D&D 5E So did they just drop modularity ? This is what has me worried.

I'm as anti-Vancian magic system as they come... it's lame, boring, restrictive, and just Not fun at all to me. I think it's a retarded spell system IMO.

That said... if they came up with different magic systems for each of those spellcasting classes, I'd be like... now thats awesome.

I just see things differently than most I guess. One... from the very, very beginning WotC said the Wizard would be, at it's core, a Vancian spellcasting class. Me, I don't like that, but I'm not them designing it. Two...we do have three different arcane spellcasting systems to try out. This is cool. This is variety. This is fun.

It's just WAY way way to early in a two year plus process to be declaring the sky is falling and that they are not delivering on their goals... it's just too early.

And if they went back to the beginning of the design process and started over after every playtest packet then this will take much longer than two years... which I am not really opposed to IMO.

Me, I want fluff in my classes...I want a fun game.

However, one of the biggest problemsin this entire design process is twofold... them trying to please people of all editions and making different game mechanics that come from all previous editions and also us players who are so rigidly holding onto some ideal playstyle or what each of us "thinks" is the one right way to play, from what we think it should be from our favorite Edition and all that hoopla and nitpicking to death these playtest packets not to test the actual mechanics, which isn't what most are doing, but because we are just reading things and going, "This isn't like my favorite Edition."

I guess I might have a different take... I see the Modularity, to an extent already. Sure it's not perfect, but no game is.

Now... where they are failing is them holding onto the rigidity of the "Must have all classes from all previous PHB1s in the history of D&D." If you expect them to have a Wizard, Sorcerer and Warlock and NOT have different, in class ways of casting magic and different fluff then I don't know what to say but you will be disappointed.

Here is what they should have done...

In designing a game with Modularity as a focus, every major element has to be seen as Optional. Races, Classes, Feats, Skills, Backgrounds, Specialties, Magic (and different magic systems), etc. All must be Modular and Optional facets of the game so DMs can say... we will be using Races, Backgrounds, and Magic and That's it whereas another could go the whole shebang if they want to.
~ this means they would need a classless option as well to be as Modular as they want to be,, or say, and this is one area they don't want to go.

To my eyes, the playtest overflows with modularity.

I've got two groups right now. One is my friends and family group that grew up playing B/X and BECM. They don't care for the complex chargen of 3e, the power card structure of 4e, or the prospect of playing on a grid. They may not be especially enamored of Vancian casting, but it's tolerated as part of the game. All that said, our style of play is essentially heroic fantasy. We're trying to recreate LotR and similar fantasy.

The other group is one of hardcore Japanese geeks. (Basically, the only ones who play D&D in Japan are the gaijin and the hardcore Japanese geeks.) They love 4e, and have little interest in actually playing 1e or BECMI. They appreciate the history, but right now they are having a ball making up characters and setting them loose on the grid. They roleplay a bit, but skill challenges are for the most part dry "pick best stat and roll, in order around the table", and perhaps humorously describing a bad roll.

I have fun with both of these groups. I enjoy 4e, but find a lot of value in BECMI, particularly the fast chargen.

With the 5e playtest, I can take out backgrounds (except for the Rogue skills), I can take out themes/specialties, I can ignore fighting styles and Hit Dice healing and expertise dice, I can even make the minor spells into dailies, and basically recreate a cleaner retro-clone of TSR D&D. Or, I can throw in the minor spells, Hit Dice, and fighter options, and I have a game that my friends and family group would be happy to play. And personally, having made up some characters even with backgrounds and specialties, I'm very happy with chargen -- quick and easy.

My other group, they can ignore backgrounds and specialties and go right for picking skills and feats a la carte. They can mix and match. I can max out Hit Dice to act like surges. I can play right now on a grid pretty easily, since the game essentially uses units of 5 feet. It's not as involved as 4e's grid, but there's plenty of design space to come. The point is, I can do theater of the mind and the 5 foot units provide ease of distance reference and I can do grid because distances in the game are all in multiples of 5.

The game DM advice encourages "Rule of DM", which works well with my friends and family. But it also comes with a crapload of sample DCs, sample ability score saves, rules for movement, stealth, perception, 10 distinct combat actions, cover, non-lethal damage, 12 distinct conditions, lighting, drowning, and encounter budgeting. All simple rules I can turn to as well to take off the load.

Oh, and now I have two additional magic systems to play with.

Is it complete? No. Is all the math fine-tuned, all the bugs worked out? Of course not, it's the second iteration of rules in a public playtest process that's looking to take two whole years. But as I see it, even in this early playtest when they're still just working on hammering out the core, there's already a lot of adjustable dials and plug-and-play modules to work with. It's already giving me a lot of what I like about 4e, plus fast, easy chargen. I was intrigued about 5e in January, curious in May, and now in August I'm officially excited.

Grimmjow said:

Exactly! Go listen to the pod cast with penny arcade and PvP. Mike merls (or w/e) says that the wizard class isnt anywhere NEAR the first draft of what they got in store for them. Just wait wizard will get way funner!

Click to expand...

I got the feeling he was actually a tad hesitant to go too deep in to the wizard class just because of that, same as with the rogue due to the backstab/sneak attack issue.

I think looking for modularity now is a mistake. They will be trying to get the rules and such working, and the only way to do that is to put everything together.

Later, once the rules are set, they can pull stuff out to make modules.

Remathilis said:

Where in 4th edition can you play a wizard with spell points?

I believe the edition you are looking for is 3rd edition...

Also you're looking at the game 2 years before it comes out. Lets nail down the core before you nail down the optionals. If your THAT impatient, go play something else while the playtest happens and we'll give you call in 2014...

Click to expand...

That's true, there were many alternative magic systems provided. Therefore if optional means modular then 3rd edition plus it's supplemental books was very modular. They provided different systems and ideas for fighters as well.

I don't think there is a clear understanding of what they meant by modular though, and I don't think they want it clear since it is apart of their public relations plan. They want people to defend them by saying "It's a playtest! wait and see!"

I think what people want is to play the version of D&D that they like plus have the option to pick some bits from other versions. At least that's what I want. I don't care about dice gimmicks and re-inventing the wheel all over again. If they have new radical clever ideas then they should put them in a supplemental book for those who want them.

Dungeons & Dragons(TM) is already suffering from a multiple personality disorder and the more radical the changes the less it's identity will have value. It's like re-making the same classic movie ever 2-4 years but claiming it's a better improved version each time. You'll lose your audience over time.

It should not in anyway be hard to nail down a core quickly with 30 years of legacy unless they are trying to re-invent it all over again (and they are). I think this is foolish.

Evenglare said:

So they released the warlock and sorcerer, that's cool and all but then I began to remember them talking about modularity and playing the game you want to run. So I was under the impression that magic systems would be modular, but with the release of warlock and sorcerer those classes seem to be tied to the magic system of their choice. This ISNT what they initially promised. The original verbiage implied that you would be able to play a wizard and then how you cast your spells were whatever kind of spell system that the DM had for his campaign.

Originally they wanted each class to be extremely basic and then from there you would be able to attach modules to build up complexity as you see fit. Now with the introduction of warlock and sorcerer it seems those classes are very specific and antithetical to what was originally promised.

Click to expand...

here you go read this

Grimmjow said:

here you go read this

Click to expand...

Awfully amusing to go back and reread old threads of people decrying the playtest and making grand declarations of "Well, I guess 5E isn't for me!"... when one month later what they want starts showing up, isn't it?

Suffice it to say... I believe anyone who makes a definitive statement about 5E at this point in time is a goober. Cause in two weeks there'll be a good chance you're proven wrong.

The latest magic/casting system article has me worried about too much modularity, as in, generic GURPS style.

Steely_Dan said:

The latest magic/casting system article has me worried about too much modularity, as in, generic GURPS style.

Click to expand...

Was too little, now its too much. Will the masses ever be pleased?

Anyway i think with the modularity of casting will work fine if your DM puts some limits on it, as wizards intended. besides it sounds like they are only going to use 3 different types (for arcane) thats not to much to have to worry about.

Grimmjow said:

1) Was too little, now its too much. Will the masses ever be pleased?


2) Anyway i think with the modularity of casting will work fine if your DM puts some limits on it, as wizards intended. besides it sounds like they are only going to use 3 different types (for arcane) thats not to much to have to worry about.

Click to expand...

1) Never, mob-mentality.


2) But if it is all included in the PHB, arguments will ensue, the DM does not want spell points, a player insists on them.


And, three different types, how arbitrary.