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

[thecasualoblivion]

Wow, there is really nothing more I can say that KM didn't. The fact you missed everything he meant only goes to show why I can't convince you. I'm not even trying to convince you 4e bad, I'm just trying to say that balance in 4e isn't the only thing there.

But if this is how you truly feel, that balance is the only thing that makes 4e feel like 4e then I feel sorry for you. That is like saying the only thing that makes DnD feel like DnD is the d20, not the dragons or orcs or elves or magic, nope the d20.

And again, you miss everything. Balance is not the only thing, and I never said it was. All I said was that it was essential and that you can't do 4E in D&DNext without it.

 

[Andor]

I have see lots of calls for quadratic wizards (myself included).

One thing I dont want to see are wizards with a small number of spells per level. By all means balance spells out with casting times and risk factors but the charm of wizards in the first three editions is they can have an ecclectic collection of spells. Also not a huge fan of rituals.

I'd be delighted to see wizards with hundreds of cool and eclectic spells per level, I just don't want them to have a lot of spells per day. Not the same thing at all. Choose wisely.

I personally find the ritual spell casting concept evocative, flavorful, useful and both thematically and genre appropriate. I doubt I can sell you on it if you really dislike it, but we seem to often agree so I'm curious to know what issue you have with the ritual system as a concept? I think they need to dump the idea that they all require costly components. Sometimes the components are time and knowledge. Aside from that I think ritual casting matches my expectations more than D&D style instant combat casting.

 

[P1NBACK]

This thread has been going on about ignoring balance in order to bring back some older quality that cannot be balanced. It's a cliche at this point, but it's easier to unbalance a balanced game than to balance an unbalanced game.

I think you're missing the point entirely.

Your definition of balance simply doesn't apply to what we're talking about. And, we have no need for your definition of balance, because it's a moot issue for the type of game we're looking for.

Like, it doesn't matter to me that the Fighter in B/X doesn't have "martial" spells and can deal as much damage as a Mage when he casts fireball. Why? Because if I'm playing a Fighter, I'm not really concerned about casting spells. I'm concerned about being the toughest, most durable character over the course of a campaign. And, at higher levels, having an army to lead.

This issue of unbalance in previous games of D&D is wildly over-exaggerated, and mostly from optimizers from the 3E splatbook / prestige class era who took advantage of a poor multi-class system.

Should there be some level of balance? Of course. But, balance as the be-all, end-all of the game being good is kind of silly. And, it's much easier for a DM to house-rule problem areas than to try and tilt a whole system designed to be sterile and focused only on balance.

 

[Incenjucar]

That definition is going to vary depending on who gives it to you.

But, for me it means balance to the exclusion of anything else. It means that something can only exist in the game if it is balanced. It means balance comes before innovation, style, or creativity.

I'm sure it means something else to 4e people. Hopefully they will explain.

Unless being unbalanced is inherent in the idea ("magic is mightier than the sword," etc), a lack of balance is a lack of designer skill. Hopefully WotC hasn't fired ALL of its good designers.

For those things which are inherently unbalanced, make them separable from a balanced core without effort, and everyone wins. Make it so people have to redesign half the game for themselves to achieve balance, and you're going to lose that potential audience.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'd be delighted to see wizards with hundreds of cool and eclectic spells per level, I just don't want them to have a lot of spells per day. Not the same thing at all. Choose wisely.

I personally find the ritual spell casting concept evocative, flavorful, useful and both thematically and genre appropriate. I doubt I can sell you on it if you really dislike it, but we seem to often agree so I'm curious to know what issue you have with the ritual system as a concept? I think they need to dump the idea that they all require costly components. Sometimes the components are time and knowledge. Aside from that I think ritual casting matches my expectations more than D&D style instant combat casting.

My issue with rituals is it seems a bit artificial...a convenient holding cell for spells that are powerful or of a certain flavor. But also, i want my wizard to have access to those as part of his regular spell repetoir. Just up the casting times. You already have divine magic and arcane, so i dont really see the need for rituals.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Unless being unbalanced is inherent in the idea ("magic is mightier than the sword," etc), a lack of balance is a lack of designer skill. Hopefully WotC hasn't fired ALL of its good designers.

For nce.

I dont see why it is bad design. Whether it is bad or good depends on the goals of the game (if you were making a highly simulationist game, you might want a bit of imbalance in the system so certain choices are better than others).

 

[Incenjucar]

I think you're missing the point entirely.

Your definition of balance simply doesn't apply to what we're talking about. And, we have no need for your definition of balance, because it's a moot issue for the type of game we're looking for.

What you need is different from what I need. What I propose gives us both what we need.

Like, it doesn't matter to me that the Fighter in B/X doesn't have "martial" spells and can deal as much damage as a Mage when he casts fireball. Why? Because if I'm playing a Fighter, I'm not really concerned about casting spells. I'm concerned about being the toughest, most durable character over the course of a campaign. And, at higher levels, having an army to lead.

What edition has the Fighter actually been the toughtest, most durable character over the course of a campaign? 1E? Because it certainly hasn't been true since 2E, until 4E. Anyone can have an army.

This issue of unbalance in previous games of D&D is wildly over-exaggerated, and mostly from optimizers from the 3E splatbook / prestige class era who took advantage of a poor multi-class system.

Or just using a druid.

Should there be some level of balance? Of course. But, balance as the be-all, end-all of the game being good is kind of silly. And, it's much easier for a DM to house-rule problem areas than to try and tilt a whole system designed to be sterile and focused only on balance.

The point of balance is to make most choices good ones, to ensure that everyone has something to do during the game at almost all times, and to ensure that the DM doesn't have to spend hours each week altering adventures because there are too many wizards in the party.

You can have your fertilizer on top of that, if a lack of balance is truly required for your ideal game.

 

[Incenjucar]

I dont see why it is bad design. Whether it is bad or good depends on the goals of the game (if you were making a highly simulationist game, you might want a bit of imbalance in the system so certain choices are better than others).

"Unless being unbalanced is inherent in the idea"

 

[Steely_Dan]

That definition is going to vary depending on who gives it to you.

I hope they use lubricant.

 

[Bedrockgames]

What
The point of balance is to make most choices good ones, to ensure that everyone has something to do during the game at almost all times, and to ensure that the DM doesn't have to spend hours each week altering adventures because there are too many wizards in the party.

You can have your fertilizer on top of that, if a lack of balance is truly required for your ideal game.

i think this is a very specific view of balance though. Personally i want balance, but I dont need dont need that to include having something to do at all times.