D&D 5E 2/11/13 L&L: This week in D&D
- Thread starter Blackwarder
- Start date
Blackwarder
Adventurer
So, beside th little tidbit about the fighter and how they see the fighter, barbarian and the monk compare to each other I don't see any thing new, only a clarification about what they see as core vs optional.
On a side note, the talk about menu era and feats led me to think about the name of feats, wouldn't it be better to change it for something else? Traits maybe?
Warder
On a side note, the talk about menu era and feats led me to think about the name of feats, wouldn't it be better to change it for something else? Traits maybe?
Warder
JamesonCourage
Adventurer
That's a very demoralizing statement. I know what he's saying in the article, but I was hoping the system was more... I don't know... more fleshed out, than what this statement implies, I guess? I hope they do a great job with these "optional" rules for, you know, everything that's not combat. Because I am interested in things so much deeper than combat, and the lack of attention this signals for me is, as I said, just demoralizing. As always, play what you likeMr. Mearls said:
innerdude
Legend
That's a very demoralizing statement. I know what he's saying in the article, but I was hoping the system was more... I don't know... more fleshed out, than what this statement implies, I guess? I hope they do a great job with these "optional" rules for, you know, everything that's not combat. Because I am interested in things so much deeper than combat, and the lack of attention this signals for me is, as I said, just demoralizing. As always, play what you like
Yeah, having read the article, there is something slightly . . . I don't know if "demoralizing" is the term I'd use, but certainly reflective of a viewpoint I find unsatisfying. It doesn't outright say it, but hints to an attitude that anything that's not on the character sheet--movement, combat, and casting--is really just an adjunct to the overall play process. And since groups are going to approach that "off character sheet" process wildly differently, with different expectations, then really D&D Next shouldn't expend exorbitant amounts of energy trying to codify it.
dd.stevenson
Super KY
That's a very demoralizing statement. I know what he's saying in the article, but I was hoping the system was more... I don't know... more fleshed out, than what this statement implies, I guess? I hope they do a great job with these "optional" rules for, you know, everything that's not combat. Because I am interested in things so much deeper than combat, and the lack of attention this signals for me is, as I said, just demoralizing. As always, play what you like
I'm not sure I get this point of view. What else besides rules for combat, spellcasting, and movement would you expect to see in a truly core set of rules? How could other things be included in a core set of rules without enforcing a certain playstyle?
OTOH, if "optional" is code for "sloppy and half-baked" then I guess that's going to be a big problem for just about everybody. Since everybody's going to be using at least some optional rules.
delericho
Legend
This sounds good, but there is at least one issue comes to mind: the Monk typically fights unarmed, and in particular has extremely limited options when it comes to ranged weapons. As such, it really doesn't seem that the "weapon user base combat abilities" are actually equal in this case.
That's a very demoralizing statement. I know what he's saying in the article, but I was hoping the system was more... I don't know... more fleshed out, than what this statement implies, I guess? I hope they do a great job with these "optional" rules for, you know, everything that's not combat. Because I am interested in things so much deeper than combat, and the lack of attention this signals for me is, as I said, just demoralizing. As always, play what you like
I do wonder if he means that the base assumption is that only those items will feature in every game. Some people will resolve personal interaction and/or searching a room (as two examples) without involving rules at all, but others will use skills or ability checks to determine the result. That doesn't mean there won't be a fleshed-out skills system, just that they're aware some people will not use all or part of it. With the fuss over how vancian spellcasting is so iconic to D&D they can hardly leave that out, there's no demand that I've seen for combat being determined through role-play, and I suspect moving around requires some sort of standard. Of course "no skills required" totally messes up the current rogue as a skill monkey.
Chris_Nightwing
First Post
"We've known for a while that asking fighters to choose between damage and a maneuver was not an ideal situation, and we're working to fix that."
I refer you all to Zadok the Priest. Hallelujah.
I refer you all to Zadok the Priest. Hallelujah.
JamesonCourage
Adventurer
Well, let me expand from where I'm coming from, first. In the majority of my campaigns, a combat might take place, on average, once every 10 or so hours of play. Many other things get done during this time; relationships develop, plans are made, time passes, political maneuverings occur, objects are crafted, people are convinced to do things, people travel from place to place, and so on (not counting obstacles like weather, other events unfolding, and the like).
So, what I basically heard was "we care about combat, spellcasting, and movement. Everything else is secondary." And that, to me, kinda sucks, because combat falls so far down on my list of "most used things" when I run a game. Now, don't get me wrong, I like it, and I want it to be supported. But, I want all those things I listed (and more -my players have ruled nations, ran businesses, and so on) to be important, too. And, I don't want a design paradigm of "everything after combat, spellcasting, and movement doesn't matter as much." That doesn't work for my goals.
So, what would I like to see? A strong, fleshed-out skill system. I want tremendous support for the "exploration" and "interaction" pillars. Even if I don't like the mechanics, I want them working on those with just as much priority as combat. Why? Because they're important to me, as both as player and, more importantly (for me, at least, since I run pretty much all games I take place in), as a GM.
Right, that's why I put that line in that said "I hope they do a great job with these "optional" rules for, you know, everything that's not combat." Because, hey, they could do an awesome job on them, and I'm hoping they do. I think I should've gotten the vibe of "combat, magic, and movement can have a safe baseline that most everyone can basically agree on, so that's why we're making those core, and everything else optional. That way, each group can build on these widely accepted areas, or opt-in to all of these other areas, making for a game that best fits their individual table style."
But, that's not what I felt like I got. But as it stands, I really got the vibe of "combat, magic, and movement matter most, and everything else is secondary," instead. Does that make sense, now that I've clarified a bit? As always, play what you like
Right, I agree with you. It doesn't mean there won't be systems for those things (or even awesome system for those things).
However, what makes them think that combat will be handled the same way universally? Some people like abstract "zones" for combat, some use minis, some don't, some like HP, some like wounds/vitality. For magic, there's Vancian, AEDU, spell points, and so on. Movement has old school turns (or not), random monster tables (or not), carrying capacity weighing you down (or not), tracking rations (or not), and so on.
I think that even combat, magic, and movement isn't enough of an agreed upon area to make a "baseline" that will please enough people. Many people like combat more complex than the "Basic" version will be. So, they'll look up the rules of a grid, minis, and the like, and use those. Honestly, what's fundamentally different about that than looking up whether you want "zones" or you want "Basic" or you want "Advanced"?
The difference, of course, is the common baseline of the system. It's what people can see as the default. The default helps tremendously with new gamers, too, no doubt. You give new players the 3.5 PHB and they'll already have their hands full before you hand them Unearthed Arcana. So, don't get me wrong, I like a baseline. But, I was really hoping that the baseline would also emphasize stuff other than "Combat, Magic, and Movement." Because, in my experience, there's so much more to the game than that.
I do get why people don't want to overwhelm the basic rules, or overwhelm new players. And hey, maybe there is a baseline default for all of those things, but they're all an opt-out rather than an opt-in. That'd make me feel so much better about things, actually. I just don't really see how "Combat, Magic, and Movement" are much different, honestly. But yeah, I get that without those things, it wouldn't be D&D. I just feel that way about the stuff that sounds neglected right now. As I said, though, we'll see what they come up with. I'm hoping I'm just really getting the wrong impression. As always, play what you like
I think at the level they're talking about, what they mean by combat is that there's a rules-system in place that says how you go about hitting someone, what damage you do and what effect that has (when you run out of hit points you are unconscious/dead). Literally nothing else. The rest is between you, your GM, and your horse, as Charles V might have said.
Honestly, I like some rules-light games. I like some complex games. I don't object to games which leave most areas light but pile on the complexity in the areas which the game focuses on. I don't want a game which has some complexity in one area, leaves other things simple, and then adds a huge spell system that fits the complex part well enough but also means that in some sections some characters get to play the rules-light game while others get full mechanics supporting their actions. That doesn't make it any easier for the GM, and makes for a rather obvious double standard.
I think from previous threads that your tastes in gaming are rather different from mine. I do find it fascinating that D&D Next is managing to be something both of us have objections to.
Similar Threads
