Rule of Three: March 13

[I'm A Banana]

If 4e was "everything is core," I imagine 5e will be "anything is core."

If a combat lasts for 15 minutes, why did we bother in the first place? It obviously wasn't a challenge to the PC's, there were virtually no tactics being used.

Military tacticians throughout history would have some words with that. Fights in war or between people or even in nature happen most often when they are resolved quickly, and frequently between people of vastly different skill levels. If a fight lasts 15 minutes, someone done messed up.

Instead of zooming into the micro level of the encounter and seeing challenge and tactics there, it might be more worthwhile to zoom out to the more macro level of the adventure, to see a broader swath of possible strategy and tactics.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

One thing that I could imagine with class abilitites spread out above the first 3 levels would be a multiclassing system that works similar to 3rd edition, but instead of picking up level1 fighter, level 1 wizard, you would pick up level 1 fighter, and then wizard level 2.
Level 1 would give you abilties of your class, that would need years of training. The basics of fighting. All martial weapons etc. Level 2 and 3 are more specialized. Give you the option to train in armor a little better, traing/focussing in a new/favourite weapon etc. A marking mechanism etc.
The wizard will learn all those utility cantrips in school. How to do simple rituals etc. At level 2 and 3 you get some more specialized powers.

So maybe there is no way to get all those basics of your class, but you gain some cool abilities by taking level 1 and 2 of fighter, but level 3 of wizard. Or you could take level 1 of both classes and call yourself hybrid.

If set up right, maybe this would be a good and quite simple way to do multiclassing.

 

[Andor]

Again, an option or a module does not, by default, have to present "more" or "complex"; it could just as well present "less" or "different". See past the idea of a rules module as an addition. It can be a transformation, instead.

I think you're putting too much emphasis on the 'module' thought. Module means a coherant chunk of rules, not some highly-optional bit of poorly though out garbage consigned to an appendix.

Think of it like this: (Note all examples are made up and probably bear no relation to what it will actually be.)

Fighter

The Fighter is the master of melee combat, no other class is his equal on the battlefield when steel is drawn.

HP: Con + 5 at first level, 6+1d4 at each level after.
Bab: +1 per level
Skills: Pick any 4.

Combat Options: Pick one
Simple: The Fighter gets a class based bonus of +2 to hit and +1 his level to damage.
Feats: The fighter gets 1 feat at first level and 1 at each odd level thereafter. See feat descriptions starting on page 25.
Powers: The fighter can choose 3 + his level points from the martial powers list. See the martial powers decription on page 42.

Modules: Ask your GM which campaign modules are in effect for this game.
If the Swashbuckling Combat module is used in your game the fighter gets +3 to any stunt attempt which moves an opponent around the map, or to resist any attempt to be moved. They get +2 to disarm or resist being disarmed. See page 57.
If the Hirelings modules is being used Fighter get a free 3 point henchmen at 5th level representing a squire or apprentice. They advance by the normal rules on page 65.

etc...

Using weapons, armours classes, terrain and descriptive movement will probably be the basic combat system.

Minis on a grid (or without a grid, you didn't really need one in 3.x) is probably it's own 'module'. That's the way it was in 1ed and 2ed.

A universal resolution system will be basic. There will probably a more detailed resolution system like that 'swashbuckling module' to allow more detailed or nuances resolution of things like disarms, tripping, chandelier swinging and whatnot. Similar to "page 42" from 4e.

There will not, at any level or set of modules, be a time when you say "I charge the monster!" and your GM replies "We aren't using charge rules, just attack." Or if there is, that's not the fault of the rules, it's your fault for picking a GM with the personality of tofu.

 

[TarionzCousin]

(read Trailblazer!).

I hope Monte & friends are! It's a fantastic approach: well thought out and mathematically sound.

I could actually get behind characters who "come into" their class abilities a bit."

You know nothing, John Snow... and I completely agree with you.

 

[Hussar]

Actual tactics? Where? There are no more actual tactics available then there are in OD&D.

Sorry, I mispoke. If forgot to add in mechanically supported tactics. Ambushing, while a tactic, is not mechanically supported in any edition, particularly, so, it's equally viable. Tripping, OTOH, is not supported at all in, say, Basic D&D, therefore, while it's a perfectly viable tactic, it is not mechanically supported.

Who says there are no tactics? Ambushing is a tactic. Preparing an area and luring the enemy into a kill zone is an actual tactic. Tactics have been in use in rpgs long before they became prepackaged modules on a character sheet.

See above.

Challenge level has little to do with resolution time. Suppose the party is TPK'd in 15 minutes. I would say that the combat was far from not being a challenge. Shorter combat is actually ANTI dice fapping.

The unspoken presumption there is that the PC's succeed in a given encounter. If everyone dies in the first attack of the surprise round, that's a REALLY fast encounter. But not a terribly satisfying one. OTOH, if we spend 15 minutes screwing around with dice, with virtually no mechanically supported options, we might as well chuck the dice and just freeform the darn thing.

I take the opposite. I think the default core should be simple with a tactical module to ramp up the complexity as desired. Its easier to add than to remove such elements.

Actually, here I will disagree. You want an abstract, very fast play system. This can be done in about half a page of rules. OTOH, a fiddly system with lots of mechanically supported options is going to eat up a fair bit of space. I'd much rather the fiddly system was presented first, with what amounts to a sidebar telling you how to ignore the fiddly system for the fast play one.

Military tacticians throughout history would have some words with that. Fights in war or between people or even in nature happen most often when they are resolved quickly, and frequently between people of vastly different skill levels. If a fight lasts 15 minutes, someone done messed up.

Umm, I meant 15 minutes of real time to resolve the encounter, not 15 minutes of game time. Good grief, that's anywhere from 15-150 rounds of combat. I defy ANYONE to resolve that in 15 minutes of real time.

 

[Mattachine]

I think you're putting too much emphasis on the 'module' thought. Module means a coherant chunk of rules, not some highly-optional bit of poorly though out garbage consigned to an appendix.
.
.
.
A universal resolution system will be basic. There will probably a more detailed resolution system like that 'swashbuckling module' to allow more detailed or nuances resolution of things like disarms, tripping, chandelier swinging and whatnot. Similar to "page 42" from 4e.

There will not, at any level or set of modules, be a time when you say "I charge the monster!" and your GM replies "We aren't using charge rules, just attack." Or if there is, that's not the fault of the rules, it's your fault for picking a GM with the personality of tofu.

I was referring specifically to the idea that the base game, off of which options (or modules) will be based, does not have to simply be the core mechanics. The base game could be the mechanics, PLUS the "swashbuckling module" you state--except not as a mod, but as the standard. An optional set of rules could actually say something to the effect of, "Only simple combat rules are used, and the DM uses his judgement for maneuvers and stunts."

Again, Burning Wheel does this, and, it could be argued, Basic D&D was this for AD&D. They were different systems, to be sure, but one could use Basic D&D combat in lieu of AD&D's. Heck, I did exactly that when I ran D&D games when I was in sixth-eighth grade (simple initiative, no speed factors, no segments, no weapon vs. AC, etc.).

In other words "Core Game" does not equal "Simplest Game". I mean, the core game of baseball is much more complex than the version played in my elementary school gym class. The latter game was made by making subtractions from core game. That is what I would like to see for 5e: robust core with some complexity, provide options for a simpler game, and options for a more complex one.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Sorry, I mispoke. If forgot to add in mechanically supported tactics. Ambushing, while a tactic, is not mechanically supported in any edition, particularly, so, it's equally viable. Tripping, OTOH, is not supported at all in, say, Basic D&D, therefore, while it's a perfectly viable tactic, it is not mechanically supported.

So unless someone else or some book tells you exactly how something is resolved its not an actual tactic?

Ambush has ALWAYS been supported via the suprise rules. If you are aware of an enemy and they are unaware of you then you might gain the suprise benefits of a free round (or more in AD&D) of attacks before the enemy can react. 3E even introduced the flat footed condition to add even more mechanical effect of ambush to the existing rules.

The unspoken presumption there is that the PC's succeed in a given encounter.

This takes the G right out of RPG. It is not a presumption I desire as a player or DM.

 

[Ratskinner]

In other words "Core Game" does not equal "Simplest Game". I mean, the core game of baseball is much more complex than the version played in my elementary school gym class. The latter game was made by making subtractions from core game. That is what I would like to see for 5e: robust core with some complexity, provide options for a simpler game, and options for a more complex one.

I strongly disagree, and would suggest that what you played in elementary school was the "Core Game" and what the pros play now is the "Xth-e" version of the game. As much as some people are objecting to modules they don't like even appearing in the core books , putting something in the basic game really means that you will have to say "no" to players. Additionally, it is always easier to add to a simple base than subtract and replace from a more complex starting point.

"I can say that starting with the simplest base possible is likely a given, as it’s far easier to add complexity to a game rather than take it away." - Mike Mearls. It sounds like the core game will be very basic, with optional add-ons.
​

Honestly, I wouldn't even mind an environment where the "Base" game is barely playable and the use of different modules is the expectation when you join a new a group or switch campaigns. (I may be weird that way.) However, I won't freak out if the Base game is actually a solid playable game.

I expect that some modules may be "remove and replace" like you suggest (alignment, for instance), but I hope they avoid that temptation as much as possible with things that have deep mechanical implications like combat rules.

 

[Mattachine]

I respectfully disagree with you and Mearls. My suggestion is not "taking" away. Why must everyone use the model of "base system plus add-ons"? Different is different. Again, if the base game is made at the same time as some initial options, it wouldn't be "taking away" from the base game. In other words, the starting point can still be the base mechanics, but what appears in the core rules can actually be more advanced than that.

I will be sad if the core game is too simple, and I need to get an add-on module to have something my group and I find interesting. Though I want the game a little simpler than 3e, I'm not in for a new version of BECMI.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I will be sad if the core game is too simple, and I need to get an add-on module to have something my group and I find interesting. Though I want the game a little simpler than 3e, I'm not in for a new version of BECMI.

Well, you won't necessarily have to "Get" an add-on module. I think the core rulebooks are going to contain both a very simple and basic core game, PLUS some of the most popular add-ons (like additional classes, races, skills, feats, equipment, etc., etc.). The difference is going to be that those add-ons are not necessarily assumed for the game when making new rules for it. They can be, but they aren't automatically.

I'm not sure there's going to be much of a "default mode" for D&D that is very rules-intensive. Most people will probably play the game with add-ons, but if all you want to do is roll up a fighter or a magic-user and bop some goblins on the nose for an hour or so, I think the game will have to support that, too, and not in some dark corner of forgotten rulespeak about all the stuff you have to take out, but right out the gate, because someone who wants that kind of game isn't going to go through the time to mod something more complex to their liking.