When the D&D Next playtests were ongoing, there was a lot of talk about how modular the game would be. Now that the game has been out for a bit, how modular do you really find it? I'm looking at a character sheet and am curious specifically about: feats, skills, backgrounds, bonds, personality traits, flaws, ideals, inspiration, proficiency bonus, features and traits, and faction. First, which of those are just role-play and have no mechanical influence, like say eye or hair color? For those that are mechanical and affect die rolls with modifiers or by bestowing skills, powers, etc. - how modular are those? And finally, what, of the modular stuff released so far, do players sort of deem the standard, or default?
I know that's a lot to ask, but I am curious to know if I would find the PHB worth purchasing, and these answers would pretty much cinch it for me. Thanks so much in advance if you made it this far!
Feats and multiclassing are "optional rules" and there's rules in the DMG for modifying rest times.
Otherwise, I don't think the new D&D is any more "modular" than the last two versions were.
Moddable, yes.
Modular, no.
Feats are handled differently in 5e. Every four levels you can get a stat increase or trade it for a feat. Characters will only have a few, if any feats, but they are really goof.
Skills are handled as stat checks. There are no skill points and no skill point allocation. It's a check on the relevant stat. If you have proficiency in the skill, you get to add the proficiency bonus which is based on level.
Backgrounds give you some of you starting skill proficiencies, some gear related to your background, money (sometimes) and a perk related to your background. Entertainer lets you stay in an inn free in exchange for entertaining the crowd for example. They represent what your character did before becoming an adventurer and have a mechanical effect.
Bonds, personality traits, flaws and ideals are purely role-playing. Your character also gets a trinket at first level which is just a quirky little item with some odd property.
Proficiency bonus is a set bonus based on level. For level 1-4, it's +2. You get it in everything you are proficient in. What that is depends on class and background.
Inspiration can be spent to get advantage. You roll 2D20 and pick the best one. You get these from the DM for good role-playing or whatever they want to encourage.
Factions are mostly role-playing but there are faction perks you can earn if the DM uses them. They are mainly part of organized play and pretty specific to the Sword Coast. I don't recall any mention in the main book. they are mostly in the DDAL Player's guide.
There aren't a lot of character options out there beyond the main book, There are some in the Sword Coast book and some in the hardcover adventures associated with those storylines. I don't know about what players in general deem to be standard or optional. I have only had ten or so 5e players total including people playing DDAL in store. DDAL allows nearly everything. The only races considered core by the books themselves are dwarves, elves, halflings and humans. Everything else is listed as uncommon.
Quote from: FaerieGodfather;913919Otherwise, I don't think the new D&D is any more "modular" than the last two versions were.
I would say it's more modular that Pathfinder or 3.x simply because there are a lot fewer moving parts to worry about.
Apparently Mearls idea of "modular" was "You can remove classes, paths, spells, feats, items, etc and not impact the gameplay."
Which while true is not my idea of modular. Which is "You can pull this part from this class and replace this part in this class with it and not impact gameplay."
Though I am starting to wonder if that might be pseudo possible with how the classes are structured. But in the end they dropped the modular claims fairly early and moved forward.
A lot of "Old Schoolers" I play with ditch all the skills and just use the character's background as a guide to what tasks they get to add their prof bonus to.
Personally, I would say it's very modular, in that you can throw out big chunks of it and it still runs fine. Then again, I think the same of 1st ed AD&D.
Quote from: Harlock;913916I know that's a lot to ask, but I am curious to know if I would find the PHB worth purchasing, and these answers would pretty much cinch it for me.
http://www.5thsrd.org/
That should give you enough to decide if you want to toss cash at WotC.
Quote from: Spinachcat;913937http://www.5thsrd.org/
That should give you enough to decide if you want to toss cash at WotC.
I'm out of the loop, what's the legal status of this SRD? Is it complete or are there classes/spells/whatever missing?
Quote from: Omega;913926Which while true is not my idea of modular. Which is "You can pull this part from this class and replace this part in this class with it and not impact gameplay."
It already in 5e and they are called archetypes. And for mixing classes they explain how to do 3e style leveling with the 5e rules.
Quote from: Spinachcat;913937http://www.5thsrd.org/
That should give you enough to decide if you want to toss cash at WotC.
And if you want something written more as a rulebook then try the basic version at.
http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/basicrules?x=dnd/basicrules
Mmmm look they added web versions as well as PDFs.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;913975I'm out of the loop, what's the legal status of this SRD? Is it complete or are there classes/spells/whatever missing?
From my reading there's feats and some other stuff missing. In fact, there is only one feat listed. Thanks for the input and the link to the SRD, everyone. After all that I was able to reach a conclusion that my money would be better spent on expanding the systems I have.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;913975I'm out of the loop, what's the legal status of this SRD? Is it complete or are there classes/spells/whatever missing?
Each class only has one archetype. Not all spells, items, and monsters are included but all the basics found in the original d20 SRD are in there. The only part where it is crippled are backgrounds and feats. As it has exactly one example of each.
Taking a look in the Dungeon Master's Guide you'll find several new options to change the way that the game works. Including stuff like:
- extra attributes, such as Honor and Sanity
- dice proficiency system (instead of a flat bonus, you roll a die)
- combat options (initiative variants such as side initiative and weapon speed factor)
- Plot Points (like bennies, hero points or fate points)
- Fear and horror rules
- rest variants (to change the feel to more gritty and perilous or more super heroic)
- ditching skills and just going with ability scores (with proficiencies based on your class, race and background choices)
- Grid combat rules
- spell points instead of spells/day
All of which can be used or not without changing the game's "balance".
I personally call mixing and matching all of these options quite modular, but I'm in the minority on the internet...
The problem is that everyone had different expectations of what 'modular' meant. And WotC didn't do themselves any favours during development by floating some pretty dramatic stuff in podcasts and panel talks, little of which has seen the light of day. Though I doubt at the time the designers knew how sparse the production schedule for 5E would be.
I agree that this was especially true of 4th ed fans (at least on RPG.net). People wanted to keep their favourite edition alive in the currently supported one. I understand that to a degree, but I can't empathize because 3rd ed burned me out so much that I hated D&D and 4th ed felt too combat-centric (a dangerous claim on the internet these days, I'm sorry). So I wasn't attached to any previous edition at all.
I've actually added stuff from other editions of D&D and D20 games (I'm testing an idea for armour as Damage Reduction, which my crew seems to like, and it's not breaking anything too badly) so I'd say it's pretty modular.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;914065I've actually added stuff from other editions of D&D and D20 games (I'm testing an idea for armour as Damage Reduction, which my crew seems to like, and it's not breaking anything too badly) so I'd say it's pretty modular.
Thanks. I was more interested in how much I could strip away and still have it be 5th edition in scope and feel to most players.
Quote from: Harlock;914073Thanks. I was more interested in how much I could strip away and still have it be 5th edition in scope and feel to most players.
Well, this is MY crew, and they're very easy going.
Quote from: Necrozius;913991Taking a look in the Dungeon Master's Guide you'll find several new options to change the way that the game works. Including stuff like:
- extra attributes, such as Honor and Sanity
- dice proficiency system (instead of a flat bonus, you roll a die)
- combat options (initiative variants such as side initiative and weapon speed factor)
- Plot Points (like bennies, hero points or fate points)
- Fear and horror rules
- rest variants (to change the feel to more gritty and perilous or more super heroic)
- ditching skills and just going with ability scores (with proficiencies based on your class, race and background choices)
- Grid combat rules
- spell points instead of spells/day
All of which can be used or not without changing the game's "balance".
I personally call mixing and matching all of these options quite modular, but I'm in the minority on the internet...
As is said above, what does "modular" mean. To me modular means modules. Package groupings of rules you can simply enable or disable. Tell your players that you're using the "4e Module", at which point these 20 rules exceptions get swapped with these 20 rules exceptions. Kind of like in GURPS 4 where the umpteen million widgets all have their own metadata tag matched to an icon, so the GM says a certain icon is good, off you go to chargen.
They have lots of optional rules, which means it's moddable, but not modular. For example, there is no 3/3.5 combat module set of rules you can use to get back to the grid-based tactical combat of those editions (which is one of the set things they promised).
Instead, you got a lot of Spot Rules and Case Exceptions.
Now if WotC
hadn't specifically stated that the game would be modular, in a way no other game had been, then people wouldn't have expected something different.
Quote from: CRKrueger;914076Now if WotC hadn't specifically stated that the game would be modular, in a way no other game had been, then people wouldn't have expected something different.
My impression is that is a side effect of the enthusiasm they exhibited when they ditched the idea that more is better that ruled 3e and 4e. They saw the incredible diversity of games developed by the OSR and that are based on classic D&D mechanics. And figured that it would be that much better if you purposely did it as a goal rather than the random of development model of the OSR that it would result in a truly modular D&D.
Whatever a person thinks of the OSR, you can't deny that it covers a lot of different variations of customization and complexity with classic D&D. You got Microlite74/75 Black Hack at one extreme. Blood & Treasure and Castle & Crusade have a lot of 3E lite baked in. ACKS has a detailed domain managed and mass combat system bolted on top of B/X D&D. So forth and so on.
I think 5e is modular enough and with classes like the Fighter-Battlemaster and other with the options they already detailed it straightforward to make it as simple or as complex as you want to be with D&D style mechanics.
The thing is, you can swap out a lot of things. Don't like the new Saving Throw System? Put in the one you like, from 3.x or earlier, or from one of the myriad of retroclones and heartbreakers. Don't like the skill system, but like AD&D 2e's Secondary Skills, chop-chop!
It's modular in that you can take other D&D games, whether official or not, with minimal effort and changes necessary.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;914081The thing is, you can swap out a lot of things. Don't like the new Saving Throw System? Put in the one you like, from 3.x or earlier, or from one of the myriad of retroclones and heartbreakers. Don't like the skill system, but like AD&D 2e's Secondary Skills, chop-chop!
It's modular in that you can take other D&D games, whether official or not, with minimal effort and changes necessary.
Again, the distinction seems to be between 'modifiable' and 'modular' with the sense that the latter are provided in an explicit and supported sense. I think WotC put together a fairly robust system that you can tweak without too many obvious cascading effects, but they didn't provide more than a handful of things to plug in beyond the 'standards'.
Now, I admit I may have unrealistic standards in this regard. My first post-D&D system was MERP, and I advanced from there to Rolemaster 2nd Edition--which, once you had a few Companions, was a case where you had enough options and modules to plug in expansions, alternatives, and replacements for almost
every part of the system. Heck, I never got the chance to try, but I was interested in using RMCVI to run a version that would have pretty much obviated the majority of
Arms Law and
Character Law. :)
I'm not entirely sure I understand the meanings of modular and moddable. To me it's more or less one and the same. You take one chunk out, add another one in, maybe reshape a couple of sections needed to make it fit better, but at the end of the day, you've made it your own.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;914090My first post-D&D system was MERP, and I advanced from there to Rolemaster 2nd Edition--which, once you had a few Companions, was a case where you had enough options and modules to plug in expansions, alternatives, and replacements for almost every part of the system. Heck, I never got the chance to try, but I was interested in using RMCVI to run a version that would have pretty much obviated the majority of Arms Law and Character Law. :)
Uh oh, now we actually have some gaming experiences in common... :D
Quote from: CRKrueger;914076Now if WotC hadn't specifically stated that the game would be modular, in a way no other game had been, then people wouldn't have expected something different.
And this is where the game turned kinda ashy in my mouth. Running it a lot, it gave me nothing that I didn't already get elsewhere with other editions or other systems. When I saw them say that - my expectations were grossly incorrectly set at "Much lighter Fantasycraft" which to me is the standard for modular d20. Or at least something leaning in that direction.
I expected more - they delivered less. Thus far.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;914105I'm not entirely sure I understand the meanings of modular and moddable. To me it's more or less one and the same. You take one chunk out, add another one in, maybe reshape a couple of sections needed to make it fit better, but at the end of the day, you've made it your own.
In my design taxonomy it's like this:
Moddable means you take a portion of a mechanical piece as is, and reformulate it to your needs, but it might not change the entire thing. Example: You mod the Wizard class for a new archetype that does
which is not covered by another Archetype. You're not fundamentally changing the Wizard class or the Archetype sub-systems, you're just modding something within it. 5e can do this decently (as Estar pointed out - you just do it with Archetypes, Backgrounds etc.)
Modular means you take a sub-system as is, and you remove it in lieu of an entirely new and different sub-system. This might change the feel of the system on a larger scale. Example: You don't like Vancian magic? Remove it. Plug in scaled Spellpoints magic system. OR plug in Spellpoints into the game to work alongside your Vancian system and have it represent some other "casting system" - etc. And of course you can mod the modules. 5e does not do this very well. It can definitely be done, but it will take a lot of work.
So, assuming I understand Tenbones, my armour and turning it into a DR mechanic, is modular?
A module would contain things like...
A formula to convert AC to AC with DR.
A list of common armors, monsters, etc with converted numbers that the GM could just plug and play.
A list of affected play mechanics and possible modifications to rebalance math or whatever.
If not, it's just a house rule.
Ask yourself, am I replacing an exception-based rule or am I replacing a system those exceptions are based on?
It may seem people are treating the definition of "module" as a little more strict with 5e. Perhaps, but if so, it's because they told us themselves what to expect from their modules, and never released any.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;914135So, assuming I understand Tenbones, my armour and turning it into a DR mechanic, is modular?
Yeah that's how I'd classify it. CRKrueger's putting a finer point to it.
I'd like to say - I'm just using my own kinda taxonomy for the point of discussion. When it comes to designing systems I tend to look at Modules being the tentpole sub-systems that umbrellas all the smaller bits and pieces.
When I look at a system, as a GM, I'm always trying to consider what I like/don't like and if I had to change something I ask myself "what the real need and effort level required to do it." 5e requires *me* to do a lot of work. I can run it just fine as is, but for the kinds of games I run, I find it "underpowered" in terms of how much mechanical bang-for-the-buck I want in my fantasy games. I don't think it was designed for my particular tastes. I either want that shit to be sexy-slick and fast (Savage Worlds) or give me lots of levers and pulleys and modules that I can snap-out and snap-in to express the feel that I want (Fantasycraft) - with the caveat that no system is perfect.
This is why I marvel at the work they did in Fantasycraft. It really is what 3e should have been imo. I think it gets a tremendously bad rep because it seems ULTRA-fiddly, but that's because it has so many levers and buttons and dials and modules it gets crazy dense. Most people assume that you're intended to use *everything* all at once. You're not. You're supposed to pick the parts that work for your campaign and plug it in. Now I fully agree there's a lot to grok about it - but I think the hardest part is unlearning what you already knew about 3e. People make a lot of assumptions before they start reading it and miss the fine-print.
Anyhow - what I wanted in 5e was a much lighter version of FC.
Quote from: CRKrueger;914139A module would contain things like...
A formula to convert AC to AC with DR.
I have that.
Quote from: CRKrueger;914139A list of common armors, monsters, etc with converted numbers that the GM could just plug and play.
I don't have that fully, fleshed out, but I have a series of monsters where it would apply.
Quote from: CRKrueger;914139A list of affected play mechanics and possible modifications to rebalance math or whatever.
I do have this. Well, to put a finer point, I'm testing some out.
Quote from: CRKrueger;914139If not, it's just a house rule.
Ask yourself, am I replacing an exception-based rule or am I replacing a system those exceptions are based on?
It may seem people are treating the definition of "module" as a little more strict with 5e. Perhaps, but if so, it's because they told us themselves what to expect from their modules, and never released any.
Hmm. OK. I see.
Does anyone use the proficiency dice in lieu of static mods? I really liked them in the playtest.
Quote from: cranebump;914190Does anyone use the proficiency dice in lieu of static mods? I really liked them in the playtest.
We do. Our group is used to throwing around multiple dice so the GM thought using dice rather than fixed bonuses would be more fitting. We're only at level 4 so it hasn't had much of an impact yet, but at the moment I like them. I could see them being pretty swingy at higher levels, but given the glacial rate of XP gain so far that won't be a problem for us for quite awhile.
A Module is more a suite that can be exchanged. A modification is more a component that can be adjusted.
A toolbox gives you a broad pile of raw materials, a basic blueprint, and then modules with which to alter the blueprint to your design. 2e, for all the flak it receives, is actually a toolbox, as a lot of module components come right in the core PHB, and a plethora of modular (and modification) additions followed. GURPS is another game that is very DIY build-it-up.
5e does have some modularity, but a lot of time has been lost in following through with replacement modules. Also a lot of the game's raw materials have been pre-formed into a partial blueprint. For some this saves time, for others it costs time because these prefabs have to be replaced.
So Feats are an optional module to replace Ability Score Increases in Class Level Features. But currently that modular space is lying fallow. However, that Feat module has been actively receiving modifications.
Similarly "baked into the cake" prefabrication causes problems if you try to modulate or modify cantrips. If I decided to reintroduce 2e Cantrips spell, a 1st lvl spell, and remove infinite cantrips as a module, I have a cascade of affected Race, Class and Archetype Features. Same issue if I just modify cantrips' core mechanical definition, it too has a cascading consequence.
There is room to develop, but sometimes getting hex socket (Allen) screws and prefab "L" particle board pieces do get in the way.
So what you're saying, Opa, is that 5e is the Ikea of D&D?
Quote from: Omega;913926Apparently Mearls idea of "modular" was "You can remove classes, paths, spells, feats, items, etc and not impact the gameplay."
Which while true is not my idea of modular. Which is "You can pull this part from this class and replace this part in this class with it and not impact gameplay."
Though I am starting to wonder if that might be pseudo possible with how the classes are structured. But in the end they dropped the modular claims fairly early and moved forward.
i agree its not really modular at all. there is the alternate rest rules, and an injuries add on n DMG, at least?
Quote from: Psikerlord;914216i agree its not really modular at all. there is the alternate rest rules, and an injuries add on n DMG, at least?
And more, actually. Like 'spillover' damage, which is similar to the 3.x Cleave/Great Cleave rules, except reworked for every class.
Quote from: tenbones;914125And this is where the game turned kinda ashy in my mouth. Running it a lot, it gave me nothing that I didn't already get elsewhere with other editions or other systems. When I saw them say that - my expectations were grossly incorrectly set at "Much lighter Fantasycraft" which to me is the standard for modular d20. Or at least something leaning in that direction.
I expected more - they delivered less. Thus far.
Yeah, Fantasycraft is exactly what came to mind when the devs were talking up 5E.
Quote from: estar;913987It already in 5e and they are called archetypes. And for mixing classes they explain how to do 3e style leveling with the 5e rules.
Thats not modular. Sorry. No.
Y'all have a very specific and nitpicky idea of what a modular ruleset is. Does anyone have any examples of games that do this according to your definitions?
Quote from: Christopher Brady;914201So what you're saying, Opa, is that 5e is the Ikea of D&D?
I guess you could stretch the analogy like that.
But to be more precise, take your armor as damage reduction idea. This "armor as adding AC as whiff protection" is something that has been part of D&D since the beginning. However 2e did have a modular version of "armor as DR, while AC is modified elsewhere," (it also had a hit-location module, too). It further had a dialogue about how it would work, suggested hierarchy of values for well know armor pieces. On the whole, it was treated as a module, a replacement to the previous core component.
That's why CRKrueger and others consider that a module. Its concept comes with its own suite of blueprints to replace a standard feature. To go IKEA on you, it is the trundle bed option to the bunk bed package, or the dining table leaves extensions to the breakfast nook table.
But it also explains tenbones past frustration with concepts like the Battlemaster. Instead of tooling around in the broader space to supply actual modularity, say to wuxia up, or fantasy fuckin' Vietnam down, the fighter and friends, you get modifying widgets expanding the Battlemaster. The end result is a core class suite that ends up being mostly abandoned to tinker and adorn only one pattern.
Basically, in IKEA-ese, you get more drawers, ladders, and desk options for your L-shaped Loft Beds pattern, while your Bunk Bed and Trundle Bed patterns are ignored -- and no one's even trying to address the potential to combine both beds into a Standard Queen Bed pattern, or anything of the like.
Quote from: Brand55;914193We do. Our group is used to throwing around multiple dice so the GM thought using dice rather than fixed bonuses would be more fitting. We're only at level 4 so it hasn't had much of an impact yet, but at the moment I like them. I could see them being pretty swingy at higher levels, but given the glacial rate of XP gain so far that won't be a problem for us for quite awhile.
Thanks for the info. I liked the concept a lot, and really enjoyed the wider range of results. In the three games I played after publish, though, no one ran with that option.
On a different note, "glacial" XP gain? Is that due to the GM, or is it slow going in 5E world?
Quote from: Omega;914246Thats not modular. Sorry. No.
That's an important consideration when it comes to addressing the question. So, a raft of options does not constitute modularity, since you're simply swapping out rules or tweaking them (I assume I'm getting that right--let me know if I'm not). So, what would a D&D module look like? (curious)
Quote from: cranebump;914262On a different note, "glacial" XP gain? Is that due to the GM, or is it slow going in 5E world?
I honestly don't know as this is the first time in about 8 years anyone else in my group has run a campaign, so I've kept my nose out of anything other than the player's book and just enjoyed getting to play again. It could entirely be the GM, so understand what I'm talking about is just in reference to my group and not 5E as a whole since I'm not an expert on how the game is supposed to be handled. The first few levels went by pretty quickly, which seems to be pretty normal from what I've heard. But then we hit 4th level and started Curse of Strahd. That was over a month ago and the XP well dried up; we've had 5 or 6 sessions and we're not even halfway to 5th. So far it seems like we aren't really going to advance unless we go into murderhobo mode and wipe out every village we come across because the XP awards from the actual monsters have been pretty paltry and there doesn't seem to be any sort of roleplaying/story advancement rewards.
Quote from: Brand55;914278I honestly don't know as this is the first time in about 8 years anyone else in my group has run a campaign, so I've kept my nose out of anything other than the player's book and just enjoyed getting to play again. It could entirely be the GM, so understand what I'm talking about is just in reference to my group and not 5E as a whole since I'm not an expert on how the game is supposed to be handled. The first few levels went by pretty quickly, which seems to be pretty normal from what I've heard. But then we hit 4th level and started Curse of Strahd. That was over a month ago and the XP well dried up; we've had 5 or 6 sessions and we're not even halfway to 5th. So far it seems like we aren't really going to advance unless we go into murderhobo mode and wipe out every village we come across because the XP awards from the actual monsters have been pretty paltry and there doesn't seem to be any sort of roleplaying/story advancement rewards.
Ouch. Well, I guess the standard response would be, "Well, you EARNED it" (like Smith Barney):-). On the other hand, the lack of RP/story reward is a bit of a bummer. Maybe all that stuff will even out when you conclude the module.
Had the same experience starting at 1st level the last time I played (as a player). It (5E) really is pretty quick at the "novice" levels. I'm not running it now, but had a similar situation come up in our Dungeon World/Freebooters campaign. The last session was very much RP and story advancement. When we got to handing out XP's, there were only 2 available per character.*
*For the record, at the end of a DW session you ask 3 key questions: Did we learn something new and important about the world? Did we overcome a notable monster or enemy? Did we loot a memorable treasure? We actually only answered yes to the first one. We had pair of iffy situations involving "overcoming" a foe. I ended up awarding a 2nd XP just because it seemed we should have another, based on the amount of expansion of the universe that took place (new NPCs and storylines, more intrigue, changing alliances, and so on). No one really used an alignment move, and character flags (we're using those over bonds) never came into play. Speaking of bonds/flags, I'm thinking about dropping them for virtues and vices, edging the game a bit closer to Freebooters, versus DW.
Well, there were some early design ideas for 5 e that were either not fully implemented or were abandoned.
(1) bounded accuracy, where pluses/minuses over a certain level just flattened into advantage/disadvantage;
(2) modularity, where features reflecting different versions of D&D could be added or subtracted.
There's kind of some stuff in the DM's guide for this, but not what they suggested originally.
I think the "embrace all styles of D&D" goal largely got subordinated to the other goals of "create a unified-feeling 'D&D brand'", "make the game accessible", "privilege Organized Play and portability" and "minimize production of rules and non-adventure products."
Quote from: Brand55;914278I honestly don't know as this is the first time in about 8 years anyone else in my group has run a campaign, so I've kept my nose out of anything other than the player's book and just enjoyed getting to play again. It could entirely be the GM, so understand what I'm talking about is just in reference to my group and not 5E as a whole since I'm not an expert on how the game is supposed to be handled. The first few levels went by pretty quickly, which seems to be pretty normal from what I've heard. But then we hit 4th level and started Curse of Strahd. That was over a month ago and the XP well dried up; we've had 5 or 6 sessions and we're not even halfway to 5th. So far it seems like we aren't really going to advance unless we go into murderhobo mode and wipe out every village we come across because the XP awards from the actual monsters have been pretty paltry and there doesn't seem to be any sort of roleplaying/story advancement rewards.
The level progression does slow down when level 4 is reached by design. The intent was to stretch out the "sweet spot" mid levels of play that were determined by survey to be the most popular.
After the speed leveling of 1-4 the journey to level 5 seems extremely long. Level 5 is a major level and moves characters into the next tier ( levels 5-10). The XP jump from level 4 to 5 is quite significant. It takes only 2700 XP to leapfrog through 3 levels to level 4. It takes an additional 3800 XP to make level 5. This has the effect of making it seem like you aren't earning much XP at all but you are unless the DM is cutting the amount of XP awarded. You are actually earning more raw XP at level 4 because the encounters are (supposed to be) worth more on average.
Its the huge gap between 4 and 5 that makes you feel like you aren't. Get ready for more of the same all the way to level 11. The system was designed for these levels to take longer. Notice the next huge leap between levels 10 and 11. 21,000 XP required. Once you are over that level 11 hump, its only another 15,000 to level 12.
I have noticed in my own campaigns that unless every session is encounter after encounter at a relentless pace, the middle levels do take a very long time to finish. Of course that is only when viewing XP progression through the WOTC versions lens. AD&D campaigns that are not Monty Haul giveaways take much longer in comparison. I wanted a faster rate of progression for my 5E game so after level 5 I started adding a set XP award per session in addition to regular awards. I did this because the system is new and I wanted to see how it plays through most of the levels in a reasonable amount of time.
Quote from: Necrozius;914257Y'all have a very specific and nitpicky idea of what a modular ruleset is. Does anyone have any examples of games that do this according to your definitions?
2e with its simple "Create a class" system and kits.
Gurps and a few other "assembly" systems.
The create your own class/race article for BX.
Anything where you can pull out one part of a class and replace something from another without breaking the class. Or a mechanic for adding onto a class stuff it normally doesnt have. 2e and the BX article cover this with EXP increases. Want a class/race that can literally do everything? Then you'll level up so slow glacial will look like greased lightning.
As opposed to just taking a Fighter and adding the wizards spellcasting ability and progression with no penalty or loss.
Quote from: Omega;9146472e with its simple "Create a class" system and kits.
The create your own class/race article for BX.
The 5e DMG has both of these.
I feel like with 5e I could effortlessly with no caveats snap in stuff from AD&D. Like, I prefer the differing XP charts for each AD&D class. I'd use those. I'd use AD&D's saving throws. etc. I think adding those in would be completely without problem.
Quote from: Necrozius;914257Y'all have a very specific and nitpicky idea of what a modular ruleset is. Does anyone have any examples of games that do this according to your definitions?
Fantasycraft - Completely modular due to the fact that the vast majority of abilities, spells, feats are balanced against one another and scaled up. The game assumes that the sweet-spot of d20 starts around level 6 and peaks about 12th-level. So they balanced the game to extend the sweet-spot with the assumption that most games shouldn't necessarily aim for 20-levels and give you class-"cap-stone" abilities at level 16.
Races - Modular. There's rules for creating races based on point-values. You can use this to fine-tune variants of existing races, or you can use the canned races. Likewise they have Feats that will denote variant races as well. Playing a "Drow" or "Wood Elf" is a Feat. Or you can create something entirely new. Note: these rules are on their site, not in the book.
Backgrounds and Archetypes - All modular. You can build them from scratch from their tables on their site.
Health - uses a Vitality and Wound system. You could easily replace this with standard HP.
Armor - Uses a DR/Defense system. All classes get Defense Rating. Armor absorbs damage. This can be modified and/or done away with if you want a "classic AC" system.
Actually I could go on and on - but effectively I'd be doing "Lets Read Fantasycraft" and it would take up 500 pages of posts (and it's been done elsewhere). Yeah it's modular. Not GURPS modular, but as modular as you could possibly make d20.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;914711The 5e DMG has both of these.
5e doesnt have the modular system of the previous ones. Just some loose guidelines for swapping stuff in and out. And the UA article.
Quote from: Omega;9148155e doesnt have the modular system of the previous ones. Just some loose guidelines for swapping stuff in and out. And the UA article.
So it has to copy, what, GURPS? Or the old AD&D 2e more or less verbatim for people to say, 'Yeap! That's modular!'?
I'm with Necrozius, y'all are too damn picky.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;914831So it has to copy, what, GURPS? Or the old AD&D 2e more or less verbatim for people to say, 'Yeap! That's modular!'?
I'm with Necrozius, y'all are too damn picky.
No. Im just not taking "modular" to the nth degree to mean "everything on earth". If "adding stuff at random with no checks or balances or rules" is modular then every version of D&D is because you most assuredly can give the fighter all the wizards spells. Thats NOT modular.
Quote from: Omega;914837No. Im just not taking "modular" to the nth degree to mean "everything on earth". If "adding stuff at random with no checks or balances or rules" is modular then every version of D&D is because you most assuredly can give the fighter all the wizards spells. Thats NOT modular.
That's also an extreme position that I, at least, am not taking. Again,. I'm still with Necro, we're nitpicking at this point, and it's not helping the conversation.
Fantasy Craft seems interesting. Although I didn't think that people in these here parts cared so much about balance between classes. RPGSite is more diverse than I had originally thought.
The talk about AD&D 2e's options, though: was that from the core rules, or from an article in some magazine once? 'Cause to me that doesn't really count (hey you guys get to be nitpicky, I want some of that too).
Quote from: Necrozius;914909The talk about AD&D 2e's options, though: was that from the core rules, or from an article in some magazine once? 'Cause to me that doesn't really count (hey you guys get to be nitpicky, I want some of that too).
Toward the end of its run, they came out with Skills and Powers (http://www.rpgnow.com/product/16863/Players-Option--Skills--Power-2e?manufacturers_id=44&it=1&filters=0_2191_0_0_0) for AD&D 2e. It gave 2e a point based character generation.
Quote from: Necrozius;914909Fantasy Craft seems interesting. Although I didn't think that people in these here parts cared so much about balance between classes. RPGSite is more diverse than I had originally thought.
The talk about AD&D 2e's options, though: was that from the core rules, or from an article in some magazine once? 'Cause to me that doesn't really count (hey you guys get to be nitpicky, I want some of that too).
There's a few of us here that really dig Fantasycraft. I'd say the most people here have never run it, or they might own it and never dug in. Most conversations about it indicate to me not having fully understood the toolbox nature of the system (or are turned off by how many levers and dials there are on it). What a lot of people don't realize is you need to "set it up" - by detailing what rules are in play and which aren't. They even recommend a "starting list" for new Fantasycraft GM's to start with - which flies over the head of every new GM I've seen use FC (including me).
The OTHER big thing that turns off some people here is that they have a "narrative dice" resource mechanic. But that too is no big deal. For some it is (but it can be ignored like most sub-systems in FC).
Quote from: estar;914912Toward the end of its run, they came out with Skills and Powers (http://www.rpgnow.com/product/16863/Players-Option--Skills--Power-2e?manufacturers_id=44&it=1&filters=0_2191_0_0_0) for AD&D 2e. It gave 2e a point based character generation.
I loved/hated Skills and Powers. It mutated D&D for me in glorious and profane ways. It's like The Darkhold of D&D for me... if I ran 2e, I fear I'd find myself crawling back to it like a crazed Elder-goo crackhead...
As I said, I think the "5e isn't modular" idea sticks because 5e isn't modular based on WotC own definitions.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;914721I feel like with 5e I could effortlessly with no caveats snap in stuff from AD&D. Like, I prefer the differing XP charts for each AD&D class. I'd use those. I'd use AD&D's saving throws. etc. I think adding those in would be completely without problem.
You're not the only one. My FLGS got WIPED of most of the AD&D material once people realized how easy conversion is.
Quote from: tenbones;914932There's a few of us here that really dig Fantasycraft. I'd say the most people here have never run it, or they might own it and never dug in. Most conversations about it indicate to me not having fully understood the toolbox nature of the system (or are turned off by how many levers and dials there are on it). What a lot of people don't realize is you need to "set it up" - by detailing what rules are in play and which aren't. They even recommend a "starting list" for new Fantasycraft GM's to start with - which flies over the head of every new GM I've seen use FC (including me).
FantasyCraft is probably the most inspirational RPG system I've bought that I never played. It's chock full of awesome ideas and sub-systems. Options to dial the lethality of combat up, all kinds of genuinely different races and classes, downtime rules, henchmen, organizations, etc. etc. I doubt I'll ever play it as a game. But as a source of house rules for D&D, it's brilliant. And I had hoped 5E's modularity would be something along the same lines, but it hasn't come close.
Would it be worth acquiring Fantasy Craft to hack 5e? There's a lot of stuff that I like about that edition, but I'm open to fine tuning it more to my preferences.
Quote from: Necrozius;915109Would it be worth acquiring Fantasy Craft to hack 5e? There's a lot of stuff that I like about that edition, but I'm open to fine tuning it more to my preferences.
Honestly? I've thought about this. I don't think it is. I think, at this point after much deliberation and considering what I'd do to tune 5e to my tastes, I'd ultimately be required to deconstruct 5e into its own thing as Fantasycraft is the deconstructed product of 3.x.
In this regard it would be much easier to simply re-tune Fantasycraft into a lighter system. In fact, I know there are some very active players on the Fantasycraft forums doing just that. Or just run Fantasycraft as is and pull out the crunchier bits, it would probably work better than 5e in this regard. Scale better too.
Edit: I'm biased, but like Haffrung above - I believe Fantasycraft to be one of the finest games ever to be designed. If you like RPG's in general, it's worth owning. I'm not convinced it's a fantasy heartbreaker, I think it's a victim of circumstances. It was released at almost the same time as Pathfinder and it's only a two-man show that produced it. But what a product...
Quote from: tenbones;915139Honestly? I've thought about this. I don't think it is. I think, at this point after much deliberation and considering what I'd do to tune 5e to my tastes, I'd ultimately be required to deconstruct 5e into its own thing as Fantasycraft is the deconstructed product of 3.x.
In this regard it would be much easier to simply re-tune Fantasycraft into a lighter system. In fact, I know there are some very active players on the Fantasycraft forums doing just that. Or just run Fantasycraft as is and pull out the crunchier bits, it would probably work better than 5e in this regard. Scale better too.
Edit: I'm biased, but like Haffrung above - I believe Fantasycraft to be one of the finest games ever to be designed. If you like RPG's in general, it's worth owning. I'm not convinced it's a fantasy heartbreaker, I think it's a victim of circumstances. It was released at almost the same time as Pathfinder and it's only a two-man show that produced it. But what a product...
OK, I own the PDF and have tried reading it several times, but have bounced off each time. I think part of the issue is that it's just so dense and front-loaded with unfamiliar terms. It reminds me of HERO in some ways, but I internalized HERO twenty-five years ago (although I've never had a chance to play it), and I'm not as young and impressionable as I used to be. :)
So, what's the best way to try to 'get' Fantasycraft from a reading perspective?
Quote from: Krimson;914953You're not the only one. My FLGS got WIPED of most of the AD&D material once people realized how easy conversion is.
I'm hardcore 1e AD&D but if someone asked me to run a campaign with 5e, I'd do it in a heartbeat because I can add stuff from AD&D in that easily. Dispense with 2 magic-user classes and collapse them back into the single, boom, done. Or conversely if someone wanted to use the Backgrounds from 5e in a 1e game I was running, I'd have no problem with that.
I was told before I bought it said: forget everything you know about 3.x/Pathfinder and read the book twice and take your time. I've found that to be very true for a couple of good reasons.
1) 3.x/PF knowledge will interfere with absorption due to assumptions. If you're familiar with 3.x/PF - you'll understand all the basic elements. Stats are the same, Class bonuses are generally the same, you'll understand the basic chassis of 3.x immediately. But you'll be prone to skip stuff because you think you already understand a given mechanic or sub-system when in reality it might have some subtle change that impacts things elsewhere and cause unnecessary confusion. The conceits of Fantasycraft are subtly different than 3.x/PF - but those differences due to the balancing of the game have very different outcomes.
2) Density. Yep. It's dense as shit. But there is a good reason for it - you're not reading just a Players Handbook. The Fantasycraft book is a PHB, DMG and MM all rolled into one. That's another thing that most people don't realize. And those subsystems and options are interlocked across all three groups of rules.
This is why it's worth taking your time. Many of the "revolutionary ideas" in 5e are already extant (and handled better in Fantasycraft) - Archetypes, Backgrounds etc. are imo, given better weight and balance in Fantasycraft.
Big differences:
All Stats Matter - Every stat is utilized in the subsystems to matter. Stat-dumping is almost non-existent. All classes need various stats for various reasons. Even spellcasting requires Mages to NEED Wisdom, Cha and Int. Thieves need more than just Dex. Fighters need more than just Str. and Con.
Class Balance - To combat LFQM - Fantasycraft doesn't dumb casters down to the level of non-casters. It doubles-down on the efficacy of non-casters at what they do. As an example Fighters (Soldiers) in Fantasycraft a deathdealing monsters in combat. Not only are they good at using any weapon, with their weapons and fighting styles they choose to specialize in - they can end a fight as easily as any caster could. Plus the game has a fairly robust skill-list with tons of mechanical examples of options to use each skill in various ways that give non-casters more options.
Armorclass - Fantasycraft uses a Defense stat granted to each class that scales with level. Armor absorbs damage. And it definitely matters - wearing Plate armor makes you a veritable tank - most smaller weapons are dinking you for piddly, if any, damage. Of course there are ways around this - with Armor-Piercing, called shots, Feats. But Armor certainly is a big deal.
Health - Fantasycraft used Vitality(HP) and Wounds (Con score). If you score a critical - you bypass Vitality and the damage goes straight to Wounds. Yeah... remember what I said about Soldiers and non-casters being *dangerous* - this is why. Sneak-attacks go to Wounds as another example.
Spellcasting - Arcane casters need three stats to determine their ability as a Caster. Spellcasting is a Skill, so that introduces a chance to fail. Intelligence gives you bonuses to that skill-check, Wisdom dictates how many spells your caster can know, Charisma dictates what the spell DC save penalty is. So you see, this completely changes the dynamic from D&D and solves a few irritating issues about stat-dumping and creates a more dynamic set of dials to customize your character.
It uses a Spellpoint system with a cost and DC to the spellcheck based on the level of the spell. With success, the spell is cast and its effect occurs. With failure, the spell is not cast and has no effect (a sentient target feels a hostile force or tingle but cannot deduce the nature or origin of the sensation). With a critical success, the caster regains the spell points spent to cast the spell. With a critical failure, his confidence is shaken and he suffers a –5 penalty with Spellcasting checks until he succeeds with a Spellcasting check or until the end of the current scene, whichever comes first.
No Itemization-as-Balance - So no more collecting 40+ items on your career path. One of the odd outcomes of D&D for non-casters is the idea that there is some assumed balance for these classes in the form of magic-items. Which of course causes demands on the game for ever-increasing numbers of magic items of greater power to justify the scaling of monsters and casters. In Fantasycraft, most magic-items scale with the character. They tend to be less powerful, because most of the cool abilities for each character are cooked into their classes and Feats. So they have a system for PC's to keep their signature items. Which can be ignored as needed.
There are obviously other important differences, but they're ones that have to do with internal balances - Feats for instances are *powerful*. They have sub-systems for social rules (including combat), infrastructure management, campaign design, monster creation, etc. Tons of optional rules.
As for where to start? Read it twice, decide what rules you want to be inherent to the game, run a couple of combats to get the feel. Re-tune it. Once you're done, your game should run pretty much like a machine. This is directly lifted from a sidebar in the book:
Fantasy Craft is loaded with options — enough to be overwhelming the first time out, especially if you or your players haven't played d20 or OGL games. Make it easy on yourself — stick to the basics and introduce new rules as your confidence grows.
Before running your first combat, read pages 203–207 to get a handle on the core rules — initiative, movement, attacks, defense, and injury. Master those before getting fancy. Design an encounter using a mob of standard NPCs with relatively few rules, like the Goon or Mercenary rogues (see page 246). Fill out an NPC tracking sheet (see page 400) so you don't have to pick up the book midstream, and use simple initiative, rolling once for each side. If you have miniatures and a battle mat, you may want to use those too; they make determining range and movement much easier.
If you're really new to game mastery, you can also stick to basic combat actions like Standard Attacks and Standard Moves until you're ready for more sophisticated maneuvers. And don't worry if you don't fully grasp the rules the very first time out. It takes practice and comes easier with experience. The game is modular, so you can add rules in pieces as you prefer. Start with things
that intrigue you most — perhaps a few NPC qualities, damage types, conditions, and tricks. You may never end up incorporating the whole of Chapter 5, and that's OK — the rules will always be there if you need them!
Quote from: estar;914912Toward the end of its run, they came out with Skills and Powers (http://www.rpgnow.com/product/16863/Players-Option--Skills--Power-2e?manufacturers_id=44&it=1&filters=0_2191_0_0_0) for AD&D 2e. It gave 2e a point based character generation.
The 2e DMG pg 22-23 has optional rules for creating a class. Not quite as modular as the BX version but worked kinda.
Skills & Powers came out in 95 and was an interesting take on character generation. Too bad it gets maligned so much.
I would not call it modular though. Customizable yes. Modular not quite. You still cant swap in parts from other classes with the point buy system since each class has its own roster geared to its style. Though I think some you could probably go for. Others like HD boosts you cant as its the same cost for each class so I wouldnt allow a wizard to purchase a fighters 12 HD boost for a mere 10 build points. Hence why its not modular. Though I do believe with a little tweaking it could have been.
Though one thing been thinking of in 5e is this... A class picking up a class path from another class instead of their own. Obviously some dont quite work. But a wizard going for the Battlemaster path from the fighter for example would work. Or a fighter instead taking the Assassins path.
This has all sorts of potential without breaking the game balance. A fighter taking one of the wizard paths isnt going to gain the wizards spellcasting. But would gain paths perks. Like the Transmutation path. The fighter would gain the Alchemy power at level 2 and the Transmutation Stone at 6 and Polymorph at 10 and so on.
I was thinking of the exact same thing: letting a class pick an archetype from another. It would obviously need some tweaking for things like abilities that build on core class things, but I think it has potential.
Quote from: Omega;915196Skills & Powers came out in 95 and was an interesting take on character generation. Too bad it gets maligned so much.
I would not call it modular though. Customizable yes. Modular not quite. You still cant swap in parts from other classes with the point buy system since each class has its own roster geared to its style. Though I think some you could probably go for. Others like HD boosts you cant as its the same cost for each class so I wouldnt allow a wizard to purchase a fighters 12 HD boost for a mere 10 build points. Hence why its not modular. Though I do believe with a little tweaking it could have been.
I agree entirely with this. Skills & Powers gets a bad rap, and as you point out you can really screw your game up if you're not careful, you could use it to create your own brand of D&D that worked well for you. I'd love to see something like this for 5e with actual modularity as the core design principle.
Quote from: Omega;915196Though one thing been thinking of in 5e is this... A class picking up a class path from another class instead of their own. Obviously some dont quite work. But a wizard going for the Battlemaster path from the fighter for example would work. Or a fighter instead taking the Assassins path.
This has all sorts of potential without breaking the game balance. A fighter taking one of the wizard paths isnt going to gain the wizards spellcasting. But would gain paths perks. Like the Transmutation path. The fighter would gain the Alchemy power at level 2 and the Transmutation Stone at 6 and Polymorph at 10 and so on.
Another good idea. The problem is that the entirety of 5e would have to be deconstructed down to the "studs" and rebuilt as it's own "Skills & Powers" to make it work uniformly. Otherwise, yeah you're going to have to pick-and-choose and tinker with each Archetype/Class combination. Which can get tedious. I'd be willing to bet after a few rounds of doing this, one would realize it would be better served in doing the full-blown deconstruction route.
Even still I don't think Class/Archetype mixing alone would be enough for my tastes. It would be a good step in the right direction tho.
I've thought for over twenty years that Skills and Powers' problems were in execution and exposing latent issues with the AD&D classes, rather than the core concept. (I also think High-Level Campaigns has some interesting ideas that merit exploration and refinement.)
I would say you're not wrong. But if you were prone to home-brew (like most people I knew) - then it *kinda* gave you some semi-official direction to curb our enthusiasm in some cases, or to be more liberal in our views on certain mechanics.
The end-result was still a mish-mash of shit. I mean I had PC's using Oriental Adventure Martial Arts, Skills & Powers Open-hand rules, Spell-points, Critical and fumbles and all sorts of Proficiency Slot rules from all over the place.
BUT... it's the kernel of the idea that trying to deconstruct/reconstruct the core mechanics to your taste was on the table with an actual pseudo-baseline guide. I did get a lot of enjoyment out of it. In honest hindsight - I think it never quite worked right for the very reasons you cite.
I can't say it with absolute total certainty, but I MAY have been the first person in the design of the rules to bring up the term "modularity", and I certainly was one of its strongest champions.
Modularity as I understood the term, and as the term was always used in all my experiences in the design of 5e, was never about being able to switch around powers and abilities of different classes with each other. What "Modularity" meant was that the rules themselves could be easily worked with and altered; this was not a feature of 3e for example. In 3e, let's say you hated attacks of opportunity and wanted to get rid of them; you couldn't just say "ok, no attacks of opportunity" and that was it; because getting rid of AoO, or even modifying those rules, changed a ton of other things that were all interconnected: it would change or render useless certain class abilities, certain feats, prestige classes, etc etc.
Basically, you were 'trapped' within the rules as they were written unless you were willing to make a great deal of work.
The idea in 5e is that you could fairly easily pick and choose just how many of the rules you wanted to make use of. The difference between the D&D Basic rules and the rules as they appear in the PHB are an example of that. One of the main goals with this is that you could easily alter the rules to fit different styles and genres; you get some guidelines for how to do this in the DMG, with suggestions if you want to make a more 'lethal' or old-school style campaign, for example.
Which is exactly what it accomplishes and is why it feels so much like 2e.
Quote from: RPGPundit;916141Modularity as I understood the term, and as the term was always used in all my experiences in the design of 5e, was never about being able to switch around powers and abilities of different classes with each other. What "Modularity" meant was that the rules themselves could be easily worked with and altered; this was not a feature of 3e for example. In 3e, let's say you hated attacks of opportunity and wanted to get rid of them; you couldn't just say "ok, no attacks of opportunity" and that was it; because getting rid of AoO, or even modifying those rules, changed a ton of other things that were all interconnected: it would change or render useless certain class abilities, certain feats, prestige classes, etc etc.
It depends on how granular you design the modularity. In this case, yes, you can't do these things with D&D because it makes no pretense in trying to balance the granular mechanics you're describing. Further these mechanics, especially in 3e/4e are too integrated into the rest of the downstream subsystems that, as you pointed out, would have to fundamentally be overhauled if you make a change upstream.
Quote from: RPGPundit;916141The idea in 5e is that you could fairly easily pick and choose just how many of the rules you wanted to make use of. The difference between the D&D Basic rules and the rules as they appear in the PHB are an example of that. One of the main goals with this is that you could easily alter the rules to fit different styles and genres; you get some guidelines for how to do this in the DMG, with suggestions if you want to make a more 'lethal' or old-school style campaign, for example.
Except the game doesn't mechanically scale with it's relative systems all that well once you start tweaking. I mean even WotC and legions of players can't even get the Ranger Class "right"... even NOW. 5e is *better* than previous editions in most regards, but its reliance on older D&D conventions still requires a lot of overhauling if you want to change something. I consider making Archetype and Background changes/creation pretty much the limit of "easy". After that you're going to have to do some real overhauling.
Want to create a new Magic System because you don't like the current one? What if you're like me and want a more robust Martial Arts system that's not "just class/archetype/levels/weapon"? Or what if you want to introduce Psionics that is fundamentally different than Magic? Or what if you want different applications of Feat/Stat progression. I'm sure others can come up with more.
I think a BIG part of the problem is not just the light-touch they did in terms of modularity, but the extremely conservative production-schedule they've adhered to since launch. When I compare their released product line and the overall content compared to say - FFG, whose business model is pretty much the same (Corebooks and Adventure-splats with rules sprinkled across the line.) FFG has produced an amazing amount of quality material for three lines of games that has easily plugged most holes that existed at launch. 5e still feels pretty vanilla and lackluster in their attempts to push more than fluff and adventures. Which is fine - if that's all you want.
TL/DR - the dials and switches to "tune" the 5e system are pretty basic in terms of what I consider "modular". It's like the difference between having a Trebel/Bass dial and having a full multi-channel equalizer. I want a multi-channel-equalizer (but I know I'm never going to get one).
Tenbones, what edition of D&D made the Ranger Class right, to you?
I'm not entirely sure I'm seeing the issue with the class to warrant wanting to change it.
Quote from: RPGPundit;916141The idea in 5e is that you could fairly easily pick and choose just how many of the rules you wanted to make use of. The difference between the D&D Basic rules and the rules as they appear in the PHB are an example of that. One of the main goals with this is that you could easily alter the rules to fit different styles and genres; you get some guidelines for how to do this in the DMG, with suggestions if you want to make a more 'lethal' or old-school style campaign, for example.
And that's a pretty accurate description of what I was asking about in the OP. Specifically, how much 5e can I drop and still keep it "5e"? Put another way, without feats and skills and trimming the classes and races to more the scale of AD&D, is it worth trying 5e out or is one better off going with the older game? Would current 5e players scoff at such a slimmed down version?
Quote from: Christopher Brady;916276Tenbones, what edition of D&D made the Ranger Class right, to you?
I'm not entirely sure I'm seeing the issue with the class to warrant wanting to change it.
It's not an issue for me as I don't play 5e currently. It apparently is an issue with many many of the 5e fans and Mearls himself. Hence they have tried re-tooling the class and likely will again.
As for what edition was "right" - in context, I'm perfectly happy with the 1e/2e versions.
Quote from: Harlock;916486And that's a pretty accurate description of what I was asking about in the OP. Specifically, how much 5e can I drop and still keep it "5e"? Put another way, without feats and skills and trimming the classes and races to more the scale of AD&D, is it worth trying 5e out or is one better off going with the older game? Would current 5e players scoff at such a slimmed down version?
Based on these criteria - I'd simply go with 1e.
Quote from: tenbones;916251I think a BIG part of the problem is not just the light-touch they did in terms of modularity, but the extremely conservative production-schedule they've adhered to since launch. When I compare their released product line and the overall content compared to say - FFG, whose business model is pretty much the same (Corebooks and Adventure-splats with rules sprinkled across the line.) FFG has produced an amazing amount of quality material for three lines of games that has easily plugged most holes that existed at launch. 5e still feels pretty vanilla and lackluster in their attempts to push more than fluff and adventures. Which is fine - if that's all you want.
FFGs business model is to pump out expansions/supplements fairly regularly. Not quite at the madcap rate of their LCGs. But FFG does crank out the product.
Quote from: tenbones;916502It's not an issue for me as I don't play 5e currently. It apparently is an issue with many many of the 5e fans and Mearls himself. Hence they have tried re-tooling the class and likely will again.
As for what edition was "right" - in context, I'm perfectly happy with the 1e/2e versions.
1: After watching Jan use the ranger to around level 15 I think the Hunter path works overall. Its the Beastmaster that everyone bitches incessantly about. Mainly due to how the companion beast is limited. Kefra's thinking of running one at some point so we may see eventually. Jan built a (to her) better Ranger via the Fighter and taking the Battle Master path since she really just wanted to plink away with lots of arrows without having to have a crowd present.
2: Jan loved the AD&D ranger. No clue what she thought of the 2e one. Probably much the same since there isnt that much change.
I think the issue with the ranger is that 5e is basically an edition that largely goes with whatever is the most popular for each class/element. That's why the surveys where such a big deal.
The problem with that is, there seems to be very little consensus on what a Ranger should be, and in every past edition they have been pretty different. So you have people wanting the spell-less ultimate Archer of 4e, the Druid/Rogue hybrid of 3e, the Druid/Fighter hybrid of 2e and the OMFGHowManyHitPoints? of 1e.
Quote from: Harlock;916486And that's a pretty accurate description of what I was asking about in the OP. Specifically, how much 5e can I drop and still keep it "5e"? Put another way, without feats and skills and trimming the classes and races to more the scale of AD&D, is it worth trying 5e out or is one better off going with the older game? Would current 5e players scoff at such a slimmed down version?
The free Basic Rules already do much of what you're describing:
http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/basicrules?x=dnd/basicrules
Quote from: jadrax;916560I think the issue with the ranger is that 5e is basically an edition that largely goes with whatever is the most popular for each class/element. That's why the surveys where such a big deal.
The problem with that is, there seems to be very little consensus on what a Ranger should be, and in every past edition they have been pretty different. So you have people wanting the spell-less ultimate Archer of 4e, the Druid/Rogue hybrid of 3e, the Druid/Fighter hybrid of 2e and the OMFGHowManyHitPoints? of 1e.
Yeah, the Ranger is a class that has been dramatically different in each edition of D&D. I come from the wilderness tracking monster-hunter tradition. But I've come across people for whom Ranger means dual-wielding melee combatant. Others thing super-archer. Druid is another class that has changed a lot of over the editions - I think of them as wilderness clerics, but others see shapechanging as an essential Druid trait.
5E has tried to compromise or go with whatever is most popular for most elements of D&D. With Rangers, they kinda have to pick something when there's no consensus, and it will undoubtedly piss some people off.
Quote from: jadrax;916560The problem with that is, there seems to be very little consensus on what a Ranger should be, and in every past edition they have been pretty different. So you have people wanting the spell-less ultimate Archer of 4e, the Druid/Rogue hybrid of 3e, the Druid/Fighter hybrid of 2e and the OMFGHowManyHitPoints? of 1e.
Actually the AD&D Ranger averages less HP than the fighter. They start off with on average a little more. But by level 6 the Fighter and Paladin start pulling ahead. By level 20 the Ranger is behind by 13 HP and about equal to a Cleric.
Quote from: jadrax;916560I think the issue with the ranger is that 5e is basically an edition that largely goes with whatever is the most popular for each class/element. That's why the surveys where such a big deal.
The problem with that is, there seems to be very little consensus on what a Ranger should be, and in every past edition they have been pretty different. So you have people wanting the spell-less ultimate Archer of 4e, the Druid/Rogue hybrid of 3e, the Druid/Fighter hybrid of 2e and the OMFGHowManyHitPoints? of 1e.
I have to agree, the ranger really has been the class that changes/varies the most from edition to edition, or even within some editions. The huge hit points of 1e (a really big deal for the first few levels, to be sure), combined with the "interesting" batch of free henchmen they got later, is a far cry from the dual-wielding clones of a certain drow, or the Redwood-sized arrows of other editions.
It does cause a problem when a new edition comes out, since the range of rangers guarantees a wide range of (dis)satisfaction
Quote from: Omega;916642Actually the AD&D Ranger averages less HP than the fighter. They start off with on average a little more. But by level 6 the Fighter and Paladin start pulling ahead. By level 20 the Ranger is behind by 13 HP and about equal to a Cleric.
I agree, but the 5th ed take on it when they tried to recreate this in Unearthed Arcana ended up giving them 2d6 Hit Die per level, which easily put them on the top of the HP pile.
In AD&D the ranger uses a d8 and gets an extra at level 1. But ends up with less than a Fighter or Paladin over time. They could surprise on a 3 in 6 an are surprised on a 1 in 6. Attack bonus vs giant types, Tracking, picked up a handfull of druid and wizard spells starting level 8, and could eventually use various ESP type magic items.
In 2e the Ranger used a d10 for HD just like the Fighter. Still had tracking but their foe could now be various humanoids. And now had a Hide in Shadows and move Silently skill like a Thief, and animals were less likely to attack them (essentially better reaction rolls for animals.) Didnt get spells, priest type, till level 8.