One word that will fix what's wrong with DNDN

[Greatwyrm]

Modularity

I've seen a lot of discussion the last few days that boils down to "I hate rule X and they need to fix that." Hit dice have gotten a lot of that attention, along with advantage, saving throws, and others as well. What's getting lost here is one of the core design goals has been the ability to make the game what you want it to be.

In other words, being easy to house-rule was a goal. Modularity.

Think there's too much healing in DNDN? Drop in the 2e natural healing rules instead. It probably won't break anything else. Hit dice for healing is too weenie? Maximize them instead of rolling. Use healing surges instead. You can make any of those changes without really impacting any other core rule mechanic.

If you can say at any point "they should to it this way instead", you just fixed it for your house.

 

[Astrosicebear]

The game is definitely set up to be modular in that regard. Kudos to the core rules for being able to adjust things like Hit Point pool healing, at will spells, etc. without the DM having to adjust the rest of the material. That is good design.

 

[delericho]

Modularity

I've seen a lot of discussion the last few days that boils down to "I hate rule X and they need to fix that." Hit dice have gotten a lot of that attention, along with advantage, saving throws, and others as well. What's getting lost here is one of the core design goals has been the ability to make the game what you want it to be.

In other words, being easy to house-rule was a goal. Modularity.

I thought 'Modularity' was their great solution to the supplement bloat - that they'd sell us books of rules modules instead of endless splatbooks?

Think there's too much healing in DNDN? Drop in the 2e natural healing rules instead. It probably won't break anything else. Hit dice for healing is too weenie? Maximize them instead of rolling. Use healing surges instead. You can make any of those changes without really impacting any other core rule mechanic.

If you can say at any point "they should to it this way instead", you just fixed it for your house.

As has been noted before, the fact that you can house rule a bad mechanic any number of ways doesn't mean it's not a bad mechanic. And the more people have to change to remake the game into their own image, the more likely they are to decide it's not worth the effort and just stick with what they have.

Unfortunately, WotC have an impossible goal before them. They cannot please everybody. But it's important for the success of 5e, and by extension for the survival of D&D as a tabletop RPG, that they please as many people as they can as well as they can. We should be having these arguments, especially now, so that WotC can see where people stand, and just how important the various issues are - and then they can take an informed decision on the best direction for the game.

(The key thing, which really should go without saying, is that we should be having these arguments in a civil manner - disagree, without being disagreeable.)

 

[Neonchameleon]

Modularity does nothing to fix the fighter, the kobolds with the initiative, or the rat pack.

The fighter's just too weak - which seriously worries me for the whole edition.

And the kobolds and ratpack getting advantage are both really obnoxious mechanics. Advantage for outnumbering people means that you can't simply throw your D20s by the handful but need to throw them in pairs. If throwing more than 3 dice at a time you should never be using either advantage or disadvantage.

 

[Uller]

One thing I've noticed in all these discussions is that those that feel strongly that X needs to be included or Y needs to be excluded...they think that their opinion should be _core_ and the things they don't like should be modular...In other words, if core is "official" then modular (aka "optional") is what they don't like.

One such discussion is the simplified fighter...to many (especially those that cut their teeth on 4e) the simplified fighter is sacrilege. All characers (in their opinion) should be equally complex as core. It doesn't seem to occur to them that there are lots of folks who want a simple character that allows them to explore the game (explore the dungeon, interact with NPCs,overcome puzzles, traps and challenges, bash monster's skulls in and take their stuff) and to those kind of players a complicated character distracts them from that.

 

[IronWolf]

I will agree that the parts I have taken issue with for the most part could be fixed via a "module".

With that said, advertising for games might be a bit like it was in the latter 3.x days where DMs picked and choosed which resources were allowed ending up in long lists of allowed books and disallowed books for that game.

 

[Uller]

Modularity does nothing to fix the fighter, the kobolds with the initiative, or the rat pack.

This post appeared while I typed my last post....it makes my point.

The fighter is fine... in combat he does what fighters do...deal out crazy damage and absorb attacks. The cleric heals him to keep him in the fight. In RP the player plays him as brash, boisterous and impatient with the halfling and the elf and all their "crazy plans" but if a monster so much as swings at one of them he goes after them.

If a tactics module comes out that gives the fighter more choices in combat, great...but it isn't necessary.

 

[Croesus]

As has been noted before, the fact that you can house rule a bad mechanic any number of ways doesn't mean it's not a bad mechanic.

True enough, though most of the discussions I've seen since the playtest docs were released have centered not around bad mechanics, but personal preferences, such as healing and opportunity attacks.

And the more people have to change to remake the game into their own image, the more likely they are to decide it's not worth the effort and just stick with what they have.

The playtest rules appear to be much easier to houserule than the more recent systems, which were much more tightly integrated. At some point, too many house rules can be a problem. But to the extent that any individual house rule only impacts that specific rule and does not ripple throughout the entire ruleset, one can have more house rules and still keep them to a manageable level.

We can't be sure the final rules will be as easy to houserule as the playtest rules, but if they are, DDN has the potential to end up with the flexibility of OD&D. The difference would be that OD&D was flexible because it was an incomplete ruleset, while 5E will hopefully be flexible by design.

 

[Kzach]

Modularity

What's sad about this is that people have to be told it.

 

[rjdafoe]

Unfortunately, the only thing that is wrong with DDN right now are the play testers. Discussion is good, but I don't see very many people taking the play test into context at all. There are an awful lot of people who are taking this as this is the PHB that they just purchased and all the rules are known and accounted for.