D&D 5E L&L 6/23 A Living Rule Set

[Transformer]

You realise this is your issue, right? He specifically says that they want people to be able to keep using older versions of the rules if they have no problem with them. Which has always been the way of things, by the way (there are active players of every single edition of D&D, after all), but they're now making that possibility more explicit and easier to manage, which should assist those who have trouble saying "no".

As you say yourself, it's always been the case that a group can keep using the older version of a rule. So how is this a substantially new approach? Significant rules elements are still getting overhauled. As Mearls says, things that get overhauled are things that are seriously problematic for both DMs and players. We're talking about major game fixes here, game fixes that most groups will use and that will be integrated into organized play. Mearls seems to genuinely believe that this is fundamentally different from the 3.0 > 3.5 transition, but I don't see how it is. It's more gradual, but that's a minor difference. Either way, in five years, the PHB is going to be significantly different from the PHB sitting on my shelf.

You say that this is "my issue," but I seriously doubt I'm the only one. In 4-5 years, when the PHB contains several major rules changes and overhauled classes, and looks every bit as different from the launch PHB as the 3.5 PHB looked from the 3.0 PHB, I doubt I'm the only one who will feel like a sucker for buying physical books at launch.

That was one of the points of the public playtest, but we live in a place called "reality" where there is always a possibility that the best laid plans won't quite go the way they were intended. It would be lovely if we could use magic to cause future potential errata to conform to precise word counts and dimensions that make us feel more comfortable, but unfortunately we only get to cast spells in the imaginary world of the game.

It continuously astonishes me how some people can take the strongest assurances from the developers that they're looking out for our best interests in every way that they possibly can, and twist them into whatever is the most horrible outcome that that person can possibly imagine. I'd almost applaud your imaginative might if it wasn't so exhaustingly depressing.

As I specifically said in my post, I expect problems and issues. I'm fine with the type of minor errata discussed in the first half of Mearls' article. My hope was not a lack of problems and issues, but a lack of problems and issues major enough to warrant completely re-writing classes or whole sections of the rules. You seem to think that is an unreasonable thing to hope for. I don't. I don't think it's unreasonable to hope that my $150 book set which was publicly playtested for a year will manage to avoid having a substantial number of design problems so fundamental that they justify major re-writes.

And as for the designers' intentions, well, those were never in dispute. I have no doubt at all that Mearls is trying to act in the best interest of the game and its players. But unfortunately, Mearls' good intentions aren't what directly affect the game. His concrete decisions are what directly affect the game. And the fundamental decision here is "look out, there's going to be a ton of errata for this edition."


And that's really it. What this L&L says, at its heart, is "there's gonna be a ton of errata, including major rules overhauls." There are lots of (entirely sincere) good intentions thrown in, and there's some clarity on how it's all gonna happen (minor updates are rolled out on an annual basis, major updates are released for free for public playtesting). But the most important thing that was clarified here is that in the debate between "as little errata as possible" and "lots of errata," they're going with "lots of errata." That is not my preference. Not at all. And it's the first thing I've read that makes me reconsider buying the core books at launch.


EDIT: Two more things.

First, I hope the designers avoid extremely minor errata, by which I mean corrections to typos and wording errors and the like. If the meaning of the rule is clear, then please don't bother putting a correction in the errata document. Such corrections only clutter up the errata document and make it dozens of intimidating pages long, like with 4e's errata. Actual substantive rules changes and clarifications only, please.

Second, I like the dwarf.

 

[The Hitcher]

And that's really it. What this L&L says, at its heart, is "there's gonna be a ton of errata, including major rules overhauls." There are lots of (entirely sincere) good intentions thrown in, and there's some clarity on how it's all gonna happen (minor updates are rolled out on an annual basis, major updates are released for free for public playtesting). But the most important thing that was clarified here is that in the debate between "as little errata as possible" and "lots of errata," they're going with "lots of errata." That is not my preference. Not at all. And it's the first thing I've read that makes me reconsider buying the core books at launch.

Well that's where we disagree, because I think he's saying that they're very strongly aiming to fall at the "very little errata" end of the scale. They're just putting a solid plan in place for the inevitable reality that some flaws will be found.

 

[Ruzak]

The dwarf looks cartoony to me, and is one of the first 5e pieces I don't like. What happened to our imagination inspiring scenes? I hope they read this post in time to have someone draw a new one.

 

[Mercurius]

[Old man voice] Yes, and get off my lawn! [Old man voice] The question is, why do they refuse to do it right when there are plenty of reference works to look at. In fact, this guy obviously knows what he's doing, so why do it wrong deliberately? As someone said, fantasy (and science fiction) need to seem more realistic than normal forms of fiction for people to believe in them. In my (not so humble) opinion, they're just shooting themselves in the foot by having impossible to believe in artwork. On the other hand, I suppose that if only a handful of us actually care about such things, which, unfortunately, seems to be the case, then it isn't hurting them at all. Darn it!

Yeah, I get some sense of realism - but the size of that hammer--while overdone--isn't so far beyond comprehension, like one of those anime swords, that it is irritating to the average non-Medievalist.

Again, D&D isn't meant to be Medieval simulation (which is why A Song of Ice and Fire thread is misguided, imo). It is Fantasyland and things--including weapons--can be larger than life. But everyone's credulity can be stretched to different degrees; you seem to have a relatively narrow range of credulity, while the opposite extreme would be your average anime fan for whom a seven-foot long, one-foot wide sword wielded one handed is a feature and not a flaw. To be honest, I'm far closer to your end of the spectrum but I still don't a tinge of the gonzo. It is D&D, for crissakes, not Harnmaster!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I understand many will be skeptical. I choose to be hopeful. Your mileage may vary, of course.

Thaumaturge.

One can be hopeful and skeptical at the same time. There's no contradiction. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst, eh?

Personally, I found this approach potentially awesome but also potentially awful. The L&L is so vague that we have literally no idea where he's drawing the lines, not even "have to buy a new book" really covers that, because, what exactly, counts there? Replacing a paragraph or significantly changing a single spell? Replacing a page? Five pages? etc...

Vague is the big issue here. That's good in that it gives them room to maneuver, but the devil could not be more in the details. Right now what they've written could result in anything from "close to 4E levels of errata, albeit more survey-driven" to "very few non-typo errata, even for things that some people consider game-breaking", and everything in-between.

 

[Dausuul]

Yeah, that's what I assumed they were supposed to be. But there? That's just plain and simple stupid. When are these people going to learn how armor actually works? And weapons. It isn't as though they haven't been told often enough. And no, I do not accept 'artistic license' as an excuse. Either learn how to do it right, or don't do it at all! (But to give the artist his due, I didn't even think about the Dwarf not wearing a helmet.)

Helmets are always an issue. Realistically, anybody wearing armor should be wearing a helmet, because the head is the most important thing to protect in combat. It's the one target where a solid hit can put you down instantly. Even if you get stabbed in the heart, you have time to take your enemy to hell with you, but if somebody bashes your head in with a mace, too bad. Glancing blows may not kill you, but they'll disorient you, which often proves fatal. You'll never find a style of armor that doesn't include a helmet of some sort.

However, a helmet obscures the face, and that's a real problem if you're trying to portray a character in an illustration or a movie. People like to see other people's faces. So when I see art of an armored character in combat without a helmet, I give the artist a pass. You get bonus points for working in something that explains why there's no helmet (e.g., the shattered remnants of the helmet on the ground), but even without, I accept that it's a necessary compromise.

I'm less forgiving of stuff like cleavage-baring breastplates and six-foot-wide pauldrons. That's just silly.

 

[Zaukrie]

It is like some people believe perfection and six sigma quality is real. .... there will be things people want fixed, that is true in every business.

 

[Agamon]

Again, D&D isn't meant to be Medieval simulation (which is why A Song of Ice and Fire thread is misguided, imo). It is Fantasyland and things--including weapons--can be larger than life. But everyone's credulity can be stretched to different degrees; you seem to have a relatively narrow range of credulity, while the opposite extreme would be your average anime fan for whom a seven-foot long, one-foot wide sword wielded one handed is a feature and not a flaw. To be honest, I'm far closer to your end of the spectrum but I still don't a tinge of the gonzo. It is D&D, for crissakes, not Harnmaster!

Yup. If all the art looked exactly the same because realism, more people would be complaining about that, I'm sure.

 

[SkidAce]

On the other hand, even if a few major overhauls get integrated into the PHB, I can see the benefit of that approach over simply moving on to a completely new edition in 5 years. I would prefer that 5th edition last for 20 years without any "major overhaul"-type changes, but that might be unrealistic. It seems like the choice is really between (a) I have to buy the sixth edition core rulebooks in 5 years because we've moved on to a new edition yet again, and (b) I have to buy new fifth edition core rulebooks in 5 years because a number of "major overhaul" changes have been integrated into them.

Given that choice, I can see the benefit of the latter. I have to re-buy a bunch of expensive books either way, but at least in the latter scenario I'm getting an extremely polished version of a rules-set, whereas in the former scenario I'm just moving on to another new rules-set full of problems.

Or they fix a class by re-developing it and publishing it in a separate book of options.

Then you could buy or not buy based on your impression of whether it fixed anything or not.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

Yeah, I get some sense of realism - but the size of that hammer--while overdone--isn't so far beyond comprehension, like one of those anime swords, that it is irritating to the average non-Medievalist.

Again, D&D isn't meant to be Medieval simulation (which is why A Song of Ice and Fire thread is misguided, imo). It is Fantasyland and things--including weapons--can be larger than life. But everyone's credulity can be stretched to different degrees; you seem to have a relatively narrow range of credulity, while the opposite extreme would be your average anime fan for whom a seven-foot long, one-foot wide sword wielded one handed is a feature and not a flaw. To be honest, I'm far closer to your end of the spectrum but I still don't a tinge of the gonzo. It is D&D, for crissakes, not Harnmaster!

Oh, I agree with what you're saying. As much as I dislike the size of the hammer, I find it acceptable (but not those super huge anime swords). And Dausuul gave an excellent explanation for why the lack of of a helmet didn't bother me. But those things protruding from the armor? They bugged the snot out of me. The reason armor looks the way it does in the real world is because that's what works best. And no amount of chanting "But its Fantasy!" is ever going to change that fact.