PDA

View Full Version : What mechanics would you put in D&D Next to "fix" it?



tbok1992
2013-04-21, 03:49 AM
Well, since the talk about D&D Next has switched to "endless gnawing hate-anus" mode, I thought I might try to do something a bit more positive.

A lot has been made of D&D Next's problems, whether it be with the lack of Warlord, the unfaithfulness of the Warden to the class of the same name in 4e, the lack of Martial out of combat options, Asmodeus Vs. Peasant being the new Cat Vs. Commoner, and so on. So, why not do a thread where we put out ideas for what sorts of mechanics we'd want in Next to fix its problems, and critique and suggest alterations for those of others who might not quite be up to snuff. Here's my few cents:

Fighter Feats of Strength- To give the fighter stuff to do out of combat, one idea I have is a system allowing him to take tasks that would normally be ridiculously hard (Like, DC30 and up) and make them possible normally, giving them a new system of DC checks. Each one he gets applies to a certain area, such as breaking walls with a weapon attack, climbing up a vertical surface with his bare hands, breaking free of restraints, doing a huge act of heavy labor alone, ect., but he can do it a lot easier than most other classes (Though to a more limited extent).

Channel Divinity: Nature's Form- For the Warden, instead of Divine Smite, you instead can have a Channel Divinity more like the old Warden from 4e. With this use of Channel Divinity, the Warden could choose to alter himself in three of several possible ways at a time:
-Adding 1d10 of a decided-upon damage types (Fire, ice, lightning, poison, sonic/thunder) to their attacks.
-Adding a resistance to certain Damage types (Poison, Fire, Ice, lightning, Necrotic, bludgeoning, ) to themselves.
-Adding reach 1, stunning for one turn, or push 1 to their attacks.

The Warlord- I would personally do it as its own class. While its attack power would go up slowly, the big thing it could do is add effects to its attacks that would do things to others in the party, giving them various buffs or moving them about. These effects would be chosen ala fighter maneuvers, and some would be directed towards some classes more than others, though broadly enough that it would work with non-core classes.

They'd also have a point pool of "Inspirational Vigor," which could be used to enhance said weapon abilities in ways written underneath said abilities in their write-ups. It'd go up over the levels of course, and it would replenish every fight, because it does make the most sense for a class called the "Warlord" to use the per-encounter mechanic.

To address both concerns about "shouting wounds closed" and "Y U NO LIKE MARTIAL HEALING MEARLS!", I'd have it so that its healing abilities could heal more frequently than the Cleric's, but they'd also only give temporary HP that'd fade when the battle's over. They'd also have out of combat healing abilities, but they'd be more limited than the cleric's.

As for Out of Combat abilities, they'd mostly center around making each member of the party more well-organized and efficient, shown as either adding to the trained skill checks of others or finding out the best ways/places for the party to use their skills.

Options: Healing Surges- To replace Hit Dice, this could be an optional mechanic where instead you get a certain number of Healing Surges per day that give back one-quarter of your HP. They stay at a consistent number, determined by what would've been your Hit Dice Number, as you level up. Though there'd be less of them than in 4e, given that other healing doesn't depend on HD/Surges. You can use one of them as a full-round action once a fight to give yourself back a quarter of HP.

Monstrous Maneuvers- To address complaints about Monsters being "Boring" in Next, I'd give several lists of "maneuvers" one could add onto monsters to switch up their basic attacks, like expanding the area of said attack, adding a push/pull/grapple/knock prone/ect. effect, attacking defensively or extra fiercly, feinting or being deceitful with an attack, and so on. They wouldn't add much damage, but they would add a lot more tactical ability to the creatures.

These attacks would take from a universal list, but also have their own sub-lists to show which creature types can take which attacks (Which'd be especially important for the more magic-y ones), sort of like class-based spell lists. There could also be several organized into "themes" ala 4e via fluff-based origins and applied to any creature.

Okay, I've said my peace, what mechanics ideas do you have to help "fix" D&D Next? And what do you think of my ideas?

JusticeZero
2013-04-21, 07:30 AM
They seem to want to remove maneuvers and make them require feats. This is the wrong direction. Give maneuvers out as things you can do free whenever certain things happen

I do not like the "per encounter" mechanic. I've had to deal with a game before where we would get in a fight, the fight would end suddenly in two rounds after we'd buffed up, and twelve seconds later another enemy would rush in and yell at the surrendered enemies to start fighting again. "No, sorry, this is a new encounter. You're all flat-footed and your buffs are down and used up." It was really dumb.

Beleriphon
2013-04-21, 09:32 AM
I do not like the "per encounter" mechanic. I've had to deal with a game before where we would get in a fight, the fight would end suddenly in two rounds after we'd buffed up, and twelve seconds later another enemy would rush in and yell at the surrendered enemies to start fighting again. "No, sorry, this is a new encounter. You're all flat-footed and your buffs are down and used up." It was really dumb.

That's just a stupid DM. The rules I found were pretty clear that encounter usually meant around five minutes between fights.

JusticeZero
2013-04-21, 11:36 AM
That's just a stupid DM. The rules I found were pretty clear that encounter usually meant around five minutes between fights.
Then what's so bad about a 5 minute duration on buffs?

PairO'Dice Lost
2013-04-21, 10:22 PM
Then what's so bad about a 5 minute duration on buffs?

Per-encounter doesn't mean abilities last one encounter, it means they're recovered with each new encounter. You can have a per-encounter buff spell that lasts an hour or more, but you regain the spell slot after a short rest (1-5 minutes) or as soon as the next encounter begins, depending on how the system interprets the recharge condition.

Water_Bear
2013-04-21, 10:44 PM
Part of the problem is that 5e was billed as, initially at least, a synthesis of the best of every edition. So far all I see are some smidges of 3.X mixed into a giant bowl of 4e.

For my fix, I would actually incorporate stuff from other editions;


BECMI/Rules Cyclopedia's level-based gameplay shifts, with players going from expendable dungeon-divers to feudal lords to demigods to deities, gives a reason why a game ought to last 36+ levels. Incorporating something of that effect, increasing complexity and changing gameplay with level, is something 4e tried to do with Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies and thus wouldn't even be such an unfamiliar concept to modern gamers.
1e/2e Ability Score Minimums as a feature rather than a restriction. Everyone knows certain classes need minimum scores to function, and while early editions used this as a straightjacket I don't see why it couldn't be used as a tool instead; everyone can play the character they want
Pathfinder-style Combat Maneuvers. WotC lost a lot of money because Pathfinder took their rules and improved them, so why not turn that around? PF's Combat Maneuvers made being a martial character a lot less obnoxious without loading the classes down with tons of abilities to memorize.
Eliminate Bounded Accuracy entirely. It is a bad idea and the people who made it should feel bad. If big numbers are so bad for the game, make it harder to get numbers.
Either more or fewer social skill rules. If there was a social minigame it would make things like Diplomacy less silly, and on the other side of the coin if all social skills did was establish the NPC's initial mood it would encourage better RP. Both of those options have advantages and disadvantages, although the second is more "iconic."

Mastikator
2013-04-22, 01:31 AM
I'd:

Add a mechanic to simulate tissue damage for each body part that is based on constitution and size, not level.
Replace the "base attack bonus" and "caster level" system with a skill based combat & spell system.
Generalize classes and allow for more customization and specialization, remove all fluff within classes to remove need for addition of new classes. Maybe even remove classes altogether.
Allow players to purchase skill points and feats individually with experience.
Add a fatigue/stamina system.
Use Armor Class as damage reduction (stacking)
Increase severity of poison and disease
Decrease severity of negative levels (not insta-killing at level "0")
Fix all racial level adjustments.
Change alignment into planar factionalism and use a personality trait system to describe the PCs and NPCs personality.
Decrease the number of planes and increase their scope
Decrease the number of races, merge races that are too similar, remove the ones that are poorly defined/not well thought out/lacking in fluff

Scots Dragon
2013-04-22, 02:21 AM
Fix some of the oddities in AD&D 1e and 2e that would put people off, such as saving throws and attack bonuses. Also make multiclassing something that is clearly explained and makes a bit more sense to most readers, but don't overly change it in the process. Convert back popular classes such as the warlock, sorcerer and warlord, and include variant classes such as the barbarian, monk, cavalier, acrobat, etc. in the core rulebook.

Then just write the number '5' or the word 'Next' on the cover and scribble out the word 'Advanced' before going to print.

Joe the Rat
2013-04-22, 08:58 AM
If skill dice remain a thing, give an option that allows players to take a static bonus rather than a die for skill level (d6 translates into a +3, for example).

Kurald Galain
2013-04-22, 10:06 AM
I would start by throwing out "bounded accuracy". It's the new buzzword and while it had good intentions a year ago, it is now just being implemented for its own sake. For instance, I do not find it desirable that a 20th-level fighter (who is supposed to be legendary and near-godlike in power) has only +3 or +4 better to-hit than a level-1 novice.

What was its goal again? Oh yeah, making low-level monsters still a threat to high-level characters. You know what? 2E/3E already did that. Tucker's Kobolds, anyone? This is why AC doesn't scale with level, so that a horde of lowbie orcs can still do something meaningful to you. BA is not actually necessary to solve this issue, and brings in a boatload of other undesirable issues.

Then, I would make ad/disad stack with itself to three or four dice, to avoid silly situations that e.g. a long-distance bow shot doesn't become more difficult in the dark, while it's storming and you're drunk. I'm fine with declaring rolls flat out impossible if you stack up enough disads; I'm also fine with having a player roll 5 dice and picking the worst in extreme situations.

And then I would wonder what unique features 5E has to actually recommend it over 2E/3E/4E.


Per-encounter doesn't mean abilities last one encounter, it means they're recovered with each new encounter.
The problem with "encounter powers" lies in the name. It does lead to confusion and sometimes situations like JusticeZero mentions. I don't think anybody has a problem with "recharge powers" that take X minutes of resting to recharge.

Toofey
2013-04-22, 11:38 AM
I'd sprinkle a bunch of arbitrary rules which are utterly essential to running a game under real conditions odd places throughout the materials. Just to make it feel more ODAD

tommhans
2013-05-08, 05:53 AM
- Minor action needs to be added(it isnt actually in the game atm)
- Healing is way overpowered and boring, dont even use hit dices and the cleric can use that and attack in the same round, and healing from distance should be DC check! touch is ok if it isnt, he has to physically move into danger.
- I Agree with the monsters can be more adventuring and dearing, i do mostly modify them(as my players ask for a winged bear or a bloodthirsty manatee, i do my modifications and get them in :) )
- I do love the skill bonuses , can agree that like a +3 or throw dice(like they have with hit dices) would be suitable
- Bring back maneuvers, i used my martial dices carefully and tactically when i played, but after that dissapeared deadly strike was the only option,cept the times i did something unortodox.
- negative health should count when healed, so if ur -19 and have 2 hp left, and suddenly u get healed by the cleric you suddenly have 12 hp and you jump up, its kinda stupid.
- the varierity with the HP is insane in dnd next! the wizard has 29 hp in level 8, while the fighter most likely passes 100! , the cleric and monk is in between this, makes it hard to make a battle, because you know the wizard dies of one attack, and the monk dies of a couple more, the cleric just sits across the map and heals and shoots with his stick,

Don't forget that you guys that complain about warlord not being added, he is most likely be in one of the next packages :)

neonchameleon
2013-05-08, 06:42 AM
Then what's so bad about a 5 minute duration on buffs?

That tracking 50 rounds by pen and paper is just plain annoying. On the other hand working out whether you are still in the same scene is pretty trivial. An encounter is just a traditional D&D (where traditional in this case means 2e) name for a scene. And it sounds as if you had a jackass of a DM; if time had not appreciably moved on you were still in the same scene so it was the same encounter.


Part of the problem is that 5e was billed as, initially at least, a synthesis of the best of every edition. So far all I see are some smidges of 3.X mixed into a giant bowl of 4e.

Huh, weird. Few of the 4e fans I know see very much of 4e in D&D Next at all. What most people I discuss with seem to be seeing is a simplified 3.X core with a few 4e ideas shorn of what actually makes them interesting, useful, or actually work thrown in.


Don't forget that you guys that complain about warlord not being added, he is most likely be in one of the next packages :)

Unlikely - at least not a Warlord worthy of the name. Mearls wants to make it a subclass of fighter - and believes that the inspirational abilities belong to the bard. So he wants to tear it in half.

As for the original how to improve next, I'm going to suggest a few of the things that make 4e that they aren't doing.

1: Self contained monster statblocks. Everything I need to run a 4e monster is in the statblock and I never have to cross-reference a feat or a spell that's on another page or in another book. There is no reason for any game not to do this.

2: Kinaesthetic combat. Forced movement, pushes, and fighters (and others) being able to batter people around the room as a part of their normal attacks. They make the fighters feel mighty - and bring the terrain to life as if there's a fire or a ledge, people are going to be pushed over as a matter of course rather than as an alternative that means you don't do damage. (Yes you can have kinaesthetic combat and theatre of the mind).

3: No god-botherers needed. Between healing surges and the warlord you can run an entirely martial party (with no wands) in 4e with no problem at all and without the DM having to re-write or put in a Dragonlance style Obscure Death Rule. And this despite the fact Warlords don't bring magical healing (every "healing" ability the Warlord has merely allows the target to spend their surges).

4: Unfolding combat. Your options aren't the same round to round. There are better ways than AEDU to do this (the Crusader from the Bo9S springs to mind) but you aren't normally repeating the same choice every round until someone drops.

5: Ritual magic accessable by all (for a feat). Opens up a whole range of character concepts that reach for steel in combat and magic only when they have time. And opens up entire fantasy worlds where magic isn't a flashy thing you can do in six seconds.

6: Non-casters that are as flexible out of combat as casters. The rogue or thief needs to be the king of stealth (OK, the Ranger can argue the toss). Not beatable by a mage who woke up that morning and decided to spend a few spell slots. A professional soldier needs a whole lot of skills - even at the rate 4e merged skills the fighter still has too few.

7: Balance in the intended game style (balance at everything is possible). You don't have to go for the action-movie style of 4e. Gygax managed pretty good balance for dungeon exploration in oD&D and 1e. And you need to balance between classes that do related jobs. Fighter/wizard balance is unnecesaary (as long as the fighter can turn the wizard into strawberry jam in a fair fight). But you need fighter/cleric balance (assuming an oD&D cleric) or warlord/cleric balance and wizard/thief balance (where Gygax had problems).

8: Every character class doing what it says on the tin, everyone able to fulfil their role and no one able to cover the role of a class designed for something better than that class does. (I don't expect this to be 100%; every complex game has duds).

9: Explicit and thought out player side math so that we don't have the gaps in the XP table going backwards (one current example) or certain types of armour never being useful (in older playtests). Such things happening at all just make me think the designers don't have a plan.

neonchameleon
2013-05-08, 06:50 AM
I'd:

Add a mechanic to simulate tissue damage for each body part that is based on constitution and size, not level.
Replace the "base attack bonus" and "caster level" system with a skill based combat & spell system.
Generalize classes and allow for more customization and specialization, remove all fluff within classes to remove need for addition of new classes. Maybe even remove classes altogether.
Allow players to purchase skill points and feats individually with experience.
Add a fatigue/stamina system.
Use Armor Class as damage reduction (stacking)


Out of curiosity have you tried either GURPS or Rolemaster? Both games (and others) do exactly what you want to - and one of the advantages D&D has is that it isn't as detailed and fiddly as apparently you want it to be.


I'd sprinkle a bunch of arbitrary rules which are utterly essential to running a game under real conditions odd places throughout the materials. Just to make it feel more ODAD

Just checking because I'm no good at reading sarcasm, this was a joke?

Water_Bear
2013-05-08, 07:29 AM
Huh, weird. Few of the 4e fans I know see very much of 4e in D&D Next at all. What most people I discuss with seem to be seeing is a simplified 3.X core with a few 4e ideas shorn of what actually makes them interesting, useful, or actually work thrown in.

I guess 5e really is uniting everyone; all of us see the worst parts of our least favorite editions with a few token features of our prefered system.

neonchameleon
2013-05-08, 08:11 AM
I guess 5e really is uniting everyone; all of us see the worst parts of our least favorite editions with a few token features of our prefered system.

That's the running joke. It's going to unite the fanbase in a "Meh."

But seriously, that's what's wrong with the mechanics of next to me. Not that there are specific single mechanics included or missing, but that the whole thing appears to have no vision. I'd be, paradoxically, a lot happier about next if I absolutely hated it; as it is I can see no reason I'd ever actually want to play it and nothing it brings to the table.

And you may be on to something. It's bringing in things from all editions - but it's bringing in the parts we don't actually like from those editions. Possibly because the parts we do like are strongly flavoured and wouldn't play nice with any of the other half dozen editions (counting oD&D, B/X or BECMI, 1e, 2e, 3.X, and 4e as all being separate). Indeed what I like about oD&D is it being a fast, light game tightly focussed on exploring dungeons and outwitting the enemy. This is an entirely different experience from the high budget action movie style of 4e I like and the design goals there are almost mutually exclusive. So the elements they can share other than a class-and-level system are almost entirely limited to the parts that are tangental to the game I like to play.

Meeki
2013-05-08, 09:25 AM
Expand the bounds of the bounded accuracy system. I agree with others that the difference between a level 1 and level 20 character need to be greater. I do not want the extremes that are 3.x and 4e though, something in between where the game is now and the last two editions would be nice. To-hit, stats, defenses and skills need greater differentiation.

The skill system needs revamped IMO. I'm not sure I like the skill die idea, high level characters don't really have much of an advantage over low level. Rolling another die just seems to add another number to keep track of.

I hope the next playtest is substantially different than this last one. I'm sure they are collecting tons of feedback and Hasbro is all about profit, so whatever they are doing is likely geared towards selling the most product. I know most forum posts about 5e are complaints but for all we know the way the game is being designed now could be preferred by the majority.

Friv
2013-05-08, 09:59 AM
I would do three things at a default:

1) Expand the boundaries of the "bounded accuracy" system so that it minimizes, but does not entirely remove, the ability of high-powered characters to interact with lower-powered ones. A twenty-point swing seems entirely appropriate to me, with 0-6 points provided by Ability (ranging from -1 to +5), 6-10 points provided by Level (averaging a point every other level for strong classes and every three levels for weaker one), and 0-4 points provided by miscellaneous bonuses that vary depending on what you're boosting, but which PCs can probably access at least a couple of. At Level 20, a totally focused character is rocking +20 in his area of focus, while non-invested characters at the same level can still assume at least a +8 to +10.

So attack bonuses range from -1 to +19, AC ranges from 9 to 29, and so on. Town militias can potentially fight dragons and fire giants, with significant casualties, but not Asmodeus.

2) Change any save-based effect with a serious drawback to have a "partial pass". DCs can get bumped up slightly in difficulty - they default to 15+average results, and if you fail by 10 or less you get a partial save that penalizes but does not overwhelm you. This allows conditions to apply, and to overwhelm weaker foes, while not having the sorts of problems that Sleep, Intimidate, and dragon fear currently cause.

3) Return magic to the 6-level system that the original D&D used, with most of the stronger spells either removed entirely or redefined. This allows spellcasters to balance a little better with everyone else.

neonchameleon
2013-05-08, 10:25 AM
I guess 5e really is uniting everyone; all of us see the worst parts of our least favorite editions with a few token features of our prefered system.

On thinking about it, which of the aspects of 4e do you see in Next? The ones of 3.X I see in next that I never want to see again are:


Classes getting barely structured lists of abilities at each level (only a very minor issue - it existed in older editions (such as the 1e Monk) but was brought to the fore in 3.X).

A loosened Vancian Casting based system. (Loosened = you have more flexibility for casters even than orthodox Vancian would offer - and it's Vancian that allows tier 1 classes).

It being harder not easier to save against magic at higher levels. (4e swings slightly in the defender's favour - prior editions swang dramatically in the defender's favour, with the 3.X core being the only one to swing in the attacker's favour).

Hit points as a supposedly simulationist thing rather than the mix of skill, luck, and divine protection explicitely outlined in the 1e PHB and DMG.

3.X multiclassing and the way it undermines there being a class system. (Announced rather than implemented)

Casters being supposed to go toe to toe with martial classes at their areas of expertise as well as having extreme flexibility.

Explicit "apprentice" characters at level 1; in AD&D a first level fighter was explicitely a veteran and most NPCs were level 0. (Announced rather than implemented)


Note these are all 3.X-specific - there are plenty of things shared with other previous editions where 4e was the change away from norm (such as the 4e monster statblock not referencing any other books and a lack of most of LFQW).

But as I say, the reason Next is flailing is not which game it resembles or doesn't. It's that there's no vision the mechanics are trying to support other than the "Edition designed by committee". Or the edition designed to not upset anyone.

PairO'Dice Lost
2013-05-08, 12:05 PM
I like most of neonchameleon's suggestions. A few disagreements, though:


1: Self contained monster statblocks. Everything I need to run a 4e monster is in the statblock and I never have to cross-reference a feat or a spell that's on another page or in another book. There is no reason for any game not to do this.

The downside to this is that it makes reusing player material harder; monsters traditionally have standard spells (and feats, in 3e) because they're known quantities (out of character because DMs can just memorize what a given spell does, in character because rules for IDing spells and such are already in the game), whereas if every statblock has to include all the monster's rules it either takes up too much space reprinting the same spell blocks or it encourages the devs to avoid "interesting" abilities (i.e. those that can't be summed up in a few lines).

One way this could work, though, is if the spell format is revised. Spell blocks have gotten larger and more redundant in every edition; powers were smaller in 4e but rituals were just as long. Standardizing SR and durations and such as well as providing good defaults and stronger school/descriptor rules would definitely cut down on the "10 pages of combat rules, 100 pages of spells" phenomenon from 3e, but the 5e devs seems to be trying to avoid brevity and keywords as much as possible, so I don't see that happening.


A loosened Vancian Casting based system. (Loosened = you have more flexibility for casters even than orthodox Vancian would offer - and it's Vancian that allows tier 1 classes).

Vancian casting isn't what allows tier 1 classes, the ability to switch up your abilities known in the course of gameplay and a selection of abilities that overshadow other classes allows tier 1 classes. A Vancian caster with a finite spellbook and any toe-stepping spells removed (such as a shadowcaster or a prepared-casting beguiler) is not tier 1, while a binder or psion with more vestiges/powers printed to allow more variety and toe-stepping can reach tier 1. It's the number and power of abilities that enable T1s, not the casting method.


Explicit "apprentice" characters at level 1; in AD&D a first level fighter was explicitely a veteran and most NPCs were level 0. (Announced rather than implemented)

Personally, I prefer to have level 1 characters be beginners rather than veterans, and even when running AD&D I tweaked things so PCs started at level 2-4 (varying by campaign) and stock NPCs were generally level 1-3. From a mechanical standpoint, lumping every single person less skilled in combat that a veteran soldier, less skilled at breaking and entering than a veteran cat burglar, etc. together as "0-level" means you have very little room to "build down"--the differences between weaker creatures are generally quite small when you only have 1 level/HD or a fraction thereof to work with.

From a flavor perspective, not all heroes start off as veterans; Luke Skywalker was a kid with good piloting skills but not much other training, Frodo was a homebody who was good with his hands but not amazing, and so forth. Being able to represent degrees of skill between apprentice/recruit/pickpocket/acolyte and wizard/veteran/cat burglar/priest is a good thing for storytelling purposes, because not only do you have room to play newbies but when you do start off as veterans you have a few levels to work with to make your character more fleshed-out and well-rounded.

From both a flavor and mechanical perspective, the combat system works better if you assume level 1 is a relatively fresh/weak combatant or creature. The commoner 1 vs. cat problem in 3e arises because the difference between "average adult human" and "housecat" is less than 1 HD and less than +1 in plenty of other areas, whereas if an "average human adult" is 3 HD or thereabouts that problem goes away; likewise, a "veteran" who can die to a particularly unlucky roll in combat against untrained savages like goblins is a bit underwhelming whereas one who can hold his own in combat for a few rounds (and survive a crit from an orc with a greataxe) works better.

Ozfer
2013-05-08, 12:14 PM
I would change the webpage that tells you you have signed up for the Next Dnd Playtest. I literally thought to myself, "....I have to wait for the next one?". Then I realized it was the name.

Seriously though, the name, in my humble opinion, kinda sucks. I'll come back once I've read through the rules.

Seerow
2013-05-08, 12:49 PM
4: Unfolding combat. Your options aren't the same round to round. There are better ways than AEDU to do this (the Crusader from the Bo9S springs to mind) but you aren't normally repeating the same choice every round until someone drops.


This sounds interesting, but I honestly can't help but think it would be better as a spinoff TCG.

I mean a lot of people already used Cards to track the Crusader's powers (drawing/discarding as appropriate, reshuffling when you run out), and honestly the Crusader felt pretty static after round one or two as you quickly had almost all of your maneuvers available at any given time. You could develop a similar feel by giving a deeper deck with more options, but at that point you really are playing a TCG (or at least a Deck Building Game).

I'd actually love to see something along these lines, where you have a combination of an RPG and a Deck Building Game, where your character sheet gives some basic stats and your class determines what types of cards you can use, but the main resolution is the card game... but at that point we're getting pretty far astray from D&D.

</off-topic>




On the topic of what I'd like to see changed:
1) Bounded Accuracy dies in a fire. About as hard as is humanly possible.

2) Advantage/Disadvantage can be gained more than once and add/remove dice as appropriate. Having 4 sources of advantage and one of disadvantage doesn't make you roll 1d20 (as it does now), but rather roll 3d20 take highest.

3) Skills and Attributes both improve much more meaningfully. Attributes should be able to get to ~double by level 20 (so 18 to 36, or if you cap at 16 starting instead, from 16 to 32), meanwhile skills go up at a rate of ~1 per level assuming you invest in them.

4) 6 Saves gets narrowed down to 2, 3 at most.

5) Either healing surges come back (replacing the hit die mechanic) or a wound system is implemented. Possibly both. Either way, HP itself is treated as an encounter resource, with a secondary component that regenerates less quickly.

6) Each major archtype gets its own resource subsystem, powers within the same system have some overlap. (ie the Wizard and Sorcerer both use the Arcane Subsystem, and they have some spell overlap, but also some unique spells).

7) Each of the major subsystems is primarily encounter based, but with a mechanic representing resource attrition over time (So the martial resource might be stamina, and as you spend healing surges, how much stamina you have available decreases. Or the Arcane casters can push themselves to cast a spell at a more powerful level than normal, but doing so burns out that spell slot for the day. That sort of thing).

These can either all share the same attrition mechanic (ie have both martial and arcane get worn down by wounds, or have both with the option to push themselves to an increased short term power at the cost of reduced long term capability), or use different mechanics per subsystem, but the general principle of encounter based resources that can be worn down over time until you take a rest, should be there.

Ozfer
2013-05-08, 01:18 PM
Ok, just did some haphazard reading, so here are my haphazard opinions:

1.I actually really love what they did with the barbarian, and to a more a limited degree, the cleric. They seem to be doing a much better job of enforcing fluff mechanically, without being invasive of your characters unique style.

2.Then reading classes lead me to Backgrounds,, Specialties, and Feats. Backgrounds, I think are all well and good, and a step in the right direction. Specialties however, are almost completely superfluous. I like that they want two characters with the same class to be unique, but they did this by doing... Nothing at all. Specialties should give access to feats that normally cannot be taken without another specialty that allows them.

3.The Clerics powers are awesome. But holy crap its not a cleric anymore, its Gandalf. These new powers are making the cleric come off as some sort of Rogue-Wizard, where really, the cleric is supposed to be (In my mind) someone who holds his own in fair combat, with augmentations from their god.

Storm's Clap should be a deity specific power (And also for Gandalf characters). The illusion spells could work for a deity that focused on stealth, but that is a lot of spells for one deity.


Well, that's my un-informed 2-cents.


(Seriously though, am I the only one who thinks that the cleric would make an awesome Gandalf character? Especially that blast of light thing.)

EDIT- Also, I would make the Reaper specialty actually help against larger creatures. Right now, regardless of fluff, it seems specially suited to fighting smaller creatures.

Mastikator
2013-05-08, 01:28 PM
Out of curiosity have you tried either GURPS or Rolemaster? Both games (and others) do exactly what you want to - and one of the advantages D&D has is that it isn't as detailed and fiddly as apparently you want it to be.

I've got GURPS main books but I've yet to play it. But yeah it has what I want. No experience with Rolemaster though.

Water_Bear
2013-05-08, 05:18 PM
On thinking about it, which of the aspects of 4e do you see in Next?

Pretty much every aspect I dislike about it. I'm not trying to 4e bash, I hate edition-war nonsense, but my opinions of the way it turned out are unfavorable. Hence the spoiler.

The (over-)emphasis on combat as the primary facet of the game, ignoring exploration social and nation-building aspects of play which make me actually want to play the game. Hell even non-combat magic got torn apart, reduced to 4e's horrific Ritual system and completely nonexistent in Next as far as I know. I had assumed that, seeing as this new edition was supposed to be iconic, modes of play which had existed from oD&D on might at least get lip service. Nope!

The proliferation of At-Will and Per-Encounter abilities, "non-magical" healing, and the general shredding of the difference between magic and mundane. Don't mistake me, I think 4e was the first balanced edition of D&D (quite possibly the last) and we can learn from that. But there is no excuse for every class feeling identical, or for the magic to be so lackluster it barely deserves the name. Next does not seem to be improving in that regard, in fact the opposite as you can't even call it balanced any more.

Immersion breaking gamist elements like Minion Rules or Bounded Accuracy which are more concerned with keeping things competitive than making sense. The MMO comparison is made too often, but in this way at least it is apt; 4e doesn't feel like an RPG and neither does Next.

I do have to credit 4e and Next with one thing though; if WotC had kept producing games like 3.5 I never would have left their sphere and started looking at Retroclones or indie story-games like PTC. As much as I like the D&D brand, it might be good for gamers if it finally dies.



The ones of 3.X I see in next that I never want to see again are:

I would love to see old-school style saving throws, 0th level characters, (meaningfully) squishy casters, and front-loaded classes make a return. Add in 1-minute combat rounds and Name-level realm management stuff and we could have a party. An *Iconic* party.

My one big disagreement is that I really like the "hp = meat" style, just because it makes figuring out what just happened a lot easier. If I deal 10 damage to a monster and the DM says the attack whizzed by their head, there are a half-dozen plausible explanations for what's going on (its an illusion reacting to avoid being exposed, some sort of exotic DR, etc) and only one of them is that I've hurt the monster. Getting that 10 damage cuts an orc in half but is a superficial wound on a dragon is easier than figuring out that the assassin is nearly dead when they haven't even bled a drop.

neonchameleon
2013-05-08, 07:49 PM
This sounds interesting, but I honestly can't help but think it would be better as a spinoff TCG.

I mean a lot of people already used Cards to track the Crusader's powers (drawing/discarding as appropriate, reshuffling when you run out), and honestly the Crusader felt pretty static after round one or two as you quickly had almost all of your maneuvers available at any given time. You could develop a similar feel by giving a deeper deck with more options, but at that point you really are playing a TCG (or at least a Deck Building Game).

I'd actually love to see something along these lines, where you have a combination of an RPG and a Deck Building Game, where your character sheet gives some basic stats and your class determines what types of cards you can use, but the main resolution is the card game... but at that point we're getting pretty far astray from D&D.

In my experience there are only a few basic models of combat that really work well.

Fast Combat
Tactical Combat
Narratively Inspiring Combat
Chicken


Fast Combat: In a fast combat model, combat is something that happens. Quarter is neither asked nor given; the best example of this would be the Tunnels and Trolls model in which everyone contributes a few dice and the sides simply have a roll-off and then count the cost. AD&D combat manages to be to me the most anti-immersive thing ever by not being fast enough; I can only decide what to do once per minute in a high pressure rapidly unfolding situation. Which makes no sense.

Tactical Combat: You're actually dealing with something analogous to the decisions your character would be making on a timescale akin to an OODA loop. 3e tried for this, 4e turned it up to 11 (which for many people was much too far). It's in part immersive, in part intellectual and figuring out the right tactics for the situation.

Narratively Inspiring Combat: Some mechanics actively inspire narrative; Wushu would be the archetypal example, with a dice granted for each element of the action described. (Marvel Heroic Roleplaying and Cortex Plus do about the same). One other way is Rolemaster or GURPS style detailed combat where direct hit locations and critical charts add a lot of narrative to the combat (even where the Rulemonster ones make no sense) and use actual physical damage rather than mere hit point ablation, with people taking damage penalties. 3e and 4e both also try for this and to some they succeed, to others they fail.

Chicken: Dread is probably the archetypal example of this - when the resolution mechanic is a jenga tower, combat just gets more and more tense fast. If you stay in combat it is very likely both sides will take a pounding and the real question is when you back down and choose to run away (and live to fight another day). Fast resolution, fast kills but no one-shots - and it's absolutely essential that one side or other be able to back down effectively. (FATE and Monsterhearts both work on this model more than any other).

There are plenty of hybrids; the obvious one being Dogs in the Vineyard which is a narratively inspiring game of chicken. But next fails to do any of them at all.

Scow2
2013-05-08, 09:17 PM
Pretty much every aspect I dislike about it. I'm not trying to 4e bash, I hate edition-war nonsense, but my opinions of the way it turned out are unfavorable. Hence the spoiler.

The (over-)emphasis on combat as the primary facet of the game, ignoring exploration social and nation-building aspects of play which make me actually want to play the game. Hell even non-combat magic got torn apart, reduced to 4e's horrific Ritual system and completely nonexistent in Next as far as I know. I had assumed that, seeing as this new edition was supposed to be iconic, modes of play which had existed from oD&D on might at least get lip service. Nope!

The proliferation of At-Will and Per-Encounter abilities, "non-magical" healing, and the general shredding of the difference between magic and mundane. Don't mistake me, I think 4e was the first balanced edition of D&D (quite possibly the last) and we can learn from that. But there is no excuse for every class feeling identical, or for the magic to be so lackluster it barely deserves the name. Next does not seem to be improving in that regard, in fact the opposite as you can't even call it balanced any more.

Immersion breaking gamist elements like Minion Rules or Bounded Accuracy which are more concerned with keeping things competitive than making sense. The MMO comparison is made too often, but in this way at least it is apt; 4e doesn't feel like an RPG and neither does Next.

I do have to credit 4e and Next with one thing though; if WotC had kept producing games like 3.5 I never would have left their sphere and started looking at Retroclones or indie story-games like PTC. As much as I like the D&D brand, it might be good for gamers if it finally dies.I don't see the martial classes as playing the same as Wizards. Yes, there are more at-will and encounter-level abilities in 5e, but there aren't that many, and they feel martial in nature instead of magical. And we've gone back to the flexible Vancian casting, where magic is a System, not a Class Feature, although Access to Magic is a class feature.





My one big disagreement is that I really like the "hp = meat" style, just because it makes figuring out what just happened a lot easier. If I deal 10 damage to a monster and the DM says the attack whizzed by their head, there are a half-dozen plausible explanations for what's going on (its an illusion reacting to avoid being exposed, some sort of exotic DR, etc) and only one of them is that I've hurt the monster. Getting that 10 damage cuts an orc in half but is a superficial wound on a dragon is easier than figuring out that the assassin is nearly dead when they haven't even bled a drop.
Since when has HP not meant "meat"? I know some people don't seem to grasp the concept, but - "A hit is a hit, but one hitpoint is not one hitpoint. A hit is neither an axe to the face, nor is it an arbitrary miss. If you hear that your best friend survived getting shot three times in a barfight and is in stable condition, do you assume he was thrown to the ground and shot execution-style in the skull three times? Do you assume that he was shot AT three times, and was merely shaken? No. He has three bullets in him, but they didn't hit vital organs/etc."

Tholomyes
2013-05-08, 10:20 PM
For my part, I'd like to see:

-Different options for magic. I don't like vancian magic, but I recognize that other people do, so make the system able to support different options. My personal favorite option is one where magic users get a certain number of spells, that they can prepare in a "short rest" or roughly 5-10 minutes. As a result, they can't cast at-will, and if they're ambushed, they won't be able to prep, but if they do get the chance to tactically prepare for an encounter, they can. Their spell list would need to be either more limited, or have them able to select fewer spells known, than a full on vancian caster.

-Allow non-casters to have meaningful choices during combat. The maneuvers given to the fighter would be ideal for that, if polished a little more. I could see it be something where a rogue's maneuvers would be fundamentally different than a fighters, but still using the same mechanics (like a fighter could deal more damage, or give enemies a disincentive to attack allies, where a rogue might impose penalties, or have additional movement options, or such). These options would have to be either powerful enough to provide a meaningful alternative to just plain damage, or be done in addition to damage (though maybe something like "Half-damage, plus this effect").

-A lot was made over 4e's marking system. A lot of people complained that it felt too much like an MMO. True, it's based on MMO concepts, but the fact of the matter is it's a good mechanic. I don't like everything about 4e (though I think it was going in the right direction, it just didn't make all of the correct choices on how to get there) but marking is one of the things I like. It provides an incentive for an enemy to attack a strategically inferior option, and it gives the Fighter a feel that they're actively doing a part, rather than just being the passive "meat-bag" and taking lots of hits.

-Bounded accuracy is a decent thought, but it doesn't really work. I would like to see ways for low-power enemies to still affect higher-power PCs, but Bounded accuracy isn't really the way to do it. Though I will maintain, 3e's way of doing it wasn't very good either. I'd probably say a slowly scaling AC/Attack bonus would be the way to go. That way you do improve as you level, but not so fast as in 4e where you'd quickly outclass less powerful enemies.

-Level 1 being competence, and rules for level 0 "apprentices" I acknowledge the appeal of starting below competence, and working your way up, but to me, level 1 is baseline, and baseline characters should be competent at what they do, even if not very powerful.

-Quick and easy combat. This was the main thing I disliked about 4e. Combat dragged on way too long. I could see the system in Next take some of the things that 4e added, like providing options to non-casters, and the marking mechanic, without taking the full complexity that made combat drag on.

-The Warlord class. Pathfinder did something similar in the Martial, except it fell flat in a lot of ways. Making mounted-combat one of the defining things of the class made it impractical for a lot of games, and the buffs that it provided were at times, underwhelming, mostly because many of the teamwork feats were garbage. The mechanic of giving teamwork feats to allies was a really good concept, but only when the teamwork feats are worth it. If Next were to steal from that design space, I'd hope they'd improve on that.

As an aside, I don't see much of a problem with martial healing, but I think the design-space is already there for temp-hp granting, as an "inspirational" effect. Unless you specialized (i.e. picked up healer feats), you wouldn't be any better at actual healing, but you could make your party fight on more effectively with temp-hp. It doesn't even need to be a core mechanic, but I could easily see it as an option for such a class.

Tholomyes
2013-05-08, 10:23 PM
Since when has HP not meant "meat"?

Since Gary Gygax said this: (1e DMG, I think)
"It is quite unreasonable to assume that as a character gains levels of ability
in his or her class that a corresponding gain in actual ability to sustain
physical damage takes place. It is preposterous to state such an
assumption, for if we are to assume that a man is killed by a sword thrust
which does 4 hit points of damage, we must similarly assume that a hero
could, on the average, withstand five such thrusts before being slain! Why
then the increase in hit points? Because these reflect both the actual
physical ability of the character to withstand damage - as indicated by
constitution bonuses- and a commensurate increase in such areas as skill
in combat and similar life-or-death situations, the "sixth sense" whith
warns the individual of some otherwise unforeseen events, sheer luck,
and the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine
protection. Therefore, constitution affects both actual ability to withstand
physical punishment hit points (physique) and the immeasurable areas
which involve the sixth sense and luck (fitness)."