Dear Mike & Monte

[Rechan]

Another thing: If characters are no longer defined as paladin and druid but as defender/diplomats and controller/whisperers something valuable is lost. Are the classes as we know them merely going to be recipies or set customizations of recepies?

I would prefer it if the names FIghter/Cleric/Rogue/etc were no longer class names but thematic names or concepts. A wizard can be conceptually so many things. A cleric of the God of Thieves should be very different from the cleric of a Healing and Undead Smiting God.

Or, your class feature likely carries the name. If you have x class feature, you're a Wizard. The combat/non combat roles don't influence the name.

 

[FireLance]

I would prefer it if the names FIghter/Cleric/Rogue/etc were no longer class names but thematic names or concepts. A wizard can be conceptually so many things. A cleric of the God of Thieves should be very different from the cleric of a Healing and Undead Smiting God.

Or, your class feature likely carries the name. If you have x class feature, you're a Wizard. The combat/non combat roles don't influence the name.

Ideally (for me at least), classes (or class themes) should capture the essence of what it means to be a member of that class. It would be easier for some classes than others. For example, wizards should have their spellbooks and rogues should sneak attack or backstab. I don't know whether clerics should still be associated with healing and turn undead, or whether these should be more generic divine powers. And what do we do for fighters?

 

[Frostmarrow]

I would prefer it if the names FIghter/Cleric/Rogue/etc were no longer class names but thematic names or concepts. A wizard can be conceptually so many things. A cleric of the God of Thieves should be very different from the cleric of a Healing and Undead Smiting God.

Or, your class feature likely carries the name. If you have x class feature, you're a Wizard. The combat/non combat roles don't influence the name.

That is a good idea!

Class titles could be titles. Something you call yourself if you can perform certain feats (not Feats). Sort of like PrC but without the progression. If you are able to defeat X number of foes in X number of rounds using a melee weapon you get to call yourself fighter (and perhaps win a class feature).

By regularly testing the characters (every four levels or so), you make sure they actually get to be what they strive to be. Alas, it could be too intrusive or feel to much like school/work. If you don't like tests you are of course free to bestow titles upon your player characters as you see fit. The two approaches are not contradictory.

What is interesting is what happens when a fighter takes up study to pass a wizard exam á la Dalamar and manages to keep/lose both titles. I'm just spitballing.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Ideally (for me at least), classes (or class themes) should capture the essence of what it means to be a member of that class. It would be easier for some classes than others. For example, wizards should have their spellbooks and rogues should sneak attack or backstab. I don't know whether clerics should still be associated with healing and turn undead, or whether these should be more generic divine powers. And what do we do for fighters?

Clerics and druids are associated with holy symbols and holly. Fighters are associated with shields (traditionally) or whatever weapon is the most broken in the list in your edition of D&D. The joy of playing a fighter is cleaving. Rogues get a dagger. But I'm not sure what you are getting at.

 

[Connorsrpg]

Races
I don't mind what races are included. I like the old and the new. Make races count across levels. Feeling different is more important to me than game balance. I agree with earlier post re making the bonuses bigger and continual. AND bring back penalties! On that...

More Penalties
Bring back penalties. I do not like 2 ranges (with one penalty). Bloodied should mean something. I don't mind if the numbers start out easy and get worse with damage. Saga condition track was on the right track. On a similar note....

Being able to do everything all the time
I am OK with the 3 actions a round. What I don't like is taking away all those nuances that players loved to discover or were logical/story related mechanics. Blunt weapons doing more damage vs skeletons. Rogues having a hard time critting constructs, etc. It is fun to make discoveries and decisions based on logic (not game rules/math) in the game. No one bothers with a hammer vs skeletons b/c arrows do the same Sorry, but I don't find being able to do everything all the time fun. I liked when you got to say 'That is a cool idea', and there is a mechanical effect. (Blowing heads of zombies in Savage Worlds gets it).

Class Powers/I want a game I CAN write for
I loved the class powers at first, but quickly grew bored with them. Some do way too much (given you already have 3 goes a round). Too many don't seem class specific. Same effects with different descriptions. I loved alternate 3e classes and writing them myself, or at least adding options/changes. It is next to impossible to design a 4E class yourself. A LOT of work and little chance to get it right. Also there is a lack of continuity of the powers - doesn't seem like getting 'better', just something completely 'new'. Characters can have a complete grab bag of powers at moment and one power can be replaced with a completely different one - I liked the improved versions of Talents. And so much work having to plan multiple powers up to 30 levels? Even the writer's Guidelines basically tell you not to do it! Personally I reckon Saga got it right. Loved Talent Trees (and I can see a correlation with the wonderful ideas on Themes being discussed above) and this was my favourite thing I thought would make it into 4E from a players perspective.

Keep the monsters
From a GM perspective I concur with many others in stating keeping the monster stat blocks similar to what they are. No referencing other materials is great, as is being creative with unique powers. Just tone down the hps though.

Conditions = Good
I agree with keeping saves etc for ongoing effects, but not everything should fit this. Should be another system similar to Disease rules for some conditions too. Poison could easily be a round to round thing or a day to day thing depending upon the poison. Should NOT just be damage.

Make Power Sources Count
I love power sources, but make them more distinctive, especially rules-wise.

Keep the Story
Don't try and rewrite the Planes, Creature origins etc again. 4E finally nailed a very good cosmology and I love the links between creatures, home plane and power source.

And finally...

Designer Friendly
Like classes above - provide some core examples, but more on advice and tools to help a GM develop their own races, classes, settings, subsystems etc. Give Chris Perkins a job here. Random charts are always good here Must have an OGL too. basically I want a game I feel I can contribute meaningfully to. I really struggle to find 'space' in the 4E system.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

There is so much here I agree with.

Anyone know if [MENTION=56746]mudbunny[/MENTION] has seen this/included it in his regular report to WotC?

 

[FireLance]

Clerics and druids are associated with holy symbols and holly. Fighters are associated with shields (traditionally) or whatever weapon is the most broken in the list in your edition of D&D. The joy of playing a fighter is cleaving. Rogues get a dagger. But I'm not sure what you are getting at.

What I posted should be read in context of the basic idea of themes being the basic building blocks of a character, and class and race being groups of themes. Each theme would grant access to certain powers and benefits. So, a wizard class theme should grant access to some benefit from using a spellbook. A rogue class theme should grant access to sneak attack or backstab abilities.

Ideally, a character with more themes would be more complex and have more choices when it comes to powers and abilities, but should still be at about the same power level as a character with fewer themes since the absolute number of powers and abilities both of them have would be the same.

Say, the Fighter class theme grants access to a power strike encounter attack power, while the Paladin class theme grants access to a holy smite encounter attack power. A character with just the Fighter class theme gains power strike and a character with just the Paladin class theme gains holy smite. A character with both the Fighter and the Paladin class themes (a multiclassed Fighter/Paladin, say) gets to choose whether he wants power strike or holy smite for his encounter attack power.

 

[Connorsrpg]

I am loving this idea of Themes. Sounds similar to my love of Talent Trees from Saga.

I would be in favour of adding new themes throughout character progression too. Sounds like an easy way to multi-class. perhaps in place of gaining the next 'power' within current themes?

 

[Aberzanzorax]

My own points I'd really want them to hit:

Have REALLY good adventures. If this requires third party publishers, that's fine. Do that. You lost me when you lost Necromancer Games for 4e.

I'd love to see more third party (a la OGL) support for 5e than has been possible/warranted for 4e. I suggest allowing for 3pps to sell "patches" or "addons" to character builder, etc. but requiring people to have your character builder for them to work. Along the same vein, I'd like to see a license more restrictive than the OGL, but not much...and for it to be much less restrictive than the GSL. Basically, I think allowing for any kind of addons, but limiting the chance to recreate the core books (effectively selling their own phb/dmg/mm etc).


Talk with your peers: Get the folks at Paizo, Goodman Games, Mongoose, etc on board with you, and get their opinions. Ask them to sell how and why they'd like to support 5e and hammer out a license that makes everyone comfortable (and do so LONG BEFORE the release of 5e).


The third party market may not matter to all, but to some it is a necessary resource to add flesh (settings and adventures) to the bones of the system (the core books and class and race splats).




Separately, have classes and races really matter and feel different. I know this has been mentioned before, but it's important enough that I echo the sentiment.

I'd love to see (with 3e as an example/model) something like the racial levels being core to the system. e.g. at levels 5, 10, 15, etc you get a racial level. What this means might be up for debate (and I think I'll start a separate thread about it), but I want a dwarven rogue, a halfling rogue, and an elvish rogue to be different...so much so that even if they took all the same equipment and class options as the same (all the same skills, feats, etc), they'd still be clearly different.

 

[mudbunny]

There is so much here I agree with.

Anyone know if [MENTION=56746]mudbunny[/MENTION] has seen this/included it in his regular report to WotC?

The holidays kept me away from the internet in general, but I did see it thanks to your mention of me, so it will be going in this weeks report.

I want to thank everyone for keeping it friendly and well-written. No (or at least not too many) accusations of "your liking this is wrong" make it more likely that they will actually read the whole thing.

Edit - Gahh, Must spread XP around!!!