|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even if the options are of roughly the same power, picking options that have synergy will be more powerful than the default.
No, not necessarily (it probably will be the case though) - you could have options that just make the player more specialized in a task and the loss of power somewhere else.
Ex: if a "Basic" character plays in an Advanced game, he may be doing so along with specialized classes (Thief, Elven Wizard vs. Generic "Elf") but the "Basic" character may get a RAW buff to overall abilities while the specialized characters will shine in their specialized areas - which comes down to what a player would rather have. Raw power peak across the board or do one thing really well.
Another example: The old school basic elf character/class/race was basically fighter/magic user with some sneak abilities in one class and would operate as such. A character like this would translate to a gestalt/multi-classed fighter magic user in an advanced game – or would operate as such, but locked in function. So he gets to wear elven chain and cast spells and sneak around - but his very fixed into his role. While the other "advanced" characters may move more options/choices on build or during play.
So more options does not always have to equal more power…effectives in game play is subjective though, raw power - not necessarily the case.
Then again, who knows – this is after all Wotc which is the same the company that started caster edition D&D.
The Basic pdf is going to include the big four races and the big four classes; having to play a Basic Elf alongside an Advanced Elf Fighter/Wizard won't be a concern. The question is, will the baked in subclasses offered as Basic classes be of equivalent function to other subclasses. (Or Barbarians, Druids and Paladins, for that matter.)
Just for clarity's sake, the subclasses in next/5E are much closer to PF archetypes than AD&D subclasses.
Should be no different than a CRB only PF fighter against one using alternates from UC / ARG...
..oh yeah, hang on....
If wotc pull it off I will doff my cap in respect
If the heroes are fighting goblins in that picture, I approve. I do like the new art style we have seen thus far
Not including some stuff was clearly part of their marketing strategy but I actually kind of appreciated their argument for why they decided that the 'not included' was going to include the Druid which pretty much came down to 'this is a tough class because of the shapechanging plus an animal plus nature/cleric spells and we'd like more time and a chance to see how the game actually plays for the masses before trying to add it'.
It'd have been an even better argument if they had actually done a good job with the class when it finally came out. I do think they thought they had a handle on it but I think the reality is that the Druid scales badly as the game went forward and their solution still managed to be a bit to much 'weak sauce in 3 departments' which just does not fly in modern versions of the game - whatever it is your class does it is supposed to do it really, really, well.
Which is back to my original "would take a minor miracle".It's technically possible to have a system where more design options don't lead to more power, but it's very difficult to pull off and I've never actually seen it in practice.
Less miracle needed if you're actually trying to keep it even. There always seems to be an element of "here's the latest and greatest model" in add-ons. It's one way to sell them...
*edit* I should note that part of that derives from trying to "fix" the "problems" of older material. Fixing it generally meaning it will end up superior to the "unfixed" original stuff.
|
One thing that I like about feats for 5e is that you can choose between taking a feat or doing an attribute boost. Thus, you can have one player at the table who has no interest in the added complexity of feats taking attribute boosts, while another player who enjoys the extra tinkering can take feats (and of course you can mix it up). I also get the sense that some sub classes will be more complex than others. All this suggests that players will have some freedom to decide individually how complex a game they want to play depending on the choices they make when they are levelling up.
Especially since many feats (many of which are also prereqs for feat chains) in 3.0/3.5/PF are simple numerical benefits anyway (Weapon Focus, Iron Will, Spell Focus, etc), they may as well be simple stat bumps.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This approach got several great things going for it:
A. First it gives a potential consumer several entry points: free, $20 starter set, $29 adventures, $50 PHB, and so on.
B. It clearly allow different groups AND different players to play the same game only with different level of complexity (between players) and gamestyles (between tables) while essentially playing the same game.
As for different game-styles, I'm not sure I follow. A group using "Advanced rules" (ie. Options from the Player's Handbook) isn't going to be any different than someone coming to the table with a Pre-Gen or a Basic Character. The game is designed to be as streamlined as possible, allowing for a no-feats character to work and play alongside a character with multiple feats, multiclass, and maneuvers.
I think Blackwarder has a valid point.
If rules for complicated 3-D flying combat are listed as an 'advanced' option, you are less likely to see a GM present aerial adventures to his players in a 'no-frills' game using the Basic or Starter rules.Even if the Basic online tools are updated with this element, the GM may not want to teach a whole new subsystem to the players, for the sake of one encounter.
Similarly for underwater adventures, planar hopping, settlement management, follower recruitment, etc.
The adventures a Basic party get themselves involved in are less likely to include these elements, or they will be heavily abstracted, to save time and confusion.
There's a strong precedent already out there, in the BECMI rulesets from the 80s, which guided new players through short dungeon adventures from levels 1-3 (Basic set), introduced wilderness rules and establishing keeps in the Expert set (levels 4-15), nation rulership and planar travel in the Companion set (levels 16-25), and the race for immortality (and beyond!) via Masters and Immortals sets (levels 26-36, and 36+ respectively).
Free sounds great to me :)
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32
|
It's technically possible to have a system where more design options don't lead to more power, but it's very difficult to pull off and I've never actually seen it in practice.
Well I agree with you there. I think that's the case for every edition. Look at 1e Unearthed Arcana, 2e Skills and Powers, 3e Complete X, and the Pathfinder Advanced/Ultimate splatbooks. Not to mention 3rd party publishers.
It seems with rpg's (and especially with the OGL), there's no way to limit the potential options available. Some power creep always happens as more people publish more options.
But that doesn't mean Basic D&D 5e won't be a perfectly good, very playable game, even without using all the options. And playing a 5e basic rogue using nothing but the free pdf may just be similar to playing a PF rogue using nothing but the core rulebook.
There's nothing wrong with that approach at all, and sometimes it's a relief to not have to fiddle with rules from multiple books.