D&D 5E "But Wizards Can Fly, Teleport and Turn People Into Frogs!"

[Bedrockgames]

I agree that Vancian casting was terrible (I certainly never liked it), but I strongly and emphatically disagree that AEDU was worse. This is clearly just your opinion and not a universal truth.

I don't deny that there may be a better way to build an ability system, but we have yet to see one in D&D as far as I'm concerned. Which is, of course, just my opinion.

For me, the vancian system is essential to d&d and a big part of what makes it fun. There are other ways to approach spell casting, and plenty of games have taken other cool approaches, but without that classic vancian system, which I had for the three previous editoins, it really doesnt feel like the same game to me (i am not saying it is objectively not d&d, just that for me D&D without vancian casting feels like a different game).

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

For me, the vancian system is essential to d&d and a big part of what makes it fun. There are other ways to approach spell casting, and plenty of games have taken other cool approaches, but without that classic vancian system, which I had for the three previous editoins, it really doesnt feel like the same game to me (i am not saying it is objectively not d&d, just that for me D&D without vancian casting feels like a different game).

Fair enough, and you'll get no argument from me that it should be there for those who want it... as long as there is an alternative in the core, even one as "similar" as an AEDU structure. I also liked the spell point systems, in both Unearthed Arcana 3.x, and Spells & Magic from 2e Player's Option, but neither one was all that satisfying to me as-written.

I prefer AEDU because for the type of game I want to run (or play in, for that matter), I find it needs the least amount of re-writing and house-ruling. YMMV, obviously, and I respect that, as long as I get options I want as well, and without having to wait months-to-years for them, and without them being "othered" into supplement books.

 

[Balesir]

I think there are three basic points of view on the other side: one) is you dont need the actual maneuvers, so long as the raw damage, attack bonuses, number of attacks, etc for a fighter are in the right zone, it is all good and you can layer whatever flavor your want; two) is you should have maneuvers but they ought not to be keyed to a powers system ike aedu. Something like you had in the 2E fighters book or something based around giving the fighter stronger advantages when it comes to opportunity attacks, grappling, tripping, etc would work; three) is let the GM ajudicate those kinds of things utilizing a simple core system.

All of those miss an essential point, as I see it, though. In none of those options does the player of a martial-type character have any decisions to make about timing or opportunity. I think what I'm trying to say is that this is every bit as "dissociated" as the other stuff that is complained about. AEDU may be far from perfect, but at least a martial character's player is making some decisions about timing and exploitation - and that's better than nothing.

To get away from the (obvious) old saws, consider a rogue's "acrobatics through a melee combat" ability. An accomplished rogue should absolutely be able to do the "tumble through a mass of guys who are all fighting each other" schtick, it seems to me. It's cool, it's "heroic" and it's 100% Grey Mouser! But they won't do it at just any time - apart from comedy there's little plausibility in the guy who can cross the bar room during a brawl at will to go back and fetch the drink s/he forgot, or whatever. Such a move will be done at a time when (a) the rogue wants to do it and (b) the opportunity presents itself. If the opportunity doesn't present itself, they won't stand there waiting for Godot - they'll do something else, instead, because noticing an opening is an instinctual capability. So they need to choose timing, constrained by opportunity - how do you model that?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Belasir, I didn't touch on it in that post but elsewhere I said in my own games I design the way I approach maneuvers is have them be conditional, for me this captures the feel of seizing an opportunity when it arises without getting into some of aedu believability issues. I think you could take a similar approach to maneuvers in D&D

 

[Bedrockgames]

Fair enough, and you'll get no argument from me that it should be there for those who want it... as long as there is an alternative in the core, even one as "similar" as an AEDU structure. I also liked the spell point systems, in both Unearthed Arcana 3.x, and Spells & Magic from 2e Player's Option, but neither one was all that satisfying to me as-written.

I prefer AEDU because for the type of game I want to run (or play in, for that matter), I find it needs the least amount of re-writing and house-ruling. YMMV, obviously, and I respect that, as long as I get options I want as well, and without having to wait months-to-years for them, and without them being "othered" into supplement books.

I don't think it is a matter of othering people (we are just talking about play preferences here not ethnic backgrounds, gender or social class). Really it is a question of what is feasible within the production structure. Frankly I would be happy with a core system I don't care for if they give me a solid supplement or line that suits my tastes. If they basically release a bunch of different versions of the game it could be awesome because they genuinely commit to several different approaches.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I don't think it is a matter of othering people (we are just talking about play preferences here not ethnic backgrounds, gender or social class).

In the context of D&D, I disagree. I feel that it is othering; one style will be presented as "the default" and the "others" will be optional supplements. Remember the recent mention of those whose arguments with 4e were psychological? That will make that crowd happy. Certain ENWorlders come to mind here. To me, that is not preferable.

Really it is a question of what is feasible within the production structure. Frankly I would be happy with a core system I don't care for if they give me a solid supplement or line that suits my tastes. If they basically release a bunch of different versions of the game it could be awesome because they genuinely commit to several different approaches.

I may or may not be happy with such an approach. If it takes their "production structure" too long to accommodate me, I may not care anymore by that point. If I have to wait too long for it, it had better be mind-blowingly amazing.

At this point, it seems pretty clear to me that to meet their goal, they'd have to release multiple versions of the game, because "One Game to Unite Them All, and in the Next Edition Bind Them" doesn't seem to be working out too well so far from my perspective. I am obviously not alone in this conclusion.

 

[Balesir]

Belasir, I didn't touch on it in that post but elsewhere I said in my own games I design the way I approach maneuvers is have them be conditional, for me this captures the feel of seizing an opportunity when it arises without getting into some of aedu believability issues. I think you could take a similar approach to maneuvers in D&D

OK, colour me interested. Conditional upon what? Part of my issue is that the stuff they are conditional upon for the character is likely to be way, waaay below the resolution of the world-state information that is exchanged during the typical RPG session.

 

[Ahnehnois]

For you, maybe. This is not universal by any stretch.

I'm not saying it is. What I'm trying to do is explain that it's not a question of "realism" vs "game balance", and I don't want the discussion to be reduced to that. The concept of powers, as compared to other possible concept has both positives and negatives in both of those areas. For me, the negatives outweigh the positives.

I guess you missed the point of Page 42.

I guess I did.

While I certainly think that there is room for improving this model of doing business, the splat issue was much better constrained under 4e than 3.x, and if we're being honest, the problem has always existed for every class prior to that.

Indeed. And I'm not holding up 3e as the shining example of how to put the most substantive content in the least number of pages. Splat inflation is a chronic issue.

Good thing that there are other options for those classes that are less of a resource-management game. Looks like this is what they're carrying forward to Next in the designs of martial classes I've seen so far. Incidentally, this is one of the reasons it leaves me cold.

At the moment, I haven't seen that there are sufficient system rules to design classes any better; class design is really the symptom, not the problem.

Hm, I don't have this problem at my table.

Me neither. But some people apparently have.

I don't deny that there may be a better way to build an ability system, but we have yet to see one in D&D as far as I'm concerned. Which is, of course, just my opinion.

To me, that's why you buy a new edition. Because it offers a better way. I haven't seen that yet, but I want to see it.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

To me, that's why you buy a new edition. Because it offers a better way. I haven't seen that yet, but I want to see it.

I agree with this. I switched to 4e, despite having sworn off giving WotC another dime of my money, because I tried it, and recognized in it something that I genuinely liked better than their then-current offering, or that of their competition. For those who didn't see those things in 4e, I guess they're doing what makes them happy, and that's fine.

However, this also ties into why I'm so far very doubtful of Next's ability to rope me in; I haven't seen anything that offers me better than what I have now for the kind of games I want to run or play in. So far, I haven't even seen equivalence. I really have no incentive to make the switch.

That may change, and part of me would like that. Part of me doesn't care. I can say that it will have to be pretty damn good and a fair bit better than what I've seen thus far to grab my attention and my gaming budget.

 

[Ahnehnois]

All of those miss an essential point, as I see it, though. In none of those options does the player of a martial-type character have any decisions to make about timing or opportunity. I think what I'm trying to say is that this is every bit as "dissociated" as the other stuff that is complained about. AEDU may be far from perfect, but at least a martial character's player is making some decisions about timing and exploitation - and that's better than nothing.

To get away from the (obvious) old saws, consider a rogue's "acrobatics through a melee combat" ability. An accomplished rogue should absolutely be able to do the "tumble through a mass of guys who are all fighting each other" schtick, it seems to me. It's cool, it's "heroic" and it's 100% Grey Mouser! But they won't do it at just any time - apart from comedy there's little plausibility in the guy who can cross the bar room during a brawl at will to go back and fetch the drink s/he forgot, or whatever. Such a move will be done at a time when (a) the rogue wants to do it and (b) the opportunity presents itself. If the opportunity doesn't present itself, they won't stand there waiting for Godot - they'll do something else, instead, because noticing an opening is an instinctual capability. So they need to choose timing, constrained by opportunity - how do you model that?

Indeed. How do you model that?

Well, you might have mechanics for facing, or a "combat focus" that requires the player to declare that his attention is focused in one place (at be at a mechanical disadvantage against his other opponents). You could create a deeper action economy that requires players to make more detailed choices between guarding themselves, helping others, moving or attacking. You could impose tighter dice rolls that always leave a chance of failure (rather than the 3.5 rogue that never fails tumble after about level 2). You could make all kinds of mechanics t hat model the situation and require players to make in-character tactical choices. You could then design character abilities that make skilled combatants better able to focus their attention on multiple enemies in their area, or less likely to fail certain checks, or grant them more power within the action economy.

That would be a nice tactical combat system. Detail-heavy and not for everyone, but strategically robust and engaging. Most of those rules exist for 3e in some venue; if not close to the original core books and not necessarily implemented perfectly.

The power concept models none of that stuff.