D&D 5E Innovations I'd like to keep in 5E

[BobTheNob]

• Same XP table for all classes (minor point but simplifies a lot) YES
• No THAC0: linear calculations YES
• Uniform mechanics. Related to previous point but applies to everything or close. Higher is better. Not convinced either way
• Precise and standardized terminology. MTG's gifts to DND. Precise words with specific definitions.YES
• No racial level or class limitations. If they went back to this, I would give up on D&D
• Class and race treated seperatly. See above response
• Standard bonuses for Attributes. BECMI had this, AD&D did not completely. I like that 14 is always +2 etc. YES
• Saving throws that make sense (For, Will, Ref) instead of RSW/DM/PTTS/BA. YES
• Effective Rogues ( I was really sad as a thief in BECMI, level 12 before 50% chance of hide in shadows...what do I DO for 12 levels?!?). Highly debated topic. As long as rgoues arent just leather clad fighters Im happy.
• Well balanced classes. 4E's only real advantage, IMO. Another hot topic of debate

On whole Im with you. The last point I WOULD have been with you if we were asking the same question when I started 4e. After playing 4e for years, Im not convinced these (how do I put this...) are great objectives. I agree balance is good to have, but dont give up too much to achieve it.

Balance, yes. Class homogenization ...no. If I had to choose between unique classes and balance, I would take unique classes.

 

[Ace]

I'd like to see the defenders skill "level" factor into defense in addition to magic bonuses. This would make it much simpler to scale down to low magic and make the rules make a bit more sense in that its silly for someone to gain no knowledge of how to better defend themselves even as they grow more skilled.

This was done decently in 4e and a slightly revised version would be a nice thing.

 

[seregil]

• Same XP table for all classes (minor point but simplifies a lot) YES
• No THAC0: linear calculations YES
• Uniform mechanics. Related to previous point but applies to everything or close. Higher is better. Not convinced either way
• Precise and standardized terminology. MTG's gifts to DND. Precise words with specific definitions.YES
• No racial level or class limitations. If they went back to this, I would give up on D&D
• Class and race treated seperatly. See above response
• Standard bonuses for Attributes. BECMI had this, AD&D did not completely. I like that 14 is always +2 etc. YES
• Saving throws that make sense (For, Will, Ref) instead of RSW/DM/PTTS/BA. YES
• Effective Rogues ( I was really sad as a thief in BECMI, level 12 before 50% chance of hide in shadows...what do I DO for 12 levels?!?). Highly debated topic. As long as rgoues arent just leather clad fighters Im happy.
• Well balanced classes. 4E's only real advantage, IMO. Another hot topic of debate

On whole Im with you. The last point I WOULD have been with you if we were asking the same question when I started 4e. After playing 4e for years, Im not convinced these (how do I put this...) are great objectives. I agree balance is good to have, but dont give up too much to achieve it.

Balance, yes. Class homogenization ...no. If I had to choose between unique classes and balance, I would take unique classes.

Well, I agree with you too. I want a thief (Rogue) who can DO something effectively at 1st level that the fighter can't, however that is implemented.

As for 4E, I also agree, IMO, 4E made the classes balanced at the cost of their uniqueness but let's avoid an edition war. Adding to the list:

• Balanced classes
• Different, non-homogenized classes that act, feel and work differently

 

[Guest 85555]

None of the things in this topic are innovations. They were innovations ten, twenty, or even thirty years ago. Now they are expectations.

Actual innovations I want to see in 5e:
- Getting rid of purchasable equipment. Standard equipment should be something you get as part of the standard creation and level up process. Magic items needed as you level up should be a part of your class. (e.g. Level 5, you get a magic sword +1)

This option would really mess with my enjoyment of the game. I like stuff like this to be part of things going on in the actual game (i have thirty gold so I buy a sword, i went into the cave Cairvale and found a sword +1). i can see it as an option for people who don't ike the old standard. But really wouldn't want this approach in my own game.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, I agree with you too. I want a thief (Rogue) who can DO something effectively at 1st level that the fighter can't, however that is implemented.

As for 4E, I also agree, IMO, 4E made the classes balanced at the cost of their uniqueness but let's avoid an edition war. Adding to the list:

• Balanced classes
• Different, non-homogenized classes that act, feel and work differently

I think of course this is the nut of this particular debate. I don't think anyone is interested in different classes being 'the same', but we have VERY different definitions of what that means. To me there's no question that a 4e fighter and a 4e wizard etc are all very different.

So I would list as a 4e innovation that I'd want to see continued being basic commonality of mechanics across the whole system at a level where I can create an item that grants an extra power use to whatever character uses it, regardless of class. When I say 'item' I'd extend that to feat, theme, etc. I'm far more interested in there needing to be less duplication of material simply to cater to calling the fighter's powers "combat maneuvers" or something. In my mind that's just playing games with names, little value for much cost.

 

[avin]

I would assume most innovations from 3E will be kept (no thac0, ascending AC, etc), so I will stick to 4E innovations:

• Faerie and Shadow as parallel planes.
• Fomorian's fluff
• Rituals (for some long time casting spells)

 

[Pheonix0114]

Just a quick defense of getting rid of different XP progressions for different classes; when my group decided to pick up Castles and Crusades to try and get a sense for the feel of old school DnD, I was forced to actually track XP instead of awarding levels as a pacing issue. This added an entire new level of bookkeeping and players were unsatisfied when the rogue leveled up while they had half a level of XP more to go. So, after only a month of play, we scrapped the game and moved back to Pathfinder.

 

[P1NBACK]

The same thing is true of things like AC, to-hit calculations, moving to 4e's system of defenses instead of saves, etc. Just take the saves-to-defense change between 3e and 4e. This seems like a simple change that just changes who rolls the dice at a certain point in the game. However it has all sorts of positive knock-on effects. There is no more of the annoying and tedious deciding if DEX bonus does or doesn't apply, and no more "touch AC" awkwardness when there was already a REF save, now REF is a defense that does what the save used to do AND what the 'touch AC' used to do. Notice that this also enabled the game to accomodate implements with an enhancement bonus, weapons usable as implements, etc. These are all great simplifications and improvements in flexibility.

What's great about this post is that you did exactly what he said people do and dismiss something out of hand because you subjectively think a mechanic is better because it's more "streamlined" and "modern".

You know what? I frickin' hate 4E defenses with a passion.

The game took what was once a crucial point in a player's interaction with the game - rolling dice - and took that away from them for the sake of "simplicity".

There's a real psychological suck that comes when your character is about to potentially have some horrible thing happen to them, and instead of the outcome being in their hands - literally, with the dice - they get to sit there and have someone else roll for them. Yay.

This is one thing every other edition got right with saves and 4E ruined. But, hey, that's just my opinion. And I'm not presenting it as some kind of TRUTH.

 

[Mercule]

None of the things in this topic are innovations. They were innovations ten, twenty, or even thirty years ago. Now they are expectations.

Actual innovations I want to see in 5e:
- Getting rid of purchasable equipment. Standard equipment should be something you get as part of the standard creation and level up process. Magic items needed as you level up should be a part of your class. (e.g. Level 5, you get a magic sword +1)
- Further refining clear mechanical options people can use to solve non-combat problems. Skill challenges were a good attempt but something more elegant needs to happen.
- Eliminate feats and pre-4e spells and rituals and other options that require digging through ten books to find the perfect thing at each level up.
- Truly modular design, build a class so to speak

None of this will happen but I can dream

I would not play this game (okay, not having to dig would be nice). The first one is one of the most damaging things I can think of. The last one goes against what makes D&D "work" and why Hero and GURPS aren't top-shelf games -- as much as I like Hero, the reason I play D&D is that it's less work.

 

[herrozerro]

What's great about this post is that you did exactly what he said people do and dismiss something out of hand because you subjectively think a mechanic is better because it's more "streamlined" and "modern".

You know what? I frickin' hate 4E defenses with a passion.

The game took what was once a crucial point in a player's interaction with the game - rolling dice - and took that away from them for the sake of "simplicity".

There's a real psychological suck that comes when your character is about to potentially have some horrible thing happen to them, and instead of the outcome being in their hands - literally, with the dice - they get to sit there and have someone else roll for them. Yay.

This is one thing every other edition got right with saves and 4E ruined. But, hey, that's just my opinion. And I'm not presenting it as some kind of TRUTH.

well then just switch it all around, all attacks are defended by the defender, and the attacker has an attack value that the defender beats...

I think the point is that it was a unifying mechanic, no longer do you sometimes roll an attack or sometimes defend against an attack, you always just roll an attack.

I'd also like to point out that the saving throw mechanism almost gives you that sense of danger.. nothing like rolling your save against a medusa's glare as you slowly turn to stone.