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

[FrogReaver]

Yeah, that’s a fair point. I think you’re right that most players don’t actually want strict balance if it comes at the cost of excitement or flexibility. 4E proved that you can have perfect mechanical balance and still lose a lot of what makes the game feel dynamic.


The “nova” issue really depends on what a group enjoys. Some players love pushing their characters to the limit in one huge encounter, others like the resource-management tension of multiple fights. As you said, that’s more about adventure pacing than a design flaw.


I agree that only a small slice of tables both dislike nova bursts and prefer fewer encounters per day. Most seem happy to let that ebb and flow naturally.

4e didn’t have perfect mechanical balance

Frost Cheese was one example. That the char op community started measuring damage in kills per round was another. Etc.

 

[Zardnaar]

4e didn’t have perfect mechanical balance

Frost Cheese was one example. That the char op community started measuring damage in kills per round was another. Etc.

That and 72 pages of errata and they in effect errata a whole MM.

My 3.5 ban list was 1 page and it referenced a few 2E pages as replacement rules.
Basically I banned the worst spells, feat
s, prestige classes. Replaced magic item crafting

 

[Steampunkette]

Why not dragonborn for dragonborn? Harpies are Birdfolk (See the A5e heritage).

'Cause I don't want dragonborn in the setting. I don't like them and don't want them to take up a big "Front and Center" identity slot. Which is, ultimately, what 4e did and got carried into 5e.

Meanwhile, Harpies and Dragons both share a position within most narratives of being broadly villainous entities that are occasionally helpful. There's no, real, option to do something else as iconic as a Dragon in a D&D setting, of course, as a PC race (since the other options of big powerful scary D&D monsters tend to be Product Identity).

Players who want to drag their dragonborn from the core rules into the setting can hang out with the Beastfolk just like the Harengon and Owlin and whatever, so it's not like they don't have anywhere in the setting to be... just not a specific "Core Species"

 

[Lanefan]

Well, I don't think the hobby needs an 800lb gorilla influencing the design and business choices of every other company. I'd much rather have several small companies in place of one WotC.

Problem with having several small (actually, medium-size) companies each publishing and promoting their own systems is that inevitably two things will happen:

--- the hobby will fracture into camps each supporting their preferred system
--- some of the disputes between those camps will get ugly (you thought the edition wars were bad, just wait for the system wars).

You sure you want that?

 

[Lanefan]

So. Species for a setting.

My thoughts on a list are:

1) Humans. Gotta have 'em.

2) Elves. With massive species variety. We're talking "Two elves walk into a bar and now there's a bar elf species"
2a) Eyre Elves. High elves. They live in the mountain ranges and have marvelous fairy tale castles.
2b) Wod Elves. Wood elves. They live in the forests and are hunter-gatherers who live in harmony with the land.
2c) City Elves. At some point, humanity became part of some Elven Lines and now there's a humanelf species.
2d) Dozens of one-off and tiny microcosm offshoots that aren't listed out because they're plentiful and largely irrelevant.

3) Dwarves. Formerly conquered by the Eyre Elves, there've been wars over old Dwarf Holds in Elflands and vice-versa.
3a) Hill Dwarves. Fled from the Elflands to settle in other areas.
3b) Mountain Dwarves. Still trying to reclaim or protect their Dwarfholds from Elves and Underground Monsters.

4) Harpies. A plague upon Eyrelands, they primarily exist in hunting and terrace farming societies. Clumsy Flyers (no hover).

5) Goblins. Minions of Malevar the Eternal, they're largely assumed to be evil because of that connection.

6) Orcs. Minions of Malevar the Eternal, they're largely assumed to be evil because of that connection.

7) Fiends. With the coming of the Starfall, Hell itself wants alien technology. Fiends are full on Outsiders.
7a) Contractors. Fair, fancy, delicate, dealmakers and brokers. There are -so- many Warlocks because of them.
7b) Soldiers. Strong, violent, destructive. They're here to help fight the aliens and steal their tech.

8) Faeries. Straight up tiny folk. Treated as Small for combat purposes, tiny for movement purposes.

9) Giantkin. Bigfolk. That's it. That's the entire thought. This is where your "Powerful Build" characters are.
9a) Cyclopses. One eye, strong heart.
9b) Minotaurs. Grab 'em by the nosering. The horns won't hurt them.
9c) Firbolg. Forest Guardians.

10) Beastfolk. Furries galore! Why spend my time making 12 different variations on Catgirl when I can bundle them all in one?
10a) Sharpclaw. Gets better claw-related stuff and a climb speed.
10b) Longfang. Gets better bite-related stuff and pouncing.
10c) Deepbreath. Swim speed, water breathing, better grapple.
10d) Swiftstride. Run speed, can choose to trade in fangs for a headbutt, acrobatics benefits.

The Blighted Lands were recovered a couple decades ago, so the Goblins and Orcs that are player characters are mostly going to be either descendants of Malevar's servants or people who were liberated from Malevar's control. The "Dozens of Elves" thing is just going to be a straight up sidebar of "Talk to your DM about trading an ability from one of the other elf species and pick something that fits the elf you wanna do" and go from there.

Goblins replace gnomes, faeries replace halflings, giantkin replace goliaths, fiends in for tieflings, harpies for dragonborn, beastfolk for most of the animal-human hybrids like Aarakocra, Leonin, Tabaxi, Tortle, Kenku, Etc etc etc. You wanna play one of those heritages? Fine, but within the setting you're Beastfolk for all intents and purposes.

Thoughts?

If these are all intended to be PC-playable, what drawbacks or penalties do the non-Humans get in trade-off for their extra abilitles, so as to keep them the least bit balanced with Humans?

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, that’s a fair point. I think you’re right that most players don’t actually want strict balance if it comes at the cost of excitement or flexibility. 4E proved that you can have perfect mechanical balance and still lose a lot of what makes the game feel dynamic.

The problem isn't balance in itself, the problem is that the balance was achieved through same-ness.

When one class looks mechanically very much like all the other classes, yes they're balanced but it's at cost of mechanical difference, and it's that difference that provides that flexibility and interest you're looking for.

Balancing mechanically different classes (or mechanically-different anything else, for that matter) is very hard work, and sometimes not even possible depending just how finely-balanced one's end goal is.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Problem with having several small (actually, medium-size) companies each publishing and promoting their own systems is that inevitably two things will happen:

--- the hobby will fracture into camps each supporting their preferred system
--- some of the disputes between those camps will get ugly (you thought the edition wars were bad, just wait for the system wars).

You sure you want that?

It would IMO lead to a healthier hobby, so yes.

 

[Corinnguard]

'Cause I don't want dragonborn in the setting. I don't like them and don't want them to take up a big "Front and Center" identity slot. Which is, ultimately, what 4e did and got carried into 5e.

They were pretty underwhelming in 4e and 5e compared to every other race.

Edit: Are you referring to the Dragonborn empire of Arkhosia in 4e?