5e what would you do?

[Lanefan]

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..).

I toyed with this idea at one point and scrapped it mostly because it in effect doubles some aspects of the bookkeeping - you have twice as many spell levels to track, write up, etc. - for little to no net gain.

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..

This has been done many times - look into houseruled spell-point systems. Open question whether it works or not; my own experience is that it works just fine at low level but high-level casters get really broken.

Get rid of the 3-18 scale. Go with straight bonuses.

Lots and lots of knock-on effect to consider here, not least of which is it probably spells the end of rolling for stats. Not sure if that'd fly.

Lanefan

 

[JoeGKushner]

Rolling for stats can be stabbed in the face and left for dead in the gutter afaic.

I was pleased that 3e went with at least on the side, a point by system and more than pleased that 4e went with point buy as the default.

Everyone's milage may vary of course but if 5e has a point buy, then the arguement that rolling for stats will suffer is essentially invalidated.

 

[Lanefan]

Rolling for stats can be stabbed in the face and left for dead in the gutter afaic.

I feel much the same about point-buy.

I guess at least one of us won't be a 5e customer.

Lan-"gimme those dice!"-efan

 

[JoeGKushner]

Not necessarily. If they don't do away with the 3-18 system and continue to have point buy as a default I'll probably pick it up. It's not a deal maker/breaker for me. 4e was far more different than I originally wanted it to be and I still don't like some of the side effects of 4e's birth pains but it's still the game I'm playing now.

 

[Lanefan]

Not necessarily. [...] I'll probably pick it up.

Yeah, me too. I've picked up the core 3 for all the other editions I don't play; might as well stick with it.

But if it goes all-online they've lost me.

So, getting back to the original topic, a third thing to get/keep me interested: no requirement whatsoever to go online to keep up with (or play at all) the game.

Lanefan

 

[Dice4Hire]

Yeah, 5E being all online would kill it for me.

I think those of us who are strongly digitally connected need to remember that there are a lot of people who are not, but we don't see those people as they are never on these blogs we congregate on.

DDI is helpful to some people who play the game, obviously, but 5E needs to be more broad-based.

 

[Votan]

I feel much the same about point-buy.

I guess at least one of us won't be a 5e customer.

Lan-"gimme those dice!"-efan

I think that this is a system design issue. In BECMI or AD&D, good ability scores were nice but not necessary. A fighter with a 13 strength in BECMI is not wildly disadvantaged compared to a fighter with a 17 strength (total of +1 to hit and damage difference). Most of the power comes from the class not the scores.

In later edition, ability scores drive both class features and give increasingly important bonuses. In 3.5E D&D, a high level wizard could have a CON bonus higher than her hit die type (e.g. 12 CON + 6 Amulet + 5 enhancement = 23 CON for +6 HP/level) without serious effort. This could not be done in AD&D or BECMI (as even for fighters, getting a plus greater than the hit die type was not feasible).

Ability scores also drove things like spell level attainable and the power of individual spells.

So I think that point buy is an artifact of Ability score based systems whereas die rolling makes sense in class based systems.

Which one 5E has depends on the direction they go with this design decision.

 

[Mercurius]

Personally speaking I like ability score ranges of 3-18 (or 3-20, really). I realize that they are pointless, but it is more of a signifier than anything else. A "17 DEX" means a lot more to me than a "+3 DEX." Yes, the 17 isn't necessary but it is...more pleasing? Certainly more familiar.

 

[Greg K]

Option 1. Sell DND to Green Ronin and put Steve Kenson on as the main designer let him start with 3e or 4e as the basis and take it from there.

Option 2: Take True20 Revised focus a product completely on fantasy, make a couple of small tweaks, and call it D&D

Option 3: Start with 4e
1. Gnomes and Half Orcs replace Dragonborn and Tieflings in PHB1
2. Barbarians, Bards, Druids and Shamans go into the PHB 1
3. Backgrounds are in the PHB 1
4. Bring back skill Points for players
5. Make several skills less broad
6. Remove the +1/2 level bonus from ability checks and skill checks
7. Replace Action Points and Healing Surges with Mutants and Masterminds style Hero Points
8. Saving throws bonuses go back to Con=Fort, Dex=Ref, Wis (or Cha)= Will
9. Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies become optional
10. Divine character class features are based more on the deity's domains
11. Add a Book of Iron Might type system that allows the player to describe martial attacks and gives the DM actual mechanics for determing the difficulty to Push, Pull, Slide
12. Give more concrete benchmarks for p. 42
13. Change the Pantheon
14. Make a few changes to some powers (e.g., CAGI)
14. Come up with some alternatives to some of the Race abilities and class features.

Option 4: Start w/3e
1. Remove level Drain
2. Remove XP costs for spell casting and item creation
3. Use the optional rules from the 3.0 DMG for ability score drain where it is a penalty to hit, skill rolls an saving throws
4. Fewer Absolutes (Sean K Reynolds)

5. Introduce d20 Modern style Occupations/ 4e backgrounds

6. Races
a. Remove the non-biological aspects of race and make them feats similar to 4e

7.Classes
a. tone down the spellcasters (use the bard's spell progression)
b. Smaller lists for clerics based on deity's domains and a few universal spells
c. do away with x/day abilities
d. go to d20Modern or Star Wars talent trees.
e. Possibly fewer classes: Warrior, Rogue, Spellcaster, Warrior/Rogue hybrid, Warrior/Spellcaster hybrid, and Rogue/Spellcaster hybrid
f. Turn Undead, Rage, Sneak Attack, Animal Companion and many other class abilities become feats or talents
g. Skill Points: No class receives less that 4+Int skill points
h. Sample variants (e.g. cloistered cleric, wilderness rogue, martial rogue, urban ranger).

8. Hit Points
a. Remove Hit Points for True20/Mutants and Masterminds Toughness Save
b. Keep Hit points and introduce the Star Wars Conditon track and Unearthed Arcana Death and Dying.
c. Hit Points are static based on Con (Skill can be simulated w/ class defense and feats, Luck can be simulated with Action Points)

9. Saving Throws
a. Change to 4e Defenses
b. A single progression for all classes with a bonus from initial class.

10. Introduce Mutants and Masterminds 2e style Hero Points

11. Introduce Mutants and Masterminds style Complications

12. Base multiclassing on 4e multiclassing.

13. Skills
a. Introduce Unearthed Arcana Extended Skill Checks or 4e Skill Challenges
b. Introduce the Urban/Wilderness skill swaps from the Cityscape web enhancement

14. Feats
a. Replace the unarmed combat feats with those from Brawl, Combat Martial Arts and Defensive Martial Arts feat trees from d20 Modern
b. Do away with the +2/+2 feats

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

16. Combat
a. Combat Maneuver system based on Book of Iron Might which allows players to describe what they want to do and gives the DM actual tools to determine difficulty and effects.
b. Rework Grappling
c. Fatigue and Exhaustion from Hit Point Loss
d. Unearthed Arcana Death and Dying

16. Magic
a. All casters are spontaneous casters or go with Psychic's Handbook (Green Ronin) type system
b. Remove alignment based spells
c. Remove absolute spells
d. Remove Target's level/HD from limiting effects of spells. Stage effects on the degree by which the save is missed
e. Alter various spells (e.g. magic missile requires to hit roll)

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

18, Magic Item Creation: look to Aritifcer's Handbook (Mystic Eye Games)

19. Organize the rules so many of the optional rules and buried rules are more prominent

20. MM1 is based on the AD&D MM1 monster selection with a few additions (Drow, more demon lords, more arch devils)

 

[Cactot]

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.

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.