D&D 5E Expertise Dice = Vancian Magic = ADEU

[Dannyalcatraz]

The ability mix and match mechanics and classes would be an unmatched versatility and option boon.

*coughcoughHEROcoughcough*

 

[Mishihari Lord]

One of the problems I see with the ability to mix and match mechanics and classes is that it'd be a nightmare to balance it all. If you have 10 classes and 5 possible mechanics that can be applied to any of them, you suddenly have 50 possible classes you want to balance against each other. This is an exponential increase in the amount of balancing work to get done.

Now personally I don't care a bit about balance. I've always found it easy to make the game fun for players with PCs with highly highly disparate power levels. But for the people who do care I see this as a big concern.

 

[I'm A Banana]

*coughcoughHEROcoughcough*

Well, unprecedented for D&D.

One of the problems I see with the ability to mix and match mechanics and classes is that it'd be a nightmare to balance it all. If you have 10 classes and 5 possible mechanics that can be applied to any of them, you suddenly have 50 possible classes you want to balance against each other. This is an exponential increase in the amount of balancing work to get done.

Now personally I don't care a bit about balance. I've always found it easy to make the game fun for players with PCs with highly highly disparate power levels. But for the people who do care I see this as a big concern.

I think there's a few different approaches possible here.

The first is what they were talking about in the hangout: once you know how the maths work, you can get there in multiple different ways. Once you know how many spells per day you want the wizard to have, you can make sure recharge spellcasters and spell point spellcasters and expertise dice spellcasters can't go above that.

The second is to not worry so much about microbalance, and to worry about broader metrics of balance. True, in some encounters your ADEU character will have more oomph than our daily-only character while your at-will character will have more than both of them, but each one's nova potential is different.

 

[Gundark]

It's an interesting idea, but there's a problem with it. The entire system is ridiculously metagamey.

"I'm playing a fighter using expertise dice in this campaign, but in this other campaign I'm playing a fighter using maneuver slots, and the Wizard is doing the opposite, what is going on!"

I don't know how much of a problem that is for a lot of people, but I don't think it should really be supported as core. Maybe just pick one of each for the core, and you can vary it with a module.

The game is already "Metagamey" and in fact it always has been . Book x is not used at this table or class y or spell/magic item z. It's always been there. DMs have always done this, WotC (in theory) is now just given them the tools to do so.

 

[hbarsquared]

I'm a fan of symmetry (not needless symmetry, or boring symmetry - granted it's a fine line to cross).

I would kind of like to see each class look something like this:

Class:
Hit Die
Armor, weapon, implement proficiencies
Skills?

• Unique Class Feature (combat)
• Unique Class Feature (exploration/social)
• Martial/Spellcasting Mechanic
• Unique access to above Mechanic

So, a Wizard might look like:

• Arcane Implement Mastery
• Wizard Tradition
• Spellcasting Mechanic (points or Vancian or AEDU....)
• Spellbook to memorize spells

A sorcerer:

• Sorcerous Orgin
• Heritage Transformation
• Spellcasting Mechanic
• Fixed spell list

A fighter:

• High attack/damage/ac/hit points, proficiencies
• Always-on extra damage ability
• Martial Mechanic (expertise die, 4eEssentials at-wills, something else?)
• Weapon choice

Again, super-rough. But I like the symmetry, easy to remember, easy to build classes, easy to switch mechanics in and out. Each class has enough "Class Features" and a unique way to approach basic combat and spellcasting, but you can always choose the martial/spellcasting mechanic without detracting from the "feel" of a class.