• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 5E D&D 5e: A Better Vision

No Big Deal

First Post
Okay, lets try this again. My last thread got moved to the discussion of the seminar for some reason.

First, the current goals for 5e aren't great. So here, without further ado are 10 talking point or goals for D&D 5e.

1. Function. Everything has to work form day one. 4e failed this and so did 3.5, I really don't want to argue about who failed more. The key is that every major system (classes, social interactions, combat, treasure) works when you release the edition AND WORKS AT EVERY LEVEL. I don't care if it takes you three or four years to make this happen. If you make a game it should work. This is especially important because you can't fix the game people are playing easily, an MMORPG can patch their game. You don't have that luxury. Make the game work. Fiddly bits can be over of under powered, but your core systems should function.

2. Classes. You should MINIMUM have 15 classes. This was, IMO, 4e's biggest failing was lowering the number. I only kind of care, but to some people this really matters. Each of these classes should help to define your character and provide a point of view to look at the world from.

3. Balance. Your game should be balanced. This means two things: first, no options should be obviously superior to other options, second, no "point breaks" where the game stops working if you take certain options.

4. Interest. Options should feel different from each other. This is one of 3.5's strengths and one of 4e's weaknesses. If I want to be a rouge that should feel different that a fighter or a wizard. Me resource management system should work differently. Even something as simple as Tome of Battle's recharge mechanics is fine, if you have other differences.

5. Verisimilitude. Bluntly, if an ability exists, the game world should reflect that. If level 12 wizards can build walls of stone with magic you should be able to tell! This shouldn't come in the way of fundamental concepts (I don't care how dragons fly, I don' care if your laws of physics are like the real world), but it should impact the world.

6. Setting. There should be a default setting for your edition. This setting should be interesting and well supported. You could easily pick up a random setting (Ebberon or Forgotten Realms spring to mind) and put it into the core rules. This is important because it provides a focus for what the edition is "about" and a spokesperson for your game. As an added bonus, it sells more books.

7. Realism. If your going to have monster they need to behave in ways people can understand, or at least be explicitly crazy (mind flayers or aboleths). If you have goblins THEY NEED A CULTURE not just a paragraph of <Generic God>, <One Social Concept>, and Evil!, but a though out culture that works within your game world.

8. A Plan. You should have a plan for content and what your going to put where. Start with a PHB that contains classes and races that have inertia, a MM that has classic monsters that need no introduction, and a DMG/Setting book that ties together your world. After that pop out some expansion books, then 1-2 years in a MM 2, then a year after that a PHB and DMG 2. These have more esoteric concepts.

9. Expectations. Come up with a list of five to ten concepts to associate with your game. These should be tone and feel issues, not crunch per se. Here are a few I like:
-Magic as a tool
-A complex, vibrant world
-Points of darkness
-Sword and Sorcery

10. Kill Sacred Cows. You need to break some of the core assumptions of D&D. To start with: Less than 20 level, no +N items, fighters AND wizards getting nice things, inability for players to gain "epic" abilities.

I might elaborate later, but this is already pretty huge and it doesn't even have mechanics yet.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Dannager

First Post
Okay, lets try this again. My last thread got moved to the discussion of the seminar for some reason.

First, the current goals for 5e aren't great. So here, without further ado are 10 talking point or goals for D&D 5e.

1. Function. Everything has to work form day one. 4e failed this and so did 3.5, I really don't want to argue about who failed more. The key is that every major system (classes, social interactions, combat, treasure) works when you release the edition AND WORKS AT EVERY LEVEL. I don't care if it takes you three or four years to make this happen. If you make a game it should work. This is especially important because you can't fix the game people are playing easily, an MMORPG can patch their game. You don't have that luxury. Make the game work. Fiddly bits can be over of under powered, but your core systems should function.

Actually, you can patch your game. DDI's high level of integration allowed automatic patching of monsters, character options, traps, etc. As long as everyone is using the digital tools to help run their game, everyone is using the most up-to-date version of those things.

2. Classes. You should MINIMUM have 15 classes.

Why? Because you say so, or what? No edition has had that many on release.

3. Balance. Your game should be balanced. This means two things: first, no options should be obviously superior to other options, second, no "point breaks" where the game stops working if you take certain options.

Agreed.

4. Interest. Options should feel different from each other. This is one of 3.5's strengths and one of 4e's weaknesses. If I want to be a rouge that should feel different that a fighter or a wizard. Me resource management system should work differently. Even something as simple as Tome of Battle's recharge mechanics is fine, if you have other differences.

This makes the game very complex, if each class functions on different resource management systems. It can make the game prohibitively difficult to run, because the DM has to fully understand each of those systems.

5. Verisimilitude. Bluntly, if an ability exists, the game world should reflect that. If level 12 wizards can build walls of stone with magic you should be able to tell! This shouldn't come in the way of fundamental concepts (I don't care how dragons fly, I don' care if your laws of physics are like the real world), but it should impact the world.

Verisimilitude is overrated, and should be up on the chopping block if it would improve the game as a whole. Unfortunately, there are enough people who believe differently that WotC can't afford to ignore them.

6. Setting. There should be a default setting for your edition. This setting should be interesting and well supported. You could easily pick up a random setting (Ebberon or Forgotten Realms spring to mind) and put it into the core rules. This is important because it provides a focus for what the edition is "about" and a spokesperson for your game. As an added bonus, it sells more books.

Agreed.

7. Realism. If your going to have monster they need to behave in ways people can understand, or at least be explicitly crazy (mind flayers or aboleths). If you have goblins THEY NEED A CULTURE not just a paragraph of <Generic God>, <One Social Concept>, and Evil!, but a though out culture that works within your game world.

They need a background and culture that extends as far as your game requires. That is usually far less involved than people think. Furthermore, is it the game's job to tell you how goblins fit into your setting, or is that your job as DM and master of your own setting?

8. A Plan. You should have a plan for content and what your going to put where. Start with a PHB that contains classes and races that have inertia, a MM that has classic monsters that need no introduction, and a DMG/Setting book that ties together your world. After that pop out some expansion books, then 1-2 years in a MM 2, then a year after that a PHB and DMG 2. These have more esoteric concepts.

Agreed, but that's been how things have been handled for multiple editions now.

9. Expectations. Come up with a list of five to ten concepts to associate with your game. These should be tone and feel issues, not crunch per se. Here are a few I like:
-Magic as a tool
-A complex, vibrant world
-Points of darkness
-Sword and Sorcery

I agree that there need to be core talking points.

10. Kill Sacred Cows. You need to break some of the core assumptions of D&D. To start with: Less than 20 level, no +N items, fighters AND wizards getting nice things, inability for players to gain "epic" abilities.

I agree that each edition of D&D should be responsible for throwing out some of the baggage weighing the game down.
 


underfoot007ct

First Post
Lets just hit a few,

3.Balance

4E goal was to make a Balanced game, and they succeeded.

2. Classes. You should MINIMUM have 15 classes. This was, IMO, 4e's biggest failing was lowering the number.

4E classes as of Jan 2012

Druid, Invoker, Psion, Wizard, Seeker,

Warden, Assassin, RunePriest, Avenger, BattleMind,

Barbarian, SwordMage, Fighter, Bard Monk,

Ardent, Ranger, Artificer, Rogue, Vampire,

Sorcerer, Warlock

does that make 22 ? Before we include .........

Druid Protector, Ranger Hunter, Ranger Scout,
Warlock Hexblade, Paladin Cavalier, Barbarian Berserker,
Fighter Knight, Fighter Slayer, Assassin Executioner,
Wizard Witch, Wizard Blade singer,

And every class had multiple Build options,

did I miss any ? 33 classes is more than 15 in my math book.
 

Dannager

First Post
Lets just hit a few,

3.Balance

4E goal was to make a Balanced game, and they succeeded.

2. Classes. You should MINIMUM have 15 classes. This was, IMO, 4e's biggest failing was lowering the number.

4E classes as of Jan 2012

Druid, Invoker, Psion, Wizard, Seeker,

Warden, Assassin, RunePriest, Avenger, BattleMind,

Barbarian, SwordMage, Fighter, Bard Monk,

Ardent, Ranger, Artificer, Rogue, Vampire,

Sorcerer, Warlock

does that make 22 ? Before we include .........

Druid Protector, Ranger Hunter, Ranger Scout,
Warlock Hexblade, Paladin Cavalier, Barbarian Berserker,
Fighter Knight, Fighter Slayer, Assassin Executioner,
Wizard Witch, Wizard Blade singer,

And every class had multiple Build options,

did I miss any ? 33 classes is more than 15 in my math book.

The compendium lists 75 classes in total, hybrid classes included.
 

SensoryThought

First Post
I find the 3 vs 4 choice a problem - I don't think you can have both balance and have classes function fundamentally differently.

Old editions have high level caster supremacy (and low lvl weakness) and often have the thief relegated to a combat-weak skill monkey. 4e for good or bad homogenized everyone.
 

harlokin

First Post
I mostly agree, but couldn't the game also work by having a relatively few Classes, which could be combined in various ways to create the character sought?
 

I like the goals of 5e...

15 classes is too much for the core. They should just do the 3rd edition classes and they are ok. Same for races. (Maybe also eladrin)

Balance and different mechanics. That is the current state of 4e.
 
Last edited:

Li Shenron

Legend
10. Kill Sacred Cows. You need to break some of the core assumptions of D&D. To start with: Less than 20 level, no +N items, fighters AND wizards getting nice things, inability for players to gain "epic" abilities.

I disagree that these are "sacred cows". None of them is, in my book
 

Li Shenron

Legend
2. Classes. You should MINIMUM have 15 classes. This was, IMO, 4e's biggest failing was lowering the number. I only kind of care, but to some people this really matters. Each of these classes should help to define your character and provide a point of view to look at the world from.

I don't remember for sure, but in 3e after the 11 core classes there was no new class introduced until the 3.5 "Complete X" series. I don't think non-core base classes in 3e were that popular, there were some (Warlock, Swashbuckler, Favoured Soul) but the rest were mostly ignored.

The problem with numbering 4e classes was that they intended the edition to be following a periodic release schedule, "everything is core".
 

Remove ads

Top