D&D 5E The basic logic at the heart of 5E design - core, modular, etc

[Mercurius]

From reading a variety of questions and suppositions about 5E, I've gathered that there is a good deal of confusion about the basic logic behind 5E design. I'm going to go out on a limb and hold that I get the gist of what they're trying to do, because--quite frankly--it is something that I've been hoping they'd do for a couple years now.

One of the points of confusion I frequently see is around discussions of what will be core 5E and what will be modular, often around very specific things (e.g. a particular class, alignment, skills, etc). We really can't know at this point--and it is probably that Mike & Monte haven't pinned it down yet--but I think we can extrapolate a bit.

Let's start with those two terms: Core and Modular. What is "core" is essentially the common denominator in any form of canonical 5E D&D (that is, not house ruled). It is the basic system upon which modular options can be placed; it is the default system that forms the basis for any version of 5E D&D. Simple enough, right?

There are numerous questions that are born from this idea. How simple with Core 5E be? What will be core and what will be optional? Will a certain class or race be core or optional?

Some of these questions end up being born from the confusion about the "design logic" that I alluded to. The core system is just that: a system. It isn't (necessarily) a set group of races and classes, or combination of other character traits (skills, feats, alignment, etc). It is a game engine that might or might not have a default mode, but that is in a sense the chassis upon which different pieces can be attached.

The question, then, is what is the line between core and modular? I would posit that it is, or could be, something like this:

Core - ability scores, defenses (AC, ref, fort, will), races, d20 + modifier vs. target number mechanic.

Modular Options - classes (and other forms of character development), skills, feats, powers, themes, alignment, magic items, spells, combat subsystems (e.g. conditions, positioning, battlemat, etc).

In other words, the Core will probably/possibly/hopefully look like a stripped-down version of d20/3E, while the modular options will include any and all sub-systems and specific configurations and optional rules and styles of game play that have appeared in any version of D&D, as well as possible new approaches (e.g. classless character development, spontaneous magic, etc).

Now "core" can also mean to some what is presented in the beginner's box or the first Player's Handbook. It remains to be seen whether WotC will publish an only-core basic rulebook or if even the basic rulebook (whether box or PHB) will include both core and modular options. My hope (and recommendation) is that we see something like the following:

- 5E Core Rules Document - this would be something similar to the SRD, yet simpler and in a more user-friendly format, a PDF that can be printed out or downloaded.

- Beginner's Box Set (aka 5E Red Box) - this would take Pathfinder's box set as a model, although maybe simplify it a bit. It would include the classic four races (human, halfling, elf, dwarf), four or five classes (fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric, maybe ranger), and levels 1-5. It would include the core rules but no modular options, and thus be geared at the true beginner.

- Player's Handbook - this is where "Advanced D&D 5E" begins. The races and classes would be expanded to include the rest of the classic tropes with one or two exotic options. It would be level 1-20 (with epic saved for a later book), and it would include a variety of modular options: skills, feats, powers, advanced combat, etc.

- Player's Options/PHB2, 3, etc - Further classes, races, modular options, sub-systems, etc. The sky's the limit here, although I would keep most new feats, powers, and such to DDI, with hardcover books having more solid options like classes and races, and optional sub-systems.

One way to imagine this design is that you have a wheel with a hub (core) and spokes (modular options), yet it is a dynamic and not a static wheel in that spokes are interchangeable, even in the same group (e.g. one player could run a roll-and-attack style fighter while another could have powers).

As I mentioned elsewhere, what I don't think we'll see are things like defenses and saving throws being modular options, which may disappoint some wanting to Save vs. Breath Weapon. That said, you might see a character sheet with tiny print under the different defenses that give homage to old school saves by describing which each defense is used for.

As I wrote here, these are exciting times, and they can be exciting for 90%+ of D&D fans. Certainly they won't be able to please everyone, but mainly those that are attached to a very specific iteration of the game that they want to see resuscitated. I would posit that fans of any edition that want their's revamped are going to be disappointed (with the possible exceptions of 3.x and 4E fans, given that it is likely that 5E will be a further development from those editions).

But again, the basic design logic: simple core, tons of modular options with which you'll be able to build the flavor and tone and complexity level of your choice. What's not to like?

 

[Keldryn]

I think that it's very important to stress that the goal of appealing to fans of every edition shouldn't be taken too literally. As you said, we're not likely to see options for Saving Throw versus Poison or Death Ray to replace a Fortitude save. I've seen some posts theorizing that we could have a simple core game with modules which more or less duplicate rules from the various editions of the game. I don't see that happening.

For example, I don't see them designing a core set of classes that work much like AD&D or 3.x classes, and then an entire alternate set of the same classes that use the 4e A/E/D/U power structure to replace them with. Maybe it will happen, but that's a lot of extra work and is probably an insurmountable task to balance other game elements with both sets of classes.

We need to take a step back and look at each issue from a higher-level, more abstract perspective. Regarding the above example, the 4e power structure was designed to address the issue of class balance and to ensure that characters always have something useful to contribute.

If the core rules adopt a more traditional approach to spellcasting, I can easily see fighters and other martial characters getting a number of stances or maneuvers which modify their standard attacks (much like the Essentials classes). Heck, one could easily back-port the Essentials stances into B/X or AD&D and they would work pretty well.

I can see modules which allow for more detailed and complex character customization, but that might not take the form of Feats. Perhaps there will be some fairly restrictive multi-classing options in the core rules, but instead of a module featuring freeform 3e-style multi-classing, we'll get rules for designing your own class instead.

We gamers can be awfully pedantic at times. Sometimes two approaches can accomplish the same end result, but people get hung up on specific implementation details.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

As far as a Core Box or Starter Set would go, I'd expect it to be all the core system, plus a handful of simple options to flesh it out. However some of those "options" in that set might not be presented that way very heavily, but only as part of the base system. (For example, the "wizard" might be the only "arcane caster" presented, but if you look carefully you can see that it is an option, and once you've got supplements, this becomes obvious.)

Part of the reason is that I don't think the truly core system would be acceptable as "D&D" to many people, but a core system fleshed out a bit woud be. But mainly, I think you may have missed one of your own assumption, namely that all options will be additive. Whereas, I can see a case for a core system where some options are subtractive or swapable (or possibly even a few more esoteric arrangements which aren't germane to the main topic here).

In particular, "dials" do not always imply "compleletely turned off" as the default setting, and some options need working, useful placeholders to fill in gaps in the system, attached to hooks that the other swapable options need in order to work seemlessly.

Plus, there are handling time and complexity concerns that I don't think any system closely derived from 3E can navigate. Monte and Mike both having torn down 3E and rebuilt it into something different, I expect they are very aware of this issue.

 

[Mercurius]

We gamers can be awfully pedantic at times. Sometimes two approaches can accomplish the same end result, but people get hung up on specific implementation details.

I was kind of trying to say this, but in a roundabout and politically correct way . I guess it isn't hard to predict upset folks who feel they were promised and entitled to an iteration of D&D that fulfills their expectations, but I think some of this is avoidable if people are a bit flexible about, in your language, which approach is taken to get to the same goal.

I personally don't feel that an attack vs. Fortitude is inherently less Old School or authentic a D&D experience than a Save vs. Breath Weapon. What is Old School or authentic is the experience that arises from the rules, the way the game is imagined and engaged with. In that sense, I think that WotC D&D--both 3.x and 4E--relies too heavily on battlemats, miniatures, and other gimmickry.

I remember playing in a 3E group back in 2002. The DM wanted to use miniatures and I remember one player protesting. I had never really used miniatures beyond marching order, so didn't see what the problem was. When the DM produced a battlemat and would re-draw it as our party proceeed through a dungeon, and we would move our minis as we went, I started to realize what my co-player's issue was: removing the focus of attention from the imagination to the battlemat. This approach has always been an option but 3E strongly encouraged it and 4E wrote it into the RAW that people had to house rule to get around.

One of my big hopes for 5E is that the core reverts to an imaginative battlemat rather than a virtual or physical one. There is nothing wrong with a virtual or physical one, I just think it should be a modular option.

In particular, "dials" do not always imply "compleletely turned off" as the default setting, and some options need working, useful placeholders to fill in gaps in the system, attached to hooks that the other swapable options need in order to work seemlessly.

Yes, I hear you. This is why Mike & Monte were talking about ability scores as core; in a modular system, they could be seen as the main limbs from which other branches emerge.

The tricky part is going to be making simple and complex options swappable without making the latter inherently better. For instance, it is easy to say in theory that I can replace a STR check to climb a wall with an STR: Athletics: Climb check, but how do you do so without making the matter simply additive? I think it can be done, it just won't be easy.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The tricky part is going to be making simple and complex options swappable without making the latter inherently better. For instance, it is easy to say in theory that I can replace a STR check to climb a wall with an STR: Athletics: Climb check, but how do you do so without making the matter simply additive? I think it can be done, it just won't be easy.

Well, that's a great example for me to use in my answer. It is easy in this case, though it might not be very slick. If you need to swap in skill systems or class abilities or whatever for climb checks, but you want the math to work out consistently, then the option is some ultra-simple bonus to climb checks, and that is the thing that gets replaced, not added to.

Str check + Character level is an obvious one. Not using any modular pieces for skills? Just add your character level to every check. Of course, then you can't use full character level in your more complex systems, but I think that is a feature, not a bug. Don't want even that amount of scaling? Ok, then you are dialing down in this case, and that should effect related numbers (i.e. monsters don't get to add their levels, either).

Alternately, if that is too intrusive, you can go with a flat kludge. The default module says you get a flat +5 to all ability checks when trying ad hoc skills, like climbing. Sure, this doesn't scale very well past 10th level, but since the starter set only goes to 10, who cares?

Related to your OP, this technique is the relationship of the "hook" that I keep aluding to that I don't think many people are seeing yet. Inevitably, someone will say that's too complicated and totally unnecessary. Just make the math work with ability scores straight and dont worry about it. Why make me add a +5 every time? Because if you reduce the hooks out of the system, you've got nothing left to attach your modules to--except by adding, which doesn't always work.

 

[Wightbred]

Well, that's a great example for me to use in my answer. It is easy in this case, though it might not be very slick. If you need to swap in skill systems or class abilities or whatever for climb checks, but you want the math to work out consistently, then the option is some ultra-simple bonus to climb checks, and that is the thing that gets replaced, not added to.

Str check + Character level is an obvious one. <Snip>

Alternately, if that is too intrusive, you can go with a flat kludge. The default module says you get a flat +5 to all ability checks ... <Snip>

Related to your OP, this technique is the relationship of the "hook" that I keep aluding to that I don't think many people are seeing yet. Inevitably, someone will say that's too complicated and totally unnecessary. Just make the math work with ability scores straight and dont worry about it. Why make me add a +5 every time? Because if you reduce the hooks out of the system, you've got nothing left to attach your modules to--except by adding, which doesn't always work.

Isn't is even simpler than this?

First define task difficulty in some simple way, say easy, moderate and hard.

1) No Skills: Just roll d20+Str against a set of target numbers that don't change whatever level you are, say 10 for easy, 15 for moderate and 20 for hard.

2) Increasing skills: So the d20+Str+Skill roll you are making is against a set of difficulty codes at goes up based on level.

This also copes with percentile skill module options, full-partial-fail options etc, etc.

I agree the trick is defining the right connection point or "hook", which in this case I think is difficulty, which can connect to a range of modular options. The adventure just needs to specify that opening the lock is (hard) or whatever and you know what to roll with the "skill" module you are using.

 

[Mercurius]

@Crazy Jerome , I'm not really sure what you mean by "hook?"

A couple things. I would think the best way to go about designing a complexity dial system is to think of the core (simple) baseline and a default level of complexity that would represent the sweet spot for most games. If we're using the often-used RPG terms rules lite, medium, and heavy, and let's say that 1 is lite, 2 is lite-to-medium, 3 is medium, 4 is medium-to-heavy, and 5 is heavy, then I would think core should probably be set at 2 and the default "advanced" game at 4, but with the recognition that you can set the dial at 3 or 5 if you like (maybe even 1, but it is harder to "dial it down").

In terms of skills, I would think the core could look something like this:

Untrained: d20 + Ability Mod vs. target number
Trained: d20 + Ability Mod + Level Mod vs. target number

Now given that this is the core and needs to stay relatively simple but not too simple, I would posit that "Level Mod" would be pre-set depending upon class and choice during character creation and be of three varieties: Primary (full level), Secondary (half), and Tertiary (quarter, or increasing at 4, 8, etc). So a character would have a different level mod for every ability score, depending upon the class, and everything a character can do is tied into those ability scores. Every class would have one ability score that is primary (fighter - STR, rogue - DEX, cleric - WIS, wizard - INT, etc), one to three secondary, and 2-4 tertiary. Classes with highly specialized training (wizards) would be weighted towards mainly tertiary skills, whereas bards and rogues would be strongly weighted towards secondary skills; all classes would have some choices as to what is secondary and what is tertiary.

In a sense, this would re-organize classes into groups based upon which ability score they have as primary. After that, you have all sorts of different configurations possible, depending upon what a player wants to emphasize and specialize in.

That said, the one problem I see is that primary far out-paces secondary or tertiary, so it would be hard to make a balanced two-stat character ala the ranger or barbarian or paladin. It might be that primary, secondary and tertiary should increase akin to 3E defenses: +1 per level, +3/4 levels and +1/2 levels, respectively.

For a more complex system, primary, secondary and tertiary are replaced by skill points, and the "accordion" of skills is pulled out from just ability score groups (e.g. STR) to broad skill groups (Athletics) and possibly specialties (Climb).

Also, to @Wightbred , I'm not sure why difficulty levels need to increase--actually, this has never made sense to me except in terms of game balance. Why not have static values of routine (say, 5), simple (10), moderate (15), hard (20), very difficult (25), herculean (30)?

If the core skill rule is d20 + bonus + level modifier (which could be full, half, or quarter), then it gives a solid frame to work with, while the 4E system is rather "slippery" and it is hard to get a sense of what target number represents what degree of difficulty because it changes depending upon level.

 

[Wightbred]

@Crazy Jerome , I'm not really sure what you mean by "hook?"

<Snip>

Also, to @Wightbred , I'm not sure why difficulty levels need to increase--actually, this has never made sense to me except in terms of game balance. Why not have static values of routine (say, 5), simple (10), moderate (15), hard (20), very difficult (25), herculean (30)?

If the core skill rule is d20 + bonus + level modifier (which could be full, half, or quarter), then it gives a solid frame to work with, while the 4E system is rather "slippery" and it is hard to get a sense of what target number represents what degree of difficulty because it changes depending upon level.

I was writing a hugely long answer to this that explained in detail but I lost it, so I will try a quick explanation instead.

I can't speak for Crazy Jerome, but I'm using "hook" to be the bit that connects the various skill option modules to the rest of the system. I am suggesting for skills that these hooks need to be descriptors of difficulty (eg: "hard") relevant to your level (so a "hard climbing check" for a 15th level character), but that the target number matching the descriptor is specified in the skill module.

For an AD&D 1e like skill module, which is simpler than your core, there are no skills. You just make ability score checks without any level modification (d20 + Str). So the target numbers are static and don't rise by level.

For other skill modules where skills rise each level because you spend skill points or they go up automatically, the target number rises so that "hard" is hard for your level. The number and nature of these skills can or course vary widely between modules.

(This hook option will also cope with percentile skill modules if desired, like the earlier edition Thief ones, through set modifiers making "hard" compatable.)

Without increasing target numbers in the latter modules the 1e like module is not compatable, and therefore the chance of success would vary between modules, effectively breaking the system. With a system like I am describing you could have players at the same table using different skill modules, like the announcement for 5e proposes, one spending skill points every level and one not tracking skills at all. But the DM is just giving them them a single "descriptor" like "hard" and their chance for success is comparable.

From thinking about this the critical element of the modular design will be choosing the right hooks. The wrong hooks will limit module options, but the right ones have the potential to make the game more streamlined.

 

[Tallifer]

I've seen some posts theorizing that we could have a simple core game with modules which more or less duplicate rules from the various editions of the game. I don't see that happening.

For example, I don't see them designing a core set of classes that work much like AD&D or 3.x classes, and then an entire alternate set of the same classes that use the 4e A/E/D/U power structure to replace them with. Maybe it will happen, but that's a lot of extra work and is probably an insurmountable task to balance other game elements with both sets of classes.

If the core rules adopt a more traditional approach to spellcasting, I can easily see fighters and other martial characters getting a number of stances or maneuvers which modify their standard attacks (much like the Essentials classes). Heck, one could easily back-port the Essentials stances into B/X or AD&D and they would work pretty well.

I can see modules which allow for more detailed and complex character customization, but that might not take the form of Feats. Perhaps there will be some fairly restrictive multi-classing options in the core rules, but instead of a module featuring freeform 3e-style multi-classing, we'll get rules for designing your own class instead.

People misjudge how close Fourth Edition is to Old Edition. Essentials demonstrated that classes with encounter and daily powers can easily coexist with classes that have only class features and spell lists. The underlying mechanics for the resolution of conflict whether combat or otherwise remain the same.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I wanted to post some intelligent and well thought out reply to this thread but I have the sudden urge to play Castles and Crusades! It's the strangest feeling!

 

[I'm A Banana]

With Mearls on record saying they want a game where you can use your old books, I am not even sure there is going to be much of an assumed "core."

Or rather, there's going to be a lot of different ways to do a "core."

Ability scores might be rolled, or they might be point-buy, or they might just be bonuses assigned at character creation.

Attacks and Defenses might be attack vs. defense, or they might be categorical saving throws, or they might be "player rolls all the dice" defenses, or they might just be "roll a d20 and get more than 10."

I think what lies at the core is much more likely to be concepts than mechanics.

"You play an adventurer in a fantasy world. So do your friends. There are dangerous monsters in the world. There are vulnerable townsfolk in the world. The DM is the judge and facilitator. You roll dice to try to do things that you might fail at."

That will already create some guidelines for the rules (no, don't expect detailed farming mechanics, or rules for how to fly starships), but it leaves the door pretty wide open, and there is cause to think they might actually want to leave it THAT open.

I think folks are thinking way too small and specific about this. If everything is optional, from class to race to XP advancement to preferred resolution mechanics, the possibilities are pretty huge.

 

[Wightbred]

<Snip>

I think folks are thinking way too small and specific about this. If everything is optional, from class to race to XP advancement to preferred resolution mechanics, the possibilities are pretty huge.

I agree the possibilities are huge, but I only started to see this after I played around with some specific modules. I've found it eye opening. Also, all these amazing possibilities are going to need to be bolted onto the simple core, like different roof and cladding options onto the frame of a house. The way these connect is really interesting to think about, and concrete examples help me thing of what this means, like how would could multiple skill options bolt onto resolution mechanics.

So yeah, the opportunity is amazing, and we can't forget this. But its fun and illuminating thinking about the detail of how this could work.

 

[Mercurius]

I think what lies at the core is much more likely to be concepts than mechanics.

....

I think folks are thinking way too small and specific about this. If everything is optional, from class to race to XP advancement to preferred resolution mechanics, the possibilities are pretty huge.

Good post, and I very much agree with you. However, I do think there will be--and probably should be--at least a core dice mechanic (d20+mods vs target number) and, if not set in stone core rules, a default configuration that is assumed in most games, and certainly tournament play. So in a sense you could have a wide variety of approaches, but with four generation categories:

Default Core, or "Basic D&D" - this would be a configuration of basic rules, such as the d20 mechanic, ability scores, race and class, HP, AC, defenses, and not much else.
Modular Options - this is almost everything - rules sub-systems, feats, skills, talents, powers, etc - that can be added to the core, depending upon the DM and players.
"Advanced D&D" - this would be the default configuration of modular options that could be used in tournament play. It would be, in essence, WotC's house ruled modular options and what they recommend, or at least an example of how modules can be put together.
House Ruled Core/Modular Options - this would be a variant along the lines of what Kamikaze Midget is talking about: a completely self-configured game, even with different assumed core components.

 

[Zireael]

I hope that we get one of two:
1) the Core is free and everything else is cheap
2) we pay for Core but we get everything else for free

I mean, why pay many times for what is essentially the same game?

 

[BryonD]

Yeah, I'm very eager to see how this comes along.

And the immediate question for me is, if it is this modular then what exactly are they play-testing right now?

 

[Aeolius]

So long as I can play Thistle, an awakened "classless" bunny rabbit, in the same game as Glaucus, a spellstitched swarm-shifter dread necromancer emancipated spawn half-scrag sea kin lacedon with aboleth grafts, I'm set.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I can't speak for Crazy Jerome, but I'm using "hook" to be the bit that connects the various skill option modules to the rest of the system. (snip good stuff)

From thinking about this the critical element of the modular design will be choosing the right hooks. The wrong hooks will limit module options, but the right ones have the potential to make the game more streamlined.

Yes, this is basically it. That's why my suggestions were only examples thrown off the cuff, and Wightbred came up with probably a better idea almost immediately.

I'll add to what he said above that another critical element is only using a limited number of hooks, though I guess that is part of picking the right ones.

If it helps, think of it almost straight, as a coat hook somewhere in a house. It can be done efficiently several ways. You mount some discrete hooks on the wall somewhere. You can buy a rack of hooks and mount it under the stairs. You can get a coat rack. And so forth. Those are potentially good, depending on exactly how the house is built (i.e. how the rest of the system comes together).

With a good solution, you can hang coats on it, but also light jackets, scarfs, umbrellas, hats, and probably a few other things that it wasn't exactly designed for. (Good design often displays that characteristic. There may be three official things to hook onto the system, but if done well, the hook will probably have more widespread uses.) If you have a "hat rack" mounted such that you can't hang anything longer on it, it may work for you, but it is not a general purpose, flexible solution.

Whereas, pure additive soultions are often that we just make something work. Hang your own coats in the hall closet, leave them on doorknobs and the backs of chairs when using them a lot, and when you have company, pile them all on the bed in the spare room. And if "coats" aren't all that important in the system, maybe you do that, and leave the modular options for something more pertinent.

What I see in a lot of the modular option discussions, though, are things like, "No one would ever entertain company with this system. So just forget all that." Or, "Just add something on; it will work just as well." Both of those are seldom true statements. (And it is fairly clear in context that some--but certainly nowhere near all--of these statements are thinly veiled code for, "I'd never do that, and haven't thought about what anyone else might do," or "I'm not planning on doing that, and if I do it will be all ad hoc," or some variation that really has nothing to do with whether the option is a good idea for the wider audience or not.)

Better objections to a particular piece of modularity are things like, "if you do this, you'll have to have some flexibility here, when it would be better to have that flexiblity there." Don't build a trailer hitch such that you hardweld that little ball on it, when you can bolt it on instead and still have it work with pins. (And it doesn't matter how much the people who only want the ball straight scream about having to bolt it on occasionally, they are objectively wrong about welding it.) Or, "this way to get the flexibility is really unwieldy and trouble for what the flexibility buys us." Something like making 3.5 gestalt (as written) the default rules. Or, of course, "We can do better than that to get the same results with less cost, even though your idea is alright by itself."

People that are making the first set of objections aren't engaging in the modularity discussion at all, but attempting to kill it (whatever their intentions may be, pro, con, or indifferent).

 

[Wightbred]

Yes, this is basically it. That's why my suggestions were only examples thrown off the cuff, and Wightbred came up with probably a better idea almost immediately.

I'll add to what he said above that another critical element is only using a limited number of hooks, though I guess that is part of picking the right ones.

<Snip>

Yes, definitely limited numbers of hooks!