Baby Steps

[mrswing]

Very interesting ideas. Perhaps 3 boxed sets: Heroic, Paragon, Epic? I always found lvls 1-3 far too limiting. The 1-10 level range may turn out to be sufficient for quite a number of gamers, and you could put all the basic types of adventuring (dungeoneering, urban, wilderness) in the first set. Set two could then include mass combat (PC's can start leading armies), dominion rules, running a country etc. Set 3 could then focus on planar adventuring (something which I always thought fitted better with very high level PCs).

And another stray thought about the more complex classes - perhaps these could be in the Paragon set as a kind of prestige classes/next step up. The basic set would give the typical archetypes, while becoming a ranger, paladin, assassin etc. would only be possible from lvl 11 onward. The first ten levels would be 'basic training', and specialization is only possible (and not mandatory, of course) in the next tier...

 

[Quickleaf]

It's tricky; I make no claim otherwise. But I think it'd be worth doing.

I heartily second you. It would be great if there were separate character sheets for new players, cajoled spouses, and children which had *everything* you'd need to play on one sheet, maybe even single-sided. I was thinking something akin to the Shadowrun archetypes...getting as close to a prefen as you can get while still allowing the player to choose class, race (perhaps from a limited selection), and some feature defining the PC.

Who knows, maybe this is off the mark, but something tells me you've got a good read on making D&D more accessible.

 

[Brom Blackforge]

Plus, as you say, some of the more advanced options--the equivalents of paragon paths or prestige classes--could be built entirely as add-ons.

This reminds me of the careers in Warhammer Fantasy RPG. Maybe something like that is the answer: each set of classes extends only as far as the box set in which it appears, and each new box set offers a new selection of classes. Then it's not a matter of continuing with your existing class, it's choosing a new class for that tier. As with the Warhammer careers (or 3.x prestige classes), there would be prerequisites, but there'd be some flexibility and there'd be some ability to choose between simpler and more complex classes.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Plus, as you say, some of the more advanced options--the equivalents of paragon paths or prestige classes--could be built entirely as add-ons.

This reminds me of the careers in Warhammer Fantasy RPG. Maybe something like that is the answer: each set of classes extends only as far as the box set in which it appears, and each new box set offers a new selection of classes. Then it's not a matter of continuing with your existing class, it's choosing a new class for that tier. As with the Warhammer careers (or 3.x prestige classes), there would be prerequisites, but there'd be some flexibility and there'd be some ability to choose between simpler and more complex classes.

I think going the Warhammer path while interesting and fun strays too far away from what people expect from D&D. While you can have fun killing sacred cows, this would seem to just increasingly split up your core customer base as it were.

Funnily enough, I think Pathfinder hit's the golden nail on the head here with the "archetype" concept - a much more refined and balanced idea than the prestige class and a more effective/satisfying option than 4e multiclassing or somewhat similar paragon class concept. For example you have a set of core classes where each have a series of core abilities a, b, c, d, e, f across several levels (let's say six for argument's sake). However, you can then choose an "archetype of that class" which replaces abilities b, c and e with abilities x, y and z of a similar power level. So rather than being a Ranger, you become a Ranger (Guide). You allow the core classes to have simple (but effective and powerful) core abilities that are suitable for a novice player. The archetype replacement abilities provide a more complex set of options and abilities suitable for the advanced/experienced player. The archetypes give you an advanced series of options, that mesh with the existing, rather than being something added on later (prestige classes) and amplify the positives of multi-classing and paragon class structures.

I think in this way, you can have your cake and eat it too. You have simple options for the novice but you also cater for advanced and advancing players, all within the one box.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[NoWayJose]

Jester's D&D Jazz on the Perfect D&D thread is a nod in that direction. He starts off with 4 base classes at 1st level, and then work your way to prestige classes (in his version, includes Monk, Druid, etc.) at 2nd level or higher.

What if a 5E Basic Red Box was, fictionaly, a teen's adventure. Your PCs start off at something like 15 years of age as one of 4 base classes and work their way up to a fully fledged 'adult' class in time for the next box set. The playstyle is about finding out who you are and growing into what you can become. This might also appeal to newbies who happen to be teenagers. And, fictionally, it's not so strange when you think of all the origin stories that start off earlier in a paragon's life. And in medieval times, you could get be married or apprenticed or squired at 13, no?

So to clarify, the emphasis is not on offering choices of easy classes and complex classes in parallel. In the Red Box, everyone starts off with an easy class and there are less rules, because you're roleplaying a younger hero with a smaller simpler skillset. If that's not for you, then you don't need to buy the Red Box, which is simply optional.