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

[P1NBACK]

And as I said before, if putting the die rolls onto the player is the best thing why not have all interactions be a player die roll? Attack a monster? Roll a die. Get attacked by a monster? Roll a die.

Listen:

• I am not against the 4E "save" mechanic for durations necessarily (that's not entirely true, I think they are stupid for certain effects and I can expand if you want me to, but this convo isn't really about 4E "saves").
• I just said that the 4E "save" mechanic does not serve the same function as previous edition saving throws. The static defenses do.
• I would not be opposed to players rolling the dice for all interactions. As I said, this was an option in 3E and other games do it (e.g. Apocalypse World) to great effect.

 

[P1NBACK]

J
**************
Why do I prefer F/W/S to the old saves?

Well, I do LIKE the idea of rolling the save myself, but the actual save numbers were a pain because they were arbitrary. Why 17? Why not 16?

Also, as mentioned by someone, the actual categories were weird. Spell, Rod Staff wand, Death magic? There doesn't seem to be any reason for it.

Now, all that having been said, why not a combination type save? Rolled by the affected player, based on the save stats as F/W/D, with perhaps a greater number of types of save?

Anyways, my original comment still stands. Saving throws that are systematic and based on something. Doesn't mean we can't find a combo solution, I simply like the evolution for save in 3E.

Great post!

Trust me, I'm not saying, "We need AD&D saves exactly as presented!"

I'm not. I promise.

I'm just playing devil's advocate because people on this forum especially tend to outright dismiss previous edition mechanics for seemingly no other reason than they are previous edition mechanics... And, worse, trying to claim that those mechanics are objectively worse because they think so.

Like you said, a combination or new approach based on the old approaches would be totally acceptable for 5E. And you know what, if they went with "static" saves in 5E, I'd probably still play the game. I'm not one of those people that is like, "If there's no A/E/D/U system, screw 5E!"

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Paralyzation/poison/death magic has top priority, then rod/staff/wand, then petrification/polymorph, then breath weapon, then spell. Easy! I can't imagine why you would think this was confusing, and I totally didn't have to search on Google and dig through random forum threads to find it.

No, it was quite easy to remember, lol. I never had to look it up every time after 20 years of running AD&D, lol. Anyway, more than 'nuff said on the whole subject.

I'll vote for AEDU based classes, though they can and should be tweaked a good bit.

 

[Naszir]

This is what I would like to see kept:

Healing based on the character being healed not on the character doing the healing.

Never felt right that 1st level cleric could heal the common man from 1hp to full health with a cure light wounds but the 5th level fighter only got a scratch healed from that same cure light wounds spell.

 

[P1NBACK]

This is what I would like to see kept:

Healing based on the character being healed not on the character doing the healing.

Never felt right that 1st level cleric could heal the common man from 1hp to full health with a cure light wounds but the 5th level fighter only got a scratch healed from that same cure light wounds spell.

You mean like the value of Healing Surges going up, so you get healed more for using one?

 

[Mattachine]

I agree with Nasiz. I prefer healing to be a fraction of the character's damage or full hp total, rather than static amounts.

 

[Naszir]

You mean like the value of Healing Surges going up, so you get healed more for using one?

Yes. If they go back to something resembling 3rd edition or earlier then a cure wounds spell should heal 1/4 of the hit points of the character being healed rather than 1d8 plus level of the cleric. Maybe it won't follow that specific formula but it I think it should be based off the character being healed and not the character doing the healing.

Perhaps for higher level cure spells the cleric can tack on additonal bonus due to their power. But the baseline should be set by the character being healed.

 

[P1NBACK]

Yes. If they go back to something resembling 3rd edition or earlier then a cure wounds spell should heal 1/4 of the hit points of the character being healed rather than 1d8 plus level of the cleric. Maybe it won't follow that specific formula but it I think it should be based off the character being healed and not the character doing the healing.

Perhaps for higher level cure spells the cleric can tack on additonal bonus due to their power. But the baseline should be set by the character being healed.

I dig it.

 

[seregil]

Healing should be a factor of the power of the healer then, as HP scale with level, they should also be a fraction of the person being healed.

Storywise, a powerfull healer can bring a character back from anearly mortal wound, independantly of who it is.

Therefore, healing should, imo, work with the healers level. Say 5% per level, so a level 20 healer deploying his maximum effort could restore anybody to nesrly full. Or maybe he can restore as many hp as he (the healer). This would represent the healer's power.

Just brainstorming....

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yes. If they go back to something resembling 3rd edition or earlier then a cure wounds spell should heal 1/4 of the hit points of the character being healed rather than 1d8 plus level of the cleric. Maybe it won't follow that specific formula but it I think it should be based off the character being healed and not the character doing the healing.

Perhaps for higher level cure spells the cleric can tack on additonal bonus due to their power. But the baseline should be set by the character being healed.

Easier than fractions may be 1d8 per level or d8 x level.