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

[ECMO3]

I think your point about 4E hit the mark, but I also think it is telling in a way you might not have considered.

This entire idea rests on the premise that players would prefer a game where "I win" was not available. I think that basic premise is false.

As you noted 4E was extremely balanced and it was also for most players, not fun to play. Whether you think 5E needs more balance or not, it certainly is fun to play.

I don't think the "nova problem" is an actual problem at most tables, by saying that I don't mean that most tables don't experience this, rather I think most tables don't have an issue with it and I actually think on the other side of the coin there are tables that actually like this being there.

For those tables that do find it to be a problem, it is fixable with adventure design (which necessarily eliminates certain kinds of stories/play).

So the set of players you are left who need this are players who both find the ability to nova to be a problem and still insist on playing games with stories that are one/few fights a day with easy rests available. I think that is a very small set of players.

 

[Steampunkette]

I think your point about 4E hit the mark, but I also think it is telling in a way you might not have considered.

This entire idea rests on the premise that players would prefer a game where "I win" was not available. I think that basic premise is false.

No. It doesn't. This is your strawman to push over. But it isn't the position I've made clear, repeatedly, throughout this thread.

The entire idea rests on the premise that there is a fundamental flaw in the way the game was designed which resulted in an unexpected playstyle becoming dominant to the point of becoming exclusionary of other playstyles.

Whether that is 'Good' or 'Bad' isn't up to me. Whether people like it or not isn't something I've really entertained as a distinctly important question 'cause the answer to that is, and always must be, "Some do. Some don't."

As you noted 4E was extremely balanced and it was also for most players, not fun to play. Whether you think 5E needs more balance or not, it certainly is fun to play.

I would love to see the evidence backing up this statement. That 4e was not fun for "Most Players".

Most of the people playing 5e never played 4e. Or 3e. Or Pathfinder. Or any other edition of D&D or other TTRPG. So whether they'd find 4e fun is, at best, a nebulous guess.

I don't think the "nova problem" is an actual problem at most tables, by saying that I don't mean that most tables don't experience this, rather I think most tables don't have an issue with it and I actually think on the other side of the coin there are tables that actually like this being there.

Irrelevant to the thought experiment. Once more, you're diving into the subjective question of enjoyment, of which you can only assert your position without meaningful evidence of it.

The subjective question of whether the nova problem is something people like or dislike is irrelevant. The thought experiment is "How can we fix the problem?"

If your answer is "It doesn't need fixing" then you're not going to have much time in a thought experiment about how to fix it.

For those tables that do find it to be a problem, it is fixable with adventure design (which necessarily eliminates certain kinds of stories/play).

Hey! Finally! You actually addressed what the thread is about. By bringing up a point that has been repeatedly discussed across the body of the thread.

It's definitely an option to -avoid- the problem. But it doesn't -fix- the problem.

Roughly equivalent to finding that you have a hole in your wall and tossing up a painting over it. The hole is still there, but at least you don't have to look at it and the frame keeps most of the wind out.

So the set of players you are left who need this are players who both find the ability to nova to be a problem and still insist on playing games with stories that are one/few fights a day with easy rests available. I think that is a very small set of players.

Once more, a broad subjective statement apropos of your personal feelings spread across a massive quantity of people with no evidence to support the claim.

But, y'know. Maybe you're right. Maybe the vast majority of people would hate any attempt to find a solution to the mathematical foible that Mearls and his pals on the D&D Next team stumbled over, inadvertently. That's cool! Then they won't try to find a solution to it and will live on, happily!

But it's a question beyond the intention of this thread.

 

[Steampunkette]

You ever do something you know you could be paid for while specifically not getting paid for it?



Me, too, sometimes... Each of these is a thumbnail you can open up to see what's going on under the hood.

 

[Corinnguard]

You ever do something you know you could be paid for while specifically not getting paid for it?

View attachment 419914View attachment 419915View attachment 419916

Met, too, sometimes... Each of these is a thumbnail you can open up to see what's going on under the hood.

Got any plans to reintroduce the Swordmage in a future 3pp for Level Up? curious

 

[Steampunkette]

Got any plans to reintroduce the Swordmage in a future 3pp for Level Up? curious

We'll have to see where it goes, but I definitely haven't thrown away any of the material I wrote for a prospective Occult Omens.

 

[Steampunkette]

Definitely gonna have to rearrange a few abilities... Put Ritual Casting down a level, put Swordmage Aegis up a level. Put Grand Arcana in at 6th level...

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

if we chat about how to design new classes I repeat again the keys according my own opinion:

• Right power balance, of course.
• Interesting concept, its mark of identity. And now in 5e WotC wants each class could show different subclasses with its own style.
• Fun gameplay. Lots of powers about buffing and penalties or moving x spaces can be useful but boring for storytelling.

I am afraid we are going to await a lot of years until the arrival of a new class after the psion. At least they could publish something in UA articles without commintment, only to allow players to test their own homemade version.

---

Maybe WotC is willing to some agremeent with a 3PP and some class or PC could become official. For example the gunslinger or the illriger could be added to the official list of 5e classes.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I want to hone in on this element for a moment. I think part of the tragic element of ADEU was the fact that essentially, each power (other than at wills) was Vancian. You knew X abilities and you can use them each exactly 1 time before recharge. Fire and forget. Star Wars Saga did the same thing with Force Powers. But the 3e spontaneous caster and 5e traditional method shows that a far better way is to separate powers known and usages. I know five encounter powers (A, B, C, D, E), I can use them five times before resting. I can use each once, use A five times, use ABACA, or any combination. That fixes the saminesss argument (since I'm not going to run ABCDE in order each combat) and fixes the common complaint about only being able to trip an opponent once and then it never again for the rest of combat.

I will apologize if 13th Age, Pathfinder 2e or Daggerheart already fixed this issue. I haven't followed any of them.

You get another "samenyness" thing then - it is almost inevitable that a few powers are so good that you end up spamming them in favor of others. That was a problem with the D&D 3E Fighters and abilities like Improved Trip - you end up doing that on your weakest attack because it didn't care about your BAB, IIRC, and it was a powerful tool, especially whens tanding up from prone provoked an AoO (was that 3.0 or 3.5?) and cost the enemy its full round action - and being prone granted a hefty bonus to attacks against you. Now, obviously some of this is simply a loophole (ignoring BAB), but overall the same issue can arise very often.

Of course you might argue "just balance powers better" but the neat thing is that it just doesn't hit as hard. On the plus side, being able to "spam" your best power also might encourage to take a few powers that are situationally very useful but not important most of the time. (Say, an ability thats mostly useful for dealing with flying enemies - most encounters don't feature them, but it's a real moment to shine when they appear and you suddenly throw a spear at them to knock them on the ground.)

But I think there are compromises there, too, for example - like the first time you use an encounter power, it's easier or cheaper, the enemy is still unprepared for your tricks. Later attempts are harder or more expensive, because the enemy is now trying to avoid it.

---

Regarding Roles

I like them, they give good guidance to making a character actually serve a purpose and not just a set of random seeming abilities.
However, personally I am a favor of allowing a class to fulfill different roles, by some sort of subclass mechanism.

For my "Arcane Evolved" fantasy heartbreaker, Magisters for example can be Sophists (Strikers), Arbiters (Controllers) and Instructors (Leaders), Warmains can be Caretakers (Defenders), Overseers (Leaders) and Avengers (Strikers) The specialization gives these classes role-specific abilities and powers will have role-dependent riders.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I guess. Never understood why a company like WotC can't just make a successful game that people like and pay for. It has to be number one, with all the annoying knock-on effects associated with that need.

I think that is because leadership and shareholders need their yachts, and the designers and other employees need their food. They can make a smaller, less succesful game appealing to a smaller crowd, but it won't feed as many mouths and float as many boats. That's just the nature of it.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think that is because leadership and shareholders need their yachts, and the designers and other employees need their food. They can make a smaller, less succesful game appealing to a smaller crowd, but it won't feed as many mouths and float as many boats. That's just the nature of it.

And the players pbtch and moan they cant find players or DM/GM and insult D&D more.

And if its a flavor of the month rpg in a year or three finding a games even harder.

D&D is its own thing. Its constrained by commercial reality and expectations from its player base who expects D&Disms.