MichaelSomething
Legend
Leave the commoner class design to me!
D&D General Should ENworld Posters Design a D&D?
- Thread starter Zardnaar
- Start date
Zardnaar
Legend
1d6 potatoes scaling up to 1d6 potato fields?
Stormonu
NeoGrognard
I'd be on board with scaling back hit points. Either capping at 9th level (with maybe 1 or 2 hp/level past that like 1E/2E), or gaining HD only every other level - with maybe gaining 1dX at 1st, 2dX at 2nd and then an extra HD at 4th, 6th, 8th, 10th, etc.
Of course, damage output (especially monsters) would have to be rechecked and tweaked. A tuned group of PCs can currently chew through huge chunks of hit points in a single round as it is. Though, I would like that when the wizard drops a fireball things die, rather than getting a light sunburn. Same goes for when the other classes whip out their high-power encounter enders. Just balance it somehow by limiting how often they can bring it online (I would not be opposed to a momentum system that an encounter-ending ability takes a little bit of time to work up to so as to deflate the 5MWD where possible).
Of course, damage output (especially monsters) would have to be rechecked and tweaked. A tuned group of PCs can currently chew through huge chunks of hit points in a single round as it is. Though, I would like that when the wizard drops a fireball things die, rather than getting a light sunburn. Same goes for when the other classes whip out their high-power encounter enders. Just balance it somehow by limiting how often they can bring it online (I would not be opposed to a momentum system that an encounter-ending ability takes a little bit of time to work up to so as to deflate the 5MWD where possible).
Zardnaar
Legend
I remember Mearls talking about why they di it. Made a bit of sense at the time.
But hasn't worked great in practice and they've inflated damage so yeah.
AnotherGuy
Hero
@Zardnaar do you fancy yourself as an agreeable person here?
I think this exercise is best suitable for like-minded individuals who enjoy similar styles, the fewer the better.
For example the 2-3 posters (Cleon and co) who compile and update monsters on this site do great work and get things done, but to open it to the cacophony of the entire mob here is looking for unnecessary frustration. My opinion ofc.
I think this exercise is best suitable for like-minded individuals who enjoy similar styles, the fewer the better.
For example the 2-3 posters (Cleon and co) who compile and update monsters on this site do great work and get things done, but to open it to the cacophony of the entire mob here is looking for unnecessary frustration. My opinion ofc.
Zardnaar
Legend
It's something I'm thinking of doing anyway and have a skeleton already done.
Anyone who disagrees is mire rgan welcome to write their own.
Just seeing if anyone wants to do anything even if it's as simple as tweaking a monster or 5 levels of a simplified class.
People will botch and moan but probably won't want to do anything concrete.
4 classes 5 levels convert LMoP go from there.
mamba
Legend
I like the idea, just don’t expect to get a lot of useful feedback and a lot of pushback
I am in the brainstorming phase for my take, baseline is 5e mechanics and compatibility (I use that in a looser sense than WotC), basically that adventure paths up to level 12 should still work, I do not really care what happens to levels beyond that. Consolidate classes, reign in magic, buff martials.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
I think the much better question is, can ENWorld users design one?
I have no doubt whatsoever that if we could actually agree on a particular vision for what the thing should do, we have the collective interest and working-hours to put something together. If we appeal to our more technically-minded members, we could even get actual playtesting--with serious statistical analysis--as long as we can find enough volunteers.
But getting people on board with a sufficiently coherent vision to actually make a product? I've heard of more miraculous things...but not many.
Edit: To not be all doom-and-gloom about this, throwing my hat in the ring.
The 4e engine is a solid one. It has its flaws, but the vast majority of those are things that aren't rules design. They're presentation, organization, adventures, individual bits and pieces.
I know that they're seen as unnecessary complexity by a lot of folks, but the "stat and also modifier" thing is a beloved tradition which doesn't really cause that much grief. Instead of eliminating them, we should strive to make raw scores more useful. 4e already tried that by making all feat prerequisites require odd ability score amounts, but that's kind of a weak step. I'm not sure how to do this, but something should be done.
If a few of the really not very necessary classes are trimmed out (e.g. Seeker) and some of the genuinely bad subclasses go (e.g. Binder), you could probably trim the game down a great deal without losing that much.
Beyond that, KISS principle. When there's a choice, make it a meaningful one between options that are all actually good, but in different ways. If you can't come up with more than two good options, it's not really a choice--bake it in somehow. Keep the character-building minigame optional but useful.
Track down and learn from all the various "how I run SC" things out there, and synthesize a best-practices explanation. Ideally, with examples.
I have no doubt whatsoever that if we could actually agree on a particular vision for what the thing should do, we have the collective interest and working-hours to put something together. If we appeal to our more technically-minded members, we could even get actual playtesting--with serious statistical analysis--as long as we can find enough volunteers.
But getting people on board with a sufficiently coherent vision to actually make a product? I've heard of more miraculous things...but not many.
Edit: To not be all doom-and-gloom about this, throwing my hat in the ring.
The 4e engine is a solid one. It has its flaws, but the vast majority of those are things that aren't rules design. They're presentation, organization, adventures, individual bits and pieces.
I know that they're seen as unnecessary complexity by a lot of folks, but the "stat and also modifier" thing is a beloved tradition which doesn't really cause that much grief. Instead of eliminating them, we should strive to make raw scores more useful. 4e already tried that by making all feat prerequisites require odd ability score amounts, but that's kind of a weak step. I'm not sure how to do this, but something should be done.
If a few of the really not very necessary classes are trimmed out (e.g. Seeker) and some of the genuinely bad subclasses go (e.g. Binder), you could probably trim the game down a great deal without losing that much.
Beyond that, KISS principle. When there's a choice, make it a meaningful one between options that are all actually good, but in different ways. If you can't come up with more than two good options, it's not really a choice--bake it in somehow. Keep the character-building minigame optional but useful.
Track down and learn from all the various "how I run SC" things out there, and synthesize a best-practices explanation. Ideally, with examples.
Last edited:
jgsugden
Legend
This would be an errand of lunacy. There is no path that would lead that many voices to creating a synergistic and comprehensive rule system.
If you want to do it, I suggest introducing a concept, allowing for conversation around it, and then having a vote to determine how to incorporate it into the game. Then, when you introduce the next concept, remind people of what has already been decided and ask them to suggest and select options given what is already in place. The whole process should only take about 30 years.
If you want to do it, I suggest introducing a concept, allowing for conversation around it, and then having a vote to determine how to incorporate it into the game. Then, when you introduce the next concept, remind people of what has already been decided and ask them to suggest and select options given what is already in place. The whole process should only take about 30 years.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
