D&D 5E 5E according to me (mkill)...

mkill

Adventurer
PHB classes

Fighter
. Slayer - melee damage, mobility
. Tactician - ally buffs, movement, bonus attacks
. Guardian - defender mechanics, high defenses, shake of effects

Rogue
. Greycloak - stealth, sniping
. Trickster - fencing, trick attacks, mobility

Ranger
. Hunter - bow, wilderness skills
. Beast Master - animal companion, animal-themed abilities

Wizard
. Diviner - information is power
. Evoker - kill it with fire
. Enchanter - screwing with the enemy's mind
. Illusionist - create your own reality
. Abjurer - defensive spells
. Conjurer - summoning spells
. Transmuter - buffs, debuffs, some save-or-die
. Necromancer - raise dead, curse them, kill it with poison

Cleric
. Priest - healing, ally buff, defensive spells
. Inquisitor - debuffs, damage spells
(note that clerics will be in robes and wield holy symbols, to distinguish them from Paladins)

Paladin
. Hospitaller - defense, healing
. Crusader - smiting for damage and debuffs

Swordmage
. Duskblade - magic-infused attacks for nova damage
. Aegis Master - shield allies from damage

Druid
. Shapechanger - turn into melee monster
. Earth Priest - healing, terrain control

Barbarian
. Berserker - Rage for massive damage
. Warden - use nature powers to protect

Explanation

I'll say it up front, I'd base my personal 5th edition on 4th edition.

The reason is that I think 4th edition has the best-working core mechanics. Even if I would start from another edition, I'd still implement things like "BAB +1 per 2 levels across all classes" and "spells need to hit".

The main criticism I share is that 4th edition didn't care about integrating its core concepts into the game world. For example, there was no explanation why Fighters could only attempt a certain maneuver once per fight or per day. So for any rule, there has to be some in-game motivation, or it has to be changed.

Basics


At 1st level, each character chooses a race, a class, two paths, and a theme. There are no feats.

Race: What you are biologically, so to say. No half-races in PHB (later splat-book option). I'd probably keep late 4E ability score bonuses (+2 stat A, +2 stat B or C), although I'd playtest other options, including no bonus. Cultural race traits are mostly moved to themes.

Class: Classes consist of a base package (hp, weapon and armor proficiencies, wizard spellbook and similar abilities) and paths.

Path: Similar to late 4E subclasses. Your path choices decide what you get each level in powers and class features. For example, the Slayer path of the fighter gets things that make him tougher and better at slaying monsters, while the Tactician gets powers that buff his allies and make them fight better.

Two paths?: You choose a secondary path. This can be from your class, which gives you a broader training, or from a different class, which is a basic form of multi-classing.
Note that since Wizards have so many paths, but traditionally a wide range of spells, they'll get a class feature to access spells across paths.

Themes: Add color to your background and upbringing. For example, the "Chevalier" theme adds mounted combat abilities.

No feats: If I think a build needs a certain feat, it should be baked into the race, path or theme instead.

Powers

Powers come in 2 types: Passive and active. A passive power is simply a bonus that is always there and needs to action to use, say fire resistance. Passive powers are basically class features.

Active powers have an entry how often you can use it, or rather when you regain it (beginning of each round, after short rest, after extended rest).

Note that for martial encounter powers, you can try them as often as you like, you just get a -2 attack penalty for each previous attempt. The opponent has seen the maneuver, so it's easier to avoid, and you become fatigued.

Level Progression

At first level, choose race, class, 2 paths, and theme, and get the basic packages for them.

After that, you gain a power from your primary path every even level, and from your secondary path every odd level.

Each path is different - some have a lot of choice, some gain mostly fixed powers. Some will have a lot of passive powers and at-will maneuvers, such as with the fighter. Wizard paths will mainly be daily spells, which are prepared in the spell book.

Example
You want a dwarven fighter, who is a frontline grunt, but has a head for tactics. So you select Guardian as primary path and Tactician as secondary. Since you want a classic dwarf, you take the "stout mountain dwarf" theme.

At first level, you'd get dwarven racial abilities, like a Con bonus. You'll get place proficiency, weapon proficiencies and your hp from Fighter. Guardian would give you something like the 4E Fighter's Combat Challenge, and an attack power. Tactician gives you an attack that distracts an enemy's defenses (and gives allies a bonus to attack him) and a 1/fight power "Get up yer feet" that gives an ally a big bag of temp hp. The "stout dwarf" theme gives you bonus hit points and poison resistance.

At second level, you'd select a power from the Guardian list.
At third level, you'd get one from Tactician.
At fourth level, get a Guardian power.
... and so on.

There will be some additions to this, such as higher-level race or theme powers to swap in, Paragon Paths / Prestige classes etc.

Roles

Each path will have abilities that map to a certain role - Striker, Leader, Defender, Controller. However, since you get two paths, there is a lot of mix and matching. And each path will interpret its role in a different way.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad



mkill

Adventurer
Looks more like 4E 2nd edition to me....

Yeah, to me too. Not really surprising, I did play and DM 3E and I liked it, but I did run into its many well-known issues, most of which 4E fixed for me. So yeah. That's why it's called "according to me", not "the super-unified compromise edition".
 

malkav666

First Post
I would browse your 5e at the store when it came out, but if its just an update to 4e, then at the store is where it would remain as I would not buy it. And this not not meant to be offensive to you. I would be happy if 5e catered very strongly to 4e players as I remember how I felt when 4e came out and it was NOTHING like 3e. I felt like the game I had loved to play had died a very nonheroic death. And I don't really wish that on the 4e crowd. Despite having different tastes we all share the same hobby.

I will look at 5e when it arrives, whether it is leaned more at 4e, 3e or whatever. But I will say this: D&D 5e is the first edition ever released where I do not have to upgrade to have all the nice things (like organized play, new material, new players actively seeking groups) that a new edition comes with. There is a very attractive alternative that I am currently invested in. So it will need to be something very special to get me on board this time.

I would love to run some 5e alongside my PF games in the future. I would love even more for 5e to be very compatible with my PF game. I have exactly 0% interest factor in an updated 4e. And that's fine, I am sure there are folks that feel the same way about games I enjoy. But end the end, we really don't know anything about it until they start releasing game play info. I am pretty sure a good bit will be leaked at DNDXP.

I will be waiting along with everyone else.

love,

malkav
 

Pilgrim

First Post
I have exactly 0% interest factor in an updated 4e.

I have to agree, I hope 5E has modules/options for players to run their game in a 4E fashion, but for me personally, I'd like the Core to be much further away from anything resembling 4E and more towards earlier editions.
 

mkill

Adventurer
D&D 5e is the first edition ever released where I do not have to upgrade to have all the nice things (like organized play, new material, new players actively seeking groups) that a new edition comes with. There is a very attractive alternative that I am currently invested in.

That's a good point (even though it derails the thread :hmm:) I wonder how WotC will bring back the PF crowd, because even if 5E turns out to be exactly like PF, a lot of players will simply stay there because they like the Adventure Paths and the community. WotC will have to work hard if they want to compete on that field. They do have the D&D brand name, but I'm not sure how much of a draw that still is. Pathfinder seems to have some of the most vocal, brand-loyal players out there.
 

I have to agree, I hope 5E has modules/options for players to run their game in a 4E fashion, but for me personally, I'd like the Core to be much further away from anything resembling 4E and more towards earlier editions.
4e actually has a quite good core...

(if you strip it down, taking away powers, feats etc, you are down to an improved 3rd edition core...)

4th edition has taken huge steps to improve D&D, but went a little bit overboard and did not get everything right and did some things wrong... but as a base for 5th edition, there is no way to ignore it.
But it is also impossible to ignore 2nd edition.

Too bad, 3rd edition is rather ignorable as a base line... but: it is some kind of 3rd edition, that will be the result of a mix between 2nd and 4th edition.
I really believe, 3rd edition has a lot of merits, but did many things wrong, and pathfinder had no choice but to keep them in the underlying system.

5th edition should feel like 3rd edition to me, if it should catch me. (note: 3.0, not 3.5 or PF) It is just, that the underlying system should be created from every other edition...
 


malkav666

First Post
That's a good point (even though it derails the thread :hmm:) I wonder how WotC will bring back the PF crowd, because even if 5E turns out to be exactly like PF, a lot of players will simply stay there because they like the Adventure Paths and the community. WotC will have to work hard if they want to compete on that field. They do have the D&D brand name, but I'm not sure how much of a draw that still is. Pathfinder seems to have some of the most vocal, brand-loyal players out there.


To be fair, all editions have brand loyal, vocal fans. It kind of comes with the territory and I try not to judge entire communities of fans based on the vitriol and conviction of a few. If I did, then i wouldn't be able to talk about games with anyone because all of those communities have their duds. I assure that this is largely confined to the internet, where in many cases without visual aids, body language, or any caliber of a social normality for the group, that the main goal of the most vocal displays are typically: I am right, you are wrong. In the real world if someone says the game they play or the hobby they have is better than mine and we discuss it, I find it is usually a pleasant experience that usually ends up with us gaming together to prove our points, as opposed to bickering. Although there are always exceptions.

And to answer your question. There is nothing WOTC can do it this point to make me STOP buying Pathfinder stuff. The folks over at Paizo have listened to my wants and input, and tried to make a game that I have a stake in from a design standpoint. They are very open about their aims and generally strike pretty close to the mark on the "this is what we promised +/- this is what you get" spectrum of things. But I am not a monogamous gamer. If WOTC wants to make a game that I am interested in, and they do a good job, I will support it. My group alternates 2 campaigns.I could see one one them easily being 5e if it is done well. WOTC doesn't have to win me back from Paizo. I have always bought games from more than one company. If they want some of my gaming dollars they just have to make a game that appeals to me and while they won't win me, they could very well win back a few of my gaming dollars that would otherwise be spent on other things. What better prize is there in product design than winning a dollar (or 50 of them)?

I didn't mean to take your thread off topic. I thought it was a general discussion of what you wanted in 5e. I wasn't trying to not talk about the things you wanted. I was just offering an opposing view and some possible ramifications of the actual delivery of the system you presented in your first post. But I will bow out. Thanks for the chit chat.

love,

malkav
 

Remove ads

Top