D&D 5E Magic Items in D&D Next

dkyle · Jul 9, 2012

Li Shenron said:
They make one game, they put a price tag, and you're free to buy it or not.

Except that 5E is being explicitly described as many possible games, through combinations of modules, of which all fans of previous editions will find a game to appeal to them. Should I not judge them on the expectations they've laid out for themselves? I'm saying that to have a new D&D that appeals to me, I require balanced encounter building rules. And that to be balanced, they must account for magic items in some way. They could be in a module, or whatever, I don't care, but the rules have to exist. So far, there's no indication that they're even considering that issue. Hence my feedback.

And what's the point of playtesting if every possible criticism can be met with "well, I'm sure there's someone that likes it as-is, so I guess the game isn't for you." At this stage, in this discussion context, "buy it or not" is simply a discussion-killing fallacy. As long as I'm in their target audience (and based on what they've said, I am), your fallacy doesn't apply to me.

Realize that if you constantly think a game needs fixing, it is most likely because you just like fixing games.

Huh? How do we get from "I want game designers to make games that are well-designed and don't need to be fixed by the DM/players" to "I want to fix games myself when I DM/play them"? Aren't those opposite?

Shadeydm · Jul 9, 2012

Minigiant said:
[MENTION=6688285]Blackwarder[/MENTION]
[MENTION=44243]Shadeydm[/MENTION]

Then 5E/D&D Next is encouraging a certain playstyle. It is pushing the "Gritty Scaredy Treasure Hunters" and shunning the "Big Dang Heroes" style or "Destined Protagonists" style or "Obviously Crazy to be doing this Trip seekers" playstyle.

For this to be an unity edition, should they be encouraging a low magic item, super-dangerous gameplay playstle over others?

I think its the lowest common denominator and therefore the default from which you add modules to get to your preferred playstyle. IMHO (and I would replaced scared with cautious it carries less of a negative connitation).

Blackwarder · Jul 9, 2012

Minigiant said:
[MENTION=6688285]Blackwarder[/MENTION]
[MENTION=44243]Shadeydm[/MENTION]

Then 5E/D&D Next is encouraging a certain playstyle. It is pushing the "Gritty Scaredy Treasure Hunters" and shunning the "Big Dang Heroes" style or "Destined Protagonists" style or "Obviously Crazy to be doing this Trip seekers" playstyle.

For this to be an unity edition, should they be encouraging a low magic item, super-dangerous gameplay playstle over others?

I disagree, I think it's much easier to make a gritty game into an heroic one than the other way around and if you want to hand magic items like candy you can do it quite easily.

I'd much rather have a "Big Dang Heroes" module rather than it being baked into the core rules of the game.

Wader

Minigiant · Jul 9, 2012

It might be that the current playtest uses a direct conversion of CoC.

But I disagree that "Gritty Cautious" should or has to be the default.

You'd could easily have Goblin Hp as:
Gritty- 5 HP
Narrative- 7HP, Elites get Lurker Theme
Heroic- 10 HP, Elites get mastwork shortpears
Tactical- 20 HP, Goblin Tactics

Especially since there is Bounded accuracy, the ability scores attacks, and spells don't change. But HP, feats, and magic items can be listed under the stat block.

Crazy Jerome · Jul 9, 2012

Blackwarder said:
I disagree, I think it's much easier to make a gritty game into an heroic one than the other way around and if you want to hand magic items like candy you can do it quite easily.

I'd much rather have a "Big Dang Heroes" module rather than it being baked into the core rules of the game.

I think a survey of games where such a major drift of one playstyle to another has been tried will show it's dang hard no matter where you start or end up.

Better to start, as much as possible (but no more than that

) playstyle neutral, and then have modules that move in all sorts of directions.

Blackwarder · Jul 9, 2012

Crazy Jerome said:
I think a survey of games where such a major drift of one playstyle to another has been tried will show it's dang hard no matter where you start or end up.

Better to start, as much as possible (but no more than that ) playstyle neutral, and then have modules that move in all sorts of directions.

I disagree, back in 2e we had gritty games and superheroes games, we just added stuff to the superheroes games.

Warder

fuzzlewump · Jul 9, 2012

Blackwarder said:
...after they realized that they can't enter a cave all fat and happy the game became much more interesting .

Curious, have you been on the player side of the equation for D&D next?

Blackwarder · Jul 9, 2012

fuzzlewump said:
Curious, have you been on the player side of the equation for D&D next?

Sadly no... Why?

Warder

Mercule · Jul 9, 2012

Minigiant said:
Half of the playtest summaries I see are full of TPKs.

Interesting. I'm finding it appropriately balanced. If the players are smart, no worries. If they're dumb, they have problems. It's definitely much more forgiving, IME, than AD&D was, though.

Minigiant said:
[MENTION=6688285]Then 5E/D&D Next is encouraging a certain playstyle. It is pushing the "Gritty Scaredy Treasure Hunters" and shunning the "Big Dang Heroes" style or "Destined Protagonists" style or "Obviously Crazy to be doing this Trip seekers" playstyle.

Nonsense. I ran a number of very epic campaigns under AD&D, which could be much more "gritty scaredy treasure hunters" than 3e or 4e. I also ran and played in a number of very deadly campaigns.

For this to be an unity edition, should they be encouraging a low magic item, super-dangerous gameplay playstle over others?

Nope. It had darn well better handle it without breaking, though. 3e and 4e really didn't without risk of breaking. In my AD&D games, it wasn't unusual for the PCs to have only one or two magic weapons, between them, at 5th level. Many module hoppers had an arsenal by 3rd. The system handled either style well. In 3e and 4e, I never could get the rare magic item thing to work without throwing off the math and screwing the players or changing the monster stats. The earlier editions were flexible, but shallow and questionably balanced. The later editions were better balanced and unified, but brittle. I'd like to see 5e carry the flexibility of AD&D, but have the unity (which helps to bring balance) and d20.

Once you bring the flexibility back, GM skill level matters more. I don't have an issue with that. In part, that's because I think the defining feature of a TTRPG is the GM. Aside from electronics, that's a major part of what differentiates TTRPGs from a WoW LAN party. Hopefully, a unified system brings not just balance, but lowers the entry requirement for being a good GM. The GM should still be responsible for ensuring the tone and style of the campaign happens, though.

Crazy Jerome · Jul 9, 2012

Blackwarder said:
I disagree, back in 2e we had gritty games and superheroes games, we just added stuff to the superheroes games.

Were you running or playing? Was the DM, whomever it was, running the rules as written or pulling stuff out of his behind?

If I'm allowed to run it pulling stuff out of my behind, I can run Hero as pure grit, and run Toon as anything you care to name that I'm remotely familiar with. That last qualifcation excludes teen-angst vampire romance-novel pablum.

Though if I could make it through a couple of books that shall not be named, I bet I could even run that in Toon.

None of that means the system would be supporting the playstyle. In the same way that I once cleared a city lot with grass up to my waist, using nothing but a slingblade. Doesn't make my slingblade a lawnmower.