D&D 5E Behind the design of 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons: Well my impression as least.

[the Jester]

But the one innovation I wanted is still not there in reference to giving martial characters maneuvers similar to spells.

For clarity, I take it that the battlemaster maneuvers don't go far enough in that direction for you?

How magical should a nonmagical character be? Did 4e go far enough for you (since it arguably went further that direction than any other version of D&D has)?

I always find this an interesting topic, albeit a fairly divisive one; many of us don't want martial characters to do anything that isn't possible in the real world.

 

[Fralex]

All the design elements of 5E are present in previous editions, but the emphasis has changed. The roles are still there based on classes like the cleric, wizard, rogue and fighter. The language has changed and the game has been simplified. So it really boils down to do you like a simple or complex game. And 5E tends towards the former and only time will tell if it has options for the later. But the one innovation I wanted is still not there in reference to giving martial characters maneuvers similar to spells. Then you would really have a solid game that can allow the classes to expand in multiple directions and even the class lines between the core classes would start to blur, especially when considering multi-classing and feats.

This isn't anything more than my own preference, but I personally don't want the class lines between the core classes to blur. If all the classes had a mechanic similar to spellcasting, then choosing a class with that mechanic would feel less meaningful. I had a fun time playing 4th edition but I have to admit it started to get me down after a while because there was so little variety between the different classes' resource management mechanics. You'd think they'd still feel different since each class used its powers to do different things, but somehow it just didn't feel like enough to me. No matter what the special abilities of my particular class's powers were, I was always thinking about their usage the same basic way. For me at least, it's important that each class require you to think about its features differently, and that includes each one having unique ways of managing its resources. This is something I think 5e did a good job with, moreso than both 4th and 3rd.

Barbarians have a single, powerful buff they can turn on and off a limited number of times. While it's on, a series of smaller decisions arise about how to make it last by putting yourself in situations where you can keep attacking things, or at least keep getting hurt. As they level up, they can choose extra features that trigger while it's active.
Wizards gradually acquire a large list of abilities, then decide each day which ones to make usable, and throughout the day decide which abilites to spend resources on to activate.
Warlocks acquire a smaller list of abilities they can spend resources on activating throughout the day, but replenish their resources several times in one day. They also have a unique list of features they can add to their class as they progress, the list containing a mix of high resource cost, low resource cost, and no resource cost.
Fighters start out with one basic ability that can be used any number of times in a variety of slightly different ways. They choose features that improve that ability in specific ways to make it better-suited to certain situations.

We could give each class options that give it the resource management mechanics of the other classes, but then your decision of what class to play no longer cares about how each class requires you to think about its resources. I think for some people, maybe the ones who are more into role-playing, it's actually more enjoyable to have less freedom in this area, as each class requires a different mindset and trying to get into that mindset is a fun challenge. And if a class had an option that gave it a mechanic similar to another class, I'd want to see its own unique take on that mechanic beyond just having the abilities it enables do different things. In this regard I think the Battlemaster fighter does a good job of working a little like a spellcaster, but encouraging a different approach.

So that's just how I view all this. Maybe as time goes by more options will become available for the classes and you'll be able to find something like what you want? This is still a really new version of the game, after all.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The three pillars are not equal. This idea of three pillars always existed in every edition of D&D. And have never been equal. Marketing by the designers is emphasizing these ideas of three pillars as though it is something new. It isn't and never was.

Combat is always and has always been the largest pillar by a huge margin in any edition of D&D. A DM might adjust that if his group does not mind. My group likes combat. They don't like to spend very much time on out of combat material. I very much doubt a very sizeable majority does not play exactly the same way. That is why combat balance should always be one of the largest factors in RPG design that involves combat simulations decided by numbers. Combat is the equivalent of glory in an RPG. He who kills the most and fastest accumulates for himself the most glory.

Never heard of OD&D, B/X or AD&D have you?

 

[Rhenny]

I think when I was younger playing 1e and 2e, combat might have been important because I played as a teen and young adult and I didn't really understand what "roleplaying" was. Kill the monster and take its stuff was the game with an occasional puzzle room or interaction quest that was non-combat related. I attribute most of that to my own less sophisticated interests at the time.

As I grew up, roleplaying became much more important. It wasn't really a system thing. It was my own maturation and the maturation of the groups I played with.

Now, I like balancing all that makes D&D, D&D. 3e/3.5e made combat too complicated and building a character was much more of a chore (especially with splat books and burgeoning feats, etc.) 4e made combats too long and seemed to force the DM to make each combat dangerous enough to make everyone take second wind or use healing surges with spells, etc...so combat became so much a part of the game. For me, 5e makes it easy to balance the pillars and have game sessions of 1 hour, 2 hour, 3 hour or 4 hour, each of which has some interaction, exploration and combat. Since I tend to balance those aspects, each player will have more of an opportunity to do what his or her PC is good at during most of my games. It is a win-win situation.

 

[Lanefan]

The three pillars are not equal. This idea of three pillars always existed in every edition of D&D. And have never been equal. Marketing by the designers is emphasizing these ideas of three pillars as though it is something new. It isn't and never was.

Perhaps - and that is something that needs to be fixed; I'll give 5e credit for at least trying.

Combat is always and has always been the largest pillar by a huge margin in any edition of D&D. A DM might adjust that if his group does not mind. My group likes combat. They don't like to spend very much time on out of combat material. I very much doubt a very sizeable majority does not play exactly the same way. That is why combat balance should always be one of the largest factors in RPG design that involves combat simulations decided by numbers.

Combat takes up the most rules pages (well, along with spell write-ups) in the books, probably becuase combat is how characters are most likely to die and players want the rules spelled out for that.

Combat is also where both players and DMs get to roll lots of dice, and let's face it - we all like rolling dice, right?

But combat isn't - and should never be - the whole game. There's a world out there to explore; and after that, a universe. There's a story out there to be written, whether it be the DM's overarching plot of how the world will end unless the PCs save it or whether it's the side-bar tale of Falstaffe the Fighter's endless yet unrequited love for Princess Ariana that drives his quest to become the greatest knight on life. There's a bunch of other adventurers in the party to play jokes on. There's derring-do to be derring-done, and songs and poems to write about it afterwards. There's heists to plan, and assassinations too. There's castles to build, spells to research, guilds to master.

And there's friends around the table to share a laugh with.

Combat is the equivalent of glory in an RPG. He who kills the most and fastest accumulates for himself the most glory.

Each year we determine by vote among several games a series of awards, the most prestigious of which (if any carry any prestige at all) is that for Most Valuable Character. By your standards that award without exception should be won every year by the best combat wombat in the game.

In the last ten winners there are but two combat wombats.

Seven of the winners, however, have been more-or-less support characters and-or healers; all Clerics of some sort some of whom swing a weapon only in the direst necessity. And the tenth was a Bard designed as a support character and archer. If combat gave all the glory none of those would have won.

Lan-"who's calling me a wombat?"-efan

 

[Celtavian]

Never heard of OD&D, B/X or AD&D have you?

Played all editions of D&D dating back to the red box. There has never been a difference. You want to advance in the game, you do combat the majority of the time...unless you can steal lots of gold. But the majority of xp from gold came from killing and taking it.

So no sure what your point is.

 

[Celtavian]

Perhaps - and that is something that needs to be fixed; I'll give 5e credit for at least trying.

Combat takes up the most rules pages (well, along with spell write-ups) in the books, probably becuase combat is how characters are most likely to die and players want the rules spelled out for that.

Combat is also where both players and DMs get to roll lots of dice, and let's face it - we all like rolling dice, right?

But combat isn't - and should never be - the whole game. There's a world out there to explore; and after that, a universe. There's a story out there to be written, whether it be the DM's overarching plot of how the world will end unless the PCs save it or whether it's the side-bar tale of Falstaffe the Fighter's endless yet unrequited love for Princess Ariana that drives his quest to become the greatest knight on life. There's a bunch of other adventurers in the party to play jokes on. There's derring-do to be derring-done, and songs and poems to write about it afterwards. There's heists to plan, and assassinations too. There's castles to build, spells to research, guilds to master.

And there's friends around the table to share a laugh with.
Each year we determine by vote among several games a series of awards, the most prestigious of which (if any carry any prestige at all) is that for Most Valuable Character. By your standards that award without exception should be won every year by the best combat wombat in the game.

In the last ten winners there are but two combat wombats.

Seven of the winners, however, have been more-or-less support characters and-or healers; all Clerics of some sort some of whom swing a weapon only in the direst necessity. And the tenth was a Bard designed as a support character and archer. If combat gave all the glory none of those would have won.

Lan-"who's calling me a wombat?"-efan

I've never been much concerned with what an individual table does. People change things to make them more enjoyable for themselves and their group. Our group is no different. Two of us (including myself) like to roleplay and participate in a story and two of us like combat and advancement. I imagine a lot of groups are mixed. The two that like story and role-playing drive the module forward during the non-combat parts that involve spying or role-playing and the two that don't read the books or text on their phones until we get to the combat part occasionally tossing in a line or two of role-playing.

As far as the game design goes, the majority of advancement (experience points) comes from combat. That's why it is the largest pillar. The game is designed to resolve conflicts and advance based on a majority of combat encounters.

If we were voting, we might vote a buffer as Most Valuable Character as well. Mainly because they enhance the ability to do damage and keep people from dying. Both combat elements. Most certainly not because they made the most Charisma checks in social interactions or snuck around the most. Combat Wombats as you call them always love the guy that keeps them alive and makes them better at fighting. Just because someone isn't swinging the weapon themselves doesn't mean they aren't having a powerful effect on combat. I know in our group the guy casting bless is well loved. Everybody gives that guy a lot of praise, so they can keep getting their bless.

 

[Hussar]

Heh. If you think d&d is not about combat, I've got about ten thousand modules for you that are chockablock with combat.

 

[Uchawi]

For clarity, I take it that the battlemaster maneuvers don't go far enough in that direction for you?

How magical should a nonmagical character be? Did 4e go far enough for you (since it arguably went further that direction than any other version of D&D has)?

I always find this an interesting topic, albeit a fairly divisive one; many of us don't want martial characters to do anything that isn't possible in the real world.

I am happy with the division between magic and non-magic ability in 5E, with the exception of healing based ability. So the overall desire for something like maneuvers is purely from a mechanical standpoint so martial class can share or gain new ability. So in that sense all the classes could remain the same as written, but the mechanics are present should you want to make them more magical, or just add or trade out choices. That is where I would like to have seen the design framework to at least address adding maneuvers to every martial class, or even spells. It would be optional, but the classes from the very start could be designed to use it. You could still have the feel for each class in place, and roles would not be front and center.

 

[Sailor Moon]

Heh. If you think d&d is not about combat, I've got about ten thousand modules for you that are chockablock with combat.

Once again you assume that just because combat takes up a larger page count then it is somehow the primary objective to the game. Since combat requires most of the rules then I would expect there to be modules. The other pillars don't require the number crunching that combat rules do but it doesn't make them less important or less used.