D&D 5E Weighing in on 5e

[airwalkrr]

Seriously?

 

[CroBob]

Um... yes? Is there something you find difficult to believe about what I said?

 

[Ferghis]

Despite there being absolutely no evidence to support any valid or reasonable conclusion that 5e is coming anytime soon, it seems that rampant speculation based entirely on conjecture is the theme of the hour.

I really don't think changes will come along that will make the current publications obsolete, but it's certainly fun to speculate. The fact that they hired Mr. Cook (with a good salary, apparently) and that the WotC staff hasn't been doing much writing (much of MME has already been published, and recent books were mostly written by non-staff) is certainly good fuel for discussion.

In other words, no damage increases, no defence increases, no skill increases, no attack increases, at all, ever, through any feat.
[...]
Now, before people complain, I should also point out that along with this, classes should be built around optimal design.

I agree completely. Making a good striker in the current ruleset is a hunt for the few items and feats that really increase damage.

This all then comes down to play-testing. In this day and age companies have a massive amount of free resources at their disposal; they're called the fan-base.

WotC does seem quite out-of-touch with these boards and the ones on its website. Agreed.

And lastly, get a better web design and development team...

I agree that their technology department has done a poor job.

While we're at it, magic items also shouldn't grant bonuses. Nor should leveling. Nor should stats. You should roll a d20 vs the target's defense. The only math involved is:

Favorable circumstance +2
Ideal circumstance +5
Unfavorable circumstance -2
Horrible circumstance -5

Attacks should deal 1 point of damage for light weapons, 2 for heavy, and 3 for very heavy. PCs should have 5 to 8 hit points, and so should monsters. Minions still have 1. Elites might go 10 to 17, and Solos could be 25 to 42.

Wow, way to go with the thread's spirit, RW. I'd xp you, but I can't.

 

[delericho]

This all then comes down to play-testing. In this day and age companies have a massive amount of free resources at their disposal; they're called the fan-base. Set-up a department in WotC to solely manage play-testing and the collation and dissemination of feedback and use that to help filter balance issues before publishing content.

I think this is the only thing I agree with in this post.

And lastly, get a better web design and development team; if that means paying more money, then gosh darn it, fire someone irrelevant, like Mazzanoble.

I actually like SM's posts. She has a fun, engaging voice that makes for an entertaining read. And what she's doing is marketing, rather than game design - in theory, she's there to speak to the female demographic. The only think they're doing wrong with her column is putting it behind the paywall.

 

[Jack99]

I just wanted to chip in and say that I am glad none of you are designing 5e.

 

[delericho]

For feats, I would make these all small, untyped always-on bonuses. But vastly reduce the number of feats available - it should actually be possible to include every possible feat in the first PHB. Then, as suggested upthread, introduce talents that modify a character's powers - effectively siloing the numerical feats from the power-adjusting feats.

For magic items, I would have 'trinkets' that are low-power single-use items (3e wands, scrolls and potions), and 'artifacts' that are essentially 4e artifacts (but with a wider range of power levels, and with the rules assuming that PCs won't get them). Drop all the items in between, and drop any item that gives a bonus to rolls. Magic items should give the characters new powers, not make them better at the powers they already have.

But... I would also have an Artifice power source in the core, covering the Alchemist archetype, the Eberron-style Artificer, the steampunk-style Mad Scientist, and so on. But, perhaps most crucially, this also gives us 'signature items' and/or "Weapons of Legacy" (or 4e's auto-levelling items) - by having the character multiclass into this power source.

For skills, I would drop skill training (making most skills just attibute checks) but keep the Skill Focus feat almost unchanged (probably a lower bonus). Likewise, have races continue to give small bonuses, and instead of class skills have classes also give a small bonus. But, other than adding back a small number of missing skills (Ride, Craft, Perform, Linguistics), and replacing History with a wider Academics skill (covering history, but also knowledge of art, heraldry, and other assorted lore), skills in general are actually just fine.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

...I am a bit angry about cross-classing. Sure, 3.5 had far too much, but making up for it with far too little is no answer. Multi-classing should not be an essential aspect of character design, but nor should it make the character sub-par. I can't claim I know exactly how to accomplish this, but if multiclassing is done through feats, make each feat for the cross-classing abilities just as good as any other feat someone might want to take. Maybe allow a new class feature to be purchased via feat from the class you're multied into. That's what my house rules do.

That's kind of how feats and skills developed. In 2nd edition, there were "Weapon Proficiencies" and "Non-Weapon Proficiencies". The latter became skills, the prior became feats, with third edition. I can't claim I like it too much when the mechanics of the game get involved with role-playing. I consider it a good idea to get rid of most crafting skills, for example. It makes no sense for a 20th-level rogue to be a supreme chef through fighting monsters, and the level 10 commoner chef (a damned high level, considering the dude's a commoner (3rd edition rules, btw)) , whom spends his entire life as an apprentice chef and then a full chef, is a less good chef.

There are more than a few days when I get this unshakeable hunch that D&D would be well served to dust off some of the Dragon Quest class division ideas. I say this in full awareness of some of the drawbacks to going that way.

In DQ, classes are called "professions", but then magic (spells in schools) and weapon ability is bought separately, through something closer to skills. However, unlike a skill-based or point-based game, almost everything you buy is treated like a class track. Some are broad and some are narrow. When you buy broadsword skill ranks, you do in a narrow track that applies to ... broadsword skill use. When you buy ranger skill ranks, you get several thematically related abilities in that profession. XP is spent on these things, and they get progressively more expensive the better they get.

So I can envision a version of D&D where you spend XP in such tracks, separately. If you want to be a 10th level ranger with 2nd level broadsword ranks, you can.

The obvious objection to that is one that can be easily answered. We are so used to the cherry picking in skill-based or point-based games, that the DQ solution gets short thrift: Make XP award partially contingent upon broadening your character. I forget the exact details, but DQ RAW had three sizably different XP tiers, and you had to get 8-12 professions, skills, or schools to set ranks to qualify for the tier. Once you made it, you got enough XP to make creditable gains in those tiers. If you over-specialized, you can get rank 10 broadsword use very early--but you are seriously hurt elsewhere (and it matters, even for fighting). OTOH, If you spread out too much, it takes forever to get that last rank in the 8-12 skills.

In DQ, it was hard-coded. But DQ is a very old game. It would be interesting in D&D to have such tracks for advancement, but then have multiple recommendations for how to structure the tier thresholds to get the kind of game you want. For example, if you want something akin to 4E, where every character has to work hard to not be about equally good in combat, you simply set up the tier requirements to require a certain amount of combat ability. If you want a lot of slowly developing generalists, akin to say, GURPS, you relax the requirements severely. If you want some specialization, but not too much overt power-gaming, you go for something more middle of the road.

Another nice thing about this structure is that you need not fill out every track equally. You can lop off tracks for thematic, simulation, or gameplay reasons. If you don't want 20th level cake bakers, then you don't let the track with baking skills go very far.

Edit: Yep, WotC does have the DQ license. TSR got it from SPI, put out DQ 3rd ed., and then sat on it. WotC got it when they bought out TSR.

 

[NewJeffCT]

That's kind of how feats and skills developed. In 2nd edition, there were "Weapon Proficiencies" and "Non-Weapon Proficiencies". The latter became skills, the prior became feats, with third edition. I can't claim I like it too much when the mechanics of the game get involved with role-playing. I consider it a good idea to get rid of most crafting skills, for example. It makes no sense for a 20th-level rogue to be a supreme chef through fighting monsters, and the level 10 commoner chef (a damned high level, considering the dude's a commoner (3rd edition rules, btw)) , whom spends his entire life as an apprentice chef and then a full chef, is a less good chef.

The only reason that I think insight, bluff, diplomacy and other such skills should remain is because it'd be difficult to adjudicate who's a better liar or teller of when someone's hiding something through role-playing alone.

At any rate, Perhaps a specifically bonus "skill feat" every fourth level or so would add something to the game. There would no longer be a choice between skill augmentation and increased combat effectiveness, a dichotomy I oppose.

hmm, we had a long-running 3.5E campaign that went from 2007 to early 2010 and took the players from level 1-18. One player in the group maxed out his Cooking skill and it was a big role-playing element for him - meet the King of Kingdomia and offer to cook him a meal, then go to the royal kitchen, meet some of the cooking staff there and get some juicy gossip from them... then, meet the Queen of Queensylvania and, after a solid, but bland meal, offer to give the royal chef some of his exotic recipes.

And, this guy made it a point of cooking for the party every time they set up camp for the night (he even bought masterwork cooking utensils) - so, it's not like he had no time to improve his skills.

similarly - if you have a player skilled in Dance or Acting or similar, that could also be a role-playing opportunity (i.e., show off your Travolta-esque moves to the pretty princess, or dance like Patrick Swayze with the comely bard, etc)

 

[Jack99]

Okay, sorry about first post. Came off quite a bit more snarky than intended. But I must admit that Kzach and RW go against everything I want in 5e.

delericho on the other hand, hits much closer to home. If we go from 4e as a base, feats should only give out typed bonuses or abilities that are "always on", or at least "always on under 1 condition". Key is to create options and diversity, without giving new abilities under certain circumstances (ie, when an ally who is bloodied is hit with a ranged attack within 5 squares, you may shift your speed +1 squares).

The other thing that needs introduced are feats that give special ways of using skills.

Last but not least, there should be a lot of feats that allows you to customize your powers (maybe with a cap of one of these feats per power).

All other special, circumstantial abilities should come from powers.

 

[SpydersWebbing]

Ascending math is one of the worst elements of any game, and should be completely removed, with more options and abilities being added as time goes on. I honestly have to help more people with the math than any other element of an RPG in my games, and still consider dropping 4th edition and making my own RPG where there is no ascending math. Throw out feats that add to the math, throw out anything and everything that's unnecessary math.

But that's just me, I suppose. Dunno, what dost thou all think?