When do we get modules?

Was D&DN not based on the idea that I could play an AEDU Cleric, Amy could play a Vancian Wizard, Bob could play a 2E fighter that gets more hirelings as he levels up and Carl could play a 3x rogue that gets scaling Sneak Attacks and evasion abilities as he levels up, and we could all play at the same table? Where is this modularity that was promised? I see a lot of new classes, but no options for any of them that change the way they play. 

Does anyone else want to see this, or is it forgotten? 
There is no way those four could play at the same table. Mearls would have to be an actual wizard to write such a system.
Wizards shot themselves in the ass trying to make next a all editions edition. They seem too be rebooting next some what. I dont have a problem if next isnt 4.5, but I did have a problem with it looking like a poor mans 3rd.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

Was D&DN not based on the idea that I could play an AEDU Cleric, Amy could play a Vancian Wizard, Bob could play a 2E fighter that gets more hirelings as he levels up and Carl could play a 3x rogue that gets scaling Sneak Attacks and evasion abilities as he levels up, and we could all play at the same table? Where is this modularity that was promised? I see a lot of new classes, but no options for any of them that change the way they play. 

Does anyone else want to see this, or is it forgotten? 


I know that was the very first idea they put out, but reality eventually put that notion to bed. Modularity will eventually allow each group to work out how they want their game to play, but radically different rules for each character will only happen if that group agrees to throw balance out the window. I don't think we will see too much of the modules, except mabye in the final packet.

I suspect this isn't a linear playtest, with them giving us different concepts to test the waters for modules. Considering the radical changes they've made with the Fighter and Rogue over the playtest, each of them may become a module. I suppose Spellcasters will primarily see module options with the alternate spellcasting systems (AEDU and Spellpoints). The newer classes are harder to make guesses on, because they've only released a single concept for each.


If you can accept module = feats or twinky little bits, then anything is possible, but that is not modular. That is 3E and a box of legos and you can do all the work yourself as the DM. Some like that, but I do not.
There is no way those four could play at the same table. Mearls would have to be an actual wizard to write such a system.



It really is fairly simple. A slider would suffice, going from "more powers" on one end to "more class features" on the other. Then, a bunch of optional class features can change your class feature based rogue from a sneaky trapsmith to a Shadow-magicy assassin, or your mount-based Knight-style fighter to an army-based warleader style fighter. The best part is, these changes don't all need to be in the Player's Handbook. The Player's Handbook needs to have a "Class feature/AEDU" slider, but the promised tactical rulebook might have rules to give the Warlock a band of hellish imps, the Wizard a phalanx of earth elementals and the Fighter a crack squad of Fedaykin Death Commandos. "Complete Arcane Power" gives alternate class features and powers to make the promised Gish into an Arcane Archer, or to give your wizard spellpoints.

Was D&DN not based on the idea that I could play an AEDU Cleric, Amy could play a Vancian Wizard, Bob could play a 2E fighter that gets more hirelings as he levels up and Carl could play a 3x rogue that gets scaling Sneak Attacks and evasion abilities as he levels up, and we could all play at the same table? Where is this modularity that was promised? I see a lot of new classes, but no options for any of them that change the way they play. 

Does anyone else want to see this, or is it forgotten? 


I know that was the very first idea they put out, but reality eventually put that notion to bed. Modularity will eventually allow each group to work out how they want their game to play, but radically different rules for each character will only happen if that group agrees to throw balance out the window. I don't think we will see too much of the modules, except mabye in the final packet.

I suspect this isn't a linear playtest, with them giving us different concepts to test the waters for modules. Considering the radical changes they've made with the Fighter and Rogue over the playtest, each of them may become a module. I suppose Spellcasters will primarily see module options with the alternate spellcasting systems (AEDU and Spellpoints). The newer classes are harder to make guesses on, because they've only released a single concept for each.





Why did modularity die? Did it have to go?
I don't want the different iterations of the current Fighter and Rogue to be the primary options for Fighter and Rogue players. The differences between one packet's fighter and the next packets fighter are mostly asthetic. 
In addition, as a DM, I want options to shape my campaign. I want to be able to change the way not only magic, but fighting works based on geography and political makeup. 
In addition, look at the homebrew Warblade that was posted here a while ago to see how complex options interact with the simpler abilities a Next!Fighter has. 




In addition, look at the homebrew Warblade that was posted here a while ago to see how complex options interact with the simpler abilities a Next!Fighter has. 






Oh, man... I knew I forgot something in the Fighter portion of the last survey.

we want modules
we want modules
we want modules

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

KNuva, the game you described is the game I want. I'm not sure if it's the game we'll get. If we're lucky, we might get tweakable rules and modules for different groups of DMS and players.
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning." -Mike Mearls
Modules? I wouldn't count on it. Sadly, I think that was nothing more than empty promises to keep us grinding away as free labor and propaganda to get people talking about yet another edition of D&D  . It seems like a clear cut case of bait and switch. For the record I am finished believing in empty promises. 
wotc- "Throwing away it's fans since 1999".
There is no way those four could play at the same table. Mearls would have to be an actual wizard to write such a system.



But 3 of the 4 could.  So majority wins?
It's still a little early for modules.  The core needs to be a lot more stable before they start developing things to modify it.
"When Friday comes, we'll all call rats fish." D&D Outsider
Modules? I wouldn't count on it. Sadly, I think that was nothing more than empty promises to keep us grinding away as free labor and propaganda to get people talking about yet another edition of D&D.



Well, I told all of you this from day #1....
It's still a little early for modules.  The core needs to be a lot more stable before they start developing things to modify it.


But the core needs to be designed with that in mind. you need to build in the sliders you want to be able to tweak later, even if they have just one or two settings now.

My real problem with the idea is that I haven't seen anything like this ever work in a balanced way unless there was a lot of playtesting of the various combinations and interactions. I don't think making something simple and then later trying to bolt things onto it will work. Not without extensive playtesting and I don't think that WotC has the time and the resources to do that.

I have been very unimpressed with the ability of the various designers over the years (2/3/4)E to have later material be balanced with early material. Sometimes big Errata fixed a few things but often those even left a lot of stuff untouched or made things worse.

I think that as an edition matured they usually got better at balancing and releasing balanced options, not sure about 2E, but with that knowledge it means that it's not very likely they get it right from the start.

Expect what they release to get heavy Errata and/r be poorly balanced.

5e should strongly stay away from "I don't like it, so you can't have it either."

 

I once asked the question (in D&D 3.5) "Does a Druid4/Wizard3/ArcaneHierophant1 have Wildshape?". Jesse Decker and Andy Collins: Yes and the text is clear and can't be interpreted differently. Rich Redman and Ed Stark: No and the text is clear and can't be interpreted differently. Skip Williams: Lol, it's worded ambiguously and entirely not how I intended it. (Cust. Serv. Reference# 050815-000323)

It's still a little early for modules.  The core needs to be a lot more stable before they start developing things to modify it.


But the core needs to be designed with that in mind. you need to build in the sliders you want to be able to tweak later, even if they have just one or two settings now.

My real problem with the idea is that I haven't seen anything like this ever work in a balanced way unless there was a lot of playtesting of the various combinations and interactions. I don't think making something simple and then later trying to bolt things onto it will work. Not without extensive playtesting and I don't think that WotC has the time and the resources to do that.

I have been very unimpressed with the ability of the various designers over the years (2/3/4)E to have later material be balanced with early material. Sometimes big Errata fixed a few things but often those even left a lot of stuff untouched or made things worse.

I think that as an edition matured they usually got better at balancing and releasing balanced options, not sure about 2E, but with that knowledge it means that it's not very likely they get it right from the start.

Expect what they release to get heavy Errata and/r be poorly balanced.




Agreed. I would like to add that what we have now is no skeleton. Next is looking like a fully fleshed out game system more and more, but with more and more option disparity. The fighter gets four choices in class features from levels one to twenty, the paladin gets one, and the wizard gets a new ability every level.
It's still a little early for modules.  The core needs to be a lot more stable before they start developing things to modify it.



This.

The core is still too wonky. Building modules off of a wonky core will net you nothing but wonkier modules...modules that will have to be altered repeatedly as the core is altered.

Asking for modules now is like asking for a spoiler and tinted windows on a car that barely has an engine and a usable frame. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

"The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind." - H.P. Lovecraft
Was D&DN not based on the idea that I could play an AEDU Cleric, Amy could play a Vancian Wizard, Bob could play a 2E fighter that gets more hirelings as he levels up and Carl could play a 3x rogue that gets scaling Sneak Attacks and evasion abilities as he levels up, and we could all play at the same table? Where is this modularity that was promised? I see a lot of new classes, but no options for any of them that change the way they play. 

Does anyone else want to see this, or is it forgotten? 



Hahahaha you actually believed that?
I believed it.

It was a selling point for me.

I'll be holding the final product to this standard. Also looking for adjustable complexity & the ability to play "my" game.
It is a good question to ask. For me, it has become a more relevant one as DDN has gone off in a direction I don't like. From what I have seen, the core game will be a game that I don't have much interest in, so I will be waiting till I see the modules... which might be a while.

 

"What is the sort of thing that I do care about is a failure to seriously evaluate what does and doesn't work in favor of a sort of cargo cult posturing. And yes, it's painful to read design notes columns that are all just "So D&D 3.5 sort of had these problems. We know people have some issues with them. What a puzzler! But we think we have a solution in the form of X", where X is sort of a half-baked version of an idea that 4e executed perfectly well and which worked fine." - Lesp

It is a good question to ask. For me, it has become a more relevant one was DDN has gone off in a direction I don't like. From what I have seen, the core game will be a game that I don't have much interest in, so I will be waiting till I see the modules... which might be a while.



This. I'm also starting to get curious when we might see any product at all. Presumably Gen Con 2013 cannot pass without a release date announcement if WotC wants to stay in business but you never know? The disposable cash I was spending in 2008-10 on the monthly 4E releases is now being spent on subscriptions to three Pathfinder product lines and I suspect I am not alone in deserting the brand. If they wait another year to announce anything the odds that I will care at all about Next by the time the books are released are very very small.
I think we have seen different modules; different ones with each packet. They aren't giving us multiple modules, for any particular area of the game, in a single packet yet because they want to focus on each individually first.

My guess is that we won't see a playtest packet with multiple modules, for the same particular area of the game (such as for the same classes), until much closer to release.

Remember, when any area of the game changes from packet to packet, it doesn't necessarily mean they're changing how that area is going to be finalized. They're probably showing us the different modules in that area of the game separately; in order to get feedback on those modules individually.
Modules So Far
1.  Feats
2.  Skills


Both of those subsystems are now modular.  This will make it a playable game for the 1e/2e crowd.  

The complex side of things is naturally something they would do last.   Both 3e and 4e are complex in different ways relative to 1e/2e.   And when I say complex I'm not talking about ease of play as much as availability of options.

And I admit the backbone of the game is more traditional D&D.  But so is 13th Age and it is very informed by 4e.   Also, unlike 13th Age, I believe there will be a robust tactical module for those who want it.

 
Game companies are fools to announce anything ahead of time.  Fanatical fans will always over-read and misinterpret, and then get angry when they don't get what they want.
"Therefore, you are the crapper, I'm merely the vessel through which you crap." -- akaddk
Game companies are fools to announce anything ahead of time.  Fanatical fans will always over-read and misinterpret, and then get angry when they don't get what they want.



Or when they don't get what they thought they were getting based on little more than random internet chatter, heresay, and gross micharacterizations that are then bolstered by the ever-present rumor-mill.

EDIT: We've all seen this over the last several months. Mearls will tweet something very vague. It will get posted on these boards and analyzed to the Nth degree. Faulty assumptions will be made. Impossible-to-prove conclusions will be made. Before long, they are parroted about as though the combinations of various speculations somehow make something a fact. It's worse than a sewing circle of old rumor-mongering gossipers.
"The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind." - H.P. Lovecraft
Was D&DN not based on the idea that I could play an AEDU Cleric, Amy could play a Vancian Wizard, Bob could play a 2E fighter that gets more hirelings as he levels up and Carl could play a 3x rogue that gets scaling Sneak Attacks and evasion abilities as he levels up, and we could all play at the same table? Where is this modularity that was promised? I see a lot of new classes, but no options for any of them that change the way they play. 

Does anyone else want to see this, or is it forgotten? 

I want to see this, and haven't forgotten about it. At the same time, it seemed a lofty goal when first suggested, and the core/basic ruleset being created really doesn't support it in any way that I can see.
Modules So Far
1.  Feats
2.  Skills


Both of those subsystems are now modular.  This will make it a playable game for the 1e/2e crowd.  

The complex side of things is naturally something they would do last.   Both 3e and 4e are complex in different ways relative to 1e/2e.   And when I say complex I'm not talking about ease of play as much as availability of options.

And I admit the backbone of the game is more traditional D&D.  But so is 13th Age and it is very informed by 4e.   Also, unlike 13th Age, I believe there will be a robust tactical module for those who want it.

 



I agree, but for me, a game without feats, skills or a tactical module is not a game I am interested in playing.  If we add up the time from now to when the core game is published, and then add on the time from then to when the additional modules that would make the game interesting to me are published, we are certainly talking at least a year, or possibly two or more, before DnD publishes a game I am interested in playing. I am already planning to cancel my DDI subscription within the next few months, once my 4e game finishes and we move on to another (non-DnD) system. It's going to be a long time before Wizards gets money from me... and I don't say that as a threat, just a fact, because I love DnD.

If one looks at the timeline, and especially at the huge gap between when they stopped supporting 4e very well and when they are going to publish a game I am interested in, it doesn't really seem to bode well for their money stream. Just sayin'.

 

"What is the sort of thing that I do care about is a failure to seriously evaluate what does and doesn't work in favor of a sort of cargo cult posturing. And yes, it's painful to read design notes columns that are all just "So D&D 3.5 sort of had these problems. We know people have some issues with them. What a puzzler! But we think we have a solution in the form of X", where X is sort of a half-baked version of an idea that 4e executed perfectly well and which worked fine." - Lesp

WotC doesn't really need a revinue stream from D&D the tabletop RPG. They've already expanded the D&D brand to include much more than just the tabletop. There's still the minis game, several board games, DDI subscriptions, the reprints of books from older editions, and I'm probably forgetting some other things. It looks to me like their business model for D&D has developed into just accepting that TTRPGs don't make much money, and treating it as the advertizer for D&D merchandise, which is where the money actually comes from.
Why did modularity die? Did it have to go?


Modularity didn't die, only this notion that Next will allow all players to play the EXACT same game together. That's nonsense, as the playstyles of each edition (except maybe 1E - 2E) are radically different! You can't have these four characters at the same table without throwing balance out the window. Eventually the Devs realized this and defined what they meant by modularity. Each GROUP will determine what will be available and what options are used, with a basic system that will be the default for organized play (modified by each event).

I don't want the different iterations of the current Fighter and Rogue to be the primary options for Fighter and Rogue players. The differences between one packet's fighter and the next packets fighter are mostly asthetic.


The differences are more than merely aesthetic. The current packet uses limited resources that work very similar to Encounter powers. The 2nd Packet worked with a Multiple attack set up that was very simple. Packets 3-4 expanded the Expertise mechanic stressing versatility. Each of these could be detailed out and be very different from each other.

In addition, as a DM, I want options to shape my campaign. I want to be able to change the way not only magic, but fighting works based on geography and political makeup. 
In addition, look at the homebrew Warblade that was posted here a while ago to see how complex options interact with the simpler abilities a Next!Fighter has.


As I said, the full modules may not be seen in the playtest. If they are, I suspect they will be the very last thing done, as they are a modification of existing rules. The first books will not have a billion options for modules. I suspect they will have the most common ones that appeal to the playstyle of the previous editions, plus a few more to create a new playstyle unique to Next.
well the moduals they mentioned where grif combat mass combat and alternative casting.

looking at those it seems moduals will be pretty much the same as the ADnD 2nd edition combat and tactics and spells and magic options.
 
Game companies are fools to announce anything ahead of time.



Agreed, because no plan survives contact with reality. Product goals, team members, time, and resources all change over a long period. They might think they can produce something very ambitious, but fail due to lack of resources, rushed deadlines, and an imperfect estimation of the group's ability.

 Fanatical fans will always over-read and misinterpret, and then get angry when they don't get what they want.



Or it could be the customers' fault. Yes, blaming the people we want to sell to, that seems the way to go.

"Ah, the age-old conundrum. Defenders of a game are too blind to see it's broken, and critics are too idiotic to see that it isn't." - Brian McCormick

Modules So Far
1.  Feats
2.  Skills


Both of those subsystems are now modular.  This will make it a playable game for the 1e/2e crowd.  

The complex side of things is naturally something they would do last.   Both 3e and 4e are complex in different ways relative to 1e/2e.   And when I say complex I'm not talking about ease of play as much as availability of options.

And I admit the backbone of the game is more traditional D&D.  But so is 13th Age and it is very informed by 4e.   Also, unlike 13th Age, I believe there will be a robust tactical module for those who want it.

 



I strongly disagree.

The Feats now give +1 to ability scores,  so at the higher levels,  the math for critters has to assume that the Player will have maxed their primary stat and have at least an above average in a secondary stat.

So for 1st/2nd edition play,  the higher levels become nightmarishly broken.  If a Dragon assumes that every character has a 20 for his primary stat,  and is balanced (With bounded accuracy) to have an AC and Damage around characters with 20's,  the 1st/2nd edition characters who perpetually have something perhaps as low as 15ish in their primary stat are going to have a ridiculously hard time with it.

That means the only way to make the math work is to hand out stat-boosting magic items,  which will start to get repetitive and make people think of 4th edition and it's "required magic items".  Either that,  or make any character without an 18 as his primary stat unplayable,  and since we're talking about the group most likely to be dedicated to rolling stats,  that'll be unacceptable.

That decision by Mearls pretty much eliminates 1st/2nd edition emulation.
Modules So Far
1.  Feats
2.  Skills


Both of those subsystems are now modular.  This will make it a playable game for the 1e/2e crowd.  

The complex side of things is naturally something they would do last.   Both 3e and 4e are complex in different ways relative to 1e/2e.   And when I say complex I'm not talking about ease of play as much as availability of options.

And I admit the backbone of the game is more traditional D&D.  But so is 13th Age and it is very informed by 4e.   Also, unlike 13th Age, I believe there will be a robust tactical module for those who want it.

 



I strongly disagree.

The Feats now give +1 to ability scores,  so at the higher levels,  the math for critters has to assume that the Player will have maxed their primary stat and have at least an above average in a secondary stat.

So for 1st/2nd edition play,  the higher levels become nightmarishly broken.  If a Dragon assumes that every character has a 20 for his primary stat,  and is balanced (With bounded accuracy) to have an AC and Damage around characters with 20's,  the 1st/2nd edition characters who perpetually have something perhaps as low as 15ish in their primary stat are going to have a ridiculously hard time with it.

That means the only way to make the math work is to hand out stat-boosting magic items,  which will start to get repetitive and make people think of 4th edition and it's "required magic items".  Either that,  or make any character without an 18 as his primary stat unplayable,  and since we're talking about the group most likely to be dedicated to rolling stats,  that'll be unacceptable.

That decision by Mearls pretty much eliminates 1st/2nd edition emulation.



I have a hard time believing the disparity would be that big. It's not like skipping those 3 feats for stats gives characters a 50% power boost.

When did dragons start assuming all characters have their primary ability maxed? They've said with bounded accuracy a 1st level character wouldn't have an impossible time hitting a high level creature, just if they got hit they'd probably die instantly.
Modules So Far
1.  Feats
2.  Skills


Both of those subsystems are now modular.  This will make it a playable game for the 1e/2e crowd.  

The complex side of things is naturally something they would do last.   Both 3e and 4e are complex in different ways relative to 1e/2e.   And when I say complex I'm not talking about ease of play as much as availability of options.

And I admit the backbone of the game is more traditional D&D.  But so is 13th Age and it is very informed by 4e.   Also, unlike 13th Age, I believe there will be a robust tactical module for those who want it.

 



I strongly disagree.

The Feats now give +1 to ability scores,  so at the higher levels,  the math for critters has to assume that the Player will have maxed their primary stat and have at least an above average in a secondary stat.

So for 1st/2nd edition play,  the higher levels become nightmarishly broken.  If a Dragon assumes that every character has a 20 for his primary stat,  and is balanced (With bounded accuracy) to have an AC and Damage around characters with 20's,  the 1st/2nd edition characters who perpetually have something perhaps as low as 15ish in their primary stat are going to have a ridiculously hard time with it.

That means the only way to make the math work is to hand out stat-boosting magic items,  which will start to get repetitive and make people think of 4th edition and it's "required magic items".  Either that,  or make any character without an 18 as his primary stat unplayable,  and since we're talking about the group most likely to be dedicated to rolling stats,  that'll be unacceptable.

That decision by Mearls pretty much eliminates 1st/2nd edition emulation.



I have a hard time believing the disparity would be that big. It's not like skipping those 3 feats for stats gives characters a 50% power boost.

When did dragons start assuming all characters have their primary ability maxed? They've said with bounded accuracy a 1st level character wouldn't have an impossible time hitting a high level creature, just if they got hit they'd probably die instantly.




Yes, but stat bonuses throw all that to the wind. Your stats affect: 

Hit points

Attack bonuses

Damage

Spells per day (not that the melee classes have anythin like this in terms of power and verstility.)

And assorted class features.

Accuracy, then, is both the porblem and not the problem not the problem. The effects tied to hitting, specifically damage, scalde quadratically with linearly-scaling to-hit bonuses.

There is a huge difference between (1[W] + 3) + (1[W] + 3) (dual wielding with a 16 strength) and (1[W] + 5) + (1[W] + 5) (dual wielding with a 20 strength.) 

Ridiculously high attack abilities meets bounded accuracy and makes your chance of hitting very high, going from the 70% number given by R&D for high-level play, to something ridiculous; 80 or even 90%.

So, now, instead of getting (1[W] + 3) + (1[W] + 3)*0.7, we have (1[W] + 5) + (1[W] + 5)*0.9. Now, add on all the assorted magic items of high level play, like the ridiculously simple Vorpal Critfisher (A ranger with bonuses to his Critrange and a vorpal sword) or even just stuff like the Flaming sword and you end up with a ridiculously powerful character with no choices in combat whatsoever.

That is, in my mind, a bad thing.

----

 
I don't see why exactly you couldn't have those four setups at the table together, assuming you make their numbers scale to the same place. Things might be a little wonkier, but "things might be a little wonkier" is a very different thing than "this is completely and utterly unworkable". You might also have to make small concessions here and there, but again, that's different from being completely unworkable. I'm not saying it's easy, but I don't understand why it's categorically impossible. (At the bare minimum, there would be tremendous presentation issues.) Look at the vast number of resource management systems 3.5 supported; if those can all work together, I don't see why the concepts in the OP can't. (And it's not like there's not room to improve 3.5's balance.)

I feel like we've already seen some pokes at modules, with things like the natural healing options. Not every module necessarily has to have a big header that says "ENERGY DRAIN AS NEGATIVE LEVELS MODULE" at the top of it.

That's not to say that I in any fashion -expect- that those four setups will all be able to play at a table together, or even that they'll all be able to play at all. I expect that Next will come out and will look more or less like any other edition of D&D, but perhaps with more toggles built into it from the get-go.

At the end of the day, I think Next actually benefits quite a bit if it can get as many people as possible to accept a basic set of assumptions about the game. It makes the design of everything that comes after much easier if you can assume that certain things are more or less fixed in place. Ironically, one of the places where there's the greatest benefit is in the design of future modules; if a module can expect that the basic game has certain properties, it has a lot more freedom. (I'm talking here about modules that fundamentally mess with assumptions about how the game works, like armor-as-DR, not purely additive options that (probably) don't mess up anything else, like "Here's a Soulknife class".)
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.


~

At the end of the day, I think Next actually benefits quite a bit if it can get as many people as possible to accept a basic set of assumptions about the game. It makes the design of everything that comes after much easier if you can assume that certain things are more or less fixed in place. Ironically, one of the places where there's the greatest benefit is in the design of future modules; if a module can expect that the basic game has certain properties, it has a lot more freedom. (I'm talking here about modules that fundamentally mess with assumptions about how the game works, like armor-as-DR, not purely additive options that (probably) don't mess up anything else, like "Here's a Soulknife class".)



I agree with most of what you say, so I've snipped it. 

I agree with the bolded portion, but I don't agree with the complexity that has been chosen. If we are going to start at a baseline for complexity, every class should share that complexity, not vary wildly from it.
Oh yeah, I don't think that they've necessarily done a great job choosing that basic set of assumptions, especially for this pupose. The design is in some ways serving multiple masters; the basic set of assumptions has to be basic, but it also has to remind people as much as possible of what they're used to. There's no way in any of the hells that if you were just looking to make a simple, core d20 fantasy nugget that the wizard or the cleric would look anything like how they look now, but that's not the entire goal; it's competing with other ones as well.

It's easy to forget that modules have non-zero cost, both to create and to apply. I happen to think that attacker-rolls is a clearly better system than the one Next is using... but if there was a conversion module, I don't know whether or not I'd use it, because while attacker-rolls is better, I don't know that "Next's system, filtered through a module to make it attacker-rolls" is clearly better than "Next's system." Adding the additional need to do some subtraction and explain some stuff and re-interpret what some buffs do isn't a huge burden, but it's enough of one that it starts to erode at the "clearly better".

Similarly, using a complicated class with some modules attached to it to make it simpler runs what I feel is a very real risk of a lot more complicated than using a simple class designed to be simple. "Do this complicated stuff, but do this stuff instead to make it simpler" is, I believe, probably going to be more difficult to do well than "Do this simple stuff".

If Next's only goal with its core was to provide a framework on which to build something that anybody would recognize as the combination of things they like best (and exciting new combinations of things they might like even more), it would look considerably different, but that's not it's only goal with its core, or even necessariliy its main goal. It's also trying to provide something that looks as much as possible like something that existing players are familar with, which is why it looks how it looks. (I don't think this is a bad decision, of course. This are allowed to have multiple competing design desiderata, and if only one is considered at a time, than any design is going to look a little strange.)
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
That is what suffers the most in 5E, i.e. classs structure, and being too rigid along one train of thought, i.e. feats. Through simplicity of choice, they straight jacket the system.
That is what suffers the most in 5E, i.e. classs structure, and being too rigid along one train of thought, i.e. feats. Through simplicity of choice, they straight jacket the system.



Coming from 4E, this seems like a horrible idea to me. Plently of other commentors on this board love straightjacketing player options. I don't pretend to understand the appeal, but I accept that you and your group enjoys it. I don't think that fewer options are bad, I just don't like that way of play. But I want more options. I like the asthetic to 5E so far, but I would like options on how complex the system is.
From what i can gather from some of mikes tweets they want to finalise class design first before they can realy start exploring feats and moduals.

As it is hard to introduce mecanics that modify the base system when the base system is still changing.
From what i can gather from some of mikes tweets they want to finalise class design first before they can realy start exploring feats and moduals.

As it is hard to introduce mecanics that modify the base system when the base system is still changing.



Well, the base system is not working. Each class is its own wildly varying level of complexity, so let us see the modules, so that it can be fixed.
From what i can gather from some of mikes tweets they want to finalise class design first before they can realy start exploring feats and moduals.

As it is hard to introduce mecanics that modify the base system when the base system is still changing.



Well, the base system is not working. Each class is its own wildly varying level of complexity, so let us see the modules, so that it can be fixed.



wel one of the tweets was 



Mike Mearls
‏ : Option depth is coming once the classes are finished, and they are nearly done. Can't build feats and so forth until we know base


 

It scares me that he sais class are almost finished becouse to me what we have been alouwed to see of class design so far seems far from finished.