The 5e toolkit

[Chris Knapp]

My ideal 5E would be 4E with the following exceptions/replacements:

From 3E:
Lower monster HP's
Weapon types (crush, slash, pierce)
Massive damage rule
Coup-de-grace

New:
A sea/water skill to complement Nature/Dungeoneering/Streetwise
Gridless combat options
A morale system to maintain combat balance, but prevent "last man standing" grind.

 

[Connallmac]

Guess I misunderstood a wee bit, but what I'm saying is that Role Playing isn't a factor of presentation in the various editions, it's a product of the people playing the game to incorporate it however they like it. Some people like hack n' slash, some like heavy story based campaigns. This is the beauty of D&D any/all editions have the ability to be anything you want them to be. This shouldn't have to be stressed in any edition's GM's guide, Player's Guide, or Campaign setting(s), this is by definition the whole point of playing the game which is a "role playing game" I could see some "splat" books for "skill-based challenges" on tips/tricks to role playing or telling people to go to their forums or other community websites to learn from people who have been playing a long time for advice on how to do these more effectively.

The problem doesn't arise from hack 'n slash being badwrongfun, it comes from the failure of newer editions to present other styles of play.

 

[Wik]

Guess I misunderstood a wee bit, but what I'm saying is that Role Playing isn't a factor of presentation in the various editions, it's a product of the people playing the game to incorporate it however they like it. Some people like hack n' slash, some like heavy story based campaigns. This is the beauty of D&D any/all editions have the ability to be anything you want them to be. This shouldn't have to be stressed in any edition's GM's guide, Player's Guide, or Campaign setting(s), this is by definition the whole point of playing the game which is a "role playing game" I could see some "splat" books for "skill-based challenges" on tips/tricks to role playing or telling people to go to their forums or other community websites to learn from people who have been playing a long time for advice on how to do these more effectively.

P.S. I'm not trying to start any type of flame war on any edition here, I love every edition I've ever played and there are pros/cons to each. So I hope no one was offended by my first post in this thread.

Oh, don't worry about the offence factor. I do, however, happen to disagree with you.

If you spend a large portion of your book focused on combat, you can't complain when most of the people play that book focus on combat in their playstyle. Even if you say something like (and htis is the defence 4e guys often adopt) "Well, we don't cover roleplaying because it doesn't need rules!") well, people need to hear that yes, there's roleplaying in the game. Or else, they can be forgiven at looking at thousands - literally thousands - of feats and powers and concluding that, when they play this game, the focus is going to be on those crunchy bits.

This is why a lot of people say rules-light games have more focus on role-playing; it's because they feel less attached to the mechanical bits that take up so much of the page count. The 4e books would do so much better, in my estimation, if there were a few examples of play that contained player dialogue, no die-rolling, and some setting info. My two cents, of course.

 

[Mark CMG]

Guess I misunderstood a wee bit, but what I'm saying is that Role Playing isn't a factor of presentation in the various editions, it's a product of the people playing the game to incorporate it however they like it.

It's difficult to incorporate, particularly for players who don't learn the game from other players, if it isn't more readily presented in the rules across the various aspects of play. The hobby finds a lot of difficulty in growth, and it is often misunderstood or hard to understand, because so much of how it functions is based on the oral tradition of learning how to play rather than what is presented in the books we use. As with all aspects of gaming, it's easier to ignore an aspect presented than to incorporate an aspect that is not.

 

[Sir Robilar]

I´d like to see a return to the classic tropes of early edition D&D. Rules-light with fast combats, albeit keeping an eye on "realism". The system should be cleaned up with some 4eism, however - monster stat blocks have everything you need for the encounter, easy to build monsters, no buff spells.

Also: Mind Quad.

 

[Wik]

Or, to use a non-RPG example: MONOPOLY.

Everyone's played it. Most of us haven't read the rules, though. Yet, if you read the rules, there's a little bit, maybe a paragraph long, about auctioning off properties instead of buying them, etc.

turns out, if you play the game using that rule, it's much more strategic and fun than the way most people play it, which consists of rolling dice, buying stuff, building houses, and hoping to hell someone lands on your hotel. But yet, the rules don't really focus on that part of the game in their presentation, and the game suffers as a result.

Compare this to bluffing in scrabble, which is well presented in the rules and has a whole section dedicated to it, and it turns a game that is otherwise entirely about logophilia into one in which deception and trickery can help even the playing field.

 

[Kobold Boots]

Things I want:

Packaging wise: I really like boxed sets and the essentials softcover approach. More of the kind of work that went into the DM's boxed set and Monster Vault without the duplication of content would be awesome.

Character wise: I really think it's time to get rid of one of the iconic things about the system, that being character classes. It's ok to replace all classes with leader, striker, defender, controller and offer a series of powers and themes from different lists, letting players pick and choose.

I personally hate getting new classes and races in supplements. Find a way to let the player base create their own races and classes and show us how we'd put together the classics as a template. Maybe we get a return of the vancian tables through the "pick these number of powers from these lists at this level if you're a leader" approach.

Keep the iconic stats and 4e defenses. Fort, Will, Ref and AC are a nice differentiator that force tactical choices in power selection.

Skills: Count me in for liking the recent Mearls example for the Climb skill. I'd also like to see sub skills that can only be gotten through synergy bonuses thus expanding the skill list later in a character's development but not overcomplicating it at first level.

Logistics: I'm one of the few that would probably like to see a character sheet converted to a proper character deck (of cards) and a mini, tracking of stats and surges notwithstanding. Additionally, I'd like to see a separation of the combat game from the core rulebook (but still packaged together) simply so I can stop hearing the barrow wights of the Internet bellow about there being no role-playing in the rulebooks.

Things I don't want:

1. Character classes: I'm done with them. They're always good in the core release and then someone comes up with something cool about two years in that botches up the entire game system in a neat package.

2. Forgotten Realms: Yeah I know, wishful thinking. Won't happen and it would be stupid of WoTC to get rid of their primary IP, but to me as an old timer, there's nothing less D&D than the Forgotten Realms. To me it's the cheesy poof of game settings.

3. Any changes to the game that are not directly supported by a preferred tracking mechanic by WoTC. Conditions and Marks are bloody awesome in concept but horrible in practice at a table. Why? Because the idea is in the rules without an adequate, supported way to track them.

- Don't give me conditions without a smart way to track them on a mini.
- Same with marks. I shouldn't need to buy to stick to my minis or use paper clips.

In other words, and this goes to every part of the game system. If you put something in a game that materially slows combat or changes how a player can act, package something in the core boxes that specifically is meant to make it easier to use the mechanic live.

Yes, I can make my own effects cards. Yes I can buy Alexa's mini stands and rounds.. but I'm already buying your boxed set. Put useful stuff in it.

Guess that means I want something that I started in the don't want section.. meh.

 

[Kobold Boots]

It's difficult to incorporate, particularly for players who don't learn the game from other players, if it isn't more readily presented in the rules across the various aspects of play. The hobby finds a lot of difficulty in growth, and it is often misunderstood or hard to understand, because so much of how it functions is based on the oral tradition of learning how to play rather than what is presented in the books we use. As with all aspects of gaming, it's easier to ignore an aspect presented than to incorporate an aspect that is not.

I agree with you to an extent. I'd argue that the oral traditions of play have a lot to do with particular groups of players. I'd say that first edition and second edition D&D were just as hack and slash capable as 3rd and 4th ed. However, the more "hardcore" players in the 80s and 90s were into immersive storytelling with the really hardcore moving into things like LARPing.

Of course the hardcore end up playing these games longer and the feeling of role-playing amongst those groups is very strong as they came up that way. The oral tradition in that kind of group is much different than say my own as I came up through military wargaming and found my way to immersive role play thanks to drama, acting and later LARPing.

The experience at my table is different and the tradition is different but I will state that none of my players had any problem understanding what to do after actually reading the players handbook, seeing a few examples and playing with at least one player that "got it", even before I had well experienced gamers hanging around.

 

[Mark CMG]

I agree with you to an extent. I'd argue that the oral traditions of play have a lot to do with particular groups of players. I'd say that first edition and second edition D&D were just as hack and slash capable as 3rd and 4th ed. However, the more "hardcore" players in the 80s and 90s were into immersive storytelling with the really hardcore moving into things like LARPing.

Of course the hardcore end up playing these games longer and the feeling of role-playing amongst those groups is very strong as they came up that way. The oral tradition in that kind of group is much different than say my own as I came up through military wargaming and found my way to immersive role play thanks to drama, acting and later LARPing.

The experience at my table is different and the tradition is different but I will state that none of my players had any problem understanding what to do after actually reading the players handbook, seeing a few examples and playing with at least one player that "got it", even before I had well experienced gamers hanging around.

I don't disagree that (O)D&D, 1E and 2E "were just as hack and slash capable as 3rd and 4th ed." I will also note that early games that I played at Gencon in the Seventies included DMs from the 'inner circle' that included both types of games. And, remember, these were tourney games such as the big AD&D Open in the late Seventies and early Eighties rather than campaigns, and so lent themselves more naturally to a kind of play that required expediency of play toward goals if you were interested in completing the scenario and moving on to further rounds of the tourney. Roleplaying in such situations unless called for by the DM to resolve an encounter was sometimes shunned by players as superfluous.

Myself, I was a wargamer before D&D was released to the broader market in 1974, though this did include both hex-based board wargaming and miniatures wargaming, some of which was fantasy style (including the original Chainmail). I still do all of that plus tabletop roleplaying games since D&D was finally available. But I also went on to do stand up, improv, study theatre in college (one of my undergrad degrees is in Communications, Media, and Theatre, the other English), plus did about fifteen years in the non-equity theatre scene in Chicago, mostly acting but some directing and playwrighting. As such, I've always had a foot in both camps, if we can draw a wavy, hazy line between them just for the purposes of this exchange. Alongside that, my experience with rolelplaying games in private longterm homebrew campaigns and in many conventions, gamedays, and other public forums has shown me a great degree of diversity in forms of play and levels of immersion in RPGing. I really do understand where you are coming from when you say that the oral traditions of particular groups can be very different from one 'camp' to the other.

I think there has always been this elusive Holy Grail of game design regarding presentation of roleplaying, early on because it was little understood and through current times because it is difficult to express easily or well. I'd like, however, to see the flagship product of the industry take a more serious stab at that presentation, even if for some groups the information isn't used in its entirety. I was in one group back in the day that wouldn't have dreamed of playing without 'weapon speeds' but never spoke in character and others where most players did their best at emulating one kind of British dialect or another and rarely rolled a die. They can both be fun ways to play, and they represent fair extremes of play styles, but I would really like to see a game that puts roleplaying more front and center in all aspects of the rules as presented if it is going to call itself a roleplaying game.

 

[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.

From the last time we had this discussion.