Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9505612" data-attributes="member: 6790260">The literal and explicit selling point of 5e originally was something along those lines. I think it's far more achievable than you do. And I think that the alleged massive "it's a whole different game" differences argument is bunk. Nobody's even really tried. Even the "D&D Next" designers didn't really try. The instant any idea (that wasn't a designer's beloved baby) hit the slightest resistance it was immediately trashed without a finger lifted to see how it could be fixed or improved. (The designers' pet ideas, on the other hand, got wasted attempt after wasted attempt before, as often as not, being completely abandoned. E.g. Mearls and his almost undying love of fistfuls of dice everywhere.)A rigorously balanced core with simple, clear expression for how to run away from that in many different directions successfully. 1st level as the point players generally start (because 5e's "most players should start at 3rd level" principle has objectively failed), but a full-throated support of novice levels and wholesale "borrowing" the 13A incremental advancement rules. Well-structured wandering monster tables and random loot tables, with solid, tested advice for how to build your own as well. A robust skill system with explicitly broad skills and clear instructions on the need for low, achievable DCs, alongside optional more specific rules for those who feel the skill system has no meaning unless there's premade objective DCs for everything, and "Page 42" rules that give clear and reliable cost-benefit matching so people who care about actually rewarding players for using skills can rely on it.None of what I just said has any impact on the common mechanics (like class features), even though there may be some of that, too. I'd put things like that, actually retooling the player-facing rules, in a second, later book. Just as adding additional classes beyond the 12 PHB ones would be a great subject for a later book. By my reckoning you could probably do 7 in one book (reprinting with minor tweaks the 5.0 Artificer as one of those 7) and then a more way-out-there 6 a couple of years later.It really isn't nearly as impossible a goal as people claim it is. We just can't spend two-plus years completely dithering the way WotC did with the D&D Next playtest.</blockquote>

Verification