+1 No incentive to even peruse it otherwise.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
5e what would you do?
- Thread starter Sadrik
- Start date
+1 No incentive to even peruse it otherwise.
Mercurius
Legend
True. I go into this a bit in this thread, where I discuss what I see as a transition into D&D Insider being the core rules, with hard-copy books being more of temporal manifestations of an ongoing, developing virtual rules conglomeration. It may even be that DDI gradually transforms into what could be called "5E"; first, however, I think we will see 4E Revised core rulebooks, yet again, they will merely be physical versions of what is already available through DDI.
This might even follow one possibility for books in general - that they will eventually be mainly print-on-demand, luxury items, with the main way people read being through ebook readers like Kindle. This isn't going to stop books from being published, but we will see more books move to POD, especially non-bestsellers. This would correlate with what happened with CDs and MP3s (CD buyers are mainly 30+; very few of the high school kids I work with own any CDs).
Well, I agree in that WotC could never please everyone, and many fans are forever "lost." This was the case even before 4E came out, but it seems that a larger segment than ever before split off with 4E. It would be interesting to find out what percentage of D&D players play different versions; my guess is that less than 5% play pre-3E versions, maybe 10-20% 3.x/Pathfinder, and about 75-80% play 4E. Still, if you're WotC and you know that 15-25% of the D&D fan-base is playing a version of the game that you are not supporting--and thus they aren't buying--you want to find a way to reduce that number somewhat. But it has to be coupled with pleasing existing 4E players and drawing new people in, and I would say it is the least important factor of the three.
But is it possible to attract old, current, and new alike? Yes, I think so. WotC did it with 3E so I don't see why they couldn't do it with 5E. But I again, I agree that their main focus should be pleasing existing players and bringing in new players, but I don't think they should or need to completely ignore the "lost," especially if it is as large a segment of the fan-base as I think it may be (25% is probably too high, but even 10-15% is significant).
Again, I think the key is modularity. Build a simpler, cleaner core game and make everything else modular and optional. They could even do this to some degree with D&D Insider and 4E, although it would take a bit more work without it built-in from the ground floor. The simple, core game is there, but it is fused to all sorts of required complexities (like the cumbersome power structure, which is a good idea but I don't think WotC implemented it quite right).
JRRNeiklot
First Post
If WOTC decides Pathfinder is cutting into their sales too much, they (or Hasbro) will simply by them out and bury it in a closet. Everything has a price.
geekgazette
First Post
1) make rituals completely optional
2) keep magic items fairly rare
3)basic attacks are not powers
4)powers or feats... not both
5)do not write mechanics with the assumption that minis and battlemats are being used, but write them so that those things can be used if desired.
6) do all books like the essentials line(digest sized)
7)Use the combat maneuver and combat defense from Pathfinder
8) Core races would be : Human, Halfling, Drow, Elf, Dwarf, Half-Elf, Half-Orc, Goblin, Warforged
9) Core book would have core classes with standard builds. Other builds would come from additional PHBs. The other PHBs would be themed(martial, psionic, arcane, divine, etc)
10) Do all core books at a low price point(around $20 in digest format)
11) Sell pdfs of books through DDi. Possibly allowing people to register their books and receive the pdfs at a big discount.
12)martial classes have no daily powers
13)I'd also like to change the magic system. Every group I have ever played with has had a similar house rule. If you know a spell, you know it. Your spell list stays the same until you level up. Then you can change what spells you have by erasing them from your spellbook. Normally no one ever did take away from their list, especially if playing a sorcerer, but the option was there for the rare person who wanted to use it.
14)Spell levels and caster levels should progress at the same rate (1st level caster = 1st level spells, 20th level caster = spells up to 20th level, etc..).
15)Change spells per day so that if you can cast x amount of spells in a day, it doesn't matter what level they are as long as you know them and can cast them. If your spells per day is a total of 10 then you can cast 1 spell ten times, 10 different spells 1 time, 2 spells 5 times each, etc..
These are just the things I'd change according to my personal preferences and those of my players
2) keep magic items fairly rare
3)basic attacks are not powers
4)powers or feats... not both
5)do not write mechanics with the assumption that minis and battlemats are being used, but write them so that those things can be used if desired.
6) do all books like the essentials line(digest sized)
7)Use the combat maneuver and combat defense from Pathfinder
8) Core races would be : Human, Halfling, Drow, Elf, Dwarf, Half-Elf, Half-Orc, Goblin, Warforged
9) Core book would have core classes with standard builds. Other builds would come from additional PHBs. The other PHBs would be themed(martial, psionic, arcane, divine, etc)
10) Do all core books at a low price point(around $20 in digest format)
11) Sell pdfs of books through DDi. Possibly allowing people to register their books and receive the pdfs at a big discount.
12)martial classes have no daily powers
13)I'd also like to change the magic system. Every group I have ever played with has had a similar house rule. If you know a spell, you know it. Your spell list stays the same until you level up. Then you can change what spells you have by erasing them from your spellbook. Normally no one ever did take away from their list, especially if playing a sorcerer, but the option was there for the rare person who wanted to use it.
14)Spell levels and caster levels should progress at the same rate (1st level caster = 1st level spells, 20th level caster = spells up to 20th level, etc..).
15)Change spells per day so that if you can cast x amount of spells in a day, it doesn't matter what level they are as long as you know them and can cast them. If your spells per day is a total of 10 then you can cast 1 spell ten times, 10 different spells 1 time, 2 spells 5 times each, etc..
These are just the things I'd change according to my personal preferences and those of my players
BTW, in that XP post to delericho, there is a typo at the end, and it should have read:
"Excellent insight on ddi & design inertia"
(stupid tiny mobile device keyboard caused my fat fingers to hit the "done" button while typing)
"Excellent insight on ddi & design inertia"
(stupid tiny mobile device keyboard caused my fat fingers to hit the "done" button while typing)
dm4hire
Explorer
Wonder how high their price is.
How many people aren't playing D&D? Because that's who they have to payoff.
It's not worth their time to try to buy out a competitor using the OGL since the competitor or another fan/company could simply shift the market over to yet another version of the rules and continue on. The only thing they would accomplish is making someone really rich.
As for 5e I'd love to see a merge of pre-4e and 4e. Keep the 4e versions of the non-spellcasters and then enhance the spellcasters of late 3e era so they are more competive, similar to what Paizo has done with the wizard or maybe WotC's Heroes of Horror Necromancer class. Essentials seems to be trying to find that ground from what I've seen, though they worked more with the non-spellcasters from what I've seen.
scruffygrognard
Adventurer
I'd move away from 4th edition and, to a lesser extant, 3rd edition but use elements of each.
First off, I'd make the game modular and start with the iconic basics. Races would be dwarf, elf, gnome, halfling and human. Half-elves and half-orcs would be handled by having your human character take a starting feat such as "Elf Blood" or "Orc Blood". Classes would be cleric, fighter, rogue, and wizard. Classes would have feat and/or class ability trees that would allow you to be a specialized fighter (i.e. paladin, ranger or barbarian), cleric (i.e. druid, monk or bard), wizard (i.e. illusionist or necromancer), or rogue (i.e. assassin).
The basic mechanics would be the unified,d20, mechanics of 3rd and 4th edition. Casters would get Vancian magic BUT would get unlimited 0-level spells (cure minor wounds would become treat wounds... which would stabilize characters) and less higher level spells than in 3rd edition. Non-caster and semi-caster classes (rangers and paladins, for instance) would get better feat/ability trees so that they suck less at higher levels.
The flexibility of character advancement, along with a more robust multiclassing system that handled multiclassed spellcasters better, would eliminate the need for prestige classes.
Later books, particularly campaign settings, would expand upon racial options and add class feat/ability trees.
First off, I'd make the game modular and start with the iconic basics. Races would be dwarf, elf, gnome, halfling and human. Half-elves and half-orcs would be handled by having your human character take a starting feat such as "Elf Blood" or "Orc Blood". Classes would be cleric, fighter, rogue, and wizard. Classes would have feat and/or class ability trees that would allow you to be a specialized fighter (i.e. paladin, ranger or barbarian), cleric (i.e. druid, monk or bard), wizard (i.e. illusionist or necromancer), or rogue (i.e. assassin).
The basic mechanics would be the unified,d20, mechanics of 3rd and 4th edition. Casters would get Vancian magic BUT would get unlimited 0-level spells (cure minor wounds would become treat wounds... which would stabilize characters) and less higher level spells than in 3rd edition. Non-caster and semi-caster classes (rangers and paladins, for instance) would get better feat/ability trees so that they suck less at higher levels.
The flexibility of character advancement, along with a more robust multiclassing system that handled multiclassed spellcasters better, would eliminate the need for prestige classes.
Later books, particularly campaign settings, would expand upon racial options and add class feat/ability trees.
Remathilis
Legend
I think 5e will resemble a expanded and clarified version of Essentials. I think we'll see fewer classes, but those there are will be broad archetypes and distinguished mechanically by build (like slayer/knight being Fighters). I also true escape from the will/encounter/daily build for every class (allowing for more diverse mechanics driving classes), a revamped rituals concept, and some fixed math and mechanical changes to make the Essentials concepts TRULY feel like an evolution of the 4e kernel.
JoeGKushner
Adventurer
Get rid of the 3-18 scale. Go with straight bonuses.
Fewer options for characters. While options are fantastic, they tend to get junked one onto another. Themes? Two seperate versions of the same class that can be mixed and matched?
More emphasis on world/module support even if it means just settling down with one big old generic one and letting the GM's do their own thing with the material ala Greyhawk and early Forgotten Realms. Keep the specific stuff to Dungeon online.
Fewer options for characters. While options are fantastic, they tend to get junked one onto another. Themes? Two seperate versions of the same class that can be mixed and matched?
More emphasis on world/module support even if it means just settling down with one big old generic one and letting the GM's do their own thing with the material ala Greyhawk and early Forgotten Realms. Keep the specific stuff to Dungeon online.
