D&D 5e Basic Rules

[Steerpike]

...that's 32768 unique game variations that need to be considered, designed around, playtested, possibly have exceptions written up, and whatever, and nobody can handle that.

Hmm.  I don't think this is what people would be expecting from bolt-on modules.  Rather I'd see those modules as "suggestions" - as "possible modifications" or variants.  Not as core elements of the RAW that every product published from now until the next edition MUST acknowledge.

I think it goes without saying that if you're presenting a plethora of variant rules, you're expecting DMs to exercise common sense and judgment in their application.

You also seem to be picking examples that would necessitate the most duplication of things like stats/maps, when I think the designers would probably go out of their way to minimize that sort of thing and make their modifications such that you don't have excessive duplication.  At least that's what I'd do.  There are lots of ways of modifying the game that don't require multiple versions of things.  Critical hit charts.  Prohibited classes for certain races.  Level caps.  Alternate XP awarding systems.

sparkletwist, what would you think of this?

(1) Published adventures use core rules only.

(2) Each adventure gives recommended modifications/bolt-ons/variants that DMs might want to use and that the adventure was playtested with.

(3) Any necessary alternate versions (different maps or stats or whatever) are included in an appendix or, to save paper and production costs, in online form accessible via a code.

(Still think it'll be a mess in reality, but it remains, IMO, a good idea)

[sparkletwist]

I don't think this is what people would be expecting from bolt-on modules.  Rather I'd see those modules as "suggestions" - as "possible modifications" or variants.  Not as core elements of the RAW that every product published from now until the next edition MUST acknowledge.

If they put out a bunch of modules in this modular system and basically say "here! have some official modules to play with!" and have them all be ostensibly equal and valid variations, then I think it carries with it a certain implication that they're going to be supported. If on the other hand it's much more of a "here are the official rules but feel free to hack around with them and here are some ideas to do that!" approach, then I am much more on board with that!

So maybe the things we are advocating are not actually so different. The main thing I am in favor of is that "the official rules" refers to a pretty unambiguous and discrete set of systems, rather than something that can cast polymorph at will. :)

You also seem to be picking examples that would necessitate the most duplication of things like stats/maps, when I think the designers would probably go out of their way to minimize that sort of thing and make their modifications such that you don't have excessive duplication.  At least that's what I'd do.  There are lots of ways of modifying the game that don't require multiple versions of things.  Critical hit charts.  Prohibited classes for certain races.  Level caps.  Alternate XP awarding systems.

You are probably right, although I would point out that the systems in an RPG are often pretty closely intertwined so a lot of those little tweaks could have unforeseen ripple effects. Different XP schemes might change the rates that characters level, adding a meta points system would allow bonuses to be pulled out of the air that wouldn't exist in the standard system, and so on. They'd also mess with CR and various other aspects of encounter design, and DMs will have to be careful about that, like you said. (I'd rather not Oberoni ourselves into putting it all on the DM, though)

(1) Published adventures use core rules only.

(2) Each adventure gives recommended modifications/bolt-ons/variants that DMs might want to use and that the adventure was playtested with.

(3) Any necessary alternate versions (different maps or stats or whatever) are included in an appendix or, to save paper and production costs, in online form accessible via a code.

(Still think it'll be a mess in reality, but it remains, IMO, a good idea)

Maybe this could work. I'm not sure. Each adventure possibly changing the rules seems like it's a recipe for trouble for a DM that wants to run a long campaign that strings several of them together; basing them on core rules could mitigate this, but I also think there would be some implication that you're not getting the "real deal" without using the various rules hacks. I'd also worry this might encourage the production of bad and unbalanced crunch just to have more crunch to include, which is already a problem in RPG products.

Since we were talking about marketing, maybe just making reference to the hacking guide in the back of the adventure might work better, and it would sell more hacking guides... :grin:

[Steerpike]

So maybe the things we are advocating are not actually so different. The main thing I am in favor of is that "the official rules" refers to a pretty unambiguous and discrete set of systems, rather than something that can cast polymorph at will.

That makes sense.  I do think they'll still have a core that will pretty much be the default system.  I'll be intrigued from afar as to how much they support/cater to the options presented in the DMG for customizing a game.

You are probably right, although I would point out that the systems in an RPG are often pretty closely intertwined so a lot of those little tweaks could have unforeseen ripple effects.

True.  My hope is that they'll basically be, like, "we tested these, but use at your own risk."

Each adventure possibly changing the rules seems like it's a recipe for trouble for a DM that wants to run a long campaign that strings several of them together

Agreed.  If I were the creative director or whatever I'd say either go with distinct lines - this line of adventures will all use X subsystem, this line Y subsystem, etc - or just base all adventures purely off the core with no optional modules assumed, but a number suggested as options for those so inclined.

I'd also worry this might encourage the production of bad and unbalanced crunch just to have more crunch to include, which is already a problem in RPG products.

This is why in practice it'll probably be chaos.

[Elemental_Elf]

The issue, as always, is going to be the "Whelp, the wizard is out of his good spells. Guess it is time to sleep now!" mentality.

Maybe I'm just odd, but this has never struck me as a problem.

If they're in a dungeon then finding and securing a place to rest is going to be hard enough, or they're going to have to get out and back to a secure location, all of which can be fun and interesting.

I doubt anyone here would have this issue but I have been in far too many games where DMs do not actively encourage nor train players to think in this way. Additionally, the example does not have to thought of as happening mid-dungeon. They could simply be traveling on a road, doing side quests in town or participating in adventures that lack a time limit. It is really more of an advanced concept that DMs learn as they gain experience.

My Sunday group has 3 new players, 1 player with a few years and another who has been playing off-and-on for a decade. We've been playing in this campaign for 5 months.

They found a hole in the middle of a plain and were attacked by giant beetles. They discovered the hold dropped down into a large subterranean river. After a bit of exploring, they found a locked door with the words "Do Not Enter" written in dwarven. Being adventurers, the first thing they did was pop the lock and go exploring, soon finding themselves in the equivalent of the Underdark.

They wound up learning that a group of Paladins had recently been down here but they were killed by a Drow Assassin and a horde of giant spiders.

Eventually they found the horde, which was lead by a gargantuan, malevolently intelligent spider. As the battle went poorly for the spiders, their "mother" sent two of her children down two different passages to warn the Drow about the adventurers.

The players slaughtered all of the spiders save the two who left. They traveled down passage which lead to a subterranean lake with a cog floating on top.

The Oracle and Sorcerer were low on spells.

What did the players do? Hopped aboard the ship, lit the hearth and all went to sleep.

They did not set up a watch order. They did not find the spider who skittered down the same path they went down, let alone the other one. They are holed up in a defensible but very obvious location.

Obviously I am going to punish them for their folly but I can't help but feel, on some level, that if I take it too far (like say a Drow Wizard casting greater invisibility on himself and a companion, then teleporting into the castle and assassinating one of the players) that I would alienate the some of the party. I could burn the ship down but that would leave them exposed to the Drow's minions (i.e. shooting fish in a barrel). I could seal them inside the cavern but that would likely lead to a TPK. Most likely I will just go the assassination route but not teleport or cast invisibility. Probably too nice...

[Xeviat]

Obviously I am going to punish them for their folly but I can't help but feel, on some level, that if I take it too far (like say a Drow Wizard casting greater invisibility on himself and a companion, then teleporting into the castle and assassinating one of the players) that I would alienate the some of the party. I could burn the ship down but that would leave them exposed to the Drow's minions (i.e. shooting fish in a barrel). I could seal them inside the cavern but that would likely lead to a TPK. Most likely I will just go the assassination route but not teleport or cast invisibility. Probably too nice...

I find the word "punishing" to be too antagonistic, and "training" to just be a little weird when it comes to gaming. I'd have reminded the group out of game of the dangers of their plan.

As for dealing with it now that it's happened, I'd light the boat on fire. Let them wake up and have to flee before their spells were regenerated. Design the encounter so that they don't need their spells, but make them feel danger. They can find another place to rest and maybe let the noncasters watch over them this time.

[Llum]

I haven't seen this mentioned in the thread, but the way spell slots are handled is different in 5e from 3e and 4e. And a HUGE thing is just the amount of spell slots that casters have is a lot less. 1 level 7, 8 or 9 spell slot per day. These can be used to cast higher level spells or boosted lower level ones. While this doesn't make fighters better, it does close the gap a small bit between casters and non-casters.

[Xeviat]

The new casting system is quite interesting. Over on the Wotsee boards, someone ran a test on the Wizard (Evoker) and the Fighter (Champion), building both for pure damage. At level 20, the Wizard was slightly ahead of the Fighter, which I think is fine since the Wizard would have to give up some of that damage to gain the defensiveness of the Fighter.

The problem with their test is they assumed 4 fights that last 4 rounds each day. I haven't seen evidence that battles take that long in 5E; it really feels like a game of Rocket Tag to me.

As for the number of slots themselves, lets look at the Wizard: at 20, they have 4 1s, 3 2s through 5s, 2 6 and 7s, and 1 8 and 9. They also get Arcane recovery, which they can use to recover 10 spell levels (2 5s, 1 6 and 1 4 ...). They also get an at-will 1st and 2nd level spell (Spell Mastery), and they get 1 bonus 3rd level slot (Signature Spells). These aren't much, but they do boost their output a little.

The big difference is that a high ability modifier doesn't contribute to more spell slots. This damps caster's quadratic growth, which is a huge plus.

[Xeviat]

I'm concerned with the amount of damage the high level spells do. I'm going to have to see them in action, at the very least playtest action, before I nerf them, but 40d6 worries me.

[sparkletwist]

I don't know about the actual numbers, but... they seriously expect people to roll 40d6?

[Humabout]

This image feels relevant....
[spoiler]

[/spoiler]

[Elemental_Elf]

I don't know about the actual numbers, but... they seriously expect people to roll 40d6?

When I play Warhammer 40k with my Tyranids, there are turns where I throw double that for one squad. If you buy the 12mm dice from Chessex, they come in packages of 36. Pretty easy to grab 4 more :)

Probably want a calculator too. ;)

The new casting system is quite interesting. Over on the Wotsee boards, someone ran a test on the Wizard (Evoker) and the Fighter (Champion), building both for pure damage. At level 20, the Wizard was slightly ahead of the Fighter, which I think is fine since the Wizard would have to give up some of that damage to gain the defensiveness of the Fighter.

The problem with their test is they assumed 4 fights that last 4 rounds each day. I haven't seen evidence that battles take that long in 5E; it really feels like a game of Rocket Tag to me.

As for the number of slots themselves, lets look at the Wizard: at 20, they have 4 1s, 3 2s through 5s, 2 6 and 7s, and 1 8 and 9. They also get Arcane recovery, which they can use to recover 10 spell levels (2 5s, 1 6 and 1 4 ...). They also get an at-will 1st and 2nd level spell (Spell Mastery), and they get 1 bonus 3rd level slot (Signature Spells). These aren't much, but they do boost their output a little.

The big difference is that a high ability modifier doesn't contribute to more spell slots. This damps caster's quadratic growth, which is a huge plus.

In my experience with the Playtest, combats averaged 2 or 3 turns and were usually quite brutal. Basic really has not altered that. One of the ways you can stretch encounters out is to get much more creative with the terrain.  Most encounters should involve large areas, have elevations, lots of terrain to take cover behind and interrupt charge lanes, unique features players and NPCs can "play" with, etc. Nothing will end an encounter faster than walking into an 6x6, featureless room filled with enemies.

As for the wizard's damage issue, you can get the same parity by having the party deal with more encounters per day.

[sparkletwist]

Probably want a calculator too.

Yeah, seriously. It's even worse because the rules as written for meteor swarm suggest that each and every creature in the burst area needs to have a separate 40d6 rolled for it. And these are four different targets with a 40 foot radius each, and you're probably only going to be bringing this spell out in a target-rich environment. So yeah... it's just stupid. Rolling 105+(2d6*5) provides approximately the same damage curve and will take a tiny fraction of the time to resolve. Or just say 140 damage and make it really easy.

[Xeviat]

Or my favorite idea, reduce it down to 20d6, or even 11d6 (as the scaling for lower levels says 9th level spells are worth) and then give casters more 9th level slots. Having a one shot "golden gun" makes it tough to balance encounters.

[sparkletwist]

I don't know if using scaling spells as a benchmark is really worth anything because meteor swarm is definitely not the only higher level spell that is notably superior to a scaled-up version of a lower level spell. It seems like they are trying to give some payoff for preparing a higher slot rather than just scaling up a spell. For example, burning hands cast at level 3 lets you do 5d6 damage to each targeted creature, but fireball (also level 3) hits for 8d6 and has a bigger area. You can cast cure wounds as a level 2 spell for 2d8+stat healing to a single target, or you can cast the level 2 spell prayer of healing to heal 2d8+stat but you get to heal 6 targets; this one isn't quite as directly comparable because of the longer casting time but the higher level version is, generally speaking, quite superior. And of course the famous (and lowly) magic missile is only adding d4's so it's hardly ever worth casting at a higher level.

On the other hand, I wonder if using high level spell slots (or any level spell slots?) to deal direct damage is even going to end up being something that is worth doing. The basic rules already include sleep and web as pretty good save-or-lose spells, and the various image spells are good for all kinds of hijinks-- and with all the sacred cow necromancy they're doing I can't see other old favorites like color spray, stinking cloud, black tentacles etc. being left out for long.

[Elemental_Elf]

To me, Illusion spells are just as iffy as divination spells because they rely on the DM to work correctly. That fact makes them less consistent, table to table, than something simpler (like an evocation spell or a save-or-lose spell).

Fireball cast as a 9th level spell would be 14d6 damage, Dex Save for half. Average Damage with a failed save is 52.5, average with a successful save is 26.25.

Magic Missile cast as a 9th level spell deals 11d4+11 with no save allowed. Average damage is 38.5.

Fireball is an AoE spell so it could kill up to 16 creatures, or, more realistically, it will kill a few guys and damage an ally. Magic Missile is better for killing large hordes of enemies that are not grouped up into a tight formation (since each Dart can target a different enemy within 120 feet of you).

I think Magic Missile and Fireball are both good spells that have different tactical uses. This is the way spells should be compared to one another - similar but are useful in different scenarios.

Burning Hands may not do as much damage as Fireball (38.5 failed save or 19.25 successful save) but the 15 foot cone offers some tactical uses that would not necessarily make it completely useless compared to Fireball.