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

[Incenjucar]

What about fighting with two-weapons? Why isn't this a universal power? Why can't I actually wrestle with someone... without being a specific class? This is, IMO, the weakness of the power system in 4e.

That's not a weakness of the power system, that's them deciding not to include those as powers.

It's like saying that 3E's system is flawed because there is no Retribution of the Dawn Kings of Solace Monkey Groin Kick spell.

 

[Tovec]

3e. Lots of problems there. I ran one high level 3e game. The thief absolutely sucked! The only Fighter was this samurai/sword saint/whatever that was a whirlwind of death and played second fiddle to no one!

The Druid was a monster from 7th to 12th level, then started falling behind everyone else.

The sorceress rocked.

The cleric, of course, absolutely rocked toast!

Honestly, with all the min/maxing going on, if you played a fighter type in 3.x and sucked at high levels, please speak up? What classes did you play?

Scaling saves and caster checks were problematic in 3.x. Another reason I prefer 1e by far!

In the only epic level game I ever PLAYED* we had a rogue who was the BEST damage dealer in the group due to his class and build. He was amazing. The next best was the barbarian-esque character who tunneled through a colossal plus construct in a single turn. I was the favoured soul who laid down amazing widespread damage to groups but I was not the powerhouse of the group.

It just goes to show that at least in some groups the caster is not the biggest gun and that all classes can shine in combat and out of it.

*I DMed one but I cannot remember all the classes involved.

The Divine Bard 4/Fighter 1/Battlesmith 1/Deepwarden 2/Hammer of Moradin 5 or what have you was a problem, I am not suggesting they repeat that mistake.

Does that mean I will no longer be able to play my..

Druid/Barbarian/Warshaper/Bear Warrior :C no fair

But seriously, I am not recommending repeating this mistake either.

Unless I want to be a good archer, then I apparently have to go to another class to get the pieces I want.

Good point, very good point. Love to XP you for it.

At-Will powers are anything you can do at-will. 4E did not bother to list all of them as powers, because having a scratch-your-butt power gets a bit absurd. "Power" is simply your ability to affect the narrative, not "power" in the sense of shooting lasers from your eyes, but, alas, people cling to connotation more than definition, and the term was not the best one to use, accurate though it was.

You can, in fact, write 4E without the 4E power format, in the same way that you can convert any prior edition into the 4E format. It mostly goes to show how much psychology trumps substance.

--

I do not believe that magic needs to be different than non-magic, especially since there is no distinct line between the two once you start getting into fire elementals punching dudes and hitting someone with a Molotov cocktail. One is an expression of force using meat, the other is an expression of force using fire. There's no reason outside of psychology to have those behave differently, and not everyone shares that psychology. Thankfully, options can be designed for a multitude of psychologies.

For the first part, I think psychology does have something to do with it. But I think you are placing a greater importance on psychology than what exists.
A: People do not like the system.
B: People do not like the format of that system.
C: Therefore, the format is to blame for the system.

Sorry but that does not follow. You could have said that people do not like the format because they do not like the system but not liking the format itself is not the cause. (I cannot use contractions due to stupid keyboard-ness so sorry if it is hard to read.)

As to the second part, once again this is saying that in a world with magic everything must be magical because without everything being magical magic could not exist. I find there to be a flaw in this line of reasoning too. People are not using meat magic, anymore than the fire elemental is using fire magic. Magic may be responsible for explaining why a guy is fighting an elemental but the elemental was not using fire to attack he is MADE of fire and is attacking. That is a big difference.

 

[Imaro]

That's not a weakness of the power system, that's them deciding not to include those as powers.

It's like saying that 3E's system is flawed because there is no Retribution of the Dawn Kings of Solace Monkey Groin Kick spell.

Wait...what? 4e does have two-weapon fighting powers (but they are only for rangers and in later books fighters) For some unexplicable reason my super dexterous and quick rogue, asssasin or whatever isn't skilled enough to even try and fight with two weapons. Go figure??

they also have grappling powers (but they are for grappling fighters and grappling fighters only.)... yet for some reason my raging, furious barbarian cant wrestle a creature to the ground.

That right there, again IMO, is the weakness in using the codified powers of 4e. There are actions that any hero should be able to try... yet the power system (or perhaps more accurately the designers of the power system) restrict those abilities. I don't want to have to be a ranger to fight with two weapons, or a fighter to wrestle.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

They CAN reconcile conflicting desires. They CANNOT reconcile all conflicting desires with one specific desire.


What would be your reaction if I said, from a pre-4e standpoint to someone.
Unless 4e has all my requirements of 3e I'm not going to play it. I'm not going to give it a single chance. I'm not alone in my feeling and if it doesn't provide me with my expectations and requirements then there is ZERO chance of me playing. Because of that it failed in its target of making me play 4e.

I'd say I guess you aren't playing 4E.

That is what you are saying about 5e. And I'm sorry to say that if you are completely unwilling to budge on everything that I'm glad you won't be playing 5e. It will leave more material for me to play in 5e. I'm not saying the game they are building is going to be one I'm going to like but at least I'm willing to give it a chance and evaluate it by itself as opposed to a new version of MY game.

Its not. I have said repeatedly that I have one thing I won't budge on, that being balance. On the entirety of 4E and things I don't like about earlier editions, I'm flexible. Balance is the single absolute deal breaker. I've been pretty clear on that. My final judgement will rest on the absolute rules, but by making the system modular(makes balance more difficult to achieve), making things like 3E multiclassing and Vancian magic core concepts of the system(things that historically have had a negative impact on balance), and comments like the one from the article that spawned this thread("if we get the math right but not the "feel" than we've failed"--taken in context of all the complaints of 4E and its balance ruining the feel) it isn't looking good and that's what I'm going on right now.

I'm negative on some other things coming out of the 5E pipeline(like Vancian magic and 3E multiclassing), but those aren't absolute dealbreakers, and neither is having things exactly like 4E.

The short version would be "Balance or I'm out" not "4E or I'm out".

 

[Incenjucar]

For the first part, I think psychology does have something to do with it. But I think you are placing a greater importance on psychology than what exists.
A: People do not like the system.
B: People do not like the format of that system.
C: Therefore, the format is to blame for the system.

Sorry but that does not follow. You could have said that people do not like the format because they do not like the system but not liking the format itself is not the cause. (I cannot use contractions due to stupid keyboard-ness so sorry if it is hard to read.)

C does not follow from my statements.

The format is one of the reasons that some people dislike the system. To the degree that they don't even understand the system because they can't get past the format to look at the underlying system that the format was merely trying to make visible.

It's very hard to actually figure out what people do and do not like about the system if they cannot get past that.

As to the second part, once again this is saying that in a world with magic everything must be magical because without everything being magical magic could not exist. I find there to be a flaw in this line of reasoning too. People are not using meat magic, anymore than the fire elemental is using fire magic. Magic may be responsible for explaining why a guy is fighting an elemental but the elemental was not using fire to attack he is MADE of fire and is attacking. That is a big difference.

The issue is that I don't feel a need to represent magic as a different kind of force. What, as far as how the game world works, and not the game system, is different between a ball of fire from a chemical source and a ball of fire from a magical source? What exactly is being narrated by different rules?

 

[DMKastmaria]

Others need particular formats, such as "wizards don't roll to attack, their targets roll to defend!" or everything feels off to them, even if the math turns out to be exactly the same.

It's really not that simple. There's mechanical, thematic and narrative underpinnings, which, based upon your comment, I assume 4e jettisoned?

In 1e, sometimes an MU rolls to attack. Usually, the target rolls to defend. Depends on the spell and ties into various cognitive constructs, some of which stretch back for thousands of years.

I know what I, myself, am doing with those constructs. And why I utilize the rules I choose.

 

[Incenjucar]

Wait...what? 4e does have two-weapon fighting powers (but they are only for rangers and in later books fighters) For some unexplicable reason my super dexterous and quick rogue, asssasin or whatever isn't skilled enough to even try and fight with two weapons. Go figure??

They can fight with two weapons, they just don't get extra attacks.

they also have grappling powers (but they are for grappling fighters and grappling fighters only.)... yet for some reason my raging, furious barbarian cant wrestle a creature to the ground.

Everyone gets grapple. That they did not choose to give more universal grapples powers is a choice that exists outside of the system. They could just have easily not given you a "grab and knock prone" at-will power in 3E.

That right there, again IMO, is the weakness in using the codified powers of 4e. There are actions that any hero should be able to try... yet the power system (or perhaps more accurately the designers of the power system) restrict those abilities. I don't want to have to be a ranger to fight with two weapons, or a fighter to wrestle.

Again, this isn't a systematic issue, this is a matter of inclusion. Are you saying that if they didn't have a two-weapon rule in 3E then 3E would have been a bad system? You and I do not seem to have the same understanding of the word "system."

 

[Incenjucar]

It's really not that simple. There's mechanical, thematic and narrative underpinnings, which, based upon your comment, I assume 4e jettisoned?

In 1e, sometimes an MU rolls to attack. Usually, the target rolls to defend. Depends on the spell and ties into various cognitive constructs, some of which stretch back for thousands of years.

I know what I, myself, am doing with those constructs. And why I utilize the rules I choose.

Some attacks have automatic effects, some don't. Generally, there is an attack roll, giving the wizard an opportunity for a critical miss or a critical hit. Neither I or anyone I actively associate with have had any difficulties with this, but I hang out with mostly 20-somethings who have not had the older versions deeply ingrained in them.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

So basically, the core goals that are absolutely paramount to the next edition, have absolutely no appeal to you. We have the ability to help shape the mechanics of the game, both the base game and modules. But we absolutely are not going to influence the Design Team as to the Core Goals they've established. If those core goals are anathema to you, then the game is anathema to you.

I see no reason that those goals are or must be sacred, beyond criticism or scorn. Also, the primary goal is something I see as having little to do with the resulting game, the "reunification" part. Not caring about "reunification" has no relevance to my acceptance of the resulting game, though it is certainly doing nothing to make me want to buy into it during development. The other goal would be bringing back old players, which again I could care less about. I don't want to play old style D&D anymore, and I most likely won't be gaming with those people if I do end up playing 5E. That being said, the game is said to be modular, and that contains the distinct possibility of the ability to remove of all the old crap I'd rather not have in my D&D. Both of these core goals can be an anathema to me without affecting my opinion of the resulting game, as they are both marketing and business goals, not system goals.

But, this does leave me with a couple of questions then:


One: How is that stance not one of already making up your mind to be against it?

Its not making up my mind against it, its a prepared response against a predicted outcome. If the outcome turns out contrary to predictions, the response changes. Right now, things appear negative. If things turn out as they currently appear, the result will be negative to me and my response will be negative.

and Two: What then is your purpose for posting here in the D&D Next Forums?

To discuss D&DNext. I don't see the discussion as having to be a big happy hugbox of positivity. I'm not happy with what I've been seeing, and I say so.

I'm not denying your right to be here. I'm simply asking you why you'd post here if you've already decided you don't like the direction of 5E, and that it's not going to be a game you want to play?

That's your conclusion, one I've repeatedly denied.

Even if it's just lack of enthusiasm (unenthused), what can you possibly hope to accomplish by posting your thoughts about 5E?

Express disapproval of what they say they're doing in the hopes it will get changed?

It obviously can't be to try and affect the direction of the game. One, you've already said you don't care about a game that has the goals that 5E does. Second, you haven't contributed to the process in an objective or constructive manner. And Third, when asked to contribute, you say you don't care to (unless your post above was meant to be your contribution...in which case I'd say the request for objectiveness must have been overlooked).

Why can't it? Complaining works. The way you say objective or constructive makes it sounds like only happy positive thoughts can be those things. Its called dissent.

Curiosity could be a motive for reading, but not for posting in the manner you have, so I think that's ruled out also.

If it's just to point out to those that are interested in the next edition and want to be a part of shaping it, that you don't like it...then I'd say Congratulations. I'm certain that everybody in this thread has been successfully made aware of your thoughts on 5E.

I also can't imagine that it's just to stir up trouble, as that would be something not allowed here at ENWorld, and is just basic impoliteness on forums. Something that I would not expect of you nor accuse you of.

Which leaves me completely stymied as to what you're trying to accomplish? I truly am curious to understand, and am sincerely interested in your answer...*



*which of course places no obligation or expectation on you whatsoever to answer.

I'm here to discuss. I read the article that started this thread, and I had things to say about it. I've had things to say about what some people have posted in this thread. I wasn't aware that a purpose beyond that was necessary.

 

[Imaro]

They can fight with two weapons, they just don't get extra attacks.

Sooo... they can't actually fight with two weapons. The to hit roll, damage, etc. is all based on using one weapon... right?

Everyone gets grapple. That they did not choose to give more universal grapples powers is a choice that exists outside of the system. They could just have easily not given you a "grab and knock prone" at-will power in 3E.

No they don't. In 4e everyone can grab someone... that's it.

Again, this isn't a systematic issue, this is a matter of inclusion. Are you saying that if they didn't have a two-weapon rule in 3E then 3E would have been a bad system? You and I do not seem to have the same understanding of the word "system."

The power system and it's application in 4e is directly responsible for the issues I have listed. If the 4e system didn't have specific powers for actions any hero should be able to try then I wouldn't have an issue. A better system would have been to have many of these as universal at-wills and then have more specialized maneuvers or training in them available with resource expenditure or class selection...IMO of coourse.