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

[Incenjucar]

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

They can still choose either weapon when making an attack, which can provide benefits in the right situation, and can take feats to gain bonuses for using two weapons. They do not automatically get bonuses for carrying two weapons, much like a wizard doesn't get anything for carrying both a wand and an orb.

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

Yep. They do not have an at-will prone attack without investing elsewhere. The system lets them add that in pretty easily as optional rules, they just haven't. WotC has provided incredibly few options for 4E.

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.

Your conclusion is frankly ridiculous. 4E has page 42, which is basically the "Try whatever! Here's some ideas to keep it fair!" instructions. If you removed the SPECIFIC rule of two-weapon fighting from 3E, it would have the same issue. Could 4E have MORE universal at-wills? Abso-freaking-lutely. WotC dropped the ball on providing options, no question. That's not a SYSTEM issue, though, that's a DESIGNER DECISION issue. The system can support options just fine.

 

[DMKastmaria]

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.

I choose what I think, rather actively. And told you above, I know why I use the rules I use, when running a campaign.



Edited to add a smiley face. Not to come off as strident, but honestly, you're starting to sound like you think you know other gamers nervous systems, better than they do.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Both of these core goals [reunification and getting old players back] 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.

I disagree here that the core goals are not also system goals (as well as marketing/business). It means coming up with a core set of rules that all players from all editions can immediately identify with. It would seem obvious that this goal is going to have a dramatic influence on how they design the game from the core nucleus of rules and spreading out to the various modules. What parts go into the core system and what parts are left for modules is a key design decision in the pursuit of encompassing as many styles of play as possible under the one reunifying tent, with an identifiable core set of rules to bind them together.

Can you explain why you think that such core goals are only marketing/business related?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Imaro]

They can still choose either weapon when making an attack, which can provide benefits in the right situation, and can take feats to gain bonuses for using two weapons. They do not automatically get bonuses for carrying two weapons, much like a wizard doesn't get anything for carrying both a wand and an orb.

Again... they are fighting with one weapon.

Yep. They do not have an at-will prone attack without investing elsewhere. The system lets them add that in pretty easily as optional rules, they just haven't. WotC has provided incredibly few options for 4E.

Houseruling isn't what I'm discussing.

Your conclusion is frankly ridiculous. 4E has page 42, which is basically the "Try whatever! Here's some ideas to keep it fair!" instructions. If you removed the SPECIFIC rule of two-weapon fighting from 3E, it would have the same issue. Could 4E have MORE universal at-wills? Abso-freaking-lutely. WotC dropped the ball on providing options, no question. That's not a SYSTEM issue, though, that's a DESIGNER DECISION issue. The system can support options just fine.

Page 42 in no way tells me how hard or easy it is to inflict a condition, fight with two weapons, or anything like that... all it can tell me is how much damage something should do. Which seems to be pointless since my powers are probably going to do better damage at a lower risk anyway. More than likely... if I'm trying to improvise I'm trying to do something different from damage and page 42 falls flat in that area.

 

[Incenjucar]

You are not discussing systems.

You are discussing specific options, and then calling that a system.

If you remove the two-weapon fighting rule from 3E, it's in an even worse place than 4E in that regard.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I disagree here that the core goals are not also system goals (as well as marketing/business). It means coming up with a core set of rules that all players from all editions can immediately identify with. It would seem obvious that this goal is going to have a dramatic influence on how they design the game from the core nucleus of rules and spreading out to the various modules. What parts go into the core system and what parts are left for modules is a key design decision in the pursuit of encompassing as many styles of play as possible under the one reunifying tent, with an identifiable core set of rules to bind them together.

Can you explain why you think that such core goals are only marketing/business related?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

That's an interesting point. I have myself said earlier in this thread that 5E's modular design and goal of bringing everybody under one D&D could result in a watered down half-assed game or a Frankenstein's monster of ill-fitting mismatched parts, and the thought troubles me.

I'd say the goals themselves are marketing/business related, but impact the system. Not sharing the goals personally, and worrying about the negative impact they could very well have on the system(which unlike the goals I do care about) feeds into my unease about 5E.

I guess my point would then be expressing the opinion of don't go so far towards these goals that you end up ruining the system.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

That's an interesting point. I have myself said earlier in this thread that 5E's modular design and goal of bringing everybody under one D&D could result in a watered down half-assed game or a Frankenstein's monster of ill-fitting mismatched parts, and the thought troubles me.

This is interesting how we both perceive differently the same set of information. My impression is that rather than a diluted mish-mash of mismatched parts, they were instead repeatedly distilling the "core"; stripping away excess and fat to provide the leanest core engine possible that represents D&D. I'll happily put my hand up for being wrong if this is not revealed in the Alpha rules but that was my gauge thus far. By doing this, any group could put their preferred playing shell on top of this core chassis to achieve the playing experience they want.

For what it's worth, currently whether we are playing 3.5/Pathfinder/4E/Traveller (those are our live campaigns at the moment), our group's game style remains unchanged (we've been playing together for well over 15 years). The 4e ruleset caused the most hiccups because of the restrictions it placed on certain concepts and expectations (splitting our group down the middle: some in our group don't play in the 4e campaign). Therefore perhaps this explains our different expectations: I'm ready for D&DN to be a good median of the game where as perhaps you are more looking for 4E+.

They are certainly not presenting 4E+ at the moment (they are just worrying about the chassis rather than the various shells to be laid over the top of it) but by the time all the options and modules are piled on, I'm hoping your desired system is catered for as you would seem to represent a sizeable chunk of people under that reunifying tent.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Herremann the Wise]

You are not discussing systems.

You are discussing specific options, and then calling that a system.

If you remove the two-weapon fighting rule from 3E, it's in an even worse place than 4E in that regard.

Imaro's discussing the 3.x and 4e rulesets, not a generic system or optional extras. Both rulesets have their warts. 4e strays from the median of D&D as does 3e; and by what magnitude depends upon your group's style of play.
People are allowed to have a preference and as preferences are subjective, they can't exactly be wrong. To try to put some objective comparison of better or worse into the mix would seem a little foolish.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Sunseeker]

I disagree here that the core goals are not also system goals (as well as marketing/business). It means coming up with a core set of rules that all players from all editions can immediately identify with. It would seem obvious that this goal is going to have a dramatic influence on how they design the game from the core nucleus of rules and spreading out to the various modules. What parts go into the core system and what parts are left for modules is a key design decision in the pursuit of encompassing as many styles of play as possible under the one reunifying tent, with an identifiable core set of rules to bind them together.

Can you explain why you think that such core goals are only marketing/business related?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

I think that you are overstating the design goals. This isn't a "make everyone happy" edition. It's the "ring common ground" edition. Wizards doesn't have to bring in all the players of previous editions, such a goal is impossible and frankly, a waste of time. All wizards has to do is create a system that is mutually agreeable to the majority of players from most editions. They need not even get the majority from every edition, just the majority of players. They could get 75% of 3.5 players, 50% of 4e players, 35% of all older edition players, a few Paizo fans and some new players, and they will have still created a playing group that is larger than any single edition group, and in doing so, accomplish their design goals. It's unrealistic that they will, can or want to please everyone. Pleasing some of the people from some of the editions is much more achievable.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I think that you are overstating the design goals. This isn't a "make everyone happy" edition. It's the "ring common ground" edition. Wizards doesn't have to bring in all the players of previous editions, such a goal is impossible and frankly, a waste of time. All wizards has to do is create a system that is mutually agreeable to the majority of players from most editions. They need not even get the majority from every edition, just the majority of players. They could get 75% of 3.5 players, 50% of 4e players, 35% of all older edition players, a few Paizo fans and some new players, and they will have still created a playing group that is larger than any single edition group, and in doing so, accomplish their design goals. It's unrealistic that they will, can or want to please everyone. Pleasing some of the people from some of the editions is much more achievable.

I think they are intending to throw the net as wide as they can. While they obviously are not trying to catch every fish in the sea, the design they have set up should pull in a stack of very different fish. I'm certainly optimistic that they have chosen the best design to get this aspect of their goals right. Of course there will be some burnt by WotC that will never return, others who feel that WotC have thrown 4e under a bus and thus join in sharing the yoke of the previous cycle of 4e haters, and yet a further slew of others who are simply not interested in "yet another edition". Hopefully though, there are enough people who like it.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise