"'Kill it before it grows'...he said 'Kill it before it grows'..."

[UngeheuerLich]

Different xp charts for different classes has an obvious advantage:

The game must be robust enough to handle characters of different levels in the same party. Every edition but 4th worked well under this assumption, because defenses didn´t scale, but were determined by armor.

I want 5e to scale better upwards and downwards and want to give every player his own xp if needed.
The only thing that I want to make sure is, that xp requirements don´t diverge so much, that one class will be sever level higher later on... there should be a point, where everyone is at the same scale again.

(Bards in ADnD leveled so fast, that they were always better fireball throwers than mages, thiefs leveled up very fast too, but actually got nothing for it... it would have been easy to adjust the thief and the bard advanement in a way, that they advance slower, but get their abilities equally fast...)

The bard of 3.5 was hosed so much by equalizing the xp chart... he actually lost all its adcantages... that was a stupid thing...

 

[I'm A Banana]

So, when an adventure gets published, it essentially has to pick which set of modular rules it plays by, and flags itself as being not for all those players who don't use those rules? I think we're going to see folks take issue with that. Big, big issues.

You think?

I guess I'm more optimistic. Since D&D modules have always required some "adapting" to your own home games, the process of weeding out certain rules assumptions and putting back in your own rules assumptions (all the while with clear guidelines on how this affects the module) isn't any different from what anyone else does on a regular basis.

I think this also lets WotC simply re-publish (or gently update) some old modules. Against the Giants adventure boxed set coming December 2013, and suchlike.

I also don't think that Kamakaze Midget's notions about making rules more modular is going to remedy the issue. The set-in-the-ways folks will resent that very modularity, and people who want the game to have a cohesive core structure don't want a game that's a giant jigsaw puzzle.

I have trouble taking seriously those who think that they get to tell me that my fun isn't good enough, for those people that aren't happy enough just doing what they want to do, but also want to make sure I am not doing what I want to do. That's petty and vindictive. That's somewhat human nature, but I think I'm optimistic about that, too: I don't think a significant number of D&D players will resent other people doing what they want, as long as they get to do what they want.

I also think it's possible to have more than one cohesive structure for the game. You don't need ever-existing published lines for everything, but if what you do is re-release the AD&D 1e rules with a new cover and some new organization and verbiage, then production is cheap, the market exists, you can do a smallish print run, and call it good. You can then generate extra material for the rules modules that are selling particularly well, if you'd like to capitalize on their success, while letting the less-popular ones be more reactive.

 

[Argyle King]

I know this is going to get flamed, but - Gnomes.

In many settings (including one of my homebrews) and many games, I find gnomes flavorful and interesting. However, I find that I have a disconnect between my visual of a gnome and how they're usually portrayed in D&D.

In 3rd edition (which I learned first) they came across to me as some kind of city halfling, but that didn't really make any sense because all of their special abilities were geared toward living in the wild. They had all of the abilities I would expect from a Gnome (sorry, I grew up watching David The Gnome as a cartoon, so my brain was spoiled by that,) but also seemed to simultaneously be mashed together with Dragonlance Tinker Gnomes and Santa Claus' elves.

I felt that the 4th Edition version was more in line with what I expected. I like the fluff presentation of 4E gnomes, but something about their mechanical implementation rubbed me the wrong way. Though, in their defense, it may have been a symptom of how 4E as a whole was put together.

I'd be willing to change my point of view on this, but I'd prefer that a different little folk race be pushed forward and just have D&D either ditch gnomes or present them as a different culture of halfling.
------------------------------------------

Unfortunately for Changelings, I wouldn't be willing to change my point of view on them. I dislike Changelings as a race. Though, again, this mainly grew from a dislike of how they were problematic in play during a few 4th Edition campaigns.
------------------------------------------

Rules-wise?

The combat grid. I want to get rid of the grid as the assumed default. Still keep the same scale, but have the default assumption being to measure out movement in a manner similar to tabletop war games. I'd like to have more freedom as a GM to build my vision of the world the way I want it to be without needing to pound it into square (or hex) shapes.



Unnecessary Number inflation... There has to be a better way of indicating higher levels than simply padding the numbers of the system. I'd like to give a more coherent meaning to ability scores; that's tough to do when it's normal to have people walking around with ancient dragon-like ability scores. I also don't find it interesting to keep trading out +X magic items. I'd prefer items to do things that are cool such as a sword which can shoot a fireball once per day or a pair of boots which allow me to walk on water. Instead of number inflation, allow higher levels to expand the width of the game. Give me more options and give me ways to evolve the abilities I start with into better combat techniques rather than plunking more numbers onto my sheet. Take the ideals behind the E6 variant of 3rd Edition and find a way to make a whole edition around those ideals.

 

[Felon]

I have trouble taking seriously those who think that they get to tell me that my fun isn't good enough, for those people that aren't happy enough just doing what they want to do, but also want to make sure I am not doing what I want to do. That's petty and vindictive. That's somewhat human nature, but I think I'm optimistic about that, too: I don't think a significant number of D&D players will resent other people doing what they want, as long as they get to do what they want.

Sadly, there is no shortage of people playing D&D who evidence petty, vindictive, and just plain irrational personality traits--indeed, they often exhibit obstinate pride in them. We are talking about a game that is a magnet for the maladjusted. You don't have to look far to find DM's who don't care about other players' enjoyment nearly as much as they care about maintaining the integrity and sense of control they have over their world. They regard players who want freedom and options as if they were petulant, spoiled children.

How many threads now do we see in this forum where people proudly state that they want monsters to be "refanged" while players should be loaded down with restrictions? Look at this very thread, where the OP begrudges other character generation options besides random rolls.

Go look in the "Cast Raise Dead on a Game Element" thread. There was more than one voice advocating bringing racial class restrictions back. And why is it important for halflings to be stuck as thieves all the time? Well, as Lanefan put it:

If Hobbits in a given game in theory cannot be Wizards yet a Hobbit Wizard somehow gets played, the players see a Hobbit Wizard and may well turn around and want one of their own. Sure, 99.999% of the world's Hobbits can't tell a spellbook from a spatula, but if the .001% is all the players ever see in the party then that racial flavour - that Hobbits don't do magic - is largely lost.

He got a couple pips of XP for that rationale. In a completely straight-faced manner, the idea of two players wanting to play a halfling wizard is presented as a serious issue because it thretens "racial flavor". What do you think: in all likelihood, do the players in his campaign obsess over racial flavor to the extent they happily sacrifice freedom of race/class choice? Ultimately, who benefits from race/class restrictions?

I also think it's possible to have more than one cohesive structure for the game. You don't need ever-existing published lines for everything, but if what you do is re-release the AD&D 1e rules with a new cover and some new organization and verbiage, then production is cheap, the market exists, you can do a smallish print run, and call it good. You can then generate extra material for the rules modules that are selling particularly well, if you'd like to capitalize on their success, while letting the less-popular ones be more reactive.

When I played 2e, I was very interested in trying out the Player's Options supplements (Combat & Tactics and Skills & Powers), but I never found a campaign that allowed them. DM's provided various rationales, but at the end of the day, it was perceived as goodies that ramped up player power, and that was just plain unfair to the DM and his menagrie.

When I played 3e, I almost never got to play a prestige class. Had they been in the PHB, I could have played one because they would have been accepted--if only begrudgingly--as a core part of the game. But being an option, DM's shut them down because they wanted players to pick a fixed, unchanging pool of options.

Heck, in most games, I couldn't use point-buy or average out hit dice, so why should I hope for DM's to start singing kumbaya in 5e? It seems that once given a core set of rules, a lot of DM's will decide to fence that off make it all that's accessible. Many DM's assume that any options outside of core lead to power creep and excessive complexity.

Like most gamers, I don't have the luxury of getting the gaming group of my dreams. I don't want more cool, nifty rules that I don't actually get to use because they're sealed off the main junction. D&D, don't break my heart anymore.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Hmm... If Monte is doing what I think he is doing I can't imagine that the goal is as hard as people seem to say. Its easy to take a loftily spoken realistic but hard goal and cast it as imnpossible.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Hmm... If Monte is doing what I think he is doing I can't imagine that the goal is as hard as people seem to say. Its easy to take a loftily spoken realistic but hard goal and cast it as imnpossible.

I wouldn't say impossible. But there needs to be some core rules in order for everyone to actually be playing the same game. There are a number of people who disagree with some basic tenets of some versions of D&D that any attempt to use them within the core rules alienates people. And since the stated goal is an edition that alienates no one...well, it's very difficult.

Plus, one has to ask the question that if you make a game so modular that two groups with choose different modules can't even be identified as playing the same game...did you really reunite the D&D players or simply get them all to buy new books for different games?

 

[avin]

My experience is just the opposite. Everyone I know detests point buy.

That's really interesting (no snarky intended) I was assuming that most people these days like point buy. I guess it depends on what edition you are playing.

In my experience when a char was crippled people just give up the game or asked for rerolling a new char, so rolling was banned from my games.

As a side note I saw it mentioned twice in this thread that rust monsters were defanged and now don't devour metal. This is not true of 4e rust monsters--they can still devour metal

QFT, let's get the facts straight guys

People in real life are random entities, rarely if ever exactly alike. Rolling for stats merely reflects this in the game.

Agree. And that's why, in my humble opinion, racial limitations make no sense. People are different. Races are not hive-minded. Unless there's a sobrenatural reason, such as the God of Paladins dislike of orcs, racial limitations should stay out... or be an option based on fluff, not tradition.

I know this is going to get flamed, but - Gnomes.

Not particularly fond of gnomes but this is a race that need some work... or variations to meet different players expectations.

 

[Argyle King]

Not particularly fond of gnomes but this is a race that need some work... or variations to meet different players expectations.

I think that's my problem with D&D's implementations of them. They end being a bunch of cultures and ideas smashed into one and then somehow simultaneously having no definition. I think the D&D Gnome would benefit greatly from a treatment similar to how elves were split into Elf and Eladrin for 4th Edition. Give the Gnomes a more defined place; push a few things into Halfling, and also push a few into a different little folk race (Grippli, Puss'N'Boots style catfolk, whatever) to bring something new to light.

 

[I'm A Banana]

How many threads now do we see in this forum where people proudly state that they want monsters to be "refanged" while players should be loaded down with restrictions? Look at this very thread, where the OP begrudges other character generation options besides random rolls.

I think a more-restricted, more-deadly version of D&D should be within the galaxy of D&D experiences, personally. And the OP did later retract that strident abolition of other generation options.

In a completely straight-faced manner, the idea of two players wanting to play a halfling wizard is presented as a serious issue because it thretens "racial flavor". What do you think: in all likelihood, do the players in his campaign obsess over racial flavor to the extent they happily sacrifice freedom of race/class choice? Ultimately, who benefits from race/class restrictions?

Look, we all have different bugaboos. Me, for instance: I can't stand it when the entire rule for something is "Make it up!". It grinds my gears pretty fierce. Some people hate halfling wizards -- destroys the idea of halflings for them. Other folks hate balanced fighters -- fighters SHOULDN'T be as powerful as wizards, that's why wizards cost more XP to level up!

This is what I think Monte Cook is talking about in the most recent Legends and Lore when he says:

This new approach comes out of a single idea. At its heart, D&D isn't about rules. It's about participating in an exciting fantasy adventure. The rules are just the means to enable that to happen. They're not an end unto themselves. The reason most of us play is for the story that arises out of our games.

I get the sense that 5e will be a game in which these fairly quotidian debates are rendered moot because the folks who want things like racial level restrictions or different XP advancement rates can have them at their tables, without affecting those of us who want neither.

And if that's somehow not good enough for people -- if they want everyone else who plays to be limited, too -- then, it crosses over into petty pointlessness, and they are clearly denied the right to tell other people how they should play their own games.

Heck, in most games, I couldn't use point-buy or average out hit dice, so why should I hope for DM's to start singing kumbaya in 5e? It seems that once given a core set of rules, a lot of DM's will decide to fence that off make it all that's accessible. Many DM's assume that any options outside of core lead to power creep and excessive complexity.

I don't think there's been an edition that has embraced modularity like it seems 5e is going to. OD&D through to 4e all presented a "core" that was fairly extensive, such that paranoid DMs could banish all non-core materials for their games and fool themselves into thinking they were running a perfectly balanced machine.

I don't think 5e is going to present much of a "core" at all. If you take Monte's statement at face value, it is assumed that your character goes on an exciting fantasy adventure, and nothing else. I fully expect the lightest version of the rules to be something like "DMs make up whatever they want, and players make up whatever they want, and sometimes you might want to roll a dice or flip a coin if there's a conflict."

I don't think there's going to be a majority of DMs who find running that particular style of game all that rewarding. They're going to want options, they're going to want details, they're going to want to add complexity.

And the moment they're adding even something like character races -- well, they're adding stuff that's "not core." I don't think we'll have very many 5e DMs comfortable with only the core rules, since the core rules will be very light and free-form.

 

[Mallus]

Sadly, there is no shortage of people playing D&D who evidence petty, vindictive, and just plain irrational personality traits--indeed, they often exhibit obstinate pride in them. We are talking about a game that is a magnet for the maladjusted. You don't have to look far to find DM's who don't care about other players' enjoyment nearly as much as they care about maintaining the integrity and sense of control they have over their world. They regard players who want freedom and options as if they were petulant, spoiled children.

How many threads now do we see in this forum where people proudly state that they want monsters to be "refanged" while players should be loaded down with restrictions? Look at this very thread, where the OP begrudges other character generation options besides random rolls.

There no shortage of those kinds of people talking about D&D online. Do you honestly think they accurately represent the majority of D&D players? If so, why?

I have one deal-breaker re: 5e. It has to play faster than 3e or 4e (at least in its default configuration).