When you give your changes, if you can think of a system that actually does it correctly please note it -- rather than just going 'I don't like this'. I mean, knowing what you like is helpful, but not as helpful as knowing HOW you'd like it.
Get rid of health/damage asymmetry.
You don't need to implement Shadowrun's fixed hit point system, but 4E's system was retarded and insulting. Unfortunately I've never seen a scaling hit point system that satisfied me.
The high-level effects will actually have to reflect the reality of high-level.
3E D&D's spells will satisfy me, even if they're changed to rituals. If we are doing rituals though they will need to be scaled so that they meaningfully do more and different shit (which includes a dramatic decrease in casting time and/or ritual cost) in order to hold my interest.
A decent multiclassing system.
It needs to be implemented from the outset, too. Personally, I'd be just fine with 4E D&D's Hybrid/Multi/Paragon Multiclassing system if the feat taxes were heavily reduced and powers weren't tied to something retarded like attributes. I'm barely okay with a Paladin/Wizard hybrid needing to fight with a quarterstaff and a holy symbol, as long as it's not too punitive, but it still needs to be a viable multiclass.
Stronghold Rules in core rules.
Cleaning up and compressing the 3E Stronghold Builder's Guide will satisfy me if they're lazy. I'd rather they do something from scratch since the Stronghold Builder's Guide wastes too much space. But seriously, standardized dungeon effects is not only an invaluable tool for the DM but also for the players. Players love having a bit of the campaign setting they can tweak and customize to call their home.
A decent default campaign setting.
If 5E D&D is going to succeed, it needs something fresh, original, and more importantly there. Dark Sun is a good idea but not mainstream enough. Same for Al Qadim and Ravenloft. Eberron could've been fine if they took their fantasy reimagining further. Everything else is not worth talking about. They might have to make a new setting from scratch.
Actual save-or-sucks need to be re-implemented.
They don't have to reach Rocket Launcher Tag levels like in 3E D&D. A tweaking of Shadowrun and/or Mutant and Mastermind d20's systems would work just fine for me. But the idea of having to defeat everything with hit point damage is fucking bullshit. That crap where a puny goblin minion is only petried for three rounds maximum by a medusa is bullshit.
Expand, standardize, and fix the skill system.
The only thing that would be acceptable to me is a revamped and expanded skill system that sets DCs according to an objective standard rather than just scaling them by level. 3E D&D's system will satisfy me, they just need to tighten skills and checks and have more example DCs -- and that chart needs to be in the core rulebooks. Seriously. I'll understand if skill challenges just get left out entirely, but if you're going to keep them then A.) skill challenges should be limited by time, not attempts and B.) skill challenges still need to be constructed according to objective DCs. Going with this, 2E D&D reaction rolls need to be in the game or the game needs to immediately change to you talking to everything that has a brain. This includes random bandits on the road. The system after that can be magical tea-party (though I'd prefer it not be) but if it's still possible for DMs to have encounters with intelligent creatures where it's generically impossible to stop fighting before hostilities begin then I'm going to be pissed.
A treasure accumulation system that is not ass.
I will accept a min-max paradise where treasure is just a customizable character resource like feats or spells just like in Exalted. I will also accept a semi-random system like 2E D&D. I will not accept WBL bullshit like in 3E D&D nor that half-and-half shit 4E D&D does.
A core rules class and powers system that is simultaneously more robust and more efficient.
As in, the total volume of ppwers in 4E D&D is like 1/3rd of what I would like and the total number of starting classes is like 2/3rds of what I'd like. The only way to do this in a reasonable amount of space is to do a hybrid of 3E D&D's generic effect lists (how resurrection works, how illusions work, etc.) and 4E D&D's keywords. I really do believe that they can do this, 4E D&D has way too much friggin' wasted spaced in it.
Core classes which feel meaningfully different from each other.
4E D&D came closer to this goal then they realize over the course of their game. A Warlord, A Warden, a Battlemind, a Monk, a Cleric, and a Wizard play differently enough from each other to satisfy me and if their class mechanics were in the core book rather than spread out over several years it would have heavily tamped down on the rage. Now, I'm not saying that they were good classes. All but the monk were but that's a separate issue. I'm also not saying that the resource management system was good, because it wasn't; in combination with the HDA and At-Will/Encounter/Daily crap it created repetitive combats. I'm just saying that by using 4E D&D as a standard, that's the minimum amount of inter-class diversity I will accept.
If 5E D&D implemented all of those fixes relative to previous editions then barring something really out of left field like Perfect Defenses or naked lolis in fursuits I think that I will be satisfied with the edition.
Also, this doesn't have to be implemented to satisfy me, but if Hasbro has a lick of sense they'll implement a sensible OGL. Even if 5E is objectively superior to Pathfinder, there will still be hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of loyal fans who will continue to compete with the product. And they're not going to be able to kill the Pathfinder zombie without having some way or reason for 3rd party companies to attach their cart to the 5E OGL horse.
... I'm strongly thinking of e-mailing Monte Cook this list.
Top 10 changes will 5E D&D have to implement to satisfy you?
Moderator: Moderators
-
Lago PARANOIA
- Invincible Overlord
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am
Top 10 changes will 5E D&D have to implement to satisfy you?
Last edited by Lago PARANOIA on Tue Jan 10, 2012 6:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
-
Lago PARANOIA
- Invincible Overlord
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am
So, skills. Let's talk about them for a second.
Mearls and Monte want to do some tier crap that blah-de-blah, which even before hearing the whole thing makes my eye glaze over. Because the entire task is a fool's errand. Why are they overcomplicating the whole skill issue that much? d20's basic skill system actually works pretty okay. There are some problems with it such as:
[*] Simultaneously not enough and too many skills. Knowledge is too broad and its attempts to subdivide it into stuff like nobility and history made us sad. Yet Use Rope is too narrow. Personally, I'd recommend just straight-out porting Shadowrun's skill list, changing or getting rid of the things that don't fit for D&D like Computers, and adding a couple of skills that Shadowrun doesn't have like Alchemy.
[*] Skill bonuses and DCs diverge too much. I understand that the game designers want people to get better at swimming and jumping faster than they wanted to get them better at diplomacy, but the way they implemented it sucked. Seriously, just get rid of most of the bonus stacking effects and just give the skills different rates at which they advance. That's all you need to do. Hell, combined with the above, you can declare that training in Acrobatics gives you a one-time +5 bonus with an additional bonus point every level; training in Alchemy gives you a one-time +5 bonus with an additional bonus point every two levels; training in Diplomacy gives you a +3 bonus with an additional bonus every three levels; training in Perception gives you no starting bonus but gives a bonus every two levels anyway. Etc. In order to reduce confusion you could just standardize the initial bonus and scaling in categories of 'fast scaling, medium scaling, and slow scaling'.
[*] Diplomacy, but that's a whole separate problem. Personally, I'd be just fine with 2E D&D's Reaction + MTP system if they can't come up with anything better. I'd rather use 2E D&D's Reaction + Shadowrun Extended Test system for Diplomacy, but I'll understand.
[*] Skills don't scale in effect enough to be useful at all ranges of play. I'm not convinced that this is actually a problem, because the switchover comes about when effects that can duplicate what skills do but better come into play at around this time. I'm completely okay with just letting skills go obsolete as long as a good replacement for achieving out-of-combat effects exists. But there are a large number of people who are dismayed that Jump becomes increasingly useless not because the skill points that they dumped into it is 'wasted' once flight becomes available (which is fixable in several ways) but because they just don't want to let go of a dear old friend. If so, they could just come up with a bunch of high-level uses for skills like in the Epic-Level handbook. Or they could do a hybrid, letting skills like Diplomacy and Arcana be useful at all ranges of play while retiring Athletics when the time comes.
That's all that's needed to have a good skill system. Now, I would like additional doodads on top of that like extended skill tests, a diplomacy system that doesn't suck and doesn't resort to MTP, and a reasonable skill challenge system but as long as they implement those above quick-fixes I'll be happy.
But seriously, there's absolutely no reason why 5E D&D's skill system should suck. Between 4E, 3E, and 2E D&D they have enough material and experience to get it right with little effort.
Mearls and Monte want to do some tier crap that blah-de-blah, which even before hearing the whole thing makes my eye glaze over. Because the entire task is a fool's errand. Why are they overcomplicating the whole skill issue that much? d20's basic skill system actually works pretty okay. There are some problems with it such as:
[*] Simultaneously not enough and too many skills. Knowledge is too broad and its attempts to subdivide it into stuff like nobility and history made us sad. Yet Use Rope is too narrow. Personally, I'd recommend just straight-out porting Shadowrun's skill list, changing or getting rid of the things that don't fit for D&D like Computers, and adding a couple of skills that Shadowrun doesn't have like Alchemy.
[*] Skill bonuses and DCs diverge too much. I understand that the game designers want people to get better at swimming and jumping faster than they wanted to get them better at diplomacy, but the way they implemented it sucked. Seriously, just get rid of most of the bonus stacking effects and just give the skills different rates at which they advance. That's all you need to do. Hell, combined with the above, you can declare that training in Acrobatics gives you a one-time +5 bonus with an additional bonus point every level; training in Alchemy gives you a one-time +5 bonus with an additional bonus point every two levels; training in Diplomacy gives you a +3 bonus with an additional bonus every three levels; training in Perception gives you no starting bonus but gives a bonus every two levels anyway. Etc. In order to reduce confusion you could just standardize the initial bonus and scaling in categories of 'fast scaling, medium scaling, and slow scaling'.
[*] Diplomacy, but that's a whole separate problem. Personally, I'd be just fine with 2E D&D's Reaction + MTP system if they can't come up with anything better. I'd rather use 2E D&D's Reaction + Shadowrun Extended Test system for Diplomacy, but I'll understand.
[*] Skills don't scale in effect enough to be useful at all ranges of play. I'm not convinced that this is actually a problem, because the switchover comes about when effects that can duplicate what skills do but better come into play at around this time. I'm completely okay with just letting skills go obsolete as long as a good replacement for achieving out-of-combat effects exists. But there are a large number of people who are dismayed that Jump becomes increasingly useless not because the skill points that they dumped into it is 'wasted' once flight becomes available (which is fixable in several ways) but because they just don't want to let go of a dear old friend. If so, they could just come up with a bunch of high-level uses for skills like in the Epic-Level handbook. Or they could do a hybrid, letting skills like Diplomacy and Arcana be useful at all ranges of play while retiring Athletics when the time comes.
That's all that's needed to have a good skill system. Now, I would like additional doodads on top of that like extended skill tests, a diplomacy system that doesn't suck and doesn't resort to MTP, and a reasonable skill challenge system but as long as they implement those above quick-fixes I'll be happy.
But seriously, there's absolutely no reason why 5E D&D's skill system should suck. Between 4E, 3E, and 2E D&D they have enough material and experience to get it right with little effort.
Last edited by Lago PARANOIA on Tue Jan 10, 2012 7:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
- Strong version of OGL. Not because I care that much about open source culture, but because it was such a strong success factor before.
- Good presentation. Wizards doesn't have a problem in that area so far, but it's easy to start sucking. That includes good editing.
- Verisimilitude. The Den argues the details, but least fire should always burn, and I should be able to dig through walls.
- A good skill system. Dunno how they'll manage that, because no-one else has either, but hey.
- Archetype support. That includes both Dnd archtypes (Raistlin) and fantasy archtypes (Elric).
- Sane and consistent rulings. You know how to do this, because M:tG manages it. Yes it's hard, but it's a lot harder with dartboard-based decisions in the mix.
- Good DM advice. The DMG is sorely lacking.
- Cheap versions. if there were cheap copies of the books, I would personally buy more. Seriously, I am more likely to buy three or four $15 books at one time than a single $30 book. I am also far more likely to buy $15 books to read later ($30 I'll borrow and read first, and only buy if they're useful).
- Solid crafting system. For swords, but also for castles. NWN-style crafting is ass, and 3.x style breaks too easily (though is otherwise okay). Exalted does this well, but dumps most of the burden onto MC fiat, so is basically only half of a system.
Edit:
- A marketing campaign that doesn't make me hate the product before I ever even see it.
- Good presentation. Wizards doesn't have a problem in that area so far, but it's easy to start sucking. That includes good editing.
- Verisimilitude. The Den argues the details, but least fire should always burn, and I should be able to dig through walls.
- A good skill system. Dunno how they'll manage that, because no-one else has either, but hey.
- Archetype support. That includes both Dnd archtypes (Raistlin) and fantasy archtypes (Elric).
- Sane and consistent rulings. You know how to do this, because M:tG manages it. Yes it's hard, but it's a lot harder with dartboard-based decisions in the mix.
- Good DM advice. The DMG is sorely lacking.
- Cheap versions. if there were cheap copies of the books, I would personally buy more. Seriously, I am more likely to buy three or four $15 books at one time than a single $30 book. I am also far more likely to buy $15 books to read later ($30 I'll borrow and read first, and only buy if they're useful).
- Solid crafting system. For swords, but also for castles. NWN-style crafting is ass, and 3.x style breaks too easily (though is otherwise okay). Exalted does this well, but dumps most of the burden onto MC fiat, so is basically only half of a system.
Edit:
- A marketing campaign that doesn't make me hate the product before I ever even see it.
Last edited by fectin on Tue Jan 10, 2012 7:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
violence in the media
- Duke
- Posts: 1730
- Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:18 pm
Re: Top 10 changes will 5E D&D have to implement to satisfy you?
Holy shit yes this. I want the DMG to include lists and examples of game effects that you should automatically assume are in place in given locales. For example, I am so tired of active (un)holy sites not being (con/de)secrated because the MC happened to never read that spell. I want the game to quit assuming mundane earth background details despite the presence of spectacular abilities.Lago PARANOIA wrote:The high-level effects will actually have to reflect the reality of high-level.
If you're going to have magic item marts, castles, and dungeons--talk about how those things are useful and how they go about protecting themselves from the myriad of threats in D&D land. You can even go into specific things like how magic item merchants conduct sales and purchases, what sort of wards and countermeasures are in place in the kingdom's treasury, and how dungeons guard against earthmoving effects.
Given that so many outsiders can Plane Shift and Teleport at will, give me some concrete reasons as to why the Material Plane isn't a blasted hellscape of extradimensional war. The infinite Balors and all that. Or, if it is, then run with that.
Like Disney's Aladdin and the three wishes Genie can't grant, or Harry Potter's seven things magic can't do, how about a concrete bullet list of effects that D&D magic can't pull off?
Last edited by violence in the media on Tue Jan 10, 2012 7:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
CapnTthePirateG
- Duke
- Posts: 1545
- Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am
We need to kill character alignments in hellfire.
I'd like to see an end to racial stat mods, and just have each race get some kind of power. Orc berserk, drow darkness, elven accuracy for example. That'd be good.
Math that works.
Support for classes supported in every core book before 4e (bard, druid, necromancer, summoner, etc). Make your system work.
Cool out of combat things like 3.Xs spells.
I'd like to see an end to racial stat mods, and just have each race get some kind of power. Orc berserk, drow darkness, elven accuracy for example. That'd be good.
Math that works.
Support for classes supported in every core book before 4e (bard, druid, necromancer, summoner, etc). Make your system work.
Cool out of combat things like 3.Xs spells.
OgreBattle wrote:"And thus the denizens learned that hating Shadzar was the only thing they had in common, and with him gone they turned their venom upon each other"
-Sarpadian Empires, vol. I
-
Swordslinger
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 953
- Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 12:30 pm
Playable without houserules
I don't want crazy broken powers in the game that you have to house rule or they completely dominate.
Dudes, make up your minds
While 4E had flaws, it had some kind of direction. They wanted a basic LotR dungeon crawling game and they made one. The new edition needs to make a decision on what type of game it's going to be. It doesn't necessarily have to be the same style as 4E, but I don't want to end up with half the classes playing LotR while the other half are superheroes.
Magic items that feel powerful
A magic item should have some kind noticeable impact. One of 4E's biggest flaws is making magic items more or less useless except for small bonuses. That needs to change.
Keep something similar to Essentials rarity system
There should be common items in the PHB that people can purchase or craft and Rare items in the DMG that must be found. Finding major magic items needs to be something impactful, and you need to be able to find way better shit than you can buy or make.
Easy DM preparation
I remember back in the day of 1E/2E where monster stat blocks didn't take up half a page the way they do in 3E and even 4E. Where it was pretty easy to just generate monsters. Back then, they realized that monsters didn't need a ton of extraneous details. That's still very vaild today.
Resolve minor battles quickly
One of 4E's biggest flaws was the way that every single battle you got in was guaranteed to take a while. That needs to change. Either have a quick resolution system for minor battles, or combat against minor foes needs to be sped out somehow. Maybe an option to toss the battlemat too.
Less pointless rolling
A lot of noncombat skill checks don't need rolls. Crafting for instance. Just let the dude make the damn sword and continue the game. I don't need a long drawn out DC calculation. Second, get rid of opposed checks. Both sides should never be rolling at the same time. You can always just do a check against a passive DC; it's a lot easier and faster.
A stealth system that works
I'd like something that has some sort of group check whereby a party can sneak into a place without dozens of rolls.
More than one action per round
The round structure as it is is more or less fine. I do not want D&D to go to a 1 action per round system.
Once you're out, You're out
I'd really like to see combat healing as a whole get tossed, since I think it just prolongs combats (It's a huge problem in 4E).
But I know that won't happen, so I've decided on the compromise that once a PC gets dropped, he should stay out of combat. There shouldn't be the looming risk that he's going to be healed to encourage the villain or his minions to run over and cut his head off before he recovers. At best, combat healing should just stabilize this guy so he doesn't bleed out, not completely return him to battle as a combatant.
Also, character death needs to be a lot more rare. Getting hit by a lethal blow should be more similar to 4E, where it takes a significant amount of punishment to kill a character instead of merely knock him out.
I don't want crazy broken powers in the game that you have to house rule or they completely dominate.
Dudes, make up your minds
While 4E had flaws, it had some kind of direction. They wanted a basic LotR dungeon crawling game and they made one. The new edition needs to make a decision on what type of game it's going to be. It doesn't necessarily have to be the same style as 4E, but I don't want to end up with half the classes playing LotR while the other half are superheroes.
Magic items that feel powerful
A magic item should have some kind noticeable impact. One of 4E's biggest flaws is making magic items more or less useless except for small bonuses. That needs to change.
Keep something similar to Essentials rarity system
There should be common items in the PHB that people can purchase or craft and Rare items in the DMG that must be found. Finding major magic items needs to be something impactful, and you need to be able to find way better shit than you can buy or make.
Easy DM preparation
I remember back in the day of 1E/2E where monster stat blocks didn't take up half a page the way they do in 3E and even 4E. Where it was pretty easy to just generate monsters. Back then, they realized that monsters didn't need a ton of extraneous details. That's still very vaild today.
Resolve minor battles quickly
One of 4E's biggest flaws was the way that every single battle you got in was guaranteed to take a while. That needs to change. Either have a quick resolution system for minor battles, or combat against minor foes needs to be sped out somehow. Maybe an option to toss the battlemat too.
Less pointless rolling
A lot of noncombat skill checks don't need rolls. Crafting for instance. Just let the dude make the damn sword and continue the game. I don't need a long drawn out DC calculation. Second, get rid of opposed checks. Both sides should never be rolling at the same time. You can always just do a check against a passive DC; it's a lot easier and faster.
A stealth system that works
I'd like something that has some sort of group check whereby a party can sneak into a place without dozens of rolls.
More than one action per round
The round structure as it is is more or less fine. I do not want D&D to go to a 1 action per round system.
Once you're out, You're out
I'd really like to see combat healing as a whole get tossed, since I think it just prolongs combats (It's a huge problem in 4E).
But I know that won't happen, so I've decided on the compromise that once a PC gets dropped, he should stay out of combat. There shouldn't be the looming risk that he's going to be healed to encourage the villain or his minions to run over and cut his head off before he recovers. At best, combat healing should just stabilize this guy so he doesn't bleed out, not completely return him to battle as a combatant.
Also, character death needs to be a lot more rare. Getting hit by a lethal blow should be more similar to 4E, where it takes a significant amount of punishment to kill a character instead of merely knock him out.
-
rasmuswagner
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 705
- Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 9:37 am
- Location: Danmark
Honeslty I hope that at least a few of Lagos Ideas ABSOLUTELY DO NOT get implimented.
Save or Suck - Any save or suck is a HUGE turn off to me. There is no good way of doing save or suck where its NOT aboslutely anti-climatic. It sucks hard core, unless they make it so easy to NOT be effected as to make the abilities useless. I have never seen a system where these abilites work. Either they are to good or not good enough. Thats really the WHOLE POINT of all or nothing abilities like save or suck.
absolute DCs While some absolute DCs are useful as a way of comparing things, usually I think that they are crappy because they don't tell me anything about anything.
90% of the time when I am writting adventures I will not know what the total skill modifieres of my players are. I need to be able to say "this is a level 10 adventure, what should the DC be around to make this lock or wall or whatever worth including in my game."
Seriously, I really don't give a crap that demon locks are are DC 30. What I need to know is when is DC a level appropriate challenge? The game could easily have both of course, it could have a chart for me that says "here is a table that shows what DCs would have a 75%, 66%, 50%, 33% and 25% and 20% chance of success at various levels assuming standard treasure/ability scores/bonuses" while at the same time showing that thing X is DC Y and then that gives you an idea of when the developer expects that to enter the game.
However, if the 5E DMG doesn't give a consice chart of "What DC When" it will be a GIGANTIC step backwards. How can the MATH for the game possibly be tested if nobody has any clue what is "normal" what the design conditions where?
Save or Suck - Any save or suck is a HUGE turn off to me. There is no good way of doing save or suck where its NOT aboslutely anti-climatic. It sucks hard core, unless they make it so easy to NOT be effected as to make the abilities useless. I have never seen a system where these abilites work. Either they are to good or not good enough. Thats really the WHOLE POINT of all or nothing abilities like save or suck.
absolute DCs While some absolute DCs are useful as a way of comparing things, usually I think that they are crappy because they don't tell me anything about anything.
90% of the time when I am writting adventures I will not know what the total skill modifieres of my players are. I need to be able to say "this is a level 10 adventure, what should the DC be around to make this lock or wall or whatever worth including in my game."
Seriously, I really don't give a crap that demon locks are are DC 30. What I need to know is when is DC a level appropriate challenge? The game could easily have both of course, it could have a chart for me that says "here is a table that shows what DCs would have a 75%, 66%, 50%, 33% and 25% and 20% chance of success at various levels assuming standard treasure/ability scores/bonuses" while at the same time showing that thing X is DC Y and then that gives you an idea of when the developer expects that to enter the game.
However, if the 5E DMG doesn't give a consice chart of "What DC When" it will be a GIGANTIC step backwards. How can the MATH for the game possibly be tested if nobody has any clue what is "normal" what the design conditions where?
Who here wishes TNE got finished?
Come see Sprockets & Serials
How do you confuse a barbarian?
Put a greatsword a maul and a greataxe in a room and ask them to take their pick
How do you confuse a barbarian?
Put a greatsword a maul and a greataxe in a room and ask them to take their pick
EXPLOSIVE RUNES!
- increase the importance of damage through synergy with status effect attacks, rather than just nerfing status effect attacks
- reduce the effectiveness of focus fire
- more interesting magic items at all levels, but with less magic item slots
- less chosen actions/attacks a round at higher levels, keep AoOs though
- launch with automated tools, but take a step back from the everything has to be online BS as far as tools is concerned
If I'm used to running my game with their tools I don't want to be fucked if my internet is down. There needs to at least be an official offline combat sequencing tools (ie. initiative, status effects, list of attacks/defences for all the NPCs) for Android and iOs. They should just add value when used online (for instance you could have spell descriptions only when online, and page references for when not) not have tools which are pure online.
- reduce metagame mechanics (ie. loot as character resource chosen at leveling, encounter durations, scenes etc), I can live with action points and that's about it
- have classes run on different resource management schemes for their abilities (WoF, Vancian, rage, all at wills ... I want to see them all)
- take only what is workable in 4e and what will not offend the 3e/PF crowd and throw away the rest (4e rituals and multiclassing can stay for instance)
- feel like D&D ... it needs Vancian casting, +X swords, dual axis alignment and D6/CL fireballs
- be fun
- reduce the effectiveness of focus fire
- more interesting magic items at all levels, but with less magic item slots
- less chosen actions/attacks a round at higher levels, keep AoOs though
- launch with automated tools, but take a step back from the everything has to be online BS as far as tools is concerned
If I'm used to running my game with their tools I don't want to be fucked if my internet is down. There needs to at least be an official offline combat sequencing tools (ie. initiative, status effects, list of attacks/defences for all the NPCs) for Android and iOs. They should just add value when used online (for instance you could have spell descriptions only when online, and page references for when not) not have tools which are pure online.
- reduce metagame mechanics (ie. loot as character resource chosen at leveling, encounter durations, scenes etc), I can live with action points and that's about it
- have classes run on different resource management schemes for their abilities (WoF, Vancian, rage, all at wills ... I want to see them all)
- take only what is workable in 4e and what will not offend the 3e/PF crowd and throw away the rest (4e rituals and multiclassing can stay for instance)
- feel like D&D ... it needs Vancian casting, +X swords, dual axis alignment and D6/CL fireballs
- be fun
Last edited by MfA on Tue Jan 10, 2012 10:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I would quibble with this a bit. I'd like to see classes which are like the wizard and fighter in build but like the beguiler and barbarian in play--you can create your fighter as a swashbuckler or a knight or an archer or similar, and you can build your wizard as a summoner or a blaster or a necromancer or whatever, but once it's built you're a thematically-focused character rather than the omnicompetent Swiss army knife. It's fine if the wizard class can do anything, as long as your wizard character comes out looking like one of those specialist casters.rasmuswagner wrote:Mages shouldn't automatically be good at all kinds of magic. More Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Warmage, less wizard.
I think it's great that classes like the beguiler are solid out of the box and give you everything you need to do your job, and during play they're certainly dynamic enough, but the fact that you don't even have spells to pick or bonus feats or other selectable class features makes playing one a bit same-y after playing one more than once or twice. Perhaps a good multiclassing system would mitigate this problem a bit--the option to put two fairly straitjacketed classes together can be as good or better than the option to pick from among several spells/feats/equivalent for a single class--but I'd still rather see more options during the build process rather than fewer.
-
Lago PARANOIA
- Invincible Overlord
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am
Unless you want every monster to be eliminated or have to be eliminated through hit point damage or some baroque mechanic (when all of the foes are frightened and slowed, the DC to get them to surrender is this), you have to have a save or suck of some point.souran wrote: Save or Suck - Any save or suck is a HUGE turn off to me. There is no good way of doing save or suck where its NOT aboslutely anti-climatic. It sucks hard core, unless they make it so easy to NOT be effected as to make the abilities useless. I have never seen a system where these abilites work. Either they are to good or not good enough. Thats really the WHOLE POINT of all or nothing abilities like save or suck.
Shadowrun and Mutants and Masterminds d20 have two perfectly good systems for save or sucks. First of all, save or sucks are not all-or-nothing in those systems unless you totally outclass an enemy (giving them no chance to survive) or you are totally outclassed (whereupon you have no chance) because A.) there can be degrees of success for Save-or-Sucks. 3E D&D actually had them, too, measured by 'saving throw every round against caster's DC and B.) a 'failed' save-or-suck still has a degree of success, meaning that even if it doesn't take a foe straight out it makes them an easier target for hit point damage or other save-or-sucks.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
I do. But oh well, I'm not screaming into the night about it.virgil wrote:Who here wishes TNE got finished?
Although this has just about inspired my sister (knowledge of D&D largely limited to my rants and to the Disgaeagame she plays the Angel Jester in, and whose homebrew systems go as far as "For a con game, I'm making it roll 1d6. If you're good at it, it's a 2+. If you're bad at it, it's a 6+. And if you are kind of good, it's a 4+") to do her own high fantasy ("but actually medieval-based instead of bronze age Greek myth") just to see if she can do a better job than Mearls.
I feel so proud of her.
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.
-
NineInchNall
- Duke
- Posts: 1222
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Let's not use that phrasing. The whole, "the math just works," thing was one of the most annoying parts of the 4e marketing campaign. Of course the math works; that's what math does. What matters is whether the numbers you put in actually give you the desired result.CapnTthePirateG wrote:Math that works.
Current pet peeves:
Misuse of "per se". It means "[in] itself", not "precisely". Learn English.
Malformed singular possessives. It's almost always supposed to be 's.
Misuse of "per se". It means "[in] itself", not "precisely". Learn English.
Malformed singular possessives. It's almost always supposed to be 's.
I'd be happy if the game system:
1. makes it really hard for newbies to accidentally gimp their characters.
2. No one-trick-pony classes and concepts that can only do one thing moderately well. Make it so that melee fighters and rogues can do stuff that casters can't!
3. Everyone's on an equivalent power level: a 15th level fighter should have as many options and tricks as a 15th level wizard, and be as much of a challenge to take down.
4. Spellcasters shouldn't have abilities which step on the toes of other classes, like the Knock spell.
5. A fix for wealth-magic items-power. If I'm a rich noble, I can sell a bunch of land and buy kick-ass magical gear that I shouldn't have at my level. Some magic items are just too dangerous/valuable to be available for sale.
1. makes it really hard for newbies to accidentally gimp their characters.
2. No one-trick-pony classes and concepts that can only do one thing moderately well. Make it so that melee fighters and rogues can do stuff that casters can't!
3. Everyone's on an equivalent power level: a 15th level fighter should have as many options and tricks as a 15th level wizard, and be as much of a challenge to take down.
4. Spellcasters shouldn't have abilities which step on the toes of other classes, like the Knock spell.
5. A fix for wealth-magic items-power. If I'm a rich noble, I can sell a bunch of land and buy kick-ass magical gear that I shouldn't have at my level. Some magic items are just too dangerous/valuable to be available for sale.
Last edited by Libertad on Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:00 am, edited 2 times in total.
A lot of folks hit on things that I totally agree with. I reckon I may have a few more, and some agreements as well.
My demands:
• No more rapidly scaling HP counts as you level.
• No more +X bonuses on magic items (interesting powers are so much better than stacks of +1's)
• A setting that at least has some resemblance to the consequences of the abilities available (i.e. a brand new setting)
• Interesting powers in combat and more importantly out of combat (yes, this means bring back save or suck/die)
• Character strength not dependent upon gold pieces available.
• Get rid of alignments, or at least cut down to Good vs. Evil and make those more like labels than moral imperatives, say Light vs. Dark.
• An explicit understanding that at some point supernatural mojo is required to play at a certain level.
• Less levels than 20.
My desires:
• No more racial stat mods.
• No more magic shoppes.
• No more 31 flavors of elf/dwarf/gnome/halfling (elves of course being the worst offender)
• Only specialized casters (Dread Necro, Beguiler, Druid, )
• No "cleric" "wizard" "fighter" (possible exception, if Wizard becomes a specialized caster type)
• No multiclassing
I don't have specific desires for a skill system. Getting rid of +X bonus items will go a long way towards making whatever they use, more viable.
My demands:
• No more rapidly scaling HP counts as you level.
• No more +X bonuses on magic items (interesting powers are so much better than stacks of +1's)
• A setting that at least has some resemblance to the consequences of the abilities available (i.e. a brand new setting)
• Interesting powers in combat and more importantly out of combat (yes, this means bring back save or suck/die)
• Character strength not dependent upon gold pieces available.
• Get rid of alignments, or at least cut down to Good vs. Evil and make those more like labels than moral imperatives, say Light vs. Dark.
• An explicit understanding that at some point supernatural mojo is required to play at a certain level.
• Less levels than 20.
My desires:
• No more racial stat mods.
• No more magic shoppes.
• No more 31 flavors of elf/dwarf/gnome/halfling (elves of course being the worst offender)
• Only specialized casters (Dread Necro, Beguiler, Druid, )
• No "cleric" "wizard" "fighter" (possible exception, if Wizard becomes a specialized caster type)
• No multiclassing
I don't have specific desires for a skill system. Getting rid of +X bonus items will go a long way towards making whatever they use, more viable.
"Timmy" cards aren't actually supposed to be bad though, they're just straightforward in how they work - usually high cost, high reward. Also they tend to be "looks overpowered, but on closer inspection the drawbacks balance it" rather than "looks weak, but on closer inspection is actually quite good".
Tome Barbarian and Fire Mage are Timmy classes, for example.
Tome Barbarian and Fire Mage are Timmy classes, for example.
Last edited by Ice9 on Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:14 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
ModelCitizen
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 593
- Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:53 am
How would you chunk up the wizard spell list? I think everybody's good on:rasmuswagner wrote:Mages shouldn't automatically be good at all kinds of magic. More Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Warmage, less wizard.
Beguiler
Necromancer
Summoner
But then what? The iconic D&D wizard doesn't really fit into either Beguiler or Warmage. He mostly blasts and casts personal mobility spells, but also maybe has Charm or Invisibility or occasionally summons an elemental. (Think WoW mage or 4e wizard here.) Would you support that as a single class? If you did would you still have room for a Warmage or Elementalist class afterwards? And where do Polymorph etc fit in?
Also, would you go for a similar scheme with divine casters? I could see a similar solution where you break cleric into 3-4 classes but I can't figure out what poeple even want clerics to do.
-
OgreBattle
- King
- Posts: 6820
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am
Red, BlueModelCitizen wrote:How would you chunk up the wizard spell list?rasmuswagner wrote:Mages shouldn't automatically be good at all kinds of magic. More Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Warmage, less wizard.
White, BlackAlso, would you go for a similar scheme with divine casters? I could see a similar solution where you break cleric into 3-4 classes but I can't figure out what poeple even want clerics to do.
Druid gets Green
-
Lago PARANOIA
- Invincible Overlord
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am
If I was doing D&D, which I am not, I would split up the spell lists like this. Actually, for the game in which I am writing and probably will never finish, I've already done this:
Transcendental Classes
Warlord (Fighter / 4E Warlord)
Rogue
Psion
Monk (Monk / Psychic Warrior)
Engineer (Transmutation, Non-Summoning Conjuration)
Wizard (Blasting Spells, Summoning)
Warlock (Illusions, Enchantments)
Magus (Think Hexblades or Swordmages, that is melee-based arcane characters using elemental magic and DARKNYSS powers only without the suck)
Paladin (Traditional cleric, meaning an eclectic combination of summoning, healing, buffing, and blasting magic)
Diabolist (Divinations, Necromancy)
Druid (old-style druid, focuses on nature magic, summoning, and divinations)
Ranger (Warden / Barbarian / 4.5E Scout, something like the druid but more focused on flipping out, turning into monsters, and commanding hordes of 'real' critters)
But more on that later.
Transcendental Classes
Warlord (Fighter / 4E Warlord)
Rogue
Psion
Monk (Monk / Psychic Warrior)
Engineer (Transmutation, Non-Summoning Conjuration)
Wizard (Blasting Spells, Summoning)
Warlock (Illusions, Enchantments)
Magus (Think Hexblades or Swordmages, that is melee-based arcane characters using elemental magic and DARKNYSS powers only without the suck)
Paladin (Traditional cleric, meaning an eclectic combination of summoning, healing, buffing, and blasting magic)
Diabolist (Divinations, Necromancy)
Druid (old-style druid, focuses on nature magic, summoning, and divinations)
Ranger (Warden / Barbarian / 4.5E Scout, something like the druid but more focused on flipping out, turning into monsters, and commanding hordes of 'real' critters)
But more on that later.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
I want my pen and paper RPGs to give me something that videogames don't.
4e was like a watered down miniatures game that you could add roleplaying onto. The game should be about collective creativity. Trying to ape MMOs or whatever isn't bad because it's "unoriginal." it's bad because they cannot compete with videogames at their strong points in a P&P medium. Quite literally, it has to be a game that people want to play instead of smash bros when their friends are over because it offers something videogames don't. And there's plenty of options there. (One example: http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=945)
This means, for example, that mechanics that utilize and reward creativity (like the silent image spell) are things you want.
Another thing I would like to see in pen and paper RPGs is to maintain depth yet reduce the logistical burden of actually setting up games. WBL tracking, NPC equipping, and making maps and such is a massive hassle... and tends to lead to railroading and such besides with many DMs, since producing such things on the fly, while possible, is difficult. This probably means a rethought itemization system and shortcuts for NPC character creation, and maybe a different way of drawing maps.
4e was like a watered down miniatures game that you could add roleplaying onto. The game should be about collective creativity. Trying to ape MMOs or whatever isn't bad because it's "unoriginal." it's bad because they cannot compete with videogames at their strong points in a P&P medium. Quite literally, it has to be a game that people want to play instead of smash bros when their friends are over because it offers something videogames don't. And there's plenty of options there. (One example: http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=945)
This means, for example, that mechanics that utilize and reward creativity (like the silent image spell) are things you want.
Another thing I would like to see in pen and paper RPGs is to maintain depth yet reduce the logistical burden of actually setting up games. WBL tracking, NPC equipping, and making maps and such is a massive hassle... and tends to lead to railroading and such besides with many DMs, since producing such things on the fly, while possible, is difficult. This probably means a rethought itemization system and shortcuts for NPC character creation, and maybe a different way of drawing maps.
Last edited by Caedrus on Wed Jan 11, 2012 6:27 am, edited 3 times in total.
I think abandoning Ivory Tower game design is probably the first key step.
I mean, there is no way to not reward system mastery, so doing the opposite and designing it into the game just means that lots of people are going to enjoy the game less and abandon it early before they achieve mastery because their character sucks for no reason.
I mean, there is no way to not reward system mastery, so doing the opposite and designing it into the game just means that lots of people are going to enjoy the game less and abandon it early before they achieve mastery because their character sucks for no reason.