D&D General Compelling and Differentiated Gameplay For Spellcasters and Martial Classes

[Oofta]

True, they weren't - there's a lot of forces at work in a market (though, with a cult/nerd property like D&D, a little nerdrage goes a long way) - changing the rules was a response to the dislike of a sub-set of people.

Those rules, were, themselves, based on a relatively small, self-selecting sub-set of people making criticisms of 3.x - "static combat" for instance. And, not entirely irrelevant to this topic, the proliferation of Fighter SUX threads back on Gleemax just might've had something to do with the huge expansion of choice/power that martial classes got in 4e. And, the contrary nerdrage of the edition war, to taking all that away again and powering casters back up. None of those were vast majorities of anything getting a consensus, they were small, vocal, elements.

So you're whistling past the graveyard, a bit. You know the game has changed in response to relatively small, very vocal, sub-sets of the fanbase, before. The last time, it changed in a way you liked.

The next time, who knows?

(Personally, I suspect D&D has finally settled into a 'sustaining' mode as far as rules go. Future editions will have different themes and different art and the like, but the rules aren't going to see substantive changes again. Like ever. That ship has sailed, hit a mine, burned to the waterline, sunk to the bottom of a deep-sea trench, been buried in a avalanche, and is currently riding a subduction zone very slowly into the upper mantle of the planet.)

(Then again, I've been wrong every time I've made a prediction about the future of D&D.)

One of the things they did well during the development of 5E (and continue to do with UA) is get feedback from a large number of people instead of letting a small group.

Any game could always be improved, and I think a strength of 5E is that it can be tweaked to suit different groups fairly easily.

 

[Tony Vargas]

One of the things they did well during the development of 5E (and continue to do with UA) is get feedback from a large number of people instead of letting a small group.

Self selected surveys aimed at unpaid playtesters aren't exactly a large or particularly valid sample.

I think the litmus tests were less about scientifically conducted surveys and majorities (hey, the majority of people have never tried D&D), but more about what would keep the perception of the property positive. That means not /outraging/ anyone - at least, anyone willing to go to great length to vent that outrage publicly.

Thus the whole 'compromise edition' thing.

Any game could always be improved, and I think a strength of 5E is that it can be tweaked to suit different groups fairly easily.

There is a tension, though, between tradition and cange. In the D&D community, for most of it's history, tradition has tended to win out. So, is there theoretically room to improve? Yes. Is it practical in the terms of maintaining the viability of the line? Maybe not s'much.

Sadly I gave feedback, analyzed said feedback and determined it wouldn't work for D&D. That caused these people to lose their minds and spend the next several pages attacking me for daring to say their idea wasn't compatible with D&D - which it isn't .

At that point, it's not that you're attacking the idea, it's that your attacking D&D. And not just any D&D, the Big Tent, kumbaya, compromise edition of D&D. The sacred 5th coming.

And, whatever judgements one may reach about the content of 5e 'RaW' or cooked, it's ultimately the DM's game to do with what he pleases, so, yeah, it /could/ be expanded & improved in the desired way, by a sufficiently determined and capable DM.

 

[FrogReaver]

At that point, it's not that you're attacking the idea, it's that your attacking D&D. And not just any D&D, the Big Tent, kumbaya, compromise edition of D&D. The sacred 5th coming.

Not at all.

 

[Garthanos]

But they aren't several sizes bigger.

The difference is brains AND armor and weaponry and mobility including flight you can scare a mastodon off a cliff with many relatively minor pains, The dragon is potentially smarter than you. Humans win in the real world because of our minds.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Not at all.

You may not have meant to.

 

[FrogReaver]

You may not have meant to.

I don't think that's it. Assuming the OP wanted a solution compatible with D&D seemed reasonable - the thread is in the D&D section the OP lists his complaints about D&D and asks for ways it can be modified to suit him better.

I went through a number of suggestions - analyzed everyone and came to the conclusion that what was being produced was so far removed from D&D that I wouldn't call it D&D.

If the OP liked the solutions he's free to implement any of them - though he never really commented on ANY of them. I never told him don't try them if he likes the idea. But I also think it's worth talking about whether solutions proposed for the individual would be good for me and even whether they would be good for the game as a whole. Why is that such a touchy issue?

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't think that's it. Assuming the OP wanted a solution compatible with D&D seemed reasonable

Sure. But nothing's innately incompatible with D&D. Not in it's current incarnation. The DM is free to add/change/override whatever he needs to, in order to /make/ it compatible with whatever goals he sets for his campaign.

came to the conclusion that what was being produced was so far removed from D&D that I wouldn't call it D&D.

So what? Unless it's being (illegally) sold under that trade dress, why would it matter?

 

[FrogReaver]

Sure. But nothing's innately incompatible with D&D. Not in it's current incarnation. The DM is free to add/change/override whatever he needs to, in order to /make/ it compatible with whatever goals he sets for his campaign.

So what? Unless it's being (illegally) sold under that trade dress, why would it matter?

Why wouldn't it matter? It's an opinion forum after all and that's my opinion.

 

[Garthanos]

This is very relevant to my point. Beowulf is described having many abilities. Hes still not able to "do all the things" though. You could much more easily emulate him with a class that isnt the vague "fighter"

Trying to figure out what might be some of those abilities included a brutal style of warlording (investigation style and a non-4e variant I think ) where he sacrificed minions to gain insight into enemies. And supernal con and strength swimming generally probably a naturalist hunter too. and social empowerment getting more minions all the time and... and fighting both with armor and weapons and effectively fighting unarmed and unarmored quite well,very definitely stealthy, but I suspect he cannot pick locks? but he definitely a sneaky bastard at times I am not sure his world had them very often. ... just thinking out loud because I might have to build that warlord type.

 

[Garthanos]

(Then again, I've been wrong every time I've made a prediction about the future of D&D.)

Your batting average is meh but sounds good at the time.?