D&D 5E What needs to be fixed in 5E?

[KidSnide]

But there is no reason to be strict about that. Conceptually, it is easy to see powers that everyone in the source should have, powers that only a given class should have, and powers that are in the middle. That middle stuff is typically goofed up because someone lets the presentation method dictate content.

The challenge is how to deal with classes that don't exist yet. Let's say that you have a power that seems appropriate for the swordmage and the wizard, but not for the sorcerer or bard. (Say, a really good immobilization power.) How do you mark it for the PH1 (let's say that 5e PH1 only has wizard and sorcerer). Do you make it a wizard power? Or do you make it an arcane power and label it "wizard only", and then errata that when the swordmage comes out?

The "Wizard Plus Defenders and Other Controllers" category works as a solution, but it isn't obvious to me whether role will always be the reason for wanting to shear categories off. That said, the more I think about this, the more I think you can handle exceptional later-designed classes by designing those exceptions into the class. Imagine you want to design a Beguiler class for 5e. Sure, it's an arcane controller, but you might now want the class to have access to the full arcane controller canon. The Beguiler designer can either come up with his own custom power list (that borrows the appropriate Wizard powers by reference), or the Beguiler can have a ton of class abilities (or powers selected from a special sub-list) and only have a few levels when the Beguiler can choose from the full arcane controller list.

Another possibility would be to group powers into thematic groups like "Necromancy", "Enchantment", "Earth Domain" and "Duelist Style". That would be nice for multi-classing and feats that provide advantages when using the right school/domain/fighting-style. (Actually, I tend to think these keywords would be useful just for that.) But I'm skeptical that -- a priori -- you can group PH1 powers into thematic groups in a way that really helps the yet-to-be-designed PH 3 classes.

No matter how you slice it, when your designing a power that works for the Wizard, but no other PH1 classes, it's hard to know whether you should make the power a Wizard-only power, or a generic Arcane power that happens to be restricted to just the Wizard right now.

-KS

 

[Crazy Jerome]

It is difficult to properly categorize powers ahead of time. It would have been nearly impossible in 4E. However, I'm seeing the possibility of a 1E to 2E type cleanup here. Not that 5E can't have its own advances, but the power structure in 4E does have a good sample, that works pretty well. It's the bloat and organizational problems that mainly hold it back from elegance.

With a good starting list, as 4E provides, I'm more sanguine that any new classes will fit well enough. What kind of power is it that someone decides that only the wizard should have, but other arcane controllers should not have--and then they make a new arcane controller and want it to have that power? There would be a few, but not enough to quibble over--provided that, the powers are assigned to the groups that make the most sense the first go around, and not just shoved somewhere to cut corners.

 

[devoblue]

I would like to see a "Dodge" mechanic introduced to the game. I think armor should make it harder for you to take damage, not harder to hit. This mechanics would actually make heavy armor more useful. Right now the best thing to do is have a high dex while wearing hide armor.

Heavy armor has been less useful since the 3e max dex bonus, and 4e has made it worse.

Put the following 3 people in plate armor:

• A body builder (high STR)
• A ballet dancer (high DEX)
• An NFL defensive end (high STR and DEX)

I reckon the body builder and ballet dancer will be hit about the same, but the DE is strong enough to still be quick and should be harder to hit.
You should be able to add the lesser of your STR and DEX modifiers in heavy armor.

 

[Oldtimer]

You should be able to add the lesser of your STR and DEX modifiers in heavy armor.

Thank you!. You just solved the last of my scaling problems in my 4e clone. Your DEX/INT modifier is capped by your STR modifier when applying it to AC with heavy armour. Perfect!

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Your DEX/INT modifier is capped by your STR modifier when applying it to AC with heavy armour.

That IS a nice tweak.

 

[KarinsDad]

I don't think there's anything preventing the current roles from being made into more narrative concepts. For example:

Guardian - Defender
Ravager - Striker
General - Leader
Tactician - Controller

Those are just different names for the same thing and do not address the issue.

Role is inherently tied to what a class does, and what your class does tends to be tied into your concept (a 4e Rogue who isn't interested in putting the hurt on enemies is a pretty poor Rogue).

In 1E, a Thief was there to handle the traps. Combat was a side issue for the thief, although he could manage it. But backstab was a bit rare, not an every round thing.

The game has morphed such that every single class has to be good at combat. Recent 5E discussions are that every single class has to be good at non-combat.

All of this is in the opposite direction of narrative direction. A player cannot really play a bumbling innkeeper who just happens to go on adventures and hang in the back, using his mechanical skills to get past traps. He must also be a good fighter of some type and a good negotiator of some type.

Or the archaeology professor who goes spelunking with the adventurers, but wouldn't know one side of a sword from another. But, he knows his ancient languages and what the weird objects are.

The Bard who has no Str and has no Dex can wield his sword just as good as or even better than the high Str high Dex Fighter.

Narrative has gotten lost in the world of balanced and equal mechanics, and the discussions of segregating powers into role, class, and power source are doing that even more.


My take is in order for 5E to go back to the 1E roots (without Vancian magic and the power issues it created) is for the game to start with ability scores, not with classes, roles, and power sources.

Martial powers should be Str/Dex based. Weapon attacks should all be martial powers. If a PC doesn't have a secondary role (multi-class or some how), then s/he can only do melee basic and ranged basic attacks. S/he isn't trained in the martial power source enough to do advanced martial abilities.

Magic should become MAGIC again.

This is very important, so I'd like to reiterate it.

Magic should become MAGIC again.

The Martial power source shouldn't have taunts like a video game and should never target Will defense. Fighters and Rogues should be able to do amazing things like shift across the battlefield quickly or super climb a wall, but they shouldn't be able to Fly or go Invisible or Teleport or Heal. Just like Wizards shouldn't be able to wield a sword to do anything at all (other than a melee basic attack) unless they multi-class into a martial power source class.

Magic should be Int/Wis/Cha/Con based. Magic can be Arcane, Divine, Primal, or Psionic (granted, Divine and Primal could be subcategories of a Spiritual power source, but they do make sense apart). 5E should avoid the concept of 50 flavors of ice cream when discussing power sources. Let the bad guys have the Shadow power source and the Elemental power source and the 100 other ways people can think of to create new ones.

Arcane is Int/Wis.
Divine is Wis/Cha.
Martial is Str/Dex.
Primal is Con/Wis.
Psionic is Int/Cha.

There are literally thousands of options with martial, arcane, primal, divine, and psionic.

There should be no Assassin class per se. An Assassin is a Rogue who might dip his toe into the Arcane power source a bit and/or dip his toe into mundane poisons (an alchemist skill, not a power source).

Divine should be active gods.

Primal should be ancient gods/spirits/demons/devils/primordials (primordials, primal, anyone see a connection?).

A Warlock should be as much Primal as Arcane. He doesn't just deal with magic, he also deals with ancient and mysterious beings. That's something that is mostly hand waved away in 4E. Warlock powers themselves should have consequences of use, just like Druid powers should interact with spirits and have consequences of use.

Each class should have it's own role(s) and power sources that make that class unique. Classes that have two power sources are the true hybrid PCs. There is no such thing as a hybrid class because that's what some classes are.

Cleric Divine
Fighter Martial
Druid Primal
Rogue Martial
Sorcerer Arcane
Wizard Arcane

Barbarian Martial|Primal
Bard Martial|Arcane
Monk Martial|Psionic
Paladin Martial|Divine
Ranger Martial|Primal
Warlock Arcane|Primal

Note: I dropped roles here for these classes. More on that later.

Based on which powers a player takes determines what roles that PC has.

The concept here is that some classes are single power source and some classes are dual power source.

The designers should limit what each power source can do. The concept that everyone can heal is too video gamey. The Arcane and Martial power sources should not be able to heal. Period.

The Psionic power source can heal, but only self heal.

Healing is the purview of the Divine power source and the Primal power source. Healing should be healing again. Combat is dangerous and actually does damage PCs. There should be no combat chearleaders. The ability to dig deep should occur once per encounter and be called Second Wind. A Martial power source PC might be able to encourage another PC to dig deep, but that is really having the other PC use his Second Wind.

The Divine power source cannot Teleport, etc.

Take the main capabilities of the game and segregate them based on power source.

Every power source can do damage.

I can definitely see the Primal power source as being relatively benign as long as the PC is doing minor effects. But, major effects might have a personal cost. The modern gods of the Divine power source have power to spare. The ancient gods and spirits have limited power. So, when the PC throws out a powerful effect, the PC also has something detrimental happen. This can be balanced out by the powerful effects being stronger or more versatile or last longer via in game mechanics than the Divine powers.


By segregating the game like this, the power sources become more than a way to just split up classes. They becomes ways to really narratively define the classes.

Martial classes are martial. They use weapons. They don't use magic. Magic is now special again, but each type of magic (arcane, divine, primal, and psionic) is unique and has it's own very strong game mechanics and narrative flavor.

Arcane casters are a hodge podge of magic. They can go Invisible, but not as well as Primal casters can (who can fight for short periods of time while invisible). Arcane casters can use Telepathy, but nowhere near as well as Psionic casters. They can create a Wall of Fire or a Wall of Fog, but nowhere near as good as a Primal casters.

Psionic PCs have limits as to what they can affect outside their bodies (telepathy, telekinesis, etc.), but they can do amazing things with their own bodies (boost mental defenses, heal, boost their physical strength, etc.). But, they cannot create Walls of Fire. Elemental powers are the purview of the Arcane and Primal power sources. Even divine PCs have no elemental powers.

Each power source should have it's own strengths and weaknesses and even things that it cannot do at all.


Instead of discussing roles, I think it is more important to get back to the narrative roots and discuss power sources.

Roles can even be dropped completely. They make little narrative sense.

Instead, a Wizard can take a striker like single target Lightning power. When using it, he's a striker.

A Fighter can take a Control power where he targets enemies in a one square area and he knocks them all prone. Or, he takes a Leader power to distract an enemy such that they are debuffed fighting other PCs.

The powers themselves dictate what the role of the PC is that round, not the class of the PC.

Then, we do not need roles.


Class roles are artificial. Get rid of them. Bye bye.


Power roles make sense. At the moment, my Rogue is being a striker by damaging a foe. At the moment, my Rogue is being a controller by blinding a foe.

By shifting the roles to the powers, the player decides which powers to take and hence, which roles his PC typically does.


And the power sources dictate the utility of any given power. For example, if the game designers determine that the Primal power source deals with elemental powers stronger than the Arcane power source does, it means that at the same level that the Arcane caster fires Lightning against a single foe, the Primal caster fires Lightning against an area. At the same level the Arcane caster fires Lightning against an area, the Primal caster fires Lightning against enemies only in an area.

Game design segregates capabilities not only into each power source, but how useful/powerful those capabilities (Tier 1 is strong/useful, Tier 2 is somewhat capable, Tier 3 is barely able to do it, and Tier 4 is not able to do it).

Primal is Tier 1 for elemental powers, but Tier 3 for teleport powers.

Arcane is Tier 2 for elemental powers, but Tier 1 for teleport powers.

Divine is Tier 1 for healing powers, Primal is Tier 2, Psionic is Tier 3, and Arcane/Martial are Tier 4.

The game is balanced by power source for what that power source can and cannot do and how well it can do it. The tiers are game design mechanics. The players do not see those, only the game designers do. But, the players can infer them. The Martial class does not heal, so it is Tier 4 in healing.


And then, multiclassing can come into play so that PCs can acquire minor capabilities outside of their power source(s). You want a Wizard who can heal Daily? Sure. Use up the appropriate resources and he can heal. You want a Wizard who can heal once per Encounter? Sure. Use up a lot more resources and he can heal that often.


Once the game capabilities are segregated by power source, powers can then be further segregated by class.

A Paladin can do a Holy Smite which does physical and radiant damage, but if a Cleric does not have a multi-class martial power source, s/he cannot do Holy Smite.

On the other hand, both Clerics and Paladins can Turn Undead. Since Clerics are single power source and Paladins are dual power source, Clerics turn undead better than Paladins do.

Paladins use melee weapons better than Clerics do, but not as well as Fighters or Rogues do.

Game balance. Pros and Cons. Not everyone can do everything shy of multi-class delving into other power sources and even then, they cannot do it as well as PCs who live and breathe that power source.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

... a bunch of stuff ...

That was quite the epic post. I agree with *some* of it, particularly the way in which powers are organized, but that is something that has been brewing in this thread for quite a few pages now.

Overall though, I'm glad you're not in charge of R&D for 5e.

In my opinion, you place far too many restrictions on what things should, or more specific to my issues with what you said, *should not* be able to do.

Now I'm certainly not saying that you're Doing It Wrong based on your preferences, but you should at least be aware that some folks have different preferences, and I don't think that those preferences should be excluded from the entire framework of the game, nor do I think that the two necessarily have to be mutually exclusive. That's one or more GIANT steps backward, IMO.

Call it shades of AD&D, where everything Must Make Sense in a straightforward literal way. I never liked that about prior editions, or more to the point, I didn't know until delving into 4e how much more interesting things could be when more abstracted. I found it freeing. And that's one of the things, call it a meta-theme, that I feel 5e should embody: freedom. Freedom to make Your D&D what you want it to be. Kind of like what Mike Mearls was talking about in his column before he handed the reins over to Monte Cook.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Thank you!. You just solved the last of my scaling problems in my 4e clone. Your DEX/INT modifier is capped by your STR modifier when applying it to AC with heavy armour. Perfect!

Yeah, that might work. You'll want to devise some way that the less dexterous fighter can tank up his armor class too if he wants, Honestly maybe the modifier should be CON and not DEX. I'd think the 2 basic concepts you want to foster would be "big tank guy in heavy armor" and "quick guy in lighter armor employing footwork and precision". This was actually what 4e was aiming at with its AC system. However, if you always use the lesser of the DEX/CON/STR (whichever, CON or STR) bonus for heavy armor you'll probably end up pretty close to that working. The guy with a high DEX and CON will be able to wear plate and have the best AC of all, but his attacks will probably be a bit less hard-hitting.

Add to this the concept of having weapon (and implement for that matter, see below) to control attack stat. This lets you encourage logical pairings. The high DEX guy probably wears lighter armor and uses light weapons that base off DEX. The big bruiser guy wields a big weapon and wears heavy armor. A guy that has a good DEX and CON could wear heavier armor and use a light weapon too. It just requires a bit of working out numbers.

The challenge is how to deal with classes that don't exist yet. Let's say that you have a power that seems appropriate for the swordmage and the wizard, but not for the sorcerer or bard. (Say, a really good immobilization power.) How do you mark it for the PH1 (let's say that 5e PH1 only has wizard and sorcerer). Do you make it a wizard power? Or do you make it an arcane power and label it "wizard only", and then errata that when the swordmage comes out?

The "Wizard Plus Defenders and Other Controllers" category works as a solution, but it isn't obvious to me whether role will always be the reason for wanting to shear categories off. That said, the more I think about this, the more I think you can handle exceptional later-designed classes by designing those exceptions into the class. Imagine you want to design a Beguiler class for 5e. Sure, it's an arcane controller, but you might now want the class to have access to the full arcane controller canon. The Beguiler designer can either come up with his own custom power list (that borrows the appropriate Wizard powers by reference), or the Beguiler can have a ton of class abilities (or powers selected from a special sub-list) and only have a few levels when the Beguiler can choose from the full arcane controller list.

Another possibility would be to group powers into thematic groups like "Necromancy", "Enchantment", "Earth Domain" and "Duelist Style". That would be nice for multi-classing and feats that provide advantages when using the right school/domain/fighting-style. (Actually, I tend to think these keywords would be useful just for that.) But I'm skeptical that -- a priori -- you can group PH1 powers into thematic groups in a way that really helps the yet-to-be-designed PH 3 classes.

No matter how you slice it, when your designing a power that works for the Wizard, but no other PH1 classes, it's hard to know whether you should make the power a Wizard-only power, or a generic Arcane power that happens to be restricted to just the Wizard right now.

-KS

I think that any pre-reqs MUST come from existing core things that will be in PHB1. Otherwise you'll end up with a growing mess as the game expands. The way around this is to build in other types of requirements. Clever Riposte requires a light blade, which in turn is only a sensible option for a high DEX character. You CAN make a Fighter that uses that power and is based off light weapons, he'll just be more 'strikery' when using it than the baseline for fighters. Rogues will still have the greatest synergy with high dex and probably have some class feature that still makes it even more potent in their hands.

This can be extended to arcane casters as well with implements performing the same sort of function. Any arcane caster can potentially let loose a fireball, but you'll need to cast it using a wand, which is an implement based off DEX, which means in practice it will only be fully useful to certain builds.

Characters that are built crosswise to standard archetypes are possible this way, they can gain some degree of useful flexibility because their class feature supports their role but they use powers that are typically more suited to some other role. You could even include some feats/masteries that are aimed at providing these off-label builds with parity where it is needed.

With this kind of scheme you don't really need to worry about some new class coming along next week and needing to be wedged into the system. The worst thing you'll run into is the guy that says "yes, but MY fireball using guy wants to be using a staff!" which isn't any worse than what we have with 4e (and again you might provide some mastery or a specific item with a special property that gives you that).

In fact here's a way it could work with implements. Each implement can have a 'correspondence' not based on the form of the implement, but on some other characteristic of it. Thus "Oak" implements are good for casting powers that use Thunder and Lightning. They can be wands, staves, etc, it doesn't matter, that's totally fluff. It doesn't actually add anything you can't do with 4e now if you're willing to refluff a wand into a staff, but it will assuage the people who don't like that kind of thing, and it takes up the existing concept space of superior implements.

 

[KarinsDad]

That was quite the epic post. I agree with *some* of it, particularly the way in which powers are organized, but that is something that has been brewing in this thread for quite a few pages now.

Overall though, I'm glad you're not in charge of R&D for 5e.

In my opinion, you place far too many restrictions on what things should, or more specific to my issues with what you said, *should not* be able to do.

Now I'm certainly not saying that you're Doing It Wrong based on your preferences, but you should at least be aware that some folks have different preferences, and I don't think that those preferences should be excluded from the entire framework of the game, nor do I think that the two necessarily have to be mutually exclusive. That's one or more GIANT steps backward, IMO.

Call it shades of AD&D, where everything Must Make Sense in a straightforward literal way. I never liked that about prior editions, or more to the point, I didn't know until delving into 4e how much more interesting things could be when more abstracted. I found it freeing. And that's one of the things, call it a meta-theme, that I feel 5e should embody: freedom. Freedom to make Your D&D what you want it to be. Kind of like what Mike Mearls was talking about in his column before he handed the reins over to Monte Cook.

I respect your POV, but what you call freedom, I call entitlement.

In 3.5, there was an ability called Hide in Plain Sight. Once that monstrosity came into the gaming community culture, players all over the world thought that it was perfectly reasonable for a Rogue to be invisible all of the time, regardless of lighting conditions.

I see many of the same types of malformed game design elements in 4E. Illogical game constructs that are part of the game because a designer was taking a leak in the bathroom and suddenly thought "Wouldn't it be cool...". We then get Errata documents that are over 100 pages long.

Think about that for a second. Over 100 pages. Most of those pages are because the designers did not actually design. They improvised. They came up with the cool idea without having meta-game design guidelines on things that should be allowed and things that should not.

By designing the game from the power source perspective and putting hard limits on what a power can do and cannot do, it puts game balance on the front burner.

Call it Metadesign. The concept of making hard and non-breakable rules about what a given power source can and cannot do, how versatile given powers can be at given levels, what feats can and cannot do, it actually makes the game designer's job easier.

It's a lot of work and a lot of research.

It's actual design.

In 4E, it's obvious by just looking at masterwork heavy armor that the game designers didn't actually sit down and do design. They came up with cool ideas, implemented them, and playtested them. When playtesting didn't quite work out as expected, they then modified them. Later on, they put out sourcebooks with things like Battlerage. Nobody noticed that Battlerage totally bypassed the minion rules because there were no limits on what abilities a given power source could possess and how those abilities could be used.

Hence, we get 100+ page errata documents and a lot of it is not just cosmetic or typos.

Skill challenge DCs took years to get into a reasonable range. WT???

Monster damage took years to get into a reasonable range.


Everyone has different preferences.

But at the end of the day, 5E will be whatever the game designer preferences are, just like 1E, 2E, 3E, 3.5, and 4E were.

I prefer that the game designers forget about WOW, GURPS, Rolemaster, Ars Magica, etc.

Instead, I prefer that they focus on D&D. D&D isn't just 4E.

D&D in reality is 1E through 4E and many many other versions. The game designers should take the best out of all of those versions, but give it the strongest D&D flavor that they can.

The "should not" that you are talking about "should" be capable. But, it should be capable via multiclassing, not given to each class or each power source automatically. It should be given based on delving into other power sources, not by being entitled because 4E allowed something.

A Warlord is a 4E contruct. For over 30 years, there was no fighter who could heal. Yes, people have (irrationally) rationalized the 4E Warlord out the ying yang.

But in the real world, most house painters cannot do brain surgery. They have to spend a significant time learning to do so (i.e. multiclassing) to get there.

That's what 5E should do. It should not allow every PC to do most every thing, it should allow PCs to specialize based on class and power source(s), and to generalize based on multi-classing.


Now, there are some general lines that 4E does not cross. But, they seem almost random.

Teleport occurs right and left in many classes and at very low levels in 4E, but Fly is almost unheard of. To me, teleport should be more rare than flying because flying (i.e. birds, bats, insects) is part of the natural world.

It took the release of Arcane Power before a PC could do a low level short team Fly, and even that took a Standard Action. I understand the balance of that with Jump powers, but Teleport blows both of those out of the water. Monks can teleport as an Encounter power at level 6. Why? I have no idea. At level 16? Maybe. But at level 6??? Why are heroic level PCs able to teleport so much?

Flying should be part and parcel of the Primal power source because it's something that is observable in nature.

Teleport should be rare and higher level, something that low level PCs do not often run into or acquire.

Abilities to swim or breath under water should be less rare than teleport, but teleport is common and swimming powers are rare.

Players are actually hesitant to have their PC go near water because the game designers mostly forgot about that environmental aspect. It's almost an afterthought.

Jump before Fly. Fly before Teleport. Not Teleport first at low levels. The strongest abilities shouldn't be at low levels or as racial abilities.

4E is a bit backwards conceptually and mechanically because the magical cool stuff is common place and the mundane stuff is rare.

Twin Strike is such a powerful At Will power that virtually no core Ranger PC doesn't take it. Something is wrong with the balance of that. The game should have some metagame rules about what powers, feats, class abilities, and items can do mechanically (and at what levels), and it should have metagame rules as to what each power source can do and at what levels it can first do it.

I'd like 5E to make a lot more sense than 4E did and feel a lot more like D&D than WOW. Personally.

It's not going backwards to control game design and to play to the strengths of D&D.

 

[Jack99]

While I do not agree with everything in your lengthy post, KarinsDad, you make some very compelling arguments. Especially about controlling the design from the get go, about having a plan. No matter which direction 5e takes, I sincerely hope that the designers listen to you and come up with a plan that covers more than 1 or 2 books.


This short message was brought to you by Tapatalk and my iPad