D&D General What elements does D&D need to keep?

[Uta-napishti]

You could make a game that way, and it would work, but I'm not sure it would work better.

If all the spellcaster archetypes (wizard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, bard, warlock, artificer, psion) were lumped into one class, you'd still need sub-archetypes to further differentiate at least some of these (cleric, sorcerer, bard, warlock) and the rest would need either sub-archetypes or new archetypes to cover the whole theme (necromancer, illusionist, mesmer, caster-monk, alchemist)... But I really don't think anyone would call their character a Life Cleric Mystic. They'd say Life Cleric and leave the 'class' out, because it's not necessary to explain what you mean.

In other words: you've added a level of taxonomy. I don't see how that helps any design goal.

Also: with only four possible combinations, I'm not sure multiclassing is worth the effort either. On the other hand, I would like to see spell limits get simplified for most classes, though I think I'd leave spell slots/preparation for wizards (which would then definitely need their own class.)

You don't really need any archetypes defined by subclasses etc. You have access to all spells as a mystic. Your spell choice is your archetype. Want to be a life cleric? Pick some healing spells. Want to be a heal wizard? Pick the same spells, but a different backround. Want to be healing warlock? Pick the same spells, but say they come from your patron. Want to be a healing psion... you get the idea...
Bards pick more illusion and enchantment spells, and have a few levels of Expert to pick up inspiration, or performance skills.
Classes are just there to provide a container for some leveling stuff, and some broad association with types of power (Magic, Muscle, Skills), but don't have any roll defining archetypes... everybody does that themselves. If you want to have some example builds to make a Wizard vs a Psion, you can have a list of suggested feats / spells like the Battlemaster Builds part of Taschas.
The idea of Low Class D&D would be to remove specific class and subclass ownership of most abilities, boil down the pool of abilities into 3 big pools, and let folks mix an match to make MORE varied characters rather than less.

 

[ART!]

It's a tough call with classes. As they are in 5E, I think they're a little too complicated, but having improvement progressions laid out for you - for classes and subclasses - is great for new players, but broader, looser classes with a lot of the 5E class features available to everyone makes for more varied characters. I imagine the 6E of a far-flung future will lean toward the latter.

 

[Blue]

My voting is interesting in that I voted for some sacred cows that I am ambivalent about persoanlly wanting, but because they are such the part of the D&D feel that without them there's going to be another player split like there was under 4e. I play plenty of other RPGs and don't need these aspects for a successful RPG, but do think they are part of what defines D&D. It's like when Hero System did Fuzion (sp?) and it was very different - that wasn't Hero System, and they went back to more classic. So this poll is functionally equivalent of the last one.

As a side note, in the last thread there were a number of additional points posted as "other" that really should be on this list now that they have been identified. They don't have poll ratings on them, but that doesn't make them inherently false. It feels like it's just repeating the last poll with a slightly different angle, as opposed to growing from the last poll where people put a lot of good thought into other aspects of the game that weren't originally identified.

 

[jmartkdr2]

You don't really need any archetypes defined by subclasses etc. You have access to all spells as a mystic. Your spell choice is your archetype. Want to be a life cleric? Pick some healing spells. Want to be a heal wizard? Pick the same spells, but a different backround. Want to be healing warlock? Pick the same spells, but say they come from your patron. Want to be a healing psion... you get the idea...
Bards pick more illusion and enchantment spells, and have a few levels of Expert to pick up inspiration, or performance skills.
Classes are just there to provide a container for some leveling stuff, and some broad association with types of power (Magic, Muscle, Skills), but don't have any roll defining archetypes... everybody does that themselves. If you want to have some example builds to make a Wizard vs a Psion, you can have a list of suggested feats / spells like the Battlemaster Builds part of Taschas.
The idea of Low Class D&D would be to remove specific class and subclass ownership of most abilities, boil down the pool of abilities into 3 big pools, and let folks mix an match to make MORE varied characters rather than less.

That makes it possible but more difficult to pull off for people who don't know the system. Freeform systems are not simpler or easier to use.

Classes are not just packets of rules; they're a way to guide players, especially players new to fantasy games, to making the characters they want to make. Low class options remove that benefit.

 

[Gladius Legis]

I think D&D could get by with 3 Character Classes, Mystic, Martial and Expert being focused on Magic, Fighting and Skills respectively. Or INT/WIS, STR/CON, and DEX,CHA more loosely. Combined concepts, half casters, holy warriors, etc would be all just created by Multiclassing a level or two to pick up your artificer tech, or your magical smites for instance. Let's call it "Low Class D&D". I also think spell slots should definitely be replaced with more flexible spell points (simply 1 per spell level, not the WoTC spell points tables), and spell preparation should ultimately be replaced by your familiarity with the spell that would set a DC for a Spellcasting check.

I would never play this game, and I would encourage everyone I know to boycott it.

 

[Faolyn]

You don't really need any archetypes defined by subclasses etc. You have access to all spells as a mystic. Your spell choice is your archetype. Want to be a life cleric? Pick some healing spells.

I could actually see altering the spell lists to create a larger number of "spheres" (or whatever you want to call them), each with a set number of spells per level. Then your Mystic could pick X spheres from which they can get spells. They might be banned from other spheres or simply have a much harder time learning or casting those spells.

 

[Emerikol]

That's understandable, and I wouldn't disagree with you on that-- the audience absolutely did widen with the advent of d20.

D&D was in a big slump and that is sad. It was very poorly managed by the successors to Gygax. Gygax spending so much time on the cartoon and not his company is another. Of course from a financial perspective, one good tv show was worth more than all of D&D many times over so you can see his motive. The bottom line. Sadly he gambled and lost.

I seriously doubt D&D has ever had the market penetration it had in 1985. I mean everybody was playing. Games would break out at the drop of a hat. People were playing during morning breakfast before school. It was wild. I don't think D&D has ever recovered from those days even with 5e. And raw sales don't tell that whole story.

d20 was a move to save the game. And it did that very well. D&D since has been at least moderately popular even during periods I'd consider "bad" times.

 

[DEFCON 1]

D&D was in a big slump and that is sad. It was very poorly managed by the successors to Gygax. Gygax spending so much time on the cartoon and not his company is another. Of course from a financial perspective, one good tv show was worth more than all of D&D many times over so you can see his motive. The bottom line. Sadly he gambled and lost.

I seriously doubt D&D has ever had the market penetration it had in 1985. I mean everybody was playing. Games would break out at the drop of a hat. People were playing during morning breakfast before school. It was wild. I don't think D&D has ever recovered from those days even with 5e. And raw sales don't tell that whole story.

d20 was a move to save the game. And it did that very well. D&D since has been at least moderately popular even during periods I'd consider "bad" times.

Well, there's almost no practical way anything could have that sort of market penetration these days compared to 1985, because just like film and tv... there's just so much stuff out there. The market is way too wide for anything to rise as high as AD&D could in the mid 80s. But heck, when you think about it... with the number of RPGs that have come out and been released and played and promoted over the last couple decades, the fact that 5E actually has gotten as big as it has is a miracle in itself. This kind of massive resurgence after a long fallow period is not usual in any way.

 

[Faolyn]

the fact that 5E actually has gotten as big as it has is a miracle in itself. This kind of massive resurgence after a long fallow period is not usual in any way.

Nah; D&D has major nostalgia value, and it's the RPG that everyone has heard of. It'd be more shocking if a different system had become as namebranded as D&D did.

 

[Uta-napishti]

I would never play this game, and I would encourage everyone I know to boycott it.

Seems like I might be on to something if this off the cuff idea has already triggered an enraged holy war against it?