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

[James Gasik]

You may think so. But "we want a game that is as complex as you please" means something different to other people.

 

[Parmandur]

You may think so. But "we want a game that is as complex as you please" means something different to other people.

Look at the Fighter, Champion versus Battlemaster. Subclass is precisely the sort of module they meant, and by plugging in different modules, you get different complexity levels that playbtogether nicely in the same framework. YMMV on the individual level, but they delivered on the design goal.

 

[eyeheartawk]

Your post is TL/DR (too long, I didn't read it) . . . but I find your premise as summarized in the post title faulty.

Promises were not made or broken. A playtest document was released, and the final game was both similar and different in many ways from that initial playtest document. And the current D&D 5E game IS modular. Perhaps not to your personal tastes, but it seems to be doing rather well.

Perhaps I am reading too much into your title (while also not reading enough of your post) . . . but I'm burned out on gamers complaining that WotC has broken their promises . . . promises never made . . .

You normally quote reply to a post you literrally didn't read?

Weird flex, but okay

 

[Lanefan]

I know exactly why.

"Reeeee how can a Stone Golem be bloodied if it hasn't got any blood, reee"

Yeah, that was another Thing That Happened.

You might not be able to get water from a stone, but you can get blood - if you do it right.

More seriously, all it'd take would be to change the name of the mechanic to something more generic (if less evocative) such as "damaged", and poof - this issue goes away.

 

[Lanefan]

You're fully right.
And this is my main grippe with the bard.
Half casters, full gimmick potential. Limit spells to illusions and transmutations and all would have been good.

And charms. A Bard without charm just isn't a Bard.

Presently? Full casters, full gimmick potential and no limit on the spell they can use if you take the right organisation and subclass. They are way too strong and can steal the show if a DM is not careful.

I've never liked Bards as full casters or even half-casters; and prefer them to have instead a curated list of effects (that may appear and in some cases even be magical) they can achieve through manipulation of sound.

 

[Helldritch]

And charms. A Bard without charm just isn't a Bard.

I've never liked Bards as full casters or even half-casters; and prefer them to have instead a curated list of effects (that may appear and in some cases even be magical) they can achieve through manipulation of sound.

I forgot charm. Thanks for the reminder good Sir. I shall not do that mistake again.

 

[Helldritch]

If they had applied the same logic to Sorcerers, that class would have been much better.

I think the problem is no edition has ever really understood what the Bard was.

In 1e, it's a dual-classed Fighter/Thief with a Bachelor's degree in Druidism.

In 2e, it's a stripped down Thief with slightly better weapon and armor choices, 6 level Wizard casting, some neat musical abilities that don't do much, and free Non-Weapon Proficiencies (in a system where Proficiencies are optional, lol). A fairly good package.

3e keeps with this theme, but now they are Charisma casters with their own unique spell list, and now they can heal! Which either makes them dropouts from Sorcerer school or spellcasters channeling the powers of the Led Zeppelin Material Plane.

4e didn't have "spellcasters" in the traditional sense, so they were made the Arcane Leader, who can heal and inspire just as well as a Cleric, but with their own unique spin.

I can only assume that when they made 5e, they were like "ok, we don't want to force people to play a Cleric, so all our healers have be equally good casters at a baseline", so the Bard turned into a strange fusion of his 3e and 4e versions.

Either that or they just didn't want to figure out how a multiclassed Bard/Sorcerer would work for spell slots.

It is the first option. The rule for multiclassing are pretty much spot on.
But yeah. I fully agree with you on your analysis. You summed it up better than me.
Thanks a lot. And it is fun to see that I am not the only one on that boat.

 

[James Gasik]

I like the idea of the Bard, but the implementation has always been a little strange because they are the quintessential "fifth man" of a four person party. You could take a better arcane caster. A better healer. A better warrior. A better skill user.

The Bard is like "hey I do all these things!, and I have a unique ability to make you somewhat better at what you do...if I'm not greedily using it to make myself better at something, of course!"

Thus, the Red Mage of D&D.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I don't use Tasha. But what do you mean then by "modular" if I may ask?

That's the subject of this thread!

 

[Helldritch]

That's the subject of this thread!

Exactly, that is why I ask about your vision of: "What is modular."?