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

[Yaarel]

I am not sure if that is exactly where I would have the cut-off point, but I am fine with there being two books, makes it easier to ignore the higher one

Many (most?) games appear to end by level 8, so zero thru 8 is the general experience, with 5 thru 8 considered a sweet spot.

Then, to divide the tiers by four levels each allows the "mid tier" levels 9 thru 12 to distinguish defacto and dejure from lower tier 5 thru 8 and higher tier 13 thru 16. Mid tier is useful for designing an adventure for similar levels. Mid tier is the old school "name levels".

Conveniently, the proficiency bonus defines each tier and the feat level is a capstone feature for each tier.

The "level zero" tier is playable, add hit points and simple weapons, and the species features, plus skills and feat grant meaningful options for level zero characters. This tier is great for highschool characters, kids-on-bike genre, and for players who want something simple or gritty fragile. Levels 1 thru 4 are substantial and survivive characters.

For the highest tiers 9-12, 13-16, and 17-20, these tiers distinguish meaningfully between different kinds of superhero genres.

 

[Yaarel]

I love cantrips, their concept, and they work well at low levels. But the following criticism by @mearls suggests cantrips need improvement at the highest levels:

"Let's dump cantrips. At this level, they clutter the character sheet and rarely offer a good option. That's five spells you don't need to think about."

To scale better, cantrips might need to scale better by improving at levels 1, 5, 9, 13, and 17. An improvement per four-level tier.

Cantrips can be part of the solution for simplifying high-tier casters. Like the Warlock relying on the Eldritch Blast cantrip, if cantrips can remain meaningful options at the highest levels, there can be less need for more complex spellcasting apparatus.

Cantrips are like superpowers. Features like Mage Armor and speed improvement etcetera can also reorganize as superpower always-on at-will cantrips that work well at the highest tier.

 

[mamba]

Many (most?) games appear to end by level 8, so zero thru 8 is the general experience, with 5 thru 8 considered a sweet spot.

Then, to divide the tiers by four levels each allows the "mid tier" levels 9 thru 12 to distinguish defacto and dejure from lower tier 5 thru 8 and higher tier 13 thru 16. Mid tier is useful for designing an adventure for similar levels. Mid tier is the old school "name levels".

I'd probably put 9-12 in the base version however, given that many published adventures include them

 

[Yaarel]

I'd probably put 9-12 in the base version however, given that many published adventures include them

Totally, you can put the mid tier 9-12 in the low-tiers players handbook.

My thinking is, currently many games dont even reach mid tier. Of those who do, if mid tier is in the high-tiers players handbook, players would be tempted to purchase the second book to continue on. Bastions can start to become a big deal. With slot 5 spells coming online and so on, mid tier is superheroish, like Batman, Submariner, Beowulf, and so on.

Also, if the low-tiers players handbook only has zero, 1-4, and 5-8, this keeps the intro into D&D substantially simple. It is like a Basic Tier and an Expert tier.

 

[Yaarel]

Mike Mearls Games has solid advice:

"A good rule of thumb in game design is that you can give players up to seven options to choose from. After that, they struggle unless you find ways to break those options up into categories. For instance, a player with five attacks and four defenses is probably OK."


When thinking about the number of prepared spells, it might help to divide spells according to their purpose during combat.

Spell Purpose:
. Damage/Healing
. Accuracy (Bless, dis saves)/Defenses (AC, saves)
. Mobility (Open Lock, Fly, Teleport)/Control (Wall, Slow)
. Stealth/Detection
. Grant Attack (Haste, Time Stop)/Deny Attack (Stun)
. Summoning (autonomous ally)

Something like, have upto four (sometimes seven) prepared spells in each category. Each category is manageable enough.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Basic line lasted 17 years just saying. Technically 19.

And the Advanced line was the only one of the two that actually survived.

We can play this game infinitely. It will not produce anything fruitful.

 

[Zardnaar]

And the Advanced line was the only one of the two that actually survived.

We can play this game infinitely. It will not produce anything fruitful.

Advanced libe also died.

Bog problem since imho they keep rebuilding the game from the ground up 3.0 onwards. Just creates new problems.

Evergreen was marketing buzz. People responsible are gone.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Advanced libe also died.

Er, no, it didn't. 3e is called 3e because it is the third edition of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. They just stopped using the term "Advanced" because there wasn't a "Basic" to contrast it against. "Advanced" is literally the line that survived--enough to have subsumed the entire brand name into it.

Bog problem since imho they keep rebuilding the game from the ground up 3.0 onwards. Just creates new problems.

They would not need to keep rebuilding it if they actually tested it thoroughly the first time.

They keep on not testing it, and it keeps on breaking.

Maybe actual testing, actual statistical analysis and rigor, could actually be useful for avoiding this thing you think is the biggest problem facing the design?

Because you know there WILL be a 6e, and there will be one specifically because there are all these issues people know are there and want to not be there.

Evergreen was marketing buzz. People responsible are gone.

Doesn't matter if it was marketing buzz or not. People said it--both inside and outside WotC. They keep saying it; not as much anymore, to be sure, but it still comes up.

Whether or not something is marketing buzz has very little to do with whether fans will expect it or not. Remember, gnomes are and have always been one of the LEAST played races in the game. But when 4e didn't include them in the very first book, it was used as a rallying cry for how horrible awful wicked evil 4e must be, to have turned our precious gnomes into monsters!!! Expectations not only can happen without the designers' intent or desire, they

Something can be literally 100% purified marketing buzzwords, never any actual serious intent or effort behind it, and it can still become a customer expectation. "Modularity" was precisely that; the designers never put even a little effort into making their grandiose claims a reality, but one of the VERY few complaints you might, very rarely, hear early in 5e's life was that "modularity" had died before it was ever born.

 

[Zardnaar]

Er, no, it didn't. 3e is called 3e because it is the third edition of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. They just stopped using the term "Advanced" because there wasn't a "Basic" to contrast it against. "Advanced" is literally the line that survived--enough to have subsumed the entire brand name into it.


They would not need to keep rebuilding it if they actually tested it thoroughly the first time.

They keep on not testing it, and it keeps on breaking.

Maybe actual testing, actual statistical analysis and rigor, could actually be useful for avoiding this thing you think is the biggest problem facing the design?

Because you know there WILL be a 6e, and there will be one specifically because there are all these issues people know are there and want to not be there.


Doesn't matter if it was marketing buzz or not. People said it--both inside and outside WotC. They keep saying it; not as much anymore, to be sure, but it still comes up.

Whether or not something is marketing buzz has very little to do with whether fans will expect it or not. Remember, gnomes are and have always been one of the LEAST played races in the game. But when 4e didn't include them in the very first book, it was used as a rallying cry for how horrible awful wicked evil 4e must be, to have turned our precious gnomes into monsters!!! Expectations not only can happen without the designers' intent or desire, they

Something can be literally 100% purified marketing buzzwords, never any actual serious intent or effort behind it, and it can still become a customer expectation. "Modularity" was precisely that; the designers never put even a little effort into making their grandiose claims a reality, but one of the VERY few complaints you might, very rarely, hear early in 5e's life was that "modularity" had died before it was ever born.

Games expanded by a factor of ten since the words evergreen got thrown around. Im not taking it as a carved in stone promise.

What you keep proposing isnt really viable. It takes around 3 years to develop a new edition. Youre proposing another year or two of playtesting a complete edition.

5E still got rushed, 4E had less than 3 years and got rushed out the door. 3.0 had a 3 year development cycle oops. Gary wrote OD&D over 2-3 years. 1E kinda rushed but had OD&D foundations.

You could need thousands of playtests to catch the worst bugs. Probably over a year or two. And they would need a complete version. Its note a reasonable idea or even viable and youre near complete D&D would leak.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Games expanded by a factor of ten since the words evergreen got thrown around. Im not taking it as a carved in stone promise.

What you keep proposing isnt really viable. It takes around 3 years to develop a new edition. Youre proposing another year or two of playtesting a complete edition.

Two years is an exaggeration. MAYBE one extra year. The biggest thing that would make a difference is having an actual schedule with internal deadlines, rather than (as you say, something that's happened three editions running) "we dithered and dithered for a year and a half doing 20% of the game, and then had to rush the remaining 80% through the last six months so we didn't miss our publication date".

5E still got rushed, 4E had less than 3 years and got rushed out the door. 3.0 had a 3 year development cycle oops. Gary wrote OD&D over 2-3 years. 1E kinda rushed but had OD&D foundations.

Then perhaps they should (a) actually PLAN for that? If they know a 3-year development cycle isn't enough, perhaps they need to reconsider how they do the planning for a new edition so they don't keep NEEDING to rush things out the door?

Wasted time and lack of discipline are a problem to be addressed, most assuredly. They are not an excuse for why we shouldn't bother doing actually rigorous design work.

You could need thousands of playtests to catch the worst bugs.

You almost certainly would not though. You "could" accidentally destroy your fanbase permanently with something that got rave reviews but which actual players HATE HATE HATE. "Could" is not a useful metric here.

Probably over a year or two. And they would need a complete version. Its note a reasonable idea or even viable and youre near complete D&D would leak.

Leaks are gonna happen no matter what. They happened with both 4e and 5e. What makes you think that would be a special problem this time?