D&D 5E D&D Next Design Goals (Article)

[Bedrockgames]

You get the arguments because they're accurate. You want at-wills to operate in a different manner, sure, but they're still at-wills, just like the slayer's basic attacks are still at-wills even if the class uses them more like a 3E fighter would, but with stances instead of feats.

At-wills have always been and will always be, in D&D and many other games. That's just how it works.

I just think it is a loaded term and usually when people say x has always been in D&D it is to prove 4e is no different from prior editions. I guess i dont see why they need to be called at wills if they always existed.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I agree with Bedrockgames also.



I don't know if D&D Next will unite D&D fans either.

But I do know for a certainty that it won't unite those that have already made up their minds to be against it...

Nice of you to label people. I don't consider already made up their minds to be against it to be the same as knowing what you want out of a game and not being interested in a game that fails to deliver.

 

[Incenjucar]

I just think it is a loaded term and usually when people say x has always been in D&D it is to prove 4e is no different from prior editions. I guess i dont see why they need to be called at wills if they always existed.

4E as a whole is a different configuration, it just contains elements that were introduced largely in previous editions. 4E called things out more specifically for clarity and structure, like making a list with bullet points rather than saying "Hey could you go out and get the ingredients for a cake?"

 

[Bedrockgames]

4E as a whole is a different configuration, it just contains elements that were introduced largely in previous editions. 4E called things out more specifically for clarity and structure, like making a list with bullet points rather than saying "Hey could you go out and get the ingredients for a cake?"

This probably isnt the place for this discussion, but i think it was a lot more than this.

 

[DMKastmaria]

It had a thief class that really wasn't good at combat, and Vancian casting to make the 5 minute workday possible. Moldvay 1981 I believe didn't have BECMI's weapon mastery system, so caster dominance came into play past name level, an no I don't consider followers to make up for that. I could go on.

None of which matters a tinkers bit, in the face of player and group skill, agency, creativity and strategy.

The high level fighters in my old school games lead armies, ride dragons and wield kick-butt magic swords. They also use their freakin' minds, to be effective in the game world and accomplish their will. That includes slaying wizards. Whose spells only went to 6th lvl, by the way. AD&D MU spells go to 9th, but feature much stricter rules on casting in combat, which, if actually used, changes the picture, considerably.

Good night! Even at 15, Fighters in my games were disarming opponents, knocking them off cliffs, swinging on chandeliers and whatever other crazy things, they thought of.

Old school fighters are only linear if the player (or DM) can't grok that he's supposed to think beyond his character sheet!

And if, in 5e, what's on the Character Sheet matters more than Player Skill and creativity, then you guys can have at it!

No one plays a thief, so they can be as good at combat as the Fighter. For the record, B/X thieves attack as Clerics, so they're not half bad.

The 5 minute work day is over-stated as all heck. If the players aren't wussies. Some of my fondest memories of running a PC, come from playing a low level MU and having to use burning oil, or tackling a wererat because no one had a magic weapon at first level. That was a lot of fun. YMMV.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Nice of you to label people. I don't consider already made up their minds to be against it to be the same as knowing what you want out of a game and not being interested in a game that fails to deliver.

I'm not too sure that 5e is really in a position to "fail to deliver" considering that it cannot exactly deliver anything until the ruleset is actually published and the playing community start testing it out. The ruleset would certainly seem in flux at the moment. From reading many of your posts over the past few months, I sense no excitement or enthusiasm for what the designers are trying to do; it would certainly seem that your mind has been made up that 5e is simply not for you. Perhaps you get some measure of catharsis from posting in this forum during this interim period; your points are mostly valid within themselves regarding the various proposed aspects of 5e. It just becomes difficult not to associate you as "that" guy who doesn't like what WotC are doing at the moment.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Greg K]

It just becomes difficult not to associate you as "that" guy who doesn't like what WotC are doing at the moment.

Well he did make the following in a post at RPG.net

"In addition, uniting the community is a goal WotC's customers don't necessarily share. I'm kind of ambivalent about bringing everybody back under one big tent, holding hands, and singing kumbaya. I want a game I can enjoy, and I already have it. Unless 5E can offer me more than I currently get from 4E, I'm going to stick with the game that serves me best, reunification be damned."

Like many people, he is for unification if he gets what he wants and against it if he does not. At least that is what I get from the post. From other posts, here at ENWorld and RPG.net, I agree that he just doesn't seem to like Monte working on it and most (if not all) of what he is hearing, but I don't know that is mind is entirely made up at the is point. I do, however, think that he is predisposed against 5e.

 

[JamesonCourage]

The key is: Do you not want martial dailies and healing surges on your character sheet or are you so full of edition hate that you won't be happy if they exist on the same table?

I actually don't think this is where they're going. I think they're going for a "the DM and group chooses modules to add that everyone abides by" style of modular support, but I can't be 100% certain.

If you don't want a 4e style character sheet then you pick the old school classes/themes and have a fighter/sword whacker, but your buddy Joe who does like martial dailies and healing surges picks the Paladin/Holy Bastion. So the choice of playstyle lies at the individual character level. Admittedly this does not help if you are unwilling to permit Joe to have badwrongfun at your table, but if we can all be just a bit more grown up than that then 5e might have a chance.

Well, if my friends in 3.X wanted to make "Spider-man" I wouldn't go for it, either. Same for making a character who was from the distant future and had a laser gun and plasma grenades. Or a friend who wanted to play any character from any book series or movie, unless that's what the campaign's focus is.

I'm playing for my enjoyment as well, and I intend to immerse as much as possible. If someone else is going to be consistently and constantly breaking my immersion with their character, I'd probably bow out. I really have no interest in playing with them in that particular campaign. If the purpose of the campaign is humor and everyone is making characters to fit into that concept, I'd bow out as it's not particularly attractive to me, personally.

But, by no stretch of the imagination am I being childish by playing in a game where I'm not having fun. I've got a pretty good new player, who was brought into the game a couple years ago (he's 23 years old) by a group of guy in their 40's playing AD&D. They have a very combat-oriented, dungeon-hopping, published-campaign-using, someone-map-this-as-we-go, use-a-battle-grid style of play. He enjoys it, and that's cool. However, I wouldn't play in that style of game in any sort of ongoing campaign, and neither would any of my other players. It doesn't appeal to us. It's not fun for us.

If someone brought in a character that kept reducing our fun, it's not immature of us to not want that character in the game. It might not mean that character being banned, but it very well could mean me or other players stepping out of the campaign.

This is all going to be decided by the group, of course, because it's a social contract issue. That's a plus for WotC, actually. They get to say, "here's how you can model these things, depending on what you're going for" and leave people to sort it out themselves using the tools they've provided. In your group, you can have a "fighter/sword whacker" and some with "martial dailies and healing surges" at the same table. At mine, I can say "we're using these modules; the same rules apply to everyone." Win/win, really. As always, play what you like

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I'm not too sure that 5e is really in a position to "fail to deliver" considering that it cannot exactly deliver anything until the ruleset is actually published and the playing community start testing it out. The ruleset would certainly seem in flux at the moment. From reading many of your posts over the past few months, I sense no excitement or enthusiasm for what the designers are trying to do; it would certainly seem that your mind has been made up that 5e is simply not for you. Perhaps you get some measure of catharsis from posting in this forum during this interim period; your points are mostly valid within themselves regarding the various proposed aspects of 5e. It just becomes difficult not to associate you as "that" guy who doesn't like what WotC are doing at the moment.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

Well he did make the following in a post at RPG.net

"In addition, uniting the community is a goal WotC's customers don't necessarily share. I'm kind of ambivalent about bringing everybody back under one big tent, holding hands, and singing kumbaya. I want a game I can enjoy, and I already have it. Unless 5E can offer me more than I currently get from 4E, I'm going to stick with the game that serves me best, reunification be damned."

Like many people, he is for unification if he gets what he wants and against it if he does not. At least that is what I get from the post.

Nice of people to stalk me over the course of the past few months and across various forums, as opposed to actually contributing to the discussion.

Lets try to respond to the non-stalking parts of these:

1. Fail to deliver--Based on what has been previewed, I see 5E failing to deliver as a distinct possibility. For sure we won't know for sure until we see something more concrete(like the open playtest), but what has been stated by people at WotC so far has just fed my pessimism.

2. You're god damn right I don't have any excitement or enthusiasm over 5E and what the designers are trying to do. Why should I?

3. My mind is not made up. I have made a firm conclusion based on the limited evidence I have seen thus far. If things continue in that direction, it will confirm that conclusion. As that evidence is limited, the conclusion is subject to change. As it stands now, my conclusion is negative.

4. I had said that I could care less about reunification. That is what the word ambivalent means. That's WotC's goal, not mine, and when I talk about reunification it is in regards to WotC's stated goals, as I could personally care less. I'm not pro-reunification if I'm to get what I want, I uninterested in reunification period. If 5E is a game I'll enjoy, I'll play it and not care about reunification. If 5E isn't a game I'll enjoy, I'll play something else and not be a part of the reunification. That's all there is to it.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I actually don't think this is where they're going. I think they're going for a "the DM and group chooses modules to add that everyone abides by" style of modular support, but I can't be 100% certain.

Well, if my friends in 3.X wanted to make "Spider-man" I wouldn't go for it, either. Same for making a character who was from the distant future and had a laser gun and plasma grenades. Or a friend who wanted to play any character from any book series or movie, unless that's what the campaign's focus is.

I'm playing for my enjoyment as well, and I intend to immerse as much as possible. If someone else is going to be consistently and constantly breaking my immersion with their character, I'd probably bow out. I really have no interest in playing with them in that particular campaign. If the purpose of the campaign is humor and everyone is making characters to fit into that concept, I'd bow out as it's not particularly attractive to me, personally.

But, by no stretch of the imagination am I being childish by playing in a game where I'm not having fun. I've got a pretty good new player, who was brought into the game a couple years ago (he's 23 years old) by a group of guy in their 40's playing AD&D. They have a very combat-oriented, dungeon-hopping, published-campaign-using, someone-map-this-as-we-go, use-a-battle-grid style of play. He enjoys it, and that's cool. However, I wouldn't play in that style of game in any sort of ongoing campaign, and neither would any of my other players. It doesn't appeal to us. It's not fun for us.

If someone brought in a character that kept reducing our fun, it's not immature of us to not want that character in the game. It might not mean that character being banned, but it very well could mean me or other players stepping out of the campaign.

This is all going to be decided by the group, of course, because it's a social contract issue. That's a plus for WotC, actually. They get to say, "here's how you can model these things, depending on what you're going for" and leave people to sort it out themselves using the tools they've provided. In your group, you can have a "fighter/sword whacker" and some with "martial dailies and healing surges" at the same table. At mine, I can say "we're using these modules; the same rules apply to everyone." Win/win, really. As always, play what you like

The problem I see is that making things modular potentially makes arriving at that social contract more difficult, or come with long term consequences. If somebody at the table wants old school high immersion, and another wants to play Spiderman with a laser gun, and 5E has modular rules for both, their is going to be some level of conflict in achieving the social contract, and whoever doesn't get what they want is likely to hold some level of resentment or at least longing for something they want but aren't allowed to use. That player starts enjoying the game less and participating less, and might become a problem player down the road.

Its something I saw back when I was playing 3E and a DM would label certain books off limits. Some people took it hard and the game suffered for it, and this was something I never saw in other editions(2E and 4E) or other RPGs that had didn't have lots of controversial optional rules.

Its a bigger issue when it is something that the game supports and has rules for than when its something the game doesn't offer in the first place.