A plea to stop over-complicating the base system.

B.T.

First Post
Currently, there are a lot of threads with "fixes" to minor problems in the 5e rules. Unfortunately, the majority of these proposed solutions create more problems, which then have to be likewise fixed, which finally results in an entangling web of rules.

As an example, let's talk armor. The AC values in the playtest are wonky. This was quickly pointed out by the players and the developers acknowledged the problem. (How this obvious oversight made it into the playtest is another question, but I will give WotC the benefit of the doubt and assume that there was a copy-editing error, or perhaps it was a relic from the initial closed playtest that wasn't updated with changed mechanics.) The very simple, very easy solution is to readjust AC values slightly. This can range from giving heavy armor a bonus to AC, adding half a character's Dexterity modifier to his AC while wearing heavy armor, reducing the AC of other armor types, or any combination thereof.

Now, these solutions are ideal because they do not layer additional mechanics on top of the existing system. Instead, you have a single system (attack vs. AC, roll damage on a hit). However, after reading through a number of threads, I've seen a number of solutions that propose additional mechanics on top of the AC mechanics. These include (but are not limited to):

• Damage reduction.
• Armor provides additional hit points.
• Shields provide a percent chance to deflect blows.
• Armor has varying AC against weapon type.
• Heavy armor penalizes attack rolls.
• Penalties to different skills based on armor type.
• Armor provides temporary HP.

All of these are bad ideas because they put additional mechanics into the game. They're fine for house rules or modules, but simplicity is the name of the game in the core 5e book. (And as I've grown older and have to schedule learning and playing a new system around work rather than college courses, I find that I have little patience for needless complexity.) If you want more complicated mechanics, that's fine, but you need to realize that such is more suited for modules, not the core game.

TL;DR: Use KISS (keep it simple, stupid) when suggesting rules changes.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

+1

I could not agree more. I want as few rolls (and calculations) per attack as possible.

Change the +s if you need to, don't add extra on top.

As a side note, I just copy a copy of Tunnels and Trolls 7.5. I thought they had one thing to fix both armor and the fighter.

Fighters get double the bonus for shields and armor. I know D&D can't yank that directly but I thought that was a simple and easy way to address the problem.

RK
 


I see no reason why people can't suggest innovations.

I don't think innovation is what B.T. is arguing against. Innovation is fine as a modular add on. But we need to keep the basic rules simple so that things can be added on top. Lots of posters are suggesting some radical and complicated solutions that are not necessary for the basic system.

To quote B.T. "KISS" ;)
 

I don't think innovation is what B.T. is arguing against. Innovation is fine as a modular add on. But we need to keep the basic rules simple so that things can be added on top. Lots of posters are suggesting some radical and complicated solutions that are not necessary for the basic system.

To quote B.T. "KISS" ;)

Good. They should suggest whatever they want. Just because the OP or you or I disagree with an idea as "too radical" doesn't mean it shouldn't be suggested. We're talking about an open playtest here. When we tell people not to make suggestions, it reduces the chance for innovation.

I understand that many people are afraid that an idea they don't like will be read by the developers and put into the next iteration of the game. But the solution is not to squash feedback or suggestions, it is to calmly discuss why you dislike that new idea, and if possible to propose a better solution, not to dismiss suggestions you dislike as appropriate only for modules.

IMO it's simply not the OP's place to say what should or should not be suggested. Even if it's not precisely the feedback the developers are looking for, this is an open playtest. Everyone should participate as much as possible to make the game better.
 

They should suggest whatever they want.

Although I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of keeping design simple and elegant, I think that simplicity is easier to find after all of the ideas (good and bad) get thrown at the wall to see what sticks.
 

There's nothing wrong with making suggestions and offering feedback, but too often those suggestions and feedback are so overly complicated and elaborate that they are essentially creating a new game system that doesn't adhere and are completely out of line with the design goals. At that point they aren't offering anything constructive because they will never be implemented. They only serve to create a mass of static that obscures the legitamate suggestions and observations that can feasibly be incorporated into 5e.
 
Last edited:

They only serve to create a mass of static that obscures the legitamate suggestions and observations that can feasibly be incorporated into 5e.

And that static will get less attention, fewer replies, and eventually drop down into the abyss with the rest of the bad ideas.
 

And that static will get less attention, fewer replies, and eventually drop down into the abyss with the rest of the bad ideas.

Probably. But in the meantime it's drowning out constructive conversation.

Ironically, it's all these armchair game designers with grandioise ideas about how to "improve" D&D, criticizing the actual designers for their "mistakes", who fail in the very first step of design - understand and adhere to the mission statement.
 

They should suggest whatever they want.

Though they should keep in mind that the innovations they suggest maybe should not add more levels of complexity.

The base game should be dead simple.

Added complexity in modules might not hurt the base game, but IN the base game it could.

-YRUSirius
 

Remove ads

Top