Legends & Lore 16 Jan 2012

[Wightbred]

There are certain aspects I can see in my mind as far as modular game design. I can see how they would add different subsets to the game as far as complexity.

However, I'm skeptical on the whole simple vs complex yet balanced.

How can one character be extremely simple, while another have a ton of different options and expect them both to be balanced in play? We've seen enough imbalance when players have access to the same materials!

It is brain-twisting, but I can see how it could work. Look at this skill thing I posted on another thread. Two characters have completely different write-ups, one with no skills at all and one with many, and they can still have a balanced chance of success. Essentially the choice might be:
a) A similar chance at all skill rolls, just varied on ability; and
b) The minute variation of a skill point expenditure if you want it.
c) A host of stuff in-between, like skill groups or whatever.

I'm assuming Wizards can come up with something much more elegant than I did, and balance it for likelihood of skills needing to be rolled and other details I didn't cover.

 

[Izumi]

Some people are suggesting that D&D Next will basically allow them to "port" older edition characters alongside newer ones, or run 1st Edition modules out-of-the-box. I don't think that's what's intended. When they talk about "taking the best bits from each edition", they don't specifically mean rules: it's more about play styles:

"Your 1E-loving friend can play in your 3E-style game and not have to deal with all the options he or she doesn't want or need." I don't take this to mean we're actually using 3E rules: we're just playing a version of D&D Next that uses more rules add-ons, giving the game a 3E, simulationist bent.

My money's on a new core rule set heavily based on a mix of 3E and 4th (or more specifically, Essentials): very basic, with a whole bunch of optional add-ons that cover varying situations. As for playing highly-customised characters alongside simpler characters, IMO the Essentials Slayer is a probably the sort of thing they'll be pitching for.

Nobody knows enough to really do more than wonder. Though I kinda expect it shall be some kind of core with an older/simpler feel. The rest added as each DM allows and each Player wants.

 

[Jawsh]

"Your 1E-loving friend can play in your 3E-style game and not have to deal with all the options he or she doesn't want or need." I don't take this to mean we're actually using 3E rules: we're just playing a version of D&D Next that uses more rules add-ons, giving the game a 3E, simulationist bent.

My money's on a new core rule set heavily based on a mix of 3E and 4th (or more specifically, Essentials): very basic, with a whole bunch of optional add-ons that cover varying situations. As for playing highly-customised characters alongside simpler characters, IMO the Essentials Slayer is a probably the sort of thing they'll be pitching for.

I'd agree with you except that Monte just said "This is not another salvo in the so-called edition wars." If it's a new edition, that pretty much equates to a new salvo in the edition wars.

Or, WotC is just saying two different things, and we'll just have to wait and see which one is the lie an which one is the truth, if either.

 

[avin]

they don't specifically mean rules: it's more about play styles

My money's on a new core rule set heavily based on a mix of 3E and 4th (or more specifically, Essentials): very basic, with a whole bunch of optional add-ons that cover varying situations.

Yes, this, exactly.

From a long time I've been thinking Essentials was a test playground for 5E.

I don't expect to see thac0 or negative AC anymore, just simpler ways to create your character.

 

[Aldarc]

So let's see. A 3rd edition rogue and a 4th edition rogue in the same party.

The 4e rogue has 24 hit points. The 3e rogue has 9 hit points.

The 4e rogue can sneak attack undead. The 3e rogue cannot.

I think I know which rogue I will pick.

I think you are misreading Cook:

Imagine a game where the core essence of D&D has been distilled down to a very simple but entirely playable-in-its-right game.

This would indicate a simplified, but shared core of the system for everyone. So certain rules, such as sneak-attack against undead, will likely be part of the universal core. It's important to establish this aspect before moving on to the next:

we're designing the game so that not every player has to choose from the same set of options. Again, imagine a game where one player has a simple character sheet that has just a few things noted on it, and the player next to him has all sorts of skills, feats, and special abilities. And yet they can still play the game together and everything remains relatively balanced. Your 1E-loving friend can play in your 3E-style game and not have to deal with all the options he or she doesn't want or need. Or vice versa. It's all up to you to decide.

Cook is not saying that the 1E-loving friend will be playing a 1E character in a 3E game, but, rather, a 1E-like character in a 3E-style game. It remains to be seen, however, whether or not they can pull this off and how they choose to do so.

 

[Incenjucar]

Basically, based on this information, 5th edition will be "Advanced Essentials" with standardized baseline math that can be applied to both simple and complex versions of classes (4E Knight vs. 4E Fighter) with rules to cover the relatively immaterial options, like how skills function, whether combat is a punishment for failure, or the meat of the game, how crazy spellcasters can get (perhaps how fast they can use rituals), squares vs. feet, spheres vs. cubes, and so on.

 

[Minigiant]

2. Not all players have to have equally complex characters and they are designing for allowing a player at a table with a minimal 1st/2nd ed character playing next to one with a 3rd or 4th ed style character with all sorts of feats, skills and special abilities.

Maybe they will use something like my idea and split character creation in multiple forms of complexity.

The 1st/2nd character would be simple and get the power of the more complex characters built in.

Basic Fighter

• Very High HP
• All good saves
• Proficiency with all armors and all simple and military weapons.
• +4 damage to all attacks
• +2 AC

Whereas the next level or complexity would be like 4E essential characters.

Advanced Fighter

• High HP
• All good saves
• Proficiency with all armors and all simple and military weapons.
• +4 damage to all attacks
• +2 AC
• 1 Feat at first level, 4th level, and every 4th level thereafter.
  
• 4 Martial Stance Powers
  

The the final level of complex would get to 3rd/4th edition style additions


Expert/Master Fighter

• High HP
• All good saves
• Proficiency with all armors and all simple and military weapons.
• +4 damage to all attacks
• +2 AC
• 1 Feat at first level, 4th level, and every 4th level thereafter.
  
• 1 Martial Stance Powers
• Power Attack 1/encounter at 1st level
• Brutal Attack 1/day at 1st level
  
• Weapon Specializatio at 2nd level and every 4 level thereafter
  

 

[Izumi]

The core will be playable in it's own right. That allows a lot of house-rules. None can say it won't be D&D. Then all fans get their cake frosted with module options to satisfy their needs. It's a good plan. We're all just curious how it will be implemented with balance, and how close those options will be to the editions they emulate, I suppose.

 

[MerricB]

If you want to get a glimpse of how it might work, take a look at the Fighter (Slayer) from D&D Essentials and the Fighter from the 4E PHB.

No, it isn't as extreme as D&DN will probably allow, but it does point the way: if you understand the underlying mathematics of the game, you can approach it in a lot of different ways.

Cheers!

 

[LurkAway]

This would indicate a simplified, but shared core of the system for everyone. So certain rules, such as sneak-attack against undead, will likely be part of the universal core. It's important to establish this aspect before moving on to the next:

The emphasis of D&DN seems to be the story, and that rules shouldn't get in the way of the story that the group wants. I know for sure that the universal story of D&D is heroes going on adventures, but is the universal story of D&D that "sneak attack" always works on all undead or never works on undead or under certain circumstances? I honestly don't know.