D&D (2024) Eye Tyrant. Who Died and Made You Gygax?? Design Your Own D&D 2024X3.

[EzekielRaiden]

WotC says 10% declining to 1%.

I may not cut the game to level 10 but woukd consider it at least.

As I said in OP not sure if 5th level spells are peak power or you would get level 9 spells at 9.

My homebrew goes to 5. I'll extend it if required but it's just more work.

My perspective is, people didn't like splitting up races and classes into multiple books. That's a thing 4e did, giving "the whole game" in one sense (1-30) but "only 1/3 of the game" in another (about 1/3 of total classes, 8/25.) This was widely criticized by a number of critics; I don't know if that means it could've gone over well if the presentation were better. But I'm inclined to think the answer is "no".

So perhaps the reverse path would work better. Promise folks that more levels are in the pipeline, but that the focus of design is on the levels everyone plays. Then it's "1/3 of the game" in one sense (levels 1-10), but "the whole game" in another (all "expected" base classes and a few extras for spice.) That might make people feel like they can be certain they'll get something like what they want, and thus as long as they like what they're seeing at level 10, maybe they'll like the future content for 11-20 too.

 

[Zardnaar]

My perspective is, people didn't like splitting up races and classes into multiple books. That's a thing 4e did, giving "the whole game" in one sense (1-30) but "only 1/3 of the game" in another (about 1/3 of total classes, 8/25.) This was widely criticized by a number of critics; I don't know if that means it could've gone over well if the presentation were better. But I'm inclined to think the answer is "no".

So perhaps the reverse path would work better. Promise folks that more levels are in the pipeline, but that the focus of design is on the levels everyone plays. Then it's "1/3 of the game" in one sense (levels 1-10), but "the whole game" in another (all "expected" base classes and a few extras for spice.) That might make people feel like they can be certain they'll get something like what they want, and thus as long as they like what they're seeing at level 10, maybe they'll like the future content for 11-20 too.

I wouldn't cut phb races or classes for 1 or 3.

Number 2 maybe.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I wouldn't cut phb races or classes for 1 or 3.

Number 2 maybe.

Sure. But 5e promised that, and then cut Warlord.

So "I wouldn't cut PHB things" isn't always a guarantee of much of anything.

 

[Zardnaar]

Sure. But 5e promised that, and then cut Warlord.

So "I wouldn't cut PHB things" isn't always a guarantee of much of anything.

My opinion not WotC. And I was referring to 5E.

 

[NN]

Id buy the IP rights to Shadowdark and Rolemaster and release them as “Classic D&D 2025” and “AD&D 7E d100”

 

[Horwath]

I'd end levels at 10. Hardly any players go higher than level 10 and it seems silly to balance leveling and abilities with combinations that are unlikely to happen once you pass level 10.

the 11+ levels are not the problem,
some spells of level 5+ are the problem,

those spells need to be reign in, especially control and immunity spells.

damage spells are OK, summon spells are OK(unless summons themselves do not have problematic spells), resurrection spells are OK,

 

[payn]

Sure. But 5e promised that, and then cut Warlord.

So "I wouldn't cut PHB things" isn't always a guarantee of much of anything.

It wasn’t a promise they said “want to include everything “ and folks took it as a “promise”.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It wasn’t a promise they said “want to include everything “ and folks took it as a “promise”.

Potaytoh, potahtoh.

They made a huge stonking deal of taking "all the best" from every edition, of being the "big tent", of embracing everything D&D has been. They set a goal of inclusion. They then officially and explicitly did not meet that goal, for one and only one edition.

I'd rather not have a slap-fight here. Can we just leave it at "some folks saw it as not a promise, others did, this was pretty controversial"?

 

[payn]

Potaytoh, potahtoh.

They made a huge stonking deal of taking "all the best" from every edition, of being the "big tent", of embracing everything D&D has been. They set a goal of inclusion. They then officially and explicitly did not meet that goal, for one and only one edition.

I'd rather not have a slap-fight here. Can we just leave it at "some folks saw it as not a promise, others did, this was pretty controversial"?

I would but you certainly never phrase it as "I saw it as a promise" instead of like its factual and on record.

 

[GrimCo]

1. most money

Make it truly modular.
Players handbook - no subclasses, all classes are simple and easy to use, quick chargen, aim for the tropes popular with 15-25 demographic.
Advanced players handbook - subclasses, extra systems that are easy to slap on to basic game, more complexity, but more options, and bring AEDU back
DMG- instructions how to use modularity for achieving desired gameplay experience, from gritty old school to anime over the top power fantasy and anything in between.
MM with monster creation rules, new one every year
PHB2 and APG2 mid cycle with more classes/subclasse, powers and spells. People love more player options, need to milk it.
PHB3 and APG3 end cycle, go all out, give most broken overpowered options of classe/subclasses/powers/spells

With adjustible complexity and variety of gamplay experiences, it captures widest possible audience. Multiple MM/PHB/APG for milking that cash cow.

2. My love letter
5e with AEDU structure. Rework Warblade into 5e with 9 levels of manouvers/stances - thats now baseline fighter. Simple blaster caster using 3.5 warlock as a template. Replace subclasses and MC with ability slots - list of class abilities, each taking one slot, you get one slot at 3-6-9-12-15-18. Pick what you like.

3. Ground up version

Tough one. Honestly, idk.