D&D 5E (2014) Additive versus subtractive modularity

[BryonD]

How about let the Cleric trade any spell prepped for Cure Wounds. Then, change natural healing to slower progression. That's what 3e did for healing. Seems pretty easy to me.

Agree. But this "removes" the 100% healing.

 

[Umbran]

If my theory is correct, though (and it's just a non-scientific theory, not a firm position that I'm prepared to defend to the death) then people will probably be better off talking about what they would like to achieve, rather than how much they dislike the mechanics they feel are getting in the way.

Heck, even if I'm completely wrong, it would probably be a useful exercise to frame things in terms of positive effects of getting what you want, rather than negative effects of getting what you don't want.

Yes. Even if your theory is incorrect, discussion of what you want to achieve, and what you need to do it, is generally going to be more constructive than endlessly complaining about what about a game you don't like.

Especially when that game isn't even published yet! Sure, that will be remedied in just a few days, but the point stands, regardless.

There are some fundamental problems with adopting the "always negative" position. Most importantly, it engages the ego - having put a stake in the ground that, "Game X sucks!" one has a problem in removing that stake. Doing so admits to being wrong, and few people are happy to admit that. So, rather than be willing to just pull it out, we tend to beat it in. It goes from, "I don't like it" to "I think it is Objectively Bad" to "It offers *NO* support for my playstyle", to "WotC is evil and doesn't care about anyone!!!1!" - driving to more and more absolutely negative positions.

As opposed to, "I find this bit problematic, how can I work with it?" It isn't an assertion so much as a question. It is engaging in creative discussion with your fellow gamers, rather than opposing them. And, perhaps most importantly, done well it keeps your mind open, rather than closing, then locking, then barring, then bricking up the door.

There comes a point where it is time to stop complaining about games you don't like, and either engaging in creative discussions about them, or going and talking about things you *do* like, without reference to things you don't.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I have a hard time believing they just don't get the healing issue. I have to believe if that is the case that the devs are colossal idiots. I'm not willing to accept that as my working hypothesis. These guys have been in the industry for years. They appear to be intelligent. I've met them in person a few times and I don't get a really dumb vibe from them. So I have to believe they just don't want to support my playstyle fully for some reason.

And isn't that reason probably just that your playstyle for hit points does not match a majority of player's playstyles of hit points? Wherein something like Second Wind is either good for some players, completely neutral for some players, or bad for some players but they're willing to work around it and houerule because the rest of the game is to their liking and they want to play it anyway?

If you don't like non-magical healing and are unwilling to work around, ignore, refluff, or house rule 5E's concession to non-magical healing... then don't. Play the game you're currently playing. That's fine. Just accept that in WotC's attempt to produce a game that would hopefully work for a majority of D&D players past and present... you fall into the minority.

It was going to happen. 5E was never going to have a 100% success rate. You just happened to draw the short straw. Sorry about that.

 

[Emerikol]

And isn't that reason probably just that your playstyle for hit points does not match a majority of player's playstyles of hit points? Wherein something like Second Wind is either good for some players, completely neutral for some players, or bad for some players but they're willing to work around it and houerule because the rest of the game is to their liking and they want to play it anyway?

If you don't like non-magical healing and are unwilling to work around, ignore, refluff, or house rule 5E's concession to non-magical healing... then don't. Play the game you're currently playing. That's fine. Just accept that in WotC's attempt to produce a game that would hopefully work for a majority of D&D players past and present... you fall into the minority.

It was going to happen. 5E was never going to have a 100% success rate. You just happened to draw the short straw. Sorry about that.

Obviously this is just an opinion. In the case of non-magical healing though, I believe they've miscalculated. I don't think I'm a tiny minority at all. I have to think that Mike Mearls doesn't see Second Wind as being part of that argument when I do. Maybe on that one issue it's not as big or more people can ignore it.

 

[Jester David]

I don't think they can declare 100% additive or subtractive modularity.

It's certainly easier to have additive modularity. Complex rules are hard to simplify and reduce, and there's more content to filter and possible unintended side effects to changes. A simple core is easy to maintain and modify with additive complexity and variations without causing conflict.

But it's impossible to fully remove subtractive modularity: there will always be options that need to be removed and altered.
Healing is the big one. Spells and casting is another, swapping out Vancian spells for spell points or powers. It would have been great if fighters were also given that form of modularity, swapping out certain key abilities for maneuvers rather than tying that mechanic to subclasses and thus limiting fighters to two real subclasses: simple or complex.

 

[Remathilis]

I hate to point out typos, but you, weirdly, mistyped "loved druidic trial by combat so much that we expanded it to every class and wrote large supporting documents for who each character had to kill to advance, we tinker to made it perfect."

Your fingers probably slipped.



Thaumaturge.

No. I meant to type "Allowed Druids not interested in politics to avoid combat by splintering off the hierarchy, getting no additional powers but keeping the spells-per-day equal to a cleric."

The same was true of monks, btw.

 

[Agamon]

Agree. But this "removes" the 100% healing.

Right. You want a "means" of "removing" a rule. There you go.

Where's my "That Was Easy" Staples button?

Even if you're not the designer of a game, you can remove rules from it when you play it. Shocking, I know. But I've done it, and I'm still here.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

It's true that the majority of 5E modularity is additive. Most of the customization options are wrapped up in feats and subclasses, each of which can be considered an optional module.

But, there are definitely going to be options that alter or replace subsystems. Spell points and healing are just two examples.

What I don't expect to see are options for replacing specific class features, even contentious ones. I suspect that will be left to house rules.

 

[thalmin]

Right. You want a "means" of "removing" a rule. There you go.

Where's my "That Was Easy" Staples button?

Even if you're not the designer of a game, you can remove rules from it when you play it. Shocking, I know. But I've done it, and I'm still here.

So YOU'RE the one!! They're gonna get you now. Thought you could get away with forever, eh?

 

[Grazzt]

I think WotC is not focused on either type of modularity as you have described it. The have simply created a mishmash of popular things from each edition.

I agree with this. I don't think 5e will be as modular as they maybe hinted at in the beginning. Maybe it will be. Or maybe they couldn't get it to work. Who knows. But the DMG having dials and knobs for every possible iteration of everything from past editions won't be in there. Not a chance. (I've seen plenty of threads here and on other forums where someone says something and someone else responds with "There will likely be a module for that in the DMG.") There may be some rules that can be tweaked or changed, but I don't think modularity (to the extent a lot of us expect/want/hope/think) will be there.

Edit: Modularity or not doesn't really bother me personally. I've been adding/removing rules in our campaign and games since the mid 80's. I don't foresee this edition being any different.