5e what would you do?

[Lanefan]

I agree that overall hit rates ought to rise, but that can be accomplished simply by adjusting basic PC attack values and/or monster defenses.

And PC defenses, where possible; or else the monsters will be even less of a threat.

Easiest answer is this: every time* a module or your tables or whatever wants you to give out in treasury a magical defensive item e.g. armour, shield, bracers, etc., swap in a magic weapon or offensive item instead.

* - or, to not be so obvious to your players, 80% of the time.

Lanefan

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I was reading this thread and that thread and the other thread about classes and their powers and something new finally hit me: some of the class powers (of all kinds) just simply shouldn't be unique to one class or the other, both from a legacy and from a simulationist aspect.

For instance, it has bugged me that certain iconic spells are Wizard-only, when in previous editions, they were shared with other arcane casters. It bugs me even more that martial powers that are clearly simply fighting techniques are exclusive to one class or another.

So, were I designing 5Ed, certain powers of every given source (say, martial, radiant, etc.) would be on a common list for any PC with access to that source while others would remain class specific. I wouldn't necessarily change any power's mechanics, though, so even though a class may now have access to a fighter's maneuvers or a wizard's spell, it may not work as well for that PC as for the original class...or it could work better.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Well, one could go on and on and delve deeply into details that in the end are going to matter FAR less than the overall approach being taken. So, I have several basic assumptions about MY version of 5E.

Every version of D&D has its good and bad parts. While the oldest versions definitely suffer from not having over 30 years of game design incorporated into their workings the newest versions have DEFINITELY lost a secure grasp of elements that made D&D popular in the first place. Also, no one version of D&D is (or even could be) all things to all players. Accordingly, only a fool would dismiss any version of D&D out of hand or assume that the most recent version of rules or approach to any aspect of the game is always superior.

The next thing is that there must be the assumption that a new edition IS needed or desirable. It would be an exercise in stupidity to introduce yet another version of the game if it's only going to result in a further fracturing of the community. As a corollary to that, it seems adviseable to me to shoot for a version of the game that is somewhere between 1E/2E and 3E, leaning a bit closer to 3E.

5E will be no different than any other new version of D&D - some will love it, others will hate it REGARDLESS of what you actually do with it. The only thing then that you can do is pick the ONE person whose vision of changes seems to hold the most appeal to the widest audience and let them lead the way.

Simpler is better. Too much choice is as bad as too little choice. Fast character creation, rapid and easy learning of the essential rules of play, and simplicity of preparing and running the game for the DM are ESSENTIAL elements.

D&D is a game built upon character CLASSES - archetypes of fantasy fiction. Homogenization of character customization goes against that basic conceit.

This next bit may be more just MY opinion, but this is MY version of 5E not yours... It is a mistake to assume that so much of the fun of D&D lies in the "BUILD" of a given character as opposed to simply PLAYING that character in a variety of game situations. Character customization and optimization is fun and all, but it is NOT the be-all/end-all of the game. It is just ONE presently very OVER-emphasized aspect of it and I believe this is partly what has driven such a large portion of the potential player base to seek older versions of D&D if not other RPG's (including clones) altogether.

New and hip races, classes and abilities created from whole cloth are fine for supplements but the core rules should hew much closer to representing established fantasy rather than blazing new trails, again in aiming to appeal to the widest possible audience.

There are two areas of the game which dominate the rules - combat and magic. The magic system that is devised for the edition of the rules is inextricably intertwined with the rules for combat and vice versa. The older magic systems (actually from 3E on back) suffered from a need for too much arbitrary interpretation and implementation. 4E... well, let's just say it doesn't work for ME in that regard. I believe a better way is to be found somewhere in between.

And then there is TECHNOLOGY - and this may be the most important aspect. Since this is all pie-in-the-sky anyway I'm looking at the future. What I see RIGHT NOW is 3d TV coming to market as we speak, and a large and increasing desire to use laptops, cellphones, iPads, etc. to play the game. What I want to do with my version of 5E then is move the game to a 3D tv-represented game world. No more vinyl battlemats, resin dungeon walls, or heaps of carboard tiles. THIS version of D&D will have kitchen tabletop rules as a SECONDARY element. It will be designed and intended to be played (at least for exploration and combat aspects of the game) on a 3D TV interfacing with as wide a variety of controllers and devices as possible (thinking of Wii, Xbox/Kinect, as well as cellphone and iPad). So before it's even released it has to have worldbuilding tools - the virtual game table - built and ready to be used and improved by players.

There's more to it all than just the above, but my vision of the next version of the game should be apparant.

 

[Sadrik]

I am going to hit a couple of responses that sparked my interest:

1. Hitting and damage: One thing that has to happen is that a character can start out humbly and then attack and hit dragons later on in their career. This currently is two rolls one that is an attack roll and the other a damage roll. The attack roll, in D&D, represents puncturing/bypassing their defenses and the other represents how much fatigue, luck, stamina, morale your are able to whittle off. Most of us do not think of attack and damage rolls in that way but that is what they do and are. So any representation of hitting a ball with a bat, just does not align well with the current system, it is not accuracy and kill power.

2. The system has a double randomizer in that it allows a random hit roll against a variable number (different opponents have a different defense score) (d20+bonus vs. DC X+bonus). Then it compares random damage roll to maximum hit points (dx+bonus vs. Max HP - damage). I think that process can be simplified in there a little bit even by locking down 1 number, say make the DC to hit always the same, or giving every creature the same number of HP, or damage for weapons are not rolled this could streamline the system.

3. My 5e would be a stripped down fantasy game (with 3 core books PH, DMG, MM), other elements such as dragonborn and wardens, can be supplemental again. I want to have a game that has the same 1e to 3e feel, that I grew up with. A focus on cool settings and adventures rather than cool powers (2e). Core mechanics and math with a modern feel. Mechanics that are reusable and not just one power on one character. I thought that unique spell lists were pretty crappy on PrCs in 3e and even the paladin and ranger unique spell lists were crap. In 4e every character has a unique spell list. Not really feeling that design strategy.

 

[LeStryfe79]

D&D thrives on imagination, not math. Professorcirno, no offense, but your brand of hack and slash is self defeating. I know where you're coming from, but ultimately I feel those goals are better left in the world of video games. I've played lots of video games and you seem to want this kind of d&d. However, in case you didn't know, video games have huge production and technologies behind them. I suggest getting your jollies from these things, as good tabletop usually comes from hardcore roleplaying and immersion.These are a tabletop's strengths that at this time can't be duplicated in video games. I'm sorry, but I've read hundreds of your posts and you sound like you don't know what you are talking about. It seems like your a big fan of super powers. Thats cool and all but but I believe the world of green lantern should be a little bit different from that of bilbo baggins...

 

[lordxaviar]

I dont care if hasbro goes 5e which they will eventually, once sales slow down on 4e. I just wish they would support the older versions, and go back to print with dragon, made no sense for them to stop pazio from publishing... but I must stop my rant here before I start bashing....... again.... lol

 

[neko ewen]

I can't think of much in terms of changing the rules per se, if only because my wish list for a fantasy RPG perfectly to my tastes would take it away from being D&D per se.

I guess better support for non-combat challenges would be the main thing. Skill challenges are a very rough start on the general idea, and I'd like to see something much more robust, and supported in parallel to combat so that players don't neglect one in favor of the other.

 

[jmucchiello]

And then there is TECHNOLOGY - and this may be the most important aspect. Since this is all pie-in-the-sky anyway I'm looking at the future. What I see RIGHT NOW is 3d TV coming to market as we speak, and a large and increasing desire to use laptops, cellphones, iPads, etc. to play the game. What I want to do with my version of 5E then is move the game to a 3D tv-represented game world. No more vinyl battlemats, resin dungeon walls, or heaps of carboard tiles. THIS version of D&D will have kitchen tabletop rules as a SECONDARY element. It will be designed and intended to be played (at least for exploration and combat aspects of the game) on a 3D TV interfacing with as wide a variety of controllers and devices as possible (thinking of Wii, Xbox/Kinect, as well as cellphone and iPad). So before it's even released it has to have worldbuilding tools - the virtual game table - built and ready to be used and improved by players.

This discussion is about 5th edition. That's more like 12th edition. The technology you are talking about will not exist even 50 years from now. How would such a system handle "I go up to the nearest farmer and ask him what his favorite pie is." Randomly generating the face/clothes/etc of a random farmer takes far more CPU today that you think it does. Do you know why even modern cartoons are voiced by live people? Because tech to render human sounding voices are far more expensive then calling up Tom Hanks to play a 50s marionette based toy.

It takes hundreds of human animators 2 years to make a Pixar movie. Think about that.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

D&D thrives on imagination, not math. Professorcirno, no offense, but your brand of hack and slash is self defeating. I know where you're coming from, but ultimately I feel those goals are better left in the world of video games. I've played lots of video games and you seem to want this kind of d&d. However, in case you didn't know, video games have huge production and technologies behind them. I suggest getting your jollies from these things, as good tabletop usually comes from hardcore roleplaying and immersion.These are a tabletop's strengths that at this time can't be duplicated in video games. I'm sorry, but I've read hundreds of your posts and you sound like you don't know what you are talking about. It seems like your a big fan of super powers. Thats cool and all but but I believe the world of green lantern should be a little bit different from that of bilbo baggins...

Uh, what are you responding to?

 

[M.L. Martin]

I dont care if hasbro goes 5e which they will eventually, once sales slow down on 4e. I just wish they would support the older versions, and go back to print with dragon, made no sense for them to stop pazio from publishing... but I must stop my rant here before I start bashing....... again.... lol

Actually, it did make sense--the magazine market is suffering a severe downturn. In its last full year for which circulation figures were publicly released (January 2006 and January 2007 issues), Dragon lost about 15% to 20% of its circulation, and that was four years ago now. I suspect that even if the magazines weren't losing money, WotC saw the writing on the wall and got on when they could.