"'Kill it before it grows'...he said 'Kill it before it grows'..."

[Deadboy]

I never personally said any of those things being options were dealbreakers for me, I just stated which I thought were likely to be options and then gave my personal opinions on each. No, I don't care if you can roll so long as I can still point buy.

The only way those things would be dealbreakers for me is if they were not options but the only way to play, and even then the only outright dealbreaker would be if I absolutely had to roll my stats. Different XP charts per class I don't really care about even if I don't see the point, and save-or-dies can make for an interesting play experience, even if I don't see the logic in them being more lethal than things that are actually lethal in real life... Though I do admit that when the future of a character, or my ability to play for the rest of the evening, is on the line from a single die roll, I usually just roll my "cheater die" (the one that's so dark that only I can see the numbers).

 

[Wormwood]

So if the game offers those things as options, you're out?

Not at all. Providing some old-school options may just be the only way to bring some 'unity' back to the game---and that's somehting I wholeheartedly support.

In fact, I would be very interested in a 5e that played differently at *every* table without house rules.

 

[kitsune9]

I'm with Dungeondelver on neutering threats. I like 'em some Save or die! More please!

 

[Dragonblade]

No rolling for stats as core. In fact, no randomness in character generation at all as core. No random HP rolls, for example. Some sacred cows are better off as hamburger. I want to make the character I want to play. Not the one the dice told me to play.

No separate XP progression, either. Along with randomness, I think its inimical to a balanced play experience.

What a nightmare that was back in 1e/2e with individual XP awards. D&D is a cooperative game where the party should rise and fall together. Not be scrabbling, scrapping, metagaming, and arguing for every last point of XP in some sort of PC levelling battle royale. Ugh, its bringing back horrible memories of my high school games. It was a bad idea in the 80's and 90's and its a bad idea today.

And no save or die/suck/lose. I want to PLAY D&D. Not fail a die roll and watch my friends play. As someone else posted, if the only action I can take for ten minutes is to go get another beer, the game has failed me.

If they want to put an old school style lethality option in the rules, cool. But I think its something that should be left to advanced players.

 

[billd91]

What a nightmare that was back in 1e/2e with individual XP awards. D&D is a cooperative game where the party should rise and fall together. Not be scrabbling, scrapping, metagaming, and arguing for every last point of XP in some sort of PC levelling battle royale. Ugh, its bringing back horrible memories of my high school games. It was a bad idea in the 80's and 90's and its a bad idea today.

Differing advancement rates for different classes may have made the game a bit funky, but that has absolutely no connection with scrabbling, scrapping, and metagaming for every last point of XP in a PC leveling battle royale. That's pretty much non-sequitur, if you ask me.

 

[thedungeondelver]

Not at all. Providing some old-school options may just be the only way to bring some 'unity' back to the game---and that's somehting I wholeheartedly support.

In fact, I would be very interested in a 5e that played differently at *every* table without house rules.

I think, then, here's where we agree to agree (and that's awesome). I think as many of the old-school options need to be there. Otherwise "Hey, come back, it'll be cool again" is empty.

Perhaps - perhaps - my original post was a bit too dogmatic but those things should really be core options. Yes, core. Yes, rolling HP and rolling stats. "Building" characters comes with play (at my table) and not at the outset. There's other games for that. As options for people who want that? Sure. Just don't sell me my stereo with the volume already cranked up!

 

[enrious]

I think, then, here's where we agree to agree (and that's awesome). I think as many of the old-school options need to be there. Otherwise "Hey, come back, it'll be cool again" is empty.

Perhaps - perhaps - my original post was a bit too dogmatic but those things should really be core options. Yes, core. Yes, rolling HP and rolling stats. "Building" characters comes with play (at my table) and not at the outset. There's other games for that. As options for people who want that? Sure. Just don't sell me my stereo with the volume already cranked up!

I'm with you, so long as the options for point-buy, hp, and the others are in the same book as the core options.

 

[Salamandyr]

I want to see rolling for attributes and point buy both supported, as well as one or two "default array" arrangements. Hopefully, however they do it. It will be easier to have lots of moderately high abilities, or one or two really good abilities and a load of mediocre ones. Also, I want a de-emphasis of attributes compared to other factors. A high score should be nice, but not mandatory. This is done by making the bonuses smaller, BECMI style.

I wanna see a hard cap of 18 on attributes, maybe 19 or 20 for demihumans, given an attribute bonus.

I doubt that they'll re-introduce differing xp progressions, even as an option. And I'm fine with that, as long as a level of one class is roughly equivalent to a level of one class is about equivalent in power to a level in another class. In 1/2e, it was pretty much recognized that a level of thief was worth a lot less than a level of fighter, or a level of magic user, so they got that balanced by being able to be a level or two ahead. If you looke at the OD&D charts, over the life of the character, the cleric and the thief have the same hit points. (Not that module writers of the time realized this. If you look at most TSR mods, the thief is the lowest level character of the pregenerated ones provided. Back in the day I never looked at xp as a balancing factor, and by the looks of it, neither did TSR.)

When 3e normalized the xp charts, that was fine, but they didn't normalize the power level. The rogue got his climbing and stealth stolen, among a lot of other factors, and didn't get much to make up for the exchange. And now everyone advanced as fast as he did. 4e balanced it out I believe.

I'd definitely like to see lethality return to D&D, achieved primarily by cutting hit points by a considerable margin. Then I'd like to see potentially devastating affects attack those hit points, with a special effect if they're exceeded. For instance, perhaps a medusa's gaze does a large hp attack, like 10d6 (vs an average character hp of 30-40 hp). If the damage exceeds your hp, you're turned to stone, but if it doesn't, you've successfully avoided the attack and take no penalty, including damage-it's not a REAL damaging attack, just a way of measuring the attack's power against your characters current "not allowed to die field".

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't see why they can't do both.

And I also don't see why anyone would have a problem with a game that let you do either.

Frig, man, not everyone plays the same way as you do, why can't you be OK with that?

 

[Dannager]

I think that variable experience charts are so far past what is acceptable nowadays that we can't expect to see them even as options. The arguments for it are flimsy at best and I have a feeling that they're more deeply rooted in nostalgia than anything else.