Who is left to rebuild the D&D franchise?

[Juton]

That's it? 1.5 million players?

That's... insane. Even 6 million players (which I'm guessing is a 3.x era number) seems on the low side. I know that tabletop RPGs aren't exactly mainstream entertainment, but we're talking about a global fanbase that is one third of one percent of the population of the USA.

I'm intrigued by this, does anyone have any definitive numbers regarding the size of the player base during the 2e/3e/3.5 eras? I've heard that 2e had a much larger base, as it was before computers had really taken off but I've never seen any numbers.

[Username17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrick_Gold

"For 2008, it produced 7.7 million ounces of gold at a cash cost of US $443/ounce".

Net income $0.785 Billion in 2008.

http://www.goldprice.org/
Current gold price 1191$ per ounce.

result: 5759 million 600 thousand$ per year.

It is obviously not profit - for one thing, royalties will eat part of it. But it would give the order of magnitude - although it is certainly lowered a great deal by "skillful" hedging.

These numbers don't add up to anything. What you want is the total gold production (7.7 million ounces), the production of one of their mines (Bald Mountain Gold Mine, first on the list at 75,000 ounces), and their Net Income (785 million). Find the ratio of the first two (.974%) and take that from the total profits ($7,646,000).

That is the apparent profit of "a gold mine". Seven million, six hundred and forty six thousand dollars. Literally less than the profits on selling through a set of core books to a million customers. So yes, quite literally, WotC is sitting on a gold mine. They can make more money on it than is made by Barrick Gold on their Bald Mountain Gold Mine.

-Username17

[hogarth]

I should have kept my mouth shut. It's trivially easy (and completely meaningless) to prove that the least profitable gold mine is less profitable than the most profitable tabletop RPG.

Let's get back to the topic at hand, please. D&D is not a particularly large money-maker in its home market where it has a fairly long tradition. Despite Lago's enthusiasm, I see no reason that it would suddenly be a big money-maker in foreign markets.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Despite Lago's enthusiasm, I see no reason that it would suddenly be a big money-maker in foreign markets.

Why? It's not like TTRPGs are an exclusively American thing like American football. Spain, Germany, and Japan for example have their own RPG markets. It's also not like D&D is some country-specific cultural icon; D&D frickin' influenced the birth of the jRPG (look at really young ones like Psychic Wars, Dragon Quest/Warrior, and the first Final Fantasy) and the cRPG genre in general. There is some interest.

And it's not like non-ENG RPGs were built from a vacuum. DSA and Sword World were very obviously influenced by D&D. You're not going to convince me that there isn't some interest in an RPG because it's just not frickin' true. Record of Lodoss War (which is on the short list of 'which animes are important') directly owes its existence to the game, as in the creator played D&D and thought it would be cool to make their own take on it.

To me, the interest is clearly there. The problem, which I have heard several times when I bring this topic up, are the translations.

Which I am not surprised at at all. I hate to beat on a dead horse but I'm going to, because it's a great example. One Piece. One Piece is a money-maker to the extend that you could combine the height of sales of Full Metal Alchemist (when it was still being printed), the height of sales of Bleach (it's going down the tubes), and the sales of Naruto and One Piece would still whip all of them.

But the property is dead in the water in the ENG markets. Why? Because of 4Kidz' atrocious adaptation. There's no reason why it shouldn't beat the snot out of Naruto and Bleach, which are cash cows here, but for the translation.

[A Man In Black]

Let's get back to the topic at hand, please. D&D is not a particularly large money-maker in its home market where it has a fairly long tradition. Despite Lago's enthusiasm, I see no reason that it would suddenly be a big money-maker in foreign markets.

Because it is competing against terrible games or nothing, I guess?

[hogarth]

Hang on -- there are a couple of different unsubstantiated claims going on here:

• D&D can make money by tapping a market that has no history of tabletop RPGs, like China
• D&D can make more money by tapping a market that has a history of tabletop RPGs, like Japan or Germany, by having better translations

It looks like you're talking about the second one now.

[..]
And it's not like non-ENG RPGs were built from a vacuum. DSA and Sword World were very obviously influenced by D&D.
[..]
To me, the interest is clearly there. The problem, which I have heard several times when I bring this topic up, are the translations.

Poor translations obviously don't help, but I think marketing would have a much bigger effect on sales. How much does Wizards spend on international marketing? Buggered if I know.

[malak]

And it's not like non-ENG RPGs were built from a vacuum. DSA and Sword World were very obviously influenced by D&D.

Influenced is a nice way of saying it. DSA was created as a response to one publishing house not getting the D&D rights, by an experienced D&D player. Unfortunately, the current 4th edition is all magical tea party and no tactical combat, at all.

Poor translations obviously don't help, but I think marketing would have a much bigger effect on sales. How much does Wizards spend on international marketing? Buggered if I know.

Nothing? I thought this was the responsibility of the local partners.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Hang on -- there are a couple of different unsubstantiated claims going on here:

My first and most important claim is that there IS an untapped interest in tabletop RPGs, considering how many derivative works ape D&D and the fact that non-American countries produce their own RPGs. It's not a local phenomenon.

The second part is that D&D would have no competition in some potential markets were it to make a good-faith translation. You can make money when there's no competition for your product unless your market doesn't like what you're selling. But unless you can point me to some particular cultural bias or reason why Indians wouldn't want to buy D&D then I don't know where you're coming from.

Poor translations obviously don't help, but I think marketing would have a much bigger effect on sales.

I gave some examples of advertising ideas earlier in the thread. Now I don't think, even with the huge help of the Internet, that D&D is going to be able to advertise as effectively in, say, Germany as in the ENG-speaking countries. They could, but honestly the company doesn't have the money and my ideas were lost-cost suggestions.

But even if they don't have the money, the history of the brand and the fact that it will AFAIK be running unopposed in some markets gives the company some momentum. So yeah, I don't expect sales of the product in Russia to be anywhere near as big as the sales in the U.S.. That's expected.

But RPGs are a low-cost affair to make, even if you go crazy with artwork and playtesting and whatever. Seriously, even if it cost 150,000 U.S. dollars to translate the core books into Japanese the company would not have to sell that many books to break even.

And of course there's just the fact that even if a product doesn't make a profit now doesn't mean that it won't in the future. Word of mouth is the best way you can advertise (or sink) things. And if D&D has a history of releasing quality products it will create more products in the future. I mean, really, would Final Fantasy 13 have sold anywhere near as well as it did if the franchise didn't already have a reputation for awesomeness?

[Lago PARANOIA]

Nothing? I thought this was the responsibility of the local partners.

You can't really put all of the onus on the local market to advertise. Remember, the primary point of sales will be in a damn BOOKSTORE, and we know how good at generating hype and ads and profits those things are. Yeah, they have a vested interest in ensuring that the book sells well, but you seriously shouldn't expect more from them other than a table and maybe a couple of posters.

[malak]

Nothing? I thought this was the responsibility of the local partners.

You can't really put all of the onus on the local market to advertise. Remember, the primary point of sales will be in a damn BOOKSTORE, and we know how good at generating hype and ads and profits those things are. Yeah, they have a vested interest in ensuring that the book sells well, but you seriously shouldn't expect more from them other than a table and maybe a couple of posters.

Indeed, but WotC could. Dunno if it's stupidity, but they were obviously the dominant partner and used that.

[Lago PARANOIA]

So earlier I was talking about a way to get lapsed players onboard is to make 5th Edition a fusion of what made the things in the previous editions good.

I mean, if 5th Edition is explicitly made to be an extension of 4th Edition like Frank mentioned earlier it's a good chance that nobody will even CARE because they've cried wolf so many times.

So the people who make 5th Edition will in fact have to be very careful to avoid sayin that 5th Edition is an improvement to just 4th Edition. Instead, they should say that for 5th Edition they are going to take the good parts of 4th Edition and the good parts of 1E-3E and use the lessons learned to make a brand new game. And they should be really sincere and serious and self-effacing about it, too. The party line should be '4E deviated from the previous editions too much and we've since had to learn a lot more new things than we should. But we did learn our lessons and rather than rejecting either 4E or the ones before it, our new edition will combine the best things of all of the previous into a brand new one'.

I don't even think that 5th Edition D&D should even be officially called 5th Edition. I think that it should have some other name to it. Like 'Super Dungeons and Dragons' or 'Dungeons and Dragons: 2012' or 'Dungeons and Dragons: Nostalgia' or the like.

So what changes should 5th Edition tout as 'bringing back' or 'learning from'? I've got a list.

Changes done by 1E/2E

Dual-classing should be the multiclassing standard, with the first one being your main class and your second one being a subclass. That means that everyone is a Paladin/Druid or a Wizard/Rogue or whatever. If you want to be single classed, you are something like an Artificer/Artificer and just call yourself an Artificer or True Artificer.

People should not be able to purchase the more meaningful magical items. We're fine with someone going into a shop and buying a +2 flaming sword, it's not cool to buy or forge a vorpal sword. This means that people are not dependent on magical items for their mojo and that magical items don't crash the economy anymore than selling Mona Lisa would.

Titles are coming back. They also do shit like getting you towers and followers and whatever.

Kits are coming back. Aw yeah.

Cursed magical items are coming back. 3E had them, but they were more of a nusiance than something you worried about. This is a good way to give the game 'unfair grognard flavor' without being an arbitrary rocks fall/everybody dies.

Stats are much more fixed than they were in 3E and 4E. It won't be completely inflexible like in 2E,

Bring back the 9-step alignment system. Wank to it as much as possible without hurting the mechanics or the gameplay experience. Yes, the Law/Chaos and Evil/Good axis is dumb as shit and hurts my brain. But except for making paladins unnecessarily fall now and then, it's mostly harmless. Also unfortunately, 'Lawful Good' and 'Chaotic Neutral' are some of the first terms that come to mind when anyone besides a surface knowledge of D&D thinks about what makes it unique. It's an advertising tradeoff, unfortunately.

Changes done by 3rd Edition

Classes don't have to have completely universal advancement in all areas. The spellcasting classes advanced their spells at about the same rate, but they had a bunch of other stuff that was different. So while they stayed within sight of each other at all times, playing a druid felt different from playing a shaman.

Races are going back to the 3E flavor. We don't know what was up with the Eladrin, that ugly-ass WoW Tiefling, or those creepy gnomes. But they're getting reverted. This means that orcs are now goblinoids even if they don't fit into the hobgoblin/bugbear/goblin trio. Races aren't the end-all/be-all of advancement anymore, either.

Subdual damage is back. This is to make combat be less like a one-sided butchery without getting into Saturday Morning Cartoon handwave territory.

Disarm, sunder, grapple, trip, and bull rush are back. They're also now standard maneuvers, so anyone can use them. In order to combine them with our power structure, it'll be in such a way that you can forgo damage to have one of these effects. So if a character has the 'Flame Whirlwind' power which gives them fire resistance and sets foes in a radius around then on fire, they could forgo doing the 'damage roll' portion of it to make it a mass disarm or mass bull rush.

Custom magical item crafting is back. Somehow. We won't use my system because it's ass and I don't know how to fix it, but seriously people love personalized gear that they made themselves.

We have universal skill DCs again. That crap in 4E where there's only one layer of abstraction is insulting.

We have prestige classes instead of paragon paths. The name helps lube up the fans.

The game errs towards a mild, but manageable amount of rocket launcher tag as people gain in levels. This is so that people can cut down hordes of mind flayers in one round to get at the Psychic Dragon Family.

The game has iconics in it again. Unlike in 3E where the iconics were just dropped into the game with a pretty picture and put into poses, there will be at least a page dedicated to giving a quick overview about the iconic characters' personalities and motivations. If you really want to bring things full circle, bring back the iconics that people liked (pretty much Jozan, Lidda, and Tordek unfortunately) and add a bunch of new ones.

Wank to school specialization a bit more. Not by doing like how 3E did it, but by making a Wizard class (transmutation/conjuration), a Warlock class (divination/'white' necromancy), a Necromancer class ('dark' necromancy), a Sorcerer class (evocation, some conjuration), and a Psion class (enchantment/illusion). Now I'm not saying don't give the other classes access to some effects from schools (I don't think anyone will be offended if a Wizard charms a goblin now and then), it's just that when people think of the class names they will immediately go 'oh yeah, they're the go-do for summoning golems'.

Changes done by 4th Edition

We'll have skill challenges. They'll be called that, only they won't be ass. They can also be more organically inserted into the campaign by giving an explicit time limit rather than going 'it's skill challenge time!'

The game will make a big deal about keeping players on the RNG, even moreso than before. This is because people will be less dependent on magical items and stats will not inflate as much--this will be because stats will have a quadratic effect on the game, but I'm getting ahead of myself.

Mandatory point buy.

Player roles, only less ass. Striker is gone. Defenders will be able to defend better without resorting to unforeseen combos or DM pity. No role in the game is mandatory to play, they only give people an idea of how their characters are supposed to perform.

Monster roles, only less ass. I'm much more happy about having monster roles as opposed to player roles.

5E will adopt the basic power system that 4E used. At low levels people can swing a 'basic attack + stock effect' for most powers; this makes powers easier for newbies to understand and cuts down on time spent reading over powers. At higher levels you can introduce more complex ones. The point is that at low levels, when people will try your system, old-timers won't be put off by the 'weeabooness' of your system since they'll mostly be seeing your system as basic attacks. Things like Deft Strike and Twin Strike don't need power cards. Not only is it a waste of space, but just the simple presentation will cause people to rebel. So instead of making a Power Card for Enfeebling Strike, make it like this: (Su): You can make a basic attack which if it hits inflicts a -2 penalty to attack and defense on an opponent until the start of your next turn. Once you lubed them up a bit is when you start introducing the more complex powers.

Epic Destinies stay. They're going to be called that to give a nice 2E/3E/4E continuity such that we have Kits/Prestige Class/Epic Destiny.

We use 4E's saving throw mechanic, with two caveats. One is that it's easier to make saving throws as you make more of them over a time interval. Something like for the first three rounds you get an escalating bonus of +1/+2/+4. If you fail the third saving throw, you can't save until a minute has passed, then you make another one at a +6 bonus. You get three more chances, then the time interval is an hour at +8. Three more chances, then a day +10, and caps out after a week at +12. After that you're stuck like that until you get rescued. The second is that saving throws are level-opposed; trying to stun someone of your level won't last for more than a couple of rounds, but if your level 7 wizard mass-stuns 10 kobolds they'll probably be out for the rest of combat. This means that the vampire can dominate the guard captain with his gaze for a few days and some peasants for the rest of their lives, but a level-appropriate PC will only stay dominated for a couple of rounds.

Changes unique to 5th Edition D&D

Double-digit hit points are gone. We now do boxes Shadowrun/ST style. Boxes are (with some very rare exceptions, like small PCs) fixed by size, so most medium-sized creatures have like 20, large creatures have 30, etc.. Damage is much lower and is instead increased by having the attack stat exceed the defense stat on a hit by a certain amount. This means that the same orc that took three rounds of combat to take out at level 1 goes down like a chump in one swing at level 5.

While people who play 4E do enjoy the healing surge mechanic and I agree that having a limit on healing is a good thing, I don't know anyone who doesn't play 4E who likes this idea and I can't blame them; it leads to 'cartoon character' healing where as long as you still have healing surges you're good to go. So instead of having a 'healing surge' stat, healing works like this: after healing restores whatever many boxes, you reduce your 'permanent' hit points and those can't be accessed again until you take a good, long rest. So after Brute McTank gets banged up in a fight with ogres, Healy McHealer restores his hit points to full, but his maximum hit points are now 17 instead of 20. After the second battle his maximum hit points are 15. He's noticeably easier to take down than before and if he keeps going it increases the danger.

Focus fire is gone for two reasons. The first one is that not being attacked by a non-area attack gives you the 'unengaged' status, which gives you various silly combat bonuses. So the characters target the toughest-looking peeps while someone tries to take them out. The second one is that along with the hit point boxes idea we're doing it so that losing too many of your hit points causes your combat abilities to go down. Things like losing options on your Wind of Fate wheel, getting attack and defense penalties, etc.

Mandatory retirement for the 'martial' power source at level 8 or so. While I would love to have a One Piece thing where the 'Martial' source remains flavorful and effective into the very high levels, most people scream like raped apes at the thought of Rogues being able to do infinite double jumps or fighters teleporting by cutting a hole in the fabric of reality because their imaginations are stunted. So your fighter becomes an angel knight or a gadget lord or whatever.

The skill and stat system is quadratic in effect. This means that the same amount of distance on the RNG that gets you from 'can lift a rock to can lift a horse' also gets you from 'can lift a horse to can lift a siege tower'. It's quadratic for two reasons. The first is so that people can have BIG effects without having BIG numbers. Having to roll a 120 DC Balance check to balance on a cloud is ridiculous. The second is because once you cross the suspension of disbelief threshold it gets easier for people to accept bigger deviations. If a mortal martial artist trained very hard we could except him shattering a stack of logs with one punch, but not a boulder. But if we see someone shatter a boulder, it's not much of a stretch to imagine them shattering a cube of metal. So the skill effect curve will be linear at the lower ends (so that peasants and mooks don't accidentally stumble into epic-ness) but quadratic at the higher end.

That thing in 4E where you use charisma and wisdom to swing a sword has to go. Not because it's weeaboo and retarded or simulation-breaking (3E passed that threshold way before Book of Nine Swords), but because it devalues what stats mean. On the other hand, having attacks tied to One True Stat hurts multiclassing and fetishizes them. Attacks are not related to stats anymore. They're related to levels, class features, powers, and situational bonuses. A barbarian swings a sword harder than a wizard because they have the Rage trait, not because they have a high strength.

[Blicero]

Mandatory point buy, really? I've always found that produces really samey characters. The option I like best is "everyone (or at least more than 1 person) rolls 4d6 drop lowest, group as a whole picks a set or two that they like and said set(s) is/are used for the rest of the campaign even with new characters." It's slightly more irregularity that looks like a lot of irregularity, which is a good thing.

[Lago PARANOIA]

The thing I don't like about rolled stats is that at low levels rolling well is like having two or even three extra levels.

A 25-point buy monk is at least three levels behind to a monk who rolled four 16+s.

Going with your idea, I think it might be best to do this. Using 3E for an example:

Roll six 4d6s, drop the lowest. Do not adjust the order. Do it again. Do not adjust the order. These two results count as a set. Do this until you have two sets, and the same person can't roll another column. After they vote on the set, you select one of the two results in the set. You then get to set one stat of your choosing to an 18 and one other to a 14. If a new character hops in, they use one of the sets from beforehand. If a character who imported their sheet from another game hops in then they have to adjust their stats to fit with the new sets unless the DM says that it's okay to play with a slightly weaker/stronger character.

You thus have characters of roughly of the same power from campaign to campaign but you still have some variation.

[baduin]

Use Mutants&Mastermind Power Level system.

Levels should reflect character's combat power, not their experience. That means that what is important is attack bonus, not whether it comes from Strength or BAB. Therefore, characters with higher strength should have simply lower BAB, for the same net attack bonus.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I almost forgot. We NEED to use some variant of Mutants and Mastermind's Time/Distance/Number progression scale.

It's a great way to keep effects quadratic in scale without fucking over the d20 or keeping them static over the course of the campaign.

[MfA]

I think trying to be revolutionary in 5e would be a mistake. No edition before has fragmented the players more than 4e ... this is a time to step back.

5e should fix 3e and take whatever is salvageable from 4e (like rituals, as an alternative to utility spells and not a replacement this time, and paragon paths instead of prestige classes for instance ... hell call them paragon kits). No messing with the sacred fucking cows. Vancian casting, at least for the wizard and cleric, hitpoints, lots of dice rolling for attacks and damage ... and fireballs should bloody well do 1d6/cl damage etc. etc.

[Lago PARANOIA]

The problem is that the biggest sacred cows of 3E are the ones that are also the most harmful for the game.

Even if you normalize the RNG differences, there are still some big problems.

Magic Item Christmas trees are a bad idea. Rolling for hit points is a bad idea. Hit points increasing the way they do is a bad idea. The massive stat differences rolled at level one is a bad idea. Caster levels are a bad idea. The level of Vancian Casting inflation for clerics and wizards are a bad idea. Non-caster/caster-level separation is a bad idea. Skill ranks are a bad idea. Forcing non-casters to spam the same tactic for the rest of their lives is a bad idea.

But when you take out all that stuff, what salvageable ideas are there from 3E? Yeah, I like 3E more than 4E, but I also like Star Trek: Voyager more than Enterprise. That doesn't mean that Voyager isn't awful in many, many parts.

There is really no point in starting a 5E if you're not going to take care of these issues. If you're going to keep all that shit in the game then play Tome. But Frank and K have already acknowledged that even with their fixes 3E has massive problems in it. People know on a very deep level the problems with 3E. You can't just turn back the clock and pretend like the don't exist.

I identified the best I can the things that you can import from 3rd Edition that have a neutral or at least a minorly negative impact on the game--if it was up to me I wouldn't use the 3E races at all, but I'm looking for sacred cows wherever I can find them. But honestly, 3E has fewer good ideas than 4E. 4E is still worse because it's too reductionist and too level treadmill and the good ideas were implemented crappily. But the ideas were still on the whole better. Unfortunately, fixing 4E as well would completely change the nature of that game. 4E would look and feel nothing like it does if you fixed the problems. So in addition to the problem that 4E has cried wolf too many times, you're going to alienate 4E 'fans' if you fix the problems.

So what do you do? 5E will make a big show about how it's combining ideas from all of the previous editions as a show of truce. If someone asks 'why is this different from X edition' you go 'we feel that this edition did it the best and since this project is a Best Of, we're doing it X-edition style'.

For occasions where you can't do that, you refer to some other game. 'We use hit-point boxes because Shadowrun/Earthdawn uses it to great effect. We have a Time and Value progression scale because it's the best idea of Mutants and Masterminds'. The trick is to say that you're doing an idea unique to 5E as few times as possible. You're doing something either because an old edition did it or because you liked a feature of an old edition and want to tweak it to make it work in a 'modern' game.

Will this work? I dunno. But if the fans don't buy it then 5E is doomed from the very beginning.

[Lago PARANOIA]

And if 5E fails to catch fire even if it's an objectively superior edition, then either the franchise is dead or you have market to some fanbase who isn't sucking at the teat of the sacred cow.

And honestly if people are so attached to bullshit like the level 20 fighter and +5 swords that they're willing to sink a franchise to massage their egos, I really can't shed a tear for the 'death' of D&D.

[TheFlatline]

Attacks are not related to stats anymore. They're related to levels, class features, powers, and situational bonuses. A barbarian swings a sword harder than a wizard because they have the Rage trait, not because they have a high strength.

So what's the point of stats then? My dinky STR 8 fighter vs STR 40 Hercules, even if they're the same level of fighter, one should see a distinct difference in combat effectiveness.

Or to put it another way, if I pick up some basic boxing skills, and someone else who is buff picks up some basic boxing skills, and we go at it, I'm going to get creamed because I haven't been working out.

The problem with combat stats then is one of becoming irrelevant at higher levels. The difference between an 18 and 20 strength for a level 20 fighter is kind of negligible. Using your health levels idea, physical stats still matter, because you're dealing with the same damage scale for 20+ levels.

[MfA]

Magic Item Christmas trees are a bad idea.

People like their +5 swords but removing all the standard defensive/ability bonus items, giving level based bonuses instead, and cutting down the slots to 3 or so probably wouldn't phase anybody.

Rolling for hit points is a bad idea.

Make the default average rounded up and mention the hit dice as an alternative ... same for ability scores, arrays as default and pointbuy/rolling as alternatives.

Hit points increasing the way they do is a bad idea.
...
Caster levels are a bad idea.

Just work around it ... whether damage stays in the same range for equal level attack/defense values, or whether it's allowed to scale together with hitpoints really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things ... needing to do more counting is not a massive problem.

Skill ranks are a bad idea.

Don't think there are too many people married to the exact 3e or 4e incarnations of the skill system.

Forcing non-casters to spam the same tactic for the rest of their lives is a bad idea.

So don't do that.

For occasions where you can't do that, you refer to some other game. 'We use hit-point boxes because Shadowrun/Earthdawn uses it to great effect.

Except Earthdawn doesn't ... sure, the numbers mostly don't scale with build points but it's still not tick boxes.

[TheFlatline]

Just work around it ... whether damage stays in the same range for equal level attack/defense values, or whether it's allowed to scale together with hitpoints really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things ... needing to do more counting is not a massive problem.

Yes, it is a massive problem. Each individual calculation isn't a massive problem, but in a combat heavy game as the numbers add up the speed of the game drops at a corresponding rate. There comes a point where a significant amount of gaming time is eaten up by damage calculations. Keeping math simple and on the low end of the number scale is preferable to having to do algebra to determine hit points.

[MfA]

Compared to slow decision making I have never found counting dice to make too much difference.

[MGuy]

Just work around it ... whether damage stays in the same range for equal level attack/defense values, or whether it's allowed to scale together with hitpoints really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things ... needing to do more counting is not a massive problem.

Yes, it is a massive problem. Each individual calculation isn't a massive problem, but in a combat heavy game as the numbers add up the speed of the game drops at a corresponding rate. There comes a point where a significant amount of gaming time is eaten up by damage calculations. Keeping math simple and on the low end of the number scale is preferable to having to do algebra to determine hit points.

Wouldn't you have to constantly be doing math for how much your attack result beat the defender;s defense anyway?

On to my personal disagreement: I don't think you should cut out the Martial Power Source at 8th level. That's a weak cop out. If you're going to shunt half of the expectations of the people who play the game by making these massive changes across the board then you might as well have your triple jumping rogues and your faster than light fighters and say fuck all to those who disagree.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I unfortunately agree about magical equipments. +Whatever swords is what comes to mind when any layman thinks of D&D magical equipment. I would love to get rid of those, but that's a battle not even I want to fight. Maybe for 6th Edition.

So don't do that.

Okay. Then we have the 4E power system or put everyone on Vancian casting. If we stayed with the 3E system where you combine your Whirlwind Fighter with a Tripstar + Zone of Control standstill spiked chain guy that wouldn't be fixed.

Yeah, it's more flavorful and more effective than the vanilla. But you're still spamming the same tactic.

Now I don't mind Vancian casting. Or rather, I prefer it to every system I've seen except for the Winds of Fate. It has some very big problems even if you remove the issue of option paralysis; see Book of Nine Swords to see what I mean--you don't QUITE have Five Moves of Doom but it gets close sometimes.

I'd much rather switch to Winds of Fate however. 3E and 4E already set us up for that and it's not like the mechanic is unprecedented. Having 5E do Winds of Fate or some other magical system I haven't heard about yet would be my line in the sand if I was designing 5E--it's a 'do this or I'm giving up on this edition' moment.


I'll also throw down the gauntlet for hit points as well. They need to go to boxes you tick off. Moving to the system I recommend would get rid of a lot of problems with D&D.

1A) It'd get rid of padded sumo/rocket launcher tag. One of D&D's basic precepts of all games is that enemies that were a challenge of one level are cannon fodder the next level. 8 levels ago an ogre was a boss-level threat but now you chew through them like bubblegum. That's a laudable goal. Unfortunately, numbered hit points lead to three potential problems with this system.

A) You increase damage too fast/inflate hit points too slow. The game ends up being rocket launcher tag, like in pre-epic 3E with buffed-up CoDzilla or rogue shenanigans.
B) You increase damage too slow/inflate hit points too fast. You end up with padded sumo, like in epic 4E with weapon users.
C) Against all odds you calculate the hit point and damage curve correctly. Unfortunately, in D&D monsters gain power really fast. Your curve will be quadratic, and for anyone who took a pre-algebra course quadratic numbers get big really fast. You will seriously be dealing with hit points in the mid-hundreds by level 10 or so. That is not manageable.

D&D's effort to keep hit point inflation under control resulted in having to add various stupid damage-mitigation effects like AC, evasion, damage reduction, regeneration, etc.. But unless you are a badass at multivariable calculus and micromanage your expansion options to the point where Scrooge would tell you to tone it done a little, you're going to fuck it up. Like every single game in the history of ever did, even Shadowrun--and their numbers are REALLY LOW.

Secondly, going to standardized hit points will finally allow us to slay the beast of The Healing Problem. It's not much of a beast, but people do complain about 'cartoon character healing' and 'godsticks' and 'I still got healing potions biyatch' problems. My system puts a cap on the workday without it feeling artificial like healing surges or brinkmanship like godsticks.

Thirdly, and most importantly, going to standardized hit points will finally, FINALLY allow us to slay the Beast of Critical Existence Failure. Shadowrun (thanks for telling me about Earthdawn) does not have this, which is a remarkable achievement. Getting rid of Critical Existence failure makes combats a lot less lethal without resorting to Boring Invincible Hero, gets rid of Focus Fire bullshit, and actually makes taking damage tense in a way that CEF does not. You can't do this with D&D's current system, because it would be a fucking mess to have to calculate wound thresholds and penalties for critters.

Fourthly, going to boxes rids us of the Housecat Problem. Simply put, there isn't enough room at the bottom to model smaller creatures like dogs and rats. I mean, peasants already have 1 hit point, but a housecat has like two 1 hit point attacks. You either accept this goofy shit or you give creatures an arbitrary pile of hit points. Which just leads to unnecessary hit point and damage inflation when every 1st-level critter starts out with 24 hit points.

If we could get rid of that double-digit hit point crap, the game would be vastly improved almost instantly. It's a big improvement and it's a big improvement in the same way that getting rid of THAC0 is. It's so awesome that anyone BUT dumbass nostalgia freaks says that it's a good idea.



Regardless, you didn't really give me an argument for keeping those sacred cows, MfA. I agree with almost all of your fixes, but let's not kid ourselves, that game would look very different from 3E. Our only real point of contention is the power recharge system and probably the whole 'put everyone on at least the Vancian schedule' thing. And the hit point thing.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Wouldn't you have to constantly be doing math for how much your attack result beat the defender;s defense anyway?

No. It actually saves time. It cuts out the damage roll entirely without doing that boring ass 'I deal 6 damage to the orc! Same as the last turn. And the turn before that.' You only have to do addition (or subtraction) rather than roll dice AND do addition. It's a big time saver, especially with multiple attacks.