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

[Zireael]

3; Since skill checks are essentially just modified stat checks, I would like to see the elimination of skills as they are, and instead make them straight stat checks, and each character can choose from a list of specialties which making any stat check to do that kind of thing provides a bonus.

You have a point; how would you do that though?

 

[Sunseeker]

You may disagree, but the fighting-man (fighter) class got its name from Chainmail, where it referred to any figure in the game that wasn't a magic-user or a monster. When OD&D came around in 1974, the fighting-man was basically the catch-all for any character that didn't use magic (i.e. a cleric or magic-user). In AD&D, the fighter was one of the four main classes. Paladins, rangers, and barbarians were sub-classes (specialized versions) of the fighter. You can disagree all you want, and even use capital letters to do so, but the fighting-man/fighter has a long history of being a plain vanilla class in D&D.

I'll be frank, because I want to keep this short.

I really don't care what 1e thinks the fighter should be. We are so, so, SO very far gone from that establishment, attempting to turn back the clock some 30 years is NOT beneficial. I'm sorry, but if your argument is "well in 1e the Fighting Man was plain and boring." I'm not interested, I'm honestly just not. I have no interest in playing 1e and I have no interest in seeing 5e relive it.

You're now jumping into an entirely different debate. The whole "linear fighter, quadratic wizard" is more of a 3e problem. It's not nearly as pronounced in 1e. Let's stay on topic here. Besides, trying to compare fighters to magic-users is like trying to compare quarterbacks to linebackers. It's a totally different position/role on the team. Apples and oranges.

"oh topic" was never about 1e. You're the one bringing up 1e.

Splitting hairs. For a session or two, one might be more powerful than the other or vice versa. Big deal. D&D isn't and doesn't need to be an exact science.

Given that 99% of the game is based on math, yeah it kinda does. If 2+2=3, something is wrong.

Leveling stops at 10th or 20th level? Funny, I played in a level 20+ campaign of 1e for years. We didn't stop leveling.

Good for you, again, I really don't care about 1e. Most games end at lower levels, see the survey Wizards conducted.

I'm sorry, I'm not going to get into a "things should be like they were in 1e" debate. Been there, done that, not interested.

 

[WheresMyD20]

I'll be frank, because I want to keep this short.

I really don't care what 1e thinks the fighter should be. We are so, so, SO very far gone from that establishment, attempting to turn back the clock some 30 years is NOT beneficial. I'm sorry, but if your argument is "well in 1e the Fighting Man was plain and boring." I'm not interested, I'm honestly just not. I have no interest in playing 1e and I have no interest in seeing 5e relive it.

The game has a 40 year history, not a 4 year history. If you are interested in building the best D&D possible (not necessarily the best game possible, but the best *D&D* possible) you need to consider the entire 40 year span. Ignoring the classic editions because they are older is just plain foolish.

It's not about "turning back the clock", it's about rediscovering things that were done well and lost in the newer editions. Not every change is for the better.

"oh topic" was never about 1e. You're the one bringing up 1e.


Given that 99% of the game is based on math, yeah it kinda does. If 2+2=3, something is wrong.

Good for you, again, I really don't care about 1e. Most games end at lower levels, see the survey Wizards conducted.

I'm sorry, I'm not going to get into a "things should be like they were in 1e" debate. Been there, done that, not interested.

This forum is about 5e, which is supposed to be a unity edition. If you want to personally exclude the classic editions, pretend they don't exist, and just assume they did everything poorly, I guess that's your perrogative. However, it's perfectly legitimate to bring them up in this forum.

 

[Gorgoroth]

Andor

wish I could grant thee some XP, sir!

removed pic

 

[CroBob]

You have a point; how would you do that though?

Exactly how I already said. Remove the idea of skills as they are, untie statistics from them entirely. Give characters specialties, which would replace skills. They could keep the same name, call them "skills" still, doesn't matter, but the mechanic is slightly different. When a character makes an attempt to do something (say climb a rock face, tumble through an enemy's square, recall useful information about a particular sort of monster or tree or rock, create a useful bell, or whatever), figure out what kind of stat would help him to do that sort of thing, and have him roll that stat check. Then, if he is also specially trained to do that sort of thing, he gets another bonus to do that thing, regardless which stat you have him roll. Sure, climbing a rock face will almost never be anything besides strength, but if you're in some magical realm where you move through space and time through the power of thought, let's say, would it really be strength he's using? When the rogue tries to blend in with a crowd, is he using his dexterity for his stealth check, or his charisma? Even if you do manage to use the same stat in every situation, so what? It still removes a bulky part of the character sheet.

Anyway, all skill checks would just be a stat check, and if you happen to be doing a skill you're good at, you get your proficiency bonus, or skill bonus, or whatever we call this thing.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Maybe it's just for me, but that picture made this whole page harder to read...

 

[jbear]

[MENTION=6674889]Gorgoroth[/MENTION] You should spoiler block that picture. It's busting the page size I think.

Reading this thread mad me go "Oh dear" inside my head.

I'm pretty certain now that whatever they come up with there are going to be a lot of unhappy people.

A lot of people entrenched in their preferences in positions which are mutually irreconcilable.

Innovations I want kept:
Swarms: Very cool, very dangerous. Fighting one rat is lame.
Another vote for minions. So cool being able to have 40 dudes in a place go mental on 5 PCs and the PCs can carve through them cinematically. Sweet.
Monster stats that are easy to use in combat for the DM, this means building my own monsters should be equally as easy and fast. (I'm fine if the fluff is more substantial but I don't want throwing a combat together to more complicated that what I now enjoy)
Mechanics I can learn quickly and memorise so I can then (as a DM) run the game off the top of my head with no need to ever reference a book during a play session again.
Player input into the narrative. I'm fine with DMs running the show, but I also love that players can play an important part and have an important voice in the game.
Wizards not needing to resort to a crossbow during combat but also that don't bust the game at high levels
Clerics that are not forced to only heal in combat but that do not become living gods with hundreds of buffs spells piled upon themselves
Fighters that are not forced to only swing a sword in combat
Tactical combat where interesting terrain is an integral part, but without going to the extreme that 1 hour for a combat is a given. (Some super important combats could last this long if the DM so chooses)
Themes as a third column of character creation, allowing players to deeply customise PCs
Multiclassing 3.5 style; hopefully this would be done so that broken combinations weren't a concern but also in a way that neither did it cause you to nerf your character.
Campaign worlds where it wasn't 'kitchen sink' type rules. Each world would have not only distinctive fluff but distinct mechanics. I'd like to see many of the AD&D campaign worlds brought back to life.
I also prefer that magic items be awesome and cool, or just quirky. But not a given part of character progression or a needed to make the math work. I don't think their needs to be an arbitrary uniformity of body slot eg. capes and amulets boost NADS. I prefer that magic items have little to do with the math and a lot to do with the awesome basically.
I like the option of save or die but it should be handled in a way that DMs are able to turn that dial up, down or off at their leisure.

I can probably think of more features/innovations I think should stay in the game but my laptop is running out of battery.

So I conclude.

 

[Lwaxy]

As much as I dislike 4e (for myself) I would love to see the rituals stay. I adopted them in one way or the other for many of my groups and everyone likes it.

Also, I'm generally in favor of everything that simplifies/simplified something, like same XP progression for all classes.

Character options - whether you call them archetypes, prestige classes or whatever else, I love that one of my groups has over 200 PCs and none of them is much alike.

 

[Zireael]

I have to add those to my list:
- minions
- fast monster creation
- quickly learnable mechanics
- swarms
- varied possibilities and options for every class
- themes

I guess I'll have to make my list a page on my website, then, since it's growing so fast...

 

[CroBob]

Well some of us are saying that is a good way to balance classes. It may not be everyone's cup of tea but we have had at least two posters defend these approaches to balance. Personally I very much enjoyed 2E balance over 3E's or 4E's. It is less gonzo than third edition, but more textured than fourth.

I started in second. I don't remember the different XP tables bringing anything to the game. It may function as an attempt to balance the classes over the course of a campaign, but I don't see why that method is actually a good way to do it. As has been mentioned, most campaigns don't last from level 1 to 20. In addition, if each character's balance is considered through each level, the result is that their power is balanced throughout the campaign as well.

If I paid someone to paint my wall purple, and they actually made one side blue, one side red, and put a gradient between the two colors, I would not pay them. I don't see the appeal in one class outshining another class through any innate aspect of the class. Sure, it has to do with taste, but it's also treating each class unfairly, and most people don't like being treated unfairly.