D&D 5E Basic/Standard/Advanced?

[YRUSirius]

There are no skill checks in D&D Next.

-YRUSirius

 

[JustinAlexander]

They can publish e.g. adventures specifically supporting Basic and also adventures specifically supporting Standard, and organize gaming events at conventions and FLGS with both Basic, Standard and Advanced games.

That's certainly my hope. But OTOH they keep talking about modular components to the rule system.

If you mean "module" in the sense of supplements, then I agree, there will be probably no need for that. People who will want to add something to the game are unlikely to skip the Standard game.

And I really hope they avoid this. Turning the Basic game into a pay-to-preview product is just repeating the exact same mistakes.

In Next there is no skill system, all the checks are attribute checks.
skills are not a problem solving mechanic like they were in 3e or 4e, they are just stuff that you are better at...

The fact that they're not using the term "skill check" to describe checks made with "ability score + skill bonus" isn't going to stop the players from using the term skill check to describe their skill checks.

 

[Blackwarder]

If you change the name of skills (like Mike and Jeremy said they are contemplating to do) and keep referring to attribute checks than it ill disappear, and the sooner that will happen the better IMHO.

Warder

 

[variant]

If you change the name of skills (like Mike and Jeremy said they are contemplating to do) and keep referring to attribute checks than it ill disappear, and the sooner that will happen the better IMHO.

Warder

Maybe they should go back to proficiencies.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Maybe they should go back to proficiencies.

Actually, with the way the skill die works, that's exactly the term they should use. Skill proficiency.

 

[JustinAlexander]

If you change the name of skills (like Mike and Jeremy said they are contemplating to do) and keep referring to attribute checks than it ill disappear, and the sooner that will happen the better IMHO.

Right, right. And nobody ever refers to a World of Darkness Storyteller as a Game Master. You're totally right.

 

[Blackwarder]

Right, right. And nobody ever refers to a World of Darkness Storyteller as a Game Master. You're totally right.

Finally! Someone who agrees with me!

Warder

 

[YRUSirius]

Just DM a few D&D Next sessions and you'll automatically start using attribute checks instead of skill checks. You don't ask your players to make skill checks - you ask them to make attribute checks.

Only then players will tell you that they have skills that they could use for these checks.

Ergo, the expression will go away after a few sessions. Just as THAC0 or other D&D legacy stuff.

-YRUSirius

 

[Nellisir]

If that historical development had any basis in fact, then there would not have been the catastrophic turning away from 4e that there has been (nor the gains from other sectors of the gaming market that have also come with 4e). There's a snobbery in such a presentation, too, as if the game has always improved (and only improved) by adding more and more possibilities -- This also flies in the face of my experience of actually playing the game.

I'm not saying that this isn't what they are planning -- on that you may be right -- but if it is right, it seems designed as an insult to anyone who doesn't already like the game right now. Which many don't, for reasons other than their not being "advanced" enough.

I would hope for a more nuanced sense of development (and one less obviously tied to previous editions) as one moves from basic to standard to advanced in DDN.

I think you're reading a huge amount of attitude into his post and the terminology that just isn't there. Right off the bat, you're assuming Basic = Bad, and Advanced = Good. I think that's flat-out wrong (and pretty judgmental all by itself). It's pretty clear that Basic = Simple, Standard = Complex, and Advanced = Too Weird to Fit Into Another Box (*cough* 4e *cough*).

My experience playing AD&D, 2e, 3e, 4e, and various OSRs is that there's a clear increase in general complexity from "classic" to 3e, with the exception of some rule sub-systems (which is exactly what "Advanced" options would handle" Classic + Warmachine, or Basic D&D + Glantri mages). 4e doesn't really follow that trend, but it definitely deviates in many other ways that put it outside the establish normative history of the D&D game.

On the topic of adventures, it looks to me like most of the adjustments fall on the player's side, so adventures should be pretty standard for most groups. If you get heavy into Advanced options, it might take some modification (hit point variants), or there'll be less support (if you do a lot of mass combat, for instance, most published adventures probably won't have big set-piece army battles)

 

[Kobold Stew]

I think you're reading a huge amount of attitude into his post and the terminology that just isn't there. Right off the bat, you're assuming Basic = Bad, and Advanced = Good. I think that's flat-out wrong (and pretty judgmental all by itself).

I think it's flat-out wrong as well.

Rather, I am assuming that the view is implicit in the simplistic and evolutionary generalization that was presented. In fact, that's clear in the portion of my post you cite -- I'm not talking about the game, and it remains possible that that is the shape next will take. But it's premised on a judgemental approach that assumes the game has only got better and only got more complex over time, which is simply not the case.