D&D 5E What will core really be like?

[Zimith]

One thing I've really found troublesome this last period of playtesting and feedback is the fact it's so little information on what in the playtest packages is suppose to be "Core" and what isn't. It really affects how I view and judge a lot of aspects of the playtest material. I'm one of those who really detest numerous and complicated rules and foresee myself and my group as playing virtually only the core part of the game when it's released. With this in mind, I have a hard time relating to a lot of ideas Wizards are producing. Do I like the latest take on magic and magicians? Thing is; the answer would vary a lot depending on if we're talking about the core magic system or something modular. So far, this is not known.


An example is Mike Mearls' monday article "This week in D&D" where he states It's also worth keeping in mind that, at this stage, we're working on what I consider to be a fairly advanced version of the game. The core D&D game, which is the starting point for new players and the game of choice for veteran players who want a streamlined system, is mostly done at this stage. Oh. Really?!That profoundly changed how I viewed the whole topic (classes, as it were). I had already written a lengthy comment on how I disliked the cleric being a jack of all trade and having. Suspecting now this wasn't intended as part of the core system, I completely changed my view on the whole thing.

Wizards needs to start being explicit about what's Core and what's not. A lot of us worry about ideas we don't like only on the premise they might be part of Core. Another example: If I think Specialities sucks and I don't want them in my game, I might worry about the whole concept if I thought they would be part of core (basically, what we all will be stuck with), otherwise I wouldn't, since I can just opt it out. I could even start to think constructively about Specialities and thus contribute to a better game! From what I've seen in comments and on forums, being explicit about this would really make a lot of people worry a lot less and focus on being constructive.

Cheers!

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

It seems pretty clear. Core, right now, is:

Races: Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling. This includes subraces.

Classes: Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard. Within each class's set of options will be one that is intended for old-school, simple play.

Rules: The default rules in the How to Play and GM Guidelines documents.

Spells: The spells are all core, though you could choose not to permit the ritual forms.

Equipment: We know this document is likely to see revision, but it's clearly core.

Monsters: The monsters don't seem to have anything that isn't core.


Some things are strictly not core, including backgrounds, specialties, skills, or the sorceror and warlock classes.

 

[Hussar]

Just to add to that, I think WOTC wants to play things VERY close to the vest until they're absolutely sure about what to say. Look at how badly things went the last time they started publicly tossing out ideas. Some developer ponders out loud and suddenly there are fifteen threads, with people screaming from the top of their lungs about how we're going to have to pay for random sets of virtual tabletop minis. :/

Yeah, let's not get too worked up over the final product just yet.

 

[am181d]

If you're providing feedback, there's no point saying "I won't mention this, because maybe it won't be core." If you don't like something, say you don't like it. Then, based on the response, WotC can decide whether the rule should be core, part of a module, or splitzville.

 

[Cadence]

It seems pretty clear. Core, right now, is:
Races: Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling. This includes subraces.
Classes: Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard. Within each class's set of options will be one that is intended for old-school, simple play.
Rules: The default rules in the How to Play and GM Guidelines documents.

combined with the following from another thread

For some reason, this article crystalized a feeling I've got about DndNext.

Everything is a module with no real attempt to balance anything. Rather than doing the difficult job of trying to vaguely balance a druid with and without an animal companion (which is what Pathfinder does) they're just going to throw out options and let the GM do all the hard work.

<snip>

And they're all but certain to lose one of the main reasons that I play D&D, which is the ability to buy adventures that are already mostly balanced and written with the capabilities of characters of a particular level in mind.

raises a question for me. Say @Jeff Carlsen is correct - it makes me wonder how WotC will push out the adventures and rules supplements needed to generate revenue.

Should the basic adventures just avoid outdoor settings where a Ranger and Druid would be really helpful, or do they need to have variable difficulties based on who is in the party? Should they give simplified monster-rules for NPCs whose classes or races aren't in the core? If things like power level are tunable, should they market the module as starting at level 1 for standard build, level 2 for old-style build, and not appropriate for the high-powered build?

For the inevitable expansion books. Should they be designed to go with only the base rule-set or some module (or set of modules) that are on the cover of the book? Or should they have options for all of the different combinations of modules within the one book? (In PF this isn't as big an issue because things not in the core book can always be found on-line in the SRD.)

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Okay, I think one problem here is some confusing use of the word "core."

When most players say "XXX is core," they mean that it's assumed to be part of all D&D settings unless it's explicitly ruled out, and that it's part of the default rules. So warlocks weren't "core" in 3e because they weren't part of a PHB.

By that standard, almost by definition everything in the 5e PHB, DM, and MM is "core." Every class, race, and so on. The only exception would be the optional "rules modules" that get stuck in sidebars. BUT, those rules modules are supposed to be designed to be very explicit about how they interact with the rest of the rules, so that you don't have to make special accommodations for them when designing adventures and so on.

Now, what Mearls was mentioning in the quote from L&L - the "core of the rules" - I think is a different use of the term "core." You can tell that he's being inconsistent with the term because he says that the "core four classes" are wizard, cleric, fighter and rogue, but then later says that they're adding "a true warrior/mage class to the core of the game."

So, I think by "the core of the rules" and the "core four classes" he means the very simplest bare-bones iteration of the rules possible. It leaves out backgrounds, specialties, and all the other complex mechanics so that you've got a super-simple and streamlined game. This does NOT mean that when you go to a convention nobody is playing with skills and feats. And it certainly doesn't mean that every adventure is going to be built with the assumption that people are only using 50 pages worth of the PHB (the simplest "core" rules and classes).

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

combined with the following from another thread



raises a question for me. Say @Jeff Carlsen is correct - it makes me wonder how WotC will push out the adventures and rules supplements needed to generate revenue.

Should the basic adventures just avoid outdoor settings where a Ranger and Druid would be really helpful, or do they need to have variable difficulties based on who is in the party? Should they give simplified monster-rules for NPCs whose classes or races aren't in the core? If things like power level are tunable, should they market the module as starting at level 1 for standard build, level 2 for old-style build, and not appropriate for the high-powered build?

For the inevitable expansion books. Should they be designed to go with only the base rule-set or some module (or set of modules) that are on the cover of the book? Or should they have options for all of the different combinations of modules within the one book? (In PF this isn't as big an issue because things not in the core book can always be found on-line in the SRD.)

For adventures, I think it'll be pretty safe to just give a level range. The primary balance mechanism seems to be hit points versus damage. Most, though not all, of the modules expand character options, but don't dramatically alter the damage versus hit point ratio. Some, like the follower/companion module that was mentioned today, alter the party size. Adapting an adventure for party size is a longstanding tradition.

For those modules that do affect the ratio, I think they need to apply a level adjustment to the party. Perhaps your characters are level 3, but have an effective level of 4. Either the DM can run level four modules, or he can use the normal guidelines for adapting a module. Once again, because damage and hit points are the primary factor, those guidelines will be the same as adjusting for party size. Namely, increasing or decreasing the number of monsters.

 

[fjw70]

Should the basic adventures just avoid outdoor settings where a Ranger and Druid would be really helpful,

There are versions of D&D without druids and rangers that do outdoor adventuring just fine. Of course you will be able to use rangers and druids if you want whether it is labeled core or not.

 

[Cadence]

I keep wanting to type module for both rules module and adventure...

By that standard, almost by definition everything in the 5e PHB, DM, and MM is "core." Every class, race, and so on. The only exception would be the optional "rules modules" that get stuck in sidebars. BUT, those rules modules are supposed to be designed to be very explicit about how they interact with the rest of the rules, so that you don't have to make special accommodations for them when designing adventures and so on. <snip> This does NOT mean that when you go to a convention nobody is playing with skills and feats. And it certainly doesn't mean that every adventure is going to be built with the assumption that people are only using 50 pages worth of the PHB (the simplest "core" rules and classes).

That helps, thanks! So the "simplest core" would basically be the equivalent of the boxed starter sets, just to get them going for a while and not designed to be anything fully long-term.

Requiring the modules to not require special accomodations in adventures seems to greatly limit how extensive those modules could actually be. Can something have no significant impact on an entire adventure if it goes beyond "just flavor"? So, switching from vancian to some sort of spell points might not be too big of an advantage/disadvantage if well balanced. But I'm having trouble seeing something like skills working in the same way.

There are versions of D&D without druids and rangers that do outdoor adventuring just fine. Of course you will be able to use rangers and druids if you want whether it is labeled core or not.

I was trying to get at how an adventure would have something challenging in the woods for the group with rangers and druids in it, that was even vaguely doable without them. Simply making woodsy talents not useful makes those classes less useful. But there are lots of other solutions (provide variable challenges based on party make-up, throw in an NPC, etc...). Just wondering about the possibilities, and how awkward it could end up being. But I guess the really old modules got on just fine without worrying about that kind of balance.

 

[mlund]

Just keep in mind that "challenging" doesn't mean the same thing as "deadly."

Something challenging in the woods could be utterly defeated by a ranger or a druid while a party without the benefits of a character without strong natural lore abilities might suffer a loss of resources - time, hit points, etc.

- Marty Lund