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

[mamba]

I guess. Never understood why a company like WotC can't just make a successful game that people like and pay for.

5e seems to do that for them…

It has to be number one, with all the annoying knock-on effects associated with that need.

if you can be number one, why settle for 3rd place

Pretty sure that most of the commercial TTRPGs (Pathfinder, Cosmere, Daggerheart, Draw Steel,…) as opposed to the one person heartbreakers want to also be as successful as they can be and that influences their design too.

If you want a true expression of what a designer wants a game to be, commercial considerations be damned, then I am not sure you will find one, but you definitely will not find it with the larger games, whether #1 or #5.

The closest you can get is probably a single creator, 13th Age (ok, two…), Shadowdark, Shadow of the Demon Lord, Mearls’ new game, etc. and even then I am sure commercial considerations were a factor

 

[Remathilis]

Totally get that. It was also hell on wheels to try and build anything for because of the powers structure. SO repetitive to make a 30 level class where you're re-writing upgraded earlier material and trying to add more flowers to it.

I don't know if this helps or not, but one of 4e's issue was the sheer amount of redundancy in creating 3-5 powers per level every time they reached a new power level. Would a shared powers system (where PCs can pick from a shared common pool and then have a few class specific powers) help the workload? For example: the martial classes have a shared pool of abilities based on weapons they all can use, but the barbarian gets rage powers to augment while the ranger gets hunter/trap powers. Likewise, the arcane classes share a pool of common "spells" but the sorcerer, wizard and warlock get common spells (fireball, dispel magic) and class specific ones (eldritch blast, sorcerous busts)?

 

[Steampunkette]

I don't know if this helps or not, but one of 4e's issue was the sheer amount of redundancy in creating 3-5 powers per level every time they reached a new power level. Would a shared powers system (where PCs can pick from a shared common pool and then have a few class specific powers) help the workload? For example: the martial classes have a shared pool of abilities based on weapons they all can use, but the barbarian gets rage powers to augment while the ranger gets hunter/trap powers. Likewise, the arcane classes share a pool of common "spells" but the sorcerer, wizard and warlock get common spells (fireball, dispel magic) and class specific ones (eldritch blast, sorcerous busts)?

No, it wouldn't really.

I'm not trying to remake 4e whole cloth. Just come up with some ideas that take the positives of that system and apply them to 5e.

... honestly I should start a Patreon and just do all this work myself... Maybe try to release something on Kickstarter in a year or two for an art budget and printing costs. Use the Patreon proceeds to commission a few pieces along the way for the kickstarter itself.

 

[Micah Sweet]

5e seems to do that for them…


if you can be number one, why settle for 3rd place

Pretty sure that most of the commercial TTRPGs (Pathfinder, Cosmere, Daggerheart, Draw Steel,…) as opposed to the one person heartbreakers want to also be as successful as they can be and that influences their design too.

If you want a true expression of what a designer wants a game to be, commercial considerations be damned, then I am not sure you will find one, but you definitely will not find it with the larger games, whether #1 or #5.

The closest you can get is probably a single creator, 13th Age (ok, two…), Shadowdark, Shadow of the Demon Lord, Mearls’ new game, etc. and even then I am sure commercial considerations were a factor

None of those games are going out of their way to present an unintentional system that can appeal to the broadest possible customer base. They all have goals beyond just getting everyone to buy their game. I've seen no convincing evidence that WotC has such goals, and I refuse to believe that those other designers would happily compromise those goals if it meant a bigger market share.

I didn't say commercial considerations weren't a factor for everyone trying to sell a game; that's so ridiculous I can't believe you really think that's what I meant. I'm saying that WotC's drive to do anything they think will push sales higher and get more people buying their product, maintaining that #1 spot, is not shared by every other game company. Not every company would be WotC if they could.

 

[Corinnguard]

Dual Wielding doesn't give you additional attacks. If you hit while dual-wielding you can give up your ability bonus to damage to roll the off-hand weapon's damage in its place. If you miss with your main hand you can reroll the attack to only deal your off-hand weapon's damage die.

So, instead of making an attack with your primary hand and an attack with your offhand for two attacks per round, you are making one attack per round like everyone else? Dual Wielding is basically making an Extra Attack with your offhand at 1st level.

 

[Steampunkette]

None of those games are going out of their way to present an unintentional system that can appeal to the broadest possible customer base. They all have goals beyond just getting everyone to buy their game. I've seen no convincing evidence that WotC has such goals, and I refuse to believe that those other designers would happily compromise those goals if it meant a bigger market share.

I didn't say commercial considerations weren't a factor for everyone trying to sell a game; that's so ridiculous I can't believe you really think that's what I meant. I'm saying that WotC's drive to do anything they think will push sales higher and get more people buying their product, maintaining that #1 spot, is not shared by every other game company. Not every company would be WotC if they could.

Yes... and also no.

WotC has no goals except to be the biggest and most economically successful game possible because of shareholder pressures as is common for publicly traded companies. So you're right about that.

But the -designers- who work for WotC absolutely have their own intentions and hopes and goals separate from "Make the most money possible for our corporate overlords" and we see those goals in the materials they produce. Bonus Actions are not, inherently, a "Moneymaker" idea. They're an idea that takes something from 3rd edition and tries to make it 'work' but really wound up fowling up the action economy system. Same thing with Advantage. Or the current direction on Druids and Wild Shape becoming something less OP and more reasonably balanced, at the loss of flavor that players love.

Of course, it's up to WotC to decide what gets put into the game in the end. There are likely tens of thousands of internal documents with really nifty and interesting design ideas being thrown into a vault because a handful of people at the top feel like they're 'too out there' for mainstream appeal. And the designers who pitched them go back to their desks and try something else a month later.

Designers are not the company they work for.

So, instead of making an attack with your primary hand and an attack with your offhand for two attacks per round, you are making one attack per round like everyone else? Dual Wielding is basically making an Extra Attack with your offhand at 1st level.

Also yes and no!

Essentially dual-wielding gives you one attack if you land a hit with your main hand and the option to use the offhand die in place of your modifier. So a rogue wielding two short swords with a Dex of 16 could roll 1d6+3 damage, or 2d6 damage and hope to get more than 3 on the second die. If the rogue misses, they get to reroll and 'basically' attack with their off hand, dealing 1d6 damage.

And in either case their sneak attack would apply so long as the enemy gets hit by either the main attack or reroll.

 

[Corinnguard]

Bonus Actions are not, inherently, a "Moneymaker" idea. They're an idea that takes something from 3rd edition and tries to make it 'work' but really wound up fowling up the action economy system.

What about using Pathfinder 2nd edition's three action economy here?

 

[Steampunkette]

What about using Pathfinder 2nd edition's three action economy here?

Just not interested in it. Like I like the idea, conceptually, but the skewing of encounter balance, particularly mingling encounter-recharging powers, feels way too messy.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes... and also no.

WotC has no goals except to be the biggest and most economically successful game possible because of shareholder pressures as is common for publicly traded companies. So you're right about that.

But the -designers- who work for WotC absolutely have their own intentions and hopes and goals separate from "Make the most money possible for our corporate overlords" and we see those goals in the materials they produce. Bonus Actions are not, inherently, a "Moneymaker" idea. They're an idea that takes something from 3rd edition and tries to make it 'work' but really wound up fowling up the action economy system. Same thing with Advantage. Or the current direction on Druids and Wild Shape becoming something less OP and more reasonably balanced, at the loss of flavor that players love.

Of course, it's up to WotC to decide what gets put into the game in the end. There are likely tens of thousands of internal documents with really nifty and interesting design ideas being thrown into a vault because a handful of people at the top feel like they're 'too out there' for mainstream appeal. And the designers who pitched them go back to their desks and try something else a month later.

Designers are not the company they work for.

I agree regarding WotC and its design team (all that you said), but I will note that sometimes designers are the company they work for, or at least are a lot closer to them. And IMO these generally result in better games.

 

[Remathilis]

No, it wouldn't really.

I'm not trying to remake 4e whole cloth. Just come up with some ideas that take the positives of that system and apply them to 5e.

... honestly I should start a Patreon and just do all this work myself... Maybe try to release something on Kickstarter in a year or two for an art budget and printing costs. Use the Patreon proceeds to commission a few pieces along the way for the kickstarter itself.

My point was that if you are going to have a bunch of classes able to use encounter abilities, perhaps it would be helpful to have general pools of abilities shared over many classes (ala weapon masteries and shared spells) then have each class be an island of all unique abilities.

Regardless, good luck with your project.