D&D 5E Innovations I'd like to keep in 5E

[seregil]

Strangely enough, I don't think anyone has done this (or, more likely, I didn't see it).

As I'm reading all these threads and all the talk about the old editions, I get nostalgic. Heck, I'd kinda like to whip out the Rules Cyclopedia and the Gazetteers and try my hand at BECMI.

However, when I get the rulebooks out and start going through them, nostalgia give place to remembering some of the clunkiness of those editions.

So here is a list of stuff I would like to KEEP in any future version of the game:

• Same XP table for all classes (minor point but simplifies a lot)
• No THAC0: linear calculations
• Uniform mechanics. Related to previous point but applies to everything or close. Higher is better.
• Precise and standardized terminology. MTG's gifts to DND. Precise words with specific definitions.
• No racial level or class limitations
• Class and race treated seperatly
• Standard bonuses for Attributes. BECMI had this, AD&D did not completely. I like that 14 is always +2 etc.
• Saving throws that make sense (For, Will, Ref) instead of RSW/DM/PTTS/BA
• Effective Rogues ( I was really sad as a thief in BECMI, level 12 before 50% chance of hide in shadows...what do I DO for 12 levels?!?)
• Well balanced classes. 4E's only real advantage, IMO

This is just off the top of my head. What are yours?

ADDING:

• Balanced classes
• Different, non-homogenized classes that act, feel and work differently
• Rituals
• Minions

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I've got several, but one big one that should be somewhat appropriate for a unification edition: It started almost from the beginning in niches, picked up speed in 2E, and didn't really flower until 3E. Then in 4E it was continued. That is the systematic looking at how the pieces work, fit together, what they mean, etc. This is in marked contrast to the more ad hoc nature of many earlier "systems".

Every version, D&D gets less and less like something that can be compared to a Palladium game. This is entirely a good thing.

Also known as: For a not inconsiderable number of elements, it matters not so much the exact standard but that there is a standard.

 

[Libramarian]

I wonder to what degree this narrative of old rules = clunky and modern rules = sleek is just a book-level aesthetic preference that doesn't really have much to do with actual table-level handling time and cognitive workload.

I don't have a problem running Basic or AD&D. The rules work fine*.

* Alright except for encumbrance by coinweight.

But the strength of the preference some people have for unified XP charts is strange. I just can't understand how differing XP charts could substantially impact someone's ability to run D&D. It's just not complex enough.

Differing XP charts didn't have that big of an effect, they were just a quirky interesting thing that was scrubbed away without compunction because they "looked weird".

I don't like that. Don't touch stuff just because you think it looks weird. That's like reducing the size of Michaelangelo's David's hands or something.

If you have solid evidence that it's actually holding up newbies as they try to learn the game, OK fine. But otherwise leave it alone.

I'm just going off on a bit of a rant about how 3e went a bit overboard with excessive system rationalization.

There are a million different directions WotC could have gone with 3e. Sometimes it seems like their particular design choices are seen at this point as just plain "modern", like 2e to 3e was some kind of preordained, teleological progression.

Anyway. As for objectively better mechanics, I guess I would say moving from THAC0 to base attack bonus although that's close, and I personally would be fine with THAC0. Thief abilities that don't suck so bad at first level, yes. Some of the racial and class limitations, yes. I have recently seen in person just how bummed someone can get if they really really want to be an Elven ranger but the game says they're not allowed. Saving throws that are less arbitrary, yes. I don't find old school saving throws to really be that iconic and flavorful, given that they differ for no apparent reason between AD&D, Basic and OD&D.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, I can get on board with these sentiments. I've never been in the "those old clunky mechanics were actually gold" camp. They were just clunky. There may be nostalgia value there in some sense, but IMHO an engine with the elegance of 4e is pretty much a mandatory baseline starting point.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I wonder to what degree this narrative of old rules = clunky and modern rules = sleek is just a book-level aesthetic preference that doesn't really have much to do with actual table-level handling time and cognitive workload.

I'm sure that happens. Don't make the opposite mistake and assume that everyone with those kind of objections isn't basing their conclusions on study of the system, lots of experience, and actual play.

They can push systemization too far, and in fact, always have, also right from the very beginning. It wouldn't have made much sense to make an old library card catalog 10 times as large per title, and redundantly set up with four different sets for cross referencing. It also wouldn't have made sense to toss all the books into a warehouse in a pile and simply chunk the catalog. And it wouldn't have worked very well to let each library make up their own ad hoc system, even though that would have been infinitely better than the warehouse option.

Part of good systemization is recognizing the essential nature of what is being systemized. And part of that recognition is the boundaries.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I wonder to what degree this narrative of old rules = clunky and modern rules = sleek is just a book-level aesthetic preference that doesn't really have much to do with actual table-level handling time and cognitive workload.

I don't have a problem running Basic or AD&D. The rules work fine*.

* Alright except for encumbrance by coinweight.

But the strength of the preference some people have for unified XP charts is strange. I just can't understand how differing XP charts could substantially impact someone's ability to run D&D. It's just not complex enough.

Differing XP charts didn't have that big of an effect, they were just a quirky interesting thing that was scrubbed away without compunction because they "looked weird".

I don't like that. Don't touch stuff just because you think it looks weird. That's like reducing the size of Michaelangelo's David's hands or something.

If you have solid evidence that it's actually holding up newbies as they try to learn the game, OK fine. But otherwise leave it alone.

I'm just going off on a bit of a rant about how 3e went a bit overboard with excessive system rationalization.

There are a million different directions WotC could have gone with 3e. Sometimes it seems like their particular design choices are seen at this point as just plain "modern", like 2e to 3e was some kind of preordained, teleological progression.

Anyway. As for objectively better mechanics, I guess I would say moving from THAC0 to base attack bonus although that's close, and I personally would be fine with THAC0. Thief abilities that don't suck so bad at first level, yes. Some of the racial and class limitations, yes. I have recently seen in person just how bummed someone can get if they really really want to be an Elven ranger but the game says they're not allowed. Saving throws that are less arbitrary, yes. I don't find old school saving throws to really be that iconic and flavorful, given that they differ for no apparent reason between AD&D, Basic and OD&D.

But what did those different XP charts ADD to the game? I think the problem with this concept is that it isn't individual complexity of each element. It is the way that the combination of moderately obtuse elements cumulatively adds up to a very opaque system. So for instance level SEEMS to indicate capability in AD&D, but it doesn't. A 12th level rogue is nothing like at the XP total of a 12th level wizard. Thus a single point of XP doesn't mean the same thing to different classes. This just makes my head hurt. It makes it very hard to decide how to play around with things and often is the root cause of things like the difficulty in making new classes or MCing problems, or just "woops! That encounter killed the party!"

Making a point of XP mean the same thing to everyone and making 'level 12' mean the same thing (or at least TRYING to in the case of 3e) has cumulative positive benefits and allows the system to be much more transparent and manageable.

The same thing is true of things like AC, to-hit calculations, moving to 4e's system of defenses instead of saves, etc. Just take the saves-to-defense change between 3e and 4e. This seems like a simple change that just changes who rolls the dice at a certain point in the game. However it has all sorts of positive knock-on effects. There is no more of the annoying and tedious deciding if DEX bonus does or doesn't apply, and no more "touch AC" awkwardness when there was already a REF save, now REF is a defense that does what the save used to do AND what the 'touch AC' used to do. Notice that this also enabled the game to accomodate implements with an enhancement bonus, weapons usable as implements, etc. These are all great simplifications and improvements in flexibility.

So, yes, when you look at each thing with a microscope maybe you don't see any big difference between THAC0 and 4e's 'modern' unified always higher d20 mechanism, but when you step back and look at the system AS A WHOLE you see that there are great advantages to the 'modern' approach. I can't by contrast name even one single advantage to the 'old way', except 'tradition'. It just wasn't better, and it was 'not better' at a deep level.

 

[howandwhy99]

Yeah, I can get on board with these sentiments. I've never been in the "those old clunky mechanics were actually gold" camp. They were just clunky. There may be nostalgia value there in some sense, but IMHO an engine with the elegance of 4e is pretty much a mandatory baseline starting point.

I am of the "those old clunky mechanics were actually gold" camp, but I can understand wanting the options one desires for their game to be supported. We'll see just how broadly they can stretch this next one in terms of core+options.

 

[Greg K]

1e
Barbarian: culture influences starting weapons and skills

2e
Settings
Specialty Priests
Kits (in theory)
2e Specialty Wizards (e.g., Artificer, Alchemist, Elementalist, Force Mage, Menalist, Song Mage, Shadow mage)
PO: Combat and Tactics Critical Hit (Fall in threat rating and hit by 5 or more)
Class Handbook format

3e: Not including things from specific 3pp
d20STL and OGL
Unified Mechanics
Unified Ability Score Progression
No Exceptional Strength
3 Saving Throws
Single XP Progression
Sorcerer/Spontaneous casting
Class Variants (especially, many of the examples in Unearthed Arcana)
Skill system
Ascending AC
Massive Damge Save
Monster Ability Scores
Breakdown of Monster AC
Prestige Classes were optional!!!
DMG: Lots of variants
Unearthed Arcana: racial environmental variants
Unearthed Arcana: Class Variants (e.g, Barbarian Hunter, Bardic Sage, Divine Bard, Urban Ranger)
Unearthed Arcana: Monk Fighting Styles
Unearthed Arcana: Spontaneous Divine Casting
Unearthed Arcana: Death and Dying
Unearthed Arcana: Complex Skill Checks
Unearthed Arcana: Incantations
Complete Champion: Spellless Paladin and Ranger variants
Cityscape Web enhancement: urban/wilderness class swapping (really, it falls under class variants, but some DMs need it spelled out)

4e
Balance Between Classes in power level across levels
No Level Drain
No XP Costs
More starting hit points (and not having con bonus to hit points per level)
Non Biological aspects of race removed (should go farther)
Backgrounds and Themes
Ranger as non caster
Warlord (but I want more distinction between Inspiring Word and magical healing)
Fey Pact Warlock (Infernal and Star Pact as should be NPC in my opinion)
Shaman and Witch as classes (personally, I would look to Steve Kenson's books for Green Ronin).
Class Builds as Examples
Martial types get cool things to do (not necessarily the implementation)
Heroic Tier Multiclassing
Disease Track
Feywild
Rituals (in Theory)

 

[Crazy Jerome]

So, yes, when you look at each thing with a microscope maybe you don't see any big difference between THAC0 and 4e's 'modern' unified always higher d20 mechanism, but when you step back and look at the system AS A WHOLE you see that there are great advantages to the 'modern' approach. I can't by contrast name even one single advantage to the 'old way', except 'tradition'. It just wasn't better, and it was 'not better' at a deep level.

I take the approach that Firaxis took with the Civilization computer game series, starting with the expansions of Civ III and every title thereafter: There is a certain level of complexity that the fans will tolerate--or in some cases, even expect. Use it wisely.

There's nothing inherently wrong with any goofy old thing, like the different XP charts. If you've got that good reason, it might be worth doing. They certainly shouldn't be totally dismissed out of hand, and some of them might even have some hidden value. But every one of those things that gets used is taking up complexity that could have been used for something else. That something else might be more impressive.

 

[n00bdragon]

None of the things in this topic are innovations. They were innovations ten, twenty, or even thirty years ago. Now they are expectations.

Actual innovations I want to see in 5e:
- Getting rid of purchasable equipment. Standard equipment should be something you get as part of the standard creation and level up process. Magic items needed as you level up should be a part of your class. (e.g. Level 5, you get a magic sword +1)
- Further refining clear mechanical options people can use to solve non-combat problems. Skill challenges were a good attempt but something more elegant needs to happen.
- Eliminate feats and pre-4e spells and rituals and other options that require digging through ten books to find the perfect thing at each level up.
- Truly modular design, build a class so to speak

None of this will happen but I can dream