Modular classes, or modules of classes?

[TwoSix]

Quick thought. 5e is (currently) committed to presenting classes from the entire range of 1e-4e PHBs, and also committed to presenting players with different layers of customization options.

If that is the case, why are they torturing themselves trying to contort certain classes into a form able to be modified to satisfy everyone? Why not just release different classes for the different play styles?

Have a class called "Fighter", that is explicitly marked as being a 1e-2e derived class (like they're doing with Common/Uncommon/Rare), that's simple, does lots of damage and wears heavy armor). Have another class called "Weaponmaster" that provides penalties to enemies that don't attack it, and has a list of powers it can select from.

Have a class called "Ranger" that gets bonuses to fighting giants and mage spells. Have a class called "Hunter" that gets an animal companion, bonuses to archery and two-weapon fighting, and some druid spells.

Mark every class with the type of edition play it supports, have a chapter in the beginning of the book that lists the classes that should be used if you're trying to emulate a particular edition's gameplay. Problem solved, and all of the changes to encounter pacing, optional rules for healing, etc., can be moved to the DM's section of the book (or new book).

 

[KidSnide]

If that is the case, why are they torturing themselves trying to contort certain classes into a form able to be modified to satisfy everyone? Why not just release different classes for the different play styles?

If WotC provided three sets of classes, they would effectively be writing three different d20 games, and that's not the objective. Classes are a major part of the game, you can't replace them without ending up with something very different (e.g. 3.x vs. Arcana Unearthed).

Also, it's not like WotC is trying to support three distinct play-styles. They are trying to create a flexible system that provides support for a range of play-styles. One coherent and adjustable core is a better way of achieving that goal.

-KS

 

[the Jester]

Quick thought. 5e is (currently) committed to presenting classes from the entire range of 1e-4e PHBs, and also committed to presenting players with different layers of customization options.

If that is the case, why are they torturing themselves trying to contort certain classes into a form able to be modified to satisfy everyone? Why not just release different classes for the different play styles?

Have a class called "Fighter", that is explicitly marked as being a 1e-2e derived class (like they're doing with Common/Uncommon/Rare), that's simple, does lots of damage and wears heavy armor). Have another class called "Weaponmaster" that provides penalties to enemies that don't attack it, and has a list of powers it can select from.

Good God, how many classes do you want?

Perhaps more importantly, how long do you want to wait for them all?

Having separate classes for "old skool fighter" and "4e style fighter" doesn't simplify anything, doesn't actually improve anything, eats up tons of extra space and would doubtless have a bunch of people up in arms and screaming about how they can't play a fighter in the style that they want or whatever. (Remember all the early-4e back and forths about "I want to play an archer fighter!" - "Then what you REALLY want is to play a ranger!" - "No, I want to play a FIGHTER with a goddamn BOW!" Do we really need to swap out "4e-style fighter" for "weaponmaster" and have this conversation over and over again?)

Labels sometimes matter a lot.

But perhaps I'm overlooking something. What is the actual improvement to the game experience that this will provide?

 

[TwoSix]

Good God, how many classes do you want?

Perhaps more importantly, how long do you want to wait for them all?

A lot, and till about Fall 2013.

Having separate classes for "old skool fighter" and "4e style fighter" doesn't simplify anything, doesn't actually improve anything, eats up tons of extra space and would doubtless have a bunch of people up in arms and screaming about how they can't play a fighter in the style that they want or whatever. (Remember all the early-4e back and forths about "I want to play an archer fighter!" - "Then what you REALLY want is to play a ranger!" - "No, I want to play a FIGHTER with a goddamn BOW!" Do we really need to swap out "4e-style fighter" for "weaponmaster" and have this conversation over and over again?)

Labels sometimes matter a lot.

But perhaps I'm overlooking something. What is the actual improvement to the game experience that this will provide?

My assumption is that the improvement would be that people play something that maps to the playstyle that they want.

More importantly, I don't see a way write now to support both "character-building" (choose new things as you level) and "character-creating" (gain pre-chosen improvements as you level) in the same system. I think there's room in the system for classes that do both, but that the difference is broad enough that it would be extremely difficult to place under a single class core.

 

[KidSnide]

More importantly, I don't see a way write now to support both "character-building" (choose new things as you level) and "character-creating" (gain pre-chosen improvements as you level) in the same system.

Fortunately, the WotC designers have figured out how to do that. Themes and backgrounds are great examples of rules structures that support both those modes.

-KS

 

[TwoSix]

Fortunately, the WotC designers have figured out how to do that. Themes and backgrounds are great examples of rules structures that support both those modes.

-KS

I'm not sure how backgrounds support a character-building mode of development. Themes, in and off themselves, support character creation, while the ability to mix and match within themes supports character-building.

Maybe that will be enough, although I find myself pessimistic.

 

[Tallifer]

(Remember all the early-4e back and forths about "I want to play an archer fighter!" - "Then what you REALLY want is to play a ranger!" - "No, I want to play a FIGHTER with a goddamn BOW!" Do we really need to swap out "4e-style fighter" for "weaponmaster" and have this conversation over and over again?)

Labels sometimes matter a lot.

Alas. You speak the truth. My first heated reaction was that there are simply too many blinkered and narrowminded people out there whom the Wizards' must accommodate to earn a dollar.

But then I stop and consider how upset I still get when dungeon masters will not allow me to play a halfling like a hobbit. ("No, I do not want to play a tough, steampunk, spiky haired ninja: I want to be fat, live in a hole, wear green and yellow and smoke pipeweed!")

So I accept that labels do matter, and that we need to tread carefully concerning that going into a new edition.

 

[the Jester]

More importantly, I don't see a way write now to support both "character-building" (choose new things as you level) and "character-creating" (gain pre-chosen improvements as you level) in the same system. I think there's room in the system for classes that do both, but that the difference is broad enough that it would be extremely difficult to place under a single class core.

I actually think that this will be a snap. I mean, look at Essentials classes vs. AEDU structured classes in 4e- you're already halfway there.

 

[Mengu]

D&D Next: The blank notebook

One line of text on the first page says "Play the edition of D&D you like, call it D&D Next, enter house rules in this notebook, send us $30, and have a nice day."

 

[Stalker0]

The op suggestion is basically what 4e did. I won't comment On whether it was ultimately successful but the issue early on was a lack of completeness. If the class's you wanted to play was in the core you were golden, else it might take 6 months