D&D 5E Innovations I'd like to keep in 5E

[CroBob]

Yes

Well, I am saying I find them to be uninsteresting and not very distinct.

Exactly what aspects do you look for when defining things as distinct and interesting?

 

[CroBob]

]

The different level progressions allow for characters that don't get as much sizzle (like say spellcasters) the advantage of early advancement and all that entails (HP, class abiitities, etc), and forces characters with some of that sizzle to wait. For me it always worked well. I don't think they will go back to it, nut if you are trying to balance over the campaign rather than perfectly balancing each character to the encounter (something I find pretty dull) it is a good place to start.

Sure, I see what you're saying. However if we take a class that gets less per level while leveling faster, and compare it to a class that gains more per level and levels at a slower rate, they should average out to the same amount of power per XP, right?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Exactly what aspects do you look for when defining things as distinct and interesting?

I look for mechanical and flavor variations from class to class. 4e charqcters are all mechanically very similar (built around dailies, encounters, etc). The characters are all pretty much good in combat, for example. I dob't know 4e feels like a well coordinated football team not a motley group of adventurers to me.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Sure, I see what you're saying. However if we take a class that gets less per level while leveling faster, and compare it to a class that gains more per level and levels at a slower rate, they should average out to the same amount of power per XP, right?

No. Unless i am missing a piece of your reasoning here.

 

[CroBob]

No. Unless i am missing a piece of your reasoning here.

Then you desire a game where classes are simply not balanced, power-wise? I seem to recall you saying the quick advancement of the fighter made up for having less power than other classes. Of you're not interested in balance, why argue about it at all?

 

[CroBob]

I look for mechanical and flavor variations from class to class. 4e charqcters are all mechanically very similar (built around dailies, encounters, etc). The characters are all pretty much good in combat, for example. I dob't know 4e feels like a well coordinated football team not a motley group of adventurers to me.

You should play with my group then, as they're anything but coordinated!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Are you suggesting an entirely new system could be acceptable to you or are there some sacred cows you are not willing to slaughter? Because if an entirely new system presents itself which is vastly superior, would you object to it due to it being so different? and if yes, why? I'm merely asking here - because I wonder how far YOU are willing to go for a new system.

Well, that is always an interesting question. Of course it is sort of a kind of 'slippery slope' sort of thing. Eventually there's a point where anyone will start to feel that they're not playing D&D anymore. Of course that point is going to be different for everyone. I can only guess where that line is for me. For me 4e is still in the realm of D&D. It has basically the same classes, races, hit points that work pretty much like they always did, combat isn't that much different basically. The genre and feel are pretty close overall. I think a 5e that was largely a tweaked 4e would likely be even closer in feel to older editions without any radical mechanical changes. Personally I don't have a huge need for anything to change a whole lot, most of it worked well enough.

This is not as complicated as you make it out to be. White Wolf has been using a similar system for years and its no more complex than what we are using now. The Summerland RPG even uses a variation of this system where the player motivates what attribute s/he wants to use and the Storyteller decides based on the motivation. And it works fine. So really this isnt a deal breaker.
Also unfortunately 4E (which I play and I enjoy) is rather thin in skills for my taste.

I look at it as a 'complexity budget'. Players only have so much mental bandwidth to dedicate. What 4e did was streamline a LOT of the mechanics and thus reduce the workload on people at the table, shift it to activities and times where it was easier to deal with, and just generally make things easier on everyone. Then they had a good chunk of that budget freed up which they could spend on more complex character features, tactical combat options, etc.

The upshot being unless there's something clearly to be gained by adding to the complexity of the skill system I'd rather see that budget dedicated to more story-centered activity. I think in fact that they have a big opportunity to back off a bit on the tactical stuff some and just make the game easier and quicker to play. With the nicely optimized core mechanics they have now that shouldn't be hard at all.
[/quote]

Unfortunately its not always the same designers that carry through to create the newer editions. But even with all that knowledge and learning - you have to ask yourself that if it was as you say, why did 4E fall short in certain aspects when all that knowledge and learning from previous editions was at their fingertips already? (And just for all you trolls remember I play 4E).
[/quote]
I'm not sure 4e falls short for any reason that is closely related to the mechanics in a general sense. My feeling is that 4e's issues have more to do with a presentation that doesn't please a lot of players and some tuning issues. The whole combat thing for instance. I can think of very easy ways to make combat go 2x as fast, which easily puts it in the same league with even Basic on that score. This wouldn't even require abandoning tactical combat (though a simpler abstract combat system is a reasonable add-on). 4e is a pretty hefty redesign of the game. I think the main lesson to be learned is that it is tough to do that and exactly hit the narrow target of being 'just like edition X' in one shot. It takes an iteration to get everything exactly right. I don't think that invalidates the design decisions made with 4e in general. There doesn't seem to me to be any huge issue standing in the way of an iteration of 4e being a very good game and meeting a lot of the general play expectations of say AD&D players.

Truthfully I'm torn - do we carry all these sickly bloated cows into the new edition (traditionalist) or do we instead forge ahead and leave archaic system of hit points, armour class, healing surges and the like behind - since we are never ever going to agree (just look at these boards!!!)

Personally I don't advocate leaving any of the existing subsystems behind. I think 'forging ahead' at THIS point in time is ideally a fairly restrained iterative process. We have a system that generally works quite well. Where it has issues they seem to have very little to do with failings of mechanics. They're more in the realm of things like "the numbers for monsters don't feel quite right" and such.

My final verdict, with a heavy heart, is to adopt White Wolf's RPG system -its truly superior in every way.
Realistic Wounds System, Conviction for Morale, Wits for Initiative, Combat Expertise (including Archery) becomes a Skill as it should be, Better Skill System, Faster Combat Scenes, Easier multi-classing system, Willpower instead of Action Points, Faith for Clerics, Traits and Flaws for better roleplaying, Backgrounds are present and the "Magic" works better, Comeliness for the win, no silly Saving Throws, Great Advancement System/XP...etc
With only a few minor adjustments it would be the ideal D&D system...

Meh, I was never that impressed with WW's system. It is a matter of taste mostly perhaps, but OWoD at least certainly had deep systematic issues. I've no experience at all with NWoD, so I don't know how many things were dealt with.

I feel pretty confident that decent game designers can hammer a 4e iteration into a very solid system that would be hard to top for the style of game that it represents.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That's really not true, though. The DM has only to choose which stat applies, and the player can state that he's good at that and his skill applies. The Dm may argue, and maybe he should, but I don't think players or DMs who try to use the system against the other should be a serious consideration for the rules themselves. Further, there would still be a list of skills to choose from (with a description of what situations they apply to) to avoid off the wall BS, and an option for the DM and player to make their own skills up.

Well, the way I see it the 17 skills that 4e has FAIRLY clearly define themselves. Ability scores are a lot fuzzier. Should 'willpower' be a function of WIS or CHA? How about knowing some fact or how to do something? It is always reasonably arguable between a couple of abilities, sometimes you could make good cases for any of 3 choices. Of course it is possible for a task to fall somewhere between or outside the 17 skills, but most of those cases aren't going to unequivocally fall into one ability score either. In your proposed system you have TWO levels of choices. You have a choice of ability scores AND a choice of skills. The more precisely you define the skills the narrower they get too, and the more likely they are to become proscriptive (IE you need skill X to be able to do something at all). That creates a new set of issues. There's also a tendency in an open-ended list for the size of the list to expand to a point where it isn't at all clear what skill to apply when something doesn't quite fall into any of them.

Just to be clear, I don't think your proposed system is at all unworkable. I just think it increases the workload at the table during conflict resolution sequences (encounters), which is the highest demand point in the game and thus the one where to you want to decrease the number of decision points the most to allow people to focus on things besides mechanics and to keep things moving quick.

I don't see how my proposed system would prevent adding bonuses to skills OR to specific stats checked, or whatever. My system is essentially the same as the current one, just more flexible. More importantly, it would allow for more interesting class features or feats, as they'd apply to 2 variables instead of only one, and would therefore appeal to gamers who like to focus on skills as much or more than combat.

IMHO you can get equally interesting class features and feats in 4e's system. There are TONS of feats and powers (and other stuff) that feed into doing specific tasks, all without dealing with extra variables. I don't think your system prevents anything, it isn't a bad system. I just think it increases complexity and I can't come up with a clear advantage. Since it is really impossible to address people's preferences by analysis of game mechanics there's not much we can say about that.

I don't see the cost. It's still 1. Player attempts something, 2. DM calls for a kind of roll, 3. Player makes the roll, 4. DM determines success.

Well, in current 4e there's one decision point, which is fairly unequivocal, which skill to use, which is generally made by the DM ahead of time. The player says what he does, the DM tells him which skill he's picked for that, and the player just rolls and adds one number. The set of numbers to add is short and pretty clear. I think 4e's skill system is literally as streamlined as it is possible to get and still have a meaningful system. Your system requires at a minimum looking at a potentially long list of skills, finding your modifier for that skill, adding it to an ability score modifier, and then rolling. That's a bit more work. Not a HUGE amount, but again it is extra work that happens at the table in the midst of play. Almost all the work in 4e's system is (or certainly can be) front loaded to prep time.

Both systems can allow for pretty much arbitrary modifiers and specializations, etc. In fact 4e backgrounds pretty much already ARE your proposed skill system as it stands. I don't feel like anyone has convincingly demonstrated a real need for anything beyond what we have now.

 

[WheresMyD20]

This kind of logic is like saying that if you want to make a muscle car you have to use 1960's technology because it is 'classic'.

Except that it's a terrible analogy. D&D isn't a machine. It's not limited by technology (except maybe by improvements in desktop publishing and art creation).

Classes didn't have different XP tables because no one thought of having a single table. They had different tables because it was designed that way.

Race-as-class didn't exist in BECMI because no one thought of separating race and class. It was a design decision.

AD&D didn't have unified ability score mods. That was also by design.

I'm not saying that all of these design decisions were the best decisions (they're all up for debate), but I am saying that they were creative decisions, not technological limitations.

Let's try a different analogy: Movie Remakes. 5e shouldn't simply be a remake of a remake of a remake. Take a look at the source material. Understand it and why it was designed the way it was. Then, look at the other versions (remakes) that were made over the years and carefully evaluate which changes worked and which ones didn't. Then, make a new remake (5e) based on the original with a view to changes that actually were improvements... and not every change was an improvement.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Then you desire a game where classes are simply not balanced, power-wise? I seem to recall you saying the quick advancement of the fighter made up for having less power than other classes. Of you're not interested in balance, why argue about it at all?

I am interested in balance. But my point is I am pkay with balance over time. I am not interested in the kind of balance that 4e achieves which is much more absolute, and about class parity. For me its fine if a rogue isn't worse at combat than a fighter, so long as the rogue can outperform the fighter elsewhere in the game.