D&D 5E Additive versus subtractive modularity

[Umbran]

... and on and on give me a lot of confidence that I am not alone in my preferences.

And the 175,000 playtesters they used were... chopped liver?

It isn't that I'm saying nobody has this issue. But it would seem to me that with the playtest feedback, WotC would be in a position to know how big an issue it was, and to make choices accordingly.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I believe that D&D is trying for new players which by the way was 4e's stated goal too. I think both 4e and 5e will turn out to have brought in many new players. I think 3e did a lot too. My own personal belief is that the brand new DM and 5 brand new players is a myth from a marketing perspective.

I've met players who started that way with 4e, one of them's running Encounters and 13A atm. It's not as crazy as it sounds and 4e did seem to do a better job retaining completely-new players than I'd seen in a long while, but it also clearly wasn't nearly enough to meet sales goals.

That's why I don't believe for a moment that 5e is targeting new players, at all. For one thing, it's already got a severe case of dissociative (pi) personality disorder going trying to cater to all the conflicting longtime fans. It really has no space, momentum, or design resources left to try to re-re-invent itself as a newbie-friendly game. Essentials also tried to simultaneously appeal to new players and grognards and that really didn't go so well.

5e seems more like a retrenchment. They're trying to consolidate as much of the fan-base as they can. Not all of it, and not to grow it (maybe they'll save that initiative for the 50th), just to get back to owning a majority of it.


The real nail in the coffin of the idea 5e is aiming at new players is 1st level. First level has an obvious appeal for grognards and CaW types, but it'll likely drive away new players. I can see how it might appeal to grognards wanting to /indocrinate/ newbies into 'real D&D,' though... so maybe you've got something on that count.

 

[Zardnaar]

I agree that 4e hit a perfect storm in creating a whole slew of objectionable mechanics for somebody. I'm not saying that even totally ignoring me that 5e will do as poorly.



I hope you know that I am talking about support and not eliminating the other side. For one, I can guarantee you that 4e people would be tons happier if I had been on the design team and tasked with providing a game for all editions. If I was the owner of D&D, I'm not saying I'd do that because I'm not sure two games wouldn't be easier and better for all parties. But if tasked to do that, my result would be far more favorable for 4e people and that is with me hating 4e. So I am very much pro-options for everyone. I get frustrated when they leave very low hanging fruit on the table like a warlord class but they insist on jamming up the fighter. I don't think 4e people are going to be terribly upset if one subclass of fighter and rogue is clean of DS mechanics and martial healing. If they have their own subclasses all will be good.

I would also fully embrace teaching all the ways you can play D&D and I'd have playstyle sections in the DMG written by proponents of those styles. Hey I'd even let Iserith's playstyle be presented.



True. I totally agree with you. I never liked multiclassing post 2e. I think the 2e model where you choose your classes in advance and level them all up evenly is the best approach. I'll write you a good houserule once all the rules are out if you like. I think I can come up with something pretty good.




I think they failed to provide a game for all editions. I don't think the 4e people should be happy with 5e. I mean the true believers. Obviously many people just go with the flow and play the latest edition of D&D. That group is non-trivial in size is my guess.


I'm working on my own game but it's slow going. I can empathize with the devs on that point. From concept to book is a non-trivial task. The only advantage to finishing my own is that I'm done. If I ever do it, I'll have my game for life. I don't need to change games every four or five years. I do want to support 5e as at least a move in the right direction and if the healing looks good in the DMG I will at minimum buy the core 3. I won't do anything until November though for sure.

If I was on the design team the 4E people would have had around 3 or 4 AEDU type classes and the options to add those abilities to existing classes from earlier editions via feats.

 

[thunktanker]

Perhaps a paragraph like this....

For more of an old school approach try the following...
1. Ignore hit dice and restore 1hp/day for each long rest.
2. Instead of Second Wind just give the fighter a flat 9 extra hit points. (I've thought about the toughness feat but it's too weak at low level and too strong at high level).
3. If any non-magical class has a non-magical healing power provide a magical explanation or an alternative.


Other power fixes I would like but would probably do myself for the

Fighter
1. Indomitable --> Advantage/Disadvantage on all saves
2. Action Surge --> one use per encounter.
3. Survivor --> For each die of healing you receive you get to add your constitution bonus

Rogue
1. Stroke of Luck --> On any saving throw or attribute check when you roll a 5 or less, you reroll. A second failure requires you to use the original die roll as the result. If the second roll is successful then use it. This is automatic and not a player decision and thus is not dissociative.


I wish they understood the issues better and could provide alternatives that avoided the DS/martial healing issues. In some cases easily. Personally I think the fighter should save really really well anyway so if indomitable is stronger that is fine by me. Action Surge is too. Survivor is probably weaker so that is a counter balance. Course I hate fighters right?

Some interesting ideas here!

 

[Emerikol]

And the 175,000 playtesters they used were... chopped liver?

It isn't that I'm saying nobody has this issue. But it would seem to me that with the playtest feedback, WotC would be in a position to know how big an issue it was, and to make choices accordingly.

It has already been stated as a fact by Mike Mearls that on the issue of healing they never got resolution. The playerbase was divided and they went with one side over the other for reasons that were not given. My guess is it fit their other design paradigms better like the assumed full recovery every day. I do believe something will be in the DMG. Do they fully and totally understand the full issue based on some surveys? Probably not. No offense but surveying is very difficult to do well and companies that have devoted their entire business to the task have often failed on far easier questions than what they were asking.

So per Mike Mearls it's not a 90/10 issue. It's close to a 50/50 issue.

You notice there is not one single true martial healing class out there. So they understand something. They've just not approached the problem in a way that would maximize overall fan happiness. Few in my camp care about whether a warlord is in the game or not. We can ban a class that is not essential to our concept of D&D because it didn't exist prior to 4e. To us a warlord is a fighter. So having that class seems like a no brainer. Whereas we are great lovers of the fighter, a class we consider essential to the game, and putting divisive mechanics there is not the wisest move. At least provide some subclasses if that is your mechanism for variability. Instead they've made the fighter unplayable as is and likely the DMG will not provide a replacement for many of the features.

As I noted above, the only feature on the fighter that someone like me can tolerate as is is the extra attack. Even the action surge is dissociative given one use between one hour rests.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It has already been stated as a fact by Mike Mearls that on the issue of healing they never got resolution. The playerbase was divided and they went with one side over the other for reasons that were not given.

Which side did they go with?

 

[Zardnaar]

Which side did they go with?

Basically 4E. Rapid overnight healing, +2nd wind+ HD based healing.

 

[Manbearcat]

I guess this is the right place for this post (amusingly, I posted this to the wrong thread originally).

Just perusing the spell list and I see 5 different resolution mechanics being used. This is just for spells in the Basic set. I mean I suppose its too much to ask to just have one singular resolution mechanic (d20 attack vs target number or always a saving throw for example) for all spells, but is it completely necessary for 5 variants on "roll d20, add some stuff, compare it to this other thing and see what happens" in the Basic game alone? That doesn't exactly scream "streamlined, simple core" (not sure if that was even a design intent though). I thought I recalled outcries against extraneous, fiddly stuff not too long ago.

If exceptions like this are embedded all over the system, that doesn't bode well for ease/quickness of handling at the table. That is especially so as game options/creatures/spells proliferate. If I were looking to play this game, this would be one of the first things that would need to be modulinated-ified-ismed by unifying all of those variants into a singular resolution mechanic.

 

[Nagol]

I guess this is the right place for this post (amusingly, I posted this to the wrong thread originally).

Just perusing the spell list and I see 5 different resolution mechanics being used. This is just for spells in the Basic set. I mean I suppose its too much to ask to just have one singular resolution mechanic (d20 attack vs target number or always a saving throw for example) for all spells, but is it completely necessary for 5 variants on "roll d20, add some stuff, compare it to this other thing and see what happens" in the Basic game alone? That doesn't exactly scream "streamlined, simple core" (not sure if that was even a design intent though). I thought I recalled outcries against extraneous, fiddly stuff not too long ago.

If exceptions like this are embedded all over the system, that doesn't bode well for ease/quickness of handling at the table. That is especially so as game options/creatures/spells proliferate. If I were looking to play this game, this would be one of the first things that would need to be modulinated-ified-ismed by unifying all of those variants into a singular resolution mechanic.

I can think of two reasons why we'd see such an admixture:

1) Many designers were working on spells and the resolution mechanics were relaxed as a constraint to permit the speed necessary for completion.

2) No single resolution mechanic envisioned gave the precise resolution probabilities the designers imagined and that level of precision was considered valuable.

I'm going with the first.

 

[Nebulous]

That's why I don't believe for a moment that 5e is targeting new players, at all. For one thing, it's already got a severe case of dissociative (pi) personality disorder going trying to cater to all the conflicting longtime fans. It really has no space, momentum, or design resources left to try to re-re-invent itself as a newbie-friendly game. Essentials also tried to simultaneously appeal to new players and grognards and that really didn't go so well.

5e seems more like a retrenchment. They're trying to consolidate as much of the fan-base as they can. Not all of it, and not to grow it (maybe they'll save that initiative for the 50th), just to get back to owning a majority of it.


The real nail in the coffin of the idea 5e is aiming at new players is 1st level. First level has an obvious appeal for grognards and CaW types, but it'll likely drive away new players. I can see how it might appeal to grognards wanting to /indocrinate/ newbies into 'real D&D,' though... so maybe you've got something on that count.

I mean, I know it's your opinion and all, same as mine, but D&D has always tried to garner new players. Do you realize how many gazillion 10-13 year olds are going to download the Basic Rules, love it, and then beg their parents to buy them the Starter set and then the advanced? A lot. A lot of kids. A lot of kids who will grow up and become adult fans like us and keep pouring money into the hobby. And I cannot understand your "reasoning" that 1st level characters will drive away new players. I disagree completely, I think it would fascinate and attract them.