D&D 5E Additive versus subtractive modularity

[tsadkiel]

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.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

I don't understand why people want rules to remove rules. If I don't want martial healing or damage on a miss in my game, I'll simply rule them out. Is that so hard to do?

 

[BoldItalic]

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 think you may be right. How about testing your theory with a poll: "If 5e allowed you to remove any parts of the rules you don't like, would you be happy to play it YES/NO ?"

 

[Nagol]

I don't understand why people want rules to remove rules. If I don't want martial healing or damage on a miss in my game, I'll simply rule them out. Is that so hard to do?

It can be, depending on how interwoven the rules are with other game elements and determining how to compensate affected characters for losses that affect them can be irritating as well.

 

[1of3]

I think they really tried to make recovery with Hit Dice optional. The only class feature that referenced them in the final playtest, was one power in a Barbarian subclass. It would have been very simple to make the Fighter's Second Wind a way to spend Hit Dice, but they didn't. (Thereby giving us the Contentious Topic of the Week to discuss. Yeah!) They also tried other modes of healing in the playtest. So it seems, they tried to make Hit Dice optional.

On the other hand Skills are hard to remove. You can make them dependent on Class, dependent on Background or free, but you cannot get rid off them without changing character progression and Expertise features. Though of course, preselecting a background for each class, like Soldier for Fighter, does in already remove a decision point.

They also unified spell slot progressions, so if you'd rather have spell points, you can change them with a simple formula.

Those would neither be purely additive nor purley substractive modifications, but you can exchange one way of approaching healing or skills or spell casting with another approach.

 

[Agamon]

I think you may be right. How about testing your theory with a poll: "If 5e allowed you to remove any parts of the rules you don't like, would you be happy to play it YES/NO ?"

How would 5e not allow me to do this? Will WotC come to my door and kick me in the shins if I do?

 

[Lanefan]

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.

This is a good point, and goes back to something I've been saying for a while now: "basic" 5e isn't basic enough. Those three examples you note above should all be in a tack-on module of Warrior abilities rather than baked in to the root game, mostly because all the adventures etc. are going to be written on the assumption those things are part of the game and there's no way to tell ahead of time how things will work with those abilities stripped out (which they'll be in a heartbeat in my game if I go with 5e).

What the adventure writers for 5e are going to have to do a lot of is add sidebars titled "if module x is in play make a-b-c-d modifications to this adventure".

Lan-"I'm a fighter - I cause damage; other people can heal it"-efan

 

[Grazzt]

How would 5e not allow me to do this? Will WotC come to my door and kick me in the shins if I do?

Not likely. I've been removing stuff since 1e and my shins are fine. No TSR or WotC police yet.

 

[BryonD]

I don't really think the premise fully connects with the issue.

SW as-is is not compatible with a 3E style. No one should be obliged to care whether 3E style is serviced or not. But if WotC wants to keep their word regarding offering all play styles they must resolve this. Thus, they must remove SW in the current form. (SW = Temp HP removes the current form and replaces with an alternative cleanly enough).

They could also "add" a rule that says every time you take *this much* damage you loss one from your max HD, max HD are restored 1/day. That would "add" a rule without removing a class feature. But you are adding a rule whose sole function is to remove another rule. It becomes reaching around your elbow to scratch your nose.

And there is still the issue of 100% healing with a long rest....

Ultimately, if they want to keep their promise there must be a means of "removing" some rules. And there is nothing wrong with this. I'd think an arbitrary ban on removals would be a foolish self-inflicted handicap.

 

[tsadkiel]

I don't really think the premise fully connects with the issue.

SW as-is is not compatible with a 3E style. No one should be obliged to care whether 3E style is serviced or not. But if WotC wants to keep their word regarding offering all play styles they must resolve this. Thus, they must remove SW in the current form. (SW = Temp HP removes the current form and replaces with an alternative cleanly enough).

My theory is that there's a disconnect between how fans are thinking about modularity, and how WotC is thinking about modularity. I know the arguments people here are making, because they keep making them!

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.