D&D General What elements does D&D need to keep?

[DEFCON 1]

I don’t disagree, but I will point out that one thing the d20 System and its conversions of various other games did was expose those games to a wider audience. I would probably never have learned of Call of Cthulhu had it not been for the d20 conversion, and while the d20 System didn’t do the tone of CoC any favors, it did make the game more approachable to folks who were familiar with D&D but not eager to learn a new system (which at the time was me).

Also, the sample adventures in that book were awesome.

That's understandable, and I wouldn't disagree with you on that-- the audience absolutely did widen with the advent of d20. My only question into the cosmos though would be whether learning about other types of RPGs via the d20 umbrella conditioned people to think merely in class-based, leveled gaming? And did that not only cut off people from really experiencing the vastness of roleplaying games, but also perhaps disillusioned them by having some of these games not really work as d20 D&D clones?

Obviously none of us can actually answer that, and your experiences with d20 systems seemed to work out really well for you, which is great. I just can't help but wonder though how many people did in fact bounce off of playing games that weren't D&D, because many of the d20 games were just D&D in dress up and unsuccessful dress-up at that?

Now for all I know I could be completely full of horsepucky here and barking up an entirely wrong tree... but with the proliferation of people once again wanting to use D&D mechanics in new games makes me think that perhaps we didn't learn enough from history and we're doomed to repeat it.

 

[Faolyn]

Races/Lineages: I think continuing to use races (or lineages, ancestries, whatever) is important, but I think that subraces can be completely done away with. These can either be replaced with Cultures or simply by letting you choose a couple of options from a larger list. All elves have Trance and Low Light Vision, and you can choose one from (A) knowing two of the weapons from this list; (B) knowing one of cantrips from this list; or (C) having special movement/stealth abilities in a natural terrain of your choice from this list.

Saving Throws: This will definitely need to remain, although the how of it is less picky. I prefer the 3x Fort/Ref/Will trio to the 5e six saves or the AD&D weird list.

Classes and Levels: These will also have to stay, although they seem to be moving to the idea of feats replacing full multiclassing. I'm OK with that. I must admit, I kind of like the idea of having fewer classes, especially when it comes to spellcasting classes--I'd like to be able to more easily have low-magic settings. I saw someone--I think it was on the fairly recent Monk thread--suggest combining Monk and Sorcerer, which I think would work well. It would be part-casting, part-fighting, and the ratio of casting to fighting would depend on the archetype.

Archetypes: I like these a lot, but would hope that they could all be brought in at either 1st level or 2nd level, rather than some at 1st, some at 2nd, and some at 3rd.

Alignment: Unnecessary, especially with the Traits/Ideals/Flaws/Bonds they're currently doing. For monsters, a quick Personality or Motivation section could give a much more in-depth and interesting overview for each creature, even if it was limited to a few words like "always hungry," "willing to negotiate," "curious about newcomers," "likes shiny things," or "prone to treachery."

Advantage/Disadvantage: I like and hope it would continue, although I expect that it would be modified to be a bit more granular. The Level Up playtest is using Expertise Dice (ranging from +1d4 to +1d8) to add the granularity, and I can see D&D6e doing something akin to that.

Skills and Proficiencies: These have been around for a long time, in one way or another. I like that skills and proficiencies have been split off from each other, with skills being more Stat-based and proficiencies being more general, but I can easily imagine that they might go back to them all being one way or another.

Feats: I think these are here to stay as well, although I imagine they'll again never be as bloated as they were in 3x.

Damage and Creature Types: I think these are useful enough to remain, although personally, I'd like to see a few more creature types. Or at the least, Spirit as distinct from Fey or Undead.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Not saying I'd go for this, but a possibility might be:

1. Mystic class

A. Archetype: Wizard. Choose one of the following abilities.​

i. Ability that gives bonuses to certain types of spells (one for each school of magic)​

ii. Ability that gives bonuses to understanding/countering/manipulating magic​

iii. Etc.​

B. Archetype: Cleric. Choose one of the following abilities.​

i. Ability that gives healing abilities.​

ii. Ability that gives supernatural smiting abilities.​

iii. Ability that gives bonuses to certain types of spells (one for each domain of spells--harkening back to the idea of cleric spheres, perhaps)​

iv. Etc.​

C. Archetype: Etc.​

With "ability" being a single ability that increases in power and range as you increase in level.

Plus feats that would allow you to take additional abilities within your archetype, from another archetype within your class, or to take an ability from another class, but at the cost of not spending that feat on something else that could be useful.

Would it work? I don't know. But I don't think it would be too complicated.

It would absolutely work, I'm sure. I don't even think it would be too complicated as such. But it would be more complicated for no gain in depth or customization.

 

[Scribe]

Voted similar to before.

Need me that Great Wheel.

 

[Faolyn]

It would absolutely work, I'm sure. I don't even think it would be too complicated as such. But it would be more complicated for no gain in depth or customization.

True, and I do agree.

But there's the question: how many classes does D&D actually need. I don't know. Right now there's thirteen, including Artificer, and there might be a fourteenth if they ever decide to make a full Psionicist class instead of just psionic archetypes. Obviously some people only want three or four. Is there a good middle ground? Should things like barbarians and rangers just be types of fighters?

 

[jmartkdr2]

True, and I do agree.

But there's the question: how many classes does D&D actually need. I don't know. Right now there's thirteen, including Artificer, and there might be a fourteenth if they ever decide to make a full Psionicist class instead of just psionic archetypes. Obviously some people only want three or four. Is there a good middle ground? Should things like barbarians and rangers just be types of fighters?

Need? You don't need classes at all. You want enough to cover all the archetypes people are likely to expect, without having so many that people can't wade through the list.

I think 12-13 is pretty dang close to the sweet spot, myself. Many fewer and you have to smush fairly disparate ideas together (ie druids are just a kind of cleric), many more and people will be intimidated by the list. But 6 is probably plenty if you condense all magic to a single thing (ie all magic works the same, people just learn it differently), and you can probably have as many as 18 without getting into 'overwhelming' territory.

 

[Remathilis]

Well, I do think there's just a legitimate divide in the player base here. Should the D&D base game be a sleek toolkit, with just enough guidance to let individual tables create the elements they want for their game? Or should it be a more sprawling toolbox, with built-out options for all the most popular D&D tropes?

D&D should be a stock car: complete and usable out of the box but open to being modded and kitted as needed. Nothing grinds my gears worse than the idea D&D/d20 should be GURPS: a generic framework that can support any and all types of fantasy. D&D should be its own game and support its own tropes and setting(s) first, but be open to allowing homebrewing and house-ruling to taste. It is one area I absolutely think Pathfinder got right; everything Paizo puts out fits Golarion and their system first, but can be remixed to make it work with other settings and mods if the GM wants to put the effort it.

As to the poll, I think to me there is a certain lingua franca between editions that needs to more-or-less exist. For example, I say I'm playing a Lawful Good Half-elf Monk with a 18 Dexterity and 8 Charisma, you have a general picture of what my character is despite not mentioning if I created the character in AD&D, 3.5, 4e, 5e, or some clone version. Every D&D players knows what "Save vs. Poison" is, even if its actually a Constitution or Fortitude Save. Every player knows a what a the value of a +1 longsword is, even if the math and rarity of such a thing changes. Everyone knows casting fireball requires a handful of d6s. THAT to me is D&D. Which is partially why elements of 4e felt so wrong or why some of the proposed changes for 5e feels like a loss; we lose that common experience that may differ in execution from edition to edition, remains similar enough that a AD&D grognard and a 5e newkid can swap stories and mostly understand what the other is saying.

 

[MichaelSomething]

No demands for Gygaxain prose? Or gold for XP? Or for encouraging lateral thinking via obtuse rule systems? What's next? Only having one type of polearm?

 

[squibbles]

[...] how many classes does D&D actually need. I don't know. Right now there's thirteen, including Artificer, and there might be a fourteenth if they ever decide to make a full Psionicist class instead of just psionic archetypes. Obviously some people only want three or four. Is there a good middle ground? Should things like barbarians and rangers just be types of fighters?

Need? You don't need classes at all. You want enough to cover all the archetypes people are likely to expect, without having so many that people can't wade through the list.

I think 12-13 is pretty dang close to the sweet spot, myself. Many fewer and you have to smush fairly disparate ideas together (ie druids are just a kind of cleric), many more and people will be intimidated by the list. But 6 is probably plenty if you condense all magic to a single thing (ie all magic works the same, people just learn it differently), and you can probably have as many as 18 without getting into 'overwhelming' territory.

The current set of classes works fine for D&D, but it is very kludgey.

I think D&D should be a bit more discriminating about the theming of its classes. Fighters and Wizards are general enough to express tons of archetypes--to the point that other whole classes could be folded into them. Other classes are super specific, to the point that I'm not regularly convinced their 5e subclasses make thematic sense, i.e. storm herald barbarians, circle of spores druids, swarmkeeper rangers, etc.

I would like it better if the game was more explicit that some classes are broad and others are narrow--so, not any specific number of classes, just better thematic and mechanical organization of them. Some archetypes need to be their own complete thing, e.g. psion, but others--even others with relatively strong themes--are better off being bolted onto a generic chassis, e.g. gladiator. That way there are plenty of interesting fighty and magicy character options without too much class bloat or any obligation for the designers to write the umpteenth weird barbarian subclass that has no prior basis in myth or fiction.

D&D should be a stock car: complete and usable out of the box but open to being modded and kitted as needed. Nothing grinds my gears worse than the idea D&D/d20 should be GURPS: a generic framework that can support any and all types of fantasy. D&D should be its own game and support its own tropes and setting(s) first, but be open to allowing homebrewing and house-ruling to taste.

Yeah.

In its particulars, D&D clearly doesn't support all fantasy.

I'd like it if game publications were more upfront about that. Instead of having a setting that is strongly implied by class mechanics while pretending to be applicable to all fantasy genres, the PHB could state BLUNTLY what genres it supports best, and provide some suggestions for creating characters in genres it supports less well (i.e. dark fantasy, sword and sorcery, etc.). In the PHB and NOT the DMG; every player needs to see that guidance.

 

[DEFCON 1]

No demands for Gygaxain prose? Or gold for XP? Or for encouraging lateral thinking via obtuse rule systems? What's next? Only having one type of polearm?

Now c'mon, let's not go crazy here... even 5E gives you a choice of three types of polearm (four, if you consider the lance to be one too).