Is D&D Next going to flop?

[wotmaniac]

Characters weren't transferable between tables because the modules made games incompatible.

Question: How does this differ from characters made with expansion material? If my character was made with primarily expansion material, and I show up to a table that is using Core-only ..... see what I'm getting at?

Expansion material still works with the rules. If it's modular the rules themselves would differ.

Ah, got it.

[wotmaniac]

Well, for that matter, 3e did a bit of the modularity thing whenever they introduced a new subsystem. Every time they did this, DMs were forced to decide whether or not to incorporate the new subsystem(s) in to their games:
1) fully integrate: arduous pain in the ass,
2) let the player have his new toys: application of copious amounts of mind-caulk to rationalize why that PC is such a special snowflake,
2a) whack-a-mole = disruptive to game when rest of game doesn't take in to consideration this new toy,
3) tell player he can't have any new toys.

[Cyberzombie]

• The Goblin Warrior goes to war in leather armor with a light shield. Needless to say, a higher level monster such as a Deathknight might expect to go to war in magic platemail. Fiddling with the "level bonus" won't make the Goblin fight at the level of a Death Knight, nor would it bring the Death Knight down to the level of a Goblin.
• Abilities are more than numbers. No matter how big you make the numbers on a bear, it's still just a bear, and higher level characters can and will kite it to death. On the other hand, a first level party with no magic weapons cannot fight an incorporeal creature no matter how shitty its numbers are.

You're missing the point here. The goal isn't to create a level 1 death knight, the goal is to narrow the power gap between a level 10 character and a level 5 character. The death knight always remains level 10 and is always going to be better than the goblin.

Since the PCs' bonus and the ogres' level bonus are being reduced proportionally (both halved), the actual numbers between a level 5 PC and a level 5 ogre should remain the same (I'm assuming a constant level bonus here). The only change comes when you compare monsters/PCs of different levels.

[*] Force multipliers are totally a real thing. And they will react wildly differently to numeric shifts. Just on the most basic level, if you shift the defenses of a regenerating creature up, it will spend more time healing which in turn will make it more resilient than the exact same increase in defenses of a non-regenerating creature. You can't say that two enemies are going to get the same relative benefit from increasing their bonuses in the same way. In fact, you can be almost certain that they won't.

Well two even leveled creatures shouldn't change the numbers at all. The goal is that if you apply the module a level 5 PC and a level 5 monster won't see any relative differences (or minimal differences anyway). The only change really occurs with creatures of different levels.

And inevitably such a module will make numbers more important than they were previously. So now 15 level 1 orcs become more of a threat but one iron golem becomes less of a threat. This is a feature, not a bug.

And I think you could keep it mostly simple with keywords. Here's a few example modules. They'd probably end up being a bit more complex than this, but you can get an idea of what they'd look like.

Low Magic: All monsters lose the enhancement bonus. Magic items are rare. Buff spells are removed from the game. Nonmagical weapons deal half damage to incorporeal creatures.

Low Scaling: Halve the level bonus for PCs and monsters.

Deadly Lethality: Hit points are halved. Characters die at 0 hit points. All saving throws are at a -4. Failed saves against poison kill a character.

4th edition style: Hit points are doubled. Characters die at negative bloodied. Death effects deal 1d10 damage/level on a failed save instead of outright death. Debilitating conditions with durations longer than 1 round grant a saving throw at the end of each of your turns to remove them. Paralysis does not make a creature helpless.

Now, Mearls doesn't have a chance in hell of making a system like this actually work, but I think that in the right hands this could make a good game.

[Username17]

You're missing the point here. The goal isn't to create a level 1 death knight, the goal is to narrow the power gap between a level 10 character and a level 5 character. The death knight always remains level 10 and is always going to be better than the goblin.

Since the PCs' bonus and the ogres' level bonus are being reduced proportionally (both halved), the actual numbers between a level 5 PC and a level 5 ogre should remain the same (I'm assuming a constant level bonus here). The only change comes when you compare monsters/PCs of different levels.

No. You are missing the point. The point is that that is stupid and you are stupid for thinking it isn't stupid.

Let's consider three level 5 monsters: the Troll, the Wraith, and the Winter Wolf. Now let's lower their "level based" defense bonus and engage them with low level PCs. How much more accessible are they? Well, the Wraith still has a GTFO ability, so the answer there is probably "not at all". The Troll heals over time, so changes in their defense numbers have a super-linear effect - so the answer there is probably "a lot". And the Winter Wolf is basically just a pile of numbers, so numeric changes will be reasonably linear in their effect.

Changing the number scaling numbers doesn't have a static or especially predictable effect on how approachable a monster of a different level is going to be. Because in any game even nearly as interesting as even 4th edition D&D, the amount of badassery that any particular monster gets from their number scaling is not fixed or proportionate.

-Username17

[wotmaniac]

the goal is to narrow the power gap between a level 10 character and a level 5 character.

Why? Is the thinking something along the lines of "since 10 is twice as big as 5, a level 10 should only be twice as powerful as a level 5, instead of 6x"?
So, you want finer granularity in the level system?
Or is it another function of expectations?


The kind of modularity you're looking for still runs in to the problem of having multiple systems based on multiple base expectations -- I don't think that the system can maintain coherence if you go about trying to constantly monkey around with the base expectations. Sure, you might be able to tack stuff on, but that will fall apart more and more the further you get from base expectations. And you can't have shifting base expectations without multiplying your page count by (number of alternate permutations) -- and that not only gets expensive, but it gets really onerous trying to filter through all that mess.


Oh yeah, and what Frank said.

[Cyberzombie]

Changing the number scaling numbers doesn't have a static or especially predictable effect on how approachable a monster of a different level is going to be. Because in any game even nearly as interesting as even 4th edition D&D, the amount of badassery that any particular monster gets from their number scaling is not fixed or proportionate.

Sure, but absolute encounter rating systems are garbage anyway. The fact is that party composition, terrain and even spell selection for that day will have a huge impact.

I don't particularly care that a dire bear in open terrain loses to a flying wizard. I can accept that a wraith is going to wreck a PC warrior that doesn't have magic weapons or holy water. I did provide a provision for low magic games to allow mundane weapons to deal half damage to incorporeal. But if you're playing a standard setting and you don't have a magic weapon, then a wraith should be quite a terror indeed.

Regenerating monsters are always much better when they play as high defense grinders. That's just an undeniable fact of math. If you don't have any way of beating the regeneration then you're going to be in trouble. I can live with that too.

I don't expect a 100% accurate encounter rating system, and I don't find it a problem that some encounters are decided by tactical abilities instead of numbers. I want to give some combatants tactical abilities like regeneration, incorporeality, flight or invisibility, and I'm okay with those abilities sometimes deciding a fight. You seem to be implying it's a bug, but I would instead call it a feature, because it makes combats more than just numerical grinds.

It seems the only alternative to that is a boring system like 4E where abilities never get nullified and nobody can have nice things because you want to ensure that the melee fighter can always melee stuff and the rogue can sneak attack everything. I've tried that sort of egalitarian system. It was okay at first, but I quickly lost interest. I can understand the arguments for such a style, but at the end of the day I didn't find it fun to play.

[Cyberzombie]

Why? Is the thinking something along the lines of "since 10 is twice as big as 5, a level 10 should only be twice as powerful as a level 5, instead of 6x"?
So, you want finer granularity in the level system?
Or is it another function of expectations?

The goal is for people to run the style of game they want to run. Some people like the idea that high level PCs are superheroes and can wade through armies of orcs. Some people want big armies to still be a threat to high level PCs and want tighter numbers.

If you ever expect to unite both of those people under one edition, then you need to offer them both a way to play the style they want to play.

[Username17]

I don't particularly care that a dire bear in open terrain loses to a flying wizard.

Then why do you get sand in your vagina about how many Orcish Spearmen a 9th level Berserker can take on? It's the same fucking thing. Characters have capabilities, and it determines what they can fight and how. Fucking with the numbers to unpredictably fuck with those capabilities is just you being an asshole.

-Username17

[wotmaniac]

The goal is for people to run the style of game they want to run. Some people like the idea that high level PCs are superheroes and can wade through armies of orcs. Some people want big armies to still be a threat to high level PCs and want tighter numbers.

That's why someone made up a tack-on system called E6 -- which has been adapted to E8, E10, etc. ..... basically, set a hard level-cap so that you can continue to emulate the your desired level of play throughout a long game/campaign.
But that's all it is -- a tack-on.

If you ever expect to unite both of those people under one edition, then you need to offer them both a way to play the style they want to play.

There's your problem. "I want 2 radically different styles of play encompassed under a single rule system" is an unrealistic expectation. And if you want some sort of gradient between the 2? Forget about it.

Also, while Frank has only pointed out but a handful of examples, we could go on ad nauseam with further example of how this is bad.

[fectin]

I don't need a modular system, and I'm not going to burn brainpower on making a working one. But for a caricature of one, consider this:
- Start with core 3.5.
- Delete all magic from the PHB: spells, classes with casting lists, etc. It now looks about like the fighter, rogue, and monk are scared and alone. You could go adventure that way, even if it would be challenging and boring.
- Module 1 is arcane magic. Bard, sorcerer, and wizard come back in, as do their spell lists.
- Module 2 is divine magic. Druid, Cleric, Paladin, plus spell lists.

That gives you 4 different play options and satisfies modular. It's balanced exactly to the extent that the classes are balanced to start with.

[Username17]

fectin, that's not modules in the sense being discussed here. That's optional expansion material.

Modularity is when the actual system changes. Like how 2nd edition has rules for playing it on a hex grid or a square grid or no grid at all, and thus things that affect facing have wildly different effects depending on what module is being employed.

-Username17

[Wiseman]

I don't need a modular system, and I'm not going to burn brainpower on making a working one. But for a caricature of one, consider this:
- Start with core 3.5.
- Delete all magic from the PHB: spells, classes with casting lists, etc. It now looks about like the fighter, rogue, and monk are scared and alone. You could go adventure that way, even if it would be challenging and boring.
- Module 1 is arcane magic. Bard, sorcerer, and wizard come back in, as do their spell lists.
- Module 2 is divine magic. Druid, Cleric, Paladin, plus spell lists.

That gives you 4 different play options and satisfies modular. It's balanced exactly to the extent that the classes are balanced to start with.

And what frank said.

Making that modular would be like taking all the classes and getting rid of BAB and replacing with some system based on percents.

Then in module 2, they release the BAB system.

Now those are modules, which are incompatible with each other. So lets say players 1-4 are planning a game.

P1 (the DM) tells the players he's planning a game. Then later he clarifies that they are using Module 1 (the percent based accuracy system). He calls the other players to tell them this, but P3 misses the message.

So he assumes that they are going to use his preffered Module 2.

So naturally P3 shows up to the table with a character that is completely incompatable with P2 and P4 and they then have to waste very valuable game time as P3 has to now create a new character from scratch.

[Sashi]

Well, for that matter, 3e did a bit of the modularity thing whenever they introduced a new subsystem.

Could you cite some examples of "modules" in 3E? I can only think of two:

The choice of "psionics is different" vs "psionics is magic", which simply decides if wizards can counterspell psionics and the like.

Book of 9 Swords, which is (nudge nudge, wink wink) "not" a book of fighter replacements.

[wotmaniac]

Well, let's see:
- psionics
- ToB
- Incarnum
- ToM had 3 new subsystems
- taint (listed in 4 different sources)
- action points (first introduced in UA, but then they went an based an entire setting in them)
- For fuck's sake -- UA is packed with subsystems.

So, just off the top of my head, that's 8 optional subsystems (plus what I'm sure is half-a-dozen more in UA).
Now go back and look at that entire post that you just quoted from, and tell me what about my assessment doesn't jive.

[Leress]

Well, for that matter, 3e did a bit of the modularity thing whenever they introduced a new subsystem.

Could you cite some examples of "modules" in 3E? I can only think of two:

The choice of "psionics is different" vs "psionics is magic", which simply decides if wizards can counterspell psionics and the like.

Book of 9 Swords, which is (nudge nudge, wink wink) "not" a book of fighter replacements.

Unearthed Arcana, Heroes of battle, Dungeon Master Guide II, Miniatures Handbook.

[wotmaniac]

Well, for that matter, 3e did a bit of the modularity thing whenever they introduced a new subsystem.

Could you cite some examples of "modules" in 3E? I can only think of two:

The choice of "psionics is different" vs "psionics is magic", which simply decides if wizards can counterspell psionics and the like.

Book of 9 Swords, which is (nudge nudge, wink wink) "not" a book of fighter replacements.

Unearthed Arcana, Heroes of battle, Dungeon Master Guide II, Miniatures Handbook.

Oh shit -- I forgot about Commander Auras, running a business, and the minis stuff.

And while I'm at it, there's armor=DR, multiple spell slot rejuvenation systems, skill tricks, alternate item crafting rules, power components ....

I'm at like 16 so far. Do I need to actually bust open the library?

[Sashi]

Now go back and look at that entire post that you just quoted from, and tell me what about my assessment doesn't jive.

Modularity is when the actual system changes. Like how 2nd edition has rules for playing it on a hex grid or a square grid or no grid at all, and thus things that affect facing have wildly different effects depending on what module is being employed.

"modules" as we are discussing here are two mutually exclusive subsystems. Like the 3 different stat generation methods (roll dice/array/point buy). A Wizard, Psion, and Incarnate can all play at the same table with no more problems between them than having a Wizard, Sorcerer, and Bard at the same table. The fact that you think Incarnum is a "module" just shows that you don't even understand your own argument.

UA is part of the "green cover" series of "pay us to read our completely untested houserules" books that are explicitly segregated from "standard" D&D. That's literally the exact opposite of having "modules" as part of the fundamental game design.

[fectin]

fectin, that's not modules in the sense being discussed here. That's optional expansion material.

Modularity is when the actual system changes. Like how 2nd edition has rules for playing it on a hex grid or a square grid or no grid at all, and thus things that affect facing have wildly different effects depending on what module is being employed.

-Username17

Sure. I thought pulling all the magic out of DnD would qualify though. Generally, I think of expansions as extending the existing systems, and modules as bolting on new systems / replacing systems.

For example, I can easily imagine deciding to bolt on psionics instead of arcane magic in the scenario I described. It would work fine. If that's not "modular," then I don't understand the terms.

[Voss]

For example, I can easily imagine deciding to bolt on psionics instead of arcane magic in the scenario I described. It would work fine. If that's not "modular," then I don't understand the terms.

It isn't.

Modular would be simple weapon rules vs complex weapons rules.
In the simple weapon module, you have the weapons as is.
In the complex module, you have speed factors, bonuses and penalties vs armor types, facing and critical hits. As well as abilities that take advantage or modify those things.

If you make a character that takes advantage of those abilities, and put him in a 'simple weapons' game, he has a bunch of abilities that don't do shit. This is pretty much the best type of incompatibility that you can hope for. Well, the alternative is that character uses those rules, but no one else does, which gets fucking weird and annoying really fast, as it requires a bunch of calculations on the fly (Oh, he's wearing chain mail? Then +2); and often real actual power disparities (only guy who crits, which yields bizarre burst damage curves)

With really bad versions of incompatibility, you get divide by zero errors, like the 'how does anyone sneak in 2nd edition if they don't have MS/HS percentages?'


And for anyone who isn't familiar, I used the weapon stuff on purpose- all of that was actual material that was either optional or routinely tossed out during 1st and 2nd edition. The chart of bonuses and penalties of every single weapon vs every single armor pissed people off to no end. Because it was each and every individual weapon and armor, not types or classes of weapons and armor.

This has a section of said chart-
http://19thlevel.blogspot.com/2012/06/s ... armor.html

Not that a fist has huge penalties to hit a guy in plate (AC2), in addition to plate just making the guy hard to hit, a big bonus to hit a naked man (AC 10), or a man wearing leather (AC8) but no bonus at all against a man in padded armor (AC9). Or that a footman's flail is entirely unusable in a 5' dungeon corridor. People said 'Fuck you, no' to this. They said it a lot.

[Thymos]

Modules can be fine, if applied carefully and properly. Of course if you choose the basis of your system to be a module your fucked.

Take for example if I made a class that uses a Winds of Fate system, or a whole bunch of classes who do. This is fine.

How about hero points? Those can be dropped into just about any game easily.

You could also take a less popular system and put out a few modules for it. Diplomacy is perfect for this. Especially as every group seems to handle it differently.

Systems that should not be tied to each other are essentially modules anyways. Skills really should not have much to do with direct combat abilities, and the idea of putting skill bonuses in feats is kind of stupid. In this case we're practically using two different modules, they just don't look like it because of standardization. Prestige classes are a fantastic example of modularity as well.

Modules are ok if you create a system intentionally so that certain pieces of the system are separate. In my heartbreaker skills and combat abilities are essentially separate, or close to. They are basically modular, but that doesn't mean they cannot interface well when needed (using jump and such during combat for example).

This modular desire comes from computer science anyways where it is extremely useful. It basically means design your system to be easily expanded, or have pieces that don't work easily replaced.

[PhoneLobster]

If that's not "modular," then I don't understand the terms.

The problem is with the term, it's a semantics issue, and for once largely not the fault of people arguing on an internet forum.

Sure, using or not using a class like Wizard or Psion within the same game system, either as a party of PCs or as a setting choice or whatever might well be easily described as "modular" because it sort of is, AND might also be OK, because it sort of is.

But Mearls and friends presented "Modular RPG Rules" in the context of their plans for D&D Next as something rather specific and it wasn't "optional bonus character classes".

I think the iconic representation of their "Module" plans was the "Simple vs Advanced" character advancement. Where you could play "simple mode" character classes where no one got zany special abilities (and got real numeric bonuses instead) or you could play "advanced mode" and lose the numeric bonuses and get special abilities... and then fight the same enemies and buy and play the same canned adventures or maybe even play a "simple fighter" in the same damn party as an "advanced fighter" and not have that break three ways sideways.

Does that sound like people arguing against a strawman meant to discredit perfectly reasonable modularity like an extra choice of character class? Why yes, it DOES sound like that, but this time not because it actually is a strawman, but because some dumb bastard (Mearls! ) went and actually presented an idea that stupid and called it modular rules design.

[PhoneLobster]

Modules can be fine, if applied carefully and properly.

I think you did a good job at defining a few different examples of potential modules and then went and messed it up by making some poor decisions as to what is or isn't acceptable as a module.

Take for example if I made a class that uses a Winds of Fate system, or a whole bunch of classes who do. This is fine.

I hate WoF, and I think it's terrible and will compare poorly up against other options... but yeah, you totally could do that.

It's pretty much observable proven fact that you can have different resourcing mechanics for your characters and still have them sit down and play the same game. That's fine, that can be modular, in fact it's kinda hard (or alternatively just crap) to NOT be modular to some extent there. What with some desire to probably have more options than actual players at a single table and all.

How about hero points? Those can be dropped into just about any game easily.

Hero Points? Do you mean Hero Points?

No. I don't think thats really acceptable to add as a module. If your game is expected to deal with sometimes adding +8 to a roll or sometimes getting an extra action or other crap like that, thats a big measurable deal and the game needs to measurably deal with it in advance. Challenges need to be appropriately harder to match that sort of bonus.

That is almost definitively an example of something that is not OK as an optional module.

You could also take a less popular system and put out a few modules for it. Diplomacy is perfect for this. Especially as every group seems to handle it differently.

So... errata? Or optional house rule improvements?

No, that's kinda out. You can do it, and in a cluster fuck situation where no one is using bad rules as written very possibly should. But that isn't "modular rules design" that's sticking your thumb in the hole to stop a dam burst.

You shouldn't try and design your way into that situation and if you did the preferred way to get out is to give one actual solution that actually damn well works, in which case it can damn well be the one true official solution because anyone "opting" not to use it is actively opting to have a sucky experience.

Systems that should not be tied to each other are essentially modules anyways. Skills really should not have much to do with direct combat abilities, and the idea of putting skill bonuses in feats is kind of stupid.

... and again not really acceptable. Different "modules" need to interact with each other. Ive experimented with strict segregation... and it rather sucks.

You can't have a Stealth module or a Chase module that is truly separate from your combat module. Because they interact directly with it. People are going to want to mix it up. Your Combat module is going to rely on assumptions about how your Stealth or Chase modules will work to determine entry into and out of combat and what that even does, people are going to want to combat while other people stealth or chase, people are going to want to perform combat AND stealth actions DURING chases.

And that's just your chase, combat, stealth "modules". This is going to extend to skills, social, long distance travel, item crafting, these things ALL interact, they have impacts on your combat effectiveness, they have impacts on assumptions about how other modules even begin to function.

The more a part of the game is integrated and compatible with the other parts of the game the better, it causes less "WTF how does that even begin to work?" moments when they WILL clash in game, it is more improved in choice and balance and just plain everything.

That's all before you consider having multiple options for a sub system.

I don't care if you produce three different Stealth sub systems/minigames that ALL work, and I don't even care if you (miraculously) make them all work in full interwoven compatibility with all your other sub systems (and their apparent optional replacement sub systems). Because its still 3 systems to learn when 1 would do, and it means that when someone says "I play the Modular Game!" you then have to ask them 20 questions to narrow down all the module choices to understand what the hell that means, if you want to play, if you know how to play, and what you need to know even to pregen a character to play with them. You essentially remove any and all benefit of playing a widely distributed official rules set people are expected to be familiar with.

At that point why not just say "fuck it I play by my own homebrew rules no one outside of my table has ever even seen, trust me they are awesome"?

Prestige classes are a fantastic example of modularity as well.

...They are basically modular, but that doesn't mean they cannot interface well when needed (using jump and such during combat for example).

... yes it DOES fucking mean they cannot interface well when needed if you can switch them out for different modules.

If I have a combat ability that opens up a giant chasm to the core of the earth then it DOES fucking matter if one skill module makes it easy to jump and hard to fall in and the other makes it hard to jump and easy to fall in. That right there is the problem, that right there is the perfect example of why you CAN'T have your "modules" be readily replaceable and somehow perfectly segregated from other "sections" of rules.

And before you say what you are going to about how 2 different modules can totally do that...

This modular desire comes from computer science anyways where it is extremely useful. It basically means design your system to be easily expanded, or have pieces that don't work easily replaced.

Hey there. I'm a Computer Scientist. And I call fucking bullshit.

Modular systems in computer science are deeply different. One of the primary issues here is that many of these modular systems essentially rely on being what might as well be black boxes where you push in the same inputs and pull out pretty much the same potential outputs.

And if you do THAT with tabletop RPG design you just wasted everyone's fucking time.

If you have 3 different Stealth sub systems which all take "Dexterity X, Class Y, Level Z" as inputs and ALL basically then process them in various different ways but all push out "Fail/Succeed" and also all do so correctly for the needs of the greater system (ie, with basically the same results for the same inputs). Then definitively 2 of those systems are at best redundant and most likely also inferior and needlessly complex.

It's fine in computer science because you run different "modules" because it just plain requires that for different hardware or drivers, or because you are using extendable classes or some bullshit because that's just how your damn programming language defines things. But none of those are how table top gaming functions.

And even within the field of Computer Science, using that to replace a failed module is not a good motivation to go around writing failed modules.

[tussock]

How do you figure complex vs simple fighters?

Path of the Gladiator (which may or may not be a bunch of feats, I don't care enough to check) has what is basically 4e-style daily powers built in from level 3. Trip, Spring, or Advantage, with their own special little mechanic and extra die rolling.

Path of the Warrior instead gets more criticals, automatic critical rider effects, and eventually fast regeneration. No choices, no thought, just mindless hack & slash.

Complex vs Simple. Yes, it's not as mechanically complex as a 4e fighter (though it gives more options), but it obviously could be as complex as they want it to be. Meals says the playtest has repeatedly told them that desire for mechanical complexity is a BBoard thing and testers basically love the simple stuff.

Which is just because they change all the rules every couple weeks, but that's what he's decided, so nothing's going to be as complex as PF/3e or 4e.

I'm not sold on it being a better game than 4e either ('Better than 2e' I might agree with, once they fill more gaps, but even then...). Different, yes. Less padded sumo, certainly. But they are both missing large chunks of content, it just varies as to what exactly is missing.

Core 4e vs last Playtest, the Playtest is a better game. There's far more variation between characters, monsters, magic spells and items, game mechanics, .... Yes, Creeping Doom is more like Creeping Wedgie, but it's there and it totally wipes the floor with the low level monsters.


I mean, fuck, 4e launched with Solo Soldier Dragons that DMs had to have exit the scene because it was four hours later and everyone was very, very bored. The system for resolving combats could not resolve the eponymous combat. The system for resolving everything else generated ~95% failures forever. That 4e.

Yes, 5e numbers aren't that hot, and it'll probably explode horribly once the internet sits down and carefully considers the final build options. But you can actually kill Dragons and you can totally sneak into a noble's bedchamber and conduct an aggressive interview without the actual rules getting in the way. That makes it a better game, in that you can play D&D with it.

[Voss]

How do you figure complex vs simple fighters?

Path of the Gladiator (which may or may not be a bunch of feats, I don't care enough to check) has what is basically 4e-style daily powers built in from level 3. Trip, Spring, or Advantage, with their own special little mechanic and extra die rolling.

Path of the Warrior instead gets more criticals, automatic critical rider effects, and eventually fast regeneration. No choices, no thought, just mindless hack & slash.

Complex vs Simple. Yes, it's not as mechanically complex as a 4e fighter (though it gives more options), but it obviously could be as complex as they want it to be. Meals says the playtest has repeatedly told them that desire for mechanical complexity is a BBoard thing and testers basically love the simple stuff.

Which is just because they change all the rules every couple weeks, but that's what he's decided, so nothing's going to be as complex as PF/3e or 4e.

I'm not sold on it being a better game than 4e either ('Better than 2e' I might agree with, once they fill more gaps, but even then...). Different, yes. Less padded sumo, certainly. But they are both missing large chunks of content, it just varies as to what exactly is missing.

Core 4e vs last Playtest, the Playtest is a better game. There's far more variation between characters, monsters, magic spells and items, game mechanics, .... Yes, Creeping Doom is more like Creeping Wedgie, but it's there and it totally wipes the floor with the low level monsters.


I mean, fuck, 4e launched with Solo Soldier Dragons that DMs had to have exit the scene because it was four hours later and everyone was very, very bored. The system for resolving combats could not resolve the eponymous combat. The system for resolving everything else generated ~95% failures forever. That 4e.

Yes, 5e numbers aren't that hot, and it'll probably explode horribly once the internet sits down and carefully considers the final build options. But you can actually kill Dragons and you can totally sneak into a noble's bedchamber and conduct an aggressive interview without the actual rules getting in the way. That makes it a better game, in that you can play D&D with it.

But you can't have a dragon attack a town and do anything, because it will just fucking die (because _anything_ can kill dragons; 100 human commoners with rocks is a serious challenge to a black dragon). And the only reason the rules won't get in the way of the aggressive interview is because there aren't any. And 5e keeps the absurdly high failure rate at the kind of tasks that adventurers do. That.. isn't a win. It isn't better design. That is just failing in different ways.

And no, the class paths aren't feats. This should be fairly obvious because they are under class features, and not in the entirely separate document marked 'feats.'

The gladiator abilities aren't daily at all (since they can be used multiple times in every encounter). The warrior path is also objectively _just bad_, because crits are fucking terrible in this version of 5e. [Roll an extra, single die of a type you already roll- a greatsword crit does 3d6 instead of 2d6], and the few meaningful abilities they get come so late that it doesn't even matter. You could argue that it is simpler design, but mostly it is just failed design. Especially since none of the other paths listed (for any class) are as shitty or limited [/i]

[AndreiChekov]

I'll add that it's definitely good to add little sidebars saying "If you want to change your game to be more like X then..." or whatever. For Bakuhatsu High*, it has a section on the back saying what basic things you should change if you specifically want it to be an X-Men Mutant Academy game, or a Harry Potter game, or a Freezing! game. Less extreme cases should certainly exist for sidebars of "So this is D&D, but if you want a more gritty game, then..." or "If you're playing Vampire but don't cut yourself at night, then perhaps..."

But make those just some guidelines for how to mod the game if you want to, and make it known that the core assumption is "you're not doing that".

*An international bestseller with 52factorial copies sold on every planet in the solar system.

Koumei, I love you. You mentioned Freezing.