D&D 5E (2024) Mearls has some Interesting Ideals about how to fix high level wizards.

[Zardnaar]

Of course 4E is not for everyone, but one thing 4E was is it being honest.

4E did not try to use any illusion of choice. It presented things as they are to a fault, which made a lot of people also feel "these are all the same", because it did not try to veil anything. If 2 abilities are the same, then they are worded the same way, not a small cranny added to make them look distinct even if they are 99% the same.

4E says that its balanaced about starting encounters with full life and gives a mechanic to do so easily.

If a class gets bonus to basic attacks, it gives bonus to basic attacks, and does not create a cool sounding attack, which lets you do a basic attack with a bonus.

It does have a low number of distinct status effects, not having a "slow" and a "stun" which both do exactly the same.

4E did try to simplify a lot of things compared to 3.5. It still had tons of feats, tons of abilities, and general high numbers. PF2 does not try to streamline things.


This is why I am saying that PF2 and 4E not have exactly the same target audience, and why there is A LOT of things not being Shadowdark and not being PF2, to which a 6E could turn, when one starts to change things in 5E.



Although, as said before, I would 100% prefer to NOT take 5E as the starting point and change it (there are enough 5E hacks), but rather make a new game from which again many games can copy.

Inspiration from 4Es design lead to 13th age, gloomhaven, beacon, lancer, gunwat banwa, bludgeon, trespasser, PF2, Strike, Wyrdwood wand etc.


Copying from 5E lead to Shadowdark, Dragonbane, (and many 5E "but better" games which I cant remember the name) etc.


So 6E should be something which would again lead to completly different games.

4E only kinda simplified later on.
Adding powers to everything is more complicated than a 3.5 fighter at lvl 1.

ENworld forgets casual/newbies players exist. I've tun a lot of games recently and saw one play a battlemaster. She asked for advice on maneuvers to pick so I suggested prone, precision and push or fear iirc. She caiught on fairly quick.

4E not as simple as a lot of people assume. Its not even simple vs 3.5 (class and level depending).

WotC doesnt regard the wizard as overly complicated its a medium class 5.5 phb. I would agree with that. Warlock and Artificer says hi as well.

 

[Tigris]

4E only kinda simplified later on.
Adding powers to everything is more complicated than a 3.5 fighter at lvl 1.

ENworld forgets casual/newbies players exist. I've tun a lot of games recently and saw one play a battlemaster. She asked for advice on maneuvers to pick so I suggested prone, precision and push or fear iirc. She caiught on fairly quick.

4E not as simple as a lot of people assume. Its not even simple vs 3.5 (class and level depending).

WotC doesnt regard the wizard as overly complicated its a medium class 5.5 phb. I would agree with that. Warlock and Artificer says hi as well.

It simplified the game as a whole. It lacked simple classes at first, but as a whole game 4E is simplified vs 3E. I agree having some simple class is good, but understanding all classes in 4E vs understanding all classes in 3E is a lot easier, because they have a more similar framework, allowing for easily learning a new class.


Also newbie players dont necessarily want to play a "I just basic attack" class, even if old school people want to force that to them often.

 

[payn]

Inspiration from 4Es design lead to 13th age, gloomhaven, beacon, lancer, gunwat banwa, bludgeon, trespasser, PF2, Strike, Wyrdwood wand etc.

Sure, a lot will come down to preference. I dont really like any of these games, while I can admit they are not bad games.

Copying from 5E lead to Shadowdark, Dragonbane, (and many 5E "but better" games which I cant remember the name) etc.

Id expect 6E, which I dont expect for a good long time, to follow this path.

So 6E should be something which would again lead to completly different games.

Assuming thats a goal for D&D. I kinda see D&D having a lot in common with Monopoly. Folks like that delivery, or they really really dont. I think any innovation from 4E was accidental to the brand and wouldnt expect the boat to be rocked anytime soon.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I kinda see D&D having a lot in common with Monopoly. Folks like that delivery, or they really really dont. I think any innovation from 4E was accidental to the brand and wouldnt expect the boat to be rocked anytime soon.

Yeah, now that Hasbro has woken up to how important D&D can be to their portfolio, I'd expect "big changes" to be on the level of the 1E/2E transition -- a big deal for some online partisans, but everyone else can pretty much use whatever they've got to run new or old material indefinitely, mostly just replacing core books to the newest edition when they wear out.

 

[Zardnaar]

It simplified the game as a whole. It lacked simple classes at first, but as a whole game 4E is simplified vs 3E. I agree having some simple class is good, but understanding all classes in 4E vs understanding all classes in 3E is a lot easier, because they have a more similar framework, allowing for easily learning a new class.


Also newbie players dont necessarily want to play a "I just basic attack" class, even if old school people want to force that to them often.

If you wanted a modern simplified D&D you could strip out dailies, lvl 1-10, no sub classes and encounter powers only.

Might even be a fun game. Hard sell to claim its D&D though.

Severe changes from 5E or sacred cows you really need to poll for that.

B/X (specifically clones) is the simplest D&D yet. Shadowdark probably a decent simple cousin.

 

[Minigiant]

Need to finish my "cantripist" class.
just cantrips that scale to 10 dice of damage or 10× basic effect and ritual spells from the ritual tome.
kind of version of 3.5e warlock.

I was pondering whether to do Bonus Cantrip dice or Rerolling dice.

I settled on Both.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Well, my intention would be that when someone says "ooh, we need a shadow sorcerer," the immediate response is "if we don't have three shadow spells available per level, let's develop enough extras to fill out the spell list." (Three is obviously a bare minimum, but it's better than the zero that many specialist spellcasters have when it comes to appropriate flavors at any given level.)

And my response is mostly, why is it everything always becomes spells? It seems to me that 5e has completely lost the art of designing (sub)classes around actual class features, and has decided spells are what make nearly all (sub)classes what they are. I dislike this intensely.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

New fighters might be best lvl 1-20.

Barbarian and rangers. Very front loaded.
Paladins takes a while to ramp up.

Figher. Front loaded and best later on, best defenses.

My experience differs.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

And my response is mostly, why is it everything always becomes spells? It seems to me that 5e has completely lost the art of designing (sub)classes around actual class features, and has decided spells are what make nearly all (sub)classes what they are. I dislike this intensely.

Well, I would also trim back the spell list wizards get by default and add more choices via subclass.

But as mentioned upthread, it's hard to do every type of elementalist without either new spells or just shrugging and saying "well, I guess your fireball is an earthball or something now," which isn't a satisfying approach much of the time.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think the days of more complicated D&D are done though. 3E or 4E type wont be returning imho.

If they did a drastic revision and the players accepted it I suspect they would simplify it.

And I have seen far too many instances of "simplifying" that have resulted in driving away tons of fans, harming a game as a result, because "all simple all the time" gets boring. It's easy to slide in and easy to slide right back out, meaning you get people but you can't keep them.

Texture matters. Achievement matters. Depth matters. All simple all the time is like candy. It tastes great and will sell, but it's the first thing to be put away when folks have had their fill, and people get sick of it if they over-indulge. Complexity is like an actual meal, even if a plain one like spaghetti and meatballs or something. It isn't as fun or exciting or luxurious as candy, but it's something you can eat three days a week and enjoy.

Simplicity has value. Lots of it, in fact. But this obsession with simplifying everything until it is a perfectly smooth surface with zero texture is a bad choice, hands down. Complexity has long term value. Pretending it doesn't will be the death of D&D, sooner or later.