D&D 5E D&D 5e: A Better Vision

[No Big Deal]

On the whole classes issue, the you at minimum thing is kind of just a reaction to 4e lowering the number. Here's the thing: Your classes don't need to be hugely large. There are two ways to cram a bunch of classes in without bloating core. You can have archetypes (Arcanist, Warrior, Scoundrel) then have class be bonus abilities you get every even numbered level (coincidentally http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=215986 does this pretty well, though the nomenclature is reversed.). The other option is for class to be something your layer onto a unified base system (I'd use winds of fate) and have classes provide the diversity. My favorite example of this is tome of battle (maybe not with the printed classes, but some of the homebrew is great). Each class has boosts, strikes, and counters but they recover them differently. Combine this with abilities that encourage one combat style and it works.

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.

Here, maybe your answering a related complaint I didn't make, but I never said verisimilitude should come first, at least for core concepts. But, if your going to have as one of the powers a 8th level wizard can have "Create Food," then your setting should reflect that it happens or don't make it a power. No-one I know cares what powers a wizard has as long as they are diverse and level appropriate.

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

Well, maybe their not, but these are really just a few mechanical concerns that I have.

About the whole level thing, I could work it with 12. Have four teirs (Town's Hero - Region's Hero - World's Hero - God) each of which is three levels long. Do away with xp. Have as a core rule "the DM determines the level up speed needed for his adventure."

 

[Mercurius]

@UngeheuerLich, what's an "ass eladrin?" Does this have something to do with the forthcoming Book of Erotic Might?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

@UngeheuerLich, what's an "ass eladrin?" Does this have something to do with the forthcoming Book of Erotic Might?

Sometimes I really don´t know what I write... :/

i guess those creepy keyboard gnomes again...

 

[ArmoredSaint]

I don't think I need the game to have 15 classes right out of the gate to make me happy. I'd prefer that the emphasis remain on quality rather than quantity. Four well-crafted, thoroughly tested classes to start with will please me much more than a dozen or more sloppily slapped together ones. Adding a new class to the game should be a rare thing, heralded by press releases and fanfare, and as much work should go into making sure they work as went into the originals.

 

[Zireael]

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.

The game should work straight from the core, without patching.

I also think that keeping the number of core classes to 11 (the 3e number) is fine. Either this, or keeping to the classic 4. More classes can be added later, but I want the core ones to work without the add-ons.

 

[avin]

Verisimilitude is overrated

"Why? Because you say so, or what?"




Verisimilitude is never overrated.

 

[Dannager]

"Why? Because you say so, or what?"




Verisimilitude is never overrated.

Sure it is. There's this perception among a lot of gamers that verisimilitude is sacred, that it should be protected at all costs, and that anything that jeopardizes it is bad.

This was brought into full, eye-widening, sides-aching-with-laughter focus a couple months ago, when Paizo announced their upcoming Pathfinder MMORPG. They were immediately swamped with dozens of threads demanding truly awful design for the sake of verisimilitude - people asking for vendors who shut down for half the day, or arguing that you should be forced to build castle walls brick-by-brick, or suggesting that you be forced to remain anonymous until you actually tell another character your name. And every one of them fell back on the same reason: "My sense of immersion/verisimilitude will be ruined if it's not done this way!"

You can't let verisimilitude run wild. At some point you have to accept that you're making a game, and that verisimilitude can and does get in the way of the fun-factor of that game. Where that point is varies from person to person, I'm sure, but at some point it stops being a draw and starts being a hindrance.

 

[Henry]

#1: You'll need to give your definition of "work." To me, 4E worked and worked pretty well - I don't think it needed half the tweaks it received over the past two years, but the biggest one was monster hit points and damage, it needed that, but could have done decently without it. It's not like, say, 1E, which even fans agree you can't agree on one consistent ruleset for the combat round! I loved Gary dearly, and Frank Mentzer, but he needed an editor that could successfully tame some of his rules descriptions back then.

#2: I'll partially agree -- we don't need 15 classes, but the classes should feel, complete. the 4E PHB1 just FELT imcomplete. No gnomes, no barbarians or druids, it just felt... off to me.

#3: Agreed, and 4E succeeded at this, but the consequence was that people complained that battles at 30th level felt like battles at 8th level, just with more glitter.

#4: Agreed.

#5: I'm unclear what you mean.

#6: Agreed.

#7: Agreed.

#8: Agreed. It's working for Pathfinder. Their cash ain't in rulesets, it's in setting.

#9: Unclear on this a bit.

#10: Disagree, because they tried to break some sacred cows with 4E, and it didn't win them enough friends apparently.

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.