D&D General 5e System Redesign through New Classes and Setting. A Thought Experiment.

Those were separate spells before 4e, too.
They were, for sure. But it just goes to show how different from 5e 4e is on a fundamental level. The idea of progression existed, but the progress -had- to be packaged in cute little boxes and bundles as often as possible, even when it was literally the same thing.

That was a 3e mindset being applied to 4e, for certain. And likely helped them to push toward the 5e model of "Save your hands from carpal tunnel by writing the ability once and letting it progress within itself rather than requiring 3-12 separate entries that do the same thing"
Yep. The biggest issue with essentials is trying to cater to grogs in some rather silly ways at times.
I don't think that was "Catering to Grogs" so much as cutting down the choices of the Cleric into a specific bundle to make character creation choices generally easier by removing some of the choice paralysis.
Maybe? No, definitely it’s inflated.
Yeah, fair. My sarcasm wasn't communicated terribly well!

The point was more that my biggest class was only 2 pages longer than the "Full" Cleric while being in a similar format while also taking a jab at the layout/formatting of the Heroes of the Fallen Lands book. Honestly, that layout, more than anything, indicates the Warpriest was being made for us older players with worsening eyesight. Large scale fonts really do help, and I've taken to blowing up the size of every UI element in videogames and forums!
And while those powers are redundant, the only reason they seem so egregious compared to other editions is that they’re listed with the class rather than in a separate chapter like spells always were before 4e.
I mean... yes?

But also there's a lot -more- of that kind of thing. Like the Barbarian needing it's own separate spell list from the Cleric. And the Fighter. And the Rogue. It wasn't just "They put a spell list in the class" it was they put a full spell list in EVERY class. You couldn't escape that level of repetition by working on a non-caster class.
Seriously combine essentials with SWSE, replace the replacement powers with powers that just scale within the power, and maybe put a lot of powers separately from the class and instead by source, and you’d see classes that look more like 5e than early 4e but are balanced about as well as essentials if not earlier 4e.
Sure. I believe you. It would look more like 5e. It would probably look more like what I'm talking about doing, here.
(Removed the awesome video for space)
That is an awesome video!
If I try to imagine D&D style 80's vibes my mind visualizes Elmore's pictures for Dragonlance. The 2000-2010s or 3Gm (age of the third generation mobiles) was Greyhawk and the iconic class characters. Visually 4e had got a lot of Warcraft-like visual style but I can't feel inspiration to create new stories. How to explain it? Do you remember when you were a little child and you want to draw the characters of your favorite cartoon show? But you weren't interested at all about other franchises.
I don't mean 80s style D&D. I mean 80s -style-. And apply it to D&D. Play into nostalgia in that direction.

And yeah, I do get that! It's probably the bulk of -why- I'm talking about doing an 80s cartoon style setting. Where the evil Baroness Vichesse (pronounced like vicious through a French Language filter) fights against the heroes with her army of beastmen and stuff. Just go all in on some of the hammy conventions of the Ralph Bakshi style...
Greyhawk could be the best option to sell nostalgia if the redesign was right, but keeping the spirit or essence of the IP is too subjetive.
In theory, that's true. In practice: Without the IP/PI you literally can't do Greyhawk, and without those things Greyhawk is a generic standard fantasy game. It doesn't stand out at all, you know? It's why I'm talking about doing something with the 80s vibe without being a specific 80s product.
The reboot of my little pony has been a great success but it didn't sell nostalgia for G1 (first generation). It was designed to appeal the next generations of children. The popularity among lots of adults was a surprise.
Yes... and no...

Every Generation of MLP has been designed to capitalize on the nostalgia of the previous generation while creating something "New" for the current audience. Gen2 died hard in the US 'cause it was a purely toy revision aimed at little girls without realizing that the Gen1 kids were now in their teens and 20s, but Gen3/3.5 ran from 2003 to 2009 before Gen4 (MLP:FIM) dropped in 2010.

Gen3 on the other hand recognized that the kids they had tried to sell Gen2 material to were becoming parents. So they went back to making animated features (movies and some TV shorts) to sell to parents to show their kids. "Oh, I watched MLP when I was a kid, and here's new MLP for my kid. I'll just grab this cheap DVD and let her watch it."

And then MLP:FIM used a different animation technology, altogether, and was created -by- one of the Gen1 enjoyers. So rather than be something Hasbro threw onto DVDs for soccer moms who just wanted something they could throw at a TV to distract their kids, it became something more. The distilled essence of what mad Gen1 good in a new package that had a lot broader appeal.

Add in the ubiquity of streaming and you don't even have to buy DVDs. It was a win-win for everyone.
* Maybe WotC would want to be the translator of 3PPs in other markets now when they are their own publishers and they have their own translator team.
... I ... yeah? Maybe... I mean I doubt it, but maybe?
* Let's remember 5e is enjoying a boom or rise of new setting thanks 3PPs with their crowdfunding campaings but they suffer the risk to fall into the oblivion when the players focus their attention on a new title, forgetting the previous ones. Here the store of D&D-Beyond could be an adventage as showcase.
S'truth. Every setting risks splintering the playerbase, like 2e did. And yet the audience clamors for new settings so they're digging into the 90s Nostalgia to pull out Ravenloft and Dark Sun and hoping that by aiming for a handful of big ones with one-off releases they can keep the majority of the playerbase bound to the Realms.

But then the Million Dollar Kickstarters come along dripping with style, and WotC can't help but look at those and think "But what if..?"

And then does an OGL1.1 about it.
* WotC is not interested into create new settings because lots of players would rather to create their own worlds. If there was one this would be Witchlight.
Yup. I have heavily acknowledged this is something WotC probably would never do.
If WotC wanted to create a new class after the psion maybe the favorite option would be a monster-trainer like "Batlezoo" by Roll for Combat. Their previous experience about classes with special mechanics is these aren't "expansion friendly".
Yup! They probably wouldn't do this thing I'm talking about, here. If they did try to do anything like it, they'd just do it to the core classes and call it 6e. So keep an eye on the horizon for that possibility in the next 10-12 years.
I think 4e’s best concepts applicable to pacing were
1. Healing Surges and 5 minute short rests.
2. Keeping the floor and ceiling outputs of all out dailies vs encounter powers relatively close (though maybe too close).
Yup! And I'm kinda looking to do those. Aside from the 5 minute short rests. That's not really a thing I've considered, so far.

My current thought is that Encounter abilities should be about 2 times more effective than your at will values with a d8 guideline, early on in leveling. So if an at-will is 1d8+4, an Encounter should be around 3d6+4 to 3d8+4, or 22-28 maximum damage. This is your "Burning Hands" or "Smite" in the early game.

By level 5 that should crank up to about 3 times the effective value of an at-will. And at each proficiency mod break point get another step up there.

Dailies should be closer to 5 times the value at level 6 when you start getting them, and build steam at about the same rate, keeping them ahead of encounter powers by about 2 times at-will ability.

Now your at-will power does increase somewhat. You get 2 actions per turn after level 5, one of which has to be an at-will. But it increases not based on level, but on equipment. Magic weapons and the like directly improves your at-will with straight numbers and dice.

But after level 17, your at will is still 1d8+5 (+Magic Bonuses) where your encounters are closer to 7d8+5 (+Magic Bonuses) and your Dailies are 9d8+5 (+Magic Bonuses), so there's a big incentive to use your big stuff and Catch Breath to use it again, at that point, rather than dropping down to 2d8+10 (+Magic Bonuses) for two at wills...

But there will always be access to those two encounters in any given fight, which is still huge. The only rationing you're doing is Dailies (which you can only use once per encounter, ever, so you can't dump them all in one fight) and HP.

OF NOTE: These are the prospective values used as the baseline. Different classes will get there differently. 8d6 and 6d8 have about the same average and maximum damage, but certainly feel different in the hand, and this does not take into account different methods of dealing damage. Such as increased at-will damage for a given class resulting in weaker encounter-use abilities higher per-round damage resulting in a similar overall damage total per round.
One could probably turn per short rest powers into encounter powers in 5e by simply halving the uses. For most classes this also raises their floor and lowers their ceiling a little.
Yeah, pretty much my thought.
For spells I think there’s 2 things to do.
1. Individually fix the outlier spells themselves.
2. Give some incentive for delaying casting spells in an encounter. I like the idea that if you only use a cantrip on your turn and aren’t concentrating on any other spell that your spells get treated as 1 level higher for each consecutive round you do this up to +3 spell levels higher (maybe should be +2).
Probably not doing that...

What I plan to do is have you get 2 Spell Slots per encounter and always cast at max level, like a Warlock. And then address the spells to bring their expected values in line. And then create a "Greater Arcana" spell list where the 'daily' spells go. And then provide a lot of invocation-like abilities to get spell-bundles that you can use once per encounter without expending a spell slot for things like Jump, Expeditious Retreat, Invisibility, Fly, and the like.

Really narrow up the "Spell slots are for throughput" concept.
One might consider boosting cantrips cast the turn after only casting a cantrip as well.
One might!
The idea is that casters will use less spells in an encounter if their spells are buffed for waiting to use them.
That's one way to do it, sure. But I was looking for a more 'systematic structure' than "Give casters a special benefit that encourages them to hold onto spells a little" because then they -can- still dump everything fast, and they might 'hold out' too long and feel cheated for not dropping spells earlier when the enemy's health was higher and the spell would've mattered more.
As a side point, this could also help true gishes be more functional. Like your fighter/wizards.
Kinda sorta, sure.
Alternatively one could make a restriction such as you can only cast spells up to 1/3 your max spell level on turn 1 and 2/3 on turn 2 and 3/3 on turn 3. Rounded up.
That's waaaay more complexity than I'm trying to get into, here.
One recommendation for hit dice. After a 5 min rest you can use hit die to recover up to 3/4 of your hp total. An hour long short rest is required to get to 100% with them.
That's a nifty idea!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

To add some additional clarity:

I'm looking to have the strict damage cantrips (Firebolt, Sacred Flame, Etc) sometimes do multiple dice of damage on a hit. So you might see some more variety in things like 3d4 or 2d6 in addition to 1d12 or 1d8+Int. Stuff that also applies debuffs or control (Ray of Frost, Shocking Grasp, Vicious Mockery) would see a loss of some of that damage and be more like 2d4, 1d6+4, or 1d8.

But being able to do two cantrips in a round with separate actions at level 5 means you could Shocking Grasp an enemy in melee for 1d6+4 to remove their ability to take reactions, then move away and fling a 3d4 Firebolt at him without making a ranged attack in melee and facing the disadvantage that brings!
 

Yeah the approach chosen of light a match toss on bridge behind you was certainly a choice by WotC in 2008.
But before you even reached that bridge, Paizo had gone out on its' own and built another bridge for you to walk across. One with the same architectural style as the 3.0/3.5 bridge, but newer.
 

But before you even reached that bridge, Paizo had gone out on its' own and built another bridge for you to walk across. One with the same architectural style as the 3.0/3.5 bridge, but newer.
Well, that was because Paizo had to build a bridge WotC burned the old one down.

I get why they did it. They just assumed everyone would eventually shut up and play the new edition. Its just interesting how confident they were that things wouldnt play out any other way.
 

Well, that was because Paizo had to build a bridge WotC burned the old one down.

I get why they did it. They just assumed everyone would eventually shut up and play the new edition. Its just interesting how confident they were that things wouldnt play out any other way.
WoTC was never good with its' Insight checks.
 

That the SW5E game?

Theres SW D6 REUP as well. Fan made.
No, though I do like SW5E. This was just a custom hack of Star Wars Saga Edition for my own table.
Have we seen any 'Essentials-like' style of design in other games though? I think maybe it's 13th age like?
Essentials is just 4e with different presentation, so, yes. A lot.
But also there's a lot -more- of that kind of thing. Like the Barbarian needing its own separate spell list from the Cleric. And the Fighter. And the Rogue. It wasn't just "They put a spell list in the class" it was they put a full spell list in EVERY class. You couldn't escape that level of repetition by working on a non-caster class.
Sure, but…I mean technically the fighter and rogue variants still had powers, but barely. Not remotely the same as essentials casters that were still full AEDU.

The Thief at-wills do feel very unnecessary and fiddly, though. But again, presentation. You could take all those powers and make them one class feature tied to movement before or after you make an attack or just make them use the minor action oh wait that’s how they got to 5e Cunning Action isn’t it? Nice. Lol

Anyway yeah I mostly agree
 

But before you even reached that bridge, Paizo had gone out on its' own and built another bridge for you to walk across. One with the same architectural style as the 3.0/3.5 bridge, but newer.
That's not true, though... 4e dropped in 2008 after the preview in 2007. Pathfinder dropped in 2009.

Paizo saw 4e coming, knew the GSL was going to be awful, and started building a bridge in 2007 that wouldn't be finished 'til 2009. But -what- a bridge!
Well, that was because Paizo had to build a bridge WotC burned the old one down.

I get why they did it. They just assumed everyone would eventually shut up and play the new edition. Its just interesting how confident they were that things wouldnt play out any other way.
Kind of...

WotC knew people wouldn't switch over, entirely. The 3rd party market had dropped an anchor in 3e that WotC couldn't unmoor entirely. They were looking to cut the line and drop new bait closer to shore.

Specifically in the Territorial Waters of WotC-Land where the 3rd party publishers couldn't come in without permission. They were hoping the market would dry up in a couple of years without more WotC content for 3rd party publishers to build off of.

... and -then- Paizo fired a warning shot across the prow and WotC's waters got smaller, quick. 4e was only around for about 6 years before they had no choice but to pull out the 5e flag and head back out into deeper waters to try and fish up the big bucks, again... and then try to make those waters into more of WotC-Land, too.

It's been kinda funny watching WotC shoot itself in the foot over and over and over again because Shareholders don't want to Share.
 

That's not true, though... 4e dropped in 2008 after the preview in 2007. Pathfinder dropped in 2009.

Paizo saw 4e coming, knew the GSL was going to be awful, and started building a bridge in 2007 that wouldn't be finished 'til 2009. But -what- a bridge!

Kind of...

WotC knew people wouldn't switch over, entirely. The 3rd party market had dropped an anchor in 3e that WotC couldn't unmoor entirely. They were looking to cut the line and drop new bait closer to shore.

Specifically in the Territorial Waters of WotC-Land where the 3rd party publishers couldn't come in without permission. They were hoping the market would dry up in a couple of years without more WotC content for 3rd party publishers to build off of.

... and -then- Paizo fired a warning shot across the prow and WotC's waters got smaller, quick. 4e was only around for about 6 years before they had no choice but to pull out the 5e flag and head back out into deeper waters to try and fish up the big bucks, again... and then try to make those waters into more of WotC-Land, too.

It's been kinda funny watching WotC shoot itself in the foot over and over and over again because Shareholders don't want to Share.
I know the history. It just surprises me how nonchalant WotC was about the change over. Then again, many a gamer didnt think much differently. I remember the "Paizo announces adventure path, setting, and continuation of 3E" thread where posters here at EN World were laughing about how "Paizo would be out of business in 3 months if they dont convert to 4E!"
 

Paizo saw 4e coming, knew the GSL was going to be awful, and started building a bridge in 2007 that wouldn't be finished 'til 2009. But -what- a bridge!
I know. :) I walked down the length of that bridge when PF1 began its' debut in 2009. I have a sizable collection of PF1 books as a result of that journey. ;)

I remember the "Paizo announces adventure path, setting, and continuation of 3E" thread where posters here at EN World were laughing about how "Paizo would be out of business in 3 months if they dont convert to 4E!"
I bet that line of thinking disappeared after three months had come and gone, and PF1 was still around. ;)
 

Terrain worked for 4e due to the battlemat prerequisite. Those kinds of things are an absolute pain in theatre of the mind. Since 5e proposes to do either then you see the lowest common denominator.



Your general statement here is fine. The specific example is just wrong. Mobility and movement type is always important to general PC optimization. Hit and run or kiting are some of the most effective tactics. That said usually the whole party has to buy in to such tactical abilities to really push the benefits and if even one party member doesn’t then it matters much less overall.

I was looking at it from the monster and encounter-design side of things.

According to the core assumptions of the game (found in the 2014 DMG,) those things count for nothing.

I do also agree that there are things on the player side that should have value (and do) even though the game says they do not. In either case, that influences encounter design.
 

Remove ads

Top