5e what would you do?

[Pssthpok]

Well, Canor Morum, you can say whatever comes to your mind, but allow me to retort:

Sure, 4E is fine as is, but you've completely missed the point. The thrust of the thread is what you'd like to see/do in a 5th Edition, not whether or not there is any call for it.

As for your glob of text saying little more than "Rule zero, bro", I say this: if I wanted a game where I made up all the rules, I wouldn't spend money on someone else's game. The reason (I'm just guessing here) half of us pay into 4E or 3E or whatever is to be a part of the legacy of D&D and to y'know... not have to write an entire RPG on their own, a feat of which many of us are not capable. The fact is, a lot of people on these forums have been playing D&D for a long time, and there are a lot of "lost" rules that are missed these days, and a good many perspectives that see the current vision of D&D as unfit for its hitherto esoteric nature. Yes, I just used "hitherto" in a sentence.

Finally, your reference to "bankrupting WotC" falls pretty flat, since every edition release has been met with mixed responses, many of which proclaim imminent bankruptcy. Just suppose.... say a game very much like the idea of what I posted were released in a few years as "5th Edition". That game would sell on little more than the legacy brand name of "D&D" itself. Then, like every edition, it would be scrutinized to death until all the flaws were revealed and people were clamoring for a 6th Edition, at which point I could only hope that you would leap to the sardonic defense of my 5th Edition as quickly as you've done here, though hopefully not in the midst of a casual and tangental conversation about what people would like to see if they had their druthers.

...yes, I just used "druthers", too.

 

[Stormonu]

3. Make magic a bit risky for the characters to wield. Give it draw-backs. Warrior-types - no matter the level - have always feared for the natural 1, casters should have something equal.

This is perhaps the one thing I can agree with. Nearly every other system of magic I've seen has some sort of built-in risk to using magic (including 1E & 2E D&D for certain spells). It doesn't have to be as faustian as WHFRPG, but some risk should be present in casting the more powerful magics. I believe that was one reason magic got out of hand in high-level 3E.

 

[MrGrenadine]

If WOTC decides Pathfinder is cutting into their sales too much, they (or Hasbro) will simply by them out and bury it in a closet. Everything has a price.

Prognostication fail. There's no way.

 

[Lanefan]

You've certainly hit some nails square-on:

First off, "epic" shouldn't be "core". Epic should be epic; i.e. it should be outside the bounds of normal play.

As should some other things, the first of which that leaps to mind is magic item creation. PCs are there to break what other people build.

Secondly, 2E had it right the first time when they said that some classes are just better than others. Sorry, all you egalitarians out there, but all class levels are not equal. Varying the XP requirements by class was brilliant ...

Fourth, we have to get off the grid, guys. Grids and hexmaps are nice and all, but I think the strength of D&D as a pen-and-paper game is that you are using your imagination more than a strict reference like a grid.

Agreed.

I'd go a step further and say we have to get off the d20 at least to some extent. Some things work better as %.

But you missed a few nails as well...

Third, my second point destroys the simplistic 4E multiclassing as well as the LEGO multiclassing from 3E. Quaint as those systems are, they don't work with varying amounts of XP per level per class. The simplest solution is to resurrect 2E multiclassing: allowing people to split XP gains across multiple classes. While we're at it, rein in what races can split how many classes. Humans should have the most diversity, being able to split across as many classes as they want. Also, you should be able to decide per point if your XP gains are split or not. If you have an encounter with your mage-thief and all you did was backstab, you should be able to dump all that XP to your thief levels. Heck, your DM might even want to enforce that sort of thing.

I do just this sometimes.

That said, has there ever been a multi-classing option that has worked? I mean, *really* worked?

I humbly suggest there has not. And why is that? Because a class-based game is, well, class-based. Each class has its own strengths and weaknesses, and this tends to subtly encourage a party both to form and to work together; to cover each other's weaknesses.

Most attempts at multiclassing always end up looking to me like attempts to find ways around these weaknesses, such that one character can do it all and thus doesn't need the party. Kind of like a one-man band. And largely counterproductive to the game's core design.

I very much like the idea of simply being able to split the ExP between classes. But I'd limit any one character to operating in two classes, tops.

As a corollary to this, prestige classes have to go.

As for magic becoming more risky - wholesale agreement from here!

Lanefan

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Take 4e's chassis, add on more non-combat related things for classes, implement a second feat-alike system (we'll call it Talents) which has a pool of non-combat abilities (such as learning a language or gaining ritual casting) and players gain one every x level. Alter Encounter powers to be based on non-combat situations rather then "defensive" powers. Add a lot more rituals and a whole lot more martial practices (or whatever they're called).

This would help separate combat and non-combat systems and abilities so that players don't have to choose between them.

Make the DMG2 inherent bonuses the default, add magic items purely as "cool" things, not power build ups. Drop the daily/encounter/at will system from items. I have yet to see how Essentials will work with the new style of items, but divorcing gold from the character upgrading system is a big must.

Make psionics less crappy. Look hard at how the psion works and how to fix the "same at-wills you use forever" problem. Kill the battlemind and ardent, add classes that aren't terrible in mechanics (battlemind) and fluff (both). What, I'm allowed to be a little selfish!

Look at how awesome the monk is. Look at that. You did really good there! Use that as a starting point on how to do all the other classes.

For the love of god stay away from % systems, stay far away from the rolling under stat system from 2e, and adamantly refuse to believe the rubbish that "some classes should just be better then others."

 

[Lanefan]

This would help separate combat and non-combat systems and abilities so that players don't have to choose between them.

Regardless of the actual mechanics used to implement it, this is a worthy design goal. That said, character build - powers, feats, mechanics of all kinds - still needs to be dialled down overall.

Make psionics less crappy. Look hard at how the psion works and how to fix the "same at-wills you use forever" problem.

Or just abandon psionics entirely? It's another thing that has, despite many attempts, never really worked the way it was probably envisioned to. In books e.g. Kurtz' Deryni series psionics works wonderfully. In a game, meh...

For the love of god stay away from % systems, stay far away from the rolling under stat system from 2e

Why? "Roll d20, high is always better" is nice and simple, but quickly gets stale. And the roll-under-stat mechanism is pure elegance, provided stats aren't regularly allowed to creep into the 20's thus rendering the roll meaningless.

and adamantly refuse to believe the rubbish that "some classes should just be better then others."

Each class should have its niche, its thing it does well. Each class should also have one (or more) weaknesses. Using a variable ExP progression as a balancer where those niches and weaknesses don't otherwise line up is perfectly valid design. Perhaps not the most elegant, but perfectly valid.

Lanefan

 

[Canor Morum]

Well, Canor Morum, you can say whatever comes to your mind, but allow me to retort:

Sure, 4E is fine as is, but you've completely missed the point. The thrust of the thread is what you'd like to see/do in a 5th Edition, not whether or not there is any call for it.

As for your glob of text saying little more than "Rule zero, bro", I say this: if I wanted a game where I made up all the rules, I wouldn't spend money on someone else's game. The reason (I'm just guessing here) half of us pay into 4E or 3E or whatever is to be a part of the legacy of D&D and to y'know... not have to write an entire RPG on their own, a feat of which many of us are not capable. The fact is, a lot of people on these forums have been playing D&D for a long time, and there are a lot of "lost" rules that are missed these days, and a good many perspectives that see the current vision of D&D as unfit for its hitherto esoteric nature. Yes, I just used "hitherto" in a sentence.

Finally, your reference to "bankrupting WotC" falls pretty flat, since every edition release has been met with mixed responses, many of which proclaim imminent bankruptcy. Just suppose.... say a game very much like the idea of what I posted were released in a few years as "5th Edition". That game would sell on little more than the legacy brand name of "D&D" itself. Then, like every edition, it would be scrutinized to death until all the flaws were revealed and people were clamoring for a 6th Edition, at which point I could only hope that you would leap to the sardonic defense of my 5th Edition as quickly as you've done here, though hopefully not in the midst of a casual and tangental conversation about what people would like to see if they had their druthers.

...yes, I just used "druthers", too.

3char

 

[Canor Morum]

Oh, so were just dreaming. It's a "what if?" In that case, given that I had an unlimited budget and ran WOTC I would...



Create an online database for players to maintain, upload and share character information. Another for DMs to share adventures, homebrew worlds, houserules, monsters, etc.

Full E-Book integration and smart phone versions of the DDI virtual tools.

A fully functional virtual tapletop "ala the D&D Microsoft Surface demo".

Completion of the DDI Tools with the ability to play a virtual game online with video chat. Ability to modify Tools data with houserules.

A complete line of minis with packs of common monsters, npcs, and pcs. Single sales of D&D minis through WOTC website.

3-Dimensional Dungeon Tiles for every conceivable environment, campaign setting, and locale.

A D&D animated series, live films focused on campaign settings (Planescape, Ravenloft, Dark Sun, etc.)

D&D merchandise. Shirts, posters, electric guitars, etc.

Gold and platinum set of dice.

...

Now I'm really laughing.



And some books with hardcovers and top-notch art.

Not sure I would change the rules much, just add more classes, races, and options.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Regardless of the actual mechanics used to implement it, this is a worthy design goal. That said, character build - powers, feats, mechanics of all kinds - still needs to be dialled down overall.

Disagree. Having cool things to do is a good thing.

Or just abandon psionics entirely? It's another thing that has, despite many attempts, never really worked the way it was probably envisioned to. In books e.g. Kurtz' Deryni series psionics works wonderfully. In a game, meh...

Disagree. I love psionics.

Why? "Roll d20, high is always better" is nice and simple, but quickly gets stale. And the roll-under-stat mechanism is pure elegance, provided stats aren't regularly allowed to creep into the 20's thus rendering the roll meaningless.

Disagree. For starters, "it gets stale" doesn't happen. Having a single unified mechanic is a good thing - players should not have to learn multiple full systems to play a single game.

Beyond that, it's also pretty much the opposite of elegance. Let's look at what it does:

1. It is thematically inconsistent with the way that other rolls work, rolling high should always be either good or bad, it shouldn't flip flop

2. It adds a second needless number for ability scores that is entirely unneeded

3. It is less logically consistent with the other system where you are rolling and adding to beat a variable difficulty

4. It is either impossible or incredibly inefficient to ever get any better at a skill. Everything else in the game scales with level.

5. It provides skills with no regard to class.

6. Ability scores don't change a lot after character creation in games that have this mechanic, so if you're playing a game with random roll character creation and no skills, most of your character is determined by the luck of the draw when you start playing.

Each class should have its niche, its thing it does well. Each class should also have one (or more) weaknesses. Using a variable ExP progression as a balancer where those niches and weaknesses don't otherwise line up is perfectly valid design. Perhaps not the most elegant, but perfectly valid.

Disagree. Each class should be good at things and bad at others, but no class's niche should be so "powerful" that it overshadows everyone else and requires extra means to "balance." Especially since, often enough, it balances nothing.

 

[delericho]

Disagree. Having cool things to do is a good thing.

Agreed.

What I think could use some toning down, though, is the multitude of options that allow players to push up the numbers.

Adding new powers is cool, because it allows the character to do something new, which is potentially interesting. Adding a feat that pushes your attack modifier from +5 to +6 is rather less cool, though... you're just doing the same all stuff marginally better.

And yet, if given the choice the player will probably choose the latter, as it's probably a better option all round.

Indeed, specialisation of this type may have the perverse effect of reducing the net fun of the group. Firstly because the ultra-specialised character will be at a major disadvantage if forced to operate with anything other than his prime attack (yes, his own damn fault for building his character that way... but that doesn't stop him having less fun). Secondly, it means that in any scenario where one character is ultra-optimised, the rest of the group potentially won't be able to meaningfully contribute - they'll just be overshadowed by the other guy. Again, their fun is reduced.

I'm not suggesting the game should eliminate all means of increasing the numbers, or do away with all specialisation, of course. That would be going too far. But reigning these in a bit, and even tying them down to a tightly limited and fixed set of such options, is probably no bad thing. And then have the character options (be they class features, talents, spells, or powers) allow the character to do new things, not just do the same things better.

Disagree. I love psionics.

Don't care about psionics either way. However, the 4e approach does seem to have allowed them to be more balanced than they have been in the past, while still allowing them to be quite distinctive. (Some of this has come from stripping the Wizard of his "magic can do everything" capability, which is no bad thing.)

Disagree. For starters, "it gets stale" doesn't happen. Having a single unified mechanic is a good thing - players should not have to learn multiple full systems to play a single game.

Beyond that, it's also pretty much the opposite of elegance...

Yep, I agree with all of this. Despite my problems with 4e, 3e and Pathfinder alike, I won't consider going back to an older edition precisely because of the lack of a universal mechanic.

Disagree. Each class should be good at things and bad at others, but no class's niche should be so "powerful" that it overshadows everyone else and requires extra means to "balance." Especially since, often enough, it balances nothing.

Again, agreed. Because of the "big jump" effect of gaining a level, different XP tables typically failed to balance characters. If you take a 2nd Edition Fighter and Mage at 1,999 XP, you'll see a certain disparity in power level. At 2,001 XP, the difference in power is vastly changed (because the Fighter is now 2nd level, while the Mage is still at 1st). Different XP tables for different classes littered similar oddities throughout the party's careers.

Far better, IMO, to try to balance all classes at all levels, and thus make a character's level the simple shorthand of approximate power level.