D&D 5E D&D Next: The Toolbox Edition (What's not to like?)

[Crazy Jerome]

But when the dice are hitting the table it doesn't matter that the orc is using the 'hand is quicker than the eye' feat to allow him to use his dex mode to disarm with the fencing module and he's getting a +1 from a bell guard on his rapier. All that matters is "Alternate attack +7 to hit 1d4 damage and DC 16 str or dex save or be disarmed."

It's almost as if the monsters must be built differently than PCs to make it all work. Who woolda thunk it?

 

[MichaelSomething]

I liked it better when it called "Castles and Crusades!"

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

The basic encounter writeup simply lists the monsters stats and abilities in terms of power effects. Knowledge of modules is not needed unless they were dumb enough to make a module with a unique resolution mechanic.

And that's the problem. I'm almost certain they ARE. I think that there will be "Easy mode monsters" and "Hard mode monsters"...possibly even "Very Hard mode monsters".

So, you'll have one type of monster that has only AC, Attacks, Damage listed, and is designed for the type of game where combat goes quick and you don't have status effects like Stunned or Slowed.

Then you have the version of the monster whose abilities are listed in a more 4e style with abilities listed with what type of actions they take and what status effects they apply.

Then you have the "custom monsters" who pick spells from the Wizard list and get a special ability added that comes from a "customer monster power table".

And you'll need monsters listed in at least 2 of those styles in every adventures that allows both. Though it's possible that the "simple" rules just says something like "Ignore all status effects on monsters and just do damage".

Then you run into the problem that if custom monsters let you really power game the enemies and the PCs learn to powergame their characters to keep up with the arms race, that purchased adventures can no longer be used since they don't contain any custom monsters and the PCs find normal monsters too easy.

 

[fjw70]

There are some problems with modularity of rules:

1) an adventure module is published. On the back cover, they spend 44 lines of text telling you they use rule a but not b and module c for combat is required and the magic system the bad guys use is module a again, ad nauseum and they have no room to tell you what the cool adventure is. Inside, the adventure writers have to spend 16 extra pages of notes on "if you don't use this feature, replace it with that feature" stuff.

I don't see adventures looking like that. I think the only thing in the adventures that will vary with the modules is monster stats. Most of the module stuff will be how to build characters, and things like how to run combat, social encounters, etc.

On monster stats I envision the stat block broken into multiple parts (let's call them A, B, and C). The A section will have the basic stats, and then B and C will have increasing complexity added on. So the DM just uses the part of the blocks they need and ignores the rest.

I don't see adventure design being very hard for 5e.

 

[Andor]

It's almost as if the monsters must be built differently than PCs to make it all work. Who woolda thunk it?

Must? Of course not. You could build all the monsters with detailed construction rules and there would be no downside beyond the GM workload.

But it's not mandatory.

In any event the simplified stat block I suggested does not imply one way or the other what construction rules the monsters have to use. It merely points out that what I view as the central revelation of 5e applies as well to monsters as it does to PCs.

To wit: Mechanical systems need to be explicitly defined only at points of interaction.

So an if an orc has an AC of 17 and 14 hp that's all you need to know in the stat block. Whether you got there by using three humanoid hit dice with the toughness feat and a suit of chainmail or by following the 3rd level striker guidelines dosn't matter.

Likewise if the Orc shamans spell is identical to a druids spell, is a unique monster ability, or is a psionic ability modified by two feats, a prestige class and a magic item doesn't matter. All the GM needs to know is "10' radius blast 3d6 damage and dex save vs 14 or be slowed for 1 round."

 

[Kingreaper]

There are some problems with modularity of rules:

1) an adventure module is published. On the back cover, they spend 44 lines of text telling you they use rule a but not b and module c for combat is required and the magic system the bad guys use is module a again, ad nauseum and they have no room to tell you what the cool adventure is. Inside, the adventure writers have to spend 16 extra pages of notes on "if you don't use this feature, replace it with that feature" stuff.

2) I'm a player looking for a new game, or a DM recruiting. Right now, I say "I run 3.5e, E6 version". Anyone who doesn't understand can ask "What's E6?"

Under DnDN I might spend 5 minutes laying out what I do and don't allow or use in my campaign, just to explain WHAT GAME we're playing.

If they can minimize these issues, I'm definitely in favor of where 5e seems to be going.

I think you're looking solely at DM-side modularity.

If 5th is to achieve it's potential, a lot of the modularity will be player-side. As in, you can choose to have skills, or not. You can choose to have feats, or not. And these are balanced options.

Player-side modularity doesn't require any fixing of adventures. Nor does it require much of the GM (other than saying which player-options are excluded)

 

[WheresMyD20]

So far it seems pretty good. However, there's always the possibility that by trying to be all things to all people the game ends up lacking coherency and focus.

 

[Zireael]

I think that if the modularity is going to look as it was presented in this thread, then the goal would be: "explain what options A, B and C allow DM and players to do in a few simple sentences, easily understandable".

 

[triqui]

The goal sounds the same as 3e, which was pretty explicitly the toolbox edition. Making the canvas broader and refining the tools are not easy goals, but they are worthy ones.

To be honest, goals are always sound good, whatever edition you talk about. The important thing is to achieve said goals.

 

[Nagol]

For me, the danger of the goal is the modularity and toolbox options substantially increase the work required to construct a campiagn -- I love the Hero system, but I will admit campaign design can get really involved if a specific feel/world design is desired.

Secondary considerations include the toolbox nature and modularity might limit the value of supplements -- everything from introducing so much work into adventure creation that a DM is better off to take the core concept and build it from scratch than to adjust the presentation to supplements that only work with a subset of the toolbox and thus have a much smaller potential customer base.