D&D (2024) Not loving weapon mastery with beginners

[payn]

I love the concept of modularity, but I don’t think it’s really ever been a feasible goal.

Not sure why? I play many games that use it.

 

[FrogReaver]

Not sure why? I play many games that use it.

Asking me to explain why modularity also doesn’t work or what the differences are to 5e

in as of yet unnamed games you play

That I’ve also probably never played…

I don’t see anything useful that’s going to come out of this.

 

[ART!]

I agree but rarely see it in practice even with 20 year vets.

Expecting the players to remind the DM of effects the player has caused assumes that the player will remember.

I have ADHD, and the odds of me remembering that the target I hit has disadvantage on their first attack before the start of my next turn - when umpteen things could happen between now and then - is unlikely.

And I'm not alone in this.

 

[payn]

Asking me to explain why modularity also doesn’t work or what the differences are to 5e

in as of yet unnamed games you play

That I’ve also probably never played…

I don’t see anything useful that’s going to come out of this.

oh k.

Well for everyone else lets use PF2 as an example. The system is designed with a uniform foundation. The module driving characteristic is feats, which allows for new classes and added archetypes to be dialed easily from the overall complexity of character building. The +1/lvl can be stripped out to raise the floor and ceiling of PC capability adding a little more range in the encounter building system for the GM.

Those options are presented as variant rules. While modularity wasn't a stated goal, you can definitely see the application of such was considered in the overall design.

5E has this in feats and/or ASI, but never really expanded byond that. I think its a missed opportunity to further set up a complexity ladder for users of 5E.

 

[FrogReaver]

oh k.

Well for everyone else lets use PF2 as an example. The system is designed with a uniform foundation. The module driving characteristic is feats, which allows for new classes and added archetypes to be dialed easily from the overall complexity of character building. The +1/lvl can be stripped out to raise the floor and ceiling of PC capability adding a little more range in the encounter building system for the GM.

Those options are presented as variant rules. While modularity wasn't a stated goal, you can definitely see the application of such was considered in the overall design.

5E has this in feats and/or ASI, but never really expanded byond that. I think it’s a missed opportunity to further set up a complexity ladder for users of 5E.

Just curious. If one demonstrates problems in pf2 modularity are you just going to jump to a different game?

 

[Guest 7037866]

A real shame. A crawl, walk, run path would be very helpful it seems.

5E could have been designed that way, in three "modes" so to say: easy, moderate, and hard (for lack of better terms).

In easy mode, your choices and decision points are minimal (if hardly any... think 1E). You still have all 20 levels, but you see a lot more focuses and linear growth. Game focus is really on the adventure, not the character--whose growth is less. In some ways, this is like the Essential Kit or whatever in 5E, but maybe even simpler....

In moderate mode, some more optional features and mechanics are used, like subclasses and feats, so there are more decision points. The additional features add more power and choices for what your character can do at any time. Again, all 20 levels, but focus is on paths and choices. This would be like 2E with kits and such in the later splat books up to 3E or 5E. While the game focuses on the adventure still, more attention is paid to character growth and individuality.

In hard mode, you have the works. Complex mechanics derived from options and features that require more time to resolve, but offer a lot to the players and DMs. You have feats, multiclassing, prestige classes, and more probably. For most players, a lot of time would focus on planning your character's growth, what you want next, etc. It would adopt very easily for more power-gamers in general. Something like Level Up maybe? Or even some aspects of what 5E2024 is?

Finally, the "crunch factor" would be fairly separate (if possible...) in that you can have more features from the hard mode, but resolution could be handled more quickly in the easy mode if you don't mind "hand-waving" or "glossing" some things over.

 

[payn]

Just curious. If one demonstrates problems in pf2 modularity are you just going to jump to a different game?

Problems can be resolved. They are not evidence of lack of feasibility conceptually.

 

[DEFCON 1]

5E could have been designed that way, in three "modes" so to say: easy, moderate, and hard (for lack of better terms).

And the game can still be designed this way... so long as any individual DM who wants the game to be like that wishes to spend a bit of time doing the work themselves.

If a DM wants the D&D game to be as simple as possible... they can just strip out as much stuff as they want-- just retype or copy/paste all the rules they wish to use out of the book, any PDFs, or DDB into a Word document and then edit the game down to their heart's content.

Heck... the Sidekick rules that came with Icespire Peak were talked about being used and turned into stripped-down and "easy" PC class rules years ago.

 

[FrogReaver]

Problems can be resolved. They are not evidence of lack of feasibility conceptually.

So pretty much nothing can be said here to change your mind. Thanks for saving my time!

 

[payn]

So pretty much nothing can be said here to change your mind. Thanks for saving my time!

You could join the discussion instead of trying to win it.