D&D 5E Too many cooks (a DnDN retrospective)

[timASW]

Well, I don't know anything about who Captain Smith socialized with, or when.

Then perhaps you should learn before trying to defend the well acknowledged worst captain in the annals of recent naval history.

However, he was the Captain and could make the schedule. It'd be nice for the Captain to always be on the bridge, but they're not. Is there a reason a Captain should presume his officers can't handle the ship when he's not physically on the bridge? If so, why have them?

He should have realized that as the most experienced man there and the one who had ultimate responsibility for the safety of the ship and passengers he should have been on duty when it was MOST dangerous, not LEAST.

Which is SOP for ship captains and always has been. Not some novelty he would be inventing.

Sure, but why would the lookouts he had not notice what twice that number would? Yes, in retrospect, he could have done that. But he didn't. The issue wasn't so much the number of lookouts as it was too few supplies for them (binoculars, and such).

Actually no, it was too few eyes on the sea and the eyes they had were too inexperienced.

and the more likely situations are the ones you plan for.

He was given 7 separate warnings by other captains of icebergs in the region and refused to slow down because it was his retirement cruise and he wanted to get it over with as soon as possible and put the lives of all of his passengers and crew lower in priority then retiring on time.

Oh and yes, floodlights are absolutely STANDARD on ships in those waters because they make an absolutely HUGE difference. HUGE. This is yet another thing thats long been SOP for naval captains that captain smith ignored.

Not the Captain's call, frankly. It was in compliance with the laws. Yes, the Captain could have refused to sail, but someone else would have taken the job in his stead if he had. Legally, nothing was wrong with the lifeboat situation. That's the fault of J. Bruce Ismay, not Captain Smith.

Yes it is his fault. Its the captains job to make the final call on things like that before leaving port. He could have said no and threatened to go to the papers if it wasnt fixed.

Maybe they would have replaced instead of fixing it. But you know what? Then 2 would have changed.

1. Smith would have lived.

2. It would have been the other captains fault for sailing a faulty vessel, and not his own.

What proper outfit means in modern day is different from what it meant back then.

Not nearly as different as you seem to think. Most of the things that are laws now are things that were common sense and good captains had been doing all along.

It was his responsibility to be a good captain, not just to follow the letter of the law if the law was insufficient. Laws are guidelines, not crutches so you can turn your brain off

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Here is what I'm arguing for:

A wizard is a traditional vancian caster UNLESS THE DM CHANGES THIS.
A sorcerer is a mana point caster UNLESS THE DM CHANGES THIS.
A warlock is a hybrid at-will/encounter caster UNLESS THE DM CHANGES THIS.
A Cleric/Druid is a spontaneous caster UNLESS THE DM CHANGES THIS.

The rules for "UNLESS THE DM CHANGES THIS" are found the DMG, and the DM can choose to
a.) force all classes to fit a certain style to fit his world
b.) eliminate a certain style that doesn't fit
c.) allow the players to free choose if he doesn't care
d.) go with the PHB defaults on the matter.

That's one of two options that seem likely. The other is that all spellcasters are Vancian unless the DM changes this.

This second one is likely because it is simple, traditional, fits with existing D&D settings, and empowers the DM. It also makes settings the basis for magic.

 

[timASW]

Here is what I'm arguing for:

A wizard is a traditional vancian caster UNLESS THE DM CHANGES THIS.
A sorcerer is a mana point caster UNLESS THE DM CHANGES THIS.
A warlock is a hybrid at-will/encounter caster UNLESS THE DM CHANGES THIS.
A Cleric/Druid is a spontaneous caster UNLESS THE DM CHANGES THIS.

The rules for "UNLESS THE DM CHANGES THIS" are found the DMG, and the DM can choose to
a.) force all classes to fit a certain style to fit his world
b.) eliminate a certain style that doesn't fit
c.) allow the players to free choose if he doesn't care
d.) go with the PHB defaults on the matter.

That would work for me. I dont like vancian and would probably ditch the wizard and just have warlocks and sorcerers but that wouldnt cause me problems so i would be happy with it.

 

[MoonSong]

Here's the issues...

On point 1) just roll a Sorcerer and call it Wizard:

The same thing was suggested for 4E and many people hated that. They wanted an archer Fighter and were told to roll a Ranger and call it "Fighter". Many people rebelled. So this idea is a non-starter I think.

On point 2) ask the DM to switch out those features:

Now we come down to presentation of the Player's Handbook. And all of us trying to figure out what is the best way to present the information.

There are two likely directions we can go. The first option is that in the Class section, each of the spellcasting classes have described one specific method for casting spells. Their "default" as it were. Like in the earlier packets for example, Wizard uses standard Vancian, Cleric uses pseudo-Vancian, Warlocks use encounter powers, Sorcerers use spell points, Druids maybe have a whole nother method for casting spells.

This seems to be a popular opinion with a lot of you.

Then, what would probably be written back in the Magic chapter or even in the DMG are instructions (in a module sidebar) that explains how to trade out a class's casting mechanics for another class's mechanics (as agreed upon by the DM and players) to achieve the style of magic their particular campaign should have.

The second direction is to not include actual casting mechanics in any class's description. Rather, it goes into the narrative and class's Story about how one becomes spellcaster class X, why you do it, what's the method for acquiring and casting the magic, etc. but no actual game mechanics right there and then. Instead, following the listing of all the classes we go right into the Magic chapter, where it lists out the 5+ different styles of casting mechanics, describes how they work, what the advantages and disadvantages are, and why certain classes might favor certain mechanics over others (for best exemplifying the class's Story). This section also then gives the spell lists for each individual class as well (like was typical for all pre-4E games, where spell lists appeared back in the Magic chapter, rather than within the Class description.)

So the question then becomes... which method for displaying the information is the easiest to understand, makes the most sense, and is least likely to annoy or piss off a larger precentage of the player-base?

Because that's the real issue here. Which group is bigger and/or more likely to put up a fuss (even going so far as to not actually play the game, because they felt they weren't being catered to?) Those who think each class needs a defining casting mechanic that is listed within their class description because otherwise the class doesn't have an identity... or those who can't stand certain mechanics to the point that they'd freak out if its even hinted at that WotC thought certain classes "should" have them, because they made them the class's default (even if it was easy enough to swap out.)

To tell you the truth... I don't know which group is bigger or more likely to put up a fuss. Speaking personally though... if the goal of the game is to create an edition that can harken back to ANY previous edition of the game... I would not want to see defaults put in place that run counter to how certain editions ran those classes. I'd rather keep everything more open and less defined, and then have chapters in the book that give examples of which modules to choose and use to recreate any specific past edition. Do as little as possible to define the game by any specific edition's mechanics, but instead present the various options equally and let the player choose.

Because it's all well and good to give the Wizard an "identity" by stating in its class description that its traditionally a Vancian caster (but that you can swap it out as a module if you want)... but that does you no good if that only makes like 20% of the player-base actually happy.

Again you are still thinking on only wizards. IT IS OK IF WIZARDS HAVE NO DEFAULT AND ARE FORCED TO GO THROUGH A COMPLEX PROCESS TO CAST IF THAT MAKES MOST PEOPLE HAPPY, THEY ARE COMPLEX TO PLAY ANYWAY. What I don't agree is to have that same needless complexity shoved into sorcerer and warlock players. Yes the plug a casting system may be ok for wizard players and it might be the best way to satisfy the most people possible, but depriving warlocks and sorcerers of a simple default will then make all sorcerer and warlock players unhappy. Wotc will gain nothing out of pleasing as many wizard players as possible if they manage to piss off the overwhelming majority of warlock and sorcerer players.

The way of caasting isn't that big of an issue for sorcerer and warlock players, to us there are more important things like which armor and weapons will be available, which spells/Invocations we'll be allowed to have (let's face it for a wizard spells are like a pair of socks they change everyday, but which spells and invocations respectively are a very important facet of a sorcerer and a warlock's playstyle, interest and even a reflection of the character's personality) and the available choices for bloodlines/pacts, it is more important to have a flavor neutral option for bloodlines and pacts than a mechanic neutral option for spellcasting.

In short words: No default may be the best compromise for wizard players, but will disapoint and scare off warlock and sorcerer players. Let wizards complicate themselves to death if they wish, but leave simple casters have a simple default.

 

[DEFCON 1]

What I don't agree is to have that same needless complexity shoved into sorcerer and warlock players. Yes the plug a casting system may be ok for wizard players and it might be the best way to satisfy the most people possible, but depriving warlocks and sorcerers of a simple default will then make all sorcerer and warlock players unhappy. Wotc will gain nothing out of pleasing as many wizard players as possible if they manage to piss off the overwhelming majority of warlock and sorcerer players.

Well, now we're moving on to just what I would consider poor design layout. To me it makes very little sense to remove casting mechanics from the Wizard and Cleric entries, but keep it within the Warlock, Sorcerer (and probably Druid) entries. That would make things even more difficult to understand. Proper layout would mean to either have casting mechanics in each Class description, or have them in no Class description at all and bundle them together in the Magic chapter.

I understand your desire for Warlocks and Sorcerers to have simple default mechanics... but truth be told... what I described in the second scenario does in fact easily give you what you want if its written that way. The Magic chapter would start by saying that spellcasting mechanics have run the gamut over the years, and each class has developed certain baselines for what has been their traditional methods for casting spells. The different mechanics include A, B, C, D, & E. Your baseline, traditional Warlock would use C. Your baseline Sorcerer would use D. The Clerics, Druids and Wizards would use A, B, and E depending on edition. But each and every class could use different mechanics if agreed upon by the DM and his players.

So the Warlock player does get informed quite clearly that their standard casting mechanic is C (and the description of how C works). The only difference is that rather than getting it from the Warlock entry in the Class chapter... he gets it at the beginning of the Magic chapter, right before he finds his spell list. And he arrives there fairly easily when the Warlock description says "See page XX for casting mechanic description and Warlock spell list.

Easy-peasy.

 

[MoonSong]

Well, now we're moving on to just what I would consider poor design layout. To me it makes very little sense to remove casting mechanics from the Wizard and Cleric entries, but keep it within the Warlock, Sorcerer (and probably Druid) entries. That would make things even more difficult to understand. Proper layout would mean to either have casting mechanics in each Class description, or have them in no Class description at all and bundle them together in the Magic chapter.

I understand your desire for Warlocks and Sorcerers to have simple default mechanics... but truth be told... what I described in the second scenario does in fact easily give you what you want if its written that way. The Magic chapter would start by saying that spellcasting mechanics have run the gamut over the years, and each class has developed certain baselines for what has been their traditional methods for casting spells. The different mechanics include A, B, C, D, & E. Your baseline, traditional Warlock would use C. Your baseline Sorcerer would use D. The Clerics, Druids and Wizards would use A, B, and E depending on edition. But each and every class could use different mechanics if agreed upon by the DM and his players.

So the Warlock player does get informed quite clearly that their standard casting mechanic is C (and the description of how C works). The only difference is that rather than getting it from the Warlock entry in the Class chapter... he gets it at the beginning of the Magic chapter, right before he finds his spell list. And he arrives there fairly easily when the Warlock description says "See page XX for casting mechanic description and Warlock spell list.

Easy-peasy.

I don't quite agree with that. The reason to not give a default to wizards is to avoid one-size-fits-all, but forcing warlocks and sorcerers into the same deal actually is repeating the same thing all over again. It won't be that simple, balancing different casting mechanics calls for different numbers on each of them, if you use the exact same values for all casting mechanics, then the simpler ones will be very underpowered in comparison with the more complex characters. You cannot just say "at x level everybody has five spell levels worth of spells", because the vancian spell point user will be way better than the spontaneus slot caster. (In general Recharge needs less than daily, Spell points less than slot-based, and vancian less than spontaneous, gotten evne more complex because not every clas swill get only one of them) So either you give up on balance between wizards, warlocks and sorcerers, or you manage to compress a matrix of spell mechanics into a few pages and still keep it simple (which I doubt).

 

[DEFCON 1]

So either you give up on balance between wizards, warlocks and sorcerers, or you manage to compress a matrix of spell mechanics into a few pages and still keep it simple (which I doubt).

I guess it depends on how simple is "simple" to you.

To my mind... having vancian mechanics appear in the Wizard class description, the encounter system in the Warlock class description, and the spell-points in the Sorcerer class description... is like just a smidge simpler than having each of those mechanics appear one after the other in the Magic system. But not so simple as to just ignore the potential hullabaloo from people who really would freak out if it seemed like WotC wasn't doing their best to facilitate their playstyle.

Because that's all we're really talking about here. Cutting down on the total number of places where some gamer could go berserk because they felt that their way of playing D&D wasn't being catered to. And if that means not assigning default casting mechanics (or not assigning a default method for healing, or default magic item expectation etc.), then a small bit of additional complexity is probably going to be worthwhile in the end. Especially when it comes to two classes (the Warlock and Sorcerer) which fall outside the "core four"... and thus by the game's definition, are supposed to be slightly more complex than the Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard.

 

[Animal]

Here is what I'm arguing for:

A wizard is a traditional vancian caster UNLESS THE DM CHANGES THIS.
A sorcerer is a mana point caster UNLESS THE DM CHANGES THIS.
A warlock is a hybrid at-will/encounter caster UNLESS THE DM CHANGES THIS.
A Cleric/Druid is a spontaneous caster UNLESS THE DM CHANGES THIS.

The rules for "UNLESS THE DM CHANGES THIS" are found the DMG, and the DM can choose to
a.) force all classes to fit a certain style to fit his world
b.) eliminate a certain style that doesn't fit
c.) allow the players to free choose if he doesn't care
d.) go with the PHB defaults on the matter.

Well, looks like you've got it all figured out for your game.
Just print it and hand out to your players.
No need to have this in a core book.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, looks like you've got it all figured out for your game.
Just print it and hand out to your players.
No need to have this in a core book.

Then what would you put in the core book instead, that would be simpler than Remathilis' idea?

Lanefan

 

[Hussar]

Here is what I'm arguing for:

A wizard is a traditional vancian caster UNLESS THE DM CHANGES THIS.
A sorcerer is a mana point caster UNLESS THE DM CHANGES THIS.
A warlock is a hybrid at-will/encounter caster UNLESS THE DM CHANGES THIS.
A Cleric/Druid is a spontaneous caster UNLESS THE DM CHANGES THIS.

The rules for "UNLESS THE DM CHANGES THIS" are found the DMG, and the DM can choose to
a.) force all classes to fit a certain style to fit his world
b.) eliminate a certain style that doesn't fit
c.) allow the players to free choose if he doesn't care
d.) go with the PHB defaults on the matter.

Then what would you put in the core book instead, that would be simpler than Remathilis' idea?

Lanefan

I'd remove all references to "Unless the DM changes this" and tell players that it's up to them. After all, do you tell your fighter players what feats they can take? Do you dictate what weapons they can and cannot use? How about any other class? Why do casters get to be special here? Players of every other class get to customize their character to a pretty large degree. To the point, where, in 3e anyway, two fighters could possibly not share a single feat. The only points of similarity between the two characters would be the rate at which they gained feats.

And, depending on other factors, that might not even be the same.

So, why is my game now being dictated by WOTC - after all they are the ones who are telling me that classes will look a certain way unless I, the DM, change it. And, why is the DM getting to dictate to the players?

Isn't it a lot better to let players play the characters that they want to play?

Sorry, it's not 1982 anymore. Viking Hat, My Way or the Highway DMing isn't really the way to go anymore. Is it?