled by them.

Isn't that what PCs are for?

(I'm not being glib here - it seems to me that heroes and monsters are complementary elements of a setting; a setting probably has powerful monsters in roughly the same proportion that it has high-level heroes.  It's like a kind of ecology.)

Quote from: Elemental Elf@The Smaug/Bard debate: Smaug is not the Red Dragon from the Monster Manual. He is a fully kitted out level 20 Dragon with class levels. If the idea of peasants chipping away at the Dragon's HP bothers you the, like I mentioned above, simply give it DR. It is a simple fix that ensures peasants cannot hurt it regularly and forces the game world to rely on brave adventurers and dudes with MacGiffin Arrows that pierces plot armor to eliminate such elder threats.

My point wasn't to argue about the specific mechanics of Smaug.  My point was that the Smaug battle scene reflected a philosophy diametrically opposed to that of 5E, and that those who wanted that kind of battle in their games could not get one with 5E, at least not easily. I could've as easily picked Beowulf fighting Grendel.  Grendel would get stomped by mass Vikings in 5E the moment he burst into Heorot.  If the solution is just "add DR"... well that seems a bit like a band-aid.  The better solution is probably "don't play 5E."

We'll see whether the mods in the DMG makes things better.  It's possible.

Quote from: Elemental ElfRegular Player Character death is not fun nor conducive to a table top RPG.

Many in the OSR probably disagree.

The point of lethal systems though is generally to discourage combat altogether and/or force PCs to use sneakier or more cunning tactics to defeat their foes, not to kill a lot of PCs.

Quote from: Elemental ElfMike Mearls mentioned that the old Wound and Vitality Point system would be included in the DMG. I imagine quite a few people will be using that system. Hopefully they will include other variations on HP as well.

This is really good news, although as sparkletwist pointed out it does contribute to the "multiple stats" issue in bestiaries.

On the ipad, so minimal cut and paste.  SItting outside with the wife ater dinner with wine, the boy (now six) in the yard, with Sinatra playing.
Sue me.
SO, we agree on the Smaug thing.  Awesome.
I also have more hope for this version of D&D than any in a long time, whether I play it or not.  Another good thing,  And I believe it will bring more people to the hobby...even better.

AC, HP, and protection was always a big issue with myself and D&D.  The simplicity was TOO simple and abstract.  Just adding handfuls of HP and letting a guy or dragon be hit 10-20 times...and being basically unkillable by a sword or axe blow...we called it the Warhorse problem (one of our three).  So we changed the probability curve and added what equates to a higher % of a critical...it even models physics a bit, as larger creatures and weapons have a different damage curve.  So, round about, I agree with Steerpike here.  I don't mind when abilities grow slowly, but don't just use more HP to create the feel of a tougher creature/person.

Quote from: Elemental_ElfThe systems may strain verisimilitude for you but most people do not have an issue with them, which is why it never seems to change. If we were to create a more realistic system, then you would have a dozen subsystems all interacting with one another, which is the exact opposite of simple.

Yes, that's possible. My goal isn't so much realism as such, just a bit of frustration that they've chosen to retain the sacred cow terminology "Armor Class" and "Hit Points" when things have changed so much mechanically and those terms don't actually make much sense any more. This is a complaint with previous editions before this one, too, but with a new edition they had another chance to make a change and they didn't, probably to attempt to appeal to grognards, or something.

Quote from: Elemental_ElfYou could reduce monster HP but then player HP would have to be reduced as well. Regular Player Character death is not fun nor conducive to a table top RPG.

I think that this is a problem with sacred cows, too. The default paradigm for D&D is fighting to the death, but there's no reason why less lethal failure states can't be introduced and given some mechanical support; maybe something somewhat like conceding in FATE would work. More forgiving mechanics can allow for more unforgiving challenges.

Quote from: Elemental_ElfAlso, I do not believe the system was designed to account for hordes of peasants attacking and killing a Dragon, in the same way previous iterations of the game did not account for the fact that Dragons were so powerful that it made zero sense why the world was not ruled by them. In 3.x a Kingdom would only have a handful of characters in the teens, let alone approaching level 20. An elder Red Dragon comes down from his mountain cave, there is literally nothing the Kingdom can do to stop the Dragon, even if they threw their entire populous at the beast.

Quote from: SteerpikeIsn't that what PCs are for?

Basically what Steerpike said. I mean, I don't think dragons have any real world-conquering ambitions, but they'll certainly come down from their mountain caves to breathe fire and steal people's gold, and yeah, if a dragon decides to do that, the mundane folk can't do much. But that's what adventurers are for! If we're dealing with a tier of adventurers that "reached a level of power that sets them high above the ordinary populace" and "often confront threats to whole regions and continents," then let them do that!

Quote from: Steerpike

Quote from: KindlingI like the idea of a very stripped-down, basic core that can then be added to as much or as little as you want to customise your campaign.

Me too.  This remains the best part of 5E's design philosophy, I think.

This approach makes add-on material a complete mess. Not just bestiaries, but weapon stats and basically any crunch that has a chance of interaction with somewhere that your modules might overlap. For example, if you have basic and advanced combat rules you'll probably need two sets of weapon stats, as it'll be hard to distinguish the systems if they take the exact same inputs. If you have basic and advanced skill systems, then you'll probably need two skill lists. If you have the option of having square-based combat or hex-based combat then you're going to need to publish two maps. And so on. All that will really end up happening (because this is what happened with AD&D 2e, which also had a ton of optional rules and subsystems) is they'll decide one variant is "official" and publish stats based on that and forget about the rest. Non-Weapon Proficiencies in 2e were "optional" but almost everything published assumed you were using them.

And on top of all that, it's assuming they could actually write two or more functional sets of rules for everything when they often can't even manage to write one!

sparkletwist, I don't doubt they'll make an enormous mess of it.  But I like the idea of a system that has a very simple set of core mechanics and then optional subsystems, variant rules, hacks, and other levels of detail.

Isn't this almost like how FATE is used in its various offspring games?  Use a flexible generic core but graft on detailed subsystems and expansions to suit a particular game?  Or the way GURPS uses rules/genre supplements and toolkits?

No, No, No.
Again.
I have basic and advanced versions of Guildschool.  
You DO NOT need basic and advanced versions of every weapon or every skill.  
Advanced combat options can include more types of combat schools, they could add on more types of weapons,  There can be optional initiative rules, there can be optional HP rules and damage rules and taking damage rules, there can be optional  rules of how armor reduces magical damage, Protection rules, advanced shield use (as Shields are way undervalued in D&D), martial combat, non-lethal variants, fighting vs large or small, fighting as a unit rules, etc, etc, etc...without 2 sets of stats.

I said this before,you made the same argument, then Steerpike, then Kindling...it is ok if you don't want them, but there are huge advantages to them.