• Welcome to this new upgrade of the site. We are now on a totally different software platform. Many things will be different, and bugs are expected. Certain areas (like downloads and reviews) will take longer to import. As always, please use the Meta Forum for site queries or bug reports. Note that we (the mods and admins) are also learning the new software.
  • The RSS feed for the news page has changed. Use this link. The old one displays the forums, not the news.

The perfect D&D edition (according to ENWORLD)

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Oh I guess I will unblock the jerk ....

It is time for you, [MENTION=82504]Garthanos[/MENTION], to review The Rules. Specifically, take a look at the section, "Keep it civil".

Because you are, at this point, far over the line. You have been lucky, riding on the grace of the fact that the moderators have been busy. But from now on, we expect you to be polite and respectful in this thread, and elsewhere on this site. If your mood is such that you cannot do that, we expect you to recognize that, and hold off posting until you can treat your fellow gamers well.

If you have any questions on this, please take it to e-mail or PM.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight

It is time for you, @Garthanos, to review The Rules. Specifically, take a look at the section, "Keep it civil".

Because you are, at this point, far over the line. You have been lucky, riding on the grace of the fact that the moderators have been busy. But from now on, we expect you to be polite and respectful in this thread, and elsewhere on this site. If your mood is such that you cannot do that, we expect you to recognize that, and hold off posting until you can treat your fellow gamers well.

If you have any questions on this, please take it to e-mail or PM.
Thank you.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Not really, it's possible to lie and be respectful, ;
I would say even most white lies are belittling people they are assuming a weakness or more often actually dodging recriminations. (there is a second lie where you think you are doing it for the other person). It is possible to lie and appropriately disrespect too. An example lying to hide where someone escaping Nazi Germany was to an authority who has clearly made themselves part of the problem. It's definitely highly likely to be a very good lie. even if disrespectful .. that Nazi might not be entrenched but the stakes make it appropriate.

meanwhile telling the truth in the wrong circumstances can be extremely disrespectful. Ie; Going to a funeral and telling the surviving family unfortunate truths about the deceased.
We can however say that it wasn't the truth or falsehood however that made that disrespectful. it would be equally nasty to lie doing that.

The point I was making was intent... is there with disrepect too. I see every intent of disrespect in how Elfcrusher expressed his opinion. And I read spite there too are you certain I am wrong?.

If something is done out of spite, it's spiteful, if it isn't then it's not. I don't think there is a lot of quibbling about what "spite" means.
Not necessary to quibble but we can still look and say its non-trivial and subjective to tell if its spite driven and somehow I assumed that calling something obviously popular an abomination (which we are almost guaranteed of never seeing already might be rather like that funeral scene. )
 
Last edited:

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
So it's probably "2" that we are looking at. If something shows a lack of "due regard for the feelings, wishes, rights, or traditions of others." or if they are being impolite, or not being courteous.
What happened to the definition which included the concept of earning respect. That is blanket statement and honestly I do not think anyone is obliged to have due regards for the wishes of someone who wants hyperbolically to engage in human sacrifice or obligatorily ANY wishes at all. i do not feel obligated to have due regards for someones wishes when they are patently selfish ( leaves room for some that arent actively depriving others) or generally harmful.

Basically it doesn't have to be full on admiration ie number 1 but I see no reason there should not be measurement and judgement involved.
 
Last edited:

happyhermit

Explorer
I don't know if there's any hope for this thread getting back on topic, but maybe we can wrap this up in case there is?

I would say even most white lies are belittling people they are assuming a weakness or more often actually dodging recriminations. (there is a second lie where you think you are doing it for the other person).
I don't know how we could figure out "most" but the point is they don't have to be. There are times when telling a white lie or bending the truth is done in a way that isn't disrespectful, it might not even be the "best" or most moral thing, but it isn't disrespectful. I could give more examples but you get the idea.

It is possible to lie and appropriately disrespect too. An example lying to hide where someone escaping Nazi Germany was to an authority who has clearly made themselves part of the problem. It's definitely highly likely to be a very good lie. even if disrespectful .. that Nazi might not be entrenched but the stakes make it appropriate.
And it's possible to be respectful and do good too, lying or not.

We can however say that it wasn't the truth or falsehood however that made that disrespectful. it would be equally nasty to lie doing that.
I agree, things can be disrespectful if true or false.

The point I was making was intent... is there with disrepect too. I see every intent of disrespect in how Elfcrusher expressed his opinion. And I read spite there too are you certain I am wrong?.
It doesn't have to be, one can be disrespectful without intending to. I never said Elfcrusher wasn't ever disrespectful, I said that other's posts elsewhere were dripping with it. I cannot be certain there is no spite in Elfcrusher's position, never claimed that was possible, but I object to the idea that the position itself is somehow inherently spiteful.

Not necessary to quibble but we can still look and say its non-trivial and subjective to tell if its spite driven and somehow I assumed that calling something obviously popular an abomination (which we are almost guaranteed of never seeing already might be rather like that funeral scene. )
The two really aren't linked at all. If I think something is an abomination, then I might genuinely think the game is better off without it, that's not spite.



Edited to avoid multiple posts in response to multiple posts;
What happened to the definition which included the concept of earning respect.
I don't know what you are referring to.

That is blanket statement and honestly I do not think anyone is obliged to have due regards for the wishes of someone who wants hyperbolically to engage in human sacrifice or obligatorily ANY wishes at all.
Yeah, and you would be disrespectful to them, there is no obligation.

i do not feel obligated to have due regards for someones wishes when they are patently selfish ( leaves room for some that arent actively depriving others) or generally harmful.
Ok, and when you don't you are being disrespectful, right?

Basically it doesn't have to be full on admiration ie number 1 but I see no reason there should not be measurement and judgement involved.
Not sure what you mean, but if you are being disrespectful you aren't treating someone with respect, regardless of the reasons ie; you judge a person unworthy of respect.
 
Last edited:

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
I don't know if there's any hope for this thread getting back on topic, but maybe we can wrap this up in case there is?
I considered the thread dead when he an Tony started back and forth and I blocked him when he pulled out a biblical word generally reserved and used now as an excuse for killing people in the world.
 
Last edited:

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
The two really aren't linked at all. If I think something is an abomination, then I might genuinely think the game is better off without it, that's not spite.
Others expressing like/love for it then losing it then you walk in and hate all over the corpse I thought was a good funeral scene analogy.
 

Tony Vargas

Adventurer
I object to the idea that the position itself is somehow inherently spiteful.
Its the position, not the person, really.

It's one thing to avoid something you dislike, another to avoid people who do like it. Those are reactions on a personal level, they may not be inclusive, kind or empathetic, but they're practical, without malice, merely self-interested.

But it's quite another thing to actively campaign to deprive everyone who may want it of the object of your dislike, even people you will never interact with, whose enjoyment of it will in no way affect you.

That /position/ is spiteful, even if the motivation is still merely self-interested.

It was dreadfully prevalent in the edition war. It is not entirely absent, now.

But vanishingly little of it is directed at the current ed, which is good for the hobby, as that kind of acrimony keeps potential new hobbyists from even trying it.
 

happyhermit

Explorer
I considered the thread dead when he an Tony started back and forth and I blocked him when he pulled out a biblical word generally reserved and used now as an excuse for killing people in the world.
Others might not have though.

Others expressing like/love for it then losing it then you walk in and hate all over the corpse I thought was a good funeral scene analogy.
It shows that truth and disrespect aren't tied to one another, sure.

And do we judge it differently based on intent? or do we just lump it with that's just disrespectful.
Intent matters, as do actions.

...
That /position/ is spiteful, even if the motivation is still merely self-interested.
...
Wait, so you are using some specific definition of the term that fits your criteria, wherein something can be spiteful even if no spite is involved, why am I not shocked? Because the internet, that's why.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
It shows that truth and disrespect aren't tied to one another, sure.
Nope too too broad, we have discussed numerous connections its not a one to one but they don't have to be to still be connected.

And what the analogy I was pointing to shows crashing this thread looks to be in the same category as your guy crashing the funeral to make sure everyone remembers what a bad guy the dead guy is. When the funeral is about making sure the living can feel better and adjust.

Intent matters, as do actions.
Until you encounter spite then you are arguing only intent matters (you are basically saying we have no way of knowing something is spiteful so we cannot call it spite without knowing an unknowable)

It ends up boiling down to clues and whether they exceed benefit of the doubt you are willing to grant. (I admit I probably do not grant as much as I could and when things on the other side of this keyboard are stressful I sometimes let them boil into here but at the same time I think maybe on this internet thinking that cut an paste arguments featuring signature lies cropping up are legit is a bit of a stretch.)

Tony seems to be saying the parameters we use to identify spiteful in the action arena are met by deprivations of others and so on.
 
Last edited:

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
And it's possible to be respectful and do good too, lying or not.
I think the deception is disrespectful even if you do good with it.
*you can make it look respectful without it being so, but I consider that
different.

Could you clarify this thought for me?
 

Aldarc

Adventurer
In a feeble attempt to move things back on topic: :-S

Business Plan/Vision:
* Stay away from cheesecake art unless it's a sourcebook material that references that, such as a Sword&Sorcery supplement that emulates the 60s and 70s fantasy, and then have equal representation of cheesecake
I hope this means removing the 5e art for the halfling.

Flavor/Lore:
* In addition to the above mentioned box set, place a strong emphasis on the lore of D&D. Dedicate a sourcebook just to this topic for those who want more detail than the boxed set provides. Have robust sections not just on Ravenloft and FR, but also on the Feywild and Shadowfell. Place an emphasis on how the book is a toolbox, where players can use setting material they choose, rather than feel like they have to incorporate all settings into their game world.

* Spend the time to create quality fluff and lore before every class/race entry, and every monster entry.

* Have robust rules in the DMG for world creation for homebrew campaigns. Encourage this
I would also like to see even a few snippets per monster entry that suggest other ways outside of the lore to use the monster. Something that invites the Gamemaster to not necessarily strictly adhere to the MM lore for their own homebrews or games. You could even have entries that note things like, "In older editions of the game, kobolds were rat-doglike things that looked like this - [show picture in sidebar] - you may prefer to include these in your game too. Here are a few ways to incorporate these non-draconic kobolds into your game..."

Also, I personally favor a lot of the lore of 4e, and I am thankful that a lot was subtely incorporated into 5e, though 5e did make its own breaks with prior lore. (Moving Succubi/Incubi to NE was a pretty smart compromise between 1-3e and 4e lore, which itself stemmed from a desire to have the alignment make more sense with their nature/use.) But I would nevertheless like to see more of the old 4e lore, because it did some wonders for the game, such as giving a rhyme and reason for the different types of undead, distinguishing druidic magic from the divine magic of clerics, etc.

Mechanics:
* balance vs. niche protection: Each class will be specialized and fit a role at core. A fighter does things completely different than a wizard, and at times the fighter will outshine the wizard, and other times the wizard outshines the rogue, etc. However, over the course of a typical adventure, each class will have an opportunity to shine and be balanced with the other classes. D&D has always been a team sport. Every encounter doesn't have to be balanced, but you shouldn't have to wait levels to balance things out either (like magic users in 1e).

* class list: in addition to the core classes we all know (pretty much all the ones in the 5e PHB), also include a warlord and mystic class as core. Some changes to how classes have been done include:
--ranger: core ranger class is magic free. No spells. Instead has abilities that give them superhuman abilities at tracking, hunting, survival, etc. The quintessential mountain man. Ranger subclasses include: protector (the ranger we are most familiar with; Aragorn, spells, etc), and Beast Master (instead of spells, has many optional choices to choose in how to empower your pet)
--sorcerer: solely uses a spell point system instead of spell slot system. Instead of subclasses, they have specialties which essentially are subclass lite. But there will be many of them to cover many archetypes. Similar to 5e wizard schools.
--wizards and clerics have specialized schools.
Here I would invite WotC to re-examine the balance between (sub)classes on a short rest resource management and those (sub)classes on a long rest resource management. The balance relies on an assumed group tempo for encounters per day that does not necessarily reflex praxis, while short rest mechanic balance also makes those classes more DM-dependent.

I appreciate your inclusion of the Warlord on the list. Thank you. If the Warlord could fit comfortably on the Fighter chassis, I would not be opposed to it being a subclass of the Fighter. I simply think that the current Fighter chassis is a bit too damage-output-heavy for the Warlord class fantasy. Also I would add the Artificer to the list, though this may be something some would preserve for the inevitable 6e Eberron.

As I personal preference, I would also look at the druid, which has been a quiet dud with some imbalances between the Land vs. Moon paths, their respective interaction with the level 20 capstone (favoring the Moon path), and with the lack of scaling of shapeshifting forms. I would probably just say, "You pick the appearance of the animal, but when you wild shape, you select a scaling shapeshifting archetype with a particular function (e.g., guardian, predator, flyer, swarm, etc.) and possibly choose some abilities associated with each archetype."

Regarding the sorcerer? Who knows? Everyone seems to have different ideas on how to make the class meaningful now that nearly every class is a spontaneous caster. Which leads me to...

Since Arcana Unearthed/Evolved from Monte Cook's Malhavoc Press print had a similar quasi-vancian system (prepared spontaneous casting) and a universal magic system with a singular spell list, then I would also advocate looking at that system for inspiration on how a 6e could distinguish spellcasting classes more by flavor and playstyle while also streamlining the spell lists. If you are not familiar with how their spell system worked, I would be more than happy to provide a brief tutorial because it was incredibly neat and I wish that other games had adopted something similar.

* minions. They come back.
I prefer minion rules but since some don't, I would suggest more modular rules.

*feats/backgrounds: feats like they are in 5e, but make background a little more impactful other than just a couple skills.
Feats: I would possibly decouple feats from ASI, because sometimes players feel that ASI is too obligatory for efficiency before getting to pick cool things that feats permit. And for some classes, grabbing ASI is more necessary than others. Another downside, IMHO, of having feats being so heavy per feat is that this provides the Vuman with a lot umpf in the early levels of the game that sees the greatest amount of play while leaving non-vumans without as much hit-the-ground-running customization options. So I would arguably look at ways that feats could be re-worked slightly.

Backgrounds: Decouple its associated Bond/Flaw/Ideal system, as this is something that should apply much more broadly than just your background. Why wouldn't your bonds, flaws, and ideals not also be associated with your species or class, for example, and not just your background?

* multi-classing: similar to how 5e does it, but remove stat dependency
Right now I am eying how PF2 handles multiclassing through its feat system. But I first want to see how the final form works in practice before making such a recommendation.

* lethality: attacks like the gaze of a medusa and basilisks carry more punch than in 5e. Poisons are more dangerous. Make the game more lethal (but not on AD&D levels) Monsters seem a bit of a pushover in 5e
I don't necessarily think that lethality is as much of the issue as is the lack of cool things for monsters to do beyond being sacks of HP. I would bring back 4e monster design. PF2 will be adopting a similar approach where they want to give monsters more unique abilities.
 
Last edited:

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Feats: I would possibly decouple feats from ASI, because sometimes players feel that ASI is too obligatory for efficiency before getting to pick cool things that feats permit. And for some classes, grabbing ASI is more necessary than others. Another downside, IMHO, of having feats being so heavy per feat is that this provides the Vuman with a lot umpf in the early levels of the game that seem the greatest amount of play while leaving non-vumans without as much hit-the-ground-running customization options. So I would arguably look at ways that feats could be re-worked slightly
This do interesting things/differentiate your self in some cool way vesus do things well.. hmm
 

Aldarc

Adventurer
This do interesting things/differentiate your self in some cool way vesus do things well.. hmm
But this issue could also be feasible if backgrounds, as per [MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION]'s suggestion (or inclusion in his list), had more umpf. If you knew you were going to become an Eldritch Knight, and you're not a vuman or a high elf (two subraces that can grab cantrips at 1st level), but wanted to reflect that early on, then maybe you could grab a background (e.g., Magical Apprentice) that provided you with a cantrip or two.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
But this issue could also be feasible if backgrounds, as per @Sacrosanct's suggestion (or inclusion in his list), had more umpf. If you knew you were going to become an Eldritch Knight, and you're not a vuman or a high elf (two subraces that can grab cantrips at 1st level), but wanted to reflect that early on, then maybe you could grab a background (e.g., Magical Apprentice) that provided you with a cantrip or two.
Like the higher punch backgrounds in 4e they were kind of like 1 feat or 3 normal backgrounds. 5e wouldnt have the same rations but yeh we prefer those.
 

Elfcrusher

Explorer
Not really, it's possible to lie and be respectful, meanwhile telling the truth in the wrong circumstances can be extremely disrespectful.
I wish I could find the footage, but back when Jimmy Carter was running for president some journalist interviewed his mother at her house. He asked her, "You've said that your son never told lies. Is that really true?" She said he sometimes told "white lies".* The journalist jumped all over that. "Wait, what's a 'white lie'?"

She said, "Well, remember when you arrived, and I said it was so nice to see you? That was a white lie."


*Sorry if there's inappropriate connotations to that term. This is from the 1970's.
 

Elfcrusher

Explorer
But it's quite another thing to actively campaign to deprive everyone who may want it of the object of your dislike, even people you will never interact with, whose enjoyment of it will in no way affect you.
I had to take a call just as I started responding to this, and I'm glad I did because I was about to lash out angrily. Which is a fairly human response when somebody has just denigrated you (again).

Ok....deep breath.

Upthread you made a joking aside about laser guns in the game. So please step through the following with me. I was tempted to use, oh, maybe global warming as an analogue, but I'll stick to RPGs:

1) First, do you think the inclusion of guns as an option in the DMG has increased the likelihood/frequency of guns appearing in the game? For example, a player wants to use a gun, and although the DM doesn't love the idea, is persuaded "Well, it's in the DMG, so it can't be all bad." Simple yes or no. If yes, skip to #3. Otherwise proceed to #2.

2) Even if you think it does not (which would astonish me, but whatever) would you find it plausible that somebody else does believe that? You may think they are wrong, but some other person does believe that the presence of official options increases their frequency. Can you imagine that? Does it make them a bad or selfish person for believing that?

3) Would you find it plausible that somebody might believe that the inclusion of guns is detrimental to the game, even if that person isn't forced to use them? Even if it never even shows up at their own table? That is, that an increasing appearance of firearms could presage a shift away from the genre that D&D originally represented, leading to more and more technology and other "anachronisms" (for lack of a better word.) Again, I'm not asking if you agree that this cause and effect will always unfold, but can you imagine that somebody might genuinely believe in it?

4) If that person, who believes 1-3, speaks up...or had spoken up in 2014...and says, "Hey, I don't think guns should be an official option, not just because I don't want guns at my table but because it encourages a shift in a direction I think is bad for the game" are they spitefully trying to prevent other people from having fun?

And I'm really just looking for the answer to #4.
 

Sacrosanct

Slayer of Keraptis
In a feeble attempt to move things back on topic: :-S

Business Plan/Vision:
I hope this means removing the 5e art for the halfling.

Flavor/Lore:
I would also like to see even a few snippets per monster entry that suggest other ways outside of the lore to use the monster. Something that invites the Gamemaster to not necessarily strictly adhere to the MM lore for their own homebrews or games. You could even have entries that note things like, "In older editions of the game, kobolds were rat-doglike things that looked like this - [show picture in sidebar] - you may prefer to include these in your game too. Here are a few ways to incorporate these non-draconic kobolds into your game..."

Also, I personally favor a lot of the lore of 4e, and I am thankful that a lot was subtely incorporated into 5e, though 5e did make its own breaks with prior lore. (Moving Succubi/Incubi to NE was a pretty smart compromise between 1-3e and 4e lore, which itself stemmed from a desire to have the alignment make more sense with their nature/use.) But I would nevertheless like to see more of the old 4e lore, because it did some wonders for the game, such as giving a rhyme and reason for the different types of undead, distinguishing druidic magic from the divine magic of clerics, etc.

Mechanics:
Here I would invite WotC to re-examine the balance between (sub)classes on a short rest resource management and those (sub)classes on a long rest resource management. The balance relies on an assumed group tempo for encounters per day that does not necessarily reflex praxis, while short rest mechanic balance also makes those classes more DM-dependent.

I appreciate your inclusion of the Warlord on the list. Thank you. If the Warlord could fit comfortably on the Fighter chassis, I would not be opposed to it being a subclass of the Fighter. I simply think that the current Fighter chassis is a bit too damage-output-heavy for the Warlord class fantasy. Also I would add the Artificer to the list, though this may be something some would preserve for the inevitable 6e Eberron.

As I personal preference, I would also look at the druid, which has been a quiet dud with some imbalances between the Land vs. Moon paths, their respective interaction with the level 20 capstone (favoring the Moon path), and with the lack of scaling of shapeshifting forms. I would probably just say, "You pick the appearance of the animal, but when you wild shape, you select a scaling shapeshifting archetype with a particular function (e.g., guardian, predator, flyer, swarm, etc.) and possibly choose some abilities associated with each archetype."

Regarding the sorcerer? Who knows? Everyone seems to have different ideas on how to make the class meaningful now that nearly every class is a spontaneous caster. Which leads me to...

Since Arcana Unearthed/Evolved from Monte Cook's Malhavoc Press print had a similar quasi-vancian system (prepared spontaneous casting) and a universal magic system with a singular spell list, then I would also advocate looking at that system for inspiration on how a 6e could distinguish spellcasting classes more by flavor and playstyle while also streamlining the spell lists. If you are not familiar with how their spell system worked, I would be more than happy to provide a brief tutorial because it was incredibly neat and I wish that other games had adopted something similar.

I prefer minion rules but since some don't, I would suggest more modular rules.

Feats: I would possibly decouple feats from ASI, because sometimes players feel that ASI is too obligatory for efficiency before getting to pick cool things that feats permit. And for some classes, grabbing ASI is more necessary than others. Another downside, IMHO, of having feats being so heavy per feat is that this provides the Vuman with a lot umpf in the early levels of the game that sees the greatest amount of play while leaving non-vumans without as much hit-the-ground-running customization options. So I would arguably look at ways that feats could be re-worked slightly.

Backgrounds: Decouple its associated Bond/Flaw/Ideal system, as this is something that should apply much more broadly than just your background. Why wouldn't your bonds, flaws, and ideals not also be associated with your species or class, for example, and not just your background?

Right now I am eying how PF2 handles multiclassing through its feat system. But I first want to see how the final form works in practice before making such a recommendation.

I don't necessarily think that lethality is as much of the issue as is the lack of cool things for monsters to do beyond being sacks of HP. I would bring back 4e monster design. PF2 will be adopting a similar approach where they want to give monsters more unique abilities.
I appreciate it, but you don’t have to thank me. My OP wasn’t about what I felt would be the perfect edition, but what were the recurring themes that ENWorld posters wanted in their edition. I’m not a huge fan of the warlord (not as bad as the bard though) and I think 5e can let you play the general theme of a warlord between class/feat combinations. That said, I recognize how lots of people want a warlord, so it seems the reasonable thing to do to include it. Most of what I posted wasn’t what I wanted (only a couple things were my preferences). I expected posts of “I don’t like it like that”, because you’ll never please everyone. I only wish a few posters didn’t decide to turn this thread into fight (and AFAIC, all of them have equal culpability).
 

Sacrosanct

Slayer of Keraptis
Let me expand on my previous post. As a game designer (kinda former, actually if I’m honest, and an award winning one, not to toot my horn), I feel I have a decent understanding of the process of designing games. The big question is “what do I want vs what demographic am I targeting?” I.e, I could design a game exactly with everything I ant (and have), but chances are only a small % of people will want to play it. If I’m designing a game like D&D where my target audience is huge, I need to cast as big of a net as possible. That means I don’t get everything I want, and compromises are going to be necessary. So things Im not a fan of (warlord, non magical healing, every class has powerz, etc) are also popular with several other gamers, and thus should be included.

Since day 1 of D&D, we have all ignored or changed things we didn’t like. Anyone who refuses to play the game because it has class X, or niche protection, or a basic option like the champion fighter, or doesn’t cater to char op, are all missing the point imo. The game is designed for all of us, not just you.
 

Advertisement

Top