• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

5e what would you do?

I put way too much thought into my response for this thread after reading and pondering everyone's solutions. So much thought that I think I even dreamed about it last night.

I think the ideas of separating stats from to hit and siloing bonuses to what you can already do compared with picking up new abilities are both brilliant and would definitely be in my version of 5e.

Things I would retain from 4e would be the idea of thematic power sources (although I would change the overall name even if the categories of Martial, Divine, Arcane, Primal, Psionic, and maybe Shadow would remain), as well as the action economy of minor move standard.

I would most likely start by flattening the progression of pluses to things. This would mean that magic items would not be +1 to +5 or what not, but instead would provide interesting abilities. This is intended to make the game more about what the characters can do instead of what bonuses the characters can have stacked on them.

The power sources of the class would decide where the classes could pull their abilities from (they would definitely not be called "powers") and would help keep things thematic across the classes with the same power source. Martial, for instance, would provide abilities like stances that augmented the base attacks. Prayers would sacrificial element and would provide buffs, healing, etc. Spells would be ritualistic with a chance for some randomness. The classes themselves would provide class features that define the combat role (such as the fighter's ability to mark who they swing at or the paladin's divine challenge) and would determine how often you pick up abilities tied to the power source. As your class advanced you would pick up a greater variety of ways to deal with situations and only occasionally getting something that is just more raw power.

I would add another layer to the character similar to what other's suggested. There would be maybe six or so broad archetypes such criminal, noble, craftsman, professional, scholar, and explorer. These archetypes would decide your skill list and provide non combat abilities as you leveled up. Like classes it would more often be about picking up new tricks than powering up what you can already do, but you would gain some greater bonuses at some levels.

I would not want hit points, base attack, skill bonuses, skill DC's and defenses to sky rocket. I don't want a situation where I character just jumps off of the cliff because they know they have enough hit points to take it. I would want special traits or class abilities that show the character has learned tricks to help him deal with a more difficult situation. Instead of a character needing that magic weapon and as many attack buffs to deal with a dragon I would rather see something where they have a class ability or trait like "Dragonslayer" that let's them ignore the dragon's damage reduction.

I am sure I will think of more later, but that is some of the basic ideas in a nutshell.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The first change I'd make for 5E, without hesitation, is to take a cue from HERO 6E and M&M 2E/3E. (Other systems have done this as well, but those are where I saw it done. :) )

Decouple stats from attack rolls, and possibly defenses.

The centrality of the attack roll to D&D, which 4E has only increased, means that anything that adds to it becomes much better than any other option. The importance of stats to everyone's attack rolls in 4E means that character creation tends to be focused, and arguably distorted, by the all-importance of the attack stat.

Removing stat modifiers from the attack roll means that stats are still valuable for their secondary effects on powers/spells/maneuvers and on character options in general, although Int, Wis and Cha may need some boosting, especially if making the math and the balance work requires that stat modifiers be removed from defenses as well.

Interesting idea, Matthew, and I am a bit torn on this one. My problem with it is that it effectively takes away any kind of natural talent - one's combat capacity would solely be a matter of experience. This doesn't jive with reality; Albert Pujols isn't just an experienced hitter, he has a very, very rare natural gift.

But given that the problem you mention is real, is there another way to account for natural talent without using ability bonuses for attack and defense? I'm not sure. The only thing that comes to mind is XP bonuses for high ability scores, but that just seems like another variant of the same problem.

Any ideas?
 

I can't speak for editions earlier then 2e, but 2e if anything had more importance on stats in 3e did. Discounting the gigantic difference between 18 and 19 strength due to percentage strength, attack and AC bonuses were so rare that the difference between a bonus from stats and no bonus was incredible. Add in that having a 16 made you literally level up faster? Yeah, stats mattered a lot.

Incidentally, I would strongly support dividing stats from attacking. D&D has always punished people from making a normal organic character who has fairly decent stats all around, and it's a massive new player trap ("Well, my guy is sociable, so he needs decent charisma. He's not dumb, but not super smart, so I guess a 12 should go there. Oh, he's strong, but he's no Hulk, so a 14 will go there. Wait, what do you mean I can't hit anything or do damage?")
 

Interesting idea, Matthew, and I am a bit torn on this one. My problem with it is that it effectively takes away any kind of natural talent - one's combat capacity would solely be a matter of experience. This doesn't jive with reality; Albert Pujols isn't just an experienced hitter, he has a very, very rare natural gift.

But given that the problem you mention is real, is there another way to account for natural talent without using ability bonuses for attack and defense? I'm not sure. The only thing that comes to mind is XP bonuses for high ability scores, but that just seems like another variant of the same problem.

Any ideas?

Why do you want to model innate talent in the first place? I don't see the point. Let experience level represent the sum of innate talent plus training. If you're a level 1 fighter with 12s in your physical stats, and your fellow PC is a level 1 fighter with 18s, maybe you've trained more than she has--or maybe you have natural talents that are not captured in your raw ability scores. The best martial artists are neither Olympic weightlifters nor gymnasts.

I'm a firm believer in verisimilitude during play, but when it gets into chargen and advancement, you sort of have to choose not to see the man behind the curtain. Otherwise you'll start thinking about how PCs can go from zero to hero in a matter of weeks, and how their advancement is all so perfectly correlated across the board, and how the rogue can get better at picking locks over the course of a wilderness adventure with nary a lock in sight, and then you'll have to go lie down for a while with a GURPS rulebook and a bottle of Tylenol.
 
Last edited:

Interesting idea, Matthew, and I am a bit torn on this one. My problem with it is that it effectively takes away any kind of natural talent - one's combat capacity would solely be a matter of experience. This doesn't jive with reality; Albert Pujols isn't just an experienced hitter, he has a very, very rare natural gift.

That has always been one of my main questions. If my fighter is "trained" in endurance, di he actually train or is he jsut naturally talented?

I see no reason to make a strong line between the two.


So high stats, skills or even a lot of feats can simply be natural abilities. The ydo not necessarily need to be something learned.
 

This doesn't jive with reality; Albert Pujols isn't just an experienced hitter, he has a very, very rare natural gift.

Well, hitting a baseball is more like a Dexterity check (with a Strength rider to increase distance) than a D&D attack roll. :)

On a more serious note, the concept of tying attack rolls to natural ability is already bloodied/wounded with things like Intelligent Blademaster, Melee Training (is that the name of the feat? I'm not current with 4E) and other things that essentially allow you to key all attacks off one stat, regardless of type or flavor.

But given that the problem you mention is real, is there another way to account for natural talent without using ability bonuses for attack and defense? I'm not sure. The only thing that comes to mind is XP bonuses for high ability scores, but that just seems like another variant of the same problem.

Any ideas?

I think the secondary effects either associated with powers or with other game functions (skills, Str bonus to damage, Dex bonus to Initiative, Con bonuses to HP) make stats important enough and help represent natural talent without them assuming the all-important role they've had in the game for so long. This isn't just a 4E problem--3E had it too, it just disguised it a bit with the casters relying on a stat to boost a passive attack value instead of an active roll. :) Again, the problem is that the attack roll is so important and a binary function (unlike damage, hit point, or healing rolls--and even Initiative to some degree--it's a question of 'yes or no' more than 'more or less') that any ability to add to it is just too good. I'd like to see it gone because I think it unduly narrows character creation options in terms of race selection and characterization, especially with the 'sacred cow' of racial ability modifiers. A witty, insightful eladrin fighter may not be as purely powerful as a typical dwarven tank, but I'd like to reduce the disparity so that the former is still a generally viable option compared to the latter.
 
Last edited:

Innate talent matters. So does training. Neither can take you all the way to your goals.

I have a gift for playing stringed instruments- I learn things much faster on them than my teachers expect. The problem is I also plateau quickly because I don't practice enough.

OTOH, I know people who can play guitar quite well after taking years and years of lessons who claim they started without a lick of talent...and you won't be buying anything of theirs because their music, while technically proficient, is a static, stagnant thing. They can play the music on the sheet, but they can't create, improvise and (worst of all) cannot capture the emotive content of what they play. They play the notes, not the songs.

(For an example of such a debate just starting, see here: http://forums.musicplayer.com/ubbthreads.php/topics/2236403/1 )

But lets look at something a bit closer to a typical FRPG adventurer: a pro athlete.

Michael Jordan is acclaimed to be one of the greatest basketball players of all time. Part of what got him to the pinnacle was his talent. The other part was his training regimen. And the same could be said of any athlete who reached the top of his sport- Jerry Rice, Mario Lemieux, Ted Williams, Aleksandr Karelin.

So to me, ideally both talent and training have a part in any RPG's mechanics.

(Oh yeah- and gear matters too! If we have blood doping and steroids, why not girdles of giant strength and potions of heroism for our fantasy creations?)
 
Last edited:

This doesn't jive with reality; Albert Pujols isn't just an experienced hitter, he has a very, very rare natural gift.
Well, hitting a baseball is more like a Dexterity check (with a Strength rider to increase distance) than a D&D attack roll.

Well...

Making contact with the ball is kind of a Dex check. Hitting it 400'+ is a bit of a Str check. Making the decision to hit a 90mph fastball towards that gap in left field in the half of a second it takes for it to travel from the pitcher's hand to the plate?

That's training married to talent.

Science of Baseball: Fastball Reaction Time

(FWIW, while I did get a few hits under .2 seconds, most of mine were in the .21-.26 range.)
 
Last edited:

Decouple stats from attack rolls, and possibly defenses.

The centrality of the attack roll to D&D, which 4E has only increased, means that anything that adds to it becomes much better than any other option. The importance of stats to everyone's attack rolls in 4E means that character creation tends to be focused, and arguably distorted, by the all-importance of the attack stat.

Removing stat modifiers from the attack roll means that stats are still valuable for their secondary effects on powers/spells/maneuvers and on character options in general, although Int, Wis and Cha may need some boosting, especially if making the math and the balance work requires that stat modifiers be removed from defenses as well.
Interesting idea, but may I offer a slight tweak:

Go after the defensive side first.

Why?

Simple grind reduction.

Bonuses to attack (from whatever source) mean things will get hit more often and go down more quickly. This is good. Bonuses to defense mean that on average it takes more swings - and thus more time - to take down the foe. This is bad.

1e had an arbitrary limit on AC. While it was possible to wear enough gear and have enough Dex. to get to a theoretical AC of about -13 or so (before any buffs or effects), the game capped it at -10...that'd be 30 in 3e terms. It's not the most elegant way of achieving a desired goal - that being to keep even the toughest foes at least vaguely hittable - but if there's a better way of getting to the same place it might be worth a long look. Offhand, however, I can't think of one.

Lanefan
 

Interesting idea, but may I offer a slight tweak:

Go after the defensive side first.

Why?

Simple grind reduction.

Bonuses to attack (from whatever source) mean things will get hit more often and go down more quickly. This is good. Bonuses to defense mean that on average it takes more swings - and thus more time - to take down the foe. This is bad.

I agree that overall hit rates ought to rise, but that can be accomplished simply by adjusting basic PC attack values and/or monster defenses.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top