D&D 5th Edition makes the New York Times

[Crow]

Sting was also able to pierce the skin of the troll's leg with little difficulty, which I seem to remember it saying in the books was quite amazing.

So there's your bonus to hit, also.

Glamdring and Anduril (or whatever Aragorn's sword was named) were also implied to be something special, though it never really says what.

Gandalf's ring was basically an artifact.

Most everyone else had junk (by WBL standards) gear. BUT, the important thing to remember is that everyone who had magical bling had very few pieces, but those pieces were good.

Compare that to my last D&D character who was decked out head to toe in magical bling, and was seriously hamstrung if it wasn't on him. That's what I hope the next edition avoids.

[Mystify]

Sting was also able to pierce the skin of the troll's leg with little difficulty, which I seem to remember it saying in the books was quite amazing.

So there's your bonus to hit, also.

Yes, it definitely has some general magical enchancement in addition to being feircebane against orcs, as is normal for D&D magic weapons.

[Ziegander]

Piercing the Troll's skin would be the same as piercing DR/magic.

I did forget about Gandalf's sword, yes, that one is magic for some reason, though I can't remember why.

Anduril isn't magic. It's just the sword that cut the ring from Sauron's hand, reforged.

But yes, the point is that characters in your typical fantasy yarn have less than 4 magic items. The majority of their narrative power comes from them being badasses. Even when a character is carrying a major artifact around they are usually badass more because of their own strength and skill rather than the magic of the item.

[NNescio]

Piercing the Troll's skin would be the same as piercing DR/magic.

I did forget about Gandalf's sword, yes, that one is magic for some reason, though I can't remember why.

Anduril isn't magic. It's just the sword that cut the ring from Sauron's hand, reforged.

But yes, the point is that characters in your typical fantasy yarn have less than 4 magic items. The majority of their narrative power comes from them being badasses. Even when a character is carrying a major artifact around they are usually badass more because of their own strength and skill rather than the magic of the item.

Glamdring is basically a bigger version of Sting. So... +1 Eager Orcbane Greatsword of Warning sounds just about right.

As for Andúril, well... it glows, and it's not just a figure of speech either, so it must be magic, somehow. I'd say it's a +1 Sunsword, or a (slightly refluffed) Pandemonic Silver weapon. Alternatively, it can be a weapon of legacy instead.

[Stardrake]

Okay, this one just pulled me out of lurkerdom...

I think both sides here might be underestimating just how much magic was in the Fellowship. Consider:

1) Mithral in Tolkein was quite a bit more impressive than mithral in standard D&D. Bilbo's (and then Frodo's) mithral shirt, for instance, is not just amazingly light, but is described as representing better protection than most contemporary armour. Admittedly, in the books (as opposed to the movies) mail seems to be about the limit of armour technology, so that might be achieved simply by a +2 enhancement bonus, but the point is that its stats translated in D&D should definitely be better than +4 AC with a +6 max dex bonus and no armour check penalty.

2) I don't have the books on hand, but something I came across recently in a site contrasting the movie and the books is that in the books, the swords of Westernesse picked up in the barrow-wights' den were actually something special. Merry stabbing the Witch-king wasn't effective purely because Merry didn't happen to not be a male human, but the blade had also been enchanted as a weapon against the Witch-king and his work. The blade didn't survive, of course, but it was possibly a +1 undead bane or the equivalent rather than a simple sword. Or possibly sacred/holy and the Witch King had good DR. (And this is without even considering the question of whether the Ringwraiths count as incorporeal, requiring any weapon to be at least magic to touch them at all.)

3) What of Boromir's horn? It's not clear exactly what it does, but according to its legend help always arrives when it is called - admittedly, it came too late for Boromir, but the horn may well have some quality to it that ensures it is heard by the nearest allies. In fact, while again I don't have the books to hand, I have a vague memory of it being revealed that it was heard in Gondor.

4) How do we know the equipment of the rest of the Fellowship wasn't magical? Not all magic weapons glow, after all, and the effect of those that don't (and lack some other funky effect like flaming) are actually pretty subtle. There are references to elves, dwarves, and Numenoreans all weaving enchantments into their equipment - Middle-Earth in general seems to be a bit like Eberron without the magitech in that there were few actual spellcasters, but magewrights abounded. Apart from the hobbits, the members of the Fellowship are all VIPs of one respect or another (the next lowest is Gimli, who was a close relative to one of the Twelve and thus probably dwarf effectively nobility at the very least). Considering that in the books I don't think it gets mentioned that Gandalf has one of the Three unless you read the appendices, why would something minor like a +1 bow or axe get a mention?

In short, far from being low magic, in D&D terms LOTR might be high-magic enough that +1s and the like simply weren't worth mentioning. (Imagine trying to write a story around the typical D&D adventuring party... would you want to list and define every single magic item? No, you'd probably keep it to the ones that are actually plot-relevant. In fact, you can probably see this somewhat if you take a well-known D&D character and look at their ingame statblocks - unless the writer has been really OCD, you're probably not going to find every item in the statblocks mentioned in a novel.)

Another consideration in this respect is that while fantasy stories generally don't give their characters lots of magic items (or at least, bothering to mention them all), a lot of them do seem to have a wider gradient of nonmagical item quality. D&D generally has just 'normal' and 'masterwork', and maybe some concept of damaged or otherwise low-quality weapons. In a book, though, you might have a range from the shoddy to the serviceable to the expertly made to the perfectly balanced masterpiece that feels like an extension of the wielder's arm - and often the difference in the observed capability of a character wielding the best nonmagical weapons available and the baseline is actually more than one would expect from a simple +1 to attack and damage. So it's not that these stories don't have the grading from average to excellent equipment that you see in D&D parties - instead, it's more that D&D sets the bar at which you go from 'high-quality mundane' to 'it's magic!' quite a bit lower than most fantasy authors.

Or to summarise: As long as it doesn't have special qualities (and even some of those, such as keen), what would be a +1 or better item in D&D may simply be good craftsmanship in a fantasy novel. Such writers tend to wait until the item actually does something flashy before applying the 'magic' label, rather than simply being better than more common examples.

(As a corrolary, this might also serve as a means of retaining something close to the WBL in a low-magic campaign - by making enhancement bonuses to weapons and armour and the like the result of good craftsmanship rather than magic. You'd need to make a few adjustments to suit - keeping in mind that the characters will have to trade in their old equipment and buy new to upgrade rather than simply enchanting it further, for instance, and that magic DR will be harder to penetrate - but you can certainly get something functionally equivalent.)

[deuxhero]

Having a smith improve your weapon works fine, you don't need to sell and replace to avoid enchanting.

[Kurald Galain]

Having a smith improve your weapon works fine, you don't need to sell and replace to avoid enchanting.

Well, it is nice to be able to have an ancestral weapon that's not going to be discarded the first time you find something with a bigger plus

[Crow]

Well, it is nice to be able to have an ancestral weapon that's not going to be discarded the first time you find something with a bigger plus

This is something I´ve always missed. I half-patched it, by having the first magical weapons a group gets ahold of have a big plus to start.

[Mystify]

This is something I´ve always missed. I half-patched it, by having the first magical weapons a group gets ahold of have a big plus to start.

The ancestral relic feat does its job really well. You keep the same weapon, and get to upgrade it yourself. Since you can use the real value of items, not their sale prince, in the ritual, you are effectively getting double returns. Simply buy all the misc items from the party for their sell price.
It effectively gives you the enchanted arms feat, without needing to be a caster, and you can enchant it to be more powerful than a caster of your level could.
And depending on how you interprete the ability, you may be able to side-shift the enchantments, instead of just adding. It just says you pay the difference between the price of the current item and the item it will become, it never says it has to be additive. So you could turn your +2 sword into a +1 holy sword for only the price of a +1 shift, and don't have to walk around with a sub-par weapon waiting to boost it with a large enchantment.
In fact, its technically free to change it to an equivalent cost ability, so you could turn your flaming sword into an undead bane sword before heading into the necropolis. It would still require a day for the ritual, but its doable.

[ClothedInVelvet]

I think we're getting a little off-topic here. The thread is about the next edition of D&D, and Wizards (hopefully having learned from their mistakes), is actually listening to players as they develop it. For that reason, I think we should focus a bit more energy on discussing what we want in the next edition.

So far, the major themes I've seen have been:
1. Balancing mundane vs. magical. It's tricky, because magic can inherently do things mundane can't. But one suggestion is to require prerequisites or increase specialization so that the same wizard can't blow up the moon and charm his next door neighbor into baking him banana bread.

2. Work out WBL and magic items so that they aren't so destabilizing. A lot of suggestions have come out here, but there's been little agreement. It might be a good topic for another thread, but I don't think we should let it choke up this one.

I think we would better serve WotC (and ourselves in the long run) if we focus on more things that we are looking for before we jump ship from our respective favorite editions. And for those of us who've tied ourselves to the mast, what makes our favorites so special? After all, if new players jump into 5e, we want them to see the best.

edit: fixed typo

[Othniel Edden]

Sting was also able to pierce the skin of the troll's leg with little difficulty, which I seem to remember it saying in the books was quite amazing.

So there's your bonus to hit, also.

Glamdring and Anduril (or whatever Aragorn's sword was named) were also implied to be something special, though it never really says what.

Gandalf's ring was basically an artifact.

Most everyone else had junk (by WBL standards) gear. BUT, the important thing to remember is that everyone who had magical bling had very few pieces, but those pieces were good.

Compare that to my last D&D character who was decked out head to toe in magical bling, and was seriously hamstrung if it wasn't on him. That's what I hope the next edition avoids.

And there is some implication that the blades carried by the hobbits were magical. Merry's sword was able to kill the Witch-king because it had those properties, and not just Male's can't kill me curse the Eowyn got around.

Also, Army of the Dead has to have some magical value to it.

[Mystify]

I think we're getting a little off-topic here. The thread is about the next edition of D&D, and Wizards (hopefully having learned from their mistakes), is actually listening to players as they develop it. For that reason, I think we should focus a bit more energy on discussing what we want in the next edition.

So far, the major themes I've seen have been:
1. Balancing mundane vs. magical. It's tricky, because magic can inherently do things mundane can't. But one suggestion is to require prerequisites or increase specialization so that the same wizard can't blow up the moon and charm his next door neighbor into baking him banana bread.

2. Work out WBL and magic items so that they aren't so destabilizing. A lot of suggestions have come out here, but there's been little agreement. It might be a good topic for another thread, but I don't think we should let it choke up this one.

I think we would better serve WotC (and ourselves in the long run) if we focus on more things that we are looking for before we jump ship from our respective favorite editions. And for those of us who've tied ourselves to the mast, what makes our favorites so special? After all, if new players jump into 5e, we want them to see the best.

edit: fixed typo

You are right. We are off topic, and those are the main themes being discussed.

I think they need to acknowledge that high level characters are not normal people anymore, and embrace that. The high level fighter sucks because he is still fighting like a normal human. And of course a normal human can't compete with magic. But the guy can survive being immersed in lava for a few rounds, he is not a normal person anymore.

Look at legend. They realized this. High-level skill checks can acheive effects that are pretty supernatural, and hence allows mundane ways to compete with magic. a high enough heal check can even raise people from the dead. High level jump checks offer flight for a round or two.

Such things are not completely without precedent in D&D. A high level scout has freedom of movement, for instance. That just needs to be embraced. Mundane is low-levels, at higher levels everyone could be effectively supernatural, mages through spells, martial characters through their own talents.

[JellyPooga]

I think they need to acknowledge that high level characters are not normal people anymore, and embrace that.

It's not entirely without precedent, as you say, but I'm a little concerned as to where you'd put the "cut off" point. At what stage does the 'mundane' give way to magic or psuedo-magical effects?

4ed may have been onto something with the idea of Class -> Paragon Path -> Epic Destiny thing and although I'm not exactly it's greatest fan, I think 5ed may benefit from holding onto that idea (if not the execution that 4ed had). I think one of the problems of 4ed was that it harkened back to the "pigeon-hole" classes of AD&D, rather than moving forward from the "unlimited" classes of 3ed.

If it's angled right, that might be an answer to the magical-mundane debate. I think it would need be stressed that each "level" of play (i.e. class, paragon or epic) is a completely different style of game, though. 4ed hinted at it, but was fairly elusive on the subject of gaming style.

P.S. I've always hated the idea of high level fighters wading through lava...I don't care how hard you are...standing in lava without extreme protection should be a death sentence!

[ClothedInVelvet]

It's not entirely without precedent, as you say, but I'm a little concerned as to where you'd put the "cut off" point. At what stage does the 'mundane' give way to magic or psuedo-magical effects?

4ed may have been onto something with the idea of Class -> Paragon Path -> Epic Destiny thing and although I'm not exactly it's greatest fan, I think 5ed may benefit from holding onto that idea (if not the execution that 4ed had). I think one of the problems of 4ed was that it harkened back to the "pigeon-hole" classes of AD&D, rather than moving forward from the "unlimited" classes of 3ed.

If it's angled right, that might be an answer to the magical-mundane debate. I think it would need be stressed that each "level" of play (i.e. class, paragon or epic) is a completely different style of game, though. 4ed hinted at it, but was fairly elusive on the subject of gaming style.

P.S. I've always hated the idea of high level fighters wading through lava...I don't care how hard you are...standing in lava without extreme protection should be a death sentence!

I think you're right, but how do we develop the suspension of belief necessary for this to work? We've been well-trained in our suspension of belief for magic (heck we can comprehend a wizard wreathed in flame), but we have no such skill for mundane (fighters can't wade through lava). Is there a way that 5e could create such a suspension or would it be better off trying to find a new mechanic? Maybe fighters don't gain levels and instead gain superpowers (temporary invincibility, ability to punch through a stone wall, etc.). Just thoughts.

[Kurald Galain]

I think you're right, but how do we develop the suspension of belief necessary for this to work?

It depends on how cinematic you want your campaigns. In a cinematic campaign, fighters could use Hollywood-style or Wuxia-style moves at higher levels. Many stunts by e.g. Bruce Willis are easily accepted in movies even though they're impossible in real life; and Wuxia has stunts like a fighter successfully parrying everything fired by a squad of archers.

In a more realistic campaign, I'd argue that high-level reality-warping wizards have no place either. Sure, the fighter is restricted to plausible swordsmanship, but the wizard is restricted to basic fire spells and illusions.

[Seerow]

In a more realistic campaign, I'd argue that high-level reality-warping wizards have no place either. Sure, the fighter is restricted to plausible swordsmanship, but the wizard is restricted to basic fire spells and illusions.

This is why I actually like the 4e tiers. The implementation was pretty bad, as not much changed, but if the game actually had 3 or 4 tiers that were distinctly different in the options available, I think it could work well.

So you have your Heroic Tier, levels 1-10. In this tier, things are mostly grounded in reality. Fighters are topping out around where olympic tier athletes are, and Wizards are doing only minor effects that in practice aren't too different from what fighters are doing. Basically 1-10 represents what the vast majority of 4e 1-30 is.

At levels 11-20 you are getting stuff like short range teleports, flight, minor minionmancy, etc. Wizards start getting to use save or dies, and get access to more of the more open ended utility spells that everyone loves. Fighters on the other hand are getting superpowers. They can use their sword to parry spells. They can hit the ground to create an earthquake. They can hit someone hard enough to knock them flying back a couple hundred feet, or gain regeneration.
Around this point wealth should stop mattering, and you should be able to have as much money as the DM wants to throw at you, because around here is where you should be able to use your money for little lifestyle perks instead of worrying where you're going to find money for your next longsword. Because of this, this is around the same time you can afford to give stuff that completely breaks wealth like Wall of Stone and Fabrication.

At levels 21-30 all bets are off. All characters are near deific in power, and are facing appropriate threats. They can gather hordes of followers to them, owning the world is not totally outside the realm of possibility. They don't just break the laws of physics, they casually ignore them. The things that were being done from 11-20 are now usable more or less at will. At this tier you get a few truly world shattering powers that are more limited use, but we're talking around the power level of 3.5's epic magic if it hadn't been retarded. Epic characters and creatures gain a host of immunities, and a lot of the less world shattering epic abilities is focused on reducing or removing those defenses so you can even do anything. So in practice, general combat would feel a lot like paragon tier, except with the knowledge that anyone in paragon wouldn't be able to scratch anyone in epic. The overall feel would be different not so much in terms of what you do in combat, but in terms of how the story unfolds and how your actions and your enemy's influence the world.

Then just like 4e, you don't get past 30. Somewhere between 21 and 30 you look for a good place and way to retire the characters. Maybe some general progression rules for above 30 (a la E6 style progression) could be given, but it is generally left wholly unsupported and up to individual GMs to make work if they want to.

[TheArsenal]

Problem is that in 4e EPIC you don't actualy feel epic realy. If im a demigod, where are my super awesome powers? What I get to do encounter powers?

Where are the tsunamis, armies of angels, ect?

But thats beyond the point.

What I would like is a more consistent art like in PF (They have their flubs too but its generaly consistent)

[Mystify]

It's not entirely without precedent, as you say, but I'm a little concerned as to where you'd put the "cut off" point. At what stage does the 'mundane' give way to magic or psuedo-magical effects?

4ed may have been onto something with the idea of Class -> Paragon Path -> Epic Destiny thing and although I'm not exactly it's greatest fan, I think 5ed may benefit from holding onto that idea (if not the execution that 4ed had). I think one of the problems of 4ed was that it harkened back to the "pigeon-hole" classes of AD&D, rather than moving forward from the "unlimited" classes of 3ed.

If it's angled right, that might be an answer to the magical-mundane debate. I think it would need be stressed that each "level" of play (i.e. class, paragon or epic) is a completely different style of game, though. 4ed hinted at it, but was fairly elusive on the subject of gaming style.

P.S. I've always hated the idea of high level fighters wading through lava...I don't care how hard you are...standing in lava without extreme protection should be a death sentence!

So... being able to survive multiple axe blows is fine, being able to survive an orbital drop is fine, being able to survive a dragon's breath weapon is fine, but lava, oh no, lava needs to be instantly lethal!

It depends on how cinematic you want your campaigns. In a cinematic campaign, fighters could use Hollywood-style or Wuxia-style moves at higher levels. Many stunts by e.g. Bruce Willis are easily accepted in movies even though they're impossible in real life; and Wuxia has stunts like a fighter successfully parrying everything fired by a squad of archers.

In a more realistic campaign, I'd argue that high-level reality-warping wizards have no place either. Sure, the fighter is restricted to plausible swordsmanship, but the wizard is restricted to basic fire spells and illusions.

Yes, give the mundane people those types of stunts at higher levels. If the magic/mundane imbalance is to be corrected, the mundane must surpass the possible, since magic is doing that by default.

A more realistic campaign would be low-level. 4e explicitly states this with heroic/paragon/epic, but even without those delineations you can play a low-level campaign where there are no reality warping wizards.

[Kurald Galain]

Problem is that in 4e EPIC you don't actualy feel epic realy. If im a demigod, where are my super awesome powers? What I get to do encounter powers?

Yeah, I concur. I find that for most classes, by the time you hit high paragon the designers ran out of ideas, and most powers you can get are simply a copy of a lower-level power, only with a bit more damage.

Almost all epic destinies do things like "you become 5% better at hitting people" or "once per day when you would die, you don't". That's nice to have, sure, but it doesn't feel epic. Some of them even have L30 capstones like "once per day, you may reroll a saving throw".

Of course, WOTC themselves state that the overwhelming majority of campaigns play just in heroic tier (which is why they've printed very little stuff for paragon and epic in the past year and a half). I wouldn't mind if 5E left epic out of the PHB entirely, and printed an Epic Level Handbook for those that want it.

[Trog]

Er... I've set down some more of my thoughts on 5e D&D here, for those that may be interested (all two of you )

[ClothedInVelvet]

Er... I've set down some more of my thoughts on 5e D&D here, for those that may be interested (all two of you )

For those of you who aren't up to reading a wall of text, I'll try to summarize some of the ideas.

1) Create two "tracks" for characters. One simple track and one for more detailed characters. Simple enemies would be easy to create, but enemies might be more interesting if the DM uses the complex track. New players could get into the game on the simple track, but as they develop, they'd become comfortable enough to use the complex track.

2) Usable playing pieces. Nothing complicated or expensive, but some useful pieces so we don't have to make our own.

3) More books on settings and characters. This would allow more collaboration between players as they discuss aspects of a particular city, or relate adventures against a particular villain.

These were the main points that stick out to me. I think 2 & 3 are great ideas and fairly simple to implement. WotC has published adventures in the past, but I think more books like Sharn will allow people to put this content into their own campaigns. And playing pieces would be nice, especially since I could use my poker chips for poker again.

Topic one sparked my interest, but I'm not sure how to implement it. It seems like your simple track characters are always going to be inferior. Maybe this is something we'll have to live with, but I'm wondering if there's a way around it.

[JellyPooga]

Er... I've set down some more of my thoughts on 5e D&D here, for those that may be interested (all two of you )

An interesting read and nothing I'd disagree with. I like the idea of provided 'generic' pieces...everyone uses something and more often than not (in my experience) this ends up being a crudely crafted, numbered chit of cardboard or paper. Even chess pieces would be better than that! Not sure I agree with status effects being part of the piece (though it's be handy if implemented well), I'd prefer to see some way of differentiating between creatures on a limited number of pieces...to alter your example; a black cube with the following 'sides' - red sword, white sword, bow, fireball, "generic big monster face" and "generic small monster face". With only a handful of such "monster dice", a GM can represent a slew of different encounters (or even generate them!) using the different faces for different types of creature (e.g. use red swords for Orcs, a white sword for the Orc Champion and some "GSMF"s for Goblins).

On the subject of "simple/complex" characters; I kind of like the idea. At first it seemed a little counter-intuitive to add elements like that to make the game simpler, but having a "basic combat block" for all the random encounters and other inconsequential combats to get them over with quickly and only using your "full combat" abilities on important fights (like against the BBEG) is very cinematic. Very cinematic indeed. The more I think about it, the more I like it. It might not exactly be a GURPS-esque vision of "realistic" roleplaying, but it would certainly be a useful storytelling tool in the right hands. I should probably stress that again; in the right hands. With a bad GM or bad players, or rather the wrong players/GM, the system wouldn't work particularly well. For "combat-jockey" players, it would make for a poor system, I think, being better suited to "storyteller" players. Like C.i.Velvet, though, not sure quite how this would be implemented.

As for more setting/character books, I couldn't agree more. Earthdawn is a cracking example of the way it can be done well (beautiful beautiful setting...). The 3ed "Sandstorm/Frostburn/etc." and "Races of X" series were too rules-y and too light on any usable 'fluff', IMO.

So... being able to survive multiple axe blows is fine, being able to survive an orbital drop is fine, being able to survive a dragon's breath weapon is fine, but lava, oh no, lava needs to be instantly lethal!

The axe blows thing doesn't apply because of the ambiguous nature of the D&D combat system, esp. regarding HP. Surviving dragons breath is fine...it's a short burst of flame. Magically hot super flame, perhaps, but it doesn't (AFAIK) melt rock, so is nowhere near the temperatures involved when talking about lava. Besides, it's pretty much a story-book convention that the "heroic warrior" can survive the dragons breath if he's 'ard enough! Surviving orbital drop? That goes in the same boat as lava for me!

I could go look up some of the actual temperatures involved when talking about molten rock, but I honestly don't think it's necesary. Needless to say, they go far beyond any forge, housefire or other mundane flame a person is likely to encounter...even getting close to lava (let alone wading in it!) can cause severe burns, suffocation and death. Yet D&D claims that you suffer no ill effects unless you're swimming in it.

[Tyndmyr]

I could go look up some of the actual temperatures involved when talking about molten rock, but I honestly don't think it's necesary. Needless to say, they go far beyond any forge, housefire or other mundane flame a person is likely to encounter...even getting close to lava (let alone wading in it!) can cause severe burns, suffocation and death. Yet D&D claims that you suffer no ill effects unless you're swimming in it.

Untrue. Immersion causes the most damage, true, but you also receive damage for mere exposure.

[NinjaStylerobot]

i was thinking about stuff like this:

What SMALL things would you liked Fixed?

Like tiny pet peeves and stuff?

For me its epic play. In 3e its LAZY with a Capital L. The system goes out of its way to avoid showing that your character is in fact a god (Except for wizards that go into overdrive) . Instead its just more "Eh- advance along". In 4e it barely registers on the rader, your character just gets a few abilities, maybe flight? But not much else.

I would like a Epic handbook separate, and I would like more effort put into making it a "This is it man, the final frontier" type thing.

Like you get XP only for completing great quests, slaying rivals, draining thier power Ect.

Heavy rules for creating domains, attracting followers, getting angels/ devils, fighting wars ect.

[kyoryu]

4ed may have been onto something with the idea of Class -> Paragon Path -> Epic Destiny thing and although I'm not exactly it's greatest fan, I think 5ed may benefit from holding onto that idea (if not the execution that 4ed had). I think one of the problems of 4ed was that it harkened back to the "pigeon-hole" classes of AD&D, rather than moving forward from the "unlimited" classes of 3ed.

Actually, I think that was the intent of 3e as well - Prestige Classes + multiclassing penalties pretty strongly suggest that the intent was never to allow a Foo2/Bar4/Baz3/Qux5/Foobar6 - but that's pretty much how the system worked.

1) Create two "tracks" for characters. One simple track and one for more detailed characters. Simple enemies would be easy to create, but enemies might be more interesting if the DM uses the complex track. New players could get into the game on the simple track, but as they develop, they'd become comfortable enough to use the complex track.

...

Topic one sparked my interest, but I'm not sure how to implement it. It seems like your simple track characters are always going to be inferior. Maybe this is something we'll have to live with, but I'm wondering if there's a way around it.

They've done a reasonable job in 4e with the Essentials classes. A Slayer or Knight holds up well to a Weaponmaster, even though the Slayer/Knight are much simpler to build/play.

Like you get XP only for completing great quests, slaying rivals, draining thier power Ect.

I'd actually like this at all levels. Rules for xp for getting gold, etc. in AD&D were kind of aimed at this - monster xp was pretty piddly compared to the xp you'd get for a big haul.

Heavy rules for creating domains, attracting followers, getting angels/ devils, fighting wars ect.

WotC already made that. It was called The Primal Order.

[NinjaStylerobot]

Getting money from just getting gold isn't epic. Gold is a reward in itself.

Im talking about TRULY epic things. Slaying a bunch of balors for no reason isn't worth advancement. But preventing a balor invasion- thats something else.

Primal order

For which edition is that?

[Mystify]

They've done a reasonable job in 4e with the Essentials classes. A Slayer or Knight holds up well to a Weaponmaster, even though the Slayer/Knight are much simpler to build/play.

I've been playing an essentials class, vampire to be specific. My biggest complaint is that you have very few choices. Sure, it may be easy to put together, but they may as well just hand you a premade character. ITs not even something like "Here are the default options if you want to just play one, but you can use these other options if you have more time". No, you are just shoehorned into their specific design.

[kyoryu]

Getting money from just getting gold isn't epic. Gold is a reward in itself.

No, but it does change the game from rewarding *activities* to awarding *achievements of goals*, which is a pretty significant change.

For which edition is that?

It was system-agnostic, but provided conversion rules for the popular systems at the time, like AD&D 2nd ed. This was pre-3rd ed, and in fact pre-Magic. I think it was actually WotC's first product.

I've been playing an essentials class, vampire to be specific. My biggest complaint is that you have very few choices. Sure, it may be easy to put together, but they may as well just hand you a premade character. ITs not even something like "Here are the default options if you want to just play one, but you can use these other options if you have more time". No, you are just shoehorned into their specific design.

Sure, and what you're suggesting here is that there should be an Essentials and non-Essentials version of the Vampire, which is a reasonable statement.

I'm pointing out that the non-Essentials Fighters and the Essentials variants are relatively well balanced against each other.

[Eldan]

The interviews for 5th, however, mention two fighters, one simple, one more complex. And that the simpler one can add more details if he wants. So, if that actually works, it should be pretty interesting.

[Seerow]

The interviews for 5th, however, mention two fighters, one simple, one more complex. And that the simpler one can add more details if he wants. So, if that actually works, it should be pretty interesting.

I'm guessing this means these options aren't preselected, and are instead things like tripping and grappling which anyone can do if they want to bother looking at it... otherwise it gets pretty silly. Especially with talk of how characters can pick up or drop these abilities on the fly depending on the encounter.