D&D 5E Will there be such a game as D&D Next?

[Pour]

That's not really a more versatile class, though, just a more diverse one.

Perhaps, though you'd get a lot more traction on the Fighter chassis under such specialties as Pirate, Gladiator, Manhunter, and anything contained within the martial cousins. I think you also find a more meaningful path in the way of skills, story, and non-combat opportunities with them, too. A lot more. You'd be giving combat back to the Fighter in all its forms and allowing it to shine through any number of appealing and purposeful applications. Granted, you'd want more elaborate specialties to go with them to account for differences between types of Rangers, Paladins, Monks, and Warlords, and a number of unique expertise dice options with which to choose from, but if it were all contained in the Fighter, he'd be as robust as anything magical or skills-based. Through his diversity, he becomes more versatile, at least when speaking to the social and exploration pillars. I think, for Fighters, combat is already a shoe-in.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, what's your solution? Give fighters magic (or take away wizards' magic) so everyone's the same?Interesting. We haven't had many Clerics in my playtest games, but the Wizard definitely feels under-powered. What character level was this at?

I'm going to say it was level 2, maybe we were level 3, not more than that. The fighter was not BAD, VERY tough. He may have had a bit of a rough time too, we ran into a wandering monster in the gnome town, 20 orcs. Yeah, it was not really much of a fight. The fighter and one other character, a Monk? went up and tried to hold them off, after me and the wizard tried to pick off one or two. We actually had luck on our side, the 2 front guys managed to stay up for about 3 rounds with several orcs around them. The wizard was only marginally effective. He blasted a few with BH, but it didn't really slow them down much. I killed a couple with my mace and Lance of Faith, healed the fighter and the monk both a couple bajillion times, and then we all went down. The monks "Flurry of Blows" (whatever its called in DDN, I really haven't read the monk) worked pretty well. If there had been say 10 orcs we might have saved a couple characters. As it was we killed like 5 of them and mauled a couple others on our way to Valhalla. It was fun, if a bit of a silly lesson in "no, the DM should not take the Wandering Monster Table literally..."

Weird. Can you expand on this? I don't really understand what you mean when you say action points and daily powers are "narrative control" or "plot coupons" - to me they just look like mechanics that the designers added to make combat more fun.

Well, lets take AP, which is the most obvious case. What does spending an AP mean? Surely it isn't really very closely tied to anything in the game world. Perhaps you could say it represents "going all out", but frankly if you're in a REAL sword fight and you aren't already going all out something is seriously wrong with you. Instead it more plausibly doesn't represent ANYTHING in the game world at all. Instead it represents exactly what it is, a 'coupon' the PLAYER can redeem for extra consideration. In otherwords it isn't a simulationist construct (where simulation is meaning "the game rules define in-world reality"), it is a gamist/narrativist construct (either it is just there to make the game a more fun game, or it is there to help regulate/facilitate telling a story). In this case I suspect the primary motive of the designers was gamist. They thought it would be a more fun and interesting game if the player could unleash a mighty alpha-strike by having an extra standard action now and then, and fun to manage a point pool of APs. The player/group could also use it in a narrativist sense where the player decides that his character at a certain point in the story would say "become totally enraged" and "go berserk" and so he blows his AP and loe-and-behold this contrivance causes the mechanics of the game to let him do something unusual.

A daily power for a fighter could be seen the same way. The fighter unleashes Unstoppable Advance and the player narrates this as his enemy mistakenly provides an opening and the fighter relentlessly shoves the foe back, creating whatever tactical benefit.

Obviously you can use some things in various ways. A skill check could also be used to seize the narrative, if that convention is in use at your table. The dashing paladin makes a CHA check to cause the elf maiden to swoon for him, now she's in love! What will happen when her father finds out!!!!

Clearly this is a vastly different way of playing in many respects. There are of course also a wide variety of techniques and variations which are possible. You could to some extent engage in this sort of thing using more simulationist oriented rules systems, but generally it helps to have a system that encourages the players to take control and generate engagement/risk for the characters, and to do crazy stuff. 4e is pretty at that, and earlier editions aren't really. AD&D characters are just too fragile for one thing, and depend far more on a sort of magic that is so open-ended that it tends to hog all of those situations. At higher levels where PCs are less risk-averse the game just gets kinda wonky and hard to run IME.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, what's your solution?

I guess I didn't really answer this question...

There's not a perfect answer, but 4e does show how it can be approached. I'd say 4e probably does about as well as D&D ever will. First of all it insures that they have real combat equality, and that each class has a role which guarantees them a unique way to contribute. Beyond that the skill system is quite deep and central to 4e. Though the 4e fighter (inexplicably) got shorted a skill vs all the other classes skills are still central to the game and he's on an even footing there. Powers rarely trump skills, but more often enhance them. The whole system of doing crazy stuff with skills, page 42 etc, also means its an easy and often-used thing where the broad skills come into play in a big way. There are quite a few non-magical utility powers which are quite useful as well, often as useful as the utility spells. Wizards DO get rituals, which are quite powerful, but limited and costly. As the PCs ramp up to the high levels where magic gets more powerful the fighter also becomes sort of super-heroic, gains PP/ED stuff which can be pretty fantastic, and the DM can scale up what skills do to almost any degree as he/she sees fit.

This is NOT perfect. A clever wizard player in 4e can gain a LOT of flexibility (I ran one and really pushed it to see just how far I could go, not quite to AD&D levels, but I got some pretty amazing mileage out of it). At least the two are playing the same game now.

You could even it out by making magic overall a more limited thing. If say all magic was ritual magic and required special conditions, etc to work. Its quite possible to imagine a wizard for instance that did nothing but make charms, potions, curses, and whatnot, scryed, etc etc etc. Such a character would be a lot more limited, but even then they'd have access to some plot power that is missing from other PCs, that's just part and parcel of "can defy the laws of physics". I mean just being able to do the lowest level 4e rituals in the real world would probably be worth infinite wealth!

Perhaps, though you'd get a lot more traction on the Fighter chassis under such specialties as Pirate, Gladiator, Manhunter, and anything contained within the martial cousins. I think you also find a more meaningful path in the way of skills, story, and non-combat opportunities with them, too. A lot more. You'd be giving combat back to the Fighter in all its forms and allowing it to shine through any number of appealing and purposeful applications. Granted, you'd want more elaborate specialties to go with them to account for differences between types of Rangers, Paladins, Monks, and Warlords, and a number of unique expertise dice options with which to choose from, but if it were all contained in the Fighter, he'd be as robust as anything magical or skills-based. Through his diversity, he becomes more versatile, at least when speaking to the social and exploration pillars. I think, for Fighters, combat is already a shoe-in.

Yeah, I think I'd do it in 2 tiers. There'd be 'sub-archetypes', the barbarian, the ranger, the knight, the Warlord, and then there would be things that were more social/circumstantial like "Gladiator" or "manhunter". Admittedly some are grey areas, like "knight" that both imply specific fighting skills and a certain social and cultural origin. The point being many pirates could be fighters, but many might also be other classes. Its possible some knights might not be strictly fighters either, OTOH most of them probably would be to some extent. Maybe 'knight' could be 'warrior', a full-time professional fighter of whatever cultural type is appropriate, and say 'noble' could be a theme/background that would give you the feel of a knight when combined with warrior (IE you can now fight from horseback, get some appropriate skills, etc). IMHO a lot of this can be story anyway. Remember, OD&D had nothing but "fighting man", which was supposed to be ALL of these things. If you wanted to run around calling yourself a barbarian you were free to do so. That had a few weaknesses (not wearing armor was suicidal mainly) but clearly it could work fine with even some simple feats (IE the 'plot armor' feat that lets you be bare chested and just as well protected as a guy in plate armor).

 

[sheadunne]

Sure it will if what he doesn't like is the RESULT the way things are, but you can still achieve what he wants with a system like that, it can be different in many ways and still please me, but otherwise the argument works both ways. If I just hunker down and say "what I like is AEDU just like 4e!" then we're done talking. Frankly I don't NEED to have a different mechanic from that, so what I'm already doing is saying "OK, I have what I wanted in 4e with this, but sure, lets see if we can take the features of AEDU that are essential to me, and we can tinker with that and make something that works for both of us". Again, he's got to agree he can at least TRY to figure that out. I don't get why so many people insist that the people on MY side are just going to have to give in. Its a 2-way street and if their answer is "why should we bother, we'll just play some other game that does what we want" then bingo you have our answer too! DDN MUST BE HALFWAY in some fashion, you don't get to have any showstoppers, none.

I should probably pipe in here since I made the comments and all.

First off, my preference is not open for debate, just as your preference is also not open for debate. It is also not based on whimsy. I have disliked encounter based resources since 3x TOB* into 4e. The concept ruins my immersion in the game, when it comes to its use in combat (in another thread I mentioned that I would probably enjoy encounter-based resources for skills use, especially outside of combat).

Why? See above. "The concept ruins my immersion in the game." When I gave an example (and I could give a million if you'd like) that I couldn't reconcile the mechanic in my brain, it was somehow perceived that I needed convincing. I don't by the way. I have had seven years to reconcile encounter-based powers in combat and I think that's long enough to say I don't like them and not have it questioned.

This isn't a reflection of whether encounter-based combat design is good or bad. I don't like cake, but that doesn't mean cake doesn't taste good to a vast number of people.

Now that encounter-based design is off the table, we can discuss whatever you like, just as if you don't enjoy daily-based design, let's take that off the table as well. I think we can all reasonably assume that we know why we don't like something and can move on to discuss what we do like. Let's not waste time trying to convince someone else that our method is better than their method for achieving X, Y, Z. As my old math teacher used to say, "There's more than one way to skin a cat." If you don't like the mechanic of rolling a d20, let's take it off the table and discuss how we can use a d100 to achieve the same results.

The attempt to dissect someone's preferences into play-styles also doesn't work for me. I enjoy multiple play styles but that doesn't mean I enjoy mechanics associated with them, and especially not in a game like D&D which comes with 30 years of emotional baggage for me. Warts and all D&D must feel like D&D in all its clumsy awkwardness. The jagged edges of imperfection have a great appeal to me and I want to feel like an amateur game designer every time I pick up the game. I most certainly don't want to have it reinvented, yet again. Strip it down to its core and rebuild it in waves of flavor that capture of emotional investment of each edition. Which in many ways is what I see 5e doing (at least some of the time).

*which is a shame, because I really loved stances in TOB. If they had designed 4e around stances instead of maneuvers, I would have been a happy camper. In fact, I'm off now to see how that might have looked. Fog Cloud stance, Fire Ball stance, Magic Missile Stance, Two-Weapon Fighting Stance. Stances for everyone!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I should probably pipe in here since I made the comments and all.

First off, my preference is not open for debate, just as your preference is also not open for debate. It is also not based on whimsy. I have disliked encounter based resources since 3x TOB* into 4e. The concept ruins my immersion in the game, when it comes to its use in combat (in another thread I mentioned that I would probably enjoy encounter-based resources for skills use, especially outside of combat).

OK, so you can then assume there is no further point in participating in any discussion where the point is how do we get what we all want, what should DDN do. You've dealt yourself out of that. Again, if you have anything to add to that discussion then all your chips are on the table, we don't play this any other way.

Why? See above. "The concept ruins my immersion in the game." When I gave an example (and I could give a million if you'd like) that I couldn't reconcile the mechanic in my brain, it was somehow perceived that I needed convincing. I don't by the way. I have had seven years to reconcile encounter-based powers in combat and I think that's long enough to say I don't like them and not have it questioned.

And again, if you close your brain and insist that it is IMPOSSIBLE to find something you will like simply because of one attribute of that thing, then you've closed your mind to any possible compromise.

This isn't a reflection of whether encounter-based combat design is good or bad. I don't like cake, but that doesn't mean cake doesn't taste good to a vast number of people.

There are, trust me, a LOT of flavors of cake in this world that you haven't tried yet. Don't deal yourself out of the chance to find something new to like.

Now that encounter-based design is off the table, we can discuss whatever you like

See above, it just isn't off the table, that isn't one of the options that we get here.

just as if you don't enjoy daily-based design, let's take that off the table as well.

Nope, the rules of this game go both ways. I don't get to play that card either.

I think we can all reasonably assume that we know why we don't like something and can move on to discuss what we do like. Let's not waste time trying to convince someone else that our method is better than their method for achieving X, Y, Z. As my old math teacher used to say, "There's more than one way to skin a cat." If you don't like the mechanic of rolling a d20, let's take it off the table and discuss how we can use a d100 to achieve the same results.

I don't agree. There is indeed more than one way to skin a cat, and there are indeed infinite variations of every which way to skin a cat. Until you see one and try it you should be wary of writing it off.

The attempt to dissect someone's preferences into play-styles also doesn't work for me. I enjoy multiple play styles but that doesn't mean I enjoy mechanics associated with them, and especially not in a game like D&D which comes with 30 years of emotional baggage for me. Warts and all D&D must feel like D&D in all its clumsy awkwardness. The jagged edges of imperfection have a great appeal to me and I want to feel like an amateur game designer every time I pick up the game. I most certainly don't want to have it reinvented, yet again. Strip it down to its core and rebuild it in waves of flavor that capture of emotional investment of each edition. Which in many ways is what I see 5e doing (at least some of the time).

Nothing stays the same forever.

*which is a shame, because I really loved stances in TOB. If they had designed 4e around stances instead of maneuvers, I would have been a happy camper. In fact, I'm off now to see how that might have looked. Fog Cloud stance, Fire Ball stance, Magic Missile Stance, Two-Weapon Fighting Stance. Stances for everyone!

4e uses stances extensively, and there are several classes that designed almost entirely around them. More certainly can be, and stance is not incompatible with powers either, of whatever ilk. See there is always more common ground to be found. It is just a matter of grinding away at those blinkering perceptions until light dawns.

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[Garthanos]

Well, lets take AP, which is the most obvious case. What does spending an AP mean? Surely it isn't really very closely tied to anything in the game world. Perhaps you could say it represents "going all out", but frankly if you're in a REAL sword fight and you aren't already going all out something is seriously wrong with you. Instead it more plausibly doesn't represent ANYTHING in the game world at all. Instead it represents exactly what it is, a 'coupon' the PLAYER can redeem for extra consideration. In otherwords it isn't a simulationist construct (where simulation is meaning "the game rules define in-world reality"), it is a gamist/narrativist construct (either it is just there to make the game a more fun game, or it is there to help regulate/facilitate telling a story). In this case I suspect the primary motive of the designers was gamist. They thought it would be a more fun and interesting game if the player could unleash a mighty alpha-strike by having an extra standard action now and then, and fun to manage a point pool of APs. The player/group could also use it in a narrativist sense where the player decides that his character at a certain point in the story would say "become totally enraged" and "go berserk" and so he blows his AP and loe-and-behold this contrivance causes the mechanics of the game to let him do something unusual.

I like to think of action points being spent representing the character "getting in to his groove" yes the player is given the choice as to when that happens (... but the speed burst effects also represent a subset of what a real life second wind includes sort of)

 

[sheadunne]

OK, so you can then assume there is no further point in participating in any discussion where the point is how do we get what we all want, what should DDN do. You've dealt yourself out of that. Again, if you have anything to add to that discussion then all your chips are on the table, we don't play this any other way.

I'm participating just fine by setting parameters for the discussion. I've suggested a perfectly fine approach to the game that includes layering edition feel. The goal of DDN is not to reproduce existing mechanics, it's to capture the feel of playing in any particular edition. They are accomplishing this through optional modules. Since recapturing the feel of playing in early editions requires less modules, it only makes sense for the core game to contain less. That's all we're talking about here. I have no problem with encounter-based resources being a layered module that will slide over the core rules with ease. I have no desire to talk about that module since it won't be used by me and doesn't present any problems for me. I am fully aware of the D&D rule sets and mechanics that I enjoy and will continue to advocate for their use since they bring me the most joy at the table. I would expect nothing else from anyone.

I don't agree. There is indeed more than one way to skin a cat, and there are indeed infinite variations of every which way to skin a cat. Until you see one and try it you should be wary of writing it off.

I have only written off mechanics that have proven to be "unfun" for me at the table, as I would expect everyone to do.

Nothing stays the same forever.

Have you played CoC? Same as it always was.

4e uses stances extensively, and there are several classes that designed almost entirely around them. More certainly can be, and stance is not incompatible with powers either, of whatever ilk. See there is always more common ground to be found. It is just a matter of grinding away at those blinkering perceptions until light dawns.

You seem to think I have issue with 4e. I have none. Stances are not encounter-based. Stances are at-will-based and I have no issue with them. It is only encounter-based resources for combat that I have issue with. Consider opening your mind to the option of not having them. What would the game look like? How would you capture the feel of 4e without them? Clearly, based on your above statement it is possible, so why are you not willing to explore a conversation without them? What's so scary about 4e without encounter-based powers?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You seem to think I have issue with 4e. I have none. Stances are not encounter-based. Stances are at-will-based and I have no issue with them. It is only encounter-based resources for combat that I have issue with. Consider opening your mind to the option of not having them. What would the game look like? How would you capture the feel of 4e without them? Clearly, based on your above statement it is possible, so why are you not willing to explore a conversation without them? What's so scary about 4e without encounter-based powers?

No more or less than what you seem to find scary about the notion of DDN with them, lol. While I am perfectly willing to entertain people's ideas in that regard I don't feel a desire or obligation to invent those mechanics myself. I also don't say that they with absolute certainty exist or will be found, just that all parties should keep an open mind on the subject. If you want to suggest some, that's great. I actually HAVE made MANY concrete suggestions about how I would approach building classes. If you would provide input beyond "no that mechanic can never work for me, can't do that" then we could get somewhere I'm totally happy to do the same.

I don't entirely disagree, we could also limit our discussion to simple core mechanics like AC, defenses, saves, and the most basic low level aspects of class design. That's fine, there's plenty to talk about there in a game design. OTOH WRT to DDN that stuff is largely settled. Some may be revisited slightly, but there's nothing radically controversial there, outside of some few things that might inhibit a more 4e-like design on top of that. Of course Mike HAS stated that he's not going for various different either/or options like different magic systems (there's been some back and forth on this sort of thing, but the most definitive statements have been more on the no side IMHO). So, we'd be more probably speculating when it came to say "modules that work like 4e" etc on 3PP content I would think.