What should would a D&D 3.X look like that everyone could be happy with?

[T0pH4t]

D&D is a very fun game, and it is also a flawed game if you know what to look for.

3.5 let higher level casters crush any sort of martial class, 4e was a glorified card game, and 5e has some issues with characters feeling very "samey" from a mechanical perspective. AD&D and 2e were interesting, but the entry barrier was high for plebeians.

I would like to know what an ideal form of D&D would look like, and if it would be possible to let players do powerful things while minimizing ultra-Charger/Wish-Monger/ha-ha-fighters-suck things.

Starting with Classes, what do we want them to do?
Next, gear. Should exotic weapons exist, or is being straight up better than martial weapons a no-no? What about alchemists fire and the like? Should they scale with level, or is that a bad idea? Is 5e right about magic items, minimizing them, or was the pursuit of gear in 3.5 the pinnacle of magic item use in RPG? What's up with supplemental guides?

I don't know what is the precise answer, so I'm trying to tap into the centuries of gaming experience and figure out what did and did not work in the previous editions.

[JNAProductions]

I'm actually working a new D&Dish system. The general idea is that stuff comes in tiers-Heroic (where you might be superhuman, but not excessively so), Paragon (where you are superhuman, even if mundane), and Epic (where you're ridiculously superhuman). Based kinda off 4E, but with a lot of modifications.

Currently... Not very far in it. This (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nRh6rvPRTUtTXCutjPajrD-Ii2D0FGQ3ThkoirLeTok/edit?usp=sharing) and this (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g4jCtVP0l2-29pzXaNN4BNqzM0oMGeyKYA3_yl6UomA/edit?usp=sharing) is all I've got.

[Laserlight]

This sounds like something for the Homebrew section rather than 5e.

[JNAProductions]

Honestly, it's not far enough along to be worth posting. I've got something like 14 pages, and most are just lists of stuff. But this specifically seemed like something worth responding to.

Unless you were talking to the OP? In which case... Nah, I stick by what I said.

[pwykersotz]

I don't think it's possible for everyone to be happy with a single system. For a good time, you can check out the old discussions about skills in the early 5e days and whether it was good that skills were bounded or bad because an expert couldn't regularly beat an untrained person thanks to bounded accuracy and the RNG.

Not to say that trying isn't a good thing. :smallsmile:

[Sigreid]

I think you're tilting at windmills. All you have to do is look at one of the treads arguing rolled attributes vs. point buy to see that people prefer wildly different things for different reasons. I think the best that can be done is either a system that a wide variety of people can deal with, even if it's not their ideal or a system that is ideal for a small group of like minded individuals. Heck, on this forum there isn't even a universally agreed to definition of what "fair" means.

[CantigThimble]

I think you're tilting at windmills. All you have to do is look at one of the treads arguing rolled attributes vs. point buy to see that people prefer wildly different things for different reasons. I think the best that can be done is either a system that a wide variety of people can deal with, even if it's not their ideal or a system that is ideal for a small group of like minded individuals. Heck, on this forum there isn't even a universally agreed to definition of what "fair" means.

This.

There seriously isn't any possible version that every D&D player would be happy with. It is IMPOSSIBLE.

Anyway, in my subjective opinion there is not a single thing that 3.X does well when compared to 5e. 5e has less unnecessary bookkeeping and number crunching but still has characters with a good number of unique features. Magic items whose bonuses are required are just another part of the time-wasting calculations that 5e sidesteps completely. Give me 3 interesting or unusual magic items over 15 boring ones any day of the week. Some people might be disappointed that when they sit down to design an optimized character it takes them 2 hours instead of 20 but I don't miss that at all.

Exotic weapons and the like are something I don't care for at all. If they're going to require a feat to use then just make the feat give you the effects of that fighting style instead of the weapon. If they're not going to require a feat to use then don't make them remotely better than rapiers, glaives or greatswords because the player shouldn't need to worry about that stuff.

[T0pH4t]

Probably poor taste to get the first post on my own thread, but why not?

Archetypes/Classes:

Barbarian: The most durable class. I would like to see it as the new tank class, with less focus on damage outside of rage.
Bard: Buffs for everyone! I wasn't a fan of the whole jack-of-all-trades, but maybe that's what the class needs to be not a cleric.
Cleric: The healing class, and hopefully future editions makes solving problems as viable as preventing them (looking at you, God-Wizard).
Druid: Nature n' stuff. This class feels very unique, as long as wildshape remains balanced and the spells don't feel too similar to the wizard.
Fighter: Unmatched master of Martial Combat. Should make more attacks and more accurate attacks than anyone. Needs armor, though. Hopefully has around a dozen different builds
Monk: Unarmed master, and a no-armor character. Again, this is an odd sort of class, and I'm not sure what people want from this class. Maybe it should feel like a good-guy rouge?
Paladin: The divine champion. Not as good in the red-zone, but built in heals and minor spell-casting give him flexibility. Also good vs extra planar entities. Hopefully this feels like less of a fighter/cleric multiclass and more like a unique divine fighter.
Ranger: A skill monkey that can tangle in the red zone. Honestly, this feels like the jack-of-all trades class, though TWF needs to be balanced (not terrible like 5e, and not OP like 3.5e). Please don't nerf them again.
Rouge: The sneaky one. I liked the skill-monkey aspect of the rouge in 3.5, and it could be built several different ways. Needs more work than normal to get this one right, and a hash of unique abilities could help a lot.
Sorcerer: The prodigy. The sorcerer can cast more spells, but knows fewer. The meta-magic redux in 5e is interesting, but leaves poor wizards out in the cold. Focusing on the font of power was nice, but it felt like it reduced the Warlocks's uniqueness.
Warlock: Can cast every spell, every encounter, but has less powerful spell. Gets a pseudo feat every few levels. I think the warlock is in a good spot right now, though I would like to see a few more clear builds.
Wizard: Oh boy. Right now the God-Wiazard is insane. Ideally, I would like to see each path of magic be equally balanced, but seeing how most spells are situational, I don't see that happening any time soon. This class needs the most tweaking, and creating balance will be difficult. Wish will probably need to go...
So, these are my ideas. Please respond with general goals, not specific rules issues. I'm trying to see what D&D 5.5/6 needs to look like, and I would like to talk to WotC!

[T0pH4t]

I think you're tilting at windmills. All you have to do is look at one of the treads arguing rolled attributes vs. point buy to see that people prefer wildly different things for different reasons. I think the best that can be done is either a system that a wide variety of people can deal with, even if it's not their ideal or a system that is ideal for a small group of like minded individuals. Heck, on this forum there isn't even a universally agreed to definition of what "fair" means.

My personal goal is to figure out how to make Skill training feel better, what each base PHB class should look like to appeal to people (everyone wants the fighter to fight and the barbarian to rage, but what does that entail?), and to see if 3.X Spell casting CAN be balanced (Right now, Wish for dead Fighter or Wish for win/very close to win an encounter is both possible and probable).

I cannot please everyone, and that is something I didn't make clear. Sorry about that. I think 5e is closer to balanced, but the skill system feels a little under developed, and there are still some balance issues at high levels of play. If WotC wants to make Adventure League take off, I feel that the game needs to be less breakable and a little more rewarding for non-combat characters (like the Bard with +17 to preform and +9 to social skills).

[T0pH4t]

This sounds like something for the Homebrew section rather than 5e.

I'm not trying to come up with a new system or modify an existing one. I just want to have an armchair discussion about how to improve a game I love.

If you really think this needs to go to Homebrew I'll talk with a Mod, but since there is an absence of game mechanics as anything other than examples I think the thread is fine where it is.

[JNAProductions]

What if I want Barbarians to be top damage dealers instead of tanks?

Also, word to the wise-you can edit posts instead of double (or triple) posting.

[Petrocorus]

What if I want Barbarians to be top damage dealers instead of tanks?

That would sound more logical to me.



Also, word to the wise-you can edit posts instead of double (or triple) posting.
Words to live by.



Ranger: A skill monkey that can tangle in the red zone. Honestly, this feels like the jack-of-all trades class, though TWF needs to be balanced (not terrible like 5e, and not OP like 3.5e). Please don't nerf them again.

Since when TWF was OP in 3.5? It was a feat costful fighting style with much lower damage than THF. THF was OP.
TWF is actually better in 5E than in 3.5, it is still sub-par at high level because it cost you your bonus action that you may need for something else, and don't give you enough bonus for it.


Rouge:

Where does this trend come from already? Have all rogues turned red?



Wizard: Oh boy. Right now the God-Wiazard is insane. Ideally, I would like to see each path of magic be equally balanced, but seeing how most spells are situational, I don't see that happening any time soon. This class needs the most tweaking, and creating balance will be difficult. Wish will probably need to go...
Wizard are less godlike in 5E than in 3.5. They cannot have a thousand buffs and protections on them 24/7, have many more limitation on what spells can do, and are never sure to succeed at what they do thanks to lower SR.


If you really think this needs to go to Homebrew I'll talk with a Mod, but since there is an absence of game mechanics as anything other than examples I think the thread is fine where it is.
This however could fit in the 3.5 section.

[T0pH4t]

What if I want Barbarians to be top damage dealers instead of tanks?

I don't know. One thing is that I traditional expect barbarians to be very difficult to kill, and I have seen far fewer barbarians die in 3.5 and 5e than fighters, while I typically see fighters out damage barbarians at high levels in 5e. One way to manage this is have the Barbarian focus on damage while raging, but sacrifice AC. It's not that Barbarians can't be primary damage dealers, but my personal view of the game makes me view them more as big, hairy targets that attract damage. I think that there shouldn't be a class that can out-preform a fighter optimized for melee combat, because then why on earth play a class that is basically vanilla? The advantage to playing a barbarian then is the ability to rage, greater mobility, and improved class features.

I want to see a D&D where no class is just straight up WORSE than another one, where 3.5 had that problem. Why play a sorcerer at high levels when a wizard could solo a dungeon? While the fun factor does exist, since WotC is trying to push it into public eye (via adventure league), I want the builds that twist the rules to be minimized, and part of that is making things feel unique.

[T0pH4t]

Since when TWF was OP in 3.5? It was a feat costful fighting style with much lower damage than THF. THF was OP.
TWF is actually better in 5E than in 3.5, it is still sub-par at high level because it cost you your bonus action that you may need for something else, and don't give you enough bonus for it.


This is a good point. Another thing going against it is the lower amount of magic items. The likelihood of getting 2 +2 one handed weapons in 5e is fairly low, combined with the bonus action requirement definitely makes it worse. It will need a buff of some sort, but I don't know what would keep it balanced with sword/boarding and using reach weapons/THW.


Wizard are less godlike in 5E than in 3.5. They cannot have a thousand buffs and protections on them 24/7, have many more limitation on what spells can do, and are never sure to succeed at what they do thanks to lower SR.

This is fair as well. A wizard cannot solo dungeons anymore, and the revamped spell system feels a lot more fair. I still don't see them as balanced when compared to the other classes, and the God-Wizard is the most important member of a party. That is mainly due to the ridiculous power of some spells, though. If Wish, Clone, and the like were removed, I would have far fewer complaints.

The other issue is that a God-Wizard replaces the Cleric. Why have a person to repair the damage when now damage happens in the first place? What does a cleric do then? They don't go into melee as well as a fighter, cast spells as well as any arcane class, and have fewer out-of-combat resources than a Bard. Unfortunately, healing/buffing/reviving is the Clerics job, and when all of those jobs can be replaced by a smart arcane caster, why use the derpy little dwarf man?

I don't mind it, but having an entire class made obsolete is a little disconcerting.

[Lines]

Anyway, in my subjective opinion there is not a single thing that 3.X does well when compared to 5e. 5e has less unnecessary bookkeeping and number crunching but still has characters with a good number of unique features. Magic items whose bonuses are required are just another part of the time-wasting calculations that 5e sidesteps completely. Give me 3 interesting or unusual magic items over 15 boring ones any day of the week. Some people might be disappointed that when they sit down to design an optimized character it takes them 2 hours instead of 20 but I don't miss that at all.

Artificers, martial character options, verisimilitude, character agency, class subsystems, magic item creation, nonstandard character races, character variety, undeath, templates, unusual characters (hello chickenmancer).

[Lines]

The other issue is that a God-Wizard replaces the Cleric. Why have a person to repair the damage when now damage happens in the first place? What does a cleric do then? They don't go into melee as well as a fighter, cast spells as well as any arcane class, and have fewer out-of-combat resources than a Bard. Unfortunately, healing/buffing/reviving is the Clerics job, and when all of those jobs can be replaced by a smart arcane caster, why use the derpy little dwarf man?

I don't mind it, but having an entire class made obsolete is a little disconcerting.

I'm very confused. You are aware that in 3.5 clerics were incredibly powerful, yes? If we're talking 5e clerics have their own set of advantages, spells like spirit guardians wreck face.


This however could fit in the 3.5 section.
Why? It's not like 4e didn't contribute anything worthwhile (2e I'm not sure about, I didn't like it and it doesn't seem to do anything that a later edition doesn't do better).

[mgshamster]

5e has some issues with characters feeling very "samey" from a mechanical perspective.

Wait.. What?

I'm not sure you're playing the same game I am if you think all the characters have the same mechanical feel.

[JoeJ]

Artificers, martial character options, verisimilitude, character agency, class subsystems, magic item creation, nonstandard character races, character variety, undeath, templates, unusual characters (hello chickenmancer).

So, basically, the best possible version of D&D would be GURPS?

[Lines]

Wait.. What?

I'm not sure you're playing the same game I am if you think all the characters have the same mechanical feel.

They really do. It's pretty similar to 3.5 where the starting classes were just caster, part caster and non caster, at least this time they made ki points into a pool rather than each move having its own set of uses. Compare current 5e to the later half of 3.5 - pact magic, incarnum, shadow magic, psionics, whatever you call the warlock/dragonfire adept subsystem, initiators, etc etc.

A wizard doesn't feel like a fighter, but most characters play much more similarly to each other than the options we previously had because in the end 5e only really has one subsystem, spellcasting. I initially thought it was unfair to compare the options considering 5e didn't have much out, but it's been over a year now and they have two editions more experience, we should really have a proper martial subsystem by now at the very least.

[Lines]

So, basically, the best possible version of D&D would be GURPS?

So, basically, the best possible version of D&D would be freeform play?

[JoeJ]

So, basically, the best possible version of D&D would be freeform play?

How are you connecting freeform play with GURPS?

[Lines]

How are you connecting freeform play with GURPS?

I'm not. I'm doing for your viewpoint what you did for mine in order to make clear why that makes no sense.

[JoeJ]

I'm not. I'm doing for your viewpoint what you did for mine in order to make clear why that makes no sense.

I have no idea what this even means. What "viewpoint" of mine are you talking about?

[Lines]

I have no idea what this even means. What "viewpoint" of mine are you talking about?

Ok, let's rephrase. What does GURPS have to do with what I was talking about?

[CantigThimble]

Artificers, martial character options, verisimilitude, character agency, class subsystems, magic item creation, nonstandard character races, character variety, undeath, templates, unusual characters (hello chickenmancer).

Artificers belong in a lab, not the battlefield. Barbarian, Rogue, Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Monk and all their respective subclasses are plenty of marital options for me. There's enough verisimilitude without negatively impacting gameplay. Character Agency is based on the DM, not the system. Rationing spells, ki points, rages, superiority dice, inspiration dice, channel divinity or whatever else the character has is fine. I don't want players crafting magic items regardless. I was unhappy they included even Tieflings and Dragonborn in the core rules. I have absolutely no problems with the character variety in 5e. The system already has all the rules for undeath I want. I have no interest in bringing back level adjustment, ever. If you can't make it a balanced subrace then you probably aren't starting as one. A Tiefling War Cleric/Dragon Sorcerer Pirate is plenty unusual. If you want to play really crazy stuff then there's homebrew for that, I'd rather not have them in officially published material.

I warned you my opinion was subjective.

[Lines]

Artificers belong in a lab, not the battlefield.
I disagree, Tony Stark was much more interesting once he decided to go out in the field and blow stuff up,


Barbarian, Rogue, Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Monk and all their respective subclasses are plenty of marital options for me.
We don't need to know about your love life. And they aren't enough for me - the paladin and monk did ok, but 4e showed us that martials can be so much more interesting than 'I attack' and 3.5 showed us that such martial classes can be part of a system with 5e's chassis.


There's enough verisimilitude without negatively impacting gameplay.
That's a really subjective thing. And the initial statement was there's nothing 3.5 does well compared to 5e - even if 5e has 'enough' verisimilitude (again, that's a pretty blurry line), 3.5 still does verisimilitude better.


Character Agency is based on the DM, not the system.
No, it's only based on the DM when the system makes you say 'mother may I?'. If I want to build a flying castle in 3.5 I can do it myself, 5e it'll be the DM doing it for me.


Rationing spells, ki points, rages, superiority dice, inspiration dice, channel divinity or whatever else the character has is fine.
I don't see how that's a response to what I said. I said 3.5 did subsystems better and you named a series of minor pool abilities, which pretty much proves my point? Soulmelding for example was too complex, it's one of the things that could really do with 5e's elegant and simple touch (not that the touch is always elegant, but it does get a lot of things right), but compare what that allows with what you can get from superiority dice - 3.5 did subsystems a lot better.


I don't want players crafting magic items regardless.
Then who made the magic items in the first place? Say hello to verisimilitude and character agency from before. 3.5 does it better.


I was unhappy they included even Tieflings and Dragonborn in the core rules.
Good for you, but that still means 3.5 does it better. You said there was nothing it did well compared to 5e, just because many of the things it does well such as nonstandard races are things you personally don't like doesn't mean it doesn't do them better.


I have absolutely no problems with the character variety in 5e.
Again, doesn't mean 3.5 doesn't do it as well. Greater class and race variety (only applies to actually different classes, fighter/knight/samurai is 1 class worth of variety, not 3) equals greater character variety.


The system already has all the rules for undeath I want.
Sure, but that's not what you said. You said there wasn't anything 3.5 did well when compared to 5e, and it did undeath just fine. With added benefits such as undead hit die and positive/negative energy interaction.


I have no interest in bringing back level adjustment, ever.
Sure, but again that doesn't mean 3.5 didn't do it fine compared to 5e. Much better in fact, considering the far greater variety.


If you can't make it a balanced subrace then you probably aren't starting as one. A Tiefling War Cleric/Dragon Sorcerer Pirate is plenty unusual. If you want to play really crazy stuff then there's homebrew for that, I'd rather not have them in officially published material.
Sure, now what do I do if I want to play an orc totemist or an ambush drake factotum or a doppelganger chameleon? And what's wrong with the stuff being published? If you don't like it you don't have to use or allow it, while it gives options for those who do want it.


I warned you my opinion was subjective.
Subjective's fine, it's the moving goalposts I'm less ok with.

[CantigThimble]

Objectively having more options that you can ignore if you don't like them is better than having fewer options. However, subjectively I'd rather have fewer options in many cases so I don't need to be bothered about the ones I don't like. I stated twice that opinion was subjective. I'm not moving goalposts, I'm keeping them firmly rooted in my subjective opinion. My subjective opinion does not care about what other people might want to play or how they want to play it. Trying to prove my subjective opinion wrong is an exercise in futility because my subjective opinion is disconnected from objective truth.

[JoeJ]

Ok, let's rephrase. What does GURPS have to do with what I was talking about?

I was basically being silly, but look at what you said you wanted:


Artificers, martial character options, verisimilitude, character agency, class subsystems, magic item creation, nonstandard character races, character variety, undeath, templates, unusual characters (hello chickenmancer).

Apart from class subsystems (because there aren't any classes), all of those things are easier and/or more available in GURPS than in any version of D&D. One of the fundamental limitations of a class-based game is that it's not as flexible in terms of possible characters that can be created (including their magic items). D&D also suffers in terms of verisimilitude because of the way combat in abstracted in terms of AC vs. to hit and hit points increasing per level.


That doesn't make GURPS a better game, of course. Some things you didn't list that D&D might be better for include:

- Balance, which in theory is easier to accomplish in a less flexible system (not that every version of D&D necessarily accomplished it).

- Rapid power growth, with PCs advancing from novices to demi-gods in a relatively short time.

- Established settings that don't require a lot of world building by the DM.

- Character building/optimization as its own sub-game. (You can build whatever character you want in GURPS, but it won't impress anybody because there's no real challenge to it.)

- Easier mental calculation of odds (linear vs. normal die roll distribution).

[Lines]

Objectively having more options that you can ignore if you don't like them is better than having fewer options. However, subjectively I'd rather have fewer options in many cases so I don't need to be bothered about the ones I don't like. I stated twice that opinion was subjective. I'm not moving goalposts, I'm keeping them firmly rooted in my subjective opinion. My subjective opinion does not care about what other people might want to play or how they want to play it. Trying to prove my subjective opinion wrong is an exercise in futility because my subjective opinion is disconnected from objective truth.

Sure, but that's not what the goalposts are about. You said that there is not a single thing that 3.X does well when compared to 5e, I named a bunch of things and then you responded with a bunch of stuff unrelated to whether 3.5 did it well compared to 5e.

[CantigThimble]

Sure, but that's not what the goalposts are about. You said that there is not a single thing that 3.X does well when compared to 5e, I named a bunch of things and then you responded with a bunch of stuff unrelated to whether 3.5 did it well compared to 5e.

"Anyway, in my subjective opinion there is not a single thing that 3.X does well when compared to 5e."

I very explicitly stated I was using better in the subjective sense. For this exact reason actually. I'm really not interested in nitpicking over which edition did X or Y objectively better I was just interested in expressing my general feeling towards the two editions (like the OP requested) and explaining a bit of the reasoning behind that. I assumed your response was a request for my subjective opinions on those things that you prefer in 3.X based on the context. Evidently I misread you there.

[Lines]

"Anyway, in my subjective opinion there is not a single thing that 3.X does well when compared to 5e."

I very explicitly stated I was using better in the subjective sense. For this exact reason actually. I'm really not interested in nitpicking over which edition did X or Y objectively better I was just interested in expressing my general feeling towards the two editions (like the OP requested) and explaining a bit of the reasoning behind that. I assumed your response was a request for my subjective opinions on those things that you prefer in 3.X based on the context. Evidently I misread you there.

I'm on something of a different path there, I've become increasingly annoyed with how people who prefer an edition pretend that other editions don't have their own strengths, which is what that looked like - people can not like 4e all they want, for instance, but pretending it didn't do inter party balance and tactical options well confuses me.

[CantigThimble]

I'm on something of a different path there - I've become increasingly annoyed with how people who prefer an edition pretend that other editions don't have their own strengths - people can not like 4e all they want, for instance, but people keep pretending it didn't do inter party balance and tactical options well, for instance.

I can understand that and if we met in person I would be more open to discussion but online there are some topics I think will almost never be productive or enjoyable to discuss and this is one of them. Just look at the endless circling debates in any edition war thread. If it makes you feel better I know that 3.5 and 4 did things well, just not the things that are relavent to my tastes and my current gaming groups.

Edit: For example my the groups I'm in right now are EXPERTS at losing focus, silly side threads and coming up with plans AFTER getting into unimaginable amounts of trouble. 5e lets all that happen really smoothly so we can still have fun without any unecessay hiccups.

[Petrocorus]

Why? It's not like 4e didn't contribute anything worthwhile (2e I'm not sure about, I didn't like it and it doesn't seem to do anything that a later edition doesn't do better).
I was commenting on the fact that the OP was mostly referring to 3.5, notably in the title and the thread seemed not to be about what would make the best D&D but what would improve 3.5.




I warned you my opinion was subjective.
And your were right to. Those are subjective opinions and many people actually believe that there are things indeed that 3.5 did better. Many people i saw on this very board value those things while you don't.

I personally dislike the lack of balance of 3.5, as almost everyone, but as many others, i appreciated the wide (maybe wild) variety of character options. If i want to play the X-Men in 3.5, i can. I cannot do it as well in 5E, and certainly not in ADD1 or 2, i cannot know for 4E.

[Thrudd]

What a game should look like depends on what you expect the game to do. What is the objective of the game, what sorts of things should the players be doing? These questions are taken for granted too often and people attempt to home brew without even considering what sort of game they are making. There is no objective "ideal" game. An RPG can be a lot of things, and the best games clearly know what it is they want to be and have rules tailored to a specific goal.

[JoeJ]

I found that 2e was actually the most flexible edition so far in terms of world building. The base classes were all pretty generic, and kits let me customize them to fit a particular setting. And character creation was fast and easy enough that I could roll up a huge cast of NPCs in just an hour or so.

Oh, and priest spheres were possibly the best idea in D&D ever. A priest of Aphrodite and a priest of Hekate had completely different spell lists. That's one thing I really wish 5e had brought back.

[T0pH4t]

Wait.. What?

I'm not sure you're playing the same game I am if you think all the characters have the same mechanical feel.

Again, I started this thread on opinion. I have encountered a lot of characters taking the same skills, feats, and spells, because they were the most effective options by a nautical mile. If you don't have this issue, please direct me to your play group!

[pwykersotz]

In response to the original post, I think in my optimal version of D&D that power should be simple and versatility should be complex. I think this should be true of both physical fighters and magic users (and anything inbetween).

I think spells and abilities should be simple, straightforward, and powerful. These should be your damage options. Then I think that it should be up to the player to use those abilities in ways that grant more complex tactical advantage. A few hard-coded riders would be nice, probably granted by class abilities. But then I'd like to see a skill system that allows flexible use of those things for battlefield or narrative control. I hate that a bunch of D&D is still devoted to memorizing the spell list, both as a player and a GM. I'd like less of them with the ability to flex them more.

I'd also like to see as little overlap as possible in the class system. Roles with a power should have that power nearly exclusively. To me, the whole reason to have a class system instead of a modular one is for simplicity and scalability while keeping things playable. Modular systems encourage too much cherry picking to be much good at this. But, for example, in my ideal system a Bard would never be able to choose from another classes spell list.

Also, while I disagree with the extent that it's taken to in forum arguments, I do agree that non-magical combatants need some cool tricks. I wouldn't mind seeing a Fighter or Rogue get a version of Wish at high level that let them duplicate other physical maneuvers or tricks, or perform seemingly impossible stunts.

I'd like all of this while keeping the 5e paradigm. Advantage/disadvantage, bounded accuracy, magic items not tied to economy or advancement, fewer skills with wide options, a quick adjudication system that references few tables, and the ability to keep things casual for those players who don't spend 50 hours a week thinking about it and just come to the table to have fun for a few hours.

The things that I don't want to see ever again are symmetrical player/npc builds, prestige classes, feat taxes, a skill point system, and spending multiple hours to make a character that doesn't suck. I built a level 9 Light Domain Cleric in 4 minutes the other week, and then I had the rest of the time to ponder the character, instead of sweating over feat and skill allocation.

What I do miss from 3.5 is the VAST wealth of content. I do like options, and I like the crazy classes and the ideas behind the prestige classes. I wish that there was a large group dedicated to converting them as faithfully as possible while maintaining oversight on power creep so that 5e could be as expansive without just blowing up.

My 2cp, carry on. :smallsmile:

[Lines]

In response to the original post, I think in my optimal version of D&D that power should be simple and versatility should be complex. I think this should be true of both physical fighters and magic users (and anything inbetween).

I think spells and abilities should be simple, straightforward, and powerful. These should be your damage options. Then I think that it should be up to the player to use those abilities in ways that grant more complex tactical advantage. A few hard-coded riders would be nice, probably granted by class abilities. But then I'd like to see a skill system that allows flexible use of those things for battlefield or narrative control. I hate that a bunch of D&D is still devoted to memorizing the spell list, both as a player and a GM. I'd like less of them with the ability to flex them more.

I'd also like to see as little overlap as possible in the class system. Roles with a power should have that power nearly exclusively. To me, the whole reason to have a class system instead of a modular one is for simplicity and scalability while keeping things playable. Modular systems encourage too much cherry picking to be much good at this. But, for example, in my ideal system a Bard would never be able to choose from another classes spell list.

Also, while I disagree with the extent that it's taken to in forum arguments, I do agree that non-magical combatants need some cool tricks. I wouldn't mind seeing a Fighter or Rogue get a version of Wish at high level that let them duplicate other physical maneuvers or tricks, or perform seemingly impossible stunts.

I'd like all of this while keeping the 5e paradigm. Advantage/disadvantage, bounded accuracy, magic items not tied to economy or advancement, fewer skills with wide options, a quick adjudication system that references few tables, and the ability to keep things casual for those players who don't spend 50 hours a week thinking about it and just come to the table to have fun for a few hours.

The things that I don't want to see ever again are symmetrical player/npc builds, prestige classes, feat taxes, a skill point system, and spending multiple hours to make a character that doesn't suck. I built a level 9 Light Domain Cleric in 4 minutes the other week, and then I had the rest of the time to ponder the character, instead of sweating over feat and skill allocation.

What I do miss from 3.5 is the VAST wealth of content. I do like options, and I like the crazy classes and the ideas behind the prestige classes. I wish that there was a large group dedicated to converting them as faithfully as possible while maintaining oversight on power creep so that 5e could be as expansive without just blowing up.

My 2cp, carry on. :smallsmile:

Well put and I agree with absolutely all of that, with one major and two minor exceptions: I do want prestige classes and symmetrical player/npc builds. The former can be a smaller niche than 3.5, since it should just be for options that multiple classes can take - runescarred berserker would be a subclass, for instance, while master of masks would work much better in 5e as a prestige class while the latter improves verisimilitude immensely.

The major point is overlap in class power. I don't mind overlap - the fighter and the barbarian are basically nothing but overlap, for instance - they just need to be different mechanically. Take the 5e fighter and the 4e fighter, if you renamed one they could both fit in 5e and would both occupy roughly the same niche, but would be very different from each other in playstyle and appeal to different types of players. Similarly if you made a magical class that worked like you described with less but more flexible spells it might have a niche very similar to a wizard but be quite different to play.

[T0pH4t]

What I do miss from 3.5 is the VAST wealth of content. I do like options, and I like the crazy classes and the ideas behind the prestige classes. I wish that there was a large group dedicated to converting them as faithfully as possible while maintaining oversight on power creep so that 5e could be as expansive without just blowing up.


Power creep/content is one of the key issues I wanted to address with this thread.

D&D isn't fun if you don't feel powerful, which is why it's so hard to be a fighter in 3.5 and feel like you can compete with casters. But if you saturate us with content that is balanced straight to hell, then 4e come out. 5e is trying to walk a dangerous line, but it doesn't have the content to compete with 3.5, a fantastically well supported game. It seems like 5e tried to err on the side of balance, which was the right decision (No one wants to be casting basic Sword every round while the wizard is casting Wish).

Another thing is that there have been very few character options published for 5e. Elemental evil, a few campaign settings, but nothing anywhere near the scale of 3.5 splatbooks. While I don't want to see pay-to-win (can't stand it in video games), I do think it is possible to release a book on PC and DM options every few months without breaking the balance of the game.

So far we have:

Elemental Evil
Sword Coast Adventure's Guide

Note I am not counting the adventure modules, because those weren't meant to be player supplements.

What about the handbooks for martial/primal/arcane/divine classes from 4e?
The Tome of Battle, which made fighter relevant? Unearthed Arcana, for the wannabe Cyromancers?
The pressure to create new content or adapt old content shouldn't be one the community. Come on WotC, you're holding out on us!


Re-read that, lot of ranting. Oh well.

[pwykersotz]

Power creep/content is one of the key issues I wanted to address with this thread.

D&D isn't fun if you don't feel powerful, which is why it's so hard to be a fighter in 3.5 and feel like you can compete with casters. But if you saturate us with content that is balanced straight to hell, then 4e come out. 5e is trying to walk a dangerous line, but it doesn't have the content to compete with 3.5, a fantastically well supported game. It seems like 5e tried to err on the side of balance, which was the right decision (No one wants to be casting basic Sword every round while the wizard is casting Wish).

Another thing is that there have been very few character options published for 5e. Elemental evil, a few campaign settings, but nothing anywhere near the scale of 3.5 splatbooks. While I don't want to see pay-to-win (can't stand it in video games), I do think it is possible to release a book on PC and DM options every few months without breaking the balance of the game.

So far we have:

Elemental Evil
Sword Coast Adventure's Guide

Note I am not counting the adventure modules, because those weren't meant to be player supplements.

What about the handbooks for martial/primal/arcane/divine classes from 4e?
The Tome of Battle, which made fighter relevant? Unearthed Arcana, for the wannabe Cyromancers?
The pressure to create new content or adapt old content shouldn't be one the community. Come on WotC, you're holding out on us!


Re-read that, lot of ranting. Oh well.

I think the main issue is already covered by a lot of 5e rules and the design philosophy. Don't let things stack. Beyond that, it's not balance that makes things boring, it's symmetry. As long as the classes you bring in utilize differing mechanics and provide variation while staying within a certain power and scope threshold that is shared by existing characters, it should avoid the 4e trap of same-y-ness while keeping to the 5e bounded paradigm.

[T0pH4t]

I think the main issue is already covered by a lot of 5e rules and the design philosophy. Don't let things stack. Beyond that, it's not balance that makes things boring, it's symmetry. As long as the classes you bring in utilize differing mechanics and provide variation while staying within a certain power and scope threshold that is shared by existing characters, it should avoid the 4e trap of same-y-ness while keeping to the 5e bounded paradigm.

Man, bounded accuracy just seems...Odd. It certainly helps the balance, but the idea of a hard skill cap is a little disturbing. Also, bullet sponge enemies don't tend to be that interesting, but that is probably an issue that can be fixed by a good DM. Maybe the system is fine as is.

Another issue is that Rangers are a little under-powered. They just don't do anything that well (spells, combat, skills, its all a little weaker than other classes). Mix that with late-game issues of TWF, and it's easy to get disappointed. I'm not sure how to buff them besides trying to find a way to make the Beast Master path less...Garbage? I don't know how to do that without making the companion another party member in power. Some splatbooks could help... Please?

[Lines]

Man, bounded accuracy just seems...Odd. It certainly helps the balance, but the idea of a hard skill cap is a little disturbing. Also, bullet sponge enemies don't tend to be that interesting, but that is probably an issue that can be fixed by a good DM. Maybe the system is fine as is.

Another issue is that Rangers are a little under-powered. They just don't do anything that well (spells, combat, skills, its all a little weaker than other classes). Mix that with late-game issues of TWF, and it's easy to get disappointed. I'm not sure how to buff them besides trying to find a way to make the Beast Master path less...Garbage? I don't know how to do that without making the companion another party member in power. Some splatbooks could help... Please?

I just give them both beastmaster and hunter. Seems to have worked so far.

[Regitnui]

What about the handbooks for martial/primal/arcane/divine classes from 4e?
The Tome of Battle, which made fighter relevant? Unearthed Arcana, for the wannabe Cyromancers?
The pressure to create new content or adapt old content shouldn't be one the community. Come on WotC, you're holding out on us!


Yeah, they're holding out. How long did 3.5 run? How long have we had 5e? You can't judge a partial by a whole.

[Lines]

Yeah, they're holding out. How long did 3.5 run? How long have we had 5e? You can't judge a partial by a whole.

Can a bit, actually. It's been over a year, and it should have started out with a good martial subsystem in the PHB. Doesn't have to be ToB style, but 5e needs a system for people who don't want to say 'I use another couple of basic attacks' every combat round of their life.

This is the newest edition and they've had many years to learn from previous ones, we should have more interesting classes by now.

[Socratov]

Can a bit, actually. It's been over a year, and it should have started out with a good martial subsystem in the PHB. Doesn't have to be ToB style, but 5e needs a system for people who don't want to say 'I use another couple of basic attacks' every combat round of their life.

This is the newest edition and they've had many years to learn from previous ones, we should have more interesting classes by now.

I personally think the problem lies with Fighters and Wizards. Barbarians get some nice things like the totems, reckless attack and Brütal Critical, while the fighter just gets more attacks. I do think the barbarian should be able to get at least 1 more attack since he is on par with a half caster (or in the case of the bard and a blade singer a full caster even). But the fighter should be able to do more things then just "I attack" Battlemaster and EK sure help with that, but I don't think spells should be the be all end all answer to having options. I would very much welcome a ToB like system for martials.

On the other end wizards will always be a problem. At a certain point wizards will have that one tool for every situation.

I concur that Wish has to go (the current drawback of %chance to never be able to cast it again is too harsh IMO) and to instead just include an anyspell of sorts.

I do think that the wizard sorceror discrepancy has been done better this time: the wizards has lots of toys, the sorcerer can use its toys in more and interesting ways.

[T0pH4t]

I concur that Wish has to go (the current drawback of %chance to never be able to cast it again is too harsh IMO) and to instead just include an anyspell of sorts.

I never thought of an "anyspell" before!
When you say that, is it basically a mimic of any spell the Wizard can cast? Or is it broader than that? Maybe Wish can be replaced with a versatile tool.



I do think that the wizard sorceror discrepancy has been done better this time: the wizards has lots of toys, the sorcerer can use its toys in more and interesting ways.

Correct me if I'm wrong.
Are you saying that MetaMagic should be a sorceror only thing? Maybe the class can be re-defined around this, and then the draw to being a sorceror isn't necessarily "I have more spells," but "I can cast Fireball that does sonic damage. FEEL THE WRATH OF THE POWER CHORD!"

Maybe this restriction is what's needed to balance Wizards with Sorcerors.
Restriction breeds Creativity!

[Mongobear]

I would like to know what an ideal form of D&D would look like, and if it would be possible to let players do powerful things while minimizing ultra-Charger/Wish-Monger/ha-ha-fighters-suck things.


Personally, I think 5e is VERY close to having it right. There is just so little of it out compared to 3.X or even 4e to make a fair comparison.

If they introduce sourcebook for 5e that introduce actual "Magic Item Economies" as well as balanced ways to play non-standard races, like an Ogre, Minotaur, and other big nasty type monsters, I think 5e may become the best edition yet.



Starting with Classes, what do we want them to do?


I think the way 5e splits each class into sub-classes/archetypes is a good start, but many of them are just so much weaker than others (Champion vs Battlemaster, for example) and there just arent a lot of options, most classes only having 2 or 3 subclasses. If they would expand upon this, and bump it up to say 5ish archetypes for each class, as well as introduce base classes from older editions in a 5e equivalency, the number of options would be well suited to most any group.



Next, gear. Should exotic weapons exist, or is being straight up better than martial weapons a no-no? What about alchemists fire and the like? Should they scale with level, or is that a bad idea? Is 5e right about magic items, minimizing them, or was the pursuit of gear in 3.5 the pinnacle of magic item use in RPG? What's up with supplemental guides?


Exotic Weapons I can see being a thing, if there is a way to make it worth actually using. With 5e's ASI/Feat system, it is often hard to justify taking any Feat outside of the -5/+10 or Quality of Life ones (Dual Weilder, War Caster, etc).

If they were baked into Backgrounds/Racial choice, or have skill/gear proficiency become a sub-system of its own to allow exotic weapons to exist, then I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Alchemical substances I think are fine where they are, they were never really meant to be something used past the arly stages in past editions. Maybe having a slightly buffed form at a higher price would be fine, like 5x the cost for double damage.

I think Magic items need to be slightly tweaked to be closer to 3.X's way of things, but not to the extremes where your character was almost defined by its gear, not the class/feats/choices you made. Also, the Attunement system needs looked at, imo. I think the higher level you are, the more items you should be able to utilize via attunement, or even introduce a way to "bond" with an item, eventually being able to use it without being attuned to it, since you're so familiar with it, or have just had it forever.

That's my $.02 atleast, thoughts? Rebuttals?

[Socratov]

I never thought of an "anyspell" before!
When you say that, is it basically a mimic of any spell the Wizard can cast? Or is it broader than that? Maybe Wish can be replaced with a versatile tool.

yes. It should. yes it should be a wizard only spell since versatality is exactly the wizard's schtick. The ask for stuff and get it because magic part of wish has made DM's groan for ages and introduced lawyering into the game in such a way that it's pretty much unplayable and becomes an exchange between player and DM that wouldn't be amiss in the Disney Corp boardroom. And I don't hink that does the game any good. Save it for the Efreeti.


Correct me if I'm wrong.
Are you saying that MetaMagic should be a sorceror only thing? Maybe the class can be re-defined around this, and then the draw to being a sorceror isn't necessarily "I have more spells," but "I can cast Fireball that does sonic damage. FEEL THE WRATH OF THE POWER CHORD!"

Maybe this restriction is what's needed to balance Wizards with Sorcerors.
Restriction breeds Creativity!

Again, in a word. yes. yes I think the sorcerer should have monopoly on metamagic.

Let's compare it to instruments (since that's the easiest comparison) I see a wizard as a concerto pianist. He knows his scales, with tome preparation he can practise to play a flawless Chopin concert, but once in a while a certain Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart comes along who takes the music and turns it into something it has never been before. That Mozart, right there, is the prodigy, he is the person who by nature picks up on the music and has the ability to not just play and create in the line he has played, but actually create a new paradigm. In terms of magic, that is what Metamagic is for: to change the ways magic works and to turn it to new and interesting ways. Ways a Wizard will never turn to because that is not how it should work, let alone how he was taught it should work.

To balance it out the Sorceror should know less spells and be able to cast them more often.

[Anonymouswizard]

Right, to give my view on the questions raised by the OP.


Starting with Classes, what do we want them to do?

Throw them into a furnace and never look back. Classes very rarely add anything to a game, arguably balance, but I've found that they don't actually push people towards archetypes more than point-buy does.


Next, gear. Should exotic weapons exist, or is being straight up better than martial weapons a no-no?

The problem started at martial weapons. Let's go back to the 2e approach where weapons are just 'weapons' you can decide to put your proficiencies into.


What about alchemists fire and the like?

Really couldn't care less. I've seen grenadelikes appear twice in a game (once in D&D, and now again in GURPS), and unless a character is built around them is boils down to 'is this going to be better than swinging my sword'. So, either bring in more support for them, or just leave them out.


Should they scale with level, or is that a bad idea?

Weapons? Not scale with level, but scale with skill, so a character who invests a lot into that sword can slice raindrops.


Is 5e right about magic items, minimizing them, or was the pursuit of gear in 3.5 the pinnacle of magic item use in RPG?

5e is better, but not right. Since moving from primarily playing D&D I haven't noticed magic items missing. Now playing in a common magic world, I'm appreciating the uniqueness that the magic items bring to characters, but it's all treated the same as our guns and gas masks (my enchanted cloak is actually mainly used to keep warm and not to resist damage, and the Skaven has a few replacements for normal gear, but that's it and we mainly work with tech). I'd say if anything D&D has to embrace more tech than it does, having a rather weird set of weapons, but that's a personal preference.


What's up with supplemental guides?

No clue, and I don't really care, the last supplement I bought was actually a few 2e settings (and the latest supplement in my collection is for Qin, not D&D). I really don't care about character options beyond the core 80% of the time, because if I don't want that kind of game, why am I playing that game? My latest character is specifically a very PhB-focused archer ranger, playing into the 'tribal' idea Barbarians come with, specifically a grasslands tribe.

[T0pH4t]

Exotic Weapons I can see being a thing, if there is a way to make it worth actually using. With 5e's ASI/Feat system, it is often hard to justify taking any Feat outside of the -5/+10 or Quality of Life ones (Dual Weilder, War Caster, etc).

If they were baked into Backgrounds/Racial choice, or have skill/gear proficiency become a sub-system of its own to allow exotic weapons to exist, then I wouldn't have a problem with it.

That could work as a way to make certain races more desirable for martial characters, but then there's an issues of DMs not giving you the weapon you built your character around (worthless complaint with a very nice DM). Maybe certain backgrounds give you proficiencies with odd weapons, like Noble or Veteran? Alternatively you could say it takes X number of days to become proficient with a weapon, and you use down-time to accomplish that.





I think Magic items need to be slightly tweaked to be closer to 3.X's way of things, but not to the extremes where your character was almost defined by its gear, not the class/feats/choices you made. Also, the Attunement system needs looked at, imo. I think the higher level you are, the more items you should be able to utilize via attunement, or even introduce a way to "bond" with an item, eventually being able to use it without being attuned to it, since you're so familiar with it, or have just had it forever.

I think the Attunement system is a great way to get rid of the "halo of Ioun stones makes me indestructible" issue. Also, with the drop rate of 5e, you shouldn't have more than three Attunement level items. Maybe every five levels you get an additional Attunment slot, until you're level 15 and you just have 3? It would help make the party split magic items easily.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I put some thought into it (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?291015-quot-Tome-of-D-amp-D-quot-maneuvers-for-everything!), as I think a lot of us have. My solution was to use something like the Tome of Battle for all classes. Every class would get one unique school of maneuvers/spells/powers, as well as four common ones and a set of unique passive abilities. The trick would be to make sure that individual powers were more interesting than "I attack some targets and maybe inflict some status condition," as 4e so often seemed to do. Classes would also have distinct mechanisms for recovering expended powers, to hopefully add to their unique-ness.

A Barbarian, say, would have a unique Strength track and some generic Unarmed, TWF, Skirmishing and Two-Handed Fighting tracks. They'd regain expended powers by damaging or killing their foes, but they'd never know that many. His class features would be things like shrugging off conditions and surviving in the wild. A Wizard, on the other hand, would have a unique Conjuration track and four generic magic tracks of his choice. He'd have to stop mid-combat and study his spellbook to regain expended powers, but he'd know a lot. His class features would include things like scholarship and a familiar.

The tracks themselves would be sorted into tiers, roughly matching tiers of play: realistic, over-the-top, and superheroic. T1 powers would be things like Scorching Ray, Fog Cloud, damage-and-ignore-hardness or Rage. T2 powers would be would include tactical teleports, automatically hitting with a single arrow, or wrestling giants. T3 powers would cover things like teleporting or leaping long distances or firing arrows that track people across a city and around corners.


Apart from class subsystems (because there aren't any classes), all of those things are easier and/or more available in GURPS than in any version of D&D. One of the fundamental limitations of a class-based game is that it's not as flexible in terms of possible characters that can be created (including their magic items). D&D also suffers in terms of verisimilitude because of the way combat in abstracted in terms of AC vs. to hit and hit points increasing per level.
I kind of disagree, actually. Because abilities are much more segregated in a class-based game, I think you potentially have a lot more freedom when it comes to designing mechanical abilities. You can treat different classes as different entities that use the rules in very different ways-- 3.5 proved that, I think.

[Mara]

A perfect edition runs faster, is well balanced, can handle a variety of actions, and had interesting character building.

3.5 was slow, poorly balanced, simulated a lot, and had the most interesting character building mechanics.

4e was middle speed, well balanced, simulated a lot, but the build mechanics were boring.

5e is fast, well balanced, sort'of simulates a lot, but the character builds are pretty boring even if the mechanics are cool.

I don't even like 4e, but based on this analyses 4e was the closest to what I wanted. 3.x may be the most fixable. 5e just lacks rules and really can't be fixed. It is what it is for better or worse.

[Lines]

A perfect edition runs faster, is well balanced, can handle a variety of actions, and had interesting character building.

3.5 was slow, poorly balanced, simulated a lot, and had the most interesting character building mechanics.

4e was middle speed, well balanced, simulated a lot, but the build mechanics were boring.

5e is fast, well balanced, sort'of simulates a lot, but the character builds are pretty boring even if the mechanics are cool.

I don't even like 4e, but based on this analyses 4e was the closest to what I wanted. 3.x may be the most fixable. 5e just lacks rules and really can't be fixed. It is what it is for better or worse.

I'd give 4e a lot lower score on simulationism (seriously it didn't even try to be simulationist, heaps of monsters had 1 HP, nobody had real spellcasting) because it traded that in for far better balance and tactical play.

And then I'd give it a far higher score on actual gameplay - they managed to make combat (at least once they got the maths right and the fights stopped being so slow) really fun, in a way 5e can't emulate. 5e just flat out doesn't have the tactical options to have fights be nearly as interesting as they were in 4e.

[Mara]

Yeah and I no longer buy 5e's improvised action excuse. The system sends to depend on the DM balancing things at the table. Skills, combat maneuvers, summons, magic items, ect.

5e succeeds at being the must rules light. Woo?

[Lines]

Yeah and I no longer buy 5e's improvised action excuse. The system sends to depend on the DM balancing things at the table. Skills, combat maneuvers, summons, magic items, ect.

5e succeeds at being the must rules light. Woo?

To be fair, the improvised action thing could have been a very useful tool if they had actually spent a few pages giving proper guidelines.

[Mara]

To be fair, the improvised action thing could have been a very useful tool if they had actually spent a few pages giving proper guidelines.Which the DMG has. But it just isn't enough and the ideology spreads to unnecessary parts of the game, like summoning...

[Grod_The_Giant]

Yeah and I no longer buy 5e's improvised action excuse. The system sends to depend on the DM balancing things at the table. Skills, combat maneuvers, summons, magic items, ect.

5e succeeds at being the must rules light. Woo?
"Rules light" doesn't mean "missing rules," though. Fate doesn't try to tell you how Stealth works compared to Athletics, but it discusses the four actions you can do with your skills and what the results mean. Good rules light games give you a good framework to work with, generic rules that are easy to adapt to all circumstances-- and tells you how to use them. 5e really doesn't do that, which is why it's starting to really but me. It's not really rules light. It's rules medium with significant gaps. The rules for combat (most of them, at least) are quite fleshed out-- spells, class abilities, feats and so on all work in very definite ways, and are usually very specific and unique. There's a lot more detail there than I've ever seen in a real rules-light game like Fudge/Fate, Risus, or my own STaRS. It just doesn't really give rules for much noncombat stuff, or tell you how to use the skill and tool rules that it does. Just a set of generic difficulty adjectives.

[T0pH4t]

My solution was to use something like the Tome of Battle for all classes. Every class would get one unique school of maneuvers/spells/powers, as well as four common ones and a set of unique passive abilities.

This sounds awesome!
It makes everyone feel like a caster (in the sense that everyone has epic powers).
Balancing would be difficult, and you do end up eliminating a few of the base classes (paladin/ranger we knew ye well...), but if a slim down is what D&D needs, then that's what it needs.

Actually, could you get rid of a few of the base classes? Then there's less pressure on making each class more unique, because you have more design space to fill (not sure if that's the official lingo, but hey, I;m not a game dev). I think you would need at least 8-10 classes, but that might be high. What do you think? What is the necessary number of base classes for a decent character building experience?

[Grod_The_Giant]

This sounds awesome!
It makes everyone feel like a caster (in the sense that everyone has epic powers).
Balancing would be difficult, and you do end up eliminating a few of the base classes (paladin/ranger we knew ye well...), but if a slim down is what D&D needs, then that's what it needs.
As I see it, it's probably easier to balance when everyone has the same basic structure and progression, even if the individual abilities are different. It's easier to balance maneuver verses maneuver than spell verses class feature verses soulmeld, after all. I did wound up getting rid of the Paladin and Ranger in place of expanded multi-classing rules (basically average out the chassis and pick a subset of schools from both classes), but that was more out of "couldn't think of a good unique school" and excitement about multiclassing than anything else. (Ranger could potentially get something like Animal Friendship, while Paladin... I gave Fighters Leadership, so maybe "Smiting" or some such junk?)


Actually, could you get rid of a few of the base classes? Then there's less pressure on making each class more unique, because you have more design space to fill (not sure if that's the official lingo, but hey, I;m not a game dev). I think you would need at least 8-10 classes, but that might be high. What do you think? What is the necessary number of base classes for a decent character building experience?
Eh, base classes were winding up in kind of a weird space, design-wise. In many ways there wasn't much need for them-- you could pick five schools and pass out passive chassis-type abilities every so many levels from a single unified list (ie, at first level you could choose from things like Divine Favor, a Familiar, Favored Enemy, and so on), and suchlike. BAB/BMB/save/HD/skill point chassis could be essentially point-buy, and you could do something similar with maneuvers known/maneuvers per encounter/recovery mechanism. You'd probably have a hard time including really flavorful approaches, though. But still, I guess the answer to your question is "zero," if you push it. The issue there, of course, is that D&D is synonymous with classes, for most people.

[T0pH4t]

Eh, base classes were winding up in kind of a weird space, design-wise. In many ways there wasn't much need for them-- you could pick five schools and pass out passive chassis-type abilities every so many levels from a single unified list (ie, at first level you could choose from things like Divine Favor, a Familiar, Favored Enemy, and so on), and suchlike. BAB/BMB/save/HD/skill point chassis could be essentially point-buy, and you could do something similar with maneuvers known/maneuvers per encounter/recovery mechanism. You'd probably have a hard time including really flavorful approaches, though. But still, I guess the answer to your question is "zero," if you push it. The issue there, of course, is that D&D is synonymous with classes, for most people.

Removing classes would be really weird...
The question then is wether or not it's still D&D. RPG's tend to be class based as a rule, though rules were meant to be broken. A point buy system for everything from hit dice to skills sound wonderfully unstructured, but that much freedom could lead to really generic/OP characters. Zero base classes is probably a step too far, but it's an interesting idea. Maybe not for D&D, but a new system entirely could come out of that!

[Grod_The_Giant]

Removing classes would be really weird...
The question then is wether or not it's still D&D. RPG's tend to be class based as a rule, though rules were meant to be broken. A point buy system for everything from hit dice to skills sound wonderfully unstructured, but that much freedom could lead to really generic/OP characters. Zero base classes is probably a step too far, but it's an interesting idea. Maybe not for D&D, but a new system entirely could come out of that!
I feel like that's not the case anymore (if ever). D&D is I think one of two I'm not familiar with that has more than vague guidelines along those lines. (And the other is directly based on D&D).

By point buy, I meant more like "you can have good/bad, medium/medium, or bad/good."