Minor 5th Edition Updates for Monday, 16 January, 2012

broghammerj · Jan 16, 2012

A few random thoughts:

1. If they successfully design a game that does what they say it's going to do then why wouldn't they do that in the first place with any iteration of DnD?

2. This is starting to turn into the "super kewl" attitude I saw in 4E. It's so awesome it's mind blowing!

3. I'm trying to wrap my head around the idea of how a 4E tactile minis enthusiast can play with a 1E grognard who never drew out combat. As a DM you either have to map out combat or not. 4E wizards wants an area of effect power but doesn't know where the 1E fighter is because he likes abstract combat and is not on the map???

4. Or what about the infamous guard at the gate quote from Wyatt where a 1E character attempts to bluff his way into town versus the 3E character using his diplomacy skill. I'm intrigued as to how a mechanic will work with this?

frankthedm · Jan 16, 2012

From what I have seen Wotc has not been able able to keep characters on the same power plateau using the same building system once the supplement treadmill begins. I'd LOVE to see that happen with supposedly separate but equal character building options once the $plat arrives.

Truename · Jan 16, 2012

People are asking how a "no-minis" 1e player can possibly play alongside a "detailed tactical combat" 4e player. But they're not saying that. They're saying:

DM decides what style of game they want to run (i.e., "no-minis" vs. "detailed tactical combat").
Players decide what complexity of character they want to build (i.e., 1e-style with just 6 stats or full 3e-style complexity).

So the game style will be the same for all players at a given table, but the character creation and customization could be different for each player.

I have no doubt they can accomplish this on the player side of things. They've approached it already in 4e. In my paragon tier game, one player uses a high-complexity, interruptastic Artificer and another player uses a low-complexity "I hit it with my hammer" Knight, and they really are balanced. They each have their own area where they're the best at the table. (And I love it. There's no way I could have introduced a brand-new D&D player to my paragon-tier campaign without a low-complexity character option.)

broghammerj · Jan 16, 2012

Truename said:
People are asking how a "no-minis" 1e player can possibly play alongside a "detailed tactical combat" 4e player. But they're not saying that. They're saying:

DM decides what style of game they want to run (i.e., "no-minis" vs. "detailed tactical combat").

Players decide what complexity of character they want to build (i.e., 1e-style with just 6 stats or full 3e-style complexity).

So the game style will be the same for all players at a given table, but the character creation and customization could be different for each player.

I have no doubt they can accomplish this on the player side of things. They've approached it already in 4e. In my paragon tier game, one player uses a high-complexity, interruptastic Artificer and another player uses a low-complexity "I hit it with my hammer" Knight, and they really are balanced. They each have their own area where they're the best at the table. (And I love it. There's no way I could have introduced a brand-new D&D player to my paragon-tier campaign without a low-complexity character option.)

I take this as directed at my comments above. I agree that you can pull this off in combat design..sort of. How do you handle all the other effects from the amped up 4E characters on the low complex guy? I haven't played a ton of 4E but for the few sessions it was pretty clear people were shifting squares, applying modifiers to other players, etc. Pretty soon your knight is rolled up into a pretty heavy 4E game. I get that his character is easy to create and easy to run, but the environment he is playing is is vastly different than a basic or rules lite version of DnD.

My other issue is skill checks and out of combat scenarios. IMO it has been downplayed in 4E and one of the reasons some people including myself don't care for 4E. Take the 3E complexity of skills, feats, etc compared to some of the 1E characters which really don't even have a mechanism to resolve certain skill checks and merge them in a game. Could get hard to adjudicate for a DM.

I am just sort of rambling here and not trying to argue with you. Just putting the scope of the project in perspective which seems a bit massive to me. Not saying it's good or bad but if they can make these very divergent playstyles peacefully coexist than it should be truly spectacular version of DnD.

Lwaxy · Jan 16, 2012

broghammerj said:
A few random thoughts:

3. I'm trying to wrap my head around the idea of how a 4E tactile minis enthusiast can play with a 1E grognard who never drew out combat. As a DM you either have to map out combat or not. 4E wizards wants an area of effect power but doesn't know where the 1E fighter is because he likes abstract combat and is not on the map???

4. Or what about the infamous guard at the gate quote from Wyatt where a 1E character attempts to bluff his way into town versus the 3E character using his diplomacy skill. I'm intrigued as to how a mechanic will work with this?

But isn't this where the freedom of the GM comes into play?

In my several totally different RPGs at one table game, I always have a map, and offer tokens/minis. In a tactical fight I just place the tokens on the map and help the players not used to tokens or this style of combat along. It works, and eventually the play style of them all adapted to something coherent.

And those are players from systems as different as Star Wards d20, Star Wars d6, Star Trek from 2 different rules, d20 Modern, d20 Future, DSA, WoD, D&D 2 different editions, and as of late a Talislanta character. I think I forgot someone, too.

It is certainly more work than just having everyone on the same page right from the beginning though.

thzero · Jan 16, 2012

I'm a 1E gronard, and guess what? I've been drawing out and using maps and minis since 1980! That's through 1e, 2e, 3e and 3.5e.

I guess I'm still having a problem seeing how this kitchen sink is going to work. 1e->3.5e there are fairly common similiarities; i.e. attack or use a spell and/or ability and maybe move. 4e isn't quite the same of course, its use some powers and maybe move. (boiling them both down to 10,000' views)

For me the big thing is going to be, can I take my 3.X materials and use it with the new game... sure there is going to be some sort of conversion needed, but if I can take the bulk of both the fluff and crunchy along for the ride, then its going to make me take a look at it. If it ends up being more like 4e, where fluff but really very little crunchy makes the journey (which is not to cast any opinion on 4e), then I'm probably going to turn a blind eye.

I'll still probably buy the game since I've got Basic through 4E - add to the collection, eh.

ferratus · Jan 16, 2012

Reynard said:
I don't think it can work. Even if you can manage to have the 1E players and 4E player happy mechanically, you can't run a game that is simultaneously a 1E style game and a 4E style game.

I don't think that's strictly the goal. Both players have to be willing to play the game as a muddled middle. So the game won't necessarily have the same feel as either 4e or 1e, but some people don't care about the Char-Op that 3e or 4e expects, and some people don't care about the rigid archetypes that 1e or 2e expects. If you just want to play a human fighter and don't want to look through a mountain of feats, you're not gonna want to play 3e/4e. If you want to precisely choose your fighting man's precise fighting style, tactics and combat maneuvers, you are not going to want to play 1e.

Plus of course, there are those who like elements of every edition. I suspect that is the majority of us.

broghammerj · Jan 16, 2012

thzero said:
I'm a 1E gronard, and guess what? I've been drawing out and using maps and minis since 1980! That's through 1e, 2e, 3e and 3.5e.

So am I my friend...so am I. One of my early DMs abstracted combat with verbal description. It wasn't something I was ever able to "just go with".

thzero · Jan 16, 2012

broghammerj said:
So am I my friend...so am I. One of my early DMs abstracted combat with verbal description. It wasn't something I was ever able to "just go with".

Yeah, did that once or twice back in the day. But I've always found even simple maps help keep down arguments about who is where, what monster can attack who, etc.

Truename · Jan 16, 2012

broghammerj said:
I take this as directed at my comments above.

Not directed specifically at you, but yeah.

I agree that you can pull this off in combat design..sort of. How do you handle all the other effects from the amped up 4E characters on the low complex guy? I haven't played a ton of 4E but for the few sessions it was pretty clear people were shifting squares, applying modifiers to other players, etc. Pretty soon your knight is rolled up into a pretty heavy 4E game. I get that his character is easy to create and easy to run, but the environment he is playing is is vastly different than a basic or rules lite version of DnD.

I agree. My game style is the same for everyone at the table: 4e's complex tactical combat. And in 4e, there's no by-the-book way to do combat any differently. So the Knight player has to understand the complexities of shifting, opportunity attacks, and so forth. And the Knight has a similar tactical depth in play as the Artificer, just fewer choices on the character sheet. (For example, where the artificer has four different encounter powers, each of which has different activation rules and effects, the knight has one that's usable four times, and the decision about when to use it is really straightforward.)

But the character complexity varies between players, and that's what I'm arguing D&D.next will allow.

My other issue is skill checks and out of combat scenarios... Take the 3E complexity of skills, feats, etc compared to some of the 1E characters which really don't even have a mechanism to resolve certain skill checks and merge them in a game. Could get hard to adjudicate for a DM.

Yeah, I'm not sure how that will play out. I never played 3e, so 4e's out-of-combat rules seem very similar to 1e to me. The DM describes a situation, the players describe how their characters respond, the DM asks for an ability check or skill check when he thinks it necessary. It's a simple system and I gather 3e had more complexity. (How exactly does that work? I have trouble imagining a mechanical solution to out-of-combat scenarios.)

That's ignoring skill challenges, which I was never able to figure out.

For an idea of how this could possibly work, there was a short series of L&L columns last year that talked about it. As I recall, the idea was that checks are based directly on ability scores rather than skills, and skill training, when present, provides options rather than adding numeric bonuses.

I am just sort of rambling here and not trying to argue with you. Just putting the scope of the project in perspective which seems a bit massive to me. Not saying it's good or bad but if they can make these very divergent playstyles peacefully coexist than it should be truly spectacular version of DnD.

No argument here! I think it's hugely ambitious, but I also see some hints of the ideas in 4e, which gives me some confidence that it can be done. (For example, Gamma World 4e is balanced with D&D 4e but has a somewhat different play style and different character creation rules.) Whether it can be done well... well, the jury's still out on that one.