PDA

View Full Version : Your Ideal Edition of D&D



Chainsaw Hobbit
2011-06-13, 03:58 PM
Fourth edition isn't young anymore, and it's definitely showing its age (with heaps of errata and way too many player options). I know we probably won't have a new edition really soon, but I suspect one will be announced in the next couple of years. I thought it would be a good idea if everyone told WotC exactly what they wanted from 5e and why.


This is what I think 5e should be like . . .

I think D&D 5e should focus on reducing prep-time and opening the game up to a wider audience. It would have many of the signature aspects of 4e (such as healing surges and class powers), but be less focused on tactical combat optimization.

Character Creation . . . Character creation would have fewer steps and fewer options. Players would choose a race, a class, their ability scores, and a build. Builds would come with pre-selected equipment, class features, and powers. Builds wouldn't be abstract like "control wizard" and "war wizard", but be finite like "illusionist" and "evoker".

Adventuring . . . There would be no skills or feats, so adventuring would look a lot different. Characters would just add their level to skill checks, and if a particular check (such as picking a lock) would be easier for a particular race or class, it would say so in the adventure and the DM would give the player an advantage.

Combat . . . Combat would be the part of the game that would be changed the most. It would be grittier, quicker, and less tactical. Dungeon tiles and miniatures would be optional, and not included in the core rules. Picture AD&D combat, but more balanced, simple, and intuitive.

Overall, the game would be built to feel less like a string of miniatures battles and more like an interactive novel.

Daremonai
2011-06-13, 04:13 PM
I personally don't think that removing depth is the way to go. I'm exaggerating slightly, but in my eyes, your proposed changes are only a small way away from "every player is a dwarf called Carlos..."

Skills and feats are good - I don't want my dwarf fighter to be like everybody else's dwarf fighter. Additionally, rather than using identical mechanics for every class, the "feel" of martial vs magical should be different - note that this is not a vote in favour of linear fighter/quadratic Wizard.

4th ed. got some things right, and some things horrifically wrong. In my opinion, D&D Saga edition (using the same mechanics as SW Saga) would have come a lot closer to "perfect" D&D.

Totally Guy
2011-06-13, 04:20 PM
I still need to play this... but I'd love to see something like Dungeon World ( http://www.latorra.org/dungeon-world/).

It's an Apocalypse World hack and it looks pretty awesome. It's a whole lot lighter than regular D&D but it makes a big deal of the back and forth nature of the players doing stuff and the GM introducing complications.

You can infer a good deal of the concept by taking a look at the character sheets for the different classes.

Techsmart
2011-06-13, 04:42 PM
I have to disagree with the OP. The thing that made DND fun, especially for me, was that my character was different. Not always better, but different. Taking all the options of character generation makes the creation easier, but it makes the player feel more like a "cookie cutter hero." In fact, this is the same reason I haven't been able to get into any MMORPGS. Either you're one of 6 builds that work, or you're trash, and there's only so many classes that fall into that family. (This isn't saying that DND doesn't have broken builds and crap builds, but I am saying that there is more grey area where you can get by not having wizard+incantatrix).

On adventuring, I think that, although extra gameplay rules are tedious, they add a reliability factor to gameplay. When I go into a dungeon, I know that if I do X, I can do Y.

And for combat, I think tactics is what really made combat fun for me. I don't like combats where it is "I swing my sword." If anything, I would want to see more tactics involved, not less.

I would say, if anything, I would like to see more mechanics for roleplay, lots of fluff, and adding the number of options of 3.5 with the balance of 4th. Personally, I hope they take some ideas that pathfinder uses, such as the archetype system. I can't think of how many times people wanted to play X, and there was a core class that was similar, but some mechanics clashed with the theme. (Yes, I know 3.5 used ACFs, but PF went and made this a common feature, instead of something people usually only used on occaison).

oxybe
2011-06-13, 04:47 PM
as copypasted from your thread in the WotC forums


honestly, i would love 5th ed to be closer to the homebrew system i'm slowly hammering away at (curse my inability to properly put ideas to paper in an organized format!)

it borrows heavily from the Gamma World 4th ed. design philosophy but still tweaks a few things out a bit.

-more focused classes: every PC in gamma world is effectively a hybrid character, made up of 2 "origins" that determine the powers it gets and stats. it's entirely silly in how it's presented in GW, i mean i once played a character called "the Braincube" an... "intelligent"... gelatinous cube that drove around in a reinforced sedan and spoke in the 3rd person.

i could easily see this transferring to D&D, where you basically mix and match your class features between a handful of classes. have each class be focused on it's role. you 1st class will determine your highest score and primary role while your second class will give you your second highest score and secondary role.

class powers will focus only on the it's appropriate stat and not key off a secondary stat for other abilities: fighters would focus primarily on str, rangers on dex, etc... and you wouldn't have stuff like "[stat X] VS [DEF] hit:[damage] + push [stat Y] squares" but rather "[stat X] VS [DEF] hit:[damage] + push [flat #]". every class would self-contained in this respect.

-race would have no determination on stats and have only passive or encounter-based abilities.

-encounter based design : resources would be managed on per encounter rather then per day. balancing abilities by making strong ones only useable once per day is pointless since the number of encounters per day will vary not just from campaign to campaign, but session to session. this can lead to situations where characters can simply "nova", expend all their daily powers then rest up.

give each character a number of abilities they can use once per encounter and have it reset once done. gamma world also heals your character to full after every encounter which leads to a VERY different pacing then say, 2nd edition, where characters could be layed out for weeks on end without help from a magical healing source.

within my experience of GW, this leads to a faster pacing within each adventure, where failure to succeed at any given encounter or if the party is forced to run, the adventure isn't put on hold for X amount of days while the PCs lick their wounds... they can quickly regroup, plan anew and try again soon.

-a higher margin for success. 4th ed generally relies on a 10+ for success on most rolls, give or take. this means PCs should succeed about 55% of the time. i would aim for a wee bit higher, somewhere about 8+ or at least a 65-70% success rate. we are heros after all.

-simple weapon & armor design : you have 5 weapons in gamma world and 2 variations of each: unarmed, one-handed, 2-handed, ranged (reuseable) & ranged (consumeable). each of these come in a light (more accurate, less damage) or heavy (less accurate, more damage) version.

what each weapon itself is, will vary from PC to PC. one PC's "ranged, reuseable, light" could easily be a stack of javelins while another PC's "ranged, reuseable, light" could be a slingshot that uses whatever junk is on the ground.

-the overall, the combat is fine as is. pre-3rd combat was a mess IMO due to a lack of proper grid support. the grid makes everything clear to the people at the table what is going on exactly. yes it requires some setup time, but IMO & IME it saves far more time then the back and forth of the "who's where when the fireball explodes"

-no reliance on +X items.

just a few things but it's a start at what my "ideal" 5th ed would look like

Comet
2011-06-13, 06:27 PM
Fighters bashing, wizards blasting, clerics healing and rogues sneaking. Dungeons. Dragons. Goblins. Mind Flayers. Ravenloft. Dark Sun. Planescape. Forgotten Realms.

There's more to it than that, of course, but those were the things that first came to mind when I think of my ideal D&D. Clear distinctions between classes (none of this classes pretending to be not-classes stuff we got in 3th edition, there are other games for that), fast action, plenty of room for the DM to make stuff up, classic D&D worlds and monsters and books that come with good art and writing.

Chainsaw Hobbit
2011-06-13, 06:32 PM
Fighters bashing, wizards blasting, clerics healing and rogues sneaking. Dungeons. Dragons. Goblins. Mind Flayers. Ravenloft. Dark Sun. Planescape. Forgotten Realms.

There's more to it than that, of course, but those were the things that first came to mind when I think of my ideal D&D. Clear distinctions between classes (none of this classes pretending to be not-classes stuff we got in 3th edition, there are other games for that), fast action, plenty of room for the DM to make stuff up, classic D&D worlds and monsters and books that come with good art and writing.

You just said what I said in the first post.

Doc Roc
2011-06-13, 06:32 PM
Well that's a bloody funny question. My ideal edition of D&D really isn't D&D at all.

Comet
2011-06-13, 06:36 PM
You just said what I said in the first post.

To a degree, though I'm not quite sure if I agree with every bit of stuff you have there. I would tone down the simplification a fair bit, for one, though the general idea is not half bad.

All in all, I'm rubbish at the whole numbers game part of roleplaying so I'll leave the rules specifics for others to chew on. I just wanted to pop by and be all nostalgic and stuff, or something.

Eldan
2011-06-13, 06:45 PM
That actually sounds like the worst possible edition for me. I want customizability, and tons of it. There should be more possible kinds of characters than stars in the sky. I mean, simpler, quicker combat isn't a bad idea, but if anything, I'd want more skills and feats. I wouldn't want level checks, and I think most level dependent things are silly. Wizards don't become better swordfighters from casting more spells, and fighters, no matter the level, usually can't open locks.


Anyway. Hire some good writers to write the fluff and get some interesting artists, and I'd probably buy anything. Heck, if we're talking about ideal, get me the Planescape team and Tony Di'Terlizzi back. And some of the Ravenloft people. And perhaps a Shadowrun person or two.

Seerow
2011-06-13, 07:30 PM
I have to agree with the majority here, taking away customization would make the game worse in my eyes, not better. That's actually the greatest flaw 4e had, taking away so much customization from the player, and giving people 'builds' that fit into more focused classes.

I'd really like something like a hybrid between 3.5 and 4e. I liked 4e's "everyone has powers", but I didn't like that all of the powers followed the exact same resource mechanic. The different sub-systems in 3.5 is a strength, if a player is tired of one character type, they can play a different character, and everything about it plays and feels completely different. To that end, I'd like to see the "Power Sources" 4e introduced be made actually meaningful. Each Power Source has its own subsystem, that introduces that class's way to gain/use powers. Any class with that power source shares that resource subsystem.

Similarly, I'd like a hybrid of 4e and 3e's multiclassing. 3e's multiclassing is very flexible which is nice, but in 4e, everyone gets paragon paths/epic destinies which lets them continue progressing their primary class while gaining new features. Though in reality, what I'd like is closer to 3e's caster prestige classes. Basically, every prestige class progresses class features from the entry class, but only those already possessed. For example, a rogue who enters a class at 5th level would continue progressing sneak attack (since he already has it), but would not gain new rogue abilities such as the special abilities starting at level 10.

Finally I'd like to see D&D finally divorced from the christmas tree effect of magic items. In almost all lore, magic items are cool things that do unique and awesome things. In D&D it's mostly trigger items, or flat effects that boost stats/damage. I'd like to see all those things removed from the game entirely, and magic items being mostly unique effects, that open up new options in and out of combat.

Curious
2011-06-13, 07:39 PM
(Snip)

This man, he is a prophet, and his words are wisdom. This is pretty much everything I ever wanted from D&D.

Doc Roc
2011-06-13, 08:48 PM
Snip!

We should talk. Your input, We Desire It.

DragonOfUndeath
2011-06-13, 08:48 PM
Don't get rid of customization! Add more! but keep it so it's easy to understand.

I'm assuming this is part of the "Buying D&D" Threads, is it? or just a random thing?

Ideas: Mostly D&D 3.5 but with the following mods.

Classes designed to Gestalt. Pick 2 and advance them, it allows greater customization but remains clear and concise

Less feat-tax! TWF-chains are not fun if you want to be a TWF Uber-Charger. have all Feats improve with ECL

Replace references to HD with ECL. Don't gimp races with LA any more than less health and defences.

Encounter Powers. I kind of liked them in 4E

Actual Class features! Fighter is essentially a Feat-Farm with Full-BAB, GIVE HIM FEATURES!

Play-tested and less borked stuff: No Pun-Puns, no Monks. There should be power-builds and bad builds but not to the extent where you rely on WBL to keep up with normal people, who then spend their WBL to improve further out of your reach. Or where you ascend to Godhood at 1st level.

Seerow
2011-06-13, 08:57 PM
We should talk. Your input, We Desire It.

Feel free to hit me up via PM, or on MSN (info is in profile)

Yukitsu
2011-06-13, 08:59 PM
Less focused on money grubbing, violent, uncharismatic hobos wandering around doing stuff, more mechanical incentive to create depth and relationships.

DragonOfUndeath
2011-06-13, 09:05 PM
Less focused on money grubbing, violent, uncharismatic hobos wandering around doing stuff, more mechanical incentive to create depth and relationships.

But, that's what the game was built on! :smalltongue:

More mechanical focus on relationships and stuff would be great (maybe a mechanic for gaining boosts to WBL for having allies)

valadil
2011-06-13, 09:07 PM
Builds would come with pre-selected equipment, class features, and powers.

At that point it's not even a roleplaying game anymore. I'd be okay with prebuilt packages of equipment, but if the game says my wizard starts with 3 candles and a piece of chalk, and only the rogue starts with a ten foot pole, I'ma punch WotC in the teeth. I actually think ready made kits are a damn fine idea. Just put together a list of wizardly basics, calculate the total encumbrance, and give a 10% bulk discount and I'm a happy man. But if the game tells me my guy can't buy gear I'm not playing.

I would like to see D&D give non-combat sections of the game the same attention as combat. If that means Bastard Sword is just another skill, that's fine. But if combat is like 4e's, then I want to have social powers too, dammit.

I would like to see WotC take some steps to standardizing the up to interpretation sections of the game. In 3.5, illusions could be all powerful or useless, depending on your GM. In 4e, they're practically non-existent because they don't make that much sense as powers. However I think illusions could follow the Prestidigitation or Telekinesis model. Spell out three or four uses with rules for evaluating them.

I would like to be able to model a hostage scene. If an enemy holds a dagger to a PC's throat, that PC shouldn't think that he can afford 1d4 damage. This situation should be life threatening to any PC.

Finally I want to see a difference in types of weapons. A mace should feel different than a short sword. It should feel different in every fight, not just when slash resistant enemies show up. Reach and trip are cool, but not enough. I want more options and I want them to be interesting.

Curious
2011-06-13, 09:07 PM
More mechanical focus on relationships. . .


Isn't that what Bards are for? :smalltongue:

Hiro Protagonest
2011-06-13, 09:11 PM
Isn't that what Bards are for? :smalltongue:

Bards and rogues. Plus wizards can do anything.

DragonOfUndeath
2011-06-13, 09:17 PM
Isn't that what Bards are for? :smalltongue:

Not really, that's for social stuff and Diplomancy. I'm talking about actual benefits for connecting with the world around them. Being a murdering hobo with more magic items than a Magic-Mart isn't tying with the community.

I was thinking more like:
Befriend 10 people, gain an item of your choice equal to (ECL*1,000) as a gift (requires actually doing jobs for them and knowing them for 1 year OR knowing them for 2 years while remaining amicable)

Marriage (+1 feat that the spouse has), this should probably be limited to IG marriage that has been built up to stop Munchkins from marrying 10 people and being from a Polygamous culture.

Blackmail 10 people, gain an item of your choice equal to (ECL*1,00) as blackmail (requires having personal information about them they don't want to get out as well as evidence)

etc.

WitchSlayer
2011-06-13, 09:23 PM
Not really, that's for social stuff and Diplomancy. I'm talking about actual benefits for connecting with the world around them. Being a murdering hobo with more magic items than a Magic-Mart isn't tying with the community.

I was thinking more like:
Befriend 10 people, gain an item of your choice equal to (ECL*1,000) as a gift (requires actually doing jobs for them and knowing them for 1 year OR knowing them for 2 years while remaining amicable)

Marriage (+1 feat that the spouse has), this should probably be limited to IG marriage that has been built up to stop Munchkins from marrying 10 people and being from a Polygamous culture.

Blackmail 10 people, gain an item of your choice equal to (ECL*1,00) as blackmail (requires having personal information about them they don't want to get out as well as evidence)

etc.

So... Its Fable?

DragonOfUndeath
2011-06-13, 09:32 PM
So... Its Fable?

I haven't played Fable.
Did I just rip something from it without knowing it? whoops.

slaydemons
2011-06-13, 09:32 PM
I haven't played 4e yet so I can't say what I like from it, healing surges sounds like something good at low level not caring at high level


my Ideal D&D is well you know that goblins quote about the old days, I want that more, feats are nice but I would like no filler feats and maybe no feat trees except and weapon specialization should be something a fighter gets and maybe even boost it a bit so it doesn't seem so worthless.

I like 3.5 approach to weapon creation and most of the magic items, maybe not the drop rate or the level you get them maybe up it up a bit getting maybe +4 items at level 20, probably less then that but I don't want to have it low magic.

And spell casting doesn't have enough risks it seems like "I AM A SPELL CASTER BOW TO ME." I want to play some risk taker where its possible the magic back lashes and hurts him, it also may not work at all if you mess up slightly but if you do it, magical stuff can truly happen like something more rare.

divine also feels way overpowered, I would like to see not only deities have favored weapons, but favored armor types, wearing them is the only way to not cast without failure example your god has a favored armor type light or more precisely padded armor, if you wear it he is happy you wear something he feels a cleric should and makes sure your spells don't fail.

Druids feel like clerics with shapeshift to me maybe a bit more into weather and forest themed, so I think maybe druids not be a base class but a cleric prestige if you worship a forest god you become more attuned to the power of nature and such.

have to repeat this I have never played 4e so there is probably a bunch of stuff from there I would probably like.

DragonOfUndeath
2011-06-13, 09:35 PM
If this is for the Taking over D&D bit, may I suggest something I did in that thread:
Hard Mode. Either a Core or Supplement book with harder monsters, optional rules and lesser versions of feats to replace the original. Basically it's non-setting-specific Dark Sun/Environment books with worse effects and gimp-rules. For the Older DMs, who subscribe to Gygaxian Theories.

valadil
2011-06-13, 09:41 PM
Here's a weird idea. I wouldn't mind if WotC made class tiers explicit. Take the four core roles - fighter, healer, blaster, and skillmonkey - and make a set of each for different levels of power in the game. Wizard and ninja would be on the same power level as each other, but each would be better than sorcerer and thief, which in turn are better than arcanist and burglar. For a given game the GM could set the tier of the PCs. Or if he wanted to run a world in which magic ruled all, mages could use the high tier class and martial characters were more restricted.

As I said, that idea is weird, which does not necessarily mean good. But I think it's preferable to making a system with a wide variety of power levels and not telling you that classes are that different.

DragonOfUndeath
2011-06-13, 09:50 PM
Here's a weird idea. I wouldn't mind if WotC made class tiers explicit. Take the four core roles - fighter, healer, blaster, and skillmonkey - and make a set of each for different levels of power in the game. Wizard and ninja would be on the same power level as each other, but each would be better than sorcerer and thief, which in turn are better than arcanist and burglar. For a given game the GM could set the tier of the PCs. Or if he wanted to run a world in which magic ruled all, mages could use the high tier class and martial characters were more restricted.

As I said, that idea is weird, which does not necessarily mean good. But I think it's preferable to making a system with a wide variety of power levels and not telling you that classes are that different.

What about the other axis?
Tier 1: Wizard (Arcane), Cleric (Heal/melee), Beguiler (Diplomancy), Factotum (Skill-monkey)
Tier2: Sorceror (Arcane), Crusader (Melee/heal), Rogue (Diplomancy/skill-monkey), Ranger (Skill-monkey/diplomancer)
Tier3: Mage (Arcane), Priest (Heal/melee), Noble (Diplomancy), Thief (Skill-monkey)
Tier4: Scholar (Arcane), Devoted (Heal), Con-man (Diplomancy/Skill-monkey), Fighter (Melee)

navar100
2011-06-13, 09:51 PM
3E Psionic point system for magic.
3E Tome of Battle maneuver system for combat.
Pathfinder system for skills, races, character design (not the Point Buy), and concept of no dead class levels.
3E Feats.
4E concept of classes only needing two ability scores for abilities and saving throws can use the better of two ability scores which allows for a Point Buy character creation system that actually works.

Modify from current to clarify and fix bugs.

Honorable mention: Magic of Incarnum system as an additional option but giving characters enough Essentia to actually be able to do stuff comparable to the level.

DragonOfUndeath
2011-06-13, 09:52 PM
3E Psionic point system for magic.
3E Tome of Battle maneuver system for combat.
Pathfinder system for skills, races, character design (not the Point Buy), and concept of no dead class levels.
3E Feats.
4E concept of classes only needing two ability scores for abilities and saving throws can use the better of two ability scores which allows for a Point Buy character creation system that actually works.

Modify from current to clarify and fix bugs.

Honorable mention: Magic of Incarnum system as an additional option but giving characters enough Essentia to actually be able to do stuff comparable to the level.

Please tell me you mean 3.5 Psionics. 3E sucks

Chainsaw Hobbit
2011-06-13, 10:43 PM
Packages that come with class features, equipment, and powers may seem too restrictive at first, but each class could have a dozen or more packages.

For example, the fighter could have a greatsword wielding package that focuses on dishing out copious amounts of damage, a longsword and shield wielding package focusing of defense, a Drizzt-style dual-wielding package that focuses on wearing foes down with many attacks at a time, a polearm wielding package focusing on charges and long-range melee attacks, a warlord-style package focusing on buffing, a samurai-like package focusing accuracy, a barbarian-like package focusing on offence at the expense of defense, and countless others.

DragonOfUndeath
2011-06-13, 10:45 PM
Packages that come with class features, equipment, and powers may seem too restrictive at first, but each class could have a dozen or more packages.

For example, the fighter could have a greatsword wielding package that focuses on dishing out copious amounts of damage, a longsword and shield wielding package focusing of defense, a Drizzt-style dual-wielding package that focuses on wearing foes down with many attacks at a time, a polearm wielding package focusing on charges and long-range melee attacks, a warlord-style package focusing on buffing, a samurai-like package focusing accuracy, a barbarian-like package focusing on offence at the expense of defense, and countless others.

OR you could have a PHB, then splatbooks that give barbarian class, dual-wield-focused class with the PHB being the general one capable of pulling off lesser versions of 2 classes at once.

Tyndmyr
2011-06-13, 11:18 PM
[INDENT]This is what I think 5e should be like . . .]

I think this would make an interesting roleplaying game that had nothing to do with D&D.

I like the feel of 3.5....the grand attempt to have the rules encompass the entire world, and the endless options. My ideal D&D would look a bit like that, with a bit more care taken to make options somewhat less silly at times. Steal the lovely formatting from the 4e books. They are organized fairly consistently, and are generally pretty readable. I like that. Online character builder? Take that too. Fold in that online play they keep promising us. That'd be fantastic.

Give me a bunch of classic settings. Spelljammer...but played straight, instead of silly Elves in spaaaace crap. An actual, hard-sci fi/magic blend instead. Im not a huge faerun fan, but feel free to toss that in as well. Basically, put some real efforts into developing settings. I prefer Eberron-like collections, filled with unique goodies that can mostly be folded into other campaigns if desired, rather than one book attempts such as Ghostscape or Oriental Adventures, which don't mesh with other things terribly well.

And above all, include support for a wild variety of playstyles. D&D has excelled at being "the roleplaying game". IE, the one that everyone knows about and plays. It's purpose in life is to be that fantasy game everyone can play, and get into roleplaying from. It's not supposed to be a niche filler. Leave that to more specialized systems.

Hiro Protagonest
2011-06-13, 11:24 PM
...rather than one book attempts such as Ghostscape or Oriental Adventures...

The world of Rokugan isn't a one book attempt, it already (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594720479/ref=s9_simh_gw_p14_d1_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=1NV77GH35KC0A8ASD3XB&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846) exists (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594720525/ref=s9_simh_gw_p14_d0_i2?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=0DF9KE2R0NQDS25V77P8&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846).

Tyndmyr
2011-06-13, 11:40 PM
The world of Rokugan isn't a one book attempt, it already (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594720479/ref=s9_simh_gw_p14_d1_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=1NV77GH35KC0A8ASD3XB&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846) exists (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594720525/ref=s9_simh_gw_p14_d0_i2?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=0DF9KE2R0NQDS25V77P8&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846).

I'm aware, but within the context of D&D, it's a one book setting that doesn't mesh terribly well with a lot of other stuff, given that a lot of fantasy starts with a western basis. Well, except for the monk, I guess.

EccentricCircle
2011-06-14, 05:53 AM
my version of 5e D&D would be as follows

Ability scores: these are fine as they are
Skills: something like pathfinder's skill system it works really nicely
Feats: again go with the pathfinder's every other level system
Saves:
this is where i'd make a major change. I like the way 4e combines armour class and the various saves into a set of defences each linked to some one or other ability score, but i'd make it so that you have one defence for each ability.

Fortitude from Con,
Reflex from Dex,
Will from Wis,
Perception from Int,
Insight from Cha
and something from strength
AC doesn't fit as well as what's left over is strength. whereas AC is linked more to dex, but meh, this is just at the nice idea stage.

each of these would function much as Perception and insight do in 4e. you can roll a check if you want to, or are required to by the DM. or you can rely on a passive 10+ your modifiers score. that way if you fall off something you have to make a reflex check. but when someone tries to hit you they have to attack your passive reflex.
I like the idea that in a duel you could actively roll your armour class to try to parry each attack.

Classes:
I prefer the 3.5 system here. I like the way you can freely multiclass to build a unique character, but I think prestige classes should be much more limited. they should be rare and unique abilities which very few people have. some prestige classes from 3.5 would actually work better as base classes, if its general enough that more than two people in the world might have that class then it should be a base class.

Paragon Paths/ Alternative class features for customising at high levels are a nice idea. they could be used to cover some of the alternative class archetypes that prestige classes cover, leaving prestige classes for stuff thats actually prestigious. as opposed to cat burgler and illusionist. which really shouldn't be.

I like 4e's tier system. its nice that they've thought about what sorts of adventures you should be playing at each range of levels. so that should be continued. but at the same time the epic destinies seem a bit odd. its fine if the PC's are the worlds only heroes. but if you assume that every adventurer running around has the potential to ascend to godhood or somethign similar that strikes me as a bit odd.

Equipment:
magic items should indeed be rare and powerful artefacts. that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be available. but they should have names and histories and be used with more care. generic +1 -5 to x items shouldn't be magical. weapons of this sort could be better qualities of master working rather than actually being enchanted. ability score boosting items could be alchemical things which require fueling to work, or maybe they are addictive substances. once you start taking your dex boosting drug you have to keep taking it... or your characters dex will go back to how it was...

Magic and "powers":
I like the way 4e handles melee characters but I don't think it fits for casters. i'd actually go with a system like 3.5 psionics. different level spells can be cast by spending a number of power points. spells can be augmented. so you can turn your burning hands spell into a flaming sphere or that into a fireball by pumping in more points.

i'd stick with something like the 4e powers for martial characters. but rather than having at will powers and others that renew after a certain period of time i'd have those bought with power points as well.

each class is linked to a specific power source as in 4e, and gets a certain amount of power points based on their level and their key stat.

Martial Power Source: Dex
Arcane Powersource: Int
Divine Powersource: Wis
Primal Powersource: Cha
Psionic Powersource: Con
Chi powersource: Str

multiclass characters gain more powerpoints because they have more key stats. but those points are of a different "flavour" and can't all be spent on every power.

one last thing is books
the game should of course have the basic PHB, DMG, and a selection of monster manuals. but rather than having players handbook 2, 3 etc as in 4th ed., it should have sourcebooks based on different environments like the environment series for 3.5, as those are some of my favourite D&D books ever. there should also be a good rules compendium as that (for 3.5 at least...) is my favourite D&D book ever.

So basically the "eccentric circle 5th edition" is all about linking things back to those six basic abilities that are at the heart of D&D. that has always been the core of the system. and should be the focus of it. but getting rid of skills isn't the way to use it effectively in my opinion. add to the system. don't subtract.

hamlet
2011-06-14, 09:24 AM
I already have my ideal version of D&D. Don't need a new one.

Unless WOTC suddenely decided to re-release all its old material. That'd be about the only way they'd get my money again.

Garwain
2011-06-14, 10:06 AM
Let's say the truth, it's because you can customise your character to be such a unique hero that makes it replayable. I'm more in favour of a character builder where parts can be added togheter like modular building does. Your character is a placeholder for blocks. And each block is optimised on its own.

to step away from the theory, I'll give an example. I might want a character who can throw magic missiles, but is proficient with a sword. I'll take 2 blocks of controller wizard, and 1 block of grapple fighter. Each block gives stats, skills, feat and powers. Powers scale with blocks.

example:
2 x wizard controller block:
stats: str +0, dex, +1, con +0, int +1, wis +0, cha +1
skills: arcana +2, and some more
feat: -1 status saves
power: at will (magic missile), encounter, daily

grapple fighter:
stats: str +1, dex, +1, con +1, int +0, wis +0, cha +0
skills: athletics +2, and some more
feat: a grapple feat
power: at will, encounter, daily

end character = sum of the 3 blocks
stats: str +1, dex, +3, con +1, int +2, wis +0, cha +2
skills: athletics +2, arcana +4, and some more
feat: a grapple feat, -2 status saves
power: 2 at will (and choose 1 encounter and 1 daily)

Chainsaw Hobbit
2011-06-14, 10:29 AM
Let's say the truth, it's because you can customise your character to be such a unique hero that makes it replayable. I'm more in favour of a character builder where parts can be added togheter like modular building does. Your character is a placeholder for blocks. And each block is optimised on its own.

to step away from the theory, I'll give an example. I might want a character who can throw magic missiles, but is proficient with a sword. I'll take 2 blocks of controller wizard, and 1 block of grapple fighter. Each block gives stats, skills, feat and powers. Powers scale with blocks.

example:
2 x wizard controller block:
stats: str +0, dex, +1, con +0, int +1, wis +0, cha +1
skills: arcana +2, and some more
feat: -1 status saves
power: at will (magic missile), encounter, daily

grapple fighter:
stats: str +1, dex, +1, con +1, int +0, wis +0, cha +0
skills: athletics +2, and some more
feat: a grapple feat
power: at will, encounter, daily

end character = sum of the 3 blocks
stats: str +1, dex, +3, con +1, int +2, wis +0, cha +2
skills: athletics +2, arcana +4, and some more
feat: a grapple feat, -2 status saves
power: 2 at will (and choose 1 encounter and 1 daily)
Cool. Your ideal edition is my favorite so far (other than mine).

Yora
2011-06-14, 10:52 AM
I like my games clean and tidy with a small core of basic rules, which seems to be completely contradictory to WotCs business model.

Make one rule book with the scope of the Star Wars Saga main rulebook, and everything else is just setting and monster books. No new classes, feats, spells, and so on. Just fluff. Like AD&D did.

Hiro Protagonest
2011-06-14, 11:05 AM
I like my games clean and tidy with a small core of basic rules, which seems to be completely contradictory to WotCs business model.

Make one rule book with the scope of the Star Wars Saga main rulebook, and everything else is just setting and monster books. No new classes, feats, spells, and so on. Just fluff. Like AD&D did.

I'd like that if they gave you a way to create your own classes.

hamlet
2011-06-14, 11:09 AM
I'd like that if they gave you a way to create your own classes.

Then you want the 2nd edition DMG. Right there in the front.

Arguments about "brokeness" come seperately.

Hiro Protagonest
2011-06-14, 11:10 AM
Then you want the 2nd edition DMG. Right there in the front.

Arguments about "brokeness" come seperately.

I know someone who says 2e is the best, I might just buy the books and try it.

The Big Dice
2011-06-14, 03:37 PM
I like my games clean and tidy with a small core of basic rules, which seems to be completely contradictory to WotCs business model.

Make one rule book with the scope of the Star Wars Saga main rulebook, and everything else is just setting and monster books. No new classes, feats, spells, and so on. Just fluff. Like AD&D did.
It's an unsustainable business model. Bring out one book. Everyone buys said book, then doesn't need anything else. Revenue stops flowing, company dies.

That said, I'd like a version of D&D that was written by gamers rather than by writers. I'd like the design team to be intimately familliar with previous editions of D&D. And not just AD&D, with all versions and editions of the game.

Then they can cherry pick, taking the best from each edition and adding their own take on things. And most of all, they could reduce the demand for minis in the game. Not everyone wants to play a tactical miniatures game, even though the option should be there for those who do wish to explore that side of things. The old boxed editions of D&D managed to strike a balance. So did AD&D. I don't see why it oculdn't be done again.

valadil
2011-06-14, 03:50 PM
It's an unsustainable business model. Bring out one book.
Not everyone wants to play a tactical miniatures game, even though the option should be there for those who do wish to explore that side of things.

I wonder how a D&D-lite edition could work. Other games already try and reproduce the AD&D feel. Why shouldn't WotC get in on that? They could make an edition that actually was a D&D, but with lighter rules that left more up to the GM. I envision this as a side branch rather than a whole new edition.

Chainsaw Hobbit
2011-06-14, 03:53 PM
I wonder how a D&D-lite edition could work. Other games already try and reproduce the AD&D feel. Why shouldn't WotC get in on that? They could make an edition that actually was a D&D, but with lighter rules that left more up to the GM. I envision this as a side branch rather than a whole new edition.

I'd probably play the low-calorie D&D you proposed over the full thing.

valadil
2011-06-14, 03:59 PM
I'd probably play the low-calorie D&D you proposed over the full thing.

TBH, I'm surprised they haven't done it already. Retro seems to be in these days. Polish up the old 2e material, call it D&D Classic and put the whole game in a single book. They wouldn't even have to support the thing, just release it and be done with it.

Jude_H
2011-06-14, 05:11 PM
Features I'd like to see:

Faster char gen. Roll attributes, pick a class, pick a level, pick a character-specific option or two and play. Don't make me dig through books to fill every one of my thousands of spellbook pages, fit in a complicated feat track, allocate hundreds of skill points, or anything like that.

General classes, specific subclasses. This was something I really liked about early 4e. It allows differentiation between the feels of slightly different archetypes, but doesn't encourage forced differentiation between the mechanics of similar concepts.

Divorce ability acquisition from class level. D&D's level-based; I don't like that, but I can live with it. What I can't stand is 3e's Fighter/Wizard or Ranger springing magic powers out of nowhere on a purely mechanical basis, unrelated to plot or precedent. I believe mechanical levels should make characters better at what they do, but not directly give them new things to do. Plot-based developments might give characters new abilities like an animal friend or a burgeoning knack for sleight of hand tricks, but introducing those plot-related elements on a purely mechanical basis rubs me wrong.

A minimally obtrusive level system. This is mostly from my personal distaste for levels, but I'd also like to be able to see a new character join a party without a backstory including deeds coincidentally comparable to the party's previous achievements. i'd like a new character to be able to join a seasoned group and not be a liability, even if he's not doing as many flashy things as the others.

More consistent random number generation. I hate d20s. They're huge dice with lots of variance. D&D's previous approach to making them less arbitrary has been tacking on dozens of tiny meaningless bonuses and penalties, until the probability of success and failure is brute-forced into something that approaches narrative sense. Just shifting to more, smaller dice and hacking out a bunch of the various modifiers that factor into different rolls would make D&D less obnoxious.

Generalized attributes and skills. Besides cutting out numbers to track, playing with umbrella rulings for situations avoids some of the weirdness associated with an explicit Use Rope skill and an unsupported Use Hatchet option.

Doc Roc
2011-06-14, 06:26 PM
In a game with a good leveling system, Levels serve the excellent purpose of being the quanta of power.

ShneekeyTheLost
2011-06-14, 06:32 PM
One of the things i loved about 3.5: options.

To a degree, this was also the problem with 3.5... that several of these options were traps, while others were godlike. But the sheer versatility and the varying game mechanics were awesome.

I guess my ideal would have the following:

ToB style melee classes. Invocations for the 'blaster casters', with 'specialist casters' with limited spell selection (see also: Beguiler, Dread Necro, Warmage), and Incarnum thrown in to the mix.

Everyone does something cool, but most people aren't the same kind of cool.

137beth
2011-06-14, 08:52 PM
I strongly disagree with the OP, because options are what define RPGs and make them separate from video-games.
My ideal edition is largely like 3.5, but:
Rebalance classes, and fix the outrageously broken spells.
Add the online support given to 4e.

Zaydos
2011-06-15, 02:03 AM
My ideal? No idea; it needs options but really what I want to play varies so much with my mood (sometimes I want Conan-esque heroic fantasy, for that I'd go with 2e or E6, sometimes I want what I call a HEROIC game where PCs are larger than life and made special and I'd suggest 4e for that; in general, though, I turn to 3.X for so many options and choices and the ability to make so much). I'd say keep spells that have out of combat use, and durations that can last multiple combats. I'd also say give martial characters special powers (ToB/4e did this) and make the full-attack option not require a full round action or its equivalent (like in 2e) and be something that seperates a martial character from say a cleric (like in 2e).

Also my ideal edition would focus more on the fluff than 3e did. I can't judge 4e on this since I haven't dealt with the fluffy books (The Planes Above and Below look like they might could from the covers but I've not bothered to buy them since I don't play 4e much and when I've DMed 4e it's only been one-shots that I wasn't aware would happen till people started making characters to play). 2e would be a good place to look here.

Also make it easy to homebrew things for the system. Not actually sure what the requirements here are. For me 3.5 is the easiest, but that's also what I've played the most (2 sessions a week for about 10 months a year for 2 years in one campaign and more before that and after). 2e has guidelines (class, race and monster design are all in the DMG) but they're fairly borked (the class design rules call out that they will level up worse than an official class, and doing the math they mean by some 40-100% worse; and the race design, actually converting monsters to races, will generally net something worse than nothing) to the point that even as a kid I realized they were fairly unusable. 4e... I've tried to homebrew 4e it's a much more intensive task but that might just be because I'm not familiar with the math.

Yora
2011-06-15, 05:26 AM
I wonder how a D&D-lite edition could work.
I think core only E6 feels a lot like this.

The Big Dice
2011-06-15, 05:26 AM
TBH, I'm surprised they haven't done it already. Retro seems to be in these days. Polish up the old 2e material, call it D&D Classic and put the whole game in a single book. They wouldn't even have to support the thing, just release it and be done with it.

You know AD&D was no less complicated than 3.5, right? Unless by 2e you mean the Holmes edition, which I think was the actual second edition in print. I hated AD&D, used to call it Overly and Pointlessly Complicated D&D because it was even more cluttered with subsystems than 3.X.

Now tidying up BECMI/Rules Compendium D&D and rebadging that as Classic D&D, that's something I'd invest drinking tokens in.

hamlet
2011-06-15, 08:16 AM
I know someone who says 2e is the best, I might just buy the books and try it.

It is not objectively the best, but better to say it is the best for some styles of play, including mine.

It's certainly worth a look, though, if you can lay hands on an inexpensive set of the three core books. Or, better yet, flit over to NobleKnight and they still have, I think, a lot of 2nd edition books for sale including PHB, DMG, MM, and a few other sources that would make for a good campaign set, though I'd excise lots of it.

Welknair
2011-06-15, 08:33 AM
Well that's a bloody funny question. My ideal edition of D&D really isn't D&D at all.

+1

I realized a while ago that D&D is horribly flawed. At least for the type of game that I want. I want a story, not a dungeoncrawl. Guess which one D&D (About any edition) supports? I prefer 3.5 to 4e, but there's plenty of problems with both. So this is why I'm making my own system. Yay jumping ship?

Key Features:

2d10 base, adding them together. Bell curve rolls!
No hitpoints. You compare the damage taken to your Stamina + Endurance and extrapolate how hard of a hit it is from there. If your Stam+End is beat by more than five, you're likely dead or knocked out.
Entire subsystem for "Relations" that allow for personal attachments and exceptions to the
Behavioral algorithms. It's like Exalted's Virtues, but moreso. And they fluctuate on a day-to-day basis.
"Favor" system that awards players "Favor" when they do cool things. This favor can be used to boost rolls or to simply get you a get-out-of-jail-free coupon from death. But that takes quite a number of stunts.
Balance is focused on the long-term, not the short-term. Honestly, how many adventuring parties have four appropriately scaled encounters a day? Especially if there's a larger storyline going on, the combat slows things down.
Combat has multiple levels of definition, ranging from just "You guys beat up the guard." where it's a forgone, uninteresting battle, to "Since Asmodeus won initiative he declares his action last and resolves it first." where a far greater level of detail is used when every second of the combat is interesting, dramatic, and important. The full combat system is only recommended for competition matches and boss-battles.
Magic items exist, but none are permanent and none are near as obviously powerful.
In general magic is less powerful. At the start a Wizard can create an orb of pure arcane force, directing it flawlessly at an opponent with but a thought. And they can do so repeatedly, with no real cost. In my game, there's no such thing as free power. I have four supernatural systems, three of which focus around spells (The fourth is Martial Arts). Spells are less like "Fireball in a 25ftX25ft area" and more like "You raise the temperature of the room or your hand by up to five degrees". Did you know that raising the temperature of someone's internal organs can kill them just as well as a fireball to the face? And likely requires a whole lot less energy. Though they'd probably get a roll to resist... All three of the casting systems carry some sort of cost. One requires you to swear fealty and serve a higher power, often going around performing services for them; one increasing the chance of your spells going weird the more times you use them; and one causes physical damage to the caster, which can be mitigated by a "Buffer" which is used to evenly space this damage over a quantity of time. Though effective, this buffer usually leaves the caster looking perpetually ill. (Can you spot the Cleric, Sorcerer and Wizard look-alikes?)
In general, I'm trying to keep my casters as Tier 3 as possible. They potentially have access to their entire array of spells, but using them is dangerous, risky and unpredictable. For the most part they stick with their "Invocations" which they have mastered entirely.
I have no levels. No experience points. Progression is built around a combination of actual training and real-life use. No more killing orcs in a desert to get better at swimming.
Eight ability scores, arranged in four "Linked Pairs". These stats cannot be more than a certain amount away from one another. For example, can you think of a terribly creative character who's an idiot? A strongman that's anemic? A wiseman who's a clutz? A charismatic leader who can't hold his ground in an argument? These traits are not the same as each other, but it makes sense for them to be somehow related.
Since I have no levels, I have no classes. Instead there are "Paths" which characters may progress down. These require a number of hours of training and certain prerequisites, but asides from those act much like PrCs with the abilities granted. I've always loved PrCs. Just check my extended signature.
You can homebrew. EVERYTHING. Spells, maneuvers, disciplines, magic items, monsters, traits, tricks, paths. You name an element and it'll probably be homebrew friendly. This is one of the reasons that I've stuck with 3.5 so long.
Players usually start as either "Beginners", individuals who have never left the comfort of their hometown before (*Cough* Bilbo/Frodo *Cough*) or a "Veteran" who has had elite training or somesuch. The latter is much more capable of taking on tough opponents, but don't expect to see much progression in your skills. If you've been training rigorously for twenty years, why would fighting for a week cause you to double in skill? My skills are based around hours spent training. As such, this Beginner-to-Veteran thing is actual a scale. You can start about any place in it, as it suits the campaign.
Some other stuff I can't remember off the top of my head

Jay R
2011-06-15, 08:40 AM
TBH, I'm surprised they haven't done it already. Retro seems to be in these days. Polish up the old 2e material, call it D&D Classic and put the whole game in a single book. They wouldn't even have to support the thing, just release it and be done with it.

Because every person who turns to this version stops being a continual money source for them.

It is not in their best interests to offer people an option to stop buying all the latest stuff.

Eldan
2011-06-15, 08:40 AM
Strange. I've tried over a dozen game systems so far, and I've found that really, none of them support a high-fantasy story-focused game better for me.

The Big Dice
2011-06-15, 08:42 AM
I'm aware, but within the context of D&D, it's a one book setting that doesn't mesh terribly well with a lot of other stuff, given that a lot of fantasy starts with a western basis. Well, except for the monk, I guess.
You do know there was an entire range of D20 Rokugan books? Almost the entire second edition of L5R was published by WotC and featured a dual stat layout. That is, stat blocks for 3.0 D&D and L5R 2nd edition.

I wouldn't call that a one book setting.

chaotoroboto
2011-06-16, 01:54 AM
+1
Key Features:


2d10 base, adding them together. Bell curve rolls!
No hitpoints. You compare the damage taken to your Stamina + Endurance and extrapolate how hard of a hit it is from there. If your Stam+End is beat by more than five, you're likely dead or knocked out.
Entire subsystem for "Relations" that allow for personal attachments and exceptions to the
Behavioral algorithms. It's like Exalted's Virtues, but moreso. And they fluctuate on a day-to-day basis.
"Favor" system that awards players "Favor" when they do cool things. This favor can be used to boost rolls or to simply get you a get-out-of-jail-free coupon from death. But that takes quite a number of stunts.
Balance is focused on the long-term, not the short-term. Honestly, how many adventuring parties have four appropriately scaled encounters a day? Especially if there's a larger storyline going on, the combat slows things down.
Combat has multiple levels of definition, ranging from just "You guys beat up the guard." where it's a forgone, uninteresting battle, to "Since Asmodeus won initiative he declares his action last and resolves it first." where a far greater level of detail is used when every second of the combat is interesting, dramatic, and important. The full combat system is only recommended for competition matches and boss-battles.
Magic items exist, but none are permanent and none are near as obviously powerful.
In general magic is less powerful. At the start a Wizard can create an orb of pure arcane force, directing it flawlessly at an opponent with but a thought. And they can do so repeatedly, with no real cost. In my game, there's no such thing as free power. I have four supernatural systems, three of which focus around spells (The fourth is Martial Arts). Spells are less like "Fireball in a 25ftX25ft area" and more like "You raise the temperature of the room or your hand by up to five degrees". Did you know that raising the temperature of someone's internal organs can kill them just as well as a fireball to the face? And likely requires a whole lot less energy. Though they'd probably get a roll to resist... All three of the casting systems carry some sort of cost. One requires you to swear fealty and serve a higher power, often going around performing services for them; one increasing the chance of your spells going weird the more times you use them; and one causes physical damage to the caster, which can be mitigated by a "Buffer" which is used to evenly space this damage over a quantity of time. Though effective, this buffer usually leaves the caster looking perpetually ill. (Can you spot the Cleric, Sorcerer and Wizard look-alikes?)
In general, I'm trying to keep my casters as Tier 3 as possible. They potentially have access to their entire array of spells, but using them is dangerous, risky and unpredictable. For the most part they stick with their "Invocations" which they have mastered entirely.
I have no levels. No experience points. Progression is built around a combination of actual training and real-life use. No more killing orcs in a desert to get better at swimming.
Eight ability scores, arranged in four "Linked Pairs". These stats cannot be more than a certain amount away from one another. For example, can you think of a terribly creative character who's an idiot? A strongman that's anemic? A wiseman who's a clutz? A charismatic leader who can't hold his ground in an argument? These traits are not the same as each other, but it makes sense for them to be somehow related.
Since I have no levels, I have no classes. Instead there are "Paths" which characters may progress down. These require a number of hours of training and certain prerequisites, but asides from those act much like PrCs with the abilities granted. I've always loved PrCs. Just check my extended signature.
You can homebrew. EVERYTHING. Spells, maneuvers, disciplines, magic items, monsters, traits, tricks, paths. You name an element and it'll probably be homebrew friendly. This is one of the reasons that I've stuck with 3.5 so long.
Players usually start as either "Beginners", individuals who have never left the comfort of their hometown before (*Cough* Bilbo/Frodo *Cough*) or a "Veteran" who has had elite training or somesuch. The latter is much more capable of taking on tough opponents, but don't expect to see much progression in your skills. If you've been training rigorously for twenty years, why would fighting for a week cause you to double in skill? My skills are based around hours spent training. As such, this Beginner-to-Veteran thing is actual a scale. You can start about any place in it, as it suits the campaign.
Some other stuff I can't remember off the top of my head


I'd say Savage Worlds is a good starting point for you. It's a very, very strange triangulation between d20, World of Darkness, and GURPS. It's also $10 for the core book in paperback so on the scale of how much a gamer spends on books, it's painless.

Now, there might be stuff you'd change about it, but in general Savage Worlds is as flexible, balanced, and story-oriented as you're looking for. It has bennies that are exactly like your proposed favor system; spell descriptions are templates that you can add specific flavor to.

Progression is point-based, much like WoD. You buy stats, skills, or feats with XP. On the other hand, after your character has earned a certain amount of XP, you gain access to new tiers of feats and spells you can use; and this provides that same "HA! Suckers!" feeling that levels in DnD provide.

Now, there are parts of your ideal game that aren't going to fit into Savage Worlds, but a goodly chunk of it will.

Savage Worlds isn't my ideal edition of DnD, btw. It's what I use when I want to run a non-DnD kind of a game.

EDIT: Re-inserted Spoiler tags.