D&D 5E Review design goals

[Raith5]

This is a good question. While I cant say that I am the biggest fan of DDN to date, I do think they are keeping these goals reasonable level of fidelity.

I certainly hope they continue to be open to new mechanisms and way of doing things - I think the expertise dice, advantage/disadvantage have been the real strengths of the system.

Here's a link to their original kick-off design goals list: http://wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120409

BTW I found it interesting that the poll at the bottom of this link indicates that only about 16% of people want to leave their PC at 10th level. But they are focusing the game on levels 1-10.

 

[Falling Icicle]

"However, we want alignment to be a tool, not a straightjacket, so the execution of those mechanics should serve that goal, and really only apply when dealing with the powerful, elemental forces of alignments, not someone who just behaves a certain way. Additionally, I believe we'll also want it to be easy for a DM to strip those mechanics out of his or her campaign, if the DM so chooses."

"The goal is to remove mechanics from alignment. It's a key part of the world, but not the rules or spells."

And yet here we have the monk, a base class with alignment restrictions...

"In general, we want to make sure that everyone has a baseline level of competence in all three pillars of play (combat, interaction, and exploration)."

"We definitely want the classes to be balanced, though having things exactly mathematically balanced isn't always the goal. If the fighter is 100% damage for example, then maybe this other class is 80% damage/combat and 20% exploration."

Those two statements seem contradictory. And where is the fighter's "baseline level of comepetence" in the interaction and exploration pillars?

"One of the key hang ups we have with healing is trying to find a way to make the cleric optional. So, we're definitely aiming to make it so that you can remove classes, races, or entire types of magic without screwing up the game's balance. I think restricting that sort of thing is one of the ways that DMs like to make unique campaigns, so we want to allow for that."

Well, they've certainly done a great job of making the cleric a class nobody wants to play. Sadly, magical healing is still king and is still necessary, and it's pretty much all clerics get to do (other than shoot lazer beams or hit with their mace for 1/3 or less of the fighter's damage... yay).

 

[Warbringer]

I just want them to say "we can choose or each table can choose, but each player can't choose."

Ive always assumed that is their stated goal, particularly as we swing back to DM fiat.

Personally , you can't play a 1e styled fighter, a 3e wizard and a 4e rogue at the same table, the power levels are completely different . What you can do is a core rule with different power and complexity levels... Hell even gurps has this, based on worlds that determine point spend

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Well, there is a difference between a game that can be easily played in any of the various styles of the various versions--versus a game that will satisfy everyone that enjoyed those versions and styles, or uses the same mechanical elements in exactly the same way. It's still an ambitious goal, but the way people have chosen to measure it isn't entirely accurate.

 

[Li Shenron]

Those two statements seem contradictory.

I thought the same at first.

But then it depends what "baseline level of comepetence" means.

#1 - "Everybody has a minimum of usefulness in all three pillars" doesn't contraddict either statement.

#2 - "Everybody is equally effective in all three pillars" certainly doesn't match with the second statement.

And personally I strongly hope they're going with #1.

 

[Li Shenron]

BTW I found it interesting that the poll at the bottom of this link indicates that only about 16% of people want to leave their PC at 10th level. But they are focusing the game on levels 1-10.

Well normally most PC living past level 10 anyway started at a lower level.

 

[Lanefan]

Honestly, it'd make me feel a lot better if they formally abandoned this goal.

For me, that's the goal that's so far mostly caused me to pay any attention whatsoever to 5e. If they abandon it and make 5e nothing more than a 3e-4e mashup (which at the moment looks like the way they're going, sad to say), I'm out.

Lanefan

 

[DEFCON 1]

And yet here we have the monk, a base class with alignment restrictions...

Mearls said in the Google+ Meetup that they added that specifically so that they could get people to comment on it (either positively or negatively). This way they'd get more response and thus a better feel of how people actually felt about it.

If they didn't highlight it by including it that way... they were less likely to get people to just randomly comment on it out of nowhere. Thus they'd have no real sense on where players stood on the idea of alignment requirements for classes.

That's the beauty of playtesting, and why you should never take what we get in these packets at face value or as an actual change. Because oftentimes they've been included for no other reason than to just allow people to definitively confirm what they might already have suspected.

 

[FireLance]

Personally , you can't play a 1e styled fighter, a 3e wizard and a 4e rogue at the same table, the power levels are completely different . What you can do is a core rule with different power and complexity levels... Hell even gurps has this, based on worlds that determine point spend

Sure you can. Or at least, I can using the 4e system as a base and tweaking the classes from there.

For the 1e style fighter, start with an Essentials slayer, remove his encounter powers and utility powers and substitute a +1 bonus to damage at 1st, 3rd, 7h, 13th, 17th, 23rd and 27th level, and a +1 bonus to AC, Fortitude, Reflex and Will at 2nd, 6th, 10th and 16th level, and a +2 bonus to saving throws at 22nd level. You get a simple fighter that uses at-will attacks and has good defenses.

For the 3e style wizard, start with the PH wizard, grant him 3 + level daily slots to prepare "at-will" spells, 3 daily slots to prepare "encounter" spells each time he gains a new level of "encounter" spells, and 1 daily slot to prepare daily spells each time he gains a new level of daily spells. So, a 5th-level wizard would have 8 daily slots for "at-will" spells, 3 daily slots for 1st-level "encounter" spells, 1 daily slot for 1st-level daily spells, 3 daily slots for 3rd-level "encounter" spells, and 1 daily slot for 5th-level "daily" spells. In addition, allow him the ability to learn as many spells as he wants. You get a spellcaster that only prepares daily spells.

Though the balance between the characters would not be as close as it would be for 4e AEDU characters, it think it is close enough that there would not be any obvious imbalances over the course of a typical adventuring day.

 

[KidSnide]

And where is the fighter's "baseline level of comepetence" in the interaction and exploration pillars?

I think the baseline is pretty clear: backgrounds and ability checks. Backgrounds provide skill abilities targeted mostly at the interaction and exploration pillars. Plus, if skill/ability checks don't dramatically escalate in difficulty, any character will have a baseline level of competence in areas where they have a decent ability score.

I wouldn't count specialties as part of the baseline level. It's not clear that many fighters would take a non-combat specialty, but that's also an option for fighters who want to focus on the interaction or exploration pillar.

-KS