D&D 5E Explain your Modular Class Ideas

[ren1999]

What are you trying to say?

So I choose a Wizard class and then I can decide to use
An Expertise Dice System
or
An At-Will, Encounter, Daily, Utility spell system?
or
A Spells Per Day Slot System?
or
A Use Any Spell Any Time System?

How would we balance all that out?

 

[DEFCON 1]

Each round, a typical character should on average do around X damage per level to a single creature (with a certain high and low amount of damage possible as well.)

So long as each mechanical system gives you that... you stay relatively balanced.

 

[Kobold Stew]

There's a point where being modular stops being D&D and starts being GURPS.

If everything can be swapped around, there remains nothing distinctive about classes. It stops being a question of game mastery and creative development, and becomes an opportunity to maximize benefits along a small set of possibilities. Things won't be balanced, and there will be optimizable edge-cases, that will be reinforced through supplements and post-core developments. That's inevitable.

Right now, the designers seem to claim modularity as a catch-all do-it-yourself free-for-all: it saves them committing themselves and risking alienating a small group of potential buyers in exchange for pablum.

They should take a stand for what they believe will make the game solid. If they want Vancian magic, then choose that and don't provide a module that allows you to swap in at-will spells. With a module, there will be a clear choice to be made - whatever is optimum. The same choices will regularly be made. Previous editions have shown this to be the case when only some choice was available -- increasing choice only increases the speed at which edge-cases will be pursued.

I want less modularity, and something actually fixed about the world I want to play in -- some parameters and limits to foster creativity and innovation, and not a cop out.

 

[Kobold Boots]

There's a point where being modular stops being D&D and starts being GURPS.

If everything can be swapped around, there remains nothing distinctive about classes. It stops being a question of game mastery and creative development, and becomes an opportunity to maximize benefits along a small set of possibilities. Things won't be balanced, and there will be optimizable edge-cases, that will be reinforced through supplements and post-core developments. That's inevitable.

Right now, the designers seem to claim modularity as a catch-all do-it-yourself free-for-all: it saves them committing themselves and risking alienating a small group of potential buyers in exchange for pablum.

They should take a stand for what they believe will make the game solid. If they want Vancian magic, then choose that and don't provide a module that allows you to swap in at-will spells. With a module, there will be a clear choice to be made - whatever is optimum. The same choices will regularly be made. Previous editions have shown this to be the case when only some choice was available -- increasing choice only increases the speed at which edge-cases will be pursued.

I want less modularity, and something actually fixed about the world I want to play in -- some parameters and limits to foster creativity and innovation, and not a cop out.

Then you need to be patient and wait til they're through basic smoke testing. Hard and fast answers at this stage would set off my bs meter and disappoint people more than help.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

There are three general purposes for modules:

1. matching mechanics to setting.
2. matching mechanics to play-style.
3. tailored complexity.

These three purposes overlap a lot, which is why discussions about modules get muddied. In my mind, numbers 1 and 3 are the most important, yet most of the debate is about number 2.



Class archetypes (such as wizard traditions) are a fine example of number 3. By augmenting or replacing default class features, they trade simplicity for diversity. The class should work perfectly well without achetypes by presenting a quintessential and simple form of that class by default. For groups willing to accept the complexity inherent in choice, characters can be tailored to a much greater degree.


Alternative spellcasting mechanics should be focused on number 1. Vancian casting is the traditional default. Alternatives speak to magic that works in different ways. Spell points represent casting from an internal pool of energy. Evocations represent small magics that always work. There's room for mechanics that represent channeling external energies through yourself at great personal risk (similar to Shadowrun), or by consuming the energy inside an outside fuel (like allomancy from Mistborn).


I think by focusing modules on numbers 1 and 3, number 2 will take care of itself.

 

[Tony Vargas]

What are you trying to say?

So I choose a Wizard class and then I can decide to use
An Expertise Dice System
or
An At-Will, Encounter, Daily, Utility spell system?
or
A Spells Per Day Slot System?
or
A Use Any Spell Any Time System?

How would we balance all that out?

Probably with a single spell list, and a very wide range of variation in just how powerful spells are.

The ED or UASAT mage would pick spells from the low end of the spectrum, the ED mage would have a few more, but would have to distribute dice among them.

The Vancian mage would pick from the higher end of the spectrum.

The AEDU mage would get a small selection from each tier of spells.


Not saying you could make it balance very well, but that'd be a vague idea how to do it.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I want less modularity, and something actually fixed about the world I want to play in -- some parameters and limits to foster creativity and innovation, and not a cop out.

Just so long as that fixed world uses the D&D rules you want to play with. Because if that fixed world is BECMI style, or 3E style, or 4E style (whichever game style you don't actually like)... then you're probably not going to play the game.

And thus WotC doing what you just asked them to do has been all for naught.

 

[GnomeWorks]

There's a point where being modular stops being D&D and starts being GURPS.

Except that the idea of differing complexity and styles, even among players at the same table, has been a stated goal of 5e.

It seems like having AEDU alongside Vancian alongside whatever else is an end goal. I don't think this turns D&D into GURPS - I think it says, "here's everything D&D has done, pick the one you want, and we'll do what we can to make sure they're all balanced and reasonable options."

 

[ren1999]

What about Recharge for classes?

The monk can use a Ki power again on a 4 rolling a d4?
Recharge using different die? Not just a d6?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Each round, a typical character should on average do around X damage per level to a single creature (with a certain high and low amount of damage possible as well.)

So long as each mechanical system gives you that... you stay relatively balanced.

I think the balance metric is going to be closer to:

"A typical character can output X amount of 'successes' between extended rests."

With each 'success' defined as a dead monster or a successful skill check. But that can also be explained as X damage per level per round, just with bigger swings.

At any rate, I hope they rope non-combat things into that balance metric, too. I wanna see fast-talking be as viable as fast-stabbing.