Just what KINDS of modular things?

[Number48]

People seem to be just running with the idea of how 5E is going to be modular, and some of these predictions seem over-the-moon.

What do we, as a community, see as things ripe for modularity? I am going to assume that the goal is to achieve characters that can move between different D&D tables, characters that will all be on the same level, more or less, at a convention. Actually, I can see different people at the same table using different optional rules.

1. Races. I don't see much here likely. I would personally like a system where everyone picks a race by fluff and then choose from a list of benefits open to everyone. Makes adding new races effortless. The basic version could be pick a race and get the default options.
2. Classes. What could be modular here and still give us characters that are playable anywhere? Perhaps a basic idea is choosing 1 path for class abilities and that's the only choice to make versus an advanced idea of choosing from multiple interacting choices each level.
3. Feats. Will 5E have feats, or something like them? Probably. Enough people like the option. How can we make a mechanic to turn them off if people don't want them and still have the portable character? Maybe a default set of bonuses or abilities per class, in other words default feat bonuses already chosen.
4. Skills. Again, I have to assume 5E has skills or something like them. Perhaps the most basic option can be to simply have all skills receive some flat bonus per class and/or level so that they all have a set plus to your roll on different by ability score. It would have to track somewhat closely to the more advanced option of skill points and specializations to maintain parity is finished character capability.
5. Combat. Here is where it is wide open. I can't even begin to guess at the number of things that can be turned up/down. As long as the characters are equivalent, then changes in combat settings affect them all equally. AoO, movement rules, line of sight, facing. Anything is up for grabs here.

What else. Equipment? Encumbrance, I suppose. Magic might be hard to do, and we know so little about how it will be present anyways. Magic items. Hmm...what else.

 

[WheresMyD20]

1. Races - New races can be added in new rules modules.

2. Classes - New classes can be added in new rules modules.

3. Feats - They aren't really "turned off", they're just pre-picked for you if you don't want to deal with character building. If you look at 1e, most classes have special abilities. Functionally, these are pretty similar to feats, except that they're pre-defined.

4. Skills - You can "turn off" skills by using ability checks.

5. Combat - Consider 2e. The default combat system was pretty simple. There was a supplement called Combat & Tactics that allowed for more detailed combat if players wanted it. I expect 5e to go down a similar route.

 

[Jack7]

These aren't the kinds of things I think of as being modular. Though I think that some of these things could provide either variation modular components, or could presented in such a way as to allow wide variation is actual execution and expression.

I'd like to see some very, very simple basic books, that are the "Core of the Game." With simple rules and mechanics, including for things like Races, Classes, etc.

Then modular component add-ons for things like these (though not limited to these things, nor do they have to follow any order or arrangement like I suggest):

Wargaming Module - for wargaming and large scale combats
Lone Gaming Module - for single person or very small team adventuring
Rule Book (for thsoe who like complex rule systems - I do not but others do - or for those who like Game Designers to write all of their rules for them - I do not but others do)
Social/Kingmaking Module - for developing political and social and cultural systems and how to advance in them and profit from them.
Treasure Module - including all kinds of mundane and magical and miraculous treasure
Magic and Miracles Module - that would address both magic and miracles
Myth Module
Adventuring Module
Role Playing Module
Combat Module
etc...

All of these modules would not be like previous book releases that consisted primarily of items, and listings, and rules, (though they could include sections on those things) but would be actual modules of systems and ideas and concepts and designs (suggestions for the way things might actually work) that the DMs and players can use to construct their own version of the game.

If you wanted to play a cross-over game with strangers, or a simple one-shot, you'd use the simple Core Game that everyone would know.

If you wanted to create your own milieu, your own world, and/or your own particular variant of D&D you'd plug in whatever modules you and your players would like using whatever systems you chose within those modules.

 

[Number48]

5. Combat - Consider 2e. The default combat system was pretty simple. There was a supplement called Combat & Tactics that allowed for more detailed combat if players wanted it. I expect 5e to go down a similar route.

I just had shudders being reminded of that book. It wasn't their fault, they were building off of 2E. But please, for the love of Thor, do NOT bring back facing! Not even as an option!

 

[Tallifer]

People seem to be just running with the idea of how 5E is going to be modular, and some of these predictions seem over-the-moon.

What do we, as a community, see as things ripe for modularity? I am going to assume that the goal is to achieve characters that can move between different D&D tables, characters that will all be on the same level, more or less, at a convention. Actually, I can see different people at the same table using different optional rules.

I see a Starter Box with stripped down stuff about four races, four classes, no feats, skills and simple combat. Essentials classes.

Then I see a Players' Handbook with about three times as much stuff and as many options.

1. Races: most of the common popular ones.
2. Classes: with powers, with Vancian spell lists, with maneouvres, with power points, with full-discipline, with new stuff.
3. Feats. Better organized hopefully and with less bloat of almost useless feats. Perhaps in two groups which come from different pools of feat choices: main crunchy feats and fluffy or situational feats.
4. Skills. both a simple list and a huge list.
5. Combat. opportunity attacks, tripping and disarming, armour types, various additions for weapons and armour like brutal, versatile, piercing.

Then I hope for other books with even more optional modules:
6. Themes
7. Forgotten Realms style backgrounds, professions
8. Bloodlines
9. Paragon paths, prestige classes, epic destinies
10. Sub-classes, hybrids and multi-classes.
11. Fate points, disadvantages, virtues and vices, social codes, geases, astrology.
12. Monstrous races, templates
13. Crafting
14. Henchmen, hirelings, followers, companions
15. Warfare

 

[Number48]

I can see where you're going there, but that means having to refer to 3 books to create my character at launch. How many books do I need to reference 3 years into the game?

 

[Li Shenron]

I read the suggestion and realize that D&D is already modular. (I'm referring to 3ed here since I played 4e too little).

If 5e wants to be more modular then they have to do two things:

1) Extend the idea that a rule is optional to as many rules as possible, and write it clearly in the books. If they don't write "optional" clearly, by default it's in the game, and both gamers and designers will assume so. The second is more dire, because designers will write every adventure assuming everyone is using those rules!

E.g. magic item creation feats could be optional, nothing in how the exploration/action parts of the game are played changes. But there are changes in the (magic) equipment available to the PC compared to their level (about twice as valuable). The only thing the book should do is anticipate the consequences of using this "module", in this case the fact that the PC will be stronger due to cheaper and custom-tailored equipment. If possible to measure this difference in terms of ECL, then great because the DM can modify the adventures accordingly.

E.g. followers, apprentices, hirelings, mercenaries, companions... If they stick a "optional module" label on this section, then the gaming group can choose: they can play completely without them, they can deal with them only with rule-free RP, or they can use the provided rules module. In 3.0 because they had Leadership feat, a lot of people just assumed that they had to use it to represent followers and cohorts, and they had no other choice without going off the boat and using house rules.

2) Provide multiple tiers (or whatever... "levels", "order"?) of complexity. Simple combat rules which can be extended to 3e-style or 4e-style complexity, which can be extended even further. Maybe instead of tiers they could have a number of smaller add-ons that can be used or not, but I think it will be harder and harder to design if it's too customizable. I'd be happy with 3 levels of complexity for combat and 3 levels for exploration (i.e. skills).

----

Also, let's keep in mind that complexity is not just one type. There are at least 3 types of complexity, and the best would be if each gaming group can choose these separately!

First, there is character (PC) creation and advancement complexity. Some people get a headache with the details and just want to play the game ASAP, while others like to fine-tune their PC.

Second, there is adventure/setting design complexity for the DM. You don't always have the time to design every NPC, monster, trap or encounter to the smallest mechanical details. Sometimes you have to come up with something quickly, and the rules shouldn't drag you down in this case, thus use a low-complexity design ruleset.

Third, there is the in-game complexity, mostly combat but possibly also other things. This is where you choose if you want a highly tactical grid-based combat that takes 2 hours to run, or a quick & simplified combat for a group that prefers the story and RP over the tactical action. Heck, maybe even the SAME group wants to use both, one for the important fight against the BBEG and the other for the less significant encounters

(EDIT) I can't help but notice that when making suggestions for modularity or complexity degrees, we are all starting from character design. But the 5e design team should better start from combat, which is more or less the centre of playing the game. Character design depends on combat rules (e.g. BAB, ST, HP) so the different compexity levels of combat rules and their content should be decided first.

 

[Number48]

2) Provide multiple tiers (or whatever... "levels", "order"?) of complexity. Simple combat rules which can be extended to 3e-style or 4e-style complexity, which can be extended even further. Maybe instead of tiers they could have a number of smaller add-ons that can be used or not, but I think it will be harder and harder to design if it's too customizable. I'd be happy with 3 levels of complexity for combat and 3 levels for exploration (i.e. skills).

I think I understand what you mean. After all, in 3E and 4E pretty much all rules had an assumed on/off switch which may or may not have more wide-ranging effects. But in 5E we're expecting more of a "dial" for a rule. For instance, AoO setting 0 is there are no AoO. Setting 1 could be that you simply are not allowed to cast or use ranged while standing next to an enemy, and must stop moving approaching next to an enemy. Setting 2 would be 3E or 4E style of AoO.

Is that what you were meaning?

 

[Li Shenron]

I think I understand what you mean. After all, in 3E and 4E pretty much all rules had an assumed on/off switch which may or may not have more wide-ranging effects. But in 5E we're expecting more of a "dial" for a rule. For instance, AoO setting 0 is there are no AoO. Setting 1 could be that you simply are not allowed to cast or use ranged while standing next to an enemy, and must stop moving approaching next to an enemy. Setting 2 would be 3E or 4E style of AoO.

Is that what you were meaning?

Yes. But also I meant to say that if this is done for each individual rule (e.g. AoO) then I guess it will be a nightmare to keep everything balanced. For instance, no AoO means that spellcasters in combat will have a much easier time, however their troubles in melee have certainly be a balancing factor used in class design.

So maybe it's safer just to have the entire set of combat rules shift between 3 degrees of complexity. First degree could be only standard and move actions, no AoOs or other interrupts, tactical movement by descriptions ("if you run away, the other party gets a free attack"), no multiple attacks... Second degree could be more or less like 3ed/4ed. Third degree could add weapon and spellcasting speed and facing [these are just examples, ok? ]

If they go by tiers of complexity, it will be easier to balance the game, but the downside is that someone will always be displeased (maybe someone likes weapon speed but not facing and another one viceversa). If they go by individual rules, everyone can have his favourite game, but many games will have practical issues with some classes being (dis)advantaged too much.

 

[Sylrae]

I'd actually like to have facing as an option.

And hit points that are obviously what they represent. Damage.
If you want to track fatigue, have it be a separate thing that hinders your ability to dodge or something.

As Evil Lincoln pointed out on the Paizo boards, when they describe HP they describe it as abstract, but many game mechanics treat it as explicit damage, most notably healing.

Additionally, separate dodging and blocking (Are you blocking? Are you Parrying? Are you Dodging? Pick one.)

But maybe I'm weird for wanting these things to be clear.