The perfect D&D edition (according to ENWORLD)

Azurewraith

Explorer
Seems pretty spot on aside from a few minor niggles mainly, I hate both the warlord and the mystic but other than that I'll fund the kickstarter.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
It'll do, I suppose, but there's a few very important things missing:

Base assumptions of play (all of which affect the rest of the design):
-- 4 players each with one PC a la 3e? Numerous players with maybe more than one PC each a la 1e? henches and hirelings encouraged or discouraged?
-- designed foremost for sandbox play? adventure path play? story-now play? or is the system designed to be flexible enough to handle all these?
-- does the system allow for some level variance within the party a la 1e and 5e? or not, a la 3e and 4e?
-- how relatively easy (a la 3-4-5e) or hard (a la 1e) or risky is spellcasting?

Scaling: quite a few key elements could in fact be on a scale, with the scaling options given in the PH/DMG for the DM to mess with as desired:
-- lethality and 'bad stuff' e.g. level drain, long-term suckage, lingering wounds, magic item fragility
-- rest and recovery rates
-- rate of level advancement - does 1-20 take half a year? a year? five years? a lifetime?
-- type of level advancement: milestone levelling? individual xp? training required or not; and cost thereof?

I'll stop here, but this is just the tip of the iceberg...
 

JonnyP71

Explorer
However, I am confident I could create the worst edition of DnD, according to ENWorld:

Go back to THAC0
Individual XP progression based on class
Gender based stat maximums.
Fixed the bold bit, as they were never adjustments.

Currently happily running a 1E game with all 3 of the above. Prefer it to 5E. None of the above are bad things.... (lights touch paper and runs for cover!). I dragged my current group from 5E to 1E, they are big fans of 1E now, and individual XP progression being based on class is something they love.
 

gyor

Hero
I'd make different choices. I'd make Psion, Artificer, and Commander core classes (renamed Warlord, I think Commander is a better name).

I like, Sorcerer largely as is, but I'd have type of magic vary depending on bloodline like Pathfinder 2e.

I'd replace the DMG with a Settings Essentials, a lot of DM tips are edition neutral, and it'd give you the essential stuff for playing in each D&D Setting, like Dediling for Darksun, World Maps, expanded races and subclasses, ect...

And plenty of Cheesecake for everyone.
 

Zardnaar

Hero
I've never run 1E only played it. I would want to use the stat maximums for the first game and then dump them, 2E and BECMI don't use them.

Realistically the female players don't tend to like the stat maximums so don't use them or maybe a one off.

I would like to run it RAW once before changing it.

A few younger players at the gamestore due to the internet and critical role know about the 2E settings though and a 16 yo is running Planescape 5E.
 
Last edited:

Sacrosanct

Legend
It'll do, I suppose, but there's a few very important things missing:

Base assumptions of play (all of which affect the rest of the design):
-- 4 players each with one PC a la 3e? Numerous players with maybe more than one PC each a la 1e? henches and hirelings encouraged or discouraged?
-- designed foremost for sandbox play? adventure path play? story-now play? or is the system designed to be flexible enough to handle all these?
-- does the system allow for some level variance within the party a la 1e and 5e? or not, a la 3e and 4e?
-- how relatively easy (a la 3-4-5e) or hard (a la 1e) or risky is spellcasting?

Scaling: quite a few key elements could in fact be on a scale, with the scaling options given in the PH/DMG for the DM to mess with as desired:
-- lethality and 'bad stuff' e.g. level drain, long-term suckage, lingering wounds, magic item fragility
-- rest and recovery rates
-- rate of level advancement - does 1-20 take half a year? a year? five years? a lifetime?
-- type of level advancement: milestone levelling? individual xp? training required or not; and cost thereof?

I'll stop here, but this is just the tip of the iceberg...
I'd make different choices. I'd make Psion, Artificer, and Commander core classes (renamed Warlord, I think Commander is a better name).

I like, Sorcerer largely as is, but I'd have type of magic vary depending on bloodline like Pathfinder 2e.

I'd replace the DMG with a Settings Essentials, a lot of DM tips are edition neutral, and it'd give you the essential stuff for playing in each D&D Setting, like Dediling for Darksun, World Maps, expanded races and subclasses, ect...

And plenty of Cheesecake for everyone.
Remember, this is mostly based on the feedback from those two threads. If I didn't go into detail on other subjects, it's because those subjects weren't a common mention in either of the threads. Also, as in my disclaimer, this isn't the perfect edition for everyone. But it's the perfect edition for ENWorld as a collective, based on the most feedback
 

Yaarel

Adventurer
The original post is a pretty good list.

The only thing that caused me concern is:

* balance vs. niche protection: Each class will be specialized and fit a role at core.

Here, ‘each class will fit a role at core’ is the opposite of customizability according to character concept. So, it requires clarification about how to customize a character whose concept is beyond Gygax.



On a different concern, I was happy to see the need to support DM world-building.

DM world-building works best when the core rules are setting neutral − without any assumptions about what is in the setting. The setting might not even have other planes. So even references to ‘Fey’ creatures do well to avoid spacial assumptions. Especially religions, and different kinds of way of being religious, need to be more neutral and better model the reallife diversity of human religions. Let the DM decide without needing to erase texts.

At the same time, a separate box for official settings is excellent. These can show how each setting uses the core rules within its own unique context and flavor.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
But a spell-less Ranger as a base class, onto which magical, nonmagical, and beasty archetypes are added − makes alot of sense.
Yep. There was an option for a protector subclass that is pretty much the bog standard ranger we all know. So that option is still there. Only now, instead of mandatory spells, another subclass replaces those spells for pet augmentation enhancements and other skills. A few years ago when the PHB came out, I did a spell-less version of the ranger, so it would look something like this (an actual spell-less beast master subclass would have more quantity and more potent traits to choose from than what's below):

mundane ranger2.jpg
mundane ranger3.jpg
mundane ranger4.jpg
 
Last edited:

Elfcrusher

Adventurer
Seems pretty spot on aside from a few minor niggles mainly, I hate both the warlord and the mystic but other than that I'll fund the kickstarter.
I've explained, many times, my vehement opposition to the Warlord. My dislike of the Mystic (the UA version, anyway, if that's the sort of thing we're talking about) is different. It's this weird, polymorphic "be anything you like" class, but swapping parts around. The only real theme is the fluff, and otherwise its steps on the toes of not just one class but sort of all of them. I also don't like the name "Mystic" (although not nearly with the passion with which I hate "Warlord".)

Some ways to approach Psion/Mystic that would interest me:
1) A more tightly defined class that doesn't try to make the subclasses so divergent.
2) A new subclass for each (or some/many) of the existing base classes.
3) A prestige-class kind of thing that would be a mix-in with other classes. (An approach that also would have been a solution to Ranger, Barbarian, Paladin, not to mention Lycanthrope, Vampire, etc.)

The Lore stuff I find a little weird. I totally agree with tying game systems to lore, but D&D Lore is a redundant mish-mash hodge-podge (see what I did there?) of lots of different lores. Which lore are we talking about? Or is it all of them, and therefore the system should support all of them, and therefore...GURPS?

What *I* would like to see (and maybe I should have participated in those other threads rather than present it here) is that D&D is more explicitly fragmented into various settings. Want to play FR? Here are your races, classes, subclasses, spells, etc. Want to play a Warlord? Then play in this setting, because warlords don't exist in those other ones. Etc.

What I do like:
- Monsters should be tougher, more interesting, and have tactics sections.
- Spell-less Ranger base class.

Oh, and what about rewriting pretty much the entire spell list so that there isn't such a wide gulf between spells that rock and spells that suck?
 

Azurewraith

Explorer
I've explained, many times, my vehement opposition to the Warlord. My dislike of the Mystic (the UA version, anyway, if that's the sort of thing we're talking about) is different. It's this weird, polymorphic "be anything you like" class, but swapping parts around. The only real theme is the fluff, and otherwise its steps on the toes of not just one class but sort of all of them. I also don't like the name "Mystic" (although not nearly with the passion with which I hate "Warlord".)

Some ways to approach Psion/Mystic that would interest me:
1) A more tightly defined class that doesn't try to make the subclasses so divergent.
2) A new subclass for each (or some/many) of the existing base classes.
3) A prestige-class kind of thing that would be a mix-in with other classes. (An approach that also would have been a solution to Ranger, Barbarian, Paladin, not to mention Lycanthrope, Vampire, etc.)

The Lore stuff I find a little weird. I totally agree with tying game systems to lore, but D&D Lore is a redundant mish-mash hodge-podge (see what I did there?) of lots of different lores. Which lore are we talking about? Or is it all of them, and therefore the system should support all of them, and therefore...GURPS?

What *I* would like to see (and maybe I should have participated in those other threads rather than present it here) is that D&D is more explicitly fragmented into various settings. Want to play FR? Here are your races, classes, subclasses, spells, etc. Want to play a Warlord? Then play in this setting, because warlords don't exist in those other ones. Etc.

What I do like:
- Monsters should be tougher, more interesting, and have tactics sections.
- Spell-less Ranger base class.

Oh, and what about rewriting pretty much the entire spell list so that there isn't such a wide gulf between spells that rock and spells that suck?
You sound just like me, small world.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
Seems pretty spot on aside from a few minor niggles mainly, I hate both the warlord and the mystic but other than that I'll fund the kickstarter.
I've explained, many times, my vehement opposition to the Warlord. My dislike of the Mystic (the UA version, anyway, if that's the sort of thing we're talking about) is different. It's this weird, polymorphic "be anything you like" class, but swapping parts around. The only real theme is the fluff, and otherwise its steps on the toes of not just one class but sort of all of them. I also don't like the name "Mystic" (although not nearly with the passion with which I hate "Warlord".)
I get this, I really do. However, I think it's true that a lot of people like those classes, and it's better to include them than to omit them. It's easier to just ignore them rather than tell lots of people they don't even get a choice.

Sort of how I feel about bards, and lowkey13 feels about paladins.
 

Yaarel

Adventurer
Yep. There was an option for a protector subclass that is pretty much the bog standard ranger we all know. So that option is still there. Only now, instead of mandatory spells, another subclass replaces those spells for pet augmentation enhancements and other skills. A few years ago when the PHB came out, I did a spell-less version of the ranger, so it would look something like this (an actual spell-less beast master subclass would have more quantity and more potent traits to choose from than what's below):

View attachment 107287
View attachment 107288
View attachment 107289
Many of these ‘features’ are simply skill checks. For example, ‘Detect Poison and Disease’ is simply a Medicine skill check.

And so on.

One of the problems of recycling earlier editions is, they didnt really have our kinds of skills yet. Heh, sometimes the results are appalling − such as the very high level Legend Lore spell, being moreorless identical to a level 1 History skill check.



I would rather all of the ‘Animal Friendship’ stuff be normal Animal Handling skill checks that any character can do. Any character can have a normal loyal pet − even a brave one.

Perhaps the Beast Ranger should focus more on improving the combat performance of the beast.

Personally, I ran a special pet as a normal player character, with Fighter levels. The player played two separate characters. I read about someone who played a ‘bear’ as a 4e Monk, with fantastic verisimilitude.
 
Last edited:

Yaarel

Adventurer
That reminds me.

Like the Ranger, the Monk too works best as a nonmagical base class, which has a reasonable amount of space to add magical features for magical archetypes, and nonmagical features for nonmagical archetypes.

The Monk should be able to facilitate the creation of both an Avatar Fire Bender and a D&D Brawler.
 
Last edited:

Maialideth

Villager
I really like a lot of the ideas mentioned by the OP (but I'd most likely buy any new edition of D&D, if I'm being honest :D).

I do think, however, that I'd like there to be a long, hard look at balance of spells.

D&D is a legacy system (the rpg legacy system). I think some of the reason why there was a lot of dislike for 4e, was that it felt too different from what people were used to in D&D. So it might be that a lot of people would cry bloody murder if for example fireball became a 4th level spell instead of a 3rd level. But I think it would even out the power balance a bit more, also giving lightning bolt a chance to see some use. There are spells that are downright useless due to their high level (I don't remember a specific example off the top of my head, but I talked to our group's wizard player about it last time they leveled up), but they'd actually be worth it if they were maybe reduced a level, and some spells like fireball wouldn't suffer in usefulness if their level was increased.
 
Last edited:
You lost me at "--ranger: core ranger class is magic free. "

That's just a rogue.

;)
No, it's just a fighter.

Like, when you transgressed and lost or Ranger or Paladin powers back in the day, you became a mere fighter. I mean, the Gods /could/ smite you or send you to Hades to roll boulders uphill or complete health insurance forms or something, but, no, you have to be a Fighter now, /that/s real divine wrath.


Actually, magic in D&D is just, like, all that - so you could take every non-magical toy the Fighter, Rogue, non-casting Ranger, and any/every other non-magical class ever got, in every edition, give 'em all to the Fighter (hey, it was here first), and it still wouldn't be OP next to a full caster.
 

Yaarel

Adventurer
You lost me at "--ranger: core ranger class is magic free. "

That's just a rogue.

;)
It is possible that the ‘Ranger’ could be constructed as a Rogue archetype.

But then the Strength-Rogue would have to be far more viable. Perhaps with medium armor. And extremely high constitution. It would need to be Strength *and* with Trickster-Rogue-like access to Druid spells.

Other than that, the Dexterity-Ranger tradition, via Archery and Dual-Weapons, is well served by (an improved) Rogue (that is more competent in melee combat).

Alternatively, (an improved) Fighter could be the base class for the various Ranger archetypes (if more competent outside of combat).
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Remember, this is mostly based on the feedback from those two threads.
Sorry, I wasn't in either of those - didn't check in until this one.

If I didn't go into detail on other subjects, it's because those subjects weren't a common mention in either of the threads.
Which then means people in those threads were probably making some very broad assumptions about the sorts of things I brought up, without bothering to look any deeper and determine whether those assumptions a) were necessary and b) would hold up under scrutiny.
Also, as in my disclaimer, this isn't the perfect edition for everyone. But it's the perfect edition for ENWorld as a collective, based on the most feedback
It's the perfect 35% of an edition, maybe - all the other stuff hasn't been touched yet. :)
 

Advertisement

Top