D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

[jseah]

Why? Skills work pretty well in 4e, without the issues with PCs falling drastically behind their comrades as they gain levels. Certainly, a flat +5 bonus isn't as sexy as having "14 ranks in Arcana", but it also means that your worst gap in skills is constant, rather than ever increasing. Even 5e has gotten the memo that skill ranks cause more problems than they are worth (although the playtest DC numbers need to be fixed).

I may be persuaded to keep the standard 4E skill system for PCs, if only to avoid the problems you mention.

But for NPCs, skill ranks is for me. I do not want specialists to be basically generalists and a bit. A specialist in one area, who can do things no one other than another expert can even understand, should not be able to do marginally more understandable stuff in everything else.

Some ad hoc expansion of the skill list will probably also take place, come to think of it.

I can tell you that this would be a mistake; PCs deal way too much damage and have too few hit points to do "PVP" combat. Fights would come down to which side won initiative, allowing them to action point and blow daily powers. And let's be honest: a fight isn't going to last long enough for you to need a NPC with 15 abilities.

Creating believable monsters in mere minutes is one of the best things about 4e; if 5e takes anything from the 4e system, it should be how easy it is to create/refluff monsters.

It is a difference of campaign style. In the kind of game I run, when a combat starts, you had better have an ace up your sleeve or it could be very bloody. In most cases, when NPCs initiate a fight, they will attempt, to the best of their out of combat abilities and RP constraints to stack everything their way.
EDIT: I also expect players and NPCs to use the terrain well. Not just simple stuff like pushing enemies into trap squares. Actively using walls as LOS and LOE breakers to hide traps (or make enemies think you are hiding traps), prepare tactics and tricks to give as much unfair advantage as possible (eg. goblins with only swords could be fought in a constricted area like a doorway... of course, I would only use such a simple tactical element for a group that didn't use their own)

Spoiler

Show

From my admittedly limited experience with 4E, combats don't do this unless you make it symmetric. My first game with 4E had our GM pitting us against an NPC caster built using a PC class (warlock I think it was).
That had the appropriate feel of tactical complexity and advantage leveraging. (it was a teleporty warlock who could swim, while we were on a ship with portholes that he could teleport through) And that combat was easily the 2nd best one in the entire run of the group, the best going to the boss fight of a one-shot run by another player who had warlord levels and a bunch of sidekicks. (turns out the warlord mummy is the GM's fossilized PC of the main campaign!)
Both PC classed NPC fights ran very well and I liked how they flowed. The lethality changed combat from "run in, smash everything and hope for the best" to heavily using cover and extended (2-3 round) periods where we had to guess at enemy positions and tactics to gain the upperhand. Battlefield intelligence and guesswork was a factor, preparation was a factor (good thing I had cast Alarm in the ship's hold or we would probably have sunk), luck played its part (ally lucky critted at a good time).
And at no other time was the tension higher at the table. Even the final fight of the main campaign was a walk in the park compared to what we did that ship battle. (did I mention I hate the concept of boss fights? I hate the concept of boss fights!)

I don't do level appropriate encounters. I do fights based on what has happened to cause that fight.
And if the players were prepared and had a perfect shutdown of a particular NPC group, so be it. They earned that walkover. And if the NPCs had prepped a counter to them; well, then the PCs are going to lose. Hopefully they'll be smart enough to run... Or if the NPCs prepped a method to stop them running... (although I am not usually so evil =P)

Of course, I don't write a scenario that expects players to be pitted against over-leveled or under-leveled enemies. But the exact difficulty of fights in my campaigns tend to depend on out of combat stuff, which obviously has to be traded off against time (the world isn't going to stop turning while you rest)
The usual way I scale expected fights is to have players be roughly symmetric with their opponents. I don't pit level 12 (3E) PCs against level 5 orcs. I don't expect them to fight the great wyrm blue dragon either. The scenario either doesn't have them or it will be written such that defeating said dragon will not be necessary to accomplish the stated goals. And its just too bad for the orcs if the players decide they want something the orcs have (or marginal XP) and are willing to take the time.

Thus every fight is expected to go 50% each way if it was a fair match, which means that to have a decent chance of success, you're going have to find a way to stack the deck and/or have less fights. And THAT is where the game begins...


Also, I have run one campaign that only needed a bit of fighting that was quite optional. (although the story would have taken a different path if the player had elected not to involve himself)

[Draz74]

Crossposting combat superiority reaction.

None of the examples of things a Fighter can do in this article inspire any great confidence in me. Bonus damage, reduce damage, defend an ally, take an extra attack when an enemy misses? It's a wash overall, and not particularly exciting.

On the other hand, one of the things I've been toying with is a resource system that refreshes round by round, where you can invest the points into passive abilities, or use them for active abilities, some of which reduce your resource cap until you take a rest. The system laid out in this article actually works pretty similarly, just with dice instead of points, and without any indication of abilities that can reduce your dice for the rest of combat/day.

Anyway what I'm getting at is the system itself isn't terrible. It gives Fighters a resource that could potentially be expanded on and used, but dressed up as something unique that feels different. It could be workable if the developers give Fighters actual abilities to use with it, and not just more damage/attacks as it currently looks to be.

Yeah, my initial reaction was "Ok, so Fighters are still just getting numerical bonuses over everyone else, even if those bonuses are now randomly generated instead of automatic. Still boring!" But the advantages have started to grow on me:

• The numerical advantages can be shifted between damage or other things on a round-by-round basis.
• Granting the bonuses in the form of dice will hopefully keep bookkeeping manageable, and will hopefully make the Fighter feel like he has interesting choices to make in combat.
• It sounds like they're scrapping the "Fighters get two Themes" idea in favor of "Fighters get a second Fighter-appropriate Theme, which is also upgraded by including within itself additional options for how they can use their Superiority Dice." Which is a lot less likely to restore the 3e problem of "Fighters 'class features' are really just extra feats."

Don't get me wrong, I personally would still rather play a more Warblade-like Fighter with more qualitative options at his disposal. But this is definitely a big step in the right direction.

[Kerrin]

Interesting fights are nice to have, but they are not critical if the system can be entertaining in other ways.

Interesting fights are critical to D&D games because the game has traditionally been about armed conflicts with opponents.

However, kicking in doors and taking treasure isn't the only thing that has ever been done in a D&D game. Many adventures include other things to do as well. Together they make up the adventure as a whole.

For denizens of the game world / adventure that are going be a significant factor DMs are certainly free to use PC creation rules to spec them out. However, the vast majority aren't going to need that level of detail so the "monster creation" rules favor the most often travelled path by offering a lighter weight way to create them.

I'm okay with that because I have both at my disposal.

[lesser_minion]

Wha? So you think they just made a decision to change things like that randomly? If your argument is "they must be idiots," then there's really no need to continue any discussion, as the only conclusion is that anyone that disagrees with you as an idiot.

There is a vast gulf between "I don't think that the 4e designers did something that they probably should have" and "the 4e designers are idiots". If you can't acknowledge that, then you are right, we don't have anything to discuss.

I think the designers were unambitious and overly conservative, but that does not mean that I think they were idiots. It doesn't even mean that I think I could have done better than they did.

I think that the designers looked at 3.5's grid rules, and decided that it would be better to cut out the trig. I don't disagree with them there. However, I don't think that the designers looked into using different mechanics entirely.

Interesting fights are critical to D&D games because the game has traditionally been about armed conflicts with opponents.

That comment wasn't clear.

To the game as a whole, yes, interesting fights are important.

To any given monster, they aren't. Monsters can have non-combat roles.

It's quite easy to imagine an antagonist you could use in a D&D game, for whom fighting would be an outright betrayal of their concept.

[Ashdate]

I may be persuaded to keep the standard 4E skill system for PCs, if only to avoid the problems you mention.

But for NPCs, skill ranks is for me. I do not want specialists to be basically generalists and a bit. A specialist in one area, who can do things no one other than another expert can even understand, should not be able to do marginally more understandable stuff in everything else.

I suppose, but generally NPCs aren't expected to follow the same rules as PCs in 4e. There doesn't need to be that expectation that his level matches his skills at all. Why does this guy have a +10 nature check? Because you said he does.

It is a difference of campaign style. In the kind of game I run, when a combat starts, you had better have an ace up your sleeve or it could be very bloody. In most cases, when NPCs initiate a fight, they will attempt, to the best of their out of combat abilities and RP constraints to stack everything their way.

Your philosophy is fine, I'm just reiterating that PC rules are not great for running as "monsters" in 4e combat in; Action Points are extremely powerful in high damage/low hit point combats.

Striker PCs can easily "nova" and deal enough damage to bring down a typical PC from full hit points to zero, not to mention the horrors that a Wizard can do with a Sleep spell. Perhaps fine if it's the players Nova'ing on the first round, perhaps not so fine if it's the NPC nova'ing. There's nothing wrong with wanting dangerous combats, but the question is whether the PCs should be able to survive to "round 2" or not.

Bumping standard/elite/solo monster damage and reducing hit points can have a similar effect, while giving more leeway for mistakes/luck (as well as being a lot simpler to run).

[kyoryu]

There is a vast gulf between "I don't think that the 4e designers did something that they probably should have" and "the 4e designers are idiots". I think the designers were unambitious and overly conservative, but that does not mean that I think they were idiots. It doesn't even mean that I think I could have done better than they did.

I think that the designers looked at 3.5's grid rules, and decided that it would be better to cut out the trig. I don't disagree with them there. However, I don't think that the designers looked into using different mechanics entirely.

Unfortunately, neither of us are psychic. However, I've had the pleasure of working with a number of pen and paper RPG designers, and my experience has been that they are widely experienced in a vast array of pen and paper designs. I find it unlikely that they were unaware of other options.

I think the "square bursts" mechanic was based around:

1) people are comfortable with grids
2) 3.x did grids, let's not change unnecessarily
3) let's not require additional accessories unnecessarily
4) it simplifies bookkeeping.

It really feels, in a lot of ways, like a compromise decision. It would have been interesting to find out what the actual design priorities for 4e were, though I'd be willing to bet that "new player acquisition" figured highly, and so avoiding barriers to entry was probably a near-top priority.

[lesser_minion]

It really feels, in a lot of ways, like a compromise decision. It would have been interesting to find out what the actual design priorities for 4e were, though I'd be willing to bet that "new player acquisition" figured highly, and so avoiding barriers to entry was probably a near-top priority.

Perhaps. But I still get the impression that the designers could have done a trial, and that they might have been surprised.

Also, note that rulers are pretty commonplace, cost orders of magnitude less than the D&D books, and are cheaper than graph paper. Not requiring extra accessories to play can be a noble goal, but I don't think anyone would consider having to have a ruler on hand to be a credible disadvantage to a game.

[Seerow]

Yeah, my initial reaction was "Ok, so Fighters are still just getting numerical bonuses over everyone else, even if those bonuses are now randomly generated instead of automatic. Still boring!" But the advantages have started to grow on me:

• The numerical advantages can be shifted between damage or other things on a round-by-round basis.
• Granting the bonuses in the form of dice will hopefully keep bookkeeping manageable, and will hopefully make the Fighter feel like he has interesting choices to make in combat.
• It sounds like they're scrapping the "Fighters get two Themes" idea in favor of "Fighters get a second Fighter-appropriate Theme, which is also upgraded by including within itself additional options for how they can use their Superiority Dice." Which is a lot less likely to restore the 3e problem of "Fighters 'class features' are really just extra feats."

Don't get me wrong, I personally would still rather play a more Warblade-like Fighter with more qualitative options at his disposal. But this is definitely a big step in the right direction.

Ideally what I'd like to see is the two to be merged.

Say you have a few different things you can do with your Combat Superiority:

-The basic stuff, where you roll the full CS value, add to damage, or use as damage reduction, as described in the article.

-The intermediate stuff. This would be the sorts of things they described in the article where the Fighter can give up some or all of his CS dice to do moderately interesting effects that are more or less at will.

-The good stuff. This would be things of a more interesting nature, giving cool and potent abilities, but reduces your combat superiority dice pool until you can take a rest (probably short, but could go either way). Like give up 3 dice to make a stun attack, but lose 1 die for the rest of combat, so you can't just spam that incessantly.

-The passive stuff. The fighter would have access to self buff capabilities, by choosing to reduce his combat superiority dice to gain a passive benefit. At any time he can choose to drop a passive ability to get those dice back, or can invest dice into a new ability.



So the passive stuff is basically ToB stances, while the good stuff is basically ToB maneuvers. Just using a different resource system to make it work.

Of course thus far we have no indication the developers have anything planned beyond the first two much more boring things, it is a decent foundation for a system that should be tweakable to get more interesting results.

[Seerow]

Perhaps. But I still get the impression that the designers could have done a trial, and that they might have been surprised.

Also, note that rulers are pretty commonplace, cost orders of magnitude less than the D&D books, and are cheaper than graph paper. Not requiring extra accessories to play can be a noble goal, but I don't think anyone would consider having to have a ruler on hand to be a credible disadvantage to a game.

fwiw I'm much more likely to have graph paper on hand than a ruler. I haven't had a ruler that I used since I was in middle school (not counting measuring tape and such which would be very inconvenient to use in a game). I have no idea how normal I am in that though.

[huttj509]

fwiw I'm much more likely to have graph paper on hand than a ruler. I haven't had a ruler that I used since I was in middle school (not counting measuring tape and such which would be very inconvenient to use in a game). I have no idea how normal I am in that though.

I have a ruler round here somewhere.

Was doing some fabric cutting for sewing.

[obryn]

I don't think anyone would consider having to have a ruler on hand to be a credible disadvantage to a game.

Um. I would. Squares are easy, and they don't bother me in the least.

-O

[kyoryu]

Um. I would. Squares are easy, and they don't bother me in the least.

-O

Ruler distances also seem to get more argumentative on the edge cases. I don't know that *I* would have a problem with them, but I long ago realized I'm not a typical roleplayer, mostly when I saw the hurdles that people had even playing GURPS, and especially the types of issues that they had. "I can be anything? Like what?"

[jseah]

Your philosophy is fine, I'm just reiterating that PC rules are not great for running as "monsters" in 4e combat in; Action Points are extremely powerful in high damage/low hit point combats.

The nova problem isn't really a problem per se.

Actually, this entire disagreement is a simple difference in playstyle. NPCs aren't "monsters" or "encounters". They are actors in a world, and if it brings them into hostile contact with the PCs, then so be it.

EDIT:
Throwaway NPCs like random city guards would have rough notes sketched out for them and I just fill in the blanks on the fly by looking at character creation rules.
Non-throwaway NPCs do actual things and I do need to know their abilities.

[kyoryu]

The nova problem isn't really a problem per se.

Actually, this entire disagreement is a simple difference in playstyle. NPCs aren't "monsters" or "encounters". They are actors in a world, and if it brings them into hostile contact with the PCs, then so be it.

EDIT:
Throwaway NPCs like random city guards would have rough notes sketched out for them and I just fill in the blanks on the fly by looking at character creation rules.
Non-throwaway NPCs do actual things and I do need to know their abilities.

Actually, it is a problem in 4e. The way the math is designed is pretty inherently asymmetric. Character-level damage applied to PCs would result in extremely quick TPKs. The game was clearly designed around "what does it take to make a fun adventuring game" rather than "what does it take to make a usable world simulation."

Now, which one of those would be appropriate for 5e is a great discussion, but "enemies using PC rules" in 4e is a bad, bad idea.

[Zombimode]

Quite the opposite.
It is true that in 1e/2e creating enemies from scratch was just "throwing stuff together" but that was because the DMG provided little, if any, guidance on how to create appropriate monsters. How much XP is a given HD worth? Is it more or less depending on SLAs or certain powers? DMs had literally no way to gauge what was appropriate aside from "eyeballing it." This was true across many of TSR's contemporaries; as a result DMs traditionally either refluffed published monsters or built them like PCs.

You might have missed a certain page in the DMG. 2e is actually quite clear on how to calculate XP values for opponents.
Since you asked, 1 HD is equal to "one step" on the XP table. If you have a monster with 1 HD and no other specials or anything it would give 15 XP. Add another HD and the monster is now at 35 XP. Its very easy actually.

Does it always provide "accurate" amounts of XP? No, but with systems as complex as D&D this is hardly possible.

[jseah]

Now, which one of those would be appropriate for 5e is a great discussion, but "enemies using PC rules" in 4e is a bad, bad idea.

By "bad idea", you actually mean "doesn't run the way 4E was meant to run". But I didn't like the way 4E was meant to run.
It may run the way I want it to run, although I can't say for sure. (at least judging by how well those two PC classed enemies went, I say I would give it a shot)

If you expand the idea of "battle" or "encounter" to include roughly the entire castle it is taking place in, not just the point where the first fireball flies, then it gets really tactical and interesting. (encounter powers are on 1 or 5 minute refresh timers)

Using all PC classes means that by the time you have got to "stabbing people in the gut" and "throwing fireballs", people are going to DIE. And quickly.
So you better make sure it is you who are throwing the fireballs and your enemies who are doing the dying, not the other way around. That part is where you fight your battle.

[Draz74]

Ideally what I'd like to see is the two to be merged.

Say you have a few different things you can do with your Combat Superiority:

-The basic stuff, where you roll the full CS value, add to damage, or use as damage reduction, as described in the article.

-The intermediate stuff. This would be the sorts of things they described in the article where the Fighter can give up some or all of his CS dice to do moderately interesting effects that are more or less at will.

-The good stuff. This would be things of a more interesting nature, giving cool and potent abilities, but reduces your combat superiority dice pool until you can take a rest (probably short, but could go either way). Like give up 3 dice to make a stun attack, but lose 1 die for the rest of combat, so you can't just spam that incessantly.

-The passive stuff. The fighter would have access to self buff capabilities, by choosing to reduce his combat superiority dice to gain a passive benefit. At any time he can choose to drop a passive ability to get those dice back, or can invest dice into a new ability.



So the passive stuff is basically ToB stances, while the good stuff is basically ToB maneuvers. Just using a different resource system to make it work.

Of course thus far we have no indication the developers have anything planned beyond the first two much more boring things, it is a decent foundation for a system that should be tweakable to get more interesting results.

Eh, I'm ok if that level of complexity gets saved for modules. There are, after all, people who want to play the Fighter because they want to play a simple character.

fwiw I'm much more likely to have graph paper on hand than a ruler. I haven't had a ruler that I used since I was in middle school (not counting measuring tape and such which would be very inconvenient to use in a game). I have no idea how normal I am in that though.

I've sadly never had convenient 1-inch graph paper on hand when I want it for roleplaying purposes ...

But I'm more or less converted to using digital battlemaps, which means that I'm more and more in favor of getting rid of the grid entirely.

[kyoryu]

Eh, I'm ok if that level of complexity gets saved for modules. There are, after all, people who want to play the Fighter because they want to play a simple character.

Not to be snarky, but are there, really? I don't think I've ever met one.

[Seerow]

Eh, I'm ok if that level of complexity gets saved for modules. There are, after all, people who want to play the Fighter because they want to play a simple character.

In my opinion it's FAR easier to take a complex system and make it simple via a module, than it is to make a complex system a module.

I mean if you have the complex option as core, writing a module to make it simple is as easy as saying "Take the average value of your combat superiority dice and apply it as a flat bonus to all damage rolls". Now you have an ultra simple fighter. It's weaker, but no options is ALWAYS weaker than options.

On the other hand, starting with a simple fighter, a module would need to include the combat superiority mechanic, and tons of options for that mechanic. Having an optional module taking up far more room that the main class is backwards imo.

I've sadly never had convenient 1-inch graph paper on hand when I want it for roleplaying purposes ...

I don't use 1 inch graph paper. It's usually considerable smaller. We end up passing the maps around the room a lot.

Not to be snarky, but are there, really? I don't think I've ever met one.

The WotC forums are crawling with them. I know at least one guy IRL who I think would qualify, though I've never played D&D with him (in Shadowrun he plays a Street Samurai exclusively so that the only thing he needs to worry about is who to point his gun at)

[Craft (Cheese)]

My problem with those people? There's the Spectator class I homebrewed up, just for them. Now they don't have to worry about anything! Why lump people who want to play a non-gish melee character and people who really want to play the spectator into the same group?

(And, really, I'd be perfectly fine with alienating that audience. D&D can't be all things to all people, and it shouldn't try. People who don't actually want to be playing a roleplaying game are as good a choice as any to ignore.)

[Knaight]

Not to be snarky, but are there, really? I don't think I've ever met one.

There are certainly people who want to play a mechanically simple character, but they should probably be using a mechanically simple system to do so. It's not as if there is some dearth of rules light games.

[Draz74]

Not to be snarky, but are there, really? I don't think I've ever met one.

Sure.

In my experience (which is admittedly a shaky sample size, which probably shouldn't be used to draw conclusions about the demographic as a whole), they tend to be the same segment of players who don't particularly enjoy combat. They're there to roleplay, rather than to play a tactical wargames (whereas most of us on this forum prefer a mix of both).

... which does raise the question as to whether the "super simple" class for these people should be the Fighter archetype, as opposed to, say, the Rogue. But like I said, limited sample size, probably shouldn't draw conclusions.

(Would people like that be better off playing some other RPG system rather than D&D? Probably. But D&D is easier to get a playgroup together for, since it's more well-known.)

In my opinion it's FAR easier to take a complex system and make it simple via a module, than it is to make a complex system a module.

Really? This general statement immediately baffles me. It runs entirely contrary to my experience.

I mean if you have the complex option as core, writing a module to make it simple is as easy as saying "Take the average value of your combat superiority dice and apply it as a flat bonus to all damage rolls". Now you have an ultra simple fighter. It's weaker, but no options is ALWAYS weaker than options.

Not always. I mean, for a 3.5e example, try comparing a Truenamer to a Hulking Hurler ... at Level 8. One strong option is better than a big pile of nigh-useless options. But this is all a sidetrack ... my point is, it is possible (although very difficult) to balance power vs. versatility, in spite of what many optimizers have been led to believe by their 3.5e experience.

But sure. This is doable.

On the other hand, starting with a simple fighter, a module would need to include the combat superiority mechanic, and tons of options for that mechanic.

True ... but what's wrong with that? I mean, it seems like more work when you're just looking at the task of writing the module, but it's really not any more work overall. Because your previous idea involved writing "tons of options" in the original non-module ruleset.

Having an optional module taking up far more room that the main class is backwards imo.

So you're saying 3.5e Core would have been better off including Incarnum from the get-go, rather than making it an optional rules module (aka splatbook) that could be added and integrated in by groups who were interested?

[Seerow]

So you're saying 3.5e Core would have been better off including Incarnum from the get-go, rather than making it an optional rules module (aka splatbook) that could be added and integrated in by groups who were interested?

Incarnum wasn't an option for a class, it was its own subsystem. What you are asking for is like saying that the Incarnate be released by default without Essentia, and only have one soulmeld that is preselected at level 1 and scales with him, then making the ability to get more soulmelds and assigning essentia an optional module.

[obryn]

Actually, this entire disagreement is a simple difference in playstyle. NPCs aren't "monsters" or "encounters". They are actors in a world, and if it brings them into hostile contact with the PCs, then so be it.

Again, none of this is incompatible with building them using the 4e NPC rules. It's certainly how NPCs work in my own games, and I'd say it's supported via the rule-set.

-O

[obryn]

Not to be snarky, but are there, really? I don't think I've ever met one.

Yep; I have one in my own group. She wants a fairly simple character with just a few moving parts. The Essentials-style 4e classes have been great for her. Right now she has a halfling scout/jaszt dancer, which is a fun little acrobatic charging cannonball of death.

-O

[Oracle_Hunter]

You might have missed a certain page in the DMG. 2e is actually quite clear on how to calculate XP values for opponents.
Since you asked, 1 HD is equal to "one step" on the XP table. If you have a monster with 1 HD and no other specials or anything it would give 15 XP. Add another HD and the monster is now at 35 XP. Its very easy actually.

Does it always provide "accurate" amounts of XP? No, but with systems as complex as D&D this is hardly possible.

A simple look at the MM could tell you how little that sort of guideline helps when designing monsters. It completely leaves out all manner of tactically important concerns: big damage attacks, save or dies, spell levels, immunities -- the list goes on. Trying to design monsters along these "rules" and you may as well be designing them without.

Which, rather, was the point of my previous post

[ImperiousLeader]

The addition of the slayer type-fighter in Essentials was a godsend for me, I often have a casual player show up with little interest in playing anything more complicated ... some don't even bother using the stances the class provides. They really just want to attack and see if they hit, then roll damage. Between the Slayer and inherent bonuses ... I can stat up a playable PC in 5 minutes that will work for a first-timer, at any level.

So, yes, there is a need for a simple fighter in 5e, and I'd like to see one. The Combat superiority mechanic sounds good. Will wait and see what it's like in practice.

[Kerrin]

I must be be looking at this in too simple a manner.

If a DM prefers to use the PC building rules to make NPCs and monsters, then they can do so.

If a DM prefers to use the separate and streamlined monster / NPC building rules, then they can do so.

In most of the games I have DMed over the years the monsters and NPCs I have built are not necessarily bound by either types of rules. I just give them whatever they need for the purpose they are serving.

[1337 b4k4]

In my opinion it's FAR easier to take a complex system and make it simple via a module, than it is to make a complex system a module.

I have to echo the above poster. This statement runs counter to my own experiences and my intuition as well. While there are some examples of this being relatively easy, usually the problem with taking a complex system and removing pieces to make a simpler system is that the system as a whole often relies on core assumptions about those pieces to work properly, such that it's more a large interconnected house of cards than a truly modular system. Some pieces you can remove just fine, but other pieces bring down the whole system or require the removal of other pieces.

This is like programing. Sure it's quicker and easier to build a giant monolithic system without encapsulation and message passing and objects and rules (well, to a point) but its much much harder to then break that system down and remove chunks and parts when you need to. On the other hand, if you do the extra work up front to build a truly modular system, adding, removing and changing parts is not only easier, but much less likely to break things, because there are less assumptions built in.

[Seerow]

I have to echo the above poster. This statement runs counter to my own experiences and my intuition as well. While there are some examples of this being relatively easy, usually the problem with taking a complex system and removing pieces to make a simpler system is that the system as a whole often relies on core assumptions about those pieces to work properly, such that it's more a large interconnected house of cards than a truly modular system. Some pieces you can remove just fine, but other pieces bring down the whole system or require the removal of other pieces.

This is like programing. Sure it's quicker and easier to build a giant monolithic system without encapsulation and message passing and objects and rules (well, to a point) but its much much harder to then break that system down and remove chunks and parts when you need to. On the other hand, if you do the extra work up front to build a truly modular system, adding, removing and changing parts is not only easier, but much less likely to break things, because there are less assumptions built in.

I see people giving reasoning like this a lot, but game design is not programming. What is the base and what is optional does matter, because optional things by necessity won't get the support necessary to maintain a complex system.

As an example of removing a complex system in favor of something simple in an actual game: The spell-less Ranger/Paladin variants. They all sucked relative to having spells (because even a crappy casting progression gives far more versatility than anything simple could hope to provide), but are a perfect example of how you take a subsystem out of a class and replace it with something simpler.

On the other hand, you NEVER see a class start out simple and add on a whole resource system and large set of abilities to use with it. And even if something like that was done, since it's an optional addition rather than the baseline class, it would inevitably see less play (due to DMs claiming it's overpowered since a complex system is better than a simple one, and the simple one is core), and receive less support from the developers meaning fewer options for Fighters to use.

Seriously, show me one example of an ACF that provides a complex subsystem in place of a simple feature. It isn't something that actually happens in game design, and there are reasons for that. It may be more elegant to make the simple the baseline, but it isn't something that will actually work well in practice.


Edit: Just to give something else to think about, imagine if Vancian Spellcasting was an optional module in 3.5. Can you imagine having one system that covers 2 chapters and 40-50% of the page count of the book, being optional? Do you think if it was optional, and covered only 10 pages or so instead, it would have gotten half the later supplemental support? Heck no.

What I am looking for out of Combat Superiority (or whatever other system they go with for mundanes) is a system that is comparable in terms of complexity and options to spellcasting for mundanes. That is something that is straight up not going to be possible as an option, because they can't dedicate that kind of space to optional rules.