D&D (2024) Which races would YOU put into the 50th anniversary Players Handbook?

[Lanefan]

Was it the Barbarian only getting slightly bruised from having a castle/meteor/planet dropped on them that suggested this might be the case?

No, in that such a thing couldn't happen in any game I run. If you can't avoid getting hit by something that big I don't care what your h.p. total might be - squashed is squashed.

When the thing being dropped is something smaller and thus somewhat more avoidable, sich as a Giant's boulder, hit points do an OK job of abstracting how well you avoided a direct hit even though you still took a glancing blow.

 

[Yaarel]

@Cadence

Yeah.

D&D can be great for self-selecting a sweet spot that one enjoys.

This is part of the reason why tiers are important to me. Each tier has its own sense of what amount of power is appropriate. It is also why I feel it is important to have five tiers rather than four, because the mid levels have their own feel. The tiers correspond to the proficiency bonus and feats.

Levels: Tier
1-4: Student
5-8: Professional
9-12: Master
13-16: Grandmaster
17-20: Legend
21-24: Epic

Each of these tiers is its own kind of game. Grandmaster on up are superheroish.

Apparently, most 5e campaigns wind down around level 8. So, for many players, it is important to get the first two tiers right, the student and the professional.

That said. There are many players who want high level gaming. So we can think about how to make the upper tiers, from master on up, more fun to play.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

And this is why we need species-based modifiers and-or limits, both positive and negative.

We don't actually need them. For the same reason we don't need gender-based limits--something D&D also used to have.

 

[Lanefan]

When you play a cooperative game, are you content to be confined to the sidelines while someone else does all the work and, consequently, deserves all the credit?

And at the same time takes all the risk; and yes I've seen (and been annoyed at) many a player who is quite happy to roll this way.

The risk-taker who does everything almost always burns out like a shooting star before long; and the corpse can then be looted by the sideline-stander who carries on until finding another willing risk-taker. Lather-rinse-repeat: short-term boredom (or inattention) for long-term gain.

 

[Cadence]

We don't actually need them. For the same reason we don't need gender-based limits--something D&D also used to have.

Gender based athletic differences seems a lot lot lot smaller for humans than some of the differences between size groupings of humans.

But sure, we don't need the sized based ones either.

 

[Lanefan]

This is part of the reason why tiers are important to me. Each tier has its own sense of what amount of power is appropriate. It is also why I feel it is important to have five tiers rather than four, because the mid levels have their own feel. The tiers correspond to the proficiency bonus and feats.

Levels: Tier
1-4: Student
5-8: Professional
9-12: Master
13-16: Grandmaster
17-20: Legend
21-24: Epic

Each of these tiers is its own kind of game. Grandmaster on up are superheroish.

Apparently, most 5e campaigns wind down around level 8. So, for many players, it is important to get the first two tiers right, the student and the professional.

Two things here:

First, I always like to think "Student" is for most classes the stage that happened just before you started your adventuring career; if for no other reason than to explain the jump in abilities between a commoner and a 1st-level character. Maybe 1-4 could be called something like "Line Worker" or "Neophyte".

Second, every edition - and 5e's no exception - has had a fairly clear "sweet spot" level range where things just plain worked; and for no edition yet has that sweet spot extended above about 14th level.

That said. There are many players who want high level gaming. So we can think about how to make the upper tiers, from master on up, more fun to play.

Thing is, how can a designer do that without wrecking the sweet spot range where things already work well? 3e tried it by upping monster power commensurate with PC power, leading to something of a treadmill effect; that didn't work. 4e tried it by flattening the curve between levels such that the 1-30 power difference in 4e was less than the 1-20 difference in 3e, and for some reason that didn't work. 5e - well, I'm not quite sure what 5e did but it still seems not to have worked. And 0e-1e-2e didn't really bother trying; the DMs were pretty much on thieir own after about name level (9th-10th for most).

The only thing I can think of, but it wouldn't be popular, would be to dial down the power level overall - mostly by reducing the power gain at each level - such that a "new" 20th-level character would have about the overall power of what we now see as a 10th or 12th. Then, design for 1-20 as before and thus make the designed range and the playable range much more similar.

 

[Yaarel]

Two things here:

First, I always like to think "Student" is for most classes the stage that happened just before you started your adventuring career; if for no other reason than to explain the jump in abilities between a commoner and a 1st-level character. Maybe 1-4 could be called something like "Line Worker" or "Neophyte".

To be clear, these are "adult" students, college students. I consider level 1 to be roughly 20 years old or its equivalent.

If 5e had a "level zero", it would compare to highschool, somewhere between ages 13 to 19. Now that background feats are a thing, it is probably viable to pick race and feat without selecting a class. Then choose a class to level in after some zero level encounters.

Second, every edition - and 5e's no exception - has had a fairly clear "sweet spot" level range where things just plain worked; and for no edition yet has that sweet spot extended above about 14th level.

Part of that breakdown of the sweet spot in earlier editions was simply piling on different kinds of mechanics, whose syngergies together eventually broke the gaming engine − without really understanding how the ecology of a gaming engine works. 4e is the first edition that understood the gaming engine, which is why its mechanics were tight like computer code. 5e reacted antithetically to 4e, but it too has a sense of how a gaming engine works.

The goal, is to get an even better understanding of the game engine ecologies at each higher tier. To keep the engine running smoothly.

Thing is, how can a designer do that without wrecking the sweet spot range where things already work well?

Improve 5e by treating each four-level tier as its own kind of game. With its own kind of flavor and crafted mechanics. If the student and professional tiers are working well, let them continue to work well. Think about the upper tiers separately.

3e tried it by upping monster power commensurate with PC power, leading to something of a treadmill effect; that didn't work. 4e tried it by flattening the curve between levels such that the 1-30 power difference in 4e was less than the 1-20 difference in 3e, and for some reason that didn't work.

4e does work well at high tiers. The critique about the monster math was noticeable in the first place because its math is so tight. And correctable.

5e - well, I'm not quite sure what 5e did but it still seems not to have worked.

5e is − by design − tough to break. It is less balanced than 4e, but more robust, so DMs can do more stuff on the fly without crashing the game. One forumer, @Tony Vargas described 5e as like pounding a pile of sand with a hammer.

And 0e-1e-2e didn't really bother trying; the DMs were pretty much on thieir own after about name level (9th-10th for most).

I think of the old school (0e, original and basic, 1e and 2e) like early forms of life on planet Earth.

The only thing I can think of, but it wouldn't be popular, would be to dial down the power level overall - mostly by reducing the power gain at each level - such that a "new" 20th-level character would have about the overall power of what we now see as a 10th or 12th.

I like high level gaming. If you want to stop at level 8 or 12, no problem. But dont hold me back.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Two things here:

First, I always like to think "Student" is for most classes the stage that happened just before you started your adventuring career; if for no other reason than to explain the jump in abilities between a commoner and a 1st-level character. Maybe 1-4 could be called something like "Line Worker" or "Neophyte".

"Zero levels" or "Novice"/"Apprentice" content should absolutely be a thing, yes. I have strongly advocated for such things since the beginning of the D&D Next playtest: there should be supportive, positive, present in the PHB rules for creating "novice" characters who are still learning the ropes and may not even have all their "baseline" abilities yet (e.g. the possibility of needing to acquire some of your background benefits.)

From there, you'd have "Journeyman," where you're formally initiated into your skills. You may not have learned every standard skill of your craft, but you're competent enough to ask for day-wages in it (which is the root of the word "journeyman," coming via French from the Latin diurnus.) Then you'd advance to "Expert," having learned all the standard skills to a high degree of competence; "Master," someone who could teach others the craft if desired; and "Grandmaster," someone who could teach other masters. If each of these were 5 levels, that would get you to 20 (Journeyman 1-5, Expert 6-10, Master 11-15, Grandmaster 16-20.) 5e doesn't cover beyond 20, but further useful terms would be Legend[ary] and Epic, naturally.

Second, every edition - and 5e's no exception - has had a fairly clear "sweet spot" level range where things just plain worked; and for no edition yet has that sweet spot extended above about 14th level.

I mean, I'd argue 4e actually did go beyond that, but the things people found trouble with were different, and in fact quite fixable with an evolutionary, rather than revolutionary, update. But that's a discussion for a different thread.

Thing is, how can a designer do that without wrecking the sweet spot range where things already work well? 3e tried it by upping monster power commensurate with PC power, leading to something of a treadmill effect; that didn't work. 4e tried it by flattening the curve between levels such that the 1-30 power difference in 4e was less than the 1-20 difference in 3e, and for some reason that didn't work. 5e - well, I'm not quite sure what 5e did but it still seems not to have worked. And 0e-1e-2e didn't really bother trying; the DMs were pretty much on thieir own after about name level (9th-10th for most).

The only thing I can think of, but it wouldn't be popular, would be to dial down the power level overall - mostly by reducing the power gain at each level - such that a "new" 20th-level character would have about the overall power of what we now see as a 10th or 12th. Then, design for 1-20 as before and thus make the designed range and the playable range much more similar.

Well...what you just described IS what 4e did. If three levels in 4e is (approximately) equal to 2 levels in 5e, then a level 21 character in 4e is equivalent to a level 14 character in 5e. "13 is the new 20" is pretty close to what you're talking about here. Note that I don't say this because I think you are wrong. I say it because I think you are right, just conflating "4e had problems" (which it absolutely did, both external and internal, both induced from outside and completely self-inflicted) with "because 4e did it, it must not have worked."

Spell levels 7, 8, and (especially) 9 are where the wheels truly come off. Where reality has to use metaphorical safe words in its relationship with full spellcasters. The kinds of things a 9th level spellcaster can do--stopping time, creating pocket planes, literally enforcing their wishes on reality--are stuff that even legit actual superheroes struggle to do, if they even get the chance. 4e decided those things should belong in Epic tier. I think that decision was correct.

 

[Scribe]

We don't actually need them. For the same reason we don't need gender-based limits--something D&D also used to have.

Not the same actually, at all.

A Halfling is quite literally a small child as far as stature, mass, leverage, physiology goes.

Its not comparable to male/female dichotomy that was present and rightfully removed, at all.

 

[Branduil]

Not the same actually, at all.

A Halfling is quite literally a small child as far as stature, mass, leverage, physiology goes.

Its not comparable to male/female dichotomy that was present and rightfully removed, at all.

Halflings aren't real, their physiology is whatever their creators say it is. An actual child would simply die in their first combat encounter, so it's understandable people do not want to play halflings who are "realistic" for their size.