Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 5790226" data-attributes="member: 1465">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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />(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.</blockquote>

Verification