All that I got out of the article is that there won't be eight or twelve archery feats; once you know that you want to be a pure archer, that is your decision - you don't need to determine which four archery feats to take.
By definition, modules are not part of core. Do you perhaps mean "if modules aren't in the core books?"
Edit: Also, there is absolutely no difference between the "yes, and. . ." or the "Oh heck no!" approaches because every option requires DM approval.
No, I mean modules need to be a part of core, knowing full well at present that is not the case. If modules aren't part of core they are marginalized in such a way that they might as well not exist as they will be thought of as the rules of munchkins, powergamers, and min/maxers. If D&D Next is going to be a modular game, that aspect needs to be at and in the core of D&D Next.
Core is the rules that everyone uses. Modules cannot be part of core and still be modules. Core needs to be designed with modularity in mind, but core and modules are inherently separate things.
There is a big difference between "Yes, and..." and "Heck no!". They have diametrically opposed base assumptions. If D&D Next is going to appeal to the broadest audience, anything that a player wants to do that is not in opposition to the DM's designs needs to be encouraged. Making core less than basic encourages the DM to discourage anything that the DM hasn't specifically accounted for in their world, working against modularity by design.
What you're describing is a bad/inexperienced DM, not a need for modules to be implanted in the core.
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin." NPC: "Really?" Fighter: "Yes." NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?" Fighter: "I do." NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?" Fighter: "What?" NPC: "I don't know what it means either." Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do." NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics." Fighter: "These what?" NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
By definition, modules are not part of core. Do you perhaps mean "if modules aren't in the core books?"
Edit: Also, there is absolutely no difference between the "yes, and. . ." or the "Oh heck no!" approaches because every option requires DM approval.
No, I mean modules need to be a part of core, knowing full well at present that is not the case. If modules aren't part of core they are marginalized in such a way that they might as well not exist as they will be thought of as the rules of munchkins, powergamers, and min/maxers. If D&D Next is going to be a modular game, that aspect needs to be at and in the core of D&D Next.
Core is the rules that everyone uses. Modules cannot be part of core and still be modules. Core needs to be designed with modularity in mind, but core and modules are inherently separate things.
Everyone needs to make their D&D, the one that works best for DM and table. Modularity is something (call it a rule or mechanic) that everyone needs to use which is why it must be a part of core. Otherwise the entire game is modular in name only. Modularity can't be a buzzword, or a bone thrown to the gamers who don't like core, Basic, or Advanced. It needs to be a part of every element of the game, otherwise it might as well not even be a part of the design goals.
I'm not sure i like the sound of lower value of crunch. After 10+ years of 3E and 4W, I find I like a high volume of crunch.
As do I. Without more crunch, I will not be buying more products. Since we create our own setting and story, what do I need with WOTC's story fluff? If I wanted that, I'd pick up a d&d novel.
And without the prospect of more options in the future, I'm not even sure about putting down my dollars for the core game when they come out and say there isn't going to be any more crunch. It's becoming less and less likely I'm spending money on 5E.
By definition, modules are not part of core. Do you perhaps mean "if modules aren't in the core books?"
Edit: Also, there is absolutely no difference between the "yes, and. . ." or the "Oh heck no!" approaches because every option requires DM approval.
No, I mean modules need to be a part of core, knowing full well at present that is not the case. If modules aren't part of core they are marginalized in such a way that they might as well not exist as they will be thought of as the rules of munchkins, powergamers, and min/maxers. If D&D Next is going to be a modular game, that aspect needs to be at and in the core of D&D Next.
Core is the rules that everyone uses. Modules cannot be part of core and still be modules. Core needs to be designed with modularity in mind, but core and modules are inherently separate things.
Everyone needs to make their D&D, the one that works best for DM and table. Modularity is something (call it a rule or mechanic) that everyone needs to use which is why it must be a part of core. Otherwise the entire game is modular in name only. Modularity can't be a buzzword, or a bone thrown to the gamers who don't like core, Basic, or Advanced. It needs to be a part of every element of the game, otherwise it might as well not even be a part of the design goals.
If you mean that modules as a whole have to abe able to affect everything, with each individual module perhaps altering only one thing to a handful of things, then I agree wholeheartedly. If you mean that every element of the game in the core books needs to offer at least one module in some kind of sidebar, then I sort of disagree (we can probably whittle down the number of these that need to be there to just a few key areas like healing). If you mean that modules must actually be core material, then you are flat out wrong because there becomes no distinction between modules and core at that point. If modules are core, and not just printed in the core rulebook, then they are a default assumption of the system, and this cannot happen. Perhaps the best reason why is the healing. There will be a core recovery method. There will aslo be options for faster and slower healing. But all three of those cannot actually be core rules because then the system assumes that you are using slow healing, normal healing, and fast healing all at the same time because they all become default rules.
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin." NPC: "Really?" Fighter: "Yes." NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?" Fighter: "I do." NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?" Fighter: "What?" NPC: "I don't know what it means either." Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do." NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics." Fighter: "These what?" NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
By definition, modules are not part of core. Do you perhaps mean "if modules aren't in the core books?"
Edit: Also, there is absolutely no difference between the "yes, and. . ." or the "Oh heck no!" approaches because every option requires DM approval.
No, I mean modules need to be a part of core, knowing full well at present that is not the case. If modules aren't part of core they are marginalized in such a way that they might as well not exist as they will be thought of as the rules of munchkins, powergamers, and min/maxers. If D&D Next is going to be a modular game, that aspect needs to be at and in the core of D&D Next.
Core is the rules that everyone uses. Modules cannot be part of core and still be modules. Core needs to be designed with modularity in mind, but core and modules are inherently separate things.
Everyone needs to make their D&D, the one that works best for DM and table. Modularity is something (call it a rule or mechanic) that everyone needs to use which is why it must be a part of core. Otherwise the entire game is modular in name only. Modularity can't be a buzzword, or a bone thrown to the gamers who don't like core, Basic, or Advanced. It needs to be a part of every element of the game, otherwise it might as well not even be a part of the design goals.
If you mean that modules as a whole have to abe able to affect everything, with each individual module perhaps altering only one thing to a handful of things, then I agree wholeheartedly. If you mean that every element of the game in the core books needs to offer at least one module in some kind of sidebar, then I sort of disagree (we can probably whittle down the number of these that need to be there to just a few key areas like healing). If you mean that modules must actually be core material, then you are flat out wrong because there becomes no distinction between modules and core at that point. If modules are core, and not just printed in the core rulebook, then they are a default assumption of the system, and this cannot happen. Perhaps the best reason why is the healing. There will be a core recovery method. There will aslo be options for faster and slower healing. But all three of those cannot actually be core rules because then the system assumes that you are using slow healing, normal healing, and fast healing all at the same time because they all become default rules.
There should be no distinction between core rules and modules, not even sidebar elements. Modules need to be a default assumption of the system. If they are not, then the system isn't modular. There should be no core recovery method. There should be a number of recovery options, all of which have been tested and balanced so that any of them can be used with (as a slightly forced example) any of the modular spellcasting options without creating an imbalance. As it stands right now, D&D Next is not built as a modular game. It is a game with a small core and lots of optional rules. If D&D Next is going to be a modular game, then default mechanics need to be out and modular yet balanced rules need to be in.
There should be no distinction between core rules and modules, not even sidebar elements.
If there is no distinction between core and modules, then there are no modules. If all three methods of recovery (slow, midrange, and fast) are included in the core, then you recover all three of them at the same time, creating a kind of ultra-mega-fast recovery as you sum the recovered HPs from each.
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin." NPC: "Really?" Fighter: "Yes." NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?" Fighter: "I do." NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?" Fighter: "What?" NPC: "I don't know what it means either." Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do." NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics." Fighter: "These what?" NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
There should be no distinction between core rules and modules, not even sidebar elements.
If there is no distinction between core and modules, then there are no modules. If all three methods of recovery (slow, midrange, and fast) are included in the core, then you recover all three of them at the same time, creating a kind of ultra-mega-fast recovery as you sum the recovered HPs from each.
Not at all. All can be presented as viable, balanced options, with the DM deciding what the campaign is going to use, the players as a group deciding what the campaign is going to use, or in some cases (spellcasting in particular) each player deciding what their character is going to use. A, B, or C is a viable core element. It doesn't mean A, B, and C is a requirement.
There should be no distinction between core rules and modules, not even sidebar elements.
If there is no distinction between core and modules, then there are no modules. If all three methods of recovery (slow, midrange, and fast) are included in the core, then you recover all three of them at the same time, creating a kind of ultra-mega-fast recovery as you sum the recovered HPs from each.
Not at all. All can be presented as viable, balanced options, with the DM deciding what the campaign is going to use, the players as a group deciding what the campaign is going to use, or in some cases (spellcasting in particular) each player deciding what their character is going to use. A, B, or C is a viable core element. It doesn't mean A, B, and C is a requirement.
If that's what you want, then the existing core + modules format fits that bill. And since you'd need DM approval to use any module in the corless system you appear to be describing, you're still in the same seat with the core + modules format.
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin." NPC: "Really?" Fighter: "Yes." NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?" Fighter: "I do." NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?" Fighter: "What?" NPC: "I don't know what it means either." Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do." NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics." Fighter: "These what?" NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
There should be no distinction between core rules and modules, not even sidebar elements.
If there is no distinction between core and modules, then there are no modules. If all three methods of recovery (slow, midrange, and fast) are included in the core, then you recover all three of them at the same time, creating a kind of ultra-mega-fast recovery as you sum the recovered HPs from each.
Not at all. All can be presented as viable, balanced options, with the DM deciding what the campaign is going to use, the players as a group deciding what the campaign is going to use, or in some cases (spellcasting in particular) each player deciding what their character is going to use. A, B, or C is a viable core element. It doesn't mean A, B, and C is a requirement.
If that's what you want, then the existing core + modules format fits that bill. And since you'd need DM approval to use any module in the corless system you appear to be describing, you're still in the same seat with the core + modules format.
Except that the overall design will be prejudiced in favor of the default. In a truly modular system this wouldn't happen.
