D&D 5E Additive versus subtractive modularity

[Emerikol]

Sticking with a game that works would be my suggestion. I know lots of people that never moved to 3.x or 4.x. They stuck with 1e or 2e or whatever. They tried 3.x or 4.x and didn't like it. (Hell, I was one of the ones that didn't move to 4.x at all. I looked at it. Tried it. Hated it. Went back to 3.x and to PF eventually.)

Exactly. I'm not saying wotc has to do anything. I am saying what it would take for me to adopt their game. It's not like 5e is this awesome game so much better than every other game and I am flushing all the benefits just over one issue. It's a game. I liked some decisions it made and not others. I do though feel that all playstyles should have been included. There are not 10. There are probably 3 or 4 major groups.

I'll just keep playing what I like and support the companies producing a D&D game that includes my playstyle.

I am disappointed given they were producing a simple fighter. Who are they producing that for? Are there really that many people who love the simple fighter that also love martial healing? How many? Two...ten?

 

[Agamon]

I am disappointed given they were producing a simple fighter. Who are they producing that for? Are there really that many people who love the simple fighter that also love martial healing? How many? Two...ten?

It's fine to have an opinion and state it, it's another to toss trollish statements like this.

 

[Obryn]

I am disappointed given they were producing a simple fighter. Who are they producing that for? Are there really that many people who love the simple fighter that also love martial healing? How many? Two...ten?

People who don't worry about the definition of hit points as the make-or-break deciding factor for a pretend elf game, would be my guess.

 

[Emerikol]

It's fine to have an opinion and state it, it's another to toss trollish statements like this.

I don't get why my statement is trollish? I'm honestly asking if the circle that includes simple fighter lovers but does not include martial healing haters is of any size worth mentioning. I don't think so in my opinion. Why is that trollish?

Did I make a personal attack on you?

 

[Faraer]

I'd like to see a balanced variant set of classes without unlimited cantrips, unqualified specialist wizard bonuses, wild shape and paladin/ranger spells at low levels, second wind, and so on.

 

[Obryn]

I'd like to see a balanced variant set of classes without unlimited cantrips, unqualified specialist wizard bonuses, wild shape and paladin/ranger spells at low levels, second wind, and so on.

It exists!

http://darkdungeonsblog.wordpress.com

(It's honestly great. RC D&D doesn't get nearly enough respect. The Darker Dungeons variant is even better, imo.)

 

[evileeyore]

Trust me, I'm trying to understand, but the thinking is pretty foreign to me.

5e plays like 5e. There will be advice in the DMG to make it play like something else. That's pretty inclusive, if you ask me.

This is where I'm at with these "conversations".

 

[I'm A Banana]

I have a theory. (I have many theories, but this is my theory about the new edition of D&D.) I think a part of the disconnect we're seeing this month is that some people are hoping for subtractive modularity ("I don't like X - how do I remove it?") whereas WotC seems to be focusing on additive modularity ("I would really like Y to be in D&D. How can I add it?"). Take character classes, for instance - lots of people hate them, but we are not getting a module to remove them. (As far as I know - certainly haven't heard the developers mention it.) We are seeing modules for more character customization, including designing one's own subclasses.

And that's why some people are getting frustrated - they're basically speaking a different language from the developers. They're asking, for example, "Will there be a module that gets rid of second wind/martial healing/damage on a miss", and the developers are saying no, because that's not what the modules are designed to do. That doesn't mean we won't see a module or five which produce lingering wounds that can't be healed by resting overnight or a good pep talk or humming "Eye of the Tiger", but the modules will achieve that goal by adding to the system rather than merely banning character abilities.

I'm not so sure.

Like, Basic D&D is a pretty light game. Most of the changes that ANYONE would make to it would be additive, because there's not much there.

But there's elements of it that I'm very confident that the devs are going to let you swap out. I've heard rumblings of a classless option (in the DMG). I'm sure they'll have a gritty wounds option, fairly confident they'll have a low-magic option, almost definitely allow you to swap out races and classes and subclasses. In adding Feats to the game, they're swapping out ability score increases.

So even Basic is built to be broken down in many ways.

Second Wind is a very narrow rule, which is probably why we're not seeing something for that specifically. But maybe other fighter types don't get Second Wind, or maybe a healing module changes how all healing works or *whatever*. So it'll have trickle-down effects. But not every individual ability or power is going to have a module addressing it -- that's where errata and updates come in, if necessary.

 

[Uchawi]

Second wind may be a very narrow rule, but it steps into the waters of a very contentious idea that has been debated in depth for the entire play test, i.e. hit points, damage and healing. Furthermore, you see a similar ability appear under the rogue. To be fair we are viewing these types of mechanics in a stripped down version of the game, but it does not speak well if the statement Mike is making is true in reference to having no option to replace it. At least with 4E healing was isolated with a universal mechanic that could be played around with and have a universal impact on the game. I will be surprised if 5E did not learn anything from that, even if they do not use the exact model of 4E healing.

I thought hit dice were the ticket, because you can implement multiple styles for healing based on their use, for example healing surges are 1/4 the full hit dice of any class, or you can reduce the hit dice gained, make it a flat recovery rate or remove them. It has a universal impact.

So I hope 5E is following a theme of isolation of rules or mechanics that created a lot of debate so they may be presented as a spell, maneuver, feat, class or something similar that can be removed or replaced. Or there is a default formula for rules like healing recovery rates and mechanics that may be adjusted.

 

[MechaPilot]

Second wind may be a very narrow rule, but it steps into the waters of a very contentious idea that has been debated in depth for the entire play test, i.e. hit points, damage and healing. Furthermore, you see a similar ability appear under the rogue.

Maybe I'm not getting what you're saying. Can you point out the offending ability on the rogue?