Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
New Legends and Lore: The Rules
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="Mercurius" data-source="post: 5627915" data-attributes="member: 59082"><p>Jeez Mearls, you're such a frickin' <em>tease!!! </em></p><p></p><p>Folks, what we're seeing here are 5E design musings, no more or less. No, it doesn't mean a GenCon announcement for publication next June, but it could mean June, 2013.</p><p></p><p>But as Ron said, it could also mean revised 4E core rulebooks with the complexity dial built in, which would of course effectively be 5E, or at least a true "4.5."</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Not easily. There may be no way around the likelihood that a more detailed (higher complexity) character will be better, but that is OK, imo, if the difference is only slight. And "better" may mean just better at specific, optimized things.</p><p></p><p>For example, in the basic game--as I said in another thread--one could simply make an STR + some portion of one's level to make a Strength-based skill check. Now if you have a more detailed character, you could have different scores for different Strength-based skills, some might have a modifier of full level, some half level, etc. </p><p></p><p>So let's say that you are trained in STR skills and get half level + a Class modifier for being a fighter of +3. A 5th level fighter have an 18 STR (+4), half level (+2), and a figher bonus of +3, for a total of +9 to all STR skill situations. That would be the simple (or simplish) version. Great complexity could split STR skills into Jump, Climb, Swim, etc, with different training degrees and even class bonuses. A rogue, for instance, would get a nice bonus to Climb but maybe not to Swim. For even further complexity, you could have a "class-less" character in which you customize everything.</p><p></p><p>I'm not saying that it would be easy to make it fully balanced, but possible to make it close enough. I mean, all games reward system mastery to some degree, and that's ok, but I think the key is to make it a relatively small degree (which is one of the steps forward that 4E made from 3.5, imo).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>A truly modular approach with a simple, core base would be able to handle this. </p><p></p><p>But in terms of publication, I may not be entirely sure what you mean here, but as I've said elsewhere, I would advocate crunch stuff coming out in DDI and being compiled in annuals. </p><p></p><p>But in terms of different rules complexities for, say, a given monster, while I think there could be many degrees and options for complexity of characters, with monsters you might want to have two basic categories: the basic, Core stats which can be used in any variation of the game, and then optional advanced rules that can bring a bit more complexity and tactical depth to a monster. I mean, an orc warrior really only needs an attack and damage, but if you want to bring in special tactics that orcs have, you can add it towards the end of the stat block under "Advanced Options" or some such.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>One idea that's been floating around, which Mearls mentioned one or two articles ago, is that the complexity dial can be utilized in the same game, even the same situation. In the example above, Bobby could play a simple character and Mikey a more complex one, and they could be in the same campaign--even the same situation--and use their different "complexity settings." I mean, to jump over a chasm can always require a simple roll against a target number, but the complexity is in how a character's roll is modified. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think you're going to see it so you better start believing it! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mercurius, post: 5627915, member: 59082"] Jeez Mearls, you're such a frickin' [I]tease!!! [/I] Folks, what we're seeing here are 5E design musings, no more or less. No, it doesn't mean a GenCon announcement for publication next June, but it could mean June, 2013. But as Ron said, it could also mean revised 4E core rulebooks with the complexity dial built in, which would of course effectively be 5E, or at least a true "4.5." Not easily. There may be no way around the likelihood that a more detailed (higher complexity) character will be better, but that is OK, imo, if the difference is only slight. And "better" may mean just better at specific, optimized things. For example, in the basic game--as I said in another thread--one could simply make an STR + some portion of one's level to make a Strength-based skill check. Now if you have a more detailed character, you could have different scores for different Strength-based skills, some might have a modifier of full level, some half level, etc. So let's say that you are trained in STR skills and get half level + a Class modifier for being a fighter of +3. A 5th level fighter have an 18 STR (+4), half level (+2), and a figher bonus of +3, for a total of +9 to all STR skill situations. That would be the simple (or simplish) version. Great complexity could split STR skills into Jump, Climb, Swim, etc, with different training degrees and even class bonuses. A rogue, for instance, would get a nice bonus to Climb but maybe not to Swim. For even further complexity, you could have a "class-less" character in which you customize everything. I'm not saying that it would be easy to make it fully balanced, but possible to make it close enough. I mean, all games reward system mastery to some degree, and that's ok, but I think the key is to make it a relatively small degree (which is one of the steps forward that 4E made from 3.5, imo). A truly modular approach with a simple, core base would be able to handle this. But in terms of publication, I may not be entirely sure what you mean here, but as I've said elsewhere, I would advocate crunch stuff coming out in DDI and being compiled in annuals. But in terms of different rules complexities for, say, a given monster, while I think there could be many degrees and options for complexity of characters, with monsters you might want to have two basic categories: the basic, Core stats which can be used in any variation of the game, and then optional advanced rules that can bring a bit more complexity and tactical depth to a monster. I mean, an orc warrior really only needs an attack and damage, but if you want to bring in special tactics that orcs have, you can add it towards the end of the stat block under "Advanced Options" or some such. One idea that's been floating around, which Mearls mentioned one or two articles ago, is that the complexity dial can be utilized in the same game, even the same situation. In the example above, Bobby could play a simple character and Mikey a more complex one, and they could be in the same campaign--even the same situation--and use their different "complexity settings." I mean, to jump over a chasm can always require a simple roll against a target number, but the complexity is in how a character's roll is modified. I think you're going to see it so you better start believing it! ;) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
New Legends and Lore: The Rules
Top