Wishlist do 5 ed

[TheAuldGrump]

I have some ideas that might work, but I wanna know your opinion

1) Reduce the level cap to 15. Actually, the campaings rarely reach the 20, the 30 ia quite impossible. It would take about 4 years. So, if level cap is 15, people can reach the end game. Plus, DM can use more monsters per level (total dividid per 15, not 30)

2) System Math do not depend of feats to be correct. Perhaps can remove the feats and replace by class features to choose

3) reduce number of class, based in concept. For example, "specialist" could englobe rogue, bard, assassin. You choose a Major Class feature from Sneak Attack, Bardic Song, Assassins poison use, etc. If possible, the people can do anyrhing like "dual specialization" of wow, so character can have 2 different roles

4) avoid stacks. That's the principles of overpower. Special attention to items

Pretty much disagree on all of these. I am not saying that you are wrong, just that my tastes run contrary to your preferences. I do think that #4 needs to be addressed, but I do not think that stacking should be eliminated, perhaps capping? That is, I believe how Fantasy Craft handles it - that a stack cannot go higher than x amount.

5) magic items do not be part of system math, so they can be uncommon and rare and do cool things, not +2 to attack rolls.

Here I would prefer a slider of some sort, so that a GM can adjust the commonality and power of magic items to tailor his or her campaign.

6) character themes be part of character creation. So it gives bonuses to some skills, bonuses to interact with some organizations, skill related and "class" features. So we can create a "devoted fighter", "wizard spy", etc

Agreed, wholeheartedly. Both Pathfinder and the Mongoose Quintessential books have addressed this, somewhat, for the 3.X architecture. I do not know about 4e.

7) recall the spell levels and old spell system. Lots of spells in 4 e looks like an normal attack.

Yeah, again I agree, with a caveat that I would not mind seeing alternative magic systems in addition to, rather than supplanting, the Vancian magics.

8) that's a difficult idea. What about put the campaign scenarios together (like an continent Khorvaire and other Faerun in the same world with modifications to not be redundanct and have interactions) and this "final setting" become the oficial setting. So the products can be boxes of parts of scenarios including maps, miniatures, desceriptions, cards, adventures. For example: Five nation box can have deitaled descriptions of places, miniatures of kings shield, royal eyes, paladins of thrane, etc, maps

Not sure that this could work. Not sure that it wouldn't, either, but I have my doubts.

9) someway to TPK do not end the characters (and perhaps the campaing). So players will feel tense in combats and not "know" that in the end the DM will miss attacks or use poor tactics to avoid TPK if the characters is good (good BG, important to storyline). Today a tpk can ruin a campaign.

A TPK is nature's way of telling you that you screwed up. Sorry, I like the possibility of a TPK, I have hopes that the party will think next time.

The easiest way to keep this from ending a campaign is to build the campaign around an Agency, whether that is the Harpers, the Free Bards, or the Pathfinder Society.

10) good gametesting with criterion items

And to listen to the playtesters when they tell you that the skill challenges are borked.... Do not assume that because you think that one area of the rules is unimportant that your customers will automatically agree. (Grr, snarl, rant....*)

The Auld Grump
*Not just, or even primarily 4e, I was involved in a playtest where the gamesmaster/game designer did not want critiquing, or even to have his math checked.... And his math was... not good.

 

[brewdus]

I don't think we need a 5e at all. The only reason for WOTC to do a 5e is for profit reasons. I think 4e and Pathfinder offer fantasy roll players plenty of options and preferences that 5e would just be a slap in the community's face!

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

1) Reduce the level cap to 15. Actually, the campaings rarely reach the 20, the 30 ia quite impossible. It would take about 4 years. So, if level cap is 15, people can reach the end game. Plus, DM can use more monsters per level (total dividid per 15, not 30)

I don't like level caps at all. Keep the 30 level advancement scheme-- complete with Epic Destiny and Immortality and so forth-- and then have rules for continuing on with it.

2) System Math do not depend of feats to be correct. Perhaps can remove the feats and replace by class features to choose

Yes, absolutely. I say reduce the reliance on system mastery as much as possible-- every legal build should be a viable build, even if it's impossible to make them equal.

3) reduce number of class, based in concept. For example, "specialist" could englobe rogue, bard, assassin. You choose a Major Class feature from Sneak Attack, Bardic Song, Assassins poison use, etc. If possible, the people can do anyrhing like "dual specialization" of wow, so character can have 2 different roles

6) character themes be part of character creation. So it gives bonuses to some skills, bonuses to interact with some organizations, skill related and "class" features. So we can create a "devoted fighter", "wizard spy", etc

I'm thinking it should go in the other direction. All of the "splats" in D&D right now-- Race, Class, Theme, Paragon Path, Epic Destiny-- all of them should be classes. Most characters have at least two or three classes, with the option of adding more at the cost of some development resource. Throw in kits from 2e or archetypes from Pathfinder, too.

7) recall the spell levels and old spell system. Lots of spells in 4 e looks like an normal attack.

Use a point-based system, like HARP's or 3.X psionics, combined with at-will powers like in 4e or the invocation classes from 3.X. Say, every spell costs a certain number of points to cast, but as you level you gain the ability to cast certain spells for free.

8) thats an dificult idea. What about put the campaing scenarios together (like an continent Khorvaire and other Faerun in the same world with modifications to not be redundanct and have interactions) and this "final setting" become the oficial setting. So the products can be boxes of parts of scenarios including maps, miniatures, desceriptions, cards, adventures. For example: Five nation box can have deitaled descriptions of places, miniatures of kings shield, royal eyes, paladins of thrane, etc, maps

I may not agree with your other points, but this is the only one I actively hate. Connecting the various campaign settings via Planescape and Spelljammer was bad enough.

10) Ritual magic! 4e stumbled on a few things but they hit this one out of the park. For the first time rituals were able to be collected and performed without limiting spell/ability selection or affecting session play unless they were specifically needed.

Absolutely. Ritual magic was one of the best innovations in 4e.

 

[avin]

I don't think we need a 5e at all. The only reason for WOTC to do a 5e is for profit reasons. I think 4e and Pathfinder offer fantasy roll players plenty of options and preferences that 5e would just be a slap in the community's face!

Pathfinder and 4E are far from what I would call perfect.

Wotc to give up trying to create a better D&D edition in 5E would be a slap in my face...

On topic I like lots of classes, so moving back to basic won't please me. I like feats the way they are.

And (let the flames begin!!!) I'd kill vancian and 4Epower system for a mana/energy magic system.

No matter how 5E develops, official character and monster builders are must haves.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Put me down for number 7. I'd very much like to see Vancian casting restored.

 

[Aeolius]

My desire for 5e would be the integration of the "complexity dial", as mentioned over here .

Role-playing could have a low complexity, where players and NPCs actually talk to one another, or a high complexity where die rolls entirely determine the outcome of an encounter.

Combat could have a low complexity, where minis are not used and rolls consist of initiative/to hit/damage, or a high complexity meant for wargamers.

Exploration could have a low complexity, where narrative description is key, or a high complexity for observation, movement rates, terrain modifications, and the like.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I don't think we need a 5e at all. The only reason for WOTC to do a 5e is for profit reasons. I think 4e and Pathfinder offer fantasy roll players plenty of options and preferences that 5e would just be a slap in the community's face!

Not just profit - the question is whether a 5e could regain lost market share.

If I were WotC I would not be happy to see D&D going from the World's Best Selling RPG! down to number two....

Worse, from their point of view, I think that the gap is growing.

A 5e might give them a chance to regain the #1 spot.

That said... I actually agree with you - the market has split, and it is more important for WotC to maintain the current customers than it is to take another gamble. I'm happy with there being both 4e and Pathfinder, and I fully expect the balance to wobble between the two as time passes. WotC just needs to have some big releases that people want. I think that Heroes of Shadow came close.

Paizo, on the other hand, can keep doing what they are doing - unlike WotC they do not need to please stockholders, so they do not need to maintain the #1 position.

The Auld Grump, always fun to say 'you're wrong, but I agree with you...'

 

[Darwinism]

Not just profit - the question is whether a 5e could regain lost market share.

If I were WotC I would not be happy to see D&D going from the World's Best Selling RPG! down to number two....

Worse, from their point of view, I think that the gap is growing.

A 5e might give them a chance to regain the #1 spot.

That said... I actually agree with you - the market has split, and it is more important for WotC to maintain the current customers than it is to take another gamble. I'm happy with there being both 4e and Pathfinder, and I fully expect the balance to wobble between the two as time passes. WotC just needs to have some big releases that people want. I think that Heroes of Shadow came close.

Paizo, on the other hand, can keep doing what they are doing - unlike WotC they do not need to please stockholders, so they do not need to maintain the #1 position.

The Auld Grump, always fun to say 'you're wrong, but I agree with you...'

Hahahahah hahahahahaha hahahahah oh my god wait you're serious.

"Lost market share," I am guessing is you taking ICv2 numbers seriously, which is hilarious in itself because ICv2 is nothing but a, "Well we asked some people what they thought was doing better," poll that proves nothing about anything. Their methodology is laughably unprofessional, which means their numbers are meaningless.

But what's even funnier is that DDI, by conservative estimates, rakes in over four hundred thousand. Per month. And you think WotC is somehow disappointed with 4E? You are just precious in your insistence that a minority of angry nerds sticking with 3E/PF means anything to them.

And the idea that since Paizo's not publicly traded they... can do whatever they like without caring? Man, how do you make it past 30 believing that? They can't keep doing as they've done and releasing splats regularly because that will, no matter the schedule, lead to over-saturation where nothing sells enough to make the profit they need to make because there are too many choices. They have to change their model at some point or simply become a model train industry; PF's niche is not expanding nearly fast enough because their niche is largely focused on nostalgia.

Look at WotC: they actively give out free things to DMs and players in an attempt to introduce new people to the hobby. They aggressively, for a TTRPG, market that. They even had a booth, on the main floor, at PAX where you got to roll a giant-ass D20 in hugely simplified combat. And at that booth you could win coins that you could trade in for prizes. At the location where Dungeon Delves were running. Where you could get more free stuff just for trying D&D. This is brilliant marketing. And effective; it's a lot easier to get people to try something like D&D when you've just given them, say, a bag of dice.

Now look at Paizo. They have We Be Goblins, I guess? And I wouldn't know about it at all if it weren't for already being inside the hobby. To mention it again; they were at PAX, but they just kind of had a couple halls and some events/keynote speakers. That's it; no attempt to actively get new players into the game. If you weren't interested in the hobby to begin with, they'd never get you in.

Which, do you think, is sustainable?

And that's likely why 5E will do just fine; WotC is smarter than most in the industry in that they have professionals, not enthusiasts, doing things like marketing and format. If only they'd get better artists. Just.... not Wayne Reynolds, until the man learns to draw a face that doesn't look like it's melting off.

 

[Ale]

Well, I think Paizo have lots of advances too. Somehow, just play table RPG is a kind of nostalgy and I think that expansion of that Hobby comes by that people show it to friends. We are in wow times and spontaneous new public tends to play in computer (wow, D3, etc)

The wow like model of 4e splint the market. Now the name Pathfinder is know. So it is an oportinity to Paizo too. If they do a PF 2e really good, they can get more people from 4e and this people will show their friends PF, not DnD




---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=-23.573387,-46.515986

 

[avin]

a minority of angry nerds sticking with 3E/PF means anything to them.

So, a guy who plays 4E and Pathfinder is a Half-angry-nerd?

Monte Cook's back to Wotc, IMO, is a clear signal that, yes, Wizards is concerned about player base split and will try to get some people back. And this is not about edition wars or nerdrages or wow or whatever... it's just what a smart company would do.