If the advanced stuff is what i think it is then advanced may not be the best name. I think the advanced stuff will be more like an Unearth Arcana in that is will have alternate rules to what is in basic/standard. Stuff like tactical combat, alternate spell systems, maybe alternate skill systems (e.g. 3e/3.5 point buy system), and things like that. The article next Monday will hopefully shead some light on what they mean by Advanced Game.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E Basic/Standard/Advanced?
- Thread starter Mercurius
- Start date
I also think Advanced doesn't mean "superior", but rather, "more difficult to integrate into the basic/core or will outright replace core mechanics".
An example might be splitting HP into two pools: A real wounds pool and a fatigue pool. Healing assumptions would change, damage assumptions would change (cone of cold does fatigue and hp dmg, e,g), class features would need to be re-examined (like a Paladins Lay on Hands - heals hp, fatigue, or both?). A lot of this would have to be decided at the table, that is the "module" won't cover everything. There would likely be corner cases, how a class feature interacts with a feat and this new thing called fatigue, that DMs would have to discover in play and deal with.
In short:
Basic: A Stock Ford Mustang. You have some dealer options.
Standard: A Ford Mustang Cobra. You have some dealer options and Cobra options.
Advanced: I pulled the engine on the Cobra and dropped in a Hemi. I also painted it Pink and put in a retro eight track. It runs on Bio-Desiel. People think its a peice of crap, but me and my family love it! Fully customized ride.
An example might be splitting HP into two pools: A real wounds pool and a fatigue pool. Healing assumptions would change, damage assumptions would change (cone of cold does fatigue and hp dmg, e,g), class features would need to be re-examined (like a Paladins Lay on Hands - heals hp, fatigue, or both?). A lot of this would have to be decided at the table, that is the "module" won't cover everything. There would likely be corner cases, how a class feature interacts with a feat and this new thing called fatigue, that DMs would have to discover in play and deal with.
In short:
Basic: A Stock Ford Mustang. You have some dealer options.
Standard: A Ford Mustang Cobra. You have some dealer options and Cobra options.
Advanced: I pulled the engine on the Cobra and dropped in a Hemi. I also painted it Pink and put in a retro eight track. It runs on Bio-Desiel. People think its a peice of crap, but me and my family love it! Fully customized ride.
Last edited:
Kinak
First Post
It's hard to predict whether a game will be good for an entire campaign, let alone thousands of campaigns involving thousands of groups.
I'd take it on faith that they could design a base game with "default options that can be swapped out if you want more complexity." That's easy.
But that's not the question. The question is: does the set of options that sounds appealing to each group play well for their campaign?
And that involves a lot more than just being the appropriate level of complexity. It involves the process of choosing that level of complexity, it means the core books are laid out so that each set of options can run out of the same text, and it requires product support appropriate for each set of options.
And if you look back across the editions, you'll see plenty of failures in undertested rules, unusable layout, and gaps in product support even when everyone's nominally playing under the same rules. I think it's safe to worry those might be problems, particularly as they promise more and more things will be left to options.
Cheers!
Kinak
Kinak
First Post
That's actually part of why I'm so confused by WotC's "modules for everything!" approach to 5e. I'd much rather they just make the best game they can and leave the mods to the community/3pp.
It really feels like they're trying to hedge their bets and appease everyone rather than appeal to anyone, which has drained out much of my enthusiasm for the product.
Cheers!
Kinak
Roleplaying isn't dogma, its philosophy. They want to make sure everyone can play the version of the game they want to. Its too splintered of a market place-- "the best game" doesn't exist, there might be the "best game for you" but that's hardly going to make everyone happy.
JustinAlexander
First Post
The two big reasons are balance and support.
Balance is incredibly difficult to maintain in a system which features a multitude of choices interacting in complex ways. Most RPG designers (including those at WotC) tend to fail when they try to achieve it. Adding on an entire new level of complexity in the form of modular components that can be swapped in and out will only make this already difficult task even more difficult.
Support material becomes very difficult to develop in this kind of environment. During 3.5, example, WotC got burned from both sides in trying to include support material for ToM and ToB in the Complete supplements: Those who were using the Tomes felt they weren't getting enough support; those who weren't using the Tomes felt that space was being wasted. It's a Catch-22 and it's even more problematic when you're dealing with a modular system. Even something as simple as an adventure module becomes difficult to present when the writer doesn't know whether to call for an ability check or a skill check or something else based on which modules a given DM is using.
This sort of thing has been attempted before in the industry. It's always failed (and usually failed spectacularly).
I think the more WotC leans towards distinct, cohesive games that can be kitbashed together using individual initiative the more successful they'll be. The discussion of three levels (basic/standard/advanced) makes me leery. But a lot will depend on exactly what the packages are for this stuff.
Li Shenron
Legend
I think a wound system is a very good example of a module for D&D Advanced!
Some other possible examples could be:
- an honor/reputation system
- more precise tactical combat rules such as facing (although I think that the main tactical combat module belongs to D&D Standard)
- a weapon vs armor table
- skill challenges
- weapon speed
- metamagic
- training rules (for everything you can think about)
- detailed crafting rules
- mass combat rules
Similar Threads
