5e what would you do?

[Mercurius]

With regards to class balance, varying XP tables, etc, I'm mixed on this and I don't think there is a simple solution. On one hand I like how 4E has made it so just about every class is fun to play and there isn't a sense that one is missing out by taking the non-kewl class option or combo or the tried and true Path of Maximizing Optimization. In other words, in 4E system mastery is de-emphasized in favor of tactical savvy; it isn't as much what you are or have but how you use it. I like that.

That said, I don't like how in a sense there are only four classes--controllers, strikers, defenders, and leaders--but with different fluff. OK, it isn't that simple, but there is a formulaic quality whereby all strikers do roughly same thing, all defenders, all controllers, all leaders. It would be nice if there was more functional differentiation between what, say, a martial striker can do and what an arcane striker can do. Maybe I'm focusing too much on damage out-put, but with the de-emphasis and marginalization of non-combat capacities, most of what a character is comes down to three things: causing damage and resistance to damage. There is a sense that 4E has become a sport in which it comes down to scoring and preventing runs; everything else is secondary and funnels into those two functions.

On the other hand, I didn't like how 3.5E quantified everything that a player could do, that a number was necessary for a character to be able to do anything; in some sense 4E's more vague rules with regards to non-combat capacities--especially with regards to monsters and NPCs--has freed us up from a lot of unnecessary book-keeping, number-crunching and dice rolling. I honestly don't need to know Demogorgon's Craft skill.

What I would like to see is some kind of player created mechanic whereby the player chooses non-combat capacities and quantifies them; so rather than having a number in every possible skill, or broad skills that cover every possible action, the player makes up things like "I want to be good at basket-weaving" and gets a score in basket-weaving. But basket-weaving doesn't need to be on every character, monster, and NPC sheet, nor does Craft. In other words, I'd like to see built into 5E more rules for free-form character design. Hopefully we'll see that with the Hero Builder's Handbook.

 

[delericho]

In other words, in 4E system mastery is de-emphasized in favor of tactical savvy; it isn't as much what you are or have but how you use it. I like that.

Yeah, I agree that 4e has it about right on the balance-vs-customisation axis. I'm not a big fan of the Daily/Encounter/At-Will power paradigm, but do appreciate the way they have achieved their goal.

On the other hand, I didn't like how 3.5E quantified everything that a player could do, that a number was necessary for a character to be able to do anything; in some sense 4E's more vague rules with regards to non-combat capacities--especially with regards to monsters and NPCs--has freed us up from a lot of unnecessary book-keeping, number-crunching and dice rolling. I honestly don't need to know Demogorgon's Craft skill.

Here we disagree. I consider it one of the great tragedies of 4e* that they removed so much of the non-combat material from the game (especially the Craft, Profession and Perform skills) at the same time as they introduced a Skill Challenge framework that seems tailor made for skills like these!

At the same time, I do agree with the notion of consolidating some of the skills as has been done in 4e, Pathfinder, and elsewhere. I probably lean more towards the PF list than the 4e one, but would add to it an Athletics skill (in place of Jump, Swim, Fly and Climb, and also the Run feat), and there should be some sort of catch-all skill for Ride and also piloting vehicles (however, I can't think of a good name for it - probably stick with Ride, but explicitly roll in the piloting function).

Your point about not needing to know Demogorgon's Craft skill is well made... at least for the 99.99% of campaigns where it would never come up. (Of course, there's always that one time...)

However, what I'd do here is extend the notion that monsters/NPCs don't have to use the same rules as PCs... or rather that they should work at a much higher level of abstraction. So, I would suggest that creatures should list any specific skills they're noted for, and then have a 'default' skill modifier for everything else. As with the defences, these would work the same way as the PC modifiers for the same, but wouldn't need to be calculated from the creature's exact ranks/stat bonuses/etc.

* IMO, the other great tragedy of 4e is that they looked carefully at the use of 3e monsters and concluded that they lived for 5 rounds on average and had too many powers (and especially minor powers). So, they bumped the hit points a lot, and removed a lot of excess powers. Unfortunately, the result is that monsters now hang around for ages, but run out of 'interesting' things to do after 6 rounds. Either of these fixes alone would have been great... together they are a major contributor to combat grind.

What I would like to see is some kind of player created mechanic whereby the player chooses non-combat capacities and quantifies them; so rather than having a number in every possible skill, or broad skills that cover every possible action, the player makes up things like "I want to be good at basket-weaving" and gets a score in basket-weaving.

Ick. Not a fan of such freeform systems. Too often, I find that one player chooses things that are very specific while another chooses things that are very generic, and keeping those 'balanced' in any sense becomes extremely difficult. Plus, of course, you then get the player who soon realises that there are half a dozen things that his character really should have been good at, but they didn't even cross his mind at character creation.

Obviously, YMMV. (I'm not claiming that's bad design, of course... just saying I don't like it.)

 

[Raven Crowking]

How much would you look back editions-wise for a 5e? Or would you take 4e to the next level? So, more blast from the past or more difference from the past editions.

What would I do?

I am already doing it!


RC

 

[lordxaviar]

I think we can count on a 5e and a 6 and so on, But until someone buys out hasbro, I dont think we shall see any of the older versions get resported or rereleased. I spoke to the company and they were very adamant on this.

 

[WheresMyD20]

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.

Wow... not sure where all the hatred of Classic D&D is coming from. This thread is about 5e, not 4e. 5e (or whatever it ends up being called) is currently a blank slate.

There are a lot of great ideas in the classic editions. Not every change that came along with 4e has been a good change. Some of the changes may have sounded great 2 years ago, but didn't quite live up to expectations.

Building 5e by only looking at 4e and not what came before is pretty short-sighted, IMO.

 

[WheresMyD20]

I think we can count on a 5e and a 6 and so on, But until someone buys out hasbro, I dont think we shall see any of the older versions get resported or rereleased. I spoke to the company and they were very adamant on this.

They're adamant today, but who know's what tomorrow's management might think?

It's very likely that at some point one or more of the classic editions will be available for purchase in PDF form; given the low cost and high profit margin of digital distribution.

I think it's even possible that someday there will be a limited collector's edition reprint of OD&D or 1e. I just don't think that day is sometime soon.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The surest way to get new releases of old material? Put George Lucas in charge.

 

[Canor Morum]

Wow... not sure where all the hatred of Classic D&D is coming from. This thread is about 5e, not 4e. 5e (or whatever it ends up being called) is currently a blank slate.

There are a lot of great ideas in the classic editions. Not every change that came along with 4e has been a good change. Some of the changes may have sounded great 2 years ago, but didn't quite live up to expectations.

Building 5e by only looking at 4e and not what came before is pretty short-sighted, IMO.

Hatred?

...really?

Sorry but I just don't see the point in recreating older editions. Those books are readily available. My local used book store has multiple shelves full of them. You know how many shelves they have for 4e? One. It's tiny and it's always empty because no one is selling their 4e books. When they do get a few, they are gone within a day. So I would say that evaluating 4e is completely relevant to what should be in a new edition.

I enjoyed playing 2e when that's all that there was. Would I still enjoy it now? Probably not. The system is cumbersome and slow. 4e is light years ahead in terms of playability and prep-time.

The only way the game can remain relevant is to change with the times. If that means modeling the playstyle after video games and taking inspiration from other media to appeal to kids then so be it. That may rub some older fans the wrong way because they want D&D to remain esoteric and wallow in nostalgia. But it would be a mistake to allow an entire generation to grow up not having experienced D&D. Do you really want it to become a hobby for old men? I can see it now...

"Hey grandpa, what are those funny looking dice for?"

"Those are for a game called Dungeons and Dragons, me and your grandma used to play it before you were born, you add numbers and tell stories and use your imagination and..."

"Weird. I'm gonna go play with my holographic virtual box now."

/nightmare



So let's hear how you would innovate the game, attract new players, and make it more enjoyable for kids and adults. There are some good ideas already of that nature here but most comments seem to be looking back and not forward.

 

[delericho]

Sorry but I just don't see the point in recreating older editions... So I would say that evaluating 4e is completely relevant to what should be in a new edition.

It would certainly be a mistake to simply recreate the past. Suggesting there have been no improvements in the last 30 years seems rather short-sighted. More to the point, even if there have not been, the original books are still available used, and there are retro-clones out there.

However, it would also be a mistake to simply discount the past out of hand. Not every change has been an improvement. 4e is only one of many possible evolutions of 3.5e (with SWSE and Pathfinder being two others). Where mistakes have been made, the designers should not allow their pride to prevent them from rolling back the changes.

I enjoyed playing 2e when that's all that there was. Would I still enjoy it now? Probably not. The system is cumbersome and slow. 4e is light years ahead in terms of playability and prep-time.

Case in point: in our last session, we spent an hour and a half (out of a 3 hour session) on a simple fight with some bandits. That same fight would have been over in 20 minutes in 2nd Edition. What was that about "cumbersome and slow"?

I do agree that 4e is, on balance, a better game than 2nd Edition. But the combat grind that dragged out even that simple encounter is really not an improvement IMO.

(And the argument "it's not a problem, because you can change it" is a non-starter in this discussion, by the way. That's like suggesting hamburger is the perfect food because if I don't like it, I can change it. But if I don't like meat (tactical movement on the grid) and I don't like bread (the Daily/Encounter/At-will powers paradigm), then the changes I have to make are such that I'm no longer eating hamburger.)

The only way the game can remain relevant is to change with the times. If that means modeling the playstyle after video games and taking inspiration from other media to appeal to kids then so be it.

As with my comments about older editions, I believe it would absolutely be a mistake to simply ignore WoW, board games, and anything else when charting the future of D&D. If there are good things that can be adopted from any of these things, D&D should shamelessly rip them off.

At the same time, it would also be a huge mistake to challenge WoW on its own terms. If D&D simply becomes "WoW without the PC", then I have to ask why I shouldn't just play WoW - it has better graphics, it has lower setup requirements (no reading 832 pages of hardback books, no creating an adventure...), it handles all the tedious number crunching for me, and I'm not beholden to the schedules of five other people.

So, by all means look for inspiration, but don't try to compete on WoW's terms.

That may rub some older fans the wrong way because they want D&D to remain esoteric and wallow in nostalgia.

WotC have to be careful in how much they alienate the existing fanbase. Without a really good Starter Set (which D&D hasn't had since 1991), they're reliant on existing players bringing new blood into the fold. Alienate those 'lifestyle gamers', and you lose that entry route and kill the game.

And it's not as if we need anything from WotC to continue gaming. I got my Expert Set (the "Blue Box") in 1989, and since then I haven't actually needed to buy anything more for my gaming hobby, ever. Even assuming I only run pregenerated adventures, I have now accumulated so many adventures that I haven't run that I could happily game for the rest of my life without running out.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I think 4E makes a lot of sense dividing the classes into combat roles. I'd like that to stay. I would also enjoy 5E more than 4E if the same division of roles were true for non-combat too.

Let's say for instance that there are four non-combat roles: hero, assistant, herald and mentor. The skills available to a party of adventurers should be dealt evenly to the non-combat roles. The hero would be all about physical action and attractiveness, the assisstant would rely on lock picking and trap disabling, the herald would be about spotting, tracking and searching and lastly the mentor would be a font of knowledge and subtlety.

This would give me, as player, monopoly on one thing to do at the table. One of the roles might also suit me as a player better than any another. I think a minimum of skill overlap inbetween players is a good thing.

This means my character is more defined as a heroic striker than a human striker. I could be a defender mentor or a herald controller.

This also means that skills has to be separated from class. It's your role that defines what skills you have not your class. So in effect there is a huge difference between a mentor rogue and a hero rogue.

Also I'd like to add that what we think of today as 'class' is actually more a matter of 'theme'. But 'theme' probably should not be confused with 'role'.