D&D 5E What I want out of 5th edition and my thoughts on what we have so far.

[Umbran]

... the 4E desaster and the current crisis D&D is in...

Sorry, Derren, but I'm making an example of something you said.

Folks, you see this? "Disaster." "Crisis." These are emotionally-loaded words. If you want this discussion to descend into entrenched dichotomy-warring* nonsense, with the attendant bans and thread closures and continued antagonism between folks, then by all means, continue using such language!

But, let us be clear: A storm killing thousands of people is a disaster. A game that sold tens or hundreds of thousands of books isn't. Your Mother-in-law deciding to show up for a visit a day earlier than announced may be a crisis, but a problem you can take multiple years to solve probably isn't. Hyperbole is not the friend of reasoned discussion. Continue to use hyperbole at your own risk.

Thanks, all. We now return you to your discussion of what you'd like to get out of the new game.



*Dichotomy-warring: the generalization of edition-warring. 3e vs 4e, WotC vs Paizo, Old School vs New School, are all examples of dichotomy wars.

 

[Derren]

combat is designed to be one-third of your game experience playing D&D

So why does every class to be balanced in each "pillar" instead of being allowed to be better in one and worse in a other?

 

[Halivar]

So why does every class to be balanced in each "pillar" instead of being allowed to be better in one and worse in a other?

They don't need to be balanced. They just need effective contributions. No one should say, "Well, my character, being useless here, hits the tavern. You guys come get me when you're done," and then make dice towers for half an hour. That's not fun.

 

[Derren]

They don't need to be balanced. They just need effective contributions. No one should say, "Well, my character, being useless here, hits the tavern. You guys come get me when you're done," and then make dice towers for half an hour. That's not fun.

Not according the first two pages, or in the discussions about the rogues sneak attack. There it is clearly about all classes being balanced in combat power. Either that, or some peoples definition of "effective contribution" equals "optimized" and doing anything less is already not effective any more.

 

[jodyjohnson]

Based on what we have so far, I like a lot and there's some stuff I will change. A methodology that works with whatever edition or game I'm playing.

Currently, 5th edition is the best starting match to what I want from a "D&D" game.

However, if my players want to start with another game or edition I can work with that and would certainly steal things from 5th edition.

 

[Halivar]

Not according the first two pages, or in the discussions about the rogues sneak attack. There it is clearly about all classes being balanced in combat power. Either that, or some peoples definition of "effective contribution" equals "optimized" and doing anything less is already not effective any more.

The SA discussion is focusing more on encounter design than class design. In that case, encounter designs tailored to ensure that one or more players spends the fight stacking dice.

I once rolled up a specialist enchanter for a new campaign. Turned out to be exclusively undead and construct enemies. Oh, the dice towers I built; they were magnificent.

 

[Ahnehnois]

They don't need to be balanced. They just need effective contributions. No one should say, "Well, my character, being useless here, hits the tavern. You guys come get me when you're done," and then make dice towers for half an hour. That's not fun.

Sure it is. That's called "spotlight sharing". It happens all the time.

What no one should say is "Well, my character being useless here, I'll sulk and complain as if I've been wronged in some way."

 

[3catcircus]

In looking at the evolution of the play-test packets, I'm not too thrilled with the direction the game is going to go in some areas. I might just stick with Pathfinder since 5E is not so radically different from all previous editions of the game.

I think that if they chose to radically change the system without worrying about trying to recapture those who play the various different editions of the game, they'd have had the freedom to really experiment with different ideas - which might attract more players who favor some other non-D&D rules set. Instead, they are kind of stuck in trying to improve gameplay while having to keep the rules close to what they've always been, which may instead alienate those who favor one D&D incarnation over another - the "the core mechanics are too close to edition X instead of edition Y - I won't play it" factor.

What would be nice, instead of a "bolt-on alternate magic system module" or "bolt-on campaign world-specific feats and backgrounds module" is a "completely different character generation module" or "completely different combat system module."

Imagine being able to play D&D while using characters generated using a class-less lifepath system to determine their feats, backgrounds and stats or using a dice pool combat system.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Sure it is. That's called "spotlight sharing". It happens all the time.

What no one should say is "Well, my character being useless here, I'll sulk and complain as if I've been wronged in some way."

It's only "spotlight sharing" if your DM shines the spotlight on the activities your character is good at. To me, balance enables easier adventure design for the DM. Not all of us have time for tailor-made adventures, so when we make the "Caverns of the Undead and Golems" combat-focused adventure and a player chooses to play a rogue, they never see that spotlight during the adventure.

You can blame it on the DM, but IMO designing the game to buffer this effect is a better approach.

 

[SteveC]

It's only "spotlight sharing" if your DM shines the spotlight on the activities your character is good at. To me, balance enables easier adventure design for the DM. Not all of us have time for tailor-made adventures, so when we make the "Caverns of the Undead and Golems" combat-focused adventure and a player chooses to play a rogue, they never see that spotlight during the adventure.

You can blame it on the DM, but IMO designing the game to buffer this effect is a better approach.

I think this is spot on. If you're playing "the halls of the zombie king" for the next several sessions, and much of those sessions will be, unsurprisingly, fighting zombies, the rogue with a dagger might want to be able to contribute something during the hours of combat.

Now it's a huge step from that to say "all roles must be balanced at all times and in all places."

So: shine the light on different things, but also design the game to keep everyone in it as much as possible.