D&D 5E What will 5E's "signature line" be?

[Morrus]

"I don't aim to offend." - Billy Connolly

5 is trying to be friendly with everyone while still trying not to offend anyone. But it succeeds at offending a fair amount of people, like me.

You're offended by the existence of a game?

 

[sgtscott658]

Did someone say......................

Thunderfury: Blessed blade of the Windseeker?

Ya I'm trying to be funny...................

"I don't aim to offend." - Billy Connolly

5 is trying to be friendly with everyone while still trying not to offend anyone. But it succeeds at offending a fair amount of people, like me.

 

[Raith5]

2nd ed kind of has settings and modularity though.

It is funny but the only thing I remember about my long 2e campaign was the story (and the setting). I really cant remember a key mechanical thing about the game! So I cant remember 2e having modularity or making a big deal of it. I think 5e does make a big deal of it, it has certainly shaped the design - but given it is only one book it is hard to tell if it is going to its calling card. Maybe 'additive modularity' will be its calling card rather 'subtractive modularity' (as someone on these forums referred to it) which was certainly part of D&D in practice across many of the earlier editions.

 

[Serendipity]

"Shut up and play!" if our group is anything to go by.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

Well what I meant by "signature line" is an actual product line or type of offering.

This is easy to answer for 4e: DDI!

While it's too early to pinpoint a signature line for 5e, WOTCS seems to hope it will be Story Arc products, expressively not limited to FtF RPG stuff.

 

[delericho]

1st Ed was modules (adventures)

2nd Ed was settings

3e was rules

4e was digital tools

5e will be the absence of any of the above. Specifically, 5e will be distinguished by its vastly pared back release schedule. This is good, in that it encourages (frees?) individual groups to go and do their own thing. It's also bad, in that a lot of people want (need?) the support that may prove to be in short supply.

(Or, just possibly, modules.)

 

[Ragmon]

You're offended by the existence of a game?

In a way, yes. THEY DIDNT CALL IT D&D 5!

In another way, I was trying to say that some of the things in the book just offend the players by implying they are idiots.

AC - Oh, look the players can't differentiate between natural armor and deflection bonus to AC. Lets simplify it to the point where even a 3 year old can't mess it up.

Backgrounds - I don't think the players are not creative enough to create a character personalty on their own.

HP and Resting - Oh, look one some is complaining about managing healing. Lets allow the players to heal up to full after a long rest. --- WHAT?!

Just some stuff of the top of my head.

PS: I think most of the things in the PHB are great ideas, but these things are major issues, core elements that need to be properly house rule, to be less "dumb".

 

[MortalPlague]

AC - Oh, look the players can't differentiate between natural armor and deflection bonus to AC. Lets simplify it to the point where even a 3 year old can't mess it up.

Part of that has to do with lower AC values overall, which is hard to do if you can stack a dozen different bonuses.

Backgrounds - I don't think the players are not creative enough to create a character personalty on their own.

Any tools to help flesh out a character more are just fine in my books. Players who know what they're doing can just breeze on past backgrounds, while players who don't have a framework to help them define their character. It's also nice to have the flexibility to pick skills that your class might not usually have access to; for instance, a fighter with arcana and religion is easily possible. Or a wizard with thieves' tools.

HP and Resting - Oh, look one some is complaining about managing healing. Lets allow the players to heal up to full after a long rest. --- WHAT?!

Keep an eye out for the DMG for this one.

You've got some legitimate beefs, but I think you're looking at AC and Backgrounds all wrong here.

 

[Zardnaar]

Backgrounds also fill the hole of rigid class based skills a''la 3rd and 4th ed and pick anything you want like a skill based system would. If you want a skill or two bad enough you can have it but you do not get everything you want.

 

[Ragmon]

Part of that has to do with lower AC values overall, which is hard to do if you can stack a dozen different bonuses.

Why not just keep the 3rd edition (yes, 2nd Edition AC in reverse )? If stacking, just be smart about the design, if you look at 5th then you will see they have a ton of AC bonuses from various sources, just that they don't have AC types.
The 5th edition version is very poorly implemented, and the developers could have done a much better job.

Any tools to help flesh out a character more are just fine in my books. Players who know what they're doing can just breeze on past backgrounds, while players who don't have a framework to help them define their character. It's also nice to have the flexibility to pick skills that your class might not usually have access to; for instance, a fighter with arcana and religion is easily possible. Or a wizard with thieves' tools.

Yes, its easy to use. But in the end its unnecessary. The customization rules for backgrounds would have been enough as a guide line.
Those 15 pages of background descriptions of almost pure fluff could have been used for...em I don't know, magic items, so my players know what to spend their gold on beyond rations and healing potions (yea yea, magic items are coming in the DMG... could have just inserted into the PHB, since their almost and essential part of a PC anyway).
TLDR: The players and the DM provide the background fluff, its not needed in the PHB at all. All the crunch parts of the background could have fit on one page.

Keep an eye out for the DMG for this one.

I doubt it, the best they can do is the usual heal a bit after resting and not fully...but why would such a rule not be a core rule in the PHB instead of the one we have right now?

You've got some legitimate beefs, but I think you're looking at AC and Backgrounds all wrong here.

Yes I have some beef with these rules, AC has been dumbed down (I belive that the devs do not believe that the players can handle a bit more complex system).
Example of a correction: 10 + armor + shield + dex + natural armor + Class specific + magic.... I'm just describing 2nd 3rd and 4th edition AC by the looks of it...and people knew how to use those systems.
I just see people asking in 5th "so leather is 11+dex...but what is my AC without armor?"

Backgrounds...again: For the past...I dono... 30 some years people in TTRPGs didn't need backgrounds to define their characters...they used their imaginations.

And one last thing, and I'm not sure if this is a Gygax qoute or not..."The first 4 levels played IS your background (story)".