D&D General The perfect D&D edition (according to ENWORLD)

Tony Vargas · Jul 2, 2019

Sacrosanct said:
Since day 1 of D&D, we have all ignored or changed things we didn’t like. Anyone who refuses to play the game because it has class X, or niche protection, or a basic option like the champion fighter, or doesn’t cater to char op, are all missing the point imo. The game is designed for all of us, not just you.

XP just isn't enough. We often disagree, sometimes vehemently, but this is the kind of sentiment that reminds us that wecan all be part if the same hobby, and hope to see that hobby prosper, in spite of those differences. It's very much in the spirit of 5e, which isn't so very far from being that perfect edition from the OP.

Thanks again for this thread, it must have been tough pulling together the cogent bits from the other two.

And, I want to apologize for my part in derailing it.

Sacrosanct · Jul 2, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
XP just isn't enough. We often disagree, sometimes vehemently, but this is the kind of sentiment that reminds us that wecan all be part if the same hobby, and hope to see that hobby prosper, in spite of those differences. It's very much in the spirit of 5e, which isn't so very far from being that perfect edition from the OP.

Thanks again for this thread, it must have been tough pulling together the cogent bits from the other two.

And, I want to apologize for my part in derailing it.

Looking at what people said were their favorite bits from their favorite editions, and looking at how 5e was designed, and it suddenly becomes more clear just how good of a job they did. And I think the design team deserves credit for that. It’s a hard job, designing something as popular as DnD. And Mearls deserves credit for checking his ego and allowing the game to go forward without things he personally wanted.

Are there areas that could be improved? Sure. Is there valid criticism? Yep. Lack of a warlord/artificer/mystic 5 years in is a justifiable one. They should soon release a campaign book for Planescape, feywild, and shadowfell. But that doesn’t mean we should throw personal insults at them, and demand that our personal preferences (especially if they are in the minority) be catered to. I’d like to see less of that in our hobby.

And I fully admit my bias. As a game designer, seeing armchair designers who think they know everything but have never actually walked the walk bother me

Guest 6801328 · Jul 2, 2019

Sacrosanct said:
Since day 1 of D&D, we have all ignored or changed things we didn’t like. Anyone who refuses to play the game because it has class X, or niche protection, or a basic option like the champion fighter, or doesn’t cater to char op, are all missing the point imo. The game is designed for all of us, not just you.

100% agree! Refusing to play a game just because the designers do or do not include some feature that has no impact on the feel of the game would be just petulant.

Tony Vargas · Jul 2, 2019

Sacrosanct said:
Since day 1 of D&D, we have all ignored or changed things we didn’t like. Anyone who refuses to play the game because it has class X, or niche protection, or a basic option like the champion fighter, or doesn’t cater to char op, are all missing the point imo. The game is designed for all of us, not just you.

Elfcrusher said:
100% agree! Refusing to play a game just because the designers do or do not include some feature that has no impact on the feel of the game would be just petulant.

That doesn't seem like even 50% agreement.

Compare bolded bits.

Sacrosanct is talking about our long history of changing or *ignoring* /things we don't like/. He never mentions the long history of homebrewing-in things we might want. I don't see anything in /his/ post condemning a non-game-designer for declining a game that simply lacks the elements he's looking for, rather than building missing ones up from scratch - which is very understanding coming from an avid designer (who might be inclined to figure just anyone could whip up a class or school of magic or psionic sub-system in an idle afternoon).

And, he never qualifies that those things need only be changed or ignored if they "don't impact feel of the game" - /everything on his list impacts feel!/

Really, on further reflection, it seems like 100% disagreement.

To be fair, I can't register 100% agreement, myself. I admire the sentiment in general, but I think refusing to play a game you don't care for, regardless of reason is fine. …OK, so long as you're not doing so manipulatively. … OK, maybe refusing to the play the game over some detail isn't quite right if you're part of a group that's come together to play said game.
But you're /certainly/ free never to seek out a game that doesn't interest you!
Call it 85%.

Upthread you made a joking aside about laser guns in the game.

Not entirely joking: Laser guns are something that /obviously/ is science fiction, /obviously/ has no place in a fantasy game, and /obviously/ should be excluded from D&D at all costs, right?

Except: Expedition to the Barrier Peaks.

If that person, who believes 1-3, speaks up...or had spoken up in 2014...and says, "Hey, I don't think guns should be an official option, not just because I don't want <laser> guns at my table but because it encourages a shift in a direction I think is bad for the game"

That person is 39 years too late (or 34 years in 2014).

are they spitefully trying to prevent other people from having fun?

Without telepathy, there's no certain knowledge of spite vs paranoia vs delusion vs depraved indifference vs naïve idealism vs aphasia vs any other explanation or excuse however implausible, but, yeah, they are /definitely/ trying to prevent others from even having a choice to take an opportunity that might be fun. And, preventing others from having fun, though their fun will in no way affect you, is a spiteful /position/ to take, whatever the hypothetical motivation or convoluted excuses offered that may absolve the person taking that position from being in any sense a bad or spiteful person.

Sacrosanct said:
Looking at what people said were their favorite bits from their favorite editions, and looking at how 5e was designed, and it suddenly becomes more clear just how good of a job they did. And I think the design team deserves credit for that. It’s a hard job, designing something as popular as DnD.

Are there areas that could be improved? Sure. Is there valid criticism? Yep. Lack of a warlord/artificer/mystic 5 years in is a justifiable one. They should soon release a campaign book for Planescape, feywild, and shadowfell.

I have to admit, though the initial lack of the Warlord rankled, it didn't stop me from running - and, indeed, actively promoting - the new edition.

The slow pace of release both makes sense to me from a business (marketing & IP-management) standpoint, and tickles my nostalgia buttons for the 1e era, but it /is/ leaving things in the pipeline that are in strong demand for an awfully long time.

But that doesn’t mean we should throw personal insults at them, and demand that our personal preferences (especially if they are in the minority) be catered to.

It's how any community treats its dissenters that says the most about it.

And Mearls deserves credit for checking his ego and allowing the game to go forward without things he personally wanted.

Broke this bit out, because I'm curious what those things might've been?

Sacrosanct · Jul 2, 2019

When I say “changes”, that also includes adding in home brew stuff, as doing so would be changing the core available options. And yeah, I kinda roll my eyes at someone who refuses to play with others because the thing they are missing can be easily added via homebrew. But what really rolls my eyes is when someone demands the designers add exactly what they want when they are a tiny minority of wanting whatever that happens to be, especially if they could easily modify it themselves. That’s what DnD has been since the beginning. It’s its identity. And then to insult said designers if they don’t? I have little patience for that behavior. It screams entitlement to me.

That’s said, I don’t care if people refuse to play a game for whatever reason; it’s their choice and their preference. It’s when they demand to make everyone else change to cater to them or insults come out. I’ve seen way too many responses from people who instead of just ignoring the game, go on and on about how unfair they are being treated or how they are forsaken. When 4e came out, I didn’t like it. So guess what? I didn’t play it. And I didn’t hang around forums complaining about it endlessly. Look at my join date. And search for how many posts I made from 2008 to 2012. I stuck with the games I liked, and let 4e fans have fun with their edition and left them alone for the most part.

As far as what Mearls wanted, the top example off my head is variable dice for proficiency bonus instead of a flat bonus.

lowkey13 · Jul 2, 2019

*Deleted by user*

Guest 6801328 · Jul 2, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
That doesn't seem like even 50% agreement.

I was taking poetic license to illustrate a point.

P.S. And I'm still hoping you'll answer my question(s).

Tony Vargas · Jul 2, 2019

Aldarc said:
Flavor/Lore:
I would also like to see even a few snippets per monster entry that suggest other ways outside of the lore to use the monster. Something that invites the Gamemaster to not necessarily strictly adhere to the MM lore for their own homebrews or games. You could even have entries that note things like, "In older editions of the game, kobolds were rat-doglike things that looked like this - [show picture in sidebar] - you may prefer to include these in your game too. Here are a few ways to incorporate these non-draconic kobolds into your game..."

Even the 1e Kobold was /scaly/. But, y'know, new/slick and old-school art for a lot of the classic monsters, along with alternate lore & suggestions would have been fun. Nostalgia for us older guys. Perspective for the new players - because, really, if you're jumping on a resurgent game that was a fad 35 years ago, you're probably curious what it was all about, back then, too.

Mechanics:
Here I would invite WotC to re-examine the balance between (sub)classes on a short rest resource management and those (sub)classes on a long rest resource management. The balance relies on an assumed group tempo for encounters per day that does not necessarily reflex praxis, while short rest mechanic balance also makes those classes more DM-dependent.

The assumption of a short rest approximately every-other encounter just seems so problematic. But, yes, a deeper discussion of the Long-rest:short:rest:encounters:EL:rounds-in-combat would have been helpful. The balancing of resource inequalities is very complex. In a 'day' with no short rests, short-rest recharge powers are dailies, in a day with /many/ they might get used every single encounter. Daily resources, in keeping with D&D tradition, increase rapidly with level, until they, too, can be used every encounter, or even every round if combats aren't kept long enough.

A suggestion that would have been very powerful and very much in keeping with the 5e DM Empowerment mandate, would have been making the duration and timing of Short vs Long rests left up to the DM's judgement. Instead of Long rests of 8 hrs no more than once per 24 hr period - which, in a stately campaign covering long journeys, intricate politicking, or the like, might mean a long rest between each and every of the few combat encounters involved - set the pacing of long rests to the advancement of the plot. You set out on your months-long journey to a distant continent, you get a long rest when you stop at an island oasis and refresh your supplies, and when you arrive at your destination. That kind of thing.

I appreciate your inclusion of the Warlord on the list. Thank you. If the Warlord could fit comfortably on the Fighter chassis, I would not be opposed to it being a subclass of the Fighter. I simply think that the current Fighter chassis is a bit too damage-output-heavy for the Warlord class fantasy. Also I would add the Artificer to the list

The Artificer /is/ in the pipeline. By the same token, it might be designed on the wizard chasis, if that chasis were more accommodating...
...actually, the wiz chassis is pretty flexible, because slots are so flexible: I suppose an artificer could be a wizard sub-class that made use of 'slots' differently?

As I personal preference, I would also look at the druid, which has been a quiet dud with some imbalances between the Land vs. Moon paths, their respective interaction with the level 20 capstone (favoring the Moon path), and with the lack of scaling of shapeshifting forms. I would probably just say, "You pick the appearance of the animal, but when you wild shape, you select a scaling shapeshifting archetype with a particular function (e.g., guardian, predator, flyer, swarm, etc.) and possibly choose some abilities associated with each archetype."

While those are valid nit-picks, I still find the Druid the most interesting of all the current 5e classes, and feel that it better captures the spirit of the original than any version since 1e.

Sacrosanct said:
Regarding the sorcerer? Who knows? Everyone seems to have different ideas on how to make the class meaningful now that nearly every class is a spontaneous caster. Which leads me to...

I prefer minion rules but since some don't, I would suggest more modular rules.

Click to expand...

Minions could be presented not as monsters, but as a shorthand for dealing with much-lower-CR creatures (the kind you may not get exp for). Instead of tracking or even checking their hps, if a "minion" is hit (no matter with what) or fails a save (no matter what it's a save against), it's simply removed from play. If it is missed or saves, it remains, with no individual damage or conditions tracked.

Backgrounds: Decouple its associated Bond/Flaw/Ideal system, as this is something that should apply much more broadly than just your background. Why wouldn't your bonds, flaws, and ideals not also be associated with your species or class, for example, and not just your background?

Click to expand...

Aren't they just suggestions, though?

I don't necessarily think that lethality is as much of the issue as is the lack of cool things for monsters to do beyond being sacks of HP. I would bring back 4e monster design.

Click to expand...

Aside from replacing spell lists in monster stat blocks with compressed attacks/effects similar to a few of those spells, I don't see how they're not close to 4e - and 1e - monster stat blocks, already.

Sacrosanct said:

As far as what Mearls wanted, the top example off my head is variable dice for proficiency bonus instead of a flat bonus.

Click to expand...

I do recall that from the Next Playtest. I guess it stayed in Guidance and Bardic Inspiration.

Tony Vargas · Jul 2, 2019

lowkey13 said:
This is the thing I don't understand, at all. The fetishization of RAW.

D&D was always a DIY, "rules are guidelines, not commands" game. You would mix and match official product, semi-official product, 3PP, and homebrew.

RaW was very much a thing in the 3.x era (and, I suppose, still is, over on the PF side of the hobby). And it's not hard to understand why. 3e adopted a design philosophy from M:tG, rewarding mastery of the system. Mastering the system, which was intentionally complex and even deceptive was not a casual undertaking, acquiring system mastery constituted sunk costs. So if DMs were /constantly changing the rules on you/ they were essentially taking away all that effort.
Thus, the insistence on RaW, ideally, or, if you had to house rule, defining house rules at the start of the campaign, and sticking to them even after the players had found ways of exploiting them.

Yes, it seems pretty awful from an old-school perspective. But it was an incentive built into 3e, precisely because it succeeded in M:tG, and it succeeded with 3e, so well that it continued making good money for Paizo long after WotC abandoned it.