A plea to stop over-complicating the base system.

[Votan]

I like simple rules that incent sensible actions (like carrying a shield) but which are simple in play. So I want to see more innovations like this:

Trollsmyth: Shields Shall be Splintered!

It solves two problems at once. One, it makes carrying a shield very useful (for no extra mental effort -- how hard is it to cross off a shield instead of subtracting hit points). Two, by making shields expendable you solve the eventual math problems that +5 shields will bring to AC (without introducing more complex rules like limiting the number of opponents that a shield can protect against).

So that is what I hope the armor thread comes up with.

 

[Argyle King]

I like keeping things simple. However, I do not personally agree with the concept that simple necessarily means good nor do I feel more robust mechanics necessarily equate to more complexity when it comes to rpgs.

I understand the desire to keep the core simple. However -as a prospective customer- if I don't like the core and what I get from it, it seems rather odd for me to continue buying books until I get the system I want.

Also, working some of these issues out now is -I feel- a good idea for a modular system. Knowing some of the problems now and having ideas for potential fixes gives insight into how things might combine when using multiple modular options down the road. Otherwise, there's the same old D&D problem on the horizon where a new book comes out and interacts in a way with existing material which breaks the game.

 

[Remathilis]

I agree.

I think the main system is pretty set in stone right now, barring a massive hole that somebody discovers in playtest. Right now, they're not looking to reinvent the wheel, merely clarify and tweak.

Your awesome ideas for new critical hit systems or adding spell points is cool and all, but I seriously doubt right now they want to rip that part of the engine out of the car and rebuild it. They're trying to see if they got all the belts and hoses hooked up, not looking to replace fuel tank with a battery along with it.

There are plenty of corners that need touching (movement through threatened spots being one, as is healing overnight). Lets not convince them to re-write armor, just adjust the AC values.

Just don't be dissapointed to see 5e look similar to the playtest, with fixed numbers and reworded feats/spells...

 

[Argyle King]

I didn't have a bad experience with the playtest. I don't think the playtest form of the rules are necessarily a bad game either. However, I do feel that I won't be motivated to buy the game if the finished product is what I see now in the playtest with just a few minor tweaks.

 

[Fifth Element]

I agree in principle. Most of the complicated suggestions are predicated on making the system "make sense". But this comes at the cost of complexity, which should be kept out the core system, especially in a game intended to be as modular as 5E.

 

[Gorgoroth]

armchair game designers

why can't we all be armchair D&D designers? Isn't that what this entire open beta is for?

DR systems, might complicate the core rules a bit, but it's one of those systems where if you only include it as an optional module, you'll have to re-work all the ACs when DR is enabled to rebalance it, leading to further problems. I've played D&D without DR for PCs for decades...DR is not that hard to add, it's routinely added to monsters to toughen them up, with little fanfare. But balancing it properly...would be.

Modular systems have to be compatible with the base system...I don't know if there would be an elegant way to enable DR post-launch in a splat book, at least in a way that would engender its use at many game tables. It's like the Wii controller, you need to have it part of the core game system to make all the games use it for it to take off. It might seem gimicky to some, but the control scheme is its schtick...I have piles of old consoles that use gamepads, but how many use the light gun? How many use the kinect? I write games for a living...if you have a killer new feature that makes the game unique and different, it's much easier / better to bundle it in the core console than sell a few hundred thousand afterwards and get only a handful of titles support it.

What I'm saying is...you're wrong about DR being too complicated. The core system would have to be balanced around it, with AC affecting spell success...one does not simply add DR to D&D in a splat book and with a single table rebalance every other element of every other book that was balanced around AC without DR

D&D might have had DR for player Armor as an optional module in the past...but I'd never know because no DM I know ever used it. The are practical reasons why we are advocating it now...because if we are silent there is virtually no chance of it being used. History should back me on this. It is a known thing.

 

[Argyle King]

On the topic of DR:

I don't want it to be based on Con or anything like that. To keep things simple, I'd like each type of heavy armor just to have a flat DR rating. Even if it's only 1 or 2 points of DR, that should (ideally) still be fine in a system which states flattening out the curve and the math to be a design goal. I also don't like the idea of the DR value based on Con (as some of suggested) because I feel the DR should be a property of the armor, and not a property of the character.

I'm still not really sure how to fit medium armor into D&D's AC system though. It currently adds half of the character's Dex, so maybe it could also add a fraction of the DR offered by heavier armors.


On the topic of simplicity:

I would like to divorce Dex from initiative rolls. Simply have initiative be a d20 roll. You could still allow for feats, traits, or whatever to give a bonus.

 

[YRUSirius]

DR might not be too complicated in itself, but it migh add an unwanted level of complexity for newbies and casuals?

-YRUSirius

 

[sheadunne]

Simple isn't always better and new isn't always complex. You can have a complete robust system that isn't any more complex than an incomplete system. I don't want to have to make rulings because the core is lacking some fundamental clarifications.

 

[slobo777]

I think the armchair game-design debates are interesting.

I really don't think that the WotC 5E team are taking notes and trying to incorporate the ideas in the forum into D&D 5E core. If nothing else, they are well aware of their options for adding and removing game elements, and what it means for the game.

You need a certain amount of compexity at the core of the system to support a rich enough range of tweaks available via race, class, theme and background - each of these needs to add several game effects that have the right "feel", and adjust the available mechanics in a simple way.

Somehow I don't think the debates on hitpoints, AC etc are going to lead to more complexity in D&D Next. We won't see big rule sets providing massive differences between armour types in core, nor will D&D re-define hit points or add an injury tracking syustem. What they will do is adjust AC values, and if reactions are truly bad to e.g. Reaper, then the theme will get adjusted (my gut feeling is that it will not, although a few people really hate it, it's too small numbers of players, and an easily-removed or houseruled option for them).