D&D 5E Coming Around on the "Not D&D" D&D Next Train

Bluenose

Adventurer
As one whose D&D PCs are usually double or triple classed, most of my prior designs do not work well in 4Ed. I have tried. Furthermore, when I tried to continue designing PCs as I preferred, the mechanics and concepts often came together like the proverbial square peg & round hole.* In truth, sometimes, the concepts worked better in 4Ed than in prior editions.

Wait, you prefer multi-class characters and you don't like the conversion to 4e, but don't have a problem with the one from 2e to 3e.

How?

I mean when I first played 3.0 it was with a group that converted our existing characters from a 2e game to a 3e game, and then played the same game session from our 2e game in 3e. We were worried that the conversion wasn't good, so we thought we've give it a try and see what we needed to tweak to get similar results. We had two elven multi-classcharacters, a Ftr/Mage and a Mage/Thief, and I think it's fair to say neither player exactly enjoyed the experience of having horribly gimped PCs.

It's amazing how much of what we felt was wrong with 3e came out in that game. Converted straight from 2e according to the guidelines, doing the same thing we'd done the week before, and the results were so different that we actually thought we'd done something wrong, either misunderstanding a huge swathe of the rules or at least in converting the characters. And then we checked and analysed, and discovered that we hadn't made any significant errors, the game was just giving us wildly different results even when we played it the way we had 2e.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

innerdude

Legend
Tradition isn't a valid argument, otherwise you could justify the inquisition coming back since it lasted a long time.

At no point in my original post am I talking about "tradition" (to say nothing of the fact that comparing RPG rules to a real-world religious inquisition is, frankly, asinine).

If you were paying attention, the whole point of starting this thread is that I'm very, very, VERY okay---MORE THAN OKAY---with D&D Next totally breaking from tradition. About the only thing that would stop me from buying D&D Next's "Core 3" rulebooks at this point is if there's too much nonsensical, slavish adherence to sacred cows that doesn't really fit with the overall structure of what they want to accomplish.

That said, I'm totally fine with "structurally sound" sacred cows remaining, especially if they are accounted for in other aspects of design.


People don't want changes because they are scared, the vancian magic system will always cause problems

I have stated on numerous occasions on these forums that Vancian magic is one of my least favorite parts of "classic" D&D, for both its rules mechanics (crunch) and story (fluff) implications. The fact that pretty much the entire 3e rules system is designed around this fundamental architecture is probably the biggest cause for me to become dissatisfied with the entire 3e product line, including Pathfinder.

That said---if I'm going to actually play a "D&D" game, and not some other RPG of which there are now thousands tailored to the letter for particular playstyles, then I might as well play D&D and accept that Vancian magic is part and parcel with the style of game that is "classic" D&D, and nothing else can really emulate it. It would be my desire that 5e re-evaluate how the overall balance works with Vancian magic, but for Next to be "D&D," it needs to be Vancian. If I merely want a "D&D style game" that uses a different casting system, I've got two awesome alternatives at my fingertips in Fantasy Craft and Radiance.

You can't give some the same abilities all the time, and others some OP abilities with limited uses leaving them UP after.
You can't balance that because not every campaign will require the same amount of spell use.
Or the player could have memorized spells that aren't much use for the situations he faces that day and be UP because of it.
There is no way to balance this system because too many things can mess it up.

And 5e's used of modular rules will also make it almost impossible to balance because the number of rules interactions to consider will be insane.

Well, if slavish adherence to "per encounter combat balance" is your thing, then don't buy 5e. You've got 4e sitting on shelves in FLGS's and Amazon warehouses all over planet earth to make you happy. Personally, I don't want 4e's approach to balance, nor do I want 3e's approach to balance, or 1e's approach. I want a new approach to balance that works within the framework of what a "D&D Game" should feel like.

If there's one thing I truly don't understand at this point, it's the mindset of many 4e fans regarding Next which says, "5e will be unbalanced, and thus will be terrible." This may well be true--depending on ones' views regarding "balance" in the first place--but why do you care? There's enough 4e material out there to last a lifetime. WotC has brought back support for PDFs. DDI isn't going anywhere for at least a year to 18 months after the release of 5e--which is still over a year and a half away.

In my mind there's very little reason for 4e fans to be unhappy at this point, other than out of some misguided sense of being "miffed." It's as if somehow because WotC "didn't see the light" and make 4e "the definitive D&D edition," that 4e fans have been personally insulted. For lots of reasons the game simply didn't "stick" in its market, and the company that made the product is moving on. That product, however, isn't going anywhere, so why worry? And if 4e is as "flexible" and "hackable" as many of its proponents claim, it should be relatively simple to convert third-party adventures, etc. to be usable with the system long, long after the product shelf life.

I have no interest at this point in trying to "unify" the 4e fanbase and 3e/PF fanbase. The two sides clearly want different things from their D&D game. I am interested, however, in building a new fanbase out of 5e with people who aren't beholden to either, as I am.
 
Last edited:


Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
Wait, you prefer multi-class characters and you don't like the conversion to 4e, but don't have a problem with the one from 2e to 3e.

How?

I mean when I first played 3.0 it was with a group that converted our existing characters from a 2e game to a 3e game, and then played the same game session from our 2e game in 3e. We were worried that the conversion wasn't good, so we thought we've give it a try and see what we needed to tweak to get similar results. We had two elven multi-classcharacters, a Ftr/Mage and a Mage/Thief, and I think it's fair to say neither player exactly enjoyed the experience of having horribly gimped PCs.

It's amazing how much of what we felt was wrong with 3e came out in that game. Converted straight from 2e according to the guidelines, doing the same thing we'd done the week before, and the results were so different that we actually thought we'd done something wrong, either misunderstanding a huge swathe of the rules or at least in converting the characters. And then we checked and analysed, and discovered that we hadn't made any significant errors, the game was just giving us wildly different results even when we played it the way we had 2e.
Our experience didn't match yours, clearly.

As soon as we started, it was obvious that a direct conversion wouldn't make sense.  So, using the conversion guide, we made choices that did.

For example, I had a Rgr/Dru/M-U.  As a straitght conversion, he'd have far too many levels in 3Ed.  I looked at the totality of the PC's history, concentrating on the most recent levels.  How did he play?  What were his most commonly used abilities?

Well, even though he had Ranger in his build, he actually wasn't the best melee combatant because of bad rolls.  It was as if my dice hated him.  But he had a nifty array of spells at his disposal, of which he used a very tightly focused subset all the time.

In the end, I dropped most of his Ranger levels and preserved his ability to cast his iconic spells- at least those that existed in 3Ed (some never got re-done)- and he became a Ranger/Druid/Specialist Mage: Transmuter with a big level disparity (and thus, XP penalty) between Rgr and everything else.

Since Druid became his primary source of BAB, he remained a less effective melee combatant than other warriors in the party...but he could still track & had Favored Enemies.  And he could still cast every last spell he used (that existed in 3Ed) that mattered to the history of the character & campaign.

Some play going forward changed a little, but it changed in the same way for all the PCs. Which was expected, since there were key differences in the systems: feats, standardized stat bonus math, no level limits by race, etc.

Across the campaign, there was no need to retcon the campaign to account for how Event A, B or C went down, because most of those key abilities for each PC were still present on the sheet of the PC in question.  The same PCs could still have taken the same actions they did in the 1Ed or 2Ed eras of the game.

Converting to 4Ed was comparatively nigh impossible.

Where the 3Ed version of the was now essentially a Druid/Specialist Mage dabbling in Ranger, the 4Ed version was...what?

Druids & Transmuters didn't exist.  Key spells were gone.  And by virtue of the design change,  dabbling in a second class was as good as you could do- no 3rd classes, ever. Any significant improvement in your second class required the burning of Feats AND exchanging access to abilities from the core class to the one you dabbled in.  Not eschewing advancement like in 3Ed, but actually unlearning some stuff. The breadth of ability the PC had via his spell selection was hyper-compressed into a wedge of a few, combat-only spells.*

Now, over the years, 4Ed added things like Hybrids that alleviated some of those issues, but it never actually erased them.










* there were spells that disappeared in the prior conversion, mostly ones from certain exotic supplements he rarely cast. But in the 4Ed attempt, he would have lost mainstream, run-of-the mill PHB stuff. To put it differently: 3Ed took away his Lobster Thermidor, 4Ed took away his hamburger & fries.
 
Last edited:

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
Our experience didn't match yours, clearly.

As soon as we started, it was obvious that a direct conversion wouldn't make sense.  So, using the conversion guide, we made choices that did.

For example, I had a Rgr/Dru/M-U.  As a straitght conversion, he'd have far too many levels in 3Ed.  I looked at the totality of the PC's history, concentrating on the most recent levels.  How did he play?  What were his most commonly used abilities?

Well, even though he had Ranger in his build, he actually wasn't the best melee combatant because of bad rolls.  It was as if my dice hated him.  But he had a nifty array of spells at his disposal, of which he used a very tightly focused subset all the time.

In the end, I dropped most of his Ranger levels and preserved his ability to cast his iconic spells- at least those that existed in 3Ed (some never got re-done)- and he became a Ranger/Druid/Specialist Mage: Transmuter with a big level disparity (and thus, XP penalty) between Rgr and everything else.

Yeah, having converted lots of NPCs, some of the multiclass conversions turned out very nicely in 3e. You just had to realize that basing things more heavily on the caster was the way to go to preserve the initial character idea.
 

Li Shenron

Legend
Tradition isn't a valid argument because the fact that it's been going on for generations doesn't make it good.

Well but if it's been going on for generation maybe it did have some good, otherwise D&D would have died after just a few years.

Tradition IMHO is a very valid argument once you consider that D&D is a brand but it isn't the only RPG available, so that brand has to remain recognizable. How much (and which part of the game) has to remain unchanged or minimally change for the brand to remain recognizable is of course largely debatable.

WotC can do what they want. They did it with 4e, and the sales they got is the consequence. You just can't blame someone for not buying your products.

4e felt to me like someone had changed Mountain Dew to being a type of cola, with the motivation that Coke and Pepsi were selling much more... yeah ok, maybe that's a way to increase sales, but if I liked Mountain Dew, I might buy an "updated" version of it, but not something that doesn't taste like Mountain Dew enough for me. At that point, I would just buy Coke if I liked colas, but not a Mountain Dew changed to a cola.

So tradition is very much a valid argument for it... 4e didn't seem at all to be a bad game of its own, but I just didn't have any reason to replace the game I liked with something else. Now I do have good reasons for switching to 5e however.
 

Iosue

Legend
Pos-Rep means almost nothing. Just because someone recieves pos-rep for a post, doesn't make the sentiments in the post any more right. Wrong is Wrong; even if the entire world agrees with it.
Heck it's not even that. If I make a statement critical of any particular edition, I get pos-rep from a bunch of people to don't like that edition. If I make a statement favorable to any particular edition, I get pos-rep from people who like that edition. Pos-rep is an echo chamber. It's a nice little ego-boost, but it means nothing.
 


Vanoras

First Post
At no point in my original post am I talking about "tradition" (to say nothing of the fact that comparing RPG rules to a real-world religious inquisition is, frankly, asinine).

If you were paying attention, the whole point of starting this thread is that I'm very, very, VERY okay---MORE THAN OKAY---with D&D Next totally breaking from tradition. About the only thing that would stop me from buying D&D Next's "Core 3" rulebooks at this point is if there's too much nonsensical, slavish adherence to sacred cows that doesn't really fit with the overall structure of what they want to accomplish.

That said, I'm totally fine with "structurally sound" sacred cows remaining, especially if they are accounted for in other aspects of design.

I have stated on numerous occasions on these forums that Vancian magic is one of my least favorite parts of "classic" D&D, for both its rules mechanics (crunch) and story (fluff) implications. The fact that pretty much the entire 3e rules system is designed around this fundamental architecture is probably the biggest cause for me to become dissatisfied with the entire 3e product line, including Pathfinder.

That said---if I'm going to actually play a "D&D" game, and not some other RPG of which there are now thousands tailored to the letter for particular playstyles, then I might as well play D&D and accept that Vancian magic is part and parcel with the style of game that is "classic" D&D, and nothing else can really emulate it. It would be my desire that 5e re-evaluate how the overall balance works with Vancian magic, but for Next to be "D&D," it needs to be Vancian. If I merely want a "D&D style game" that uses a different casting system, I've got two awesome alternatives at my fingertips in Fantasy Craft and Radiance.

Well, if slavish adherence to "per encounter combat balance" is your thing, then don't buy 5e. You've got 4e sitting on shelves in FLGS's and Amazon warehouses all over planet earth to make you happy. Personally, I don't want 4e's approach to balance, nor do I want 3e's approach to balance, or 1e's approach. I want a new approach to balance that works within the framework of what a "D&D Game" should feel like.

If there's one thing I truly don't understand at this point, it's the mindset of many 4e fans regarding Next which says, "5e will be unbalanced, and thus will be terrible." This may well be true--depending on ones' views regarding "balance" in the first place--but why do you care? There's enough 4e material out there to last a lifetime. WotC has brought back support for PDFs. DDI isn't going anywhere for at least a year to 18 months after the release of 5e--which is still over a year and a half away.

In my mind there's very little reason for 4e fans to be unhappy at this point, other than out of some misguided sense of being "miffed." It's as if somehow because WotC "didn't see the light" and make 4e "the definitive D&D edition," that 4e fans have been personally insulted. For lots of reasons the game simply didn't "stick" in its market, and the company that made the product is moving on. That product, however, isn't going anywhere, so why worry? And if 4e is as "flexible" and "hackable" as many of its proponents claim, it should be relatively simple to convert third-party adventures, etc. to be usable with the system long, long after the product shelf life.

I have no interest at this point in trying to "unify" the 4e fanbase and 3e/PF fanbase. The two sides clearly want different things from their D&D game. I am interested, however, in building a new fanbase out of 5e with people who aren't beholden to either, as I am.

Not saying it will be unbalanced, I'm saying some of their design choices will make it hard to balance.
The number of optional rules to consider when making any rules is going to make it extremely hard to make rules that work for all.
I simply think it's too ambitious a project.


The Vancian magic system is not required for it to be D&D, D&D is brand of heroic fantasy tabletop RPG.


How old something is has no bearing on whether something is good or bad.
Otherwise you could argue that immoral things become moral as time goes by, aka the inquisition analogy.
Which makes no more sense then arguing that rules become better as time goes by.


A good rule stands on it's ability to accomplish it's intent.
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
The Vancian magic system is not required for it to be D&D, D&D is brand of heroic fantasy tabletop RPG.

Yes and no.

Creating a brand is about staking a claim in the mind of the consumers who make up the market. You do this by having elements in your products and/or services that distinguish you from other businesses in the same field. Your aesthetics- logos, colors, mottoes, theme songs/jingles, advertising themes & characters- are all part of this.

But so are things dealing with actual functionality: think Audi's history with 4WD, Volvo's safety record, etc.

While the Vancian system is not essential to D&D's brand, it is nonetheless one of the game elements that help distinguish it from other FRPGs. And it does so in a way that makes it a definite part of D&D's brand. Like i said, D&D without Vancian magic is certainly conceivable, but by excising it, you also potentially dilute the brand by reducing its dissimilarity to other FRPGs unless you can supply a replacement that is equally distinctive that resonates with a significant portion of those who are your established customers.

If you don't, and you lose too many of those old customers, you are redefining your brand into something else. (Like how MTV nearly stopped playing music videos.)
 

Remove ads

Top