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

[Tovec]

If 5E can't reconcile conflicting desires(this particular one is far from alone) than the goal of unifying D&D under one game is futile.

They CAN reconcile conflicting desires. They CANNOT reconcile all conflicting desires with one specific desire.

Then the question becomes how important is it to you? Is it a deal breaker? After enjoying 4E for its balance, I'm not willing to accept significantly less of it from 5E. I think I'm far from alone in that regard. If that balance isn't present in at least a modular sense, there is zero chance I will switch to 5E. Zero. Again, I don't think I'm alone in that. I can accept that it doesn't work for you, can you accept that at this point, for me without that balance it's not a D&D worth playing?

What would be your reaction if I said, from a pre-4e standpoint to someone.
Unless 4e has all my requirements of 3e I'm not going to play it. I'm not going to give it a single chance. I'm not alone in my feeling and if it doesn't provide me with my expectations and requirements then there is ZERO chance of me playing. Because of that it failed in its target of making me play 4e.

That is what you are saying about 5e. And I'm sorry to say that if you are completely unwilling to budge on everything that I'm glad you won't be playing 5e. It will leave more material for me to play in 5e. I'm not saying the game they are building is going to be one I'm going to like but at least I'm willing to give it a chance and evaluate it by itself as opposed to a new version of MY game.

What's that expression I keep hearing lately? Fandom does not equal ownership. If you don't like the game that is being produced then don't buy it. If you do then do. If it is missing something either add it or adapt to not having it. Those are your choices. Sorry.

If you have no at-will powers, no encounter powers, and no daily powers, you have no standard way to interact with the world.

Punching someone in the face is an at-will power.

WHY is it an at-will power? Why is it a power at all? Why can't it just be someone punching someone else in the face?

Powers, at least in 4e, had power sources. Powers weren't just things you did they were things you did with power or energy from something/somewhere/a source. You couldn't just punch someone in the face without the at-will power source of "punch someone in the face". If you lacked the power/ability then you couldn't do it. You only got so many at-wills, dailies, utilities and encounters afterall, or am I missing something?

An at-will power is anything that you can do at-will. These have existed in every edition. Same with daily powers. Encounter powers are the only novelty of 4E, and I believe they were introduced in 3E.

4E just gave those powers a name. Just like Napoleon Complexes existed before Napoleon.

<snip Full Attack>

What I posted is exactly what the 3E Full Attack is. A rose by any other name.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. But a flower that is yellow and smells like daffodils probably isn't a rose.

The point is that yes previous editions had effects that 4e called At-Wills, Encounters, and Dailies (but not utilities).

The difference is that those "At wills" didn't require a power source. Most of them barely required training. You could know/use more than a set of them at a time. They weren't "powers" you needed to train up and use they were just things you did without name.

With encounter powers at least we understood the power source and why they could only be used sparingly (I'm thinking of rage BTW as you say encounter powers are new). We knew the limits and understood where they came from. They weren't just things like shoving a guy back 3 squares and being unable to do it again, they were things that ACTUALLY tired you out and had tangible effects and reasons why they couldn't be performed. Generally speaking encounter effects LASTED all encounter as opposed to being performed once in a fight.

Dailies, weren't needed to be called dailies, were things that required extraordinary effort and consumed resources. They weren't "draining" enough that a rest could cure them and they were VERY rare. You wouldn't have X of them to use in a combat, and they weren't used to hit a guy for extra damage. That would be insane by pre-4e standards on powers. With the exception of several monk powers I can think of almost no daily powers existing in 3e.

All in all, if 4e had done a better job of conveying these powers, how they worked and their limits then I know I would have been better off excepting them. It is another example where I was excluded from the though process and had no idea what the final product was trying to do, outside of its mechanics. WotC did a very poor job not only with the explanations of things but with the development of things and this time they are trying a much more open and honest approach to game design. I am encouraged to see them trying - poorly but trying - to get feedback and realize what the game should look like BEFORE it is released.

Improved Trip(or any standard maneuver modified or granted by a feat)
Reserve spells
The Binder and Warlock classes
ect...

At-Wills have a firm foundation in 3E at the very least.



Encounter powers were the centerpiece of 3E's Tome of Battle, and I believe they existed previously in some of the more obscure classes, feats, items, and prestige classes before then.

I love the examples you give. One of which is a class that is vertually unused and both of which are full fledged casters.

I will explain this slowly so I only have to do it once.

Non-magic should not resemble magic. Non-magic should not be a FORM of magic. Non-magic should observe the laws of nature. Magic should briefly disrupt or break the laws of nature. If magic existed it should not by itself make all other forms (which are non-magic) suddenly not obey the laws of nature. If magic existed it should not suddenly (without any connection or effect) make dogs suddenly start purring and cats walk on the ceiling.

Now that is dealt with, back to your post Binders and warlocks = magical people who use magical effects.
Improved trip never mentioned At-Will. It allows you to trip people more easily and readily but it mentions not At-Will.
Reserve feats were silly, but as I recall they dealt with magic too.

Oh and Tome of Battle. I hate TOB, always have probably always will. They made non-magic into magic in order to balance things out. This may be my root problem with balancing things out, I am not sure. Either way I am not versed well enough with TOB to tell if At Will was used there. But I will say that non-magic should not equal magic - as I outlined above.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Huh? You lost me here. How does 4e support D&D as a class based system any better... when it contains hybrids, multiclass feats, themes, backgrounds, skill feats, feats for ritual casting, etc?

Because it has a strong class framework. Classes are a fixed choice at 1st level, either you choose one or hybrid for two, and you build within that framework over the life of your character. Classes are who you are, not a pile of blocks you can mix and match whenever you gain a level. Multiclass feats had minimal impact, and didn't detract from your class. Themes, backgrounds, rituals, and skills were in addition to classes, not detracting from them.

 

[billd91]

I don't see it in that light. All the pieces you can build a Fighter out of are Fighter pieces, or else generic pieces not specific to class. You build within the class framework.

Unless I want to be a good archer, then I apparently have to go to another class to get the pieces I want.

 

[P1NBACK]

Classes are who you are, not a pile of blocks you can mix and match whenever you gain a level.

Eh. I don't buy that. If classes are who we are, then why is my Fighter different from Bob's Fighter?

It's not who we are. It's a collection of abilities that represent an archetype and theme. Who we are is what we do in the game.

 

[Imaro]

Because it has a strong class framework. Classes are a fixed choice at 1st level, either you choose one or hybrid for two, and you build within that framework over the life of your character. Classes are who you are, not a pile of blocks you can mix and match whenever you gain a level. Multiclass feats had minimal impact, and didn't detract from your class. Themes, backgrounds, rituals, and skills were in addition to classes, not detracting from them.

Uhm, classes are a fixed choice at first level for all editions of D&D. The fact of the matter is that hybridization, multiclass feats, themes, backgrounds, the ritual caster feat and skill feats allowed you to mix and match the abilities (skills, powers, spellcasting, etc.) of different classes. So how is that not providing a "pile of blocks you can mix and match"?

 

[El Mahdi]

I don't really see how making this personal advances the discussion at all.

I didn't make it personal, you did.

You made this about you, when you responded to a quote that wasn't about you, in a manner as if it was about you. I'm simply responding to your post which was personally directed to me. And have done so in a civil manner. I've also politely attempted to engage you in an objective and constructive conversation about 5E's design goals, and have you state your ideas for D&D Next, which it seems you have decided to not participate in (as you say in the rest of your post).

Big picture stuff. As I've said, I don't personally care about reunification, and I have no enthusiasm for bringing back old stuff. I see trying to appeal to everybody with a modular game as most likely to result in either a watered down half-assed game or a clunky frankenstein's monster of ill-fitting mismatched pieces. I saw 4E's slaughtering of sacred cows and modernizing of D&D to be a good thing, and see the focus on bringing back all the old crap as bad news. 3E multiclassing, Vancian magic, and the Great Wheel are aspects of D&D I was glad to see gone. All three have been stated by the dev team as core for 5E, and again nothing but bad news.

So basically, the core goals that are absolutely paramount to the next edition, have absolutely no appeal to you. We have the ability to help shape the mechanics of the game, both the base game and modules. But we absolutely are not going to influence the Design Team as to the Core Goals they've established. If those core goals are anathema to you, then the game is anathema to you.

Okay, that's fine. Your choice, your opinion, and your right. And I don't have a problem with that.


But, this does leave me with a couple of questions then:


One: How is that stance not one of already making up your mind to be against it?

and Two: What then is your purpose for posting here in the D&D Next Forums?


I'm not denying your right to be here. I'm simply asking you why you'd post here if you've already decided you don't like the direction of 5E, and that it's not going to be a game you want to play?

Even if it's just lack of enthusiasm (unenthused), what can you possibly hope to accomplish by posting your thoughts about 5E?

It obviously can't be to try and affect the direction of the game. One, you've already said you don't care about a game that has the goals that 5E does. Second, you haven't contributed to the process in an objective or constructive manner. And Third, when asked to contribute, you say you don't care to (unless your post above was meant to be your contribution...in which case I'd say the request for objectiveness must have been overlooked).

Curiosity could be a motive for reading, but not for posting in the manner you have, so I think that's ruled out also.

If it's just to point out to those that are interested in the next edition and want to be a part of shaping it, that you don't like it...then I'd say Congratulations. I'm certain that everybody in this thread has been successfully made aware of your thoughts on 5E.

I also can't imagine that it's just to stir up trouble, as that would be something not allowed here at ENWorld, and is just basic impoliteness on forums. Something that I would not expect of you nor accuse you of.

Which leaves me completely stymied as to what you're trying to accomplish? I truly am curious to understand, and am sincerely interested in your answer...*



*which of course places no obligation or expectation on you whatsoever to answer.

 

[Incenjucar]

At-Will powers are anything you can do at-will. 4E did not bother to list all of them as powers, because having a scratch-your-butt power gets a bit absurd. "Power" is simply your ability to affect the narrative, not "power" in the sense of shooting lasers from your eyes, but, alas, people cling to connotation more than definition, and the term was not the best one to use, accurate though it was.

You can, in fact, write 4E without the 4E power format, in the same way that you can convert any prior edition into the 4E format. It mostly goes to show how much psychology trumps substance.

--

I do not believe that magic needs to be different than non-magic, especially since there is no distinct line between the two once you start getting into fire elementals punching dudes and hitting someone with a Molotov cocktail. One is an expression of force using meat, the other is an expression of force using fire. There's no reason outside of psychology to have those behave differently, and not everyone shares that psychology. Thankfully, options can be designed for a multitude of psychologies.

 

[Bedrockgames]

At-Will powers are anything you can do at-will. 4E did not bother to list all of them as powers, because having a scratch-your-butt power gets a bit absurd. "Power" is simply your ability to affect the narrative, not "power" in the sense of shooting lasers from your eyes, but, alas, people cling to connotation more than definition, and the term was not the best one to use, accurate though it was.

You can, in fact, write 4E without the 4E power format, in the same way that you can convert any prior edition into the 4E format. It mostly goes to show how much psychology trumps substance.

--

I do not believe that magic needs to be different than non-magic, especially since there is no distinct line between the two once you start getting into fire elementals punching dudes and hitting someone with a Molotov cocktail. One is an expression of force using meat, the other is an expression of force using fire. There's no reason outside of psychology to have those behave differently, and not everyone shares that psychology. Thankfully, options can be designed for a multitude of psychologies.

I have to say, it is a bit insulting when you start assuming various "psychologies" at work behind our preferences. I just find this whole attitude very dismissive of differing perspectives.

 

[Incenjucar]

I have to say, it is a bit insulting when you start assuming various "psychologies" at work behind our preferences. I just find this whole attitude very dismissive of differing perspectives.

What do you think a perspective is? It's a difference is psychological traits leading you to produce different conclusions from the same stimuli. Do not go fishing for reasons to be offended. There's too much emotion in these conversations as is.

 

[Imaro]

At-Will powers are anything you can do at-will. 4E did not bother to list all of them as powers, because having a scratch-your-butt power gets a bit absurd. "Power" is simply your ability to affect the narrative, not "power" in the sense of shooting lasers from your eyes, but, alas, people cling to connotation more than definition, and the term was not the best one to use, accurate though it was.

Wouldn't it be more correct to say that At-Will powers are anything a particularly class with access to said power can do at-will? At least in 4e...correct?