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

[DEFCON 1]

I'm not sure I quite follow.

Just because someone is saying that they don't want a complicated game doesn't mean that they're attacking the editing team at WotC. Literally the only person here who's made that connection is you... and I'm honestly not sure why you did.

Cheers!
Kinak

Here is what KaiiLurker said:

'If on the flipside I'm forced to "follow this contribed process to get something resembling the simple caster you want, but there is no warranty you'll get the support to make it flexible as the phb is crowded with options, and gameplay is complex anyway, oh and at the DM whims you may be forced to play something far more complicated".'

He basically states here that he is afraid that WotC is going to create some contrived process to go through in order to get to a "simple caster" and that WotC won't actually back that process up... and that the Player's Handbook will be so crowded with options that you won't be able to parse the rules enough to get to it easily enough. He's stating that he thinks there's a good chance WotC can't streamline their own rules and make things easy to use.

That's what I quoted, and where the editing comment came in.

 

[DEFCON 1]

IF the PHB says (probably more eloquently): wizards use vancian, sorcerers spell points, warlocks AED and clerics/druids spontaneous; but check with your DM becauce he may use an alternate system (see page XXX in DMG about alternate spellcasting systems) I'd be all for that. Every class is unique and the ability to swap them out is a DM option somewhere in the DMG.

I don't want: Pick your class (wizard, sorcerer, warlock), pick your casting method (Vancian, points, spontaneous or AED, check with your DM which system he allows). I'd like to see internal consistency be assumed, and DMs have to house rule it out if they choose to micromanage that much.

But what's the difference?

So the first method has a "default". Great. So what? What does that "default" gain you?

I fail to see how arranging the Class chapter to have five different casting methods each appear once within five different classes with a side bar stating "here's how you can swap them all around"... is any better or worse than having the five classes without stating a casting method within the body of the class description, then following those five class descriptions with the five methods of casting, instructing players and DMs to use the casting method for their spellcasters as they see fit.

Especially considering that if they want to create "core documents" that show you how you can replicate all the different editions of D&D... you CAN'T assign specific classes specific mechanics because each edition used different ones.

Seems to me you're less likely to piss people off if you don't tell them "the Wizard is Vancian, but if you want to houserule it to something else, here are the rules..." and instead say "Wizards have used many methods for spellcasting over the years. Select one of the following methods that make sense for your game." Because you aren't implying to them that you know what rules they should be using better than they do (since those rules are the "default".)

 

[Rechan]

But what's the difference?

So the first method has a "default". Great. So what? What does that "default" gain you?

I'm not going to put words into @Remathilis 's mouth, but I'll take a stab:

It may seem like semantics, but it's not. Some people want each class to be Different with a capital D. That, unless it uses its own subsystem, or has strong unique abilities, then it's not a separate class.

Take a look at some of the complaints of 4e: Everyone used AEDU, therefore everyone was "The same". Or that the only real difference were Roles, since all Defenders were The Same, all strikers were The Same; any differences were superficial class features which didn't make them very different.

For these folks, each class needs to feel Special, do something no one else can do. If any class is interchangable as the default, then there's little point in having different classes, just one class with a slot you can plug a few different casting subsystems into.

I don't agree with that mindset (hell, I'd like a system of build your own classes, plug and play style) but I'm guessing that's the attitude behind the argument.

 

[Kinak]

He basically states here that he is afraid that WotC is going to create some contrived process to go through in order to get to a "simple caster" and that WotC won't actually back that process up... and that the Player's Handbook will be so crowded with options that you won't be able to parse the rules enough to get to it easily enough. He's stating that he thinks there's a good chance WotC can't streamline their own rules and make things easy to use.

Gotcha. I can see where you're coming from there.

I might be reading my own thoughts into other people, but I see that more as just being a fear that something is complex when somebody busts out with "oh, you can choose to make it simple." It's half that trill of fear when someone says "this won't hurt a bit" and half the fact that choosing makes it more complicated.

But, in any case, it's not the poor editors' fault if they get handed a document with races, subraces, classes, subclasses, power systems that interact with the classes and subclasses, attributes that interact with the races and subraces and classes, backgrounds, specializations that interact with classes and attributes, and gear that interacts with races and classes and subclasses and attributes and specializations... all chosen before you can start to play. It'll be less of a mess if they do a good job, granted, but it's certainly not their fault if I don't buy it.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[MoonSong]

But what's the difference?

So the first method has a "default". Great. So what? What does that "default" gain you?

I fail to see how arranging the Class chapter to have five different casting methods each appear once within five different classes with a side bar stating "here's how you can swap them all around"... is any better or worse than having the five classes without stating a casting method within the body of the class description, then following those five class descriptions with the five methods of casting, instructing players and DMs to use the casting method for their spellcasters as they see fit.

Especially considering that if they want to create "core documents" that show you how you can replicate all the different editions of D&D... you CAN'T assign specific classes specific mechanics because each edition used different ones.

Seems to me you're less likely to piss people off if you don't tell them "the Wizard is Vancian, but if you want to houserule it to something else, here are the rules..." and instead say "Wizards have used many methods for spellcasting over the years. Select one of the following methods that make sense for your game." Because you aren't implying to them that you know what rules they should be using better than they do (since those rules are the "default".)

The thing is you are still thinking only on terms of the wizard, while I'm advocating for the Warlock and the sorcerer. Yes something like you wrote is the most likely case for the wizard. Warlocks and sorcerers are an entirely different story, those classes have always been very simple (more the sorcerer than the Warlock), not having a default enforces an artificial complexity.

For the following assume the wizard is goign to be it's own beast and will have no default. For the other classes however having a simple default has the following advantages:

- It makes the players of those classes happy. (yeah there is a point of contention between people who like and ths who don't like the sorcerer, but only the former play them)

- Having a simple default allows for complexity for those who want it, but not for the rest. Having a complex default (and in a modular engine, having no default is complex because it forces you to interact with the complex engine) for a class that is tipically simple is self defeating, is as if you are punishing people for picking the badwrongfun class.

- It reduces the need to micro manage every single arcane class for the DM, most of the time the point of contention is the system the wizard uses, the other two are more of a case of love them or hate them. In fact I would say very few sorcerer players want to play a complex sorcerer or very few warlock players will want a warlock without some at-will abilities. Both classes are best served by a simple default.

-If the default is simple, then all of the support is simple too, having a feat write up that says "slot" or "spell point" is more legible than if it says <Replace keyword here>.

- Having a default also allows for a propper balancing of each class. Different systems need different numbers to be balanced, for the same number of spell levels vancian owns spontaneous and AED, spell points owns recharge and slots, and spell point vancian with spontaneus flexibility owns them all.

- Is very helpful for the new and casual players or even experimented players who want to test a new class, learning a new role is hard enough as it is without having to interact with an entire subsystem just to get the system your class will use to cast spells

 

[Lanefan]

This recent discussion is playing right into my "greatest fear" from upthread: that 5e core is going to be way, way, WAY too complex for its own good.

... throwing better editors at the problem.

I'm not proficient with editors as a missile weapon but I hear they do 2d4 damage when you hit something with one of them.

Lan-"anyone know what the range increments are for editor?"-efan

 

[Remathilis]

But what's the difference?

So the first method has a "default". Great. So what? What does that "default" gain you?

I fail to see how arranging the Class chapter to have five different casting methods each appear once within five different classes with a side bar stating "here's how you can swap them all around"... is any better or worse than having the five classes without stating a casting method within the body of the class description, then following those five class descriptions with the five methods of casting, instructing players and DMs to use the casting method for their spellcasters as they see fit.

Especially considering that if they want to create "core documents" that show you how you can replicate all the different editions of D&D... you CAN'T assign specific classes specific mechanics because each edition used different ones.

Seems to me you're less likely to piss people off if you don't tell them "the Wizard is Vancian, but if you want to houserule it to something else, here are the rules..." and instead say "Wizards have used many methods for spellcasting over the years. Select one of the following methods that make sense for your game." Because you aren't implying to them that you know what rules they should be using better than they do (since those rules are the "default".)

Here's the difference.
1.) I don't want players choosing the styles as a character choice (akin to choosing a specialty or a wizard tradition).
2.) I'd like the styles linked to specific classes by default, so that (unless my DM changes things) I can assume sorcerers are mana-points and wizards use slots.

So yeah. I don't want PCs cherry-picking class and caster style. Want to be a mana caster? Be a sorcerer. Otherwise, talk about it with your DM for a swap, but the default answer is there.

I'm not going to put words into @Remathilis 's mouth, but I'll take a stab:

It may seem like semantics, but it's not. Some people want each class to be Different with a capital D. That, unless it uses its own subsystem, or has strong unique abilities, then it's not a separate class.

Take a look at some of the complaints of 4e: Everyone used AEDU, therefore everyone was "The same". Or that the only real difference were Roles, since all Defenders were The Same, all strikers were The Same; any differences were superficial class features which didn't make them very different.

For these folks, each class needs to feel Special, do something no one else can do. If any class is interchangable as the default, then there's little point in having different classes, just one class with a slot you can plug a few different casting subsystems into.

I don't agree with that mindset (hell, I'd like a system of build your own classes, plug and play style) but I'm guessing that's the attitude behind the argument.

Mostly correct.

Consider 3e for a moment.

A Fighter uses a variety of feats (passive and active) to simulate combat training and fighting styles.
A Paladin uses smites and magical powers to augment his combat prowess.
A Ranger has Favored Foes and class abilities, as well as targeted bonus feats.
A Barbarian has rage abilities
A Monk has ki abilities and unarmed combat skills

Five classes all do things very differently. Sure, the math is against certain ones (the 5e flat math will hopefully fix that) but each class doesn't depend on two at wills, 1-5 encounter and 1-5 daily to do things. Each still uses the standard d20 attack roll, but each adds its own flair and restrictions to it.

A more pronounced difference is how, if the sorcerer wasn't a spontaneous caster, it wouldn't need to exist. Or why the warlock was the breakout star of the complete books (give a hint; non vancian magic). Dragonblood is fluff. Warlock pacts are neat, but its their unique mechanics that made each stop being magic-user titles in the 1e PHB and start being special (and loved) classes.

If we're serious about keeping 15 classes (and I am) I want them to be more than "I'm a sorcerer. I play just like a wizard, but instead of a spell book, I grow dragon fangs! Rar!"

 

[Crazy Jerome]

emphasis added ...

For these folks, each class needs to feel Special, do something no one else can do. If any class is interchangable as the default, then there's little point in having different classes, just one class with a slot you can plug a few different casting subsystems into.

I don't agree with that mindset (hell, I'd like a system of build your own classes, plug and play style) but I'm guessing that's the attitude behind the argument.

I get the attitude. I think the means suggested to get there are often poorly considered--and not infrequently directly counter-productive to the stated goals. That's why we get tons of posts that boil down to, "Hey, this thing isn't satisfying enough people. I think it should be locked into this highly specialized, particular method that appeals to me, and that will solve the problem." The words are all English, but the thought makes no sense.

At the risk of being thought snarky , there is a difference between each class being special versus each class feeling special. I'd like for each class to be (somewhat) special, because I don't really see any point in having several nigh-identical classes. Whereas the feeling is something that is partially in the class mechanics, but also partially in the campaign/flavor/world/fluff/etc. that surrounds the class and also partially in what the group brings to the particular game (such as various playstyle bits).

People are confused on the concept of "modular". It doesn't mean, "embed my preferences into the mechanics, and other people can swap it if they want."

 

[Steely_Dan]

Take a look at some of the complaints of 4e: Everyone used AEDU, therefore everyone was "The same". Or that the only real difference were Roles, since all Defenders were The Same, all strikers were The Same; any differences were superficial class features which didn't make them very different.

Yes, that seems the deal in 4th Ed: 4 classes (roles), choose features and powers; go.

I am already getting resentful (disillusioned?) of Expertise (dice).

 

[CroBob]

Take a look at some of the complaints of 4e: Everyone used AEDU, therefore everyone was "The same". Or that the only real difference were Roles, since all Defenders were The Same, all strikers were The Same; any differences were superficial class features which didn't make them very different.

I'm generally one of the people who desires classes feel unique. If you can modify them however you want, what's the point in having classes instead of an ability purchasing system flat out? However, Isn't that view you just outlined really superficial?