D&D 5E Expertise Dice = Vancian Magic = ADEU

[Cybit]

I think my issue with that s that the more flexible you make the system, with more and more options, you end up not with a game - you just end up with an instruction manual on how to make your own game. Which is a different thing. The very phrase "I play D&D" would be in danger of becoming meaningless, as "D&D" would not have an identity.

I do worry that this whole pick and choose option thing might go overkill.

Based on conversations I've had with them, I think they're throwing the ideas out there, but the ideas aren't going to be core. What I suspect you'll see is different resource mechanics based on universe (dragonlance vs dark sun vs greyhawk) more than anything.

Also, the idea of being able to basically give folks a way to create their own "version" of D&D is an interesting idea.

 

[Viking Bastard]

That's a rather simplistic reduction of how varying mechanics apply ex post facto to the in-character decision points to create a "metagamey feel."

The ex post facto part is confusing me, which I've always taken to mean "change after the fact", at least when used in Icelandic. But I assume you mean that the mechanics will lack consistency--which can create disassociation--rather than worries about DMs jumping mechanics mid-game.

Yeah?

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Expertise dice can't really translate over to AEDU or Vancian powers without completely overhauling the system. The whole point of expertise dice is that they refresh constantly so every decision you make is based on immediate tactical concerns rather than broader strategic concerns. The wizard worries about saving his powder; the fighter only worries about what helps the most, right now.

On a broad level, sure, spells and maneuvers are all "powers" and you can attach them to any arbitrary system for doling them out. But doing that necessarily homogenizes the classes, which a lot of people didnt like in 4e.

 

[mlund]

Some people seem concerned that if something isn't the default option then playing with that feature is "up to the DM," - more so than things the DM would explicitly have to redact from the rules set.

Frankly, the CORE defaults should be the simplest configuration for each of the Core 4 class. In some cases that means a class may not play in the way most traditionally associated with it. It should be a relatively simple Player Option to swap out the Simplified Mechanics for the Core Complex Mechanical Options.

Simple Fighter: Static scaling bonus damage and damage reduction. Single-choice fighting style option with a static effect that scales with level. Extra Attack at level X. Done.

Complex Fighter: Expertise Dice system.

You could do something similar for the Rogue, Wizard, and Cleric. Most of the other classes are so niche they are necessarily complex. They should still have easy-to-manage options, but they don't need to have a Mini-fied default version.

- Marty Lund

 

[DEFCON 1]

However, I don't think it's possible to have an AEDU wizard playing along side a spell point wizard and have them both feel like Wizards. Unless you construct a version of every class for every resource management option.

You might not be able to... but that doesn't mean some other game doesn't either. But in any case... if that kind of thing is an issue for you... I'd first ask why you, the DM, and the other players in the game didn't decide as part of the campaign creation process which classes use which game mechanics? So you wouldn't have two wizards using different mechanics... you'd have wizards using one mechanic and sorcerers using the other. Or warlocks. Or whatever. But that's a personal decision on all of your parts... not one that needs to be made for you by Wizards of the Coast.

 

[jrowland]

The ex post facto part is confusing me, which I've always taken to mean "change after the fact", at least when used in Icelandic. But I assume you mean that the mechanics will lack consistency--which can create disassociation--rather than worries about DMs jumping mechanics mid-game.

Yeah?

I'm with you here.

I think "Meta-game" is a poor choice of words to describe table-to-table variants. Its best used as a single-table term.

That said, his point is cognitive disassociation from table-to-table. Remathilis described it best with what does "sorcerer" mean. If Sorcerers are magic points at one table and Vancian at the next, that's the disassociation.

I think it isn't a problem as long as its terminology. 2e-3e my players had issues with the term "feats", but once the language is resolved it goes away. Splitting classes such that you now effectively have # classes = Class names x Mechanics means a larger vocabulary. If its not too big, its not a problem. But if its very large, that is where it fails imo.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think my issue with that s that the more flexible you make the system, with more and more options, you end up not with a game - you just end up with an instruction manual on how to make your own game. Which is a different thing. The very phrase "I play D&D" would be in danger of becoming meaningless, as "D&D" would not have an identity.

I do worry that this whole pick and choose option thing might go overkill.

I think most DMs will settle on a bundle of things they personally like and use repeatedly. The thing that this enables is that this will be different things for different tables, so while one table never touches ADEU, another table embraces it for every character. Different groups will find different happy places. Hypothetically, an entire group of gearheads could tweak hundreds of different options, but it's not likely to be a common occurrence.

Remathilis described it best with what does "sorcerer" mean. If Sorcerers are magic points at one table and Vancian at the next, that's the disassociation.

This is why "Story First" is such a mantra for 5e, I think. If you define sorcerers as "instinctive spellcasters whose magic is in their blood," it doesn't matter what rules module you use to support that feel. You can use Expertise Dice for it or Spell Points for it or ADEU for it. Sorcerers are still instinctive spellcasters whose magic is in their blood. THAT is what a sorcerer is, however the numbers shake out in the end.

Wizards are still academic spellcasters. Fighters are still masters of arms and armors. Clerics are still worshipers and channelers of divinity. Rogues are still stealthy and slick. These definitions transcend mechanics. All they call out for is mechanics to support them, they don't call out for specific mechanics, necessarily.

Individual DMs and groups will focus on playing the ones that appeal most to them, without necessarily having that be the ONLY WAY TO PLAY. Within their own groups, within their own games, people will have an idea of what these things mean mechanically, and when they jump into a new game, they'll still have an idea of what it means in the story of the game.

Basically, if you can understand that Harry Potter and Gandalf can both be called "Wizards," and understand that that word doesn't mean the same thing in their respective universes, you shouldn't have a problem understanding that spell slots and spell points can both support "Wizards" at different tables and that this doesn't mean they'll be completely different in archetype.

And then you can also probably imagine the extra-fun thing of jamming Harry Potter and Gandalf together in the world and putting them on time-traveling X-Wings so they can go fight Darth Vader while he's riding a tyrannosaurus and making a volcano explode with the Force.

Or maybe I'm the only one that thinks that's awesome, but still...it's not really that hard to understand that "wizard" can mean slightly different things in different contexts depending on who's running the show, but confident that in D&D it always means "academic studious spellcaster" of some stripe.

 

[GreyICE]

The ex post facto part is confusing me, which I've always taken to mean "change after the fact", at least when used in Icelandic. But I assume you mean that the mechanics will lack consistency--which can create disassociation--rather than worries about DMs jumping mechanics mid-game.

Yeah?

Once again, far too limited.

The mechanics apply to the action after the fact of the decision made by the player character. As such mechanics vary the ex-post-facto nature of them threatens the suspension of disbelief, a mechanic referred to in the lexicon of these forums as "dissociation."

 

[MichaelSomething]

I think my issue with that s that the more flexible you make the system, with more and more options, you end up not with a game - you just end up with an instruction manual on how to make your own game. Which is a different thing. The very phrase "I play D&D" would be in danger of becoming meaningless, as "D&D" would not have an identity.

I do worry that this whole pick and choose option thing might go overkill.

Isn't it meaningless already? We can't even agree on a common definition of D&D...

 

[GnomeWorks]

I'd argue that to maintain the idea of "class," it must retain some mechanical functionality. Description is well and good, but D&D has always been a relatively mechanically-heavy game, and attempting to divorce the crunch from the fluff - to this extreme - doesn't seem tenable.

However, how many editions have had variant casting systems? I know my group experimented with spell point systems in 2e, there were all kinds of variant magic systems in 3e, and I'm not sure about 4e. But the idea has existed - seemingly - all along: if you don't want Vancian casting, you can implement some other system.

Slot-based, point-based, AEDU. If you can find a way to balance those three sets of mechanics against each other, then ensure that - within a given class's "powers" (in the 4e sense) - the mechanics they overlay are balanced, you could reasonably replace any of the frameworks for another.

This would allow the idea of a 1e-style fighter and 4e-style fighter existing at the same table: I'd hazard that expertise dice are essentially a martial equivalent to spell points, and assuming that spell points and AEDU are balanced against each other, there is no problem there mechanically. IIRC, this was one of the earliest stated goals of 5e.

It's obviously significantly more design work to get this done, but I don't think it's impossible. If you assign defaults to each class, then explain in the DMG how the frameworks work and how to assign them to a class (and you made design decisions that make such lifts relatively painless)... I don't see why that wouldn't work.

Does it complicate discussion of the game? Sure, a touch. But not overly so. In essence, "class" becomes a container for a given flavor and given mechanic, with the flavor determining what the mechanic lets you use (wizard flavor means you use spells, regardless of the mechanic you use to access them). The base assumptions of the classes, like HD and what-not, don't need to change to accommodate this.