Obligatory 5E D&D Thread

[Xeviat]

The funny thing is that neither Tieflings nor Dragonborn are half-human in 4E's setting. Tieflings were humans that were corrupted by diabolical powers, and Dragonborn were born of Io's blood during the Primordial Wars. All races have assumptions about your campaign world, and us world designers are more within our rights to change those assumptions.

Elves and Eladrin assume you have the feywild. Dwarves assume you have mines. Halflings assume ... you get my picture.

Also, every time you say something will happen 100% of the time, you're asking to be proven wrong. Both Dragonborn and Tieflings existed in one way or another in 3rd Edition.

I agree that Tieflings and Dragonborn were jarring, and that seeing the removal of Gnomes from the first PHB was shocking to D&D veterans. Perhaps that was the first nail in 4E's coffin, trying to be different. It's sad, really. We're all grognards a little bit, apparently. I do appreciate that they tried to round out the races. We could have had Half-Orcs instead of Dragonborn so we still had a strong monstrous race. We could have had Gnomes instead of Tieflings. We could have had Sorcerers instead of Warlocks, and Bards instead of Warlords. We could have just kept 3rd Edition ... see?

[O Senhor Leetz]

All races have assumptions about your campaign world, and us world designers are more within our rights to change those assumptions.

Elves and Eladrin assume you have the feywild. Dwarves assume you have mines. Halflings assume ... you get my picture.

Oh it's absolutely within our rights as world-builders, but that the fact they place assumptions on the game world in general just seems strange. It also means work for those of us who want them out, to some extent or another. I think one of the core D&D strengths is that it is a rules set, not a campaign setting.

Also, every time you say something will happen 100% of the time, you're asking to be proven wrong. Both Dragonborn and Tieflings existed in one way or another in 3rd Edition.

Haha, well yes there is an exception to every rule, but you have to agree that when something tries to be too cool, it inherently becomes un-cool. Old (3E and earlier) D&D was not cool, but in a way that's what made it cool. It's a bit of a run around argument, but I think you get what I'm saying. 4E just seems like it's trying too hard.

PS: Grognard is a great word.

[LordVreeg]

There is definitely a risk, but I think it will take more than what he is alluding to there.

And I don't think they are making more than one set of rules, is what I'm saying. You can just look at the rules at different "scales" if you will. Players will be most comfortable with different degrees of control, and 5e simply tries to acknowledge this. I think.

It's an ambitious goal, but not completely implausible. It might help renew D&D while keeping it true to its origins with the added bonus of adding something unique, something no other system can do.

right.

I am not a big fan, But it is the biggest name and the biggest draw.  It needs something more than just a basic, like-it-or-leave-it ruleset.  It is not certain they can pull off the modularity; but to attract different market segments, it is their only hope of success. 

If they did it right, it would be a very cool way for a GM to take the advanced rules that apply to the type of game they want to play or setting they want to design, while leaving the parts of the game that are less important as the basic rules.   

[O Senhor Leetz]

There is definitely a risk, but I think it will take more than what he is alluding to there.

And I don't think they are making more than one set of rules, is what I'm saying. You can just look at the rules at different "scales" if you will. Players will be most comfortable with different degrees of control, and 5e simply tries to acknowledge this. I think.

It's an ambitious goal, but not completely implausible. It might help renew D&D while keeping it true to its origins with the added bonus of adding something unique, something no other system can do.

It reminds me of how they handled leveling in Neverwinter Nights 1, where you could just have everything auto-selected according to a certain archetype you wanted to follow - archer, thief, enchanter, etc - or you could choose where every skill point, feat, spell, and ability went. I think it's a good idea.

[Xeviat]

It reminds me of how they handled leveling in Neverwinter Nights 1, where you could just have everything auto-selected according to a certain archetype you wanted to follow - archer, thief, enchanter, etc - or you could choose where every skill point, feat, spell, and ability went. I think it's a good idea.

If the rules complexity modularity was like this, I doubt many would have an issue with it. But that doesn't sound like modularity, that sounds like packages.

[sparkletwist]

The thing is, if people who want simpler rules are just using a "default" or whatever, those rules are still in the game-- they're just default values for people who don't want to bother with them. It is more like a codified-in-the-rules way of a helpful DM and other players helping a new player get into the game, which can be handy, but it's not the same thing.

It's a nice thought, but it's actually significantly different than modular rules where those things aren't in the game at all.

[Xeviat]

Perhaps. By having skills be modular, we could play like 1st edition where there were little to no skills, or we could play like 3rd edition where there's a skill for basket weaving, or 4th where there's only skills for adventuring. The rules then guide the game; if you're playing without skills, you don't deal with them, or you maybe use straight up ability rolls when success needs determination.

Other things are harder to make modular. Feats would be very difficult, as they directly make your character more powerful. That's where I'd like to see things like alternate class features and other variants to expand the options, but I'm not sure I'd call that modularity.

[Matt Larkin (author)]

Tieflings were very popular in 3.X. I'm not really surprised. I mean they did get their own 3rd party splatbook. Gnomes never seemed all that popular, at least with any group I played with.

But even some of the classes we think of as core were not core in 1st ed. Core changes. And that's good, too. I'm not sure what I think of the original classes: "Fighting-man", "magic-user," and "cleric." 2nd Ed added classes that were once basically the equivalent of prestige classes, like bard and ranger, and they feel like an important part of the core now. And when 3e made Monks and Sorcerers and Barbarians core, some people objected, at first, but some people really like those classes.

I think the real reason Dragonborn feel out of place (to me also) has nothing to do with WoW. It's that they have no significant counterpart in any of the original inspirations for D&D. They're not mythological, they're not in Tolkien or Moorcock. And while Tieflings aren't either, the idea of a race corrupted by by dark magic is hardly new to fantasy. D&D certainly has made stuff up without direct inspiration, such as mindflayers and beholders. But such things are usually fringe elements, not playable races.

[Seraph]

What if they release a new splatbook? Which "level" should it speak to? If it includes lots of level 3 stuff, people who only play the basic game will fill cheated because they have a whole book filled with crunchy bits talking about stuff they don't want to be bothered with. If, on the other hand, it only talks about level 1, then people who are playing at level 3 will feel like their play style is being pushed aside by the company, and, worse yet, if the book's mechanics have only been tested using level 1 mechanics, then some of the stuff in the book might just plain be broken in a level 3 game.

Not sure if this has been spoken to, as I haven't read through the whole thread, but I think this could be solved without TOO much difficulty, if splatbooks actually gave different versions of ideas for use in different levels of play.  Or just include some material for each level of play, so that it gives something for everyone.  Or at least, everyone interested in the flavor of the splatbook.

[Elemental_Elf]

What if they release a new splatbook? Which "level" should it speak to? If it includes lots of level 3 stuff, people who only play the basic game will fill cheated because they have a whole book filled with crunchy bits talking about stuff they don't want to be bothered with. If, on the other hand, it only talks about level 1, then people who are playing at level 3 will feel like their play style is being pushed aside by the company, and, worse yet, if the book's mechanics have only been tested using level 1 mechanics, then some of the stuff in the book might just plain be broken in a level 3 game.

Not sure if this has been spoken to, as I haven't read through the whole thread, but I think this could be solved without TOO much difficulty, if splatbooks actually gave different versions of ideas for use in different levels of play.  Or just include some material for each level of play, so that it gives something for everyone.  Or at least, everyone interested in the flavor of the splatbook.

You could look at that as "Something for everyone!" or you could look at it as "I'm paying 30 bucks for 1/3rd of a book!?"

[Superfluous Crow]

WotC seems to be having a few votes on what elements to include in or exclude from D&D Next on their community webpage and I think that it is interesting to note that instead of people throwing crazy house rules around as was feared, most take the traditionalist approach and vote for the option that essentially changes... nothing.
The question is, do they really prefer this option or are they just afraid of change?

I mostly play D20, D&D, and Pathfinder myself, but I am pretty conscious about other game systems and what they offer (and I have a desire to play around with most systems even if never get around to it). I have always had this fear that only playing one system (in this case D20) would lead to a stagnant view of what roleplaying can offer. Is this already happening to the D&D community or is it as much of a stepping stone to more exotic roleplaying experiences as it was before?   

[Seraph]

What if they release a new splatbook? Which "level" should it speak to? If it includes lots of level 3 stuff, people who only play the basic game will fill cheated because they have a whole book filled with crunchy bits talking about stuff they don't want to be bothered with. If, on the other hand, it only talks about level 1, then people who are playing at level 3 will feel like their play style is being pushed aside by the company, and, worse yet, if the book's mechanics have only been tested using level 1 mechanics, then some of the stuff in the book might just plain be broken in a level 3 game.

Not sure if this has been spoken to, as I haven't read through the whole thread, but I think this could be solved without TOO much difficulty, if splatbooks actually gave different versions of ideas for use in different levels of play.  Or just include some material for each level of play, so that it gives something for everyone.  Or at least, everyone interested in the flavor of the splatbook.

You could look at that as "Something for everyone!" or you could look at it as "I'm paying 30 bucks for 1/3rd of a book!?"

Well, technically if everything in the basic version worked in the more advanced versions, then it would be 1/3 of a book for people who play basic, 2/3 of a book for some people, and a whole book for those who play the advanced version.  So I suppose it does somewhat favor those playing advanced rules, since they could use everything.  But it would still have something for everyone.

[LordVreeg]

What if they release a new splatbook? Which "level" should it speak to? If it includes lots of level 3 stuff, people who only play the basic game will fill cheated because they have a whole book filled with crunchy bits talking about stuff they don't want to be bothered with. If, on the other hand, it only talks about level 1, then people who are playing at level 3 will feel like their play style is being pushed aside by the company, and, worse yet, if the book's mechanics have only been tested using level 1 mechanics, then some of the stuff in the book might just plain be broken in a level 3 game.

Not sure if this has been spoken to, as I haven't read through the whole thread, but I think this could be solved without TOO much difficulty, if splatbooks actually gave different versions of ideas for use in different levels of play.  Or just include some material for each level of play, so that it gives something for everyone.  Or at least, everyone interested in the flavor of the splatbook.

You could look at that as "Something for everyone!" or you could look at it as "I'm paying 30 bucks for 1/3rd of a book!?"

Well, technically if everything in the basic version worked in the more advanced versions, then it would be 1/3 of a book for people who play basic, 2/3 of a book for some people, and a whole book for those who play the advanced version.  So I suppose it does somewhat favor those playing advanced rules, since they could use everything.  But it would still have something for everyone.

More later, but this is still mono-dimensional.  One of the problems WotC has had in their last editions.   

[sparkletwist]

I seriously hope all this voting they're doing is just a "See! You're involved!" publicity stunt like the Pathfinder playtest and isn't actually, you know, letting random people on the internet actually dictate design direction for the game.

[Xeviat]

Sparkle, if I were them I'd use it as a "see, what we're doing is what a fair portion of people want". I'm pleased to see all of my responses have been in the top 2.