Were people's expectations of "Modularity" set a little too high?

[ForeverSlayer]

I'm also curious. Which "edition style" of DnD do you think is impossible to get with current hinted core, once you add different options?

I've asked this same question.

 

[triqui]

I've asked this same question.

I know, but he didnt answer *which* one was that style. He only answered a tautology: for those who don't find current core able to give them their desired experience, the current core doesn't give them their desired experience. What I want to know is *which* experience is that, to try to understand *why* that experience can't be obtained with current core, no matter of what aditional midules they have in mind and we havent seen yet

 

[Li Shenron]

I agree 3ed core was not modular, but your definition of modular is strange and I disagree with that...you could ignore PrCs. You could ignore individual feats or skills (fine grain modularity). Classes are modular (vancian caster= wizard, spontaneous caster = sorcerer, pick your arcane caster module). In fact you could ignore all sorts of things and lots of people did. What I disagree with is the notion that "modularity" is only "things that you can ignore". Modularity is the notion of "things that you can swap" (include nothing/ignore). Until there is another way to gain feats in a playtest, all we have at the moment is Specialty. Until there is another way to gain skills, all we have at the moment is Backgrounds. Ignoring those things is something I could do at any edition. Swapping them with another method of acquiring them would be modular and new in the context of 5th edition.

(just as a reference) Modularity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think "swappability" is a consequential property of modularity, but clearly it requires two alternatives to swap. If you can swap a module with "nothing" (my examples swap with nothing just because there isn't right now anything else to swap with, officially) then you can also swap it with something. Not necessarily viceversa: for instance, you can presumably always swap a feature specific of a class (e.g. fighter's combat superiority or sorcerer's transformation) with something else of equivalent power, but you cannot swap it with "nothing" because you'll skew the relative balance with other classes (you can restore it with removing something from all other classes of course, but I think you get my point).

I don't see the example of adding/removing classes from the whole game as a very useful example of modularity... yes, in a way they are modules, because the game still works. But IMHO just not a good example because then nearly every game is technically modular, but clearly this is not the way 5e intends modularity otherwise it would not be highlighted as new/improved in next edition.

Edit: I forgot to say that in my previous post I specifically said that 3e core (highlighted) wasn't modular, but several supplements had modular rules: UA was full of them, either "swaps" or "add-ons", but you can consider modulars also rules like the mechanics of Weapons of Legacy for example. I agree that PrCls were definitely modular, for a second I forgot that they were already in the core.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

What's wrong with creating a stable foundation that gets the game going followed by options that can be used "in place of"?

 

[Li Shenron]

I'm also curious. Which "edition style" of DnD do you think is impossible to get with current hinted core, once you add different options?

I've hinted at it in my first post, IMHO it's quite hard to imagine how 5e can get close to a BECMI-era style.

Things that at the moment go against the style might be:

- classes and races being separate concepts
- the human race many bonuses to ability scores
- the average damage output of every class at 1st level
- cantrips/orisons at will
- rituals at will

 

[Phaezen]

I've hinted at it in my first post, IMHO it's quite hard to imagine how 5e can get close to a BECMI-era style.

Things that at the moment go against the style might be:

- classes and races being separate concepts
- the human race many bonuses to ability scores
- the average damage output of every class at 1st level
- cantrips/orisons at will
- rituals at will

Remove backgrounds and Specialities.
Remove races.
add prebuilt classes for Dwarf, Elf and halfling
no rituals
consider cantrips to be level 1 spells and you are close enough for all practicality.

 

[Iosue]

Unfortunately I think in this they are already partially failing. 3ed and 4ed gamers may have no problems with 5e, and perhaps even AD&D fans. But I have serious doubts that OD&D/BECMI/RC fans (probably considered a small minority anyway) would be interested in 5e. Removing skills and feats is not nearly enough to provide an "old-school" feel... that is already impossible to achieve when you have for example 1st level characters that have even more stuff and abilities than in 3ed (even after you remove skills and feats), and genetically superior humans.

Actually, as a BECMI fan, I'm very happy with how the playtest looks, and with what they've said about what they want to do. I believe Blacky, writer of Dark Dungeons (retroclone of RC) also likes it. Removing Hit Dice and Specialties does create an old-school feel, even if Clerics and Wizards are a little more powerful than in BECMI. Even including Backgrounds doesn't really detract from the feel, since skills are a very simple system of essentially bonuses to ability checks, rather than a separate resolution system.

Human superiority is hardly a BECMI dealbreaker, since it has racial limits and humans that can go up to 36th level. I suspect the current human bonuses won't last in their present form through the whole playtest process anyway.

 

[Li Shenron]

Remove backgrounds and Specialities.

I didn't mention them, because they are not IMHO really against "old-school" feel nearly as much as the other things I've mentioned, and because it's been clear since the start that you can remove them.

Remove races.
add prebuilt classes for Dwarf, Elf and halfling

They aren't available in 5e, at least not yet. Suggestions that require DIY houserules should be avoided, because they are beyond the point. Everyone knows that you can fix anything with HR, but the point is that if you have to fix too much, why even bother with the entire edition?

no rituals
consider cantrips to be level 1 spells and you are close enough for all practicality.

I can just ignore rituals and cantrips completely, but they do have a weight in the balance between classes, and it's not a minor weight.

Of course you can argue that classes being not balanced may be very much part of "old-school" feel. OTOH I also think that "old-school feel but with retained balance" is a legitimate play style too.

I would like the game to provide some guidelines about the "weight" according to the authors of the various class features, so that if I remove e.g. cantrips or rituals from the Wizard, at least I know what I could remove from each of the other classes to retain more or less the same balance.

Anyway "officially" cantrips and rituals are not modular in nature.

 

[triqui]

I've hinted at it in my first post, IMHO it's quite hard to imagine how 5e can get close to a BECMI-era style.

Things that at the moment go against the style might be:

- classes and races being separate concepts
- the human race many bonuses to ability scores
- the average damage output of every class at 1st level
- cantrips/orisons at will
- rituals at will

Well, thats your opinion, not thecasualoblivion's one. Im still interested in his.

However, as you mentioned it... how does classes and races being sepparated concepts forbid BCMI playstyle in DDN, just to mention the first one? Especific rules from a edition will be left out, but that does not mean the playstyle is out too. You can make a game that feels very AD&D without using Thac0

 

[Li Shenron]

Actually, as a BECMI fan, I'm very happy with how the playtest looks, and with what they've said about what they want to do. I believe Blacky, writer of Dark Dungeons (retroclone of RC) also likes it. Removing Hit Dice and Specialties does create an old-school feel, even if Clerics and Wizards are a little more powerful than in BECMI. Even including Backgrounds doesn't really detract from the feel, since skills are a very simple system of essentially bonuses to ability checks, rather than a separate resolution system.

As [MENTION=6680772]Iosue[/MENTION] pointed out, I forgot Hit Dice & Short Rest, which is definitely modular! And yes, should be remove for an old-school feel, maybe in this case an "older-than-4e feel"

Also I forgot the (quite big) thing that in general all characters have much more at 1st level than any character in all editions up to probably 2e (at least core characters). This IMHO does make it difficult to play a generally low-power style (I don't know if "grim'n'gritty" is appropriate, I'm not sure maybe that refers more to equipment availability?).

It's very hard to scale the PC power down with house rules, without ending up being unfair to some characters (which is what may easily happen if you just remove class features here and there). Thus I really don't think it's fair to suggest that. At the moment, 5e doesn't provide optional rules or guidelines to do that, if they add such rules then it's possible to fix this problem.

Human superiority is hardly a BECMI dealbreaker, since it has racial limits and humans that can go up to 36th level.

These two are very different ways of being superior anyway.

I don't want to have any dealbreaker, but to me it's irritating at least (and I'm more a 3e fan) not because of balance, it's got nothing to do with it, but because of certain implications on the vanilla settings. Most gamers just want smooth and balanced rules, and then are willing to modify their fantasy world to accomodate the rules, but my typical gaming style is opposite, i.e. start with the fantasy world and modify the rules to suit the world. Then of course every custom setting will tinker with the races, but my concern is that the standard influences the "look and feel" of all campaign settings.