D&D 5E L&L The Next Phase

[Kinak]

I think people are getting thrown off by the C&T reference. I'm pretty sure it's calling out the modularity of C&T (which was also an addon book to the core game, and was made up of optional rules that could be integrated but didn't have to be), not the specific 2e based rules.

That's very possible. His comment could mean basically anything, but "a plugin to make 5e like 4e" is higher on the list than a lot of things.

I'm just already quite skeptical about the tactical module, so reference to a terrible (in my opinion) old tactical module inspires further skepticism. I should probably clarify that I'm not skeptical about their ability as designers as a whole. The story system could easily be great and the downtime system isn't easy to get right, but can be done, for example.

It's more that I can't see a way forward to a good tactical game from what they have in front of us. Maybe they'll shock me. I hope so, because otherwise this edition transition is going to be a mess.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[TerraDave]

And the subclass approach to magic totally opens the doors to Players Option: Spells and Magic...

We had great fun with the Player Option books back in the day. They also did some serious damage to the campaign...

But imagine if you had something like, but better designed, and based on years of experience...


...

 

[thecasualoblivion]

And the subclass approach to magic totally opens the doors to Players Option: Spells and Magic...

We had great fun with the Player Option books back in the day. They also did some serious damage to the campaign...

But imagine if you had something like, but better designed, and based on years of experience...


...

They even admit that they expect using the system to throw balance out the window, just like 2E skills and powers.

For those of us who want a 3E/4E level of character customization, how is 5E supposed to cater to us?

 

[DEFCON 1]

For those of us who want a 3E/4E level of character customization, how is 5E supposed to cater to us?

It's not.

This game has never been been claimed to give as much as every single previous edition of the game for every facet of the game. And if you really expected it to, then you just weren't paying attention.

We were always going to get a game that attempted to give us the style of 3E and 4E and 2E and 1E etc. etc. etc. But we weren't getting EVERYTHING from each of those editions, because parts of each of these editions run exactly counter to parts of other editions.

So no... we weren't going to see a game that would have the character building as simple as 1E while at the same time have character building as complicated as 3E. Wasn't going to happen. Not possible. Instead, the game will end up being slightly more complicated than 1E and not as complicated as 3E. What'll probably do is allow you to set it to several points between the two poles (based upon your preference) but will not ever meet either extreme end like the actual editions they are emulating.

If you want a game with character building that matches 3E or 4E... you'll need to continue playing 3E or 4E.

 

[Iosue]

Given the way some of Mike Mearls' previous work has come out mathematically, I'm not disappointed that he's distancing himself from the math. I do wonder who might be doing it. Getting the Magic guys on it wouldn't be a bad idea, I think, though whether they'd have time is another question. All they need now is an idea of what they actually want the range and frequency of results to be in common situations.

Mearls is not and was never going to get anywhere near the math. For some reason people like to think he's down there doing gritty design and development work, but the fact is he's a manager. The design team is using the Scrum development process, and Mearls is the Product Owner. He comes up with ideas and sets direction, but the actual development is done by Thompson and Schwalb and their team members.

 

[1of3]

For those of us who want a 3E/4E level of character customization, how is 5E supposed to cater to us?

Obviously not. (And I admire the problems I do not have.)

 

[Li Shenron]

We were always going to get a game that attempted to give us the style of 3E and 4E and 2E and 1E etc. etc. etc. But we weren't getting EVERYTHING from each of those editions, because parts of each of these editions run exactly counter to parts of other editions.

Yeah, I would say that 5e will allow players to customize their PC using a variety of character creation rules: we have races, classes, multiclassing, subclasses, backgrounds, feats, spells, equipment and some specific class has choosable features (e.g. Fighting Style). In the same way that 3e allowed customization through races, classes, multiclassing, prestige classes, feats, skills, spells, equipment and some class-specific choosable features (e.g. Favored Enemies).

Written like that, the 2 editions sound very similar, and in the bigger scheme they probably are, in the sense that there are a lot choices. But the differences are in the granularity of feats and skills, which was much smaller in 3e.

But we have also been told that later on, there will options for the "Advanced" game to mix'n'match subclasses and backgrounds, plus maybe a module for points-based skills, so if fine-granular customization is part of your playing style, I wouldn't despair.

 

[Mistwell]

They even admit that they expect using the system to throw balance out the window, just like 2E skills and powers.

For those of us who want a 3E/4E level of character customization, how is 5E supposed to cater to us?

In light of full disclosure to people discussing 5e with you, they probably want to read this paragraph of yours, from elsewhere:

Ok, maybe I will explain:

I like arguing with people. I don't really care about winning the argument, and I don't really care which argument. I've argued with people over what Transformers line is superior, which American Idol contestant sucks, whether or not overfocusing on tournament play was ruining M:tG for those who played casually, I argued with people over whether the Fighter sucked and spellcasting was too powerful in 3E ect. Posting on message boards without an argument is boring. I say I don't have an agenda, because I'm not here to promote one, I'm just here to join in the argument. I don't have a goal beyond that. If I were to win the argument and the argument would end, my reason for existence would end as well.

In the RPG world right now, 4E is the center of the storm. I'm here for the storm, not for 4E.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

In light of full disclosure to people discussing 5e with you, they probably want to read this paragraph of yours, from elsewhere:

Is it the official policy of theRPGsite to stalk me wherever I go and post that tired old thing?

 

[Patrick Lewis]

I'm pretty happy with Mearls, I'm very happy with Leeds and quite hopeful for Next. WOTC want to increase the market of RPGs, and frankly D&D is really the only brand that non gamers know in relation to the hobby. D&D next and the continued expansion of the digital/boardgame bits of D&D can only help the hobby as a whole.

Leeds has suggested that future Adventure modules will be usable with all the rule sets of the various editions as Murder in Baldurs Gate is. I like that. I'm keen to see their Dramatic rules expansion and the Domains stuff.