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

Garthanos · Jul 2, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
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.

Me too... or what he said

Lanefan · Jul 2, 2019

Aldarc said:
In a feeble attempt to move things back on topic:

On behalf of the peanut gallery and viewing audience: thank you!

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..."

Nice.

Taken a step further, they could even be presented as two different cultures or even sub-species - Dog Kobolds and Draco-Kobolds - similar to how there's a bunch of different kinds of Elves.

Also, I personally favor a lot of the lore of 4e, and I am thankful that a lot was subtely incorporated into 5e, though 5e did make its own breaks with prior lore. (Moving Succubi/Incubi to NE was a pretty smart compromise between 1-3e and 4e lore, which itself stemmed from a desire to have the alignment make more sense with their nature/use.) But I would nevertheless like to see more of the old 4e lore, because it did some wonders for the game, such as giving a rhyme and reason for the different types of undead, distinguishing druidic magic from the divine magic of clerics, etc.

Here I disagree, largely because I see "druidic" magic as also being divine; and due to this I converted Druids to Nature Clerics decades ago.

That, and it's just easier if there's only two types of actual magic - divine and arcane - with Bards using sonic effects to replicate some of it and others using psionics to the same end.

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.

Even step it back a notch from there and look at how much benefit a rest of any kind should give. A long rest refreshing all h.p., for example, is IMO off-the-charts too generous. The 1e model of a [long rest equivalent] giving back only 1 h.p. isn't generous enough, however. But there's a happy place between those somewhere...just have to find it.

Since Arcana Unearthed/Evolved from Monte Cook's Malhavoc Press print had a similar quasi-vancian system (prepared spontaneous casting) and a universal magic system with a singular spell list, then I would also advocate looking at that system for inspiration on how a 6e could distinguish spellcasting classes more by flavor and playstyle while also streamlining the spell lists.

So, do away with the divine/arcane divide completely, then? Interesting, perhaps, but conflicts with your comments re druidic magic above.

If you are not familiar with how their spell system worked, I would be more than happy to provide a brief tutorial because it was incredibly neat and I wish that other games had adopted something similar.

Sure, I'll bite - let's hear it (and if you've already given this, please disregard - I haven't read the rest of the thread yet).

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

Again, the question of 'minion rules' forces a step back to look at deeper questions:
- are NPCs and PCs and everyone else in the game world built using the same basic rules? (something IMO that 3e got bang-on right)
- do elements within the setting change based on whether or not a PC is interacting with them?

A 'yes' to the first question and 'no' to the second make minion rules a non-starter.

Feats: I would possibly decouple feats from ASI, because sometimes players feel that ASI is too obligatory for efficiency before getting to pick cool things that feats permit. And for some classes, grabbing ASI is more necessary than others. Another downside, IMHO, of having feats being so heavy per feat is that this provides the Vuman with a lot umpf in the early levels of the game that sees the greatest amount of play while leaving non-vumans without as much hit-the-ground-running customization options. So I would arguably look at ways that feats could be re-worked slightly.

Another step further: is ASI really necessary at all, or if yes should it be as generous as current 5e?

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?

Agreed; and make it all optional.

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. PF2 will be adopting a similar approach where they want to give monsters more unique abilities.

Not just 4e - in 1e monsters had all kinds of cool (and sometimes very nasty) stuff going for them besides just h.p. In fact, one of the main problem with 1e monster design is that they generally don't have enough h.p.!

Lanefan · Jul 2, 2019

lowkey13 said:
NO!

You cannot make me look at that thread again.

If you stare at that thread long enough, that thread stares back at you.

That's Druidic magic for you...

Tony Vargas · Jul 2, 2019

Lanefan said:
Dog Kobolds and Draco-Kobolds - similar to how there's a bunch of different kinds of Elves.

lol

A long rest refreshing all h.p., for example, is IMO off-the-charts too generous. The 1e model of a [long rest equivalent] giving back only 1 h.p. isn't generous enough, however. But there's a happy place between those somewhere...just have to find it.

Thing is, as long as you can take long-rest-recharge slots and use them all to heal, recovering hps any slower than a daily scale is irrelevant, your rate of healing is the slots/day that can be pumped into it - and that's just a bookkeeping cycle, it adds nothing to the game.

Again, the question of 'minion rules' forces a step back to look at deeper questions:
- are NPCs and PCs and everyone else in the game world built using the same basic rules? (something that 3e <did> ...
...Not just 4e - in 1e monsters had all kinds of cool (and sometimes very nasty) stuff going for them besides just h.p. In fact, one of the main problem with 1e monster design is that they generally don't have enough h.p.!

Yeah, one thing I noticed with 4e, initially, was that it felt more like 1e monster design than 3e, particularly in that it /didn't/ use the same basic rules as PCs.
5e kept that. Really, 3e is the outlier in this case, giving monsters feats & class levels &c.

Ideally, I think, the 'perfect' D&D would have very different creation-rules/stat-blocks for PCs vs Monsters, with NPCs living between them - some being more like (often condensed) PCs, many being more like monsters... and most needing no stats at all. What kind of stat block a monster or PC gets would depend on how it was to interact with a PC. 'Extras' don't need stats, nameless mooks don't need many stats at all, supporting cast should have condensed PC-like stats, villains monster-like stats, and recurring named NPCs can be just like PCs.

TwoSix · Jul 2, 2019

lowkey13 said:
Aha! But what about the RAW Pescatarian Druid, "Bruce, Destroyer of Sashimi"

I'd play that subclass. Has a solid hook.

Garthanos · Jul 3, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
lol

Thing is, as long as you can take long-rest-recharge slots and use them all to heal, recovering hps any slower than a daily scale is irrelevant, your rate of healing is the slots/day that can be pumped into it - and that's just a bookkeeping cycle, it adds nothing to the game.

It adds caster dependence if not caster superiority.

Guest 6801328 · Jul 3, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
Ideally, I think, the 'perfect' game would have very different creation-rules/stat-blocks for PCs vs Monsters, with NPCs living between them - some being more like (often condensed) PCs, many being more like monsters... and most needing no stats at all. What kind of stat block a monster or PC gets would depend on how it was to interact with a PC. 'Extras' don't need stats, nameless mooks don't need many stats at all, supporting cast should have condensed PC-like stats, villains monster-like stats, and recurring named NPCs can be just like PCs.

The One Ring.

Many NPCs, especially powerful (and iconic) NPCs, are not statted out like monsters you fight or heroes you play. Instead they have kind of an outline, to give you a sense of what skills and personality traits to emphasize.

I suppose some might interpret this as railroading, as the implication of this system is that you're "not supposed to fight" these NPCs, and if you are so foolish as to start a fight with them the GM is free to ignore the combat rules and do whatever is deemed necessary. Personally I don't have a problem with that.

Aldarc · Jul 3, 2019

Lanefan said:
Taken a step further, they could even be presented as two different cultures or even sub-species - Dog Kobolds and Draco-Kobolds - similar to how there's a bunch of different kinds of Elves.

Yep, that would be one possibility, though I think that you still run the risk of presenting a singular lore that becomes a new canon with your approach (i.e., these are the multiple different subspecies of kobolds) as opposed to presenting alternatives (i.e., you may prefer your kobolds like this instead).

Here I disagree, largely because I see "druidic" magic as also being divine; and due to this I converted Druids to Nature Clerics decades ago.

That, and it's just easier if there's only two types of actual magic - divine and arcane - with Bards using sonic effects to replicate some of it and others using psionics to the same end.

My own preference, though I respect yours differs, is that druids are distinct from clerics. Why play a druid when its just a nature cleric? This seems to be an implict concession in your decision to convert druids to nature clerics. For your 1e homebrew system, that may be what they are because that is what they were. But I don't necessarily think that is what they have to be or should be. And in 4e, for example, I liked that they made Druids draw from the Primal source of power that represented the magic of the Material plane produced from mixing the Divine Order and Elemental Chaos.

To elucidate a bit on the problem that you pick up below, I think the problem I have with a simple divine/arcane divide is that when there are two sources, my instincts feel like it's not reduced enough, and that a singular magic type would work better. OR at times I feel that the divide is not enough (depending upon what I want for a game), and that there should additional magic types. Furthermore, I tend to dislike binaries, which is why I prefer either unified magic systems (see below) or 3+ types (e.g., Runequest, 4e, PF2, etc.). That's why I liked how 4e divided classes into more than just two types of magic: martial, divine, arcane, primal, and psionic. Pathfinder 2 is also doing something similar by having four spell lists (instead of class specific ones): divine, arcane, primal, and occult. (Bards use the Occult spell list in PF2.

) I appreciate the PF2 approach because it streamlines spell lists and makes those differences in power sources more meaningful. Overall though, there is just something about the divine/arcane divide that persistently rubs me the wrong way. So, as per your statement below, creating a unified spell/magic system that gets rid of an arcane/divine divide can conflict with what I said about primal magic druids, but it largely depends on which direction you go. And when I talk a bit more about AU/AE, then I can also use their "nature mage" as an example for how druids could also work under such a system while still preserving a universal spell system.

Even step it back a notch from there and look at how much benefit a rest of any kind should give. A long rest refreshing all h.p., for example, is IMO off-the-charts too generous. The 1e model of a [long rest equivalent] giving back only 1 h.p. isn't generous enough, however. But there's a happy place between those somewhere...just have to find it.

I don't have too much of an opinion either way on this. Profound, I know.

Again, the question of 'minion rules' forces a step back to look at deeper questions:
- are NPCs and PCs and everyone else in the game world built using the same basic rules? (something IMO that 3e got bang-on right)
- do elements within the setting change based on whether or not a PC is interacting with them?

A 'yes' to the first question and 'no' to the second make minion rules a non-starter.

I suggested modularity so that they can be optional, so we don't need to debate the appropriateness of minion mechanics here.

Another step further: is ASI really necessary at all, or if yes should it be as generous as current 5e?

And that is a question worth asking or considering for any future edition.

I moved this next portion down a bit so I could have a bit more room to write.

So, do away with the divine/arcane divide completely, then? Interesting, perhaps, but conflicts with your comments re druidic magic above.

Sure, I'll bite - let's hear it (and if you've already given this, please disregard - I haven't read the rest of the thread yet).

Monte Cook wrote Arcana Unearthed (and later updated it as Arcana Evolved) based on the 3.X d20 system. AU went up to level 20 and 9th level spells, but AE increased levels to 25th level and added 10th level spells. (Because Monte Cook could, so he did.)

It used a system of magic similar to what we find in 5e where casters could spontaneously cast spells that they had prepared each day using their spell slots. These spells could also be cast using a lower spell slot for a diminished effect or at a higher spell slot for a heightened effect. You could also sacrifice a higher level slot for two spell slots of a spell level lower or sacrifice three spell slots of a level for a single spell slot above. There were also Spell Templates that could be added atop spells to change their appearance, effects, or requirements. But this isn't necessarily what I was talking about.

There was a singular magic spell list for everyone who used spells; however, the spells you could cast from this list would still vary based upon your class. That's because access to this universal spell list still had a number of filters. Spells range from level 0 cantrips to level 10 spells. Some classes had up to 10th level spells at 25th level, while others only gained a max of level 8th level spells. For each level of spells, spells were organized into three categories: simple, complex, and exotic. Simple spells were spells that everyone who could cast at that level would have access to cast. Less classes got access to complex spells (and not necessarily even all). Exotic spells are spells that were far less common, representing either old spells that had been forgotten or newer ones that were not yet widely disseminated. Additionally, spells also had various descriptor tags (e.g., fire, dragon, giant, positive energy, negative energy, plant, etc.) that could be used for filtering what classes got what spells. So for example, one class was the Greenbond, which represented both the healer and nature mage. The Greenbond could cast simple spells up to 10th level and all spells that had either the plant or positive energy descriptor, which I believe includes even Exotic spells. The Magister could cast all simple and complex spells up to 10th level. The Mage Blade could cast all simple spells up to 8th level.

In effect, this meant that even your "wizard" (the Magister) and "gish" (the Mage Blade) had easy access to healing magic. The Magister could cast healing spells (if they had been readied or prepared), but your Greenbond will probably be better at it, because they had more features to support it and access to exotic positive energy spells. Likewise, even your healer could cast blasting magic. Your niche was primarily reinforced by your class features designed around playstyles: e.g., lightly-armored fighter, heavily-armored fighter, skill monkey, champion for a cause, unarmored combatant, master of magic, innate mage, gish, etc.

Balance was a bit out-of-whack for AU/AE. Monte Cook is notorious for his spellcaster favoritism. Nevertheless, I think that this is a pretty neat and elegant system that could easily be adjusted for most d20 D&D-based games.

Tony Vargas · Jul 3, 2019

Garthanos said:
It adds caster dependence if not caster superiority.

"Adds?"

Lanefan · Jul 3, 2019

Aldarc said:
Yep, that would be one possibility, though I think that you still run the risk of presenting a singular lore that becomes a new canon with your approach (i.e., these are the multiple different subspecies of kobolds) as opposed to presenting alternatives (i.e., you may prefer your kobolds like this instead).

IME if there's a couple (or more) options given then DMs feel less constrained re adding others, where if there's only one option it just is what it is.

My own preference, though I respect yours differs, is that druids are distinct from clerics. Why play a druid when its just a nature cleric? This seems to be an implict concession in your decision to convert druids to nature clerics. For your 1e homebrew system, that may be what they are because that is what they were. But I don't necessarily think that is what they have to be or should be. And in 4e, for example, I liked that they made Druids draw from the Primal source of power that represented the magic of the Material plane produced from mixing the Divine Order and Elemental Chaos.

Thing there is if you've got Druids, and you've got nature-based or nature-domain healing Clerics, then before long they'll end up looking and playing very much the same even if they get their spells from different sources. Thus, simplicity (which usually wins out where there's a choice) says get rid of one of them by folding the two together - and as Clerics already have all the "infrastructure" in place to support other Cleric types, making Druids into Clerics means one can also scrap the underlying infrastructure of the Druid and thus make things simpler.

To elucidate a bit on the problem that you pick up below, I think the problem I have with a simple divine/arcane divide is that when there are two sources, my instincts feel like it's not reduced enough, and that a singular magic type would work better. OR at times I feel that the divide is not enough (depending upon what I want for a game), and that there should additional magic types. Furthermore, I tend to dislike binaries, which is why I prefer either unified magic systems (see below) or 3+ types (e.g., Runequest, 4e, PF2, etc.). That's why I liked how 4e divided classes into more than just two types of magic: martial, divine, arcane, primal, and psionic. Pathfinder 2 is also doing something similar by having four spell lists (instead of class specific ones): divine, arcane, primal, and occult. (Bards use the Occult spell list in PF2. ) I appreciate the PF2 approach because it streamlines spell lists and makes those differences in power sources more meaningful. Overall though, there is just something about the divine/arcane divide that persistently rubs me the wrong way. So, as per your statement below, creating a unified spell/magic system that gets rid of an arcane/divine divide can conflict with what I said about primal magic druids, but it largely depends on which direction you go.

Difference in outlook, I suppose - binary is often fine with me.

That said, I have an underlying theory regarding the in-fiction physics of magic. I'll explain it if you like but it goes on for a bit, but in very short form magic is a 'force' much like gravity with the key difference being that some lifeforms can access this force and make it do what they need/want. Divine casters get that access from their deities. Arcane casters get it through study. Bards use sound to manipulate it, and psionics access it - well, because they can.

Put another way, in effect all magic comes from the same place; and only the means of access differ.

From there, it's pretty easy to set things up such that each method of access allows those people to do some things but not others; hence the divine-arcane divide.

I suggested modularity so that they can be optional, so we don't need to debate the appropriateness of minion mechanics here.

Which brings up another point: the 'ideal' edition should and IMO must follow through on 5e's promise of modularity, and be presented largely as guidelines rather than rules.

Monte Cook wrote Arcana Unearthed (and later updated it as Arcana Evolved) based on the 3.X d20 system. AU went up to level 20 and 9th level spells, but AE increased levels to 25th level and added 10th level spells. (Because Monte Cook could, so he did.)

"This one goes to 11..."

It used a system of magic similar to what we find in 5e where casters could spontaneously cast spells that they had prepared each day using their spell slots. These spells could also be cast using a lower spell slot for a diminished effect or at a higher spell slot for a heightened effect. You could also sacrifice a higher level slot for two spell slots of a spell level lower or sacrifice three spell slots of a level for a single spell slot above. There were also Spell Templates that could be added atop spells to change their appearance, effects, or requirements. But this isn't necessarily what I was talking about.

There was a singular magic spell list for everyone who used spells; however, the spells you could cast from this list would still vary based upon your class. That's because access to this universal spell list still had a number of filters. Spells range from level 0 cantrips to level 10 spells. Some classes had up to 10th level spells at 25th level, while others only gained a max of level 8th level spells. For each level of spells, spells were organized into three categories: simple, complex, and exotic. Simple spells were spells that everyone who could cast at that level would have access to cast. Less classes got access to complex spells (and not necessarily even all). Exotic spells are spells that were far less common, representing either old spells that had been forgotten or newer ones that were not yet widely disseminated. Additionally, spells also had various descriptor tags (e.g., fire, dragon, giant, positive energy, negative energy, plant, etc.) that could be used for filtering what classes got what spells. So for example, one class was the Greenbond, which represented both the healer and nature mage. The Greenbond could cast simple spells up to 10th level and all spells that had either the plant or positive energy descriptor, which I believe includes even Exotic spells. The Magister could cast all simple and complex spells up to 10th level. The Mage Blade could cast all simple spells up to 8th level.

In effect, this meant that even your "wizard" (the Magister) and "gish" (the Mage Blade) had easy access to healing magic. The Magister could cast healing spells (if they had been readied or prepared), but your Greenbond will probably be better at it, because they had more features to support it and access to exotic positive energy spells. Likewise, even your healer could cast blasting magic. Your niche was primarily reinforced by your class features designed around playstyles: e.g., lightly-armored fighter, heavily-armored fighter, skill monkey, champion for a cause, unarmored combatant, master of magic, innate mage, gish, etc.

My concern here is that on first read this system looks like it wants each character to be able to do a bit of everything...and maybe even a lot of everything. A gish that can heal itself, for example, is a one-man band and has no need for a party beyond simple strength in numbers.

Players tend to want this sort of character, and IMO designers have to fight this desire in order to preserve niche protection and to encourage ensemble or party play. Everyone should have a key thing he-she is good at and a bunch of things he-she isn't so good at, leading to party inter-dependence once they get into the field.

Oh, and regarding some bits way above: I haven't even looked at PF2 yet so I'll just have to take your word on whatever you say about it.

Balance was a bit out-of-whack for AU/AE. Monte Cook is notorious for his spellcaster favoritism. Nevertheless, I think that this is a pretty neat and elegant system that could easily be adjusted for most d20 D&D-based games.

Could be...but at cost of knocking down a lot of niche walls; and while some might not mind this, I sure would.