If you were making 5th edition how would you make it?

[Gamerlord]

So, you're in your living quarters, when the phone rings, it is WOTC, they want you to design 5th edition, they don't care what it ends up being, they just want a new edition.

So, if you were making 5th edition how would you make it? What would you take from past editions? What would you put in the core books?

[Zincorium]

I think I'd keep races close to the fourth edition concept- all races are balanced against each other without any sort of LA, but probably change the details for most of them, and add/subtract a few from the lineup. Keep the 3.x/4th edition philosophy of being able to choose any class, as well.

Classes- I'd prefer if instead of being rolled back and defined narrowly, the feat system was expanded even further, to where the abilities themselves are taken in that manner. You would have 'packages' of feats for characters that represent the standard archetypes, but from there on out, the characters grow by feat chains and interlocking dependencies.

As far as books go, I know the core trio is sort of a sacred cow, but I'd rather they have, say, a Forgotten Realms PHB and an Eberron PHB, that contain all the rules you will need as a player in that setting, as well as a generic PHB. Same with DMG and MM. It does mean that a group needs fewer books to play in a given setting, but since gamers tend to spend the same amount of money regardless of what we need, I doubt their profits will fall as long as splatbooks still exist- although I'd set it up as small, softback books on a given supplement so that impulse buys happen more often.

What else... I would put a much, much greater emphasis on environmental challenges and social combat. The first word in D&D is dungeons, and they've actually gotten a significant shafting as time has gone on. I remember back in 2nd the Dungeoneering Survival Guide had little proto-papercraft 3D dungeon materials. With the rise of that as a hobby in and of itself, unless D&D all goes onto something like the MS Surface, it'd be an excellent way of adding a lot of excitement into the game for almost no investment on either WotC's or the gaming groups' side. Additionally, having gotten into WH40K, the miniature end of things for WotC is rather sad. At the very least, customizable plastic Mini's should be the default, rather than the mess that is trying to use D&D miniatures to actually play D&D.

I'll probably have more as I think about it.

[Optimystik]

I'd remake 4e, but digital and not requiring miniatures and cards. Go after the video game market, as 4e has yet to actually tap into it.

So 4.5 I guess. I can't think of anything 4e actually needs, even with all the barriers to play it is still very popular.

[valadil]

Ditch charisma and re-label it miscallaneous. That's how they seem to use it already.

[Gamerlord]

I would:
-Keep the power system of 4e
-Return the skill system of 3.5
-Ditch skill challenges, they tend to be boring in my experience.
-Keep the HP system of 4e
-Keep the feat system of 4e
-Return the 9 alignments of 3.5
-Bring magic items back to their rightful place in the DMG
-Keep Paragon Paths and Epic Destines.

I would also make the core books as insanley large as possible, putting as many races,classes,feats, and skills as possible, anything I think of later is put into massive splatbooks, for example, in the MM there would be stats for everything but the demon gods, devil lords, and the other gods, the gods would be statted in that editions version of deities&demigods, which will still have write-ups for the Greek,Norse, and Egyptian gods, and maybe the old ones. They deities&demigods book would also have some Norse,Greek, and Egyptian monsters in it, as well as details on the worshipers of every.single. god. As well as dozens of new PPs for divine characters and plenty of EDs, as well as other options for divine characters. Instead of having dozens of core and supplement books at the table, you would be able to count the number of supplements(Not including settings and adventures, which the game would have swarms of!) with two hands, but they would be more expensive to compensate.

[Blas_de_Lezo]

I would not make it look like a videogame... :smallsigh:

[Optimystik]

I would not make it look like a videogame... :smallsigh:

I hear video games are big business (http://news.vgchartz.com/news.php?id=5826) these days. :smalltongue:

[Xenogears]

Hire a competent group of editers and playtesters.

[Zincorium]

Hire a competent group of editers and playtesters.

Double plus good call.

Playtesting shouldn't be expensive at all, just time consuming. And I think it's really important that it consist of more than just the people who are writing the game- groupthink seems to set in very easily (see: melee can't have nice things). Crowdsourcing a beta version, and then PAYING ATTENTION to what they think, could drastically improve the game.

[Optimystik]

Playtesting shouldn't be expensive at all, just time consuming.

Those go hand in hand; Time is money, and every hour your playtesters spend on your unreleased game carries an opportunity cost.

[Xenogears]

Double plus good call.

Playtesting shouldn't be expensive at all, just time consuming. And I think it's really important that it consist of more than just the people who are writing the game- groupthink seems to set in very easily (see: melee can't have nice things). Crowdsourcing a beta version, and then PAYING ATTENTION to what they think, could drastically improve the game.

And there are so many people online who would gladly do it for free...

[jmbrown]

I'd reprint Rules Cyclopedia and label it "Dungeons and Dragons Classic."

The catch phrase would be "It doesn't have to be balanced."

[2xMachina]

I'd change attributes to 8.

Con Str Dex Agility
Willpower Cha Wis Int

Con - Main Hp
Str - Main damage/Secondary Hp

Dex - Secondary Damage/To-hit
Ag - To hit

Willpower - Main Will saves
Cha - Secondary Will save/damage + Main increase effect

Wis - Secondary DC/effect + Main Damage
Int - Main Increase DC/beat SR (whatever passes for to-hit for magic)

Now, everyone's MAD.

Str/Dex damage swapped with finesse weapons.

[bosssmiley]

So, you're in your living quarters, when the phone rings, it is WOTC, they want you to design 5th edition, they don't care what it ends up being, they just want a new edition.

"No hablo Ingles" and hang up.

I won't work for any hack farm so contemptuous of their fanbase as to decree "Year 0" by putting the kybosh on legal sale-and-download of 30 years of D&D pop culture heritage.
I'm not prepared to be the next Jason Buhlman/Mike Mearls nerdweb hate figure. :smallamused:


So, if you were making 5th edition how would you make it? What would you take from past editions? What would you put in the core books?

I wouldn't. It would just break the base into even smaller fragments.

Why do we need another new 'official' (ie: IP-stakeholder) edition?

We have about 35 years of "Here's how to..." material
the OGL genie is out of the bottle; the Open Gaming revolution cannot be undone, and the SRD gives us a common lingua franca
there's demonstrable prior art in creating clone games of out-of-distro D&D.

Thanks largely to the internet the fandom no longer requires the industry.



"Dice and maps and figures and complicated rule books are a crutch.
The game doesn't need them — but the market does."
-- Dave Arneson, 1992

@Oslecamo (vv): Wassamatter? You too good to draw chits from a mug and use Clue/Monopoly figures like the rest of us? (bagsie being the dog btw) :smallwink:

[hamlet]

You don't want me to answer this question.

Essentially, I agree with Bossmiley, but in far less civilized words.

[Oslecamo]

"Dice and maps and figures and complicated rule books are a crutch.
The game doesn't need them — but the market does."
-- Dave Arneson, 1992


Wait, what? How do you properly randomize whitout dices? And figures are an excuse for using all the WH and lego figures you've collected over the years! And maps are always nice to look at.

Also, for someone that has a link on their sign to one of the most complicated 3.X versions out there, I feel suprised for you to condemn complicated rule books.

[Tyndmyr]

It'd be a bastardized version of E6.

Balance problems...solved. 3.5 lovers tempted back to the fold...

I'd add a great deal more options to it, including a wild number of higher powered spells, as feat chains. It's amazing how much spellcaster power is limited in this way. Sure...you can get Dimension door, but it costs one feat...and then you can get teleport. High level nukes may need rebalancing.

A specialized caster can still do nifty things, but it makes them actually specialize, since feats are still a precious resource.

[Xuincherguixe]

I'd tell them I wasn't interested and hang up the phone.


The sort of system I'd be interested in making would be very unlike D&D, and to call it 5th edition would insult the people who theoretically would be buying it.

With a Xuinchersystem, my primary concern would be creating a system that provides support for the people playing it. What I mean by that is a bit complicated. It needs to be something that is good at generating problems with very open ended solutions.

At the same time, there needs to be balance. Which is made all the harder by the fact that you're giving people lots of options.

Traditionally D&D has largely been about Math and Murder. It doesn't feel significant when you go from a +4 flaming longsword that lets you kill 4 orcs, to a +5 electric battle axe that lets you kill 8.

On the other hand having an electric guitar that you can use to melt off peoples faces and summon swarms of vicious animals you can use to terrorize your enemies and have them declare you their new god? Now that's interesting! (Oh Brutal Legend. You were a fun, but far too short game)

A good game system is one that encourages the players to really drive events. Be that through shear awesomeness as the above, or finding creative solutions to problems.


If I was held at gun point though... I'd really break things down, and come up with a way to combine class features. Probably keep everything on a computer too to check to see what combinations ruin things. Introduce a set of options for adding your own stuff. (Monsters, and Spells primarily. New classes isn't really something that could be done right, that's very subjective.)

And, include a DVD with a bunch of useful utility sorts of programs. Probably in something like Java. People with Linux play D&D too!

[jokey665]

Psionics would be core. Other than that, it would probably look pretty similar to 3.5...

[Optimystik]

And, include a DVD with a bunch of useful utility sorts of programs. Probably in something like Java. People with Linux play D&D too!

I agree - Web-based D&D would be amazing. Uniting Apple, Linux and Windows players into one cheap and easy-to-use grid. Drag and drop to create your campaign setting, integrated character builders...

Also, <3 for your avatar, Millennium-sama :smallsmile:

[Mystic Muse]

I would:
-Keep the power system of 4e
-Return the skill system of 3.5
-Ditch skill challenges, they tend to be boring in my experience.
-Keep the HP system of 4e
-Keep the feat system of 4e
-Return the 9 alignments of 3.5
-Bring magic items back to their rightful place in the DMG
-Keep Paragon Paths and Epic Destines.


1. possibly but the game could probably do the same without it.
2. If you do this everybody except the skillmonkey classes need to have the same amount of skill points per level
3. what's the point of skills if you don't use them for anthing?:smallconfused:
4. This might work but you'd have to put healing surges in as well or greatly weaken monsters due to the low overall hp 4th edition gives.
5. feats are going to have to be substantially weaker than they are in 3.5 if you plan on doing this.
6. I approve
7. ?
8. I approve

[Uin]

Q: If you were making 5th edition how would you make it?
A: Dungeons and Dragons Saga Edition.

[Gamerlord]

3. what's the point of skills if you don't use them for anthing?:smallconfused:


Good point :smallredface: .
On another note, yeah, healing surges would be kept.
Also, you HAVE read the DMG from before 4th edition right? Before 4e, magic items were in the DMG.

[Aldizog]

Wait, what? How do you properly randomize whitout dices?
Paper chits in a bag?
But I imagine that Arneson's point was that the market does rely on gamers buying far more dice than they need, often in the belief that an old set has become "cursed," or because a new set is pretty or cool-looking, or whatever.

[Anonymouswizard]

Balance all core races
Make LA buyof standard
Throw the sorcerer into the nine hells
Change spells per day so wizards, clerics, druids and other full casters only get 6th level spells pre epic
Reduce bard spells per day
Make the paladin and ranger no-spellcasting
Put magic items back into the DMG and not the PHB
Make epic rules balanced
Make epic rules core
Make epic spells levels 7-9
Make legendary rules
Make rules for spell levels 10-12
Make spell levels 10-12 for legendary characters.
Balance all classes
Increase feats to every odd numbered level
Increase the abilities of the fighter
Make it last for at least 12 years
Have no less than 3 monster books in the first 2 years


And compulsary splatbooks:

Psionics
Dieties and demigods (with statistics for gods, rules for playing gods, divine combat options and spell levels 13-15)
No less than 6 settings
Completes
Others that take my fancy.


Also, a basic D&D with the following options:

4 races: human, dwarf, elf, halfling
4 classes: cleric, fighter, rogue and wizard
max level 6
Rules for continued advancement beyond level 6 in the for of feats
A selection of rulebooks
A prompt to buy the complete game

[Draz74]

Well, marketing-wise, I'd definitely stick with the subscription-service, online character-tools orientation that 4e is using. I think that's definitely playing to modern market trends, and is probably all that's keeping 4e afloat when its fanbase is (from what I've heard) still quite a bit smaller than 3e's was. If my statistical impressions are off-base, which is totally possible ... meh, I still think subscription-based game publishing is probably the way of the future.

The Monster Manual should be a small book of the most iconic monsters, and probably not try to come out with a new one every year. Rather, most of the "crunch" in Campaign Setting books should be monsters distinctive to that setting.

Game-crunch wise, I'd obviously make something pretty similar to the homebrew system I'm actually working on. That includes:

6 attributes (a strong sacred cow), but slightly different than the classic ones: Brawn, Agility, Fitness, Intellect, Perception, Wit.
Less drastic power-scaling with levels, at least in numerical terms; a la E6.
Generic "classes," i.e. most special abilities converted into a selectable feats system.
Monsters built using the same rules as PCs. Monster PCs handled more similarly to 4e.
All but the most combat-centric magic converted into Rituals.
Less "Christmas Tree Effect"/magic item dependency.
Most abilities on a more-or-less per-encounter basis, to avoid the 15-minute workday (but you can eventually get truly exhausted and need to sleep).
Health on a Vitality/Injury system. Armor makes attacks less effective rather than making them just miss (but not via simple DR).
No iterative attacks/full attacks. Multiple attacks in a round can still be done via special abilities, but to a more limited extent.
Combat magic ... hard to describe, but let's just say it's closer mechanically to the psionics system than the Vancian system.
Speed up gameplay: mostly get rid of temporary/situational modifiers to die rolls. Rerolls or other things can be used instead, but for Celestia's sake, no more having to keep track of the duration of the +2 bonus I get from that stupid Cleric spell! Also, ability score boosts/penalties much rarer for the same reason.
No alignments except a Taint system for very evil things. I'm all for epic struggles between good and evil, but I don't see why the difference therein has to be enforced by magic and other game mechanics.

[Crow]

Tough question, and not really one that I feel like answering in full because it would take so long.

I guess the main points would be;

1. There is no expectation of perfect balance.
2. Every class plays differently, and feels different than every other.
3. It's YOU, not your magic items.

[Xuincherguixe]

I agree - Web-based D&D would be amazing. Uniting Apple, Linux and Windows players into one cheap and easy-to-use grid. Drag and drop to create your campaign setting, integrated character builders...

Also, <3 for your avatar, Millennium-sama :smallsmile:

I'm also a programmer so... yeah, I know a bit about this stuff. Not that I would, but I probably could program all of 3.5. I had the idle thought of taking everything, and running simulations. See what's horribly broken.

But that'd be a lot of work, would cost me a lot of money, it's breaking the law (one of the annoying sides of the OGL), and the value is questionable.

I'm totally doing that though if I ever decide to make my own system though.

And yeah, saw that on a different thread. Clearly we must have fancy dinner party! And if you don't show up I'll kill you <3


Paper chits in a bag?

I watched a video review (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFm8HHV8ks4) about one game which uses a Jenga mechanic.

[Tyndmyr]

Tough question, and not really one that I feel like answering in full because it would take so long.

I guess the main points would be;

1. There is no expectation of perfect balance.
2. Every class plays differently, and feels different than every other.
3. It's YOU, not your magic items.

This is actually sorta what I was going for with my idea. Perfect.

[Mando Knight]

Also, you HAVE read the DMG from before 4th edition right? Before 4e, magic items were in the DMG.

And what is so important about that? When starting at levels higher than 1st, the players expect to be able to figure out what they can grab. By putting magic items in the same book as the rest of the character creation guidelines, players only need to purchase the one PHB.

Personally, I really like how they set the books up in 4e. DM books are DM books, so players don't really need them. (Even the Monster Manual races. They're mostly in the backs of those books so that a DM can introduce new races, not necessarily so that players can grab them.) The DMG is exactly what it says on the cover: a guide to DMs. The Monster Manuals could include a little more fluff on the monsters, but the monster books make up for that.

[Optimystik]

I'm also a programmer so... yeah, I know a bit about this stuff. Not that I would, but I probably could program all of 3.5. I had the idle thought of taking everything, and running simulations. See what's horribly broken.

But that'd be a lot of work, would cost me a lot of money, it's breaking the law (one of the annoying sides of the OGL), and the value is questionable.

I'm totally doing that though if I ever decide to make my own system though.

I'm a programmer too, and believe me when I saw that 4e would be VERY easy to write algorithms for. So, what's taking them so long?

They've literally boiled the game down to a series of Select Case statements at long last, and yet they persist with this inefficient business model of miniatures, cards and grids.

The SRD for 4e is all but useless, so anything I made would also be solely for my own amusement. :smallannoyed:


And yeah, saw that on a different thread. Clearly we must have fancy dinner party! And if you don't show up I'll kill you <3

What am I, an exorcist? Sheesh! :smallbiggrin:

[ZeroNumerous]

...I'd just use Star Wars Saga.

[Tyndmyr]

They've literally boiled the game down to a series of Select Case statements at long last, and yet they persist with this inefficient business model of miniatures, cards and grids.

'nother code monkey here.

My theory is that the above statement makes perfect sense if you replace inefficient with profitable, and miniatures, cards and grids with "an endless stream of accessories".

[Mystic Muse]

Good point :smallredface: .
On another note, yeah, healing surges would be kept.
Also, you HAVE read the DMG from before 4th edition right? Before 4e, magic items were in the DMG.

yeah, but I like the fact that it's in the PHB. other than traps and rules on how to build your own monsters I haven't exactly found much in the 4th edition DMG. You could potentially play the game with just the PHB and the monster manual or monster manual 2.


aaaaaand Mando knight says exactly what I was trying to say except much better.:smallfrown:

[Jayabalard]

Personally, I really like how they set the books up in 4e. DM books are DM books, Older editions were the same way... there was just a fundamental shift in the mentality of the game, so now magic items are in the PHB instead of the DM guide: they're something for the players to choose rather than something for the DM to award.

[The J Pizzel]

Q: If you were making 5th edition how would you make it?
A: Dungeons and Dragons Saga Edition.


Couldn't agree more. Make four of five basic classes and put talent trees in there just like SAGA. Mix and match and cross-class all day till you've created the perfect character that you've envisioned. It's a perfect system.

In SAGA I've always found it very easy to the character around the idea I have in my mind.

[Gamerlord]

yeah, but I like the fact that it's in the PHB. other than traps and rules on how to build your own monsters I haven't exactly found much in the 4th edition DMG. You could potentially play the game with just the PHB and the monster manual or monster manual 2.


aaaaaand Mando knight says exactly what I was trying to say except much better.:smallfrown:

Maybe I just am some strange form of purist, I guess that is a good point, but in my mind, putting magic items in the PHB promotes rules lawyering.

[Tyndmyr]

Rules lawyering doesnt bother me, but I imagine the magicmart mentality might bother some.

[Draz74]

Yeah. In my view, wanting to move magic items back into the DMG is just a veiled desire for "It's YOU, not your magic items", due to a sense that the MagikMart mentality goes along with the Christmas Tree Effect. If there weren't an expectation for higher-level characters to have a certain amount of magic items, then there wouldn't be a need for the magic items section of the PHB being used in the character creation process.

Boy, we have developed a lot of euphemisms for magic item dependency, haven't we?

[Optimystik]

'nother code monkey here.

My theory is that the above statement makes perfect sense if you replace inefficient with profitable, and miniatures, cards and grids with "an endless stream of accessories".

Of course it's profitable, but that doesn't make it efficient.

Imagine 4e as a web-based game, where instead of buying randomized miniature boosters etc, you could buy the digital representations thereof via micro-transactions through an online store. As the DM, you could set up your game world, free to focus on setting and plot while the computer handles all the rules issues like cover, opportunity attacks, and saving throws behind the scenes. And you could play with people around the world in real time without the tedium that comes with PbP.

And because it's all packaged with your playgroup's DDI subscription, every sourcebook and magazine is a click away. Errata and houserules would be applied on the fly. Your players can select their powers from a radial menu and all the appropriate ranges can instantly be mapped to the grid.

And if you really want, you can shell out for the table. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgtrElwLWlw)

[Tyndmyr]

Oh, I know...I've had similar dreams. If only licensing were sufficiently easy....

I suspect someones going to have to make a good, openly licensed roleplaying engine that somehow gains some popularity before such a thing happens.

[Mystic Muse]

Older editions were the same way... there was just a fundamental shift in the mentality of the game, so now magic items are in the PHB instead of the DM guide: they're something for the players to choose rather than something for the DM to award.

I don't get that. what I get from it is that they want to simplify things if you're making a character above level 1 without you having to buy two different books to do so.

[The Demented One]

• Slide it more towards the cinematic end of the scale.

• Retain 4e-ish powers, but with more flexibility in who can take them, and a different usage mechanic–a common currency required to activate powers, rather than a timing limit.

• Differentiate between martial/divine/arcane/etc. powers in terms of how they're used, but retain the balancing between them.

• Rework magic items to make them less statistically significant and encourage players to use less items.

• Take 4e's skill contests and expand them into multiple abstract systems, each one getting mechanical support comparable, if not equal, to combat. Things like diplomacy, war, and stuff here.

• Use a tick-based initiative system.

• Make a more holistic and detailed default setting.

[Mystic Muse]

the problem, is that the only way to make a player not want magic items is to make them dang near useless or the cost of using one is so high it's not even worth it.

[Fortuna]

Speaking as someone who has played 1st edition and 3.5, and has read te 4e books, I am firmly on the side of magic items in the DMG here. Back in 1e (which admittedly had many faults), magic items were in the DMG, players got given items almost exclusively by the DM (crafting took anything from a week to a month, during which you weren't adventuring), and identify was not a guarantee. Magic items were rare, but I don't think that that is the important bit: they were mysterious. You couldn't go look up your latest item as a player: you identified it and prayed that the spell was right, and woe betide thee if you tried to use your wand of fireball, identified as a wand of frost, on the red dragon. Oh yes, and identify required the caster to wear or wield the item while casting, so that's good for a laugh sometimes. Not that I'm advocating unequivocally cursed items, but those with definite drawbacks (+3 berserking sword, for instance) that you can't drop without a remove curse? Ah, fun times.

[The Rose Dragon]

Call Eden Studios.

"Hi, I have been contacted to create 5th Edition of D&D, but your Unisystem is already so awesome. Can we just dub it '5th Edition' and get it over with?"

Yay! Problem solved!

[Mystic Muse]

snip

in other words you enjoy screwing the players over?

remind me not to play in your games.

[Oslecamo]

I'm a programmer too, and believe me when I saw that 4e would be VERY easy to write algorithms for. So, what's taking them so long?


The market is completely saturated with computer MMOs, and Wotc has little experience in the field. 4e books are selling relatively well, so why risk launching a game that may easily turn into a flop, like many other good game ideas turned out?

Anonymouswizard:I really like your sugestions. Just a question, what do you mean by "legendary"? Levels 31-40?

[Anonymouswizard]

in other words you enjoy screwing the players over?

remind me not to play in your games.

Tell him about E6.

[Gamerlord]

Speaking as someone who has played 1st edition and 3.5, and has read te 4e books, I am firmly on the side of magic items in the DMG here. Back in 1e (which admittedly had many faults), magic items were in the DMG, players got given items almost exclusively by the DM (crafting took anything from a week to a month, during which you weren't adventuring), and identify was not a guarantee. Magic items were rare, but I don't think that that is the important bit: they were mysterious. You couldn't go look up your latest item as a player: you identified it and prayed that the spell was right, and woe betide thee if you tried to use your wand of fireball, identified as a wand of frost, on the red dragon. Oh yes, and identify required the caster to wear or wield the item while casting, so that's good for a laugh sometimes. Not that I'm advocating unequivocally cursed items, but those with definite drawbacks (+3 berserking sword, for instance) that you can't drop without a remove curse? Ah, fun times.
EXACTLY what I mean, magic items aren't mysterious anymore not that they are in the PHB, players can just look up the item and know what it is, and if they forget? They just look it up again! And now when your players walk into the magic shop, you don't tell them what is available and what it does anymore, they grab the PHB and say "I want that, I want that, and I want THAT." With complete knowledge of what it does, all you get to say is "It isn't in stock"

[Somebloke]

Couldn't agree more. Make four of five basic classes and put talent trees in there just like SAGA. Mix and match and cross-class all day till you've created the perfect character that you've envisioned. It's a perfect system.

In SAGA I've always found it very easy to the character around the idea I have in my mind.

+2. I loved the character creation ideal behind Saga. I might add a few elements of 4e in, though, such as encounter-dependent healing.

[Mystic Muse]

EXACTLY what I mean, magic items aren't mysterious anymore not that they are in the PHB, players can just look up the item and know what it is, and if they forget? They just look it up again! And now when your players walk into the magic shop, you don't tell them what is available and what it does anymore, they grab the PHB and say "I want that, I want that, and I want THAT." With complete knowledge of what it does, all you get to say is "It isn't in stock"


and this prevents them from going online and downloading the book, picking it up at their library or simply buying it and finding out that way how? how is them asking "is there anything that can burst into flames once it hits my enemies" and the DM responding "no" any different than the player saying "I want a +1 flaming burst greatbow" and the DM saying "they don't have any" different?

[Gamerlord]

and this prevents them from going online and downloading the book, picking it up at their library or simply buying it and finding out that way how? how is them asking "is there anything that can burst into flames once it hits my enemies" and the DM responding "no" any different than the player saying "I want a +1 flaming burst greatbow" and the DM saying "they don't have any" different?
Because
*Piracy is illegal :smalltongue:
* What if the library doesn't have the book? :smalltongue:
*Then I will have caught them reading DM-only material, and then the slaughter ensues :smalltongue:

[Mystic Muse]

Because
*Piracy is illegal :smalltongue:
* What if the library doesn't have the book? :smalltongue:
*Then I will have caught them reading DM-only material, and then the slaughter ensues :smalltongue:

1. yes because people care so much (but lets get away from that before it becomes a rules breaking discussion.)
2. then they borrow it from their friend.
3. you can't kill the servants of Sauron :smalltongue: Unless you WANT to make him angry.

[Optimystik]

and this prevents them from going online and downloading the book, picking it up at their library or simply buying it and finding out that way how? how is them asking "is there anything that can burst into flames once it hits my enemies" and the DM responding "no" any different than the player saying "I want a +1 flaming burst greatbow" and the DM saying "they don't have any" different?

The first answer is a lot less clear. It could either mean that there really isn't an item that can do what the player wants, or that the DM is banning it in a very passive-aggressive way. The second is much clearer because the player knows the item exists - his DM just isn't letting him have it.

[Gamerlord]

1. yes because people care so much (but lets get away from that before it becomes a rules breaking discussion.)
2. then they borrow it from their friend.
3. you can't kill the servants of Sauron :smalltongue: Unless you WANT to make him angry.
3. I'm the DM, I will just bring in The King of Rules* who can kill anything.

*A homebrew monster of mine, more like the monster of monsters, as it can change it's stats at will.

[Mystic Muse]

Sauron's CR is "you die":smalltongue:

@optimystik. Okay, I guess I can see your point. the problem is when the risks of picking up an item outweigh the rewards. "Sure by picking up that sword I could get +2 flaming sword but I could also pick it up, be teleported to the abyss and be eaten by demons after they do a whole list of other horrible things to me"

[Gamerlord]

Sauron's CR is "you die":smalltongue:

*Yawn*
King of rules makes himself immune to death effects. :smalltongue:

[Starscream]

http://i46.tinypic.com/2gwrodj.jpg:smallbiggrin:

In all seriousness, I would try to combine the best features of 3.5 and 4. For instance, adding one of two ability modifiers to to your saves, balancing up the races, giving enemies levels instead of CRs. But yeah, it would be more like 3.75 than 5.

[Mystic Muse]

*Yawn*
King of rules makes himself immune to death effects. :smalltongue:

Sauron brings in his most powerful monster.

HOMEBREW!:smalltongue: when Homebrew enters the field the king of rules loses all abilities, can't attack and has 1 hp.

[Gamerlord]

Sauron brings in his most powerful monster.

HOMEBREW!:smalltongue: when Homebrew enters the field the king of rules loses all abilities, can't attack and has 1 hp.

King of rules restores all HPs, restores all abilities, restores attack, and gives himself DR 1000/-, as well as the +10 Greataxe of homebrewbane :smalltongue:

[Mystic Muse]

King of rules restores all HPs, restores all abilities, restores attack, and gives himself DR 1000/-, as well as the +10 Greataxe of homebrewbane :smalltongue:

I cast Malfegor and discard my hand that's seven cards You only have one creature so you have to sacrifice him.:smalltongue: I ALSO play silence so spells can't be cast after I play Malfegor.:smallbiggrin:

oh yeah, and Homebrew makes it so weapons don't exist.:smalltongue:

[Gamerlord]

I cast Malfegor and discard my hand that's seven cards You only have one creature so you have to sacrifice him.:smalltongue: I ALSO play silence so spells can't be cast after I play Malfegor.:smallbiggrin:

oh yeah, and Homebrew makes it so weapons don't exist.:smalltongue:

I cast "Reminds you that we are getting off-topic".

[The Dark Fiddler]

Here's what I would do:

-Take 3.5
-Fix all the exploits and strenuously playtest it.
-Re-release it all as OGL content.

Because what would be better than having all of 3.5 without the brokenness in the SRD? :smalltongue:

[Mystic Muse]

okay fine.:smallfrown:

Okay, the problem with putting magic items in the DMG is if the players are making higher level characters (say level 15) they aren't going to want to spend tens of thousands of dollars on mundane equipment because it won't help them. They'll want to spend it on magic items. If the DM gives them a list of ones they can have then they'll know what they do and know that they exist anyway. The only real difference in the long run is in one case you spend $70 and in the other you spend $35

[PairO'Dice Lost]

okay fine.:smallfrown:

Okay, the problem with putting magic items in the DMG is if the players are making higher level characters (say level 15) they aren't going to want to spend tens of thousands of dollars on mundane equipment because it won't help them. They'll want to spend it on magic items. If the DM gives them a list of ones they can have then they'll know what they do and know that they exist anyway. The only real difference in the long run is in one case you spend $70 and in the other you spend $35

And that's the difference in philosophy between editions. It used to be the DM said "Okay folks, you're starting with 20,000 XP; let me know the kind of character you want to play and I'll roll up some treasure for you," not "Hey guys, we're starting at 8th level, here's your WBL and the DMG, go wild." I'm not particularly opposed to magic marts per se, but would definitely rather have some more control over what my players are using (mostly to put in some unique items and prevent them from just pouring all their gold into the Big 6 items) than have them just buy whatever they want.

As to what my 5e would look like, probably a lot like the 3e variant I'm working on at the moment: Most of the framework of 3e would be there, but heavily inspired by 2e--more constraints on magic, kits instead of ACFs + PrCs, contracted numerical range for attacks and saves and such, etc.--and with most of 3e's faults fixed--feats that are actually worth it most of the time, no need for a half-dozen spells/items/PrCs to express simple concepts, more balanced (but nowhere near the extent of 4e's balance obsession), etc.

[Agrippa]

1. First, I'd include sensible stronghold and recruitment rules in core that won't bankrupt a small country just to build three bridges and a lousy castle. This is of course with the assumption that higher level PCs will want to build their own headquaters. This will include advice on seperate headquarters in case the party is spreading out across vast territories or large complexes if the party desires to build one great big HQ. Of course these will double as mercenary/student/acolyte recruitment centers.

2. Gold grants XP, just like it did in 1st edition and earlier. So do new experiences like watcing a dragon in flight for the first time or going to new and exotic locales. By the way, you have a one week training time per class level to be gained (2nd equals two weeks, 3rd equals three weeks and so on).

3. "Mook" creatures (non unique NPCs) can be gathered together in units for larger scale battles. All members of the same unit act on the same initiative count. The unit can launch as many attacks in one round as it has sub-divisions and spare members. The number of sub-divisions in a unit are equal to the number of unit members divided by five rounded up. A unit can have up to 10 sub-divisions while one sub-division may have fewer members than the others. Members of each sub-division attack as creatues of their level/hit dice with a +1 bonus per sub-division. On a successful attack roll 1dx with x being sub-division strength. Inflict that amount of damage on one enemy unit or NPC(s). So in a unit with sixteen orcs contains four sub-divisions with three full sup-divisions and one extra orc.

Any creature with more than 11 hit dice or NPC with more than 10 levels is exempt from Mook rules.

4. Magical armor and weapons retain their significance but stat boosting items fade into the background.

[eepop]

Things stolen from previous editions/other systems (although there are some modifications, see below)
1) STR/CON/DEX/INT/WIS/CHA (D&D)
2) AC/Reflex/Fortitude/Will defenses (4E).
3) Aspects and Fate points (Spirit of the Century).
4) Feats(D&D).
5) Skills (D&D).
6) Power structure: At-Will, Limited (4E-ish)
7) Grid Combat (3.5 and 4E)
8) Initiative rolls/ordering.
9) Standard,Move,Minor,Immediate Actions (4E).
10) Immediate Reactions that can be used to Aid Another/Dodge/Parry. (Trailblazer, but mostly limited to 1/round instead of being BA based)


Changes or alterations to previous editions
1) The background mathematical skeleton would be a set value that scales up simply and linearly. Defenses/Attack Bonuses/etc would be a simple Level+relevant ability score. Special exception for weapons/armor see below.
2) Different weapons target different defenses. A Dagger might attack reflex, whereas a maul might attack fortitude. Different armors provide varying alterations to your base defenses. Plate Armor might give +1 AC/-1 Reflex/+1 Fort/+0 Will.
3) Magic Items are rare, and not required in the math for success. When you make a character higher than first level, you need not worry about magic items. A magic item might give a benefit, but it also comes with some penalty.
4) Daily/Encounter powers removed. Dailies replaced with "Limited" powers. These are powers that only turn on for Boss battles. The power level disparity held between At-Will and Encounter powers in 4E is replaced by making the higher power abilities take a standard action and the lower powered ones take a move action.
5) Attacks per round when in the thick of battle will usually be 1 or 2 depending on if you need to use your move action to move. This makes forced movement powers much more relevant. It also greatly reduces the whiff factor that can plague 4E.
6) Remove all flavor from powers, and make it brutally clear that players are expected to provide their own flavor. (Sell an extra book later that has compiled flavorings that players have submitted to be published).
7) Decouple entirely the combat and non-combat portions of characters, and have separate classes for each. Each character is a gestalt of a combat class and a non-combat class.
8) These classes shall be more generic and named according to what they do in combat/non-combat. To create a "Monk" for instance, you would take the "Fighter" combat class, opt to use unarmed attacks, and take the "Ascetic" non-combat class.
9) You have two feat progressions, one for your combat feats (1st + even levels) and one for your non-combat feats (2nd + odd levels).
10) Max Ranks for skills is 5. Skill points gained at first level, and thereafter only gained through feats. Initiative\Grapple\Bullrush\Disarm as skills.

Probably more stuff than that, but that's what immediately comes to mind.

[Soranar]

Well honestly, just ripoff the greats

personally I prefer 3.5 as a basis since I already know what needs fixing

(inspired by Fallout system)

STR same as before yet add 1/2 as a bonus to healthpoints and fortitude saves
DEX same, honestly it affects a lot of things already, no one dumps dex unless they don't have a choice
CON see DEX
INT see DEX
WIS same yet only 1/2 as bonus to will saves
CHA same + bonus to will saves

rebalance the races in core
remove LA+3 and up from PCs options entirely

new feat

carreer

your current class becomes your favored class

must be taken at level 1

remove magic based damage resistance

remove stat enhancement from magic items entirely

this includes BAB, to hit, damage, character stats

remove the skill use magic device: if you want to use magic be a spellcaster

nerf spells : polymorph magic, shapechange, rope tricks, make flying more difficult to control (add concentration checks to do any action), I rarely play wizards so I'm sure I'm forgetting a lot of things

remove animal companion from the druid, remove feat natural spells

make clerics unable to use heavy armor and tower shields to cast spells, make them unable to use anything else but simple weapons or lose their powers, give them d6 hit die and wizard BAB progression

give rogues d8 hit die (considering the loss of UMD) and x10 skills per level

give Paladin smites/day for each odd Paladin level, smites can be used on ranged attack up to 30 ft

give fighters x4 skills per level, make weapon specialization +3 damage

give Monks full BAB progression

in short just fix 3.5 and ripoff some interesting things from 4th and use ToB as core

[Oslecamo]

3. "Mook" creatures (non unique NPCs) can be gathered together in units for larger scale battles. All members of the same unit act on the same initiative count. The unit can launch as many attacks in one round as it has sub-divisions and spare members. The number of sub-divisions in a unit are equal to the number of unit members divided by five rounded up. A unit can have up to 10 sub-divisions while one sub-division may have fewer members than the others. Members of each sub-division attack as creatues of their level/hit dice with a +1 bonus per sub-division. On a successful attack roll 1dx with x being sub-division strength. Inflict that amount of damage on one enemy unit or NPC(s). So in a unit with sixteen orcs contains four sub-divisions with three full sup-divisions and one extra orc.


Shameless self-promotion of my mob template, used to make groups of little dudes dangerous, in my sig. Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129179).

[lesser_minion]

Hmm...

In short:


I'd ditch parts of the power system. It could have been great, and most of the ideas behind it are sound, but WotC messed it up. I'd also switch it to points, and call those points Action Points.
Casters would have a choice between Vancian magic, consequence-based magic, or unreliable magic. All three would be points-based, rather than being based on slots or similarly stupid concepts.
I like the idea of characters who can be defeated without killing them, but I think combat needs to be grittier as well. I'd probably cut healing surges, slow down recovery, and give characters temporary hitpoints at the start of each fight, equal to how many hitpoints they have left. I'd probably give characters a per-encounter allowance of AP.
Attacks of opportunity will be cut, and replaced with parries. Characters who run out of parries, or do something that costs them their parries, and are then attacked in melee are in big trouble.
I'd streamline the magic item rules further by fusing them with the bonus stacking rules.
Kill character roles with fire. Characters should do different things in different situations - one fight, your wizard might have to hold off an enemy wizard, while in another, she might have to zap some orc warriors while the fighter keeps them busy.
Psionics would probably be non-core. They were great in 3rd edition, but all they actually did was show up all of the traditional casters.
Action types changed to Full, Major, Minor, and Defensive. Full actions take the whole round and stop you getting defensive actions. You only get one major action. You get as many minor actions as you want, but not more than one of a single minor action. You get one defensive action, and more through feats.
Weapons rules will be non-sucky, i.e. as found in 3.0. Any Alter Self effects will be likewise, and Alter Self will be based on Change Self, thank you very much.
No racial stat modifiers.
Purge idiotic WBL issues such as Nightcrawlers, Rust Monsters, Sundering, and Disjunctions. Firstly because stuff happens, and secondly because having players shy away from what should be a perfectly reasonable tactic because they don't want stuff to happen is stupid. And thirdly because having the DM shy away from using the same tactics because the players don't want stuff to happen is even worse.


There probably is more, but those are some of the big things that come to mind.

By the way, Draz, are you ever going to bring your homebrew back to the forums?

[Draz74]

• Use a tick-based initiative system.
Were you one of the ones who worked with Golthur on his tick-based initiative system back in the day?


2) Different weapons target different defenses. A Dagger might attack reflex, whereas a maul might attack fortitude. Different armors provide varying alterations to your base defenses. Plate Armor might give +1 AC/-1 Reflex/+1 Fort/+0 Will.
Ewww. This particular brand of abstraction is one of my least-favorite things about 4e.

Mind you, it might still sort of make sense if those same Fort/Ref/Will defenses weren't used sometimes against threats (spells) that had nothing to do with weapons and combat.


4) Daily/Encounter powers removed. Dailies replaced with "Limited" powers. These are powers that only turn on for Boss battles.
That's actually kind of an interesting idea. Could easily get out of hand and make Bosses seem weaker than other challenges, though.


The power level disparity held between At-Will and Encounter powers in 4E is replaced by making the higher power abilities take a standard action and the lower powered ones take a move action.
5) Attacks per round when in the thick of battle will usually be 1 or 2 depending on if you need to use your move action to move. This makes forced movement powers much more relevant. It also greatly reduces the whiff factor that can plague 4E.
Seems to me like making move actions useful for attacks, commonly, would mostly just go back to the kind of combat where characters mostly sit in one place and swing at each other again. I guess a lot of forced movement (which I don't usually find very verisimilar) could change that, but ... in general, I liked what 4e did with "move actions are just for actually moving."

Also, how does your idea reduce the "whiff factor" (which, I assume, just means the frustrating sense of uselessness when you miss on your only attack for the round)? Just because you often get two attacks per round?


6) Remove all flavor from powers, and make it brutally clear that players are expected to provide their own flavor. (Sell an extra book later that has compiled flavorings that players have submitted to be published).
That's kind of an interesting idea in an evil-marketing sort of way. Most people from this Forum sure wouldn't buy it, though. (Myself included.)


7) Decouple entirely the combat and non-combat portions of characters, and have separate classes for each. Each character is a gestalt of a combat class and a non-combat class.
That's kind of an interesting idea. I'm not going to use it in my system, but I'm curious to see how it would turn out.


Initiative\Grapple\Bullrush\Disarm as skills.
Offhand, it seems like if those are skills, then Power Attack and Fight Defensively and Turn Undead and ... spellcasting should be skills too.

[Longcat]

Personally, I'd balance it along the lines with SAGA Edition and Tier 3 classes, as in:
-Character classes with Skilltrees (Saga/d20)
-All classes have access to a scaling power source, e.g. Vancian/Psionic casting or ToB
-Races are balanced around Humans
-Get rid of alignments, and introduce affiliations (d20 modern)
-Magic items stay in the Players Handbook, and optional, functioning rules for Low-magic worlds are introduced, since quite a few players/DMs like it that way. From my experience, low-magic is often used as an euphemism for a series of passive-aggressive, control-freaky nerfs, and those who are genuinely interested in playing it for flavor reasons usually get the short end of the stick.

[erikun]

Ah, we haven't had this thread in awhile. :smallredface: Well, let's see if my "fixed edition D&D" standards are mostly the same.

Keeping levels, keeping abilities, keeping classes. Not necessarily because I think they're better, but because people will decry the death of D&D if they aren't there. And as much as I detest the idea of magical +1's running rampant, the game will probably need to keep the +5 Vorpal Longswords.

Keep the basic d20 + bonuses rolling system. THAC0, while useable, isn't something that a lot of people understood and even fewer were able to describe adaquately. Plus, players seem to like the transparency of the newer system.

Ability Scores: 2nd edition style, where spells and equipment boosted to a set amount. Probably a cap on how high they can "naturally" become.

Races: 4th edition style, minus the ability bonuses. A race should be defined by what it can (and occasionally cannot) do, along with what it is good at. A tough race can have an ability which makes them tough; it doesn't need a +2 CON and +2 Endurance to do so.

Classes: 3rd edition style, although other d20 materials have done classes better than 3e did. Obviously, balance them a bit, or at least make some more interesting than "I full attack again."

Multiclassing: 3rd edition, except well done. As in, a high level character with one level of wizard should be able to use their few spells to some meaningful respect. 1 round Shield or 1d4+1 Magic Missile isn't impressive at level 10.

Epic Classes: Treat like Divine Ranks: something that the DM hands out by choice, not given away like candy automatically for hitting level 20.

Prestige Classes and Orders: Prestige Classes would be, well, prestigious. Archmages and Divine Heralds, not just slightly different fighters or wizards (those would be Alternate Class Features).

"Orders" would be something new, as organizations the character would join for various in-game benefits. Paladinhood and Druidism would be examples of Orders. You gain benefits as long as you stay within the Order. While various actions could get you kicked out, it needs to be something the Order will find out about and is up to the DM to determine if the infraction warrants removal from an Order.

Basically, I'm sick of Paladins falling for sneasing on the wrong day. If the DM doesn't want Paladins, then just ban Paladins - if they do want Paladins, though, the characters should have the freedom to choose how they act.

Feats: Need to find a use, not just being "abilities that aren't abilities and extraneous bonuses".

Skills: 4th edition worked best for this. Although the 2nd edition "percentage roll under" wasn't terrible, I don't think that players now would be very accepting of it. Plus, 4e skills are more ingrained with the core system.

Alignment: Game mechanics for alignment (Protection from Good, etc.) would be divorced from the standard alignment. Those mechanics would apply to something appropriate, such as protection from clerics/outsiders of Good deities. Alignment itself would either be a RP guideline or provide bonuses (Action Points, bonus experience) for people who roleplay their characters well.

Magic Equipment: Ideally, remove all the +1's, making only the properities of the weapon relevant. This means that a Holy Avenger Demonslayer does tremendous damage to demons and such, but isn't necessarily any better against an orc. The DM can make them as cheap or exotic as desired, either handing them out to players for upcoming challanges or requiring epic quests to forge the sword to slay the wandering dragon.

Of course, as said above, various fans will probably die if they can't find a +5 somethingorother, so this may not be as practical as I'd like.

Combat: 4th edition style. Standard + Move + Minor works very well, although perhaps Standard + Move + Swift would create more tactical situations. Do I maintain with a Swift, thus giving up any potential Immediate actions, or do I keep the Swift action and stop maintaining the (whatever)? Clearly, I prefer 4e's design of giving Fighters more powerful "strikes" at higher levels over the full-attack method.

In 2e/3e style, I would make grid-based combat optional. I much preferred when you could simply state "I block the Ogre" or "I keep away from the Wererat" in 2e to the "You are in this grid and must stay there for 6 seconds" that 3.5e imposed.

Erm, I think that's most of it.

[Mystic Muse]

oh yeah I forgot.

Multiclass experience penalties and penalties for not choosing your favored class can go die.

I will burn them.
then I will burn the ashes
then I will burn the ashes of the ashes
then I will set the fire on fire.
Then I will send it into the sun.

[J.Gellert]

I'd make it skill-based.

I suspect it would look a lot like a medieval-focused, rebalanced version of Mutants & Masterminds.

I might do it just for laughs if I ever get bored.

[Gamerlord]

oh yeah I forgot.

Multiclass experience penalties and penalties for not choosing your favored class can go die.

I will burn them.
then I will burn the ashes
then I will burn the ashes of the ashes
then I will set the fire on fire.
Then I will send it into the sun.
Then send several nukes into the sun for good measure.

In another words, seconded.

[Eldariel]

Well, I've said it before, I'll say it again; I'd first fix 3.5. This would involve rewriting the classes with multiclassing in mind, rewriting the feats for balance, replacing martial mechanics with ToB-like mechanics that any combat-tending classes can gain to some degree, and incorporate ranged combat into said system.

I'd probably keep vancian casting though the temptation to rewrite it all into a versatilized Psionics-system is definitely there. Then I'd take some mechanics that were insufficiently carried over from 2e and implement them. Stuff like weapon speeds (being able to make a different number of attacks with different types of weapons), slower and more restricted casting, etc. Also, combat stuff like simply "crushing" a creature under a mass, like you could do in 2e definitely belongs. Makes hordes of even weak creatures getting next to you very dangerous.

Then I'd take some good ideas from 4e and incorporate them. For example, monsters being written with immediate and swift actions in mind is a v. good idea. I'd write them into 3e-style easily advancable creatures though.


Finally, I'd tackle the following:
- Rewrite combat to use combat turns instead of individual turns, using Initiative to simply decide the order of actions. Sort of like Combat Mission, except on the board. Turn structure of Standard - Move - Swift would remain, but Move-action needs to be takeable during most standard actions. Full attacks would have to go. At most, slight penalty for attacking while moving.
- Rewrite damage system a bit so that being damaged means something. Probably in the vein of the VP/WP system I'm using currently. Also introduces limb damage.
- Write rules for fighting otherwise than on foot. 'cause let's face it, in a game with Waterbreathing, Freedom of Movement, Fly, Earthglide and similars, engaging in water, in the air or even inside the ground isn't even farfetched or rare.
- Rewrite the damn skill system so that everyone develops somewhat as they level in at least most things their classes are apt in while maintaining a customizability (probably through some sort of base bonus that gets automatically applied), and that people aren't effin' blind.
- Rewrite things to expect no magic item-derived bonuses. The game needs to be playable without a single magic item. There are enough things to do with your money anyways; buy yourself a nice castle or stronghold, or hell, if you're rich enough, your own demiplane. Or found your own army. Or buy a kingdom. Or whatever. This probably involves rewriting the nonmagical attribute advancement, and some sort of advancing bonus to AC from level.
- Redesign multiclassing for classes with progressing abilities.
- Rewrite races to be more interesting. 4e had the right idea; expand upon that, and yeah, increasing the overall power level a bit to accomodate more "powerful" races like some outsider heritage and such by just giving some of the standard powers away.
- Rewrite non-standard races to be playable. From level 1. Or at least functional rules for playing them (Level Adjustment and Racial HD are extremely dysfunctional). Some drawbacks to playing a Dragon and all, but make it friggin' POSSIBLE. While keeping them different.

[Kesnit]

Speaking as someone who has played 1st edition and 3.5, and has read te 4e books, I am firmly on the side of magic items in the DMG here. Back in 1e (which admittedly had many faults), magic items were in the DMG, players got given items almost exclusively by the DM (crafting took anything from a week to a month, during which you weren't adventuring), and identify was not a guarantee. Magic items were rare, but I don't think that that is the important bit: they were mysterious. You couldn't go look up your latest item as a player: you identified it and prayed that the spell was right, and woe betide thee if you tried to use your wand of fireball, identified as a wand of frost, on the red dragon. Oh yes, and identify required the caster to wear or wield the item while casting, so that's good for a laugh sometimes. Not that I'm advocating unequivocally cursed items, but those with definite drawbacks (+3 berserking sword, for instance) that you can't drop without a remove curse? Ah, fun times.

Nothing says a DM can't drop those same items. Putting magic items back in the DMG will do NOTHING to stop the Magic Mini-Mart. Those who care will have the DMG and know all the items anyway. As it is now, anyone who joins a game over LVL 1 needs to know what magic items exist so they can equip their character. Unless you expect the DM to equip every PC....


And that's the difference in philosophy between editions. It used to be the DM said "Okay folks, you're starting with 20,000 XP; let me know the kind of character you want to play and I'll roll up some treasure for you," not "Hey guys, we're starting at 8th level, here's your WBL and the DMG, go wild." I'm not particularly opposed to magic marts per se, but would definitely rather have some more control over what my players are using

If you don't, that is your fault, not your player's. One look at a character sheet and you can veto anything you disagree with before play starts.


(mostly to put in some unique items and prevent them from just pouring all their gold into the Big 6 items)

Put limits on how much they can spend on one items. Or reduce WBL (and then reduce encounter difficulty in proportion).


Races: 4th edition style, minus the ability bonuses. A race should be defined by what it can (and occasionally cannot) do, along with what it is good at. A tough race can have an ability which makes them tough; it doesn't need a +2 CON and +2 Endurance to do so.

Not sure what you mean. Something like racial abilities, i.e. "Halflings are crafty and once per encounter can force an enemy to reroll an attack. The result of the second attack is used, regardless of whether it is better or worse than the first roll."


Multiclassing: 3rd edition, except well done. As in, a high level character with one level of wizard should be able to use their few spells to some meaningful respect. 1 round Shield or 1d4+1 Magic Missile isn't impressive at level 10.

Min-maxers will have a field day will this... "Take one level of XYZ class for their abilities, then two classes of ABC class for theirs. I don't lose anything because my XYZ abilities get better anyway."


Basically, I'm sick of Paladins falling for sneasing on the wrong day.

*snicker*


Magic Equipment: Ideally, remove all the +1's, making only the properities of the weapon relevant. This means that a Holy Avenger Demonslayer does tremendous damage to demons and such, but isn't necessarily any better against an orc. The DM can make them as cheap or exotic as desired, either handing them out to players for upcoming challanges or requiring epic quests to forge the sword to slay the wandering dragon.

I'm of two minds on this. Giving out specific weapons risks forcing DMs to give away plot twists. I ran a campaign once where the BBEG's were a Fighter/Blackguard/Thrall of Orcus and a Sorc/Lich. However, all the party knew was that their local lord (who had been orphaned as a child and only recently come of age) had stopped coming around and the party was looking for him. Giving the party an evil-bane or undead-bane weapon would alert the party that something was going on.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

If you don't, that is your fault, not your player's. One look at a character sheet and you can veto anything you disagree with before play starts.

Put limits on how much they can spend on one items. Or reduce WBL (and then reduce encounter difficulty in proportion).

Yes, yes, I know all about the various ways to work with character wealth--I can and do work with my players to get an item allotment we both like. There's just a philosophical gap between the "you buy your items" take on things and the "you use what you find" take: what items you go for, creativity in using items, priorities/conservation in item use, etc. are all different based on whether you can turn your +2 longsword into a +3 with a bit of cash or not, or whether you can buy another wand of cure light when your first runs out.

[Randel]

Me? I'd probably try working out some sort of large scale economics thing to help integrate the actions of the setting with the actions of the players.

1. A CD or DVD that comes with the game. Programs including a player character generator, list of all the magic items and stuff. And some tools to help DMs quickly build dungeon levels and such (alot like a rougelike random level generator or something... of course with the ability to edit it around and maybe a website where people can post random level generating algorithms).

2. Prices for everything (alot of it on disk so it doesn't take up precious book space). The DMG would have lists of shops, monsters (both the cost to hire and the bounties you can get for them), weapons, etc...

Basically let a DM figure how much loot he wants the PCs to find in a place, then easily get a list of stuff he can put in an area to fill up that amount. Have alot of weapons, armor, and other stuff that the enemies might actually use and the PCs can sell later (even if those weapons and armor and stuff are second rate and can only really be used by the enemies).

3. Plus, rules and stats on armies, mobs of mooks, and trade routes and stuff to help mesh together the fluff of the setting and the PCs.


Oh, and naturally I'd have alot of playtesting done to make sure it actually works and there aren't any major bugs in it (and maybe have some rule in the economics section that reads "If you find a way to instantly make money through some trick then the God of Economics changes the prices of your stuff around so that you can't make easy money anymore.")



For example, provide a list of prices and values for shops, temples, houses and stuff in villages (like... it costs 100 gp to buy a small house in a poor neighborhood, 1,000 to run a shop or something like that). Then a bunch of other stuff for dungeons and

[erikun]

Not sure what you mean. Something like racial abilities, i.e. "Halflings are crafty and once per encounter can force an enemy to reroll an attack. The result of the second attack is used, regardless of whether it is better or worse than the first roll."
Yeah, something like that. Someone (Djinn-in-Tonic?) was working on a 4e E6 variant which did this very well; each race had 4-6 specific abilities that really meant more than just "+2 spot" or a stat boost. Something like the halfling's ability you mentioned stays with the character at all levels, and remains relevant.


Min-maxers will have a field day will this... "Take one level of XYZ class for their abilities, then two classes of ABC class for theirs. I don't lose anything because my XYZ abilities get better anyway."
Honestly, I'm not too worried about min-maxers. Optimization isn't inheritly bad, and it largely depends on the system. In 4e, you can optimize some kind of Paladin/Sorcerer/Cleric mix that utilized Platinum Scales and Consecrated Ground for some absurd bonuses, but you don't end up making the standard Paladin obsolete. At least, not in the same way as a Paladin/Sorcerer/Abjurant Champion does to the straight Paladin in 3.5e.

The idea is something like this: A Fighter 3/Druid 3/Wizard 3 will have spells from the wizard and druid, along with maneuvers (or whatever) from the fighter. His Magic Missile does 5d4+5 damage and he gets 9 rounds out of Shillelagh, but he's still limited to the spell selections of a 3rd level Wizard and a 3rd level Druid. He doesn't have the high level spellcasting of a Wizard 9 or the martial abilities of a Fighter 9, but he does have a number of (still level appropriate) options that neither of the pure-classes has available. Like, say, possibly channeling a spell through a Shillelagh'd quarterstaff as he hits with a martial strike.


I'm of two minds on this. Giving out specific weapons risks forcing DMs to give away plot twists. I ran a campaign once where the BBEG's were a Fighter/Blackguard/Thrall of Orcus and a Sorc/Lich. However, all the party knew was that their local lord (who had been orphaned as a child and only recently come of age) had stopped coming around and the party was looking for him. Giving the party an evil-bane or undead-bane weapon would alert the party that something was going on.
It should still be an option, though. If the DM wants to hand one player the Great Dragonslayer Blade left by an ancestor, it doesn't immediately unbalance everything by being a +5 weapon. (It also doesn't need fancy rules acrobatics to explain how it goes from +1 to +5 throughout the character's career.) If the party is intending to fight the evil Lich terrorizing the land, then they may need to go on a lengthy quest to find the legendary Holy Avenger to slay it... or they need to stop by the MagiMart to pick up a few Undeadbane swords... or they just found a half-dozen Bonecrusher Maces in the last treasure stash.

The point is that it should be the DM's option on how this is handled - something that isn't done very well in current D&D. Bonuses from magical equipment and level-appropriate encounters leads to requiring those magical bonuses to hit those level-appropriate defenses. Remove the bonuses, and the only difference between a standard longsword and a Cold Iron Holy Ghosttouch Demonbane one is the damage reduction/immunities it overcomes.

[Randel]

Oh, and expanding on my thing with economics and Eldariels post, make magic items rarer and give more mundane things to spend your money on:

Things like throwing an awesome party, buying a stronghold, donating money to farmers to help get through the growing season, equip some guards or a local millitia to keep the village safe from invaders forever...

Basically heroes don't really 'need' to buy expensive magic items to equip themselves, their power mostly comes from heroic resolve and divine power or magic. When they get money they can spend it on things like strongholds or ships or donations or stuff.

Not sure if there should be an in-game rewards system for donating to charity... like fame points or pleasing your patron deity for more powers or something.


I'm getting a weird image of heroes going to a poor village, learning that there are goblins raiding them, they go kill the goblins and take all their stuff (possibly dragging some of them back to work as slaves), then help boost the local economy by donating money and weapons and helping set up guards and stuff.

Good heroes could help train and set up the militias or defenses to protect against further threats (maybe each village has a defense stat that protects them from encounters of one encounter level or lower and heroes can invest in raising this level with money and skill checks).

Evil teams can grab lots of loot and forget the village (though since their combat skills are mostly from their training and magic then there isn't that much they can use the money for bonusing themselves) or they could set up protection rackets or crime syndicates that keep the place 'protected' from monsters.

Good guys invest in farms, hospitals, and homeless shelters to keep people happy and well fed.

Evil players set up soup kitchens that are fronts to recruit members for their evil cults, sweatshops for exploiting the poor and orphaned and crooked doctors run evil hospitals or something.

Hopefully all this stuff should be really easy to do and quickly done with so that the players can get back to fighting monsters... unless its the opposite and they would rather do the investment stuff than fight monsters (which is fine until attackers show up to rob your house).


not sure if it would really be dungeons and dragons at that point though...

[lesser_minion]

I generally imagine magic items to be fairly similar to actual lands and estates in terms of how people might view them. It also implies that each item of any significance is unique, has an attached title, and probably has powers relevant to that title.

I think it also makes the item a little more special, I think.

What I would actually do with magic items in D&D is to fuse Ars Magica and Exalted rules.

Each character has a number of points representing the total amount of magical power to be found in her realm.

If she wishes, she can bind some of this power into a vessel of some sort in order to create the equivalent of a magic item (although it could also be a magic person or a magic place). If the vessel is destroyed, the power used returns to the earth and can be used for a new project.

It's up to the DM whether creating a magic item is 'safe' as far as life is concerned, whether it makes the land generally less 'alive', or whether it amounts to defiling. Perhaps changes the land undergoes depend on the vessel and use - for example, binding power into a corpse to create an undead slave could lead to some kind of decay setting in around some parts of the land.

That fixes any WBL issues - nightshades and rust monsters are no longer the nastiest things in the game, and sundering becomes worth it.

It also makes gold less useful - it's just money, rather than the main route to power.

[Sequinox]

oh yeah I forgot.

Multiclass experience penalties and penalties for not choosing your favored class can go die.

I will burn them.
then I will burn the ashes
then I will burn the ashes of the ashes
then I will set the fire on fire.
Then I will send it into the sun.

Wait.
:smallfurious:
People actually use those rules????!?!!!copter!!!???:smalleek::smalleek:

[Mystic Muse]

Wait.
:smallfurious:
People actually use those rules????!?!!!copter!!!???:smalleek::smalleek:

some people do apparently. I've heard people post saying so. I'm wondering what it could POSSIBLY add to the game since it just makes arcane classes like the wizard even better because they don't NEED to multiclass. they can already kill everything in a hundred yard radius.

or deal 10d6 t everything in a six mile radius. yes there's a spell that does that in BOVD. it's also mentioned in elder evils.

what's the copter thing about?

[Longcat]

what's the copter thing about?

The "Rulescopter" might be a variation of the "Roflcopter"

[Natael]

In (semi-) jest, GURPS Dungeon Fantasy + Imbuements.

On the other hand, I have a few things that should improve it while making it distinctly D&D. As a note, I know of some pre2E things, but mostly played 2E and 3.x, with a little 4E.

Stats: Keep the six basic stats, but try to compress them into a basic 3-18 range, where each level you're at reaps a discernible bonus or penalty. There should be a distinction between 8 and 14 (which there was not much of in 2E) or even 10 and 11 (which, for most stats, there was not in 3.x/4e).

Races: Try to keep base races "balanced", but only needed in the 2E philosophy of it. The idea of lessening pure stat oriented changes is a good idea (that 4E touched on a decent bit), but Halflings should be discernibly weaker than a Human, Dwarves hardier than the rest etc... Social penalties are definitely viable (such as the case as playing a pixie or giant, yes, they are generally more powerful, but towns and cities wont like them, and only if the GM allows), though base races should be generally accepted in most situations.

Classes: I really like how GURPS runs Dungeon Fantasy, and could probably even use a more built up type system as per Heroes Unlimited or Mutants and Masterminds. Give many options, perhaps purchased as feats to preserve some of 3.x/4e, and maybe even remove the concept of classes. Give those that devote themselves to a deity extra power, or bonus feats of a specific type (a la a Paladin or Druid) that would lose some, though not a catastrophic amount of power if they break their vows (such as 2E, a fallen Paladin was still effectively a good fighter until he atoned). Or a cleric could take a restriction (must donate X% of wealth to charity) for a bit of a bonus. A warrior could buy bonus HP or saves in exchange for no magic. Perhaps a priority system such as Shadowrun's old rules would suffice.

Prestige Classes: Would be irrelevant, as how you spend your feats would determine your focus, and you could call yourself whatever you want.

XP/Levels: Something you'd probably need to keep to preserve the D&D feel, though likely use it as more of a limiter on which powers you could start with (you couldent take the tier 3 evocation spell feat until you hit level 5, sorry, and of course you have to have taken the tier 1 and 2 evocation feats first).

Magic items: They are given by the GM and mystical, much like 2E. Hopefully even remove the concept of a +1 long sword. Encourage utility items, like this ring makes you invisible, this sword lights on fire if you say a word, throwing a card from this deck summons a random animal, this armor attracts arrows and makes them do less damage because they hit it.

Skills: I detest the 4E trained/untrained method, as well as having so many skills dropped. 3.x worked decently for me, however the general uselessness for a skill not maxed at your level, giving an all or nothing feeling to them. There is something about the GURPS skill system that made taking a couple points in a skill feel like, even if you were only decent at it, an acceptable investment. Probably something to do with the lack of a level system, as well as a minimal character point investment into something "neat but not inherently useful" not devastating to character resources. So to end my rambling, not sure exactly what to do, but I don't like how it has worked in previous editions, 2E included.

Other notes:

I'd like to keep armor much like 2E, yeah, the chain mail is nice against swords, alright against a spear, but sucks against a club. Dex penalties will be based on encumbrance rather than armor type for the most part (yeah, plate mail is a little tougher to move in, but if you're strong probably not too bad, and it stops weapons dead). No specific opinion how AC and BaB work as mere concepts are only being discussed.

Dex should innately factor into you hitting the opponent, perhaps with a little input from Str.

Tome of Battle was pretty spiffy, felt distinct from magic, mechanically worked differently, yet similarly. My opinion was that 4E fighters and wizards both felt mechanically too much the same that the feeling of magic left. 4E psionics on the other hand felt interestingly and mechanically distinct. Preserving this feeling is very important to me.

[Draz74]

I'm surprised I haven't seen more mentions of "Fax's d20r" on this thread.

Granted, I'm not in love with everything about Fax's system. (Generally, I feel like it has too many independent systems of mechanics running within it, and I'm annoyed that the full attack mechanic hasn't changed, to name two things.) But there are some things it's certainly done well.

One thing I'm trying to figure out how to adopt from it is the Skill Sets system.

[Lord of Syntax]

3.5e, Now called 5e! But with ToB and Psionics core.

[Emmerask]

I would use some form of the rolemaster fighting system it is completly superior to the d&d one :smalltongue:

[Thajocoth]

Use 4e as a base. Add a few aberrant races.

Add the following: The feats to be other races that a revanant can take are opened to all races, but only takable as a level 1 feat. A Human may not take 2. Where the abilities would replace the usage of the Revenant encounter power, they instead replace the primary race's encounter power in their use.

Add a few half-race feats for the above for a few races that can work as a half a player, but not as a whole player, like gelatinous, beholder, ect... These half-races would also need racial feats that require the first feat, so it'd be just like how Deva Heritage and Dhampyr feats work, really. Which is to say, exactly the same way as I described before mentioning those feats.

Also, more classes. And feats. And powers. And finish the Monster Builder... And add a tool for DMs to make encounters, handle loot, and possibly even do full campaigns with.

So, mostly stuff they're working on already for 4e, with a little bit of weird monstrosity tossed in.

[ken-do-nim]

One idea I've had that I think applies no matter what rules one plans on having is to have the Basic & Advanced rules together in the same book. If playing the Basic game, you ignore the shaded boxes that signify rules for the Advanced game. In statblocks, the Basic stats are first listed, then the additional Advanced stats are shaded. Every adventure made for the game is compatible with both Basic and Advanced using the same technique. We can then provide for the rules-lite and rules-heavy crowds alike.

Edit: This is basically how 2E worked, but the supplements basically assumed you used the optional rules too so they became less than optional.

[Satyr]

As it is a good tradition that any new D&D edition only marginally resembles its predecessors, I think I'll try something new, and not just heating up the old stuff from said previous editions. Except those parts I like.

First of all, I would try to make D&D a General Fantasy Game, a core system which can be used for pretty much any fantasy setting I can think of, from something gritty like The First Law or A Song Of Ice And Fire to the whole High Magic / High Fantasy stuff, like Dragon Lance.
Ideally, the whole system would work just as wellin a completely un-magic, purely historic setting.

Therefore I would make the Core Rules as realistic as possible while still being fun and quick to play, to create a reliable bottom line for all these different settings. First of all, this would minimise the feeling of stupidity, when the rules do not match the experience and knowledge of the players, and it is always easier to increase the power from a mundane to a more heroic setting than vice versa; and the feeling of heroism is much tronger if there is a reliable feeling of verisimilitude and realism, and you can see how an expectedly heroic character differs from the more mundane ones.

The basic of any good game design I have ever seen is "If it is stupid, makes no sense or has no correspondence in the gaming world, it should not be allowed to exist. metagmaing concepts like classes, levels, etc. should be reduced to a minimum.

So, to make the game more realistic, the core of it is a kick-ass combat system. Let's face it, D&D is about beating other ceatures' heads in, and therefore the combat is pretty much the core of it. Which is exactly the problem of most D&D versions I know of since the combination of a very strong focus on combat doesn't match that well with an overtly avstract, repretitive and predictable -and therefore boring as hell combat system. So, let's get rid of the dull stuff - tons of hitpoints, Armor Class, few options - and replace them with cool, dangerous and fun stuff - active rolls for defenses, a basic of 7 standard combat options (powerful blow, feint, riposte, targeted attack, defensive fighting, disarming and tripping) which are availbale for every combatant, low hitpoints so that every hit is significant, target locations and penalties for injuries, rules for botches, permanent injuries and the like, inspired by Gurps, especially the Martial Arts rules. The basic idea is to make the combats on a purely mundane level fun and diversified enough that you don't need magic to make them intereesting but you can use magic to make them more interesitng. Luckily, interesting and realistic combat usually walk hand in hand. This also includes the fact that every goblin David can have his lucky day and slay a PC Goliath. Every single fight is a risk, as it should be.

When I have a combat system, which just works as it should, making sure that every single round of combat is ripe with adrenaline, fast, dangerous and therfore fun (because who likes dull combats anyway), I will start with the PCs. I need the combat system first, because that is the framework of references for these characters to interact in.

I don't particularly like class systems, but it is a tradition in D&D, so let's find a compromise: Classes are very rough, general categories a character belongs to. Very rough. As in, there are only five classes at all - Warriors (includes all characters who fight for a living), Rogues (specialists in stealth and skullduggery), Scholars (people who know a lot about many things), spellcasters (well, people who can cast spells) and Adventurers (generalist characters. There is no multiclassing, as every character can theoretically learn any ability in the game, but with more or less efforts. A spellcaster would have to put more effort in learning how to fight properly than an adventurer, while a fighter would have trouble to become a competent spellcaster at all, even though he can learn a few basic spells.
Each of these classes maintian several lenses of example character concepts which are basically the classes of previous editions, but are example constructions for lazy players. The rules should make it possible to create your very own lense for every indicidual character, or if you don't have the time, just take one of the prefabricated lenses and play them.
The core lenses would be Fighter (Generalist Warrior), Barbarian (Fighters specilaising in berserker rage and powerful melee attacks), Paladin (fighter who dables in light and healing magic) and Ranger (light, highly mobile fighter focused on archery), Thief (generalist Rogue), Assassin (Rogue specialised in stealth and combat) and Swashbuckler (Rogue specialising in social skills and combat), Sages (Generalist Scholars), Druids (Scholars with a secondary role in spellcasting and wilderness lore) and Monks (Scholars with a secondary focus on unarmed combat), Wizards (generalist spellcasters), Warlocks (spellcasters focused on damaging and or 'debuffing' magic), and Clerics (spellcasters specialised in benevolent and healing magic), Factotum (generalist Adventurer - de facto a generalist generalist), Bards (generalists with a sidedish in enchantment magic) and Scouts (generalists with a focus on perception and mobility). But, as I said, these lenses are ony example of how to design a character, and are not mandatory at all.

Class abilities, including spells, feats and skills are summarized as character powers. Character powers are divided into different categories - melee, athletics, spellcraft, artificing, etc. and depending on the chosen character class, it is more or less expensive to purchase one of the powers, whereby the price depneds on the category in relation to the class. Spellcraft powers are much more expensive for fighters than they are for spellcasters, for example.
In addition, special experiences can make certain aspects cheaper. These special experiences are based on the coresponding adventure and are given by the GM; so in a wilderness adventure, everybody may learn some basic survival skills, or a very combat-heavy adventure may further fighting skills.
All powers are directly purchased with Expierence Points. Levels still exist, but only indicate the general grade of experience and act as a prerequisite for certain powers, similar to the tiers in D&D 4. Thus, levels are mostly descriptive, not prescriptive. Characters are supposed to be of okay conmeptence on first level, but do not grow as much in power per level. There is a significant growth, but

The six core abilites are a similar bagage as the class and level system, and should probably be ignored and repalced with something sensible, but tradition indicates that we'll keep them. But, taking a note from the old player's options books, we divied every attrribute into two subatributes, allowing a much finer adjustment and specialisation of characters into the now twelve effective attribute scores. Strength is divided into Muscle (how hard you hit, etc.) and Endurance (how much you can carry and lift), Dexterity is divided into Aim (hand eye coordination, fine manipulation) and Balance (whole body movement, Agility), Constitution is divided into Toughness (Resisting Pain and injuries; basically the Hitpoints ability) and Health (Endurance and resisting illnesses, poisons or spells), Wisdom is divided into Perception (Seeing Hwearing, etc., including sixth sense and insight) and Willpower (good for saves and spelllcasting), Intelligence is divided into Imagination (Creativity, developing new ideas like recipes or spells) Memory (remembering facts and general christaline intelligence), and Charisma is divided into Appearance (looking good and effecting other people) and Personality (Leadership and Self-Confidence).

There is no difference between abilty score and bonus anymore. Every ability only consists of a small modifer, while the old score is abandoned. Negative bonuses are rare, but do exist. The average of the two subattributes form the main attribute, and may only differentiate so much from each other.
The nonsense, that any abilty can be used for pretty much any task is dumped into the toxic waste landfill it belongs. There is no spellcasting based on Strength, or hitting peaople hard because you look so good. Even though, all activities, be it skills, combat options or spellcasting are always based on two, not one abilty. To hit somebody, you need Muscle and Aim, etc. There is no SAD concept anymore, and a small wiry mobile fighter may be just as effective as a big bruitsh one.

As said before, all character options are brought into one streamlined form, for all aspects. There are no brain-tumor-inducingly stupid concepts like encounter powers ("Yeah I know I have learned the Secret Seven Mandrill Technique, and I have used it ten seconds ago, but I cannot remember anymore how it works."). Every power can be used as often as you want. Including magic, which is both scaled down in power, and include a significant risk for the user. Especially, magic will take a lot of time. As in several minute rituals, and they will fail a lot without the right preparation or material component. A true master of magic may circumvent most of the hindrances, and may enforce a spell despite having no time, components, or the like, but only in one, or two special areas, while this form of specialisation will cost them dearly in about any other aspect of adventuring. There are save or suck/die effects in magic, but they exist as well in pure physical form. A broken arm or leg is a significant hindrance.
All activities include a check, based on two abilities, plus any bonuses through powers and equipment, and the DC for the check is usually based on a rivaling roll of the opponent. To attack someone, there is an opposing check between the attacker and the defender. To enchant someone, there is a rivalling check between the spellcaster and the Will Save of his victim, and a thief trying to pick a lock rolls the fitting skill against the result of the craft check of the locksmith. Fixed and therefore predictable and thus dull DCs should only ever appear in very formular activities and standardised procedures.

Powers are usually dividedinto a tree of five different aspects, which are based on each other (basic, advanced, competent, master and epic) and are often very general. There are for example, no individual spells, but small schools of spells, like light, fire, shadow and the like. Not all powers are equal in power, but usually, they act as prerequisites for each other (so you have to take some very general or weak standard power to take any one of the cool stuff, or (what I actually prefer) the most effective powers are standard fare and prerequisites for many specialisations. Some powers may have a stronger impact while they also have specific limitations - for example faith-based magic in relation to arcane magic, which cease to work when the spellcaster violates his faith's commandments.

Damn, I forgot the species. Species work like character classes- there is a pool of powers and a few example species - you know, the standard ones - humans, dwarfes, elves, orcs, halflings, gnomes and the usual crossbreeds - and at character creation, every player may take whatever species power may fit to his character. This pool also includes aspects from the character's upbringing and environment, and are generally more meaningful or powerful than mere class powers, but only available at first level. In addition, characters may take drawbacks, like a small size or penalties to certain abilities, to gain more species points.

Characters can also take hindrances and bindings, generally character traits. These are effectively XP machines. Whenever a character is played out in accordnace with these traits, he gains XP, based on the presentation of the character. This pretty much replaces Alignment as a roleplaying concept. Instead of clumsy and loaded terms like good and evil, characters will have individual traits like honest, charitable, or vengeful. Violating the existing character traits may lead to their loss, meaning that the character has less sources to gain XP.

Alignment on the other hand isa pure metaphyiscal concept and describes supernatural creatures, but has nothing to do with morals or behavior. Alignment is taken for outsiders and influence-based only. All creatures from the material plane, except those born from an alignment restrictive parent, have the alignment of neutral for detection and effects purposes. The alignment is a cosmic concept, and not a character defining one. Alignments will only apply to creatures born from one influenced outer plane or another or directly touched by said planes. An Aasimar will always be considered 'good’ for the purpose of spells and effects such as Detect Good, even when she is a homicidal maniac.
For the purpose of spell effects, item effects, and similar, these creatures will represent the alignment of their planes and not their actions/intents. This also applies to magic and beings formed of magic. Magic that is inherently evil (evil descriptor) will be 'evil', and anything made from such magic will be as well, including the creation of all undead creatures. This may still apply to the same intent bindings as the above as well, for example, if a necromancer raises an army of dead to, lets say, help reconstruct a ravaged town for the sake of the people - completely 'good' intent - the undead will still be evil for the purposes of spells and effects.
It is rare that a being without extraplanar ancestors would ever get an alignment apart from ‘true neutral’. This can be achieved only through supernatural effects but is mostly temporary or the result of a spell. For example, a character who becomes undead automatically becomes ‘evil’ as well. The terms ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are only kept because of tradition; ‘celestial’ and ‘infernal’ would be more appropriate terms.

Magical Items, like magic in general, should be treated as a cool extra, not something mandatory. The whole game should work and make fun without any magical item at all, but may become even better when a magical or special item is added. the important stuff is not how many items are in game, but how you could create them, and in which form. So, a few example items, plus a very capacious guideline of how to create magic items. Which should always carry a significant price for the characters. Losing ability points, for example.

Other items should be streamlined ansd based on realistic properties, especially weapons. Armor offer a general Damage Resistance, while they may efectively reduce a character's defense - a heavily armore knight may actually be easier to hit, while he just doesn't care so much for each individual hit. It is very likely that some of the most powerful items are not a viable options for player characers, because their specific disadvantages are to great compared to the advantages - there is certainly not something like the perfect equipment.

Monsters should work exactly like PCs and should be based on the same principles - they have abilities, they have powers, they combine the two. Individual monsters may have different powers, more powerful ones just have more. Large monsters will be very tough and challenging enemies, though, because hitpoints should scale pretty steeply with size. Dragons will just ruin your days, and are supposed to be the absolute top tier monster.

Additional splat books could contain additional powers.
The rest is background, and a very easy access to licences so that other publishers use the standardised general fantasy system for their games as well, which should create a vast variety of different settings.

[dsmiles]

So, you're in your living quarters, when the phone rings, it is WOTC, they want you to design 5th edition, they don't care what it ends up being, they just want a new edition.

So, if you were making 5th edition how would you make it? What would you take from past editions? What would you put in the core books?

I'd send them a pdf copy of the 1e PHB, DMG, MM, MM2, FF, OA, and UA. I personally prefer 1e over all of the other editions. TSR did it better.

[lesser_minion]

I have no problem with encounter and daily powers, but they are a good example of how mechanics that aren't tied clearly into fluff create issues.

People don't like them because the rules seem to imply that fighters somehow forget how to perform the Seven Gods Avenging Dragon Fury Awesome Avenging Strike when they use it.

The same people would be perfectly willing to accept that a fighter can't use said technique all the time, but they'd like it to be clearer why they can't, rather than the rules just saying "you can't".

Hitpoints are another place where people aren't always sure exactly what's going on, and again, they create an issue. In both cases, they create aesthetic issues rather than mechanical or gameplay issues, but that doesn't make them any less of an issue.

I agree with the idea of paring down character classes - five very broad character classes are infinitely better than 4.0's eight character classes plus another eight added in 4.1 and eight more in the pipeline for 4.2.

I don't think I'd go for Satyr's enormously detailed combat system idea, but I agree that no-power combat should be interesting, and that powers should make it more interesting rather than being the only thing of importance.


I'm surprised I haven't seen more mentions of "Fax's d20r" on this thread.

Granted, I'm not in love with everything about Fax's system. (Generally, I feel like it has too many independent systems of mechanics running within it, and I'm annoyed that the full attack mechanic hasn't changed, to name two things.) But there are some things it's certainly done well.

One thing I'm trying to figure out how to adopt from it is the Skill Sets system.

In my case, there is quite a bit in d20r that I disagree with. The big advantage to it is that Fax basically wrote the book on what a good character class looks like (one of the good things about 4e is that the designers apparently read that book).

However, he's gone down the route of making different magic users have nothing whatsoever in common with each other, which I think is probably going to be a complete nightmare. Classes don't have to be cookie-cutter, but they need a lot more in common than they have.

I'm not really a fan of his approach to fluff either. IMO, fluff is the thing you're trying to portray, and crunch is your medium. Without the fluff, you're flicking paint at a wall.

[eepop]

Thanks for the responses. I know my ideas to start with can seem a bit odd, but I want to be willing to try new things. I love 3E and 4E, but I wouldn't want to make a 3.75 or a 4.5 and brand it a 5E. And if I go to far and make some mistakes? Well there is always 6E.


Ewww. This particular brand of abstraction is one of my least-favorite things about 4e. Mind you, it might still sort of make sense if those same Fort/Ref/Will defenses weren't used sometimes against threats (spells) that had nothing to do with weapons and combat.


Lets compare a weapon and a spell:

Maul - Hits you with a wide blunt force, made of metal or stone.

Force Ram - Hits you with a wide blunt force, made of force energy.

I'm not sure I understand why it would make sense for them to have to have to hit different defenses?

It may be that there should be some additional defenses (Fortitude and Reflex both seem to cover some very diverse ranges of effects in both 3.5 and 4E).

So a Maul and a Force Ram might both attack Fortitude. While a poison spell (or mundane poison) might attack Virility.

It may even be worth investigating removing the old AC/REFLEX/FORT/WILL paradigm and have 6 defenses, one tied to each of the 6 ability scores. Mauls might attack your strength, whereas a poison would attack your constitution.


Seems to me like making move actions useful for attacks, commonly, would mostly just go back to the kind of combat where characters mostly sit in one place and swing at each other again. I guess a lot of forced movement (which I don't usually find very verisimilar) could change that, but ... in general, I liked what 4e did with "move actions are just for actually moving."

This actually comes from a house-rule we are using for 4E right now. We tried it out kind of offhand as a way to increase lethality a bit (for both sides).

What we've found is that it has made the forced movement feel like it has a purpose. In stock 4E, we noticed fairly often that forced movement was completely negated on the enemies next turn at next to no cost. It was, as one player put it, "positional masturbation". Just moving back and forth with nothing really resulting from it.

This does make fights have less movement, but the movement actually matters. When an enemy gets in the wizards face, that thunderwave not only gets you breathing room, it saves you from an attack that enemy could have made with its next move action.

Thats a lot to say that: Yes the fights are more stationary that stock 4E, but they still have much more movement than we witnessed in 3.5.


Also, how does your idea reduce the "whiff factor" (which, I assume, just means the frustrating sense of uselessness when you miss on your only attack for the round)? Just because you often get two attacks per round?
For each attack, it does nothing. But in low level 3.5 (when you only had one attack) and in 4E with only one attack, I have noticed a lot more frustration caused by misses than when you get two chances to make your turn meaningful.


That's kind of an interesting idea in an evil-marketing sort of way. Most people from this Forum sure wouldn't buy it, though. (Myself included.)
(Divorcing fluff and mechanics in powers)
Its a bit of an extreme decision I realize, but I am increasingly amazed by how many people think that the fluff of those powers is set in stone and they can not be described as happening in any other way.

If I want my Dragonborn Warlord's "Furious Smash" to be a headbutt, why can't I just because the book describes it differently?

Removing the fluff would definitely cause a bit of a shock to the system, but I think the result would be that people would actually step up to make their own flavor instead of using the in book flavor as a crutch.

Its similar to what happened with the 4E monster manuals. They removed most of the fluff, and my group was somewhat upset with that to start with. But after a short time, we all realized how much this opened up the DM to reflavor those monsters into something completely new. I don't think we've fought a monster that hasn't had a reflavor in quite awhile. And it has been amazingly refreshing. Most of the monsters feel like they have more depth after a reflavor than they did when they had a page of flavor prewritten for them in the 3.5 MM.


Offhand, it seems like if those are skills, then Power Attack and Fight Defensively and Turn Undead and ... spellcasting should be skills too.

Wasn't meant to be a definitive list, just to mean that I would move some of the specialized training type stuff into skills. Probably could have worded that better. Power Attack and Fighting Defensively I could definitely see as skills as well.

Spellcasting is a bit too varied in my opinion for this though. As I said, I would be using the 4E power paradigm more or less, which most of the spells would be a part of both in the combat and non-combat classes(depending on the spell in question). If there were a situation that made something like caster level checks needed, I would probably support making a skill for that.

[Rixx]

Probably similar to d20/Pathfinder, except highly simplified, with more of an emphasis on combinations of simple universal rules than specific rules for every situation.

[erikun]

I'm surprised I haven't seen more mentions of "Fax's d20r" on this thread.
While I think he did an excellent job at fixing the imbalance with the classes, I feel that 3.5e has some fundamental flaws with its core system. Fax has done an excellent job at working around those flaws and making classes which can be used with 3.5e, but if I was designing a new system, I'd make it a point to fix the system itself.

[Sebastian]

I'd like something based on a revised and polished version of D20 modern.

[Akisa]

The return of the gritty first level.
Make it feel like first level you're actually starting and not someone already well trained.
Return of the Vatican spell casting
If no Vatican spell casting then make it so that magic and physical attacks use a different mechanic.
NPC and PC use the same rules.
No 100% healing over night.
More like Saga.

[jmbrown]

The return of the gritty first level.
Make it feel like first level you're actually starting and not someone already well trained.
Return of the Vatican spell casting
If no Vatican spell casting then make it so that magic and physical attacks use a different mechanic.
NPC and PC use the same rules.
No 100% healing over night.
More like Saga.

Tee-hee. Vatican casting.

[Sleepingbear]

Two words.

Master.

&

Hack.

Not really though.

I wouldn't want to write 5th edition. There is absolutely no way you're going to please even half the fanbase by the time 5th edition comes around. All you're going to do is splinter it further. Besides, it's already been mentioned that the fanbase no longer needs the industry. Every time there has been a new edition, there have been more players who have realized this.

So my 5th edition would really be more of a memo.

Take favorite edition.
Modify to taste.
Profit.

I might sell PDFs and hard copies of all existing editions and try to profit by supporting all versions. Sort of like taking an old TV series and 'Remastering' it. Amount of support would be based on revenue generated per edition. Let the fans decide with their money, I say.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Tee-hee. Vatican casting.

"Pie Jesu Domine..."

BOOM!

[Zincorium]

For all the people saying they'd make a 3.x/pathfinder based system:

Why? We already have that. It's effectively free.

If you just don't want an actual new edition, that's fine, but I don't understand why you'd want input on it if that's the case.

[Aldizog]

I might sell PDFs and hard copies of all existing editions and try to profit by supporting all versions. Sort of like taking an old TV series and 'Remastering' it. Amount of support would be based on revenue generated per edition. Let the fans decide with their money, I say.
That's a really good idea. Think that WotC would ever do something like that? Would they ever see a business model in actually using all those old TSR copyrights they own?

Put out a solicit for a new "brand manager" for classic D&D (BECMI/RC), and release new Gazetteers and modules. Or re-issue the old ones; as it is, the best ones are never in stock and have crazy-high prices on eBay. People like me, who aren't WotC customers any more, would buy that.

Do the same for 1E, and find the writers/editors who most "get it." For 2E, support the fantastic settings. Don't try to shoehorn every edition into the present business model of selling crunch to players. Understand that the different games have different philosophies; don't give the Mearls treatment to 1E, let 4E be his game. Keep the budgets reasonable, and lower your expectations; getting *something* out of the old copyrights has got to be better than getting nothing, unless they think it would really cut into 4E sales.

[Sleepingbear]

Keep the budgets reasonable, and lower your expectations; getting *something* out of the old copyrights has got to be better than getting nothing, unless they think it would really cut into 4E sales.


Well considering that they're getting nothing from me right now, I don't see how offering me material for the edition I do play (3.X) would cut into their 4th edition sales. :)

[PairO'Dice Lost]

For all the people saying they'd make a 3.x/pathfinder based system:

Why? We already have that. It's effectively free.

If you just don't want an actual new edition, that's fine, but I don't understand why you'd want input on it if that's the case.

Well, to be fair, 3e is a "2e-based system" because it's fairly similar overall, with even some direct copy-pasting between editions. I'd assume anyone who says they'd base 5e off of 3e means that they'd ditch most of the changes 4e made, not that they'd take 3e and tweak it a little bit the same way 2e started off as a compilation of 1e with some names changed to (A) expunge Gygax's influence and (B) appease all the "D&D is Satanic!" folks.

[Tinydwarfman]

I think d&d 5e really needs to be an overhaul. I would like an iron heroes inspired more cinematic game, with a very large focus on user content. Have a chapter devoted to designing custom classes and monsters. Unfortunately, the best way to do this is with a point based system, and then you might as well go classless like GURPS. I don't like this because although I like GURPS, I think that the multitude classes in 3.5 that are each different to play is really cool, and we already have enough point-based systems. It would require some innovation to be sure, but the cardinal rules should be balance, homebrew, rule of cool.

[Optimystik]

"Pie Jesu Domine..."

BOOM!

Material component: crackers and grape juice.


Ewww. This particular brand of abstraction is one of my least-favorite things about 4e.

Mind you, it might still sort of make sense if those same Fort/Ref/Will defenses weren't used sometimes against threats (spells) that had nothing to do with weapons and combat.

Not to turn this into an edition war, but I find the concept of using defenses against more than just spells to be brilliant. I find 4e to very elegantly designed myself.

[Draz74]

Not to turn this into an edition war, but I find the concept of using defenses against more than just spells to be brilliant. I find 4e to very elegantly designed myself.

It just jars my simulationist senses that the same character statistic is used to resist e.g. Charm spells and a Rogue "flourish" power that's basically "I feint and stab you with a knife." Yeah, both of them have a mental aspect, but regardless of whether you fell for the feint, it just makes no sense that your parrying abilities and armor can't block the Rogue's blow at all. And you can't just say those parrying abilities are factored into your Will defense, because that makes no sense when you use that Will defense against a purely magical threat.

[jmbrown]

It just jars my simulationist senses that the same character statistic is used to resist e.g. Charm spells and a Rogue "flourish" power that's basically "I feint and stab you with a knife." Yeah, both of them have a mental aspect, but regardless of whether you fell for the feint, it just makes no sense that your parrying abilities and armor can't block the Rogue's blow at all. And you can't just say those parrying abilities are factored into your Will defense, because that makes no sense when you use that Will defense against a purely magical threat.

You probably wouldn't have liked AD&D, then.

You step on a trip wire. Roll a save vs. breath weapon to avoid falling.

[Draz74]

You probably wouldn't have liked AD&D, then.

You step on a trip wire. Roll a save vs. breath weapon to avoid falling.

I did like AD&D. :smallamused:

You're right that I didn't like its nonsensical Saves categories, though.

[lesser_minion]

That was the one where a petrification save read like it was all about averting your eyes from some monster's, yet thieves were the worst at it, right?

Yeah, using your Petrification save to bat an arrow away was not a high point.

[FlamingKobold]

To solve magicmart problems, but still make the powerr of equipment change by level, I'd do one of two things:

1. Do something like the Ancestral weapon feat
2. Kinda like legacy items, but a bit different, and make several significant items have abilities like that.

[Touchy]

I'd refluff magic to be more like psionics, because of my personal taste of self-empowerment instead of borrowed powers, this sets a bad image on yourself, the fighter who's power is from himself, is easily outclassed by the weak wizard who uses borrows powers from other planes, psion get there magical powers from their god damn mind, they aren't borrowing power, they make there power.
I'd also want to get rid of classes, combat would work like 4e, instead each power is a "combat" feat, and these feats would be separated into "instant; cooldown"(the attack can be used at an instant, but it has a turn delay before you can use it again) (instant; at-will)(You can use it instantly and the only delay you got is "until you use an action point or your next turn) (delay; cooldown)(More powerful attacks that take more than 1 turn to use) (delay; at-will)(slightly less powerful attacks that take more than 1 turn to use, but you can use them as much as you want). This would allow great versatility of what you want to do in combat.

The way I would sell the books is like this:
Races( a book full of races, it would work as partly a MM and partly as player handbook races, all races would be about a paragraph of detail)
Monsters( THIS book is about the monsters, it functions as the other part of the MM)
Feats(A book full of combat and non-combat feats)
Items(A book full of items)
DM(Rules for DMing, would also include encounters and 1/3 the items book, and 1/3 the monster's book)
Settings(Books for settings)
Players handbook(only one, would contain rules, 1/3 of the races book, and 1/3 the feats book)

I think it would work well, people could play at their strengths, and the books should reflect at that. :smallamused:

[jmbrown]

To solve magicmart problems, but still make the powerr of equipment change by level, I'd do one of two things:

1. Do something like the Ancestral weapon feat
2. Kinda like legacy items, but a bit different, and make several significant items have abilities like that.

Frankly I would ditch the concept of purchasing magic items completely. You would have minor magic items, which there's a viable market for, and the rest is awesome loot you find in decrepit dungeons. Each item would be scrutinized based on its intrinsic value instead of its base value. It makes no sense that something like blessed book is worth over 10x its actual value by virtue of being in the hands of a wizard while a +2 sword will eventually be replaced by a +3 sword not long after.


The way I would sell the books is like this:
Races( a book full of races, it would work as partly a MM and partly as player handbook races, all races would be about a paragraph of detail)
Monsters( THIS book is about the monsters, it functions as the other part of the MM)
Feats(A book full of combat and non-combat feats)
Items(A book full of items)
DM(Rules for DMing, would also include encounters and 1/3 the items book, and 1/3 the monster's book)
Settings(Books for settings)
Players handbook(only one, would contain rules, 1/3 of the races book, and 1/3 the feats book)


That's a... lotta books. I hope I only have to buy one or two to actually play the damn thing.

I liked how GURPS 4E kept everything compiled into 1) MAKING CHARACTERS and 2) PLAYING THE ACTUAL GAME.

[Touchy]

Frankly I would ditch the concept of purchasing magic items completely. You would have minor magic items, which there's a viable market for, and the rest is awesome loot you find in decrepit dungeons. Each item would be scrutinized based on its intrinsic value instead of its base value. It makes no sense that something like blessed book is worth over 10x its actual value by virtue of being in the hands of a wizard while a +2 sword will eventually be replaced by a +3 sword not long after.



That's a... lotta books. I hope I only have to buy one or two to actually play the damn thing.

I liked how GURPS 4E kept everything compiled into 1) MAKING CHARACTERS and 2) PLAYING THE ACTUAL GAME.

You'd just need the player handbook, the other things is if you want MORE than what was given in the player handbook.

Unless you run it then you just need the DM handbook, the races and monsters handbook would be recommended but not needed.

[Shazbot79]

I have a lot of thoughts on this, but the changes I would make are more inline with my personal tastes but might not be the best for the game in general.

A couple of changes that I would make though...

Keep the core books more bare bones and rules-lite, advanced options appearing in future supplements. Maybe publish a yearly Arcana Unearthed much like we have PHB's, DMG's and MM's now.

Grant some sort of mechanical benefit to each power source.

Less powers per class...keep them vaguely defined and let players upgrade them with each level.

Things I'd keep:

Core mechanic: D20 + modifier vs. target number
Attacks rolled vs. static defense values
DMG page 42 guidelines for arbitrating PC stunts.
Nonmagical healing
Combat efficacy and out-of-combat utility of classes balanced separately.

[Southern Cross]

For a start,5th edition D&D would be more like an RPG than a board game,unlike 4th Edition.It would probably be a mix of Arcana Evolved,Pathfinder,and whatever else seems appropriate.
For the skill system,it would probably be a mix of Pathfinder and Arcana Evolved.
The magic system,of course,would be based on the one in Arcana Evolved,with the following differences:
(1) The racial ceremonial feats would be designed for the races in the core books,with the Arcana Evolved races getting a separate book.
(2) In core D & D,not knowing your truename,just means you don't get any ceremonial feats (including the starting ceremonial feat),unless they're included in your classes list of bonus feats.You only get the Unbound penalties if you try to get two Talents at character creation.
(3) Dispel Magic would be the nerfed Pathfinder version,and be a simple spell,so all spellcasting classes would have access to it.
(4) I would fold the Arcana Evolved witch into the sorceror.Sorcerors would now have access to witcheries,but they would be renamed "sorceries".

[SilveryCord]

6th edition has got to have hexes, and lots of them. What else is there to make everyone rebuy all their books? :P

5th edition.... My favorite part of fourth edition is that the character classes are not only mechanically balanced, but they have the same amount of page space. Instead of wizard spells taking up pages and pages of rules, and then fighters having about one page of class description, I like how everything has an equal share of mind space. I'd stick with that and never look back. But I would try to find ways to make more generic, tool-based powers. For example, I like how the wizard class features have endlessly interesting uses, but still have very specific mechanics behind them, unlike in 3.5 where spells are all over the place. I think everyone should get more powers like that.

My book organization would be:
PHB: 4 heroic classes (Warden, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard), 8 races
MM: 6 monster classes, tons of races. (Artillery, Brute, Controller, Lurker, Skirmisher, Soldier, with different builds for each creature type, rules to make solos and elites). I want almost all monster types playable. Enemies get built in the quick 4e way, but if you want to pull a specific race out and use it for a character, you almost always can.
Heroes of Arcane Mystery//Heroes of Divine Might: Arcane: Swordmage, Sorceror, Bard, Warlock Divine: Paladin, Avenger, Favored Soul, Invoker
Heroes of War//Heroes of Honor: Martial: Fighter, Ranger, Warlord, Factotum. Honor: Samurai, Sohei, Shugenja, Wu-Jen
Primal Heroes//Psionic Heroes: Primal: Barbarian, Shaman, Druid Psionic: Monk, Psion, Ardent
Each of the 'heroes' books being 2 part double books.

[Zeful]

and this prevents them from going online and downloading the book, picking it up at their library or simply buying it and finding out that way how?

It doesn't but if they just removed the magic items from the game and left behind a balanced magic item creation guide, you solve the mystery problem.

[Nero24200]

I'd probably remove the most complicated parts of the game. Well...I wouldn't remove them exactly, I'd make them optional. I'd make alignment optional, for instance. Hell, I'd make using magic items and magical classes optional as well, so that the game has enough options and variety if you want a low-magic game.

That'd pretty much be it. The base of the game would be a few, pretty much required races (like humans, elves etc) and mudane classes (like a rogue-esc class, a fighter-esc class) with optional material not hard-wired into the game.

[Cybren]

I would make it so terrible that WotC is destroyed and the D&D brand is permanently tarnished. 4E will live on, 3.5 will live on, and the industry can move on.

[Artanis]

I'd probably remove the most complicated parts of the game. Well...I wouldn't remove them exactly, I'd make them optional. I'd make alignment optional, for instance. Hell, I'd make using magic items and magical classes optional as well, so that the game has enough options and variety if you want a low-magic game.

That'd pretty much be it. The base of the game would be a few, pretty much required races (like humans, elves etc) and mudane classes (like a rogue-esc class, a fighter-esc class) with optional material not hard-wired into the game.

By "magical classes" and "mundane classes", do you mean in the 3.5 sense? Because in 4e, the magic power sources aren't any more complicated than Martial.

[Tetsubo 57]

Pathfinder with core Psionics.

But you couldn't get me to work for WotC if it were the only way to save humanity.

[Chaelos]

Things from 4E to keep: At-Will powers, racial balancing, skill consolidation, rituals (but make them free, for the most part, and limit the number that can be cast per day), defense/save progressions.
Things from 4E to ditch: The rest of the daily/encounter/utility power crap, the over reliance on 5x5 board mechanics (shift, pull, etc), the boring magic item variety, the pitiful "multiclassing" options.

Things from 3.5 to keep: Most of the magic system, with appropriate limitations imposed on overly broken spells (most of which, it is my very firm conviction, are only "broken" if you're playing with a pushover DM who lets you get away with anything), full-round attack, most 3.5 feats, most 3.5 magic items/wondrous items, multiclassing and prestige classes, combat actions. I'm not familiar with Tome of Battle, but if it provides a valid melee-option to the frequently-perceived caster dominance of 3.5, then build the melee system around ToB.
Things from 3.5 to ditch: Overly complex skill formulation, the most broken parts of magic (most notably epic), racial balancing, certain aspects of vancian casting that can be supplied via 4E's ritual system. Also, get rid of most of the splatbooks and the hilariously broken spells/PrC's they bring.

It'd be an odd hybrid, but as it is, 4E feels too pigeonholed/limited to me, as a player, while 3.5 can be overwhelming with the variety and, at times, broken thought-experiments. I'd rather play 3.5, because it just seems that I, as a player, can do more, but I can see a beginner preferring 4E for ease of learning the system (in fact, I play in two campaigns at the moment--one 4E, one d20 Modern/3.5--where two of our members have professed great love for 4E because of how easy it was for them to learn).

[Sir Homeslice]

For a start,5th edition D&D would be more like an RPG than a board game,unlike 4th Edition.

I've seen the light, thanks to you. Never before has a baseless accusation enlightened me to the truth of the matter that 4e wasn't designed as an RPG, but an elaborate board game. I guess the numerous mentions of the fact that 4e is a role-playing game in the 4e PHB is just a lie, including my experiences with RP heavy 4e games.

PS: I've got nothing as far as this topic is concerned. I'd try to add some stuff from FC into 4e though. FC's got some great ideas as far as feats and such go.

[Mystic Muse]

It doesn't but if they just removed the magic items from the game and left behind a balanced magic item creation guide, you solve the mystery problem.

Now THIS is a valid approach.

[Nero24200]

By "magical classes" and "mundane classes", do you mean in the 3.5 sense? Because in 4e, the magic power sources aren't any more complicated than Martial.

Specifically, I meant mundane in fluff and feel. Even if you come up with a mundane fluff reason for ire balls of energy, it's not going to appear mundane.

It's always been something I've disliked about D'n'D. I dislike divine magic, yet I'm always reluctant to leave it out of any campaign because I suddenly cut away 3/4's of the game mechanics. On the other hand, psionics, despite being considered more balanced than any other form of "magic" is left out of quite a few games.

By being optional though, you don't lose much by cutting them out. If, one the other hand, I cut out divine and arcane from core, suddenly the martial classes don't have any IC reason to have access to magical equipment (something mandatory at mid-to-high levels), since only casters can craft magical equipment.

Essentially, if I designed it, I would make "mundane" elements the only "mandatory" game mechanics. Other mechanics which might not fit in every setting (alignment being a good example), would all be made optional, not hard-wired into the mechanics so that the game works fine without them. Thoughthey would come with certain benifits for adding them (again, using alignment as an example, by adding it you can then add classes like the paladin or clerics, since both rely a fair bit on alignment).

[hamishspence]

Does Ritual Casting count as dropping "only casters can make equipment"?

or simply "Everyone can be a caster if they take a feat"?

How about if the rituals are heavily limited?

[Oslecamo]

By being optional though, you don't lose much by cutting them out. If, one the other hand, I cut out divine and arcane from core, suddenly the martial classes don't have any IC reason to have access to magical equipment (something mandatory at mid-to-high levels), since only casters can craft magical equipment.


Or be a real martial dude, and pry your magic equipment from the dead cold fingers of your enemies, or have quests to get the armor+sword set of awesome, or everybody picks up ancestral relic.

[Doc Roc]

Here, why don't you just take a look?

SUPR (http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYdLcxsM7Nx0ZGc2NzhibjNfOTFmcGZtZjRjZw&hl=en)

[Greenfaun]

7) Decouple entirely the combat and non-combat portions of characters, and have separate classes for each. Each character is a gestalt of a combat class and a non-combat class.
8) These classes shall be more generic and named according to what they do in combat/non-combat. To create a "Monk" for instance, you would take the "Fighter" combat class, opt to use unarmed attacks, and take the "Ascetic" non-combat class.


Wow, you had the same idea I did, although we seem to want things that way for slightly different reasons. Cool, though. I feel a little less crazy, I guess. :)

Instead of replying to some of the really cool ideas in this thread, I'll just go ahead and outline my own:

1. Embrace the niche. D&D hasn't been the appropriate choice for "generalistst fantasy game" since the late 80's, and that's okay. Focus on making it a fun game. Really concentrate on being D&D instead of trying to be better than (or even comparable to) every fantasy roleplaying game. This means keeping levels and classes and treasure and monsters and nonsensical traps and really stupid monsters and gonzo violent beer and pretzels gaming, because that's what D&D is good for and there are lots of other games out there if you don't want to play D&D.

2. Keep the good stuff from 4e- especially the overhauled combat system and magic rituals. Mine 3.x and 2e for the good stuff they did too, but 4e provides the starting point of the core mechanics.

3. Make a more narrative/improvisational side of the game for interacting with the world outside of combat. Skill challenges blow, and there need to be better, more interesting ways of interacting with a trap-filled dungeon or a survival challenge in a harsh environment or politics between NPC groups.

4. To accomplish 2 and 3, give everyone a combat class and a utility class. Characters advance in both simultaneously, like gestalt rules from 3.x. Combat classes are explicitly and only a martial art, a combination of maneuvers and proficiencies that you use in combat in a 4e-like game. There can be magical combat classes, but they should be focused on one thing, like hurling fire or telekinesis or short-range teleportation or shadowy illusions. One spell, wielded like a weapon, not a whole arsenal.

Combat classes should come in "roles" inspired by the monsters in 4e- Defender, Striker, Skirmisher, Artillery. Characters can multiclass more like 3.x and take levels in any combat class that they could find a trainer for in-game, and still be effective based on their character level, but a small proficiency bonus will accrue for those who focus on a single class, so a duellist 10 will be slightly better at sword maneuvers than a duellist 5/ evoker 5.

(yes, balancing that would be hard. One nerd's "negligible penalty" is another nerd's "totally gimped")

Utility classes are more like the character's job. All skills would be determined by this class, as well as a variety of utility powers and passive bonuses. Utility classes would also be categorized into roles. Skillmonkeys and jack-of-all-trade types would be Problem Solvers, healers and buffers are Supporters, summoners and social-fu types and anyone who can bring some minions to the party would be lumped together as Leaders, and the concepts like Berzerker and Monk and battlemage, people who spend all their time being badasses would be under the Enhancement role, which I admit is sort of a non-role role, but it seems necessary for certain character concepts. Yes, balance would be a big issue here as well, but I envision enhancement classes as offering general boosts and defenses, rather than granting additional combat powers or synergizing with particular combat classes. Devil's in the details, of course.

5. Monster races and transformations. I like playing monsters, and playing weird monsters with level adjustment is better than only having access to the ones that are humanoid and the same power-level as humans. Also, I think there should be lots of options for becoming innately magical or immortal in high-level play, instead of just turning into a lich. You should be able to turn into lots of weird stuff! Having all characters be dual-classed means you could use savage-species style monster levels on the "utility" side of the progression, and still be viable as a combat character. Similarly, later in the character's life you could spend levels on a progression to turn you into an elemental or fae or golem or dragon or angel or wisp of etherial fog or whatever, without having to sacrifice your usefulness to the party.

6. Replace treasure/wbl with an advantage point reward system. Advantage points can be spent on increasing attributes or racial powers, treasure, magic items, allies, organization membership, useful knowledge, strongholds, maybe other stuff too. Rewards can always be converted into another type of reward at a 50% cost (or maybe some other percentage, just spitballing here) so if you get a gloomy castle, you can sell it for cash or give it to the merchant house that sponsors you, but that won't help you as much as if you kept the castle. This supports campaigns or situations that don't lend themselves to piles of treasure, as well as being a more open-ended system for determining the total advantages of a character instead of just money.

Well, I could go on, but that's enough for now. It's interesting to me that for everything I want, somebody's already posted something advocating the opposite. :)