PDA

View Full Version : What major change would you like in D&D 5e?



DemLep
2011-06-17, 06:56 AM
So like the title says, What major change would you like to see in D&D 5th edition?

I think they are close to being able to do classless or level-less system.

The Big Dice
2011-06-17, 07:07 AM
D&D wouldn't be D&D without classes and levels.

The main change I'd like to see is a move away from near complete miniature dependence.

Tyndmyr
2011-06-17, 07:11 AM
Honestly, I'm not sure that I care about D&D 5e. How many editions of rules heavy, class based high fantasy do we need?

WitchSlayer
2011-06-17, 07:15 AM
I'm fine with what we got so far. There's nothing that I'm absolutely begging for for the next D&D edition.

dsmiles
2011-06-17, 07:18 AM
Honestly, I'm not sure that I care about D&D 5e. How many editions of rules heavy, class based high fantasy do we need?
+1 million. I'm so tired of Hasbro's corporate greed and non-caring attitude.

bladescape
2011-06-17, 07:23 AM
Agreed. 4E and 3.5 are good enough for me ATM. I'm not sure I need to learn a new edition currently.

The Big Dice
2011-06-17, 07:24 AM
I didn't say I'd rush out and buy it. Just what I'd like to see :smallyuk:

panaikhan
2011-06-17, 07:43 AM
BRING BACK CIRCLES.

Seriously.

I see no reason why a Fireball (or any other explosion centered on a point in space) should be square. None at all.

Fhaolan
2011-06-17, 08:11 AM
I would like Hasbro to pay *me* to play. :smallbiggrin:

mathemagician
2011-06-17, 08:34 AM
BRING BACK CIRCLES.

Seriously.

I see no reason why a Fireball (or any other explosion centered on a point in space) should be square. None at all.

Because we use squares for every other measurement, so it's an approximation made to speed everything up. I see absolutely no problem with it.

valadil
2011-06-17, 08:41 AM
I would like an edition that focused on intersubjective creativity rather than on selling you as many splat books as possible. Not gonna happen, but I can dream, can't I?

Tyndmyr
2011-06-17, 08:43 AM
As an :smallsmile:Old warhammer player, I'm very comfortable measuring ranges, movement and so on in actual inches. I have some sick terrain for that as well, too.

Its probably not something that would catch on wide scale though.

Tengu_temp
2011-06-17, 09:11 AM
I want a game that combines the balance of 4e with the multitude of character building options of 3.5 and the fast combat of AD&D. And it should use the ToB maneuver mechanics as a base.

klemdakherzbag
2011-06-17, 09:21 AM
"What do we want?"
"THAC0!!"
"When do we want it?"
-ah heck ill just go play ad&d :)

Eldan
2011-06-17, 09:23 AM
Hmm. Toni Di'Terlizzi back as main artist?

Morph Bark
2011-06-17, 09:33 AM
The major change I would like in D&D 5e would be for it to not come out just a few years after the last edition.


Because we use squares for every other measurement, so it's an approximation made to speed everything up. I see absolutely no problem with it.

If I want to play Minecraft, I'll play Minecraft. :smallwink:

Coidzor
2011-06-17, 09:50 AM
A balance point and a set of guidelines and tools that are actually useful for creating homebrew content and having a way to gauge whether it's near that balance point without having to run hundreds of test sessions or shrug one's shoulders and say close enough after eyeballing it for awhile.


+1 million. I'm so tired of Hasbro's corporate greed and non-caring attitude.

That reminds me, the number one cause of people leaving a company is apparently perceived indifference. Or at least that's what the customer service training I received was telling me anyway.

Kurald Galain
2011-06-17, 10:42 AM
I think they are close to being able to do classless or level-less system.
What makes you think that? If anything I would say the opposite.

valadil
2011-06-17, 10:47 AM
What makes you think that? If anything I would say the opposite.

I'm with Kurald. I also don't think classless is the way to go. IMO it's one of the iconic features/foibles of D&D. If 5th ed came out without classes, I'd unfortunately find myself chanting that it wasn't D&D anymore.

The Big Dice
2011-06-17, 11:49 AM
As an :smallsmile:Old warhammer player, I'm very comfortable measuring ranges, movement and so on in actual inches. I have some sick terrain for that as well, too.

Its probably not something that would catch on wide scale though.
I'm the same. I still have fond memories of those big box Games Workshop games that came with a plastic range ruler. And sometimes circular templates with concentric lines marking different blast patterns on them.

Ahhh, Blood Bowl and Adeptus Titanicus, so much fun only to be drowned under GW endlessly revising the same products.

Sipex
2011-06-17, 02:00 PM
Whatever it is it shouldn't be "I want the reversal of 4th edition" because really, 3.5 still works just fine.

When 5th edition comes out I hope it's the same basic idea (Levels, classes, dungeons, dragons) with a different sort of system.

Or a system which incorporates the best pieces from each of the last (although we could argue forever on what those are).

Tengu_temp
2011-06-17, 02:08 PM
What makes you think that? If anything I would say the opposite.

To be fair, I can easily imagine a classless version of 4e, where everyone can pick from the same, large list of powers and features. That'd require further balancing, of course, but hey, that's what a new edition is for.

I'm not sure if that'd be a good way to go, though. We already have a lot of great systems without classes and/or levels, DND should focus on its strengths instead.

Frozen_Feet
2011-06-17, 03:02 PM
Note: not familiar with 4th ed. No idea if steps have already been taken to these directions.

Smaller number and more meaningful random chance. As it is, bonuses accumulate to the point where they dwarf signifigance of the actual die roll. It also make for harder addition and substraction than is necessary.

Less accumulating bonuses to track overall. It's a bitch trying to remember each +1 or -1 in the current system.

Integrate class features and PrC options into the feat system, reduce base class bloat. Towards the end of 3.5, about every conceivable archetype started having their own base classes, as opposed to the highly generic original base classes. This, supposedly to increase customizability of characters. PrCs are even worse. End result: a system where you have to go binging through dozen source books to cherry pick single levels to implement a character concept. This is frankly ludicrous, and could've been averted alltogether if class features of the additional classes (and ACFs, for that matter) would've been integrated to the already existing customization system that allows a character to pick nuggets of mechanical power and flavor and certain intervals (ie., feats.)

Sever connection of Gold to XP so that there's no direct way to turn one into another. Don't give magic items set prices in in-game economy, severing their connection to non-magical trade. This should give more leeway for GMs to dictate which magic items are available and how, and solve several problems with WBL, item crafting and suspension of disbelief.

In general, reduce need to micro-manage character bank accounts.

Return 3d6 roll's and random chance's rightful place as the big movers of character creation. In the current system, race and templates nullify signifigance of base scores. This ties in with my first wish: make the random range more meaningful, allowing for powerful and weak characters alike. At the same time, lessen amount of features that absolutely require high ability scores. (Such as spellcasting.) Take point-buy behind the sauna and shoot it.

Streamline the skill system - make skills able to do more. Create a more interesting and less binary success / failure system.

Scrap Damage Reduction and percentile miss chances. For pity's sake, both things they're supposed to would be accomplished by AC already! They are both needless layers of mechanics.

Add a less binary injury system, add a fatigue system.

Lessen power and accessibility of magic while increasing power of non-magical options, seeking to balance them together.

Make being good in combat optional. Not every class and character needs to revolve around it. Tying in with my wishes for the skill system, expand content for non-combat play.

Non-relative XP system. Tracking XP invidually for each character is a bitch, just remove need for such. Also, the numbers in the XP system are arbitrarily high. Just tone them down to create simpler game math.

A working CR and level system. Working in the sense that creatures of same level can be expected to be about as powerful. That's what it means to be on the same level.

dsmiles
2011-06-17, 03:21 PM
Hmm. Toni Di'Terlizzi back as main artist?
I...I...might actually buy it if that happened. Just for the artwork, of course. :smallredface:

That reminds me, the number one cause of people leaving a company is apparently perceived indifference. Or at least that's what the customer service training I received was telling me anyway.Your training wasn't wrong. When the quality if 3.5 went south (i.e. no playtesting with previous books allowing for extremely broken combos) a bunch of my friends and I jumped ship to Rolemaster/HARP for a long time. (By the way, RM/HARP models The Elder Scrolls setting pretty well.)

averagejoe
2011-06-17, 04:58 PM
Free sandwich with every PHB!

I'll probably never buy another D&D edition again, but I would like to see a bit more of the silly fun brought back. I like 3.5 well enough, but it's so damned serious all the time. I like the occasional duckbunny or bullywug, and I've never played spelljammer, but those hippo guys always seemed cool. A bit of fun instead of it being all serious challenges for serious games.

dsmiles
2011-06-17, 08:23 PM
I've never played spelljammerThis breaks my heart. I know there was a d20 conversion out there, somewhere. You really should look into it, if you're still playing 3.5.

Ozreth
2011-06-17, 09:03 PM
For me:

To change from 4e
- No more at will, encounter, daily "powers". I know this has been remedied a bit but come on, it's not a super hero game.
- Not starting out feeling like a super hero
- No more card game like stat blocks
- Less shifting/moving abilities that make us rely so much on gridded combat and less effects to keep track of.

To keep from 4e
- I want the same ease of DMing that 4e (and all the pre 3e versions) has.
- Keep monsters that work differently than PC's.
- Ease of making monsters and NPC's.
- Less emphasis on builds

Add all that with the flavor of the 3e books, classes, items, and spells and streamlined d20 mechanic and we are golden.

Oh wait, thats almost castles and crusades minus the good looking books :smalltongue:

NeoSeraphi
2011-06-17, 09:18 PM
I want to see an edition without healing surges (In my honest opinion they don't make sense and they make the game easier)

I would like to see a version of the bard class with more abilities and songs than the 3.5 bard.

A class that specializes in unarmed fighting, with unique abilities and skills that improve the actual unarmed fighting (as opposed to the monk, who improves movement, gets SR and other weird random abilities, and the battle dancer who is like a weird version of a scout who has a bardic music like mechanic with Tumble)

A more effective way of monsters to combat spellcasters than just SR.

RPGuru1331
2011-06-17, 09:25 PM
no edition wars.

Ozreth
2011-06-17, 09:46 PM
And to add to my last post, I think if Wizards were to release a simple, streamlined game with basics of the older editions and a streamlined system that also supported and encouraged easy homebrew they could sell lots of boxes (assuming it all came in a box with ALL of the materials you needed to run games).

And try to keep it as far away from digital only as possible: The pencil and paper aspect of this game is its niche and the one thing that keeps it unique and desirable in the digital era.

Coidzor
2011-06-17, 11:09 PM
Not starting out feeling like a total Schlubb would be nice as well, come to think of it.

chaotoroboto
2011-06-18, 01:31 AM
The only thing that I prefer as a DM in 3.5 over 4E would be the skills list. A wide, varied skill list would be nice. I think it promotes better roleplaying. Gaining additional trained skills over the course of leveling would be nice too. More generally, better implementation of skill checks would be nice, as well as powers that provide skill-based riders.

As a player, I'd really just like SW:SE with powers.

Knaight
2011-06-18, 01:47 AM
I want to see the game actually admit that it is merely one role playing game among others, rather than pretending that D&D is very unique, and there are no other role playing games upon which you might spend your money on instead.

Coidzor
2011-06-18, 02:00 AM
I want to see the game actually admit that it is merely one role playing game among others, rather than pretending that D&D is very unique, and there are no other role playing games upon which you might spend your money on instead.

So.... for the marketing and rules set to be competitive rather than just relying on the D&D brand name? Or what?

Knaight
2011-06-18, 02:05 AM
So.... for the marketing and rules set to be competitive rather than just relying on the D&D brand name? Or what?

As of right now, its possible to hold an opinion that D&D is the only role playing game. One can read the entirety of those rules, and retain that opinion, which isn't going to happen with any other game, as those other games acknowledge that there are other games in the rules text. I simply want D&D to do the same thing, as it will benefit the hobby as a whole, and likely help the D&D brand in the long run.

Ozreth
2011-06-18, 02:41 AM
Wishful thinking. WotC, especially with Hasboro onboard isn't much more than your every day capitalist machine. Sure the artists and writers may put their heart and souls into their work, but at the end of the day their work is for a giant company looking to make millions on fresh kids. They could really care less about other RPGs and the community.

Knaight
2011-06-18, 03:36 AM
Wishful thinking.

Isn't that what this thread is about?

TARDIS
2011-06-18, 03:37 PM
Basically, I'd like to take the power system and balance from 4e, and mix it in with the customizability and out-of-combat roleplaying support and, in my opinion, focus of 3.5/PF.

Now I'm a huge 3.5 and Pathfinder fan, who continues to run the games. I've taken a look at 4e, and it, to me, seems too combat oriented, too miniature oriented, too dumbed down and simplified for the general masses. Also, threw out a tonne of AD&D-3.5e lore, so irked about that. Now, that's just my opinion here, I know other people have their own. And since I've dissed on 4e, let me say something nice - the powers look fantastic, combat looks better than 3.5, and balance, in combat, is present in ways it never was in 3.5, giving everybody a chance to play a role.

Unfortunately, to me, seems like they spent way too much time on the fighting, and not enough on what one does outside of that - other than get from point A to point B for more fighting. But that doesn't mean we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater... take that 4e combat system, and slot it into a D&D system that plays more like 2e, 3.5, or PF, where you feel encouraged and supported to consider non-combat options, where characters have a chance to shine socially as well as martially... bring back the old Role Playing elements to go along with the improved Game part.

Of course, I've got a whole litany of things I dislike about 4e, aside from my above mini-rant, but that's not important. This is about what one would like to see in the future for D&D. And for me, it comes down to supporting both the roleplaying aspects, as well as the gaming aspects. Some of that really is dependent on the group and the DM, but some also comes from the rpg one chooses to run, and I'd really like to see 5e be a system that does just that.

Also, less bloat. See Pathfinder... 3 rulebooks a year, primary focus on setting info, society play, and adventure paths. The system could be better, but I cannot dislike the business model!

Ozreth
2011-06-18, 04:08 PM
Isn't that what this thread is about?

Fair enough : )

Frozen_Feet
2011-06-18, 05:20 PM
Not starting out feeling like a total Schlubb would be nice as well, come to think of it.

One thing I'd want not to se, actually. Level 1 should be for total noobs, and the system should allow for weak characters. If you don't like to start from the bottom, you can always start from level 3 or something.

Kaeso
2011-06-18, 06:52 PM
I want a game that combines the balance of 4e with the multitude of character building options of 3.5 and the fast combat of AD&D. And it should use the ToB maneuver mechanics as a base.

+1, I have nothing more t add.

Asheram
2011-06-18, 06:57 PM
I want a game that combines the balance of 4e with the multitude of character building options of 3.5 and the fast combat of AD&D. And it should use the ToB maneuver mechanics as a base.

Oh yes, this... But I would also like to add

-balanced classes which actually feels different to play.

Coidzor
2011-06-19, 02:18 AM
One thing I'd want not to se, actually. Level 1 should be for total noobs, and the system should allow for weak characters. If you don't like to start from the bottom, you can always start from level 3 or something.

And there's a difference between what I said and inexperience.

Nidogg
2011-06-19, 03:53 PM
What I'd like to see is maybe (and this may not be as wishful as you might think because it involes money) a Ph with the 4e style combat oriented stuff then an Expanded Ph for moar money with a 3.5 level of choice. Also, limit spell usage per day as 3.5 or psionics in 3.5 (video gamy? maybe) cos I didnt like the HEY I can use somthing all day!wizard.

Draz74
2011-06-19, 08:02 PM
Fhaolan already won the thread:

I would like Hasbro to pay *me* to play. :smallbiggrin:
But, failing that, I'd like to see:

A business model where the company builds a super-solid mechanical foundation, then leaves it mostly alone. Splatbooks or continuing products shouldn't be things that add rules complexity, because that's a bad long-term model. Instead, most of what the company continues to publish over the years should be new campaign settings and adventure modules. (Note that Monstrous Manuals should be absorbed into said campaign setting books, with most monsters becoming setting-specific.)
A character power progression with less emphasis on "my numbers get bigger!!!11!" and more emphasis on "I learn completely new abilities as I gain experience," for both casters and non-casters.
Less bookkeeping required.
Old-school "silliness" (e.g. duckbunnies) being compatible with the rules, but not required to be part of your game.
Non-combat rules as extensive as combat rules, but still feeling like D&D as opposed to rules-light or narrativist systems.


Note: not familiar with 4th ed. No idea if steps have already been taken to these directions.

Less accumulating bonuses to track overall. It's a bitch trying to remember each +1 or -1 in the current system.

Sadly, Frozen_Feet, 4e made this issue worse, not better. :smallfrown:

Several of your comments make me think you should check out my homebrew system (http://forum.faxcelestis.net/viewforum.php?f=22&sid=4c9c4ff967ff5195952ec412dd81d2d2), though. (Which hopefully will, eventually, follow most of my own advice above. Though I don't know how good I am at writing non-combat rules.)

Ozreth
2011-06-19, 08:05 PM
A business model where the company builds a super-solid mechanical foundation, then leaves it mostly alone. Splatbooks or continuing products shouldn't be things that add rules complexity, because that's a bad long-term model. Instead, most of what the company continues to publish over the years should be new campaign settings and adventure modules. (Note that Monstrous Manuals should be absorbed into said campaign setting books, with most monsters becoming setting-specific.)
A character power progression with less emphasis on "my numbers get bigger!!!11!" and more emphasis on "I learn completely new abilities as I gain experience," for both casters and non-casters.
Less bookkeeping required.
Old-school "silliness" (e.g. duckbunnies) being compatible with the rules, but not required to be part of your game.
Non-combat rules as extensive as combat rules, but still feeling like D&D as opposed to rules-light or narrativist systems.



This is golden.

DemLep
2011-06-20, 01:10 AM
@Kurald Galain and valadil: It's not that I think D&D will ever be classless or levelless just that I see the potential for it. I also don't think that it would not be "D&D" because of it.

I'd also like to see less setting books and more books with monsters, items, classes, feats, etc. As someone who creates all of the settings in my games I don't need WotC settings, but it is still nice to have things in a book worked out that I don't have to homebrew.

potatocubed
2011-06-20, 03:59 AM
A fully-functional online game table. There are a few already in existence, but something which automated most of the function of the game - especially tracking the million billion tiny bonuses and penalties that a 4e-like mechanic produces - and let everyone get on with roleplaying and/or tactical thinking... that would be pretty sweet.

In terms of game mechanics there's nothing. Between Pathfinder, Fantasy Craft, 4e D&D, Fatescape (plug plug), OSRIC and Swords and Wizardry I think I pretty much have all the D&D-flavour game systems I'm ever likely to need.

Knaight
2011-06-20, 04:11 AM
In terms of game mechanics there's nothing. Between Pathfinder, Fantasy Craft, 4e D&D, Fatescape (plug plug), OSRIC and Swords and Wizardry I think I pretty much have all the D&D-flavour game systems I'm ever likely to need.

I can't help but notice the tragic lack of Warrior Rogue and Mage. Its free, its about 40 pages, it is worth a read.

Totally Guy
2011-06-20, 04:35 AM
I'd like to see a mechanically sound social conflict system for handling intraparty party conflicts and arguments with NPCs.

Eldan
2011-06-20, 04:45 AM
A fully-functional online game table. There are a few already in existence, but something which automated most of the function of the game - especially tracking the million billion tiny bonuses and penalties that a 4e-like mechanic produces - and let everyone get on with roleplaying and/or tactical thinking... that would be pretty sweet.

Heh. Since this is a wishful thinking thread by now, let's go totally silly. I want a paper-thin LCD screen (already been done, I know) that automatically tracks your character sheet for you and gives you all the modifiers. Possibly with some kind of input system that just let's you push an "exhausted" button somewhere.

Also, I like starting with weak characters. At least as an option. It would be nice if they wrote somewhere: "Want to start as an apprentice? Try level 1! Want to be a veteran? Level 3! A hero? Level 5!" I mean, Mutants and Masterminds could do that, why can't D&D?

Lvl45DM!
2011-06-20, 06:11 AM
AD&D with the skill system open ended ability scores and prestige classes of 3rd ed.

Or just AD&D back so the start printing modules for it again

Yvanehtnioj
2011-06-20, 09:21 AM
1.) One thing I would like to see is the xp tables for AD&D brought back. As in, having separate tables for each class. That is the way to balance the classes out--by making some classes advance faster than others.

For example, a party of a Fighter, Mage, Cleric, and a Rogue.

By the time the mage has hit 5th level and is giddy about just gotten Fireball, the Rogue is approaching 8th, the Fighter is at 7th, and the Cleric is nearing 6th.


2.) Also, no more Vancian (spelling?) spellcasting. Make magic work from magic points, like psionics works from psi points. This would go nicely with that Fatigue system that someone already mentioned.

Eldan
2011-06-20, 09:36 AM
I keep repeating myself, but I love Vancian magic. It's the most flavourful magic system I know off in D&D, tied with Binders, perhaps. Seriously, everyone does those boring magic points. Usually, they are even silly enough tto call them Mana, without even looking up what the expression means.
No, what I want is more Vancian, with some properly thought out and incorporated fluff.

dsmiles
2011-06-20, 09:48 AM
I keep repeating myself, but I love Vancian magic. It's the most flavourful magic system I know off in D&D, tied with Binders, perhaps. Seriously, everyone does those boring magic points. Usually, they are even silly enough tto call them Mana, without even looking up what the expression means.
No, what I want is more Vancian, with some properly thought out and incorporated fluff.Hate to disagree with you (again), but I still think Vancian magic does a horrible job of representing the physical fatigue casters should feel when they channel massive amounts of arcane energy through their bodies and minds. The non-lethal damage variant (which is the one I use in 3.5) in Advanced d20 Magic (and/or BESM: The Slayers d20) is a perfect example of that fatigue. You can literally cast yourself to death, as I prefer (like channeling in Wheel of Time series, or the Will and the Word in both the Belgariad and the Mallorean).

Sorcerer Blob
2011-06-20, 10:08 AM
Hate to disagree with you (again), but I still think Vancian magic does a horrible job of representing the physical fatigue casters should feel when they channel massive amounts of arcane energy through their bodies and minds. The non-lethal damage variant (which is the one I use in 3.5) in Advanced d20 Magic (and/or BESM: The Slayers d20) is a perfect example of that fatigue. You can literally cast yourself to death, as I prefer (like channeling in Wheel of Time series, or the Will and the Word in both the Belgariad and the Mallorean).

I love the concept of "blood magic." The idea that spells slowly drain you or injure you as you cast them is fantastic and, I think, a more solid approach to magic than the Vancian system.

That said, if Vancian magic were to be reintroduced I would like it to be real Vancian magic as opposed to only the memorize-to-cast-Vancian that was/is in place. What I mean by that is spells are directly affected by your power as a Mage/Wizard/Spell-User and that everytime you cast a spell it is slightly different. Ie. Roll well and your Magic Missile does more damage than it should. Goodman Games (http://goodmangames.com/) is currently working on a November-release stand alone system for their Dungeon Crawl Classics line that is a meshing of OD&D, AD&D, 3.XE, with a little of 4E thrown in that embraces this concept of Vancian Magic (http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=8530).

Yora
2011-06-20, 10:20 AM
1.) One thing I would like to see is the xp tables for AD&D brought back. As in, having separate tables for each class. That is the way to balance the classes out--by making some classes advance faster than others.
That makes multi-classing very difficult. An easier solution would be to spread out the abilities of powerful classes over a wider range of levels. It's not a problem when a wizard gains 20th level at the same time as a rogue, if he would get 9th level spells at 26th level instead of 17th.

ajkkjjk52
2011-06-20, 01:06 PM
More customization within a smaller number of generic base classes. Instead of a huge number of base classes, each with different flavors but only one way to build them, have just the generic classes but a huge range of different ways to build and play them.

Sort of like what Pathfinder does, but more so. I'm not opposed to the mechanics of 4th edition, but I'd like more ability to build wildly nontraditional characters.

KingofMadCows
2011-06-20, 03:46 PM
I'm guessing that they'll simplified as much as possible so that it can be played through social networks and twitter.

Mando Knight
2011-06-20, 06:08 PM
To change from 4e
- Not starting out feeling like a super hero

On the other hand, here's what's on my wish list:

-Fairly easily-available at-will flight. For everyone. Before they hit the god-smashing level.
-Epic levels should be epic. Not "the same as heroic, but bigger numbers and some extra flash to the effects," I want "The fighter cleaves through the mountain with his terrible blow" and "The wizard annihilates the armies of the undead with an all-consuming fire." Also "The Paladin duels the castle-sized dragon. Alone. And wins."

Nachtritter
2011-06-20, 06:17 PM
I can tell you what I'd change.

NO MORE DRAGONBORN

Seriously, the moment I saw those things I knew D&D was in trouble. My lameness sense was tingling.

dsmiles
2011-06-20, 06:17 PM
On the other hand, here's what's on my wish list:

-Fairly easily-available at-will flight. For everyone. Before they hit the god-smashing level.
-Epic levels should be epic. Not "the same as heroic, but bigger numbers and some extra flash to the effects," I want "The fighter cleaves through the mountain with his terrible blow" and "The wizard annihilates the armies of the undead with an all-consuming fire." Also "The Paladin duels the castle-sized dragon. Alone. And wins."There are other games that actually do that already. Some of them are quite good, others, well...notsomuch. (Though, for me, any brand of well-done fantasy-genre roleplaying is good enough. I'm not picky that it has to be "Dungeons and Dragons.")

Codenpeg
2011-06-20, 06:32 PM
On the other hand, here's what's on my wish list:

-Fairly easily-available at-will flight. For everyone. Before they hit the god-smashing level.
-Epic levels should be epic. Not "the same as heroic, but bigger numbers and some extra flash to the effects," I want "The fighter cleaves through the mountain with his terrible blow" and "The wizard annihilates the armies of the undead with an all-consuming fire." Also "The Paladin duels the castle-sized dragon. Alone. And wins."

Sounds like some sort of Exalted combined with DnD ruleset to me. Hell I'd play test that.

Katana_Geldar
2011-06-20, 06:45 PM
Support for epic level campaigns would be great too.

What I'd really like is more ease with multi-classing, as I think it's pretty much the only bad thing about 4e. Your class is you, and that's it.

Talakeal
2011-06-20, 07:43 PM
I keep repeating myself, but I love Vancian magic. It's the most flavourful magic system I know off in D&D, tied with Binders, perhaps. Seriously, everyone does those boring magic points. Usually, they are even silly enough tto call them Mana, without even looking up what the expression means.
No, what I want is more Vancian, with some properly thought out and incorporated fluff.

ma·na   [mah-nah] –noun Anthropology .
a generalized, supernatural force or power, which may be concentrated in objects or persons.

I don't see how that is innapriopriate.

Swordguy
2011-06-20, 08:15 PM
I'd like to see WotC actually choose what sort of game they want to market, and then follow a coherent strategy regarding designing a mechanical ruleset that actually models the kind of game they want to market.

If you want a superhero game (magic-users in D&D 3.x), and choose that and design a game so everybody can do insane magical stunts and things and nobody is stuck with the "I roll to hit, I roll damage, that's my turn" paradigm. See also: Exalted.

If you want a gritty "medieval Europe+some magic and funky critters" (such as OD&D was more or less intended to be), then choose that and design a game that precludes the ability for people to become superheros based on their class choice.

If you want a mashup (like what we have now in both 3.x and 4e), then don't design another edition...because mixing genres of wildly varying power levels doesn't frickin' work.

What we've got now is a horrific mishmash between some classes firmly rooted in the gritty sword&sorcery genre (fighters, rangers, rogues, etc) and some classes rooted in, essentially, the Rule of Cool (all the full casters). Of COURSE you're going to have issues. It's like trying to run a Hunter:the Vigil crossover game with Exalted.

Choose a gamestyle and genre and bloody well stick with it. Make a choice one way or the other, and to hell with fans complaining. You're going to alienate a good third of them no matter what you do, so you may as well go whole hog, make a choice of genre, and design a good game around that.

dsmiles
2011-06-20, 08:20 PM
~snip~
This man says what I couldn't figure out how to say. Well played, sir, well played. (Personally, I hope they decide to go with the gritty swords & sorcery genre.)

Maxios
2011-06-20, 10:00 PM
I want that horrible at-will/daily/encounter power system taken out. And I want 5e to get rid of minature dependence, and make it less like WoW and more like 3.5 D&D where you could have glass cannon fighters and wizards who were good in melee combat.

Katana_Geldar
2011-06-20, 11:27 PM
*sigh*

If you want it like 3.5, then play 3.5 then... :smallsigh:

Lord Raziere
2011-06-20, 11:48 PM
no edition wars.

You win the internet! congratulations, that what I would change to.

Eldan
2011-06-21, 03:46 AM
You can try listening to audio books.


In Polynesian culture, mana is a spiritual quality considered to have supernatural origin—a sacred impersonal force existing in the universe. Therefore to have mana is to have influence and authority, and efficacy—the power to perform in a given situation. This essential quality of mana is not limited to persons—peoples, governments, places and inanimate objects can possess mana. There are two ways to obtain mana: through birth and through warfare. People or objects that possess mana are accorded respect because their possession of mana gives them authority, power, and prestige. The word’s meaning is complex because mana is a basic foundation of the Polynesian worldview.



Melanesian mana is thought to be a sacred impersonal force existing in the universe. Mana can be in people, animals, plants and objects. Similar to the idea of efficacy, or luck, the Melanesians thought all success traced back to mana. Magic is a typical way to acquire or manipulate this luck.

It's not just a general fuel for magic. It's an interesting concept, but much deeper than that. Just calling your magic points mana seems to cheapen what could be an interesting part of a game.

dsmiles
2011-06-21, 04:48 AM
It's not just a general fuel for magic. It's an interesting concept, but much deeper than that. Just calling your magic points mana seems to cheapen what could be an interesting part of a game.
I have to agree, I don't care much for 'mana' systems. However, I like non-lethal damage-based casting as a representation of fatigue, which traditional DnD casting does not cover at all (all the way back to OD&D, AFAIK). I've loved it ever since I first read the Belgariad, but could never figure out how to implement it well until the advent of 3.0 and the Fortitude save. Then along comes Guardians of Order, and their Advanced d20 Magic/ BESM: The Slayers d20 books, and I find the system I've been using, only...improved.

Eldan
2011-06-21, 05:07 AM
I have to agree, I don't care much for 'mana' systems.

Oh, I would love a Mana system. If it had anything to do with the actual mythological concept of Mana.

stainboy
2011-06-21, 06:22 AM
I'd like to see a mechanically sound social conflict system for handling intraparty party conflicts and arguments with NPCs.

I disagree about this; a game has to be very unlike D&D to support socialocity as a character build. The fighter and the faceman don't work in the same party; either the faceman talks everything out and the fighter stands around bored, or the fighter cleaves someone's skull in and the faceman stands around bored. In D&D I'd rather have the fighter. (Before anyone says "well fighters suck and need buffs anyway," replace fighter with your violence-focused archetype of choice. Gish, weeaboo fightan magic, necromancer, whatever.)

Intra-party social combat especially would mean a char op arms race between all the players. In D&D you expect the other PCs to have your back and not roll dice against you.

As I recall you're a big Burning Wheel fan, and I can't comment on how social combat works there. But if it does work (and I have no reason to believe it doesn't) I think it's because Burning Wheel is built on fundamentally different assumptions than D&D.


I would be interested in a good way for a fight to end without everyone on one side being dead though. I don't know how to do this without it feeling alien to D&D, but I'm tired of having to choose between TPK and undeserved PC victory.

ericgrau
2011-06-21, 06:28 AM
Charts and tables, heck better yet something automatic to throw onto a labtop. Or both of course. Not just some, but comprehensive rules. What I mean is that every player should have complete rules for his character on his sheet or with him. Power cards are already nice. The DM should likewise be able to have complete rules for the dungeon right in front of his face, as well as relevant PC stats for secret rolls and so one. Also concrete rules for pre-rolling everything before your turn. One group I was in used publicly known AC, for example.

The biggest issue I find regardless of edition is confusion. Slowness is a subset of that, but I wouldn't want them to destroy abilities or some such simply to speed play. Nah, as long as the PC already knows what he's doing and the results of such on his turn and the DM is able to respond immediately, then the rest will come with practice.

panaikhan
2011-06-21, 07:22 AM
One concept I've seen elsewhere, is 'buying' abilities with XP.
Dark Heresy uses it.

You want to go up a level? OK, the cost is (current level x 1000)
Going up a level gets you HD, class progression, BAB, skill point cap increase
You just want a skill? OK, the cost is (current level x 100) per point
You want better saves? OK, the cost is (current level x 100) per point
You want a feat? OK, the cost is (current level x 250)

(All figures used above were carefully calculated by standing on one leg with a wet finger in the air - but you get the idea)

potatocubed
2011-06-21, 07:25 AM
Oh, I would love a Mana system. If it had anything to do with the actual mythological concept of Mana.

Combine the two! Have a system where the more you cast spells, the less authority and respect you have. The most powerful wizards are homeless bums who everyone hates - even tame dogs bite them and bees fly into a suicidal rage whenever they're near.

It'd give you a really good incentive not to use that magical power you've got, at the very least, and also explain why the leaders of society are there - because if they chose to burn their mana for effect, they could destroy everything in a five mile radius.

EDIT:


I disagree about this; a game has to be very unlike D&D to support socialocity as a character build. The fighter and the faceman don't work in the same party; either the faceman talks everything out and the fighter stands around bored, or the fighter cleaves someone's skull in and the faceman stands around bored.

OR - and this has just occurred to me this second - you could work an effective gestalt class scheme. You have one 'combat class' that covers the particular kind of smack you bring to the table, and one 'utility class' that covers the things you do when not bringing smack. That way everyone can contribute both in and out of combat.

stainboy
2011-06-21, 07:39 AM
One concept I've seen elsewhere, is 'buying' abilities with XP.
Dark Heresy uses it.

You want to go up a level? OK, the cost is (current level x 1000)
Going up a level gets you HD, class progression, BAB, skill point cap increase
You just want a skill? OK, the cost is (current level x 100) per point
You want better saves? OK, the cost is (current level x 100) per point
You want a feat? OK, the cost is (current level x 250)

(All figures used above were carefully calculated by standing on one leg with a wet finger in the air - but you get the idea)

I really like this idea for buying skills. If you go with a binary proficient/nonproficient system, a skill probably isn't worth a feat so you need something else you can spend to get them.

This would also help with flavor-over-power feats that support your character concept but just aren't worth the slot. We can call the feats you're allowed to buy with XP "traits" or something.

Eldan
2011-06-21, 08:09 AM
Combine the two! Have a system where the more you cast spells, the less authority and respect you have. The most powerful wizards are homeless bums who everyone hates - even tame dogs bite them and bees fly into a suicidal rage whenever they're near.

It'd give you a really good incentive not to use that magical power you've got, at the very least, and also explain why the leaders of society are there - because if they chose to burn their mana for effect, they could destroy everything in a five mile radius.


Lovely, lovely idea. Of course, Mana can be gained by heritage and combat success, basically. So, Level Adjustment and XP :smalltongue:

Could work...

Sipex
2011-06-21, 09:54 AM
I play 4th edition and there's one thing which consistantly annoys me.

More out of combat options and have options which last more than 5 minutes. Seriously. Being able to fly is nice but if I have to land at 5 minutes each time it gets annoying.

I understand it's for balance but it does take a lot of the oomph out of some powers.

Mando Knight
2011-06-21, 05:28 PM
I can tell you what I'd change.

NO MORE DRAGONBORN

Seriously, the moment I saw those things I knew D&D was in trouble. My lameness sense was tingling.
Except that the Dragonborn were popular enough among the dev team to be chosen to move up from a splatbook race to a PHB1 race. Because of that and D&D's fantasy-kitchen-sink style, they aren't going anywhere. Maybe back into a X of Dragon book rather than the PHB, but as the age of an edition of D&D increases, the probability of it including dragon-men as player races tends towards 1.

There are other games that actually do that already. Some of them are quite good, others, well...notsomuch. (Though, for me, any brand of well-done fantasy-genre roleplaying is good enough. I'm not picky that it has to be "Dungeons and Dragons.")
Yeah, but if the Wizard is still only smashing things within a 25' radius bubble within 100' from himself when he's supposed to be gearing up to take on freaking Tiamat, the "Epic" in the tier name kinda falls flat.

Sounds like some sort of Exalted combined with DnD ruleset to me. Hell I'd play test that.
That's kinda what I'd expect from an "Epic" tier.

dsmiles
2011-06-21, 06:09 PM
Yeah, but if the Wizard is still only smashing things within a 25' radius bubble within 100' from himself when he's supposed to be gearing up to take on freaking Tiamat, the "Epic" in the tier name kinda falls flat.Eh? I wasn't referring to 4e, there. I was referring to other brands completely. I'm not a "DnD only" kind of guy. (As an example, I'll use RIFTS. Mid-level mages routinely blow up space-going vessels.)

messy1349
2011-06-21, 07:07 PM
make all spells/powers/feats/abilities/etc. at will.

KnightDisciple
2011-06-21, 10:07 PM
I can tell you what I'd change.

NO MORE DRAGONBORN

Seriously, the moment I saw those things I knew D&D was in trouble. My lameness sense was tingling.Dude, forget that. I'd be all over Dragonborn if I could play in a 4e group. Dragon-men who I could play without putting in several levels worth of Level Adjustment? YES PLEASE. They're right up there with Warforged. :smallbiggrin:

Talakeal
2011-06-21, 10:27 PM
I have noticed there are two schools of thought about RPGs. People who want to play human or near human characters and fight monsters, and those who want to play monsters, awakened animals, robots, ghosts, all sorts of weirdness.

Personally I have no problem with playing an occasional nonstandard race, the problem is that if one person does it then EVERYONE wants to do it. I have been in numerous campaigns where no one wanted to play anything resembling a human, where the party resembled a wandering freak show and no two members were even of a similar race, and could probably not find a town that wouldn't get out the torches and the pitchforks. In addition most people who want to play an inhuman character are only doing so on a whim and will quickly get bored of the character and move on to an even more exotic race*.

In 3.5 this was quite clearly not wanted. All the PHB races were more or less human in appearance, and all the exotic stuff had far too large LA and the horrible racial HD rules that kept them from being PCs.

The Dragonborn, I think, are seen as encouraging the "travelling freak show" party type. I have yet to see a single campaign where the warrior was not a dragonborn, making the strange and inhuman race the norm which is a drastic departure from D&Ds traditional style, and is shocking to a lot of people, myself included.

*: One time I had a guy who would get tired of his race and want something even weirder or more powerful almost every session. When we finally got tired of it and were ending the campaign he was playing a Solar and was getting bored of it and trying to decide if his next character should be a Phoenix or a Titan.

Mando Knight
2011-06-21, 11:53 PM
Eh? I wasn't referring to 4e, there. I was referring to other brands completely. I'm not a "DnD only" kind of guy. (As an example, I'll use RIFTS. Mid-level mages routinely blow up space-going vessels.)
I know. But I dislike the implementation of "epic" level play in D&D 4e in terms of scale. If I want to take a D&D character from being some local schmuck with a sword and a head full of ideas to being the legendary and unconquered once and future king with his god-slaying buddies, I don't really want to have to switch game systems in the middle.

Katana_Geldar
2011-06-22, 01:19 AM
You got a point there, Tala. My two 4e groups consist of.

A Revenant Dwarf Rogue
A Dwarf Battlemind
A Deva Wizard
A Drow Ardent
And a human cleric


And the other group.

An Eladrin Wizard
A Deva Wizard
An Elf Monk
A Shadar-Kai Ranger
A Half-Elf Ranger
A Goliath Warden
And a Dragonborn Paladin

But I do like Dragonborns, they make the best tanks.

dsmiles
2011-06-22, 05:09 AM
My last 4e group was...
Half-Elf Rogue
Minotaur Runepriest (:smallfurious:)
Dragonborn Fighter
Dragonborn Sorcerer

Strangely enough, those same players all play almost exclusively Human in any 3.5 game I run. :smallconfused:


I know. But I dislike the implementation of "epic" level play in D&D 4e in terms of scale. If I want to take a D&D character from being some local schmuck with a sword and a head full of ideas to being the legendary and unconquered once and future king with his god-slaying buddies, I don't really want to have to switch game systems in the middle.To each their own. I just don't think any edition of DnD has really done "epic" well. That's what other systems are for, IMO.

Kurald Galain
2011-06-22, 05:17 AM
But I do like Dragonborns, they make the best tanks.
This is something I don't really like. Well, not about dragonborn per se, but about races in general. Several races are, or are seen as, the clear best choice for a particular class.

This has a strong influence on player choice: the result is that over the past few years (including in LFR and convention play), almost every paladin character I've seen is a dragonborn, and almost every dragonborn character I've seen is a paladin. The same applies to genasi + swordmage, half-elf + warlock, and elf + ranger.

I would like to see some more variation than this. Race/class synergy is all very good, but if one combo is clearly much better than everything else, then it hurts character variation.

dsmiles
2011-06-22, 05:23 AM
This is something I don't really like. Well, not about dragonborn per se, but about races in general. Several races are, or are seen as, the clear best choice for a particular class.

This has a strong influence on player choice: the result is that over the past few years (including in LFR and convention play), almost every paladin character I've seen is a dragonborn, and almost every dragonborn character I've seen is a paladin. The same applies to genasi + swordmage, half-elf + warlock, and elf + ranger.

I would like to see some more variation than this. Race/class synergy is all very good, but if one combo is clearly much better than everything else, then it hurts character variation.I've noticed that about certain races being the clear best choice for certain classes, but I haven't noticed it actually hurting character variation. Of course, without going to conventions or engaging in LFR (:smallyuk:), my experiences are probably drawing from a different pool of gamers.

stainboy
2011-06-22, 07:59 AM
This is something I don't really like. Well, not about dragonborn per se, but about races in general. Several races are, or are seen as, the clear best choice for a particular class.


Race optimization is something I'd like to see go die in a fire. Getting rid of stat mods for races would be a good start.

It's kinda cool when multiple races are good choices for different reasons. 3e human barbarian vs dwarf barbarian vs warforged barbarian works, but that kind of real choice is the exception. Most of 3e's race choices are like orc wizard vs gray elf wizard or halfling rogue vs whisper gnome rogue.

Alchemistmerlin
2011-06-22, 08:30 AM
Support for Psionics in the core book(s).

2 core books. One for players, one for DMs.
The player book should have all the standard classes/races we've come to expect and not be split up/spread out across three books in a cash grab.

The DM book should have a section on "How to DM" and the monsters in it, why does the bestiary need to be separate?


No lizardboobs.

Morph Bark
2011-06-22, 09:28 AM
To each their own. I just don't think any edition of DnD has really done "epic" well. That's what other systems are for, IMO.

I think DnD has done "epic" well - at least flavor and powerwise, but just not epic in a simple/easy/good way. Epic in DnD has always been different from other game system's "epic": 3.5 had it really complicated and 4E had it as an extension of early-level play.

Instead, I'd love to see a game kind of like a level 1 Commoner slowly turning into an Essence 5 Celestial Exalted.

stainboy
2011-06-22, 09:47 AM
I'd honestly prefer D&D just focus on "heroic tier"/single digit levels, and go back to the expectation that characters retire around name level. The mode of play where PCs own kingdoms or fight the Dark Eight as a random encounter is just too different to be Core with bigger numbers.

Coming from 3e, this would mean frontloading character customization, so players don't feel like their builds don't work until level 8.

Coming from 4e, this would mean gaining 11 powers over your first 10 levels and nearly all of the monsters falling into the level 1-12 range.

Coidzor
2011-06-22, 09:52 AM
Oh, I would love a Mana system. If it had anything to do with the actual mythological concept of Mana.

Why? :smallconfused: I'm only familiar with Mana being a type of food in mythology. Is there some other mythological source I should be looking at instead?

hamishspence
2011-06-22, 10:08 AM
That's "manna". "Mana" is something else:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mana

Alchemistmerlin
2011-06-22, 12:01 PM
Oh, I would love a Mana system. If it had anything to do with the actual mythological concept of Mana.

Ooo literalism, that'll go far in a fantasy setting.


Gnomes must be two spans high, earth elementals, and afraid of humans!

Dwarves must either be persons afflicted with dwarfism or the productt of the primordial blood of the being Brimir and the bones of Bláinn or maggots that festered in the flesh of the primal being Ymir before being gifted with reason by the gods.

A kobold can only be an invisible creature that can manifest as an animal, fire, a human being, or a mundane object.

Trolls can only be big ugly humanoids who turn to stone when the sun comes up.


Do you see the point I'm making here?

Stubbazubba
2011-06-22, 01:43 PM
I'd honestly prefer D&D just focus on "heroic tier"/single digit levels, and go back to the expectation that characters retire around name level. The mode of play where PCs own kingdoms or fight the Dark Eight as a random encounter is just too different to be Core with bigger numbers.

I agree with this one. I feel like D&D characters are only in a good position to fulfill their original character concept in the mid-range of the levels they have available. Too early and everyone tends to seem ineffectual without heavy optimization, and too late and all you can do is fight demons and rule kingdoms. This game is supposed to focus on heroic fantasy, so why not focus it down to the heroic part of the level curve?

Of course, this is easy enough to do as a house rule; everyone start at level 3, 4 or higher, and the DM just paces XP so that the story is over around level 16. Or play some variant of E6.

I guess it just comes back to the feeling that there is no unified design goal for D&D. It's a jack-of-all genres, master of none. So I also second the idea that WotC needs to pick an idea and stick with it, and then, y'know, they can split 5e into several different, slightly altered systems, and I'd be OK with that, one PHB for each, so long as the differentiation is worth the cost of an additional book.

Dogmantra
2011-06-22, 02:55 PM
Do you see the point I'm making here?

That the game you just described would be awesome?

stainboy
2011-06-22, 05:39 PM
I agree with this one. I feel like D&D characters are only in a good position to fulfill their original character concept in the mid-range of the levels they have available. Too early and everyone tends to seem ineffectual without heavy optimization, and too late and all you can do is fight demons and rule kingdoms. This game is supposed to focus on heroic fantasy, so why not focus it down to the heroic part of the level curve?


About the heroic part of the curve, I don't just mean what 4e calls heroic tier. I want level 6 PCs fighting dragons, level 8 PCs fighting demons and big dragons, and level 10 PCs dying in a spectacular final battle against Lolth or Orcus. I like the idea that at the very end of the campaign the fighter has his own kingdom, the priest can raise the dead, and the wizard can teleport across continents.

The difference is that the game ends at about 10, so we can afford for these things to happen. We can make Orcus a boss fight for 10th level PCs and not worry about a level 15 party who can only be challenged by 2d4 Orcuses. We can write Teleport and know that it will be used like 1-2 times per campaign and the spell slot cost to prepare it will never be trivial. We can give the fighter a kingdom and not have to spend the next six months fudging around the lack of mass combat rules.

Aldizog
2011-06-22, 05:42 PM
Asmodeus taken down a peg by Mephistopheles. That's what I'd like to see in 5e.

Stubbazubba
2011-06-22, 06:02 PM
About the heroic part of the curve, I don't just mean what 4e calls heroic tier. I want level 6 PCs fighting dragons, level 8 PCs fighting demons and big dragons, and level 10 PCs dying in a spectacular final battle against Lolth or Orcus. I like the idea that at the very end of the campaign the fighter has his own kingdom, the priest can raise the dead, and the wizard can teleport across continents.

The difference is that the game ends at about 10, so we can afford for these things to happen. We can make Orcus a boss fight for 10th level PCs and not worry about a level 15 party who can only be challenged by 2d4 Orcuses. We can write Teleport and know that it will be used like 1-2 times per campaign and the spell slot cost to prepare it will never be trivial. We can give the fighter a kingdom and not have to spend the next six months fudging around the lack of mass combat rules.

Right, the point being that at that stage, the game ends, as you said. What exactly the game looks like before that is up to the individual group, but ruling kingdoms never becomes commonplace, nor does raising the dead, nor does killing gods. That is the end-game, and then you roll up something new, you don't just keep adding numbers on top of what you've already done and call it a new level of challenge. Once the Fighter has established his rule as rightful king and overthrown the last remnants of the usurper government who had ruled since his birth, which had clustered around one of the remaining high priests, who actually ended up being a demon in disguise, who promised that more like him would soon come to take earth from its mortal infestation. That's a great hook into a new campaign, with maybe some returning cast members, but probably several new characters.

dsmiles
2011-06-22, 06:11 PM
Instead, I'd love to see a game kind of like a level 1 Commoner slowly turning into an Essence 5 Celestial Exalted.
I don't know what an "Essence 5 Celestial Exalted" is, exactly, but I have a pretty good idea that it's powerful and epic. I think that would be an awesome concept for a system. Like an "accidental heroes" type of system.

Talakeal
2011-06-22, 06:25 PM
I don't know what an "Essence 5 Celestial Exalted" is, exactly, but I have a pretty good idea that it's powerful and epic. I think that would be an awesome concept for a system. Like an "accidental heroes" type of system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exalted

Lord Raziere
2011-06-22, 08:41 PM
I would get rid of the alignment system, and the constant DnD racism, in favor of more interesting conflicts in 5e. that is all I'd change.

Shadow Lord
2011-06-22, 08:57 PM
I want a game that combines the balance of 4e with the multitude of character building options of 3.5 and the fast combat of AD&D. And it should use the ToB maneuver mechanics as a base.

I agree with this man. Or woman.

Katana_Geldar
2011-06-22, 10:07 PM
4e PCs can face safely enemies five levels above them, and that includes dragons.

And that's "face", "defeat" is a kobold of a different colour.

Eldan
2011-06-23, 02:33 AM
4e PCs can face safely enemies five levels above them, and that includes dragons.

And that's "face", "defeat" is a kobold of a different colour.

That doesn't make them epic, though. The problem to me is that, as stated by the rules, neither the PCs or the antagonists can actually do much to influence the world in 4E. Yes, yes, there's rituals, and things that don't really need rules, but I'd just like clearly defined ways for the antagonist to, I don't know, change global weather patterns. In the end, all the game seems to give the PCs and antagonists is the ability to deal more and more damage to either a number of targets or in about the same small radius, with a few small status effects or utility things thrown on top.

Morph Bark
2011-06-23, 03:57 AM
I want a game that combines the balance of 4e with the multitude of character building options of 3.5 and the fast combat of AD&D. And it should use the ToB maneuver mechanics as a base.

This for mechanics = yes. The best part is that it does not even specify what mechanics system to use or what options to implement.


I don't know what an "Essence 5 Celestial Exalted" is, exactly, but I have a pretty good idea that it's powerful and epic. I think that would be an awesome concept for a system. Like an "accidental heroes" type of system.

Indeed. Exalted uses a different system than DnD, which I'd love to see elements of mixed with DnD mechanics. Like a d20 system where you don't have to take a class, but doing so grants nifty abilities.

Also, in Exalted, melee gets magical abilities and sorcery/necromancy takes a while to pull off, as if all DnD spells would take twice as long to cast, but were much stronger as if they're all modified by three metamagic feats.


I would get rid of the alignment system, and the constant DnD racism, in favor of more interesting conflicts in 5e. that is all I'd change.

I'd put something in place more akin to MtG's Color Wheel, but have it only play a minor part. I do agree the focus should be less on those elements, but removing them entirely I wouldn't do. Some racial conflict, if it isn't a cliché (elves vs orcs, gnomes vs kobolds) can make for a good story.

RPGuru1331
2011-06-23, 03:58 AM
That doesn't make them epic, though. The problem to me is that, as stated by the rules, neither the PCs or the antagonists can actually do much to influence the world in 4E. Yes, yes, there's rituals, and things that don't really need rules, but I'd just like clearly defined ways for the antagonist to, I don't know, change global weather patterns. In the end, all the game seems to give the PCs and antagonists is the ability to deal more and more damage to either a number of targets or in about the same small radius, with a few small status effects or utility things thrown on top.
Either way you're homebrewing a spell/ritual for that. What's the problem, exactly?

Edit: And that assumes straight magic as the solution, because that's DnD's favored. You *could* do it by, I don't know, convincing water elementals to withdraw/grant more of their blessing, for instance.


Also, in Exalted, melee gets magical abilities and sorcery/necromancy takes a while to pull off, as if all DnD spells would take twice as long to cast, but were much stronger as if they're all modified by three metamagic feats.
I wouldn't really say it's generally stronger, I think? Either that or I'm so blinkered by the fact that it's weaker than not-casting-sorcery specialists that I've lost sight on.. something.

Morph Bark
2011-06-23, 04:29 AM
I wouldn't really say it's generally stronger, I think? Either that or I'm so blinkered by the fact that it's weaker than not-casting-sorcery specialists that I've lost sight on.. something.

Considering that a starting character can take spells that can instantly kill characters with more experience, it's quite a difference with DnD. The difference is that for as far as I know, they don't have as much versatility (at least compared to 3.5), which comes down more on Charms.

RPGuru1331
2011-06-23, 04:37 AM
Er, on second thought ignore that it's going to go amazingly off topic.

AllisterH
2011-06-23, 06:00 AM
I always assume that the reason why Dragonborn became "core" in 4e was because of well how popular they were in 3e.

Seriously..how many Dragonmen type races/PrC did 3.x see over the years? I mean, let's be honest here, WOTC is a business and somebody has to be buying all those dragonbooks otherwise WOTC would've stopped printing them right?

re: Stats and races

Yeah, I too would love to see less "race is da best for this class" but at the same time, if you were to get rid of the racial stat bonuses, wouldn't you also lose the "this race is well known for producing incredible members of this class"

RPGuru1331
2011-06-23, 06:43 AM
Yeah, I too would love to see less "race is da best for this class" but at the same time, if you were to get rid of the racial stat bonuses, wouldn't you also lose the "this race is well known for producing incredible members of this class"
Not by necessity. There's always cultures in-setting.

In fact that might be an advantage after all. It'd give folks more freedom to specify what X is good at in their setting

Plus, stat bonuses are kind of bland. Racial Powers were at least mechanically interesting, as are some (but not by any stretch all) of 3rd edition's racial traits.

dsmiles
2011-06-23, 07:46 AM
Indeed. Exalted uses a different system than DnD, which I'd love to see elements of mixed with DnD mechanics. Like a d20 system where you don't have to take a class, but doing so grants nifty abilities.

Also, in Exalted, melee gets magical abilities and sorcery/necromancy takes a while to pull off, as if all DnD spells would take twice as long to cast, but were much stronger as if they're all modified by three metamagic feats.Like AD&D 1e, where each round was divided into 10 "segments." Casting times were in segments, and modified your initiative by that amount (along with weapon speeds). Thus, taking longer to pull off.

I'd put something in place more akin to MtG's Color Wheel, but have it only play a minor part. I do agree the focus should be less on those elements, but removing them entirely I wouldn't do. Some racial conflict, if it isn't a cliché (elves vs orcs, gnomes vs kobolds) can make for a good story.Eh, I kind of like Palladium's alignment system.

Morph Bark
2011-06-23, 10:11 AM
Not by necessity. There's always cultures in-setting.

In fact that might be an advantage after all. It'd give folks more freedom to specify what X is good at in their setting

Plus, stat bonuses are kind of bland. Racial Powers were at least mechanically interesting, as are some (but not by any stretch all) of 3rd edition's racial traits.

Cultures means racial PrCs, which could therefore be a reason why a particular race is best at the job a certain class does.

Also, racial powers yes. It is why when homebrewing races I try to give them some racial power, like a rolling attack, minor shapeshifting or an essentia-fueled ability.


Eh, I kind of like Palladium's alignment system.

Never heard how that one fits together, but one other than the DnD one or a simple diametric opposition like Law-Chaos.

stainboy
2011-06-23, 10:49 AM
4e PCs can face safely enemies five levels above them, and that includes dragons.

And that's "face", "defeat" is a kobold of a different colour.

If you're referring to my statement about level 6 PCs fighting dragons as opposed to what PCs do in 4e heroic tier, I caught the mistake a few hours later. Pretend I said "level 4 PCs fighting gith" or "level 1 PCs fighting a carrion crawler."

I could have used 3e and had my dragon example work. I'm not saying level creep is just a 4e problem, or anything, I just picked it because it's the only edition with a word for low to low-mid level play.

hamishspence
2011-06-23, 10:51 AM
Never heard how that one fits together, but one other than the DnD one or a simple diametric opposition like Law-Chaos.

I've seen it summed up as:


Good alignments include Principled, which is roughly equivalent to Lawful Good, and Scrupulous, which is roughly equivalent to Neutral Good. Selfish includes Unprincipled; and Anarchist, which is roughly like Chaotic Neutral . Evil has Miscreant, the selfish but not demonic; Aberrant, who is basically the Noble Demon as an alignment; and Diabolic, a "cruel, brutal killer who trusts no one and has no value for anyone or anything that gets in his way."

Swooper
2011-06-23, 11:06 AM
Let's see...

Since the previous posts have been mentioning it: Either get rid of alignment completely, or make it an optional rule. No more Protection From Evil that you have to rewrite to houserule alignments out, please. Remove alignment as part of the inherent metaphysics of the cosmology and the game system, it should be a roleplayed trait only.
Less difference between low and high level characters. In 3.5 and all previous editions that I've played, a level 20 character can plow through an army of level 1 characters. I'm all for playing a hero, but not having to fear for one's life just because you know you're facing mooks feels dumb (and breaks verisimilitude). The numbers should scale much slower, particularly hit points, so that low level characters can stand a chance against an outnumbered higher level character.
I like what I've seen of the "everybody has powers" approach of 4E, but I feel the implementation was... lacking. ToB did it much better, though slightly clunky in some ways (seperate recovery methods for the classes for example, though that was almost certainly for testing purposes). A refined version of that for all classes. No daily powers for anyone, everything on a per-encounter or at will basis.
I'll echo what many of you have said: Usable and fairly detailed mechanics for things other than combat.
On the other hand: Mass combat as part of the base rules. It's too common in fantasy to just ignore completely, like D&D seems to prefer.


Combine the two! Have a system where the more you cast spells, the less authority and respect you have. The most powerful wizards are homeless bums who everyone hates - even tame dogs bite them and bees fly into a suicidal rage whenever they're near.

The idea of hobo archmages is hilarious! :smallbiggrin: Here, have an internet (http://www.nastyhobbit.org/data/media/2/free-internet-coupon.jpg)!

OR - and this has just occurred to me this second - you could work an effective gestalt class scheme. You have one 'combat class' that covers the particular kind of smack you bring to the table, and one 'utility class' that covers the things you do when not bringing smack. That way everyone can contribute both in and out of combat.
I... think you might be on to something here. This idea needs exploring, if only with some 3.5 homebrew!

dsmiles
2011-06-23, 11:07 AM
I've seen it summed up as:
I've always considered Unprincipled to be somewhere between CG and TN (since there was to qualifier in your description). They do good when it suits them, but don't actively do evil.

hamishspence
2011-06-23, 11:51 AM
I've always considered Unprincipled to be somewhere between CG and TN (since there was to qualifier in your description). They do good when it suits them, but don't actively do evil.

I got it off TV Tropes.

the Easydamus site here:

http://easydamus.com/alignment.html

does give it to Chaotic Good.

It doesn't give Palladium alignments for LN and N, though.

dsmiles
2011-06-23, 12:10 PM
It doesn't give Palladium alignments for LN and N, though.There are other Palladium alignments, IIRC. There was the Taoist alignment in Mystic China, that my qualify as TN. I can't remember the specifics of the alignment, and am AFB. (But it implies that it's TN in the TV Tropes blurb.)

Draz74
2011-06-23, 01:39 PM
I like what I've seen of the "everybody has powers" approach of 4E, but I feel the implementation was... lacking. ToB did it much better, though slightly clunky in some ways (seperate recovery methods for the classes for example, though that was almost certainly for testing purposes). A refined version of that for all classes. No daily powers for anyone, everything on a per-encounter or at will basis.

I mostly agree with this, but I do like the idea that characters (and especially casters) can eventually get worn out and need sleep. In my system, the one "daily" resource is Reserve Points, which are kind of similar to 4e Healing Surges. To give a short simplified summary of how they work, recharging your per-encounter resources (like hit points and magic) uses up these Reserve Points. So (almost) everything is per-encounter, including magic spells ... until you've been through enough fights that you really are just bushed and need sleep.

Kerrin
2011-06-23, 02:39 PM
Just a few of mine off the top of my head:

Races - Remove the stat bonuses/penalties. Just make bonuses, if any, as part of regular character creation regardless of race. Give each race some base set of special abilities. This leaves the door open for interesting settings books.

Abilities - While adventuring, make everything run off of points. You want to dish out an extra-hard thwap, disarm an opponent, or a spell? Pay the points to attempt that "special thang". Keep these abilities focused on what can be accomplished "on the run" in the middle of a busy adventuring day. Move other, "larger" more dramatic things into a different sub-system where it takes some notable time and quantity of "special thang" points to do them. This way those continent-hopping teleports, demon summoning, and other such are possible but take some care an planning and aren't just done off the cuff.

Recovery - Characters have 4E-like healing surges that can be used to recover HP, "special thang" points, etc. Once you've gone through them, you're worn out until you can get some rest.

Leveling - Pay experience points for what you want. Want to go up a level, increase a skill, etc? Pay some amount of experience points.

Bonsues/Penalties - Reduce the number of small bonsues and penalties that get applied to every single dice roll. Adding them up is a real pain.

Saving Throws - Keep the 4E-like saving throws where they are defenses that can be targeted like AC.

Eric Tolle
2011-06-25, 02:54 PM
The thing is to me, D&D has to stay D&D. That means that different races should get stat bonuses, and in fact should be better at some classes than others-though humans should be able to play on the same level.

Anyway, I don't see that many tweeks that need to be made. So, as far as changes go, I would like to see the following:

Bring back alignment to its central place in the cosmology, with a Law/Chaos divide being fundamental cosmic principals in a Morecock sense. Good and Evil would be elements that mortals use to modify Chaos and Law, instead of the other way around that is the standard D&D practice. Of course most sentients would be unaligned, good or evil without considering the cosmic elements. Also, extremes of either Chaos and Law would be deleterious to mortal lives.

Expand the number and use of Action Points beyond simply giving extra actions or triggering certain abilities. I'd bring in an element of dramatic editing (http://wiki.white-wolf.com/whitewolf/index.php?title=Dramatic_Editing) to their use, and possibly make it so that Daily Powers instead burn Action Points. Being able to burn Action Points to get clues or say ""Of course I know someone here..." would be a nice expanded use of the concept.

I find that there's already quite a few Utility Powers that can be used in non-combat situations, but I would like to expand the use and versatility of them for non-combat scenarios.

In my current game we have a rule that Ritual component costs are 1/10 the stated amount. I would like to have that be an official rule, and of course mages should start off with more rituals.

Honestly, I don't see that many changes that need to be made for D&D 5th. Now if we want to talk about Pathfinder 2.0, now THERE'S material for a long essay.

stainboy
2011-06-25, 03:34 PM
Honestly, I don't see that many changes that need to be made for D&D 5th. Now if we want to talk about Pathfinder 2.0, now THERE'S material for a long essay.

Yeah, that's going to be interesting. Paizo has done well printing simple quality-of-life rules changes, but eventually they'll have to rebuild the core of the game engine. That means tackling divergent scaling, excessive complexity, and melee vs caster balance, for a fanbase that will resist anything that even looks like 4e. I'm anxious to see if they can do it.

Yora
2011-06-26, 04:22 AM
I'm not a good optimizer for the lack of caring for munchkinnery, but I think the vast majority of really broken things that make some characters much stronger than others are spells that are either open ended, difficult to resist, or provide blanket immunities. Aside from the monks conflicting main class features, what thing that are really broken in core are not the result of spells? This includes magic items duplicating spells.

And even with splatbooks, the only really super-broken things I can think of that are not spells are nightsticks, dark chaos shuffle and whatever combination allows a player to gain the sarruk mutation ability.

I think one major mistake when moving from 2nd to 3rd edition was to keep the spells per day tables while forgetting that in 2nd ed. spellcasters gained new levels much slower than noncasters. Now that everyone levels at the same rate, you'd have to stretch the spell-slot progression over a longer range of levels.

Kurald Galain
2011-06-26, 04:35 AM
The thing is to me, D&D has to stay D&D. That means that different races should get stat bonuses, and in fact should be better at some classes than others

I have no objection to racial stat bonuses. What I object to is the impression that a character is not worth playing unless his racial bonuses match with his class. Regardless of whether this impression is correct (and I think it's really not), somehow certain rulebooks do lead people to this impression.

Yora
2011-06-26, 04:44 AM
I think the perfect edition for D&D would be Star Wars Saga with the D&D races and psionic power system.

dsmiles
2011-06-26, 07:59 AM
I think the perfect edition for D&D would be Star Wars Saga with the D&D races and psionic power system.
Last time I played a Star Wars game it was by West End Games (IIRC), and used only d6's. I didn't enjoy it much, just because I'm not a huge fan of the SW universe.

I personally think that Rolemaster/HARP does DnD far better than WotC DnD, if you work up a new damage system instead of all those tables (which I, personally, don't mind; the different effects are pretty cool).

Yora
2011-06-26, 08:31 AM
I think Saga is completely different from d6 from what I know.

Basically, Saga takes the standard d20 framework (3.5e). It reduces races to a +2 and -2 modifier to abilities, and one or two minor abilities like darkvision or a +2 bonus to a skill. Your race does have an effect on your stats, but it's really minor.
Classes are reduced to 5 base classes: Scoundrel (a kind of rogue), Scout (a kind of ranger), Soldier (a warrior), Noble (kind of bard/aristiocrat), and Jedi (fighter/wizard). You gain a feat at every uneven level which are just like in D&D, and a Talent on every even level. Talents originate in d20 modern and are basically your class features, but you can chose which ones you want and in what order.
Skills use a variant from Unearthed Arcana in which you no longer have skill points, but just trained skills, in which your skill rank is equal to your level +3, and untrained skills, in which your rank is half that number.
Also, saving throws are replaced by defenses, which are really the same thing, but instead of rolling 1d20, you have a base score of 10 (just like AC and spell DCs in D&D). However, you don't have armor classes anymore but evade attacks with your Reflex defense. When you do wear armor, it improves your fortitude defense against damage. When damage is lower than your fortitude defense, you just lose hit point. Is the damage from a single attack greater than your fortitude defense, you also gain a -1 penalty to all rolls which gets worse until you pass out when suffering 5 penalties. And at high levels, you are much more likely to pass out from penalties suffered from very bad hits, instead of dying from losing all your hit points. (This all also smells a lot of Unearthed Arcana).
You also have a kind of Action points (also UA), but the force system is very different from 3.5es spellcasting. More like per encounter powers from 4th Ed.
Background NPCs are just "ordinaries", kind of like a mix of commoner and warrior. Monsters and animals are all of the same "Monster" type and don't have any special abilities, which is probably the only thing in addition to magic that would need to be reworked to make Saga a fantasy game.

But I think it's really the best and most elegant d20 system ever made. It's simple and made to allow the heroes do their heroic things without dying all the time, but still does not let them win automatically all the time.

dsmiles
2011-06-26, 08:47 AM
Basically, Saga takes the standard d20 framework (3.5e). It reduces races to a +2 and -2 modifier to abilities, and one or two minor abilities like darkvision or a +2 bonus to a skill. Your race does have an effect on your stats, but it's really minor.Sounds good so far.

Classes are reduced to 5 base classes: Scoundrel (a kind of rogue), Scout (a kind of ranger), Soldier (a warrior), Noble (kind of bard/aristiocrat), and Jedi (fighter/wizard). You gain a feat at every uneven level which are just like in D&D, and a Talent on every even level. Talents originate in d20 modern and are basically your class features, but you can chose which ones you want and in what order.Keep talking.

Skills use a variant from Unearthed Arcana in which you no longer have skill points, but just trained skills, in which your skill rank is equal to your level +3, and untrained skills, in which your rank is half that number.Sounds a bit like 4e. Only 4e is +4 in trained skills.

Also, saving throws are replaced by defenses, which are really the same thing, but instead of rolling 1d20, you have a base score of 10 (just like AC and spell DCs in D&D). However, you don't have armor classes anymore but evade attacks with your Reflex defense. When you do wear armor, it improves your fortitude defense against damage. When damage is lower than your fortitude defense, you just lose hit point. Is the damage from a single attack greater than your fortitude defense, you also gain a -1 penalty to all rolls which gets worse until you pass out when suffering 5 penalties. And at high levels, you are much more likely to pass out from penalties suffered from very bad hits, instead of dying from losing all your hit points. (This all also smells a lot of Unearthed Arcana).A little like 4e with the defenses, but 4e still uses AC as an additional defense.

You also have a kind of Action points (also UA), but the force system is very different from 3.5es spellcasting. More like per encounter powers from 4th Ed.Meh, I'd probably never play a Force user anyways. I really don't care much for casters.

Background NPCs are just "ordinaries", kind of like a mix of commoner and warrior. Monsters and animals are all of the same "Monster" type and don't have any special abilities, which is probably the only thing in addition to magic that would need to be reworked to make Saga a fantasy game.Sounds like a pretty easy re-work to make it a fantasy system. Maybe somebody should start that project over in the Homebrew forum.

But I think it's really the best and most elegant d20 system ever made. It's simple and made to allow the heroes do their heroic things without dying all the time, but still does not let them win automatically all the time.I rather like lethality in my games, just not in random encounters that have nothing to do with the plot. Wolf #3.62 will probably never get to eat a PC. However, when a PC goes rappelling down a 100' cliff, knowing that there are snipers with longbows on the other side of the chasm, well...that's another story. (Of course, the first thing the rest of the PC's did when she died was say, "We'd better get her body back, she had the party fund." :smalltongue:)

Yora
2011-06-26, 08:53 AM
Sounds like a pretty easy re-work to make it a fantasy system. Maybe somebody should start that project over in the Homebrew forum.
I was really considering it, but reworking all the monsters without having anything to base them on, except for dire animals, and coming up with a magic system is really quite a bit of work.

Knaight
2011-06-26, 01:43 PM
Sounds like a pretty easy re-work to make it a fantasy system. Maybe somebody should start that project over in the Homebrew forum.

There's a free .pdf, about 60 pages long that has this conversion. It should be easy to find via Google.

Yora
2011-06-26, 03:35 PM
That would probably be this one (http://www.gneech.com/swordandsorcery/downloads/saga_players_guide_web.pdf).

Knaight
2011-06-26, 03:37 PM
Apparently there are two of them, I wasn't familiar with the one you linked.

Talakeal
2011-06-26, 04:59 PM
I really liked SAGA edition, and assumed that fourth ed D&D would be awesome because it would be a refined version of SAGA. Boy was I dissapointed...

The only thing I didn't like about SAGA was that there was no way to train cross class skill, which really should have been a feat or something. Come to think of it, D&D also needs a feat to add skills to your class list.

stainboy
2011-06-26, 08:43 PM
Can't you multiclass and then take Skill Training? Not that that's a great solution, I just want to see if I read the book right.

I'm looking over Star Wars SAGA now and the skill system looks like its biggest weakness. 4e binary skills just don't work with 3e multiclassing. I could see a solution where:


You get a big pile of skill ranks at 1st level.
You get a few skill ranks at every subsequent level.
Class skills are capped at 5 ranks. Skills that are not in-class for any of your classes are capped at 1 rank.
You still add your half-level to skill checks.
If you multiclass into a class that gets more skill ranks than you got at 1st level, you gain the difference. Or some portion of the difference, so that you catch up over 2-4 levels.


That way we don't have to deal with 3e's ginormous range of skill scaling but PCs can still learn things after character creation.

WitchSlayer
2011-06-26, 09:26 PM
You can grab skill training as a feat.

Talakeal
2011-06-26, 09:43 PM
I can take the "skill focus" equivelent feat, but I couldn't find any way to actually get the basic class skill bonus without multi classing. I recall asking on the WoTC forums when it came out and no one was able to help there so I assume it wasn't possible.

WitchSlayer
2011-06-27, 03:28 AM
I can take the "skill focus" equivelent feat, but I couldn't find any way to actually get the basic class skill bonus without multi classing. I recall asking on the WoTC forums when it came out and no one was able to help there so I assume it wasn't possible.

I repeat: Skill Training. Copy/pasted directly from the DDI compendium:

Benefit: You gain training in one skill, which doesn't need to be on your class skills list.
Special: You can take this feat more than once. Each time you select this feat, choose a different skill.

Talakeal
2011-06-27, 03:36 AM
I repeat: Skill Training. Copy/pasted directly from the DDI compendium:

Benefit: You gain training in one skill, which doesn't need to be on your class skills list.
Special: You can take this feat more than once. Each time you select this feat, choose a different skill.

And you are sure that gives you all the benefits you would have if it were on your class list and that it isn't the Skill Focus one? Did it come out after the core books? I will take your word for it, but I couldn't find anything in the core book that did that and I asked on the WoTC forum and no one else seemed to either. I would check myself, but I sold all my star wars RPG books last year to raise capitol for publishing my own system.

Kurald Galain
2011-06-27, 04:45 AM
And you are sure that gives you all the benefits you would have if it were on your class list and that it isn't the Skill Focus one?
Yes, and it's in the very first book.

The reason you don't hear about it often is that many people want feats that help their combat prowess, and Skill Training and Skill Focus don't do that.

Talakeal
2011-06-27, 05:21 AM
Yes, and it's in the very first book.

The reason you don't hear about it often is that many people want feats that help their combat prowess, and Skill Training and Skill Focus don't do that.

All right then, I have no complaints about the SAGA skill system. Not surprised I missed it, I wouldn't notice if my house was on fire, but I clearly remember asking on the forum and everyone else apparently did as well.

stainboy
2011-06-27, 05:53 AM
Talakeal, you're not insane, I'm looking at Core Rulebook p.89 and it says:



Skill Training
You are considered trained in a new skill.
Benefit: Choose one untrained skill from your list of class skills. You become trained in that skill.


This is the May 2007 printing. I guess they changed it later.