D&D 2E Should 5e use optional rules like 2e did?

[ferratus]

Lots of people are talking about how they want things to be in the first PHB and what they don't.

Should 5e take a page of 2e and include more complex, optional rules alongside the more complex options?

For example take non-combat skills. The base rule was that your character could do what you said your character could do, and you used ability score checks to resolve their success. The first optional rule was that you had "secondary skills" which meant that you knew skills that would be related to his profession (roll on table for profession). The second optional rule was the (in)famous proficiency system that most D&D groups used.

Throughout the PHB and DMG (and some of the splatbooks), you would find boxed text explaining an optional rule you could use if you didn't want to rely on DM fiat, or you wanted a precise way to deal with a specific issue that the rules did generally.

Do you find this setup a good compromise, or would you hate the fact that your page count was used up with rules that you have no intention of using?

 

[john112364]

I think you have just described what they want with their modular approach. Pretty much everything is going to be optional.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

This is what I hope they do.

 

[howandwhy99]

Supplement D5 says: "To use this supplement remove rules XX & XX from the core game"

I could see it.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Anything that encourages customization and discourages looking at the rules as dogma is good.

 

[Tallifer]

I really hope however that the Wizards can make work what was promised off-hand at the Seminar: that players can play together at the same table using different options. I realize that some things are mutually exclusive, but as much as possible I want to avoid showing up at a table and the dungeon master giving me a checklist of things which are forbidden or allowed at his table. That would be a nightmare.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I really hope however that the Wizards can make work what was promised off-hand at the Seminar: that players can play together at the same table using different options. I realize that some things are mutually exclusive, but as much as possible I want to avoid showing up at a table and the dungeon master giving me a checklist of things which are forbidden or allowed at his table. That would be a nightmare.

I don't see it happening. Suppose I opt out of healing surges, but the rest of the party doesn't. How am I doing anything besides nerfing my character? And even if I'm not, I still have to be yanked out of immersion by watching the rest of the party burn their healing surges and watch their wounds spontaneously heal when the bard insults them.

 

[Tallifer]

I don't see it happening. Suppose I opt out of healing surges, but the rest of the party doesn't. How am I doing anything besides nerfing my character? And even if I'm not, I still have to be yanked out of immersion by watching the rest of the party burn their healing surges and watch their wounds spontaneously heal when the bard insults them.

Here is hoping that you can let other people enjoy themselves at your table. But I think you are correct that there are too many huge contradictions to reconcile.

If however the Fifth Edition only gives us a choice of different sub-games, we may as well all keep playing our separate editions in our separate little worlds, because exclusionary table rules will not unify players.

 

[TarionzCousin]

... when the bard insults them.

It's called "constructive criticism."

 

[Greg K]

Should 5e take a page of 2e and include more complex, optional rules alongside the more complex options?

It worked for me also with the 3e DMG. Lot of options and variant rules.