Seminar Transcript - Charting the Course: An Edition for all Editions

Iosue · Jan 27, 2012

Wormwood said:
Actually, I think this akin to the Essentials/Core paradigm: an E-class (simple, limited options) can play at the same table with a PHB-class (complex, many options).

But to Monte's point, I started my current game using Essentials (bringing in 2 newbies to the hobby, thankyouverymuch). By 5th level, the Slayer decided he wanted more options so he retconned into a Weaponmaster.

In a perfect world, I would have preferred the ability to swap class features for powers without having to start a new character. I think that's what Monte is getting at, and I LOVE it.

Agreed. Also, while I love 4e, one thing that I miss from older editions is fast character generation. I like 5-10 minutes to boo-ya. One thing I'm hoping is that this modularity will allow me to rapidly generate a character and get right into playing, and then I can fiddle with it, adding options at my leisure between games. I think that'll really help to bring new players to the game, too.

Li Shenron · Jan 27, 2012

Overall a very nice seminar that delivers me the idea that the designers are strong and have a good spirit

The only thing that left me dubious is modularity, indeed the key idea of the whole next edition...

I'm not dubious about the concept but about how they are implementing it. The only examples of modularity I'm getting so far are:

- characters' modularity, swap fixed abilities for custom abilities: how is this new, really? 3e was already modular, and it also provided "starting packages". Eventually 3e did not do a good job in the presentation, because nobody remembered the starting packages, so those who would have wanted a ready-made fighters were seldom told by the DM to just get a starting package. Furthermore, many 3e classes still contained fixed abilities, so let's say that character modularity can be largely improved in 5e, by allowing both extremes (in 3e terms, it could be e.g. a Paladin, lowest-complexity case with all its fixed abilities and more fixed abilities replacing spells, highest-complexity case all the fixed abilities replaced by Paladin-only bonus feats)

- mass battle rules: a no-brainer module... Want mass battles? Use mass battle rules. Don't want mass battles? Ignore mass battle rules.

- social interaction: this is not such a no-brainer, but still fairly simple to get the point. Some groups want rules (i.e. dice rolls) for social interactions, other groups want to be rules-free and go with pure RP. Can be done already in 3e, but eventually the books should make it more explicity that it is an option, otherwise everyone who hates to roll for social interaction is going to complain that the standard requires to roll.

- minis, mat and grid: major doubt here. They keep giving this as an example of something that a group may want to use, but they never mention if the game is still going to work without them if the group doesn't want them. What are the alternatives considered by the designers here? Note that normally, those groups who don't want to use minis & grid, don't want to do so because they are less interested in tactical combat... yet if they don't use them in 3e or 4e, combat becomes way more difficult! That's exactly the opposite they want! How is 5e going to address this problem?

Victoly · Jan 27, 2012

When did "they remain a challenge for longer" become "epic-level characters will still deal with Orcs!"? Last time I checked the dictionary "longer" didn't mean "forever". Blatant exaggerations make your complaints seem silly, not stronger.

FitzTheRuke hit the nail on the head with his commentary about rolling 17s, but I'd like to add that, from a narrative perspective, it's nice for the rules to be able to support a plotline where a certain faction or race - say, an Orcish cult of a slaughter deity, for example - can remain a significant threat for a good chunk of the campaign (around 4 levels or so). In 3E the DM would either have to do a ton of work in doing advancement on monster tables or they'd have to do a ton of playing off-the-cuff, neither of which is ideal. 4E was better with that in general, and I'm glad they'll be keeping that in mind with the design of the new edition.

No Big Deal · Jan 27, 2012

On the "orcs should be a threat for a while," maybe into epic levels is hyperbole, but no matter how long you want orcs to be a threat your saying "you can't have abilities that curb stomp orcs til level X." Why is that bad, because players want those abilities. Alright you ask, why is that bad? (this is just opinion) Because it bloats your level table, and bloats your book. If you want to run with "orcs stay a threat" just play a game like E6 with a level cap, or don't level up very often. Why should the more restricting rule be the default when its really easy to emulate them?

On the "3e orcs weren't a threat at level four" sure they were. Have someone (an Orc Battlepriest or Orc Warlord) to buff the orcs. Have the orcs aid each other. Even if they only hit on a 17+, they still will get some hits and those hits do damage players care about that! And, honestly this is probably leveling too slowly.

Plane Sailing · Jan 27, 2012

No Big Deal said:
On the "orcs should be a threat for a while," maybe into epic levels is hyperbole, but no matter how long you want orcs to be a threat your saying "you can't have abilities that curb stomp orcs til level X." Why is that bad, because players want those abilities. Alright you ask, why is that bad? (this is just opinion) Because it bloats your level table, and bloats your book. If you want to run with "orcs stay a threat" just play a game like E6 with a level cap, or don't level up very often. Why should the more restricting rule be the default when its really easy to emulate them?

On the "3e orcs weren't a threat at level four" sure they were. Have someone (an Orc Battlepriest or Orc Warlord) to buff the orcs. Have the orcs aid each other. Even if they only hit on a 17+, they still will get some hits and those hits do damage players care about that! And, honestly this is probably leveling too slowly.

There is a thread on this topic in the new horizons forum - could you take further discussion on this issue to that thread, thanks.

Mercurius · Jan 27, 2012

I like Aragorn as the archetype of the ranger. Drizzt can still be in the game, but should be a build entitled "kewl drow death ninja."

Plane Sailing · Jan 27, 2012

Morrus said:
(In response to a question: the ranger feels more like Aragorn than Drizzt)

I'm now curious about whether this got changed a bit in the paraphrasing, as reviewing the tweets from last night, they all seem along the line of

Monte: Identifying a D&D ranger is like looking at whether it's best represented by Aragorn or Drizzt.

- ie raising the question rather than giving the answer (unless a subsequent question clarified that, and I've not spotted that on the various twitter feeds I've looked at)

btmcrae · Jan 27, 2012

Based on the seminar chat, a great level of flexibility looks to be what they want to build into 5E. So, what I think was really being said regarding the 5E Ranger is that it is based on the archetypal D&D Ranger, meaning it is more like Aragorn. That doesn't mean that a Drizz't-like Ranger character can't be created using the 5E modular system of modular modularness though.

It will likely be worked out that Human Ranger with X skills/abilities = Aragorn, and Drow Ranger with Y skills/abilities = Drizz't, meaning that the total package could be dependent upon both character race as well as what class skills/abilities are chosen.

Plane Sailing · Jan 27, 2012

Another interesting snippet from CriticalHits twitter

Jeremy: The playtests will hint at some of the options. For example, the fighter is also a noble which grants some social skills.

Kzach · Jan 27, 2012

Once again, they're saying all the right things. The problem I have with this is in the delivery. We've seen far too many promises be broken to have any faith in the outcome. So whilst I like a lot of what I'm hearing, it's still all smoke and mirrors until I see a final product that delivers all those promises.