D&D 5E Check on modularity in the current playtest packet

[Li Shenron]

I posted this as a comment to "Skills should be core" thread, but I would like to get your opinion on this matter, thus I'm making a spin-off thread.

In lieu of 5e main target of being "modular", the designer have been trying to make several parts of the game "optional" either on a group basis or on an individual basis.

Just to clarify, "optional on a group basis" means that one group is able to decide to use a certain subsystem of the rules or not use it at all, and this decision should have no consequences on how the rest of the game holds up on its own. Of course, the game experience is going to change, but at least the group doesn't need to change other parts of the game to reinstate balance between the PCs or just to make things work. Because of this, IMO the requirements for a subsystem to be optional on a group basis are (1) that it isn't directly interconnected to other parts of the rules (example: Alignment in 3e was interconnected to spells, if you didn't use alignment, then you also had to check which spells should be changed or removed from the game) and (2) that such system affects different classes more or less equally (example: feats and skills are optional on a group basis if all classes get the same amount, but if some classes get more than others then not using feats or skills in the game is going to punish some PCs more than others).

"Optional on an individual basis means that each player is able to decide if she wants to bother with this particular character option. The requirement for this is typically that of having either a "default option" that works more passively (or applies more broadly) and is on par with the alternative choices, so that choosing the default sometimes means to stick a bonus somewhere in your character sheet and forget how you got it, and/or not to have to think too much when it applies and when not, because it applies to less specific cases.

In my comment to the other thread, I wrote that my personal preference would be if D&DNext was made in such a way that everything except class is optional, at least on a group basis. That's because class is maybe the only character choice that appeared in all editions of D&D and is inequivocably characteristic of D&D (you can of course have a class-less RPG, but it's a very different thing).

What is the current status of modularity in 5e playtest rules?

First of all, notice that in-game mechanics and character creation options also make for 2 types of "modules". The first type includes stuff like combat rules (some announced modules for combat are narrative combat module and tactical combat module, although they've never been shown publicly), exploration rules (published) and interaction rules (announced). These rules by nature are easily modular, and they are so on a group basis, so there is not very much to discuss here IMHO, unless they decide to "connect" these to classes. If they do so, then it's possible to have a balance issue if some classes depend more on a module than other. This could be the case for skills, since they announced they are making them optional on a group basis, but we can't say until we see next packet.

Therefore, I'd rather focus on discussing the current modular status of character options. Here's my 2cp:

Skills effectively expand the complexity of ability checks. There is no reason a gaming group couldn't play a D&D adventure effectively without skills, and totally rely on ability checks instead. Skills are going to change in next packet, so it's hard to comment yet... but they mentioned they will make them fully optional on a group basis, but not on an individual basis. However I think it would be fairly easy to also have them optional on an individual basis, for instance by allowing a player to pick one ability score instead of X skills, and get the same benefit on those checks (bonus or dice, whatever it will be) that the others are getting on specific skills.

Feats have always been add-on abilities, thus they are very modular by nature. A gaming group may not want to use feats in order to keep the number of character's feature low, thus making the game less complex. Feats also can be used to step on other classes' areas of expertise, so this could be another reason for a group to choose not to use feats. Unfortunately currently feats are not optional on a group basis because they are used as a balancing factor for classes, i.e. some classes are balanced by giving them bonus feats. I think this is a mistake, and I don't understand why this design choice. It is very easy to find other ways to balance classes. Going back to giving the same number of feats to all classes would make them optional on a group basis. OTOH, feats will be optional on an individual basis because each player can always take ability score increase in place of a feat (IMO however this doesn't fully make them optional on a group basis because some groups may not want to substitute all feats with ability score increases).

Backgrounds have been introduced to represent the concept of "what your PCs do when not adventuring" (or "what your PCs used to do before adventuring"). Clearly, if your gaming style is focused on adventures and ignores the time between, you may not want to use backgrounds. Background are fully optional on a group basis, but at the moment not optional on an individual basis (if you choose no background, you get something less than everybody else).

Equipment can also be seen optional, in the sense that a group not interested in differentiating e.g. weapons can just default everybody to 1d8 weapon damage like in OD&D, leaving weapon flavor free. It also works on an individual basis if you want.

Races are currently optional too, on a group basis only. Not using races means simply to ignore all the package of benefits, but you can still say "I am an elf, you're a dwarf, etc" for roleplay reasons. We didn't use races in our own playtest, to keep character complexity lower, and it worked fine. However, you can't really apply this on an individual basis (although defaulting to Human benefits is quite easy).

Alignment is currently optional both for the group and the individual. Yes, there is some specific alignment mentioned for Paladins and Monks, but if you ignore that, nothing really happens.

Subclasses (choice points) are not optional on a group basis. They could also be made optional if done properly (granting additions/variations that are not strictly required), but right now I think they aren't like that, for example because a Rogue without subclasses is just someone with sneak attack, which hardly makes it enough of a Rogue. Most notably, subclasses would be really be optional only if they were balanced across different classes: right now, taking away a Paladin's Oath or a Monk's Tradition doesn't hurt them much, but taking away a Cleric's Domain or a Rogue's Scheme is a bigger deal, so you can't easily play without subclasses with these characters at the same game table. It's been announced that each class will have an "easy" subclass choice to default to, which will make them otherwise optional on an individual basis. OTOH I think there would be an interesting side benefit in making subclasses roughly balanced across different classes as well: namely, this could possibly open up the option for a PC to take the subclass of another class instead of one of her own, leading to an alternative multiclassing mechanic.

Thus in a nutshell:

[U][I]Feature     group-optional?   indiv-optional?[/I][/U]
Race         yes         no (but can default to human)
Skills       yes         no (but could be easily HR'ed)
Feats        no          yes
Background   yes         no
Equipment    yes         yes
Alignment    yes         yes
Subclass     no          no (but will be)

So what is your opinion on this matter?

 

[MortalPlague]

That's an interesting analysis. It looks like the verdict is pretty good, so far. A lot of systems and features are modular, and ones that aren't (like feats) are becoming more so. I really think the +1 to an ability score will solve the problem that 'feats are too complicated' in a big way.

 

[Manabarbs]

Very little of that modularity involves anything that feels all that unique to Next; I have a more difficult time calling it something "the designers have been trying", rather than just emergent properties of those elements that are present in similar amounts in other editions of D&D. The big exception is the proposed mechanic of allowing +1 to an ability score as a feat, which I guess everyone has just sort of collectively decided counts as being able to not use feats on an individual basis, or on a group basis with less deviation from the baseline character power level. Sure, you can both cut out some races and/or ignore race as a game mechanic entirely in Next, but that's true of any edition of D&D. It's true that (with only minor exceptions), Next's current design doesn't do any worse, but that's not a super high bar.

I think that the easiest way to play without what you call "subclasses" would be to just pretend like one of them is what you get and ignore the others. I think that the design limitations of trying to make every "subclass" similarly high-impact so that they can all be dropped are probably just too severe.

 

[the Jester]

Hmm... I think we can't really tell how modular 5e will be yet, since the packets probably include some "modularity choices" pre-made for playtest reasons. However, what I've seen so far is encouraging me to think that you'll be able to have a wide variety of options from simple to highly complex.

 

[Li Shenron]

Hmm... I think we can't really tell how modular 5e will be yet, since the packets probably include some "modularity choices" pre-made for playtest reasons. However, what I've seen so far is encouraging me to think that you'll be able to have a wide variety of options from simple to highly complex.

Overall I think it's not to be worried that the game can't be as complex as a group wants, but rather whether the game can be as simple as a group wants

I mean, there's no doubt you can always increase complexity. OTOH there is a minimum complexity below which you cannot go, or you'll lose character balance for instance. This is why I am being pesky about stuff not being really optional. I would like nearly everything to be optional, but notice that such low-complexity is not what I will typically want in my games... It's only because the more things are optional, the more gaming groups can take out whatever they dislike, and keep the rest. I think pretty much everyone only has to benefit from this.

That said, pre-made choices reduce the complexity of character creation (and levelling up), but I hope the designers have very clear in mind that they do NOT reduce the in-game complexity!!

Just to make an example, if the Wizard knows 100 spells, making the choice of spells pre-made is sparing the player some headaches at creation/levelup, but she still has to manage 100 known spells during the game. Personally I think the latter is more important, because a beginner can always get some help when making a choice at character creation, but helping him in-game is another matter.