Were people's expectations of "Modularity" set a little too high?

[Stacie GmrGrl]

One background. With a minimum result of 16 ("difficult" DC) on all skill checks.

Thats my problem with the Rogues as they are... if the DM is saying NO to Backgrounds then no class should have, as a core part of their design, anything to do with Backgrounds.

If Skills are Optional, and they should be optional, then the Rogue's Skill Mastery ability should not be there as it currently is.

 

[ComradeGnull]

Thats my problem with the Rogues as they are... if the DM is saying NO to Backgrounds then no class should have, as a core part of their design, anything to do with Backgrounds.

If Skills are Optional, and they should be optional, then the Rogue's Skill Mastery ability should not be there as it currently is.

Yeah, there's a sense in which they painted themselves into a corner by continuing 3e's policy of combining thief skills and other non-combat checks into the skills system- if you want to run a skill-less system, for the Rogue you really have to pull out your 1e/2e skill charts in order to keep the class from being completely broken. It makes the system much more consistent, but at the cost of tying what could otherwise be an optional system into the core in a slightly awkward way. Of course, there are still plenty of those 1e/2e charts out there for people who want them.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Thats my problem with the Rogues as they are... if the DM is saying NO to Backgrounds then no class should have, as a core part of their design, anything to do with Backgrounds.

If Skills are Optional, and they should be optional, then the Rogue's Skill Mastery ability should not be there as it currently is.

If the thief doesn't get thief skills, then what the hell is the thief even doing there? If you don't want a d20 game, you might have a better time starting with the BECMI rules and adding stuff to that.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

This...
...and this...
...are exactly what I'm expecting; and I'll be very disappointed if it's anything else.

I should be able to use it out of the box to play - in effect - 1e. I'd also like to see it useable to play - in effect - 2e, 3e, 4e, or any other e you can think of; or a combination of elements from any and all the various e's. My preference would be for a 5e where I can take a 1e-like framework and tack on some of the better innovations from the later e's and still have it all work.

In other words, 5e gives me all the pre-fab bits and I decide which ones I'm gonna use to build my game.

EDIT: reading this over, a thought strikes: I should, when building the game I want out of 5e's various parts, be able as part of that process to unbalance it to suit my preferences. If I want a sword-and-board heavy game with minimal magic but lots of cinematic fighting I should be able to build that; ditto if I want a game to favour Thieves and sneaks, or psyonicists, whatever. The system, however, has to clearly state what's balanced with what before I and others start messing with it.

Lanefan

But Wizards never claimed that you would be able to sit down and play any of those editions using 5th. They claimed you would be able to play a 4th edition "style" character or a 3rd etc. There is a difference between playing a 4th edition type character and a game using 4th edition rules.

They just did a reprint of the AD&D books, 3rd edition/Pathfinder is still easy to get and 4th edition is still out there so why would they create an edition that was just these three piled into one?

 

[DEFCON 1]

Thats my problem with the Rogues as they are... if the DM is saying NO to Backgrounds then no class should have, as a core part of their design, anything to do with Backgrounds.

If Skills are Optional, and they should be optional, then the Rogue's Skill Mastery ability should not be there as it currently is.

But what kind of rogue are you looking for then? If your DM says 'no backgrounds' because he wants an AD&D style game... then the rogue should default to just the Thief background as part of his scheme, because then he gets locks, traps, and stealth the same way the AD&D thief had his thief skills.

Old-school DMs might not want skills for everyone... but the default thief scheme for the rogue is how you get the recreated thief of old. If the DM says "no skills AT ALL!", then obviously he doesn't want any edition of thief from any previous game.

 

[triqui]

"Playstyle" also includes campaign- and world-building, having races as classes cast a different image on demi-human races compared to humans. I can also imagine that some people may be fond of the "an elf is an elf" concept (note that I am not personally a fan of "races as classes" however!). Finally, at least some of those old races/classes were essentially gestalt classes: this could be a non-problem with good multiclassing rules, but just to make an example those who had fond memories of the Elf class of old, there was little support in 3ed.

Which is my point. People fond of "classic elf" from ODD can take the elf race, the fighter-mage class (yet to be seen) and play it, with exactly the same flavour. Just because the rule has a different name, it doesnt mean it cannot feel the same. So, this *might* be an issue with current core, but not an unsurmontable one that cant be avoided with this very same core and a good addon module.

 

[dkyle]

If by "people" you mean the designers and developers of D&D Next, then yes. "People" set expectations to high.

In fact, they set expectations higher even than stated in the OP. They actually said you'd be able to have characters that play like each of the previous editions, at the same table.

 

[Li Shenron]

Are you looking for a 'BECMI play style" or to be able to have every aspect of 'BECMI' rule duplicated, one for one. Which I am not sure If that is possible, nor what 5eNext will probably be.

Of course not, I was definitely thinking of playstyle, which aren't obvious to define. Thus I used some rules elements which IMHO are very typical of BECMI, at least in my limited experience. As you kind of say between the lines, not only it's going to be impossible to replicate all aspects, but also it won't make much sense. 5e will be a different game, but it does officially have the target of supporting as many game styles as possible, including (but not necessarily limited to) those epitomizing older editions.

I picked those few elements of current 5e which IMHO contrast with what was my at least experience with BECMI*. If 5e doesn't allow alternatives to using those (simply ignoring them might or might not work) then it might still support a BECMI-style, but somewhat less, so IMHO those points are worth to think about in order to "smoke-test" the current capabilities of 5e in replicating older editions styles.

*so for instance, cantrips at-will and rituals at-will go against my experience of playing a BECMI Wizard that has to really spare her spell slots and has to always plan ahead if to prepare those rarely used problem-solving spells (please don't anybody chime in just to say "but I hate having to do that!" -> sometimes I hated it too... here I'm trying to defend those who loved it, and the general idea that the more playstyle supported the better)

Several people have already stated this is a framework (foundation) which the rest of the game is built off of. Also remember this is an early playtest, years away from being finished. Many changes are ahead of us.

The current play test rules are nothing that I would want to play (as is), but I am waiting for for modules & more rules. Paitantly Waiting is very frustrating for myself & I'm sure, many others.

You might get the wrong idea from this thread, but currently I am quite positive that I will want to play it as is (tho some things I definitely preferred in the previous rules draft).

But the way I see the playtesting phase is that if there is one time to bring up issue it is now. Complaining out of assuming that a certain class, module or game elements isn't available yet, particularly if it has been announced, is not constructive; but as I said previously, "playstyles" can't always be supported by adding something to the game... it's best to check already if the framework might make it later impossible to do such a thing, otherwise it's like giving up already on some potential.

 

[dkyle]

But Wizards never claimed that you would be able to sit down and play any of those editions using 5th. They claimed you would be able to play a 4th edition "style" character or a 3rd etc. There is a difference between playing a 4th edition type character and a game using 4th edition rules.

They just did a reprint of the AD&D books, 3rd edition/Pathfinder is still easy to get and 4th edition is still out there so why would they create an edition that was just these three piled into one?

You're being pedantic. Or just attacking a straw man.

All anyone is talking about is being able to play in the "style" of other editions (see: "in effect" in the post you quoted). Nobody expects 5E to literally have the exact rules of every past edition. That's completely silly.

Problem is, Next does not even come close to offering a game in the style of of 4E. And seems fundamentally designed not to.

 

[john112364]

You're being pedantic. Or just attacking a straw man.

All anyone is talking about is being able to play in the "style" of other editions (see: "in effect" in the post you quoted). Nobody expects 5E to literally have the exact rules of every past edition. That's completely silly.

Problem is, Next does not even come close to offering a game in the style of of 4E. And seems fundamentally designed not to.

You are correct. Because they haven't even released that module yet. They have mentioned a 4e style tactical module in the future which will hopefully satisfy a number of people. If by 4e style you mean AEDU powers, then yes, there could be an issue. I'm not sure how they could do that unless they released a whole book of 4e type powers.