The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Pulling out a section of rules and inserting a replacement. Simply adding to the game or altering some rules doesn't make it modular. For instance, yanking out the combat rules and inserting completely different combat rules.
Pulling out a section of rules and inserting a replacement. Simply adding to the game or altering some rules doesn't make it modular. For instance, yanking out the combat rules and inserting completely different combat rules.
Unlike the old TSR days, WOTC has decided that they don't need to nor should they try to fill every niche. That's why we have so many third party options.
I don't think that makes those options any less viable.
<RANT>
The other thing is that I just get tired of people going on and on about something said so early in the development cycle for 5E about it being modular. First, I do think it is designed to be one of the most modular versions of D&D. Basically the core game is what you get in the free basic rules. Everything else is a module you add on top.
Could it be more modular? Maybe. Did they (and "they" IIRC was Mearls who isn't always careful with his wording) overstate? Maybe. So what? Maybe it was a goal at one point, one they realized they could never fulfill to everyone's satisfaction.
</RANT>
I don't agree with your definition, because it renders the definition meaningless. I've never seen an RPG that can't be built upon or expanded, so there would no point in specifying that an RPG is modular.
Ha ha, that’s the first time I’ve seen the ‘one man
That’s the first time I’ve seen the ‘one-person-one-argument’ position suggested. Lol[/qiote]
You misunderstand the point. You made the claim that the overly simplified 5e frame is better because it's "easier" to add onto in response to some very specific criticisms being leveled in the thread & examples that you neglected to quote or mention, were given examples where it wasnotso simple just to link a couple posts restating problems voiced before you jumped in with your this is a wookie defense. Undaunted by the specific problems raised, you resorted to what amounts to "it exists go find it". which gets into your more recent post
lmaro's point would have been a good one had you made one, instead all he did is jump in late and not realize that you were speaking useless words that don't support your claims so he too was told that your point was never actually relevant to the discussion.
Given your insistence of this being relevant It's clear that you simply don't understand the problem. To bastardize the oft made "maybe 5e is not the game for you if you want that" point, maybe this is not the discussion for you & your points
lwe are talking about 5e not d20, 5e being overly "paired down" is the problem
additional monster abilities
Monster building/customization
Also missing the problem. You can add stuff to monsters sure, but that doesn't change that there is no meaningful tactical combat & the attrition of combat goes away from going to sleep rather than angling for forced march penalties at the end of the day.
revised classes
new classes
Extra classes
Monster PC races
adding magnets to the fridge does not change the fact that the fridge lacks shelves you can use to arrange that trunk of groceries I mentioned earlier inside the fridge. Not only that, they did not in any way notably change the 5e system itself just by having a couple more options.
revising advantage which methods of ‘spending’ advantage to get additional results.
This too has nothing to do with the discussion & you have not shown how it represents any significant changes to how 5e plays at the table
new spell systems.
alternative proficiency systems.
Developed tool proficiencies
Madness
I can't even address this because it could be anything & any answer can simply be an endless rabbit hole of "no I meant a different one" until you are willing to be specific about which and how they relate to the problems raised.
new feats
Racial feats
None of which address the specific problems raised in the thread or significantly change the core of 5e even if some might change how a particular pc or class changes.
Expanded actions between adventures
This one was actually worse because it spotlights how 5e does not support meaningful attrition of resources but added ways that players can expect to gather themselves more phatlewtz. It's made worse by the fact that at no point has wotc ever published guidelines for awarding downtime in any public format.
[/spoiler]
Psionics
Needed for certain settings, but last I checked it was still UA & more importantly 5e is still massively problematic with many parts missing for the most significant of them (darksun). Darksun without rules for exploration, foraging, substandard equipment, & much more with PCs who reover from the rigors of life in apost apocalyptic desert hellscape by sleeping through the night in a ritually cast 3rd level improved forcecube wotc refuses to errata is problematic.
Patrons
This was admittedly a nice improvement, but the key detail is that it did not address any of the problems raised & literally has nothing to do with them. What is more glaring is the fact that it would have been even more impactful & continue with turning up the simple in a more robust complex system that allowed for attrition of resources over time & tactical combat without huge amounts of homebrew.
Vehicle rules
Now you are just throwing out random things... This changes things in relation to the original problems you dismissed how?
Firearms and futuristic weapons
it's not a crossbow it's a rifle bro! Even having payed into the low teens with a gunslinger in the party it literally did not change the game & certainly did nothing to address any of the original problems raised.
Followers
Strongholds
Credit to mercer for trying & I had my hopes, but in a world where you recover all resources by resting for the night you don't need to have followers caring for your wagons of lewt. I was excited about strongholds, but it was still hampered by the 5e system. This one seems to be just a random adition to the list with nothing relevant though.
Alternate worlds
It's pedantic to say that ravenloft is not a world, but barovia is just one domain within ravenloft and it was heavily faerunized complete with development of AL factions rather than anything that does exost in ravenloft filling those roles. They learned their lessons when they did eberron though & it was a great much needed addition. More importantly this dart does not even hit the same all as the metaphorical target representing the problems raised before you jumped in
There are so many many ways that 5e could be developed in time...if... and this is a big if... If there was a market for it beyond, ultra-committed forum posters.
Saying that 5e isn’t modular because of critical hits affecting paladins is a really patchy argument.
There have been a lot of other examples including the failure that is 5e's own variant flanking & facing rules without any meaningful AoO rules & the very specific problems already raised in this thread before you jumped in that hamper trying to solve it
<RANT>
The other thing is that I just get tired of people going on and on about something said so early in the development cycle for 5E about it being modular. First, I do think it is designed to be one of the most modular versions of D&D. Basically the core game is what you get in the free basic rules. Everything else is a module you add on top.
Could it be more modular? Maybe. Did they (and "they" IIRC was Mearls who isn't always careful with his wording) overstate? Maybe. So what? Maybe it was a goal at one point, one they realized they could never fulfill to everyone's satisfaction.
</RANT>
Some people act like Mike Mearls swore a blood oath to them that he would personally write a 200-page Combat & Tactics hardcover that would turn the game into the crunchiest tabletop wargame of all time, and every year one fails to materialize is another year they were lied to.
Design is hard, and goals change as you get closer to completion.
Pointing at new 5e books to make that point is like pointing at fridge magnets to support an arguement that there is room inside for a trunk full of groceries
What expansions? The vast majority of releases have been adventures and monster books. Very little has been released that is crunch, and I don't see a few more races, class paths and a few feats as much of an expansion. And none of that is modular.
What, now? When was this? Are you talking about the very brief period between the end of 2e and the release of 3e? Even then, Dragon and Dungeon were still coming out, and there were a bunch of end-of-edition adventures and supplements.
lmaro's point would have been a good one had you made one, instead all he did is jump in late and not realize that you were speaking useless words that don't support your claims so he too was told that your point was never actually relevant to the discussion.
Good thing more than that exists and has been brought up in this very thread. However if any of the things you cite does something new or different I would argue it is leveraging new rules into the game.
EDIT: In other words something like a 3e Prestige Class while a new class would also be a modular component that could be added or taken away from the game...
