Pathfinder and 4e's love child, what I want in 5e

[Dragonblade]

So with the news that Monte Cook is coming back to WotC R&D, I've been thinking about what I'd like to see in 5e. I have played both Pathfinder and 4e extensively and there are elements of both games that I'd like to see in a Fifth Edition.

Starting off, here is what I LOVE from each game:

4e

Saves as defenses
Implements that add magical attak/damage bonuses instead of having charges
Static HPs
Point Buy
Self-contained monster stat blocks
Saving every round vs. spells/conditions
Healing Surges
Inherent bonuses to remove magic item dependency
Consolidated skill system
Heroic/Paragon/Epic tier support
DMG chart of expected monster bonuses/damage output per level
Codification of status effects
Combat Advantage mechanic
No cascading buffs
Rituals
Immediate/Standard/Move/Minor action system
Action Points
1/2 level bonus to defenses/attacks/skills
Skill training rules

Pathfinder

Distinctive and unique classes
Distinctive and flavorful magic items
Rule books that are fun and enjoyable to read
Wide variety of flexible spells
Multi-classing
Equally easy to run both narrative and mini based combat
CMB/CMD based maneuver system

And here is what I HATE about each:

4e

Minis are required
Powers are too limiting/fiddly
Rituals are cool, but need some that can be combat applicable
Powers and classes are cookie cutter/feel the same
Magic items are too fiddly/limited
Horribly limited multi-classing/hybrid rules
Rule books that are boring to read
No mid-combat encounter power refresh mechanic

Pathfinder

Random HP and hit dice
Too many fiddly combat rules that serve little purpose other than to annoy: (Crit confirmation rolls, can only charge in a straight line, double counting diagonal movement, etc.)
Save or Lose mechanics
Magic item dependency
15 minute adventuring day
Wizards with crossbows

As you can see there is a lot I like about 4e, but the mini's are mandatory, cookie cutter classes and fiddly powers really really kills it. This is where the "4e feels like a boardgame" meme really comes from.

Pathfinder really excels with fun, flavorful, and unique classes. My only complaint is that too many classes powers rely on a daily refresh mechanic as opposed to something a bit more encounter based.

My idealized 5e would probably use the base 4e combat and monster rules as its core engine, but would bring in the more flavorful and unique Pathfinder style classes and multi-classing rules.

So drop the power system and the cookie cutter builds, but keep healing surges, static HPs, and retool the refresh mechanics of the powers so that not everything is tied to a once per day refresh. Create some at-will style base attacks so that wizards never need to resort to crossbows. Also strip out the movement tied powers and all the references to squares to bring back the flexibility to shift between narrative and tactical combat that Pathfinder does well. Keep the diversity of spells and magic that Pathfinder offers but rebalance for a system that allows the 4e style of saving every round.

Make inherent bonuses a core rule, and make magic items both rare and powerful with enhancement bonuses that overlap but don't stack with inherent bonuses.

I'll also give a shout out to M&M 3e which actually offers the flexibility of Fort/Ref/Will saves that act as defenses or as rolls depending on the situation. Thats also something I'd like to see in 5e.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=2804]Dragonblade[/MENTION]
You're not the only one!

If what you describe had good improvised monster/terrain/action guidelines, provided a solid easy system of encounter building, had some interesting re-interpretation of skill challenges, and was well organized I'm sure I would love it.

 

[delericho]

What I want from 5e:

- One core rulebook that includes everything you need to play (and not a monster like the Pathfinder book; something much more like the 4e "Rules Compendium")

- A vastly simplified core system

- An end to the option bloat

- No required minis, subscription, electronic element, cards, or collectable component

- A good starter set that genuinely makes the game easy to learn and get started with for new players, released on the same day as the Core Rulebook

Almost everything else is negotiable. And it should be noted that at the moment 3e, 4e and PF all fail on at least one of these criteria.

 

[NewJeffCT]

As you can see there is a lot I like about 4e, but the mini's are mandatory, cookie cutter classes and fiddly powers really really kills it. This is where the "4e feels like a boardgame" meme really comes from.

Pathfinder really excels with fun, flavorful, and unique classes. My only complaint is that too many classes powers rely on a daily refresh mechanic as opposed to something a bit more encounter based.

My idealized 5e would probably use the base 4e combat and monster rules as its core engine, but would bring in the more flavorful and unique Pathfinder style classes and multi-classing rules.

So drop the power system and the cookie cutter builds, but keep healing surges, static HPs, and retool the refresh mechanics of the powers so that not everything is tied to a once per day refresh. Create some at-will style base attacks so that wizards never need to resort to crossbows. Also strip out the movement tied powers and all the references to squares to bring back the flexibility to shift between narrative and tactical combat that Pathfinder does well. Keep the diversity of spells and magic that Pathfinder offers but rebalance for a system that allows the 4e style of saving every round.

Make inherent bonuses a core rule, and make magic items both rare and powerful with enhancement bonuses that overlap but don't stack with inherent bonuses.

I'll also give a shout out to M&M 3e which actually offers the flexibility of Fort/Ref/Will saves that act as defenses or as rolls depending on the situation. Thats also something I'd like to see in 5e.

good list overall - I'd like to see an expansion of the inherent bonus idea as well, so you don't have to rely on magic items. Right now, if you rely on DDI/Character Builder, you kind of have to create a magic item that works within the CB, so there are not nearly as many unique/special items as in the past. I also like the fact that every group does not HAVE to have a cleric in it in 4E.

And, possibly some sort of expansion of out-of-combat skills, like craft/knowledge/perform to just add flavor to each PC.

Also, there is a mechanic in DMG2 that allows players a "boon" in game that can serve to recharge/refresh a daily power (or an encounter power, if the situation calls for several attacks without a short rest)

Minis are fine with me, but I'd rather they use realistic movement than having it work better to move diagonally. Having a small tape measure shouldn't be all that hard for people - they use them for Warhammer and other table-top wargames.

 

[BryonD]

Its easy to see how that list would appeal to existing 4E fans. But, the exception here or there aside, the things that alienate a large portion of the fan base from 4E would continue to alienate that same portion from this hypothetical 5E.

Which isn't to say that making it 3E light wouldn't alienate 4E fans now. You can't put that genie back either.

 

[Rechan]

I love 4e but I dislike several elements of it. Such as The Math, Class design, and various things like magical items.

Let's take The Math. They had to add in Expertise feats just to make it work. They made magical items necessary so The Math worked. That should never have happened. It should have been seamless, without needing feat tax patches and heavy reliance on equipment just to break even - those should have been, at least, additional layers on top of the fundamental framework that could have gone. A 20th level fighter with armed with a garbage can lid and a crowbar should be able to take on a dragon.

Removing the necessity of magical items allows them to become COOL, Unique, and Rare, rather than "+1 sword that does +d6 fire damage on a daily". I'd be happy if folks only had 1-3 magical items their entire career - and clung to them. Magical items are not in the economy.

On that math topic, I dislike how your class/build hangs so important on a primary ability score, and that ability score needs to be huge. This makes multi-classing out of your primary score a pain, and gives huge incentive to play a race with the boost to that primary score, as well as having low stats except for your primary/secondary score or else "the maths" doesn't work. This leads to weird combinations of class/race that have no in-world reasoning but work due to Math (see: Halfling Chaos and Storm sorcerers - that just doesn't jive with their racial fluff).

D&D will always be a game with classes. But I think the class system needs a Change. That change might move towards a more modular idea of class - not freeform like GURPs, but permitting a plug-and-play notion.

The thing that makes a class most distinct, to me, is the class features. In 3e that was the stuff on the right hand side of the class's advancement chart. In 4e, it's less the powers, and more the features they get, the 'build' that you choose on character creation. The problem with both of these is that it's also very stifling. It wasn't until Martial Power 2 where we got a Warlord who could do his thing with a bow. It takes WotC a year to make more classes (or more builds for the same class). It would be easier if they just created more class features.

This is true within a class (different fighter variants) and between classes (the fighter vs. paladin vs. swordmage's marking effects). What I think is that they should detach the class feature package, so you can for instance play a Rogue but pick up the Assassin's 'wait several rounds and then make a single decisive strike' trick, as opposed to the sneak attack trick. This would be fixed so you can't just grab ANY class feature package, but choose from within a menu.

Next, tie combat powers/class features to the Combat Role, but create a separate Out of Combat Role and tie skills to that. Something like 'Scholar' 'Tracker' 'Sneak' 'Socialite' 'Tough Guy' 'Athlete'. Each of these comes with a package of skills. This way, your Fighter is a Defender, but he can also be a Scholar (and have knowledge skills rather than physical ones), a Cleric can be a Sneak (stealthy and thiefy) and a Wizard can be a socialite (with social skills instead of knowledge). The Non-Combat role should come with powers which are of course, for out-of-combat. Your Charm Person would be an example.

Therefore Class becomes: Class Feature + Combat Role + Non-Combat Role. You have a lot of potential combinations. People complained that for instance, all Strikers or Controllers felt alike. Well now you're picking a non-combat role, and a class feature of your choice, and various powers that emphasize what you want. It would need to be finagled so that you can't get the best of all options, but it's a step in a more "I can build any character" direction. Themes are a great example of this. It's a layer you can plug and play on any character.

I almost want to see the system look like lego blocks; you can plug a piece in or leave it out, and it doesn't effect the Game's functionality. Leaving the economy out, leaving magical weapons out, or leaving COMBAT OUT is purely OK - you can assemble and run a game without one of the other parts. This way the game doesn't have to run one specific way, because you can add or leave out the subsystems as you see fit.

On the topic of subsystems:

Abstract the economy and integrate favors, boons, resources (Keeps et al) as part of it. I think those alt. reward powers from the DMG2 should be expanded on.

Revitalize skill challenges; they don't go far enough. Instead, model them after combat, with various options. For instance social combat (whittling away resolve/putting conditions) instead of just "Bluff/intimidate/diplomacy vs. DC".

One last thing I'd love to see is, from the get-go, having easier ways to implement or instruct how to make objective-based encounters that work. Oh. And the designers figuring out what is going on, what works, before a year after the game's been published.

Those are my big desires. Fiddly bits like conditions/marks, the way Solos end up getting nuked by round 3, the breaking down of high levels, etc etc, that sort of thing is really small potatoes. I'm more interested in the groundwork.

 

[FireLance]

Frankly, math is easy to fix, especially if you are under-powered for your level (i.e. not having the right feats and magic items), rather than over-powered for your level.

Just make sure that you fight monsters of lower levels. If you are 13th level and only have +1 gear instead of +3 gear, just fight 11th-level monsters instead. You might take slightly longer to gain a level, but the fights will be faster because the monsters have lower hp.

Monster level is just a way of making the DM's job easier by allowing him to quickly select appropriately challenging monsters, provided the game's standard assumptions of gear, character ability scores, etc. are met. IMO, adjusting the monsters encountered for a missing +1 or whatever of expected attack bonus or defenses is trivially easy.

 

[NewJeffCT]

Next, tie combat powers/class features to the Combat Role, but create a separate Out of Combat Role and tie skills to that. Something like 'Scholar' 'Tracker' 'Sneak' 'Socialite' 'Tough Guy' 'Athlete'. Each of these comes with a package of skills. This way, your Fighter is a Defender, but he can also be a Scholar (and have knowledge skills rather than physical ones), a Cleric can be a Sneak (stealthy and thiefy) and a Wizard can be a socialite (with social skills instead of knowledge). The Non-Combat role should come with powers which are of course, for out-of-combat. Your Charm Person would be an example.

Therefore Class becomes: Class Feature + Combat Role + Non-Combat Role. You have a lot of potential combinations. People complained that for instance, all Strikers or Controllers felt alike. Well now you're picking a non-combat role, and a class feature of your choice, and various powers that emphasize what you want. It would need to be finagled so that you can't get the best of all options, but it's a step in a more "I can build any character" direction. Themes are a great example of this. It's a layer you can plug and play on any character.

I like that idea! XP awarded for it.

 

[Dragonblade]

Minis are fine with me, but I'd rather they use realistic movement than having it work better to move diagonally. Having a small tape measure shouldn't be all that hard for people - they use them for Warhammer and other table-top wargames.

Right. I like minis too, but sometimes we want to run narrative style mini-free combat. Easily done in Pathfinder, but next to impossible in 4e because the power system is so intricately tied to mini-based movement.

This is where Pathfinder beats 4e, IMO. I think the system shouldn't require any tape measure or anything like that. That brings you even more into the tactical skirmish world and I think D&D should move away from that, not embrace it. However, I do think the system should have the flexibility to handle both.

As far as counting squares, we found that going back to Pathfinder's double-counting of every other diagonal to be an irritating chore that adds nothing to the game. 4e really had it right, here. Realism is not as important as making combat run smoother and quicker. I'd offer diagonal double-counting as an optional sidebar. Or poll the gaming community, see which one is more popular and then offer the other as a sidebar.

 

[Dragonblade]

I think Rechan's idea of splitting combat and non-combat roles is an intriguing one that offers a lot of flexibility.

I would go one step further and make the core combat skills tied to level and just give them to everyone. For example, every PC should have Climb, Jump, Swim, Perception, and every spellcaster should have Concentration. These skills should just auto-level with the PC so no one has to sacrifice story based skills for critically important combat/survival skills.

Then based on your Social Class, you get a package of social skills, plus perhaps a flat bonus to some of these combat skills if they are related. If Intrepid Explorer is my Social class, I might get a small boost to Perception in addition to a package of other non-combat skills.