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

[thecasualoblivion]

99% of the time, I think you're right.

But goals inevitably come into conflict at some point. Say, you're looking at illusion spells -- something like minor image.

To keep it true to the play experience that people expect out of D&D, you need to have a flexible, general kind of spell rule for that. It needs to be able to create an illusion of whatever the user desires. Part of the fun of playing a D&D illusionist has always been that creativity, that capacity to use the situation in a unique way limited mostly by your imagination, and what senses your spell can affect.

Of course, this makes it nearly impossible to balance. Sometimes that little low-level spell will negate an encounter. Sometimes it will have nearly no effect. There's little way of knowing which is which before the spell is cast.

If we were to "balance" illusion, it might look like 4e illusion: combat magic with specific, predetermined effects.

However, that's not true to the experience of playing an illusionist in D&D. It fails at being fun in the way many people want an illusionist to be fun.

So this is a situation where the potential ability to negate an entire encounter needs to be preserved. It's not exactly like you can balance damage-per-round against that. It's effectively infinite damage sometimes, no damage other times, up to DM interpretation almost always. You're not going to be able to make that balanced in a way that is going to be very satisfying for anyone who wants to play a classic D&D style illusionist and create images of whatever strikes their fancy.

Spells like Minor Image are balance problems that need to be addressed, and this from somebody who considers those his favorite spells from when I was playing 2E/3E. Its just too powerful for a 1st or 2nd level spell, and shouldn't be one. If the game is going to include something like that, it has to be changed to a higher level effect, if it is to be included at all. That spell, as nice as it was, was a flaw in the game because it was overpowered for its level. That it was fun and that it worked that way in the past is not a good enough reason to go back.

 

[CasvalRemDeikun]

I'd say most of those people are playing 4E right now, and WotC already has them on board for 5E.

I'm talking about all of the people playing Pathfinder, OSRIC, Lamentations of the Flame Princess, Adventurer Conqueror King, Castles & Crusades, AD&D (B/X, 2E), 3.x, etc. or left D&D entirely.

WotC has a real chance to bring those people back into the D&D fold. But, they're not going to do it with "just good enough".

Umm, where are you getting that 4E players are just going to blindly go with 5E? We have just as much to lose if 5E isn't stellar as anyone else does. In fact, it seems like the 4E players are the ones the most disappointed with some of the information that is coming out about 5E. And if WotC doesn't play their cards right, they could lose a ton of the 4E group, which puts them in the same predicament as they are already in.

Which brings up the core issue. They can't just focus on the 4E crowd, if they were going to do that, they might as well keep making 4E. They can't just focus on the 3E crowd, since that will cause a ton of players from 4E to leave (probably a fair number of 1e/2e players too). And they can't just focus on 1E/2E either, since the majority of the fanbase is 3E/4E players. They have to make the game enjoyable for ALL groups, which means they are going to have to sacrifice some stuff.

3E players are getting the multiclass system from that system back. Vancian casting is making a return (though if you look at the 4E wizard, how ISN'T using Vancian casting?). But they won't be getting LFQW back, classes are going to be balanced with each other on a level by level basis, not a spectrum basis(spectrum balance failed miserably around level 10 anyway), otherwise 4E players will revolt. 4E isn't about the tactical combat(that IS something it does exceptionally well), it is about balance. I haven't really seen something unique to 1E/2E that is making a return.

Back to the point that Monte made in the OP article, yes, getting the feel of D&D right is important, but that doesn't mean you can sacrifice balance to do it. Getting the math right builds a strong foundation for the game. "Feels like D&D" is 100% window-dressing. Worrying about aesthetics over structure is like worrying more about paint colors than the fact the house is made of straw. "Feels like D&D" doesn't mean squat if the game collapses because it is broken.

EDIT: I just reread your post and I understand what you are saying now. The section you were quoting combined with your answer didn't paint a pretty picture, but in context to the whole post it replies to, it makes more sense.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I contend that 5e does not need to be better than other editions being played.

It needs to be about as good, since many folks will switch to a good game that has the added bonus/cache' of being the current edition of D&D. For example, about half of my current gaming group play 4e not because they like it the most (one favors 3.5, one favors BECMI, and one favors 2e), but because it is good enough for them, and they want to play the current, official D&D game.

Sure, lots of folks here on EN World don't care about playing the current, official edition. Many here (self-included) have written and use our own game books, or even our own systems. We are unusual in that respect. The kids in the D&D club at school want to play the current, electronically supported edition, and will do so as long as it is good. There's no requirement for them that the new edition be better.

I've been saying this myself, though I'd add that I imagine most people playing D&D don't consider "unifying the community" to be a goal in itself, but are more interested in having a game they enjoy. They aren't going to switch to a game they can enjoy significantly less to unify the commuinity.

What some folks are saying about not balancing for combat and what I'm saying about illusion and the like indicates that a balance that exists accross multiple encounters -- an entire "adventure" -- might be much more viable than a 3e/4e-style encounter-by-encounter balance. It sounds like 5e is pursung this -- this is the adventure-based design they've been talking about.

This might mean that an illusion spell or an assassin's death attack or a save-or-suck/charm person spell might dominate a single encounter, in exchange for not dominating every encounter in the adventure. It's OK to occasionally do infinite damage to one target -- they've only got so much HP, and there's more targets where they came from.

Edit: That doesn't necessarily remove balance problems entirely -- you still might need to make those tough calls -- but it does help make most balance problems significantly less pernicious, by limiting their effect and frequency, if nothing else.

Multiple encounters, an entire adventure, or even an in-game "day" are all too variable to be a really useful measure of balance. Limited powers become too powerful if fewer encounters happen, and become too weak if too many encounters happen. History has proven this, just think of the "5-min workday". Balancing by Encounter was much more effective because a single Encounter was so much less variable.

 

[P1NBACK]

Umm, where are you getting that 4E players are just going to blindly go with 5E?

Um. I never said that.

He said people who will play whatever edition of D&D is current. 4E is the most current edition. Therefore, those people are playing 4E right now and will go to 5E when it releases.

Should I draw a venn diagram for you?

( people who ( --->people who play most current edition<--- ) play 4E )

Will look like this when 5E releases:

( people who play 4E )

( people who ( --->people who play most current edition<--- ) play 5E )

No where in that equation did anyone say, "People who play 4E are blindly going to play 5E..."

 

[CasvalRemDeikun]

Um. I never said that.

Sorry, didn't get the edit in fast enough. I get what you are saying now.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Sorry, didn't get the edit in fast enough

I did't get the edit fast enough...ugh...*in the voice of an irritable Northern Nanny*

 

[Starbuck_II]

More to the point, if the 4e style characters and the non 4e styled charaters are not balanced against each other, then they will have flubbed a primary design goal. I think they can meet that goal without having to foster a secret cult who worship the lost, dark god of balance and wait for their messiah to return bearing the tablets of AEDU.

But 3.5 level 6 characters beat level 6 4E characters.
But both can beat a level 6 2E or 1E (HP alone).
I'd love to see the fight though (trouble will be seeing what magic items those 1E or 2E gets because that is 100% DM dependent since no WBL).

So they can't truly be balanced vs each other.
Now a 5E might be inbetween them all so it can work in their modules.

 

[Umbran]

But 3.5 level 6 characters beat level 6 4E characters.
But both can beat a level 6 2E or 1E (HP alone).

To me, that statement is poorly founded, because they use different rules. A hit point, or an XP, or a level, in one edition is not necessarily equivalent to those in another.

How can you tell if one can beat another? For example: Build a 1e grappling character, and a 3e grappling character - which grappling rules do you use to judge?

It is like saying Fizban can beat Gandalf. Or arguing whether the Enterprise can beat a Star Destroyer. It's silliness, I say!

 

[AntiStateQuixote]

Or arguing whether the Enterprise can beat a Star Destroyer. It's silliness, I say!

Of course that's a silly argument. The Enterprise would CRUSH a Star Destroyer.

Evidence here: http://celebs.icanhascheezburger.com/2010/09/30/celebrity-pictures-trek-v-star-wars/

 

[billd91]

Of course that's a silly argument. The Enterprise would CRUSH a Star Destroyer.

Evidence here: No Shields? May The Force Be With Them… - Celebrity Pictures, Lol Celebs and Funny Actor and Actress Photos - ROFLrazzi

Evidence schmevidence. It's a paradox. Stormtroopers can't hit anything, Redshirts always die. It's the classic impotent force vs the unstable object paradox.