D&D 5E D&D Next Q&A 9/20

[I'm A Banana]

I find it hard to believe that a single game can support this meta-narrative style, the gamist style and the simulationist style at the same time. I doubt that a single rules system would satisfy all three of these either, even run as separate games. I know that's what they're trying to achieve, and as you suggest, this would work by publishing separate sets of rules - but you'd have to go far beyond just class behaviour to achieve this, the core mechanics cannot support all three.

The goals aren't so lofty as to involve Forge-isms, honestly.

The core mechanics of D&D don't really have to care that much whether you do things at-will or daily. This is entirely a playstyle preference -- each can be balanced.

So the only thing a system must do to support these three different recharge schemes is to let anyone who wants to do it, do it. And those who don't want to do it, they don't need to be forced to do it.

Whether or not that supports any particular "gamist" or "simulationist" style is almost besides the point. People like both options, so both options should be available to players, regardless of which goal they are seeking with that choice.

Of course, DMs, as always, have the ultimate authority over what goes on in their games, and saying, "Wizards can't use anything other than Daily abilities" is a perfectly acceptable way to play, and the designers of D&D shouldn't refuse that style by saying "Actually, if you're a Wizard, you MUST HAVE CANTRIPS," thus tying the recharge rate unnecessarily to the class.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I have to agree with [MENTION=882]Chris_Nightwing[/MENTION] on the broad point here. An AEDU fighter class works in a completely different manner than the 5e at-will fighter class. If you wanted to fit both into the same game, you could, but all they'd really share was the name. They would play very differently.

This isn't to say, though, that there's no room for fudging. Giving the 5e fighter a full suite of daily and encounter abilities would be a huge rewrite. But designing a specialty (or even prestige class) that adds one or two cool dailies or encounter powers could conceivably work quite well. The key point is that the basic mechanical design of the core class should be consistent and intact.

I think the wizard encounter powers are at risk of crossing the line here. Can a level 5 evoker wizard really get 3 encounter powers (1 at each spell level)? That's more than the warlock, who doesn't also have a handful of dailies at his disposal. Are they all weaker than warlock invocations to make up for that? How much weaker can a power get than swearing at someone for 2d8 damage at level 5 (Baleful Utterance) while still being better than a cantrip?

No other class in the current playtest gets to choose whether his powers are daily or encounter. Current wizards, sorcerers and clerics are all daily, left only with weak cantrips and basic attacks if they use up their spells; current fighters, rogues and warlocks are all encounter/at-will, going into every battle with the exact same resources except for HP/HD. Allowing specialized wizards to choose each day whether they want daily or encounter powers would be a big boon, which would both complicate the class and necessitate adjustments (nerfs) in other areas to keep them balanced against other builds

 

[slobster]

The goals aren't so lofty as to involve Forge-isms, honestly.

The core mechanics of D&D don't really have to care that much whether you do things at-will or daily. This is entirely a playstyle preference -- each can be balanced.

This may be heresy, but I think that restrictions can be a good thing. I said it, now I can't unsay it. But they should be very carefully considered so that they work together to accomplish a goal, and not needlessly restrict creativity.

Having fighters based on recharging-by-turn CS dice, and wizards based on preparing spells ahead of time, is a dyed-in-the-wool, interesting difference between the two classes. It reinforces how their power derives from different places, how they have a different outlook on combat and problem-solving in general, and makes it so that playing them is a very different experience from the moment you pick up your character sheet. I find all of that to be useful, and worth the restrictions that it took to get there.

Now if someone wants to play a daily fighter, make it an option. Maybe come out with a "Knight" class later that uses martial dailies. Maybe churn out some modules to modify the normal fighter class. But rooting the defaults in D&D history establishes an identity for the class, and frankly reinforces an identity for the entire brand.

Those are my 2cp, and I can tell you won't agree. No harm in that, we can agree to disagree. Good luck with brainstorming your take on it, and rest assured that I will eagerly read and digest anything you come up with. We're all wannabe game designers here! (except of course for the actual game designers here)

EDIT: Also +1 for not involving Forge-isms. They always give me a headache.

 

[Scars Unseen]

I've mentioned this one before, but I think that the fighter could support an almost AEDU approach without breaking the simulationist hangup that some(including myself) have with the 4E fighter. Create 3 categories of abilities: maneuvers, stunts, and tricks.

Maneuvers are at will, and use expertise dice as the playtest currently permit.

Stunts represent strenuous activity and share a resource pool(or maybe do temporary CON damage) that recharges after a short rest. Mostly high damage and damage distribution attacks(or damage mitigation) here. Whirlwind Attack and Shield Brace(which would let you totally negate a successful attack) would be decent examples of this.

Tricks represent feint/attack combos and each can only be performed once per combat. This could include status effects (such as temporarily blinding an opponent), redirecting a successful incoming attack to an adjacent opponent and, at high level, really cool stuff like Vorpal Strike(I don't think I need to explain what that one would do).

This would allow for varying tiers of options available in a fight and the resulting resource management while avoiding the metagame issues involved with martial dailies. More importantly, it opens up the possibility of some really cool and powerful late game abilities that make sense for a highly experienced warrior that just wouldn't be possible if you could pull it off every round.

 

[Magil]

I think the wizard encounter powers are at risk of crossing the line here. Can a level 5 evoker wizard really get 3 encounter powers (1 at each spell level)? That's more than the warlock, who doesn't also have a handful of dailies at his disposal. Are they all weaker than warlock invocations to make up for that? How much weaker can a power get than swearing at someone for 2d8 damage at level 5 (Baleful Utterance) while still being better than a cantrip?

This strikes me as more of a problem with the warlock's power level than anything else. Yeah, the current set of invocations seem pretty lackluster to me.

I'm all for the wizards having "encounter powers," as long as they're careful about it. It might convince me to actually say I like the wizard class (I'm not a very big fan of Vancian casting). I'm rather surprised that there are actually complaints about at-will cantrips, that seemed to me to be a totally natural move.

 

[I'm A Banana]

This may be heresy, but I think that restrictions can be a good thing. I said it, now I can't unsay it. But they should be very carefully considered so that they work together to accomplish a goal, and not needlessly restrict creativity.

I actually completely agree.

The issue is that some folks don't want that difference. Or they want a DIFFERENT difference. Or they don't like the difference tethered to the archetype they want to play.

So while I like it, I'm not sure it's something I'd want to inflict on everyone who plays D&D as a prerequisite for playing the game. Some people LOVED the unified structure of classes, and retaining that should be an option for those DMs, too. Others LOVED fighter dailies or wizard at-wills and want those things in 5e, too. I don't think there's any inflexible design rule to deny them this.

Much like how a wizard might come pre-packaged with a Scholar background and a Magic-User Specialty and certain weapon/armor proficiencies, they could ALSO come pre-packaged with Daily ability use. But that shouldn't be an inflexible part of the class, IMO. It rules out people who love spamming Magic Missile who don't want to play a Warlock to get that vibe. And that's legit.

I like classes that play differently, but nova capacity and reliability and such probably shouldn't be tied to the class in one inflexible way, because then you get people who don't want to play the class IN THAT WAY, and the class needs to be able to be played otherwise, too.

 

[slobster]

The issue is that some folks don't want that difference. Or they want a DIFFERENT difference. Or they don't like the difference tethered to the archetype they want to play.

So while I like it, I'm not sure it's something I'd want to inflict on everyone who plays D&D as a prerequisite for playing the game. Some people LOVED the unified structure of classes, and retaining that should be an option for those DMs, too. Others LOVED fighter dailies or wizard at-wills and want those things in 5e, too. I don't think there's any inflexible design rule to deny them this.

I think I can sum up my feelings thusly: I hope your strategy works and you are right, but I am afraid that my negativity might end up being correct and it's not possible to get the full range of flexibility you are going for without sacrificing something important.

But wait, we have this huge playtest where we can test zany ideas on an unprecedented scale! I would be very happy to see a playtest document that mucks about with what you describe. Maybe it could convert me!

 

[Stalker0]

Depends on what you mean by "significant." I don't think being able to choose a feat for my DnD Next fighter makes the choice of fighting style less significant, nor its choice of background.

In the context of the OP, we aren't talking about character build choices being significant, but their actions within the game.

What WOTC sounds like they are trying to do is what boardgaming has evolved to over the last many years....a push towards "Evolved Complexity".


The basics of Evolved Complexity is that an individual action is very simple, often limited to a few set options. However, over the course of several actions combined with the actions of your components can develop wonderfully complex scenarios that are actually very strategic.

Note this is not to be confused with games like chess. While learning the moves of chess is very simple and straightforward, any given move in chess could be 1000s of possibilities. In the modern EC boardgame, the move options remain limited generally throughout the game.

I think its a good direction to go for 5e, we will see how it pans out.

 

[Shadeydm]

Magic Missile

1. Single Missile: Deal 1d4+INT force damage to one living creature. The spell is not expended, and you can cast it again on your next turn.
2. Missile Battery: Launch three missiles as above. The spell is partially expended, and you can prepare it again during a short rest.
3. Missile Massacre: Launch five missiles as above. The spell is fully expended, and you can prepare it again only during a long rest.

I think you are really onto something here. If these 3 variations can play side by side I believe it would greatly enhance the probability of success for Next.

 

[Magil]

In the context of the OP, we aren't talking about character build choices being significant, but their actions within the game.

However, if you check the quote chain, I was specifically referring to "character creation." I'd like a lot of significant options at character creation. I agree that when it comes to your turn, it's better if you have to choose one significant action from a short list (short of improv, which should be encouraged and the rules should give a framework for, but not really what I'm talking about here).