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

[WheresMyD20]

Well considering that nobody's been interested in giving the fighter ANYTHING for several editions now, maybe we should start thinking in terms of buffing the fighter instead of how much we can make life harder for everyone else to make the fighter feel better.

The fighter is supposed to be a plain vanilla type of class. When you have to start giving it special stuff to keep up with everyone else, you end up not having a plain vanilla class anymore.

Also: differing XP advancements makes for hell on non-XP games, I don't like XP at all. I don't want to think about how much those 17 goblins were worth, I don't want to worry if my players are cheating their XP, I don't want the rules lawyer to argue with me that the lvl7 Glatinous Cube was really 3456 XP and not 3479 XP, meaning the party didn't level and now needs 10xp so they have to go kill a kobold. Then there's using XP as a resource which always shows up in editions with different advancement tables.

As far as "non-XP" games go, instead of giving the group an arbitrary level, give them an arbitrary XP total instead. All you have to do is just log one XP total for the whole group and add to it as you see fit. For example, at the beginning of a session, the party may have 50,000 XP. At the end of the session, you deem that what they accomplished is worth about 5,000 XP. You announce that the new XP total is 55,000 XP and if that bumps any character into the new level, then they can level up.

XP is a meta-game tool used to track how accomplished your players are. It shouldn't be a balancing tool or a resource or anything at all. If you can't balance the classes on their own merits, throwing on superficial "well you level slower!" isn't going to help. It just means Timmy will be shooting death rays next week instead of this one, it means Timmy will still be OP compared to the fighter in a week instead of today.

The classes are balanced on their own merits at the same XP amount.

The beauty in the system is that fighters can share the same attack chart and saving throw chart with paladins and rangers. You don't need to define three separate classes, just one class with two sub-classes. Paladins and rangers are built on top of the fighter class. They have some extra abilities and because of that, they take longer to master their craft.

If you wanted to add a new class like, for example, the warlord, you can just make him a sub-class of the fighter. He inherits all of the fighter's abilites automatically. You can just assign a few new special abilities, adjust the XP chart by +10%, +20%, or whatever sounds good, and go. You're done.

 

[Sunseeker]

The fighter is supposed to be a plain vanilla type of class. When you have to start giving it special stuff to keep up with everyone else, you end up not having a plain vanilla class anymore.

I disagree ENTIRELY. The fighter is not a "plain vanilla class", it is the martial master. Nobody is better at melee combat that the fighter. The Paladin, the Ranger, the Barbarian, they give things up in order to become better at certain things. The Ranger loses some armor and weapon proficiency in order to get favored enemies and bow mastery(sorry two-blade ranger folks). The barbarian loses almost all forms of martial mastery to hit harder with big things. The paladin loses diversity in favor of a very particular fighting styles.

As far as "non-XP" games go, instead of giving the group an arbitrary level, give them an arbitrary XP total instead. All you have to do is just log one XP total for the whole group and add to it as you see fit. For example, at the beginning of a session, the party may have 50,000 XP. At the end of the session, you deem that what they accomplished is worth about 5,000 XP. You announce that the new XP total is 55,000 XP and if that bumps any character into the new level, then they can level up.

This doesn't help at all. Now Jimmy is 5th level while Timmy is 4th level, when Jimmy turns 6th level Fighter; Timmy will get all his OP 5th level magic and still be more powerful than the fighter. Remember all those "linear fighter, quadratic wizard" debates? That's inherently the problem. At 10th level the fighter may hit 3 times, but he doesn't hit 3 times as hard, meanwhile the 10th level wizard is doing 10-caster levels worth of damage in any round, which is usually about ten times the damage of a single weapon attack.

The classes are balanced on their own merits at the same XP amount.

No, they aren't. The Paladin doesn't get squat for being 4 and 1/2 level when the Fighter is 5th. But when the Paladin hits 5th level he gets more than the Fighter who is 5 and 1/4th level.

And at certain power checkpoints, such as 10th or 20th where leveling can just stop Paladins will either be stupidly lagging behind or massively OP.

 

[Guest 85555]

I disagree ENTIRELY. The fighter is not a "plain vanilla class", it is the martial master. Nobody is better at melee combat that the fighter. The Paladin, the Ranger, the Barbarian, they give things up in order to become better at certain things. The Ranger loses some armor and weapon proficiency in order to get favored enemies and bow mastery(sorry two-blade ranger folks). The barbarian loses almost all forms of martial mastery to hit harder with big things. The paladin loses diversity in favor of a very particular fighting styles.


This doesn't help at all. Now Jimmy is 5th level while Timmy is 4th level, when Jimmy turns 6th level Fighter; Timmy will get all his OP 5th level magic and still be more powerful than the fighter. Remember all those "linear fighter, quadratic wizard" debates? That's inherently the problem. At 10th level the fighter may hit 3 times, but he doesn't hit 3 times as hard, meanwhile the 10th level wizard is doing 10-caster levels worth of damage in any round, which is usually about ten times the damage of a single weapon attack.


No, they aren't. The Paladin doesn't get squat for being 4 and 1/2 level when the Fighter is 5th. But when the Paladin hits 5th level he gets more than the Fighter who is 5 and 1/4th level.

And at certain power checkpoints, such as 10th or 20th where leveling can just stop Paladins will either be stupidly lagging behind or massively OP.

In 2E the paladin does have some advantages and these are meant to be reflected in the xp totals. Sure the paladin wont lag behind for a long time, but he may spend a session or two catching up and that kind of lag did matter in play. There were plenty of time I went with a fighter instead of a paladin because I didn't want to wait.

But there is more to keep in mind here. First fighters in 2e get followers at 9th level. That is huge and shouldn't be minimized. Many times I have seen this put to far better use than any number of high level spells or a paladin's aura of protection. Followers starting at 9th level is one of the things that made fighters awesome IMO.

Also prior to 3e you had ability score requirements for classes and you rolled you ability scores. Some classes like paladin you couldn't just choose, you had to roll good enough stats to qualify (str 12, con 9, wis 13, and chr 17). It was a bit like winning the lottto for some people. Every once in a while someone in the group rolled well and got to play a paladin. Over time it balanced out and paladins were not by any stretch everyone's favorite class. Lots of people had the stats but chose to pay a fighter. Rangers had a pretty high bar of entry as well: str 13, dex 13, con 14 and wis 14. All the fighter needed was a 9 str.

 

[Sunseeker]

But there is more to keep in mind here. First fighters in 2e get followers at 9th level. That is huge and shouldn't be minimized. Many times I have seen this put to far better use than any number of high level spells or a paladin's aura of protection. Followers starting at 9th level is one of the things that made fighters awesome IMO.

I'm not sure how I feel about followers. It's a cool concept, but I really think that anyone who takes the effort to invest in a "Leadership" like feat should get them. Thing is, kinda like pets it means I'm running multiple characters, even if they're essentially "Minions". And I don't really want to do that.

Also prior to 3e you had ability score requirements for classes and you rolled you ability scores. Some classes like paladin you couldn't just choose, you had to roll good enough stats to qualify (str 12, con 9, wis 13, and chr 17). It was a bit like winning the lottto for some people. Every once in a while someone in the group rolled well and got to play a paladin. Over time it balanced out and paladins were not by any stretch everyone's favorite class. Lots of people had the stats but chose to pay a fighter. Rangers had a pretty high bar of entry as well: str 13, dex 13, con 14 and wis 14. All the fighter needed was a 9 str.

With all the different ways to build a class these days, I don't think score requirements really would fit, or be a way to balance, it's basically an attempt at class "rarity". On that note, I don't want to see ANY semblance of "class rarity" worked into class balance.

 

[WheresMyD20]

I disagree ENTIRELY. The fighter is not a "plain vanilla class", it is the martial master. Nobody is better at melee combat that the fighter. The Paladin, the Ranger, the Barbarian, they give things up in order to become better at certain things. The Ranger loses some armor and weapon proficiency in order to get favored enemies and bow mastery(sorry two-blade ranger folks). The barbarian loses almost all forms of martial mastery to hit harder with big things. The paladin loses diversity in favor of a very particular fighting styles.

You may disagree, but the fighting-man (fighter) class got its name from Chainmail, where it referred to any figure in the game that wasn't a magic-user or a monster. When OD&D came around in 1974, the fighting-man was basically the catch-all for any character that didn't use magic (i.e. a cleric or magic-user). In AD&D, the fighter was one of the four main classes. Paladins, rangers, and barbarians were sub-classes (specialized versions) of the fighter. You can disagree all you want, and even use capital letters to do so, but the fighting-man/fighter has a long history of being a plain vanilla class in D&D.

This doesn't help at all. Now Jimmy is 5th level while Timmy is 4th level, when Jimmy turns 6th level Fighter; Timmy will get all his OP 5th level magic and still be more powerful than the fighter. Remember all those "linear fighter, quadratic wizard" debates? That's inherently the problem. At 10th level the fighter may hit 3 times, but he doesn't hit 3 times as hard, meanwhile the 10th level wizard is doing 10-caster levels worth of damage in any round, which is usually about ten times the damage of a single weapon attack.

You're now jumping into an entirely different debate. The whole "linear fighter, quadratic wizard" is more of a 3e problem. It's not nearly as pronounced in 1e. Let's stay on topic here. Besides, trying to compare fighters to magic-users is like trying to compare quarterbacks to linebackers. It's a totally different position/role on the team. Apples and oranges.

No, they aren't. The Paladin doesn't get squat for being 4 and 1/2 level when the Fighter is 5th. But when the Paladin hits 5th level he gets more than the Fighter who is 5 and 1/4th level.

Splitting hairs. For a session or two, one might be more powerful than the other or vice versa. Big deal. D&D isn't and doesn't need to be an exact science.

And at certain power checkpoints, such as 10th or 20th where leveling can just stop Paladins will either be stupidly lagging behind or massively OP.

Leveling stops at 10th or 20th level? Funny, I played in a level 20+ campaign of 1e for years. We didn't stop leveling.

Actually, the power curve flattens out after name level (9th). Due to the paladin's spells and turn undead, the fighter gets a little less out of each level than the paladin. On the other hand, the paladin requires 350,000 XP to the fighter's 250,000 XP to gain a level after 9th. The power level remains fairly balanced between the two of them, even at high levels. It's really quite elegant.

 

[CroBob]

In 2E the paladin does have some advantages and these are meant to be reflected in the xp totals. Sure the paladin wont lag behind for a long time, but he may spend a session or two catching up and that kind of lag did matter in play. There were plenty of time I went with a fighter instead of a paladin because I didn't want to wait.

But there is more to keep in mind here. First fighters in 2e get followers at 9th level. That is huge and shouldn't be minimized. Many times I have seen this put to far better use than any number of high level spells or a paladin's aura of protection. Followers starting at 9th level is one of the things that made fighters awesome IMO.

Also prior to 3e you had ability score requirements for classes and you rolled you ability scores. Some classes like paladin you couldn't just choose, you had to roll good enough stats to qualify (str 12, con 9, wis 13, and chr 17). It was a bit like winning the lottto for some people. Every once in a while someone in the group rolled well and got to play a paladin. Over time it balanced out and paladins were not by any stretch everyone's favorite class. Lots of people had the stats but chose to pay a fighter. Rangers had a pretty high bar of entry as well: str 13, dex 13, con 14 and wis 14. All the fighter needed was a 9 str.

Nobody's denying that what you say was the case, what people are denying is that it's a good way to do things if one of your goals is balanced classes. So, yeah, sure, that's what happened in earlier editions, but what qualities did it have that are worth keeping around?

 

[Guest 85555]

Nobody's denying that what you say was the case, what people are denying is that it's a good way to do things if one of your goals is balanced classes. So, yeah, sure, that's what happened in earlier editions, but what qualities did it have that are worth keeping around?

Well some of us are saying that is a good way to balance classes. It may not be everyone's cup of tea but we have had at least two posters defend these approaches to balance. Personally I very much enjoyed 2E balance over 3E's or 4E's. It is less gonzo than third edition, but more textured than fourth.

I doubt very much these are all popular enough to make it into 5E. Not many people share my love of the AD&D XP progressions for example. But I do think many of the ways spells were contained will come back. I also see signs that the new skill system is somewhat rooted in the NWP system. Followers are something I really hope they bring back because it was so crucial to higher level play and balance. But most likely I anticipate it will be brought in through modules or feats (really hope they don't do the later).

Random ability rolls and ability requirements are controvertial. I can see why people don't like the later, but I believe random stats are a better way to run the game than point buys or stacked rolls (4d6 take the lowest and put wherever you want). At least for D&D. The longer I play, the more I like random abilities and let-the-dice fall where they may.

Of course what makes a good approach to balance will depend on what your preferences are. People who play 4e tend to want a particular kind of balance (they really like the balance by encounter approach) whereas people who play 3E are much more into the balance over an adventue approach (or even balance over the campaign). I see a lot of people try to make this into an objective standard."But the game is only fun if the players can..." to me this is hogwash. Everyone finds different things and different balancing nechanisms fun. When people say this what thy are really saying is "But the game is only fun for me if the players can..."

 

[Andor]

With all the different ways to build a class these days, I don't think score requirements really would fit, or be a way to balance, it's basically an attempt at class "rarity". On that note, I don't want to see ANY semblance of "class rarity" worked into class balance.

Truth. If you want to play a difficult class with lousy stats, that's going to be punishment enough. Conversely why exactly do we need to award a guy who rolled well with a heaping pile of even more awesome? He's already faster, stronger and better looking than you are. Why should he also access to more powerful classes? Dad always liked him best?

Life isn't fair, and I don't have much sympathy for the player entitlement camp, but there is no need to kick a guy when he's down.

As for differing XP charts, no. Differing advancement rates are an attempt to balance different classes over the life of a campaign. Which is a lousy way to do it IMHO. It's too long a time frame. John the fighter is not going to be happy acting as caddy to the wizard at high levels while mumbling "Remember when I did stuff too? I used to have something. I coulda been a contender, but you never looked out for me Gary..." Plus short games or con games completely spike the 'fast advancment' classes guns as there is no downside, at all, to taking the better class.

I do want to see 5e spread the balance economy out over broader ranges of time than 4es AEDU system, but I think the 3e Artificer with a resource pool that refreshed once a level is about as far as that concept can stretch.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes, but this is highly germane because FOR ME AD&D (and we won't even touch 3e, the word 'balance' doesn't belong within 10,000 light years of THAT) 'class balance' didn't even come close to cutting it. Differing XP totals was just a PITA and did very close to zilch for the game. It certainly didn't balance anything for squat.

I hated the whole "ability score lottery" nonsense too. Let people play their character concept for cripe's sake. It really isn't that hard to make decently balanced classes and making paladins 'rare' does nothing for the fact that when you have one it isn't all that balanced against other 'martial' characters.

IME fighter's followers were worth squat basically. They were much lower level than the character, and thus largely irrelevant. It was never made clear whether they got XP or how much, if any. Even assuming they DID get XP they had to be paid, you had to build a stronghold, and they were always subject to loyalty. At best if you rolled 96-00 you got a leader that was reasonably useful as a henchman. Still, as a class feature it was a bit of a shaft since you could BUY the same sort of henchman for far less gold and trouble than building a stronghold, and the 0 level troops were just a resource suck. At best if your goal was build your own little empire it might save you a fairly paltry amount of gold raising a few extra troops.

Ironically the much more capable ranger OTOH at least COULD with a very good roll get a substantially useful follower, and didn't have to jump through any hoops to get theirs. Rogues followers were a bit more marginal but still more handy than the fighter ones and chances were pretty good you'd at least end up with several that were close enough to your level to be useful in numbers.

Followers were certainly SOMETHING, but especially in the case of the fighter they were fairly marginal benefits. Given the overall mundanity of the concept it was also kinda hard to justify them being a specific class feature. I always thought that the whole thing would have been more interesting if it had been more story driven and less restricted. 1e's 'just make a chart for everything' IMHO didn't serve too well in these kinds of situations.

 

[Guest 85555]

Followers were certainly SOMETHING, but especially in the case of the fighter they were fairly marginal benefits. Given the overall mundanity of the concept it was also kinda hard to justify them being a specific class feature. I always thought that the whole thing would have been more interesting if it had been more story driven and less restricted. 1e's 'just make a chart for everything' IMHO didn't serve too well in these kinds of situations.

This doesn't match my experience at all. Followers were a huge boon. Just look at the 2E follower chart to see what you get. You roll for three different levels of followers, including an elite bodyguard contingent. I had an easy time making that work for me.