D&D 5E I little idea on 5e Core, pacing, and "dailies."

[Tony Vargas]

One of the huge disconnects we're dealing with among fans - old, new, edition- insistent/independent, hard-core or casual - is the way the game handles limited resources.

Resource management has been a big part of the game throughout it's history, regardless of which point in that history you consider the pinnacle. If you didn't care for resource management so much, there were simpler - and often much less effective - classes to play, so learning the game was often a matter of starting with such a class, then learning others, and finally getting the 'big picture.' That's a process a lot of players never finished. It meant that the game was difficult/time-consuming to learn, intimidating to new players, and hard to master. And, that kinda limited the pool of players ready to take the plunge and DM, too.

5e is trying to be all things to all gamers, and that really should include /new/ gamers. The face of the game to new gamers will, of course, be the core rules. Where else would you start, afterall? Currently, the core of 5e is not pointed at new players or new DMs, it's firmly targeting long-time fans. Players who have deeply held expectations about classes, magic, and many other little details, and DMs long accustomed to making off the cuff ruling, in-play adjustments and generally winging it. I suppose, for a playtest, that's fine. But for a released core product, it could be a problem. Not an existing-fan-base-dividing problem like 4e was, but maybe a limiting-the-growth-of-the-fanbase one.


In a thread on the WotC boards, a simple solution occurred to me. Take the most complex thing about D&D - all that resource management - and just excise it from core. That accomplishes all kinds of things. It focuses core on actual in-play mechanics and tactics rather than longer-term strategy. It erases the complexity of many classes. It strips the game down to a simple play experience that could be easy to grasp. From there, it could quickly (still in the PH or other entry-level product) introduce all kinds options, but it would be a starting point elegant in it's simplicity, easy to grasp, and a way of introducing new players to mechanics without mystifying them with complexity.

For instance, the basic game could be encounter-based and feature only 'at-will' abilities with minimal limitations on use and straightforward, clear explanations of how they function in game. That'd make it easier for new players - and new DMs.

That would also provide a clean core foundation upon which all the controversial options could be built up:

Hit points, for instance. Core, they'd be how much punishment you can take before you can no longer participate in the encounter. Don't even worry about whether that means you're 'dead' or 'unconscious,' it just means you're done. Next encounter, even if you're playing the same character, you start with full hps - not because you 'healed' in the meantime, but because that's just the starting condition of a character at the beginning of an encounter. From there, you could add a system like healing surges OR a system using ritual and consumable healing OR a system using only rest and time, or whatever.

Limited-use abilities, for another instance. Core, there'd be none. Your character has options, he can choose one to use each round. That's all. 0 resource management. You can add abilities that can only be used once each per encounter as an option. As a further option, you can change the recharge-rate of those abilities, making them 'daily' or 'per story' or whatever fits your campaign's pacing (and the same goes for healing resources like spells or surges or even rest & time), giving you anything up to and including 'Vancian.'



TL;DR: Make core 5e strictly encounter-based, it'll be more accessible to new players, vastly simpler, and easy to add resource management to when desired.

 

[slobo777]

I like it.

It would make a *lot* of the game modular, and not in the "1e fighter plays alongside 4e warlord" kind of way. Although it is realistic that if you want to have a core game which allows bolt-on 4E-style resources and 2E-style Vancian casting, then neither of those should be core items, they should be modules.

 

[delericho]

5e is trying to be all things to all gamers, and that really should include /new/ gamers. The face of the game to new gamers will, of course, be the core rules. Where else would you start, afterall?

The Starter Set?

Take the most complex thing about D&D - all that resource management - and just excise it from core. That accomplishes all kinds of things. It focuses core on actual in-play mechanics and tactics rather than longer-term strategy. It erases the complexity of many classes. It strips the game down to a simple play experience that could be easy to grasp. From there, it could quickly (still in the PH or other entry-level product) introduce all kinds options, but it would be a starting point elegant in it's simplicity, easy to grasp, and a way of introducing new players to mechanics without mystifying them with complexity.

It would also cost you a lot of old-school players, for whom that resource management is an essential part of the game.

Hit points, for instance. Core, they'd be how much punishment you can take before you can no longer participate in the encounter. Don't even worry about whether that means you're 'dead' or 'unconscious,' it just means you're done. Next encounter, even if you're playing the same character, you start with full hps

You've seen the reaction to full overnight healing. What do you think it would be like if WotC moved to free healing with every encounter?

Limited-use abilities, for another instance. Core, there'd be none. Your character has options, he can choose one to use each round.

Again, for many of those OSR types that WotC want to recapture, the Vancian Wizard is an essential part of the game. Now, they may well be wrong about what makes for the best game, but they're certainly not wrong in what they will buy. Switch to your proposed zero resource management model, even if you include the later options in modules, and you automatically doom the attempt to reunite the factions - they just won't even look at it.

TL;DR: Make core 5e strictly encounter-based, it'll be more accessible to new players, vastly simpler, and easy to add resource management to when desired.

I actually agree with you that the game is too complex, and has way too much pointless complexity. But I disagree with your solution.

I also disagree that simplicity, in itself, is actually a desirable goal. A lot of players like, and even require, a certain amount of complexity, and particularly enjoy emergent complexity in the game. (And it's also been shown that games with relatively heavy, comprehensive rules may actually be better for new players and new DMs than a simple set that requires more by way of rulings.)

So I'll agree that the game requires a much easier entry route (preferably one that does require, or look like it requires, 1,000 pages of reading). And I'll definitely agree that they shouldn't make the game more complex than it needs to be. But I'm afraid I can't agree with your solution.

 

[I'm A Banana]

There's a problem with the solution:

If D&D has, as one of its identifying characteristics, non-encounter resource management, and you take that away, you're left with something that is not very D&D-like.

Because D&D is not, in its essence, a game of linked encounters, forcing it to be that is going to force it to be something its not. D&D is a game over overall adventures, and so should be based on that.

Rather than making the game encounter-based, we should simplify that adventure-level resource management.

There's no reason that one must "start simple and get complex" with classes. There should be both simple and complex classes that are both adequately effective, so that playing one or the other is a matter of choice and preference rather than what one "should" play.

There's no reason LTRM must be complicated. 4e showed how codified rest periods could help guide pacing, and I see no reason for 5e to jettison that discovery.

So if we have simple long-term resources, there's no reason to excise them from the core in order to play a "simple" game. And yet it preserves the adventure-level strategy that is a hallmark of D&D. As long as things like daily and weekly rests are codified, they don't need to be complicated. And neither do things like spellcasting -- as long as the recharge rate is set, you can balance it.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

There's a problem with the solution:

If D&D has, as one of its identifying characteristics, non-encounter resource management, and you take that away, you're left with something that is not very D&D-like.

Because D&D is not, in its essence, a game of linked encounters, forcing it to be that is going to force it to be something its not. D&D is a game over overall adventures, and so should be based on that.

Rather than making the game encounter-based, we should simplify that adventure-level resource management.

While I think I get what you're saying, I'd say it differently:
Adventures are linked encounters, on some level. The link mechanically is the daily resource management stuff, hit points, healing surges, daily powers, spells, and all that. The other link is thematically, that there is a story that flows between from these individual scenes.

If you remove such long-term resources, you may or may not simplify the game, but you certainly remove the mechanicaly element that is linking these things, and it has been a part in all editions of D&D. There was no D&D without resources that were only limited within a single encounter. IT always had at least hit points (with a recovery that is limited each day) and daily spells.

So if we have simple long-term resources, there's no reason to excise them from the core in order to play a "simple" game. And yet it preserves the adventure-level strategy that is a hallmark of D&D. As long as things like daily and weekly rests are codified, they don't need to be complicated. And neither do things like spellcasting -- as long as the recharge rate is set, you can balance it.

I'd say that "you've got x hit points and you recover y hit points each day" is a really simple rule.

On the other hand, saying that you can attempt to trip an opponent, which first requires a melee touch attack, and then a strength check opposed with strength or dexterity on which the enemy gets a +4 bonus if he is larger than you and another +4 bonus if he has 4 legs, oh and you provoke an attack of opportunity that occurs immediately before the trip, and if you fail the enemy can counter the trip with another opposed roll , but if you have a weapon that can be used for tripping yo ucan drop that weapon instead of dropping prone yourself is a rule that doesn't involve any resources but damn it's quite complicated to resolve.

And I'd say the first rule can be much easier balanced (find good values for x and y) while the latter can lead to "always trip" or "never trip")

 

[Dragoslav]

I'm going to be mostly playing devil's advocate here, since I think the idea is a fresh, appealing one, but I'm not entirely sold on it.

It would also cost you a lot of old-school players, for whom that resource management is an essential part of the game.

It's essential for them, just like overnight healing might be essential for someone who's only ever played 4e. WotC's design goal the whole time has been "make a simple base upon which people can layer modules to get the D&D experience they want," not "make a simple base that resembles earlier editions, because those are the REAL D&D, and let people layer modules on top of it to get a different experience."

A lot of modules are going to be released along with the core in the PHB, so if, from the start, they offer several alternatives for HP and healing rates, they can do the same for the resource-management rules.

If people refuse to play the game because the rules they want to see aren't core, then those aren't the people WotC is trying to attract.

I also believe that resource management always has been and should continue to be an essential part of the D&D experience, but not everyone agrees on how to define that, so having it on a dial/providing several alternative rulesets for it could be the best way to handle it. <--Replace "resource management" with "HP and healing rates," and you see a nice parallel that lends Tony Vargas's idea some legitimacy.

 

[delericho]

It's essential for them

Indeed. That's what I said.

A lot of modules are going to be released along with the core in the PHB...

We assume.

so if, from the start, they offer several alternatives for HP and healing rates, they can do the same for the resource-management rules.

In theory, yes, but changing the resource management rules is a much more fundamental change. If they can turn that into a dial and have all the settings work (and work with all the settings of all the other dials), then I will be incredibly impressed. Bluntly, I don't think that can be done.

In any event, there's a problem with using "just put it in a module" as an umbrella solution. A group who are reasonably happy with their existing game will have a pretty low tolerance with messing around with "official house rules" in order to get just the game they want - there comes a point where they're better saving their money and just house-ruling what they have.

Additionally, the playtest materials will inevitably come to reflect the core experience that the game offers. I say inevitably because that's the bit that everyone will at least try, so WotC will need to make sure it works just right. The problem is that a lot of groups will also be using the playtest materials as their buying guide - if they don't like what they see, they won't even look at the Core Rules. The playtests have to serve both as tests of the system and as marketing materials for the game.

That's not fair, but it's the reality WotC have to contend with.

If people refuse to play the game because the rules they want to see aren't core, then those aren't the people WotC is trying to attract.

Honestly, I don't think WotC can be all that picky. But then, my estimation of where they stand seems to be much more pessimistic than the norm.

I also believe that resource management always has been and should continue to be an essential part of the D&D experience, but not everyone agrees on how to define that, so having it on a dial/providing several alternative rulesets for it could be the best way to handle it. <--Replace "resource management" with "HP and healing rates," and you see a nice parallel that lends Tony Vargas's idea some legitimacy.

Having it on a dial is fine. Having it turned all the way down by default in the core is probably not. That means no Vancian Wizards, which I suspect a large number of people will look at and reject out of hand.

"You can change it if you want to" will take you so far. But resource management is a fundamental assumption of the game (whichever setting is chosen), and if you have to start changing fundamental assumptions before you start, you don't have far to go before it's not worth the bother.

If I were developing an all-new game, I would strongly consider doing as the OP suggested. But when creating a new version of D&D, I certainly would not. The "no resource management" option is fine, but if it exists, that's the one that I'd be putting in a module.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I'm all for excising the resource management as much as possible.

I don't think that it's just good for beginners though. Many experienced players enjoyed playing 3.5 warlocks because keeping track of spell slots is such a headache, and there are diminishing returns the deeper into it you go.

Moreover, resource management isn't really critical to the core D&D experience anyway. In many games spellcasters, don't regularly run out of spells. In some, fighters never run out of hit points. Many DMs handwave resources as small as ammunition or as large as healing gained from nightly rests. I think stripping all the Vancian, AEDU, and the rest of that stuff out and starting over would have been a great approach, but it doesn't seem like the 5e people are doing that.

 

[slobo777]

I'm all for excising the resource management as much as possible.

I don't think that it's just good for beginners though. Many experienced players enjoyed playing 3.5 warlocks because keeping track of spell slots is such a headache, and there are diminishing returns the deeper into it you go.

Moreover, resource management isn't really critical to the core D&D experience anyway. In many games spellcasters, don't regularly run out of spells. In some, fighters never run out of hit points. Many DMs handwave resources as small as ammunition or as large as healing gained from nightly rests. I think stripping all the Vancian, AEDU, and the rest of that stuff out and starting over would have been a great approach, but it doesn't seem like the 5e people are doing that.

Cannot agree more with the highlighted text (my emphasis). The "resource game" is very loosely codified into the game, all versions. It's often a bone of contention between DM and players, plus something that over-works DMs after certain styles of story/pacing that are not supported by it.

Critical analysis of the resource game as a game (or as a sim that has a good chance of leading to a fun game, if you prefer that angle), and then some suggestions about how to apply it nicely in your group's preferred style would be very handy. That kind of thinking is advanced, and not something for beginner players/DMs IMO. Although that doesn't stop there being some kind of basic resource in core (daily Vancian spells I'd guess are here to stay, I don't think the OP's suggestion has any chance to become canon for 5E . . .) - it just needs to be keyed off something that can be changed in various modules.

The wording of "x times per day" for class features like Fighters Surge in the playtest packet does make me think the playtest resource management has placeholders for "insert a better design here later". Or maybe that's just me being hopeful.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I think I've been consistent in saying that excising all of something mechanical is bad modular design. The point of modular design is to swap things in and out, but if you don't build a connection point into the design, and then use it early, the modules won't swap properly. Moreover, there is this tendency in both D&D designers and the fans to go a "bridge too far" with ideas, instead of dealing with messy details.

In the case of resource management, I'd say that I agree with those that have said that many people will expect this, and not just old hands. This is part of the appeal of D&D in the first place. So there should be some resource management, but to make that as accessible as possible to beginners, it should be limited. For example, don't have 30 first level spells. Have 12 or less, preferably separated into some obvious categories such that for an offensive spell, a wizard is picking from 3 or 4 options. For a fighter, come up with something that needs to be managed--even if only ammo for a bow or a whetstone for a sword, and only have 3 or 4 such decisions to make. Those kind of options don't overwhelm beginners--who can always standardize on one weapon or a limited set of spells and go to town.

It's actually a more difficult option to excise all such resource management from a system that otherwise can support it. So taking the dial down to zero should be an option on resource management, but it is a rather advanced one. (At least it is for the DM. For the players, if the DM is handling the details, it might not be.) That's another module, right alongside the ones that add a ton of daily spells, encounter magic, complex maneuvers, etc.