D&D 5E D&D Next Design Goals (Article)

[SageMinerve]

The comment made by one of the D&DN designers that seemed closest to me to 4E bashing was "skill challeges need to die in a fire."

First, I disagree. I like the skill challenge mechanic, when used well. I've designed many that flow seamlessly with the action, don't force players into them, and reward them in a structured way for overcoming something without resorting to combat.

Second, even if a designer dislikes Skill Challenges, literally incendiary comment seems like a really poor choice when trying to be inclusive.

It's nothing that will keep me from following the development of 5E, but it did rub me the wrong way.

Edit: Exact quote from 5E Info Page:

Skill Challeges - "I want them to die in a fire."

Not sure who the quote is attributed to, as the news page does not credit the designer.

The "die in a fire" quote was from Robert Schwalb. The full quote, from a seminar at DDXP, is as follows:

"Rob: (jokingly) I really want skill challenges to die in a fire. The plan was great for those, but I always felt it subtracted too much from the narrative. I think we can do complex skill checks within the narative and provide a robust amount of information to help the DM just weave them into the story."

Make of that quote what you will.

I think anyone that has played more than one edition could point to AT LEAST one mechanic in each edition that he would want to see removed/destroyed/annhilated/whatever... doesn't mean that the player dislike eveything about that edition.

Just a few examples, in my case:

1st: THAC0, class/race capped levels
3rd: über-casters (not unique to that edition, but IMO the worst case)
4th: combat minutiae and length (again, not unique to that edition, but...)

Does that mean that those editions have, in my eyes, no redeeming qualities? No of course not.

I think that it's the same with Robert Schwalb. Clearly, he thinks that Skill Challenges were a poorly-implemented mechanic, to say the least. BUT to pretend that he's bashing 4th edition because of that is not sound reasoning, to say the least.

Come on people, stop trying to see conspiracies against your favorite edition/game mechanic everywhere... it gets old pretty fast.

(and by the way, just to make sure: I'm not targeting either Mika nor Vyvyan Basterd with that last remark, even though I quoted them)

 

[DMKastmaria]

I played AD&D with the lookup matrices, and I never assumed that -10 was as low as you could go. The table was, after all, pretty easy to extrapolate!

I've ran long-term, high level AD&D campaigns. An AC better than -6 has never been seen in any of my 1e games. It would seem rather silly. Note the repeating 20's in the matrices as well.

In 1e a red dragon has an AC of -1. Asmodeus has a -8.

A 15th lvl Fighter, with no strength bonus and no magic bonuses, would hit the dragon on a 7 or higher. Asmodeus on a 14. Realistically, he's going to have at least a +4 or so from various bonuses by that time. Probably, more like +6.

Meanwhile, in 3.x you've got AC's of 40+. 3.x is so designed that the goal-posts are continually being moved.

The 1e thief will, at 15th level, succeed at finding traps 90% of the time, without taking bonuses into account.

He's a bad-*** ninja-like ghost. At 15th level, he's earned that!

In 3.x, the idea is to "challenge" the thief, and raise the DC. It's like he hasn't gained many levels, at all!

One of the reasons I don't play 3.x anymore.

Very different results. Very different feel.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

So, is balanced math the only thing you care about from DnD or 5e?

Let me put it another way, why do you believe that 5e fails if it isn't 4e? I'm positive it won't be 3e, 2e or 1e but (to you) it fails if it isn't 4e?

It's not the only thing I care about, but the math not working and/or the game not being balanced is the one, absolute deal breaker. I don't think I'm alone in that.

As for 5E failing if it fails at being 4E, or more accurately being the D&D 4E players want, it will fail at its own stated goals(5E being D&D for everybody which includes 4E people) if it does that.

Put another way, why does the new system HAVE TO BE like the old one, none of the previous ones were. All "e's" have been a departure from their parent and all to one extent or another have been a success.

They are trying to unify not the mechanics or "balance" of the system but the FEEL of play and options in play of that system.

Balanced math to me has almost 0 relevance to how good the GAME is. If it is a system where "the math is balanced" and has nothing else going for it then pretty soon I'll realize it isn't the game for me and I'll play something else. If it is a game where the math is balanced AND can do epic games, low magic games, skullduggery games, dungeon-crawls, mystery games, high fantasy, high technology or whatever then it will be a success. If it can do all those things and the math isn't balanced it will still be a success (at least to me).

Balanced math (by itself) =/= make a good game, neither does its absence.

Besides, chances are the math as well as a number of mechanics, phrases and techniques WILL resemble 4e more closely than other editions. It is a matter of what has the clearest coding or phrasing in mechanics. If there is advantage then it will be closer to 4e advantage than 3e's advantage. They are only 10% done the game but I am almost positive this is true.

Balance, the math working, and elegance in mechanics is FUNDAMENTAL to the 4E feel, more important than anything else. You can't make the game "feel" like 4E without them

 

[n00bdragon]

Good math is essential to a good game. You might have fun with a poorly designed game despite it's flaws but very few people enjoy games because of the game's problems.

That said, I have total faith that the design team can put forth a good faith effort to make the math of the game as tight as possible. Even back as far as AD&D there were serious efforts to make the crunch of the game work solidly and for the most part it has succeeded in every edition. Things always fall apart at high levels and I have no reason to believe they won't botch that again because it will get scant playtesting but hey, that's practically a D&D tradition by now.

What DOES alarm me because I know they have the power to fix it but I believe they simply don't want to is the balance of narrative power between magical classes and non-magical ones. Clearly, there are players who enjoy games where people with magic can do whatever they want while others can do only whatever the DM allows them to. I disagree with these players and their philosophy on game design and narrative control. Furthermore, I believe that the developers not only believe that model to be the best default model, but I believe they will actively avoid ways of easily implementing alternative models (either where non-magical types gain the same immense narrative powers or casters are reduced to the narrative weakness of non-casters). From what I've heard so far the core classes will be so focused on servicing that nebulous "iconic D&D feel" that the only remedy will be the 3e-esque solution to "ban core" and start over with new classes.

In a nutshell, the work they have done so far looks less modular and more like a plate of spaghetti (inextricably tangled).

 

[Steely_Dan]

The 1st edition attack matrices are as complicated as a calendar. No muss. No fuss.

Total, the drama people make about it, not necessary (though I still prefer the 4th Ed Gamma World/3rd Ed D&D/4th Ed D&D method).

 

[Thalionalfirin]

I'm guessing 3 persons minimum or we're going to see 1-on-1 games again.

I would love the ability to have one on one games again. Is that a bad thing?

 

[howandwhy99]

I would love the ability to have one on one games again. Is that a bad thing?

Oh not bad, just an observation.

I think the game was originally designed around team play. 1-on-1 is something (mostly) lost in the last twenty years. It would be interesting if this was something they were going to support again.

 

[Lanefan]

What's really interesting to me is what their working definitions for Adventure and Campaign are.

Agreed - some illumination here would give us a much better idea of what they're aiming at.

Balanced math to me has almost 0 relevance to how good the GAME is. If it is a system where "the math is balanced" and has nothing else going for it then pretty soon I'll realize it isn't the game for me and I'll play something else. If it is a game where the math is balanced AND can do epic games, low magic games, skullduggery games, dungeon-crawls, mystery games, high fantasy, high technology or whatever then it will be a success. If it can do all those things and the math isn't balanced it will still be a success (at least to me).

Balanced math (by itself) =/= make a good game, neither does its absence.

Agreed.

But there's more to it than just balanced (or not) math. There's also a hard-to-define question of what I'll call forgiveness in the math; or room for error. 0e-1e-2e have this - in combat, for example, there's a much wider range of opponents you can throw at a party that'll give a good fight without either a TPK or a party cakewalk. In 3e the range is much narrower, probably due to the open-ended scaling. I'm not sure about 4e but from what I've seen I'd guess it to be more like 3e in this regard.

I'd like to see a return to more "forgiving" math for two reasons: one, it feels less restricting as a DM and gives me more options; and two, it can get away with being less balanced and thus doesn't have to be designed into the ground.

I would love the ability to have one on one games again. Is that a bad thing?

It's not a bad thing, but methinks it's also not a high-priority thing in the design process as 1-on-1 play is not all that common.

Lan-"the way to self-limit AC is to not give out items etc. that improve it"-efan

 

[Crazy Jerome]

In 3e the range is much narrower, probably due to the open-ended scaling. I'm not sure about 4e but from what I've seen I'd guess it to be more like 3e in this regard.

4E is considerably wider than 3E here, though not as much as certain parts of Basic/1E. (I assume 2E is a lot like 1E on this, but didn't play it enough to say.) The big drawback with 4E in that regard is not so much the narrowness of the range, but that the 30 character levels so expanded the range to cover, some of the adaptible nature in the math is hidden compared to the flavor. I think this is part of what they getting at with monsters that "become minions" as they are out-leveled.

You could take a slice of 4E, say about 3rd to 15th level, reflavor it to fit 1E, and get something that would be pretty close in the range of the 1E math, albeit with some differences. Ignore the 4E magic item recommendations, and play them like 1E, and it would be even closer.

The main exception to that is the radically scaling hit points in 4E, which is why it wouldnt quite measure up there. Despite all the talk about attack bonuses and defenses scaling unreasonably, played in the 1E style, 4E works pretty well through those levels. Of course, flattening those would give it an even longer range.

Take 4E, flatten the attacks, defenses, and somewhat keep hit points under controls while boosting damage a bit, and you'll get math very close to what they have been discussing. How that math is flavored and achieved will then matter more to the feel, than the math itself (e.g. 1E multiple attacks versus boosting single attack damage).

 

[pemerton]

I've ran long-term, high level AD&D campaigns. An AC better than -6 has never been seen in any of my 1e games. It would seem rather silly. Note the repeating 20's in the matrices as well.

I know about the repeating 20s, as well as the footnote/sidebar canvassing two different options for interpreting them and what comes after them.

As for ACs below -10, Fullplate +4 and Shield +5 gives -9. (Even if you're not using UA, Plate Mail +5 and Shield +5 gives -8.) A handful of bonuses on top of that (from DEX and/or other magic, such as a Defending sword) will give an AC below -10. One of the character types more likely to wear this armour combination is a cavalier, and cavaliers receive a level bonus to DEX, so getting a DEX bonus of +3 or better (at DEX 17+) is not that unrealistic.

High level barbarians, who are allowed to use magic items and who get a +2 bonus to AC per point of DEX above 14, can also get ACs below -10.

And there are probably other ways I'm not remembering, involving Bracers plus Rings and/or Cloaks of Protection plus other miscellaneous magic items plus DEX. I haven't got my books here, but I think the best Bracers are AC 2, the best Ring +6 (giving -4), +4 or +5 from DEX is not out of the question for a mage or thief, which will then give us AC -11 with another +3 of bonuses. (I have a feeling that a Cloak will stack with a ring. If it doesn't, I'm pretty sure that there are other options.)

Asmodeus has a -8

My memory is that the rules actively encouraged GMs to have monsters use the magic in their treasure hoards. If Asmodueus puts on a Ring of Protection +3, presumably his AC becomes -11. (The fact that items will work when he puts them on is reinforced, isn't it, by the special rules for Daemons and the way their magic resistance also has the peculiar effect of stopping magic items that they wear from working.)

Meanwhile, in 3.x you've got AC's of 40+.

<snip>

Very different results. Very different feel.

I haven't play enough 3E to have any strong view on this, but it seems plausible. But also seems somewhat orthogonal to the question of whether the AD&D table was intended to impose a hard cap, or rather admitted of extrapolation.