Legends & Lore: What Worked, What Didn't

[Savage Wombat]

I kind of liked the golf bag. It meant there was a drawback to over-specialization besides melee v. ranged. Why shouldn't a fighter who primarily uses a sword carry a mace for backup? It happened in the real world all the time.

 

[Derren]

I kind of liked the golf bag. It meant there was a drawback to over-specialization besides melee v. ranged. Why shouldn't a fighter who primarily uses a sword carry a mace for backup? It happened in the real world all the time.

Considering the usual arguments against anything in 5E it will boil down to "Its too complex, people might get confused about what weapon they use".

 

[Obryn]

I kind of liked the golf bag. It meant there was a drawback to over-specialization besides melee v. ranged. Why shouldn't a fighter who primarily uses a sword carry a mace for backup? It happened in the real world all the time.

The problem in 3e/4e - that Next is much better about - was that fighters needed to specialize in one weapon to even stay competitive. It's not as big a deal right now.

Still, if there's going to be a golf bag, I'd much rather it was because various cool weapon tricks were particularly helpful in the circumstance. Instead of simply doing half damage against certain enemies.

 

[Primal]

That's why I like the fact that feats in D&D Next mostly apply static modifiers that aren't conditional. When they do add new abilities, they don't add complex ones. Also, you don't get very many feats so you don't have to worry about the complexity growing out of control. The players who find them too complex can just take stat bumps instead. You don't have to worry about too many temporary modifiers from spells because all buff spells require concentration, so only one buff per caster.

That kind of stuff does happen with veteran players. They were the ones I was talking about. That happened nearly every round of combat in our group of friends who'd been playing 3e/3.5e for 4 years straight.

Although my group composition has mostly changed, I don't believe that to be the reason our sessions no longer get bogged down in discussion of modifiers. I believe it's because we're running D&D Next now. There are basically 0 modifiers applied at the table. Turns now go:

"I attack the already damaged Orc. I hit AC 13."
"That hits."
"9 damage."


The point is that there ARE currently no modifiers in the game. Adding one might not be the end of the world. But once you add one then it becomes part of the game design philosophy to have them in the game, that's when you start adding a second, third, and then hundreds.

I don't think players will favor stat bumps due to fearing complexity; in a game of bounded accuracy with virtually no temporary modifiers, it's a no-brainer to get that sweet +2 permanent upgrade to your primary attribute(s). Of course, once you hit the maximum in all the scores you want to, it's time to pick some feats (which I thought were more complex than in 3E and 4E anyway, i.e. so-called "super feats"?).

Also, doesn't Bless and some bardic/sorcerer spells and features give everyone bonus dice in combat? Seemed to work that way in those live WotC playtests.

I understand why people prefer simplicity; but we want at least a certain degree of complexity in my group. I know I could tinker and experiment with the modules, switches and dials, and more complexity by employing them in campaigns ("Guys, tonight we're going with the Wound Points and Power Words, just to try how they feel."). Yet I'm not a young man anymore, and I have less and less time to spend on tinkering and writing stuff each year; maybe I'd have loved Next 25 years ago, but I just don't want (or have time/energy) to house-rule stuff anymore. If the rules don't feel good, there's plenty of other systems out there. As I said, if I want to play a streamlined, simple and innovative system, I'll probably purchase some indie RPG or retroclone.

 

[Mistwell]

If complexity was really a main concern, the Wizard class would be have been dumped or reworked in favor of a simpler Wizard class a while ago.

It can be a main concern, and still compromise with other main concerns like supporting a traditional-type wizard. It doesn't all have to be extremes. Complexity is clearly a main concern for 5e. It's part of so many mechanics and changes that I don't know how someone can deny it's a major concern. It was also a major concern voiced by playtesters throughout the playtest, both internally and in the private playtest, in addition to the open playtest. It was also something mentioned by the team of paid outside consultants, repeatedly.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm fond of the idea of weapon damage type resistance/vulnerability.

So, skeletons are Vulnerable to Bludgeoning

Maybe Oozes Resist Piercing

Maybe Constructs Resist Slashing

Maybe Dragons are Vulnerable to Piercing

Maybe trolls (with their severable limbs) are Vulnerable to Slashing

And maybe a spell that drops rocks on everyone deals Bludgeoning damage?

And this concept is in 5e. Are you commenting on that fact, or did you not know it was already in the game?

 

[Mistwell]

Considering the usual arguments against anything in 5E it will boil down to "Its too complex, people might get confused about what weapon they use".

You keep making this argument about "confusion". But that's not the primary argument against complexity. The argument is primarily about speed of play. The game moves faster, things resolve faster, you get to more challenges during a given session, when you remove some of the complexity. And that was the consistent issue raised in all forms of playtesting and by outside consultants - that the game needs to play faster. And they've achieved that goal. Consistently, that's the thing most often mentioned by people, that they like how it plays so much faster, how they can "get more done" during a given session.

 

[Thyrwyn]

The problem in 3e/4e - that Next is much better about - was that fighters needed to specialize in one weapon to even stay competitive. It's not as big a deal right now.

Still, if there's going to be a golf bag, I'd much rather it was because various cool weapon tricks were particularly helpful in the circumstance. Instead of simply doing half damage against certain enemies.

I agree with this 100%. The difference between "I'll use this weapon because I get to do special maneuver x" is much more engaging, fun, and proactive, than "I need to use weapon y because weapon z is totally ineffective against this opponent." The second statement is reactive.

I am not opposed to the second circumstance happening - it should happen on occasion - but it should not be the only reason a melee specialist chooses to carry a variety of weapons. Earlier editions required too much focus to make carrying a choice of weapons rewarding, as Obryn pointed out. And by choice of weapons, I do not mean: "this longsword is ghost touch, this long sword is silver, this longsword is. . ."

 

[billd91]

You know, fighters would have a better rep if the ability to effectively wield almost every weapon in the entire book proved to be relevant to game play.

You know, it still is or at least can be. Back in 1e, before specialization, that fighter's low non-proficiency penalty meant he could pick up and be effective with any weapon he found on the battlefield or in the treasure hoard. Even in 3e, a fighter without a weapon focus/weapon specialization-oriented build can still be pretty effective with any martial or simple weapon he picks up. As everything in a typical RPG, particularly one with as many choices as D&D, an awful lot depends on how you play.

 

[Argyle King]

I dunno, it looks to me like that would mean the Return of the Golf Bag.

To me, that's kind of rudimentary differentiation. Just enough to be annoying, but not enough to add additional interest or options to Bob Fighter.

I see that as a valid concern. Though, I think where the idea failed (for a lack of better words) in previous editions was in the idea that certain weapons should be required. I think giving some weapons a small boon, but not making that boon be something which is constantly required is a good things. Options should be just that -options. When an option ceases to be an option because it's so obviously good or required, I don't believe it can legitimately still be called an option.


I now see that others have already said what I'm about to type, so I know I'm not alone in thinking this... On very rare occasions, I'm ok with a specific weapon type being needed to kill a monster. However, that should be rare, and I in no way feel 5th should handle things like previous editions did in so much that certain weapons became mandatory and a "golf bag" was required. That being said, I would be perfectly fine with some weapons having a minor trait which helps them stand out from the pack and those weapons being a little better in some situations. The other weapons should still work and be valid choices; those minor traits would simply allow a handful of weapons to both have a reason to exist and occasionally reward a player's aesthetic choice with a minor benefit.

The important thing is to make and keep the benefit minor; it should not be something which can be power gamed or something which turns into an "omg, everybody must have this weapon" thing. Options should be real options.