Uniting the Editions, Part 2 Up!

[Dausuul]

Maybe the figure if they build enough buzz and aniticipation, they'll get such enthusiastic buy-in that no one will notice that they don't deliver?

I can't imagine that's ever happened, but we nerds are funny customers...

I think they figure that if they walk us through their thought processes, we'll understand what they're aiming at and how they hope to get there, and won't go berserk when we see the "simplified core" and start wailing that they left out the Rope Use skill, how could they do that to us, D&D IS RUINED 4EVAR!

I can't really imagine that will work, either, but I guess hope springs eternal.

 

[Hassassin]

I reacted to that very same thing. In 4E starting ability scores range from 8 to 20, and can eventually reach into the high twenties.

I agree that sex ability scores (die, Comeliness, die) form a common ground, but the range of those scores has varied a lot through the editions.

Does it really matter if 18 or 20 is the maximum, though? Either one is the best if it is the maximum, so they are just numbers. (Does it go to eleven?)

 

[Living Legend]

Right now it looks like they are trying to get the best of all possible worlds here: a game that plays exactly how you want it to, for everyone at the table. I don't really think that is gonna work out. That said, I'm very supportive of how they are approaching this. They aren't limiting themselves, they are coming at this saying their goal is to ask everyone to help them make all players happy. I'm sure along the way compromises will have to be made, but we get to help decide those compromises, and they have set the stage for us to do that by saying "the sky is the limit".

I don't think you can fault what they are doing... yet. Can they pull it off? I'm doubtful to be honest, but they are definitely giving it some effort, and I have to give them credit for that. Microsoft or Walmart wouldn't take this approach.

 

[Oldtimer]

Does it really matter if 18 or 20 is the maximum, though? Either one is the best if it is the maximum, so they are just numbers. (Does it go to eleven?)

No, it doesn't matter. I was just pointing out that the range 3 to 18 was not a universal D&D truth.

 

[Alzrius]

Having a system which is easy to houserule is a big part of returning power to the players and DMs. We are people not computers, sitting around a table for the purpose of enjoying ourselves in this strange endeavor. "A rule for everything you might ever want to do" is something computers need, not people.

I have a lot of trouble with this statement, and not just because of the implication that that wanting the rules to cover a lot of concepts (not "everything") is something only computers would want.

For one thing, the idea of "a system which is easy to house rule" is an incredibly loaded statement. The idea of what's "easy" to house rule is something you'll never get gamers to agree on; even moreso when you try and apply this definition across different areas that people want to house rule to begin with.

Likewise, the idea of "returning power to the players and the DMs" also strikes me as weird. Returning the power from who? My books were never going to beat me up if I tried to change any of the rules in them (notwithstanding that one...but I killed it when I broke its spine). Like He-Man, I have the power, and always have.

A modular system, built with multiple options that are mutually balanced, should allow for a high degree of character customization, both in terms of complexity and design. If it can't marry two different themes though, such as a low-complexity wizard who casts at-wills, without a house rule, then it's not a question of how easy it is to house rule something...that's a gap in the system.

To put it another way, I reject the Rule 0 Fallacy:

...the Rule 0 Fallacy. To whit: "The rule isn't broken because I can fix it."

Now, a gap in the rules isn't quite the same thing as a broken rule, but it's still an area that requires the GM to solve the problem in the rules. That's not a feature of the system; it's a bug.

 

[catsclaw227]

For one thing, the idea of "a system which is easy to house rule" is an incredibly loaded statement. The idea of what's "easy" to house rule is something you'll never get gamers to agree on; even moreso when you try and apply this definition across different areas that people want to house rule to begin with.

Maybe the DMG will have a section, called "How to Houserule the Game so That it Fits Your Game Table", where they give examples at how to build your own modules or how to houserule something so that it is easy to do (for as much of the majority of people as is reasonable).

These guidelines can then be used by 3PPs to build adventures and module books that offer up other options to DMs and Players.

 

[Mercurius]

What if I want a simplistic, no-feats wizard who can use at-will spellcasting? It sounds like I'm just out of luck.

I seem to remember Monte or Mike saying that different spell-casters could/might/will have different mechanics for casting. So what you want could be accomplished, but it might not be a "wizard" - it might be a sorcerer or a mage or something else.

In other words, 5E could facilitate different types of (arcane) casters with different magic systems; we might have:

wizard - traditional Vancian casting
mage - 4E-esque powers
sorcerer - spontaneous casting

 

[Gentlegamer]

Fighters, clerics, wizards, and rogues. (Or, if you prefer, fighting-men, clerics, magic-users, and thieves.)

I do, I do.

 

[Teataine]

Ok, so this is some wild speculation on my part, but this is what I'm expecting based on the seminars, columns and rumors.

We already know the checks default to Abilities, right?

So three 5E characters, a Basic, Core and Advanced walk up to a narrow ledge across a gaping chasm. They want to cross it.

1. Regardless of their complexity level, the first thing they do is say: "I cross the ledge."

The DM makes a judgement call, informed by context, common sense and ultimately, rules. It's a DC 15 ledge and the character has 17 Dexterity? Ok, done, ledge crossed, play continues.

2. But maybe the outcome is uncertain, or the character's Dex is lower than the DC. All three are asked to roll a d20 and add the appropriate modifiers.

3. The Basic character adds her Dex modifier. She can get an Advantage (like Combat Advantage, but awarded by context in any circumstance), if the fiction dictates it. Plus her Race/Class/Theme can give a generic bonus. Frex, elves are nimble and graceful and merit a bonus. The DM can handle that out of his head. No fussing about for the player, she only needs to know her Dex score.

4. The Core character adds her Dex modifier plus her Athletics skill bonus if she has it trained, plus maybe a feat bonus and stuff. There's a little customisation, but not a ton of it. This is basically the same as 4E, but there's no 1/2 level bonus because it's not necessary as the math doesn't escalate as hard. The final bonus is on par with the Basic guy.

5. The Advanced character add her Dex modifier plus Athetics skill ranks which are gained at some rate, plus feat bonuses plus maybe some skill synergy bonuses, plus racial modifiers etc. Put together, her bonus is most likely higher than the previous two characters, but not significantly so and she's probably slightly lagging behind them in other areas because of customisation/specialisation.

I think that's entirely workable and achievable. The design team just needs to make sure the bonuses are more or less on equal footing in a final analysis. I doubt we'll see such pure mathematical balance as in 4E (and they've confirmed as much) across the three types, but that's the price to be paid.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I think they figure that if they walk us through their thought processes, we'll understand what they're aiming at and how they hope to get there, and won't go berserk when we see the "simplified core" and start wailing that they left out the Rope Use skill, how could they do that to us, D&D IS RUINED 4EVAR!

I can't really imagine that will work, either, but I guess hope springs eternal.

Heh, in the original sense of the quote, yes: "Hope springs eternal in the human breast. Man never Is, but always To be blest."

I've always thought the Essay on Man an excellent explanation of gaming forums.