D&D (2024) What Should D&D 2024 Have Been +

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
It's not so much about "mechanically the same underneath" as "How they grow in power and ability is entirely predetermined by choices they made a long time ago".
Having all the class abilities baked in, such that the only real choice is choosing one's class once at roll-up, is fine; and makes levelling-up a snap.
This is different in 1e because 90% of your power comes from Loot, whether it's your fighter's arsenal or your wizard's spells found. In 1e how they grow is determined by what they've done
Sad to think this isn't the goal for all editions; that the character mostly grows through what it does in play, and maybe in ways other than purely game-mechanical.

Items can be another good character differentiator, to be sure, once said characters have been at it long enough to acquire said items.
(until you give Job the Fighter all of his elder brother Rob's old gear, much of which which he inherited from his elder brother Bob).
Not every DM allows this sort of thing. :)
But 5e deprecates magic items and loot.
To its detriment, says I.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

TwoSix

"Diegetics", by L. Ron Gygax
Sad to think this isn't the goal for all editions; that the character mostly grows through what it does in play, and maybe in ways other than purely game-mechanical.
On this, we agree. At its core, D&D should be a roguelike game of character growth through experience and acquisition. Leveling up would ideally just make the character a little tougher and maybe scale some of your base class features a bit.

Where I disagree is that I still want a robust character building suite at the start of the game. Build your fancy toy, and then send them out into the world and see what happens to them.
 

Having all the class abilities baked in, such that the only real choice is choosing one's class once at roll-up, is fine; and makes levelling-up a snap.
I don't see this being the only way as any sort of benefit. Levelling up is something you can do in downtime. If you want complexity here's the best way to put it in.
Sad to think this isn't the goal for all editions; that the character mostly grows through what it does in play, and maybe in ways other than purely game-mechanical.
But game mechanical should be a part of it if you have large complex rulebooks. And the problem with 1e is that equipment isn't character.

If your mechanics don't show individual character growth then what's the point of them other than for a tabletop wargame? And they just show class growth in 1e with people being cookie cutter members of their classes mechanically. It's only loot that shows character growth.

The only editions that really had any sort of focus on character growth that reflected their environments were 3.x and 4e. With 3.X frequently trying to do it all through feats.
Items can be another good character differentiator, to be sure, once said characters have been at it long enough to acquire said items.
Better than nothing.
Not every DM allows this sort of thing. :)
Out of curiosity what do you do to stop it? Soulbind the items so when the PC dies they vanish.
To its detriment, says I.
The pendulum has swung too far. But I'll take it over the 1e situation.
 

yes, fix them to the level of sky blue or at least blue level
Can't be done. Once you get everything into the blues then you end up re-baselining.
than one sword strike, sure, than the Fighter overall, why?

So now your Wizard is better at fighting than the Fighter and better outside of combat by a mile, why even have the Fighter class then, so they can carry your extra spellbooks?
People have a 90% survival rate against lightning strikes. A lightning bolt should never do more damage than a solid sword hit to the guts. Otherwise this breaks versimilitude.

What wizards can do is better AoE damage than fighters - and that might end encounters.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
I would offer that it should be specific creatures, not "summon any fey of less than CRX"
What? Remove the ability for a powergamer to scour the internet for some obscure third-party monster and then convince their DM to allow it? ;)

You have a good suggestion. After all, the point of paying WotC for rules is that THEY do the work.

So I'm totally okay with WotC deciding to go through the trouble of adding, say, {summonable} as a keyword for the MM, and for each new monster handbook they publish. This means a DM should be fine allowing said monsters. If a DM wants to allow more monsters, monsters that lack this keyword, the DM is of course always right, but then all bets are off.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
yes, fix them to the level of sky blue or at least blue level
Or green, or whatever color that represents a spell that is just "fine" or "medium". Or even purple.

(I can't tell if you're serious, but just so we are on board: sure you see you can't have a set of spells where all of them are better than average. Right?)

What specifically isn't useful to print, especially in the core PHB, is a spell everybody agrees should never be used under no circumstance. That is, the spells that multiple guides all rate as red.
 

Horwath

Legend
Or green, or whatever color that represents a spell that is just "fine" or "medium". Or even purple.

(I can't tell if you're serious, but just so we are on board: sure you see you can't have a set of spells where all of them are better than average. Right?)

What specifically isn't useful to print, especially in the core PHB, is a spell everybody agrees should never be used under no circumstance. That is, the spells that multiple guides all rate as red.
Ok, to make it clear.

take all spells that fall under, by whoever makes those marks, blue and sky blue current mechanics.

then make sure all other spells are as equally useful, maybe some circumstantial spells might fall down a grade, but the should not be 4 grades lower.

I.E. take fireball as gold standard for damage spells and rebalance all others with fireball as guidance.
 




Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top