D&D 5E Legends and Lore 6/23: System vs. Content in D&D Next

[babomb]

If I say that there's no guarantee that everything will be ready at launch, I'm saying that at some point this "everything" will be ready.

I don't think that says that at all. I think it implies they intend that some will be ready at launch, and they intend that a good portion of the rest (but not necessarily all) will be ready at some point after launch, but it by no means excludes the possibility that some will never be ready.

In fact, at the very end of the article he directly says they probably won't be:

It's a big list, and probably more than we can fit into what we hope to provide. At the end of the day, the advanced rules are likely to be more of an ethos or an attitude that casts the DM as a game designer who can alter the mechanics or add to them to suit the specific needs of a campaign.

I think he makes very clear that the list is aspirational and not promissory.

 

[billd91]

If I say that there's no guarantee that everything will be ready at launch, I'm saying that at some point this "everything" will be ready. If I give a big list of modules that I want to work with, at some point I'm going to have to deliver them. If not all that, at least some of that.
If I don't, then I did not fulfill my promises.
So yes, they did make a lot of promises. Which ones they are going to fulfill, or even if they are going to fulfill any of those, is what we don't know yet. I believe they are going to do some of those things, but less than the fans expect. And those fans will only realize that after they bought the core books (PH, DM, MM).

Mearls doesn't make any promises in the article you linked. Don't forget the conclusion:

"It's a big list, and probably more than we can fit into what we hope to provide. At the end of the day, the advanced rules are likely to be more of an ethos or an attitude that casts the DM as a game designer who can alter the mechanics or add to them to suit the specific needs of a campaign."

If anything, this screams that these are goals and ambitions, not promises.

EDIT: Dang. Ninjas!

 

[kimble]

So why give a list of possible modules? Or write that article at all, if all that he means is "we are probably going to do some optional rules. Maybe. Maybe not."
I mean, sure, I don't think that they'll finish all that. I already said that I don't think that they will fulfill all those promises.
But to say that he wrote a whole list of modules, show that in an article about what we can expect from the advanced rules and that this isn't the same as promising that at least some of those will be done? Please.

Edit:

I don't think that says that at all. I think it implies they intend that some will be ready at launch, and they intend that a good portion of the rest (but not necessarily all) will be ready at some point after launch, but it by no means excludes the possibility that some will never be ready.

Yeah, like I said. I don't think that all that will be done, but at least some will be. Or at least should.

 

[pemerton]

I'm sure you can; that's what D&D's all about. But I'm hoping that the game ships with a sensible discussion about short rest length, the reasons for it, and the gameplay differences between the options.

<snip>

I don't think the clock duration of a short rest is really relevant. What's important is that it is long enough to do certain things and not long enough to do others.

In 4e, part of the flexibility of the extended rest timing is that very little else of the system is sensitive to changes in it. (Ritual durations would be the main exception here - eg if you change an extended rest duration from 6-odd hours to a week, then various defensive/camping rituals won't ward the party for a whole extended rest.)

One thing I had in mind when I asked my question about short rest flexibiity is spell duration. I haven't looked through the latest spell packed with durations in mind, but I was thinking that durations of 10 minutes, 1 hour etc become 1-encounter buffs or multiple encounter buffs depending on how long a short rest takes.

Not exactly broken, just too good compared to the other traditions

<snip>

while the stacking and elevated number of high level spells are factors on previous edition's Wizard supremacy, the high flexibility they have is also a big factor on it, and 50% extra preppared spells is no doubt a flexibility boost the other traditions don't get (never mind Ritual casting)

I wondered if it was a flexibility issue. Thanks for clarifying that that was what you had in mind.

 

[Balesir]

One thing I had in mind when I asked my question about short rest flexibiity is spell duration. I haven't looked through the latest spell packed with durations in mind, but I was thinking that durations of 10 minutes, 1 hour etc become 1-encounter buffs or multiple encounter buffs depending on how long a short rest takes.

If they are intending to make rest durations and such variable, this sort of spell/effect duration seems unnecessarily bothersome. [MENTION=78752]DMZ2112[/MENTION] is dead right when he says that the "game time" duration of rests is irrelevant; all that really matters (for game play) is what you can get done in them and what effects outlast them. Making spell and effect durations fit with exploration system "turns" and short and extended rest lengths seems like a no-brainer, to me - and then the easiest way to enable variable rest length with that is to make the durations for rest-y stuff "one short rest" or "one extended rest".

 

[pemerton]

If they are intending to make rest durations and such variable, this sort of spell/effect duration seems unnecessarily bothersome.

<snip>

Making spell and effect durations fit with exploration system "turns" and short and extended rest lengths seems like a no-brainer, to me - and then the easiest way to enable variable rest length with that is to make the durations for rest-y stuff "one short rest" or "one extended rest".

I agree that that is how you'd do it, and it's not very hard.

But until they actually do this, rest times may not work very flexibly.

Could you get by with 5 durations: instantaneous; one round; short (lasts either one encounter, or one short rest); long (lasts either from one extended rest to the next, or during one extended rest period); permanent?

 

[DMZ2112]

One thing I had in mind when I asked my question about short rest flexibiity is spell duration. I haven't looked through the latest spell packed with durations in mind, but I was thinking that durations of 10 minutes, 1 hour etc become 1-encounter buffs or multiple encounter buffs depending on how long a short rest takes.

I'm not sure exactly how universal this is, but I did notice at the game day that many of the cleric's spells now have a maximum duration long enough to outlast any single encounter, but only actually /persist/ so long as the cleric maintains concentration, which is very generously defined as "until the cleric casts another spell requiring concentration, he falls unconscious, or the dungeon master drops a rock on him."

This mechanic doesn't necessarily /have/ to obviate the problem of rest length as it applies to spells, but it is reasonable to consider that it could. Combat ends, cleric holds onto the spell long enough to make sure no new bad guys are inbound, then drops concentration to tend to some wounds. If bad guys are inbound, he keeps the spell up.

 

[Balesir]

Could you get by with 5 durations: instantaneous; one round; short (lasts either one encounter, or one short rest); long (lasts either from one extended rest to the next, or during one extended rest period); permanent?

Those might be the "core" set, sure:

Instantaneous
One "combat" time-tick
One "exploration" time-tick
One "campaign" time-tick

Maybe make it extendable for an overarching political game by having a "political" time-tick (typically a week or a month); similar extensions for other possible campaign specialties (e.g. for games playing gods or whole societies, with several-year turns á la 'Aria').

For "permanent" I rather like HârnMaster's take - you get "indefinite" and "permanent" durations. D&D sort-of has this in that "Dispel Magic" can actually destroy some effects entirely ("indefinite" effects) but, at best, supresses actual magic items for the spell duration (i.e. "magic items" have "permanent" duration).

 

[Jack99]

If there is one lesson any company should learn from Paizo and Pathfinder it should be this; strong adventures make a system (and make you cash as well).

Paizo's adventures didn't "make" Pathfinder. WoTC did - First by making 3.x via the OGL, then by making 4e, an edition that a lot of people didn't like.

 

[DMZ2112]

Those might be the "core" set, sure:

Instantaneous
One "combat" time-tick
One "exploration" time-tick
One "campaign" time-tick

This is getting into the sort of metagame navel-gazing I positively despise, but could all of these ticks be collapsed into a "phase" that incorporates all of these things?

The cleric casts a spell during combat with a duration of 3 "phases," and it lasts through three combats, or two combats and a rest, or a combat, a rest, and then a second combat, or perhaps even a combat, a rest, and an exploration phase.

Nah, I'm pretty clearly designing /something/, but I don't think it's what I'm looking for here. For my part, I think combat spells ought to last "one combat," rest spells ought to last "one rest," and exploration, campaign, or political spells ought to last "one whatever."

No one at my table, least of all I, has ever expressed an interest in tracking spell durations between events. Obviously there are exceptions, but I think they are few.

Paizo's adventures didn't "make" Pathfinder. WoTC did - First by making 3.x via the OGL, then by making 4e, an edition that a lot of people didn't like.

Right, in the same way that your post isn't "unconstructive," it's just confrontational, off topic, and adds nothing to the discussion.