I keep seeing posts about how close we are to seeing 5e coming out, so I’m wondering what people think it will be like? What can they do to make it significantly different from 4e to qualify as a new edition?
IMO we won’t be seeing 5e for a long while still (years, I'd say). I think the biggest change we’ll see from all this rescheduling is a directional shift to near full digital content, as has been previously stated on the boards. Maybe I'm wrong. Regardless, I’m curious what others think 5e will be like.
Sorry, not happening anytime soon.
5E will be announced earliest Fall 2012 or later.
Yeah, as I said in my OP I personally think 5e won't happen for a long while.
But since there are people who believe that all the current problems with D&D are pointing to a 5e release in the near future, I'm just wondering what innovations the next edition might bring and what differences will be significant enough to call it a separate edition.
More of a speculative, just curious kind of post about ideas the community might have for a new edition.
Then I see a continuation of pre-E 4E. With the advent of power sources being the classes. builds being what classes are in 4E. So you would have your martial class, after that you'd then choose a build say "fighter" which would come with class features. Then you would choose powers that would be enhanced by your class features.
I also see everything going to CCG. Races, Race features, Classes, Class features, powers, feats, backgrounds, items, monsters, traps, etc...
I keep seeing posts about how close we are to seeing 5e coming out,
And unless these people have crystal balls that actually work, said posts are complete bullcrap, of course.
What I would like to see in 5e are Class Features that modify powers and the powers coming from the power source itself. Something like "Rangers can pick martial and primal powers, and get X bonus when using those powers." And then have Rangers pick from class features that boost a control aspect, leader aspect, or a striker aspect.
Of course, this is all speculation. What I would really like to see is 4e keep going for another 6 years or so and end with its customers statisfied with their experience with it, but ready for something new and different.
I keep seeing posts about how close we are to seeing 5e coming out,
And unless these people have crystal balls that actually work, said posts are complete bullcrap, of course.
Didn't that come in the Red Box?
If old ideas don't ressurface worse than in Essentials I'd like to see a move to a per-encounter basis with Healing Surges being the only daily ressource (and maybe Magic item powers).
Yeah I know... we'll get the same whiner wanting their 'multiple level of ressource management' back like they got in Essential (or the 'I want my Wizard to be awesomer than the Fighter' crowd IMO)... but I say screw 'em!
I like to have a unified system for classes so that you can easily grasp what a specific one does! Is that so wrong?
I'd like them to better define Arcane, its way too wide and would make it WAY too versatile, giving classes with the Arcane source (under Timmeh's system) an advantage when it comes to flexibility. Arcane should be split from Elemental and Shadow in more than just mechanical term but in Fluff too. Find a darn source for it!
That way having Arcane/X as power source makes X really matter.
I also would like the math to work right off the bat, so that you don't need +X items, making even a +1 at level 30 a fun perk. I would like a build point system for magic item (where traits and enchant are worth specific number of points) so that PCs can be limited fairly but still be allowed to tailor some of their items to their liking, like PCs can only buy items with a build of Xpoints, then they can make items of Xpoints+Level+Feat bonus+Class bonus (so crafters can specialize and mean something) and the DM can hand out items worth whatever he wants. This would make items both PC and DM ressources, with some enchantment that would be out of PCs hands until fairly late in level but fair game for the DM whenever he feels like wowing the players. Traits could have effects when stacked so you could increase the power level if you wanted.
I would also use a daily attunement system so there is no possible shenanigan like high level PCs owning hundreds of Veterans Armor (for exemple) to abuse powers.
And unless these people have crystal balls that actually work, said posts are complete bullcrap, of course.
Hey! Who needs a crystal ball when you have astrology charts? If you check the alignment of the stars then it is quite clear that 4ed is finished now. *checks the news* Huh so the zodiac signs are off....I guess that could explain why my charts are telling me that my love life is going to boom. If I adjust for the proper values, then I get "You shall never be loved, give up now." Okay that sounds right.
Regardless of the chances (or rather lack thereof) of 5e coming up this soon, its still fun to speculate on what it might entail so try to cheer up guys and just let loose with your ideas.
Are you sure your not a WotC R&D in disguise? Getting our view on what we want to see in 5e?
The largest problem I've seen with 4E has been the mounting number of conflicts between different rules elements. Feats cause problems with powers, which cause problems with magic items, etc. I think 5E should keep the "powers" concept, but design things to be a little more contained.
---------------------
My personal suggestion is to give each class fewer powers, but then give each power a "tree" that would allow the player to "level up" their powers as they progress in level. For example, a fighter chooses the at-will power Cleave at 1st level. At 3rd level, the fighter can "upgrade" Cleave by choosing from a list of extra qualities (say, 1) extra Dex damage, 2) extra secondary damage, or 3) additional secondary target). Then at level 5, the fighter gets another "upgrade."
This approach could have several variations. For instance, some of the upgrades could be static (bonus +2 to hit, extra 1[W] damage). Some upgrades could be limited to once per encounter or once per day. The goal is that instead of having 15 powers, each character has 4 or 5 that can be used in a number of different ways. Not only would this improve the efficiency of a higher-level character, but it would provide fewer total design elements, and thus fewer potential conflicts. A Dragon article about fighters could feature two power "trees," rather than 15 new powers, each rife with potential conflicts.
Just a thought. I've been toying with the idea of writing up a basic power using this format, just to give people a better idea of what I'm talking about.
Regardless of the chances (or rather lack thereof) of 5e coming up this soon, its still fun to speculate on what it might entail so try to cheer up guys and just let loose with your ideas.
Are you sure your not a WotC R&D in disguise? Getting our view on what we want to see in 5e?
Ah! I wish. You'd be able to play Horseshoecrabfolks by now if I was :p
(I've discussed my 5E ideas on other threads, so sorry if you've read this before).
The largest problem I've seen with 4E has been the mounting number of conflicts between different rules elements. Feats cause problems with powers, which cause problems with magic items, etc. I think 5E should keep the "powers" concept, but design things to be a little more contained.
---------------------
My personal suggestion is to give each class fewer powers, but then give each power a "tree" that would allow the player to "level up" their powers as they progress in level. For example, a fighter chooses the at-will power Cleave at 1st level. At 3rd level, the fighter can "upgrade" Cleave by choosing from a list of extra qualities (say, 1) extra Dex damage, 2) extra secondary damage, or 3) additional secondary target). Then at level 5, the fighter gets another "upgrade."
This approach could have several variations. For instance, some of the upgrades could be static (bonus +2 to hit, extra 1[W] damage). Some upgrades could be limited to once per encounter or once per day. The goal is that instead of having 15 powers, each character has 4 or 5 that can be used in a number of different ways. Not only would this improve the efficiency of a higher-level character, but it would provide fewer total design elements, and thus fewer potential conflicts. A Dragon article about fighters could feature two power "trees," rather than 15 new powers, each rife with potential conflicts.
Just a thought. I've been toying with the idea of writing up a basic power using this format, just to give people a better idea of what I'm talking about.
Ive been working on similar designs, and honestly would love to see something more like this in play. Though it also tends to scream to be power-gamed into confusing messes, which is why I have never gotten around to finding a working version.
I'm a firm believer in this sort of management, however, I do not give any credence to these rumors.
I keep seeing posts about how close we are to seeing 5e coming out,
And unless these people have crystal balls that actually work, said posts are complete bullcrap, of course.
My dog has crystal balls... Well, after we had him done, we thought he could do with some replacements.
(Joke)
-- I see the Skills being revamped, jettisoning the "Trained VS Suck" mechanic. I like the PF hybrid myself.
-- The return of DC's for the use of skills, jettisoning the level scale skill tables.
-- Wizards or any other class will not have the "fire and forget" for any spells he has. Hot casting choices will be done instead, with the need to review spell-books at each extended rest. (Or have to use the last spell used if his spell-books is unavailable)
-- Each class will have it's own progression table (Essentials already is doing this) while Feat and Stat bonuses having their own table at the beginning.
-- most of the half level addition will be folded into the tables for the classes or be done differently than how 4th edition just let it be.
This is just off the top of my head.
4e is here for a while, and when 5e comes out there will be another edition argument and people pretending to quit forever and yada yada yada. they rode 3e/3.5e went from 2000-2008,
point is its profitable to keep with 4e, so dont hold your breath
5e is at least 5-6 years away i mean this was released in what 2008? and they have been working like all heck to build ddi, with bad decision making in alot of things but lets not get into that here, but like it or not 4e works more people play D&D now then ever and its more profitable now. they released essentials and love em or hate em they sold.
4e is here for a while, and when 5e comes out there will be another edition argument and people pretending to quit forever and yada yada yada. they rode 3e/3.5e went from 2000-2008,
point is its profitable to keep with 4e, so dont hold your breath
The thing you have to remember is they weren't part of Hasbro with part of 3E (IIRC). They moved to 4E after they were acquired, thus Hasbro may be the one forcing their hand. Something along the lines of when your profit margin falls by X amount you need to create a new edition to boost sales... Just theory, but it could happen...
5e is at least 5-6 years away i mean this was released in what 2008? and they have been working like all heck to build ddi, with bad decision making in alot of things but lets not get into that here, but like it or not 4e works more people play D&D now then ever and its more profitable now. they released essentials and love em or hate em they sold.
4e is here for a while, and when 5e comes out there will be another edition argument and people pretending to quit forever and yada yada yada. they rode 3e/3.5e went from 2000-2008,
point is its profitable to keep with 4e, so dont hold your breath
That's all nice and good but its not the point of the thread, not really.
I keep seeing posts about how close we are to seeing 5e coming out,
And unless these people have crystal balls that actually work, said posts are complete bullcrap, of course.
I have a glass eye, is that close enough?
My point is, how different does the game have to be from the original game to classify as a new edition? I consider Essentials onward 4.5, and some people agree with me, but because it doesn't have an edition number on the box, many people dispute that it actually constitutes a change in editions. Where exactly do you draw the line? Do we have to be playing half-dragon Dire Werewolf Martial Controller Fighter/Rangers with stackable enchantments on his +7 Chain Shirt, or is it just about having the words "5th edition" on the cover (or webpage header)?
.
.
.
Anyway, all I want to see is a multiclassing system that doesn't suck. I.e. one that's more like hybriding, but doesn't require a feat tax or a newb trap paragon option to get class features.
The thing is, making the DMs role easier, customizing while safeguarding gaming balance, and streamlining mechanics to be 'as simple as possible but not simpler', are already 4e design goals. Introducing updates to continue these 4e goals just makes it more of a 4e system.
Yes; but why can't these be goals of a 5e system? There can be a 5e system that can make character concepts easier to make but also as simple as possible. But there are things that developers will be unwilling to do to 4e, things that would require an entire edition change or an actual 4.5 reprint in order to be successful.
The thing is, making the DMs role easier, customizing while safeguarding gaming balance, and streamlining mechanics to be 'as simple as possible but not simpler', are already 4e design goals. Introducing updates to continue these 4e goals just makes it more of a 4e system.
Yes; but why can't these be goals of a 5e system?
Because 5e is less profitable.
The introduction of a new edition, cant benefit from the 'status quo' 'incumbant' effect, where customers and existing infrastructure are already established, authoritative, and in place for 4e.
Worse, a new edition so soon would shake the confidence in the D&D label. I know it would shake my confidence. Worse, if I didnt like changes the made in 5e, I would probably look at other gaming brands or even design my own system.
In 3e, there was widespread dissatisfaction with the 3e system. For example, when GenCon designers announced they were doing away with vancian spellcasting, the audience erupted into thunderous applause. People were ready for 4e - and even then the transition has been costly because of dividing the customer base.
5e too soon is unlikely to make money. Not enough people want it, and too many people enjoy 4e, and it would only further divide the customer base.
There can be a 5e system that can make character concepts easier to make but also as simple as possible. But there are things that developers will be unwilling to do to 4e, things that would require an entire edition change or an actual 4.5 reprint in order to be successful.
Specify EXACTLY what changes you would like to see. Maybe I wouldnt like those changes, maybe I would. If most people like them, and WotC knows there is widespread approval, then WotC can update 4e to do them. Even if a significant minority likes it, 4e can incorporate the change as part of the Unearthed Arcana variants.
I would like to see 5e allow the mixing of power sources. You can see how 4e's run into a bit of a pickle with Martial/Divine (Strength Paladins/Strength Clerics/Runepriests), Martial/Primal (Barbarian/Rangers/Seekers) with some classes that are obviously mixes being dropped into one or the other. I think you'll also see a lot of changes with the Arcane power source; there's a lot of things that fit into Arcane, but it's difficult to release stuff for every class.
What I would like to see in 5e are Class Features that modify powers and the powers coming from the power source itself. Something like "Rangers can pick martial and primal powers, and get X bonus when using those powers." And then have Rangers pick from class features that boost a control aspect, leader aspect, or a striker aspect.
Of course, this is all speculation. What I would really like to see is 4e keep going for another 6 years or so and end with its customers statisfied with their experience with it, but ready for something new and different.
I think that Essentials tried to do this within the current 4e system; but it ran into problems with flexibility. Having everything be a basic attack that is passively enhanced by a class feature and actively enhanced through an encounter utility was just too rigid for most of the 4e crowd. Instead, I'd have a wide array of "Martial Powers", "Divine Powers", etc. With many common archetypes being mixtures of power sources, you could have these Archetypes have class features that embody those Archetypes.
For instance, Rangers could pick Martial Powers and Primal Powers. They might have a "Hunter's Quarry" kind of class feature, that would add a striker mechanic. They might have a "Beast Companion" that might add a sort of leadership or controller aspect. All rangers might choose between a feature with heavy flavor on Martial skill, or one with Primal guidance.
The benefits of a system like this is that you could have wider array of powers open to many classes without losing uniqueness between classes. Are there things I haven't thought of that might cause problems with this kind of system? Sure. But I'm pretty sure that if built upon by an intelligent group of R&D experts, this kind of system would be easier to use and cover a broader array of archetypes without the need for massive support coming down the line (for instance, "I need Seeker + Artificer + Runepriest support" would likely not be a huge issue, unless if those classes got poor class features).
(my first post on this thread, which I believe answers a lot of Haldrik's response to my previous posts)
I would like to see 5e allow the mixing of power sources. You can see how 4e's run into a bit of a pickle with Martial/Divine (Strength Paladins/Strength Clerics/Runepriests), Martial/Primal (Barbarian/Rangers/Seekers) with some classes that are obviously mixes being dropped into one or the other. I think you'll also see a lot of changes with the Arcane power source; there's a lot of things that fit into Arcane, but it's difficult to release stuff for every class.
What I would like to see in 5e are Class Features that modify powers and the powers coming from the power source itself. Something like "Rangers can pick martial and primal powers, and get X bonus when using those powers." And then have Rangers pick from class features that boost a control aspect, leader aspect, or a striker aspect.
Of course, this is all speculation. What I would really like to see is 4e keep going for another 6 years or so and end with its customers statisfied with their experience with it, but ready for something new and different.
I think that Essentials tried to do this within the current 4e system; but it ran into problems with flexibility. Having everything be a basic attack that is passively enhanced by a class feature and actively enhanced through an encounter utility was just too rigid for most of the 4e crowd. Instead, I'd have a wide array of "Martial Powers", "Divine Powers", etc. With many common archetypes being mixtures of power sources, you could have these Archetypes have class features that embody those Archetypes.
For instance, Rangers could pick Martial Powers and Primal Powers. They might have a "Hunter's Quarry" kind of class feature, that would add a striker mechanic. They might have a "Beast Companion" that might add a sort of leadership or controller aspect. All rangers might choose between a feature with heavy flavor on Martial skill, or one with Primal guidance.
The benefits of a system like this is that you could have wider array of powers open to many classes without losing uniqueness between classes. Are there things I haven't thought of that might cause problems with this kind of system? Sure. But I'm pretty sure that if built upon by an intelligent group of R&D experts, this kind of system would be easier to use and cover a broader array of archetypes without the need for massive support coming down the line (for instance, "I need Seeker + Artificer + Runepriest support" would likely not be a huge issue, unless if those classes got poor class features).
wow. Good lord.
(my first post on this thread, which I believe answers a lot of Haldrik's response to my previous posts)
I would like to see 5e allow the mixing of power sources. You can see how 4e's run into a bit of a pickle with Martial/Divine (Strength Paladins/Strength Clerics/Runepriests), Martial/Primal (Barbarian/Rangers/Seekers) with some classes that are obviously mixes being dropped into one or the other. I think you'll also see a lot of changes with the Arcane power source; there's a lot of things that fit into Arcane, but it's difficult to release stuff for every class.
What I would like to see in 5e are Class Features that modify powers and the powers coming from the power source itself. Something like "Rangers can pick martial and primal powers, and get X bonus when using those powers." And then have Rangers pick from class features that boost a control aspect, leader aspect, or a striker aspect.
Of course, this is all speculation. What I would really like to see is 4e keep going for another 6 years or so and end with its customers statisfied with their experience with it, but ready for something new and different.
I think that Essentials tried to do this within the current 4e system; but it ran into problems with flexibility. Having everything be a basic attack that is passively enhanced by a class feature and actively enhanced through an encounter utility was just too rigid for most of the 4e crowd. Instead, I'd have a wide array of "Martial Powers", "Divine Powers", etc. With many common archetypes being mixtures of power sources, you could have these Archetypes have class features that embody those Archetypes.
For instance, Rangers could pick Martial Powers and Primal Powers. They might have a "Hunter's Quarry" kind of class feature, that would add a striker mechanic. They might have a "Beast Companion" that might add a sort of leadership or controller aspect. All rangers might choose between a feature with heavy flavor on Martial skill, or one with Primal guidance.
The benefits of a system like this is that you could have wider array of powers open to many classes without losing uniqueness between classes. Are there things I haven't thought of that might cause problems with this kind of system? Sure. But I'm pretty sure that if built upon by an intelligent group of R&D experts, this kind of system would be easier to use and cover a broader array of archetypes without the need for massive support coming down the line (for instance, "I need Seeker + Artificer + Runepriest support" would likely not be a huge issue, unless if those classes got poor class features).
wow. Good lord.
What? Oh wait. I forgot to add in some high school-ness to it didn't I? Ummm.. I think 4e is cheating on D&D with ESSENTIALS!
(my first post on this thread, which I believe answers a lot of Haldrik's response to my previous posts)
I would like to see 5e allow the mixing of power sources. You can see how 4e's run into a bit of a pickle with Martial/Divine (Strength Paladins/Strength Clerics/Runepriests), Martial/Primal (Barbarian/Rangers/Seekers) with some classes that are obviously mixes being dropped into one or the other. I think you'll also see a lot of changes with the Arcane power source; there's a lot of things that fit into Arcane, but it's difficult to release stuff for every class.
What I would like to see in 5e are Class Features that modify powers and the powers coming from the power source itself. Something like "Rangers can pick martial and primal powers, and get X bonus when using those powers." And then have Rangers pick from class features that boost a control aspect, leader aspect, or a striker aspect.
Of course, this is all speculation. What I would really like to see is 4e keep going for another 6 years or so and end with its customers statisfied with their experience with it, but ready for something new and different.
I think that Essentials tried to do this within the current 4e system; but it ran into problems with flexibility. Having everything be a basic attack that is passively enhanced by a class feature and actively enhanced through an encounter utility was just too rigid for most of the 4e crowd. Instead, I'd have a wide array of "Martial Powers", "Divine Powers", etc. With many common archetypes being mixtures of power sources, you could have these Archetypes have class features that embody those Archetypes.
For instance, Rangers could pick Martial Powers and Primal Powers. They might have a "Hunter's Quarry" kind of class feature, that would add a striker mechanic. They might have a "Beast Companion" that might add a sort of leadership or controller aspect. All rangers might choose between a feature with heavy flavor on Martial skill, or one with Primal guidance.
The benefits of a system like this is that you could have wider array of powers open to many classes without losing uniqueness between classes. Are there things I haven't thought of that might cause problems with this kind of system? Sure. But I'm pretty sure that if built upon by an intelligent group of R&D experts, this kind of system would be easier to use and cover a broader array of archetypes without the need for massive support coming down the line (for instance, "I need Seeker + Artificer + Runepriest support" would likely not be a huge issue, unless if those classes got poor class features).
wow. Good lord.
What? Oh wait. I forgot to add in some high school-ness to it didn't I? Ummm.. I think 4e is cheating on D&D with ESSENTIALS!
Well, technically, we established you are in college. So, with all this time on your hands to come up with such an astounding game theory, perhaps you should move from a BA of the arts (I'm thinking Classical Civilization or Dance) to a BA of mathematics with a focus on Game Theory.
Actually, I'm majoring in Political Science with a completed minor of Mathematics.
I would like to see ...
... '5e allow the mixing of power sources.'
• 4e already does mix power sources, and theres more to come. Compare the Martial-Primal Ranger, Shadow-Martial Assassin, Shadow-Arcane Necromancer, not to mention multiclass. Especially hybrids, themes, and future build options! So, no need for 5e here.
'What I would like to see in 5e are Class Features that modify powers.'
• 4e already has class features that modify powers. For example, the various Sorcerer class features modify the damage of any powers the chararcter chooses. Pyromancer Wizard does interesting things with Fire powers, original Clerics have a feature that modifies healing powers, various Fighter builds offer features that modify powers, as do Rogue builds, and so on.
• 4e already has mechanics to swap out one class feature for an other, so any class feature is potentially possible.
• 4e even has the 'theme' mechanic to swap a set of class features.
4e can already provide class features that modify powers, so no need for 5e here.
'The powers coming from the power source itself. Something like, 'Rangers can pick martial and primal powers, and get X bonus when using those powers'.'
• Note, paragon paths can already provide powers specific to a power source to any class.
• Importantly, the new theme mechanic can now provide powers like this at the Heroic tier.
• Feats often provide a power to any class, or swap in a power, that depends on the power source, such as Channel Divinity powers. Even multiclass feats are worth mentioning in this context.
4e has several mechanisms to provide various classes with special source powers. So, no need for 5e here.
'And then have Rangers pick from class features that boost a control aspect, leader aspect, or a striker aspect.'
• The ability to build a character to serve multiple roles has been widely available in 4e since day 1.
So no need for 5e here.
'What I would really like to see is 4e keep going for another 6 years or so and end with its customers statisfied with their experience with it, but ready for something new and different.'
• Theres no reason for 4e to ever end. It is an evolving open system, built to intentionally allow for different styles of use. It can keep on going to full virtual reality. 4e can keep on going til the end of time.
'I think that Essentials tried to do this within the current 4e system; but it ran into problems with flexibility. Having everything be a basic attack that is passively enhanced by a class feature and actively enhanced through an encounter utility was just too rigid for most of the 4e crowd.
• I feel the inflexibility of certain essential classes was unwise but intentional. Still, its easy in 4e to allow more options for these classes in the future.
I'd have a wide array of "Martial Powers", "Divine Powers", etc. With many common archetypes being mixtures of power sources, you could have these Archetypes have class features that embody those Archetypes.'
• I also value customizability and personalization. I feel that 4e can already do this to some degree. I feel there is more that 4e can do to further customizability. Themes are interesting. A closer look at hybriding is especially interesting. I agree 4e can benefit with a design philosophy of 'archetypes' (that is, not railroading classes, but 'builds' that are examples for how one might mix-and-match an open choice of modular powers, with minimal prerequisites).
• At the same time, I insist on gaming balance. Modular archetype systems and gaming balance often are conflicting goals because of extreme optimization. As long as the gaming system robustly ensures balance, I want as much customizability as possible.
'The benefits of a system like this is that you could have wider array of powers open to many classes without losing uniqueness between classes.'
• Yes. Yet 4e already has hybriding, and I feel 4e can develope further to make openended customizability even more fluid. For example, 4e can even supply feats or themes that allow a character to cast Wizard spells using Charisma. Or whatever. These are things that the 4e system can already do. If there is interest. And if it is done wisely, in concert with CharOp, to ensure gaming balance. Since 4e can already do this, there is no need for 5e.
And can you really say they've mixed power sources well? Ranger, Seeker, and Hunter. Strength Cleric, Runepriest, and Warpriest. These are all mixes of power sources, but were they really implemented all that well? I would say that they've done it very poorly.
If 5e can combine everything you love about 4e and make it even easier or even outright better, then there is need for 5e. Think about the people who grognard about 4e when they loved 3.5. What do you think they said? They likely said, "We have fun with 3.5, there is no need for 4e!"
Timmeh, what I seem to be hearing from you is, you want more customizability, perhaps even a classless design philosophy. In this, I agree with you. I feel 4e can do more to develop more customizability. But I feel strongly, this is something 4e by itself can do. Hybrid and themes already make class building more fluid and openended. 4e can go much further in this direction, safely, while also ensuring gaming balance.
I think that they would have to throw out quite a bit of stuff of 4e; that even if they still called it 4e, it would only be 4e in name.
I don't want a class-less system; but something a bit more open ended. I think you've got the jist of what I'm saying. I just would like you to get a bit less wedded to the idea that 4e is grand and whatever is coming should stay as 4e. I think that they could do more damage by changing 4e extensively over the next 2-5 years as they could by releasing 5e in 2-5 years.
But 4e isn't the end all greatest thing.
:-) 4e is pretty good.
And can you really say they've mixed power sources well? Ranger, Seeker, and Hunter. Strength Cleric, Runepriest, and Warpriest. These are all mixes of power sources, but were they really implemented all that well? I would say that they've done it very poorly.
Tweaking the existing 4e material is exactly the kind of thing that a 4e can update. Easily. For example, keep the Assassin in mind as a precedent for a class that chooses powers from two different sources. A 4e update can easily go thru every single Cleric Strength power, to determine if any work better as a 'martial' power. Done.
If 5e can combine everything you love about 4e and make it even easier or even outright better, then there is need for 5e. Think about the people who grognard about 4e when they loved 3.5. What do you think they said? They likely said, "We have fun with 3.5, there is no need for 4e!"
But if 4e can already do everything you want, then the costs of creating a new edition are unnecessary and unprofitable.
Timmeh, what I seem to be hearing from you is, you want more customizability, perhaps even a classless design philosophy. In this, I agree with you. I feel 4e can do more to develop more customizability. But I feel strongly, this is something 4e by itself can do. Hybrid and themes already make class building more fluid and openended. 4e can go much further in this direction, safely, while also ensuring gaming balance.
I think that they would have to throw out quite a bit of stuff of 4e; that even if they still called it 4e, it would only be 4e in name.
I don't want a class-less system; but something a bit more open ended. I think you've got the jist of what I'm saying. I just would like you to get a bit less wedded to the idea that 4e is grand and whatever is coming should stay as 4e. I think that they could do more damage by changing 4e extensively over the next 2-5 years as they could by releasing 5e in 2-5 years.
The thing is, 4e can introduce *options* that allow extreme customizability while minimally interfering with the rest of the material. The hybrid system is an example of this.
So, there is no need to 'throw out quite a bit of stuff'. Just like the hybrid system doesnt throw anything out.
The beauty is, 4e is already intrinsically modular. All you have to do is ignore the prerequisites and you have exactly a classless system.
The only problem that exists is safeguarding gaming balance. So, the evolution of increasing customizability is a slow process of negotiation. To come up with clever ways to allow more combinations in ways that dont break balance.
I dont think there are any shortcuts to an openended character-building system. It is a goal that 4e is already striving for, has already surpassed 3e in terms of maintaining balanced combinations. 4e will continue to advance customizability.
Publishing all D&D 4e content online as separate articles, inherently supports and encourages customization.
I want other opinions.Also, I feel you underestimate the benefits of having a tradition.
- Power Methods: Consider this the y to Power Source's x. Alchemy, Inherent, Pact, Planar, Runes, Skill, Study... these are all concepts that can exist in multiple power sources and define classes and bind classes of different sources together. Study classes would all have a spellbook of sorts, while Rune classes would all use the Rune Master stuff. The others I'm a bit more fuzzy on, but they don't all have to mirror each other in that regard. What this does is it allows commonality in prerequisites.
- Acquisitions: Related to your method, often just fighting stuff isn't enough. In order to gain in power, you need to spend time to practice your arts. Alchemy-based classes would need to create an item of their level or higher, Pact classes would need to commune with their pact entity, using healing surges and/or a costly focus item. Study and Rune characters would need to master scrolls and runes of comparable power. The reason being that there would be features that are still locked away when you level, until you achieve the proper level of experience in this regard. This would be an example of "not for everyone;" I guess it'd be one of those things in the DMG as an option. I just think it's neat. Ideally investing money into the process would not be absolutely necessary.
- Masterwork Weapons: Add the Expertise bonus to the proficiency bonus of the weapon. No expertise feats as they exist in this edition.
- Backgrounds: Backgrounds and Themes are one in the same; but not all backgrounds extend through the entirety of Heroic tier. Still, Backgrounds would be in from the start.
- Rules for Sunder, Trip and Disarm: I understand why they were removed, but a way to make sure abuse is impossible is to minimize rules items that make these things trivial to accomplish. I like an idea once presented that Disarm could be a condition, too, where the creature affected can't attack or shift until they spend a minor action (which could be used to pick up the lost weapon or draw another one, if that applies).
- Location targetting: Head, torso, left and right arms, left and right legs. Each character would get x points in each limb, 2x points in the torso, and x/2 points in the head, where x is determined by your class. All powers would have a Location line, though it could include "None" (meaning that it doesn't operate on this system). An attack that targets a given location deducts one point on a hit. A detrimental effect occurs when a location's points drop to 0, and that location is dead when it drops to negative the maximum value. Again, I just think this'd be cool. And pretty simple. I can imagine a character sheet on which there is the sillhouette of an adventurer with spots at the locations for tracking points.
- Classes: Essentials teaches us that class can be more than just one chart of levels. Classes can, from the start, be overarching brands for a whole slew of archetypes that operate on nearly entirely different mechanics. They can be different roles and methods, even.
- Multiclassing/Hybriding: Every class feature for every class has an addendum at the end specifically for multiclass and hybrid, describing how the feature differs for the multiclass character and the hybrid character. Instead of the feat system, it'd be like 3.5, without the EXP penalties (but you'd always count as your original class and all others are multiclass). This would grant the freedoms of previous editions without the ridiculous mix-and-match. Perhaps Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies would operate like this too, with the first one you enter being your primary and all others being secondary. Paragon Paths would resemble Prestige Classes a lot, as would Epic Destinies.
- Power Source Characteristics: Arcane characters all getting cantrips, martial characters all getting to make their own tools, and so on. Additionally, though, this'd mean that all powers from a power source would lean towards a certain style and away from the rest. No radiant arcane powers, no psychic elemental powers, and so on.
- Rituals: Rituals would almost never use GP for cost. It would be healing surges.
- Armour Class: No more AC, with most attacks targetting Reflex. Armour provides damage resistance.
Yes, I've thought a lot about this. Sometimes I feel like I should just comb over all of 4e and houserule the bejesus out of it. But there's a lot of stuff out there.
It will happen some day, and on that day, the original question was what would it look like.
Well consider how different basic to 1st to 2nd to 3rd to 4th has been.
Sure they are all similar if you compare it so say 1st edition Warhammer FRP or Paladium.
But 4th is so heavily changed from 1st, that it could be said that 5th will have nothing much in common with 4th.
So I think all of the slightly tweaked 4th systems being imagined for 5th, likely misses something vital in as much as WotC is concerned. They will be expecting you to have a REAL good reason to think 'oh I want to play this edition because it is so much different/better.
The idea of my buying into 5th edition if it is just a slightly tweaked 4th is ****ing idiotic.
I'm not spending 100s of bucks just to purchase a cosmetic alteration.
I think 5th will need to have some serious radical departures. Or it will fly like a garbage truck.
What would I consider radical enough.
No classes at all.
Diceless resolution mechanic.
Totally new PC stat design ie not the same old 6 stats. For example purposes something like Legend of the 5 Rings which employs totally unique traits.
No levels akin to the Warhammer FRP design.
Differing method of determining results such as the method in Alternity which uses a control dice and diffculty dice (personally like that myself).
Rethought experience system where killing things is not the focal point.
These are all just departures from the norm as we currently have it, and I am not specifically saying I like all of them, they are just notions I am pulling from my imagination.
I've seen other games do something better than D&D and I have seen other designs do things in ways not even close to being as good as D&D.
I hate the combat of Rolemaster, but like the combat in Paladium a bit in some areas.
I like the experience system and skills purchase as well as dice resolution of Alternity. I just wish it had been made for a cliche fantasy setting as well as scifi.
I have found the combat system of L5R to be both good and bad. Sure uses a lot of d10s. But the fights actually don't take all damn session. Then again neither do the combats in Warhammer. But in Warhammer you can end up with a dead PC very easy too.
Dead PCs tend to suck the fun out of the session.
Whatever 5th edition ends up looking like, if it looks only like a tweaked 4th edition you can bank on it that I will be here to laugh at it and heap a mountain of scorn on the notion I'd buy it.
I've got a written-up list of ideas that I think would benefit the edition (for me; I can't guarantee anyone else will like it):
- Power Methods: Consider this the y to Power Source's x. Alchemy, Inherent, Pact, Planar, Runes, Skill, Study... these are all concepts that can exist in multiple power sources and define classes and bind classes of different sources together. Study classes would all have a spellbook of sorts, while Rune classes would all use the Rune Master stuff. The others I'm a bit more fuzzy on, but they don't all have to mirror each other in that regard. What this does is it allows commonality in prerequisites.
I don't really see much benefit to this. Commonality to what prerequisites? I mean it doesn't really hurt, but I don't think it's necessary to really add keywords to tie more classes together. You can already use prereqs like "requires channel divinity" or "requires a spellbook class feature".
- Acquisitions: Related to your method, often just fighting stuff isn't enough. In order to gain in power, you need to spend time to practice your arts. Alchemy-based classes would need to create an item of their level or higher, Pact classes would need to commune with their pact entity, using healing surges and/or a costly focus item. Study and Rune characters would need to master scrolls and runes of comparable power. The reason being that there would be features that are still locked away when you level, until you achieve the proper level of experience in this regard. This would be an example of "not for everyone;" I guess it'd be one of those things in the DMG as an option. I just think it's neat. Ideally investing money into the process would not be absolutely necessary.
This sounds like the old training rules, which were optional. I tried them a few times but eventually abandoned them. Still, this is really just fluff so it's not that big of a deal and as an optional rule I wouldn't mind seeing it.
- Masterwork Weapons: Add the Expertise bonus to the proficiency bonus of the weapon. No expertise feats as they exist in this edition.
I like masterwork weapons but even moreso I would rather see bonuses built into the character progression. No magic items should be necessary for the math to work and even a +1 sword should feel special.
- Backgrounds: Backgrounds and Themes are one in the same; but not all backgrounds extend through the entirety of Heroic tier. Still, Backgrounds would be in from the start.
I think backgrounds and themes should remain separate. But I agree that they should be included from the beginning. Honestly I prefered the original concept of "write a background and if it comes up in play you get a small bonus to that roll" but it seemed like some people had a hard time grasping that.
- Rules for Sunder, Trip and Disarm: I understand why they were removed, but a way to make sure abuse is impossible is to minimize rules items that make these things trivial to accomplish. I like an idea once presented that Disarm could be a condition, too, where the creature affected can't attack or shift until they spend a minor action (which could be used to pick up the lost weapon or draw another one, if that applies).
No thank you. First off, you can already accomplish them with a pg 42 stunt if your DM allows it. Disarm and Trip are already addressed via powers. Disarm in particular should remain a power since it is something that takes training and practice to do, something a power represents. I don't think it's more realistic that any random person can pick up a sword and disarm a trained warrior. Sunder I don't think really needs to come into play at all except as a plot device or an improvised stunt to attack something fragile like a glass vial. Most weapons are made to withstand the rigors of combat. I don't think it adds anything to have someone's sword break every encounter. And that's not even touching on the balance issues of those maneuvers.
On a side note, I would like to see an improved pg 42. Something with some good guidelines for handing out various status effects.
- Location targetting: Head, torso, left and right arms, left and right legs. Each character would get x points in each limb, 2x points in the torso, and x/2 points in the head, where x is determined by your class. All powers would have a Location line, though it could include "None" (meaning that it doesn't operate on this system). An attack that targets a given location deducts one point on a hit. A detrimental effect occurs when a location's points drop to 0, and that location is dead when it drops to negative the maximum value. Again, I just think this'd be cool. And pretty simple. I can imagine a character sheet on which there is the sillhouette of an adventurer with spots at the locations for tracking points.
No, now you're just adding extra complexity for nothing. Not to mention it completely goes against the idea of HP being an abstract concept incorporating but not limited to physical toughness, the ability to turn a potentially lethal hit into a minor one, fatigue, luck, divine favor, morale, willpower, etc. Just use your powers or pg 42 stunts and fluff the attack to match the effect. If you inflict a slow effect, you cut him in the leg or bashed him in the knee. Dazes could be head shots. Enemies hit in the arm are weakened. We don't need a bunch of extra rules to do something that is already possible.
- Classes: Essentials teaches us that class can be more than just one chart of levels. Classes can, from the start, be overarching brands for a whole slew of archetypes that operate on nearly entirely different mechanics. They can be different roles and methods, even.
They can, but I'm not sure that I really like it. When you drastically change a class's mechanics and its role, well you can call it a subclass, but you might as well have made it a different class entirely. I don't think you gain anything by trying to make a bunch of wildly different concepts that all fall under the same "class" for the simple and arbitrary reason of "cuz we said so".
- Multiclassing/Hybriding: Every class feature for every class has an addendum at the end specifically for multiclass and hybrid, describing how the feature differs for the multiclass character and the hybrid character. Instead of the feat system, it'd be like 3.5, without the EXP penalties (but you'd always count as your original class and all others are multiclass). This would grant the freedoms of previous editions without the ridiculous mix-and-match. Perhaps Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies would operate like this too, with the first one you enter being your primary and all others being secondary. Paragon Paths would resemble Prestige Classes a lot, as would Epic Destinies.
Hybrid, yes if you include it from the start you can have hybrid rules included in the class description. For MC, oh let's please not return to the old system. I like the new version a thousand times better. And my group never enforced XP penalties, otherwise I would hate it even more. Personally, I would like to see MCing being a little easier, but pretty much stay in the same format. Roll all the power swap feats into one, make it possible to MC into more than one class (I haven't figured out exactly how that would balance out yet), and improve paragon MC so its desireable for more than just specific builds. I would rather PPs and EDs stay the same, I don't see any need to MC into those as well. Especially EDs. And this isn't just from a balance perspective either, you could balance it if it was accounted for when you built the system. Fluff-wise, epic destinies seem a lot less epic if you can just dabble in several of them. You become a "sort of archmage" or a "quasi demigod". Not cool.
- Power Source Characteristics: Arcane characters all getting cantrips, martial characters all getting to make their own tools, and so on. Additionally, though, this'd mean that all powers from a power source would lean towards a certain style and away from the rest. No radiant arcane powers, no psychic elemental powers, and so on.
Absolutely, this would be great. I wouldn't put such hard limits on it, like no radiant arcane, but I would love it if all classes of a power source shared some minor ability, preferably ones that were all roughly even in power. That way you could still swap a class from one power source to another (like take an invoker, make him arcane and call him a wizard). The change in power source would be noticeable by changing that ability, but it wouldn't be impossible and it wouldn't effect the power level of that class.
- Rituals: Rituals would almost never use GP for cost. It would be healing surges.
Agreed 100%.
- Armour Class: No more AC, with most attacks targetting Reflex. Armour provides damage resistance.
Also agreed. I like having the choice between a fast character who rarely gets hit, but gets hard, or the tough armored tank that takes hit after hit but just shrugs them off. I've houseruled this in 2e and 3e and it worked. I tried to do it in 4e but its much harder to implement without throwing off the balance a bit. However, I think this is something that would work if it was included in the system from the beginning.
- Power Methods
I don't really see much benefit to this. Commonality to what prerequisites? I mean it doesn't really hurt, but I don't think it's necessary to really add keywords to tie more classes together. You can already use prereqs like "requires channel divinity" or "requires a spellbook class feature".
'Cause this is tidier. By your logic, we don't need power sources either, since prerequisites could say "must be able to cast arcane spells" or "must have weapon powers" to accomplish the same ends. Methods would make the framework simpler to visualize, I think, the same way Power Sources did. Example of rulestuff that could be created is a feat that increases the size of one's spellbook, like the wizard feat that exists in 4e. But it'd also apply to other spellbook classes otherwise at that moment or in the future of development.
- Acquisitions
This sounds like the old training rules, which were optional. I tried them a few times but eventually abandoned them. Still, this is really just fluff so it's not that big of a deal and as an optional rule I wouldn't mind seeing it.
Yeah. I know it's not everyone's cup of tea. It merely presents an often-forgotten aspect of classic fantasy narrative -- usually it takes more than killing a lot of stuff to get more powerful.
- Masterwork Weapons
I like masterwork weapons but even moreso I would rather see bonuses built into the character progression. No magic items should be necessary for the math to work and even a +1 sword should feel special.
Frankly I'd like the +6 enhancement bonus one gets from weapons/implements, armour, and neck slot items to be worked into the base math more. There'd be magic items that grant enhancement bonuses, but never more than +3, and that's all they'd do unless they were artifacts. From that viewpoint, I think Masterworked Implements/Weapons have a place because while it is a bonus that one should have as a base, it's not a big bonus that you'll miss in a worst-case scenario. Though an optional rule for adding the bonus inherently would be good, like we have for enhancement bonuses in this edition.
- Backgrounds
I think backgrounds and themes should remain separate. But I agree that they should be included from the beginning. Honestly I prefered the original concept of "write a background and if it comes up in play you get a small bonus to that roll" but it seemed like some people had a hard time grasping that.
I left out that I still think you should choose multiples of backgrounds. Some backgrounds would just be a small bonus (I can't imagine you getting attack powers from Blacksmith, for example), but some would reach through all of heroic tier (Gladiator). If you had both backgrounds, you would gain one of their base benefits upon creation (something minor). I see no reason that these two articles shouldn't operate in the same rules space.
- Rules for Sunder, Trip and Disarm
No thank you. First off, you can already accomplish them with a pg 42 stunt if your DM allows it. Disarm and Trip are already addressed via powers. Disarm in particular should remain a power since it is something that takes training and practice to do, something a power represents. I don't think it's more realistic that any random person can pick up a sword and disarm a trained warrior. Sunder I don't think really needs to come into play at all except as a plot device or an improvised stunt to attack something fragile like a glass vial. Most weapons are made to withstand the rigors of combat. I don't think it adds anything to have someone's sword break every encounter. And that's not even touching on the balance issues of those maneuvers.
Fair point on disarm. I would definately make disarm a skill power (see below), then. As for sunder's balance "issues," keep in mind that monsters' damage values have no relationship with the tools that they use; sundering the weapon of or disarming a human noble, strictly speaking, doesn't have to affect his damage output. As for what sundering adds to the game, it adds options. However, thinking about it now, I think Sundering may be better largely as skill powers or class-related stuff. Barbarians would have a lot of powers that sunder while rogues would have almost none.
On a side note, I would like to see an improved pg 42. Something with some good guidelines for handing out various status effects.
I agree. Perhaps relevant, I'd want there to be a section saying "if a PC's backstory implies that he is skilled at something, the PC gets a +2 bonus to rolls directly related to that thing." I think that should be very blatantly rules-o-fied.
- Location targetting
No, now you're just adding extra complexity for nothing. Not to mention it completely goes against the idea of HP being an abstract concept incorporating but not limited to physical toughness, the ability to turn a potentially lethal hit into a minor one, fatigue, luck, divine favor, morale, willpower, etc. Just use your powers or pg 42 stunts and fluff the attack to match the effect. If you inflict a slow effect, you cut him in the leg or bashed him in the knee. Dazes could be head shots. Enemies hit in the arm are weakened. We don't need a bunch of extra rules to do something that is already possible.
Need? What is this need? This is about fun. I think it would be fun to be able to defeat enemies by rendering them unable to fight through sidelong attacks to the arm. And yes, I am aware that this changes what HP represents; I'm quite fine with that. The fact is that it's not at all complicated to remember that when you take damage from an attack and it targets your right arm, to remove one point from that arm. And when it reaches zero, for you to have a minor penalty to attacks and checks using that arm. Like the presence of sunder and disarm, it would open up options for combat. Builds could be built that don't focus on damage, but instead focus on breaking limbs. The gain is that it adds more variety to combat and character creation.
- Classes
They can, but I'm not sure that I really like it. When you drastically change a class's mechanics and its role, well you can call it a subclass, but you might as well have made it a different class entirely. I don't think you gain anything by trying to make a bunch of wildly different concepts that all fall under the same "class" for the simple and arbitrary reason of "cuz we said so".
Sure we do. We get system where weirdo classes like Runepriest and Seeker still get new stuff to play with in the future. If Seeker was just a Druid and/or Ranger sub-class (imagine if it was both!) and Runepriest was a Cleric sub-class, then there would be a future for these classes. The problem right now is that they're so out-there that they occupy more or less the same space as Brawler Fighter; limited room for growth while adhering to fantasy archetype.
- Multiclassing/Hybriding
Hybrid, yes if you include it from the start you can have hybrid rules included in the class description. For MC, oh let's please not return to the old system. I like the new version a thousand times better. And my group never enforced XP penalties, otherwise I would hate it even more. Personally, I would like to see MCing being a little easier, but pretty much stay in the same format. Roll all the power swap feats into one, make it possible to MC into more than one class (I haven't figured out exactly how that would balance out yet), and improve paragon MC so its desireable for more than just specific builds. I would rather PPs and EDs stay the same, I don't see any need to MC into those as well. Especially EDs. And this isn't just from a balance perspective either, you could balance it if it was accounted for when you built the system. Fluff-wise, epic destinies seem a lot less epic if you can just dabble in several of them. You become a "sort of archmage" or a "quasi demigod". Not cool.
Why can't that be up to the player? If they want to be "sort of archmage" and "quasi demigod," that's their perogative. Again, the system would be designed so that there'd be only niche optimal uses for multiple paragon paths and epic destinies, because under each feature would be a note for if it's your secondary class, which would make a very powerful feature limited to once per encounter or once per day or simply not granted (or some other change). As for multiclassing, your idea is good too. I'm merely offering another way that is homage to previous game style without being the carrion house that it was. The system 4e imposed was so imposed because the designers couldn't think of a balanced way to allow freeform multiclassing. I think my idea is condusive to freeform multiclassing being balanced, at least as a starting point. And freeform multiclassing is pretty fun.
- Power Source Characteristics
Absolutely, this would be great. I wouldn't put such hard limits on it, like no radiant arcane, but I would love it if all classes of a power source shared some minor ability, preferably ones that were all roughly even in power. That way you could still swap a class from one power source to another (like take an invoker, make him arcane and call him a wizard). The change in power source would be noticeable by changing that ability, but it wouldn't be impossible and it wouldn't effect the power level of that class.
It's not that I want hard limits, but I do want each power source to occupy conceptual space. Elemental, right now, doesn't have any reason to exist because Primal and Arcane pretty much do what it would do ("Word of" powers and elemental damage types). But if you knew a power was Shadow because it drained a healing surge and that a power was divine because it was a giant laser, and arcane was observable because it always did part force damage, then elemental would stand out because it's the only one that makes electric fire and tides of earth.
Other ideas for PC power source benefits: Shadow characters get Fundamentals (see the Shadowcaster of 3.5), such as creating dim light. Psionic characters would have limited telepathy and/or telekinesis. Wizards, Psions, Necromancers and Warlords would get more of these benefits than sorcerers, wilders, assassins and barbarians. Elemental characters would get Words of Power that would primarily slightly alter landscape.
A few other ideas I forgot to mention:
- Skill Powers: More! Rather, they wouldn't just be powers. There would be whole features one could replace theirs with, as well as attack and utility powers. Instead of Rogues being the only class to get Chameleon, it'd be a level 10 Stealth utility, for example. Disarm would be Thievery-related and Sunder would be Athletics-related.
- Feature Keywords: Really, it makes sense that features have keywords too. One important keyword would be "Swap," which would mean that you could switch the class feature with another of the same level or lower from a Skill group or something. I figure that a lot of class features would not be able to be swapped out (sneak attack, for example), but there would still be some that would.
- Multiple Power Source Use: Some classes may just make the most sense as a natural hybrid of two power sources. I don't necessarily think that this needs to be a matter written in stone, though; rather, think of it from the aspect of the standard Ranger after Essentials. It's still considered a Martial class, but it can choose all-Primal utility powers as it levels, if it wants to. Similarly, Barbarian attacks could very frequently be Martial, as could Paladin ones, while Rages and Smites would still be Primal and Divine respectively. A particularly shadowy wizard power might step outside the power source altogether and replace the Arcane keyword with Shadow. I figure that Warlocks have little reason to adhere to just one power source, since they get power from the astral sea (divine), demons (elemental), fey (arcane), vestiges (psionic), shadowy things (shadow), and sorcerer-kings.
5e will probably happen in the near future, but seeing how Hasbro has screwed up 4e / 4.5, Hasbro will probably sell off D&D to the highest bidder.
Maybe Paizo can buy it then and fix it like they did 3.5
Hasbro has failed - time to let real gamers take over
Hasbro should change their name to something more appropriate like HasBeen
A lot of people are not impressed with Pathfinder and even more did not like 3.x at all.
I recommend reading this THREAD
I'm sure when 5E rolls around it will be a better game.
Well if we get them to look forward and not backward as they did with Essentials...
- Power Methods
I don't really see much benefit to this. Commonality to what prerequisites? I mean it doesn't really hurt, but I don't think it's necessary to really add keywords to tie more classes together. You can already use prereqs like "requires channel divinity" or "requires a spellbook class feature".
'Cause this is tidier. By your logic, we don't need power sources either, since prerequisites could say "must be able to cast arcane spells" or "must have weapon powers" to accomplish the same ends. Methods would make the framework simpler to visualize, I think, the same way Power Sources did. Example of rulestuff that could be created is a feat that increases the size of one's spellbook, like the wizard feat that exists in 4e. But it'd also apply to other spellbook classes otherwise at that moment or in the future of development.
I suppose. It certainly doesn't seem to hurt anything.
- Masterwork Weapons
I like masterwork weapons but even moreso I would rather see bonuses built into the character progression. No magic items should be necessary for the math to work and even a +1 sword should feel special.
Frankly I'd like the +6 enhancement bonus one gets from weapons/implements, armour, and neck slot items to be worked into the base math more. There'd be magic items that grant enhancement bonuses, but never more than +3, and that's all they'd do unless they were artifacts. From that viewpoint, I think Masterworked Implements/Weapons have a place because while it is a bonus that one should have as a base, it's not a big bonus that you'll miss in a worst-case scenario. Though an optional rule for adding the bonus inherently would be good, like we have for enhancement bonuses in this edition.
That's all they'd do? Like no special powers or anything? I disagree. I'd like to see less emphasis on static bonuses and more emphasis on powers and other effects. A flaming sword should be cool because it lets you do fire damage, not because you get +2 to attack.
- Backgrounds
I think backgrounds and themes should remain separate. But I agree that they should be included from the beginning. Honestly I prefered the original concept of "write a background and if it comes up in play you get a small bonus to that roll" but it seemed like some people had a hard time grasping that.
I left out that I still think you should choose multiples of backgrounds. Some backgrounds would just be a small bonus (I can't imagine you getting attack powers from Blacksmith, for example), but some would reach through all of heroic tier (Gladiator). If you had both backgrounds, you would gain one of their base benefits upon creation (something minor). I see no reason that these two articles shouldn't operate in the same rules space.
Yes but leaving them as separate entities has benefits. If you just choose two backgrounds, but some give you cool powers and stuff and the others give you a minor bonus to skill checks, why wouldn't you just choose two that are equivalent to themes and take the powers? Of course some new player might choose the trap of taking two weak backgrounds because they sound like what he thinks his character should be and suddenly he's underpowered. And if there's a rules mechanism to say you only get one of these backgrounds and one of these backgrounds, then they should have just been left as separate rules elements to begin with and eliminate the confusion.
- Rules for Sunder, Trip and Disarm
No thank you. First off, you can already accomplish them with a pg 42 stunt if your DM allows it. Disarm and Trip are already addressed via powers. Disarm in particular should remain a power since it is something that takes training and practice to do, something a power represents. I don't think it's more realistic that any random person can pick up a sword and disarm a trained warrior. Sunder I don't think really needs to come into play at all except as a plot device or an improvised stunt to attack something fragile like a glass vial. Most weapons are made to withstand the rigors of combat. I don't think it adds anything to have someone's sword break every encounter. And that's not even touching on the balance issues of those maneuvers.
Fair point on disarm. I would definately make disarm a skill power (see below), then. As for sunder's balance "issues," keep in mind that monsters' damage values have no relationship with the tools that they use; sundering the weapon of or disarming a human noble, strictly speaking, doesn't have to affect his damage output. As for what sundering adds to the game, it adds options. However, thinking about it now, I think Sundering may be better largely as skill powers or class-related stuff. Barbarians would have a lot of powers that sunder while rogues would have almost none.On a side note, I would like to see an improved pg 42. Something with some good guidelines for handing out various status effects.
I agree. Perhaps relevant, I'd want there to be a section saying "if a PC's backstory implies that he is skilled at something, the PC gets a +2 bonus to rolls directly related to that thing." I think that should be very blatantly rules-o-fied.
If handled through powers, and probably even then left as a daily, I wouldn't have a big problem with sunder. Of course, there should be some effect for it. If, as you say, the NPC is completely unaffected by the loss of his weapon, then that becomes a "trap" power and there's no reason to include it at all.
- Location targetting
No, now you're just adding extra complexity for nothing. Not to mention it completely goes against the idea of HP being an abstract concept incorporating but not limited to physical toughness, the ability to turn a potentially lethal hit into a minor one, fatigue, luck, divine favor, morale, willpower, etc. Just use your powers or pg 42 stunts and fluff the attack to match the effect. If you inflict a slow effect, you cut him in the leg or bashed him in the knee. Dazes could be head shots. Enemies hit in the arm are weakened. We don't need a bunch of extra rules to do something that is already possible.
Need? What is this need? This is about fun. I think it would be fun to be able to defeat enemies by rendering them unable to fight through sidelong attacks to the arm. And yes, I am aware that this changes what HP represents; I'm quite fine with that. The fact is that it's not at all complicated to remember that when you take damage from an attack and it targets your right arm, to remove one point from that arm. And when it reaches zero, for you to have a minor penalty to attacks and checks using that arm. Like the presence of sunder and disarm, it would open up options for combat. Builds could be built that don't focus on damage, but instead focus on breaking limbs. The gain is that it adds more variety to combat and character creation.
If this was included as an expressly optional rule, something like the 2e Players Option books, I wouldn't mind but I still wouldn't want to see this included in the core rules. Also, how does this work with powers? If you use a power that is supposed to hamstring your opponent and slows him, but you targeted his arm, does that change the effect of the power? Or should such options be limited to basic attacks?
- Classes
They can, but I'm not sure that I really like it. When you drastically change a class's mechanics and its role, well you can call it a subclass, but you might as well have made it a different class entirely. I don't think you gain anything by trying to make a bunch of wildly different concepts that all fall under the same "class" for the simple and arbitrary reason of "cuz we said so".
Sure we do. We get system where weirdo classes like Runepriest and Seeker still get new stuff to play with in the future. If Seeker was just a Druid and/or Ranger sub-class (imagine if it was both!) and Runepriest was a Cleric sub-class, then there would be a future for these classes. The problem right now is that they're so out-there that they occupy more or less the same space as Brawler Fighter; limited room for growth while adhering to fantasy archetype.
Well yes, if they share a class they can partake in new powers, feats, etc. But if a subclass is wildly different from the main class (like the slayer vs fighter) they don't really share much and so neither one really benefits from being part of the same class (at least in name) since for all intents and purposes they are actually entirely different classes.
- Multiclassing/Hybriding
Hybrid, yes if you include it from the start you can have hybrid rules included in the class description. For MC, oh let's please not return to the old system. I like the new version a thousand times better. And my group never enforced XP penalties, otherwise I would hate it even more. Personally, I would like to see MCing being a little easier, but pretty much stay in the same format. Roll all the power swap feats into one, make it possible to MC into more than one class (I haven't figured out exactly how that would balance out yet), and improve paragon MC so its desireable for more than just specific builds. I would rather PPs and EDs stay the same, I don't see any need to MC into those as well. Especially EDs. And this isn't just from a balance perspective either, you could balance it if it was accounted for when you built the system. Fluff-wise, epic destinies seem a lot less epic if you can just dabble in several of them. You become a "sort of archmage" or a "quasi demigod". Not cool.
Why can't that be up to the player? If they want to be "sort of archmage" and "quasi demigod," that's their perogative. Again, the system would be designed so that there'd be only niche optimal uses for multiple paragon paths and epic destinies, because under each feature would be a note for if it's your secondary class, which would make a very powerful feature limited to once per encounter or once per day or simply not granted (or some other change). As for multiclassing, your idea is good too. I'm merely offering another way that is homage to previous game style without being the carrion house that it was. The system 4e imposed was so imposed because the designers couldn't think of a balanced way to allow freeform multiclassing. I think my idea is condusive to freeform multiclassing being balanced, at least as a starting point. And freeform multiclassing is pretty fun.
I like the idea of freeform MC, its just that in practice most combinations are either horribly over- or under-powered.
- Power Source Characteristics
Absolutely, this would be great. I wouldn't put such hard limits on it, like no radiant arcane, but I would love it if all classes of a power source shared some minor ability, preferably ones that were all roughly even in power. That way you could still swap a class from one power source to another (like take an invoker, make him arcane and call him a wizard). The change in power source would be noticeable by changing that ability, but it wouldn't be impossible and it wouldn't effect the power level of that class.
It's not that I want hard limits, but I do want each power source to occupy conceptual space. Elemental, right now, doesn't have any reason to exist because Primal and Arcane pretty much do what it would do ("Word of" powers and elemental damage types). But if you knew a power was Shadow because it drained a healing surge and that a power was divine because it was a giant laser, and arcane was observable because it always did part force damage, then elemental would stand out because it's the only one that makes electric fire and tides of earth.
Other ideas for PC power source benefits: Shadow characters get Fundamentals (see the Shadowcaster of 3.5), such as creating dim light. Psionic characters would have limited telepathy and/or telekinesis. Wizards, Psions, Necromancers and Warlords would get more of these benefits than sorcerers, wilders, assassins and barbarians. Elemental characters would get Words of Power that would primarily slightly alter landscape.
A few other ideas I forgot to mention:
- Skill Powers: More! Rather, they wouldn't just be powers. There would be whole features one could replace theirs with, as well as attack and utility powers. Instead of Rogues being the only class to get Chameleon, it'd be a level 10 Stealth utility, for example. Disarm would be Thievery-related and Sunder would be Athletics-related.
- Feature Keywords: Really, it makes sense that features have keywords too. One important keyword would be "Swap," which would mean that you could switch the class feature with another of the same level or lower from a Skill group or something. I figure that a lot of class features would not be able to be swapped out (sneak attack, for example), but there would still be some that would.
- Multiple Power Source Use: Some classes may just make the most sense as a natural hybrid of two power sources. I don't necessarily think that this needs to be a matter written in stone, though; rather, think of it from the aspect of the standard Ranger after Essentials. It's still considered a Martial class, but it can choose all-Primal utility powers as it levels, if it wants to. Similarly, Barbarian attacks could very frequently be Martial, as could Paladin ones, while Rages and Smites would still be Primal and Divine respectively. A particularly shadowy wizard power might step outside the power source altogether and replace the Arcane keyword with Shadow. I figure that Warlocks have little reason to adhere to just one power source, since they get power from the astral sea (divine), demons (elemental), fey (arcane), vestiges (psionic), shadowy things (shadow), and sorcerer-kings.
Skill powers, absolutely. I love the skill powers and wish there were more. Swapping features seems doable too and increases customization. For classes using multiple power sources, while I can easily several classes doing this, would this allow them access to the features of all power sources they use? I think it would be better if they only got the free feature (cantrips or telepathy or whatever) of their primary source.
and its setting will be Star Trekking across the universe
- Masterwork Weapons
That's all they'd do? Like no special powers or anything? I disagree. I'd like to see less emphasis on static bonuses and more emphasis on powers and other effects. A flaming sword should be cool because it lets you do fire damage, not because you get +2 to attack.
I mean that the math would already account for the 6 from enhancement that you need now in some form. And the weapon I speak of would be a single type among many. It'd be the "you trade fun for flat gain." It'd be like Iron Armbands of Power, but if they gave a +1/2/3 bonus (and therefore not as crazy-good). You could use another weapon that has powers, a crit bonus, and properties, or you could use one that gives you a flat +1 to attack and damage.
- Backgrounds
Yes but leaving them as separate entities has benefits. If you just choose two backgrounds, but some give you cool powers and stuff and the others give you a minor bonus to skill checks, why wouldn't you just choose two that are equivalent to themes and take the powers? Of course some new player might choose the trap of taking two weak backgrounds because they sound like what he thinks his character should be and suddenly he's underpowered. And if there's a rules mechanism to say you only get one of these backgrounds and one of these backgrounds, then they should have just been left as separate rules elements to begin with and eliminate the confusion.
One of the things I don't like about Themes is that they give you a benefit free of charge (in the case of Escaped Slave, you gain a power and training in Bluff). This would be dandy if Themes were in from the start. What I'm saying is that if Backgrounds were also (at least sometimes) themes, the benefit you get at level 1 would still be equal between Blacksmith and Gladiator. And I wouldn't call it unbalanced for one person who chose three backgrounds that go through all of Heroic to play next to someone who chose three that just gave an initial benefit -- the initial benefits are equal, and the former player has to swap out his class features/powers/feats for the background's other benefits. As long as the backgrounds themselves stay on level with everything, it's fine.
- Rules for Sunder, Trip and Disarm
If handled through powers, and probably even then left as a daily, I wouldn't have a big problem with sunder. Of course, there should be some effect for it. If, as you say, the NPC is completely unaffected by the loss of his weapon, then that becomes a "trap" power and there's no reason to include it at all.
I like the idea of "Disarmed" being a condition. While disarmed, you can't attack or shift until you spend a minor action to end being disarmed (note: this minor action can also be used to pick up or draw a weapon). That way it does have an effect -- you force someone who has a very busy turn to waste an action. The attack would be at-will and do 1[W] + primary ability modifier damage. Disarm is only abusable when one is able to take someone's weapon permanently; you simply don't let that be possible (until level 30, when Thieves of Legend stab gods in the back, Princes of Hell and Demigods rule, and so on).
- Location targetting
If this was included as an expressly optional rule, something like the 2e Players Option books, I wouldn't mind but I still wouldn't want to see this included in the core rules. Also, how does this work with powers? If you use a power that is supposed to hamstring your opponent and slows him, but you targeted his arm, does that change the effect of the power? Or should such options be limited to basic attacks?
No, there's almost no choice. The power you use tells you what location it targets. Perhaps a power would allow you to choose which arm or leg, or perhaps even let you choose between two for different effects. And many attacks wouldn't target locations. I imagine it like when you notice that the weapon encounter power you want to pick also targets Reflex. You'd go down the list and say "ooh, this one targets an arm! Combined with my other encounter power, I could probably cripple a standard."
- Classes
Well yes, if they share a class they can partake in new powers, feats, etc. But if a subclass is wildly different from the main class (like the slayer vs fighter) they don't really share much and so neither one really benefits from being part of the same class (at least in name) since for all intents and purposes they are actually entirely different classes.
They get to partake of new powers, feats, ect. That's the benefit. Maybe it's not much, but it's better than classes like the Ardent and Assassin just rotting away. If these classes could fit into others -- for example, perhaps Assassins would be a Shadow-source sub-class of the Rogue -- then they will never truly stagnate so long as Rogues get new stuff. Of course, the key is making sure that many of these sub-classes have something in common so that the feats apply to them (for example, Thieves and Rogues both have Sneak Attack and use light blades frequently).
- Multiclassing/Hybriding
I like the idea of freeform MC, its just that in practice most combinations are either horribly over- or under-powered.
Under-powered would be a distinct possibility. Perhaps your idea could co-exist in the ruleset with mine. There would be a feat called Second Class Power, which allows you to take an encounter attack power, a utility power, and a daily power from a specific other class you have entered into (by level, or by entry feats). Sort of like how Hybrids were pitched compared to Multiclass before PH3, I think this would add a remarkable depth to customization. You could just take a feat or two, you could take the class, or start as a hybrid from the beginning.
Skill powers, absolutely. I love the skill powers and wish there were more. Swapping features seems doable too and increases customization. For classes using multiple power sources, while I can easily several classes doing this, would this allow them access to the features of all power sources they use? I think it would be better if they only got the free feature (cantrips or telepathy or whatever) of their primary source.
I think there should be a feat that allows you to, but by default you wouldn't gain both, no (like Wild Talents). I imagine that hybrids would, like HP, find the average amount of source features they gain and choose from both pools as close to half as they can.
5e will probably happen in the near future, but seeing how Hasbro has screwed up 4e / 4.5, Hasbro will probably sell off D&D to the highest bidder.
Maybe Paizo can buy it then and fix it like they did 3.5
Hasbro has failed - time to let real gamers take over
Hasbro should change their name to something more appropriate like HasBeen
A lot of people are not impressed with Pathfinder and even more did not like 3.x at all.
I recommend reading this THREAD
I would not recommend trying to game in Northern Indiana then. Pathfinder is literally flying off the shelves of our FLGS whereas the 4th edition, (especially the essentials lines) are collecting dust.
Which is the exact opposite here. And why would anyone want to go to Nothern Indiana in the 1st place
Some of us have no choice
Either way - Hasbro better fix this crap
Well Hasbro might deside that a new Edition of D&D can be produced every 2 to 3 years. Maybe that would seem like a FIX to them. 