5e what would you do?

[Mercurius]

I agree with a lot of the points you make, but I get a much different perception of the numbers concerning how many people play which editions. I wish there was a way to get a realistic number. My estimation (which is not necessarily any more accurate than yours) would be somewhere around 10-20% 1e/2e/Retro Clones with 40-45% 3/3.5/pathfinder and 40-45% 4e. I would say that an 80% adoption rate is WAY higher than I would imagine.

Hmm...the more I think about it, maybe you are right, although I might find a middle ground between our figures. I would also think that far fewer than 20% of D&D players play pre-3E versions; 10% seems the maximum to me.

The real question is how many people switched over to 4E. I originally said 75-80% of the total D&D players; you are saying about half that, 40-45%. Maybe it is somewhere in-between, say 50-60%?

Maybe I'll start a new thread on this exact topic, perhaps with a poll...

 

[Lanefan]

Greg, I don't agree with most of your changes as the end result is still way too rules-heavy, but I have to give you props for these:

15. Equipment
a. Alchemical Equipment (tanglefoot bags, sunrods, etc ) go to a supplement
b. Spiked Chains, etc. go to a supplemnt
c. Halfling Riding Dogs go to a supplement
d. Bring back more of the real world armor and weapons from previous editons

You're on to something here.

17. Magic Items
a. Go back into the DMG and under DM control

And here.

Lanefan

 

[MACLARREN]

So 5e and what it would be for me? It would be a combination or everything good from 3.5, Conan, 4E, Trailblazer and Pathfinder. A system that uses Combat reactions, combat maneuvers, active defense to keep players involved, CMD, CMB, Feats from PF, Skills from PF, Spell descriptions from PF but reset like Trailblazer, TB Charactr classes (Fighter rocks here!), conditions changed that are detailed thoroughly with spell conditions modified against these, monsters that work like 4e for simplicity to DM (this means you have to trust your DM as he plays by different rules then us but know it is done right as we don't have a DMG as we don't want to know what he will bring), among other things. This would be ideal to me. The good news is, our DM has already taken the best of each and devised this system for us along with all of our input in the process and it is ideal for us and complete with SRD and rule book for our group alone. The point is, no matter what you play, there are good aspects from every edition and nothing is going to be perfect for everyone. Luckily, we have a very active and vocal group and a group that works together to make what we want. It took years and a lot of arguing but we are there now and are working out the very few bugs we have found. Good for us and tons of fun and play what works for you.

 

[Jon_Dahl]

I quite didn't understand why the AD&D 2nd Players' Option was buried. I felt that it was fun to have point buy system for players to customize races and classes. It really made the characters unique.

I would definately go back to 3e and make some chances:

1 for a supplement. 5e must have customizable class called "Hero" or something like that. Then players can just buy class abilities to make it like they want. If you wanted, it could be something like ½ fighter, 1/4 of roque and 1/4 something arcanish. To prevent this getting overboard, it should hard be to create something of equal strength compared standard classes. Like purely mêlée Hero would be always a bit weaker than Fighter specialized in mêlée. The idea would be to offer options, but for real power players should go with standard classes.
2. I agree with Greg K and Lanefan, magic items should go back to DM control. No more market prices.
3. Make magic a bit risky for the characters to wield. Give it draw-backs. Warrior-types - no matter the level - have always feared for the natural 1, casters should have something equal.
4. Make divine magic feel more priestly. Not just that "I pray a bit and I cast spontaneous cures, otherwise I'm just like wizard". The servitude of the deity should be more evident.
5 for supplement. I'd like 5e to have more surprise-elements, most of them pleasant. Everybody loves Deck of Many Things, so why not go from there? Drinking different sort of potions too fast might result in permanent mutations. Raising Dead might have side-effects. Using too much personal magic could have side-effects. Wild Magic has all sort of surprises, your gender might change. I want all these kinds of things that change the characters. Right now we have everything like this: "I decided that when my character rises to this level, I take this PrC or this Paragon path, I want this kind of build etc." It's too planned. The path of adventure should be full of drastic surprises.

 

[delericho]

I quite didn't understand why the AD&D 2nd Players' Option was buried.

Because it was utterly and spectacularly broken? Using Player's Option you could easily create a Cleric who had access to your chosen half-dozen 'important' spheres, could cast Wizard spells from one school (pick: Evocation or Enchantment), use all weapons and armour, and use the Fighter attack bonuses.

It also had the problem that you build your class (and race!) at character creation, and then the choices were fixed. So, if you later decided you wanted to do something else, you were stuck.

And, what's more, it made character creation considerably more complex. This is fine for 'advanced' players, but it's a disaster for the base game, which really needs to be suited for new players as well (or even moreso).

Basically, the 3e model of starting with a base class, but then gradually customising with feats/multiclassing/prestige classes is a much better solution: classes could be (mostly) balanced, you still got the customisation, but initial character creation was (relatively) quick and easy.

Where they probably didn't go far enough was in the ability to customise your character as you levelled up... but with the hundreds of supplements published, surely everyone had the tools to build almost exactly the character they wanted?

1. 5e must have customizable class called "Hero" or something like that. Then players can just buy class abilities to make it like they want. If you wanted, it could be something like ½ fighter, 1/4 of roque and 1/4 something arcanish. To prevent this getting overboard, it should hard be to create something of equal strength compared standard classes.

So, if you want to be creative in the construction of your character, the system should punish you?

I think that's the problem with hybrid class-based/point-buy systems - either the point-buy allows easy construction of characters as good as the fixed classes (and so it gets wildly abused by munchkins), or it makes creating equal characters very difficult (and so it punishes creativity).

I think there's a place (especially in a modular system) for providing a point-buy creation method as an alternative in a supplement... but I think base D&D should remain class-based, and I also think it's a bad idea to try to mix-and-match the two systems.

4. Make divine magic feel more priestly. Not just that "I pray a bit and I cast spontaneous cures, otherwise I'm just like wizard". The servitude of the deity should be more evident.

Agreed. I'd be inclined to make Clerical magic mostly ritual-based.

5. I'd like 5e to have more surprise-elements, most of them pleasant. Everybody loves Deck of Many Things, so why not go from there?

Actually, many many people hate the deck of many things, the wand of wonder and the like.

The fundamental problem with having permanent random side-effects is that they go one of two ways: if the group apply the tables as-written (and don't fudge), PCs find themselves permanently screwed up by a single bad roll; if the DM fudges the results, the tables become a 'shopping list' of beneficial mutations and effects to be acquired.

This is another area where I'm not opposed to such a system (especially in a modular game), but it should be strictly optional, and probably relegated to a supplement, not in the base game.

 

[Jon_Dahl]

I agree with you Delericho that the things you mentioned should go to a supplement. I'd be happy about it, as long it was a well-designed supplement

 

[Pssthpok]

5th Edition, eh?

Let me get mine in before this thing goes 404...

First off, "epic" shouldn't be "core". Epic should be epic; i.e. it should be outside the bounds of normal play. 4E tried to give us all warm fuzzies by making epic "core" and in the end it only managed to make epic "mundane"; it took all the magic and romance out of it. To me, the definition of "epic" is that's it's not "core", but an acknowledgment that some people want to play beyond the normal scope of the game. Making it "core" utterly castrates that feeling and renders 21-30 to just more of the same. I think I'm probably the only one who liked the Forgotten Realms "epic" sidebar, where each "epic" level is a straight-forward +1 BAB, or bonus feat, or extra spell level or something sweet like that.

Secondly, 2E had it right the first time when they said that some classes are just better than others. Sorry, all you egalitarians out there, but all class levels are not equal. Varying the XP requirements by class was brilliant and is so underestimated I cry myself to sleep at night just thinking about it. See, in 2E the game wasn't about "what level" you were, it was about "how much experience" you had. All people in an evenly-run party had (roughly) the same amount of XP (or EXP, if you guys are old enough), it's just that 100,000 XP for a fighter didn't realize the same level as 100,000 XP for a mage. And that MAKES SENSE! 3E was romantic about parity between class levels, but it's a fantasy that needs dispelling. Fireball used to kick ass; now it's the least-popular spell of its level... because egalitarian game designers are too blinded to see that parity across class level lines isn't the object of good game design. Parity across experience levels is. In a nutshell, bring back varying XP tables for classes and allow parties to have varying levels among its constituent classes.

Third, my second point destroys the simplistic 4E multiclassing as well as the LEGO multiclassing from 3E. Quaint as those systems are, they don't work with varying amounts of XP per level per class. The simplest solution is to resurrect 2E multiclassing: allowing people to split XP gains across multiple classes. While we're at it, rein in what races can split how many classes. Humans should have the most diversity, being able to split across as many classes as they want. Also, you should be able to decide per point if your XP gains are split or not. If you have an encounter with your mage-thief and all you did was backstab, you should be able to dump all that XP to your thief levels. Heck, your DM might even want to enforce that sort of thing.

Fourth, we have to get off the grid, guys. Grids and hexmaps are nice and all, but I think the strength of D&D as a pen-and-paper game is that you are using your imagination more than a strict reference like a grid. Let video games track position and distance and all that to exacting degrees. P&P RPGs like D&D should concentrate on what video games CAN'T do: invoke imagination and settle scenes without needing rulers. Grids lead to sterile interaction with combat rules (just look at all the push/pull/slide dominance in 4E - strictly grid-based mechanics), and that leads to a sterile interaction with the game's other non-combat elements (skill challenges, anyone?). Grids essentially reduce the gamer's dependence on their own inner eye and relegate it to "what is" on the mat, which precipitated in 4E to these rigorously structured RP interactions in skill challenges.
(and before anyone bites off more than they can chew, I know you can just "not use" the skill challenges stuff. My point is that the culture of D&D has become too formulated, too grid-like).

Fifth, iterative attacks should stay gone. One attack per round, with class powers granting additional attacks along the way. Fighters should get a second attack before anyone else.

Sixth, this whole noun-noun naming scheme has got to get poopcanned. Show some creativity, folks.

Seventh, the Monopoly property card design for anything and everything is pedestrian and ugly. If we don't stop this now, feats will soon follow the same format and we'll be shuffling our PCs before each encounter. No frack'n thank you.

Eighth, the monster and encounter design rules from 4E are the best I've seen so far. Keep 'em. Flat XP per PC by Level is the only way to go. Standardized health, attacks, defenses and all that are great. I'd only ask that the # of monster special abilities by role/tier/level be a bit more explicit.

Ninth, speaking of things 4E got right, no more spending XP to make things. That doesn't even make sense.

Tenth, there are a lot of things 4E called rituals that should have been kept as spells. Likewise, there were a good few that should have been open to all classes. So, that merits some looking over.

I'm being stared at by my boss, though, so I have to make this the end.

/casts protection from fire.

Mod Edit: Hint - claiming you're trying to get your words in before the thing blows up, and then using language that's apt to make it blow up, not so smart.

 

[Mercurius]

I agree with you Delericho that the things you mentioned should go to a supplement. I'd be happy about it, as long it was a well-designed supplement

WotC is coming out with the Hero Builder's Handbook late next year, which they're just starting to work on but sounds like player's options for 4E.

 

[Mercurius]

First off, "epic" shouldn't be "core".Epic should be epic; i.e. it should be outside the bounds of normal play.....

I've had a similar sense to epic feeling mundane, although our group is only just on the verge of Paragon so I don't know from experience. I don't disagree but it may come down to wording - "Epic" can stay as is, but why not add an "Immortal" tier after as an optional book? And an "Apprentice" tier before Heroic? Part of the problem with 4E is that it solves the disparity of low and high level characters by shaving off both extremes. This is more realistic to some degree, but also disallows two distinct types of play: "off the farm" adventuring and "throwing cosmic bolts at space dragons."

Secondly, 2E had it right the first time when they said that some classes are just better than others. Sorry, all you egalitarians out there, but all class levels are not equal. Varying the XP requirements by class was brilliant and is so underestimated I cry myself to sleep at night just thinking about it.....

I like it and agree. 3.x spellcasters were too powerful only in that it was just as easy to become a high level wizard as a high level fighter, which doesn't make sense. I like the fact that 4E makes each class powerful enough to be interesting, but it is at the cost of some flavor and individuality. A high level wizard should be more powerful than a high level fighter, except maybe a high level fighter with crazy magical weaponry. I'm not sure if 4E addressed this, but seemed to just make everything on par with each other. I dunno, maybe 3.x had it better? Regardless, I like the idea of variable XP tables and different power levels for different classes. A rogue, for instance, shouldn't be as powerful as a fighter in combat; the whole point is to offset brute force with being sneaky and clever. In 4E a rogue could wade in against a fighter and, with some maneuvering, hold their own.

Third, my second point destroys the simplistic 4E multiclassing as well as the LEGO multiclassing from 3E.....

I have to say that hybrids are a nice option in 4E, at least in theory (haven't seen one played yet).

Fourth, we have to get off the grid, guys. Grids and hexmaps are nice and all, but I think the strength of D&D as a pen-and-paper game is that you are using your imagination more than a strict reference like a grid. Let video games track position and distance and all that to exacting degrees. P&P RPGs like D&D should concentrate on what video games CAN'T do: invoke imagination and settle scenes without needing rulers. Grids lead to sterile interaction with combat rules (just look at all the push/pull/slide dominance in 4E - strictly grid-based mechanics), and that leads to a sterile interaction with the game's other non-combat elements (skill challenges, anyone?). Grids essentially reduce the gamer's dependence on their own inner eye and relegate it to "what is" on the mat, which precipitated in 4E to these rigorously structured RP interactions in skill challenges.
(and before anyone bites off more than they can chew, I know you can just "not use" the skill challenges stuff. My point is that the culture of D&D has become too formulated, too grid-like).

Yep, this is quite beautifully stated and worth quoting in full. Yet while I do agree with you I think the key is not to get rid of minis/grids/maps but to make them optional. This is why I have advocated a basic/advanced approach for 5E in which the more tactical aspects of combat are advanced/optional and not core to the basic game.

 

[Canor Morum]

All I see are armchair game developers that if given the opportunity would drive WOTC into bankruptcy and D&D into irrelevance with outdated ideas and pie in the sky revisions.

There is nothing wrong with 4E as is. If you want a "classic" D&D then house rule it. Don't like tieflings and dragonborn? Take them out of your campaign. Think the rules are too complex or too simple? Change them. Want a classic playstyle feel? Try out the Essentials class builds. Want to have a gnome PC? Make one. Don't like minions? Don't use them. Think the PCs are too powerful? Cut their hitpoints in half. Don't want to use minis and grids? Convert the representative "square" into feet and use narrative description to depict movement. This sounds completely idiotic to me but I suppose it could be done.

The point is you can play the game however you want. Nothing says that you have to do this or that. But at the end of the day if all your doing is trying to recreate an older version of the game then just play that version. And if you have to change so much that the game isn't recognizable anymore maybe D&D just isn't the game for you. There is a wealth of indie RPGs with unique game mechanics, settings, etc.

The game has changed, the people who play the game have changed. It will change again and a whole new generation will pine for the days of yore when D&D was "their" hobby and how the big bad corporation ruined it.

5E? Bring it on. I got more shelves.