D&D 5E What direction should 5th edition take?
- Thread starter invokethehojo
- Start date
DracoSuave
First Post
You're right, he might not be a troll.
He might be the sockpuppet of a troll.
But let's see... more modular design.
That 'sameness' between classes makes designing them a lot easier and allows for more variance within the class. This is -good- design, as it makes it a lot easier to fit the pieces together, for the players and people running the game.
Compare, for example, a fighter and a wizard. In old editions, you would say the difference between them is that Fighters use the combat system, and wizards use the spell system. But that doesn't tell you -what they do- or -what their point is.- It doesn't point to a direction for the class, but rather a lack of direction.
On top of that, you have to make sure that entire systems are balanced against each other. As it turns out, the spell system was -heavily- imbalanced in comparison to the combat system, so you even had to have separate systems to accomodate character advancement.
And yet, none of this answers the question of -what they are supposed to do.- As a result, the lack of direction in the spell system meant that it can (and was) used to do everything any other system could accomodate, it's unique trait was that it trumped other systems by replacing them entirely with a simple 'I do this, it is done.'
Contrast this with modular design (which is 4e is going more towards) where the sameness of the base system allows for the differences between what the class -does- to shine. Fighter locks people down around them, and has a lot of positioning abilities, combined with large weapon-based damage. Wizard has a considerable amount of AoE fight, with inevitable damage abilities and debuffs that punish an enemy for opposing you.
The differences are thusly highlighted, allowing the classes to show their differences by what they accomplish rather than the neato mechanics used to support them.
Look again at second edition psionics. Most people balked at them because the system that supported them was terrible. So much so, they put out a -second- system that was less terrible (tho still terrible.) The system tainted people's view of psionics so much that when completely different and less broken mechanics get introduced, that taint of terrible -still- makes people go 'eh, never liked psionics.'
So in the future, integrating more modularity where possible is a good thing.
I do agree, however, that more attention to miscellaneous cool 'Quality of Life' items is a key of importance. I rather like handing out Bags of Holding and stuff that doesn't make fights swing more, but rather just improves how a character can deal with non-combat, or just generally be cool.
As well, a system for non-combat resolution that dovetails with combat even nicer than the current system would be nice. I wouldn't want it de-granularized down much further than it is... but perhaps a system of two classes, one being your battle class (Fighter, Rogue) and another representing your skill-set (Acrobat, Diplomat, Trapmaster) with its own subset of utility powers would be an interesting direction to go.
He might be the sockpuppet of a troll.
But let's see... more modular design.
That 'sameness' between classes makes designing them a lot easier and allows for more variance within the class. This is -good- design, as it makes it a lot easier to fit the pieces together, for the players and people running the game.
Compare, for example, a fighter and a wizard. In old editions, you would say the difference between them is that Fighters use the combat system, and wizards use the spell system. But that doesn't tell you -what they do- or -what their point is.- It doesn't point to a direction for the class, but rather a lack of direction.
On top of that, you have to make sure that entire systems are balanced against each other. As it turns out, the spell system was -heavily- imbalanced in comparison to the combat system, so you even had to have separate systems to accomodate character advancement.
And yet, none of this answers the question of -what they are supposed to do.- As a result, the lack of direction in the spell system meant that it can (and was) used to do everything any other system could accomodate, it's unique trait was that it trumped other systems by replacing them entirely with a simple 'I do this, it is done.'
Contrast this with modular design (which is 4e is going more towards) where the sameness of the base system allows for the differences between what the class -does- to shine. Fighter locks people down around them, and has a lot of positioning abilities, combined with large weapon-based damage. Wizard has a considerable amount of AoE fight, with inevitable damage abilities and debuffs that punish an enemy for opposing you.
The differences are thusly highlighted, allowing the classes to show their differences by what they accomplish rather than the neato mechanics used to support them.
Look again at second edition psionics. Most people balked at them because the system that supported them was terrible. So much so, they put out a -second- system that was less terrible (tho still terrible.) The system tainted people's view of psionics so much that when completely different and less broken mechanics get introduced, that taint of terrible -still- makes people go 'eh, never liked psionics.'
So in the future, integrating more modularity where possible is a good thing.
I do agree, however, that more attention to miscellaneous cool 'Quality of Life' items is a key of importance. I rather like handing out Bags of Holding and stuff that doesn't make fights swing more, but rather just improves how a character can deal with non-combat, or just generally be cool.
As well, a system for non-combat resolution that dovetails with combat even nicer than the current system would be nice. I wouldn't want it de-granularized down much further than it is... but perhaps a system of two classes, one being your battle class (Fighter, Rogue) and another representing your skill-set (Acrobat, Diplomat, Trapmaster) with its own subset of utility powers would be an interesting direction to go.
Last edited:
DracoSuave
First Post
Actually that -is- an interesting idea, where the stat -itself- is replaced simply with the modifier.
However, to help you understand this a bit better...
1) Monsters -do- go below 10. Some of them can go all the way down to 3 (usually on intellegence) or lower. Understand that the stat system is supposed to include animals and venus-fly-traps and floating balls of eyes and teeth, not -just- humans.
2) Even numbers represent progression of stat bonus, odd numbers represent prerequisites for feats and such. So, you get a better bonus at an even level, and you get more options at an odd level.
You'll notice this pattern occurs a lot in 4e. Take character levels, for example. You tend to get attack powers at odd levels, and stat-ups at even levels.
This I can agree with. I thought that the MMO Vanguard actually did classes very well, where you had basically 3 classes at any given time...
I think I would like a game where you have a combat class and a non-combat class. Even if both are modular. But the modular I appreciated most was the ToB from 3.5... where there wasn't a daily/Encounter/At-Will at all, just powers. Why couldn't we make part of what defines each class be the simple mechanics of how you regain the powers? My friend played a warblade base, and I played a crusader base. We pretty much did the same "overall" thing as basically defenders, but our characters were night and day due to HOW we regained those powers...
Also, as an aside, I actually _reall_ liked 1st and 2nd edition and am an old-school player who also really likes grimtooth's traps... I liked having my characters' hands cut off, a lung lost because it was punctured, etc etc... I felt those things made my character memorable, and made me actually think about what I was doing and become more imaginative about how to work around such detriments (IE my one-handed ranger with the sword grafted onto his arm, yeah it's -2 to hit additional, but when I fight, people will remember, and tell tales of me in a bar!)
eriktheguy
First Post
You could be on to something here. A clearer stat system is really a must. If we were to do away with stats below 10 completely, we might as well just start with all stats at 0 (to represent average). The current stat system is a leftover from an archaic system in which stats ranged from 2 to 19 based on a die roll and racial mod, so that players could make an ability score check by rolling a d20 (rolling your stat or lower indicating success). I still like the idea of having ability mods go up for every 2 points of ability score. Even numbers increase mods and odd numbers basically fill feat requirements.
Maybe 5e will treat 0 as the 'average' stat, eliminate negative mods (allowing characters to start with an 8 is a bad option in my opinion, it almost never penalizes them and is basically just more points to spend). This will work since ability score penalties were done away with in 4e.
This is what makes 4e so good and so damn easy, and did I mention good?
I like you're idea for a combat and utility class for each character. I didn't like how in 4e a fighter couldn't have stealth. Character backgrounds provide a band-aid solution, but giving characters two classes like this could provide a large customization advantage without growing too complicated. Your character would basically have a role (combat class) and occupation (utility class). The combat class would determine combat powers, the utility class would affect skills and feats.
Suddenly my fighter becomes a fighter and a hunter. Stealth and nature become class skills, but I retain my access to weapons, armors, cleave etc.
DracoSuave
First Post
See, I'm even older school than that. BECMI was my bread and butter. I -loved- the Rules Cyclopedia, and the 'fast and loose' DMing by the seat of your pants. That's a lot of what I like with 4th is that it makes certain things -easier- for a DM so that he can spend time being challenged by the actual gameplay itself.
One thing I'd like to see, perhaps, is -more- of D&D becoming informed by other rpgs and their successes. I wouldn't want to get rid of the at-will/encounter/daily system so much, just because of how it's organized to me in my mind, in terms of it being Primary Attacks/Strategic Advantages/Effects to Swing Battle.
This way, you can simply balance them across a category, rather than worry whether or not being able to give +1 to attack for the entire battle is a balanced choice against Cleave, or what not. Again, going back to the keeping a direction and focus for a class through -what they do- on these three levels, rather than keeping things unfocused.
Plus, Psion is showing us that they -are- thinking outside the box with class design. However, the trick is defining the box first, as -having- the box is important as a basis. Thinking outside the box is only useful when it creates beneficial play opportunities and enhances the system as a whole; it should not be done for its own sake and is not a virtue of design in the same sense that 'eats with a spoon' is not a virtue for a human to have.
It is a process, and as such, should be used as a tool to reach a desired end, but should not be the feature or end in itself. An example of this is the Avenger, where Oath is a very real 'outside the box' way of looking at Strikers. But it's goal is 'Be a Striker based on accuracy' not 'Let's do something different cause we can.'
One thing I'd like to see, perhaps, is -more- of D&D becoming informed by other rpgs and their successes. I wouldn't want to get rid of the at-will/encounter/daily system so much, just because of how it's organized to me in my mind, in terms of it being Primary Attacks/Strategic Advantages/Effects to Swing Battle.
This way, you can simply balance them across a category, rather than worry whether or not being able to give +1 to attack for the entire battle is a balanced choice against Cleave, or what not. Again, going back to the keeping a direction and focus for a class through -what they do- on these three levels, rather than keeping things unfocused.
Plus, Psion is showing us that they -are- thinking outside the box with class design. However, the trick is defining the box first, as -having- the box is important as a basis. Thinking outside the box is only useful when it creates beneficial play opportunities and enhances the system as a whole; it should not be done for its own sake and is not a virtue of design in the same sense that 'eats with a spoon' is not a virtue for a human to have.
It is a process, and as such, should be used as a tool to reach a desired end, but should not be the feature or end in itself. An example of this is the Avenger, where Oath is a very real 'outside the box' way of looking at Strikers. But it's goal is 'Be a Striker based on accuracy' not 'Let's do something different cause we can.'
Flipguarder
First Post
Thinking outside the box leads to pun-pun. I'd rather just have a REALLY REALLY big box.
DracoSuave
First Post
When 3e came out, and I saw the 3e kobold I was like 'Wow, these guys can be real hardcore bastards.' And I'd joke that kobolds will end up breaking the game, and that kobolds will take over and be the most powerful race of all.
Irony, or prophesy?
Hardly. I'm sorry if being new here and having an unoriginal opinion is new, but Gleemax was down for a week, so I started lurking here.
I wasn't insulting 4E (I am playing it and enjoying it, but that doesn't mean that I can't have my own opinions, no matter how many share them). Anyway, the topic of the thread is the direction of 5E, so I'd assume it's likely that "arguments" a year old may resurface.
I was not trying to stir up a battle (complaining about the lack of class diversity), I was trying to discuss whether there was a difference between classless and one class systems. Maybe I didn't do it *well*, but I'm neither a troll nor the sock-puppet of one.
In my experience classeless is a pain to balance, at least in medieval fantasy games.
Shadowrun for example is an excelent game, technicaly classless, but in the end you tend to use the archetypes (funcion very much like classes).
I have DMed HARP for almost 3 years, excelent game, almost classless, but again: very difficult to keep balanced.
If this helps: nowadays my gamming group is composed mainly by GURP players (including 1 powerplayer), that are used to build what i call "frenkeintein builds", squeezing every advantage from the system. The DnD 4ed game rules has helped me running everything smoothly. I have almost zero house rules to contain abuses.
The main charm of the class system is that 5 characters acting togueder are way more tham the sum of their strenghts. 3.5 edition was about solo characters, 4 ed is about party formation. ---> they should keep building on that.
