D&D 2E Should 5e use optional rules like 2e did?

[Jawsh]

If they were making the game just for me? Then no, don't include optional rules, because I already treat all rules as optional. I know rule zero, and I live by it.

My problem with modularity is that it takes up valuable page-space, and those are pages I'm going to have to flip through to find the rules I want, and those are extra pages I'm going to have to carry everywhere in my backpack.

 

[Traken]

If they were making the game just for me? Then no, don't include optional rules, because I already treat all rules as optional. I know rule zero, and I live by it.

That's fine as long as the game is still designed to have optional rules. You are then less likely to run into situations where Rule A depends on Rule B depends on Rule C depends on Rule D. To remove Rule D, you have to remove or change all those rules.

My problem with modularity is that it takes up valuable page-space, and those are pages I'm going to have to flip through to find the rules I want, and those are extra pages I'm going to have to carry everywhere in my backpack.

It doesn't take too much extra space to put a line saying "feel free to ignore feats" or spend a paragraph explaining that you can ignore skills by making everything an attribute check.

 

[kitsune9]

I have a feeling that if they have a big rule book for the PH and DMG, all the optional modules will be included. If they really slim it down to explain the core set in 96 or so pages, then I can see the optional modules tacked on in another book.

My personal preference is to have the PH just for the core with maybe a couple of optional modules tacked on, but most of the modularity will be in the DMG. This will keep the page count down in the PH in which new players aren't intimidated by a text book (or large book). This would be particularly useful if there's no plans for a "basic set" which I hope they would seriously consider in order to get kids hooked.

 

[El Mahdi]

• Starter Box Set
• Core Game PHB, DMG, MM Hardcovers
• PHB and DMG Options Hardcovers

IMO, what would be best is a real starter box that contains the entire core game (but only the core game) up through 5 levels. It would include a sperate DMG, PHB, and MM (softcover) along with other starter stuff (dice, tokens, etc.). It only needs to cover about 3-5 levels. The DMG should include all the core rules a DM knows, but only the basics about how to DM (not like a full DMG). The PHB needs all the core rules for players (same as any PHB for any previous edition), but only has material for 3-5 levels. The Monster Manual would have all the core monsters of D&D (Goblins, Orcs, Giants, Dragons, etc.). But I can't stress this enough, it needs to have all the core rules of the basic game.

Then have full Core Books in Hardcover for seperate sale. A Players Handbook with a full 20 to 30 level game, a complete Dungeon Masters Guide with all of the best DM advice and info from the DMG's of the past, and a full complete Monster Manual with every iconic monster from D&D. This would be the core that everybody uses, and then options are added on by Players and DM's.

Then have DM and Player Option books with the optional rules modules for DM's and the expanded builds for Players. Call them DMG Options and PHB Options. One book each. Hardcover. The Player's get to decide what kind of build they want, whether just the basic core (BD&D, OD&D), more of an AD&D build, a 3E'esque build, or a 4E type build. I hope that Monte and Company can design it so that the different character builds don't require any real extra work or awareness of the rules in order for these to be used. This way the Player can choose what they want with it working seamlessly with everybody else at the table, including the DM. Then the DMG Options has the optional Rules Modules. This is the DM's perview. The group (players and DM) can obviously decide what type of game they prefer, but the DM is the one that makes the final decision on using module P, V, and W, but not X and Z.

And not to be forgotten, DDI needs to include everything that's in the core books and the option books, on the same day that the game is realeased. And it needs to be presented with the same divisions. Players Options are incorporated into the Character Builder. Rules Modules are built into the Monster/NPC and Encounter Builders, and all is included in the Compendium.

Up and running and ready to go. No excuses this time around.

 

[fjw70]

I don't see it happening. Suppose I opt out of healing surges, but the rest of the party doesn't. How am I doing anything besides nerfing my character? And even if I'm not, I still have to be yanked out of immersion by watching the rest of the party burn their healing surges and watch their wounds spontaneously heal when the bard insults them.

Some options will be DM/group decisions and some will be player decisions. Healing systems will probably be the former.

 

[Ratskinner]

I really hope however that the Wizards can make work what was promised off-hand at the Seminar: that players can play together at the same table using different options. I realize that some things are mutually exclusive, but as much as possible I want to avoid showing up at a table and the dungeon master giving me a checklist of things which are forbidden or allowed at his table. That would be a nightmare.

I would think that DMs would reserve the right to "forbid" things that don't make sense for the game world or setting, but that's no different than it is now, and has been for as long as I remember. I suspect that modules will come in (at least) two flavors: those that affect all players - call 'em Campaign Modules, and those that are individual player choices, call 'em Player Modules. I would posit that some Player Modules would be dependent on other Campaign Modules.

What options will be Campaign, and what options will be Player...can't tell yet, though a few are obvious.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I am concerned that some of us are inferring promises from WotC that they haven't made. I suspect that their idea of "1e and 4e players together" is meant to be "you can build a simple 1e fighter or a AEDU blademaster with the right choices" and that the DM's rules are going to be fairly universal. Then they'll supply us with more optional rules in other ways.

If they have too many different rules modules, publishing adventures would get over-complicated.

 

[FireLance]

I don't see it happening. Suppose I opt out of healing surges, but the rest of the party doesn't. How am I doing anything besides nerfing my character? And even if I'm not, I still have to be yanked out of immersion by watching the rest of the party burn their healing surges and watch their wounds spontaneously heal when the bard insults them.

Obviously, the default 5e setting will be Planescape, where anything can happen if a blood believes in it enough. "Yer faith makes it real, berk!"

 

[Tallifer]

I would think that DMs would reserve the right to "forbid" things that don't make sense for the game world or setting, but that's no different than it is now, and has been for as long as I remember. I suspect that modules will come in (at least) two flavors: those that affect all players - call 'em Campaign Modules, and those that are individual player choices, call 'em Player Modules. I would posit that some Player Modules would be dependent on other Campaign Modules.

What options will be Campaign, and what options will be Player...can't tell yet, though a few are obvious.

I hope that the Wizards of the Coast continue to preach and exposit the gospel of changing simple flavour to make mechanics fit any campaign. It is extremely annoying when the mechanics of excellent races, classes, feats, powers, themes, background and items are denied to players because they come from a specific setting. It is usually only a moment's work to reflavour any of those to fit absolutely any campaign, and those which require more imagination can rely on a creative player who is willing to write some fluff to fit the dungeon master's world.

 

[Ratskinner]

I hope that the Wizards of the Coast continue to preach and exposit the gospel of changing simple flavour to make mechanics fit any campaign. It is extremely annoying when the mechanics of excellent races, classes, feats, powers, themes, background and items are denied to players because they come from a specific setting. It is usually only a moment's work to reflavour any of those to fit absolutely any campaign, and those which require more imagination can rely on a creative player who is willing to write some fluff to fit the dungeon master's world.

I'm not sure how to fit "I can breathe acid" or "I can teleport 25 feet" into racial/background abilities for a gritty, low-magic, humans-only campaign. Saying "I was a wizard's apprentice" doesn't really explain the +2 Str, Fury, and Healing bonuses that seem to come with knowing one "Acid Spray" spell, and also sorta kills the "low-magic" vibe. "I always carry around buckets of acid that I learned to make as an apothecary's apprentice" doesn't really do it for me, either, because then we are interfering with encumbrance and everything else.

I'm perfectly fine with D&D supporting the Wahoo! Its all in there! Mos Eisley Creature Cantina meets the Justice League playstyle. However, I also want it to support the cold, grim Black Company playstyle and the perhaps colder, grimmer Song of Fire and Ice playstyle. I have happily played and ran both styles with several different editions. Some mechanics, be they Racial, Spell, AEDU-power, healing, Critical Hit Tables, or whatever, simply don't support some styles of play regardless of reflavoring. Mechanics do matter, especially in a game as complicated/precise as D&D, even in the older versions.