Azurewraith
Explorer
Seems pretty spot on aside from a few minor niggles mainly, I hate both the warlord and the mystic but other than that I'll fund the kickstarter.
D&D General The perfect D&D edition (according to ENWORLD)
- Thread starter Sacrosanct
- Start date
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
It'll do, I suppose, but there's a few very important things missing:
Base assumptions of play (all of which affect the rest of the design):
-- 4 players each with one PC a la 3e? Numerous players with maybe more than one PC each a la 1e? henches and hirelings encouraged or discouraged?
-- designed foremost for sandbox play? adventure path play? story-now play? or is the system designed to be flexible enough to handle all these?
-- does the system allow for some level variance within the party a la 1e and 5e? or not, a la 3e and 4e?
-- how relatively easy (a la 3-4-5e) or hard (a la 1e) or risky is spellcasting?
Scaling: quite a few key elements could in fact be on a scale, with the scaling options given in the PH/DMG for the DM to mess with as desired:
-- lethality and 'bad stuff' e.g. level drain, long-term suckage, lingering wounds, magic item fragility
-- rest and recovery rates
-- rate of level advancement - does 1-20 take half a year? a year? five years? a lifetime?
-- type of level advancement: milestone levelling? individual xp? training required or not; and cost thereof?
I'll stop here, but this is just the tip of the iceberg...
Base assumptions of play (all of which affect the rest of the design):
-- 4 players each with one PC a la 3e? Numerous players with maybe more than one PC each a la 1e? henches and hirelings encouraged or discouraged?
-- designed foremost for sandbox play? adventure path play? story-now play? or is the system designed to be flexible enough to handle all these?
-- does the system allow for some level variance within the party a la 1e and 5e? or not, a la 3e and 4e?
-- how relatively easy (a la 3-4-5e) or hard (a la 1e) or risky is spellcasting?
Scaling: quite a few key elements could in fact be on a scale, with the scaling options given in the PH/DMG for the DM to mess with as desired:
-- lethality and 'bad stuff' e.g. level drain, long-term suckage, lingering wounds, magic item fragility
-- rest and recovery rates
-- rate of level advancement - does 1-20 take half a year? a year? five years? a lifetime?
-- type of level advancement: milestone levelling? individual xp? training required or not; and cost thereof?
I'll stop here, but this is just the tip of the iceberg...
JonnyP71
Explorer
Fixed the bold bit, as they were never adjustments.
Currently happily running a 1E game with all 3 of the above. Prefer it to 5E. None of the above are bad things.... (lights touch paper and runs for cover!). I dragged my current group from 5E to 1E, they are big fans of 1E now, and individual XP progression being based on class is something they love.
I'd make different choices. I'd make Psion, Artificer, and Commander core classes (renamed Warlord, I think Commander is a better name).
I like, Sorcerer largely as is, but I'd have type of magic vary depending on bloodline like Pathfinder 2e.
I'd replace the DMG with a Settings Essentials, a lot of DM tips are edition neutral, and it'd give you the essential stuff for playing in each D&D Setting, like Dediling for Darksun, World Maps, expanded races and subclasses, ect...
And plenty of Cheesecake for everyone.
I like, Sorcerer largely as is, but I'd have type of magic vary depending on bloodline like Pathfinder 2e.
I'd replace the DMG with a Settings Essentials, a lot of DM tips are edition neutral, and it'd give you the essential stuff for playing in each D&D Setting, like Dediling for Darksun, World Maps, expanded races and subclasses, ect...
And plenty of Cheesecake for everyone.
Zardnaar
Legend
I've never run 1E only played it. I would want to use the stat maximums for the first game and then dump them, 2E and BECMI don't use them.
Realistically the female players don't tend to like the stat maximums so don't use them or maybe a one off.
I would like to run it RAW once before changing it.
A few younger players at the gamestore due to the internet and critical role know about the 2E settings though and a 16 yo is running Planescape 5E.
Realistically the female players don't tend to like the stat maximums so don't use them or maybe a one off.
I would like to run it RAW once before changing it.
A few younger players at the gamestore due to the internet and critical role know about the 2E settings though and a 16 yo is running Planescape 5E.
Last edited:
Sacrosanct
Legend
Remember, this is mostly based on the feedback from those two threads. If I didn't go into detail on other subjects, it's because those subjects weren't a common mention in either of the threads. Also, as in my disclaimer, this isn't the perfect edition for everyone. But it's the perfect edition for ENWorld as a collective, based on the most feedback
Yaarel
He Mage
The original post is a pretty good list.
The only thing that caused me concern is:
* balance vs. niche protection: Each class will be specialized and fit a role at core.
Here, ‘each class will fit a role at core’ is the opposite of customizability according to character concept. So, it requires clarification about how to customize a character whose concept is beyond Gygax.
On a different concern, I was happy to see the need to support DM world-building.
DM world-building works best when the core rules are setting neutral − without any assumptions about what is in the setting. The setting might not even have other planes. So even references to ‘Fey’ creatures do well to avoid spacial assumptions. Especially religions, and different kinds of way of being religious, need to be more neutral and better model the reallife diversity of human religions. Let the DM decide without needing to erase texts.
At the same time, a separate box for official settings is excellent. These can show how each setting uses the core rules within its own unique context and flavor.
The only thing that caused me concern is:
* balance vs. niche protection: Each class will be specialized and fit a role at core.
Here, ‘each class will fit a role at core’ is the opposite of customizability according to character concept. So, it requires clarification about how to customize a character whose concept is beyond Gygax.
On a different concern, I was happy to see the need to support DM world-building.
DM world-building works best when the core rules are setting neutral − without any assumptions about what is in the setting. The setting might not even have other planes. So even references to ‘Fey’ creatures do well to avoid spacial assumptions. Especially religions, and different kinds of way of being religious, need to be more neutral and better model the reallife diversity of human religions. Let the DM decide without needing to erase texts.
At the same time, a separate box for official settings is excellent. These can show how each setting uses the core rules within its own unique context and flavor.
Yaarel
He Mage
But a spell-less Ranger as a base class, onto which magical, nonmagical, and beasty archetypes are added − makes alot of sense.
Sacrosanct
Legend
Yep. There was an option for a protector subclass that is pretty much the bog standard ranger we all know. So that option is still there. Only now, instead of mandatory spells, another subclass replaces those spells for pet augmentation enhancements and other skills. A few years ago when the PHB came out, I did a spell-less version of the ranger, so it would look something like this (an actual spell-less beast master subclass would have more quantity and more potent traits to choose from than what's below):
Last edited:
Similar Threads
AD6_gamerati_skyscraper
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
April 16 2024 -
May 31 2024 -
June 3 2024 -
June 4 2024 -
June 18 2024 -
July 16 2024 -
September 17 2024 -
October 1 2024 -
November 12 2024 -
February 18 2025
