D&D 5E L&L The Next Phase

[Li Shenron]

Is that a hint that tactical combat module, storytelling module and downtime module will be 3 splatbooks, separated from the 3 corebooks?

As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, these systems are aimed at specific subsets of players. Testing them in public would just result in a lot of people that the system isn’t aimed at giving us negative feedback.

This is a good idea.

 

[Falling Icicle]

It's a pity that we won't get the chance to test any of this stuff. Here's hoping they get it right.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The part that's really bugging me is that they are mentioning passing off all those things to a second design team. In other words people to carry the can. Oh, and that they aren't worrying about their own core math at all. Everything I find interesting that has been pitched for Next is a part of the work that not only hasn't been started but is the responsibility of the second design team. I'm now considering GenCon 2014 extremely optimistic (or possibly very pessimistic as if they get it out by then the second design team will have done basically no playtesting).

I'm also darkly amused that they referenced Combat and Tactics (and no, 4e combat doesn't look much like C&T for a reason), and one of the modules appears to be the return of Skills and Powers.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The magic of 4E combat came from powers and roles, not a grid system and a generic combat chapter. You aren't going to manage 4E style play with the core classes.

...the return of "tanking" was specifically mentioned there, so it sounds like roles might be back as an option. And I wouldn't be shocked if the "skills & powers" bit could manage to assemble a generic powers format, though to be honest, I'm not sure what you're looking for from "powers."

Oh, and that they aren't worrying about their own core math at all.

They have a team dedicated to the math. That strikes me as much more intensive and likely to capture an accurate math underpinning than just trying to have everyone be proficient in it. It's basic Henry Fording: "I don't need to know how to do ALL the jobs, just enough to be able to be awesome at my own."

 

[Raith5]

The magic of 4E combat came from powers and roles, not a grid system and a generic combat chapter. You aren't going to manage 4E style play with the core classes.

I largely agree with this. The tactically interesting part of 4th came from action points, second winds, powers that targeted defenses other than AC, the management and timing of encounter powers and utility powers that enabled movement, recovery from conditions etc. The "Grid" was only the canvas that enabled these powers to be represented. I am not at all that WOTC appreciates this at all.

But it will still be interesting to see what WOTC mean by ideas like tanking. The downtime system also looks interesting.

 

[Kinak]

I'm also darkly amused that they referenced Combat and Tactics (and no, 4e combat doesn't look much like C&T for a reason), and one of the modules appears to be the return of Skills and Powers.

Ha! Yeah, good old Player's Option.

As much as I loved 2nd Edition, admittedly my kitbashed version that looked more like 3rd, I find it hard to conjure up positive memories of those books. Combat and Tactics had... some cool stuff past weapon specialization... and critical hit confirmation that didn't require a second roll. And I'm sure someone truly pure of any powergaming desire could make an interesting character out of Skills and Powers, it was just so... utterly broken.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Blackbrrd]

Key parts they are looking into:

• The underlying math of the game. Great!
• An optional tactical combat system. Great!
• An optional dramatic system. Interesting.
• An optional system that cranks up character customization. Interesting.
• A campaign system. Awesome!

I must say the last point on the list is what I am looking most forward to.

A campaign system that extends the action beyond the day-to-day adventures, focusing on what we’ve called downtime. This includes managing a domain, running a business, playing politics on a grand scale, and so on. Things like mass combat would naturally slot into this system.

Just what I want in an accessory.

 

[Bluenose]

Is that a hint that tactical combat module, storytelling module and downtime module will be 3 splatbooks, separated from the 3 corebooks?

It sounds that way to me.

They have a team dedicated to the math. That strikes me as much more intensive and likely to capture an accurate math underpinning than just trying to have everyone be proficient in it. It's basic Henry Fording: "I don't need to know how to do ALL the jobs, just enough to be able to be awesome at my own."

Given the way some of Mike Mearls' previous work has come out mathematically, I'm not disappointed that he's distancing himself from the math. I do wonder who might be doing it. Getting the Magic guys on it wouldn't be a bad idea, I think, though whether they'd have time is another question. All they need now is an idea of what they actually want the range and frequency of results to be in common situations.

 

[TwoSix]

I can see where he's coming from with not wanting to have everyone giving feedback on subsystems that aren't "for" them.

But, at the same time, the subsystems that are "for" me don't really sound very appealing. I love tactical combat, for example, and spend a lot of time running combats... but C&T meets 4e? That doesn't sound like something I'm going to be investing in.

Ah well, I'll be curious to see what they actually show us of these systems. At present, I don't think I'll buy the game. But maybe something in these modules will change my mind.

Cheers!
Kinak

I think people are getting thrown off by the C&T reference. I'm pretty sure it's calling out the modularity of C&T (which was also an addon book to the core game, and was made up of optional rules that could be integrated but didn't have to be), not the specific 2e based rules.

 

[Neonchameleon]

They have a team dedicated to the math. That strikes me as much more intensive and likely to capture an accurate math underpinning than just trying to have everyone be proficient in it. It's basic Henry Fording: "I don't need to know how to do ALL the jobs, just enough to be able to be awesome at my own."

No. They have a team dedicated to everything but the few things they've thrown together so far. They mention one development team to handle all of the math, the narrative rules, the domain rules, the tactical rules, and the customisation rule. What they have a team dedicated to doing is writing the actual game to the design specs the original design team hands over.

As for this being Henry Ford, if you don't have the math you don't have a game that's fit for purpose. You have a level 20 thief-acrobat who has a 1/8 chance of falling off a tightrope (as I complained of about two packets ago) when in the real world, lunchtime walkers can do yoga on a tightrope. It fails at its purpose, and therefore the design fails. Without the math characters either can't do things they should, or can do things they really really shouldn't. And either situation means that the entire design is a failure. Math is fundamental to the game, and they are putting in the foundations at the end.