5e what would you do?

[Campbell]

I'll start with what I see as issues with 4e, then move into possible solutions.

• Feats are a disjointed mess in 4e. You get too many of them and their effects are largely negligible. On a related note, there is no way outside of paragon paths and epic destinies to add character defining abilities.
• Paragon Paths, Epic Destinies, and Themes encourage an inorganic approach to character development and force players to engage the rules in an unnatural way when leveling up.
• Racial ability score adjustments have too large an impact on race selection and there is too little in the way of support for more powerful racial abilities..
• The current implementation of action points leaves a lot to be desired. They don't interact with the rest of the rules in any really interesting way and lack dramatic editing possibilities.
• Skill inequity is a 3e vestige that has come back to haunt 4e even though it doesn't serve any useful purpose. Backgrounds are a nice hack around this, but shouldn't be necessary.

Here's what I would do.

• Every character is defined by their powers, talents, and skills. When you create a character choose a race, class, and optionally a theme. These determine your access to the above.
• For skills every character, regardless of class gets to select a number of skills as trained skills. Classes may receive one or two thematically appropriate skills for free.
• Talents take the place of class features and feats - they should all be character defining.
• Classes are no longer tied to combat role - instead powers and talents mention what sort of build they're appropriate for.
• Themes take up the design space currently used by 4e Themes, Paragon Paths, and Epic Destinies. They grant no immediate benefits, but provide access to powers and talents. Themes have straightforward requirements to reflect what they're all about. They focus on narrative elements now that they are no longer a requirement. There should be a way for multiple themes to coexist on a single character.
• Races no longer provide a bonus to ability scores.
• Powers are now separated between combat powers and narrative powers that use the new form of action points. When choosing combat powers you choose between defensive and offensive utility.

Of course this is the D&D I would make to please me, not really the same game I would make for the wider audience.

 

[RangerWickett]

• Feats are a disjointed mess in 4e. You get too many of them and their effects are largely negligible. On a related note, there is no way outside of paragon paths and epic destinies to add character defining abilities.
• Paragon Paths, Epic Destinies, and Themes encourage an inorganic approach to character development and force players to engage the rules in an unnatural way when leveling up.

I think an interesting 4e tweak would be to open up the power structure, particularly utility powers. Allow players to have multiple multiclass feats, and say that you can select your powers from any class you've multiclassed into, without needing to spend a feat to 'power swap.'

If you wanted to get rid of paragon paths and epic destinies, you could instead create 'feat paths,' which could be flavored as a) something you train in on your own, b) something you learn from an organization you join, or c) something you acquire by destiny.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Very interesting idea.

A few questions arise, though, that would need to be addressed:

- having only 4 non-combat roles (NCR) does not give you-as-player a monopoly on anything at the table if there are a) more than 4 players, and-or b) you happened to choose the same NCR as someone else. Does there maybe need to be more than four NCRs, and-or some subset NCRs that are slightly more specialized?

- if your NCR defines your skills then what does your class define, particularly in reference to historically skill-based classes like Thief/Rogue, Bard, Monk, etc.?

- or, going the other way a few steps further, does NCR supplant class entirely?

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

Balance

One of the big debates that will spawn within this thread is this:

How "balanced" does the game need to be?

Is absolute balance a goal worth striving for? (I say no)

Is at least some vague balance a goal worth striving for? (yes)

Is it the end of the world if that goal cannot be met? (probably not)

And the biggest question: how balanced is balanced? (here's where the debate comes)

Lanefan

 

[Frostmarrow]

Very interesting idea.

A few questions arise, though, that would need to be addressed:

- having only 4 non-combat roles (NCR) does not give you-as-player a monopoly on anything at the table if there are a) more than 4 players, and-or b) you happened to choose the same NCR as someone else. Does there maybe need to be more than four NCRs, and-or some subset NCRs that are slightly more specialized?

- if your NCR defines your skills then what does your class define, particularly in reference to historically skill-based classes like Thief/Rogue, Bard, Monk, etc.?

- or, going the other way a few steps further, does NCR supplant class entirely?

Lanefan

I'm thinking NCRs could be semi-permanent. You could trade your NCR with another player inbetween games. Even an illiterate barbarian could be the mentor in the right circumstances. For instance when the party visists the wild tribes of the icy north. Casual players might enjoy not having a role at all.

There is a problem with fewer or more players than X but this could be addressed in a number of ways. Maybe the cake is divided differently depending on the number of players.

I don't think NCRs should supplant Class. But indeed NCRs would steal skills away from the classes. Classes still have the pretty picture attached.

Some skills such as ability to play a musical instrument or speak in a foreign language would still be tied to the class, race or character. However, A skill like Knowledge is something anyone could have. Look at any modern TV-show and notice how any character can know just about anything. It's quickly handwaved with a short anecdote hinting of the character's past.

"How did you know that?"
"I used to be a metal head, you didn't know that did you?"

Still, maybe just some skills are tied to NCR. I don't know. Food for thought.

 

[WheresMyD20]

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.

Taking ideas from classic editions and recreating classic editions are two different things. Very few people, if any, are advocating an exact recreation of the classic editions.

By the way, my local used bookstore can't keep the Basic and 1e stuff in stock. It's mostly 3e and some 2e & 4e that lingers on the shelves.

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.

That's your opinion. I disagree. I think 4e is a decent game system, but I think the game has been taken in the wrong direction. For me, 4e seems painfully slow to play and prep for compared to classic D&D.

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

It might come as a shock to you, but I'm an older gamer and I'm fine with the game changing with the times. Things like ascending armor class and Fort/Ref/Will replacing the old saving throws are good changes, IMO. New races and classes like dragonborn, tieflings, warlords, and warlocks don't bother me.

Unfortunately, I think that many of the core rule changes that have been made really aren't that great. Things like making grid-and-minis tightly integrated into the core rules and the focus on complex character building might play well with the hardcore crowd, but I think they're two elements that make it more difficult for casual players to pick up the game.

I think that WotC has been its own worst enemy in its effort to recruit new players. They've focused so much on the "high value" players - the ones who buy lots of minis and books - that they've designed a game tailored to them. The Essentials line is an interesting idea, but its biggest challenge is that its designed to bring in new players to a game system tailored to the hardcore crowd.

Unless Essentials succeeds (and I think the jury is still out on that), then I think that WotC will need a simpler, more newbie-friendly product (5e or a new Basic D&D line) if it wants to draw in new gamers to the hobby.

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.

I'd start by creating a version of D&D:
- that doesn't require grid-and-minis
- that has a single, small core rulebook (roughly 120 pages, including monsters- about the same size as the two B/X rulebooks combined)
- that's a full-fledged game in its own right*

That last point means that players should be able to play a full campaign to a reasonable level (say about 10 or so) using just that one product. It's ok for the game to be a subset of a more complex product, but it should be more than just an "introduction" if you want to attract and keep casual players. Many will move on to the more complex product at their own pace - just don't force them to make the move after only 3 levels.

What are *your* ideas for making 5e a better game than 4e?

 

[WheresMyD20]

One of the big debates that will spawn within this thread is this:

How "balanced" does the game need to be?

Is absolute balance a goal worth striving for? (I say no)

Is at least some vague balance a goal worth striving for? (yes)

Is it the end of the world if that goal cannot be met? (probably not)

And the biggest question: how balanced is balanced? (here's where the debate comes)

Lanefan

My opinion on balance is this: Characters do not need to be equal. Each character does, however, need to be able to play a meaningful and productive role in the party.

 

[jaerdaph]

Like World of Darkness, I think 5e D&D should be a MMORPG if it wants to survive as a brand into the future and attract a new generation of players.

Yes I am serious.

It will be interesting to see how White Wolf does with this over the next few years.

 

[Canor Morum]

I'd start by creating a version of D&D:
- that doesn't require grid-and-minis
- that has a single, small core rulebook (roughly 120 pages, including monsters- about the same size as the two B/X rulebooks combined)
- that's a full-fledged game in its own right*

That last point means that players should be able to play a full campaign to a reasonable level (say about 10 or so) using just that one product. It's ok for the game to be a subset of a more complex product, but it should be more than just an "introduction" if you want to attract and keep casual players. Many will move on to the more complex product at their own pace - just don't force them to make the move after only 3 levels.

What are *your* ideas for making 5e a better game than 4e?

What you're describing has already been done multiple times in various editions. The only difference I see is you would have the "new" Red Box cover levels 1-10 and you would replace grids and minis with narrative description.

I think WOTC have done a lot to address the concerns of players. A new Red Box, Essentials class builds with a more classic feel, more affordable digest sized books, providing tokens as an alternative to minis, and board games that appeal to more casual players.

Obviously, you can't please everyone but I think they are headed in the right direction. These are people who make games for a living. They should listen to the fanbase but a lot of people clamoring for sweeping changes and complaining have no idea how to make a game or run a business. If I had millions of people come to my work and tell me how to do my job and second guess every decision I made... use your imagination.

As a player and DM, what I would like to see in 5E is something more innovative. Maybe some rules and guidance for creating a sandbox approach to campaigning. More emphasis on DM and player created rules and content that can be shared through an online database and integrated into your own game. I would also like the DDI Tools to be completed and work as advertised in the core books. Personally I love minis and so do my players, so I would keep them. Given an unlimited budget... well, I've already described this in detail in a previous post.

 

[delericho]

Like World of Darkness, I think 5e D&D should be a MMORPG if it wants to survive as a brand into the future and attract a new generation of players.

You may well be right, except for two things:

1) If it becomes an MMO, it really isn't D&D, at least as is currently recognised. In order for it to survive, they would have to kill it off.

2) If they make it an MMO, they would have to compete directly with WoW. And, just as no other tabletop RPG has ever been close to overcoming the dominance of D&D, so too would D&D fail to overcome the dominance of WoW. Most likely, it would go the way of the Conan MMO.