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

[Minigiant]

I've voted Ability scores (though, I'd thrown out ability scores and retained only modifiers), HP, Great Wheel and Levels. Also I'd add that progression should be drastic -- like from a human to a god.

As for classes, I'd return to Fighter, Magic User, Specialist and Cleric -- everything else can neatly fit as subclasses. I don't see any point in having Barbarian and Paladin as distinct classes, for example -- they are basically fighters, but with a bunch of extra ribbons.

Everyone says this but almost no one succeeded to paste the "ribbons" on the 4 main classes without losing the archetypes.

If you paste Rage on a fighter, then it becomes an overpowered fighter. If you don't have the Rage, then I can't mechanically become a berserker. And balancing it with restrictions was never widely popular for long.

 

[loverdrive]

If all of the flavor is moved to the subclass, what is the point of classes? I mean, fighters get skills, clerics use magic, but subclasses get abilities that change the way an entire class plays? What role do classes serve under such a structure?

I don't think that subclasses should fundamentally change the way an entire class plays. I mean, I don't see that much difference in playing a fighter and a barbarian or playing a wizard or sorcerer.

Classes should give direction. Fighter is an indomitable war machine, and the fact that they dabbles in magic (like an Eldritch Knight) or channels divine power to smite their enemies (like a Paladin) or uses ancient martial arts, finding a fine balance between Mind and Body (like a Monk) doesn't change that.

but if you lose variety, is that really an improvement

I honestly don't care about variety. I think there's too much variety in 5E and especially 3.5E.

Yeah, I can kinda get behind this - with one exception, that being Bard. If, as I do and WotC doesn't, one sees Bard as being something other than just another type of using-the-same-mechanics spellcaster, they don't fit under any of those main headings and end up incorporating elements of all four plus some stuff unique to them.

I honestly don't understand bards /shrug
But I guess they can be some kind of Specialist.

And what do you do about multiclassing?

If I was designing the whole thing, I'd make all the abilities like 5E Warlock's invocations: there's a list and you pick one each level.
So multiclassing would be picking an ability from another class.

 

[Zardnaar]

I loved S&P! There are dozens of us!

I liked it under DM control hot mess if players get to use it as is.

 

[Minigiant]

Eliminate the specialist (D&D's original sin) and the argument resolves itself.

Remove the specialist and you can't play the everymade many want to RP as.

My blacksmith can't be an adventurer anymore.

 

[Lanefan]

It's not incremental though. That's my point.

When your party getsfly, fireball, a 100hp PC, or 2 attacks a turn, it's MAJOR.

Maybe. Fly I'll give you as being major. Fireball not so much, in that though it looks big and impressive and it's hella fun to cast there's often better ways for a Wizard to mess up the opponents. And the 100 h.p. character was 90 h.p. yesterday; and 2 attacks a turn (at least in my game) is only jumping up from 3/2 attacks, so those are more incremental.

It's not incremental. The ranger cast's Water Breathing on himself. He now cannot drown.

For as long as the spell lasts, which ain't forever.

A monk or barbarain could strike certain monsters unhindered when they excel to certain levels.
Certain obstacles and foes (mostly foes) are batched together as challenges in D&D.

If you mean the CR system or similar, or monster levels in 1e, those are every bit as incremental as PC levels.

 

[Faolyn]

Any idea what the rationale is behind resetting to 0 xp each level? (and I'll cry in my beer if it's because they think - or have somehow proven - people have trouble adding numbers bigger than 1000.)

I don't actually play PF (I just looked through the documents because they put everything up online). I guess it's because it's less annoying than those ginormous numbers you get at higher levels--and especially if you want to go on beyond 20th level.

 

[TwoSix]

I liked it under DM control hot mess if players get to use it as is.

The only real problem part, to me, was the split stats part. And that was mostly because 2e percentile strength was dumb.

I ran a short lived Planescape game where everyone played a cleric using S&P/S&M rules, and it ran great, with some really diverse character builds.

 

[Greg Benage]

Remove the specialist and you can't play the everymade many want to RP as.

My blacksmith can't be an adventurer anymore.

I'll bite: Why's that?

 

[Minigiant]

I'll bite: Why's that?

Because there is not class for them to be.

The blacksmith doesn't know spells nor how to fight at a high proficiency.

So if your blacksmith's or farmer's village is burned down by a dragon, there is no class for him to take for revenge if all the specialists are gone.

 

[Zardnaar]

The only real problem part, to me, was the split stats part. And that was mostly because 2e percentile strength was dumb.

I ran a short lived Planescape game where everyone played a cleric using S&P/S&M rules, and it ran great, with some really diverse character builds.

S&P clerics could replace every other class with maybe exception of thief.
The split ability thing was dumb but point buy classes and races had issues as well cleric being front and centre of that.