D&D 5E What would 5E be like if the playtest's modularity promise was kept?


log in or register to remove this ad

Regarding your suggestions, I don't think they are quite hitting on the concept Monte is talking about. One of the things your suggestion seems to be missing is the idea that these different modules could be played at the same time.
I joked back during next (and have since suggested for 6e) that you could mix 1e/2e type hp (much lower then 3e+) the front loading of said hp (like 4e) and have a 2e style wizard (prep spells per slot, no cantrips) and a 4e fighter (mark, encounter powers and daily powers) and a mix of 5e and 2e cleric (known spells based on spheres, but spell slots non prep, channel divinity) all work with the 3e skill system (spend skill pts class/cross class skills) bolted on to them. in a 5e game (the spells themselves being the 5e spells for the cleric and wizard)

edit: the closest we got was variant rest times
 

eyeheartawk

#1 Enworld Jerk™
I find it hilarious that people think 5e is modular already (according to the terms laid out during development). It clearly isn't. If modularity is defined as having some optional rules in the DMG, or variant race rules, then yeah, tons and tons of games would meet that definition and it loses all meaning.

When people have this discussion I take it to mean as whole collections of rules and adjustments that you remove and add together, you know, in a module. So you would have a narrative one, a tactical one etc. Which, also happens to be what I think the developers also meant when they talked about it during Next.

That all being said I don't think 5e is necessarily worse for not being modular, but I definitely understand the disappointment of people who were excited about it back then.

Regarding what this would actually look like: probably something like OSE or Labyrinth Lord with their separate books you can remove whole or add.
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
There are some vestiges of modularity, but it's buried in the weird publishing schema they're using where setting books will have a system added that fits its theme. But that means if you want some horror rules, you have to buy a whole Ravenloft, which is... the opposite of ideal.
 

There are some vestiges of modularity, but it's buried in the weird publishing schema they're using where setting books will have a system added that fits its theme. But that means if you want some horror rules, you have to buy a whole Ravenloft, which is... the opposite of ideal.
hey if we could get a Birthright (or BR like) setting book with mass combat and a Darksun (or DS like) setting with tactical impressive martial options I wouldn't mind so much
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
hey if we could get a Birthright (or BR like) setting book with mass combat and a Darksun (or DS like) setting with tactical impressive martial options I wouldn't mind so much
I think DL is going to have something for mass combat (don't quote me), but the thing is, I'm not interested in any setting that's not Eberron or Spelljammer, so I'm being asked to waste my money for two or three pages of relevant content.
 

Oofta

Legend
Modularity is, and always will be, on a scale. I think 5E is more modular than at least the last couple of editions. It obviously could have been more modular.

No matter how flexible or modular they made the game, some people wouldn't have liked it. But the proof is in the pudding, or in the case of the team's goal of making a popular game, in the sales.

P.S. I don't remember anyone denying that at some point early on in development someone made the claim. The relevance of a one person overpromising in an interview is what I question.
 




Remove ads

Top