D&D 5E Imagine This: 5E in five easy steps

[Mercurius]

1. Take 3.5E
2. Dial it back to its simple and open-ended core structure.
3. Tweak and update a few elements to their 4E versions and/or a more streamlined version.
4. Mine every edition of D&D for sub-systems to add on as modular options, including 4E's sub-systems, thus treating 4E as one possible way to formulate D&D. Rinse add and repeat, with literally endless possible modules.
5. There you have it: 5E.

Notice that I don't specify what the "simple...core structure" is, or what "elements" should be tweaked to resemble their 4E iteration or something we haven't seen yet. But the point is, the above would basically please both 3.x and 4E fans, and thus 90% of the D&D fan base. Not everyone would convert, but most everyone would at least like and appreciate the game.

As for the remaining 10%, maybe a few would convert for awhile but I think most would simply stay with their older edition of choice. Viva la difference!

But the point being, 3.5 and 4E are not incompatible in terms of taking a basic core structure and treating both as possible configurations that can be made with modular options. This approach wouldn't please non-WotC D&D fans, but let's be honest: if you didn't convert to 3E or 4E or Pathfinder, it is highly unlikely that you'll convert to 5E because it is even more unlikely that they're going to go back to a pre-WotC edition as the basis of the rules system.

 

[nnms]

A good starting point would be to take a look at Microlite20, MicroliteOSS & Microlite74:

The Microlite20 RPG Collection | RetroRoleplaying

 

[TrippyHippy]

What about players who didn't like 3.5 or 4E?

 

[nnms]

What about players who didn't like 3.5 or 4E?

You should take Microlite20/OSS/74 and compare it to 0e/Swords & Wizardry and see just how stripped down and old school 3.5 OGL can get.

Check this Microlite20 character sheet (one side of one index card):

http://www.sinisterforces.com/2011/07/25/my-microlite-20-index-card-character-sheet/

 

[Tehnai]

I very much do not agree with the OP, I think 5E should be a toned down 4E, crossed with a healthy dose of BECMI, with modules inspired from 3rd at times (skills and feats come to mind).

I think it would be a blunder for WotC to base their game mostly on 3.X, and try to gather back the old-schoolers and build a simpler system to build a new fanbase. Going for a toned down 3.X would be an effort to try and grab back the Pathfinder crowd, which have a pretty solid game to play already, instead of making something new, perhaps give the hobby a much needed second wind.

Whereas we already have had 3 different mainstream versions of third edition (not counting Fantasy Craft and other cousins), I don't think we need a fourth.

 

[Hassassin]

I think it would be a blunder for WotC to base their game mostly on 3.X, and try to gather back the old-schoolers and build a simpler system to build a new fanbase. Going for a toned down 3.X would be an effort to try and grab back the Pathfinder crowd, which have a pretty solid game to play already, instead of making something new, perhaps give the hobby a much needed second wind.

The core mechanics of 3e and 4e are really similar, the d20 + modifiers, the four defenses (which weren't called that in 3e), the six ability scores one of which affects pretty much every check. The really big differences are in class design and subsystems, not core things.

 

[Tehnai]

If this is what the OP means by "Take 3.5" than sure.

 

[mkill]

The core mechanics of 3e and 4e are really similar, the d20 + modifiers, the four defenses (which weren't called that in 3e), the six ability scores one of which affects pretty much every check. The really big differences are in class design and subsystems, not core things.

Depends on your definition of "big" and "core". 4th edition made some very elemental changes:

* The "power" format, fixed class power progression
* end of linear fighters, quadratic wizards
* same BAB for everyone
* Fort, Ref, Will like AC, not die rolls; spells have attack rolls
* fixed spell duration replaced by saving throws
* much higher low level survivability
* Remove full round action (and multiattacks), new minor action
* Completely different healing rules (healing surge etc)
* Buff spells and items were drastically cut
* nothing on the DM side (monsters, NPCs) uses PC rules
(and this is just an arbitrary Top 10)

Each of these were deep, fundamental changes, based on very different design paradigms. Each of these have vocal fans and haters. Depending which side 5E adopts, it will be perceived as a continuation of 3E or 4E. For some, a middle ground exists, but some are either or - either you roll to hit with Fireball, or the target rolls Reflex.

 

[Mercurius]

What about players who didn't like 3.5 or 4E?

Honestly? Those folks aren't a priority, I would imagine, or at least not compared to other groups. The top three priorities, in whatever order, are: current 4E players, 3.x/Pathfinder players, and potential new players. Players of older editions converting to 5E would just be icing on the cake, really, but they represent a pretty small portion of the pie.

Now if WotC can design a game that pleases 3.x and 4E players, and is accessible and appealing to newbies, then--and only then--should older edition players be considered. In other words, only if it is doesn't impede the first three priorities. Hopefully they'll be able to throw in bits of TSR flair, however, without going against those three more important priorities. But what we won't see is a 5E that peddles backwards to pre-WotC design approaches.

The core mechanics of 3e and 4e are really similar, the d20 + modifiers, the four defenses (which weren't called that in 3e), the six ability scores one of which affects pretty much every check. The really big differences are in class design and subsystems, not core things.

If this is what the OP means by "Take 3.5" than sure.

Exactly what Hassassin said.

 

[Hassassin]

Depends on your definition of "big" and "core". 4th edition made some very elemental changes:

* The "power" format, fixed class power progression
* end of linear fighters, quadratic wizards
* same BAB for everyone

Class design.

* Fort, Ref, Will like AC, not die rolls; spells have attack rolls

There are player rolls variant or house rules for both editions, this is easy.

* fixed spell duration replaced by saving throws
* Buff spells and items were drastically cut

Spell design. Nothing in theory prevents you from having spells from both editions for one system as long as they are balanced.

* much higher low level survivability

It is easy to give a dial, like "choose the level you start at" or weaker threats to use for first levels.

* Remove full round action (and multiattacks), new minor action

The actions are a bit different, but not all that much compared to earlier editions. Sure, you have to pick one, the other or something slightly different, but I doubt this is that big an issue for many.

* Completely different healing rules (healing surge etc)

This is an issue where it will be interesting seeing them reconcile different opinions. It's not impossible to design the core system so that different healing rules can be used, but they need some default of course.

* nothing on the DM side (monsters, NPCs) uses PC rules

This is something, where I think few actually want different vs. same rules, just good. In any case, there is one person in the table whom this really concerns and I wouldn't call it part of the core system.

 

[Zireael]

Originally Posted by mkill
* Fort, Ref, Will like AC, not die rolls; spells have attack rolls
There are player rolls variant or house rules for both editions, this is easy.

Could you point me to some of those variants, please?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkill
* Completely different healing rules (healing surge etc)

This is an issue where it will be interesting seeing them reconcile different opinions. It's not impossible to design the core system so that different healing rules can be used, but they need some default of course.

I am also interested in how this issue will be solved.

 

[Hassassin]

Could you point me to some of those variants, please?

For 3e they were in UA. I don't have a reference for 4e, but you can at least find house rules using Google. (Someone else can probably help.)

 

[Aeolius]

...the above would basically please both 3.x and 4E fans, and thus 90% of the D&D fan base.

Call it quibbling, but 3e fans will feel slighted, if 4e fans find the edition to their liking, and vice versa. 5e needs to be something new, universally baffling to players of all prior editions, but with hints of what makes D&D feel like D&D.

Then, release a quick-start guide in a "read me first" format, so that anyone, regardless of past experience, can play some form of the game in 20 minutes. Familiarity with the rules will then follow.

 

[Mallus]

What about players who didn't like 3.5 or 4E?

I would think it's the players who really liked 3e who would be most disappointed by this approach. My observation is the majority of 3e fans like it because of the complexity, not in spite of it. They enjoy the 3e complexity, all the options and synergies, the character-building mini-game, etc.

Note that Pathfinder is not a simpler version of 3e, and Microlite is a fan hack that's popular with a small number of message board folk.

 

[Mercurius]

Call it quibbling, but 3e fans will feel slighted, if 4e fans find the edition to their liking, and vice versa. 5e needs to be something new, universally baffling to players of all prior editions, but with hints of what makes D&D feel like D&D.

Then, release a quick-start guide in a "read me first" format, so that anyone, regardless of past experience, can play some form of the game in 20 minutes. Familiarity with the rules will then follow.

That just sounds petty. D&D fans are never petty.

But on a serious note, I agree with you that 5E needs to be something new. But I think it can be new while a) retaining something very similar to the core of 3.x and 4E, and b) be able to re-configure either 3.x or 4E with the the modular options.

What is "new" might be a few tweaks here and there, but it will mainly be in the modular approach - which opens up the possibilities of the game in a way previously not possible, or at least not actualized. Now we really can have class-less D&D or D&D with spontaneous casting or variant alignment systems, etc.

I would think it's the players who really liked 3e who would be most disappointed by this approach. My observation is the majority of 3e fans like it because of the complexity, not in spite of it. They enjoy the 3e complexity, all the options and synergies, the character-building mini-game, etc.

Note that Pathfinder is not a simpler version of 3e, and Microlite is a fan hack that's popular with a small number of message board folk.

But equal or even greater complexity would be possible with modular options, it just wouldn't be core. 3E fans will only be unhappy if they want everyone else to be playing their version of the game.

 

[Aeolius]

That just sounds petty. D&D fans are never petty.

Try being a fan of the World of Greyhawk setting, sometime. Some 1e GH fans dislike everything that followed, some 3e fans dislike changes made in 2e, some accept novels as canon while others do not. And don't even get started on gunpowder.

But on a serious note, I agree with you that 5E needs to be something new... in the modular approach

As a DM who prefers a combat-light and roleplay-heavy approach, I am keen to see how the "complexity dials" are implemented, myself.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

we haven't seen yet. But the point is, the above would basically please both 3.x and 4E fans, and thus 90% of the D&D fan base. Not everyone would convert, but most everyone would at least like and appreciate the game.

I think you vastly underestimate the number of people playing older editions.

 

[juboke]

But the point is, the above would basically please both 3.x and 4E fans, and thus 90% of the D&D fan base

This is an interesting stat. Not saying that it is incorrect, but can you source it?

 

[WheresMyD20]

Honestly? Those folks aren't a priority, I would imagine, or at least not compared to other groups. The top three priorities, in whatever order, are: current 4E players, 3.x/Pathfinder players, and potential new players. Players of older editions converting to 5E would just be icing on the cake, really, but they represent a pretty small portion of the pie.

Now if WotC can design a game that pleases 3.x and 4E players, and is accessible and appealing to newbies, then--and only then--should older edition players be considered. In other words, only if it is doesn't impede the first three priorities. Hopefully they'll be able to throw in bits of TSR flair, however, without going against those three more important priorities. But what we won't see is a 5E that peddles backwards to pre-WotC design approaches.

Catering to the same dwindling player base that exists now is a recipe for failure. New players are the key.

The old BECMI sets still remain the best introductory D&D product ever released. There's a lot that can be learned from that edition. BECMI is far more newbie friendly than 3e or 4e. Its design, level of complexity, and the way it was marketed are a blueprint for how to get new players into the hobby.

How do you make a modern version of BECMI? Start with 3e, remove the feats, skills, and minis combat. Streamline the rules by using DM fiat for corner-cases. The rules you're left with would be pretty similar to classic D&D. Package it with a few newbie-friendly chapters of introduction to the game, and you've got a winning 5e core.

 

[nnms]

Note that Pathfinder is not a simpler version of 3e, and Microlite is a fan hack that's popular with a small number of message board folk.

My point in bringing it up was to show what you can do with a 3.x style approach once you strip out all the elements that are part of class, spell or other subsystem design.

I'm not advocating D&D Next should be Microlite20, but that 3.x OGL does provide a very simple core framework that can be easily adapted to produce a wide variety of D&D edition style play.