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

[Argyle King]

For me, the issue I'm seeing is that it appears as though the core is still geared very heavily toward a certain ideal about how to play the game. I think that might make adding modules which seek to emulate a different ideal difficult. So, for me, the lack of options isn't where I'm being confused by what exactly modularity will mean for D&D 5E; instead, looking at what is currently there makes me feel as though certain things which should be a certain way in the core so as to allow more modularity later aren't there, and there doesn't seem to be any sign that those things will be there.

I do understand it is early in the playtest process. As such, I do expect that -right now- the process will be focused on getting a few things right. I completely understand that means some of the modularity might not crop up until later. However, there are a few areas where I feel as though I have a pretty good idea of what the design's intent is for later on down the road, and I'm not so sure I like the direction. I feel as though there are a few areas where the game is starting to move away from some of the original versions of ideas which had me excited.

I'm not completely negative though. There are some things which I feel are good. The combat dice for fighters was -I feel- a step in the right direction. That being said, one of my initial concerns about the description of the idea seems to be coming true; that being what I called "numbers creep" in a post elsewhere. I feel as though the idea of bounded accuracy might not make it into the game as much as I had hoped.

 

[dkyle]

You are correct. Because they haven't even released that module yet. They have mentioned a 4e style tactical module in the future which will hopefully satisfy a number of people. If by 4e style you mean AEDU powers, then yes, there could be an issue. I'm not sure how they could do that unless they released a whole book of 4e type powers.

It would take one hell of a module to turn the messy, scattershot design we've seen so far into something even remotely resembling 4E. It would pretty much need to be a whole new game.

That "tactical" module didn't even sound 4E-like at all. It was 3E.

And even if we get AEDU powers and healing surges, just stapling them on top of the shoddy foundation we've seen so far won't make it anything other than a flimsy pastiche of 4E.

The heart and soul of 4E isn't AEDU, or healing surges, or anything else easily plucked out and plopped into another system. It's the mathematically-sound, transparent mechanics that permeate and tie together the whole system. Next completely lacks that.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Doing 4E would IMO require:

A better mechanical/mathematical foundation than what we've seen
Gameplay not based on resource attrition over an adventuring day
A greater focus on player empowerment and a move away from Mother May I
A change in the aesthetics of PC abilities, something more flashy/cinematic
Greater tactical depth and variety
Overall clarity and transparency
High volatility/low lethality combat that maximizes a lot happening while at the same time making things less random

Some of these I'm not sure how modularity can deliver if the core fails to do so, and with others the modulariy required would border on having to essentially design an entirely different game from scratch. The current core rules of 5E are failing hardcore on just about every count, and it isn't being shown how modularity will fix it in the future.

 

[Remathilis]

The heart and soul of 4E isn't AEDU, or healing surges, or anything else easily plucked out and plopped into another system. It's the mathematically-sound, transparent mechanics that permeate and tie together the whole system. Next completely lacks that.

Mathematically Sound? Transparent Mechanics? Really. That's why WotC needed The Weapon/Implement/Focused Expertise Feats, the Paragon/Robust Defense Feats, Countless other "Use X for Y" math fix feats (Melee Training, Mighty Challenge) the entire invalidation of Monster Manual 1's monster math, the three separate tries at fixing skill challenges, the wholesale reduction (and re-reduction) of skill DCs, the re-write of magic items that accompanied Essentials (actually, I could probably just write "Essentials" since it did a lot to fix the "sound and transparent" 4e) and the countless pages of Errata, esp to the first core books.

So if "mathematically sound and transparent mechanics" you mean "patched together with feat taxes, errata, and wholesale revisions" you are right, I hope Next features none of that.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Mathematically Sound? Transparent Mechanics? Really. That's why WotC needed The Weapon/Implement/Focused Expertise Feats, the Paragon/Robust Defense Feats, Countless other "Use X for Y" math fix feats (Melee Training, Mighty Challenge) the entire invalidation of Monster Manual 1's monster math, the three separate tries at fixing skill challenges, the wholesale reduction (and re-reduction) of skill DCs, the re-write of magic items that accompanied Essentials (actually, I could probably just write "Essentials" since it did a lot to fix the "sound and transparent" 4e) and the countless pages of Errata, esp to the first core books.

So if "mathematically sound and transparent mechanics" you mean "patched together with feat taxes, errata, and wholesale revisions" you are right, I hope Next features none of that.

The difference lies between a few minor tweaks and beyond fixing so don't bother.

Also, it wasn't so much the necessity of errata as much as they actually cared to provide it. There was far more wrong with 3E/3.5E, they just never bothered to fix it.

 

[slobster]

In my humble opinion, you could get close to invoking the feel of a 4E game by the inclusion of a few simple things.

1) Second wind. This boils down to allowing PCs to spend some of their recovery dice in combat, once per encounter. It has the added benefit of reducing mortality and making PCs feel more powerful, a la 4E.

2) Add an encounter ability for each class. Elves get their reroll, dwarves can second wind as a free action, and so on. Since everyone gets one it shouldn't wildly unbalance anything, but it puts encounter abilities in from the start and gives everyone more options to chose from during combat.

3) Add on a tactical rules module. This one is really simpler than it sounds. Include rules for different terrain types, and use them often. Allow for special attacks to push and slide enemies.

4) Add a marking mechanic. Maybe include it as a specialty, to improve the modularity. When you mark an enemy it suffers disadvantage if it attacks anyone but you, and as the specialty levels up it allows you to make attacks if they attack someone else, stop their movement if they try to get away from you, etc.

IMO the marking mechanic is a key part of achieving the 4E feel, because it solidifies the roles your characters play within the party and enriches the whole experience of tactical combat with new, consequential decisions.

5) Include action points. Should be fairly simple, you get one at the start of the day and another every other encounter. You can spend one during your turn for an extra action. Done!

6) Finally there are a lot of things you could do to achieve 4E feel that don't require any real rule changes, just GMing decisions. Allow your players to make magic item wishlists. Run interaction encounters using skill challenge frameworks. Get used to saying "yes" to your players when they want to try something crazy. Be very flexible on how players reflavor their class abilities and such to match their character concept. Build encounters that are designed to challenge your players and include a mix of enemy types as well as terrain and hazards which reward tactical thinking.

Since everyone has a subjective opinion on what the "feel" of a particular edition or playstyle entails, the above list would really produce my concept of a 4E game of D&D. It's also far from comprehensive, given that I just bashed it out on my keyboard after only a few minutes of thought. I'm confident, though, that most 4E players could play through a session of the game described above and recognize what I'm trying to accomplish. I think it's all doable, and hope that the designers of DDN eventually start considering something similar when they finally get around to the rules module design phase.

 

[Argyle King]

Personally, I felt the power level of the PCs compared to the monsters did evoke some of 4E during this most recent playtest.

I had a hard time filling out the survey questions about healing because the players I ran the game for never really needed it.

 

[dkyle]

Mathematically Sound? Transparent Mechanics? Really. That's why WotC needed The Weapon/Implement/Focused Expertise Feats, the Paragon/Robust Defense Feats, Countless other "Use X for Y" math fix feats (Melee Training, Mighty Challenge) the entire invalidation of Monster Manual 1's monster math, the three separate tries at fixing skill challenges, the wholesale reduction (and re-reduction) of skill DCs, the re-write of magic items that accompanied Essentials (actually, I could probably just write "Essentials" since it did a lot to fix the "sound and transparent" 4e) and the countless pages of Errata, esp to the first core books.

So if "mathematically sound and transparent mechanics" you mean "patched together with feat taxes, errata, and wholesale revisions" you are right, I hope Next features none of that.

4E is still by far the most mathematically sound and transparent system of any D&D. That it required some minor fixes is essentially inevitable. Nothing is perfect. Other editions were simply unfixable.

There's simply no other RPG out there (D&D or not) with the complexity and depth of character options of D&D 4E, that is also so well balanced. It's a shame to see WotC run away from that legacy.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

4E is still by far the most mathematically sound and transparent system of any D&D. That it required some minor fixes is essentially inevitable. Nothing is perfect. Other editions were simply unfixable.

There's simply no other RPG out there (D&D or not) with the complexity and depth of character options of D&D 4E, that is also so well balanced. It's a shame to see WotC run away from that legacy.

Please explain how all those fixes were "minor".

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Please explain how all those fixes were "minor".

They were able to be fixed by minor tweaks as opposing to having to fundamentally overhaul the entire system.