D&D 5E 2024 D&D is 2014 D&D with 4E sprinkled on top

[EzekielRaiden]

Yep, I agree with all of this.

For a Simple-Caster, I'm envisioning something like the Warlock, just minus the spells and most of the invocation choices, but with more options for warrior-damage scaling than just Eldritch Blast. Some extra resilience and mitigation abilities, and something like Action Surge (maybe "Overload Cantrip", that lets the cantrip hit an area once or twice a short rest.) Tack on bonus action short-range teleport or some other defensive/utility boost, and put a bunch of flavorful utility options into the subclasses.

Complex martial could go a few different directions, but some combination of warlord and paladin (battlefield controller and party buffer/protector) or a ranger/rogue/blood hunter (lore and skill expert, has a trick or trap for every situation) would be my initial thoughts.

I had had some ideas for a truly simple caster as well. My main concept was to, more or less, have it built around an upgraded-to-full-spell prestidigitation of yesteryear. That is, a core magic "trick" you can do a certain number of times that can be applied in particular directions. Relatively constrained compared to the bag of tricks a Wizard can have, but still quite diverse compared to a Champion Fighter. (I don't expect a "truly simple caster" to be as simple as the simplest possible martial character, to be clear, but it's gotta be much closer than any current caster.)

The Warlock comparison I think is important but not quite perfect. Warlock's shtick in 5e is the "build your own class", to a degree even more pronounced than Bard. So, more or less, I'd probably interpret the "simple caster" (I called it "Mage") as having Bard-like subclasses--where each subclass sets you up for some pretty specific focus--but with expression more like what a Warlock is like when it's gotten all the invocations for a particular path. So the "Valor Bard"/"Blade Warlock" equivalent would still have that core magical action thing, but would also get a few specific ways to kick butt with weapons too (EA at 6 is traditional, for example). The "Lore Bard"/"Tome Warlock" equivalent would instead get some supportive and ritual-leaning stuff; perhaps Mages don't do rituals, but the Ritualist subclass gets access to a package of ritual-like effects at ritual-like cast times and durations. Etc.

 

[TwoSix]

What do you mean by this? The materials are available on the guild and the 3e SRD / OGL allows you to make compatible products. That is basically what 13th age did after all.

Ideally, to me, the 4e character builder would be open source and freely downloadable. (And yes, I know, I have it.)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

What do you mean by this? The materials are available on the guild and the 3e SRD / OGL allows you to make compatible products. That is basically what 13th age did after all.

Except you have to constantly dance around the vast majority of anything actually in 4e.

You can't talk about Healing Surges.

Prior to 5e adding them to the OGL, you couldn't talk about Dragonborn.

You can't talk about Warlords. Even At-Will/Encounter/Daily powers is a dicey proposition. Or "powers" in general! Or a bunch of other things. So you either need to never reference a huge swathe of rules-text (e.g., no powers that interact with surges in any way, unless you invent a whole new thing and basically just hope that readers will know that a Restorative Boost means a Healing Surge.)

And you'll notice that 13A was forced to do exactly that. There aren't Surges--there are "Recoveries."

 

[mamba]

I am looking at that space myself. I will say that the system @mearls is working on looks like it will fit in this space as well.

agreed, it is the upcoming one I am most interested in, but I am not expecting him to actually be 5e compatible, just somewhat adjacent.

I will certainly back his Kickstarter when it comes

 

[dave2008]

Except you have to constantly dance around the vast majority of anything actually in 4e.

You can't talk about Healing Surges.

Prior to 5e adding them to the OGL, you couldn't talk about Dragonborn.

You can't talk about Warlords. Even At-Will/Encounter/Daily powers is a dicey proposition. Or "powers" in general! Or a bunch of other things. So you either need to never reference a huge swathe of rules-text (e.g., no powers that interact with surges in any way, unless you invent a whole new thing and basically just hope that readers will know that a Restorative Boost means a Healing Surge.)

And you'll notice that 13A was forced to do exactly that. There aren't Surges--there are "Recoveries."

By "you" I assume you mean publishers, because nothing is stopping me from using any of those!

 

[dave2008]

Except you have to constantly dance around the vast majority of anything actually in 4e.

You can't talk about Healing Surges.

Prior to 5e adding them to the OGL, you couldn't talk about Dragonborn.

You can't talk about Warlords. Even At-Will/Encounter/Daily powers is a dicey proposition. Or "powers" in general! Or a bunch of other things. So you either need to never reference a huge swathe of rules-text (e.g., no powers that interact with surges in any way, unless you invent a whole new thing and basically just hope that readers will know that a Restorative Boost means a Healing Surge.)

And you'll notice that 13A was forced to do exactly that. There aren't Surges--there are "Recoveries."

PS we revised "healing surges" to "heroic surges" even while we were playing 4e. So I am all good with name changes.

 

[Pedantic]

Since I'm currently playing Civilization 7, I'm noticing some similarities between those games and how D&D is released. Each version of Civ has its adherents, because they're all very distinct despite their outward similarities (much like D&D). Plenty of people loved 5, but didn't like 6. Plenty of people like 6, but aren't fans of 7. And even earlier editions like 4 still have adherents.

Which, I mean, is kind of what we have now. Each edition of D&D has its adherents, and all of them are still available to play. The only people who really need to battle for the "soul of D&D" are those who never got a version of the game that really spoke to their needs. And 4e is the one version that's still locked down and can't really be built upon, which also needs to change.

I think this argument is always a bit too glib. None of these versions of the game are "done" from a design perspective, and the pivot to something new has generally closed off any further development. The problem is worst for 4e, but in general, each edition outside of those the OSR likes is stuck in amber.

Maybe we get more content from 3rd parties, but we don't get further further iterated design.

 

[dave2008]

I think this argument is always a bit too glib. None of these versions of the game are "done" from a design perspective, and the pivot to something new has generally closed off any further development. The problem is worst for 4e, but in general, each edition outside of those the OSR likes is stuck in amber.

Maybe we get more content from 3rd parties, but we don't get further further iterated design.

But you don't necessarily need it either. If I wanted, I have enough material to run 4e, probably the least supported edition, for the rest of my life. The issue is not the material, but finding people willing to play it.

 

[TwoSix]

But you don't necessarily need it either. If I wanted, I have enough material to run 4e, probably the least supported edition, for the rest of my life. The issue is not the material, but finding people willing to play it.

The issues are tied together, I think. It's easier to find people who are interested in playing game lines that are actively being supported. This is especially true for crunch-heavy games where part of the draw of the game is its continual evolution. People would have cycled out of the 3e system a lot faster if PF1 hadn't picked up the "new crunch" slack, as an example.

 

[dave2008]

The issues are tied together, I think. It's easier to find people who are interested in playing game lines that are actively being supported. This is especially true for crunch-heavy games where part of the draw of the game is its continual evolution. People would have cycled out of the 3e system a lot faster if PF1 hadn't picked up the "new crunch" slack, as an example.

You are probably correct, I have just never played with that crowed.