# L&L: Putting the Vance in Vancian



## Savage Wombat (Feb 27, 2012)

Article for 2/27/12.

I'm reading this to imply that if you want a spell that doesn't affect combat, you have to use a feat to buy it?

I hope I'm wrong, because this bothers me to no end.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Feb 27, 2012)

For those interested:
Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Putting the Vance in Advanced)


----------



## Ahnehnois (Feb 27, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> Article for 2/27/12.
> 
> I'm reading this to imply that if you want a spell that doesn't affect combat, you have to use a feat to buy it?
> 
> I hope I'm wrong, because this bothers me to no end.



The way I read it, if you're a Vancian wizard, and you want something outside of your spells that doesn't have a use limit, you have to take a feat. In other words, a broader implementation of reserve feats. I don't think all noncombat spells are being cut.

Sounds like good news.

The actual points being made were rather hackneyed; equating Vancian magic with strategic play is a stretch.

Despite them offering four choices of a preferred magic system, I would have solidly come down on "none of the above", though we obviously need some of them.


----------



## Tallifer (Feb 27, 2012)

Hopefully Monte means that a non-Vancian wizard gets more feats to spend. But it still seems a rather round about method to build an AEDU wizard. In fact his article is rather unclear: he could mean that a Wizard is always Vancian but that he gets some extra stuff like a Pathfinder wizard. After all wizards need more power and options.


----------



## RangerWickett (Feb 27, 2012)

I don't read it that way. To me it seems like a typical "Wizard" would get spells per day, but he could also spend a feat to get an at-will or per-encounter magical ability. These abilities would not be called "spells," since "spell" would only refer to per-day magical abilities.

Personally, one design aesthetic I'd like to see is inspired by Magic: the Gathering. Namely, you have to gather your mana to cast your spells. Maybe you have X mana per day, and you spend 1 mana whenever you cast a spell, or possibly 2 mana to do a really powerful version. 

Then you'd have an ability, Draw Mana, which would let you spend a standard action to gain 1 mana, but you'd have to spend it within 5 minutes or else it would fade away. 

To keep this from being boring (i.e., you only cast a spell every other turn), maybe the act of drawing mana makes you imposing like Gandalf when he intimidates Bilbo early in Fellowship, causing creatures nearby you to take a penalty to attack rolls for a turn. Or maybe a fire mage who draws mana could deal minor fire damage in a close burst, as fire swirls around him dramatically. Different types of wizards would have different minor effects that occur when they draw mana.

So you still have spells as a per-day resource, and if you use all your normal allotment of spells you can no longer just snap your fingers and cast; you can only cast every other round.


----------



## KidSnide (Feb 27, 2012)

It wasn't really a choice in the poll, but I prefer a mixture of at-will abilities (like 4e powers or these magical feats) with a flexible pool of daily magic (like the 3e sorcerer or psion), possibly with some encounter-level resources mixed in.  I could imagine liking a system like the 3e sorcerer, except with fewer spells/day, more spells to choose from, a few at-will spells and maybe the ability to cast a small number of low level spells per encounter without tapping the daily resource.

Vancian magic just doesn't match the fiction of my gameworld.  I don't mind magic becoming exhausted, but forgetting a spell is silly.  I appreciate the strategic aspect of Vancian magic, but I don't want to run a game in Dying Earth and I don't like waiting for PCs to memorize spells (or worse, having to pick spells for NPCs!).

-KS


----------



## FireLance (Feb 27, 2012)

From the context of the article, "Vancian" doesn't only mean "spells per day" (AEDU wizards get that, too). "Vancian" is more related to picking out the spells you want to prepare in advance, hence the link to "strategic play" (and assuming of course, you are smart enough to scout, do research, listen for rumors, cast divinations, or otherwise gather information about what you are going to face - and your DM actually gives you useful hints). 

So, at this point it seems that there will be "Vancian" wizards who have to spend feats to get at-will abilities (which may have combat and/or non-combat applications) and there will be non-"Vancian" magic-users (to use a very generic term, since "spells" are implied to be "Vancian" only) who get more at-will abilities, and _possibly_ encounter and daily powers as well (through feats? Uncertain at this point).

It is also implied that _mage hand_ and _Tenser's floating disc_ will no longer be spells since they will be at-will abilities. Cue the nerd rage!


----------



## FireLance (Feb 27, 2012)

KidSnide said:


> Vancian magic just doesn't match the fiction of my gameworld.  I don't mind magic becoming exhausted, but forgetting a spell is silly.



Personally, I've always preferred the 3e flavor of "preparing" a spell to "Vancian" "forgetting". It has pretty much the same game effect: you have to choose your spells in advance, tying up your daily spell slots in the process, but instead of "forgetting" the spell, you just need to rest and regain the expended spell slot before you can shape the magical energy into another spell again.


----------



## Quickleaf (Feb 27, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> Article for 2/27/12.
> 
> I'm reading this to imply that if you want a spell that doesn't affect combat, you have to use a feat to buy it?
> 
> I hope I'm wrong, because this bothers me to no end.



How on earth did you jump to that conclusion?

If you said the "magical feat" proposal seemed like a replacement for cantrips then you'd have at argument.


----------



## Savage Wombat (Feb 27, 2012)

If this implies that "Disciple of Tenser" is really phrased as some equivalent of "You may use _Tenser's Floating Disc_ as a spell-like ability at will" then it's wouldn't be so bad.  I would object to not having the option of preparing the effect as a spell at all.

It also brings back the issue of combat balance and non-combat balance.  If I'm using a feat for _mage hand_ that another player is using for extra combat damage, we have the gimping problem again.

It suggests a system by which feats are used primarily for out-of-combat effects, but we have evidence that's not the case.


----------



## Truename (Feb 27, 2012)

I'm getting the impression that feats are the main avenue for character customization in 5e, sort of like powers were in 4e, and that there are going to be a lot of feat slots, most of which will be taken up by default in out-of-the-box builds.

I'm imagining feats being used for things as diverse as Vancian spell slots, 4e-style powers, psionic power points, racial powers, class features a la 4e, skill training, and pretty much every major customization option.


----------



## Kingreaper (Feb 27, 2012)

Truename said:


> I'm imagining feats being used for things as diverse as Vancian spell slots, 4e-style powers, psionic power points, racial powers, class features a la 4e, skill training, and pretty much every major customization option.




If they actually do use feats for vancian spell slots, then I can see the game working with every class being feat-based.

If they do what 3e did, and treat feats and spells as totally seperate things, then I can see it going exactly as it did with the 3.x fighter v wizard issue.

So I'm really hoping you're right on this one.


----------



## FireLance (Feb 27, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> It also brings back the issue of combat balance and non-combat balance.  If I'm using a feat for _mage hand_ that another player is using for extra combat damage, we have the gimping problem again.



It really depends on what proportion of a character's total effectiveness comes from feats. If it's around 20%, then the difference in effectiveness between a character who has spent all his feats on combat power and one who has spent all his feats on non-combat utility is about 20%, which is close enough to "not gimped" in my book.

If it's around 40%, then the issue would be what the default options are. A player who decides to customize his character ought to ensure that he knows the likely consequences of what he is doing.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Feb 27, 2012)

Between Pathfinder and 4e, I feel that Wizards and other types of magical characters should get something like Mage Hand and Prestidigitation as something that can be used at will.  It makes them feel more magical, even if it's back to using crossbows, because they never picked a magical attack feat.


----------



## GM Dave (Feb 27, 2012)

From the article, I see a discussion going on of several different magical classes.

1>  Simplified Wizard that is all power selections (all Wizard Marks).  You choose Magic Missile and can do it all the time and it gets bigger and better as you level.  A 3e Warlock or Sorcerer taken to the extreme type of idea.

2>  Standard Wizard with Vancian spell slots and the ability to add to those spell slots with other Wizard Marks.

3>  Wizard of 4e variety.  This appears in a couple of the poll choices and seems it might be an optional speculation.  Who knows, they may give some sort of trade off idea that you can swap some of your daily slots for encounter slots to re-create the feel of a 4e wizard.

4>  Point system Wizard?  Again this appears in the polls and might be a pull from the psionic system of 4e (speculation but I think this was the first point system of 'magic' that I found tolerable and not broken).

5>  Sorcerer in the 3e style.  A limited repertoire of spells but you can cast them more often and do not need to prepare in advance.  This might come off as something more like the essential line of classes where the encounter ability is allowed to be use several times per day depending on your level.

Oh, and I expect to get more Wizard, Sorcerer, and Warlock discussions this week.  Likely, we'll get the compulsory 'gish' poll as one of the topics this week.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Feb 27, 2012)

It sounds as if feats are different from 3e or 4e feats.
It really sounds as if they have a big impact. Not some small numerical bonus.

Vancian means: You may have a spellbook with 100s of spells and you need to know what lies ahead to fully utilize them.
And having 100s of spells from which to pick is my favourite system. Chosing spells carefully. Spreading your slots on defensive, offensive and utility spells. This is something I really miss in 4e´s aedu and 3e´s bard and sorcerer like system.

It is what the D&D wizard is all about.

But I am very pleased if all types of casting will be present in 5e
So I voted 5 on all polls and chose vancian as my favourite.


----------



## Fede (Feb 27, 2012)

"And according to a recent poll here, a majority of you seem to agree—that we should incude both Vancian and non-Vancian spellcasting systems as part of the core."

Maybe I'm just cynical, maybe I'm seeing what I was already expecting to see, but this to me is exactly what I (and other people) was suspecting about polls being more designed to justify an already taken decision than to gather data.

Also, did anyobody notice the link to the follow up survey hidden in the last two lines under the polls? For me it isn't working, it is sending me to an empty page.

EDIT: uh, it looks like the survey is the same that was linked last week.  maybe it is linking to a blank page because I have already done it. At first glance I thought it was a second part to last week's one.


----------



## Kynn (Feb 27, 2012)

Fede said:


> "And according to a recent poll here, a majority of you seem to agree—that we should incude both Vancian and non-Vancian spellcasting systems as part of the core."
> 
> Maybe I'm just cynical, maybe I'm seeing what I was already expecting to see, but this to me is exactly what I (and other people) was suspecting about polls being more designed to justify an already taken decision than to gather data.




It's not just you.

(Also, note that they never asked, "should we include both Vancian and non-Vancian spellcasting systems as part of the core?" so he can't really claim that "a majority" of us want that.)

PS: Here's my obligatory poll comment:

*Wow these polls continue to be poorly written.*


----------



## Khaalis (Feb 27, 2012)

_Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound_ as a permanent pet/familiar for the win!


----------



## Serendipity (Feb 27, 2012)

Yawn.  Crappy poll, semi-coherent article (the subject of which doesn't really arouse strong feelings in me one way or the other).  
IOW, same as preceding weeks.   I have to say, at this point, it's all just turning to white noise until I see some actual playtest docs.   It's kind of sad that the initial curiosity I had when this was announced is rapidly degenerating into a kind of mild disinterest.   
Possibly though, I just need to go to bed and see this with fresh eyes in the morning.


----------



## mkill (Feb 27, 2012)

"Monte reinvents 4E by dumping on the feat system what should be class features; because that kind of thing worked so marvellously for the 3E fighter"

At least that's how I read it.

I don't know... These articles don't read like the work of someone who's been around since the dawn of the game and published tons of books, but rather someone who just stepped off a spaceship and asks questions like "what is this thing called d20?" I hope it's just an issue of communication skills.


----------



## Hassassin (Feb 27, 2012)

I have only two concerns with giving Vancian wizards at-will abilities from feats.

Firstly, there must be a reason wizards mostly use spells to channel their magic. It could be that at-will magic is weaker, or that it has some sort of disadvantage (my preference), but there should be some reason that is reflected in the mechanics.

Secondly, it shouldn't be a feat tax. Wizards without at-will magical feats should be viable. This means at least that weapons wizards can use (darts, crossbows, quarterstaffs, what have you) must be almost as effective in combat.


----------



## Will Doyle (Feb 27, 2012)

I'm slightly confused about the feat thing too, but I'm guessing (or rather, hoping) that the wizard gets access to x number of metamagic feats on top of some generic allocation. Perhaps all classes are the same? Extra martial feats for the fighter, stealth feats for the thief, etc. 




RangerWickett said:


> Then you'd have an ability, Draw Mana, which would let you spend a standard action to gain 1 mana, but you'd have to spend it within 5 minutes or else it would fade away.
> 
> To keep this from being boring (i.e., you only cast a spell every other turn), maybe the act of drawing mana makes you imposing like Gandalf when he intimidates Bilbo early in Fellowship, causing creatures nearby you to take a penalty to attack rolls for a turn. Or maybe a fire mage who draws mana could deal minor fire damage in a close burst, as fire swirls around him dramatically. Different types of wizards would have different minor effects that occur when they draw mana.




That's a damned cool idea!


----------



## Khaalis (Feb 27, 2012)

Hassassin said:
			
		

> Firstly, there must be a reason wizards mostly use spells to channel their magic. It could be that at-will magic is weaker, or that it has some sort of disadvantage (my preference), but there should be some reason that is reflected in the mechanics.



Basically these spells would be Cantrips that can be cast without cost. As per how Fantasy Craft did their spells. e.g. They use Vancian spell levels 0-9 but use Spell Points rather than memorized spell slots. In that system Cantrips don't cost spell points but require a DC 13 Spellcasting check. 

I think this system works fine so long as they spells are balanced. For instance the 0-Level combat spells deals 1d6 cold (REF half).




			
				Hassassin said:
			
		

> Secondly, it shouldn't be a feat tax. Wizards without at-will magical feats should be viable. This means at least that weapons wizards can use (darts, crossbows, quarterstaffs, what have you) must be almost as effective in combat.



Agreed. I am not keen on the Feat tax for a wizard to have an at-will attack of some sort that is effective.


----------



## delericho (Feb 27, 2012)

If 5e feats are anything like 3e/4e feats (that is, you get a very limited number, and there are feats for a huge range of things), then turning spells like _Tenser's Floating Disk_ into feats won't breathe any new life into them. There will always be something better to spend those feats on instead.

IMO, 4e had the right approach: give your spellcaster a bunch of limited spells (either a combination of At-Will/Encounter/Daily, or only Daily spells, depending on what flavour of Wizard you want), and then turn all the miscellaneous other spells into Rituals that can be cast by anyone with the training and the resources.

The reason Rituals were so sorely under-used in 4e was that they were just too damn costly to use. But surely it's not beyond the wit of men to fix that?

And, indeed, the worst thing about feats in 3e and 4e was that they try to cover far too much ground in that one element. Adding yet more to the ground that feats have to cover is a bad idea.

The sooner they get that playtest started, the better.


----------



## underfoot007ct (Feb 27, 2012)

After reading this, I am very hopeful. Especially If these feats will let a player choose to build a Caster character either 1E, 2E, 3E, 4E style (or even some new point style). Which could make almost every happy, no matter which style you prefer. 

.


----------



## Baumi (Feb 27, 2012)

I would rather like to get rid of all those daily resources because they cause some unnecessary problems. IMHO At-Will and Encounter only (with the occasionaly Ritual) would work great.

The biggest problem is that balance is nearly impossible, since the difficulty of an Adventure is changed drastically by how many encounters per day you are having (Adventures that goes over mutlible days or weeks are extremely hard to balance since they can spend ALL resources on a single fight).

This also forces either the 15 min Adventure-workday since the players would be stupid to fight on when they have no big-spells/powers left or the heroes will not use their Spells until the big endfight which is quite boring. You can overcome this clever Designed Adventures but it will feel forced if you use that to often.

If they still want very limited resources then they should rather use an Adventure/Session limit instead of daily, so you can have Dungeonhacks or Travelquests and still have the same balance. But I would still rather prefer At-Will and Encounter Powers..


----------



## Minigiant (Feb 27, 2012)

It seems that they are going with the spellslot caster as the default with feats granting at-will and encounter spells..

This gives me a few ideas how certain classes could be made.

Wizard: Prepared Vancian slot user with Arcane mark featss to gain minor or less powerful effects.
Sorcerer: Spontaneous Vancian slot user with Arcane mark feats to gain minor or less powerful effects. 
Bard: Spontaneous Vancian slot user who can sing songs and spend song points to enhance their limited spells. 
Cleric & Druid: Prepared Vancian slot user with ability to spontaneously switch certain spells based on deity.
Priest: Prepared Vancian slot user with Divine blessings feats to gain minor or less powerful effects. 
Paladin & Ranger: Non spellcaster who can take Divine Blessings with feats
Assassin: Non spellcaster who qualities for certain arcane mark feats
Warlock: Noncaster who gets free Arcane Mark feats and more powerful versions of Arcane Marks Invocations.


----------



## sinecure (Feb 27, 2012)

Please ditch the nonexistent Combat/Non-combat divide. Just have all the stuff that is possible in combat possible outside of combat too without quick-time restrictions. 

Also, please ditch feats and another list of powers or even pseudo-powers. I don't even know what feats are supposed to be in the system. Making feats mandatory would be a major problem for those of us who don't want to use them. How do we get wizards who cast non-combat spells at-will with no feat system, if that's the only way?


----------



## shawnsse (Feb 27, 2012)

I feel Vancian magic works fine but need some modification.  

How about making 0 and 1st level spell At Will, 2nd level spell Per Encounter and 3rd level & above spell Per Day.

Looking at the 3.5E spell per day progression, with the above modification, it works like 4E w/e/d progression.

Need to move some 1st and 2nd level spell to 3rd level so make them Per Day.

Work well for my game.


----------



## Baumi (Feb 27, 2012)

sinecure said:


> Please ditch the nonexistent Combat/Non-combat divide. Just have all the stuff that is possible in combat possible outside of combat too without quick-time restrictions.




What combat/non-combat divide? If you are referring to Encounter Powers, these  are mean any kind of Encounters (Combat, Social, and so on).


----------



## Oni (Feb 27, 2012)

Wouldn't record my vote on the AW/E/D system.  


Anyway, the one thing that I really like about the Vancian system, and the one thing that isn't really touched on in the poll, and the one thing that would really sway my opinion about any of the other styles is that the ability to expand laterally.  That spells aren't just something that you learn when you level up, they're something you go out and find and can add to your repertoire.  I enjoyed playing 3e style sorcerer on occasion, but the one thing that always disappointed me was finding new and interesting spells and just going meh, because they were useless.  That one thing badly hurt the appeal of the class for me.


----------



## paladinm (Feb 27, 2012)

I personally prefer a Sorcerer-type caster.  Vancian magic wouldn't be so bad if there was also some sort of "at-will" ability (as much as I hate the 4e model).

When I first played 1e, I remember being limited to one spell per day, and of course that one spell had to be "Read Magic", so a MU was pretty much useless until 2nd level.  At least with 3e, Read Magic became a cantrip, but the point is made.  Especially at low levels, once a mage runs out of prepared spells, s/he might as well go home (or die).

I wouldn't mind seeing some sort of "feat" that allowed an at-will ability, similar to a warlock's eldritch blast.  That would make Vancian more "palatable".


----------



## Khaalis (Feb 27, 2012)

I'd like to see some kind of spell proliferation control. Nothing worse than being a caster with 1-4 spells per spell level and 200+ spells per spell level to choose from...


----------



## Kingreaper (Feb 27, 2012)

Kynn said:


> It's not just you.
> 
> (Also, note that they never asked, "should we include both Vancian and non-Vancian spellcasting systems as part of the core?" so he can't really claim that "a majority" of us want that.)




True, assuming they didn't store any data other than "number of votes". However he can say "A majority want us to include Vancian and an overlapping majority want us to include non-Vancian": which is close enough.


----------



## grimslade (Feb 27, 2012)

Is this the path to specialist wizards and schools? A feat with a 'utility' spell and a few bonuses. It is a goofy mechanic on its own, but it could lend itself to another layer of customization if used with all classes.
Say you have a Disciple of Bigby feat for your bonus 'path' feat. It gives you Mage Hand whenever and Bigby's Pimp Slapping Hand at-will. It is the starter for a feat chain that opens up metamagky goodness appropriate to Bigby, conversion of damage type to force, a rider on any Bigby spell that gives a push 5', access to the Order of the Arcane Fist Prestige class.

The neat thing with this is you can use it to build fighting maneuvers for fighters, 2e style priesthoods for cleric/ priest and thief acrobats. The simple form of classes have a generic specialization built in as class abilities.


----------



## gyor (Feb 27, 2012)

This was far more informative then the,other articals and blog posts lately and has reexcited my interest in 5e.

 The wizard disciple feats and wizard mark feats idea sounds awesome. 

 Here is my thinking Wizards will be divided into the normal specialist schools and generalists, with specialty wizards getting feature according to school with generalists getting free wizard mark feats.

I don't know which class gets the magical feats as the whole class feature thing, but if it is warlock then I suspect that they'll be feat chains based around pacts and pact specific features as well that buff feat powers.

 Cleric's will be mostly spells based, but with the option of domain feats akin to Wizard Marks. 

 Priests will be mostly domain feats based with with a main domain that grant unique advantages, like arcana that grants wizard marks, war that grants combat manuevers, life which grants a bonus to healing, ect...

 Combat Manuevers maybe feat based as well.

 Druids I see remaining primal in nature, with a spirit feata based system, but still primarily vancian based, plus features. Rangers will have,the option of taking spirit feats as well, but no spells.

 Paladin's I see primarily feature based, depend on,your choice of vice or virtue aedu style, but possibly with option of taking domain feats.

 Assassins and Rogues, Rogues I can see picking,from a bag of tricks, which includes backstab and sneak attack as well as none combat stuff and Assassins shadow magic feats and poison abilities amoung other things, with maybe its own choice of tricks and maybe assassin guild feature.


----------



## gyor (Feb 27, 2012)

This was far more informative then the,other articals and blog posts lately and has reexcited my interest in 5e.

 The wizard disciple feats and wizard mark feats idea sounds awesome. 

 Here is my thinking Wizards will be divided into the normal specialist schools and generalists, with specialty wizards getting feature according to school with generalists getting free wizard mark feats.

I don't know which class gets the magical feats as the whole class feature thing, but if it is warlock then I suspect that they'll be feat chains based around pacts and pact specific features as well that buff feat powers.

 Cleric's will be mostly spells based, but with the option of domain feats akin to Wizard Marks. 

 Priests will be mostly domain feats based with with a main domain that grant unique advantages, like arcana that grants wizard marks, war that grants combat manuevers, life which grants a bonus to healing, ect...

 Combat Manuevers maybe feat based as well.

 Druids I see remaining primal in nature, with a spirit feata based system, but still primarily vancian based, plus features. Rangers will have,the option of taking spirit feats as well, but no spells.

 Paladin's I see primarily feature based, depend on,your choice of vice or virtue aedu style, but possibly with option of taking domain feats.

 Assassins and Rogues, Rogues I can see picking,from a bag of tricks, which includes backstab and sneak attack as well as none combat stuff and Assassins shadow magic feats and poison abilities amoung other things, with maybe its own choice of tricks and maybe assassin guild feature.


----------



## Scribble (Feb 27, 2012)

I wonder if there has ever been a game related online poll in the history of game related online polls where there wasn't anyone complaining that the poll was bad?


----------



## thedungeondelver (Feb 27, 2012)

underfoot007ct said:


> After reading this, I am very hopeful. Especially If these feats will let a player choose to build a Caster character either 1E, 2E, 3E, 4E style (or even some new point style). Which could make almost every happy, no matter which style you prefer.
> 
> .




How does this let a player create an *AD&D* magic-user?


----------



## GM Dave (Feb 27, 2012)

I would reverse the thinking on the Cleric verses the Priest.

The base 'heal bot' cleric does not need a spell selection.  This is the 1e Cleric that wields a mace and it a pocket fighter (interestingly more of a gish then most wizard attempts at the gish).

The cleric would have a few abilities to modify their mace usage and various healing magics as they level (maybe borrow the lay on hands ability from the the Pathfinder Paladin or something similar that allows healing or some charges to be used for more complex types of healing <cure blindness, cure disease> ).

This would be the simplified Cleric.

The priest would be more of the 'bells and whistles' version of a holy person who has domains representing different gods and pantheons.  They would have the spell selection which would include various domain lists of spells.

The bridge between the two classes would be taking the Cleirc and then giving some options that can be pulled from the base and replaced with other options.  This would create the Storm Cleric or Fire Cleric (reducing the mace usage for something else and giving a bit different in the utility power selection).


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Feb 27, 2012)

They of course mention the Psion as being an example of a point using magic class, but is there anything about the way the Psion's power system (more likely the 3.5e one, over the 4e one) was implemented that should be changed?


----------



## El Mahdi (Feb 27, 2012)

I think using Feats to get some magical abilities is a little too limiting.  Feats are a limited resource to begin with.  Spending a Feat per spell-like ability is a bit expensive.

I'd like to see something more like: at character creation, you choose a number of spell-like abilities equal to your Intelligence/Wisdom bonus.  You may then aquire more spell like abilities through the expenditure of a Feat.

Or...

Make a Feat able to grant two or three spell like abilities.

Or...

Just reintroduce Cantrips and make them completely at-will.


----------



## dkyle (Feb 27, 2012)

My problem with Vancian casting is the focus on per-day abilities.  I think anything more than minimal per-day balancing is simply _bad_, and is almost guaranteed to produce an imbalanced game.  I think 4E has a bit too much, as it is.  I'm loathe to see a return to those old mistakes.

Hopefully, all that per-day junk will be limited to Wizards.  And I can just ban them from any table I DM (and try to find a like-minded DM, if I'm playing).  But my guess is the other spellcasting systems will be just as per-day based, since I recall one of the devs repeating that old "expected encounters per day" nonsense.  In which case, so much for 5E.


----------



## Yora (Feb 27, 2012)

The big problem with the system is the situation, in which you can cast two more fireballs, but not a single fly spell. It's extremely rare to have such a thing appear anywhere in myth or fiction.

But I am really interested how this poll turns out. It's a subject on which anyone has a strong oppinon, but nobody really knows how common each view is.


----------



## Scribble (Feb 27, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> I think using Feats to get some magical abilities is a little too limiting.  Feats are a limited resource to begin with.  Spending a Feat per spell-like ability is a bit expensive.




Yeah but we don't really know how feats will play out this time around do we?


----------



## gyor (Feb 27, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> I think using Feats to get some magical abilities is a little too limiting.  Feats are a limited resource to begin with.  Spending a Feat per spell-like ability is a bit expensive.
> 
> I'd like to see something more like: at character creation, you choose a number of spell-like abilities equal to your Intelligence/Wisdom bonus.  You may then aquire more spell like abilities through the expenditure of a Feat.
> 
> ...




We really don't know how many feats we get, what the all the types of feats, or if thier are ways to gain additional feats.


----------



## Ratskinner (Feb 27, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> If this implies that "Disciple of Tenser" is really phrased as some equivalent of "You may use _Tenser's Floating Disc_ as a spell-like ability at will" then it's wouldn't be so bad.  I would object to not having the option of preparing the effect as a spell at all.
> 
> It also brings back the issue of combat balance and non-combat balance.  If I'm using a feat for _mage hand_ that another player is using for extra combat damage, we have the gimping problem again.
> 
> It suggests a system by which feats are used primarily for out-of-combat effects, but we have evidence that's not the case.




To me, it seems like Feats are being upgraded to be more like "class features" rather than minor tweaks. However, I favor blurring the line between combat and non-combat. I think that the utility of various things varies so much between campaigns that it should be possible for characters in the same class but different campaigns to adapt to what they need. Its the only way to allow for balance while not "locking down" a hardwired combat playstyle, AFAICT.


----------



## gyor (Feb 27, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> Article for 2/27/12.
> 
> I'm reading this to imply that if you want a spell that doesn't affect combat, you have to use a feat to buy it?
> 
> I hope I'm wrong, because this bothers me to no end.




I think your wrong, these are probably more akin to reserve feats, minus the reserve part, aka lesser versions of greater spells, the way,fire javalin doesn't replace fireball.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Feb 27, 2012)

The one thing I'd love to see with regards to these "at-will" magical cantrips you gain with feats is for it to be stated quite clearly either in the cantrip explanation (or perhaps in the DMG) what the numbers could be for the DM to attribute consistent and balanced damage dice to their use.

For example... _Mage Hand_ as a spell/cantrip traditionally has done no damage.  However, there have always been ways that magic-users have "explained" the method for using _Mage Hand_ so that it could be used to cause damage.  Whether this was telekinetic punches, knocking things off shelves to drop on people's heads, directing vials of alchemists fire, etc.

It'd be great if there was a standard damage rating for all abilities gained via these feats.  Like any basic magic feat could cause 1d4+INT damage depending how its used for example.  So that whatever ability you got from whatever feat you took... if you found a way to use it offensively, the damage caused were balanced against each other and the 'spells' a Vancian wizard might have.

Use a _Tenser's Floating Disk_ as an offensive attack?  Does 1d4+INT damage.  Use _Mage Hand_ as an offensive attack?  1d4+INT damage.  Use _Ghost Sound_ offensively (like creating loud screams in the ears of the monster?)  1d4+INT damage.  Give the casters the benefit of thinking of cool, weird ways to use their magic in addition to the standard method of what these cantrips would do.  The benefit is... you don't ask the player to have to take TWO of these feats... one an offensive at-will attack, the other, a cool "non-combat" effect feat.


----------



## Steelwill (Feb 27, 2012)

AEDU + rituals worked better for casters than any other class in 4E.  My issues are with poor execution not concept.  Rituals could be so much better than they are.  Spells and several general concepts about magic need to be revamped.  Bring back the power level of spells and magic from 3.x, bring back summoning, polymorph, hold, prison, etc, the spells in 3.5 were like the pinnacle of the best spells list in all of rpg history, and 4E scrapped like half of it.  Bring them and the neutered magic items all back.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 27, 2012)

I had a problem with the poll, I want a mix of styles

I want 2e spells per day broken up into standard action and rituals (standard action ones need to be Preped) with a spell book.

Mixed with at wills like 4e both cantrips and attacks

I think I am ok with the feat part though.


----------



## Ainamacar (Feb 27, 2012)

Oni said:


> Wouldn't record my vote on the AW/E/D system.
> 
> 
> Anyway, the one thing that I really like about the Vancian system, and the one thing that isn't really touched on in the poll, and the one thing that would really sway my opinion about any of the other styles is that the ability to expand laterally.  That spells aren't just something that you learn when you level up, they're something you go out and find and can add to your repertoire.  I enjoyed playing 3e style sorcerer on occasion, but the one thing that always disappointed me was finding new and interesting spells and just going meh, because they were useless.  That one thing badly hurt the appeal of the class for me.




I think that the spontaneous casters, or at least the sorcerer-like ones where the spontaneity is considered a form of innate magic, are much better ground than wizards for requiring an arcana check (or whatever) to learn a spell than a wizard.  Basically, the sorcerer is trying to conform himself (his essence) to a particular thing, while a wizard's magic is usually considered more malleable.  There are obviously balance issues if this sort of thing goes unhindered.  Perhaps the difficulty to do so increases for each spell learned in this way.  However, at some point it is worth asking why not just give the sorcerer a few more spell slots and be done with it.

A better solution might be to let the sorcerer define a domain/bloodline/whatever of spells which can be learned without a roll, but permit them to learn any other spell with some sort of check (which could be repeated once per level perhaps).  These would still count against the same pool of maximum known spells, however.  Or if sorcerers use feats to build their spell lists, perhaps there is a feat that lets them learn a spell if they have a scroll.  Either way, the total number of known spells would be tightly controlled, but it would give sorcerer's the feel of expanding their repertoire based on what they encounter in the world.  The downside is that rules like bloodlines which restrict the spells that can be known means it is hard to build a sorcerer for which there is currently no coherent bloodline.  In 3.5 part of the enjoyment I had with sorcerers was creating a coherent theme from the raw material of the entire Sor/Wiz spell list.

Even so, it might be possible to find a middle ground between rigid bloodlines and somewhat malleable ones.  For example, perhaps bloodlines restrict which spells can be taken automatically and grant these spells a special bonus, but do not otherwise restrict what spell can be learned (or do so more loosely).  Then a character might be able to learn any kind of spell, but make a check when doing so to see if they can treat themselves as having an appropriate bloodline for that spell.  For example, maybe a sorcerer has the fire bloodline and thus increases the die type by 1 for all damage die with fire spells.  If that sorcerer learns Chain Lightning perhaps there is a check that can be made which would grant, for the purposes of using that spell alone, access to a Storm bloodline.  Or learning Dimension Door, which is flavored as disappearing in a puff of smoke, one might be able to gain a silent benefit from some other bloodline to reflect its coherence with the primary bloodline.  In other words, a method to "discover" fragments of other bloodlines and unexpected facets of existing ones without having to spend the probably significant character resources to simply grant oneself a whole new bloodline for the sake of a spell or two.

---

With respect to feats granting at-will magical abilities, I think the idea can work well.  To avoid making it feel like a feat tax the normal way of gaining spells and/or spell slots should also require spending feats.  To avoid the problem of the 3.5 fighter (where many feats were quite underwhelming compared to proper class features) one simply needs to make sure they aren't underwhelming.  This is a lot easier if feats are the primary resource of all classes rather than just one, and "class features" are limited to just those things learned early on or infrequently that permit the class to work as intended in the first place.

For example, perhaps the wizard gains a spellcasting feat at every level.  The feat that enables Vancian casting might be something like "gains 1+half level" spell "slots", where the half-level part always refers to the character's current level and not the level when it was taken.  Then the character can divide up these slots as desired, but is required to have no more spells in each level than in the level below it.  Assuming spells go up to 9th level, a spell requires a number of slots equal to its level, and a "full wizard" starts with 3 such feats at level 1, then the total number of spell slots for a full Vancian wizard (who has level+2 such feats) is (level+2)*(floor(level/2)+1), and the "optimal filling" maximizes the number of spells by prioritizing the high-level spells.  (I'm assuming new spell access at the traditional odd levels.)

```
Level Slots Optimal filling    Total spells
1     3     3                  3
2     8     8                  8
3     10    4,3                7
4     18    6,6                12
5     21    4,4,3              11
6     32    7,5,5              17
7     36    4,4,4,3            15
8     50    5,5,5,5            20
9     55    4,4,4,4,3          19
10    72    5,5,5,4,4          23
11    78    4,4,4,4,4,3        23
12    98    7,5,5,4,4,4        29
13    105   4,4,4,4,4,4,3      27
14    128   6,5,5,5,5,4,4      34
15    136   3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3    24
16    162   6,6,5,5,5,4,4,4    39
17    171   4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,3  35
18    200   7,6,5,5,5,4,4,4,4  44
19    210   8,6,5,5,5,4,4,4,4  45
20    242   8,6,6,6,6,5,5,5,5  52
```
This is a very 3e-like progression, comparable to a specialist wizard with a large Int bonus.  I'd also note that various ways of multiclassing will be much better than in 3.5, where grabbing just a level or two in wizard was almost worthless.  For example, a 20th level character with 1 level of wizard (perhaps worth 1 feat of spellcasting rather than 3) would still have 11 slots, which could be worth {2,1,1,1} level spells if spell-access were determined by character level rather than wizard level.  If the 20th level character had 5-levels of wizard (so 55 points) the list might look more like {2,2,2,2,1,1,1,1,1}, granting limited access to all 9 levels of spells.  Whether this specific scheme works for game balance and ease-of-play isn't my point, just that it could recreate a very familiar type of Wizard by spending one feat per level, while allowing for other options.

Thus, a more 4e-like wizard could choose to take the "at-will" feats instead of the feat above when it levels up.  The balance would be very dependent on the rest of the spell system, of course, but as long as the at-will spells scale with level something like this is possible.

And naturally, for many creatures a mix will be desirable.  A 20th level wizard might take 15 Vancian feats plus 7 "signature spell" feats.  Using the math above that would give it 165 levels worth of spells, about {6,4,4,4,4,4,4,3,3}, comparable to a full-Vancian caster at level 17 plus all the extra stuff from the 7 other feats.  As noted earlier, a character with 5 Vancian feats would still be able to cast at least one spell of each level in a Vancian fashion, and would have 17 feats worth of at-will or related stuff to go around.

Or consider a 6th level wizard.  If that wizard chose 4 at-will feats and 4 Vancian feats the caster would have 16 spell levels to go around, probably {4,3,2} Vancian slots plus whatever the at-will effects do.  Compare this to a full Vancian 6th-level wizard, with 32 spell levels giving Vancian slots like {7,5,5}.  I don't think it's too hard to imagine 4 at-will effects (or upgrades) that might be worth that cost.  For some people at-will effects would primarily be used to define the basic combat options and then keep a host of useful utility spells in the slots.  For others, flexibility in combat may be more important but some utility at-wills are so handy in everyday life or other situations that they never want to allocate slots just to do everyday wizardy tasks.


----------



## Blackwarder (Feb 27, 2012)

What ever they do with vanician system I hope they add random spell tables for leveling up and treasures, last thing I want is to have my players whine because they think that I'm choosing spells to gimp them on the one hand and OTOH having them choose spells that are utterly game breaking.

Besides, random tables are cool.

Warder


----------



## Dragonblade (Feb 27, 2012)

I love everything about this article. I really love the notion of playing a feat based caster that has several at-will combat and utility abilities that they upgrade via feat chain into more powerful versions. How cool would an at-will Tenser's disk be as alluded to in the article! 

Basically, it sounds like the 3e Warlock, a class I really liked a lot. My only concern is the rate of feat acquisition. For such a feat heavy game, I want a feat pretty much every level. 

In fact, I'm positively giddy over the thought of magic being broken out into feat based at-will/utility abilities, Vancian style dailies for the big boom/game changing spells, plus a ritual system for all the potential plot/world breaking spells like Legend Lore, Teleport, Gate, and so on.

Obviously, each class will focus on each style differently. I could see the Warlock being mostly feat/ritual based, the Sorcerer being half feat, half Vancian with no Rituals, the Wizard being focused on Vancian and Rituals with some feat based magic. Then you could have a Psion which is half feat based with perhaps a point based variant of the Vancian style.

I approve.


----------



## Odhanan (Feb 27, 2012)

And... it seems I'm out. Deal-breaker detected.

It seems to me Monte is saying that feats in a 3rd edition sense will be part of the core-sans-modules. It is a non-starter to me. The mistake I'm seeing is that they're trying to make everyone happy with the core-sans-modules, from the get-go, rather than the core+this-or-that-module.

I hope I misunderstand Monte's post here.

Feats should be part of a module. Non-Vancian magic should be part of a module. Skills should be part of a module. Etc. Only the core of the D&D game should be the core of the system sans modules.

The core of the game needs to be just that: the core of the D&D experience. Feats are not part of the core D&D experience, as all the pre-3e editions of the game demonstrate. If these guys can't figure that out, all the rest will suck for me, and a lot of other gamers out there I'm sure. It is "the" component of the game they should not botch.


----------



## gloomhound (Feb 27, 2012)

Having read the L&L article I must say Mr Cook seems to be improving with his writing of these and I'm also liking the direction they seems to be going with it.


----------



## Yora (Feb 27, 2012)

Vancian magic also should be part of a module. It's just so niche that it really shouldn't be in the core rules.


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 27, 2012)

Odhanan said:


> Feats should be part of a module.




I'm of two minds about feats. On the one hand, I think the feat system is a great idea in theory. On the other hand, I've come to detest it in practice, in both 3E and 4E incarnations. As I said in a different thread, feats always seem to devolve into bloated lists of "+1 to this" and "+2 to that" and "+5 to the other thing when you have combat advantage on a Thursday."

If they can stick to using them for stuff like what Monte's describing here, 5E might be the edition that redeems feats for me. We'll see. Given WotC's track record, I think I'm going to join the call for feats to be optional.


----------



## Kingreaper (Feb 27, 2012)

Feats should definitely be optional. But that doesn't mean you can't have classes that grant you specific feats for free; even when feats are turned off.

A class feature is a class feature, even if it's technically in the form of a feat; just list it's effects as a class feature and it's all good.

Indeed, you could have every class be built up entirely of bonus feats, and still have feats be optional.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Feb 27, 2012)

I can only see feats really working well this way if the feat list is carefully monitored and restricted to giving access to substantial abilities, worth having.  That means no huge lists of piddly feats.  While certainly possible, it is not something I would want to bet the farm upon.


----------



## Dragonblade (Feb 27, 2012)

Odhanan said:


> And... it seems I'm out. Deal-breaker detected.
> 
> It seems to me Monte is saying that feats in a 3rd edition sense will be part of the core-sans-modules. It is a non-starter to me. The mistake I'm seeing is that they're trying to make everyone happy with the core-sans-modules, from the get-go, rather than the core+this-or-that-module.
> 
> ...




I don't see that at all from Monte's post.

I think what we will see is a core where the "feat" based abilities are largely baked into the core classes as simplified pre-determined class features. For groups who play straight up core, you just accept whatever ability you get at each level. You don't see the "feats" behind the curtain, so to speak.

For players/groups who want more advanced customization, they can then choose to swap out or customize those class-feature "feats" for different ones. I like this approach a lot, and think its the best way to go to make a simple game without a lot of choice and complexity for those who don't want it, but offers it for those who do, and still allow them both to play at the same table.

I highly doubt that you'll see a 5e that is basically a recreation of Basic D&D, where feats are completely removed from the core experience and only available as an optional add-on. From a design standpoint, that would be a nightmare with massive balance repercussions. You'd essentially be creating two entirely different games, AD&D and 3e D&D, and it would defeat the unification edition goal of having two players play their preferred complexity style at the same table.


----------



## Odhanan (Feb 27, 2012)

As I said, I could be wrong. I hope I'm wrong.

But honestly? All the talk of feats and stuff? Way to turn me off on the game. And I'm sure I'm not the only one (remember before you answer to this: this game is supposed to appeal to the BOTH of us, not just you).


----------



## Mark CMG (Feb 27, 2012)

> One idea we’re considering is a magical feat. These feats represent magical abilities that a character can use all the time. For example, we might have a basic feat called *Wizard Mark*.





While I'm not sure that I agree with the implementation, I find it flattering that they are thinking about naming a feat after me.









Spoiler



_Wait, what?_


----------



## Odhanan (Feb 27, 2012)

3rd edition lite-4e Essentials is not going to work towards a "D&D Edition for all editions". It's been tried before. It might be called Castles & Crusades. Or D&D Essentials. True20. Or whatnot. This is not the market of 2000. This is 2012, and players interested in those play styles have sinced migrated back to their primary games, the question being "if I loved all these bits from AD&D and don't find C&C entirely satisfying for reason X or Y, why don't I just play AD&D itself?" And thus OSRIC, S&W et al. were born. 

Castles & Crusades Plus Pre-determined Feats is not going to cut it. Unless of course the whole point is to just go back to 2007 and get some Pathfinder gamers to play WotC's game, which is fine I guess in and of itself, but then don't take me AD&Der for a moron and don't call this the "big tent" or whatever.


----------



## Scribble (Feb 27, 2012)

Odhanan said:


> 3rd edition lite-4e Essentials is not going to work towards a "D&D Edition for all editions". It's been tried before. It might be called Castles & Crusades. Or D&D Essentials. True20. Or whatnot. This is not the market of 2000. This is 2012, and players interested in those play styles have sinced migrated back to their primary games, the question being "if I loved all these bits from AD&D and don't find C&C entirely satisfying for reason X or Y, why don't I just play AD&D itself?" And thus OSRIC, S&W et al. were born.
> 
> Castles & Crusades Plus Predeterminded Feats is not going to cut it. Unless of course the whole point is to just go back to 2007 and get some Pathfinder gamers to play WotC's game, which is fine I guess in and of itself, but then don't take me AD&Der for a moron and don't call this the "big tent" or whatever.




There are an awful lot of people who still post to D&D sites and still argue and fight about D&D even when they proclaim not to like the current system. The fact that they're posting to the D&D website (to me at least) seems to indicate they still have some sort of connection with the brand.

I think THESE are the people that WoTC is trying to appeal to. 

There will always be people who just don't like it, and want to play something else. I'm sure WoTC knows this. But the people who still post to D&D boards (usually about how bad the system is) tend to at least have reasons (valid or not) about why. Usually involving something the new system doesn't allow them to accomplish.

Wizards is trying to give them a way to accomplish said thing.

I guess only time will tell though whether or not those people have real concerns, whether the game can meet those concerns, or whether those people were just full of hot air and looking to hear themselves bitch (and thus will continue to do so, just changing what they bitched about.)


----------



## Hassassin (Feb 27, 2012)

Odhanan said:


> As I said, I could be wrong. I hope I'm wrong.
> 
> But honestly? All the talk of feats and stuff? Way to turn me off on the game. And I'm sure I'm not the only one (remember before you answer to this: this game is supposed to appeal to the BOTH of us, not just you).




What is it you don't like about (was it 3e style) feats? Maybe they've fixed those things in 5e. No way to know yet.


----------



## Odhanan (Feb 27, 2012)

I don't like the fact they exist in the first place. Just like Skills. I play AD&D First Ed now, primarily. One of the reasons I like this game is because I don't have to deal with all that BS at all. This is also the case of a lot of TSR-era fans out there. 

The only way the problem with feats is solved to is so I can turn this stuff off completely and forget it exists. Likewise with Skills. And on it goes. 

So really: if that's 4e lite for people who like 3rd ed and Pathfinder, I'm cool with it, really, but be forthright about it. Tell it how it is, WotC. Don't try to screw me into believing you actually give a crap about gamers like me by talking about Gygax and OD&D and AD&D every once in a while in your columns. That sure as heck ain't gonna cut it this time.

The irony, and frustration really, is that I can see this, the modular D&D idea, actually working under certain conditions, with a certain understanding of the game, and the modules built to then decline this understanding of the game in different ways for different audiences. I can see it. But what I'm reading here? That ain't it. Nope. Not happening.

So. There are people who have seen the playtest rules apparently, like Rob Conley (writer of the Majestic Wilderlands) or the RPG Pundit (of theRPGsite.com fame) who say that the columns don't reflect what they've seen of the core game (without going into details since they are under NDAs), and they're wondering what the heck is Monte Cook talking about. So my question from there is: what the heck is going on? Tell it like it is. Be straight about it. Explain. Because that starts to look like you guys (WotC) don't really know what it is you're doing.


----------



## kitsune9 (Feb 27, 2012)

I'm a fan of Vancian magic--it will be interesting to see what WotC develops if they become committed to go this route.


----------



## Hassassin (Feb 27, 2012)

Odhanan said:


> I don't like the fact they exist in the first place. Just like Skills.




That's not a very useful answer. I presume it wouldn't help if they renamed feats "talents" and skills "proficiencies"?

Do you hate any character options outside class? (Then class specific bonus feats could still be ok.)

Do you hate the complexity they add? (Then a short list of simple feats could still be ok.)


----------



## Odhanan (Feb 27, 2012)

Hassassin said:


> That's not a very useful answer. I presume it wouldn't help if they renamed feats "talents" and skills "proficiencies"?
> 
> Do you hate character options outside class? (Then class specific bonus feats could still be ok.)
> 
> Do you hate the complexity they add? (Then a short list of simple feats could still be ok.)




I like OD&D. I like AD&D. I like B/X D&D. Look into them. These games do not include Skills or Feats. These games are part of the core of D&D _as well_. NO, it would not help to rename these "talents" or "proficiencies". There's a reason I quit the d20 system entirely (i.e. alluding to Star Wars Saga here and its talent trees) and a reason why I play First Edition and not AD&D 2nd edition with its Non-Weapon Proficiencies.

I mean. It's really not that complicated: either this game is for all the fans of D&D, or it isn't. If it's a game for people who like feats and skills, as I said, I'm cool with it. I'm fine, my hobby is fine, I have my D&D editions to play with my friends, I'm getting a reprint of the game as a treat from WotC, my retroclones to use and publish stuff for them under the OGL, I'm cool really. 

But in the interest of being helpful here, if the WotC guys believe for a moment that Feats and Skills in the core-sans-modules of the game is a way to win over the fans of the game who do not play 3rd/4e/Pathfinder, they're either deluding themselves or have a serious problem understanding the D&D game in the first place.


----------



## Invisible Stalker (Feb 27, 2012)

I'm not going to be very helpful, I'd like to see all four systems used for four different magic user classes. Wizards get the Vancian system and the other magic using classes will get one of the other methods.


----------



## Hassassin (Feb 27, 2012)

Odhanan said:


> I like OD&D. I like AD&D. I like B/X D&D. Look into them. These games do not include Skills or Feats.




So you don't like skills and feats because those versions of D&D didn't include them? That's not a very good reason, IMO. You could use the same reason to argue against anything that was added or changed in 3e or 4e. Or, if using OD&D as baseline, anything added or changed in AD&D.


----------



## Scribble (Feb 27, 2012)

First edition had proficiencies.


----------



## KidSnide (Feb 27, 2012)

Odhanan said:


> I like OD&D. I like AD&D. I like B/X D&D. Look into them. These games do not include Skills or Feats.




Purely as a matter of curiosity, what about skills and non-weapon proficiencies do you dislike?  Are they too fiddly?  Too complex?  Encourage die rolling over describing what your character does?  Some other reason?

-KS


----------



## Ratskinner (Feb 27, 2012)

Odhanan said:


> I like OD&D. I like AD&D. I like B/X D&D. Look into them. These games do not include Skills or Feats. These games are part of the core of D&D _as well_. NO, it would not help to rename these "talents" or "proficiencies". There's a reason I quit the d20 system entirely (i.e. alluding to Star Wars Saga here and its talent trees) and a reason why I play First Edition and not AD&D 2nd edition with its Non-Weapon Proficiencies.
> 
> I mean. It's really not that complicated: either this game is for all the fans of D&D, or it isn't. If it's a game for people who like feats and skills, as I said, I'm cool with it. I'm fine, my hobby is fine, I have my D&D editions to play with my friends, I'm getting a reprint of the game as a treat from WotC, my retroclones to use and publish stuff for them under the OGL, I'm cool really.
> 
> But in the interest of being helpful here, if the WotC guys believe for a moment that Feats and Skills in the core-sans-modules of the game is a way to win over the fans of the game who do not play 3rd/4e/Pathfinder, they're either deluding themselves or have a serious problem understanding the D&D game in the first place.




Those games however, do have (a limited set) of abilities attached to classes. Do you object to characters gaining new abilities (other than spells) as they level up in general, or just player choices in the process? 

What I mean is: It sounds to me like there will be a "basic" version of the game presented in the PHB. Classes in this Basic version will not involve players making choices as they level up (except perhaps spell choices and multiclassing, maybe?)  I suspect later in the book will be modules making it "Advanced" and allowing players to swap out options as they level up (call 'em feats or whatever.) I would think that an individual DM would have the option of just keeping with the basic classes. Failing that, I feel that they would be remiss in not producing a "red box" with just the basic rules and some monsters to hook young'ens. 

I suspect that most people would still call the additional modules in the PHB (or first three books?) a part of the "core", while still calling the simpler game "basic" or something. At least, this is the impression I get from the things they've written. Would that be satisfactory for you?


----------



## Odhanan (Feb 27, 2012)

Hassassin said:


> So you don't like skills and feats because those versions of D&D didn't include them? That's not a very good reason, IMO. You could use the same reason to argue against anything that was added or changed in 3e or 4e. Or, if using OD&D as baseline, anything added or changed in AD&D.




Actually you can, yes. The only way for this to work as per stated intent of creating a game for all editions of D&D is to basically start from the start, leave that as the core-sans-modules of the game, and then propose modules to get the game play you want out of your game. 

This means that the core of the game would look something like OD&D, with each module adding a different aspect to the core. Feats and Skills in one module of character customization, for instance. Tactical miniatures game play in another module. Breakdown of the system to "fix" the core to make it into an uber-balanced machine for those who like that in yet another module. And so on, so forth. 

As I understand it when reading the L&L columns, this game sounds like a new school game trying to appeal to Pathfinder/3e fans primarily. That's a non-starter, as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Hassassin (Feb 27, 2012)

Odhanan said:


> Actually you can, yes. The only way for this to work as per stated intent of creating a game for all editions of D&D is to basically start from the start, leave that as the core-sans-modules of the game, and then propose modules to get the game play you want out of your game.




The stated intention wasn't to support the _mechanics_ of every edition, but the play style.


----------



## Rogue Agent (Feb 27, 2012)

Odhanan said:


> Actually you can, yes. The only way for this to work as per stated intent of creating a game for all editions of D&D is to basically start from the start, leave that as the core-sans-modules of the game, and then propose modules to get the game play you want out of your game.




Translation: The only way this works is if the version of the game I like is the "core" and everything I don't like is "optional".

Which is a great design principle if they were designing a game exclusively for Odhanan. But they aren't. And everyone else has different ideas of what "the version of the game I like" is.

This is, BTW, why the entire idea that D&D5 is going to be the "edition of all editions" through the use of some sort of "modular magic" is a complete pipe-dream that can only hold up for as long as WotC remains as vague as they possibly can. The lightest breeze of specificity and the whole thing collapses.


----------



## Odhanan (Feb 27, 2012)

KidSnide said:


> Purely as a matter of curiosity, what about skills and non-weapon proficiencies do you dislike?  Are they too fiddly?  Too complex?  Encourage die rolling over describing what your character does?  Some other reason?
> 
> -KS




Skills run contrary to archetype/class-based design. I don't need both. It's just redundant and makes the game more nitpicky for no reason that cannot be accounted for by my own adjudication of the game. I prefer players to describe what they do instead of looking at their character sheet to see what modifier they have in this or that. The same way, I want players to describe to me what they do as their characters during combat. I don't want them to look at lists of feats and abilities wondering how to use the rules. I want them to think and imagine the heck out of the game itself. 

This is the same reason why I do not use THAC0 in my games in favor of to-hit charts I keep on my side of the screen. No calculations on the players part whatsoever. Just tell me what you do, roll 1d20, maybe add this or that single-digit modifier from that piece of equipment or whatnot, but this is it. Nothing else to worry about.

But really that is inconsequential. Whether you think my reasons are justified or not from your own corner of the woods does not matter one single bit at my game table. I honestly do not care one bit whether you tell me "but you can ignore this or that" or whatnot. It's not the point. Believe me: I'm completely fine running my games as they are, and so are my players. I'm not asking for your help.

What matters is that the guys who are designing this D&D Next game need to understand that. They need to really think hard about whether they want this game to be this "big tent" they are talking about, or if this is just all PR destined to target one single, specific segment of the D&D audience instead.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Feb 27, 2012)

Rogue Agent said:


> Translation: The only way this works is if the version of the game I like is the "core" and everything I don't like is "optional".
> 
> Which is a great design principle if they were designing a game exclusively for Odhanan. But they aren't. And everyone else has different ideas of what "the version of the game I like" is.




The core of a modular system has to be dirt simple.  Otherwise I'd have to buy a module to take skills and feats out of my game.  Spicing up the soup is always easier than removing the garlic after it's done.


----------



## FireLance (Feb 27, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> While I'm not sure that I agree with the implementation, I find it flattering that they are thinking about naming a feat after me.



You do realize that it was already the name of a spell as far back as 1e (IIRC)?


----------



## KidSnide (Feb 27, 2012)

Odhanan said:


> Skills run contrary to archetype/class-based design. I don't need both. It's just redundant and makes the game more nitpicky for no reason that cannot be accounted for by my own adjudication of the game. I prefer players to describe what they do instead of looking at their character sheet to see what modifier they have in this or that. The same way, I want players to describe to me what they do as their characters during combat. I don't want them to look at lists of feats and abilities wondering how to use the rules. I want them to think and imagine the heck out of the game itself.




I totally understand the motivation to minimize calculations and character sheet reference, but I find the archtype comment interesting.  Are you opposed to options in class abilities?  Or do you think that two fighters with the same level, abilities scores and equipment should be identical from a game mechanics perspective?

Asking, not judging...

-KS


----------



## Ratskinner (Feb 27, 2012)

JRRNeiklot said:


> The core of a modular system has to be dirt simple.  Otherwise I'd have to buy a module to take skills and feats out of my game.  Spicing up the soup is always easier than removing the garlic after it's done.




In general, I agree. However, the idea that the basic/core game must present absolutely no hint of any optional ability or skill system that may be totally ignorable in itself, I think, goes a little beyond what's necessary in the name of simplicity.


----------



## Mark CMG (Feb 27, 2012)

FireLance said:


> You do realize that it was already the name of a spell as far back as 1e (IIRC)?





Not core, at least, until 2E, IIRC.  Might have been an Unearthed Arcana addition for 1E but I don't have that near to hand to check.  (Little help!  )  Of course, that became Arcane Mark with 3.XE.  I suppose I can live with that tribute just as easily.


----------



## avin (Feb 27, 2012)

Odhanan said:


> I don't like the fact they exist in the first place. Just like Skills. I play AD&D First Ed now, primarily. One of the reasons I like this game is because I don't have to deal with all that BS at all. This is also the case of a lot of TSR-era fans out there.




A lot of TSR fans aren't going to buy DDN no matter how that looks out, because it's not AD&D or OD&D.

And, please, every edition has things we could call "BS", but this is only going to move us into edition warring.


----------



## FireLance (Feb 27, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> Not core, at least, until 2E, IIRC.  Might have been an Unearthed Arcana addition for 1E but I don't have that near to hand to check.  (Little help!  )



Yes, it was in Unearthed Arcana. Funny, I thought it came from some FR sourcebook, or maybe a Dragon magazine article (of course, it could have originally come from FR or Dragon before it got republished in UA).


----------



## Odhanan (Feb 27, 2012)

KidSnide said:


> I totally understand the motivation to minimize calculations and character sheet reference, but I find the archtype comment interesting.  Are you opposed to options in class abilities?  Or do you think that two fighters with the same level, abilities scores and equipment should be identical from a game mechanics perspective?
> 
> Asking, not judging...
> 
> -KS



Are we talking about the core-sans-modules, or the whole game including modules? I have nothing against options... as options. I think that's really what is not computing with me right now: the core of the game is supposed to be just that. The core of the game experience. Customization and options are the realm of modules, of add-ons. I am more happy with a central core that relies on the imagination of the players primarily. I'd be fine with that kind of core. Other players who want options and stuff could use the modules. 

I think you can't go about this in 36 different ways: it is much simpler to add options than substract them. As such the core is the simplest expression of the game. It should be. From there you add options you can trigger on and off to reflect your particular playstyles. 

You can't start with feats and skills being the part of the core-sans-modules when these things are not core to the D&D experience itself, unless you're telling me that iterations such as AD&D, OD&D, B/X, Holmes et al. somehow "got it wrong" or should not be considered as being part of this shared experience, in which case there is SUCH a disconnect as to what we think the core of D&D is there can be no possible common ground from there. 

The aim for the designers shouldn't be IMO whether to have the core be/reflect AD&D OR 3rd ed OR 4th ed. The aim should be to have the core be what is COMMON between these iterations of the game so that, THEN, with modules, you can recreate AD&D AND 3rd ed AND 4th ed by toggling them on and off.

Starting with Skills and Feats is a non-starter. It's bone-headed.

It's a simple question of logic, in my opinion.


----------



## Mark CMG (Feb 27, 2012)

FireLance said:


> Yes, it was in Unearthed Arcana. Funny, I thought it came from some FR sourcebook, or maybe a Dragon magazine article (of course, it could have originally come from FR or Dragon before it got republished in UA).





Yeah, that might be the case.  If I had to guess, I'd say Dragon magazine.  I never collected FR stuff and I seem to recall knowing about it before UA.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 27, 2012)

I'm not usually one to pounce on Monte or the polls (and I'll continue to leave the polls alone for the moment), but I don't really follow this article, and I think it's a definition problem. I've bracketed that discussion below the sblock.

[sblock=WAT?]
Monte seems to define "Vancian Magic" as "Magic that is used by first preparing your magic spells that you can use from a broader list of spells you may know, and later expending that preparation."

That's not one of the usual colloquial uses of the term (though to be fair to Monte, the colloquial uses of the term are all over the map). 

He then goes on to say that there should be lots of different spellcasting systems in the game, probably. Okay. So far, so good.

Then he seems to leap out of nowhere with "something cool and magical, but not spells," without defining the apparently very specific thing he means by "spells."

Which is a problem. I have no idea what specifically he means by "spells." And he seems to mean something very specific, since apparently a "spell" and "a minor-at will ability" such as "a blast of force" or "a telekinetic ability like _mage hand_" or things that, in previous e's, were spells (faithful hound and floating disc), are not the same thing. Now they are not spells...for some reason?

As examples of "spells" he then points out, "fireballs and magic missiles."

I don't quite understand how he's distinguishing spells from other things here, or, really, why. Isn't a blast of force you can use at will just an at-will spell? Or are "spells" necessarily Vancian in nature (e.g.: they must be prepared, and are spent once cast)? And if that's the case then how is a spell that has a lengthy duration (like a faithful hound or a floating disc) necessarily non-Vancian? I am not following his verbiage on this one. "Spells" don't necessarily indicate the specific things he seems to be assuming we all know they are. 
[/sblock]
IMO, to take on more of his general "magic systems" topic, I think the "Vancian" prepare-and-expend system is great for the archetypal D&D "magic librarian" kind of wizard. Knowledgeable, clever, forward-thinking, planning, preparing...all these things work really well with Vancian casting, which reinforces the archetype, which is excellent. 

But it's not the only archetype of a "magic user" which is why it's awesome that they're exploring other systems. An ADE system makes sense for certain archetypes (warlocks come to mind, as they were in 3e as a trial run of the at-will system). A sorcerer's "x/day" kind of mechanic makes a lot of sense for other archetypes. A manna pool kind of mechanic makes a lot of sense for other archetypes (psionicistis?). A "chance to cast" kind of mechanic makes a lto of sense for other archetypes (clerics?). A pool of at-wills makes a lot of sense for other archetypes. And it's not just spellcasters -- there's no inherent reason martial characters shouldn't be able to try out different resource management systems if they want to. FIGHTERS should be able to prepare advanced moves for execution later if that's what the player wants and the DM is cool with it (a "strategist" sort of character makes a lot of sense with that kind of resource management system, in fact). 

As much as I don't quite grok what Monte means specifically in his examples, I do hope they're keeping in mind that resource management models don't need to be necessarily married to one class or another, and that vancian fighters probably should be as viable as all-at-will wizards, and vice-versa.


----------



## FireLance (Feb 28, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I don't quite understand how he's distinguishing spells from other things here, or, really, why. Isn't a blast of force you can use at will just an at-will spell? Or are "spells" necessarily Vancian in nature (e.g.: they must be prepared, and are spent once cast)? And if that's the case then how is a spell that has a lengthy duration (like a faithful hound or a floating disc) necessarily non-Vancian? I am not following his verbiage on this one. "Spells" don't necessarily indicate the specific things he seems to be assuming we all know they are.



I think he's trying to avoid the Great Terminology Turn-off of 4e. These things that you have to prepare in advance on a daily basis and are expended once used? They're "Spells".

These other things that you can use at will? They're not spells. No sir. They're "Abilities". Or maybe "Feats". And they're not "Powers", either. Absolutely not. We don't use the "P-word" around here any more.


----------



## Hassassin (Feb 28, 2012)

Odhanan said:


> I have nothing against options... as options.




There's a scale of options and how to present them.


Wizard choosing which spells to learn is an option.

Fighter choosing which weapon to be good with is an option.

Wizard choosing to switch some spells for At-Will magic is an option.
The first one has been a part of all editions in a very core way. The second was implemented as a feat in 3e, and is IMO a perfectly fine option for a core fighter*. The third may according to the article be a feat in 5e, but nothing indicates wizards with At-Will are in any way non-optional.

*Although I prefer generalist fighters.

So should the core game be so simple that none of the above options are offered?


----------



## Mark CMG (Feb 28, 2012)

FireLance said:


> I think he's trying to avoid the Great Terminology Turn-off of 4e. These things that you have to prepare in advance on a daily basis and are expended once used? They're "Spells".
> 
> These other things that you can use at will? They're not spells. No sir. They're "Abilities". Or maybe "Feats". And they're not "Powers", either. Absolutely not. We don't use the "P-word" around here any more.





"Powers" does seem to be a term that divides players of the game into camps, perhaps because some see it as more akin to other types of games whether they be supers games or even non-tabletop games.  I'm sure those of us hoping for a vibrant 5E with as large a player pool as possible don't mind if terminology like that is dropped in favor of alternate or even more traiditonal terms.


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 28, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> As much as I don't quite grok what Monte means specifically in his examples, I do hope they're keeping in mind that resource management models don't need to be necessarily married to one class or another, and that vancian fighters probably should be as viable as all-at-will wizards, and vice-versa.




Yow, I hope not. Surely they can come up with an interesting, strategically complex resource model for the fighter that doesn't follow the Vancian scheme. I can only just barely stomach Vancian casting _with_ the "It's magic!" excuse.


----------



## Minigiant (Feb 28, 2012)

Odhanan said:


> Are we talking about the core-sans-modules, or the whole game including modules? I have nothing against options... as options. I think that's really what is not computing with me right now: the core of the game is supposed to be just that. The core of the game experience. Customization and options are the realm of modules, of add-ons. I am more happy with a central core that relies on the imagination of the players primarily. I'd be fine with that kind of core. Other players who want options and stuff could use the modules.
> 
> I think you can't go about this in 36 different ways: it is much simpler to add options than substract them. As such the core is the simplest expression of the game. It should be. From there you add options you can trigger on and off to reflect your particular playstyles.
> 
> ...





There's only one way I see this working for you as well as many other D&D fans.

NO CLASS CHAPTERS

Instead each Module has a page for each class. Each DM and Player chooses which chapters to use and which one to not use.


Combat
Assassin HP and Base Attack Chart
Bard HP and Base Attack Chart
Cleric HP and Base Attack Chart
Druid HP and Base Attack Chart
Fighter HP and Base Attack Chart
Etc
Etc
​
Equipment
Assassin 
Bard 
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
​
Class Features
Assassin 
 Bard 
 Cleric
 Druid
 Fighter
​
Skills
Skills Introduction
Using Skills
Assassin 
 Bard 
 Cleric
 Druid
 Fighter
​
Feats
Choosing Feats
Feat Descriptions
Assassin 
 Bard 
 Cleric
 Druid
 Fighter​
Then ignore the Skill and Feats chapters.


----------



## MrGrenadine (Feb 28, 2012)

Odhanan said:


> What matters is that the guys who are designing this D&D Next game need to understand that. They need to really think hard about whether they want this game to be this "big tent" they are talking about, or if this is just all PR destined to target one single, specific segment of the D&D audience instead.




Well, I think they DO understand that.  To be fair, D&DN can be "big tent" and still exclude some of your specific needs and wants.

"Big tent" doesn't mean every D&D fan of every edition has to be 100% satisfied with every rule included in the game.  It just has to be big enough to include a sizable majority.

Anyway, I for one think Monte is on the right track here.  Vancian is legacy, and a terrific system, to boot.  No need NOT to include it, as long as folks who like other forms of magical resource management can do things their way, too.  And I like the idea of feats that grant magical abilities or attacks that can be used at-will, though I will reserve the right to have my Vancian mage pull out a crossbow when necessary, and be pretty damn deadly with it.


----------



## Zaukrie (Feb 28, 2012)

I love all four methods of building casters....but if you want new players, you better not make point buy the only way to do it....

I dream of a world were I could choose to mix and match the four types of managing spells and powers and whatnot for magic using characters. But that would be hard to do.

So, I'd probably have different classes use different methodologies.


----------



## tuxgeo (Feb 28, 2012)

To avoid confusion due to the nomenclature, WotC might want to consider calling the default class features "*comps*" -- short for "components," or for "competencies" -- instead of calling them "class features." 

That way, when the Feats module gets introduced, any character who is taking a Feat can select a provided Feat that allows that character to trade away a default "comp" to get a different "comp," as specified in the wording of the Feat, which new "comp" is roughly as powerful as the default "comp" that is being replaced. 

This arrangement might work for people such as [MENTION=12324]Odhanan[/MENTION] on the basis of not including Feats within the core of the game; yet still also work for the required availability of Feats for those who want to use them.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 28, 2012)

Dasuul said:
			
		

> Yow, I hope not. Surely they can come up with an interesting, strategically complex resource model for the fighter that doesn't follow the Vancian scheme. I can only just barely stomach Vancian casting with the "It's magic!" excuse.




If one's copacetic with fighter dalies in 4e, one shouldn't (in theory) have a problem with a strategist-style fighter that prepares combat moves to activate them once, since that is an oft-used justification for fighter dalies in 4e.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 28, 2012)

KidSnide said:


> Purely as a matter of curiosity, what about skills and non-weapon proficiencies do you dislike?  Are they too fiddly?  Too complex?  Encourage die rolling over describing what your character does?  Some other reason?
> 
> -KS




The classic (at the risk of using a hackneyed term) old school argument is that skills and whatnot just get in the way. ALL PCs are reasonably competent and can do most things. Only a few very very narrow niche things are carved out. Thus any PC can climb an ordinary wall (maybe with a check of some kind) and a thief has a niche carved out, he can climb a sheer wall with no handholds (again with a check). The point is everyone is competent and you just use ability scores to determine how far the PC's ability actually goes.

Actually, IMHO the skill system Monte has outlined is really very much a modernistic version of this, at least potentially. You just use ability scores, and then you COULD have 'skills' which are just very niche things where your character has 'mastery' (like climbing for a rogue).


----------



## RoboCheney (Feb 28, 2012)

Meh.  Mage hands and floating discs are fun, non-combat abilities that spellcasters should get for free.  Burning a feat on these mild spells would sting.

I also don't see much merit to Vancian magic other than its historical roots in the game.  If D&D never had this type of magic, and someone were to pitch fire-and-forget spells as the core system of magic, I doubt many would want it.  Magic should be so much cooler.

Maybe . . .


Casting spells is physically taxing.  Wizards must balance their stamina, while always having the option to push themselves closer to exhaustion to cast a few more spells before they rest.
Spells are weaved together on the spot based on a Wizards knowledge of the magical traditions.  More complex spells take longer to cast or are more likely to misfire.
Spells are gained by bargaining with powerful planar creatures.  Using the most powerful spells indebts the wizard a favor to these beings.
Magical energy is drawn from the shadow realm, and casting spells has a chance of drawing the attention of or summoning vengeful undead.
Or spellcasters simply have a pool of mana to manage throughout the day (or encounter, or turn).
Let's see something to get excited about!


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 28, 2012)

FireLance said:


> I think he's trying to avoid the Great Terminology Turn-off of 4e. These things that you have to prepare in advance on a daily basis and are expended once used? They're "Spells".
> 
> These other things that you can use at will? They're not spells. No sir. They're "Abilities". Or maybe "Feats". And they're not "Powers", either. Absolutely not. We don't use the "P-word" around here any more.




The problem of course is you then make your system into an unmaintainable mess that lacks expressive power. If there are 42 different things that are basically SPELLS but heaven forbid we offend someone by calling an at-will a 'spell' then out the window goes any other thing (modules anyone) that wants to refer to spells as a whole and apply some rule to them.

 This was the fundamental basic thing that killed 2e and turned it into a giant mess. There were all sorts of options, but there was no rational organization to them whatsoever.


----------



## Ratskinner (Feb 28, 2012)

Odhanan said:


> Are we talking about the core-sans-modules, or the whole game including modules? I have nothing against options... as options. I think that's really what is not computing with me right now: the core of the game is supposed to be just that. The core of the game experience. Customization and options are the realm of modules, of add-ons. I am more happy with a central core that relies on the imagination of the players primarily. I'd be fine with that kind of core. Other players who want options and stuff could use the modules.
> 
> I think you can't go about this in 36 different ways: it is much simpler to add options than substract them. As such the core is the simplest expression of the game. It should be. From there you add options you can trigger on and off to reflect your particular playstyles.
> 
> ...




How do you plan on having AD&D Thieves without skills? If the core/basic Thief has such skills that follow the general rules for skills presented later, does that work, or must thieving skills be a special subsystem that works on totally unique mechanics? It seems to me that if you're going to have skills at all, they might as well follow the same rules. Making up separate subsystems seems "boneheaded."

Was not the Wilderness Survival Guide the 1e book which introduced NWPs in 1986? And didn't the Unearthed Arcana introduce Weapon Proficiencies in 1985? So, while AD&D didn't have feats, it did have "skills" for most of its run. (14 years with, and 9 years without)

So, of the editions, only OD&D (3 years) and Basic didn't have some kind of skills/proficiencies. So either 2/6 or 2/9 versions lack "skills" (depending on how you count the 2e "Option"s, 3.5 and Essentials.) I think having some kind of basic resolution system for skills makes quite a bit of sense as part of the "core" of D&D.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Feb 28, 2012)

If I can switch off feats entirely and switch on Vanceian magic, then I'm OK with this...whatever.  

Now, when I say switch off, I mean OFF as in just say "those things aren't included" fullstop.  Not "now I must rewrite how characters are handled" because I _could_ make 4e into *AD&D* using such a method.  Doesn't mean I wanna go through the effort. (And I don't, and I won't.)

Then it's not a dealbreaker.


----------



## Minigiant (Feb 28, 2012)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> The classic (at the risk of using a hackneyed term) old school argument is that skills and whatnot just get in the way. ALL PCs are reasonably competent and can do most things. Only a few very very narrow niche things are carved out. Thus any PC can climb an ordinary wall (maybe with a check of some kind) and a thief has a niche carved out, he can climb a sheer wall with no handholds (again with a check). The point is everyone is competent and you just use ability scores to determine how far the PC's ability actually goes.
> 
> Actually, IMHO the skill system Monte has outlined is really very much a modernistic version of this, at least potentially. You just use ability scores, and then you COULD have 'skills' which are just very niche things where your character has 'mastery' (like climbing for a rogue).





But when I said all adventurous PC should be competent at combat, some look at me funny. But that is a thought for another day.

To the real topic.

D&D has added many different methods of cast spells over the years. It only makes sense that they should be many different systems. You can make a club out of stone, wood, or iron but each uses a different method of crafting.

My homebrew world has many types of casting. A person can weave the design of a spell's fabric into the their mind and complete the pattern a the time of casting like a wizard. Or they can spontaneously force absorbed latent magic through the patterns imprinted in their blood like a sorcerer. Or have a deity or nature implant the spell pattern in their brains like clerics and druids.  An arcanist can also snatch loose magic thread out the air and fire out a minor spell on the spot at-will.


----------



## DerekSTheRed (Feb 28, 2012)

I've come to the conclusion that 4E half Vancian magic was a mistake. They need to either go all Vancian or not at all. I really hate the idea that some characters in the group are managing daily resources while others are not. It creates 15 minute adventuring days and inept wizards shooting crossbows. And because the Vancian Mage had a different power curve, they needed the other PCs to survive the early levels before dominating the later levels. This is how the sweet spot was created in the first place. Why reintroduce legacy problems when you don't need them?


----------



## Mark CMG (Feb 28, 2012)

It does raise the question of how NPCs will be handled in published products, which modular options will be in use by default.  If an NPC is built using particular options and there's no equivalent option that handles the same abilities, this might get a bit tricky, particularly in regard to what level of PC group that NPC can challenge (assuming it is an NPC that would be at odds with the PCs for whatever reasons).


----------



## Kingreaper (Feb 28, 2012)

thedungeondelver said:


> If I can switch off feats entirely and switch on Vanceian magic, then I'm OK with this...whatever.
> 
> Now, when I say switch off, I mean OFF as in just say "those things aren't included" fullstop.  Not "now I must rewrite how characters are handled" because I _could_ make 4e into *AD&D* using such a method.  Doesn't mean I wanna go through the effort. (And I don't, and I won't.)
> 
> Then it's not a dealbreaker.




Would you be okay if "switching feats off" meant: "Instead of feats, each class gets a default class feature whenever it would get a feat: with some of the class features having a suspicious similarity to a feat"?

IE. no feat choices, but still feat-effects baked into the classes instead?

The advantage with that system is that it allows AD&D style characters to be relatively balanced with feat-based characters.

Would you approve?



Mark CMG said:


> It does raise the question of how NPCs will be handled in published products, which modular options will be in use by default.  If an NPC is built using particular options and there's no equivalent option that handles the same abilities, this might get a bit tricky, particularly in regard to what level of PC group that NPC can challenge (assuming it is an NPC that would be at odds with the PCs for whatever reasons).



This is the purpose of "baking in" feats. It keeps the with-feat characters balanced with the no-feats characters.

It can also be applied to skills. Baked-in skills would be something like a +1/+2 basic competency bonus to all skill rolls, except when there's a specific class bonus, while actual skill choices would remove the basic competency, keeping things reasonably close to balanced.


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 28, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> If one's copacetic with fighter dalies in 4e...




I'm not. I put up with them because of the game's other strengths, but I'd be happy if they went away and didn't come back.

Even setting aside my personal dislike of the Vancian mechanic, I want to see mechanical diversity among the classes in 5E. Vancian casting cannot possibly be the only way to create strategy-focused classes with an element of resource management.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 28, 2012)

Dasuul said:
			
		

> I'm not.




Sure, but lots of folks are, and, given that that's one of the big divisive issues of 4e, I can't imagine them forcing you to use vancian fighters in 5e, if they exist. 

All I'm sayin' is that there should be lots of different resource management mechanics for lots of different classes, and they don't all have to be wizards or spellcasters to use different resource management mechanics.


----------



## Minigiant (Feb 28, 2012)

thedungeondelver said:


> If I can switch off feats entirely and switch on Vanceian magic, then I'm OK with this...whatever.
> 
> Now, when I say switch off, I mean OFF as in just say "those things aren't included" fullstop.  Not "now I must rewrite how characters are handled" because I _could_ make 4e into *AD&D* using such a method.  Doesn't mean I wanna go through the effort. (And I don't, and I won't.)
> 
> Then it's not a dealbreaker.




If classes were handled like this, would you be okay with it.

Wizard
1st level: Spellcasting, Familiar, Bonus spell or  Module Bonus 
2nd level:  
3rd level: +5 HP or Module Bonus 
4th level: Bonus spell or Module Bonus
5th level: 


Feat Module: A wizard may choose a feat from this list if using the Feat module
Skill Module: A wizard may train a new Skill from this list if using the Skill module
Contact Module: A wizard may gain a new Contact if using the Contact module.


----------



## Ratskinner (Feb 28, 2012)

thedungeondelver said:


> If I can switch off feats entirely and switch on Vanceian magic, then I'm OK with this...whatever.
> 
> Now, when I say switch off, I mean OFF as in just say "those things aren't included" fullstop.  Not "now I must rewrite how characters are handled" because I _could_ make 4e into *AD&D* using such a method.  Doesn't mean I wanna go through the effort. (And I don't, and I won't.)
> 
> Then it's not a dealbreaker.




To me, that sounds like the case. Although, to me, it also sounds like they are "off" unless the Group says they are "on."


----------



## Obryn (Feb 28, 2012)

I would feel a lot better about the article if history hasn't shown that Mr. Cook tends to be a bit ... myopic? ... about Wizards and feats.

I remember that one of the stated design goals for Arcana Unearthed/Evolved (which I still love in many ways and ran until 11th level) was that (1) spellcasters were less powerful; and (2) other classes kept pace.  It ... um ... just wasn't the case.  By 9th level or so, the spellcasters in my game - using only the feats, spells, and classes in the core Arcana Evolved book, mind you - were running the show.  By 11th, the game had collapsed.

I really want 5e to be something cool.  I really don't want the rules to be mostly "stuff only wizards care about."

-O


----------



## Jack Daniel (Feb 28, 2012)

Kingreaper said:


> Would you be okay if "switching feats off" meant: "Instead of feats, each class gets a default class feature whenever it would get a feat: with some of the class features having a suspicious similarity to a feat"?
> 
> IE. no feat choices, but still feat-effects baked into the classes instead?
> 
> ...




Yeah... no.  If the core of the game just involves "baked in" feats and skills, but those things are still present "behind the curtain," then something has gone wrong.  The core of the D&D experience, the simplest possible expressions of the game -- OD&D, D&D Basic, AD&D (especially 2e) with most of the fiddly options ignored -- is *not* a game about mechanically customized characters, or about characters built up with lego-bricks of abilities.  And bonding the legos together with rubber cement doesn't change what the build is... uh... built from.  (Bad analogy is bad.  Give me a break, it's 2AM in my time zone and I'm on very little sleep right now.)

The point is, in a proper core to D&D, yes Fred the Fighter and Joe the Fighter should be pretty close to mechanically identical (assuming the same level and ability scores).  How that's achieved is less important than the fact that it gets done, but "baked in" feats would only be on the marginal fringes of acceptable for those of us who prefer simpler, older expressions of the game where the differences between characters of the same class are entirely role-played and non-mechanical.  We don't want to have to even deal with possibility that a player might want to customize something.  As in:

PLAYER: "Can't I just swap out this...?"
DM: "Nope.  The 'feats' module isn't being used in this campaign."

^
(This is not irony or satire.  This is really what I want to be able to do with 5e.  But, crap, if I ever actually have an exchange like this with one of my players, it means that that player is more interested in "building" a character than role-playing one, and I don't need to deal with that kind of metagame, immerson-breaking bad mojo at my table.)


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 28, 2012)

Odhanan said:


> I don't like the fact they exist in the first place. Just like Skills. I play AD&D First Ed now, primarily. One of the reasons I like this game is because I don't have to deal with all that BS at all. This is also the case of a lot of TSR-era fans out there.



We-ell, I guess I'd qualify as a "TSR-era fan", and I'm not at all fond of how 3e did feats and skills (and yes, I did my time in the 3e squadron, before anyone asks).

That said, a few years ago I sat down and rebuilt Monks and Bards for my 1e-style game as completely feat-based classes.  And so far - somewhat to my amazement - it's working!  (after some experimenting I realized the same idea would not work at all well for any other class)

I also don't have any problem with a very rudimentary skill system - all I use is Swim-Boat-Ride, roll a d10 for each to see how good you naturally are at it (racial modifiers apply in some cases e.g. Dwarves do not tend to swim well); stats of any kind don't make a difference and the roll is locked in forever*.  And that's the key: it's locked in.  It doesn't change with level, stats, or anything else*.  You roll three dice during char-gen and that's it. 

* - if someone really wants to improve at one of these during their adventuring career they can state their intention to do so and I'll handle it case by case.

This simply reflects reality.  I, for example, don't know one end of a horse from another - nasty dangerous beasts they are, if you ask me - but put me in a boat and I'll have half a clue what to do with it because boats were part of my upbringing.  I have friends who are the exact opposite.

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 28, 2012)

KidSnide said:


> I totally understand the motivation to minimize calculations and character sheet reference, but I find the archtype comment interesting.  Are you opposed to options in class abilities?  Or do you think that two fighters with the same level, abilities scores and equipment should be identical from a game mechanics perspective?



I'm not [MENTION=12324]Odhanan[/MENTION] but yes, I have no real problem with two such fighters - of the same race as well - being mechanically very similar or identical.  Differences will (99% likely) arise in other ways: choice of weapon and-or armour and-or fighting style, personality and-or alignment, etc. to the point where it's really not an issue.

That said, sometimes they do work out very similar in play as well: I have such an example in my game right now.  Two players rolled up characters, both rolled an ability score of 4 (very rare in my game), both decided to bring in really dumb (but really tough, also very unwise) Fighters with almost the same personality, and I need a program to tell them apart! 

And, [MENTION=3424]FireLance[/MENTION] just about everything in the 1e Unearthed Arcana came from something previously published in Dragon, either carried forward verbatim or tweaked en route.

Lan-"much relieved to have Intelligence significantly greater than 4"-efan


----------



## Sigdel (Feb 28, 2012)

Oni said:


> Wouldn't record my vote on the AW/E/D system.
> 
> 
> Anyway, the one thing that I really like about the Vancian system, and the one thing that isn't really touched on in the poll, and the one thing that would really sway my opinion about any of the other styles is that the ability to expand laterally.  That spells aren't just something that you learn when you level up, they're something you go out and find and can add to your repertoire.  I enjoyed playing 3e style sorcerer on occasion, but the one thing that always disappointed me was finding new and interesting spells and just going meh, because they were useless.  That one thing badly hurt the appeal of the class for me.



Kind of like a CCG or Pokemon. This is even more true for when you fight another caster. After the battle you get to keep his spellbook/deck/monsters and add them to your own.

Gotta catch em all!


----------



## Rogue Agent (Feb 28, 2012)

Odhanan said:


> The aim for the designers shouldn't be IMO whether to have the core be/reflect AD&D OR 3rd ed OR 4th ed. The aim should be to have the core be what is COMMON between these iterations of the game so that, THEN, with modules, you can recreate AD&D AND 3rd ed AND 4th ed by toggling them on and off.




I am absolutely convinced that when WotC uses the term "modular" that this is not what they mean.

Of course, I'm basing that on the belief that WotC's designers are not insanely bent on publishing a version of D&D which (a) would be more alienating to new players than any other edition of the game ever published and (b) would be almost impossible to support in any meaningful way.

I get that a lot of people _think_ and _hope_ and _wish_ that this was what WotC meant by modular. And maybe it is. But like I say: I really hope WotC isn't embracing an idea that has never worked in the past and almost certainly will never work in the future.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> The classic (at the risk of using a  hackneyed term) old school argument is that skills and whatnot just get  in the way. ALL PCs are reasonably competent and can do most things.  Only a few very very narrow niche things are carved out. Thus any PC can  climb an ordinary wall (maybe with a check of some kind) and a thief  has a niche carved out, he can climb a sheer wall with no handholds  (again with a check).




As your own example indicates, the argument collapses in on itself almost instantaneously. Once you've admitted any sort of dice roll into the resolution for these things (and post-1975 you have to if you're following the rules), then you quickly realize that 3E/4E-style skills actually leave characters just as competent (and frequently more competent) than they were before.

The idea that a Climb skill, for example, renders everyone without a Climb skill into an incompetent buffoon only works if you set the Climb DCs for basic tasks so high that characters without the skill can't make them. Which, of course, the game doesn't do.

The entire position is a strawman which doesn't actually apply to any edition of D&D ever published. (Except possibly under the interpretation that only thieves can climb walls in OD&D/AD&D, which is a highly dubious interpretation despite its historical popularity.)


----------



## Rogue Agent (Feb 28, 2012)

Jack Daniel said:


> ...for those of us who prefer simpler, older expressions of the game where the differences between characters of the same class are entirely role-played and non-mechanical.




It's important to understand, of course, that this version of the game never existed for any class except the fighter.

And it hasn't been true for the fighter since 1985. (Arguably 1977, but most grognards will probably never accept that prestige classes originated in 1st Edition.)


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 28, 2012)

Rogue Agent said:


> It's important to understand, of course, that this version of the game never existed for any class except the fighter.
> 
> And it hasn't been true for the fighter since 1985. (Arguably 1977, but most grognards will probably never accept that prestige classes originated in 1st Edition.)



However, a Fighter who has gone on to become a Thief and thence a Bard (the first prestige class; and it was a bad idea then, too) is not just a Fighter any more, making the comparison pointless.

Also, two 1e Thieves (or two 1e Assassins, or two 1e Paladins) with identical stats, gear and race are going to be mechanically the same as well; remember that in 1e the Thieving skills advanced automatically by level, you didn't get any choice as to what went where.

Lanefan


----------



## Syunsuke (Feb 28, 2012)

AW/E/D can be simply kind of spells.
You prepare them as you like.

When you cast a daily spell, you lost that spell(till you prepare it again).
When you cast a encounter spell, you need some fix with that spell(or short rest, in 4e term).
When you cast an at will spell, well, you recast it as you like 
So, you don't need feat or whatever.

Maybe this is too flexible.
Then, restriction by slots can be introduced.
Say, wizard has mostly daily slots(you can prepare daily spells only with them) and only a few encounter/at will slots.
Sorcerer has mostly encounter slots and some daily slots and at will slots.

More idea:
Wizard has daily slots only by default but can gain(or exchange) encounter slots(if you're ok with feats).

Sacrifice daily slot permanentlly to gain encounter slot.

You can choose to prepare each spell as AW/E/D.
(Way too flexible ?)
You can choose to CAST each spell as AW/E/D.
(When you cast as E, you can't cast it until you fix it/You cast it as D, it's lost)


Spell with long duration can be "prepare and you gain effect" spell.
(I ambiguously remember such spell in 3e era...?)
Say, you prepare "eldritch armor" spell, and you gat +2 to AC. You don't need cast it; actually, you can't cast it. As long as eldrich armor is prepared, you have that bonus. But one slot is used. 
When eldrich armor is dispelled, you lose the bonus. But you can regain it as standard action.

(And, sorry for bad English


----------



## Someone (Feb 28, 2012)

I'm ok with not calling at will spells "spells". Instead they should be named, for example, Mystical Incantation-Like Faculties.


----------



## Minigiant (Feb 28, 2012)

Someone said:


> I'm ok with not calling at will spells "spells". Instead they should be named, for example, Mystical Incantation-Like Faculties.




I'm all for Dailies being called Spells, Encounter being called Sorceries, At-will attack spells called Glamours/Charms/Hexes, and At-will utilities called Cantrips.

That's what I call them in my 4e game and My Homebrew game.

Wizards get spells. Sorcerers get sorceries. Warlock get Glamours.

If you have feats in your game, you can have Wizards get sorceries and glamours and Sorcerers cant get spells and glamours.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Feb 28, 2012)

Defining Wizards is tricky, with all the different iterations we've seen over the years.

I am absolutely fine with them having both At-Will magic and Daily magic. I would prefer if the Daily magic was prepared, or Vancian, from a list that the Wizard knows (I miss learning spells as a reward mechanic). I would understand that the sorceror might be more 4th Edition, able to cast more Daily spells but with far less (or completely fixed) choice. One thing to definitely avoid is a feat-tax to obtain abilities that most people would consider necessary (however, bonus feats that allow you to gain At-Will magic or enhance existing Vancian magic would be fyouine).

Points systems should be avoided, they are rather too flexible for powerful magic. I quite enjoyed the 4th Edition psion though, with upgradeable powers. They might consider using a points system for Fighters/Martial stunts though - spend Stamina to perform a tiring but powerful maneuver (or give them Encounter powers, but please, not Dailies for non-magical types!).


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 28, 2012)

I just want the classic vancian system in the core. At willsi can live with if ey explain them believably (and it isn't ivided on overly gamey lines, ike making at wills all non combats). Encounter spells in the core are a deal breaker for me.


----------



## GM Dave (Feb 28, 2012)

Rogue Agent said:


> It's important to understand, of course, that this version of the game never existed for any class except the fighter.
> 
> And it hasn't been true for the fighter since 1985. (Arguably 1977, but most grognards will probably never accept that prestige classes originated in 1st Edition.)




You can go back earlier than the 1e AD&D.

The OD&D rules Cyclopedia had things like Paladin and Druid (and several others) being classes that were entered after getting to name level.

You could not start as a Paladin but had to earn that class through deeds of your previous levels (good fighters to name level).

Druids had to be clerics that had been neutral for their life up to name level and then you could be a druid.


----------



## Ratskinner (Feb 28, 2012)

Jack Daniel said:


> PLAYER: "Can't I just swap out this...?"
> DM: "Nope.  The 'feats' module isn't being used in this campaign."
> 
> ^
> (This is not irony or satire.  This is really what I want to be able to do with 5e.  But, crap, if I ever actually have an exchange like this with one of my players, it means that that player is more interested in "building" a character than role-playing one, and I don't need to deal with that kind of metagame, immerson-breaking bad mojo at my table.)




I would respond two ways:


That exchange sounds perfectly legitimate under the paradigm so far presented for 5e
If that's a problem for you as you describe, that sounds more like an issue between you and your player, not the rules.


----------



## Kingreaper (Feb 28, 2012)

Jack Daniel said:


> The point is, in a proper core to D&D, yes Fred the Fighter and Joe the Fighter should be pretty close to mechanically identical (assuming the same level and ability scores).  How that's achieved is less important than the fact that it gets done, but "baked in" feats would only be on the marginal fringes of acceptable for those of us who prefer simpler, older expressions of the game where the differences between characters of the same class are entirely role-played and non-mechanical.



Why is that?

I mean, player's who're going to ask for customisation options are going to ask for them no matter how the modules are built.

So what about baking in feats is offputting? 
I'm genuinely curious, because I suspect that whatever it is, it's a problem that can be solved; and it's always best to solve problems.

Would it help if, rather than baked in feats, you had class features that could be swapped for feats, if using the feat module?

Or maybe the problem is the fiddlyness of having lots of class features?


----------



## FireLance (Feb 28, 2012)

Someone said:


> I'm ok with not calling at will spells "spells". Instead they should be named, for example, Mystical Incantation-Like Faculties.



Now, _that_ would be Magic I'd Like to Fling.  

Or maybe Flick.


----------



## FireLance (Feb 28, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> I just want the classic vancian system in the core. At willsi can live with if ey explain them believably (and it isn't ivided on overly gamey lines, ike making at wills all non combats). Encounter spells in the core are a deal breaker for me.



If the rumored "four rests per day" rule is actually in 5e, an "encounter" spell could just be one that you can regain up to four times per day, instead of one that you can regain at any time after resting for five minutes. No doubt, spellcasters would still need to go through the necessary spell preparations - studying spellbooks for a wizard, meditating for a cleric, etc.

EDIT: I think it's possible that the lack of similar flavor text for how PCs regained their encounter powers contributed to their dislike since it made them seem even more divorced from the traditional flavor of spell preparation and contributed to the (false) perception that they were regained on some "cooldown" basis.


----------



## talok55 (Feb 28, 2012)

RangerWickett said:


> I don't read it that way. To me it seems like a typical "Wizard" would get spells per day, but he could also spend a feat to get an at-will or per-encounter magical ability. These abilities would not be called "spells," since "spell" would only refer to per-day magical abilities.
> 
> Personally, one design aesthetic I'd like to see is inspired by Magic: the Gathering. Namely, you have to gather your mana to cast your spells. Maybe you have X mana per day, and you spend 1 mana whenever you cast a spell, or possibly 2 mana to do a really powerful version.
> 
> ...




I sure hope not. Mana is completely the wrong flavor for D&D.  Maybe for another fantasy game, but not D&D.  There is a reason WotC didn't try to Magic the Gathering-ify D&D.  The flavor doesn't work.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 28, 2012)

FireLance said:


> If the rumored "four rests per day" rule is actually in 5e, an "encounter" spell could just be one that you can regain up to four times per day, instead of one that you can regain at any time after resting for five minutes. No doubt, spellcasters would still need to go through the necessary spell preparations - studying spellbooks for a wizard, meditating for a cleric, etc.
> 
> EDIT: I think it's possible that the lack of similar flavor text for how PCs regained their encounter powers contributed to their dislike since it made them seem even more divorced from the traditional flavor of spell preparation and contributed to the (false) perception that they were regained on some "cooldown" basis.




These also effect how the game plays. This kind ofstuff simply doesn't interest me.


----------



## FireLance (Feb 28, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> These also effect how the game plays. This kind ofstuff simply doesn't interest me.



For that matter, it no longer becomes a no-brainer to use an "encounter" power every encounter under a "four rests per day" paradigm since you might have more than four encounters per day, so you might have to ration out the use and regaining of your "encounter" powers, too.

As a matter of fact, WotC might very well come up with another term for "encounter" abilities because of 4e baggage and because, strictly speaking, they can no longer be reliably regained after every encounter. 

Effectively, they become no different from an ability useable 4 times per day, like Smite Evil for a typical 15th-19th level 3.5e paladin, or Rage for a typical 12th-15th level 3.5e barbarian, except that you need to take a rest of some kind before you can use it again (reducing nova potential, which may be good or bad depending on taste).


----------



## Odhanan (Feb 28, 2012)

Rogue Agent said:


> Odhanan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Has never worked in the past?

I'll give you one game that used this business model in the past. It had a simple core, playable in any number of ways. It had three classes, all weapons did d6 damage, some methodologies to build your dungeon and your wilderness settings. It was entirely contained in three booklets of around 36-42 pages each.

Then came the supplements, each adding particular tweaks to the rules and all manners of tools like monsters and magic and what-have-you. One supplement would add a few classes and polyhedral dice for weapon damage. Another would include things like hit locations and the like. Or deities and demigods to play with. Or a mass combat system. Some of these supplements actually took the game in widely different directions, but it was all cool because you had the choice to select what you wanted to play with. 

It (a) did not alienate players but actually _created an entire hobby single-handedly, the hobby you're playing right now_, and (b) was supported in many meaningful ways by different game companies, spawned entire new games and procedures which went on with Judges Guild, Empire of the Petal Throne, RuneQuest and others.

The name of the game was Dungeons & Dragons, and it was published in 1974. You should look it up some time.


----------



## Odhanan (Feb 28, 2012)

GM Dave said:


> You can go back earlier than the 1e AD&D.
> 
> The OD&D rules Cyclopedia had things like Paladin and Druid (and several others) being classes that were entered after getting to name level.




You're making a mistake in thinking that Rules Cyclopedia = OD&D (1974). These are not the same games. Rules Cyclopedia was published in 1991, and is the compilation of the Basic, Expert, Companion and Master rules which started to get published by TSR in 1983. 

Rules Cyclopedia... 







Comes from this... 






Which is Mentzer, or BECMI D&D. 

OD&D (1974) is this: 






It's a different game. There are three character classes, all weapons do d6 damage, etc etc. 

OD&D grew via its supplements, articles from The Dragon etc to become AD&D First Edition (1978-80). In the mean time a basic game, Holmes D&D (1977), was published to bridge new players towards the Advanced game. This basic game took a life of its own and became its own thing separate from OD&D and AD&D via a first revision in 1981 (Moldvay Cook or B/X D&D) which was revised again in 1983 and became Frank Mentzer's game (starting with the basic red box you see pictured above).

Paladins were introduced as a fighter variant in Supplement 1 Greyhawk (1975-6). You had to be Lawful of alignment from the commencement of play and have a 17 Charisma to be one. That's it (that assumes 3d6-in-order stat generation, though). Druids likewise, same supplement, though they were not a player character class at the time, but rather a Monster, an opponent one would encounter and possibly fight in the course of exploration and wilderness adventures.


----------



## Balesir (Feb 28, 2012)

Odhanan said:


> Has never worked in the past?
> 
> I'll give you one game that used this business model in the past. It had a simple core, playable in any number of ways. It had three classes, all weapons did d6 damage, some methodologies to build your dungeon and your wilderness settings. It was entirely contained in three booklets of around 36-42 pages each.
> 
> ...



Yep - and it never really worked for me or many who I gamed with; that's why I walked away from it around 1981 or so, after desperately trying to like it (in its new incarnation, AD&D) for a couple of years.

There were already systems around that were just more functional by then - first it was Chivalry & Sorcery, then RuneQuest and Traveller, then Bushido and its spin-offs Daredevils and Aftermath.

Maybe it was our introduction to RPGs. OD&D was a neat idea, but the booklets were in short supply in the UK, so we took the ideas and ran with them. The old duelling game "En Garde" mixed with D&D concepts gave us our first homebrews. Then we got our OD&D boxes - and were just confused as to how the heck this game was supposed to really work. We hoped all would be answered in AD&D. It wasn't - there were just a load of nonsensical, random systems and concepts, quaintly phrased and melded together into a muddled mass that never really seemed to work together.

Enter C&S and (especially) RuneQuest. C&S was overcomplex, but it was at least based on a sound world chassis, and RQ had rules that actually felt like they belonged together!

Years later, I dabbled a bit in 2E (because by then I had money to spend and several of the worlds were very nice) and then played some 3E (OK up to ~level 8, but went rapidly downhill thereafter; way too complex to GM).

It was 4E that finally bought me back to D&D. A game system that actually works - halleluja! I now DM for seven players on sporadic weekends going through the H1-E3 set of modules (with additions and modifications). I'm loving GMing more then I have in ages and the players are gobbling up the system with a vengeance. It took a while to "click", for sure. To begin with I was highly sceptical of the "bizzarre geometry" of the square grid and of retraining and fighter dailies. But, the truth is, it just *works*. I have never either played or run D&D up to the mid- to late-teen-levels before; this game is there and showing no signs of pausing, never mind stopping. I think 30th level is an entirely plausible end game for us to reach.

Sorry for the spontaneous "rant", but it looks to me like the D&DN team has not learned any of what I consider the really *important* lessons of 4E. They talk about "tactical combat" and such like as if they were what the main attractions of 4E are - they just miss the point, entirely.

I guess I'll just keep playing 4E, but I really wish there was an OGL for it, of the sort that kept 3.x alive (for those who like that sort of thing). Heigh, ho.


----------



## Odhanan (Feb 28, 2012)

Balesir said:


> I guess I'll just keep playing 4E, but I really wish there was an OGL for it, of the sort that kept 3.x alive (for those who like that sort of thing). Heigh, ho.



4E is d20 at its core. All you got to do is find a way to emulate 4E by using the OGL/SRD itself while not infringing on WotC's copyright (which means some terms would not be used and replaced and so on). Which is totally possible, and has been done as you know with the other editions of the game (retroclones).

Yes, it'd be hard work. But it's possible. If 4e fans want to keep 4e alive, they can.


----------



## Odhanan (Feb 28, 2012)

Balesir said:


> Maybe it was our introduction to RPGs. OD&D was a neat idea, but the booklets were in short supply in the UK, so we took the ideas and ran with them. The old duelling game "En Garde" mixed with D&D concepts gave us our first homebrews. Then we got our OD&D boxes - and were just confused as to how the heck this game was supposed to really work. We hoped all would be answered in AD&D. It wasn't - there were just a load of nonsensical, random systems and concepts, quaintly phrased and melded together into a muddled mass that never really seemed to work together.



OD&D was supposed to function in conjunction with Chainmail. That's a part of the answer to your confusion, since the game assumed a familiarity with Chainmail rules and a wargame's referee mindset to begin with. Rules put aside, the main difference in what you are talking about is indeed, in fact, the mindset. 

Now you like what you like, and I'm fine with it. I'm not trying to change your mind. It's not a pissing contest, and your gaming's working fine as it is it seems, so all's good. Both our approaches can exist in the same world. 

What I can tell you is that for me OD&D and AD&D work with a certain mindset. To me AD&D is all about circumstances and Ad Hoc uses of the rules. It's about the DM/referee making rulings and having different rules and separate sub-systems at his fingertips, as incongruous as they might seem compared to one another within the same book (the DMG), working as many examples helping him run the game and come to his own decisions as the campaign proceeds. The DM considers each of these elements carefully between games, reading through the material, thinking about what Gary's telling him in his own voice via the DMG and coming to decisions on his own based on this. He can take each subsystem and use it or leave it. This why the rules feel like some sort of "disjointed Chinese buffet" from your standpoint. It's because it really is the case. From my standpoint, it's not the point. The rules are not the point. The game itself is the point. Circumstances and variables in actual play are the point. I pick and choose to make the game work via common sense and adjudication. I am the master of the game.

A different approach. A different mindset.


----------



## gyor (Feb 28, 2012)

Only certain classes require feats, I figure that the common classes like wizard, fighter, rogue, cleric and maybe a few others willl optionally be playable with out feats.

In fact, we assumed that feats would be an add on module, but what if its the other way around.

 Or gaining feats are class features, which cancs  be traded for another feature in the case of common classes. So clerics might get a choice between Healer's lore or a feature that offers a certain amount of feats. A different class may offer far more feats.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Feb 28, 2012)

Balesir said:


> Yep - and it never really worked for me or many who I gamed with; that's why I walked away from it around 1981 or so, after desperately trying to like it (in its new incarnation, AD&D) for a couple of years.




This is the core of what's wrong with D&D.  WOTC catering to people who didn't like D&D to begin with and making it an entirely new game.  Nothing wrong with Runequest or any of the other games you mention - I'm a big Warhammer fan - but I want my D&D to be D&D.  WOTC could give us multiple games to make everyone happy, but instead of choosing to play football or baseball, I'm afraid we'll be getting a football bat.


----------



## Odhanan (Feb 28, 2012)

JRRNeiklot said:


> This is the core of what's wrong with D&D.  WOTC catering to people who didn't like D&D to begin with and making it an entirely new game.  Nothing wrong with Runequest or any of the other games you mention - I'm a big Warhammer fan - but I want my D&D to be D&D.




Ditto. I love and play a wide variety of games myself. Stormbringer, Hawkmoon, In Nomine Satanis/Magna Veritas, Nephilim, Scales, Mythus, LA, RuneQuest, Pendragon, Traveller, Shadowrun, Gamma World, Hurlements, Star Wars d6, RoleMaster, nearly all the World of Darkness games... my favorite games of all time include Call of Cthulhu and Vampire the Masquerade/the Requiem (along with, you guessed it, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, First Edition, pre-Unearthed Arcana). 

When I want to play D&D, I want "D&D". I always loved D&D. I don't want D&D to become "something else". I already play with dozens of different games for occasions when I want to play "something else".


----------



## paladinm (Feb 28, 2012)

I still prefer a more spontaneous/sorcerer-type of casting.  In the olden days, "preparing" a spell was called "memorizing", and it didn't make sense to me for a mage to "forget" a spell once it's cast.  It makes more sense to have a bunch of spells "memorized", but to be limited to a certain number of slots.  I guess this is just a step on the way to a completely points-based system, but it works for me.

It also allows dragons, demons, angels, and even orcs to be spellcasters.  Would dragons really be "memorizing" spells from a spellbook?  And I don't think most orcs can read.

Spontaneous casting is the way to go!


----------



## Living Legend (Feb 28, 2012)

Was I the only one that has been referring to this a "Vanican" magic for the last umpteen years?  Boy is my face red


----------



## paladinm (Feb 28, 2012)

Could have been Venetian magic.. No, that's for the old Mystara Merchant class


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 28, 2012)

JRRNeiklot said:


> This is the core of what's wrong with D&D.  WOTC catering to people who didn't like D&D to begin with and making it an entirely new game.  Nothing wrong with Runequest or any of the other games you mention - I'm a big Warhammer fan - but I want my D&D to be D&D.  WOTC could give us multiple games to make everyone happy, but instead of choosing to play football or baseball, I'm afraid we'll be getting a football bat.




Agree 100%


----------



## Rogue Agent (Feb 28, 2012)

Odhanan said:


> Has never worked in the past?
> 
> I'll give you one game that used this business model in the past. It had a simple core, playable in any number of ways. It had three classes, all weapons did d6 damage, some methodologies to build your dungeon and your wilderness settings. It was entirely contained in three booklets of around 36-42 pages each.




You're conveniently forgetting the part where your hypothetical 5E could simultaneously be several different games often with completely incompatible gameplay. OD&D didn't do that. And it's specifically that kind of multi-system / dual-statting support (which is what you'd effectively need) that has failed time and time again in the RPG industry.

As I've said before: I get that you really, really, really, really want 5E to be OD&D with all the stuff you don't like pushed off into an unsupported supplement where you can ignore it. But it's fairly clear that it's not going to be.



Lanefan said:


> However, a Fighter who has gone on to become a Thief and thence a Bard (the first prestige class; and it was a bad idea then, too) is not just a Fighter any more, making the comparison pointless.




But at that point you're just saying that you prefer one form of customization vs. a different form of customization. Which is, of course, perfectly OK. But it's a very different claim.



GM Dave said:


> The OD&D rules Cyclopedia had things like Paladin and Druid (and several others) being classes that were entered after getting to name level.




As others have pointed out OD&D != Rules Cyclopedia. I cited 1985 because I thought it was the year that both the BECMI Companion added druids/paladins and the year that UA added NWPs. But a quick review indicates that the BECMI stuff was actually 1984. So call it 1984-1985.



Odhanan said:


> 4E is d20 at its core. All you got to do is find a way to emulate 4E by using the OGL/SRD itself while not infringing on WotC's copyright (which means some terms would not be used and replaced and so on). Which is totally possible, and has been done as you know with the other editions of the game (retroclones).




It's a very different kettle of fish: 3E streamlined the core of the game (while keeping most of the math the same), but left most of the ancillary stuff (monster descriptions; spell descriptions; etc.) intact. The ancillary stuff is the stuff most likely to be protected by copyright, so the OGL gave the retro-clones the ability to re-apply the original core mechanics (the stuff that explicitly can't be copyrighted) and run with it.

4th Edition, OTOH, kept the core mechanics of 3E but changed everything else. The difficulty and legality of making a retro-clone of 4E that's acutally compatible with 4E (as opposed to just having some similar gameplay with radically different classes, powers, monsters, etc.) is much, much higher.


----------



## Incenjucar (Feb 28, 2012)

JRRNeiklot said:


> This is the core of what's wrong with D&D.  WOTC catering to people who didn't like D&D to begin with and making it an entirely new game.  Nothing wrong with Runequest or any of the other games you mention - I'm a big Warhammer fan - but I want my D&D to be D&D.  WOTC could give us multiple games to make everyone happy, but instead of choosing to play football or baseball, I'm afraid we'll be getting a football bat.




It's the unfortunate economic reality. There just isn't enough money in it for Hasbro for everyone to get a fully-supported game.


----------



## Andor (Feb 28, 2012)

While I'm all for having multiple magic systems in the game, the approach mentioned seems like a bad plan. 

Consider, if the Vancian style spells are intended to be the wizbang with feat magic as the at-will but less powerful staple then either:

The feat-spells are gimped and the 'sorcerer' is the 'wizards' lackey at best, OR the feat-spells are on par with the vancian spells but since they are feats the wizards can take them too and the 'sorcerer' is still 2nd best to the 'wizard' who is, at worst, less flexible with his at will in exchange for the much greater flexibility of vancian spells!

Sucks to be the Sorcerer.

Now, there are ways to work around this but they all have obvious flaws. Frex the good feat-magics have class and level prerequisites that prevent the vancian casters from getting them. Flaw, this is exactly analagous to the 'fighter only' feats from 3e and it was annoying then. Not a good plan to carry forward.

Alternately the 'Sorcerer' class gets class related bonuses to his at-wills but then you have potential problems with multi-classing and dipping. 

I think for a non-vancian caster you want his spells to be class features, not general feats. Whether this works like a 3e sorcerer, or some other method (and I can think of lots of them) doesn't matter, what matters is that he gets a pool the wizard cannot drink from. And vice-versa of course.


----------



## Balesir (Feb 28, 2012)

Odhanan said:


> What I can tell you is that for me OD&D and AD&D work with a certain mindset. To me AD&D is all about circumstances and Ad Hoc uses of the rules. It's about the DM/referee making rulings and having different rules and separate sub-systems at his fingertips, as incongruous as they might seem compared to one another within the same book (the DMG), working as many examples helping him run the game and come to his own decisions as the campaign proceeds. The DM considers each of these elements carefully between games, reading through the material, thinking about what Gary's telling him in his own voice via the DMG and coming to decisions on his own based on this. He can take each subsystem and use it or leave it. This why the rules feel like some sort of "disjointed Chinese buffet" from your standpoint. It's because it really is the case. From my standpoint, it's not the point. The rules are not the point. The game itself is the point. Circumstances and variables in actual play are the point. I pick and choose to make the game work via common sense and adjudication. I am the master of the game.



Yes, I eventually worked out that "guided freeform" was the way most people played D&D, but by then I had found other systems I still think do this better (Theatrix for 'guided freeform', HârnMaster for 'select your sub-system', for example - all just personal taste, of course).



JRRNeiklot said:


> This is the core of what's wrong with D&D.  WOTC catering to people who didn't like D&D to begin with and making it an entirely new game.  Nothing wrong with Runequest or any of the other games you mention - I'm a big Warhammer fan - but I want my D&D to be D&D.  WOTC could give us multiple games to make everyone happy, but instead of choosing to play football or baseball, I'm afraid we'll be getting a football bat.



I agree. I have said here before that in many ways I wish 4E had been produced as something named other than "D&D". That way I would be able to enjoy a very fine game without the constant griping of the haters. Sadly, due to the inane vagaries and peccadillos of the way modern corporations manage their IP that would probably mean having many elements renamed, but that would be a relatively small price to pay.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Feb 28, 2012)

Balesir said:


> I agree. I have said here before that in many ways I wish 4E had been produced as something named other than "D&D". That way I would be able to enjoy a very fine game without the constant griping of the haters. Sadly, due to the inane vagaries and peccadillos of the way modern corporations manage their IP that would probably mean having many elements renamed, but that would be a relatively small price to pay.




I'd buy this more if the people always trying to don the mantle of "High Priest of What D&D Is" were not universally set on telling me that what I did with D&D in the early days did not happen.  It smacks more of agenda than any real interest in the health of the hobby.  And of course, D&D didn't invent branding.


----------



## Balesir (Feb 28, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> I'd buy this more if the people always trying to don the mantle of "High Priest of What D&D Is" were not universally set on telling me that what I did with D&D in the early days did not happen.  It smacks more of agenda than any real interest in the health of the hobby.



I don't really care about the "D&D Definers" - they seem to have some sort of irrational investment in the (one and only, I suspect, in many cases) RPG they play being called D&D that I lack.

Many vociferous commentators also seem to conflate "D&D" with "roleplaying games", leading to a situation where they expect - or demand - that it fulfill all of their personal desires for what a roleplaying game should be capable of doing. I have no such desire; I play D&D 4E to satisfy a very limited element of what I love RPGs for. For the myriad other satisfactions that RPGs can bring, I look to other titles that are designed more appropriately to fulfill the relevant roles (currently mainly HârnMaster). Systems that try to mix all of the various aims together, I find, present what [MENTION=717]JRRNeiklot[/MENTION] amusingly dubs a "football bat".



Crazy Jerome said:


> And of course, D&D didn't invent branding.



It's not so much the branding; vibrant and *diverse* brands can be built via judicious licensing and collaboration. It's the mindset that says IP must be "leveraged" - in other words customers must be bullied and manipulated without consideration of their aims or range of tastes. The power of control over IP must be seized and used, rather than shared for mutual benefit. And then they wonder why there are pirates of whom the "mostly law abiding" public have ambiguous views.


----------



## Odhanan (Feb 28, 2012)

Rogue Agent said:


> You're conveniently forgetting the part where your hypothetical 5E could simultaneously be several different games often with completely incompatible gameplay. OD&D didn't do that. And it's specifically that kind of multi-system / dual-statting support (which is what you'd effectively need) that has failed time and time again in the RPG industry.



Except I'm not talking about a multi-system / dual-statting support system at all.



Rogue Agent said:


> As I've said before: I get that you really, really, really, really want 5E to be OD&D with all the stuff you don't like pushed off into an unsupported supplement where you can ignore it. But it's fairly clear that it's not going to be.



Well then, let me tell you I get that you really, really, really don't like my idea, but just because you don't like it or don't see any way to make it work doesn't mean it can't, or won't be.


----------



## Rogue Agent (Feb 29, 2012)

Odhanan said:


> Except I'm not talking about a multi-system / dual-statting support system at all.




In which case, we've gone full circle back to "you want 5E to be OD&D".

And while it's possible that I'm wrong and 5E will, in fact, end up being modular in the worst way possible, what I can absolutely guarantee you is that it will not be OD&D. Like Mitt Romney, I'll bet you $10,000 that it won't be.


----------



## Kynn (Feb 29, 2012)

Rogue Agent said:


> In which case, we've gone full circle back to "you want 5E to be OD&D".
> 
> And while it's possible that I'm wrong and 5E will, in fact, end up being modular in the worst way possible, what I can absolutely guarantee you is that it will not be OD&D. Like Mitt Romney, I'll bet you $10,000 that it won't be.




I don't think it will be either, but I also think that the misleading rhetoric tossed around by Cook & company has been aimed in getting people like Odhanan to think that "core 5e sans modules" _will_ essentially be OD&D (even though it won't).

They're being deliberately vague in many cases, but one of the central conceits of the L&L columns has been to push forward something that sounds a lot like OD&D as "the eternal, always-existing core of D&D upon which we will build everything." I.e., they're trying to court the OSR/OD&D folks ... but they're likely to deliver, in the end, something which won't be palatable to them after all.


----------



## Khaalis (Feb 29, 2012)

I still maintain that people are totally misconstruing the statement that 5E/D&DN will recapture the "Feel" of older D&D with meaning that the rules mechanics will revert to "BEING" an old system. Which simply isn't going to be the case.  The new system is going to be a new animal altogether. There may be some mechanics that survive from different editions to blend into a new system, but the game will never simply revert to an older version.

I honestly don't see why certain people insist on dragging out arguments about 5E/D&DN/WotC being crap or a deal breaker if the new system isn't going to be exactly as the older version that person wants to play.  You already have the old version you want. You already know that is all that will suffice.  Why even bother discussing options of the new system when you know it isn't for you?  Simply let the whole discussion pass you buy since you don't really want to add anything constructive. Going on every thread and saying that you won't buy the new version unless it fits specifically this "X" parameter is, IMHO, just trolling. I just don't get it.

_{Edit: Sorry for my own troll, but threads like this are just making me so incredibly frustrated. We can't just simply discuss 5E without it degrading...}_


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 29, 2012)

Khaalis said:


> I  that is all that will suffice.  Why even bother discussing options of the new system when you know it isn't for you?  Simply let the whole discussion pass you buy since you don't really want to add anything constructive. Going on every thread and saying that you won't buy the new version unless it fits specifically this "X" parameter is, IMHO, just trolling. I just don't get it.




giving an opinion about what you want and dont want in the new edition is constructive. We are letting the designers know what we think. 

For me, i would like to see the core mechanics that were constant all the way up to 3e restored to the game (that incudes vancian magic). I want improvements, but i dont want change for the sake of change or drastic changes that make it play ike a different game. For me, 4e went too far. So i am hoping they listen to those of us who would like to see a new edition that feels more like pre-4e D&D.


----------



## Mr. Wilson (Feb 29, 2012)

The ebb and flow of this conversation (and many others in this subforum) has brought to mind the nursery school rhyme, Humpty Dumpty.  In this analogy, Humpty Dumpty equates to the DnD playerbase.

I'm starting to come to grips with the fact that despite WoTC's best efforts, they can't put us together again.


----------



## Khaalis (Feb 29, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> giving an opinion about what you want and dont want in the new edition is constructive. We are letting the designers know what we think.



Constructive comments on what you like and would like to see however, is different than the approach various posters have used which basically equates to "if every aspect of the game isn't identical to X version of D&D, it's a deal breaker and your new version is going to suck". That isn't constructive.



> For me, i would like to see the core mechanics that were constant all the way up to 3e restored to the game (that incudes vancian magic). I want improvements, but i dont want change for the sake of change or drastic changes that make it play ike a different game. For me, 4e went too far. So i am hoping they listen to those of us who would like to see a new edition that feels more like pre-4e D&D.



This is a constructive statement, and I completely agree with the 4E statement. It's not that it's a bad game and it had a lot of great ideas, it just changed the core of the game, FOR ME, from an RPG to a tabletop minis battle-game. That doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see some of the ideas make it to 5E.

I also personally hate the Vancian system, but I fully agree that it should be part of the core since it has been in D&D through the vast majority of the game, and it IS D&D to some people. However, I also want other options in core, and I don't want someone to tell me I can't have those options because "Its Not D&D".

The simplest example is Ability Scores. I want to see a full set of options from rolling 3d6 in order to point buy and everything in between as part of core. I don't want to have to wait for expansion book X to find options.   

It's also a personal beef of mine that too many people seem to fall back on the "if its not in the core book, I don't allow it" way of thinking. Which is also part of why I want the "options" as still part of core.

JMHO. YMMV.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 29, 2012)

Khaalis said:


> Constructive comments on what you like and would like to see however, is different than the approach various posters have used which basically equates to "if every aspect of the game isn't identical to X version of D&D, it's a deal breaker and your new version is going to suck". That isn't constructive.
> 
> 
> 
> JMHO. YMMV.




The way I look at it, these are still useful statements because it give WOTC information. They should know that if x,y and z are not in the game that some people wont buy the new edition. They have to sift through the mass of statements like this from all sides and reach their own conclusion about what to heed and what to ignore. But suppose they see a pattern that suggests they could lose 70% of their current base if they go forward with a particular design decision? Definitely not a bad idea for folks to say what their personal deal breakers are.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 29, 2012)

Khaalis said:


> I also personally hate the Vancian system, but I fully agree that it should be part of the core since it has been in D&D through the vast majority of the game, and it IS D&D to some people. However, I also want other options in core, and I don't want someone to tell me I can't have those options because "Its Not D&D".
> 
> 
> JMHO. YMMV.




Only WOTC will be able to make that decision. Right now people are just expressing their preferences. If enough people say that merely having spell points as an optional rule means they wont buy, then you may be dissapointed with the final product. I dont think that is a common sentiment though. I just think many want the core mechanics to resemble 1e, 2e, and 3e in its basic make up as much as possible. In also see alot of folks who want things like spell points, powers, etc to be modular options. This makes sense because it is going to be a lot easier to build around a simlple core than to surgically remove stuff like encounter powers or spell point casters.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 29, 2012)

Mr. Wilson said:


> The ebb and flow of this conversation (and many others in this subforum) has brought to mind the nursery school rhyme, Humpty Dumpty.  In this analogy, Humpty Dumpty equates to the DnD playerbase.
> 
> I'm starting to come to grips with the fact that despite WoTC's best efforts, they can't put us together again.




I think they can, but I think they can only do it if the core system is vanilla enough not to offend either side, while at the same time providing all the options people need to play the game they want.


----------



## Otakkun (Feb 29, 2012)

I get the feeling that this new edition is going to be to 3.5E what Player's Option: Skills & Powers was for AD&D.

With all this vacian magic talk I can't but get the feeling that we'll devolve back into pre 4E spells (let's be frank, magic defines each D&D edition, fighters have been rolling that d20 to hit from 1E to 3.5E) and that will bring us back to some sort of modified 3.5E once again.

A shame since I believe that some parts of 4E should be saved, like the concept of no "in-combat healing" that existed at the release of 4E (it later went down the drain with the new powers, feats, etc). IMHO I prefer combat with just healing surges and no healing from other sources while in combat. Clerics can heal everyone just fine outside of it, using resources to do it (think healing rituals). That should speed combat a bit.

So, let's hope Monte & company are able to surprise us with this D&DN, but I don't see how it could possibly be better than a recopilation of  the best of 3.5E with some additional options (at least so far).


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 29, 2012)

Jack Daniel said:


> PLAYER: "Can't I just swap out this...?"
> DM: "Nope.  The 'feats' module isn't being used in this campaign."
> 
> ^
> (This is not irony or satire.  This is really what I want to be able to do with 5e.  But, crap, if I ever actually have an exchange like this with one of my players, it means that that player is more interested in "building" a character than role-playing one, and I don't need to deal with that kind of metagame, immerson-breaking bad mojo at my table.)




Customisation _helps me manage my character and makes it feel more true to my vision_.  If a DM is interested in making sure that I play a mechanical cookie-cutter then I'm a lot less interested.  This isn't saying that the DM can't or shouldn't impose restrictions for theme or balance.  But you are point blank taking away tools to help me roleplay.


----------



## Yora (Feb 29, 2012)

Otakkun said:


> With all this vacian magic talk I can't but get the feeling that we'll devolve back into pre 4E spells (let's be frank, magic defines each D&D edition, fighters have been rolling that d20 to hit from 1E to 3.5E) and that will bring us back to some sort of modified 3.5E once again.



4th Edition was an attempt to leave the old games behind and do something new and different. Which didn't turn out well for the company and now they want to give it another try. I expect 4th Edition to have the least influence on 5th Edition, with mostly a return a an updated variant of the older game.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Feb 29, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> The way I look at it, these are still useful statements because it give WOTC information. They should know that if x,y and z are not in the game that some people wont buy the new edition. They have to sift through the mass of statements like this from all sides and reach their own conclusion about what to heed and what to ignore. But suppose they see a pattern that suggests they could lose 70% of their current base if they go forward with a particular design decision? Definitely not a bad idea for folks to say what their personal deal breakers are.




Well, if you were doing reliable market surveys, that would be true.  OTOH, if you went through message boards and tried to sift out the truth from the posturing, not so much.


----------



## Andor (Feb 29, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> Customisation _helps me manage my character and makes it feel more true to my vision_.  If a DM is interested in making sure that I play a mechanical cookie-cutter then I'm a lot less interested.  This isn't saying that the DM can't or shouldn't impose restrictions for theme or balance.  But you are point blank taking away tools to help me roleplay.




It goes the other way too. Allowing or disallowing feats / vancian magic / non-vancian magic / psionics / druids / paladins / monks / critical hits and misses to exist in a game are part of what allows the DM to customize his world to enhance _his_ roleplaying. 

Remember, you're RPing a single character, he is RPing an entire universe. 

He has the harder job, work with him. Ask him why he doesn't want you to do X, and what would be an appropriate replacement, or themantic equivilent. Maybe there are no Monks becuase there is no martial monastic tradition akin to Shao-lin temples in his world. So you discuss it with the GM and decide what you really wanted was a bare knuckled brawler and he helps you make a pugilist that fits the game. Or he says there is no way a fist is ever going to hurt more than a sword and what you really wanted was to portray that monastic self-discipline and he helps you make a monastic cleric. 

Or maybe you really wanted to play an eastern style monk and it's not ever going to fit into his arthurian cycle campaign, at which point you two need to discuss campaign expectations and get it straightened out now before mismatched ideas derail the game.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 29, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> Well, if you were doing reliable market surveys, that would be true.  OTOH, if you went through message boards and tried to sift out the truth from the posturing, not so much.




It is still data that can be mapped if it is collected and sorted properly. I assume they are coming at this from a variety of angles, including hiring third party researchers. It may be people are just posturing and will buckle when the edition is released, but you are still getting what matters: peoples opinions about what shoukd be incuded and excluded from the edition. 

Better than relying soley on their own forum, their website polls and the rpga.


----------



## grimslade (Feb 29, 2012)

The "core" game will be no feats, no skills. Wizards use "Vancian" magic and look a lot like OD&D/BECMI Wizards (flexibility but fewer choices per level, maybe 6-7 spells tops/ lvl).
There will be a warlock/saucer-er as a spontaneous caster with an even tighter spell access.
Published adventures will follow core. There may be a breakout box on how to handle a particular rules mod, but it should all work as core.
The whole play as any edition all together only works if the rules mods only give the illusion of change. Take skills, the resolution mechanic will be an ability check at its core. The 3E skill rank rules option builds off that but still functions as an ability roll with the ability score replaced by a skill rank. It offers player control, but does not outstrip a core only player.

It should be about options not power. Now we all know there will be loopholes that will be exploited. The DM should be empowered to make those loopholes close and MonteMearls, the Demogorgon of Design, should try to minimize their existence.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Feb 29, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> It is still data that can be mapped if it is collected and sorted properly. I assume they are coming at this from a variety of angles, including hiring third party researchers. It may be people are just posturing and will buckle when the edition is released, but you are still getting what matters: peoples opinions about what shoukd be incuded and excluded from the edition.
> 
> Better than relying soley on their own forum, their website polls and the rpga.




More useful information is handy. The more you can get, the better. But there are two different kinds of data here, and the more they get mixed up, the less reliable both are. There are the recordings of preferences, perhaps with a bit of followup for how serious those preferences are held and other related bits. With those, you want a reliable market survey, or you might as well admit you are throwing darts. 

Then there is involved discussion, which may tease out nuances--both for the participants in the discussion and the designers. These are potentially valuable as insights or areas to explore, not hard examples of what will sell or not sell. 

Whether those posturing will "buckle" or refuse to buy is irrelevant. Loud posturing by some minority doesn't tell you squat about what will sell--except perhaps that if you see enough of it you probably do need to do a serious market survey to see how widespread that posture is. Other than that signal, the posturing is counter-productive, because it is the exact opposite of looking for any kind of nuance or insight in the design itself.  *Once the signal has been sent, all future posturing is harmful*.  So the real question for any useful posturing is whether the signal has been received or not.

This is, BTW, exactly the same kind of relation all the OGL hoopla has with doing a good design. Some people don't care. Some people care a lot. Some people care for the reasons they state. Others have unstated agenda(s). How licensing is handled can, of course, affect sales a little or a lot--and thus it matters. But it says nothing about the inherent quality of the new edition itself.


----------



## GM Dave (Feb 29, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> It is still data that can be mapped if it is collected and sorted properly. I assume they are coming at this from a variety of angles, including hiring third party researchers. It may be people are just posturing and will buckle when the edition is released, but you are still getting what matters: peoples opinions about what shoukd be incuded and excluded from the edition.
> 
> Better than relying soley on their own forum, their website polls and the rpga.




Since there have been several mentions of 'what WotC should do or you won't buy there product'; I'll start here.

Survey's of public opinion on products is a funny animal.  For example, there were plenty of survey's for the introduction of 'Green' cleaner products and laundry choices.

A sure fire win-win to money and success.

The survey's even tested and found people saying they were willing to pay more for such products.

The products were made and put on the shelves and they failed because people, when it came to decisions like laundry soap, would often choose cheaper.

A proper survey with proper product research and a total failure.

Perception is an interesting creature.  I've had people before doing 4e say they were going to stick with 3e and end up switching because they loved the new version.  I have other people that were not going to switch from 2e but later embraced 3e (though they never went to 4e though they had fun when they tried it).

--------------------------

More importantly then wanting X or Y and why don't they just keep producing 1st ed player's handbooks; is thinking from the WotC (or any financial company's situation).

Rather than talk on games, let's talk on cars.  If you bought a car ten years ago and it is running fine then what is going to make you want to buy a new car when it will likely take 4 to 5 years to pay off that debt?

Are you going to want to buy a car that hasn't changed in 10 years?  Same engine which costs the same in fuel to operate but you had to spend twice the same amount in money to purchase as your last car?  If you wanted the same car as you have then there are hundreds of people that have similar cars up for sale as used cars.  You can likely pull together parts from a half dozen wrecks and build a car with decent parts or fix up your existing vehicle.

Does any of that get fresh money to Ford, Toyoto, or GM?

--------------------------------------

The game industry is unfortunately much like the car industry.

You choose a model and an engine and you run with it.

The difference is that the model and engine never stop functioning with a game book (though I've seen some books get pretty beat up and dog earred after a decade or two of usage ~ oh my poor 1ed books).

The only sales on the original game books occur when new players buy the books or when a person suffers some sort of 'accident' (like fire or gf separation that goes poorly).

Now, WotC does work actively to get new players (Conventions, encounters program, fiction books, and online play).  The new is just a small percentage of the whole and it takes sponsoring GMs to make new players.

There is also a plethora of options that are free or nearly free that WotC competes against.  There are dozens of DnD clones made by people with sites like Dragonsfoot that offer free support.

If you like the car that you have then there are dozens of people that will provide oil and service to keep it running at no charge or minimum charge.

----------------------------

So, your problems are you need to generate revenue (you need to eat and have a place to live) and people are willing to make competing products of reasonable value for little or no price (though some have more expensive products that are good value there are plenty that are made not with profit as part of the creation goal).

So what market advantage are you going to use to convince people to buy a new Lexxus instead of a KIA or a Yugo (though really, WotC is aiming for more of Toyota Camry or a vehicle that everyone can compromise on has all the bells and whistles they need at a price that feels like a good deal because it is sold by the tens of thousands)?

WotC has to do something as the latest market survey shows that Pathfinder is out selling DnD 4e at a rate of 2 to 1 (though I think much of that is do to the evolution of thought they show in their Advanced Player's guide, Ultimate books, and the monthly adventure path lines).

WotC has chosen to go with a vehicle that people understand how to drive but has features that many people want (or expect to find in their vehicle even if they don't use them).

Many European manufactures think it is odd that North Americians want cup holders and mini-fridges in our cars.  Still if they want to sell cars in the North Americian market, they know that they have to produce some vehicles with this feature.

Brand name will take you only so far.  I trust WotC to produce a finished product that is gorgeous to look at (though many smaller game companies are now producing books with similar art ~ still a gap but it is closing).  That finished value comes at a price like I looked at the latest 'Confessions of a Full-Time Wizard' and noted there are 1 author, 2 editors, 3 producers, 2 art directors, 1 illustrator, and 1 graphic productions.  Compare to any other indie or small press game release (or kickstarter project).

What will 5e be?

It can't be what has come before because there is no money for the company in what has already been done (or limited revenue).  Marvel and DC can sell compilations of older comics but they don't have the worth or the market penetration that a new title line has.  That is why Marvel and DC keep 're-launching' titles.  Yet, if the story was exactly the same then people would simply say 'you should have kept the story going rather than re-launch'.

5e needs to feel like the previous stories.  It has to have the comfort feel of previous DnD games (I hate getting in a car which doesn't have a place to rest my left elbow as I've gotten used to that on my current car).

5e has to show innovation.  I want a better model vehicle to show my friends and to show off the new bells and whistles.  A brand new car wthout GPS is not worth purchasing when others for the same price or less have that feature.  The game needs to run better for less effort (better milage).  It has to entertain my whole group or enough entertainment that they'll let me GM the game (it is like putting in tv's for the children to watch and providing a radio for the passenger to fiddle with).

5e has to look pretty.  I want to be able to put the books out on a desk and attract attention instead of driving people away with looks of sympathy (if you bough a Yugo then don't expect to get many player's volunteering to help you fix the engine every time it breaks and don't park it where the neighbours can see it).  Many cars could have a very terrible engine but would still sell becuase of appearance and the reverse is true (a good engine with a poor car body will kill sales).

I think WotC has the ability to do all these things and make a decent Toyota Camry vehicle.  Something that won't drive off the neighbours when I show up with it and yet will function for the whole group keeping them entertained enough that I can tell a story with their participation.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Feb 29, 2012)

Andor said:


> It goes the other way too. Allowing or disallowing feats / vancian magic / non-vancian magic / psionics / druids / paladins / monks / critical hits and misses to exist in a game are part of what allows the DM to customize his world to enhance _his_ roleplaying.
> 
> Remember, you're RPing a single character, he is RPing an entire universe.




Which is absolutely a fine way to play.  The only thing is though... that this should not then force the removal of certain systems _from the game entirely_ just so that you don't have to do it yourself.

What I got from Jack Daniel (and its quite possible that I misunderstood him) was that he didn't want the idea that Class Features = 'pre-selected feats', because by the game insinuating that, his players might get the idea that they could still request to swap out a 'pre-selected feat' class feature for some other feat, even if he already told them he wasn't using the Feats module.  So the game should just not make the connection that Class Feature = 'pre-select feat', even if they actually are.  Because by stating or implying it, that's an extra ruling as DM he doesn't want to have to make.

Personally, I find that to be a very hollow argument, because you basically asking the game to not include something that many other people might appreciate just because it means you might have to do your job and actually make a ruling.  Which I find somewhat ridiculous, seeing as how being a DM is _all about_ making rulings.  So to write off an entire game just because it asks you to make a single ruling that you don't think you should have to make if the game wasn't "forcing" you to, seems a bit like sour grapes to me.


----------



## Jack Daniel (Feb 29, 2012)

DEFCON 1 said:


> JackDaniel*s*









DEFCON 1 said:


> What I got from JackDaniels (and its quite possible that I misunderstood him) was that he didn't want the idea that Class Features = 'pre-selected feats', because by the game insinuating that, his players might get the idea that they could still request to swap out a 'pre-selected feat' class feature for some other feat, even if he already told them he wasn't using the Feats module.  So the game should just not make the connection that Class Feature = 'pre-select feat', even if they actually are.  Because by stating or implying it, that's an extra ruling as DM he doesn't want to have to make.




Eh... kinda-sorta.  It's not that I would ever, in reality, have that hypothetical exchange with a player where I denied them some minor tweak to their character.  Rather, I was trying to make the point that the D&D I play is not a game where anything that even smells like min-maxing is ever allowed to come within 100' of my game-table.  I played enough 3rd edition in my time to know, factually, that I never, ever, ever again want to play any game where the players get to "build" their characters.  And unless I haven't made myself clear: never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever again.  Not gonna do it.

I want the 5th edition core game to be a solid core with simple classes.  SIMPLE CLASSES.  If the class features are actually feats in disguise, meant to be swapped out for other features... okay, fine, but don't put that in the class chapter.  (Ideally, don't put it in the core rulebook; but I know better than to wish for that, given who's designing and who's publishing this game.)  Hide that nonsense away somewhere else in the book, where you've sequestered the "feats module".

It pretty much comes down to this: customization == min/maxing == time-consuming character creation.  When the character-building mini-game is present, the temptation to min/max is present; and even those relatively benign players (liberal estimate from my experience: 10%) who go about it the "right" way, by looking to abilities that fit their character concept rather than just immediately running to abilities that grant the optimum mechanical advantage, still take entirely too much time selecting said abilities.  It just gets in the way of actually playing.  I don't want it.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Feb 29, 2012)

Apologies on the name screw-up, Jack.  Edited to correct it.



Jack Daniel said:


> I want the 5th edition core game to be a solid core with simple classes.  SIMPLE CLASSES.  If the class features are actually feats in disguise, meant to be swapped out for other features... okay, fine, but don't put that in the class chapter.  (Ideally, don't put it in the core rulebook; but I know better than to wish for that, given who's designing and who's publishing this game.)  Hide that nonsense away somewhere else in the book, where you've sequestered the "feats module".




I get what you're saying here, and its a complete valid way to play.  The only downside you're going to face I think is that since I would venture to guess you're in the minority in terms of not allowing the "building" of characters, as a result I suspect that you're probably going to have to make do with the advanced character creation options being there in the main book.  Although you may get your wish in terms of the rules for swapping out 'class features' not appearing in the basic Class section, but instead in the Feats section.  You might get that at least. 

The Cleric listing in the Class section would probably give you things like hit dice/hit points, weapon and armor profs, prayer (spell) list, and a few class features like Turn Undead.  Your basic run-of-the-mill Cleric stuff.  However, back in the Feats section there might very well be a list of clerical feats that you could swap out Turn Undead for (for example), if the DM chose to use the Feats module.  That makes more organizational sense in my opinion than trying to list all swappable options in each class's section.


----------



## Ratskinner (Feb 29, 2012)

Jack Daniel said:


> It pretty much comes down to this: customization == min/maxing == time-consuming character creation.  When the character-building mini-game is present, the temptation to min/max is present; and even those relatively benign players (liberal estimate from my experience: 10%) who go about it the "right" way, by looking to abilities that fit their character concept rather than just immediately running to abilities that grant the optimum mechanical advantage, still take entirely too much time selecting said abilities.  It just gets in the way of actually playing.  I don't want it.




On the other hand, simplicity can be an issue as well. I'm in an Old-school group now. We had a BECMI-ish campaign start up. After the first several sessions weeded out all the weak characters, and everybody had finally settled into characters that had rolled high enough stats to survive a session or two. (Sorry Elf, Clerics #1 and 2, Thief #1, and Magic-User...better rolls next time! I hope you didn't want spells to fit into your character concept.) We were stuck with 3 Fighters and a Dwarf who could only be differentiated by their HP rolls (and infravision.) Finding magic weapons became a big distraction, so much so that the DM instituted what amounted to prestige classes for the fighters. Thus ending the idea, (in my head) that choiceless character development was a good thing.

I'd also suggest that, IME, the percentage of players who _would _"go about it the right way" is much higher than you suggest. The part of the "Old School" culture that leads people to "let the dice fall where they may" helps to quickly train new players that making suboptimal characters is a pointless effort. When I ran a 4e group of newbies, none of them felt the need to min/max at all. (I'm not 4e's biggest fan, but that was a nice thing.)

I agree that slow and tedious character creation is a bad thing, but absolutely choiceless development isn't good either. Two wrongs don't make a right.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 1, 2012)

Kynn said:


> They're being deliberately vague in many cases, but one of the central conceits of the L&L columns has been to push forward something that sounds a lot like OD&D as "the eternal, always-existing core of D&D upon which we will build everything." I.e., they're trying to court the OSR/OD&D folks ... but they're likely to deliver, in the end, something which won't be palatable to them after all.



And as a long-time 1e-er, that's what worries me about this whole process.


			
				Khaalis said:
			
		

> I still maintain that people are totally misconstruing the statement that 5E/D&DN will recapture the "Feel" of older D&D with meaning that the rules mechanics will revert to "BEING" an old system.



Well, it'll be hard to recapture the feel without the mechanics as the mechanics were responsible for a large part of the feel in the first place.  Pretty hard to have one without the other.


			
				Jack Daniel said:
			
		

> It pretty much comes down to this: customization == min/maxing == time-consuming character creation. When the character-building mini-game is present, the temptation to min/max is present; and even those relatively benign players (liberal estimate from my experience: 10%) who go about it the "right" way, by looking to abilities that fit their character concept rather than just immediately running to abilities that grant the optimum mechanical advantage, still take entirely too much time selecting said abilities. It just gets in the way of actually playing. I don't want it.



Speak it!  Speak it loud!

Lanefan


----------



## Ratskinner (Mar 1, 2012)

Lanefan said:


> Well, it'll be hard to recapture the feel without the mechanics as the mechanics were responsible for a large part of the feel in the first place.




1) That feel varied a lot between groups.

2) There are OSR-ish indie games that use new-school mechanics to capture that old feel quite well, IMO.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 2, 2012)

JRRNeiklot said:


> This is the core of what's wrong with D&D.  WOTC catering to people who didn't like D&D to begin with and making it an entirely new game.





Crazy Jerome said:


> I'd buy this more if the people always trying to don the mantle of "High Priest of What D&D Is" were not universally set on telling me that what I did with D&D in the early days did not happen.



I agree fully with CJ on this, and get a little bit tired of being told again and again in these sorts of threads that, because I like and play 4e, I don't like D&D.

I played B/X D&D from 1982 to 1984. I GMed AD&D from 1984 to 1989. I played AD&D 2nd ed, on and off, from 1990 to 1997. I GMed a little bit of 3E in 2000.

From 1990 to 2008 I GMed primarily Rolemaster, but used a whole host of D&D materials, incuding material from Greyhawk, Oriental Adventures, and other sourcebooks, modules, rulebooks etc. D&D is not just the mechanics, it is a whole collection of story elements and approaches to gonzo fantasy RPGing. Nor is D&D just the playstyle set out in Gygax's rulebooks: Oriental Adventures, for example - a 1st ed AD&D product - is clearly aimed at a different playstyle from B/X or the "skilled play" described by Gygax in the PHB, and had a profound effect on my own approach to GMing.

I didn't return to D&D with 4e because 4e is _not_ D&D. I returned to D&D with 4e because with 4e, D&D finally had the mechanics to deliver the sort of stories that it had been promising me for over 20 years, but that I had been using other mechanical systems to achieve.



Balesir said:


> it looks to me like the D&DN team has not learned any of what I consider the really *important* lessons of 4E. They talk about "tactical combat" and such like as if they were what the main attractions of 4E are - they just miss the point, entirely.



I agree with this too, although I think 4e's attractions for me are slightly different from those that Balesir sees.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 2, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I agree fully with CJ on this, and get a little bit tired of being told again and again in these sorts of threads that, because I like and play 4e, I don't like D&D.
> 
> .




I just want to be clear about my own statements on this subject (and i do think this is how many people mean it when they make these sort of remarks): 4E didn't have that D&D feel for me. The absence of the traditional spells in their traditional form, the extension of casting like powers to mundane classes, muddied the brand identity in my opinion. This isn't to say you aren't playing D&D or an attemp to divine your reasons for liking 4E, it is just my personal reaction to the edition. That should be no more a threat to your enjoyment of the game than your statement that previous editions failed to deliver the game's promise is to my mine. If prior editions didn't perform for you, and this one did, I am fine with that. One thing that has really been bothering me about these edition conlficts is people are dismissing the personal experiences of others (i.e. No, you didn't encounter believability issues with mechanic X, you just don't know what you are talking about). So I hope my comments haven't come across as such for the other side.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 2, 2012)

[MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION], I didn't have you in mind when I made my post. But I am curious - if 4e doesn't have the D&D feel for you, what about Oriental Adventurs (the 1980s version)? Or some of the "story"-oriented stuff from the 2nd ed era?

I mean, maybe there were people who played OA in just the sort of way Gygax talks about at the end of his PHB, but I find that a bit hard to imagine.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 2, 2012)

pemerton said:


> [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION], I didn't have you in mind when I made my post. But I am curious - if 4e doesn't have the D&D feel for you, what about Oriental Adventurs (the 1980s version)? Or some of the "story"-oriented stuff from the 2nd ed era?
> 
> I mean, maybe there were people who played OA in just the sort of way Gygax talks about at the end of his PHB, but I find that a bit hard to imagine.




To be clear, i am not an oldschool dungeon and hex crawler. I have mostly played D&D with a focus on monster hunts, investigation, political intrigue, urban adventures, etc. 2E worked very well formy style,though I disliked the railroading and for me verisimiltude is important to my immersion in the setting (so stuff like giving players narrative control--not afeature of 2E--also doesn't apoeal to me). What I liked about 2E were 1) the mechanics and 2) the emphasison settingand flavor. Most of my games are combat and dungeon light. 

But my point about 4E not feeling like D&D to me has more to do with mechanical changes than anything else. Didn't play much OA. Was very into Ravenloft, Dark Sun and settings like birthright. 

I actually wrote a defense of 2E on my blog (here: 2e Defense). Also have an entry on running monster hunts.


----------



## Balesir (Mar 2, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I didn't return to D&D with 4e because 4e is _not_ D&D. I returned to D&D with 4e because with 4e, D&D finally had the mechanics to deliver the sort of stories that it had been promising me for over 20 years, but that I had been using other mechanical systems to achieve.



I thoroughly agree with this (if you replace "stories" with "game"  ), but I take a slightly different approach, as expressed in my previous post.

There seem to be some for whom only their own cherished playstyle represents "D&D", and they seem (in _some_ cases) to be determined to wage an all out war to claim that name.

I'm not really interested in fighting a war over three syllables. If they want it that much, screw it, let them have the name. This is why, if D&D Next turns out to be a revamp of 3E (or whatever), it won't particularly bother me at all. What *will* bother me is that the game that is 4E may be left orphaned and unsupported way before it has been developed into the potential that I see in it. I don't like 4E because it's D&D - I like it because I think it's a bloody good game!

Maybe some solution can be found; WotC could continue supporting 4E alongside Next, an OGL-equivalent for 4E might be formed or the rights for "4E" might be sold to a third party, maybe. But I can't say that I'm holding my breath.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Mar 2, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I didn't return to D&D with 4e because 4e is _not_ D&D. I returned to D&D with 4e because with 4e, D&D finally had the mechanics to deliver the sort of stories that it had been promising me for over 20 years, but that I had been using other mechanical systems to achieve.
> 
> I agree with this too, although I think 4e's attractions for me are slightly different from those that Balesir sees.




Just to chime in, this is what I see too.  If Dungeons and Dragons is about the tropes D&D has built up for itself over the years then 4e is not D&D.  On the other hand if D&D is about Appendix N and the stories presented in Appendix N then 4e is closer to D&D than any edition there has been


----------



## talok55 (Mar 2, 2012)

I didn't return to D&D with 4e because 4e is _not_ D&D. I returned to D&D with 4e because with 4e, D&D finally had the mechanics to deliver the sort of stories that it had been promising me for over 20 years, but that I had been using other mechanical systems to achieve.

Exactly how do ultra gamist, non-sensical mechanics (which 4E is full of) enhance your ability to tell the stories you want to tell?  I know this sounds snarky, but I really can't get my head around this.  If anything I would think that non-sensical things like a warlord yelling someone back into a fight would break immersion and thus detract from telling good stories. I guess others want super heroic, leave any semblance of realism behind, kind of games that don't appeal to me.


----------



## talok55 (Mar 2, 2012)

Otakkun said:


> I get the feeling that this new edition is going to be to 3.5E what Player's Option: Skills & Powers was for AD&D.
> 
> With all this vacian magic talk I can't but get the feeling that we'll devolve back into pre 4E spells (let's be frank, magic defines each D&D edition, fighters have been rolling that d20 to hit from 1E to 3.5E) and that will bring us back to some sort of modified 3.5E once again.
> 
> ...




Quite frankly, they could do a lot worse than a "Player's Option" version of 3.5.  Looking at the popularity of Pathfinder, it might even be successful.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 2, 2012)

talok55 said:


> Exactly how do ultra gamist, non-sensical mechanics (which 4E is full of) enhance your ability to tell the stories you want to tell?  I know this sounds snarky, but I really can't get my head around this.  If anything I would think that non-sensical things like a warlord yelling someone back into a fight would break immersion and thus detract from telling good stories. I guess others want super heroic, leave any semblance of realism behind, kind of games that don't appeal to me.



I can't answer for him, but I can answer for me.

None of that stuff breaks immersion for me or my group.  We're perfectly ok with "We are playing a game, the book that describes the rules to the game says we can do that, so we can."

It also isn't about being super heroic at all.  In fact, it's the exact opposite.  The last 3.5e game I ran went like this:

"We wake up in the morning.  I cast this list of 12 spells on the party.  We are all immune to all damage from Fire, Lightning, Cold, Acid, and Sonic damage.  Everyone's AC is 4 points higher, the 2 fighters absorb the first 50 points of damage dealt to them and we are all immune to save or die spells for the next 2 hours.  If anyone dies, I can bring them back to life 2 or 3 times today.  Also, I have a spell that will stop someone from dying no matter how much damage they take.  I have the ability to restore us all to full hitpoints 5 times each from empty.

We teleport back into the dungeon into the last room we left off in.  We walk down the hallway into the next room.  There's a Lich in there?  Alright, we win initiative, we cast a spell that does damage based on the number of spells he has up, since he's a lich, I bet that's a lot.  And it's maximized.  That didn't kill him?  I cast it again, only quickened this time.  He dies now?  Perfect.  We loot him then teleport back to the inn.  We'll recover our spells and come back tomorrow."

Add to that the fact that all secrets were easily revealed with a spell.  They could spy on anyone in the world at a moment's notice...it just got silly.  You couldn't run a storyline like the ones that were in movies and tv shows.  Instead, the only stories you could tell were the ones that D&D created: A game about beings with God-like powers who played in a sandbox of quaint mortals.

4e allows me to run a storyline where the PCs do something without teleporting past all the obstacles.  I know that the PCs, even at 16th level have the ability to attack enemies in a variety of ways, but that I still have control over the way the plot goes.  They still have to explore every room, they still have to fight the monsters, they have to face the traps.  Their powers don't let them bypass all of that.  Their powers don't make any of the encounters completely one sided.  They aren't immune to all damage from the enemies.  They have to figure out what the enemy is plotting by finding clues and thinking instead of by casting one spell and asking the gods.

The "super powered" Warlord can restore 50% of someone's hitpoints per battle...and give people +2 to hit.  If anything, it's by far in the other direction.


----------



## Kingreaper (Mar 2, 2012)

talok55 said:


> Exactly how do ultra gamist, non-sensical mechanics (which 4E is full of) enhance your ability to tell the stories you want to tell?  I know this sounds snarky, but I really can't get my head around this.  If anything I would think that non-sensical things like a warlord yelling someone back into a fight would break immersion and thus detract from telling good stories. .



*And yet, it's common in stories.*

4e is full of NARRATIVIST mechanics (limit breaker powers, you can shout someone back into the fight, etc.)

That scene where someone is faltering, but their friend boosts their courage/reminds them why they're fighting/threatens to kill them if they die, is a staple of fiction.

The fact you think that being able to emulate a staple of fiction makes it harder to tell stories is simply confusing.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Mar 2, 2012)

talok55 said:


> Exactly how do ultra gamist, non-sensical mechanics (which 4E is full of) enhance your ability to tell the stories you want to tell? I know this sounds snarky, but I really can't get my head around this. If anything I would think that non-sensical things like a warlord yelling someone back into a fight would break immersion and thus detract from telling good stories. I guess others want super heroic, leave any semblance of realism behind, kind of games that don't appeal to me.




If that was all 4E is, they wouldn't. However, 4E is a strong blend of gamist and narrative mechanics that happen to work really well for a certain kind of action hero fantasy story--if you use the full range and implication of the mechanics. (And of course, if your simulation and/or immersion preferences are strong enough, that is going to be extremely difficult to do. Nothing wrong with that, either; it just is. Of course, if your preferences are that strong, you probably lack the sensibility to make full use of 4E in the way that it is intended, and are thus limited in your insight.  This is bound to affect your ability to make a fair critique of it--like asking a traditional Country and Western music fan to give a fair critique of Heavy Metal.)

Try to emulate Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser in a version of D&D, fairly, using the mechanics as listed. Let's pick "The Seven Black Priests" since it has an exploration build up scene, followed by an extended fight with some stalking and clever use of the environment. The "twain" are fairly experienced by now, so this is a more fair adventure to the early D&D versions than some others I could pick:

Basic/Expert or RC or similar: A good DM will pull this off, as long as the luck doesn't turn too sour. The twain are trying everything in their power to shift the fight to their favor, and a good DM will roll with that and not get too picky on what can be done. Still, in a fight this long, the luck will likely turn sour at some critical point, and either TPK or fudging will occur. Alternately, the foes aren't as tough as they appear, to avoid that problem.

AD&D - 1E style: Similar to RC, but tighter margins. The key problem here is that the foes will pull out some magic that really messes up the day, and the luck of saving throws will determine how things go.

AD&D - 2E style: In "storyteller" mode, this will work as well as anything else, because the DM is already half ignoring the mechanics to keep things moving. Of course, anyone dedicated enough to that style to make this adventure work isn't going to run this adventure in the first place. Or if they try, they will fudge like mad to make it seem "difficult" and replace a bunch of things. 

3E/3.5: This is a pretty good spot for 3E versions, as we are probably talking around 7th to 9th level here--maybe a bit higher. Lack of skills will mean the twain would not have reached this adventure in the first place, but you can get around that by hand-waving it. The crucial problem here is the ebb and flow of the running battle. In 3E, it will either turn into a slug-fest (Fafhrd takes multiple attacks by not moving) or the twain gets an early edge and slaughters the priest in two or three rounds (no doubt thanks to some magic item the Mouser activates with Use Magic Device).

4E: The battle is extended, with ebb and flow, fighting on skis seems perfectly normal, the protagonists have a decent variety of skill checks that are reasonable to attempt in creative ways, a good DM is remembering page 42. There is time and even reason for the characters to make running commentary (if you like that, even though not much of it in the scene as written by Leiber). The characters are fully capable of getting to the adventure, skulking around during it, dealing with the aftermath, and then leaving, without any handwaving.

This is an example that is highly generous to the earlier versions. The real key is that in 4E, *you could have played those kind of characters from level 1 up, and it would have still worked*. In RC/AD&D you might have been able to do that if you wanted to go through several character deaths before finally getting lucky (which is a kind of fun I appreciate at times, mind).


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Mar 2, 2012)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> 4e allows me to run a storyline where the PCs do something without teleporting past all the obstacles. I know that the PCs, even at 16th level have the ability to attack enemies in a variety of ways, but that I still have control over the way the plot goes. They still have to explore every room, they still have to fight the monsters, they have to face the traps. Their powers don't let them bypass all of that. Their powers don't make any of the encounters completely one sided. They aren't immune to all damage from the enemies. They have to figure out what the enemy is plotting by finding clues and thinking instead of by casting one spell and asking the gods.
> 
> The "super powered" Warlord can restore 50% of someone's hitpoints per battle...and give people +2 to hit. If anything, it's by far in the other direction.




It would be mostly unfair, but not without some merit to say that 3E tends to read like a story, play like a videogame, whereas 4E tends to read like a videogame, play like a story.


----------



## Odhanan (Mar 2, 2012)

pemerton said:


> [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION], I didn't have you in mind when I made my post. But I am curious - if 4e doesn't have the D&D feel for you, what about Oriental Adventurs (the 1980s version)? Or some of the "story"-oriented stuff from the 2nd ed era?
> 
> I mean, maybe there were people who played OA in just the sort of way Gygax talks about at the end of his PHB, but I find that a bit hard to imagine.




If I may answer that question, even though I'm obviously not Bedrockgames here. 

First caveat: you like whatever you like. This is not a pissing contest, and you play the games you enjoy. I'm fine with that. It's not because you enjoy some things I don't, or some things I would not consider "D&D", that I have to magically change my mind about them. 

Alright. Caveat out of the way... about Oriental Adventures:

Oriental Adventures is the fruit of Dave Cook's work and vision. It already contains elements of the 2essification of the game like the Non-Weapon Proficiencies, an absence of focus on the exploration of the dungeon and wilderness, and suffers from a typically Cookian POV that the foreign culture depicted is fantastical enough that you don't need to actually treat the "Dungeons & Dragons" part of ... Dungeons & Dragons (as exemplified as well in modules such as X1 -for all its merits-, X4 and so on).

It can be useful as a toolbox. I appreciate some of its input, taken bit by bit, considered each on their own merits. Taken whole-cloth to run Asian-themed campaigns, it would suck, because it would not be "Dungeons & Dragons".

Now, more on where I am coming from, and why I don't like 2nd edition AD&D (edit - language in those posts might not be safe for work, you have been warned).


----------



## pemerton (Mar 3, 2012)

Balesir said:


> There seem to be some for whom only their own cherished playstyle represents "D&D", and they seem (in _some_ cases) to be determined to wage an all out war to claim that name.
> 
> I'm not really interested in fighting a war over three syllables. If they want it that much, screw it, let them have the name. This is why, if D&D Next turns out to be a revamp of 3E (or whatever), it won't particularly bother me at all.



I agree with this, in the sense that I can cheerfully play an unsupported game. I've done that with Rolemaster in the past. And WotC don't owe me anything - if they want to stop publishing the game I enjoy, and start publishing a different one that they believe will be commercially more viable, that's their prerogative as a commercial publishing house.

My irritation is with the implication from some posters that, because I play and enjoy 4e, I'm not a legitimate member of the D&D community (whatever exactly that is).



Neonchameleon said:


> If Dungeons and Dragons is about the tropes D&D has built up for itself over the years then 4e is not D&D.  On the other hand if D&D is about Appendix N and the stories presented in Appendix N then 4e is closer to D&D than any edition there has been



I agree with the second sentence. But I'm not sure about the first. Obviously D&D covers a range of tropes, and I'm not sure which ones you have in mind. But the tropes I think of when I think D&D (and gonzo fantasy more broadly) are many and wacky monsters (ranging from multiple forms of humanoid through giants and witches and werewolves to dragons and griffons and rocs to mind flayers and aboleths and, heaven help us, beholders), other planes that are sources of foes and places of adventures, demons and devils trying to subvert and destroy the world (including Demorgogon, Orcus, Juiblex and Slaad Lords), PC heroes who are richly and thematically defined personae, who fight and survive implausibly many battles, and gradually but steadily rise from relative insignificance to world-shaking prominence.

These are the tropes that I first began to encounter in Fighting Fantasy Gamebooks, and then discovered in B/X D&D. Rolemaster also offers them (whereas Runequest doesn't - part of the reason why I gravitated from D&D to RM rather than to RQ). And so does 4e.



Odhanan said:


> Oriental Adventures is the fruit of Dave Cook's work and vision. It already contains elements of the 2essification of the game like the Non-Weapon Proficiencies, an absence of focus on the exploration of the dungeon and wilderness, and suffers from a typically Cookian POV that the foreign culture depicted is fantastical enough that you don't need to actually treat the "Dungeons & Dragons" part of ... Dungeons & Dragons
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I'm not a big fan of 2nd ed AD&D. I think it's GMing advice is poor and many of the modules railroads. I can see the links you are drawing between OA and 2nd ed, but OA does not have the same GMing advice and does not need to be run as a railroad, and does not particularly encourage it.

All that said, I think it one thing to say "I don't care for 2nd ed AD&D", but another thing to say that it is not D&D. It was the published game for 10 years, after all.



talok55 said:


> IExactly how do ultra gamist, non-sensical mechanics (which 4E is full of) enhance your ability to tell the stories you want to tell?  I know this sounds snarky, but I really can't get my head around this.  If anything I would think that non-sensical things like a warlord yelling someone back into a fight would break immersion and thus detract from telling good stories. I guess others want super heroic, leave any semblance of realism behind, kind of games that don't appeal to me.



This strikes me as needlessly insulting. Instead of asserting, with no evidence, that my game is full of nonsensical things that leave any semblance of realism behind, you could always have asked how I (or other 4e GMs) handle metagame mechanics like hp, Inspiring Word, etc.



Kingreaper said:


> 4e is full of NARRATIVIST mechanics (limit breaker powers, you can shout someone back into the fight, etc.)
> 
> That scene where someone is faltering, but their friend boosts their courage/reminds them why they're fighting/threatens to kill them if they die, is a staple of fiction.
> 
> The fact you think that being able to emulate a staple of fiction makes it harder to tell stories is simply confusing.



Completely agreed.

The scene I tend to think of, as an example of someone's love for a friend ally reviving him/her from unconcsciousness, is the Aragorn dream sequences in the Two Towers. The only way to duplicate that in an RPG, as far as I am aware, is via a metagame mechanic of some form or other - by definition, the PC cannot act within the fiction, being unconscious. Inspiring Word is one such mechanic. (And it can also work in the way you describe - the unconscious PC hears the cry of his/her friend and ally over the pounding of the blood in his/her head, and returns to the fray.)


----------



## Odhanan (Mar 3, 2012)

pemerton said:


> All that said, I think it one thing to say "I don't care for 2nd ed AD&D", but another thing to say that it is not D&D. It was the published game for 10 years, after all.



These are two different things indeed. It's the difference between "I don't care for this game" and "this game went against many of the tropes and game play aspects of what I consider to be the core of the Dungeons & Dragons game, and I see that as a problem, because it changed my enjoyment of the game for the worse over the years." I am very much saying the latter, not the former. It has nothing to do with whatever book had the "Dungeons & Dragons" name printed on its cover, or how long this or that game wearing the "Dungeons & Dragons" name was published by the copyright holder of the time. I hope you realize that.


----------



## Odhanan (Mar 3, 2012)

Kingreaper said:


> 4e is full of NARRATIVIST mechanics (limit breaker powers, you can shout someone back into the fight, etc.)
> 
> That scene where someone is faltering, but their friend boosts their courage/reminds them why they're fighting/threatens to kill them if they die, is a staple of fiction.




It's one of my big problems with that iteration of the game. Basically you have game mechanics that make sense from a gamist and/or narrativist standpoint, and I wouldn't define myself as either of those types. 

I like immersion. I like to act as my character in a game world in motion that is considered an alternate reality unfolding _live_ as the events follow their natural course in the game. I don't want to be the co-author of a "story" with "narrative control". I want to role play my character from my character's standpoint, not as a pupetteer building a drama from afar.

Likewise, I do not want the game rules and the board to be the game itself. The game itself for me is what happens in this world in motion I was just talking about. All the rest is window dressing and adjudication material that helps the make-believe to stay coherent. It's not the point of the game to me. The make-believe is.

I'm what you might call an immersionist, or a simulationist. Whatever jargon you might want to use. I love role playing, but have no interest in "building stories and narratives" in a role playing game. Neither do I want to consider its rules to be the point of the game itself. It's never been, for me.


----------



## Balesir (Mar 5, 2012)

Odhanan said:


> I like immersion. I like to act as my character in a game world in motion that is considered an alternate reality unfolding _live_ as the events follow their natural course in the game. I don't want to be the co-author of a "story" with "narrative control". I want to role play my character from my character's standpoint, not as a pupetteer building a drama from afar.
> 
> Likewise, I do not want the game rules and the board to be the game itself. The game itself for me is what happens in this world in motion I was just talking about. All the rest is window dressing and adjudication material that helps the make-believe to stay coherent. It's not the point of the game to me. The make-believe is.
> 
> I'm what you might call an immersionist, or a simulationist. Whatever jargon you might want to use. I love role playing, but have no interest in "building stories and narratives" in a role playing game. Neither do I want to consider its rules to be the point of the game itself. It's never been, for me.



Point 1: bravo for not only being someone who prefers a Simulationist agenda (in the Forge sense of the term) but also clearly understands what that means.

Point 2: how do you find levels, hit points and experience points synchronise with your "make believe"? I have always found these to be a barrier to immersion/Sim-focussed play with D&D.

Point 3: I can say from personal experience that Gamist and Simulationist play can both be enjoyed by the same person. I still find them difficult to mix - in Hârn, for example, I houserule out potential Gamist drivers or a Gamist focus begins to creep in - but I really enjoy playing both HârnMaster and D&D 4E; I just do so with very different expectations and aims.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 5, 2012)

Balesir said:


> Point 2: how do you find levels, hit points and experience points synchronise with your "make believe"? I have always found these to be a barrier to immersion/Sim-focussed play with D&D.
> 
> .




I am also in the immersionist camp on this one and would say (as i have done before) it is fundamentally about believabillity, not creating a physics engine. So any mechanics that seriously disrupt immersion by creating glaring instances of inconsistency or disconnect between me and the game world are a problem. Levels and exp are really not that much of an issue here (and there are not that many alternatives for a class based system). As long as xp progression makes a modicum of sense (getting a bunch of xp for killing a dragon is reasonable, but gaining xp for completing a storyline is iffy for me); and dont forget about the old ad&d training rules for advancement.

HP is a bit abstract and doesnt model wounds well but as a simple and broad method it works well provided the gm is consistent. The issue is D&D is heroic, so characters aren't supposed to drop like flies. HP in older editions worked well enough for me, it was really the introduction of healing surges and such that went a step too far for my taste. For D&D, i like HP. For other games I usually favor a gritty wound system.


----------



## Otakkun (Mar 6, 2012)

Balesir said:


> Point 2: how do you find levels, hit points and experience points synchronise with your "make believe"? I have always found these to be a barrier to immersion/Sim-focussed play with D&D.




Well, reality is boring. We are far too fragile ^^


----------



## Neonchameleon (Mar 6, 2012)

talok55 said:


> I didn't return to D&D with 4e because 4e is _not_ D&D. I returned to D&D with 4e because with 4e, D&D finally had the mechanics to deliver the sort of stories that it had been promising me for over 20 years, but that I had been using other mechanical systems to achieve.
> 
> Exactly how do ultra gamist, non-sensical mechanics (which 4E is full of) enhance your ability to tell the stories you want to tell? I know this sounds snarky, but I really can't get my head around this. If anything I would think that non-sensical things like a warlord yelling someone back into a fight would break immersion and thus detract from telling good stories. I guess others want super heroic, leave any semblance of realism behind, kind of games that don't appeal to me.




Watch any boxing movie ever where the coach is yelling at the boxer to get back up off the mat.  Watch almost any war film where someone finds the energy to keep going because of loved ones.  Watch Lord of the Rings with Aragorn being given the dream.  Sure it's cinematic.  But it's very common and bears some resemblance to real life - I'd hardly call this "ultra-gamist".

Just about every form of non-gritty fiction has this "non-sensical" aspect.  What they don't have?  Scry and Fry.  Flying bricks who can shoot laser beams and are completely immune to non-magical missiles.  If I want superheroes, it depends what I want.  If I want Batman, 4e does the job admirably - as it does for Indiana Jones.  If I want Superman or Dr Strange, or the Incredible Hulk I'm going to have to use 3e and make Superman with overlapping spells.



Crazy Jerome said:


> It would be mostly unfair, but not without some merit to say that 3E tends to read like a story, play like a videogame, whereas 4E tends to read like a videogame, play like a story.




You must spread XP around...


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Mar 6, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> It does raise the question of how NPCs will be handled in published products, which modular options will be in use by default.  If an NPC is built using particular options and there's no equivalent option that handles the same abilities, this might get a bit tricky, particularly in regard to what level of PC group that NPC can challenge (assuming it is an NPC that would be at odds with the PCs for whatever reasons).




And this is the real nut of the matter right here folks.

Modularity can perhaps work in a sense, but it can't be meaningful. Every published resource is going to have to assume some baseline configuration of game you're actually playing. Go to a con, use the 'standard' rules. Go to any organized event, use the 'standard' rules. Run a module, use the 'standard' rules (OK, here maybe they'll tack on some notes on some options, maybe). 

Beyond that WotC is NOT going to support 82 different sorts of play. They are going to support ONE style of play (heck, they haven't even shown a terribly good track record of being able to do that consistently). There's not going to be any real support for interactions between modules, etc. There's not likely to be any sort of support for anything but the most widely used 'standard' options at all. And as we can see from 4e DDI such support is a self-fulfilling prophesy. If Vancian 3e-style is the devs pet magic system do you really think you're going to get anything but a nod to AEDU or whatever? Of course not. They'll keep putting out support for what they like or imagine that more people want. This is perfectly natural of course, because they'll figure that's where they can make money. 

Its kind of inevitable. Get what you want into the core, or it basically might as well be homebrew. 

Its not that I like this, but that's just the way it is. In terms of magic systems, there will really only be one that is practically usable. It will get all the new spells, all NPCs will use it, the modules will use it, you'll have to use it if you play in any organized play, etc.


----------



## Kingreaper (Mar 6, 2012)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Its not that I like this, but that's just the way it is. In terms of magic systems, there will really only be one that is practically usable. It will get all the new spells, all NPCs will use it, the modules will use it,* you'll have to use it if you play in any organized play,* etc.




Ummm.... No.

Magic system is one of the things that is PC-side modular.

PC-side things are all, naturally, able to co-exist unless explicitly banned. They're not going to ban Warlocks in organised play.

You're being far more pessimistic than you have any cause to be.


----------



## Balesir (Mar 6, 2012)

Otakkun said:


> Well, reality is boring. We are far too fragile ^^



Oh, sure - but you don't need hit points - let alone escalating hit points based on the number of creatures you have killed - to fix that in a roleplaying game.

The problem is that, with those system features, something will always arise to throw immersion out. A L1 character getting killed by a housecat. A high level character jumping out of a fifth story window and walking away.

Once again, you could mitigate this with work-arounds and house rules and adventure design and yadda yadda yadda... But, I figure, why not plug the gap at its source by picking a different system?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Mar 6, 2012)

Kingreaper said:


> Ummm.... No.
> 
> Magic system is one of the things that is PC-side modular.
> 
> ...




Just remember who said it, and look at the Runepriest vs the Fighter. The logic is clear.

Just a couple of other notes on this:

1) It is unproven that 'PC-side things can all co-exist'. In fact I find this whole aspect of the modularity concept highly unlikely. Some limited options will probably work OK on different characters. Which exactly ones those are will be highly dependent on what you consider 'works OK'. I'd note that many people here don't even think E-Martial classes work OK. I'm not as picky as that, but I've been around a long time and I've really not seen this mythical disparate yet equal mechanics in a game. 

2) Which option is this? You have to realize, the unpopular 'options' simply won't be developed enough to BE really usable. Sure, you can play your AEDU wizard that has all of 40 spells, or you can play your Vancian wizard that has 300. Even if they are hypothetically 'equal' in some theorycraft way, they aren't ACTUALLY equivalent, which is all I care about.

3) Everything but the PCs are going to be using the 'standard' option in any case where you're playing published material. Of course the DM can deal with this, but what is the point of buying a game where you have to homebrew at least half of it to play how you want? It is the wrong game for you at best. 

'Modular' is effectively a pipe dream. Of course you can tack 42 different sorts of mechanical options onto any game, label them all 'optional' and have a 'modular' game. That is not at all the same thing as having a game that fully supports a variety of very different play styles. Supporting that is no less work (and no more likely to happen) than putting out 8 different games and supporting them all. WotC doesn't have any interest in supporting more than one RPG now. Show me where there is even a snowball's chance in the nether regions they're going to support even 4 styles of D&D play. They don't even support 4e's version of GW.

And lets suppose for a moment they DID try to support all those different play styles... What is going to happen? They're going to put out 2 modules grand total for each one, and 1 or 2 supplements a year? Do you think that level of support is going to impress the people playing PF right now? Really? Do you need a bridge? It is absurd. WotC guys are not dumb. They understand all of this. I don't doubt for a minute they'll provide some basic modules for "4e style play" and some for "3e style play" but bluntly one of those styles is going to be DOA because that's pretty much the last we'll here of it. If your tastes don't happen to be the ones WotC chooses to cater to, you're going to be pretty much out in the cold and better off playing a different game.


----------



## Hassassin (Mar 6, 2012)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> And this is the real nut of the matter right here folks.
> 
> Modularity can perhaps work in a sense, but it can't be meaningful.




Yes it can. Character creation and abilities can be almost completely modular without affecting adventure design.

For the designer it doesn't matter whether your fighter uses a normal attack, the Power Attack feat or the Brute Strike power, as long as it helps kill the orc. It doesn't matter whether you resolve the combat in half an hour on a grid or five minutes without one.

However, it matters to the character and player how those abilities are gained, how they work, what resources are involved. It matters to the group how much fun they derive from the combat and how much time they use on it.

Different modular options just have to be balanced and use the same monster and challenge entries (including DCs).


----------



## Odhanan (Mar 6, 2012)

Balesir said:


> Point 1: bravo for not only being someone who prefers a Simulationist agenda (in the Forge sense of the term) but also clearly understands what that means.



Welcome. I try to resist using this type of jargon because I think this is fundamentally divisive. I don't believe you (or me or anyone) are either a Simulationist OR a Narrativist OR a Gamist. I like to solve tactical situations in the game world as my character, I like to strategize and come up with a plan with the other PCs to overcome obstacles: does that make me a Simulationist, or a Gamist? The answer IMO is "both" AND "neither." 

The Forge had this point that games had to be "coherent", that is, they should appeal to one particular segment of GNS and that's it. If you are mixing bits and pieces of each of these descriptors into your design then your design is "incoherent", you're screwing with the game's "creative agenda", and that's "bad".

I can't disagree more with this. I think this is absolutely, fundamentally stupid. I think that a game like D&D pulls some of its strength from the fact it can appeal to a wide variety of gamers in widely different ways, and that's an "incoherence", from the Forge's POV, that it should absolutely RETAIN if it wants to keep on succeeding in the future. 

How you create a core game that is basically satisfying to all these audiences AND then bring to the table specific modules which alter or modify the core to really help people who want a particular style at their game table is the real trick here.



Balesir said:


> Point 2: how do you find levels, hit points and experience points synchronise with your "make believe"? I have always found these to be a barrier to immersion/Sim-focussed play with D&D.



There's this idea out there that basically when you are a "Simulationist" you are just interested in the rules as a Physics Engine. That it's "Sim" as in "Simulation of RL". I think that's a wrong assumption. 

What is, however, important is that the rules make sense from the World's point of view, whether we are talking about a RL inspired setting, or a completely off the wall crazy setting, there has to be some coherence in what the rules actually simulate. And again, it can be anything, it does not presupposes that it would have to be "Reality". 

I always liked D&D's abstractions. I think it's a great way to bring people in, rather than reject them. The more the game engages in tetrapyloctomy and tries to erase these abstractions, the more specific it becomes, the less it is going to appeal to a wide variety of people, IMO. 

But abstraction doesn't mean that the rules are divorced from the game world. They are still simulating aspects of it, albeit in abstract ways you can make sense of if you think about them a little bit. I consequently have no problem with Hit Points, Experience, ACs and the like, personally. 



Balesir said:


> Point 3: I can say from personal experience that Gamist and Simulationist play can both be enjoyed by the same person. I still find them difficult to mix - in Hârn, for example, I houserule out potential Gamist drivers or a Gamist focus begins to creep in - but I really enjoy playing both HârnMaster and D&D 4E; I just do so with very different expectations and aims.



I think the notion that these "play styles" or "inclinations" we're describing are strict delimitations in the actual brains of real people is ludicrous. I further think that the notion these "play styles" or "inclinations" should be clearly delimited in your brain otherwise you are fundamentally "brain-damaged", "like a rape victim is," by the "incoherent" games you've played before is frankly outrageous, insulting, but more than that, a completely counter-intuitive idea when it comes to discussing what's actually going on for gamers playing an RPG in real time, and therefore how games should be designed to catter to their particular inclinations, however gloriously "incoherent" they truly are.

I think that people are more complex than the Forge would like to think. They like to say, hang out together, eat Cheetos and roll dice, and ALSO happen to want to be able to immerse in their character when they want to, WHILE enjoying the strategic challenge of the campaign, etc. It's not either/or stuff. 

The real problem with the Forge's rhetoric is that it makes these "agenda" oppose each other, to the point where it posits that some of these "agenda" are either inferior, or simply do not exist! As was the case when Ron Edwards started postulating that Simulationism really doesn't exist, and that in fact people sharing its inclinations are simply "unaware" that they "do" have a creative agenda and that if they opened their eyes, it'd be clear they're either Narrativists or Gamists. 

That right there is total bullcrap that is uber-divisive in nature, and I won't stand for that. I'll avoid the rant, but basically, I think that the whole GNS theory is absolute garbage because it is poisoned by this sort of divisive thinking at the well. I think the Threefold model can be useful to talk broadly, THEORETICALLY, about gamer inclinations, but it is FAR from being an accurate model, or the only model that could or would matter to actually try to describe the complex reality of gaming and gamers.


----------



## Kingreaper (Mar 6, 2012)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Just remember who said it, and look at the Runepriest vs the Fighter. The logic is clear.



Yes, the logic *IS* clear.

You claimed that some classes would be unavailable for organised play. 

Hmm, have they banned the runepriest? No. Didn't think so.

So, umm, yeah. Your claim, the claim that you wouldn't be able to play non-vancian classes at organised games, was wrong.

I don't deny some will get more support than others. But they won't be banning warlocks from organised play for not being vancian.

You are being illogically pessimistic.


----------



## Odhanan (Mar 6, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> I am also in the immersionist camp on this one and would say (as i have done before) it is fundamentally about believabillity, not creating a physics engine.



That's basically what I was trying to explain. I think BG gets it.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Mar 6, 2012)

Kingreaper said:


> Yes, the logic *IS* clear.
> 
> You claimed that some classes would be unavailable for organised play.
> 
> ...




Well, first the RP was an example of what happens when a game option isn't that popular. It simply gets no more (or trivially little) support and becomes even MORE unpopular because who's going to play the option that gets no support. 

Also, non-Essentials classes aren't supported in most organized play, at least officially. You aren't supposed to use them in Encounters for instance. This is however a bit different situation, since the pre-E classes WERE the main line of support. There's a very great difference between SERIAL support and PARALLEL support. When options appear serially and are each well supported for a while and then WotC goes on to something else the old thing doesn't become less supported or less playable.

This is totally different from "OK, here's your 40 Vancian AD&D style open-ended spells" and that's all you ever get because 4e-style AEDU power wizards were more popular (which actually probably means that they were just better supported on day one and so people played them more). 

This process is virtually inevitable. It is just basic business reality. WotC WILL face a choice. They will have to choose between putting out material that supports ALL the options and thus making each product more expensive, or simply choosing one and supporting it exclusively or mostly, at which point it becomes effectively THE main option. Support will inevitably narrow more and more as certain options simply get more support for whatever reasons (choice or happenstance, whatever). Those trends are self-reinforcing and pretty soon you only have one set that are really meaningfully supported. Trust me, it will happen. It will particularly happen with magic systems as they're the most extensive and resource intensive parts of the system to support. 

[MENTION=6675228]Hassassin[/MENTION] It really depends. Many 3.x fans will tell you that having the NPCs made to the same specs as the PCs is a 'must have'. Thus they will want NPCs made using their preferred options. 4e people generally aren't too fond of that notion. 

As for adventures, well, if you're running low level adventures, yeah, then there's a certain point where its an orc and who cares. The thing is you can't simply assume that higher level PCs won't have options that obviate or bypass things, or that other assumptions like resource management and pacing match up with the options you're using. You're also going to have a sort of 'lowest common denominator' thing going on. For instance in 1e modules never use or assume psionics because it is optional. In fact higher level modules that have a fair number of monsters that have optional psionics are almost unplayable if you use the 1e psionics rules with them. This is a small example.

Don't get me wrong, I think some limited numbers of optional rules are feasible. I think you can make 'core' systems that support 'modules' that let you play in different genre (BRP is used in a lot of different Chaosium games, or of course the classic case, GURPS). I just do not believe you can effectively maintain a whole set of parallel options that cover the same ground and are intended to be used together with the same material, especially if you are going to try to actually balance them against each other.

It just isn't going to work. The best they will end up being able to do is create several marginally supported options in the core PHB and some nominal degree of support for each one beyond that for a while. Then they'll just have to hope or assume that the less popular options are picked up by 3PPs and that people will be happy with that while they focus on the one most popular option that will in their minds maybe give them a hope of being #1 RPG again. So, some of us will be playing D&D, and some of us will be playing 3PP semi-D&D, at which point one has to ask if we might not just go try out Savage Worlds or something... lol.


----------



## Balesir (Mar 6, 2012)

Odhanan said:


> That's basically what I was trying to explain. I think BG gets it.



I'm not going to get into a Forge debate again because railing against "what Ron Edwards says" makes any useful discussion hopeless, in my experience. Suffice to say I find the model itself useful, and, no, it does not describe players' "type" or "taste in RPGs".

My question, therefore, tried to stick with practical, in-play issues. I'm not really talking about being "like the real world", or "being a physics engine", either. Just about a system that fully supports a consistent game world. Hit points and levels always come to a point of dissonance, for me, where they don't any longer describe any sort of world I can believe in from an "immersed in the world" standpoint. I realise this is a persoanl thing - as is more-or-less everything around immersion-led play "suspension of disbelief".

The central issue, I think, is that hit points necessarily mean that a character reaches a point where any meaningful damage will kill/incapacitate, and high level characters will always be able to walk away from damage that would kill in any plausible milieu. If the damage is defined after the mechanical effects have been resolved, this can work fine, but I have never managed to play using character immersion where the system worked this way.

Thus, I have always found that systems where a wound is something separate from all other wounds you may have, and is dangerous to some degree in itself, works better for immersionist play.

P.S.: Out of curiosity - do you use random characteristic and spell/item/etc. determination for character generation when you play? I think I may be seeing some threads, here, but it is, as you say, hugely complex (and often unnecessarily vague, IMO, but still...)


----------



## Odhanan (Mar 6, 2012)

Balesir said:


> I'm not going to get into a Forge debate again because railing against "what Ron Edwards says" makes any useful discussion hopeless, in my experience. Suffice to say I find the model itself useful, and, no, it does not describe players' "type" or "taste in RPGs".



You're right it's best to steer clear from these sorts of arguments/debates, because then we won't have finished in time for supper, as they say! 



Balesir said:


> My question, therefore, tried to stick with practical, in-play issues. I'm not really talking about being "like the real world", or "being a physics engine", either. Just about a system that fully supports a consistent game world. Hit points and levels always come to a point of dissonance, for me, where they don't any longer describe any sort of world I can believe in from an "immersed in the world" standpoint. I realise this is a persoanl thing - as is more-or-less everything around immersion-led play "suspension of disbelief".



I think I get what you're saying in that we are seemingly speaking the same language and share some concerns of verisimilitude as far as the game's rules are concerned.

I don't have the same issues as you do, however. Maybe it's a question of how much abstraction we are comfortable playing with, you and I? It's always been clear to me Hit Points didn't represent wounds, or that levels are something abstract that represent the adventurer's experience of the dangers that lie beyond and how he deals with them, how far removed from level-0 normality he really is, if you will, or that AC is itself an abstraction of numerous elements and not just "how hard you are to hit". 

I do have concerns regarding immersion and suspension of disbelief, however, and some mechanics generally rub me the wrong way towards that end (like bennies or fate points allowing you to change the scenery or "edit scenes", power attrition based solely on game balance or narrative concerns, and so on.



Balesir said:


> The central issue, I think, is that hit points necessarily mean that a character reaches a point where any meaningful damage will kill/incapacitate, and high level characters will always be able to walk away from damage that would kill in any plausible milieu. If the damage is defined after the mechanical effects have been resolved, this can work fine, but I have never managed to play using character immersion where the system worked this way.



I'm not sure I can relate (as in, I don't think I'm grasping your point fully because I don't share the same experiences and POV, so I might get it wrong). 

To me, hit points are a compound. They represent a number of things, like say fatigue, energy, health, the will to go on, and so on, so forth. This abstraction works fine for me in many ways, and I don't think there's much of an issue when some very particular corner cases create some dissonances on that level of abstraction (I'm thinking of the case of falling damage for instance which is usually referenced when talking about problems with the abstraction of HP). I think that generally, things start going wrong if you interpret HPs to be only one thing at the exclusion of the others: if you only interpret them as fatigue, then things like bigger weapons doing bigger damage will start not to make sense; if on the contrary you interpret them as pure wounds, then other stuff like the Warlord "shouting people back to health" stop making sense. 

So it's all about keeping the abstraction intact when you have rules that deal with HPs IMO. Take for instance Healing Surges. As an abstraction they are fine with me... up to a certain point. The problem with them is if, for instance, you were to recuperate ALL your hit points that way, exclusively. Then you're basically saying "all hit points damage can be healed by shaking stuff off and taking a breather" which doesn't compute with me at all: one part of the abstraction is favored to the exclusion of its other parts, as if cuts were closing magically, bruises became brown instead of purplish blue in a matter of minutes, and so on. So some abstraction of a second wind that allows you to recuperate HP damage, I'm fine with, or the Warlord's ability to heal people by helping them out, giving them back the force to fight, that's cool too. When it starts getting wonky is when ALL damage can be healed that way, or that the recuperation rate is so high that characters basically can heal all the damage they took in a matter of seconds, minutes, hours, a day or two at most. That's wrong and that creates problems with my suspension of disbelief, a problem I do not experience at all when talking about CLW spells and potions because these spells' effects are up to interpretation, and may represent the same compound of effects as HP themselves do (a Cure Light Wound potion might reinvigorate you, heal some of your cuts, make you feel psychologically better... all at the same time, so the abstraction remains intact). 

I believe there's an excluded middle here somewhere. What I hope is that stuff like Healing Surges will be available for those that want them, but that then there will be discussion in the rules book about what surges are, with possibilities for the DM to decide what value of HP recuperation he can attach to each surge, and how that affects the rest of the game's HP economy from there. Then the DM (and players together) can decide what amount of abstraction is cool for the game table, and what isn't.

I hope the game achieves that in terms of modularity (note the same could be said of this or that choice or option regarding save-or-die effects, or level drain, or whatnot: provide options to the DM, not necessarily this option to the exclusion of others, but several choices/options with the explanations that make such choices meaningful for a DM to make in the way he wants to play the game his way, not WotC's way): that some of the very fundamental aspects of the game can be tailored to the needs and inclinations of particular players at particular tables, and thus will be able to play "your D&D" however you see fit, without necessarily jeopardizing the whole structure of the rules and game in the process, but by being conscious of what each choice between this or that option or module entail, and how that affects the rest of the game's play. That'd be fantastic to have.



Balesir said:


> Thus, I have always found that systems where a wound is something separate from all other wounds you may have, and is dangerous to some degree in itself, works better for immersionist play.



I really think our difference is the level of abstraction we are ready to deal with. Your threshold on that level seems to be lower than mine. Would you agree with that, from where you're standing?



Balesir said:


> P.S.: Out of curiosity - do you use random characteristic and spell/item/etc. determination for character generation when you play? I think I may be seeing some threads, here, but it is, as you say, hugely complex (and often unnecessarily vague, IMO, but still...)



Yup. Random stats (4d6 drop lowest in AD&D generally, and 3d6 in order with OD&D), spells as per DMG (that is, you get some automatic spells plus some random ones). 

From my experience transitioning from a 3rd edition game format to a 0e/1e format, I'd say that interestingly enough my players have been more enthused by random generation. When you deal with point-buy and those kinds of things, it requires the player to know and understand what the currency means, what amount of points equates to that rating and so on, whereas when you roll, that's it: you've got your scores generated and you're done. My wife actually prefers random, 3d6-in-order stat generation because as she says "it's really cool: you see what the dice of the universe throw at you, and then you make the best of it!" That's how she played her first fighter ever and LOVED it, btw.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Mar 6, 2012)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> @Hassassin It really depends. Many 3.x fans will tell you that having the NPCs made to the same specs as the PCs is a 'must have'. Thus they will want NPCs made using their preferred options. 4e people generally aren't too fond of that notion.
> 
> As for adventures, well, if you're running low level adventures, yeah, then there's a certain point where its an orc and who cares. The thing is you can't simply assume that higher level PCs won't have options that obviate or bypass things, or that other assumptions like resource management and pacing match up with the options you're using. You're also going to have a sort of 'lowest common denominator' thing going on. For instance in 1e modules never use or assume psionics because it is optional. In fact higher level modules that have a fair number of monsters that have optional psionics are almost unplayable if you use the 1e psionics rules with them. This is a small example.




Being able to make the NPCs as PCs is what they say is a "must have".  But anyone that wants that can do it in 4E today.  Anyone that will not buy over that issue is really saying, "I don't want the DM to be able to do anything that I can't do, and vice versa," for whatever reason.  There is no way that any set of rules will cater to that group 100% with adventures, unless that is all the adventures do.  So no, people adamant about that are not going to get what they want--and justly so, since it is ultimately a demand that a system designed to be modular sacrifice huge chuncks of the design goal to satisfy them and only them.  This is especially true since the *only* version of D&D being emulated that has even part of that particular aspect is the 3.*/PF family.  

That said, I do thing there is some room for modular rules in adventures.  The Iron Crown Enterprises "Shadow World" didn't do a bad job mechanically supporting both Fantasy Hero and Rolemaster, and those are two totally separate system.  You can have your orcs as "just orcs" in most places, but then also have a few options tossed onto the orc shaman or chieftan.  Nothing wrong with the standard bugbear having "Sneaky +3" in the skill sections--which you can then use in the optional skill system, use only as flavor for the straight ability check, or ignore entirely.  

Things like psionics are another issue entirely.  Now we aren't talking about modular for how something plays, but modular for genre and feel. Of course you can't litter an adventure with psionic stuff and make it perfect for people who don't like psionics.  That was true in any version.  I remember several 2E Dungeon adventures that had a few notes on how and what to swap out to remove the psionic, but it didn't do the work for you.  

As for unpopular things not getting used much ... I'm not seeing the downside.    People who like unpopular things have always had to do the retrofitting themselves.  Having modular systems can make this more palatable, but it can't make it seemless.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Mar 6, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> Being able to make the NPCs as PCs is what they say is a "must have".  But anyone that wants that can do it in 4E today.  Anyone that will not buy over that issue is really saying, "I don't want the DM to be able to do anything that I can't do, and vice versa," for whatever reason.  There is no way that any set of rules will cater to that group 100% with adventures, unless that is all the adventures do.  So no, people adamant about that are not going to get what they want--and justly so, since it is ultimately a demand that a system designed to be modular sacrifice huge chuncks of the design goal to satisfy them and only them.  This is especially true since the *only* version of D&D being emulated that has even part of that particular aspect is the 3.*/PF family.
> 
> That said, I do thing there is some room for modular rules in adventures.  The Iron Crown Enterprises "Shadow World" didn't do a bad job mechanically supporting both Fantasy Hero and Rolemaster, and those are two totally separate system.  You can have your orcs as "just orcs" in most places, but then also have a few options tossed onto the orc shaman or chieftan.  Nothing wrong with the standard bugbear having "Sneaky +3" in the skill sections--which you can then use in the optional skill system, use only as flavor for the straight ability check, or ignore entirely.
> 
> ...




I'm just saying, the game is not going to satisfy everyone or even quite a few people simply by being 'modular'. YOU may find the 3e 'NPCs must follow the same rules' people kind of ridiculous and not in need of being catered to, but those people will want 1PP material that works that way. Maybe most are not too extreme about it, but I think you can easily find threads full of debate about it right here on Enworld. 

My point about psionics is that if you wanted to use psionics in 1e then SOME modules would need rewriting in some degree. Of course psionics were not used a lot, so it was not a big deal. Now substitute "Vancian Casting with open-ended spells" for "psionics" and 5e for '1e'... It has nothing to do with genre feel.

Otherwise, no, I don't totally disagree with you. You can do a bit of this and that, but honestly the real struggle here is over 'feel' of the game and how people play it. I don't understand how a game that tries to modularize that in some fashion can work. It has to eventually pick a style of game that it supports. Believe me, the best they can do is produce an edition that pleases the largest splinter group around, and MAYBE mollifies some others enough that they buy it still. 

I don't understand the point.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Mar 6, 2012)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I'm just saying, the game is not going to satisfy everyone or even quite a few people simply by being 'modular'. YOU may find the 3e 'NPCs must follow the same rules' people kind of ridiculous and not in need of being catered to, but those people will want 1PP material that works that way. Maybe most are not too extreme about it, but I think you can easily find threads full of debate about it right here on Enworld.
> 
> My point about psionics is that if you wanted to use psionics in 1e then SOME modules would need rewriting in some degree. Of course psionics were not used a lot, so it was not a big deal. Now substitute "Vancian Casting with open-ended spells" for "psionics" and 5e for '1e'... It has nothing to do with genre feel.
> 
> ...




Well, a lot of people want things they aren't going to get. I want all the art done in several styles, ranging from say, circa 1500 Italy to French impressionism, and never a touch of certain of the more iconic artists. I'm not going to get what I want.  

I'm not saying that wanting all NPCs to be built like PCs is inherently ridiculous. I'm saying that demanding that out of a modular game attempting to emulate the feel of all editions of D&D--is not going to happen. They *might*, though I doubt it, manage to put in some things that convey the feel of NPCs being more like PCs, by means other than building them the same, but ultimately that is up to the portrayal of the NPCs by the DM. In any case, that claim is a proxy for "Make it like 3.*/PF, only better". The chances of that are about the same as my chances of getting the art I want. 

But on the larger point, as I believe I've even seen you write a few times, no, people who really, really prefer 4E, 3E, 2E, or even certain aspects of BECMI or 1E--will probably not find 5E their favorite version. After all, someone that "all in" for their current preference is hard to please more with anything new. I've sailed through countless iterations of soft drinks, rival brands, etc. I'm still drinking classic Mt Dew by preference. Someone pushing another brand or selling Mt Dew in red are not after me. 

I just don't believe that most gamers are as locked-in as all that. I think most of us like things that work, that do a pretty good job of doing what we want. If something goes after a "feel" from a new angle, we might like that too. I keep saying that D&D versions are like planets in the solar system, because I think there is a lot of untapped, empty space in the D&D universe. Someone who likes X from 3E and Y from 4E but would like the simplicity of BECMI--they might prefer a system that doesn't cater to a particular version.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Mar 7, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> Well, a lot of people want things they aren't going to get. I want all the art done in several styles, ranging from say, circa 1500 Italy to French impressionism, and never a touch of certain of the more iconic artists. I'm not going to get what I want.
> 
> I'm not saying that wanting all NPCs to be built like PCs is inherently ridiculous. I'm saying that demanding that out of a modular game attempting to emulate the feel of all editions of D&D--is not going to happen. They *might*, though I doubt it, manage to put in some things that convey the feel of NPCs being more like PCs, by means other than building them the same, but ultimately that is up to the portrayal of the NPCs by the DM. In any case, that claim is a proxy for "Make it like 3.*/PF, only better". The chances of that are about the same as my chances of getting the art I want.
> 
> ...




See, here's the thing. Most people don't care, you're right about that. So why are we going through this exercise of panic edition switching then? That's the question. If most people are happy with whatever (and I 100% agree that for my group I could run ANY edition of D&D and they would play it). Obviously small vocal minorities have a big effect. The very FACT that most players will play anything means that the more idiosyncratic tastes of the few people who really care that much dominates. The rest will just play anything.

That, to me is the inevitable conclusion. Of course the issue here is that within this group of people who are more picky we have irreconcilable tastes. Again, I agree with you, the ACTUALITY of 5e will be just some mixture of elements etc. It will not please everyone, but the main people it won't please are some of US, and we'll decide what the groups we run play, etc.


----------

