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

UngeheuerLich said:

It already has... more or less.

Click to expand...

Explain better? And assuming it is 5e feat value.

To me a feat cost would make class dipping much harder.

Tony Vargas said:

Wasn't ever in a PH1 that I'm aware of.

Click to expand...

Donut care Tony Donut care... its about the same problem with my other favorite the Warlord. It is like many years in and I cannot play a Gnome Barbarbarian.

Read the premise, grit my teeth and bore it, and ya, the pitch is a lot closer to what I'd like to be playing now. So thanks for the summation!

My personal dissensions:

* In addition to the above mentioned box set, place a strong emphasis on the lore of D&D. Dedicate a sourcebook just to this topic for those who want more detail than the boxed set provides. Have robust sections not just on Ravenloft and FR, but also on the Feywild and Shadowfell. Place an emphasis on how the book is a toolbox, where players can use setting material they choose, rather than feel like they have to incorporate all settings into their game world.

* Spend the time to create quality fluff and lore before every class/race entry, and every monster entry.

Click to expand...

No thanks. I find nearly all DnD lore incompatible with my stories, so that's wasted page space. I'd prefer any and all DnD-lore related content be contained in a book separate from the core rules. Not a fan of the lore embedded into classes and races, either.

* class list: in addition to the core classes we all know (pretty much all the ones in the 5e PHB), also include a warlord and mystic class as core. Some changes to how classes have been done include:
--ranger: core ranger class is magic free. No spells. Instead has abilities that give them superhuman abilities at tracking, hunting, survival, etc. The quintessential mountain man. Ranger subclasses include: protector (the ranger we are most familiar with; Aragorn, spells, etc), and Beast Master (instead of spells, has many optional choices to choose in how to empower your pet)
--sorcerer: solely uses a spell point system instead of spell slot system. Instead of subclasses, they have specialties which essentially are subclass lite. But there will be many of them to cover many archetypes. Similar to 5e wizard schools.
--wizards and clerics have specialized schools.

Click to expand...

My preference would be to nosedive into simplification. Strip it down to the classic 4 Fighter/Wizard/Cleric/Rogue , and throw all the other traditional classes into archetypes within one of those. Honestly, I'd prefer a single caster type over the priest/mage dichotomy, but it's too sacred cow for me to invest much time lamenting, so w/e.







Less substantial counterpoints:

I have no problem with cheesecake art. Bring it!

Nevvur said:

Honestly, I'd prefer a single caster type over the priest/mage dichotomy, but it's too sacred cow for me to invest much time lamenting, so w/e.

Click to expand...

I'd go the other way. I want a compelling mechanical difference between arcane and divine casting. Whether or not you have access to the whole spelllist isn't a very interesting distinction.

Garthanos said:

Explain better? And assuming it is 5e feat value.

To me a feat cost would make class dipping much harder.

Click to expand...

Feats depend on class levels. Many good multiclasses take the second class to level 3. Which costs a feat.

UngeheuerLich said:

Feats depend on class levels. Many good multiclasses take the second class to level 3. Which costs a feat.

Click to expand...

Ie it pushes off the acquisition of a feat in effect costing that feat? nods I can see that.

UngeheuerLich said:

Feats depend on class levels. Many good multiclasses take the second class to level 3. Which costs a feat.

Click to expand...

This is one of the things they got right. Some people want everything...perfectly optimized multiclass dipping AND feats...but I think requiring the trade off is the right way to do it.

Lanefan said:

"Produces gigantic telephone-book sized series of reference works, right out of the gate: Spell Compendium 6E (all the spells from all editions), Encyclopedia Magica 6E (all magic items from all editions), Monstrous Compendium 6E (overseen by ENWorld's Echohawk!)

Alongside the D&D Multiverse meta-setting, each DM is encouraged to build their own campaign setting from the start, instead of shoehorning everyone into the Forgotten Realms. For example, all proper names in the 6E Starter Set are enclosed in brackets: [Phandolin], [Neverwinter], [Oghma], which signals that you're supposed to choose your own name. And there's an appendix in the back with a table of alternate names to randomly choose from, and suggestions for how to invent a name: Like: "For Oghma, write in the name of the God of Knowledge in your world."

A Worldbuilders Guidebook is released from the start, which actually reverse engineers all previous D&D settings, so that a DM could randomly roll them up, or a gonzo mixture thereof...or a world with a theme which has never been seen before. Even the campaign setting names and logos can be rolled up: e.g. Dragonhawk, Greylance, The Known Realms, Forgotten Sun, Dark Coast, Hollow Oerth, etc.

Issues an LARP / cosplay D&D rulebook.

Release an Atlas of the D&D Multiverse which shows a world map for all of the existing D&D Worlds...even if they didn't have a full planetary map before! And which shows the official placement of all existing modules, D&D Fiction, and D&D video- and board-games."

Lanefan: These are all abolutely brilliant ideas!

Click to expand...

Thanks!

Screw that - put 'em all in the same universe! If you're standing on Greyhawk on a clear-sky night and know where to look you can see the star Mystara orbits; ditto for the star hosting Eberron, and so forth. Then put out a star chart that shows how these all interrelate, much like the star charts used for the Star Wars universe.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I totally agree that all of the existing WotC D&D worlds ought to be in the same Multiverse, and that there ought to be a Star Wars-style "galaxy" map showing exactly where Oerth, Toril, Mystara, Krynn, Athas, Eberron, etc. are in the Phlogiston / Astral Sea. I'd even suggest shaping the "phlogiston galaxy" like the D&D ampersand!

But as far as *other peoples'* home campaigns, they simply can't be located in the same Multiverse, since each DM has total creative freedom even in regard to how the Multiverse was formed, the history of the gods and planes, etc. So each DM's "Tiamat" is certainly a different "Tiamat", since even if DMs played Tiamat exactly by the book, the story of Tiamat unfolds at least a little differently in each campaign. Similary each person's Forgotten Realms really is a different world than WotC's Forgotten Realms.

The 5E core books even say as much.

What I'm suggesting is that for "perfect 6E", that WotC offer two ways for fan campaigns to even more "officially" become a part of the WotC Multiverse:

1) For a small fee, you can register your own Crystal Sphere, and have it placed on the map of the WotC Multiversal "galaxy." This might run into space limitations though. And also "locks down" a bunch of "real estate" - even though the galaxy is a big place. And might end up with a whole bunch of Alternate Torils on the map. So maybe this wouldn't work so well.
2) For another fee, you can register your own Multiverse (your campaign) as "officially" existing alongside of, and connected to WotC's Multiverse. It receives an alphanumerical designation. WotC's Multiverse is "D&D Multiverse-1", while subsequent registrees are "Multiverse-2", "Multiverse-3", etc.

Also, I don't think your fan-publishing ideas will get very far; mostly because it'd be too difficult for WotC to allow all that and still keep any sort of control on their IP and copyright.

Click to expand...

That's what people said back in Fall 2014, when I proposed that WotC open up its Setting IP to fan-made commercial publishing. I was roundly shouted down by the wiseacres of ENWorld.

Not long after that, DMs Guild was released. And then the D&D Fan Forge merchandise-crafting site.

Nevvur said:

My preference would be to nosedive into simplification. Strip it down to the classic 4 Fighter/Wizard/Cleric/Rogue

Click to expand...

That would be Fighter, Magic-user, Cleric, & Thief, to use the original names, and, the Thief was an early addition, with the game evolved as in 5e, with stat checks & proficiency replacing the thief's "special" abilities, there's not even a need for it...

and throw all the other traditional classes into archetypes within one of those

Click to expand...

That's prettymuch what 2e did with Class Groups.

And, expand the fighter enough to include the Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, & Warlord, and it could easily handle the Rogue & Monk, as well.

. Honestly, I'd prefer a single caster type over the priest/mage dichotomy.

Click to expand...

Just the two most generic classes: Fighter & Magic-User, with everything else sitting under them? At that point you just have a dichotomy between two kinds of classes.

Also, unless you vastly upgraded the Fighter and/or reined in the Magic-User, you'd just have a d20 Ars Magica.

Which, y'know, at least had the virtue of being up-front about the role of a Grog.

This seems to be heading toward one of two things:

A) An enumeration of every option that ever existed, from which you pick and choose exactly which ones you want.

B) A totally blank book (maybe some art) so that you can just do whatever.