Picking Apart the 5E Class Seminar - Part II - Casters & Magic

Greg: I like planning my feat chain over 20 levels. So let's talk about spell casters and the spell casting mechanics. What are your opinions on how that should be? Current playtest has a Vancian system of magic. Thoughts on using that system?

Monte: It's my firm belief that Vancian magic, for the core classes, is D&D. There are other options for other classes, but for Wizard, Cleric (core), Vancian is the way to go. There's something to be said for picking spells that match what you think is coming. Rewarding. I know it's a bit controversial, but I think Vancian magic is a core element of D&D. Maybe it's not the only option for magic, but it's definitely an iconic and flavorful one that I would like to retain. It's also an interesting way to handle game balance. For example wizards have magical feats that are basically at will abilities. Balancing them with vancian magic which are essentially daily abilities is an interesting way to go, especially when comparing to the fighter and rogue who have more of an at-will style play. It offers a very different playstyle than those other classes, but those different play styles are something we want to embrace. (Vancian Magic for the win.  Yeah, I know, you either love it or hate it, there is little middle ground.  Although combining Vancian Magic with At Will Powers might be a way to bring that gap.  I’m interested in seeing how this works out.)

Greg: Those at-will type of attacks are things that have come to D&D with 4th. How are you guys integrating that in the next iteration?

Bruce: As Monte mentioned, you have those feats that give you at-will style attacks, and some spell or class options will give you at will kind of attacks. (As I mentioned above, this should prove to be interesting)

Rob: And there's nothing stopping us from looking at all those green attacks from 4th and seeing how those fit into this new iteration. Some for combat, some for not combat. The spell feats fit for that and other class options or feats could offer similar things.  (So 4E powers are going to be 5E feats, or some such.  I had no idea 4E had powers that were used in non-combat situations ;)

Bruce: I feel we're brining Vancian magic back to the place it began, keeping the story intact and making it important to the story of the world. (I have no idea what Bruce means by Vancian Magic “keeping the story intact”.)

Greg: How about the 15 minute workday problem?

Bruce: Wizards have magical feats (at-will, always available). Hold on to higher spells until needed.  (At will powers for Wizzies means they won’t need to revert to slings, which is a good thing)

Rob: We could bring back a whole raft of at-wills from 4e, and make those type of things Wizard feats. There are also magical feats that are non-combat oriented. Different frequency rates, as well (encounter).  (I can deal with At Will Powers coupled with Vancian Magic, but Encounter Powers really don’t make sense in the classic D&D framework)

Bruce: 4e took Vancian magic and gave it to all classes. We're bringing it back to the part of D&D where it belongs. Fighters have their version of abilities and options as well, but it will have a different feel than the vancian magic for arcane stuff.  (I never saw 4E as having Vancian Magic.  How can Monte call Vancian Magic controversial above if it’s been in every edition of D&D - unless it hasn’t.  Make up your minds people!)

Greg: How is the idea of rituals progressing in the next iteration of D&D?

Rob: Monte started running with the ball and wanted to make rituals there for the really big spells that are super awesome, but might take a bit longer to cast. I ran with that and really wanted to make them all very interesting and complex, and really invest the player/character in what they're doing. We could bring back a lot of the big, neat spells from previous editions, and rituals can be the spells that do that.  (Or they could bring back a lot of the big, neat spells from previous editions without turning them into rituals)

Monte: Magic is taking a broader turn than just spells. In the past we got to the point where everything you encountered in the game had some kind of spell attached to it or that replicated the effect. I really want to go back to the idea that magic is mysterious and weird and not always entirely definable. I think it's good for the story of the game when the DM can use it to help to define and area or maybe a unique magic item. Things like rituals help us accomplish that - makes things more open ended and more interesting and also takes away some of the focus from the wizard and puts it on other things in the world.  (Alright, time to make Carcosa an Official D&D Supplement: we just need some sacrifices - a few TPKs should suffice ;)

Picking Apart the 5E Class Seminar - Part I - Complexity & Balance

Greg: How complex or simple do you think classes should be?

Bruce: I think, we think that different classes should have different levels of complexity. If you want something easier to pick up, there should be a class for that, if you want something that's a bit more challenging or has a bit more going on, you should be able to do that out the gate as well. (If my admittedly poor knowledge of D&D 4e serves me, all classes had about the same complexity)

Monte: I would also add that we want different levels of complexity for classes. For example, if a guy wants to pick up a fighter and have an easy time of it, there should be options for that. But also, if another person wants to pick up a fighter and have lots of options and/or complexity, we want to provide that too. The base game is the foundation. If you opt in to character development options, you can get complexity. (I’m figuring there is a default feat / power / ability progression built in, or you can opt to pick your own progression choices.  I’d hope that the default progression is fairly optimal, so those that aren’t into such details don’t get too hosed)

Rob: There was discussion of complexity parity in the classes. There's a baseline complexity, but can add as needed.  (This sounds way too much like 4e for my tastes)

Greg: Do you want to talk about some of the ways that this could be accomplished? 

Monte: Sure. So for example, if your fighter goes up a level and would normally get some bonus damage or a bonus to hit, or something simple, then maybe instead you could choose to replace that with an option or options that allow you to do some cool moves that allow you to push people around, or protect your allies a bit more, or control the battlefield a little more.  (These are definitely from 4e.  If you add these options to your character, aren’t you almost requiring the use of a battle map?  Wasn’t the use of a battle map supposed to be optional in D&D 5e?  I’d like to see how they propose to get these conflicting goals to work)

Rob: Even in the core you have varying levels of complexity within each class. Even the wizard has a base starting point that is less complex than what you can get into if you opt into some of the options.  (The question will of course be - does less complex mean less powerful / less optimal?)

Greg: This conversation leads into the talk of balance. Is it important that classes are equally balanced? And how does that look - would that focus on damage output and number crunching?

Monte: (Joking) The assassin, the wizard, and the warlock should all just be better than everything else.

Bruce: If all classes are putting out the same damage, there's no difference.   (This is good to know.  I’ve been deathly afraid that al classes would be contributing the same to combat - that was never the case until 4e) We definitely want the classes to be balanced, though having things exactly mathematically balanced isn't always the goal. (Once you step away from mathematical balance, you more from board game to RPG - or that’s my opinion) Different classes or different play styles will shine at different moments, though of course we want everyone to be able to contribute in the common situations like combat (which is as it should be, but some should be better at combat, others at stealth, others at knowledge, or finding things, etc) 

Greg: When you're talking about non-numerical class stuff, how do you figure out balance?

Bruce: If the fighter is 100% damage for example, then maybe this other class is 80% damage/combat and 20% exploration, or some other mix of game elements. Each class has its time in the spotlight, and not all classes are built expressly for combat (This is the best sentence I’ve read from either seminar.  They DO understand what Dungeons & Dragons is)

Rob: You may look at a class and see that it's damage output isn't as high as another class, for example maybe the bard doesn't do as much as raw damage as the fighter. That other class will have other options, like charm person or something that fits into that class's niche and will give that class different options, but still equally useful in combat, exploration, or roleplaying. If the Fighter's damage is the baseline, and Bard is 70%, the Bard has extra stuff (spells, etc) to give variety. We find damage equivalence between offensive and other types of spells. Charm Person roughly 105 points of damage.  (I really hate the number crunching aspect of this, because I hate to see an RPG brought down to hard numbers like some MMORPG Combat Damage Tracker.  Still, I appreciate the science behind the game design and getting a glimpse of the processes the designers are going through.  Even if it feels awkward to me.)

Time for Part III of Picking Apart the 5e Seminar - Modules

Q: How will roleplaying, combat and exploration be supported?

Mike: If we support those three things, we've covered about 90% of what's important in the game. The customization comes in at the table level. DM makes choices along with the players to craft their game. (What is the other 10%, do tell)

Jeremy: If a group wants more social interaction, the DM can choose the module that support that. If the group wants more tactical combat, then the group chooses those modules.  (Not to knock 4e, but it was designed to put an emphasis on combat.  Use of battle maps / grids left may DMs opting for pre-written adventures.  Doing your own in 4e is a PITA BTB.  Allowing for more social interactions is great, but using the term “module” is disconcerting for those of us raised on a “module” referring to The Tomb of Horrors such.)

Mike: For example, a mass combat expansion would have a basic, core system. Choose modules to play generals, etc. Are you seeing the mass combat from the top down, or from an individual's POV?  (So, you can have more then one mass combat module?  Yep, they've found an expandable market for themselves)

Monte: These choices have helped influence class design as well. This lets a combat-heavy fighter and an exploration-based rogue to both fulfill their roles well. Bards can still kick ass. Depending on what a player wants to do in/out of combat, there will be classes that well support that.  (This sounds like they aren’t trying to make every class equally effective in combat {4E}.  That’s awesome!  If I want to excel as a support class, I can.)

Mike: Swap the core class bits to make the character you want to play.  (I’d like to see this simple sentence in action)

Q: How will high level play work? 

Monte: Every edition of the game "breaks down" at a certain level. I don't think it breaks down, I just think it changes. I think 4E does the best of highlighting that high level change and being clear that things are changing. I think that we can run with that for the future and have a list of options for classes/characters that open up when you hit a certain level. We can also have other options, like building a castle, having followers and vassals. We can build that into what high level characters get. (I can be a 9th level Lord and have my troops and collect taxes again?  Nice!  Wait, this also sounds like there will be levels that are demarcation lines of sort.  Not so sweet)

Mike: I think Monte hit on the really important point with saying that different people mean different things when they say the game breaks down at high levels. Some people are excited that their characters get really powerful. The question is what should that change really be? How should the game change at high levels? What should it look like and how should we build the breadth of options to cover that? Those are the real questions we're trying to answer when addressing high level play.  (They don’t have the answer yet, but they are working on it.  That not really much of an answer)

I’m thrilled that everyone being equally effective in combat is going the way of the dodo.  If I play a Bard or a Cleric, I don’t expect to deal the damage that a Fighter can.

I’m very interested in seeing how well this new idea of “modules” will work in actual play.  I can see it has the potential of making WotC some decent cash, as it can be released gradually as add-ons to the new edition.

Picking Apart the 5E Seminar - Part I

Morrus and the other fine folks at ENWorld have done a superb job of piecing together the Dungeons & Dragons 5E seminar taking place at Dungeons & Dragons Experience.  What I'm going to do is pick apart certain answers / statements and try to get a fuller picture of what D&D 5E will be, or what WotC are attempting to make it be.  If you want some pics of D&D 5E at "the table", check this post.

My comments will be in italics, either after someone's answer or after the completed answer (or both):

Q: What needs to be preserved from older editions? Player/DM relationship?

Monte: The core mechanic of #dnd is: player says 'I want to X' and DM responds. Therein lie the stories. 

Mike: Offering a wide variety of options so every player can play the way they want to. 

Jeremy: The game being a toolbox for players/DMs to create stories together. And fireballs. 

There are certain themes that stick out, because they come up as answers to other questions - options for players and DMs and toolbox. 

Q: How can we achieve balance in such a modular, flexible game?

Jeremy: What's important to know is that module approach is a spectrum of play styles.

There's a baseline game that provides the foundation. From there, you add on what you want. The seeds are there.  (so there is a core game, to which you can add complexity.  Basically it’s houserules and they are giving you the houserules to choose from)

Monte: For example, the basic game fighter might have specific level-bases abilities. Things that every fighter has. If you decide to get more customized, you can swap standard abilities for more complex, optional abilities. These are the kinds of things that feats do now. But the complex stuff is balanced with what's in the core. One character is more complex, but not necessarily more powerful.  (you can go with the default fighter progression, or you can tweak it to more of the concept that you envision - which I shall assume is similar for all the classes)

Jeremy: The DM should be able to create the experience that their group wants. The players should be able to choose their level of complexity, and have it work no matter the options chosen. (this is tough, because from my experience, the DM sets the tone and style of gameplay, not the players)

Mike: You can see expressions of character types that are found in other editions.  (This I bolded, because it plainly states you are NOT going to be playing older edition characters, but MAY be able to recreate the feel of one)

Monte: The DM says: we're using grid, mat and minis. The players can then choose options that match the DM's style. (see, now this is in conflict with Jeremy's answer just above this one - Monte is saying what I said, the DM sets the tone and style of gameplay, the players then chose options to match - there might be some disagreement in the team as to who leads, the players or the DM - but us OSR guys already know that answer)

Mike: If we get this right, everyone is sort of playing their own edition of the game. All at the same table. 

This is going to be one heck of a win if they can allow a group to field a party that is “sort of playing their own edition of the game.  All at the same table.”  Rumor has it they are aiming for a GenCon 2013  release for this.  I might have to actually attend for the first time in 20 years ;)