Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Legends and Lore October 22nd
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 6036898" data-attributes="member: 6688937"><p>This brings to mind an old phrase: "Saves as a Fighter." I would expect/hope that for the sake of brevity that the vast myriad of "humanoids" have something like "Expands as a Soldier", so that a bunch of the tactical options are clear. I suspect that the more unique types (Casters, etc.) may come with their own ability schedules, but I figure most of their "uniqueness" would need to be in the "core" monster, anyway. Just putting a keyword in and having a "4e tactical" module as part of the...DMG? MM? would turn <em>most </em>of the trick. (<em>I think</em>.<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/paranoid.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":uhoh:" title="Paranoid :uhoh:" data-shortname=":uhoh:" />)</p><p></p><p>Of course, that's all from a strict mechanical perspective, and doesn't really imply anything about usability of any such system. Ease of DMing and speed of play are primary concerns for me. The less time spent "referencing" in play, the better. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>For better or worse....I'm pretty sure that explicit universal AEDU is gone. I see AEDU as primarily a less detailed and more "chunky" version of recharge mechanics from earlier editions. I'd expect to see that return, but I would be very surprised to see an "AEDU" module. I think "making every class the same" just left too much bad blood out there.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sorry to split you up, but I wanted to respond to this bit directly in hopes of clearing it up a bit. "Balanced" and "Swingy" are not opposites. "Swingy" indicates a high(er) variability or consequence in PC Success/Failure, not what the nominal rate of that Success is.That variability is a source of tension and excitement in earlier editions. "Balance" is more related to that rate of Success. When we talk about Encounter Balance, we refer to the predictability of that RoS through encounter design. (As opposed to LFQW-balance, where those RoS-es are wildly divergent for different classes.)</p><p></p><p>"Tactical play" on the other hand, <em>does</em> conflict directly to Variability ("Swingy-ness"), because rewarding "tactics" on the part of the player usually requires removing the impact of randomness, i.e. lowering Variability. In this type of play, RoS is nearly synonymous with "difficulty level". 4e addressed both at the same time (in reaction to 3e's issues), and you appear to be conflating them above. </p><p></p><p>err...I hope that helps. I could ramble on, it you'd like. I'm not the world's biggest Old-Schooler, but I play with some, and I've come to appreciate their perspective more recently.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>One important principle to remember...People don't know what they want. (Not just for D&D, in general.) I think its a vital reason why playtests are important. Until people have directly experienced something (in the consumer arena, anyway), they have very little chance of knowing whether they will like it or not. So when old <em>or</em> new schoolers approach 5e, they both can say "The game must have/avoid X or it just won't work/I won't like it" and be completely wrong. I've seen it with my own group, and even with myself.</p><p></p><p>Keep in mind, recreating a 4e-like tactical depth doesn't mean recreating 4e. I've been amazed at how some of the goofier indie games can produce certain feels while using mechanics totally foreign to those that spawned that feel. In particular, <a href="http://www.oldschoolhack.net/" target="_blank">Old School Hack</a> blew me away in this regard. To my thinking, at least in theory, a module which generates 4e-like tactical depth without actually using any specific 4e mechanics is possible. Whether WotC can develop such a module and whether that module can function without mutual trampling with a sacred herd are different questions. </p><p></p><p>Although the QC effort is still high, I would presume/hope that DMs would turn on the "intense tactics" modules for PCs and monsters at the same time (like maybe its in the "combat" section of the rules, rather than the classes). So, unlike the "companion critter" module, it shouldn't/wouldn't unbalance the monster/party dimension (assuming its balanced internally, anyway.) </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm of the suspicion that the "core/basic" version will actually <em>not</em> be acceptable to the majority of groups for their long-term campaigns. Rather it will function more like the old BECMI version as an easily accessible entry point, and also perhaps as a convention and adventure default. Therefore, a critical component to the success of the overall construct will be the intelligibility of the way modules "talk" to that core and amongst themselves.</p><p></p><p>So far, we haven't seen very much of what they are planning for that. (Honestly, we haven't seen very much of anything at that level of design.) Consequently, we don't know how that will inform any of their decisions when they go about developing an "advanced tactics" module or similar modules (or vice-versa).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ratskinner, post: 6036898, member: 6688937"] This brings to mind an old phrase: "Saves as a Fighter." I would expect/hope that for the sake of brevity that the vast myriad of "humanoids" have something like "Expands as a Soldier", so that a bunch of the tactical options are clear. I suspect that the more unique types (Casters, etc.) may come with their own ability schedules, but I figure most of their "uniqueness" would need to be in the "core" monster, anyway. Just putting a keyword in and having a "4e tactical" module as part of the...DMG? MM? would turn [I]most [/I]of the trick. ([I]I think[/I].:uhoh:) Of course, that's all from a strict mechanical perspective, and doesn't really imply anything about usability of any such system. Ease of DMing and speed of play are primary concerns for me. The less time spent "referencing" in play, the better. For better or worse....I'm pretty sure that explicit universal AEDU is gone. I see AEDU as primarily a less detailed and more "chunky" version of recharge mechanics from earlier editions. I'd expect to see that return, but I would be very surprised to see an "AEDU" module. I think "making every class the same" just left too much bad blood out there. Sorry to split you up, but I wanted to respond to this bit directly in hopes of clearing it up a bit. "Balanced" and "Swingy" are not opposites. "Swingy" indicates a high(er) variability or consequence in PC Success/Failure, not what the nominal rate of that Success is.That variability is a source of tension and excitement in earlier editions. "Balance" is more related to that rate of Success. When we talk about Encounter Balance, we refer to the predictability of that RoS through encounter design. (As opposed to LFQW-balance, where those RoS-es are wildly divergent for different classes.) "Tactical play" on the other hand, [I]does[/I] conflict directly to Variability ("Swingy-ness"), because rewarding "tactics" on the part of the player usually requires removing the impact of randomness, i.e. lowering Variability. In this type of play, RoS is nearly synonymous with "difficulty level". 4e addressed both at the same time (in reaction to 3e's issues), and you appear to be conflating them above. err...I hope that helps. I could ramble on, it you'd like. I'm not the world's biggest Old-Schooler, but I play with some, and I've come to appreciate their perspective more recently. One important principle to remember...People don't know what they want. (Not just for D&D, in general.) I think its a vital reason why playtests are important. Until people have directly experienced something (in the consumer arena, anyway), they have very little chance of knowing whether they will like it or not. So when old [I]or[/I] new schoolers approach 5e, they both can say "The game must have/avoid X or it just won't work/I won't like it" and be completely wrong. I've seen it with my own group, and even with myself. Keep in mind, recreating a 4e-like tactical depth doesn't mean recreating 4e. I've been amazed at how some of the goofier indie games can produce certain feels while using mechanics totally foreign to those that spawned that feel. In particular, [URL="http://www.oldschoolhack.net/"]Old School Hack[/URL] blew me away in this regard. To my thinking, at least in theory, a module which generates 4e-like tactical depth without actually using any specific 4e mechanics is possible. Whether WotC can develop such a module and whether that module can function without mutual trampling with a sacred herd are different questions. Although the QC effort is still high, I would presume/hope that DMs would turn on the "intense tactics" modules for PCs and monsters at the same time (like maybe its in the "combat" section of the rules, rather than the classes). So, unlike the "companion critter" module, it shouldn't/wouldn't unbalance the monster/party dimension (assuming its balanced internally, anyway.) I'm of the suspicion that the "core/basic" version will actually [I]not[/I] be acceptable to the majority of groups for their long-term campaigns. Rather it will function more like the old BECMI version as an easily accessible entry point, and also perhaps as a convention and adventure default. Therefore, a critical component to the success of the overall construct will be the intelligibility of the way modules "talk" to that core and amongst themselves. So far, we haven't seen very much of what they are planning for that. (Honestly, we haven't seen very much of anything at that level of design.) Consequently, we don't know how that will inform any of their decisions when they go about developing an "advanced tactics" module or similar modules (or vice-versa). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Legends and Lore October 22nd
Top