D&D 5E Legends & Lore 03/24/2014

[MerricB]

Sounds good. I just wish they would stop beating around the bush and show us some actual examples of what they are talking about.

Well, the playtest has been sort of using this approach for a while now - there are starting equipment packages for the backgrounds and starting equipment packages for the classes. It lacks the random extra item table, and possibly doesn't have as much standard gear as the final document will have, but this approach has been there to see.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Leaving aside weapons and armour for the moment...

Gear either matters, or it doesn't. And, in most games, it really doesn't - the player may spend hours picking out his 'perfect' set of equipment, lovingly transcribe it onto his character sheet, calculate the encumbrance to the ounce... but he'll then never again reference it in play. Because dealing with torches, or counting iron spikes, or asking if they're carrying chalk is just not something the group associate with high adventure.

(Conversely, there are other games where it really is important - games with a much more survivalist/horror bent, or which try to 'realistically' model the process of dungeon-crawling. Games in which the difference between one torch and two really can be the difference between life and death.)

For the first type of game, even these suggestions are overkill. By all means have players pick a weapon/armour combo for their character, and assign them a small amount of money. But, frankly, it would be better to give them an "Adventurer's Kit" and just assume they have all the other stuff they need. Done.

And for the second type of game, these suggestions are useless. If it really does matter what gear characters have, then any model where it's assigned in packages is unhelpful - if the decision is important, the player needs to make it.

Hmm, it's not a bad point. But I don't know that I'd go quite so far.

I would say that D&D has typically been somewhere in the middle: a game where some people have ignored arrows and some people have tracked every resource. So a game that's trying to be D&D first and foremost probably needs to ping somewhere in the middle.

For people on the more abstract end, this won't hurt. It'll let newbies develop an idea of what might be in an "adventuring kit," and give people some interesting trinkets that customize that kit.

For the people on the more concrete end, this also won't hurt. It'll give newbies a good assortment of common tools and keep things interesting with the trinkets. And you always have the option of buying stuff a la carte.

Simplification here is for folks who don't know what they want to buy, and I think in both of those situations, this does a solid job of it.

Yeah, I'm a fan.

 

[delericho]

I would say that D&D has typically been somewhere in the middle

Actually, I'd be more inclined to say D&D has typically fallen between two stools and thus had the worst of all worlds - it pretends gear is important and expects players to pore over those equipment lists... and then the gear (usually) turns out to be completely irrelevant.

In that regard, this is at least progress.

 

[Uchawi]

I am more concerned about the following statement, versus starting packages.

"I've talked before about how we moved several choices out of 1st level to make creating a character faster and easier. For many classes, your biggest choices don't come into play until 2nd or 3rd level"

I want all the classes to start off with the same level of complexity. In my opinion, it makes no sense that a cleric gets to chose a deity or domain, but a fighter has to wait until third level to make significant class choices.

 

[Hussar]

Not really on topic, but the art for this L&L is way cool. Where did it come from?

And, equipment packages have been in the game for a long time. The back of the old B/E module - The Lost City had three equipment packages, all about the same price, that covered adventuring equipment. Loved it then and love it now.

 

[MerricB]

I want all the classes to start off with the same level of complexity.

They tried that with 4E, and look what happened.

It's an utterly foolish design constraint. D&D is a game that admits a great deal of variety - why not use that strength? The game is aided as well by allowing different levels of complexity for player characters. For one thing, it makes it easier for new players to jump into the game as a fighter, although there's nothing too difficult about the other characters that new players couldn't try them.

Far more important is the level of effectiveness of the characters. If a character could leave the table and no-one notice that it was gone, then there's an effectiveness problem; I'm far more concerned with whether all the characters can feel like they're contributing rather than assign an arbitrary level of complexity to all of them, regardless of whether the class needs it or not.

 

[delericho]

It's an utterly foolish design constraint. D&D is a game that admits a great deal of variety - why not use that strength?

While I agree with you that there's no need for all classes to be of equal complexity, the legacy "simple fighter/complex wizard" split is a bad one. If I'm a new player who wants to run "a character like Harry Potter", I don't want to come up against a game that encourages new players to play Conan instead.

So, yes, let's have classes of differing complexities. But let's fill in all the possibilities: a simple Fighter and a complex Wizard, yes, but also a complex Fighter and a simple Wizard.

(These can, of course, either be four different classes or two, with the choice of subclass/feats/powers/whatever determining the complexity.)

 

[MerricB]

While I agree with you that there's no need for all classes to be of equal complexity, the legacy "simple fighter/complex wizard" split is a bad one. If I'm a new player who wants to run "a character like Harry Potter", I don't want to come up against a game that encourages new players to play Conan instead.

So, yes, let's have classes of differing complexities. But let's fill in all the possibilities: a simple Fighter and a complex Wizard, yes, but also a complex Fighter and a simple Wizard.

(These can, of course, either be four different classes or two, with the choice of subclass/feats/powers/whatever determining the complexity.)

I've no problem with that at all. Indeed, I really hope that occurs - for me, the best period of 3E was when they started really looking at other options, giving us the Book of Nine Swords and Magic of Incarnum, and the Essentials line allowed for a different take on fighters and thieves during 4E.

It's when they straight-jacket everything that the game suffers most, IMO.

Cheers!

 

[Kinak]

So, yes, let's have classes of differing complexities. But let's fill in all the possibilities: a simple Fighter and a complex Wizard, yes, but also a complex Fighter and a simple Wizard.

This is exactly what I'd love to see. If they have a simple and complex warrior, skilluser, arcanist, and support, then any other classes are just gravy for me.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Vicar In A Tutu]

Great stuff! I love that WoTC have really run with the "easy to pickup and play" philosophy. Also allowing people to buy their own stuff as an optional rule, so no one has a reason to be displeased.