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

[kevtar]

So much pointless rage.

The designers have only been working in earnest since January (I know there has been previous work, but the focus tightened in Jan). No one was upset during the design of other editions - oh, that's right, we didn't KNOW about the upcoming editions prior to release.

This is a great opportunity to be involved in and supportive of our hobby. I like the majority of the stuff I'm reading about 5e, and the few things that I'm not crazy about, I'm going to give my feedback when I can and wait to see what happens.

What I'm not going to do is go: 5e has (insert game mechanic here)! I'm out Wharbarrrggghllargllargl...

It's early days and we get to watch and be involved in the design process as it happens - that's good! Be happy!

 

[Gryph]

If you convert the numbers correctly, THAC0 and BAB should give you exactly the same results, with exactly the same chances of any given roll hitting a given AC.
Keep in mind that 3rd Edition did not make an accurate conversation and the numbers change at different speeds in 2nd and 3rd Edition. But you could easily covert THAC0 into "d20 + BAB + Misc must reach AC or higher" without altering any chances.

No question and my argument wasn't about the math. Rather, how changing the math killed the baked in assumption of an upper boundary on how good ACs could be.

As I said before, you can clearly cap ascending AC, but people will argue about it. Those weren't arguments we had with descending ACs. I think the difference is purely how the two are viewed by players.

 

[jsaving]

We had a game that felt like D&D and had the math RIGHT, and they killed it.

Thought you meant 3.0 at first -- whoops!

 

[Andor]

So much pointless rage.

The designers have only been working in earnest since January (I know there has been previous work, but the focus tightened in Jan). No one was upset during the design of other editions - oh, that's right, we didn't KNOW about the upcoming editions prior to release.

Heh. Sorry to contradict you, but I've been haunting these boards since we were following the pre-release news for 3e and Eric Noah was lovingly chipping each byte from stone by hand.

There was plenty of sturm und drang in the olde days too. Before 3e, before 3.5, before 4. 4e was just the first edition where the predictors of DOOM had any real traction after release as well.

Hopefully 5e will bring us back to the days when the doomcryers were eating humble pie after release instead of bitter, bitter victory cake.

 

[Janaxstrus]

Yes, we all get that you hate 4e and everything 4e and everyone who plays 4e even though you've never actually played it. Could you kindly be constructive instead of divisive? I said I wouldn't report you for your opinion, but you're really borderline trolling at this point. You're aware of the stated design goals of 5e to be INCLUSIVE of players and ideas from multiple editions. If your personal opinion is that 5e should be exclusive, then it clearly isn't for you, so I'd appreciate it if you stopped wasting everyone's time.

The question was asked, and I answered it. It has absolutely nothing to do with 4e.

I want martial manuevers, I just don't want them limited to daily and encounter. It makes no sense to me. "I can trip him right now, but I can't trip anyone else during the entire day" That is not something that makes sense to me in any way shape or form.
Healing surges? No thanks. Put in alchemical potions, cheaper healing potions, make the heal skill and healing kits MATTER. Non-Magical healing by force of will and a peptalk, doesn't make sense to me, and I don't like it or care to see it in 5e.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Yes, we all get that you hate 4e and everything 4e and everyone who plays 4e even though you've never actually played it. Could you kindly be constructive instead of divisive? I said I wouldn't report you for your opinion, but you're really borderline trolling at this point. You're aware of the stated design goals of 5e to be INCLUSIVE of players and ideas from multiple editions. If your personal opinion is that 5e should be exclusive, then it clearly isn't for you, so I'd appreciate it if you stopped wasting everyone's time.

I'd see it as very opposite, you to be, looking at your post history, very passive-aggressive.

Guys, if someone has a problematic post, please report it using the triangular "!" button at the bottom left of every post. Attacking back just gets you in trouble too and escalates the disagreement, neither of which we want.

Also note that while we try to put notes into posts - like this one! - we often handle matters privately.

Thanks. -- Piratecat

 

[P1NBACK]

Can someone explain to me wtf "getting the math right" means?

Seriously. I don't get it.

 

[kevtar]

Heh. Sorry to contradict you, but I've been haunting these boards since we were following the pre-release news for 3e and Eric Noah was lovingly chipping each byte from stone by hand.

There was plenty of sturm und drang in the olde days too. Before 3e, before 3.5, before 4. 4e was just the first edition where the predictors of DOOM had any real traction after release as well.

Hopefully 5e will bring us back to the days when the doomcryers were eating humble pie after release instead of bitter, bitter victory cake.

Hey, no worries, because there is no contradiction. My point isn't that there hasn't been any sturm und drag - to use your term (which I like) on these boards before, but rather that the level of negativity now is even less justified because this is the first time wizards has sought public opinion for game development at such large scale and depth. We should give feedback and critique, but we shouldn't wring our hands or get enraged so early on in the process. People should be involved and then when things are in print, look it over and if they're unhappy or enraged, well then te system isn't for them - but at least if they were involved, they'd have a chance to positively voice their opinion and not be blindsided but certain elements of the game.

 

[Incenjucar]

Can someone explain to me wtf "getting the math right" means?

Seriously. I don't get it.

"Getting the math right" means making the numerical aspect of the game functional so that the game has a known measure of balance, allowing new game elements to be introduced without damaging the experience of players.

Basically making sure that nobody is overshadowed, most options are good options, and DMs don't have to homebrew to challenge the PCs without killing them.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

"Getting the math right" means making the numerical aspect of the game functional so that the game has a known measure of balance, allowing new game elements to be introduced without damaging the experience of players.

Basically making sure that nobody is overshadowed, most options are good options, and DMs don't have to homebrew to challenge the PCs without killing them.

Also, albeit more indirectly, can point to mechanics that do what the corresponding flavor says they do. Mechanic/Flavor alignment is, of course, a much bigger issue than "getting the math right", but if you don't get the math right, such alignment is fairly well "holed" before you even get out of dry dock. Then all the patching that goes on around these holes will create even more discrepancies.

Some people won't care, because the parts they do care about will (happen to) be fine. I wouldn't want to bet a wooden nickel beforehand that the parts a given person will care about will be on or off the "works fine" list, though.