D&D General Compelling and Differentiated Gameplay For Spellcasters and Martial Classes

[Undrave]

This is the major difference.

Skills, improvisational actions and maneuvers that can be done at will are compared to what are supposed to be limited use clear precise mechanics (spells). This is a sensical approach as long as it is balanced correctly.

If casters are using spells as often as martials are improvising then, either the adventure is poorly designed or the game is poorly designed.

5E and modern D&D gives spell casters so much more opportunity to use magic. Compare a 1st level B/X magic user who gets 1 spell per day vs a 1st level 5E Wizard who can cast 3 spells per day (2+Arcane Recovery) + unlimited cantrips (which on their own are better than most non spellcaster actions).

In B/X the Magic User only has one time per game where they can automatically inject their agency by way of a rule (spell). Fighters can do their thing encounter after encounter and have a lot more control and agency in the game relative to the magic user.

In 5E, Wizards are empowered much further in this regard. It's a fundamental issue with the 5E game design. Wizards (and other spellcasters) are given too many tools to affect play compared to other non-caster classes.

I know a lot of people complain that magic users only get so few spells. Personally, I'm ok with it, I see the reaction to such complaint has been to push the balance too far in the other direction.

To fix this in 5E... I'd do the following.
1. Remove at-will cantrips from the game.
2. Keep the number of spells per day - but maybe cut down across the board with extra magic abilities for spell-casters.
3. Allow spell casting to be interrupted - if you are hit before your spell is cast you lose the spell (or require a Concentration save to keep the casting).

I'd look at how well classic D&D handles the balance between fighters and magic-users, and I'd implement rules to bring 5E closer in line.

I don't ACTUALLY mind most cantrips, because to me if you play a Spellcaster you want to FEEL like a Spellcaster. Having 2 spells a day or something is not being a spellcaster, it's being a diletante.

A Cantrip that does basically the same as a crossbow bolt is not really a problem. Spells that rely on attack rolls or the openent failing a saving throws are, quite frankly, the least problematic of the current system. They have uncertainty baked in.

What really matters are the spells that are basically just "Press this Button for X". "Press the Spider Climb button to climb this wall" for exemple. Instead I think it should be "Press this button to replace a Climb Check with an Arcana Check" or some other variations. Playing with casting time would also be a good idea. A lot of utility spells you'd never cast in a fight really need to take longer to use so there's a 'hook' the DM can use to make it a risk to rely only on magic.

But on the flip side the Martial classes need actual choices beyond "Which dude do I poke with my pointy stick?" you know? Even if mathematically the martial dudes can hold their own in terms of damage. It's just not interesting if you don't get to make choices that matter.

For exemple, I had this idea of a fighting style where you can apply disadvantage to your attack, provided you don't already have diaadvantage or advantage, in exchange for getting a potent debuff on the target. You don't need to track ressource but you get to choose every round wether the debuff is worth the risk of missing entirely or not.

Heck, imagine if instead of just that boring Crit Range the Champion also had: "You can apply disadvantage to your own attack provided you do not already have disadvantage or advantage, if the attack still hit, the attack is automatically a critical hit" In that case the Champion would now be in control of how hard or easy it would be to score extra damage. Big risk for big rewards.

Off course this is just the combat side of things and there's more to be had in the other pillars.

I feel like the Rogues "always a 10 or more" feature should have been more widespread. Like the Fighters should get that on their STR and CON checks or all Athletics rolls. And there was no reason to gimp the Fighters in terms of skill choice. At least give them an extra tool proficiency.

It also feels like, in general, characters should get additional skill choices as they level up that don't require them to spend a precious feat. Just to show they grow outside the Combat pillar of the game. Like at 10th level everbody gains proficiency in a skill another party member is proficient in. Might not be SUPER useful but it at least would feel interesting.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Tradition is always an important consideration.

If you're raking in millions selling D&D on the basis of authenticity, yes. If you're trying to hack it to get it to support a second set of play priorities, no.

Oh I'm thinking more mainstream. Which models Harry Potter's magic better - is magic in Harry Potter mostly reliable or not?

Its mostly at-will, all-arcane, extremely inconsistent (what it can do is ever-expanding in ways that make a hash of what came before, and it's lousy with author force), and there are no muggles that'd correspond to PCs, so, no, D&D in no way models it.
(And, of course, it's a much younger franchise than D&D.)

 

[Manbearcat]

So here was the initial question:

So how do we create an environment for skilled play where distinctions that reflect how it should feel to be a fighter or a monk or a sorcerer or a cleric are felt in play?

Note:

1) This was a design challenge.
2) We aren't iterating D&D.
3) We aren't hacking D&D 5e.
4) We don't have to be concerned about markets or zeitgeist (which seems like every_single_bloody_thread wants to conform to).

We just have to answer the above design challenge.

It seems to me that the three things being sought - pre-specified abilities, mmm o or minimal GM curation of challenges/sandbox, all these different bslances and feeling - are not simultaneously providable by a system.

In a game of pre-specified abilities divisions, you need GM assisted balance to get that balance. In a game with amorphous gimmick point scene edit "spend to solve" mechanics, that becomes irrelevant and the "manifested solution type" just fluff.

"My barbarian in rage punches wall, spend gimick point, exposing a secret compartment with vital clue."

I have yet to see a game that produed all three.

So I would need to know (a) what games you played and (b) were they run skillfully and by the book.

Because I can name several games (which, curiously enough, hook into my post on page 2 in how you do this) that afford all 3 simultaneously:

• Dungeon World
• Torchbearer
• Cortex+ Heroic Fantasy
• Strike(!)
• D&D 4e
• 13th Age

All of these possess:

1) Predefined abilities/playbooks/moves for all classes/archetypes whether you're a spellcaster or not.

2) The lack of requirement for GM curation of play with the specific intent of spotlight dissemination. In fact, some of these systems will actively fight you if you try to tailor play (or just run better if you don't).

3) Rough (or strident) cross-class/playbook balance across a variety of challenges (without 2 being in play).

They achieve this in a variety of ways.

A few common features are (a) Fail Forward action resolution and/or (b) conflict/scene resolution in dealing with threats/obstacles.

Other features are things like (c) codifying what is necessary for play and making it player-facing, (d) a GM ethos of "play to find out what happens" and core mechanical machinery that enables a GM to engage the game from this vantage, (e) all moves are rolled for to find out cost/consequence (including spellcasting), (f) both breadth and apex power of spellcasters are toned down while breadth of martial characters is amped up (and codified where needed), (g) reward cycles are fundamentally different from D&D (play incentives are realigned; xp on failure or xp, xp on discovery, xp on thematic thing x resolving in play), (h) different threat machinery changes the cognitive workspace inhabited by players (eg Torchbearer's simultaneous ticking clocks for both Light and accrued Conditions as play progresses through turns...spellcasters can't just fiat these concerns away with powerful spells...they've got to be resolved through mundane means and you have decision-points based on time + threats + your collective gear loadout as a group), (i) martial characters have codified "moves" that they can rely upon to consistently materialize within the fiction the same way that D&D spellcasters do (again, this changes the cognitive worksplace of all of the players playing the class, his/her compatriots, and the GM who is presenting the obstacle/situation for the players to deal with).

So...again...

as a design question (how do we solve this stuff @Campbell brought up but without the sort of intense GM curation of play that affords them a vastly disproportionate affect on the trajectory of play than the other participants at the table?)...this has been solved through the means presented.

Whether or not this is kosher for casual players or traditionalists or granular task resolution governed by x person's sense of realism proponents is a different question (one that we don't HAVE TO ANSWER IN EVERY SPECULATIVE THREAD...and one that wasn't asked in the opening of the thread).

If it seems like I'm cynical about the fact that we have to engage with the but traditionalists, but casuals, but granular task resolution governed by x person's sense of realism...its because I am. Why do we have to do that_every_single_thread?

We aren't actually making WotC's next version of D&D.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

So here was the initial question:



Note:

1) This was a design challenge.
2) We aren't iterating D&D.
3) We aren't hacking D&D 5e.
4) We don't have to be concerned about markets or zeitgeist (which seems like every_single_bloody_thread wants to conform to).

We just have to answer the above design challenge.



So I would need to know (a) what games you played and (b) were they run skillfully and by the book.

Because I can name several games (which, curiously enough, hook into my post on page 2 in how you do this) that afford all 3 simultaneously:

• Dungeon World
• Torchbearer
• Cortex+ Heroic Fantasy
• Strike(!)
• D&D 4e
• 13th Age

All of these possess:

1) Predefined abilities/playbooks/moves for all classes/archetypes whether you're a spellcaster or not.

2) The lack of requirement for GM curation of play with the specific intent of spotlight dissemination. In fact, some of these systems will actively fight you if you try to tailor play (or just run better if you don't).

3) Rough (or strident) cross-class/playbook balance across a variety of challenges (without 2 being in play).

They achieve this in a variety of ways.

A few common features are (a) Fail Forward action resolution and/or (b) conflict/scene resolution in dealing with threats/obstacles.

Other features are things like (c) codifying what is necessary for play and making it player-facing, (d) a GM ethos of "play to find out what happens" and core mechanical machinery that enables a GM to engage the game from this vantage, (e) all moves are rolled for to find out cost/consequence (including spellcasting), (f) both breadth and apex power of spellcasters are toned down while breadth of martial characters is amped up (and codified where needed), (g) reward cycles are fundamentally different from D&D (play incentives are realigned; xp on failure or xp, xp on discovery, xp on thematic thing x resolving in play), (h) different threat machinery changes the cognitive workspace inhabited by players (eg Torchbearer's simultaneous ticking clocks for both Light and accrued Conditions as play progresses through turns...spellcasters can't just fiat these concerns away with powerful spells...they've got to be resolved through mundane means and you have decision-points based on time + threats + your collective gear loadout as a group), (i) martial characters have codified "moves" that they can rely upon to consistently materialize within the fiction the same way that D&D spellcasters do (again, this changes the cognitive worksplace of all of the players playing the class, his/her compatriots, and the GM who is presenting the obstacle/situation for the players to deal with).

So...again...

as a design question (how do we solve this stuff @Campbell brought up but without the sort of intense GM curation of play that affords them a vastly disproportionate affect on the trajectory of play than the other participants at the table?)...this has been solved through the means presented.

Whether or not this is kosher for casual players or traditionalists or granular task resolution governed by x person's sense of realism proponents is a different question (one that we don't HAVE TO ANSWER IN EVERY SPECULATIVE THREAD...and one that wasn't asked in the opening of the thread).

If it seems like I'm cynical about the fact that we have to engage with the but traditionalists, but casuals, but granular task resolution governed by x person's sense of realism...its because I am. Why do we have to do that_every_single_thread?

We aren't actually making WotC's next version of D&D.

Hmmm...

Hm...

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM...

hmmm...

Im thinking about making a game system now...

Hmmm...gonna have to wrangle my friends together and commit us all to writing for a year or two at least to make it well.

 

[FrogReaver]

So here was the initial question:



Note:

1) This was a design challenge.
2) We aren't iterating D&D.
3) We aren't hacking D&D 5e.
4) We don't have to be concerned about markets or zeitgeist (which seems like every_single_bloody_thread wants to conform to).

We just have to answer the above design challenge.



So I would need to know (a) what games you played and (b) were they run skillfully and by the book.

Because I can name several games (which, curiously enough, hook into my post on page 2 in how you do this) that afford all 3 simultaneously:

• Dungeon World
• Torchbearer
• Cortex+ Heroic Fantasy
• Strike(!)
• D&D 4e
• 13th Age

All of these possess:

1) Predefined abilities/playbooks/moves for all classes/archetypes whether you're a spellcaster or not.

2) The lack of requirement for GM curation of play with the specific intent of spotlight dissemination. In fact, some of these systems will actively fight you if you try to tailor play (or just run better if you don't).

3) Rough (or strident) cross-class/playbook balance across a variety of challenges (without 2 being in play).

They achieve this in a variety of ways.

A few common features are (a) Fail Forward action resolution and/or (b) conflict/scene resolution in dealing with threats/obstacles.

Other features are things like (c) codifying what is necessary for play and making it player-facing, (d) a GM ethos of "play to find out what happens" and core mechanical machinery that enables a GM to engage the game from this vantage, (e) all moves are rolled for to find out cost/consequence (including spellcasting), (f) both breadth and apex power of spellcasters are toned down while breadth of martial characters is amped up (and codified where needed), (g) reward cycles are fundamentally different from D&D (play incentives are realigned; xp on failure or xp, xp on discovery, xp on thematic thing x resolving in play), (h) different threat machinery changes the cognitive workspace inhabited by players (eg Torchbearer's simultaneous ticking clocks for both Light and accrued Conditions as play progresses through turns...spellcasters can't just fiat these concerns away with powerful spells...they've got to be resolved through mundane means and you have decision-points based on time + threats + your collective gear loadout as a group), (i) martial characters have codified "moves" that they can rely upon to consistently materialize within the fiction the same way that D&D spellcasters do (again, this changes the cognitive worksplace of all of the players playing the class, his/her compatriots, and the GM who is presenting the obstacle/situation for the players to deal with).

So...again...

as a design question (how do we solve this stuff @Campbell brought up but without the sort of intense GM curation of play that affords them a vastly disproportionate affect on the trajectory of play than the other participants at the table?)...this has been solved through the means presented.

Whether or not this is kosher for casual players or traditionalists or granular task resolution governed by x person's sense of realism proponents is a different question (one that we don't HAVE TO ANSWER IN EVERY SPECULATIVE THREAD...and one that wasn't asked in the opening of the thread).

If it seems like I'm cynical about the fact that we have to engage with the but traditionalists, but casuals, but granular task resolution governed by x person's sense of realism...its because I am. Why do we have to do that_every_single_thread?

We aren't actually making WotC's next version of D&D.

The OP says:

"In this initial post I am going to try to stay away from targeted criticism of specific versions of Dungeons and Dragons. Instead I will lay out a problem I see across most versions of the game so we can discuss it and possible solutions."

Yet you say:

"2) We aren't iterating D&D.
3) We aren't hacking D&D 5e."


I'll take the OP at his word instead of what you try to spin it as - he is looking at D&D itself and how to fix it. Heck, he goes further and mentions D&D classes explicitly:

"So how do we create an environment for skilled play where distinctions that reflect how it should feel to be a fighter or a monk or a sorcerer or a cleric are felt in play?"

 

[FrogReaver]

• Dungeon World
• Torchbearer
• Cortex+ Heroic Fantasy
• Strike(!)
• D&D 4e
• 13th Age

I don't know all these games but the ones I do know, many D&D players dislike their mechanics.

 

[Manbearcat]

@FrogReaver

I don't see how what you've posted disputes anything that I wrote above.

1) I know Campbell. I know he isn't doing what you apparently think he's doing (trying to entertain a design exercise while simultaneously being constrained by D&D cultural legacy).

2) Even if I didn't know Campbell, I can engage with a plain reading of his words.

His words don't produce any interpretation that would lead me to believe that he is a new WotC rep and he is soliciting feedback on a new edition in order to:

2a) Instantiate the next version of D&D.

2b) Monetize a hack for the 5e fanbase.

3) Fighter, Monk, Sorcerer, Cleric are not remotely D&D exclusive. They are pervasive across the spectrum of CRPGs, boardgames, and TTRPGs (be they D&D Fantasy Heartbreakers or not).

 

[Tony Vargas]

If it seems like I'm cynical about the fact that we have to engage with the but traditionalists, but casuals, but granular task resolution governed by x person's sense of realism...its because I am.

Welcome to the club.

Why do we have to do that_every_single_thread?
We aren't actually making WotC's next version of D&D.

We certainly aren't. But, we are committing D&D Heresey.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't know all these games but the ones I do know, many D&D players dislike their mechanics.

That's an endorsement, really.

 

[Manbearcat]

I don't know all these games but the ones I do know, many D&D players dislike their mechanics.

Which, again:

1) is not relevant to the design challenge put forth.

and

2) I question whether you know many D&D players who dislike those games/mechanics who have actually_played them.

3) My experience differs from yours. I know many, many D&D players who like the mechanics of one or more of those games (and many other indie games like Blades in the Dark, Apocalypse World, MHRP, Smallville, Leverage, Mouse Guard, Dogs in the Vineyard).