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

[pemerton]

Just make them different classes and lock in the mechanics, for crying out loud. For arcane: Vancian = Wizard. Non-Vancian = Sorcerer. For divine: Vancian = Cleric. Non-Vancian = Shaman.

Which seems simple enough, until someone tries to take the Vancian classes (which have a built-in disadvantage just by being Vancian) and make them non-Vancian, thereby getting the best of both without the drawbacks. Sorry, folks, if it's balance you want then every class has to have its advantages and drawbacks.

I think that you get to the issue here.

4e adopts the approach that you describe: wizards (who are quasi-Vancian) have their distinct backstory (spellbook using scholars), and their distinct role in the game (controllers and ritual casters); warlocks likewise (pact-forging strikers); and sorcerers (power-infused strikers).

But one aim of D&Dnext, as I understand it, is to divorce role from class, so that a wizard could be a striker, a controller, a leader, etc, depending on spell selection and player choices in the course of play. That is, story archetype and mechanical effect on play are being separated from one another. At that point, what is the rationale for keeping story archeype connected to spell-use mechanics?

If the answer is "balance", fair enough, but Mearls at present seems to be promising that a Vancian wizard can be balanced with a spell point wizard. Assuming that that design goal can be achieved, why is a default mechanic required?

Ok, maybe it could work FOR WIZARDS, sorcerers and warlocks have traditionally been way simpler than wizards, if the majority of sorcerer and warlock players just want to have a simple default in order to focus on all of the important choices (pacts, bloodlines, whihc spells/incantations to learn) do we win anything by hiding the simple caster behind a wall of complexity in order to please wizard players?

This is a fair question. I think [MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION] is right that, with good rulebook writing, the link between class and casting options need not be a wall of complexity. But even if that's so, you may be right that it's of the essence of warlocks and sorcerers that they play more simply than wizards. Even then, though, there might be some who prefer slot sorcerers or points sorcerers - in which case the same argument can be put that there is no special need for the game to establish a default (but of course it could say: if you want a simple sorcerer, go to the points-casting option on pXXX of the Spell Users chapter).

 

[pemerton]

I like to see D&D as a sort of Tolkein with extras. You see as core what I see as extra, or un-needed.

I like Tolkien-esque elves and dwarves. It's only halflings (and gnomes, to go beyond Tolkien but to stay within traditional D&D) that I find annoying. . . but am happy enough to have in my game if a player wants to play one (the halfling feylock that ended up as a half-elf was going to be called "Peter" . . .).

 

[Balesir]

It does. He wasnt telling stories or trying to entertain. He was doing engineering. It wasnt a "fantasy archetype" anymore then a modern physics class is "sci-fi"

Wait - so vampires aren't a fantasy archetype, either, because villagers exhumed and staked/burned the hearts of corpses they thought were cursing their community into the mid-20th century?

Much of fantasy has been thought "real" at some time or another. Oftentimes there have even been explanations that turned out to be surprisingly close to what was believed. If we exclude all that from our fantasy, I don't think we'll have much left...

Klingons are fine for sci-fi. Not for D&D. And I'm extremely certain that neither tieflings nor dragon men, nor robots were core PHB classes in anything D&D before 4e.

Draconians in (late) 2e Forgotten Realms, tieflings in 2e Planescape (and 3e FR as well as Planescape) and Warforged in 3.5e Eberron would seem to comprehensively refute your assertion, here. Unless you have been living in an alternative universe where those things never happened?

And Klingons are orcs with a refluff and high technology.

That points out a major difference between us, I think; in that I like to see D&D as a sort of Tolkein with extras. You see as core what I see as extra, or un-needed.

And yet, through the history of D&D, I see only one game world - maybe two if you count FR which is sort-of "Tolkien with the fantasy dial turned to 11" - that were really anything vaguely like Middle Earth. And, even then, Greyhawk had shades of MAR Barker in it with the "Expedition to the Barrier Peaks" stuff.

And any Elf PC in its right mind is going to have trouble adventuring with a Drow: "I've spent most of my multi-century adult life learning how to kill these things and now I'm expected to run with one? Nuts to that! It leaves or I do!"

And you don't see the story possibilities inherent in challenging that in play??

You could in fact make the exact same story with any character, get rid of the racial munchkin powers though and you'll find no one would play that character. Try it sometime, tell the player he can have the exact same character, same story, same everything. But no munchkin powers and watch him howl and scream.

[snippage]

Or maybe the munchkin just came up with a short story he knew wouldnt ever really matter in play to justify his kewl powerz.

The flaw in your argument appears to be that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s game is run using 4E D&D. In 4E, all PC races have racial powers, and they are pretty well balanced against one-another. Primarily, I think this stems from the fact that they are all "core" races - i.e. they are all seriously intended to be played as PC options.

Finagling to get a specific race in 4E to get "kewl powerz" would be pointless; you would get powers no more or less powerful than those gained by any other character. If you have thematic or aesthetic reasons to want to have specific powers, however, for "story" purposes, then desiring a specific race would make perfect sense. So would wanting a specific race whose powers and abilities fitted well with the overall character you were intending to develop. I see nothing wrong with either of these motivations.

A final word on "munchkinism": so, the player wants a capable and powerful character - what's wrong with that? There is a problem letting one player have a more powerful character than the other players have (although even that can work and be fun for some specific circumstances), but I see nothing whatever wrong with allowing players to play powerful, capable characters thatn can control their environment to a good degree. So, is it the idea that a player wants to have a more powerful character than anyone else that is the problem with "munchkinism", or merely the idea that player characters should be capable and effective individuals? If it is the first, I suggest that the answer is simply good game balance accross all the options. If it is the second, then I suggest that it isn't a problem at all.

 

[steeldragons]

Actually, I keep hearing a bunch of whiny, entitlement-driven players who don't want WotC or any DM telling them they can't be whatever they're little hearts desire.

Oh thank gods! You hear it too?! Thought it was just me.

Thanks for saving me the trip to the doctor's to get my ears checked.



[And I agree with the rest of the post, also.]


Mod Note: as we saw with someone else just after this, calling folks names is not acceptable. Please don't do this. Thanks. ~Umbran
--SD

 

[technoextreme]

It does. He wasnt telling stories or trying to entertain. He was doing engineering. It wasnt a "fantasy archetype" anymore then a modern physics class is "sci-fi"

Then gnomes aren't fantasy by your moronic definition.

You could in fact make the exact same story with any character, get rid of the racial munchkin powers though and you'll find no one would play that character. Try it sometime, tell the player he can have the exact same character, same story, same everything. But no munchkin powers and watch him howl and scream.

You are also kind of acting moronic in that there are quite a few races which are mechanically useless. Seriously there is a race in 4th edition which is fairly appealing because you get to play a race which from a historical standpoint and fantasy standpoint has big balls.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Then gnomes aren't fantasy by your moronic definition.
You are also kind of acting moronic in that there are quite a few races which are mechanically useless. Seriously there is a race in 4th edition which is fairly appealing because you get to play a race which from a historical standpoint and fantasy standpoint has big balls.

"Moronic" isn't a word you use to describe someone, or their ideas, in a a civil conversation. Since Rule #1 of ENWorld is "Keep it Civil," you're violating that. Please don't let it happen again.

 

[technoextreme]

"Moronic" isn't a word you use to describe someone, or their ideas, in a a civil conversation. Since Rule #1 of ENWorld is "Keep it Civil," you're violating that. Please don't let it happen again.

Ehhh... Since you don't have a problem with it I'll just call him whiny then.

Ladies and gentlemen, what we have here is an awesome example of how to get banned. Not only is technoextreme talking about moderation in the thread, but they're ALSO continuing to do the thing they were reprimanded for in the first place. This behavior has earned technoextreme a short break from ENWorld. ~KM

 

[DEFCON 1]

That points out a major difference between us, I think; in that I like to see D&D as a sort of Tolkein with extras. You see as core what I see as extra, or un-needed.

So the question comes down to how best to present the information for both of us.

There are several options here, as I said...

1) We go your route, which is use the first few chapters of the Player's Handbook to present the Basic Core "Tolkein with extras" as you put it. Chapter 2: Core Races; Chapter 3 Core Classes; Chapter 4 Core Magic and Spells.

Then... starting in Chapter 5 we cycle backwards. Chapter 5: Advanced Races; Chapter 6 Advanced Classes; Chapter 7: Advanced Options For Core Classes; Chapter 8: Advanced Magic And Spells; Chapter 9: Backgrounds; Chapter 10: Specialties and Feats.

2) Or we go with what we're recommending, which is present all the Chapters in order without repeating them, bundling the Core and the Advanced races, classes, and options in each section. So it'd be Chapter 2: Races; Chapter 3: Classes; Chapter 4: Backgrounds; Chapter 5: Specialties and Feats; Chapter 6: Magic and Spells

Now in these chapters, I'd have no problem NOT putting them in alphabetical order (which has always traditionally been the case), in order to perhaps highlight the Core Four at the fronts of each of these chapters. Thus, Chapter 2: Races might go in the presentation order of Dwarf, Elf, Halfling, Human / Gnome, Dragonborn, Half-Elf, Half-Orc, and then Chapter 3: Classes would go Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard / Assassin, Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Monk, Sorcerer, Warlock, Warlord. And there would be sidebars in the chapters describing and differentiating the Core Four from the "advanced" races and classes for those who want a more "classic" D&D experience.

That second kind of book presentation makes sense to me a whole lot more that the first kind posited, because in that one you end up creating in those first few chapters a "game version" that... let's be completely honest here... only an extremely small percentage of the players are really going to play. The other 95% of players will be bringing in AT LEAST ONE "advanced rule" into their game, whether that be Backgrounds/skills, or one of the advanced classes or races. So why highlight a game version in its own section at the front of the book that won't ever actually get used by practically anyone? Sure... it might be the "Simple and Easy!" version of D&D that would help these mythical "new players" who are trying to learn the game entirely on their own without being shown the game by someone who knows how to play already, or who have never played any other form of board or video game that uses pretty much all these "RPG concepts" (and also are dumb enough that they'd actually get confused when reading "big, bad, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons")... but that total number of players is practically infinitesimal.

As a way to organize the first Player's Handbook... that seems like trying to play up to an audience that really doesn't exist.

 

[Obryn]

Ok, maybe it could work FOR WIZARDS, sorcerers and warlocks have traditionally been way simpler than wizards,

Traditionally? Only in the sense that a Warlock is 7th level, a Sorcerer is 8th level, and a Wizard is 9th level.

-O

 

[Manbearcat]

Or maybe the munchkin just came up with a short story he knew wouldnt ever really matter in play to justify his kewl powerz.

This is almost assuredly to go nowhere but here goes.

Take two separate families in the current era whose blood supported the Confederacy in the American Civil War (these can be our Tiefling, Duergar and their intrinsic cultures).

One family had an ancestor who served for many years but ultimately deserted right before the loss at Fort Sumter, uprooted his family and fled to the Western Territories to make a new life. Perhaps part of the desertion was due to never fully buying into the Confederate Ethos but they believed in protecting their homeland. Regardless, their family legacy is now formed by all of these things. It is a byproduct of the initial support of that cause, the ultimate desertion (forsaking their heritage/the cause they initially supported) in the face of defeat and generational renewal in a new land. They will forevermore be on the wrong side of the war that defined America...but not in a defiant, died-in-the-wool greycoat way...in fact, they trie to hide their past and hope that they have established a new one such that any questions of ancestry does not come up.

The other family had an ancestor who served for many years and ultimately died during Pickett's ignominious charge at Gettysburg. That family is to this day militantly supportive of the Confederate cause, pro-slavery, and hateful of the "Yankee Nation." Complete died-in-the-wool greycoats. Perhaps they view their ancestors death as glorious and heroic. It is a source of enormous pride and they wear their current Confederate support as a badge of honor.

Don't you think those two families would have some keen insight into each others' existence, heritage, legacy that other families who have generically endured a "classic" war would not possess? And given the dynamics, don't you think they would likely share more than just kindred spirits...there would assuredly be a lot of tension that you wouldn't find if the circumstances were dissimilar or you just compared two "generic" war families?

Maybe there are actual people out there, you know...fellow gamers, who do not share your playstyle and genre preferences who are actually sincere? Is that not a possibility? Even if you don't think thats possible, do you think maybe you could assume good faith and not reflexively make a cynical mockery of their playstyle?