D&D 5E What will core really be like?

[UngeheuerLich]

So, switching from vancian to some sort of spell points might not be too big of an advantage/disadvantage if well balanced.

We should just care about a more or less balanced core, the wizard, the fighter, the rogue and the cleric all with a job where they excell.

For the rest: "interesting" is way more important than "balanced" Of course, there shouldn´t be a druid, being better than anyone else in every regard... except, when it might end in an interesting adventure...

So the concept of absolute balance needs to be thrown overboard (trap choices however should not exist!)

 

[Hussar]

While you're right that "absolute balance" is an unreasonable goal, mechanical balance is never a bad thing. To me, balance means that no single choice is obviously better than other choices. A player should never have to choose between something that is quite obviously better and something that is "flavourful". Both of these should go hand in hand.

 

[pemerton]

Can something have no significant impact on an entire adventure if it goes beyond "just flavor"? So, switching from vancian to some sort of spell points might not be too big of an advantage/disadvantage if well balanced. But I'm having trouble seeing something like skills working in the same way.

If skills are simply "+X to the following set of d20 rolls", then you're right that they'll upset mechanical balance.

But skill can be done differently. They can, for example, substitute for stat bonuses. Or substitute for some other source of bonuses that you use in a skill-free game. Or they can open up options for mechanical resolution where, without them, everything is freeform and/or GM fiat.

If skills are done in one of these other fashions, then the pacing and, more generally, the feel of an adventure may change depending on whether or not skills are in play, but its strict mechanical balance may survive somewhat unscathed.

 

[fjw70]

I was trying to get at how an adventure would have something challenging in the woods for the group with rangers and druids in it, that was even vaguely doable without them. Simply making woodsy talents not useful makes those classes less useful. But there are lots of other solutions (provide variable challenges based on party make-up, throw in an NPC, etc...). Just wondering about the possibilities, and how awkward it could end up being. But I guess the really old modules got on just fine without worrying about that kind of balance.

Even if rangers and druids are available as PCs doesn't mean that the party will have them among their ranks so that seems like a non-issue for adventure writing (or no more of an issue since rangers and druids have been in D&D).

For the NPCs thing it will be interesting to see how it is handled. I think the best option would be to have NPCs designed as monsters as default with the option of building them like PC if the DM wants to. So I envision adventures having monster-built NPCs.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Wizards needs to start being explicit about what's Core and what's not. A lot of us worry about ideas we don't like only on the premise they might be part of Core.

From a marketing standpoint, they probably want to avoid doing that for as long as possible. As long as they can keep you hoping that what you want will be in core, and what you want to deprive others of won't be, the longer they'll keep getting broad feedback on the playtest from all factions, and the more likely you'll still be hoping just enough to buy the first round of books.

5e represents an insane balancing act. Just about anything they might put in core is something that some fans want so badly that they'll walk if it's left out (even if available in a module) and, simultaneously, is something that others hate so much they'll walk if it's included (again, even if only in a module).

Good luck to 'em.

 

[Zimith]

From a marketing standpoint, they probably want to avoid doing that for as long as possible. As long as they can keep you hoping that what you want will be in core, and what you want to deprive others of won't be, the longer they'll keep getting broad feedback on the playtest from all factions, and the more likely you'll still be hoping just enough to buy the first round of books.

5e represents an insane balancing act. Just about anything they might put in core is something that some fans want so badly that they'll walk if it's left out (even if available in a module) and, simultaneously, is something that others hate so much they'll walk if it's included (again, even if only in a module).

Good luck to 'em.

I'm not sure anyone will walk away if their favourite content is not in core but in a module Afterall, the whole idea is that very little will be in core, but "slotting" additional stuff in as needed. The basic idea is sound, imo, althought it's a bit of a balancing act, I agree. I also agree Wizards will make decisions based on marketing, but that's not the same as they're callous money-grubbers with no heart in their work or in D&D, I think.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm not sure anyone will walk away if their favourite content is not in core but in a module

There are people who come right out and say that. "If Vancian casting isn't core, I'm outta here." "If Vancian casting /is/ in core, I'm out!"

Afterall, the whole idea is that very little will be in core, but "slotting" additional stuff in as needed.

Well, that's one idea I've heard now and then. I'm not so sure I've heard it from WotC in any solid way, though...

I also agree Wizards will make decisions based on marketing, but that's not the same as they're callous money-grubbers with no heart in their work or in D&D, I think.

Oh, certainly. WotC is a unit of Hasbro, money has to figure into it, but the folks actually doing the work are genuine D&Ders, themselves. It's the nerdrage and outright spite of the same vocal elements in the fan base as fought the edition war that might make for unpleasant marketing decisions. If we fans were all 'reasonable' there'd never have been an edition war, and 5e wouldn't even be a rumor yet...

 

[Zimith]

There are people who come right out and say that. "If Vancian casting isn't core, I'm outta here." "If Vancian casting /is/ in core, I'm out!"

Well, that's one idea I've heard now and then. I'm not so sure I've heard it from WotC in any solid way, though...

Oh, certainly. WotC is a unit of Hasbro, money has to figure into it, but the folks actually doing the work are genuine D&Ders, themselves. It's the nerdrage and outright spite of the same vocal elements in the fan base as fought the edition war that might make for unpleasant marketing decisions. If we fans were all 'reasonable' there'd never have been an edition war, and 5e wouldn't even be a rumor yet...

If this is sarcasm, I completely didn't get it, just so you know

I know some voice an extreme inflexibility in their comments about the playtest, but I'm fairly sure that's a very small minority. A lot of folks are playtesting and filling out surveys, not only the vocal minority. That has to count for something.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I know some voice an extreme inflexibility in their comments about the playtest, but I'm fairly sure that's a very small minority. A lot of folks are playtesting and filling out surveys, not only the vocal minority. That has to count for something.

We can hope.

But, small - and vocal or 'activist' - minorities can make quite the dramatic impact. Small vocal nerdraging minorities shouting at eachother did make the edition war, and 4e did get yanked awefully early.

 

[timASW]

We can hope.

But, small - and vocal or 'activist' - minorities can make quite the dramatic impact. Small vocal nerdraging minorities shouting at eachother did make the edition war, and 4e did get yanked awefully early.

4e got yanked because it caused D&D to stop being 'the" TTRPG and in many markets ceded that to pathfinder.

Its anacedotal sure but take a look at meetup.com sometime, or the gamers wanted here, and in pen and paper RPG, and Giants in the playground, And the other big online forums.

Hardly anyone is running 4e games, lots of players say they will play anything but 4e.

It was simply a failed idea. It appealed to a niche of the market and made the mistake of thinking that niche was a majority.

It wasnt.

Activism had nothing to do with it. It was sales, interest, and ultimately market share that told them to can 4e and go back to the drawing board.


I dont think their current approach will make what I think is the perfect game. At all. But I think it might make a game I am willing to play and pay for. And maybe some of the of people playing pathfinder right now too.

Because really lets face it. Pathfinder is 3.75 and it has most of the issues of 3e and some new ones all its own. Is it better then 4e? Yes. But only by the barest of dirty hairs.

WoTC could blow PF out of the water if they wanted to. But they need to do it while keeping a majority of 4e fans too. And thats why they are dancing on a hot stove there.