D&D 5E Additive versus subtractive modularity

[Grazzt]

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.

Options like that may appear in future class or race books. I believe WotC said they don't plan on releasing as many splat books as they did in the past, but we shall see. I think we'll see some sort of class books or maybe a single book with advanced/alternate class options in it at some point.

 

[tomBitonti]

I guess I'm in the camp of not seeing a problem.

One has always been able to remove rules subsystems. Removing particular rules, spells, or abilities, or even making certain classes unavailable or heavily restricted is all within the purview of a DM or gaming group.

Convincing a gaming group that a particular house rule is worthwhile can be an issue, but that's a different issue.

Not liking a particular option to the point that one would rather the game designers had not included it, that is a different issue, too. The issue is valid (perhaps depending on the particulars of the objection), but not a reason to displace to demanding an explicit alternate rule.

A question which seems to present itself is whether the design has enough tuning points: What are the typical decision points for different groups, and what are the usual alternatives. Then, the question is whether the game has built in enough of these tuning points; the goal being to provide flexibility to different gaming groups.

I'm thinking we'll need to wait for the DMG before we can answer that. The basic rules will be a snapshot of the most common options, including perhaps some simplifications, and see certainly to to avoid too many alternate features, entirely to make the basic game most accessible.

Thx!

TomB

 

[Agamon]

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.

Well, so far we've been told there will be rules to facilitate tactical play, different spellcasting options, different ways of running skills, how to create new races, sub-classes, and spells, and how to tweak the game to make it play more like other editions. And that's just what we've been told.

The DMG is not going to have any "how to run a game" advice, it's basically magic items and different mechanical options for the game. I do think they are accomplishing what they originally set out to do.

 

[MechaPilot]

I am only acting on what Mike Mearls said. He said Second Wind would have no replacement. If he is lying or in error or unclear on that point and there is a replacement for Second Wind then I've said I would revise my stance.

I am not though going to buy a game no matter how easy it is for me to houserule it myself that does not offer any support for my playstyle. A lot of games are easy to houserule. I can start with a lot of different base systems and build my houserules on top of those. It would be nice though to know the guy(s) I'm giving the money to for their game don't oppose even the existance of my approach to gaming.

I don't think it can be honestly said that they don't provide any support for your playstyle. Your playstyle includes slow healing. Mearls has flat out said there will be a slow healing module in the DMG. That is at least some support for your playstyle. I hope they offer more support for you, and for everyone who isn't satisfied with the defaults of the game, but I think we all need to understand that we are all going to have to houserule something. In a game designed to appeal to fans of a cross-section of editions, we're all going to have to do some work to get what we want.

At this point, you don't even need to concoct the houserules yourself because there are several community brainstormed options for replacing it. I wish I had a resource like that when I started DM'ing AD&D 2e.

Ultimately, what you opt to do is your choice. Whatever it is, I hope it makes you happy.

 

[evileeyore]

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.

I dunno man...

I had a DM once who did that back in the late '80's. He got a cease and desist and when he kept running the game his way Lorraine Williams ate his soul.

 

[Emerikol]

I don't think it can be honestly said that they don't provide any support for your playstyle. Your playstyle includes slow healing.

I think slow healing and anti-martial healing are not the same playstyle. They do overlap but I believe you could be in favor of clerics having magic to heal you up overnight most days and still be anti-martial healing. The only requirement would be slow natural healing and not warlord type inspiration or second wind type self healing.

I think as unpredictable as the devs seem to be that making any absolute decision before seeing the game is likely precipitous. I'm just saying that at this point I'm pessimistic instead of optimistic. I think though that perhaps you gave me more optimism than they did.

I am still baffled with all the possible classes and approaches they could take that they couldn't squeeze in one subclass on the fighter and rogue to cover these issues. Just avoid all the dissociation and healing issues on those two subclasses and I think you make a lot of people really happy. It seems like such a low hanging fruit with such an upside. While I agree there have been naysayers from the beginning I have absolutely not been one of those naysayers. When I saw the first subclasses roll out though that had second wind it was like a gut punch. How could they support the simple fighter and not avoid that mistake. It's a stunner to me.

 

[Bawylie]

Because they valued simplicity in these subclasses, apparently.

The healing rates were always gonna be dials.

You've got so much of he's you were asking for - it's just not found all on the same page.

 

[MechaPilot]

I think slow healing and anti-martial healing are not the same playstyle. They do overlap but I believe you could be in favor of clerics having magic to heal you up overnight most days and still be anti-martial healing. The only requirement would be slow natural healing and not warlord type inspiration or second wind type self healing.

I think as unpredictable as the devs seem to be that making any absolute decision before seeing the game is likely precipitous. I'm just saying that at this point I'm pessimistic instead of optimistic. I think though that perhaps you gave me more optimism than they did.

As far as I know, the slow-healing module is really only about healing while resting. At least, I haven't heard them say that it affects the amount that healing magic will heal you. So, the existence of a module to reduce the rate of healing while resting is what I was referring to as slow healing, and I do know that you have said that is part of your playstyle.

As far as anti-martial healing, I may be wrong but I don't see too many examples in the last playtest packet. There's second wind, survivor, HDs and resting (which will be altered by the slow healing module), and what else?

 

[Emerikol]

As far as anti-martial healing, I may be wrong but I don't see too many examples in the last playtest packet. There's second wind, survivor, HDs and resting (which will be altered by the slow healing module), and what else?

What is hilarious about it all is that they put two of the most offensive things on the fighter class. You could put those on nearly any other class besides maybe the rogue and get by with it. It's almost like they are teasing. Yes we will give you a simple fighter like you've been wanting but oh wait we are going to doll it up with all kinds of stuff you'll hate.

HDs are major and I suspect will only be dialed down and not eliminated. When a non-magical character decides "I'm going to restore hit points" the problems begin conceptually.

 

[Agamon]

I'm trying to figure out why you can't just remove second wind if you don't like it. Why does something need to replace it or the designer need to say you can or whatever other argument I don't understand need to happen?