# Dear Mike & Monte



## Mercurius (Dec 27, 2011)

_The point of this thread is to provide a place for ENWorlders to post their wishes/requests/demands/hopes (and fears) about 5E...who knows, maybe Mike ( @mearls ) & Monte (Cook) will peek an occasional glance and even take some of our dreams to heart. I'll start._ 

Dear Mike & Monte,
My wishes, hopes and fears for 5E are relatively wide and varied, but rather than overload you with demands I'll keep it relatively simple with three hopes and one fear (for now!).

*Hope 1: Toolbox D&D
*One element that seems thoroughly lacking from 4E is what could be called the "toolbox approach." You, as the lucky folks who get to make a living off D&D, design a game and provide a bunch of tools for us to tinker with and customize to our hearts' content. I want to design classes, races, feats, powers, etc, but would like some guidance on how to do so in a balanced way. In other words, I want the building blocks, not just examples of ready-made buildings (or rather, _in addition to_ that). Can you provide me with this? 

To put it another way, I'd like to see D&D go "back to its roots" as a toolbox. Yes, have a core game that everyone pretty much follows as written. But this can be very simple, basic d20 stuff. After that, well, you provide the Legos and we'll set our imaginations to work.

(Speaking of Legos, my approach--and that of pretty much every Lego fan, past and present, that I've spoken with--was to make the "official" design once, then scrap it and add the pieces to the Lego Chest and make stuff up myself. That was the real joy of Legos)

*Hope 2: Dial it Up (and Down) - Basic & Advanced
*Related to the above, don't just tease us with this sexy "complexity dial" idea--make it happen! I want a simple, core game, one that is playable in and of itself with minimal Fiddly Bits. Think Castles & Crusades but 4E-style, or True20, or Talislanta...that sort of simple (in other words, "rules light-to-medium"), or even simpler at the very core (ala Fabled Lands).

After that, go hog wild. Provide options, modular options that we can pick and choose from. This is an extension of the Toolbox Approach. You build the parts, we'll put it together.

*Hope 3: Bring the Magic back!
*Something was lost in D&D over the years, and it wasn't just childhood wonder. While the Golden Age of scifi (and perhaps D&D) is 12 and there's no going back, such cosmic cycles come around again in a spiral-like fashion. The world falls into chaos and then a new Golden Age emerges. The Golden Age of AD&D fell with the Gygax departure and the "Satanic Scares" of the mid-80s, but then was reborn in the Golden Age of the 2E setting extravaganza in the early 90s. Then with the demise of TSR and the quiet years of the late 90s, a new Golden Age came once again with 3E and the OGL.

We didn't really get a Golden Age of 4E. It flamed up, sputtered, almost died, flared up again with some of the recent offerings, but isn't as bright as it could be. 

I'm not just talking about bringing magic back in a big picture kind of way, but also the little stuff: e.g. magic items. Make magic items _magical_ and wondrous again. Make arcane spellcasters _arcane_ again--I want spell lists, long spell lists, with a wide variety of weird spells, not just homogenous at-will/encounter/daily powers that are interchangeable across roles and classes and power sources with an obviously formulaic structure that is all too transparent (for instance, you might as well say "5th Level Arcane Fire Burst Power" instead of "Fireball"). 
*
Fear: WoWzers!*
Disavow WoW. Say it again: Disavow WoW! What I mean by this is not to bag on the World of Warcraft (OK, maybe a little bit), but to remember D&D's roots and, most importantly of all, what sets it apart from computer games: it is a game about the free play of the imagination. The "game board" is _not_the screen, _not_the battlemat orthe Virtual Tabletop. Sure, those tools can be handy and fun; I'm not denying that or being a "Gamer Luddite" (aka Grognard), but I am saying that what makes D&D special and beloved is not how close it gleans to video games, but how it differs from them. 

Gary Gygax once cited an anecdote in an interview in which he described a child being asked whether or not he liked radio or TV better; the child said "radio, because the pictures are better."

So remember: D&D is most fundamentally a game of imagination, not of simulation. Use technology and apps and virtual stuff and miniatures all you want, but--and here's the kicker--only as ways to accent the imagination; in other words, make them secondary and optional to the core experience. 

Or, to quote myself from a couple years back: I want to use minis (on occasion), but I don't want to _have _to use minis.

Thank you for your time,
Sincerely,
Mercurius, D&D player of 30 years

_p.s. To Fellow EnWorlders: Your turn!_


----------



## scourger (Dec 27, 2011)

1) Please read Jonathon Tweet's Omega World d20.  That game was brilliant in its simple complexity.  It was a great adaptation of d20 to Gamma World and showed how the game was portable to other genres.  

2) Look at Savage Worlds.  Simple for the GM but complex for the players.  That is good game design.  

3) Bring back D&D miniatures.  Nothing entices me more than the idea of buying a box of figures, opening it and running the night's game from it.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 27, 2011)

Instead of cut-posting my response I do for every single one of these threads, I'm going to go with something a little more utilitarian.

*1. Playtest More*

3.0 had to be reprinted with fixes 3-4 years in. Well before 4e had Essentials, there were a slew of feats trying to fix The Math, and pages after pages of Errata. To the point that players needed to take feats just to keep up with the errors in the system. Skill challenges. The utter confusion of skill challenges.

I do not enjoy this. Figure out the math from day 1 and repeatedly test it. Do not let the books out of shop without The Fundamental Core of the System being wrong. 

Furthermore, playtest it more. Playtest It More. _Playtest it more_. It should be a well oiled machine. And look past your own biases - Mike has said that in-house WotC cared  more about accuracy than anything else, thus the reason Sure Strike etc  was included. Get more playtesters to get outside feedback, on why they  choose something and why they don't.

*2. Take your PR Seriously*

Eberron was exciting and refreshing. But, before Eberron was released in 3.5, the previews actually caused some confusion and satisfactions. The previews were all "Magic trains! Halflings on dinosaurs!" The response was "Wait, what?" Those were the wrong things to emphasize. They weren't what the setting was about, and really, aren't what people talk about now. In a lot of ways it was like advertising a movie by discussing the catering. 

That is similar, but worse, for what happened with 4e's previews. While  @OnlineDM  has a much much more in-depth explanation of this, I'll sum it up:

A lot of damage was done to the image/expectations of 4e because of things the designers said and the things they emphasized during its pre-release prieview stage. There are _still_ people who are offended over things that the designers said about 3e. The complaints of others come down to how the actual 4e books are laid out and read. This convinced so many to not like 4e before they ever saw it, based on what they were suddenly associating it with. 

Don't just hand the devs a blog and say "write things" - the devs aren't journalists or marketing guys. Put the best foot forward about the system, and put effort into _how it is said_, not just what is revealed. Your goal is to excite _and_ convert old players.Yes. There will always be people who hate what is being said and who you can't counter. But don't _add_ to their grievances. You're posting your previews to the net and using the internet to spread the buzz - the internet is the only place that message is getting picked up. Don't shoot this effort in the foot with poor comments or focusing on the wrong things.

*3. Earlier Focus on New Players*

I really appreciate what Essentials is trying to do. But a way to get new gamers in 2 years into D&D is a little late. The info should be more accessible early on. While _I personally_ have little problem with a lack of info in the MM, it is not that useful for newbies. Bringing in new blood, and making it accessible for old _and_ new, should be higher on the priority list.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Dec 27, 2011)

Before mechanics, consider the basics:

*What's the goal of D&D?*

*Cooperatively telling fantasy adventure stories
*Providing an engaging and dynamic "game" element through the rules
*Having fun

The rules should serve these goals (or whatever goals a broader consensus produces). Anything that doesn't support the goals should be omitted.

*How is an rpg developed?*

Cooperatively. Any attempt to develop D&D behind closed doors with focus groups under NDAs is doomed to failure. D&D rules are not corporate secrets. Any game claiming to be D&D, regardless of its own merits, is doomed to failure if not subject to large-scale interactive playtesting and not released under some version of the OGL. That's the standard, and now that that bell has been rung it can't be unrung.

*Who is D&D for?*

D&D is for a variety of people from all walks of life who look for all sorts of things from a game. It is also for a variety of people who have never thought about any kind of rpg. Any attempt to target the game towards a specific (WoW-oriented) demographic is bound to lose many others. D&D is a game for everyone. Write something flexible, with simple basics and optional add-ons, and which covers a wide variety of possible gaming styles. Write a game for everyone.

Easier said than done (or I would have done it already), but that's the bar.


----------



## RangerWickett (Dec 27, 2011)

Dear Mike, Monte, and anyone else who might be working at WotC's Advanced Research Gaming Hive (ARGH):

Have fun! You've got an awesome job!


----------



## Mercurius (Dec 27, 2011)

Great ideas, Ahenhnois, along similar lines to my own thinking. Some comments:



Ahnehnois said:


> The rules should serve these goals (or whatever goals a broader consensus produces). Anything that doesn't support the goals should be omitted.




I agree, and it is because we have a wide variety of tastes for "what is fun," 5E should have a simple core with numerous possible (modular) options. I imagine that a simple enough core that retains the long-term elements of the D&D tradition could be designed to please 90% of the fan-base, from diehard OD&Ders to Pathinderers to 4EDers, but after that we all split up into different directions, or at least a half dozen or so "clans" that like a different collection of sub-systems. Make those optional, modular and--here's the hard part--interchangeable within a campaign, so that, for instance, some PCs use some rules options, while others don't; some are designed with the very simple core rules set, while others have a more complex design--and neither is "better" than the other, just with a greater or lesser degree of complexity and detail.

Good luck with that, M&M!



Ahnehnois said:


> Cooperatively. Any attempt to develop D&D behind closed doors with focus groups under NDAs is doomed to failure. D&D rules are not corporate secrets. Any game claiming to be D&D, regardless of its own merits, is doomed to failure if not subject to large-scale interactive playtesting and not released under some version of the OGL. *That's the standard, and now that that bell has been rung it can't be unrung.*




Excellent point. Remember how it felt to leave home for the first time, probably in your later teenage years? Maybe you were gone for a semester at college and then came back for Christmas; home seems a lot smaller, more cramped than it was before. My point being, once you get a taste of freedom, of a wider world, going back becomes impossible.

I do like 4E, but overall it feels more "cramped" than 3.5, both in terms of the OGL vs GSL, but also the overall design principles. 3.5 can be added to and subtracted from, whereas 4E is more tightly interwoven, like a game of pick-up-sticks: move one thing and the whole things shifts.


Ahnehnois said:


> D&D is for a variety of people from all walks of life who look for all sorts of things from a game. It is also for a variety of people who have never thought about any kind of rpg. Any attempt to target the game towards a specific (WoW-oriented) demographic is bound to lose many others. D&D is a game for everyone. Write something flexible, with simple basics and optional add-ons, and which covers a wide variety of possible gaming styles. Write a game for everyone.
> 
> Easier said than done (or I would have done it already), but that's the bar.




Again, excellent point--and fits right in with my hope for a simple core/advanced options bifurcation. Actually, this view seems to ubiquitous with 5E speculation that it seems almost a certainty to be part of the design.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 27, 2011)

Dear Mike and Monte, a few requests for 5e:

*Make the numbers smaller.*

3e was initially designed for levels 1-20, 4e for 1-30 (higher-level bolt-ons came later in both cases), and it can quite easily be argued that 1 to an open-ended 10 are enough. (i.e. look closely at 1e, designed for 1-infinity but playable from about 1-10)

Scale back hit point numbers for both PCs and monsters - make d6 damage meaningful again.  While you're at it, scale back all bonuses using this rule of thumb: unless it's an exceptional case, the bonus for anything should never become larger than the die being rolled.  d8+4?  Fine.  d8+12?  Meh.  d8+20?  Why bother with the d8...

*Make combat fluid rather than strictly turn-based.*

This would require a large shift in philosophy away from "a rule for everything" in that it asks the players and DM to co-operatively determine how combat progresses.  Re-roll initiative each round (monsters too!), on a smaller die than d-20, and make things take time to do.  My initiative is 5?  That's when I start moving, I'll get there on a '2' and I'm somewhere between my start and end point during that time in case anything goes off that might hit me. (in other words, a move action takes measurable time, as it should).  Spells and item use should work the same way.

*Find inspiration wherever it may be.*

Gygax etc. took inspration from wherever they could find it - Arabian Nights, Tolkein, real-world myths and legends, and so on.  Do the same thing now, while incorporating inspiration from more recent sources.  Need a psionic system?  Take a look at Kurtz' Deryni.  Need some adventures?  Take a look at WoW and Zelda and others of their ilk.  And so on...

*Don't ask us all to play the same game.*

Others have mentioned this, but I'll repeat: we all play the game a bit differently from each other, so make the system flexible enough to handle these differences as much as practicality allows.  Design for 1 and 3 and 10 year campaigns.  Design for rules-light, rules-heavy, rules-be-damned.  Design a few unique settings and give guidelines to build our own.  Etc.  But make everything a guideline rather than a rule.

While you're at it, design against system mastery giving as big an advantage as it has in 3e and (to some extent) 4e.  For example, if character generation is complex enough that a char-ops board has a use, go back and rethink - and simplify.

*The adventures make the game.*

And guys, most important of all, you can design The Best RPG System Ever and if it doesn't have some good adventures right out of the gate to back it up it's going nowhere.  3e did well with Sunless Citadel and Forge of Fury while 4e struggled mightily with the less-than-brilliant H-series as their respective founding adventures.  And then keep 'em coming!  Don't rely on third party types to write 'em (though some surely will), instead do them in-house.  If you're ever faced with a choice of whether to release an adventure or a splat book, always go with the adventure!

Lan-"the fine details, as always, I leave to those whose job it is to sort 'em out"-efan


----------



## Stormonu (Dec 27, 2011)

I've grown tired of complex games - the computer can do those quicker and faster.  All I'm looking for these days is a game that quickly and painlessly lets me tell the stories I want and gets on with the game.  _I_ don't want to be bogged down in a tabletop tactical boardgame or a hack'n'slash fest - I'm already knee-deep in 40K and waiting for Diablo 3.

And give us a new campaign world for 5E.  More fleshed out than Nentir Vale but somehow different than the campaign worlds we've seen so far.

----------------------------
Beyond 5E:

Even though I don't play the game, I still like the quality of things that come out of WotC.  Keep refining the board games and bring out more.  More and varied tiles/poster maps.  Keep the minis coming (if you can keep the quality up!).

Some of us might not buy into the new game, but you can still keep us shopping with you for gaming gear we _can_ use in our other games.


----------



## Mercurius (Dec 27, 2011)

Great contributions by all so far. 

While it is very early on in the thread, what's inspiring to me so far is just how compatible the ideas are. It is very likely that the more detailed we all get, the more we'll diverge from each other--but that's the point of the "simple core/complex modular options" approach; it allows for a united, simple core game and tons of variations.

Hmm...maybe ENWorld should be designing this thing?


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 27, 2011)

5E = OGL


Maybe more later but if it starts there it will have legs.


----------



## pming (Dec 27, 2011)

Hiya.

  I'm not going to go into detail, so here it goes:

-1- KISS.
-2- Smaller numbers are better. Having +3 to hit should be a *BIG* bonus.
-3- Only hire people to work on 5e who _are actively playing the f'ing game!_, and have been for at least *10 years*. I'm talking a personal, weekly, "D&D" game (be it BECMI or 4e or anything in between). If they don't have a weekly game going...no. Don't hire them. Just don't.

  Those are my key ideas for how to get 5e off on the right foot. 

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## Derren (Dec 27, 2011)

Don't try to compete with video games in areas VGs will always do better than PnP RPGs (balanced tactical combat) but capitalize on things the computer can't do (dynamic worlds which react to the players).


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 27, 2011)

Rechan said:


> Do not let the books out of shop without The Fundamental Core of the System being wrong.




Be careful what you wish for...................


----------



## Mercurius (Dec 27, 2011)

[MENTION=54846]Rechan[/MENTION], while I agree that WotC's PR has been notoriously bad, whether through art direction or comments made by designers or just poor communication in general, I would say that if there are really people that are still offended by things designers said about 3E, then that has a lot more to do the psychological make-up of the offended than anything else, and there's simply no pleasing some people.

Gamers tend to be an easily offended lot (just go over to rgp.net, for chrissakes). If someone is _still _offended about something a _game designer _said about a _game...*four years ago, *_then I don't know what to say. You can't design your PR around people that are that sensitive.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Dec 27, 2011)

pming said:


> -3- Only hire people to work on 5e who _are actively playing the f'ing game!_, and have been for at least *10 years*. I'm talking a personal, weekly, "D&D" game (be it BECMI or 4e or anything in between). If they don't have a weekly game going...no. Don't hire them. Just don't.



An interesting point. On one hand, I totally agree. By gamers, for gamers.

On the other, for D&D to expand its base (or even to have credibility with its existing one) I think an outside influence is required. I wish that writers would consult expert opinions more often before writing rules. Talk to medieval and Renaissance historians about historical accuracy. Talk to scientists about describing the physical world. Talk to physicians about how to do a real health system and represent disease and poison. Also, do what Paizo did with the beginner box and test the introductory products on people who haven't played before.

I think a lot of the problems with 4e (and with rpgs in general) arise because they're made in a somewhat cabalistic fashion, with a small group of insiders who have a lot of expertise but not a lot of perspective.


----------



## TheFindus (Dec 27, 2011)

Mr. Mearls and Mr. Cook, here are my wishes:

1. Wait for a couple of years with the next edition, please do. I am having a lot of fun with 4E as it is. Do not feel pushed or nudged too much by those who have a problem with what 4E is now and want it to be removed. You do not know if they will like the new edition. You do know, however, that I and many others like 4E very very much.

2. Do not "bring the magic back" if that means that a magic user is stronger than a fighter. I wish for balanced classes.

3. I wish for mechanics that can do without certain +x items built into the system. I would like to see magic items with special powers, yes. But my Battlemind should not need a +5 armor or a certain +x-to-attack-feat at a certain level just to be able to compete with a monster.

4. Rely on digital technology to make the game easy to prepare for all players, including the GM. Being able to make characters and monsters in just a couple of minutes is a good thing for me, because I have a job, a family and several other hobbies.

5. I wish for a toolbox of options with a lot of narrative control. For powers I would like to see mechanical crunch, seperated from the power's flavor text that I as a player or a GM can change according to a situation.
I wish for a basic ruleset, with extras added on top, if I like to use them.

6. I wish for online magazines with good campaign arcs, optional locations or encounters that I can drop into my campaign easily and advice on how to apply my character's abilities to the fiction.

7. For the next edition, be legally wise and do not make an OGL. Nothing should last forever, no matter how much you love the current edition. Do not stand still. If you want 3rd party support, make sure they are legally unable to do the Paizo-thing. Because I think, in the end, that was bad for your business. 

8. And since this is a pure wish list: Cooperate with WorldWorksGames. They do amazing things and playing with their game supplements enhances the game tremendously.


----------



## SkredlitheOgre (Dec 27, 2011)

Dear Mike and Monte,

My only wish is that you guys _keep_ making games, even if some people find them unbalanced, unwieldy, too rules-heavy, too rules light, if they find the numbers too big or too small, or whatever else, because there are people out there who will play them and find them fun.  They are your Goldilocks, where everything is 'just right.'

Even if I don't get into your game, like I have never tried 4E because the rules changes did not sound appealing, I want you to keep making games because it will hopefully bring new people into the hobby.

Regardless of how much you play-test and ask focus groups and have people from 'outside' critique your work, there will always be people who don't like it.  There will always be people who find ways to break your game.  There will always be people who want more and people who always want less.  No matter how many options you add, there will be someone out there who wants something you didn't think of.

All of this is okay.  Just keep making games and options for the games you create.  Your Goldilocks' (Goldilockses?) are out there and they will find your game.

Sincerely,

Skredli T. Ogre.


----------



## Dragonblade (Dec 27, 2011)

For the love of God, KEEP the GOOD STUFF from 4e!!!!!!!!

I have been playing a ton of Pathfinder lately, and I can tell you what 5e DOES and DOES NOT NEED:

1 - No Save or Lose spells. I don't want to go to my friend's house to roll a d20 and then spend the rest of the night watching them play D&D because I'm dead, stone, paralyzed, whatever for X rounds (which can translate to hours or more of real time). Keep the 4e save every round mechanic.

2 - Keep the 4e action economy. Playing PF and being able to do essentially one meaningful thing every round since so many actions are Standard, sucks. 4e does this much better with its Standard-Move-Minor setup. Everyone can do multiple meaningful things every round. They can attack but still do things like move, open doors, drink potions, heal, sustain powers, etc.

3 - SELF-CONTAINED MONSTER STAT BLOCKS!!!! - I should never have to look up a spell, power, ability, or item in another book to run a monster. NEVER. 4e got this one right.

4 - No fiddly BS rules for things like grapple, or crit confirmation rolls. Pathfinder did a good job if streamlining things with the whole CMB rules. 4e does an even better job with its simple conditions and its grab mechanic. Its easy, simple, and works well in play.

Bottom line, 4e does about 85% right, build on the foundation of what works. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater and don't go back to a 3.x baseline.

Where it lost me is that classes feel too rigid and structured, and magic items are too fiddly and don't feel magical. I also don't like that 4e movement powers force you to use minis. I like minis and 4e is the best miniature tactical wargame I have EVER played. But the system needs the flexibility to handle both. Also, I think the roles should be more like templates that can be overlayed onto the classes.

Oh and I like options. Don't oversimplify the game. I like having a fighter with multiple powers to choose from. If Essentials had been 4e when it originally came out, I would have stopped playing D&D altogether. There is a need for Essentials, but core 4e for me is still the game as presented in the PHB1.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 27, 2011)

My main wish is primarily related to the marketing side of things:  please engage the online community directly rather than through specific marketing channels and PR companies.  In the run-up to 3E, the community engagement was phenomenal - you'd all post on EN World (or Eric Noah's site as it was then), we'd hear directly from the designers, we could grab one for an interview easily without going through a PR company, and we felt like each of you guys were one of us, and we _knew_ you guys.  I don't think the current PR regime makes people feel that way.

Sure, sometimes a designer might say something dumb, but so what?  Things happen; but (in my personal opinion) I can't help but feel that any problems caused by such things would be more than overwhelmed by the general feeling of goodwill such an approach would engender.

I know there are corporate barriers and scale factors to such things - but you guys did it before, and it worked.  Reach out and talk to the gamers, rather than make them come to you - where you could post an article, have a conversation on EN World instead (not that you can't do the former as well).  Let it feel less like targeted marketing - although, of course, it is - and more like engagement.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 27, 2011)

My advice: Whatever you do, don't frack it up. 



Ahnehnois said:


> An interesting point. On one hand, I totally agree. By gamers, for gamers.



I don't think it was ever a problem for WotC that they had designers that didn't play their own game. Or games in previous editions.


----------



## Dragonblade (Dec 27, 2011)

Really, the more I think about it, the only thing from 4e that needs to be redone are classes and magic items.

The way 4e handles combat and monsters is a thing of beauty in actual play and pretty much RPG perfection. I can live without narrative combat as a viable option if it means the good stuff from 4e doesn't get mucked around with.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 27, 2011)

Morrus said:


> I know there are corporate barriers and scale factors to such things - but you guys did it before, and it worked.




Before, they had fewer outlets to worry about, I think.  Engaging on all the larger boards at once probably isn't practical.  So, they'd have to play favorites, and that can be another PR issue.


----------



## Mercurius (Dec 27, 2011)

Dragonblade said:


> Really, the more I think about it, the only thing from 4e that needs to be redone are classes and magic items.




I like your post and agree that they shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, but what they should do is evolve, mature, develop "the baby." This means taking the power structure--which is an awesome idea--and notching it up a bit by differentiating power sources. Right now they feel too homogenous, with what I was calling a "too transparent sub-structure." In a way there are only four classes: Strikers, Controllers, Leaders, and Defenders; that makes sense from a combat/tactical perspective, but what is missing is distinct and unique flavor and qualities for the different power sources. An arcane striker and a martial striker should be very different, and not just in terms of fluff; I'd like one to be able to do things that the other can't.

In that sense, I'd like to see arcane powers be more like spells from previous editions; looking over the wizard power list in 4E just doesn't have the same evocative feel that it did in previous editions with the never-ending spell lists.

I also think that the Feat system is clunky to say the least. There are just too many feats, and too many useless ones (I've often wondered if there are some feats that have literally _never _been chosen by any D&D player anywhere). I'd like to see Feats scrapped and replaced by something akin to Talents or Traits, or even a Virtues and Flaws or Advantages/Disadvantages system that provides a wider variety of capacities and flavorings to add to a character (although the problem with Virtues and Flaws is that it is another opportunity to min/max).

Finally, while I think 4E is generally a blast the main flaw remains the "grind" or, specifically, the point at which a combat is essentially decided but still goes on for another few rounds. I can't tell you how many times I've ad hoc reduced monster HP just to end a grinding combat. To put it another way, 4E combat is great for the first half of a given encounter, not-so-great for the second half. Maybe the implementation of a deadlier mechanic, like "When first bloodied, make a saving throw or fall to 0 HP and unconscious" (or maybe an adjusted CON check instead).

But yeah, the core of 4E is great and (IMO) an improvement and evolution from 3.5. That should be the basis of 5E, not a return to 3.5, nor something completely different. Most of the issues that lapsed players have with 4E isn't, afaict, about the core but the general vibe and the details and/or secondary systems.


----------



## Mercurius (Dec 27, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Before, they had fewer outlets to worry about, I think.  Engaging on all the larger boards at once probably isn't practical.  So, they'd have to play favorites, and that can be another PR issue.




But how many "larger boards" are there? Afaict, the most trafficked RPG discussion sites are WotC, ENWorld, and RPGNet--everything else is far in the distance. Or am I missing something?


----------



## Ahnehnois (Dec 27, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Before, they had fewer outlets to worry about, I think.  Engaging on all the larger boards at once probably isn't practical.  So, they'd have to play favorites, and that can be another PR issue.



They do have their own message boards; if they preferentially went there (and communicated to a much greater extent then I've seen thusfar) who would complain? And beyond that I tend to agree with the above that there aren't that many really major rpg boards. I don't see how having a variety of access points for your fans is a problem. Pathfinder hasn't struggled with this at all; they communicate preferentially through their own site but they're here as well.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 27, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> But how many "larger boards" are there? Afaict, the most trafficked RPG discussion sites are WotC, ENWorld, and RPGNet--everything else is far in the distance. Or am I missing something?




Here's a map.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 27, 2011)

Ahnehnois said:


> I don't see how having a variety of access points for your fans is a problem.




I don't think communicating largely on their own boards would really fulfill Morrus' wish, what with that meaning all the interesting stuff would be over there, and not here.  

So, to fulfill the wish, you're talking about WotC folk maintaining different conversations on the same topics in several locations, which sounds like it isn't an issue, but you aren't the one who has to do that on top of having a day job producing the content that you're talking about in the discussions.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 27, 2011)

Umbran said:


> I don't think communicating largely on their own boards would really fulfill Morrus' wish, what with that meaning all the interesting stuff would be over there, and not here.
> 
> So, to fulfill the wish, you're talking about WotC folk maintaining different conversations on the same topics in several locations, which sounds like it isn't an issue, but you aren't the one who has to do that on top of having a day job producing the content that you're talking about in the discussions.




Sure, like I said - there's a scale issue.  It's a bigger job than it was back in the 3E buildup.  I can totally see the challenges there; but, like you said - it's a wish, not a demand. 


It did feel back then that the designers were members anyway, and personally wanted to be here.  I guess their own growing online presence took that away.


----------



## Mercurius (Dec 27, 2011)

Morrus said:


> Here's a map.




Thanks--I forgot about that. Looking over that map, my assertion seems basically true in that all of the sites that are close to the size of the Big Three are more specialized--Myth Weavers, for instance (PBP), or Giants in the Playground. A few of the company-specific sites are getting up there, but I think it would be highly inappropriate for WotC to discuss 5E on, say, Paizo's messageboards!

So we're down to the Big Three: WotC, ENWorld, and RPGNet. Even if they cut out RPGnet as more focused on RPGs in general, that's only two sites that they could focus their attention on and get feedback from. Makes sense to me (thus this thread).


----------



## Mercurius (Dec 27, 2011)

Are there any regular WotC contributors on this site? It seems that Mike Mearls used to stop by occasionallyl, and of course Scott Rouse. Isn't there a "WotC Trevor" that posts here and on RPGnet? 

There is a striking difference between Paizo and WotC interactivity on this site. Whenever a conversation comes up about Paizo as a company, it seems that Erik Mona or Lisa Stevens or Jason Bulmahn end up showing up. But I can't say the same for WotC, at least since Rouse departed.


----------



## Dragonblade (Dec 27, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> I like your post and agree that they shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, but what they should do is evolve, mature, develop "the baby." This means taking the power structure--which is an awesome idea--and notching it up a bit by differentiating power sources. Right now they feel too homogenous, with what I was calling a "too transparent sub-structure." In a way there are only four classes: Strikers, Controllers, Leaders, and Defenders; that makes sense from a combat/tactical perspective, but what is missing is distinct and unique flavor and qualities for the different power sources. An arcane striker and a martial striker should be very different, and not just in terms of fluff; I'd like one to be able to do things that the other can't.




Right. I'm ok with going back to a model that uses different mechanical subsystems for all classes. As long as each class is balanced. I don't like the prior edition method of having a weak low level wizard, that far outstrips melee warriors at high level. And I don't like the notion that complexity should be baked into the classes. Fighters always simple and Casters always complex. Every class should have a base simple version and a complex version for those who like such things. Or better yet, variable complexity to suit the player.



> In that sense, I'd like to see arcane powers be more like spells from previous editions; looking over the wizard power list in 4E just doesn't have the same evocative feel that it did in previous editions with the never-ending spell lists.




Right, lots of spells is cool. But I'd prefer not moving back to a Vancian slot system. And casters should always have a level-scalable base magic attack. No caster should ever be pulling out a crossbow because they are out of magic for the day. I hate that trope with a passion. I'm glad 4e killed it.



> I also think that the Feat system is clunky to say the least. There are just too many feats, and too many useless ones (I've often wondered if there are some feats that have literally _never _been chosen by any D&D player anywhere). I'd like to see Feats scrapped and replaced by something akin to Talents or Traits, or even a Virtues and Flaws or Advantages/Disadvantages system that provides a wider variety of capacities and flavorings to add to a character (although the problem with Virtues and Flaws is that it is another opportunity to min/max).




I liked how Essentials built level scaling into each feat. I also don't mind the feat system because it offers further ways to customize a PC. I'm not a fan of disadvantage/drawback based systems. My PCs shouldn't be blind in one eye, have a peg leg, and require a gluten free diet just to be cool and take all the feats and powers I want.



> Finally, while I think 4E is generally a blast the main flaw remains the "grind" or, specifically, the point at which a combat is essentially decided but still goes on for another few rounds. I can't tell you how many times I've ad hoc reduced monster HP just to end a grinding combat. To put it another way, 4E combat is great for the first half of a given encounter, not-so-great for the second half. Maybe the implementation of a deadlier mechanic, like "When first bloodied, make a saving throw or fall to 0 HP and unconscious" (or maybe an adjusted CON check instead).




I think grind is easy to fix and there are a number of house rules out there that do the job nicely (such as bloodied creatures all take max damage, or monsters have 1/2 HP but do double damage, and so on). I'd like to see a toolkit approach where WotC offers them all up as options.



> But yeah, the core of 4E is great and (IMO) an improvement and evolution from 3.5. That should be the basis of 5E, not a return to 3.5, nor something completely different. Most of the issues that lapsed players have with 4E isn't, afaict, about the core but the general vibe and the details and/or secondary systems.




Agreed.


----------



## Dragonblade (Dec 27, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> Are there any regular WotC contributors on this site? It seems that Mike Mearls used to stop by occasionallyl, and of course Scott Rouse. Isn't there a "WotC Trevor" that posts here and on RPGnet?
> 
> There is a striking difference between Paizo and WotC interactivity on this site. Whenever a conversation comes up about Paizo as a company, it seems that Erik Mona or Lisa Stevens or Jason Bulmahn end up showing up. But I can't say the same for WotC, at least since Rouse departed.




Before he became a manager at WotC, Mearls used to post quite a bit. I also see Rodney Thompson post from time to time. Matt James and Ari Marmell post quite a bit and do a lot of work for WotC. I hardly ever see Monte post on EN World.

I also see Keith Baker on here from time to time. And Baker is on another much smaller than EN World mailing list that I'm on, though he mostly lurks. (Hi Keith!  )


----------



## tuxgeo (Dec 27, 2011)

Dear Mike & Monte, 

Here are my wishes, in no particular order: 

1. Repair multiclassing as "Dual-Classing": 
- (a) Get rid of the Novice-Acolyte-Adept Power feats: the act of Dual-Classing should be enough by itself to let you take one each of Encounter, Utility, and Daily powers from your second class (instead of a power of same level from your primary class) prior to Paragon Tier without having to spend any more feats to do that. 
- (b) Skill choice: if a character that has Training in the Arcana skill Dual-Classes into some other arcane class, that character should be able to choose any trained skill from the second arcane class, not be limited to doubling up on Arcana. (Likewise with Religion for divine classes, Nature for Primal classes, etc.) 
- (c) My pet peeve: Wizards learn Cantrips as the _first thing_ they learn when becoming wizards, right? Then newly Dual-Classed wizards should do the same thing, learning Cantrips before anything else. (Hybrid Wizards already do this.) (Let newly Dual-Classed wizards get implement proficiency through a separate feat, if they so desire; the game has been moving in that direction anyway.) 

2. Decrease the numbers. Drop the half-level bonus to stuff, and change the monsters to fit that. Make +1 to +6 magic items give the user anywhere from 1 to 6 daily uses of a power, not an increase to attack rolls. (Or limit the numerical bonus to damage rolls only, not to attack rolls.) Paragon characters could be greater than Heroic characters through their advanced powers and their improved hit points and equipment and stats; they shouldn't need the half-level for that. If this creates problems, include the half-level in Skills only, but leave it off the to-hit numbers. 
(I'm trying to eliminate the "Inherent Bonuses" option by effectively making it the default for everybody, _by removing the need for it_.) 

(If the half-level is needed for some kinds of playing style, have a way for groups to add that back in as an option, along with ways for the DM to adjust encounter difficulties to match.) 

3. Make clear definitions of "adjacent" and related words in order to allow for estimates of position that can be adjudicated in a person's head without having to refer to a battlegrid. For example: 
- (a) "Adjacent" might mean that creatures would not need to have Reach to make melee attacks against each other without moving. 
- (b) "Nearby" might mean that creatures having Reach could make melee attacks against each other without moving, whereas creatures that lack Reach could not. A simple Close Blast could also hit. 
- (c)  "Spread" might mean that creatures would need to have "extended" Reach in order to make melee attacks against each other without moving -- because having (ordinary) Reach by itself wouldn't be enough. However, a Close Blast could still hit. 
- (d) "Apart" might mean that neither Reach nor "extended" Reach would allow melee attacks without moving; and that Close Blasts would miss, but "extended" Close Blasts could hit. 
- (f) "Distant" might mean that even Reach, "extended" Reach, Close Blasts, and "extended" Close Blasts would miss, so only Ranged and Area powers could be used to hit without moving. 
[++ This kind of (A-N-S-A-D) thing could take the numbers out of the positioning, and let non-numerically-minded players avoid counting squares. ++]


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 27, 2011)

This may have been mentioned already (didn't read the full thread yet), but making the core game too simple will undoubtedly tick off a lot of people because their favorite class,  race, monster(s), magic item(s), etc.. isn't included.

There's only so much that can be launched in a simplified core set, unless of course they release the core and a set of optional books all at launch. 

I recall a very vocal minority going all nerd-rage because they had to wait TWO OR THREE WHOLE MONTHS for their favorite X to come out in a supplement.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 27, 2011)

TheFindus said:


> 2. Do not "bring the magic back" if that means that a magic user is stronger than a fighter. I wish for balanced classes.
> 
> 3. I wish for mechanics that can do without certain +x items built into the system. I would like to see magic items with special powers, yes. But my Battlemind should not need a +5 armor or a certain +x-to-attack-feat at a certain level just to be able to compete with a monster.
> 
> 4. Rely on digital technology to make the game easy to prepare for all players, including the GM. Being able to make characters and monsters in just a couple of minutes is a good thing for me, because I have a job, a family and several other hobbies.




I agree with these things, especially #4.  I am a very busy person - job, family, etc.. - and I DM 90% of the time.  In 3e I used DM Genie all the time, and in 4e I use Adventure Tools and a couple of 3rd party tools to help with creating encounters and running the game at the table.  Don't be afraid to give us tools for out tablets and laptops that we can use at the table, not just for online play.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 27, 2011)

catsclaw227 said:


> I recall a very vocal minority getting going all nerd-rage because they had to wait TWO OR THREE WHOLE MONTHS for their favorite X to come out in a supplement.




Goodness, yes.  I still remember the Gnome-rage.  That was insane.

You're right.  They can't start simple and leave anything out without people publicly wishing extreme misfortune upon them.  It's quite sad.

Man, I remember people up in arms because of the way the gnome was portrayed in that short series of animations they made; it was as though WotC was portraying them themselves.  I wonder if those people actually thought that they were gnomes in real life and that WotC hated them?


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 27, 2011)

Morrus said:


> Goodness, yes.  I still remember the Gnome-rage.  That was insane.
> 
> You're right.  They can't start simple and leave anything out without people publicly wishing extreme misfortune upon them.  It's quite sad.




It's almost as if the PR team needs to release an upcoming supplement short list to let people know from the beginning things like:  

"Before you all start to become concerned, Gnomes and Half-Orcs are planned for Supplement-A in March, Frost Giants will come in Monster-Book-2 in April.  But don't worry, we'll get all your favorites out eventually, and as we get the schedules hardened, we'll keep you informed."



Morrus said:


> Man, I remember people up in arms because of the way the gnome was portrayed in that short series of animations they made; it was as though WotC was portraying them themselves.  I wonder if those people actually thought that they were gnomes in real life and that WotC hated them?




Oh man, you'd think that someone threw a flaming dog-poo on their doorstep.  It was a cartoon -- a caricature -- for lord's sake.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 27, 2011)

Anyone remember the "Golden Wyvern" business? 

I still have nightmares of those threads.


----------



## GreyLord (Dec 27, 2011)

pming said:


> Hiya.
> 
> I'm not going to go into detail, so here it goes:
> 
> ...




On irony.

3e creation doesn't fall within the realms of your rules.  In otherwords, those who created 3e may have been active RP'ers, but a couple of them actually had been more invested in other systems (like Rolemaster).

3e was pretty successful on release.  OVER a million books sold in the first year.

4e probably did have those actively playing D&D at the time...many of them for over 8 years at least (so longer than some key figures in 3e's creation)...

Though (and I know many will take issue with me on this) I think 4e has been just as successful on it's design as 3e...but you'd have to realize that some of the financials in the economic goals were not exactly strictly dealing with selling in print items.

In fact, the in print stuff is only to spur the other REAL financials onwards to keep them making a profit...

IMO. of course.


----------



## darjr (Dec 27, 2011)

Please include something along the lines of the 'Do something awesome' power/card house rule with lots of concrete advice for DM's on how to deal with it on the fly.

In fact I'd almost wish all powers were really tweaks to this one power.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 27, 2011)

Here's my top-ten wish list:

1) Stick to older races, at least in core.  I'm not personally fond of tieflings, dragonborn, etc.  There's room for them in supplements.


2) Vancian magic. I like it.  I like the resource management aspect of it.  I like that it works completely differently to, say, a fighter - the player actively has to do different things.  I like that each spell is it's own little rules system in itself.  My only criticism of it is that the spells are all too familiar.  I would like to see a little at-will magic rather than a crossbow, though.


3) Just go back to regular old hit points.  I prefer them to healing surges.  Keep the numbers lower.


4) Make each class feel different.  When you're playing each class, the player should actually be having to do different things.  If one class spends most of its time moving, rolling to hit, rolling damage, then another class should be doing something entirely different (links to my Vancian magic point above).  Go so far as to make the actual ability structure of each class different.  Give fighters maneuvers, but don't make them even vaguely resemble or feel like spells.


5) Allow monsters to keep exception based design.  This is the very best thing that came out of 4E for me.  I don't subscribe to the "well, if the dragon can do that, then I should be able to, too" school of thought.


6) Flavour-wise, I'd like the grittiness level to be around 1E level.  More LotR, less anime.  


7) Art - my preferred art style came from the Dragonlance era.  Not "dungeon-punk".  No spikes.


8) Don't include a default setting.  Instead, encourage DMs to make their own setting.


9) Miniatures can be great, but I'd rather they not be required.  This probably means reducing the exact tactical positioning elements of the game, and abstracting a little more.  I still feel that the best battlemap will always be the one the players imagine in their head.  Miniatures can be useful at times, though, so don't rule them out.


10) Decrease reliance no magical items even further.  Sure, allow the DM to have a magicness dial if you like, for those who like their magic items.  4E is an improvement on 3E in that regard (it's more a Christmas shrub than a Christmas tree) but didn't go quite far enough.  Make every magic item distinct and interesting (see spells, above).


----------



## 3catcircus (Dec 27, 2011)

I would say that, first, whatever was done for 4e PR-wise - do the exact opposite.

Second - use the OGL or some other license that will ensure good will from business partners (i.e. any 3rd party publishers) and the customer.

Finally - game-wise, I'd do the following:

1.  Ditch the idea of daily, encounter, at-will powers that forms the basis of 4e.  The concept is completely at odds with every prior version of D&D - even if the prior versions had the same stuff going on under the hood.  What I mean by this is do we really need to rigidly define when something can be used or done?  The pieces-parts of each character class should be there for the player and DM to collectively decide when using it is appropriate.  Give the players and DM enough rope to hang themselves with.

2.  Ditch the idea of character classes as being so rigid.  Give us a tackle box of abilities inherent to each character class and let us pick and choose which ones we want.  Pathfinder's archetypes are a simplified example of this.

3.  Completely get away from the idea of class levels as conferring specific abilities or powers at set intervals or levels.  Make D&D an almost 100% skill-based system so that players can then decide how they want to customize their character.  For example - maybe I want a cat burglar type of rogue character.  So - I'll pick and choose abilities from the "rogue" list and as I gain levels, I improve only the abilities I want to.  Even combat and magic should be skill-based.  I can envision a system where I use skill points to learn fire-based spells and pick abilities that allow me to use metamagic on the spells I can cast.  Or, where my fighter is really really good with an axe but relies on his training via use of skill points being put into a parry/dodge/feint skill instead of using armor to avoid being struck in combat.

4.  Allow various options for a hit point system that can be completely abstract (baseline D&D as it is now) to one in which combat is quick and deadly.  Go take a look at how Twilight:2013's hit point system works and just copy it wholesale.

5.  Ditto for either TW:2013, Traveller or the old Darklands CRPG for character design (while avoiding Traveller's notorious "death as the last step of character creation) - allow for both a planned and a random character background (I make do with the 3e Hero Builder's Guide right now when coming up with a character's background and backstory).

Now - how to keep 5e self-sustaining:

1.  Start selling pdfs of all prior editions.

2.  Resurrect Greyhawk in all its glory as the default campaign setting and go the route of the Mystara Gazetteers for specific Greyhawk supplements for those who want them, but keep the basic campaign setting to a lower level of detail.

3.  Adopt the adventure  path concept while developing adventures, but design them to allow the use of branching paths to join different adventure  paths.  This gives the DM the ability to minimize railroading and boredom that could occur when you are 3 adventures in to a 6-adventure  path. 

4.  Adventures or supplements?  Adventures every time - you can always introduce some new stuff as part of the adventure.  Lots of stuff that made its way into the original MM2 or other hardback books in 1e was first published as part of an adventure first.


----------



## kmdietri (Dec 27, 2011)

Dear M&M

My wish for 5th edition is...  Options, options options.

The only thing holding me back should be my imagination.  

Make it as complicated as you want, I can figure out.


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 27, 2011)

Morrus said:


> 6) Flavour-wise, I'd like the grittiness level to be around 1E level.  More LotR, less anime.



I agree personally, but as people discussed on recent threads, I still suspect a GURPS-style approach will capture greater market share. Offer both gritty LoTR and high fantasy/anime class options. System makes it abundantly clear that nothing must be core; pick and choose the PC classes, races and powers that best flavors any one campaign. If need be, separate into low/traditional fantasy and high fantasy bundles, with a simple core or beginner/quickstart rules.



> 7) Art - my preferred art style came from the Dragonlance era.  Not "dungeon-punk".  No spikes.
> 
> 8) Don't include a default setting.  Instead, encourage DMs to make their own setting.



OTOH, can offer a default setting for the traditional fantasy PC option and traditional art, and a different setting(s) for the high fantasy/anime PC option and corresponding art.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 27, 2011)

Since we've now devolved into talking about mechanics. My preference is for a system that has multiple elements or subsystems that run independently of other aspects of the game, so that you can remove something without a significant mechanical impact. Magical items are a good example - the loss of them doesn't effect the rules in any other way.

*On Magic Items*

I'll start this by quoting  @TheFindus 


> I wish for mechanics that can do without certain +x items built into  the system. I would like to see magic items with special powers, yes.  But my Battlemind should not need a +5 armor or a certain  +x-to-attack-feat at a certain level just to be able to compete with a  monster.



That reiterates my feelings on getting The Core Math down. And I also  feel that magical items should be easily removed - magical items are a  part of the system, but they should not be crucial to it. They should be  special.

Here is my suggestion on making magical items "magical":


> *Cleaver of Glaciers* (Level 6)
> *Trait*: The wielder gains Ice-walk. Dipping this blade into water will  freeze the surface enough to permit the wielder to walk across. This ice  is difficult terrain for others.
> *Encounter* (use after hitting a target):An enemy loses -2 to their AC for  the encounter, as the hit freezes a portion of the enemy's armor/body  and it shatters.
> *Daily*: Create a wall of ice x long and y high. The wielder can pass through this wall as though he had phasing.



All items would have thematically linked multiple effects. PCs would  only have 1-3 items at any one time - not for mechanical reasons, but so  that the items feel special. One important point is that items have  some traits which aren't directly relating to combat but are thematic,  such as freezing and walking on water. 

While i personally would prefer bonuses be removed from magical items, I  know that +1 sword are too sacred to lose their bonuses. 

*On Classes*

Initially non-combat powers were siloed into Utilities, but Utilities soon became non-offensive combat powers competing with non-combat powers. Furthermore, classes had combat roles, but then out of combat they had skills that are customary to the class.

Instead, I would like to see the idea of how a class is created become something more modular. The class has 3 parts that are plug-and-play:

A) Class features. This is often what really separates one class from another. The difference between the Avenger's mechanics from the Ranger's, the Cleric from the Bard. The one place that is missing is controllers having features that make them feel like a controller - the Protector druid is going in the right directio here. 

B) The Combat role. 4e operates just fine here. 

C) The Non-Combat Role. Detach skills into thematic packages such as the Athlete (Athletics, Acrobatics, Endurance), the Socialite (Diplomacy, Intimidate, Bluff), the Sneak (Bluff, Sstealth, Thievery), the Scout (Stealth, Nature, Perception), the Scholar (Arcana, Religion, One Misc Knowledge SKill), The Tough Guy (Intimidate, Endurance, Athletics), the Explorer (Athletics, Nature, Dungeoneering), The Peacemaker (Diplomacy, Heal, Religion). 

Non-combat utilities (sort of like skill powers) would then silo through the non-combat role. 

The point is that all of these are independent of one another, allowing you to mix and match.  Ideally, you can have a Wizard who is (Class Feature X + Controller + Tough Guy) and a Fighter who is (Class Feature R + Striker powers + Scholar). Obviously they have to be balanced so that one isn't the "best" option.

Creating classes then is simply introducing more class features and providing more powers for each combat and non-combat role. 

I like themes personally. You could easily turn Power Source into themes, or have specific things relating to it, rather than it merely being a flavor distinction. 

*On Social Skills*

Personally I would prefer it if "Diplomacy/Intimidate/Bluff vs. DC" went away, and it was more like social combat or at least a subsystem. Where someone has X number of Resistance points and you need ot wear them down. 

*Monsters*

I absolutely love 4e's monsters and don't want them to change at all.

*Misc*

Plan an Unearthed Arcana style book for variant rules. Here you can tuck in your subsystems or diferent ways to do things. 

Fewer fiddly bits. From tracking conditions, to too many situational modifiers via feats or class features. These fiddly bits are easily forgotten, or slow things down.

Put crafting skills in there. So people will stop complaining.


----------



## sjmiller (Dec 27, 2011)

Morrus said:


> Man, I remember people up in arms because of the way the gnome was portrayed in that short series of animations they made; it was as though WotC was portraying them themselves.  I wonder if those people actually thought that they were gnomes in real life and that WotC hated them?



I would not say I was up in arms about the whole treatment of gnomes in the video and in the game. I was a bit annoyed that things like gnomes and druids, which have been core items since Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st Edition, were left out of the initial Player's Handbook. The video was just an attempt at humourously portraying gnomes as something different than what they had been. I do not think they were terribly successful, to be honest.

I did not then, nor do I now, feel that WotC hates me. I do feel that I am not their target demographic at this time, which is a shame. I would like D&D 5e to include me as part of their target demographic, but I do not feel that is likely to occur.


----------



## Jhaelen (Dec 27, 2011)

I only have a single wish: Think very, very carefully before you decide to release 5e.

I'd hate to see a(nother) rushed release. Pretty much all of the (arguably few) design mistakes in 4e could have been spotted and corrected before it was released. Make sure to playtest the game at all levels _before_ it is sent to the printers.

Also make very, very sure that a new edition is really required. Imho, 4e's design space is far from being completely explored. 5e only makes sense if it so different from 4e that no amount of rules updates could achieve the same thing. If it's only the presentation and minor details you'd like to change, stick with 4e and call it "4e Fundamentals" or whatever.

Don't try to make me buy something I already have - and this includes every previous edition of the game!


----------



## darjr (Dec 27, 2011)

Oh I forgot to add. 

OGL, PDF and test test test in public. Lots of public testing. I would even get a DDI account again if it meant I could get access to test material and have some influence over design. But don't just test at your site or just on DDI. Come here ot ENWorld and look for feedback and post test material.


----------



## Frostmarrow (Dec 27, 2011)

1) I'd like to see the addition of a third building block to basic character creation. Not only would I like to pick race and tactical combat role. I'd also like to pick an out-of-combat role. You see, in combat I like to be a mobile lightly armored range attacker but out of combat I enjoy playing the learned thinker. In most games today I need to choose between playing rogue or wizard when in fact I'd like to play a guy with a bow and a book. (Multiclassing does not work for me as it adds skills I don't even care for).

I see the following out-of-combat roles:

The social character, for players who enjoy talking to NPCs.
The explorer, for players who likes to map, search and tinker.
The vigilant character, for players who wants to be the first to spot.
The sage, for players who like to have all the facts.
The athlete, for players who enjoy moving about.
The artisan, for industrious players.
The loose cannon, for the troublemakers.
...or whatever.

2) Please keep all the old words and game terms. Don't inject new words. E.g. _Move Silently_ was a perfectly good name for the sneak skill. Stealth is shorter and more succinct but it's too new. In D&D we already have a term for it. _Paralyze, poison, death magic_ is a mouthful but Fortitude isn't traditional  D&D.

3) Don't forget about the DM. The player characters often try to find something out and they get powers to reveal whatever they are looking for. However, often the DM does not have an actual answer to reveal. The DM is trying to move the story forward without having to cover up plot holes as he goes along. Certainly the characters should have information gathering skills but the players should not be made to feel entitled to answers just due to successful checks. If the players ask the right question or look in the correct drawer the DM is more than willing to provide answers, regardless of what a spell or die reads.

Thanks!


----------



## El Mahdi (Dec 27, 2011)

> *Hope 2: Dial it Up (and Down) - Basic & Advanced*
> ...don't just tease us with this sexy "complexity dial" idea--make it happen! I want a simple, core game, one that is playable in and of itself with minimal Fiddly Bits. Think Castles & Crusades but 4E-style, or True20, or Talislanta...that sort of simple (in other words, "rules light-to-medium"), or even simpler at the very core (ala Fabled Lands).
> 
> After that, go hog wild. Provide options, modular options that we can pick and choose from. This is an extension of the Toolbox Approach. You build the parts, we'll put it together.




Dear Mike & Monte,

Absolutely Yes to this...but along with a "Complexity Dial", have a "Realism Dial".

Request #1: Get away from the "Keep the Crunch, change the Fluff" default, and go with a default of the "Crunch" supporting a realistic model, but with the ability to dial up the seperation of crunch from fluff.  In other words, variable complexity, but also variable playstyle support (dial between narrativist, simulationist, and gamist).

Request #2: Make DDI inclusive for all editions with equal support for all.  Your business model for continued financial success is the subscription service.  No matter how "perfect" you make 5E, the likely expectation is that 5E will not re-unite your fan and customer bases.  If you want all of them as customers, then DDI has to provide something for all of them.  (like electronic downloads of all edition books, character/monster/encounter builders for all editions, and a VTT with support for all editions).


----------



## amerigoV (Dec 27, 2011)

My wish....retire D&D for an edition "cycle" or two. Just reading this thread its clear people all want something different, anywhere from dials to talk to real people to make the game realistic ("historically speaking, just how effective was a glaive against a Tarrasque?"). So put the IP on ice for awhile, release some other fantasy game, then bring D&D back later when there is actual demand for a new D&D. Right now, its completing against itself in too many incarnations.

Releasing something new allows people to judge it on its own merits. Let the D&D baggage fall way for a number of years. Then people will see it fresh again.


----------



## Tallifer (Dec 27, 2011)

Reading through this thread, I see many interesting ideas which I would like incorporated into Fourth Edition. (I also see many ideas which are already part of other editions and roleplaying games, which puzzles me. I for one do not the Wizards to emulate for example Pendragon, because I can already play Pendragon without D&D.)

I would prefer there to be no Fifth Edition. Since Fourth Edition can be entirely contained within the on-line Character Builder, Monster Builder and Compendium, I think that all that is needed is more errata and revisions. To mark Dungeons and Dragons' fortieth anniversary, the Wizards of the Coast should republish the first two Players' Handbooks with all the errata incorporated.

Keep everything. Just gradually fix a few minor problems.

1. The designers should go through every existent feat and strengthen the feats which are useless, superfluous or inferior. Feats and utility powers should be added for neglected races (goblinoids, sharden, changelings, kalashtar, et cetera).

2. Then they should also study every existent power and strengthen the powers which are useless, superfluous or inferior.

3. Furthermore they should examine every existent class and strengthen the class features which make that class inferior (binders, seekers, strength clerics and paladins, witches). And rename battleminds. And create the Friar Tuck sub-class for Avengers.

4. Moreover every existent magical item which is useless, superfluous or inferior should be improved.

5. Release the Third Dungeon Master's Guide for the epic tier. Publish more and better adventur paths to take adventurers to the thirtieth level.


----------



## Zaukrie (Dec 27, 2011)

1. Fix your marketing. It was and remains pretty bad ( I have a marketing MBA, btw). This is critical to the success of a new edition. 

2. I think you need a default setting. There needs to be a way for new people to enter the game, and w/o this, not sure how they really do it.

3. I think you need more adventures, and better adventures. Same reason as above, plus adventures are what really give us a share experience. Btw, not all of us can make it to a gaming store, so only having the common experiences that way does not help.

4. Something magical is missing in 4E. Maybe I'm just too old, but something is missing. While I love all the powers and options, some of the magic is missing someplace. Also,magic is missing from the magic.

5. I personally like the classes to be different from each other. There are some good suggestions in this thread, some of which make that easier, some of which make it harder.

6. I think you need an entry level version of the game. I have no idea how a new player would start right now.

7. Think about what accessories you want to sell...minis? maps? adventures? world books? cards? Plan for that, but don't make them required, make it easier or whatever to have them.

8. Magic, as above, need an overhaul in 5E. There is little magical about magic right now, imo.


----------



## Zaukrie (Dec 27, 2011)

Forgot one.....

Spend some money on the art. Stop reusing art. Make it memorable, ingrain it in our brains. Make it active. Make it evocative. Give us more pictures of the locales we are reading about, so that they can be used.

Monte...think Ptolus......so dang evocative.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 28, 2011)

Zaukrie said:


> Forgot one.....
> 
> Spend some money on the art. Stop reusing art. Make it memorable, ingrain it in our brains. Make it active. Make it evocative. Give us more pictures of the locales we are reading about, so that they can be used.
> 
> Monte...think Ptolus......so dang evocative.




I have to agree that there isn't one single piece of iconic 4E art ingrained on my brain. Not one.

1E was best for that. 2E has some I remember well. To this day, despite having run the entire WotBS adventure path in 4E from start to finish over nearly 3 years, not one piece of WotC's art sticks in my brain.

I'm not an artist; I can't tell you why (I think instructions to artists containing 15 things to include including 4 races, 17 'action words', and 3 things new to this edition; add spikes) but I know it when I see it, and the 1E period friggin' NAILED iconic images.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 28, 2011)

Morrus said:


> I have to agree that there isn't one single piece of iconic 4E art ingrained on my brain. Not one.
> 
> 1E was best for that. 2E has some I remember well. To this day, despite having run the entire WotBS adventure path in 4E from start to finish over nearly 3 years, not one piece of WotC's art sticks in my brain.



In all due respect I think that's because you were an impressionable kid. 

I can recall the pictures of the first D&D book I ever saw. And those were cartoony 2e monster pics, not exactly works of art. But I remember them becuase I was a _kid_ marveling at them.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 28, 2011)

Rechan said:


> In all due respect I think that's because you were an impressionable kid.
> 
> I can recall the pictures of the first D&D book I ever saw. And those were cartoony 2e monster pics, not exactly works of art. But I remember them becuase I was a _kid_ marveling at them.




Look at the cover of the 1E DMG.  Cartoony does not come into it.   That's friggin' _iconic!_

Which brings me to request #11 (and I can't believe it wasn't in my list - it's the BIGGEST one):-

11)  Make it a book you can *read*.  Not a reference book or dictionary; not a magazine (which I clearly remember Scott Rouse enthusiastically explaining to me at Gen Con just before they launched it - "_we're going with a magazine reference style!  It's all dynamic!  Bullet points! Lots of white space!_"; I tried not to let my face fall too much.  I used to reread the 1E (and, indeed, the 2E) books again and again.  They had paragraphs of text and everything!  I have never read the 4E books; I've merely used them for reference.  They're books of lists.

I think the biggest lesson to learn here is the difference between a book and a powerpoint presentation.  A book should not be a powerpoint presentation.  Too "modern".  Face it, RPGs aren't a modern phenomena - re-engage with a cool retro vibe rather than try to fit it into a shoe that is the wrong size.

I recognise that one of the goals was clarity.  I submit that one of the primary enjoyments of the game was discussion over interpretation of rules.  This was as much fun as playing the game itself, and taking it away is a bad move.  I'm not saying that one should obfuscate things, but one should feel free to wax lyrical and let the players enjoy discussing what you wrote.  Hell, you can make a career out of explaining what you wrote!  (OK, that's silly, and clearly over-the-top, but sometimes a choice between clarity and poetry is not as clear cut as an IKEA instruction manual; sometimes it's about the pleasure of _reading_ the damn thing).

C'mon - what's better for an author than readers discussing what you wrote?


----------



## Rechan (Dec 28, 2011)

Morrus said:


> Look at the cover of the 1E DMG.  Cartoony does not come into it.   That's friggin' _iconic!_



You seemed to have missed what I said.

I can recall the pictures of *the first D&D book I ever saw*. That was one of the Creature Compendiums. Full of cartoony monster art. Every time we went to the mall, I'd sit in Walden's books and flip through one of the Creature Compendiums, looking at the pictures, because I didn't understand the game/have a group.

Hell, by the end of 2e I only owned the AD&D 2e MM and AD&D 2e PHB, quite a number of Dragon magazines, and the spell compendiums I got for the Christmas before 3e came out. That's it.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Dec 28, 2011)

1. Don't be afraid to kill more sacred cows.
2. Don't be boring.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 28, 2011)

Rechan said:


> You seemed to have missed what I said.
> 
> I can recall the pictures of *the first D&D book I ever saw*. That was one of the Creature Compendiums. Full of cartoony monster art. Every time we went to the mall, I'd sit in Walden's books and flip through one of the Creature Compendiums, looking at the pictures, because I didn't understand the game/have a group.
> 
> Hell, by the end of 2e I only owned the AD&D 2e MM and AD&D 2e PHB, quite a number of Dragon magazines, and the spell compendiums I got for the Christmas before 3e came out. That's it.




Sure I saw what you said.  You said I was wrong about my artistic preference because you remember the first D&D book you ever saw.  I responded by showing you the sort of image I was talking about. 


I'm sure you saw lots of other bad art.  I was talking about art like _that_.  It's not that I was an impressionable kid, it's that the art was awesome.  I also remember classic 1E _Dragonlance_ art like this:


























All of that is far more evocative to me than this:








There's no scene there.  Nothing's happening.  Just a sword larger than the wielder, and lots of spikes.  No scene to fire the imagination.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 28, 2011)

Doug McCrae said:


> 1. Don't be afraid to kill more sacred cows.
> 2. Don't be boring.



3. Whoops! That wasn't a sacred cow we killed, it was the reason folks were playing the game....

Think about what cows you are killing, and if you kill them, don't be surprised when folks go to another cattle ranch to get back to the cows they liked.

I think that I may have milked that premise too much, but I could go on for heifer and heifer and heifer....

The Auld Grump, leaving WotC thoroughly cowed....


----------



## Rechan (Dec 28, 2011)

@Morrus  if you want to have an art fight we can, but we're derailing this thread.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 28, 2011)

Rechan said:


> @Morrus  if you want to have an art fight we can, but we're derailing this thread.




Here's fine. I feel art choice is fundamental. It is a powerful way to choose the feelings you wish to evoke in the reader.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 28, 2011)

Frostmarrow said:


> 1) I'd like to see the addition of a third building block to basic character creation. Not only would I like to pick race and tactical combat role. I'd also like to pick an out-of-combat role. You see, in combat I like to be a mobile lightly armored range attacker but out of combat I enjoy playing the learned thinker. In most games today I need to choose between playing rogue or wizard when in fact I'd like to play a guy with a bow and a book. (Multiclassing does not work for me as it adds skills I don't even care for).
> 
> I see the following out-of-combat roles:
> 
> ...



This I can get behind - acknowledge that D&D is _not_ just a game about combat, and sometimes folks _do_ want to traipse through the faerie rings to interact with the little people.



> 2) Please keep all the old words and game terms. Don't inject new words. E.g. _Move Silently_ was a perfectly good name for the sneak skill. Stealth is shorter and more succinct but it's too new. In D&D we already have a term for it. _Paralyze, poison, death magic_ is a mouthful but Fortitude isn't traditional  D&D.



 But I disagree with this one - _don't_ have half a dozen different saves when, really, they are variants on three different themes - Fortitude, Reflex, and Will work just fine.



> 3) Don't forget about the DM. The player characters often try to find something out and they get powers to reveal whatever they are looking for. However, often the DM does not have an actual answer to reveal. The DM is trying to move the story forward without having to cover up plot holes as he goes along. Certainly the characters should have information gathering skills but the players should not be made to feel entitled to answers just due to successful checks. If the players ask the right question or look in the correct drawer the DM is more than willing to provide answers, regardless of what a spell or die reads.
> 
> Thanks!



Agreed - A good GM is what makes a good game - give the GM room to flex his muscles. Give the GM tools to do his job. Don't make PC empowerment come at the expense of the GM's ability to do his job!

The Auld Grump


----------



## Croesus (Dec 28, 2011)

Zaukrie said:


> 1. Fix your marketing. It was and remains pretty bad ( I have a marketing MBA, btw). This is critical to the success of a new edition.
> 
> 2. I think you need a default setting. There needs to be a way for new people to enter the game, and w/o this, not sure how they really do it.
> 
> ...




Every game really needs a core focus that all the design choices revolve around. 3E was about codifying everything, to limit the impact of arbitrary GM's. 4E was about balance and simplification. 5E should be about new players, not us old farts.

Along these lines: 
1) Fast character creation, without the necessity for detailed builds. You want new players up and running asap. 
2) Along those lines, good digital tools, but don't design a system where players/GM's feel they *must* have those tools. 
3) Simple base rules, with more complex options that can be mix-and-match. Those who like complexity can have it, without burdening all those players who just want to spend a few hours having fun with friends.
4) Limit the math. Computers are great with numbers, most humans do better with concepts and situations.
5) D&D, not Squad Leader. The tactics should be an important element of the game, but not the main focus. My friend's cousin should be able to play the game without feeling useless or like an idiot.
6) Eliminate the need for system mastery. It's okay if someone gains a slight advantage from going through the rules with a fine-tooth comb. But don't make it so that anyone who doesn't ends up with a suboptimal character. 
7) Some decent starting adventures, with evocative art. Leave room at the end of these adventures for the GM to add more.
8) I'm less convinced that a default setting is required. But do provide info and examples to GM's on how to create their own. Emphasize the number one rule from the old Dungeonmastering articles - only create what you need, when you need it.

Face it, whatever design decisions are made in 5E, there will be a very vocal group of current or former players who will attack WOTC - they ruined my game, they left out [fill in the blank], they didn't playtest it enough, and so on. Just reading this thread, I see several suggestions that are diametrically opposed. WOTC has to accept that some portion of their current customer base is not going to like 5E. 

But I do believe that if they focus on what a new player would want, what would cause someone to choose this game over the literally dozens of other options available, they'll end up with a game that the existing players will also enjoy.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 28, 2011)

More on art -

Humor in your illustrations!

Not every image needs (or should) be a joke, but some of the 3.X illos. that stick in my mind have inherent humor - Krusk aiding a Climb check, Lidda fails a Use Magic Device check.

Mostly, give a feeling that _something is happening!_ Not just a pic of Krusk flexing his muscles, have him kicking in a door.

Have the cleric trying to do something about the ghouls that are climbing out of the well.

Have the characters be places, doing things, not just posing for the cameras.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Morrus (Dec 28, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> More on art -
> 
> Humor in your illustrations!
> 
> ...




Like I said - scenes, not photoshoots.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Dec 28, 2011)

Morrus said:


> Like I said - scenes, not photoshoots.




Landscapes!!!!!!!!!!!!

I want landscapes more than anything else. What is this place? Why is it different. Movies and computer games understand this. 4E sure does not.

Look at Dark Sun, a totally new world, a world vastly different from the previous two campaign settings, but all we get is how weird the armor, weapons and races are. 

I do agree with Morrus about 1E. I remember a lot of 1E art, like the skeleton coming out of the water as the adventurers frantically try to open a door.

Now that is an adventuring piece of art. A whole story and a look into the setting in one quarter of a page.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 28, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> I do agree with Morrus about 1E. I remember a lot of 1E art, like the skeleton coming out of the water as the adventurers frantically try to open a door.
> 
> Now that is an adventuring piece of art. A whole story and a look into the setting in one quarter of a page.




Oh yeah, baby! That fired my imagination. 

Damn, if I had WotC's art budget, I could have so much fun with that.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 28, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> I want landscapes more than anything else. What is this place? Why is it different. Movies and computer games understand this. 4E sure does not.




I'm not into landscapes.  Action scenes with background, yes.  Set pieces, sure.  But no landscapes without characters in a core rulebook.  Especially if you don't have a default setting.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Dec 28, 2011)

1. Personal and creative DIY character tokens ...and more. 

This means somewhere in the rules a material figure or icon is used to represent a character or creature in front of the players. I've found some players really engage once they learn they can paint or draw or sculpt their own character to represent themselves. Maybe they cut it out of a magazine? Maybe they buy and paint a miniature? Maybe they draw on a 1" square of paper and attach to a block like a few players in my game?

Toys are a big part of play (and a great way to create another viable consumer market). Enabling game space to sit down and create a representation of a character (or setting terrain, items, effects, etc.) can create a buy in that pure book reading/consuming cannot. So please retain at core or optional the ability to use your toys and ours to play the game. 

2. Consider earlier versions of D&D as setting.

Single book settings sound economically profitable. There is more than enough material in the pre-2E non-campaign setting core books to be a comprehensible setting in and of themselves. This doesn't mean maps of course, but characters and items and histories are all laden through those works. This could go a long way towards swaying early edition groups to become customers again and potential long term buyers. 

I don't suggest this be the only setting or that other pre-millennial, traditionally understood campaign settings be republished. Only that artistic works may be best field tested before giving them the green light. Do we want a steampunk D&D setting? An underwater one? Test the waters first. Given the long tail of gamer attachment to D&D I think testing for an "old D&D" setting is a smart plan.

One alternative for the goals of D&D:
- Endlessly puzzling about and expressing into a reality puzzle game via a character.
- Challenging the players to improve their imaginations and memories.
- Engaging in the joy of discovery and invention with other people.


----------



## Tallifer (Dec 28, 2011)

I agree about the art.

The best Fourth Edition art which I have seen have been scenes and landscapes:

There is the scene of the shrine made of gorgon's blood mortar:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/excerpts_av2_0803.jpg

The scene where the party emerges from a forest and comes across the mysterious tower:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/wallpaper/wallpaper_DMG2_9th.jpg

The scene with the golden dragon reading in his library:

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page

However, I do notice that Heroes of the Feywild has many interesting pictures with real stories: there are even thought provoking captions.


----------



## scourger (Dec 28, 2011)

In the aforementioned spirit, have a look at the new Gamma World.  A game with about that level of complexity for the GM is what I want.  But it needs more character building for the players--perhaps choices of archetypes, powers and skills.  It also rocks to have all the maps & counters in the boxed set--very fire & forget.  Offer a few PC minis to round it out and to differentiate them on the playing field.  I am sad that WotC missed the chance to market the Ravenloft in the same way as announced at GenCon 2009, but now's the chance to make it so.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Dec 28, 2011)

As an OD&D ref I like the variety and B&W of earlier works. But...

This... is better than...






This, which is in the 3LBBs.





And I think the following is every bit as D&D and of great quality as any of the more iconic images.






EDIT: *Virgil Finlay* is this last one as I've recently discovered. Do an image search for him. You won't be disappointed.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 28, 2011)

[edit - 3 people posted while I typef this]

Wow. That IS an idea! You might actually be a genius!

1E is a setting, not a rule set . So are 2E, 3E and 4E. How better to define their different feels?

Greyhawk is 1E, FR is 2E; the settings themselves can define the edition feels. Low magic, high magic, gritty, high fantasy, etc. That might be a simple and easy solution to appeal to everyone. It's not like setting specific rules are a new thing. Each setting has rules which suit it's atmosphere. A setting book is half rules expansion, half setting. Why aren't I designing 5E? Ah well.

I remember Piratecat once describing how he ran ToEE and RtToEE. He ran the latter in 3E, and used the former for flashback sequences featuring the PC's grandparents - but used 1E AD&D for those scenes using the original module. The players actually played using two different rules systems depending on the time period, much like a director might play flashbacks in black and white. I can't think of a better way to illustrate the way different systems can evoke different feels and could be represented by actual different settings.  As far as I'm concerned, that was a flash of genius.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 28, 2011)

Morrus said:


> Why aren't I designing 5E?





The pay cut?  (And the commute would signal your honeymoon is over . . .)


----------



## howandwhy99 (Dec 28, 2011)

Thanks. I've been rereading the AD&D books to pull out content I liked and there is plenty which really doesn't amount to game mechanics at all. I haven't gotten to the early modules or Dragon magazine material yet, but what is in the DMG and PHB alone is quite sizable already.


----------



## FireLance (Dec 28, 2011)

My current wish list might not seem like D&D to some people, but here goes anyway:

*Themes:* 4E Dark Sun style themes become the macro building blocks of a character. There are themes to represent races, themes to represent classes, themes to represent backgrounds, special training (weapon styles, wizard school specialization, divine spheres of influence, etc.), and other character-defining traits (Eberron dragonmarks, Birthright bloodlines, angelic, draconic or infernal ancestry, etc.). A character's powers, abilities and other benefits are selected from those that his themes grant him access to. Level determines a character's number of powers and abilities, themes determine the number of choices for each power or ability. Hence, themes are mostly intended to add breadth (and not power) to a character. The number of themes that each character has access to can be left to the DM. If he want to run a simpler game, each character can have only one or two themes. If he wants to gradually increase the complexity, characters can be granted access to a new theme every few levels.

*Races:* Race is a theme. There will thus be racial powers and benefits and characters who select a race theme are able to choose those powers and benefits. Mixed-race characters can be represented by selecting two racial themes.

*Classes:* Class is also a theme. In addition to class themes, there can be power source (arcane, divine, martial, primal, shadow) themes and role (striker, defender, leader, controller) themes. Depending on the number of themes a character is granted access to, he could play a ranger, a martial ranger (or a primal ranger), or a martial striker ranger. This ensures that characters who have the same power source theme or role theme have access to the same powers and abilities, and allows for "iconic" and non-repetitive powers. Multiclass characters can be represented by selecting two class themes.

*Power Structure:* I'd like to see more flexibility in terms of trading off powers of one type of frequency for another, e.g. at certain levels, a character could select an at-will power or an encounter power or a daily power. 

*Feats:* Feats are generic abilities that anyone can gain access to regardless of theme. When selecting a power, ability or other benefit, a character can select one that one of his themes grants him access to, or he can select a feat power, ability or benefit.

*HP:* I think every type of character should have some kind of ability to recover hit points, but they can differentiated more in terms of flavor and maybe mechanics. For example, _cure light wounds_ could be a power tied to the Divine theme, and it can be used on allies as well as the character who has the power. _Second wind_ could be the equivalent from the Martial power source, and becomes extra effective if used while the character is bloodied.

*Magic Items:* CR balancing is done assuming the characters have no access to magic items, but powerful magic items adjust the characters' level. Hence, if a _+3 flame tongue_ has a +1 Level Adjustment, a 14th-level character with a _+3 flame tongue_ is considered a 15th-level character for the purpose of what challenges he can reasonably expect to be able to overcome. Certain iconic magic items can also have associated themes to represent characters who spend extra effort to train with the items and unlock additional powers.

*Ability Scores:* In possibly the most non-traditional of my ideas, ability scores are indirectly affected by the player's choices instead of being rolled or directly selected by the player. Think the Dragon Age: Origins system where the choice of race and class grants bonuses to specific ability scores, so that choosing a Fighter might grant +4 Str, +2 Con and +2 Dex, while choosing a Dwarf might grant +2 Str, +4 Con and +2 Wis. At character creation, and as the character gains levels, the player will also have the option to choose benefits which might indirectly affect ability scores. For example, training in Diplomacy might also grant +2 Cha, while the Iron Will benefit might grant +2 Wis in addition to a bonus to Will.


----------



## Kzach (Dec 28, 2011)

I just want D&D to improve my sex-life. Is that asking too much?


----------



## Morrus (Dec 28, 2011)

Ah! Another biggie for me!

Make the races actually matter. A +2 bonus at first level to an ability score simply doesn't matter later in the campaign. The dwarf may as well be an elf (except that he got some minor differences 8 levels ago). 

Racial ability bonuses should be twice as large as they are. And, like classes, they should continue to gain stuff which reminds them they're a halfing not a goliath.

Make the level based ability bonuses race based, and make the initial bonuses - and penalties - twice as big. A halfling should always know he's a quarter the size and strength of a goliath. Bilbo never started wrestling Smaug, after all. He was always a hobbit.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Dec 28, 2011)

Kzach said:


> I just want D&D to improve my sex-life. Is that asking too much?




It will give you a x1000 multiplier, but unfortunately 0x1000 is still 0

You are outta luck.


----------



## FireLance (Dec 28, 2011)

Morrus said:


> Make the races actually matter. A +2 bonus at first level to an ability score simply doesn't matter later in the campaign. The dwarf may as well be an elf (except that he got some minor differences 8 levels ago).
> 
> Racial ability bonuses should be twice as large as they are. And, like classes, they should continue to gain stuff which reminds them they're a halfing not a goliath.



I think the racial utility powers that we've seen in Heroes of Shadow and Heroes of the Feywild is a step in this direction. Which is why I say that 5E might as well take the next logical step and make race a theme. You want to give dwarves the potential to be good with axes and effective against giants? Give them a racial attack power that requires them to use an axe and gets +1[W] (more at higher levels) against giants or something. To prevent too many options for any single character, allow players the choice between that power and a more generic (but broadly useful) class attack power.


----------



## Mercurius (Dec 28, 2011)

[MENTION=2804]Dragonblade[/MENTION], not much to comment on your reply as I like and agree with everything you wrote. 

A quick thought about the Vancian system vs. powers--why not both? The wizard can be a Vancian spellcaster and the sorcerer a more power-based or spontaneous caster...or something like that.



Tallifer said:


> I would prefer there to be no Fifth Edition. Since Fourth Edition can be entirely contained within the on-line Character Builder, Monster Builder and Compendium, I think that all that is needed is more errata and revisions. To mark Dungeons and Dragons' fortieth anniversary, the Wizards of the Coast should republish the first two Players' Handbooks with all the errata incorporated.




I've been advocating a "4E Revised edition", with at least a re-formatted, errata-ed, improved PHB. But that's already half way to 5E.



Tallifer said:


> Keep everything. Just gradually fix a few minor problems....




All of your suggestions are really good ones, but why not fold them into a 5E that is still loosely compatible with 4E in a similar way that 2E was with 1E?

One way to do 5E would be to ask the question, "If we were to re-do 4E with all that we've learned in the last four and a half years, what would we do?" They'd fix a bunch of stuff, tighten things up--along the lines of your suggestions. But then they'd ask, "And what is 4E Revised missing that we want to put in or change?" Do they wait another few years to do that or do they kill two birds with one stone and publish a new edition?

I say go for the new edition, but make it relatively backwards-compatible with 4E or, better yet, with a simple core/modular options approach that would be able to create a 4E-esque experience or a 3.5E-esque experience, or even an "Old School" experience.



Zaukrie said:


> 2. I think you need a default setting. There needs to be a way for new people to enter the game, and w/o this, not sure how they really do it.




I completely agree. Even if the Golarion products don't make as much profit as splats and adventures, it supports the rest of the line. Heck, this is the same with the print Dragon Magazine--it might have even lost money but it was a loss leader--something that you put out to drive other sales. I think a default, fully supported setting fulfills that purpose and is a major lack in 4E.

I love your other suggestions as well. 



Morrus said:


> There's no scene there.  Nothing's happening.  Just a sword larger than the wielder, and lots of spikes.  No scene to fire the imagination.




I fully agree. It is interesting to note that the Wayne Reynolds art for Paizo is more scene-oriented, at least the cover art. I think the good folks at Paizo "get it" in this regard.



Kzach said:


> I just want D&D to improve my sex-life. Is that asking too much?




Yeah, good luck with that.


----------



## Shemeska (Dec 28, 2011)

This is largely an academic exercise, since I'm pretty dang happy with Pathfinder as my D&D edition of choice and unless a majority of 4e tropes are disowned by a WotC 5e, I probably won't give it more than a glance. But here's my thoughts on designing a potential 5e.



I would want them to include input from as wide an audience as possible, not just from the echo-chamber of DDI, organized play (God forbid "Lair Assault" feedback is a serious input), or CharOP, or what they personally like in their home games.

I would hope -expect actually- that if they decide not to include something from classic D&D that they don't bring it out and publically mock it in elitist and disrespectful podcasts. Additionally, if you change something flavor-wise, for God's sake actually know and understand the material, especially when you're paid professionally for this. Thirdly, don't change something just because you aren't familiar with it and the original source material "was really hard to find".

Support multiple playstyles with the game. Don't pick one playstyle, ramp it up to 11 and ignore everything else.

Don't make mini use mandatory.

Make the rules serve the flavor and not the other way around. Also, don't ram rules changes down the throat of existing settings in such a way as to necessitate blowing them up in order to accomodate everything from the vanilla core game. That's lazy design and disrespectful to the material.

Don't assume that the trademark is the only thing that matters. You could brand Ultimate Fantasy Heartbreaker as D&D, but if it only resembles D&D in name, you aren't fooling anyone and you'll notice when you fracture the market so fast it'll make your head spin and necessitate a rushed, vaguely backpeddling stealth Ultimate Fantasy Heartbreaker.5 edition release.

Setting Support - fire and forget settings failed utterly. Don't ever do it again if you want those settings to actually be worth something as IP for the future, otherwise in a decade nobody will be playing them and in 15 years nobody will remember them.

However I think that they're going to be stuck between having to go back towards a 3.x game to reclaim the market (thereaby alienating their 4e players) or sticking with 4e'isms heavily (and not gaining back any of the market share they lost with 4e, and probably only then having a smaller piece of the pie with less than universal 4e -> 5e adoption). It's not a good place to be.


----------



## FireLance (Dec 28, 2011)

My list of concepts to keep in 5e:

*1. Powers For Everybody*
Every character should have options beyond "I make a basic attack." You should not have to play a spellcaster to unleash a more powerful attack or trigger some beneficial effect when you need it.

*2. The Encounter Power* 
There should be encounter powers to straddle the middle ground between vanilla at-will abilities and more significant daily powers. 

*3. Healing Surges* 
Healing surges ensure that healing powers generally keep pace with character hit points as they go up in level. As a reserve of endurance that usually goes beyond what the PCs can bring to bear in any single encounter, they also enable multiple encounters per day while retaining the possibility that PCs could be dropped in any encounter. Possibly, they could be reflavored and renamed as hit point restoring powers instead of healing surges, e.g. instead of having 12 healing surges, a paladin could have 12 daily uses of _cure light wounds_.

*4. Skill Challenges* 
Skill challenges provide a structure to supplement the normal free-form approach for resolving non-combat challenges that are more complex and require more than a single skill check. Perhaps they could explicitly be made more flexible - for example, the DM could award multiple successes and even automatic successes for good ideas.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 28, 2011)

FireLance said:


> My list of concepts to keep in 5e:
> 
> *1. Powers For Everybody*
> Every character should have options beyond "I make a basic attack." You should not have to play a spellcaster to unleash a more powerful attack or trigger some beneficial effect when you need it.
> ...



It sounds very much like you want 5e to be an improved 4e....

Those are pretty much the exact things that folks that _don't_ like 4e would want removed from the game. (And why we dropped the game to play Pathfinder, in many cases.)

If WotC does take this approach then they will pretty much be turning their backs on regaining the lost players.

Frankly, I think that it is also the approach that WotC _should_ use - the folks that they lost have moved on, and Pathfinder is doing just fine. Make a game that is similar to 4e, but easier to enter at the ground level. Hell, do a 4e BECMI!

They should try for _new_ players, but neither turn their back on 4e players nor try to regain the Pathfinder crue. The styles of 3.X and 4e are too dissimilar, trying to make both groups happy will only give the game designers ulcers.

Return to the OGL - get back the _publishers_ that helped 3.X become popular for so long. Sorry WotC, you can't write adventures worth a bean, encourage others to do it. But if you try to make it so that is _all_ that they can do for 5e then they will go elsewhere. 

The Auld Grump


----------



## Wiseblood (Dec 28, 2011)

Dear Mike and Monte. Start over. Do not do 5e yet. Make a wargame. That is the seed for D&D, WoW, and WHFRP. I can't speak for the last one but the first two I would say have been successful. 

You really don't need another RPG so soon. It would just be competing with it's earlier editions.

Or, don't listen to me, see if I care.


----------



## FireLance (Dec 28, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> It sounds very much like you want 5e to be an improved 4e....



Well, certainly I would like 5e to build on what I see to be the strengths of 4e. I did have a list of changes which I think 5e should make to the 4e ruleset, earlier in the thread.



> Those are pretty much the exact things that folks that _don't_ like 4e would want removed from the game. (And why we dropped the game to play Pathfinder, in many cases.)



Are they really that objectionable? If you ignore the actual terminology (which have probably acquired negative connotations to some gamers) it basically boils down to:

1. All characters should have options beyond making a basic attack.

2. There should be powers that characters cannot use all the time, but which can be regained after resting for a short while (less than a day). 

3. Healing should scale with character hit points. Characters should have some ability to recover hit points so that they are able to take on more than one encounter a day, while preserving the threat that they could be dropped even in the first encounter of the day.

4. There should be a system which DMs could use to structure more complex non-combat challenges.

How do any of these (or how have any of these) negatively impacted your gaming experience?


----------



## prosfilaes (Dec 28, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> Gamers tend to be an easily offended lot (just go over to rgp.net, for chrissakes). If someone is _still _offended about something a _game designer _said about a _game...*four years ago, *_then I don't know what to say. You can't design your PR around people that are that sensitive.




First impressions are important. If someone is offended four years ago, what reason do they have to reevaluate their feelings towards 4E? I don't know about you, but if I have bad feelings towards a game, a restaurant, a TV show or whatever, I don't bother to reevaluate it unless someone else encourages me to do so. With 4E, I have all sorts of sunk costs in Pathfinder and a group that's discussing switching from 3.5 to Pathfinder. Neither I, nor anybody in my shoes, has any reason to reevaluate our first impressions of 4E no matter what they're based on.


----------



## prosfilaes (Dec 28, 2011)

FireLance said:


> 3. Healing should scale with character hit points. Characters should have some ability to recover hit points so that they are able to take on more than one encounter a day, while preserving the threat that they could be dropped even in the first encounter of the day.




Please look at the thread "Why don't you like healing surges?" (or something like that). It went on for pages and pages and we probably don't need to repeat it here.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 28, 2011)

Morrus said:


> Look at the cover of the 1E DMG.  Cartoony does not come into it.   That's friggin' _iconic!_




I agree, but that is NOT the image I remember. 

This was the first D&D book I ever got, back in 1978.

EDIT:  Ok, Oldtimer, maybe it was 1979.  It was over 30 years ago, so my memory is a bit fuzzy. All I know for sure is that I was in 7th grade.


----------



## FireLance (Dec 28, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> Please look at the thread "Why don't you like healing surges?" (or something like that). It went on for pages and pages and we probably don't need to repeat it here.



I _participated_ in the thread. IMO, most of the criticisms about healing surges are more properly directed at healing _powers_. In particular:

1. Healing powers are too easy to activate. Leader role healing powers only require a minor action, and there are other powers that allow the user to attack in addition to healing an ally.

2. Healing powers can be used too often. All PCs can use their second wind once per encounter, and leader role healing powers (again) can be used twice per encounter, three times at higher levels. Characters can also gain access to other encounter powers that restore hit points. 

You don't need healing surges to enable healing to scale with hit points. Previous editions did this by increasing the potency of the various _cure X wound_ spells with the level of the spell. I just happen to think that the healing surge approach of fixing the basic healing effect at a set percentage of the character's total hit points is neater.

You don't need healing surges for characters to recover hit points after a fight. Previous editions did this through the various _cure X wound_ spells, healing potions, and other magic items that restored hit points. I just happen to like the healing surge approach of making hit point restoration an individual, internal resource.


----------



## Stormonu (Dec 28, 2011)

I agree that art goes a long way for helping to evoking the game.

I'd like to see the interior of the D&D books go back to mostly black & white illos, with a small section of color pages.  

There are some newer images I like; grand fantasy landscapes wouldn't be bad, but I'd really like to see more artwork where there's a story unfolding in the picture.  They make great adventure hooks.

I'd love a DMG with this cover:






<Edit: the cover of Pathfinder's Gamemastery guide seems to be hybrid of this picture and DL10 - Dragons of Dreams.  But I'm just not quite fond of the style>

With interior art of the DMG/PHB/MM being along these lines:






(I had a hard time finding this, I seem to recall the revised 2E version was good as well)






and if someone can find the picture as we see (the back) of Regdar, Mialee and Lidda as they come over a rise to view the Caves of Chaos for the 1st time (I think it's in a late 3E book) - that picture is the definition of awe and wonder.


----------



## Aldarc (Dec 28, 2011)

Make the game flexible and open enough for me to create a wide assortment of campaigns with various play-styles, flavors, and power levels. I should be able to make a few modifications to the game to switch between low and high magic games, or a non-European flavored setting, or remove divine/arcane magic or whatever and still be fine. 

Don't let casters dominate the game. Keep the power level between the mundanes and the magical fairly even throughout the levels.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 28, 2011)

FireLance said:


> I _participated_ in the thread. IMO, most of the criticisms about healing surges are more properly directed at healing _powers_. In particular:
> 
> 1. Healing powers are too easy to activate. Leader role healing powers only require a minor action, and there are other powers that allow the user to attack in addition to healing an ally.
> 
> ...



The thing to bear in mind is that a lot of folks _don't_ prefer the healing surge approach, and in fact loathe the damned thing.

Waving your hand and saying that healing surges and healing spells are similar does not give them the same feel, nor even similar mechanics.

Like them or not, they are different mechanics. That thread had a few people trying to call them the same thing, and others yelling that no, they are not.

The Auld Grump


----------



## FireLance (Dec 28, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> The thing to bear in mind is that a lot of folks _don't_ prefer the healing surge approach, and in fact loathe the damned thing.
> 
> Waving your hand and saying that healing surges and healing spells are similar does not give them the same feel, nor even similar mechanics.
> 
> Like them or not, they are different mechanics. That thread had a few people trying to call them the same thing, and others yelling that no, they are not.



Oh, agreed - the flavor and mechanics of healing surges and scaling healing spells are different. I also understand that some gamers dislike healing surges with a far, far greater intensity than I dislike - well, I would say scaling healing spells, except that I don't actually _dislike_ scaling healing spells. What I (still) don't really understand is why the complaints tend to focus on healing surges rather than healing powers. If you don't mind repeating yourself, maybe you could list your reasons why 5e _shouldn't_ have healing surges - just in case MM or MC should read this thread, of course.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Dec 28, 2011)

FireLance said:


> How do any of these (or how have any of these) negatively impacted your gaming experience?



They may or may not. Let's take a look at it!



FireLance said:


> 1. All characters should have options beyond making a basic attack.



I agree. "Powers" don't need to be the solution, though. My game uses a martial stance and maneuver system I created, Conan uses combat maneuvers as you qualify for them, etc.

Powers aren't necessarily bad, but it's requesting a specific solution to your question, above.



FireLance said:


> 2. There should be powers that characters cannot use all the time, but which can be regained after resting for a short while (less than a day).



My problem is the "encounter" or "scene" terminology. As a player, when encounters become hazy, I have to wonder if this is a new encounter. If I'm sneaking into a place, get into a quick but quiet fight and use an encounter power, and then spend the next hour real-time sneaking around accomplishing things before getting into a fight fifteen minutes later in-game, is it a new encounter? To some groups yes, and to some no.

The problem for me is questioning it, and the reasoning why. Is there a reason why I can only do it once per encounter? If so, cool. Maybe it takes a bit to recharge? If so, why? Refocuses my ki, refilling my arcane pool? What about thieves and warriors? Diplomats? Craftsmen? If it fatigues them, why aren't they literally fatigued (as the condition)?

So, it has a recharge. How long, though? Five minutes? If I'm fighting someone, and we fight for two rounds and I use my encounter power, and then we talk for five minutes in-game while in a tense standoff, can I use my encounter power again? Many groups would consider this the same encounter. If I can use it again, why isn't it a five-minute recharge, not an "encounter" recharge? And, if it's five minutes, why that period of time?

It makes me ask questions about how the mechanics interact with the game world, and usually leaves me coming up dry. I'm okay with this for certain supernatural forces (they're obviously given more leeway), but if I'm spending time figuring out why I can't use something right now (because there's no explanation that works for me), it pulls me out of immersion.

I don't like mechanics that seem purely for game balance but basically ignore me when I question why they work the way they do in-game. I want to be immersed. I don't want to leave "actor stance", basically.

Tastes differ, obviously, but you asked how this could negatively affect my game. There you go. I'm more okay with "you need five minutes to refill your inner arcane pool" than I am "you can use this ability once per encounter." YMMV.



FireLance said:


> 3. Healing should scale with character hit points. Characters should have some ability to recover hit points so that they are able to take on more than one encounter a day, while preserving the threat that they could be dropped even in the first encounter of the day.



Why not just have healing effects scale? You have healing effects have a Magnitude of 1, 2, 3, or 4 (25%, 50%, 75%, 100%). _Cure Light Wounds_ is a M:1 cure spell, while _Heal_ is a M:4 cure spell. You don't need healing surges to accomplish this.

Healing surges would be fine with me if they could only be activated magically or supernaturally, or if they only refilled your "other" HP pool (fate, luck, fatigue, etc.). Otherwise, you get people questioning why someone can take a blow from an ogre that might kill him (but we don't know until those death saving throws are done!), but he can get up and "nevermind, he wasn't almost dying!" when someone yells at him.

Again, it leads back to my preference for immersion and "actor stance". Healing surges, in their current implementation, trample on that to a significant degree, and thus negatively affect my game.



FireLance said:


> 4. There should be a system which DMs could use to structure more complex non-combat challenges.



Again, like powers and healing surges, this does not have to mean that you need to use skill challenges. I'm okay with specific uses of skill challenges (as effectively extended skill checks, a la WoD), but I strongly dislike the current implementation.

I dislike having the number of successes necessary to succeed determined _before_ anyone tries to solve the damn problem. That's really what screams "don't use me!" to my group or play style. For extended skill checks it works, because you know only one skill or method will be used. For their current uses, you don't know who is going to try what, and which skills will be used, and yet you've already decided "you need 6 successes."

You want more open skill challenges. I'd like them radically altered and reigned in. How does it affect my game? It feels forced, clunky, and poor. Obviously people disagree, which is fine, but it makes for a gaming experience that is significantly dampened for the duration of their use.



I would like to say, however, that I'm really open to more options than basic attacks (even powers as part of that resolution), bursts of power on a "short" recharge time (not encounter powers), scaling healing (healing surges work, but not in their current implementation), and complex non-combat challenges (not skill challenges in anything near their current form).

The goals are not inherently objectionable, but the solutions might be to many people. I can only speak for myself and my group, though. Not saying you're wrong to ask for it, but when you ask how these things can negatively affect my gaming experience, I want to say how they can. As always, play what you like


----------



## Tallifer (Dec 28, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> I've been advocating a "4E Revised edition", with at least a re-formatted, errata-ed, improved PHB. But that's already half way to 5E.
> 
> All of your suggestions are really good ones, but why not fold them into a 5E that is still loosely compatible with 4E in a similar way that 2E was with 1E?
> 
> ...




I could really get behind a 4.5 done like 3.5, where the same system is simply improved in its details (revamping any weak feats, powers, items and powers to make them as equally appealing as the other good ones). Call it 5th edition,   but keep ALL the good stuff from 4th edition.

I would not make it compatible with other older editions however, since those are already amply and well supported by other companies. I suppose chasing those customers could work in a Pepsi versus Cola kind of way, but I would hate to see Wizards and Paizo scrapping over the exact same market share: better to let each do what they do best and serve everyone that way.


----------



## FireLance (Dec 28, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> They may or may not. Let's take a look at it!



Sure!



> I agree. "Powers" don't need to be the solution, though. My game uses a martial stance and maneuver system I created, Conan uses combat maneuvers as you qualify for them, etc.



I think "power" is another one of those 4e terms that have acquired negative connotations (in some circles) beyond what they actually mean. To me, anything that the character (or player) needs to actively decide to use is a power. Even conditional and situational abilities can be described by "Trigger:" or "Requirement:" lines. So, it seems to me that it's just a matter of terminology here. What you call stances and maneuvers, I would probably just call "powers".



> My problem is the "encounter" or "scene" terminology. As a player, when encounters become hazy, I have to wonder if this is a new encounter. If I'm sneaking into a place, get into a quick but quiet fight and use an encounter power, and then spend the next hour real-time sneaking around accomplishing things before getting into a fight fifteen minutes later in-game, is it a new encounter? To some groups yes, and to some no.



There shouldn't be any confusion. Just as you get "daily" powers back after you take an extended rest, you get "encounter" powers back after you take a short rest. So the question ought to boil down to: did you decide to take a short (usually five minute) rest before sneaking around?



> So, it has a recharge. How long, though? Five minutes? If I'm fighting someone, and we fight for two rounds and I use my encounter power, and then we talk for five minutes in-game while in a tense standoff, can I use my encounter power again? Many groups would consider this the same encounter. If I can use it again, why isn't it a five-minute recharge, not an "encounter" recharge? And, if it's five minutes, why that period of time?



I usually would rule no, if you are talking with a potentially hostile enemy for five minutes, you are likely to be alert and not actually resting. If some PCs decide to actually ignore the situation and rest while another PC handles the negotiations, I would allow them to regain their encounter powers if hostilities did not actually break out during those five minutes. And if they did, I'd rule that they are unable to act and grant combat advantage in the first round of combat. So, the individual players will have to decide whether or not they want to risk resting during a tense standoff. You don't get your encounter powers back at the start of the next "encounter" or after a five minutes have elapsed, no matter what happens in the interim (it's not like a video game recharge, you know). You need to rest for five minutes first, and this normally takes place after an encounter has ended. As for why five minutes, I don't think there's any particular scientific reason. 



> I'm more okay with "you need five minutes to refill your inner arcane pool" than I am "you can use this ability once per encounter." YMMV.



4e encounter powers are actually closer to the former than the latter. That they are closer to the latter than the former is a misconception (which sometimes, in my more cynical moments, I think is deliberately spread by those who want to make 4e look less realistic than it actually is).



> Why not just have healing effects scale? You have healing effects have a Magnitude of 1, 2, 3, or 4 (25%, 50%, 75%, 100%). _Cure Light Wounds_ is a M:1 cure spell, while _Heal_ is a M:4 cure spell. You don't need healing surges to accomplish this.



Such an approach would mean that healing abilities must be entirely daily, unless you are fine with the idea that characters can just keep regaining hit points (because they can keep resting five minutes and regaining their encounter healing powers). And frankly, seven daily uses of a M:1 healing ability works pretty much like seven healing surges, IMO.



> Healing surges would be fine with me if they could only be activated magically or supernaturally, or if they only refilled your "other" HP pool (fate, luck, fatigue, etc.). Otherwise, you get people questioning why someone can take a blow from an ogre that might kill him (but we don't know until those death saving throws are done!), but he can get up and "nevermind, he wasn't almost dying!" when someone yells at him.



It seems to me that the issue is more with non-magical healing than with healing surges per se. 



> I dislike having the number of successes necessary to succeed determined _before_ anyone tries to solve the damn problem. That's really what screams "don't use me!" to my group or play style. For extended skill checks it works, because you know only one skill or method will be used. For their current uses, you don't know who is going to try what, and which skills will be used, and yet you've already decided "you need 6 successes."



Eh, the way I see it, if someone comes up with a good idea that the DM thinks would resolve the situation, he should be free to declare "problem solved", and move on. In a way, it's related to the "grind" issue in 4e combats. The minute there's a foregone conclusion and rolling dice stops being interesting, just delcare that the PCs have won.

Edit to add: And IMO, the DM shouldn't be plucking the number of successes out of the air. He actually ought to have some idea beforehand of the obstacles that need to be overcome and how difficult overcoming each ought to be. To me, that's the strength of the skill challenge system: encouraging the DM to consider at least one potential solution beforehand. And if the players find a solution that resolves the issue in a simpler, quicker way, well, they deserve to be rewarded!



> I would like to say, however, that I'm really open to more options than basic attacks (even powers as part of that resolution), bursts of power on a "short" recharge time (not encounter powers), scaling healing (healing surges work, but not in their current implementation), and complex non-combat challenges (not skill challenges in anything near their current form).
> 
> The goals are not inherently objectionable, but the solutions might be to many people. I can only speak for myself and my group, though. Not saying you're wrong to ask for it, but when you ask how these things can negatively affect my gaming experience, I want to say how they can. As always, play what you like



Good to know!


----------



## Hassassin (Dec 28, 2011)

I'd like to see a minimal playable set of rules on one page, plus maybe one more page for each class/archetype. Those should be enough for at least ten levels of play. In fact, I'd like to see the basic players' rulebook be just a handout you get with a DM's guide.


----------



## prosfilaes (Dec 28, 2011)

[MENTION=3424]FireLance[/MENTION]: I don't see why this needs reopening here. We had a lengthy discussion on healing surges that should have made it clear that for better or worse some people think they're different and don't like them. A lot of your things have had extensive threads that came to the same conclusion; for various reasons, certain people don't like them. Is this really the place to argue for them?



Hassassin said:


> I'd like to see a minimal playable set of rules  on one page, plus maybe one more page for each class/archetype. Those  should be enough for at least ten levels of play. In fact, I'd like to  see the basic players' rulebook be just a handout you get with a DM's  guide.




Why are you looking at WotC for that? That type of system is pretty easy for any small publisher to write up, and I think WotC is pretty big on the idea of selling a $35 (retail) book to each and every player, or the equivalent in online reference material.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 28, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> [MENTION=3424]FireLance[/MENTION]: I don't see why this needs reopening here. We had a lengthy discussion on healing surges that should have made it clear that for better or worse some people think they're different and don't like them. A lot of your things have had extensive threads that came to the same conclusion; for various reasons, certain people don't like them. Is this really the place to argue for them?



Exactly.  I've been long-winded about surges in the past and don't see my issues being even touched on here.  I started to jump in but decided not to clog this thread with the same old stuff.  It is out there for anyone who wants to go looking.

Suffice it to say there are very reasonable justifications for strongly disliking surges.  That doesn't make loving surges at all wrong.  No claim whatsoever of that.  

But, if the conversation is "what will make 5E more popular than 4E" and a reply is "I love 4E and I love surges, therefore 5E should have surges", then the merits of that reply to serving the "more popular" goal should be questioned.


----------



## Weregrognard (Dec 28, 2011)

Mike & Monte,

I have never prayed to you before. I have no tongue for it. No one, not even you, will remember if there were good editions or bad. Why we played, or why we fought (on the net). All that matters is that two (game designers) stood against many (fans). That's what's important! Gaming pleases you, Mike and Monte... so grant me one request. Grant me the best D&D ever! And if you do not listen, then to HELL with you!


----------



## JamesonCourage (Dec 28, 2011)

FireLance said:


> What you call stances and maneuvers, I would probably just call "powers".



Sounds good to me, then 



FireLance said:


> So the question ought to boil down to: did you decide to take a short (usually five minute) rest before sneaking around?



Got it. Thanks for the 4e clarification, that helps slightly.



FireLance said:


> As for why five minutes, I don't think there's any particular scientific reason.



I'd like there to be. Or, I'd like some ideas on why it is. Or some guidelines.



FireLance said:


> 4e encounter powers are actually closer to the former than the latter. That they are closer to the latter than the former is a misconception (which sometimes, in my more cynical moments, I think is deliberately spread by those who want to make 4e look less realistic than it actually is).



Fluff-wise, for sure. Mechanically, I'm not sure how it's actually closer.



FireLance said:


> Such an approach would mean that healing abilities must be entirely daily, unless you are fine with the idea that characters can just keep regaining hit points (because they can keep resting five minutes and regaining their encounter healing powers). And frankly, seven daily uses of a M:1 healing ability works pretty much like seven healing surges, IMO.



But the feel is so much different. Some people prefer healing surges, some prefer healing spells. I'm the latter. On the infinite healing note, though, in my game you can overchanneling healing (use it at-will, basically), although it converts the damage to nonlethal and fatigues you. I'm not against a conversion or some such other safeguard to prevent infinite healing, though at high levels I haven't seen infinite healing as much of a problem. Definitely changes the feel of the game, though (like when my players are able to provide themselves with all the wealth they'll ever need).



FireLance said:


> It seems to me that the issue is more with non-magical healing than with healing surges per se.



Non-magical instant healing, really. Or, non-magical instant healing of actual physical wounds (the "other" HP pool I mentioned could be an HP pool of fate, luck, stamina, morale, etc., and could potentially be restored non-magically depending on table interpretation of that pool).



FireLance said:


> Eh, the way I see it, if someone comes up with a good idea that the DM thinks would resolve the situation, he should be free to declare "problem solved", and move on.
> 
> And if the players find a solution that resolves the issue in a simpler, quicker way, well, they deserve to be rewarded!



Yep, agree with these. The skill challenge system might be interesting to me, but not as implemented (I'm currently working on my own take, but it's not an easy task. It definitely might have roots in 4e, but is certainly not the same as it is now. Goes to show that I'm at least open to the idea, if I felt it was mechanically sound). 



FireLance said:


> Good to know!



Thanks for the very productive and civil reply. I feel good adding to this thread. As always, play what you like


----------



## Elf Witch (Dec 28, 2011)

Here is my wish list.

Less classes, while I think options are great, do we really need a lot of classes to do this. For example instead of having wizards, sorcerers, warlocks, witches as separate classes have one mage class that can be customized  to allow players to make the type of magic user they want.

Don't punish magic users because magic does things better than the class abilities ie rituals to do knock that cost the mage a lot of gold and giving up power. There are times those type of spells are needed to keep the game moving forward.

I would like to see less dependency on magic items have rules for items to improve as a character levels so that masterwork sword later becomes a +1.

I like skills but I don't like that it is so easy to max out a skill that there becomes no chance for failure. Another thing instead of having class skills and cross class allow all skills to be open to every class so that players can customize their characters to do what they see them doing.

I hate multiclassing because so often it is used to make these monster characters that dominate the game. Find a way to allow people to multiclass but make it harder to end up with these type characters.

I am not fond of the way clerics are done in 3E I don't play 4E so I don't know how they do them. The main thing I dislike is that all clerics have the same flavor . Domain spells don't really make them that different.  I would like to see armor, weapons choice and even spells tailored to the god you worship. It makes sense for a cleric of a martial god to be running around in plate but not so much a cleric of a nature god. I miss the sphere system for spells.


----------



## Frostmarrow (Dec 28, 2011)

On art: Wouldn't it be great if the player books had sketchy art such as you would find in Drake's or Jones' journals, or indeed the 3E PHB, and the DM books had fully developed four color art? Set up like this the player books hint at what is to come and the DM gets the full show.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 28, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> Here is my wish list.
> 
> Less classes, while I think options are great, do we really need a lot of classes to do this. For example instead of having wizards, sorcerers, warlocks, witches as separate classes have one mage class that can be customized  to allow players to make the type of magic user they want.
> 
> ...



Rituals were one of those things that I liked the sound of, but hated the implementation of. 

Multiclassing can go either way - I have seen characters that were hobbled by the player not thinking through what the character would look like at the end. (Sorcerer/wizards, to get those extra low level spells, as an example.)

Pathfinder, on the other hand, does not punish multiclassing, but does reward seeing a class through to the end.

I would like to see a way to scale adventures - Spycraft and Fantasy Craft, as an example, do a very good job of this. I was able to do up the bulk of my Fallout sandbox campaign for Spycraft without worrying when the PCs might arrive at a given area.

The Auld Grump


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 28, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Exactly.  I've been long-winded about surges in the past and don't see my issues being even touched on here.  I started to jump in but decided not to clog this thread with the same old stuff.  It is out there for anyone who wants to go looking.
> 
> Suffice it to say there are very reasonable justifications for strongly disliking surges.  That doesn't make loving surges at all wrong.  No claim whatsoever of that.



I agree that there are those that don't like the healing surge mechanic.  It pops them out of the immersion.  I can see that.  

And using them during short rests to heal to full was something that people strongly disliked. But 10-tapping the party with a waistband full of CLW wands did the same thing for me.

How can we find a middle ground for healing that doesn't alienate one group or another?

I like the idea of a healing surge mechanic, but it wasn't framed very well.  Still, though, I preferred it to 3e healing.


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 28, 2011)

On playstyle:

1) Decide already if D&D best supports:
a) low/traditional fantasy
b) high/anime fantasy
c) both

2) Decide already if D&D best supports:
a) 1st person perspective roleplaying via peripheral rules
b) top down or 3/4 perspective roleplaying via rules overlay
c) both

3) write rules that fully support choices for #1 and #2

4) write comprehensive player and DM guidelines to help with #3

5) playtest with veterans and newbies to see if #3 and #4 achieves #1 and #2 in actual gameplay (ie., not just in theory but in practice)

6) When marketing the new edition, make it clear what playstyle(s) the game is supporting, how and why, so that anyone who feels left out can "move on" already to a different system (or previous edition) and those who feel included can rejoice.


----------



## OnlineDM (Dec 28, 2011)

LurkAway said:


> 2) Decide already if D&D best supports:
> a) 1st person perspective roleplaying via peripheral rules
> b) top down or 3/4 perspective roleplaying via rules overlay
> c) both




Could you explain these terms? I don't think I've heard them before, and I'm not quite sure what you're getting at... but it sounds interesting!


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 28, 2011)

OnlineDM said:


> Could you explain these terms? I don't think I've heard them before, and I'm not quite sure what you're getting at... but it sounds interesting!



It's just an analogy that I used here to explain what I thought was a transition to a common/average 4e playstyle. (otherwise known as actor/author/director stance, immersive/narrativist, etc.)

Edit: Post link here .. but context is important too.


----------



## OnlineDM (Dec 28, 2011)

LurkAway said:


> It's just an analogy that I used here to explain what I thought was a transition to a common/average 4e playstyle. (otherwise known as actor/author/director stance, immersive/narrativist, etc.)




Got it, thanks. I'm not much of a video gamer, so I didn't get the 3/4 perspective reference at all.

Also, it's so annoying that permalinks on EN World don't work properly if your number of threads per page is set differently than the person who shared the link! Sigh. I was still able to find the post you mentioned, though.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 28, 2011)

OnlineDM said:


> Also, it's so annoying that permalinks on EN World don't work properly if your number of threads per page is set differently than the person who shared the link! Sigh. I was still able to find the post you mentioned, though.




There are two forms of permalink.  

1) References the page, and gives you the post in the context of the thread. This can get messed up if you have a different number of posts per page than the person who gave the link.  This is the actual "permalink" link.

2) References the post only, but it takes you to the post only.  This is the link next to "permalink", listed as the post number in the thread.


----------



## OnlineDM (Dec 28, 2011)

Could someone XP Umbran for me? He's apparently been awesome too recently for me to re-XP him.

I had no idea I could link to a specific post via the number. Yes, it's annoying to lose the context, but there've been times that I've wanted to link to a particular post on my blog or other places but have refrained from doing so because of the page number issue (I like 40 threads per page). This isn't a perfect solution, but it looks like it will work. 

Thanks!


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Dec 28, 2011)

Dear Mike & Monte,

As you work on the next iteration of the game, please do the same thing that all the previous game creators did on their specific edition:

Make a game you think is fun.

If it is, then many other people will end up agreeing with you and buying the thing.  But don't worry about any of the specifics you see here, on your own boards, on RPG.net or wherever else you might look.  Because there is not a _single_ thing you will put in your new book that someone, somewhere will not bitch about.  We're going to complain about everything.  So just do what you feel is right, and know that some people will appreciate it.


----------



## Hassassin (Dec 28, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> Why are you looking at WotC for that? That type of system is pretty easy for any small publisher to write up, and I think WotC is pretty big on the idea of selling a $35 (retail) book to each and every player, or the equivalent in online reference material.




Because I'd also like to see all kinds of extensions, advanced rules, not to mention campaign settings and adventure paths to support the system. Those we don't really get from indies, on the same scale anyway.


----------



## RHGreen (Dec 28, 2011)

I think my primary wish would be the following:

Completely separate Combat - Social - Professional

Even to the point of having 3 separate classes per character.

Examples:

Cleric - Diplomat - Religion
Barbarian - Bully - Wood
Fighter - Charmer - Metal
Mage - Manipulator - Alchemy
Rogue - Blackmailer - Crime

The idea is that every single character does not have to sacrifice one area of ability to be any good in another. ALL characters are useful in combat and ALL characters have their own style and use in social encounters. Then shove all the non-combat/social into a separate professional class area. That way all the secondary type skills are there without interfering with the other 2. All 3 will not interfer with each other and cause design problems.

Will they please do something like this like many have been asking (usually called Siloing) for donkeys years.

Please Santa.


----------



## Mercurius (Dec 28, 2011)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Dear Mike & Monte,
> 
> As you work on the next iteration of the game, please do the same thing that all the previous game creators did on their specific edition:
> 
> ...




I agree with your sentiment here but think the last paragraph is an over-simplification. First of all, it isn't _either _you try to every single demand please everyone _or _you ignore any input and just make a game that's fun to you. You can do both (in fact, I'm sure that they are doing both).

Secondly, reading over this thread I'm pleasantly surprised--well, not all that surprised--to see just how similar the wish lists are. There isn't a lot of disagreement; sure, there is some, but there are some pretty strong generally held hopes for 5E. It is sort of like DNA - we share 60% of our DNA with bananas, 70% with slugs (which makes me wonder how much DNA slugs and bananas share, but that's majorly off-topic), 80% with mice, 

My point being, there are some core similarities between what everyone gets out of the RPG experience; the "shared ethos" starts diverging the more detailed we get, and the greater number of folks, but I think there is a sweetspot where you please as many people as possible and still create the game that you (the designers) want to play, that is innovative, etc. Considering how finicky gamers are, I think it would be possible to start at the banana level (proverbially speaking) and create a game that pleases 60% of D&D players, if the core is simple enough and focuses on archetypal fantasy tropes. 

That sweetspot can be extended, though, through the simple core/modular options approach. Create a simple core game that can easily be learned within the cozy confines of a lovely box set, and then expand that game with the Basic core at the heart of every product, but with easily exchangeable (modular) rules options for pretty much anything you want. This, I think, could please 70-80% of D&D players and bring us up somewhere into the slug-to-mouse range.

Is it possible to get to 90%? Probably not, both because of what you say--the unavoidable disgruntledness--but also because of basic human psychology, that most/many of us make decisions first and foremost through gut feeling and affective response, and then secondarily through logic and reason. That isn't a bad thing; I personally try to combine gut/intuition and logic/reason in my decision making, but I admit to frequently following the former over the latter, and I don't think it is "wrong." 

So I think WotC needs to think about how their presentation and PR impacts people, how people respond to art, and what the "feel" of the community is. The Paizo community is much more tight-knit, harmonious, and "homey." Even though they've become a pretty large RPG company (my guess is the fourth biggest ever after TSR, WotC, and White Wolf?), they've managed to retain that "mom-and-pop" feel. Can WotC recapture that? I'm not sure. They need the right people, and they need to differentiate those folks that are good at game design and those that are good at PR and community building; the two aren't inherently mutually exclusive, but they are very different skill sets.


----------



## Mercurius (Dec 28, 2011)

[MENTION=52734]Stormonu[/MENTION], that Thor drawing is just a great picture--I forgot about it (_Deities & Demigods, _if I remember correctly?). Is that Roslof or Jeff Dee? Can't remember (I'm not home so I can't check).

Anyhow, I remember conversations about the 3E art over a decade ago and there was a common complaint that the soul had gone out of the art, that Todd Lockwood's art was a bit stiff and lifeless. It seems that 4E has similar complaints, although they are more to do with what Morrus was talking about: spike-a-palooza, ninja-kewlness, and "dungeon-punk." Basically what I think is a rather unholy and excessive WoW and anime influence.

What seems to be lacking from WotC for 10+ years is art direction, and I mean _art. _Someone who can see the difference between the dynamic liveliness of Frank Frazetta and the technically brilliant but rather lifeless Boris Vallejo approach. 

It may not even be the fault of the arts, really, as they may have been commissioned for a certain type of art--still figures, snippets here and there, rather than action scenes. This, again, has to do at least as much with art direction than the actual artists that are employed.


----------



## Stormonu (Dec 28, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> [MENTION=52734]Stormonu[/MENTION], that Thor drawing is just a great picture--I forgot about it (_Deities & Demigods, _if I remember correctly?). Is that Roslof or Jeff Dee? Can't remember (I'm not home so I can't check).




Its by Roslof, and I believe it's in the Fiend Folio, I believe.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Dec 28, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> You can do both (in fact, I'm sure that they are doing both).




Which is exactly my point.  They already know everything that is being said here, because it's been said ad nauseum for years.  There is not a single point that's been made in this thread that hasn't already been made before.  So at this point, there's really nothing left for me to say but "best of luck as you go forward with what you're doing, I'm sure many of us will like it."


----------



## howandwhy99 (Dec 28, 2011)

Hassassin said:


> I'd like to see a minimal playable set of rules on one page, plus maybe one more page for each class/archetype. Those should be enough for at least ten levels of play. In fact, I'd like to see the basic players' rulebook be just a handout you get with a DM's guide.




I've been thinking along these lines for awhile. I do believe the pure *game rules* of D&D could be parsed down to a page, but it's not as if we need to be so limited. I could see 3 or 4 pages more (even 20?) by including paragraphs of explanation after each rule. This would go a long way towards clarifying them for oddities during play. Of course the suggested code creation guidelines could cover multiple large books, but I count those as different than the rules.

A Players Handbook too could be about one page, but I don't see it needing to be only a reprint of the rules either.  As a handbook I would suggest it offer multiple strategic variants as well as numerous PC record log examples. In this way I would probably swap the current roles of the DMG as guidebook and PHB as rulebook. Plus, none of the PHB beyond the rules would really need be read by any player before beginning. It's almost entirely strategy guide and therefore not about the right way to play the game. Think of it like a strategy guide for Chess, M:tG, or a computer game. It's there as common hints, character building, and walkthrougs if you desire such things.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Dec 28, 2011)

AnonGemini said:


> I think my primary wish would be the following:
> 
> Completely separate Combat - Social - Professional
> 
> ...



You know with a modular game we might see something like this. 4E Roles are almost entirely about skirmish combat. I could see alternate add-ons with Roles as well with particular variety and balance to the module.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Dec 28, 2011)

AnonGemini said:


> I think my primary wish would be the following:
> 
> Completely separate Combat - Social - Professional
> 
> ...



Yeah this and add race onto that for 4 dif mixes all equally important. LOVE it


----------



## SkredlitheOgre (Dec 28, 2011)

Dear Mike and Monte,

My wife had a great idea.  She's a long-time, old school gamer who doesn't understand all of this 'edition' nonsense.  I love her anyway.

So, her idea is to help attract new players and new GMs to the game.  Take the Core Rulebook or DMG or PH or whatever book you release, and make the first four 'chapters' Race, Class, Abilities Scores (and spells for Spellcasters) and Equipment.  Give Clerics one Domain until they get the hang of it.  Trim down the amount of Equipment and Class Abilities available for the new people and have them run two or three levels, or until they feel comfortable with the rules, and _then_ say 'Here are your Skills, Feats, extra Equipment and all that other jibber jabber.'

"If someone hasn't played the game before, it can be really confusing." is her quote.  Along with "That rulebook (my PF Core Rulebook) is a rally big list of rules.  They need to be made simpler for people who have never played before."

This could be done with a 'Basic' and 'Expert' set of rules in the same book.  The first, I dunno, fifty pages?  Seventy five? are simply for the new players.  After that, they can pile on whatever rules they want.

I think this is a good idea.  Gold, even.  Feel free to use that.

Skredli T. Ogre Bon Jovington, III  DDS, FBI, STD


----------



## Tallifer (Dec 29, 2011)

AnonGemini said:


> I think my primary wish would be the following:
> 
> Completely separate Combat - Social - Professional
> 
> ...




For D&D, including Fourth and Fifth Edition, this kind of makes sense, since there is almost no connexion with reality. I enjoy playing 4th edition because it avoids duplicating the humdrum and tedium of real life.

But if there are detailled skills and professions in a game, I prefer them to follow real life a little more. Because in real life, you can only get really good at something by practicing it a lot, which means you are not practicing something else. Now of course talent and intelligence can increase your capability to master a variety of skills, but in the end, the best fighter will not be the best diplomat nor the best armourer.

In which case a system like Call of Cthulhu makes more sense.


----------



## Aldarc (Dec 29, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> Here is my wish list.
> 
> Less classes, while I think options are great, do we really need a lot of classes to do this. For example instead of having wizards, sorcerers, warlocks, witches as separate classes have one mage class that can be customized  to allow players to make the type of magic user they want.



I would like to see something like this: a return to the class basics.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 29, 2011)

It's interesting to see who pitches ideas that are similar to yours. Both  AnonGemini and Frostmarrow proposed similar profession/non-combat roles like I did. 

Thumbs up, [MENTION=85831]AnonGemini[/MENTION] and [MENTION=1122]Frostmarrow[/MENTION]


----------



## Rechan (Dec 29, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> Anyhow, I remember conversations about the 3E art over a decade ago and there was a common complaint that the soul had gone out of the art, that Todd Lockwood's art was a bit stiff and lifeless. *It seems that 4E has similar complaints, although they are more to do with what Morrus was talking about: spike-a-palooza, ninja-kewlness, and "dungeon-punk."* Basically what I think is a rather unholy and excessive WoW and anime influence.



Emphasis mine. 

Spikeybits and Dungeon-punk was front and center with 3.0. Open your 3.0 PHB and what do you see?












There's spikes and piecemeal armor and tattoos all over the place. And that was _well_ before WoW. Where did that come from?

Back when 3e was announced (but not released), WotC had a Gen Con panel. One was about audience feedback/brainstorming, and the topic came to art, or at least, how the new game could _feel_. As the discussion went, someone suggested that adventurers would have mottled armor - basically having strapped random stuff to them, like Mad-Max style. That they would be gritty and grungy and it would look make-shift. THis was very exciting to the audience gathered, and the designers then wrote that down.


----------



## Derren (Dec 29, 2011)

The classes in 5E should be much more open than the 4E.
In the current edition (or rather when 4E came out), the class you choose locked you into a single combat-playstyle.

A ranger was either an archer or fought with 2 weapons, a fighter had a two handed weapon or a sword&shield, etc. And once chosen that speciality could hardly be changed (except through retraining, but that is another can of worms).

It made characters very inflexible in the beginning (I am sure that with more rules like hybrids, etc. this isn't as much of a problem now than it was a gew years ago).

But basically it comes down to "Don't make balanced combat the highest goal of the game". That was the whole reason for the classes being so rigid, as otherwise they couldn't ensure that they have the expected power level at all times.

PS: I agree with Rechan that 4E was not the start of the "spiked anime" look (Although 4E continued the trend). I would rather defined the 4E art as "ass & boobs babes" look.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 29, 2011)

Morrus said:


> Here's my top-ten wish list:
> 
> 1) Stick to older races, at least in core.  I'm not personally fond of tieflings, dragonborn, etc.  There's room for them in supplements.
> 
> ...




I agree with all of these except (4), which in 4e causes me too much cognitive dissonance, and makes it harder for me to learn the rules. Why does this monster have a Pin attack with its spear that recharges on a 6 while that one has a Pin attack that recharges when the target saves against the Pin? Why are there so many similar but slightly different monster powers that seem to lack rhyme or reason to whether they are encounter, recharge or something else? 

I really really agree on 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 10 though!


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 29, 2011)

Morrus said:


> Like I said - scenes, not photoshoots.




Some of the only 4e scenes were tucked away in the 'worlds and monsters' preview booklet IIRC. i.e. rarely seen! There was one book which had a homage to 'keep on the borderlands' and I remember the stir that made as it was an actual adventuring locale - the whole thing, not just posed people!


----------



## Derren (Dec 29, 2011)

About the whole "Exception based monster design", keep it to monsters, not npcs.

It is fine when that demonic orc or giant can do things the PCs can never do, but when Joe the human NPC can do thinks that Bob the human PC can never do it gets silly. (Common example at 4E release: Be a necromancer).


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 29, 2011)

If I was to include my own wishlist (in addition to things I've agreed with above), I think I'd like to see rules along the BECMI kind of scale - starting with simple rules for basic, 1st level characters, adding the possibility of more extensive rules at later levels.

More later as my brain cells start working properly.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 29, 2011)

Plane Sailing said:


> If I was to include my own wishlist (in addition to things I've agreed with above), I think I'd like to see rules along the BECMI kind of scale - starting with simple rules for basic, 1st level characters, adding the possibility of more extensive rules at later levels.
> 
> More later as my brain cells start working properly.



I think that I have said the same thing about BECMI. 

But for gods' sakes, put more than two levels in the B book! I really expected the new Red Box to do well, but having two levels and such limited options killed it before it could walk.

The Auld Grump


----------



## KidSnide (Dec 29, 2011)

I would like to see 5e fix the silo-ing problem between Utility powers and Feats.  Rather than having one set of powers and a second set of bonuses that are both mixed between non-offensive combat abilities and non-combat abilities, create a non-offensive combat pool and a non-combat pool.  Provide powers and fixed bonuses for both pools.  

That way, characters can be more or less complicated depending on the type of abilities they choose to take.  Similarly, DMs can customize their campaign by letting the PCs select more combat abilities or more non-combat abilities, depending on the focus of the campaign.

A few other ideas (all stated by others) that I agree with:

- Minis should be optional.
- There should be fewer powers, and similar powers should be shared by multiple classes _and_ the appropriate monsters.
- High level characters should be less complicated.
- There should be fewer magic items in the default version of the game.
- A simple basic version of D&D should be a core part of the game, not a late add-on.
- The PHB should be fun to read, not a text book on powers.
- The 3rd party licensing rules should be made generous enough that there will be more 3rd party content.  I suspect allowing 3rd parties to integrate into the WotC electronic tools is the critical component to make that happen.

-KS


----------



## 3catcircus (Dec 29, 2011)

Plane Sailing said:


> Why does this monster have a Pin attack with its spear that recharges on a 6 while that one has a Pin attack that recharges when the target saves against the Pin? Why are there so many similar but slightly different monster powers that seem to lack rhyme or reason to whether they are encounter, recharge or something else?




I don't even know what that means but I don't like it at all.  This is part of the reason why 5e should completely ditch any and all terminology associated exclusively with 4e.

5e combat ought to allow that different monsters (and PCs) can do different things based upon how skilled they are vs. by virtue of just being a certain monster type or character class - this would ensure that the basic mechanic is the same but the more skilled combatant is able to do much more in a default situation.


----------



## Aldarc (Dec 29, 2011)

Morrus said:


> 5) Allow monsters to keep exception based design.  This is the very best thing that came out of 4E for me.  I don't subscribe to the "well, if the dragon can do that, then I should be able to, too" school of thought.
> 
> 9) Miniatures can be great, but I'd rather they not be required.  This probably means reducing the exact tactical positioning elements of the game, and abstracting a little more.  I still feel that the best battlemap will always be the one the players imagine in their head.  Miniatures can be useful at times, though, so don't rule them out.
> 
> 10) Decrease reliance no magical items even further.  Sure, allow the DM to have a magicness dial if you like, for those who like their magic items.  4E is an improvement on 3E in that regard (it's more a Christmas shrub than a Christmas tree) but didn't go quite far enough.  Make every magic item distinct and interesting (see spells, above).



I don't necessarily agree with some of your list points (i.e. Vancian magic), but these are three points with which I definitely agree, especially #9, which was a big turn-off for me with 4E.


----------



## FireLance (Dec 29, 2011)

howandwhy99 said:


> You know with a modular game we might see something like this. 4E Roles are almost entirely about skirmish combat. I could see alternate add-ons with Roles as well with particular variety and balance to the module.



Just to plug the proposal of themes as the basic building blocks of a character a bit more - I think this can easily be done under a themes framework. You could have Non-Combat Role themes in addition to Class, Race, and Background themes. The DM could then require all characters to have one class theme, one race theme, and one or more themes from any group, or he could allow each player to pick any three (or more) themes for his PC.


----------



## Frostmarrow (Dec 29, 2011)

Rechan said:


> It's interesting to see who pitches ideas that are similar to yours. Both  AnonGemini and Frostmarrow proposed similar profession/non-combat roles like I did.
> 
> Thumbs up, [MENTION=85831]AnonGemini[/MENTION] and [MENTION=1122]Frostmarrow[/MENTION]




Maybe we are on to something? I think it's important, though, not to have classes and themes forming a perfect matrix. When it comes to D&D I expect some idiosyncracies. If the game is too elegant it sort of plays you. If there are no loose ends the human brain won't be intrigued and lured in to exploring the system.

Another thing: If characters are no longer defined as paladin and druid but as defender/diplomats and controller/whisperers something valuable is lost. Are the classes as we know them merely going to be recipies or set customizations of recepies?


----------



## Rechan (Dec 29, 2011)

Frostmarrow said:


> Another thing: If characters are no longer defined as paladin and druid but as defender/diplomats and controller/whisperers something valuable is lost. Are the classes as we know them merely going to be recipies or set customizations of recepies?



I would prefer it if the names FIghter/Cleric/Rogue/etc were no longer _class_ names but _thematic_ names or concepts. A wizard can be conceptually so many things. A cleric of the God of Thieves _should_ be very different from the cleric of a Healing and Undead Smiting God. 

Or, your class feature likely carries the name. If you have x class feature, you're a Wizard. The combat/non combat roles don't influence the name.


----------



## FireLance (Dec 29, 2011)

Rechan said:


> I would prefer it if the names FIghter/Cleric/Rogue/etc were no longer _class_ names but _thematic_ names or concepts. A wizard can be conceptually so many things. A cleric of the God of Thieves _should_ be very different from the cleric of a Healing and Undead Smiting God.
> 
> Or, your class feature likely carries the name. If you have x class feature, you're a Wizard. The combat/non combat roles don't influence the name.



Ideally (for me at least), classes (or class themes) should capture the essence of what it means to be a member of that class. It would be easier for some classes than others. For example, wizards should have their spellbooks and rogues should sneak attack or backstab. I don't know whether clerics should still be associated with healing and turn undead, or whether these should be more generic divine powers. And what do we do for fighters?


----------



## Frostmarrow (Dec 29, 2011)

Rechan said:


> I would prefer it if the names FIghter/Cleric/Rogue/etc were no longer _class_ names but _thematic_ names or concepts. A wizard can be conceptually so many things. A cleric of the God of Thieves _should_ be very different from the cleric of a Healing and Undead Smiting God.
> 
> Or, your class feature likely carries the name. If you have x class feature, you're a Wizard. The combat/non combat roles don't influence the name.




That is a good idea!

Class titles could be titles. Something you call yourself if you can perform certain feats (not Feats). Sort of like PrC but without the progression. If you are able to defeat X number of foes in X number of rounds using a melee weapon you get to call yourself fighter (and perhaps win a class feature).

By regularly testing the characters (every four levels or so), you make sure they actually get to be what they strive to be. Alas, it could be too intrusive or feel to much like school/work. If you don't like tests you are of course free to bestow titles upon your player characters as you see fit. The two approaches are not contradictory.

What is interesting is what happens when a fighter takes up study to pass a wizard exam á la Dalamar and manages to keep/lose both titles. I'm just spitballing.


----------



## Frostmarrow (Dec 29, 2011)

FireLance said:


> Ideally (for me at least), classes (or class themes) should capture the essence of what it means to be a member of that class. It would be easier for some classes than others. For example, wizards should have their spellbooks and rogues should sneak attack or backstab. I don't know whether clerics should still be associated with healing and turn undead, or whether these should be more generic divine powers. And what do we do for fighters?




Clerics and druids are associated with holy symbols and holly. Fighters are associated with shields (traditionally) or whatever weapon is the most broken in the list in your edition of D&D. The joy of playing a fighter is cleaving. Rogues get a dagger. But I'm not sure what you are getting at.


----------



## Connorsrpg (Dec 29, 2011)

*Races*
I don't mind what races are included. I like the old and the new. Make races count across levels. Feeling different is more important to me than game balance. I agree with earlier post re making the bonuses bigger and continual. AND bring back penalties! On that...

*More Penalties*
Bring back penalties. I do not like 2 ranges (with one penalty). Bloodied should mean something. I don't mind if the numbers start out easy and get worse with damage. Saga condition track was on the right track. On a similar note....

*Being able to do everything all the time*
I am OK with the 3 actions a round. What I don't like is taking away all those nuances that players loved to discover or were logical/story related mechanics. Blunt weapons doing more damage vs skeletons. Rogues having a hard time critting constructs, etc. It is fun to make discoveries and decisions based on logic (not game rules/math) in the game. No one bothers with a hammer vs skeletons b/c arrows do the same  Sorry, but I don't find being able to do everything all the time fun. I liked when you got to say 'That is a cool idea', and there is a mechanical effect. (Blowing heads of zombies in Savage Worlds gets it).

*Class Powers/I want a game I CAN write for*
I loved the class powers at first, but quickly grew bored with them. Some do way too much (given you already have 3 goes a round). Too many don't seem class specific. Same effects with different descriptions. I loved alternate 3e classes and writing them myself, or at least adding options/changes. It is next to impossible to design a 4E class yourself. A LOT of work and little chance to get it right.  Also there is a lack of continuity of the powers - doesn't seem like getting 'better', just something completely 'new'. Characters can have a complete grab bag of powers at moment and one power can be replaced with a completely different one - I liked the improved versions of Talents. And so much work having to plan multiple powers up to 30 levels? Even the writer's Guidelines basically tell you not to do it! Personally I reckon Saga got it right. Loved Talent Trees (and I can see a correlation with the wonderful ideas on Themes being discussed above) and this was my favourite thing I thought would make it into 4E from a players perspective.

*Keep the monsters*
From a GM perspective I concur with many others in stating keeping the monster stat blocks similar to what they are. No referencing other materials is great, as is being creative with unique powers. Just tone down the hps though.

*Conditions = Good*
I agree with keeping saves etc for ongoing effects, but not everything should fit this. Should be another system similar to Disease rules for some conditions too. Poison could easily be a round to round thing or a day to day thing depending upon the poison. Should NOT just be damage.

*Make Power Sources Count*
I love power sources, but make them more distinctive, especially rules-wise.

*Keep the Story*
Don't try and rewrite the Planes, Creature origins etc again. 4E finally nailed a very good cosmology and I love the links between creatures, home plane and power source.

And finally...

*Designer Friendly*
Like classes above - provide some core examples, but more on advice and tools to help a GM develop their own races, classes, settings, subsystems etc. Give Chris Perkins a job here. Random charts are always good here  Must have an OGL too. basically I want a game I feel I can contribute meaningfully to. I really struggle to find 'space' in the 4E system.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Dec 29, 2011)

There is so much here I agree with.

Anyone know if [MENTION=56746]mudbunny[/MENTION] has seen this/included it in his regular report to WotC?


----------



## FireLance (Dec 29, 2011)

Frostmarrow said:


> Clerics and druids are associated with holy symbols and holly. Fighters are associated with shields (traditionally) or whatever weapon is the most broken in the list in your edition of D&D. The joy of playing a fighter is cleaving. Rogues get a dagger. But I'm not sure what you are getting at.



What I posted should be read in context of the basic idea of themes being the basic building blocks of a character, and class and race being groups of themes. Each theme would grant access to certain powers and benefits. So, a wizard class theme should grant access to some benefit from using a spellbook. A rogue class theme should grant access to sneak attack or backstab abilities. 

Ideally, a character with more themes would be more complex and have more choices when it comes to powers and abilities, but should still be at about the same power level as a character with fewer themes since the absolute number of powers and abilities both of them have would be the same. 

Say, the Fighter class theme grants access to a _power strike_ encounter attack power, while the Paladin class theme grants access to a _holy smite_ encounter attack power. A character with just the Fighter class theme gains _power strike_ and a character with just the Paladin class theme gains _holy smite_. A character with both the Fighter and the Paladin class themes (a multiclassed Fighter/Paladin, say) gets to choose whether he wants _power strike_ or _holy smite_ for his encounter attack power.


----------



## Connorsrpg (Dec 29, 2011)

I am loving this idea of Themes. Sounds similar to my love of Talent Trees from Saga.

I would be in favour of adding new themes throughout character progression too. Sounds like an easy way to multi-class. perhaps in place of gaining the next 'power' within current themes?


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Dec 29, 2011)

My own points I'd really want them to hit:

Have REALLY good adventures. If this requires third party publishers, that's fine. Do that. You lost me when you lost Necromancer Games for 4e.

I'd love to see more third party (a la OGL) support for 5e than has been possible/warranted for 4e. I suggest allowing for 3pps to sell "patches" or "addons" to character builder, etc. but requiring people to have your character builder for them to work. Along the same vein, I'd like to see a license more restrictive than the OGL, but not much...and for it to be much less restrictive than the GSL. Basically, I think allowing for any kind of addons, but limiting the chance to recreate the core books (effectively selling their own phb/dmg/mm etc).


Talk with your peers: Get the folks at Paizo, Goodman Games, Mongoose, etc on board with you, and get their opinions. Ask them to sell how and why they'd like to support 5e and hammer out a license that makes everyone comfortable (and do so LONG BEFORE the release of 5e).


The third party market may not matter to all, but to some it is a necessary resource to add flesh (settings and adventures) to the bones of the system (the core books and class and race splats).




Separately, have classes and races really matter and feel different. I know this has been mentioned before, but it's important enough that I echo the sentiment.

I'd love to see (with 3e as an example/model) something like the racial levels being core to the system. e.g. at levels 5, 10, 15, etc you get a racial level. What this means might be up for debate (and I think I'll start a separate thread about it), but I want a dwarven rogue, a halfling rogue, and an elvish rogue to be different...so much so that even if they took all the same equipment and class options as the same (all the same skills, feats, etc), they'd still be clearly different.


----------



## mudbunny (Dec 29, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> There is so much here I agree with.
> 
> Anyone know if [MENTION=56746]mudbunny[/MENTION] has seen this/included it in his regular report to WotC?




The holidays kept me away from the internet in general, but I did see it thanks to your mention of me, so it will be going in this weeks report.

I want to thank everyone for keeping it friendly and well-written. No (or at least not too many) accusations of "your liking this is wrong" make it more likely that they will actually read the whole thing.

Edit - Gahh, Must spread XP around!!!


----------



## the Jester (Dec 29, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> But for gods' sakes, put more than two levels in the B book! I really expected the new Red Box to do well, but having two levels and such limited options killed it before it could walk.




YES. The 4e Red Box was really cool, except for the fact that it did nothing to prepare someone to actually _play D&D._ At the end, you don't even know how to make a character! D&D shouldn't try to teach the game to new players by using a choose your own adventure format; it should try to teach new players _how to play D&D,_ including such _extremely_ basic elements as how to make a character.

Again: There's no point in releasing a "Basic Set" that doesn't teach the basics.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 29, 2011)

the Jester said:


> it should try to teach new players _how to play D&D,_ including such _extremely_ basic elements as how to make a character.




Well, in some of the schemes that seem to be under discussion, character creation may not be so basic.  That's something to be careful of, I think - really effective basic sets are difficult when character creation is complex.

That brings me around to a basic conflict I see running through many discussions - reconciling how some people want pretty complicated characters and character creation, with those who want simple systems.  Satisfying both these groups is a terribly challenging design goal.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 29, 2011)

Something else that I'd be quite happy to see in 5e

Death of feats. They have become a fiddly little nibbling away at providing corner-case customisation, and if there is a system which gives enough customisations to all classes as it is (as 4e does), then why bother with them?

I know some people love feats, but as this is *my* wishlist, I'd like to see them gone.

For the same reason I'd like to see the whole range of fiddly conditions lasting for fiddly different periods of time just disappear. None of this "immobilised save ends, blind to the start of your next round, stunned to the end of its next round, unless its bloodied when it is stunned to the beginning of its next round" where are we now kind of combat please!

In other words, I'd like simple character creation, and combat which is tactically rich but without accounting (or multiple casino chips under each mini!)

Cheers


----------



## RHGreen (Dec 29, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Well, in some of the schemes that seem to be under discussion, character creation may not be so basic. That's something to be careful of, I think - really effective basic sets are difficult when character creation is complex.
> 
> That brings me around to a basic conflict I see running through many discussions - reconciling how some people want pretty complicated characters and character creation, with those who want simple systems. Satisfying both these groups is a terribly challenging design goal.





I think the best way to do character creation is through levelling up. A the start (the basic set) you could have very basic designed characters. Keeping the characters very simple for the first 5 levels (the 1st teir) would do 2 things. It would give players who want their 0 to hero gritty teir and allow new players to get to grips with the basic foundation of D&D.

Levels after that (teir 2+) would get more detailed and complicated. Or if the player perfers choose the options that keep their character more simple but at a power level equal with everyone else (as in essentials).

Tier 1 (Levels 1 to 5) Basic/Starter Set
Introduction - Tutorial - Quick Play - Quick Character Generation - Casual (AKA Heroquest) - Campaign Introduction (NPCs, Places) - Simple Dungeon Bashes - Zero To Hero - Essentials

*If you don't like the simplicity/low power of Tier 1 and are familiar with the rules frogleap to Tier 2 - or rush through it with superquick XP rewards.

Tier 2 (Levels 6 - 10)
Added Character Powers etc with more complicated conditions/effects and rules nuances.

Tier 3 (Levels 11 - 15)
Name level, large scale battles, fortifications, guild leader, followers, etc

Tier 4 (Levels 16 - 20)
Who knows etc, etc.


----------



## His Dudeness (Dec 30, 2011)

Bring back the danger.

The thing of going into a dungeon is the real possibility that you may not come out alive. 

Also kill the 5 room dungeon dead, it's boring.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Dec 30, 2011)

Plane Sailing said:


> Something else that I'd be quite happy to see in 5e
> 
> Death of feats. They have become a fiddly little nibbling away at providing corner-case customisation, and if there is a system which gives enough customisations to all classes as it is (as 4e does), then why bother with them?
> 
> I know some people love feats, but as this is *my* wishlist, I'd like to see them gone.




I'd rather that "feats" be radically restricted and morphed into non-adventuring abilities that a character might possess but many would not. This would include crafting abilities, language abilities, etc. If you take the "Blacksmith" feat, then you get to use some ability score and/or more general skill to do Blacksmith work. If in doing all that, they want to rename the thing into something better than "feats", fine.

In 3E, "Track" was the good feat, and about the only one they killed. Go figure. "Swim" could let your Athletics ability pertain to swimming. And so on. They didn't like this design because people had to pay a feat to do what many characters should be able to do. But players didn't like that, because there were so many critical things they needed the feats for. Move all that critical stuff into class abilities or some other construct, and keep feats for the less critical things.  Then players will be happy to pick the things that matter to them.  And if in a given campaign the players want more or less of them, go ahead--it isn't a big balance issue now.

*Maybe* armor and weapon proficiencies could stay in feats, but I can't think of anything else that affects combat that should be that binary.

So in one sense I agree that "feats" would be removed, but I think there is still a useful design space for, "A character either has this thing or he doesn't. Many don't have it."

In the simple version of the game, every adventurer would be assumed to have a certain preset number of these--the ability to swim, speak an extra language or three, maybe the ability to track. For a more complex character/campaign, you can keep the default list, swap one or two, or go full custom. It's up to you. In this way, "feats" become as much about campaign customization as character tweaking. Want to play a game where everyone plays an instrument in a traveling minstril show? Every character takes "Play Instrument", and the bard PC becomes band leader. 

The feat list wouldn't be very long, and would hardly expand at all after the core rules were established. But I see this as a feature, not a bug. Every feat added lowers the value of the previous set, if only slightly. So get a good set and leave it alone.


----------



## Jeffrey (Dec 30, 2011)

Might have been mentioned, I've not read all 10+ pages, but I'll toss it out there anyway. 

Format the rules to be available in more than just paper and .pdf. Consider .mobi, .epub, and other formats which would allow users with tablets and readers to more conveniently utilize the ruleset.


----------



## Kzach (Dec 30, 2011)

I think that the most important thing to remember is that it needs to be made the way *I* want it and not the way SOMEONE ELSE OVER THERE wants it because they smell and their mother wears army boots.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Dec 30, 2011)

Jeffrey said:


> Might have been mentioned, I've not read all 10+ pages, but I'll toss it out there anyway.
> 
> Format the rules to be available in more than just paper and .pdf. Consider .mobi, .epub, and other formats which would allow users with tablets and readers to more conveniently utilize the ruleset.



Well WotC won't even do PDF of the current edition so even PDF would be a bonus!


----------



## Dice4Hire (Dec 30, 2011)

> I think that the most important thing to remember is that it needs to be made the way *I* want it and not the way SOMEONE ELSE OVER THERE wants it because they smell and their mother wears army boots.




They did make an edition specifically for you that matched your desires in very conceivable way, but you were too contrary to even buy it, so it sold zero copies and was discontinued.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Dec 30, 2011)

My personal wish list: 

There should be at least one obviously overpowered class in the PHB. I just can't take another 3.0 "monk LOL overpowered" debate.

I want a White Raven with an onslaught power in the first MM. 

Full list of playtesters in the PHB or on the website. 

More cryptic phrases: BAB / THAC0 / FORT / REF / OA - that's something any D&D edition needs. 

A new ridiculous double weapon. Maybe with a chain attached somewhere. 

A race or culture that people can accuse of being goth / emo / gothemo / adolescent. 

Something that seems to stem from an influence a sizeable (or at least vocal) majority dislikes. In the past we've got Anime & MMOs, so my ideas are: 

- Riverdance-inspired combat stances.

- A hordeling-nation based on the flashmob-phenomenon.

- The FR nation of Sembia as an allegory for the banking crisis. 

- Power suites aquired by switching robes and skirts (similar to FF X-2). 

- Power globes that gain XP, level up and can be inserted into weapons and armor.

I want a new setting that leaks some easily-misinterpreted details a couple of days before being unveiled - a la Eberron. The "OMG trainz and dinozaurs" debate entertained me for months on end. 

The word realism needs either at least 70 entries in the index or just a "see: verisimilitude". Also, a boxed text on page 7 about it basically saying "don't think to hard about it" which leads to many threads full of overthinking.

And finally: i want the old ENworld back that i enjoyed reading during the launch of 4th edition. Fresh, antagonistic, yet not really poisonous. Come on, we can do it.


----------



## Kzach (Dec 30, 2011)

Keefe the Thief said:


> And finally: i want the old ENworld back that i enjoyed reading during the launch of 4th edition. Fresh, antagonistic, yet not really poisonous. Come on, we can do it.




You and I seem to have been going to different versions of ENW at that time... not really poisonous? Lol.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 30, 2011)

Keefe the Thief said:


> - A hordeling-nation based on the flashmob-phenomenon.




Really, if you're going to get knocked for being like a video game, make it Starcraft.  And I think the zerg rush would at least be a new addition to D&D combat


----------



## Morrus (Dec 30, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Really, if you're going to get knocked for being like a video game, make it Starcraft.  And I think the zerg rush would at least be a new addition to D&D combat





I was thinking _Angry Bird_s.


----------



## Raith5 (Dec 31, 2011)

Ahnehnois said:


> Any attempt to develop D&D behind closed doors with focus groups under NDAs is doomed to failure. D&D rules are not corporate secrets. Any game claiming to be D&D, regardless of its own merits, is doomed to failure if not subject to large-scale interactive playtesting




Whatever 5th ed looks like I really hope this point is at the forefront.


----------



## DM Howard (Dec 31, 2011)

Make a game that will be be mechanically pleasing for the power-gamers and theory-crafters, "fluffily" interesting for the lore-buffs, "swingy" yet heroic enough for the realism crowd, yet simple enough to not intimidate new players.  

Make an edition that will scratch everyone's itch so well that the question "What edition?"  won't even come up anymore when someone says, "Wanna play D&D?"


----------



## Rechan (Dec 31, 2011)

Dndungeoneer said:


> Make a game that will be be mechanically pleasing for the power-gamers and theory-crafters, "fluffily" interesting for the lore-buffs, "swingy" yet heroic enough for the realism crowd, yet simple enough to not intimidate new players.
> 
> Make an edition that will scratch everyone's itch so well that the question "What edition?"  won't even come up anymore when someone says, "Wanna play D&D?"



And when you're done with that, cure cancer.


----------



## DM Howard (Dec 31, 2011)

Rechan said:


> And when you're done with that, cure cancer.




Just being wishful.


----------



## caudor (Dec 31, 2011)

Please take note of the popularity of tablets and the growth rate.  Having new material available in electronic format (pdf or otherwise) would be great.

Also, please don't wait until the last moment to spring a new edition on us.  If you plan a new edition, please let us know well in advance.  And let us know whether it will be backwards compatible or not.  

Finally, please bring back Primus (The One and the Prime)


----------



## RangerWickett (Dec 31, 2011)

Actually, I think Warhammer 40k: Rogue Trader really hits all those notes. All it needed was a 'quick play introduction' that gave you pre-made characters, and yes, it's got plenty of crunch, an incredibly rich lore that suffuses the mechanics, and really swingy but with the ability to survive seemingly overwhelming odds.


----------



## DM Howard (Dec 31, 2011)

RangerWickett said:


> Actually, I think Warhammer 40k: Rogue Trader really hits all those notes. All it needed was a 'quick play introduction' that gave you pre-made characters, and yes, it's got plenty of crunch, an incredibly rich lore that suffuses the mechanics, and really swingy but with the ability to survive seemingly overwhelming odds.




I agree and I'm a huge 40k buff, but I consider it in a different genre and thus awesome but not D&D if that makes sense.


----------



## RangerWickett (Dec 31, 2011)

Fair enough. But there's certainly a framework there for game mechanics that would work in a fantasy setting. In fact just tonight I discussed with a friend ways to differentiate melee weapons and make them more interesting in 40k, and how we might try something similar for D&D.


----------



## darjr (Dec 31, 2011)

http://fantasyflightgames.com/edge_minisite_sec.asp?eidm=78&esem=4

look for forsaken bounty. it's the freerpgday QuickStart for rogue trader. also ther is a sequel and other adventures for free there


----------



## Hussar (Dec 31, 2011)

My wishlist.

Take the idea of Skill Challenges and do them right.  Expand the concept to a VERY LARGE section of the DMG and the PHB.  Skill challenge mechanics should be as robust and as well supported as combat mechanics.

That would make me pretty happy.

-----

On the art thing.  No scenes?  Really?  Look at your PHB or DMG - there's a TON of scene art pieces.  I mean, how about this:







This isn't inspiring?

or this:






Granted, I'll totally agree that we need more of this kind of thing and less of the "posing for the camera bits", but, claims that there isn't any action scene images is just wrong.


----------



## Pour (Dec 31, 2011)

Hussar said:


> On the art thing.  No scenes?  Really?  Look at your PHB or DMG - there's a TON of scene art pieces.  I mean, how about this:




I was on the verge of posting a reply very much like yours, and now you convinced me. The art of 4e, at times, was brilliant. If and when 5e comes around, my request is to break from Wayne Reynolds style entirely and build a visual identity beyond the cartoonish- basically Michael Komarck and Igor Kieryluk, and utilizing WotC's best MtG artists (and frankly the best commercial fantasy artists of our day).

Who can forget these little numbers:


----------



## Ydars (Dec 31, 2011)

D&D seems to be played a number of different ways and designing a game that will please everyone is challenging, but I believe it's possible.

Couldn't the game be split up into 'meta-tiers' that have different design assumptions? I would propose that the 'prime material plane' be broken into 3 different planes; each with slightly different magical laws and use each as a connected setting for the game.

I would then release each meta-tier as a separate box set; much like what was done with BECMI; except that EACH metatier includes a character generation system that allows PCs to be rolled up for that level of play, quickly and efficiently.

Low level (1-5); The design goal of this metatier is to model the heroes found in most fantasy books. The setting (call it Holmgard) is gritty, dangerous and very low magic (indeed spells above 2nd level don't function on this plane because the magical weave is too weak to support them). Monsters are low level and disorganised Holmgard is humanocentric, 'grounded' and closely models the real world; think LoTR not anime. Humans and less fantastical races predominate and PCs advance, not by acquring magic items, but through 'training' to acquire intrinsic bonuses. Magic-items are extremely uncommon and cannot be bought and sold. The design assumptions at this metatier emphasise resource management and danger. Non-magical forms of healing should predominate and it should be possible to play the game without a healer at this meta-tier. Character generation should be very simple; starting with PCs as members of a class not unlike the NPC classes that were present in the DMG of 3.5E. The rest of character generation actually happens in play, as the PCs advance.


Medium Level (6-10); The design goal of this tier is to model film fantasy. At this level, the setting (Midgard) is much more fantastical and there are many more non-human PC races in the Midgard setting. An alternate character creation system would allow DMs and players to start playing at this level; bypassing the low-level meta-tier completely but the system is quick. In this tier, monsters are much more powerful, PC advancement is a mixture of magic items and training and resembles classic D&D most closely. Magic items can now be bought and sold and are much more common.

High level (11-20); The setting and playstyle at this level is almost a fantasy superheroes game. Magic items predominate as the means of advancement and many highly magical races are available as PCs; a third character generation system allows DMs and players to quickly generate PCs for this meta-tier, bypassing the first two.

If the designers did this then everyone could play D&D exactly how they want to; just by staying at the meta-tier and in the setting that supports that style of play. Those that want to do the 1-20 thing move through the settings.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 31, 2011)

Hussar said:


> On the art thing.  No scenes?  Really?  Look at your PHB or DMG - there's a TON of scene art pieces.



For me, there are too many "action scenes" and not enough landscapes, sweeping vistas and travel/adventuring scenes.  The 4e preview book Worlds and [Something or other] had some really beautiful scenes that evoked that sense of wonder I recall as a kid.


----------



## avin (Dec 31, 2011)

0. Make books we can read. PHB4E was horrible for that purpose. MM4E was horrible for that purpose.

1. No default setting.

2. Bring back old tieflings. Keep new Devas. Bring back Aasimars. Keep new fomorians. Bring back ethereal. Keep astral Sea. Bring back Mechanus. Keep Feywild (Faerie, please) and Shadowfell - I know why you are using these names now, but they do suck. Elemental Chaos should be a place where all elemental border each other, not a plane per se. 

3. Get rid of the all-explained tone for races, monster and planed you used on earlier 4E books. Leave some blank spaces. Every single player read MMs and knows that God X killed Primordial Y. 2E got it right.

4. Fluff on MM. 4EMM was horrible, then things start to getting better. While you are at it, monsters can stay as rules exceptions.

5. Ongoing damage is nice. 4E saves are nice. 4E grapple rules, or at least something like PF.

6. Nod a lot to reality. I never ever want to see a Come And Get It again. Powers should make sense. Martial non magical characters should never be "daily" restricted. It just not make sense.

7. BRING BACK YUGOLOTHS OR 5E WILL FAIL MISERABLY!!! (got you covered [MENTION=11697]Shemeska[/MENTION])

8. Test it a lot. A LOT! I don't want a 3.5 or tons of erratas or fill in feats again. Just playtest to hell.

9. Please, do not move back to a place where casters own the game at higher levels. Balance is welcome. Fighter as powerful as wizards is welcome. Not everybody plays a wizard.

MOST IMPORTANT:

10. Whatever you decide to do, please, create a very depth and solid fluff that people could use and adapt even if they have other editions of choice or even systems. I've used AD&D Monstrous Manual for years in my GURPS fantasy campaigns. Fill the holes. And this time hire some really impressive artists, we are tired of the same artists...


----------



## avin (Dec 31, 2011)

Kzach said:


> I just want D&D to improve my sex-life. Is that asking too much?




This is what Divorce is made for, not D&D


----------



## avin (Dec 31, 2011)

catsclaw227 said:


> I agree that there are those that don't like the healing surge mechanic.  It pops them out of the immersion.  I can see that.
> 
> And using them during short rests to heal to full was something that people strongly disliked. But 10-tapping the party with a waistband full of CLW wands did the same thing for me.
> 
> ...




Wish I could give you XP for suggesting a middle ground here, but spent all my XP before that


----------



## avin (Dec 31, 2011)

Rechan said:


> Emphasis mine.
> 
> There's spikes and piecemeal armor and tattoos all over the place. And that was _well_ before WoW. Where did that come from?




I've seen spikes on D&D since 2E's Planescape...


----------



## avin (Dec 31, 2011)

Hussar said:


> On the art thing.  No scenes?  Really?  Look at your PHB or DMG - there's a TON of scene art pieces.  I mean, how about this:
> (...)
> This isn't inspiring?




In my humble opinion, not, nope. I would also post that 4E has some scene art pieces but all they seem to evocate is combat, combat and combat... and that certainly not fit all tastes around here, not even among 4E fans.

My favorite 4E art was (don't have my books here) that shrine, close to a tree... no fighting at all, but that's the kind of thing I can describe and trow in a game of mine, while adventurers fighting fire giants need no much description.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 31, 2011)

I wish I could find a larger image, but these are from Worlds and Monsters.


----------



## Jeffrey (Dec 31, 2011)

Been thinking more on this. Not sure this is a fully-formed statement of desire on my part yet, but I've not been able to ignore these notions so I'll toss it out there to be commented up on and/or torn apart.

1.) Take the focus of the game out of the rulebooks and give the game _back _to the Dungeon Master.

2.) For this to be successful, you must give him/her the very basic tools (and not just an ever-growing  pile of books of rules that vainly try to cover every possible situation while adding feat after feat and power after power) to be successful. 

3.) Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, you must encourage them and provide some manner of *training *via game content; how to get into a good mindset to create and DM a game, what can be done to help a DM to think and create things on the fly (improvise!), how to think _outside _of the printed rules to delight your players, etc. A game of D&D can survive having one or two bad players. It *cannot *survive having a bad DM. This should be a top focus. Take the shackles and burden of trying to remember so many rules for each and every thing off of the DM and instead work to help provide a simple framework to show him/her how to run the kind game that excites and inspires _their unique group_. Don't tell them what they cannot do according to the rules, help them to break free and imagine what they *can *do *with *them.

4.) Then provide continued help, encouragement and the fluff and just get the hell out of their way.

-Jeff


----------



## KidSnide (Dec 31, 2011)

avin said:


> I would also post that 4E has some scene art pieces but all they seem to evocate is combat, combat and combat... and that certainly not fit all tastes around here, not even among 4E fans.




I'll add this as a broader request, including outside the art context.  I'd like to see a 5e with a lower emphasis on combat generally.  Yes, combat (as well as other forms of action) are an important part of D&D.  But D&D is also exploration, mystery and intrigue.

Individual GMs can run any sort of game with 4e, but if you look at the number of rules pages dedicated to combat and combat powers and compare that with the number of rules pages dedicated to everything else, it's easy to see why 4e has developed a reputation for laser-like focus on tactical combat.

-KS


----------



## avin (Dec 31, 2011)

KidSnide said:


> I'd like to see a 5e with a lower emphasis on combat generally.  Yes, combat (as well as other forms of action) are an important part of D&D.  But D&D is also exploration, mystery and intrigue.




Where do I sign?


----------



## Hussar (Jan 1, 2012)

KidSnide said:


> I'll add this as a broader request, including outside the art context.  I'd like to see a 5e with a lower emphasis on combat generally.  Yes, combat (as well as other forms of action) are an important part of D&D.  But D&D is also exploration, mystery and intrigue.
> 
> Individual GMs can run any sort of game with 4e, but if you look at the number of rules pages dedicated to combat and combat powers and compare that with the number of rules pages dedicated to everything else, it's easy to see why 4e has developed a reputation for laser-like focus on tactical combat.
> 
> -KS




Yeah, this I'd agree with.  As I said, leave the 4e combat section largely alone.  It's fun and it works quite well.  Now, give me a 5e with a non-combat section of mechanics as detailed as the combat section and I'm a happy, happy camper.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 1, 2012)

catsclaw227 said:


> I wish I could find a larger image, but these are from Worlds and Monsters.



I hate to admit it, but those make me wish that I hadn't paid as much attention to the text in those books, and had spent more time looking at the pictures....

That bottom one says Spelljammer to me....

The Auld Grump


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jan 1, 2012)

It's a small thing, but please, no more compound names.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/272593-laming-up-non-compound-monster-names.html


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 1, 2012)

Preface: I honestly do not want to be flamed for this or even want to start another debate on this matter, but it is my own personal preference. 

Dear Mike & Monte: 

Do not return to the Great Wheel Cosmology.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 1, 2012)

I hope they are not even thinking about whether or not to include the Great Wheel.

If they make an awesome fundamental system that is flexible and appeals to a large range of people then groups will add and remove the setting elements that work best for them.

But people won't play a game that they dislike mechanically just because the setting assumptions fit their preference.


----------



## avin (Jan 1, 2012)

Aldarc said:


> Preface: I honestly do not want to be flamed for this or even want to start another debate on this matter, but it is my own personal preference.
> 
> Dear Mike & Monte:
> 
> Do not return to the Great Wheel Cosmology.




Too late 

Well, I may live without the Great Wheel, but want all planes back and get rid of Elemental Chaos as a separated plane. I'd rather have a new cosmology for 4E than 4E's... maybe a bit more parallel planes such as Mirror and Ethereal.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 1, 2012)

avin said:


> Too late
> 
> Well, I may live without the Great Wheel, but want all planes back and get rid of Elemental Chaos as a separated plane. I'd rather have a new cosmology for 4E than 4E's... maybe a bit more parallel planes such as Mirror and Ethereal.



Well actually i mostly like and use 4e's planar cosmology but I never previously used the planar cosmology for pretty much any rpg I ever ran. I can never get the concern about planar cosmology.

I guess the Great Wheel is D&D IP, but I do not see any reason why WoTC could not publish a great Wheel setting book. There certainly seems to be a demand for it.


----------



## JeffB (Jan 1, 2012)

I've no issue with 4E's cosmology- it was refreshing after 33 years of the Great Wheel (goes all the way back to The Strategic Review folks).  I don't have any big issue with them going back to TGW either.

What I have isssue with is that they should be worrying alot more about other things than the Cosmology, which should be on the backburner. It's become some kind of big deal since 2E (or perhaps the original MOTP) and I cannot for the life of me figure out why people are so anal about it. Moldvay/Cook/Marsh B/X didn't even HAVE a cosmology and it was not an issue. Throw a AD&D Demon or devil into the game, no-one blathered on about  who it's allied with or who it fights for all eternity or what 12 planes you need to travel to find it's Fortress of Nasty Bloody Doom & Despair where it collects the tortured souls of gnomish children for all eternity. 

AFAIC, A core D&D game really doesn't need much more development than where the gods, demons and devils live/come from and a couple pages at best devoted to it in the DMG. All that planescape esque level of detail is better off for supplements down the road for the people who care or feel the need for such levels of detail.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 2, 2012)

TheAuldGrump said:


> I hate to admit it, but those make me wish that I hadn't paid as much attention to the text in those books, and had spent more time looking at the pictures....
> 
> That bottom one says Spelljammer to me....
> 
> The Auld Grump




I would point out that that bottom picture graces the back of either the PHB or the DMG (I forget which).


----------



## Zelligars Apprentice (Jan 2, 2012)

the Jester said:


> YES. The 4e Red Box was really cool, except for the fact that it did nothing to prepare someone to actually _play D&D._ At the end, you don't even know how to make a character! D&D shouldn't try to teach the game to new players by using a choose your own adventure format; it should try to teach new players _how to play D&D,_ including such _extremely_ basic elements as how to make a character.
> 
> Again: There's no point in releasing a "Basic Set" that doesn't teach the basics.




Quick anecdote: I gave my nephew a copy of the 4e Red Box for his birthday.  We played through it and had fun.  Today, the only part of it he continues to use is...the box.  He uses it to store stuff unrelated to gaming.  The contents, I assume, have long since been thrown away.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 2, 2012)

JeffB said:


> I've no issue with 4E's cosmology- it was refreshing after 33 years of the Great Wheel (goes all the way back to The Strategic Review folks).  I don't have any big issue with them going back to TGW either.
> 
> What I have isssue with is that they should be worrying alot more about other things than the Cosmology, which should be on the backburner. It's become some kind of big deal since 2E (or perhaps the original MOTP) and I cannot for the life of me figure out why people are so anal about it. Moldvay/Cook/Marsh B/X didn't even HAVE a cosmology and it was not an issue. Throw a AD&D Demon or devil into the game, no-one blathered on about  who it's allied with or who it fights for all eternity or what 12 planes you need to travel to find it's Fortress of Nasty Bloody Doom & Despair where it collects the tortured souls of gnomish children for all eternity.
> 
> AFAIC, A core D&D game really doesn't need much more development than where the gods, demons and devils live/come from and a couple pages at best devoted to it in the DMG. All that planescape esque level of detail is better off for supplements down the road for the people who care or feel the need for such levels of detail.




Keep cosmologies for the campaign guides, which is the right place for them!

Then Eberron can keep its wonderful and cool orrery cosmology, Nerath can enjoy its astral sea (which I hate as I find it uninteresting)' greyhawk can have its great wheel and so on. 

Cheers


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jan 2, 2012)

avin said:
			
		

> 7. BRING BACK YUGOLOTHS OR 5E WILL FAIL MISERABLY!!!




I always wondered why they didn't simply move the Daemons to the Shadowfell in 4E...perfect fit.


----------



## avin (Jan 2, 2012)

Upper_Krust said:


> I always wondered why they didn't simply move the Daemons to the Shadowfell in 4E...perfect fit.




Not a bad idea... but I think they fit better on Gehenna and the Gray Wastes.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jan 2, 2012)

Hello again! 



			
				avin said:
			
		

> Not a bad idea... but I think they fit better on Gehenna and the Gray Wastes.




The Shadowfell IS basically the Gray Wastes.


----------



## Shemeska (Jan 2, 2012)

Upper_Krust said:


> Hello again!
> 
> 
> 
> The Shadowfell IS basically the Gray Wastes.




And the Shadow Plane, and Ravenloft, and etc... 

Like chedder bubblegum flounder icecream at times conceptually IMO, but it could have been a decent place for the 'loths if they'd been tied into it from the start, rather than what they actually got being dumped into the Abyss with little to no integration.


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 3, 2012)

catsclaw227 said:


>



A few years ago I got a 5-adventure arc out of this one picture.  

I set it up such that the picture is of a plane where the gods can't reach, and the party arrive by walking out of a waterfall onto one of those massively long bridges.  Then I built a story around how they'd get there, and why, and what they'd be doing...and bang, a whole adventure path in one fell swoop.

Now *that's* what D+D art should do!

Lan-"art for art's sake"-efan

Edit: that link is not my doing...


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jan 3, 2012)

Hey Shemeska! 



			
				Shemeska said:
			
		

> And the Shadow Plane, and Ravenloft, and etc...
> 
> Like chedder bubblegum flounder icecream at times conceptually IMO, but it could have been a decent place for the 'loths if they'd been tied into it from the start, rather than what they actually got being dumped into the Abyss with little to no integration.




I agree the daemons/yugoloths were hard done by in 4E. That said, conceptually they were always the runt of the litter in the demons/devils/daemons triumvirate and needed a severe design rethink.

What did you think of Pathfinder's idea of tying the daemons with the Four Horsemen?


----------



## Shemeska (Jan 3, 2012)

Upper_Krust said:


> What did you think of Pathfinder's idea of tying the daemons with the Four Horsemen?




I liked it rather a lot! So much that I wrote their recent daemon book 

Despite my rather severe appreciation of the 2e 'loth material, being unable to mine that material and having to pretty much start over with the daemons for PF, it was pretty refreshing to have as much freedom as I did to make them relevant, involved, and meaningful in their place in the cosmos as equal partners conceptually with demons and devils.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jan 3, 2012)

Hello there Shemeska! 



			
				Shemeska said:
			
		

> I liked it rather a lot!




Thats weird, because back in 2006 *when I first suggested* the idea of tying the Four Horsemen to the daemons on Andy Collins forum, you were totally against the idea. Luckily the internet saves this stuff for posterity. 

FIENDISH CODEX 3: Yugoloths in D&D Discussion Forum



			
				Shemeska from 2006 said:
			
		

> any sort of association of the yugoloths with the 4 horsemen of Christian mythology is somewhat misplaced, and forgive me, but not something that fits into the NE planes of D&D where that sort of mythological basis doesn't really come into play in such an overt manner.




I guess the idea just took time to sink in. 



> So much that I wrote their recent daemon book




Congratulations. 



> Despite my rather severe appreciation of the 2e 'loth material, being unable to mine that material and having to pretty much start over with the daemons for PF, it was pretty refreshing to have as much freedom as I did to make them relevant, involved, and meaningful in their place in the cosmos as equal partners conceptually with demons and devils.




Even though I don't play Pathfinder, sounds like something I might be interested in. It was very interesting to read the Pathfinder Bestiary 2 and see that they had tied the Four Horsemen to the daemons and then given each of the Horsemen its own subservient type of daemon. Always amazes me how designers come up with these far reaching ideas.


----------



## Shemeska (Jan 3, 2012)

Upper_Krust said:


> Thats weird, because back in 2006 *when I first suggested* the idea of tying the Four Horsemen to the daemons on Andy Collins forum, you were totally against the idea. Luckily the internet saves this stuff for posterity.




Because we were talking about yugoloths specifically as NE fiends, and their associated decades of lore and development, not another race of NE fiends, or starting over from scratch with a new cosmology which is what I did. That's an exceedingly important distinction here. 

Frankly I'm (overly?) obsessed with continuity in anything I work with, and in the circa 2006 discussion that preference was in full force since Collins was asking for information on the 'loths, not anything else. Adding in stuff like the 4 Horsemen on top of the pre-existant material would have made little to no sense with what was already extant.




> I guess the idea just took time to sink in.




Jacobs or Mona were the ones who came up with the idea of the Horsemen as titles for the archdaemons, and their association with death. I got to take that and run with it in the campaign setting book, The Great Beyond, and BotD III.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jan 3, 2012)

Hello again! 



			
				Shemeska said:
			
		

> Because we were talking about yugoloths specifically as NE fiends, and their associated decades of lore and development, not another race of NE fiends, or starting over from scratch with a new cosmology which is what I did. That's an exceedingly important distinction here.




The Pathfinder daemons are basically the daemons from 3E with the addition of the Four Horsemen (which was basically what I was suggesting).

Your above excuse is pure sophistry.



> Frankly I'm (overly?) obsessed with continuity in anything I work with, and in the circa 2006 discussion that preference was in full force since Collins was asking for information on the 'loths, not anything else. Adding in stuff like the 4 Horsemen on top of the pre-existant material would have made little to no sense with what was already extant.




But fast forward a few years an "you really liked the idea". 



> Jacobs or Mona were the ones who came up with the idea of the Horsemen as titles for the archdaemons,




Were they indeed. LOL 

I bet you just thought at the time, its such a fresh new idea I've never heard anything quite like it! 



> and their association with death. I got to take that and run with it in the campaign setting book, The Great Beyond, and BotD III.




I wish the Paizo guys the best of luck*, even though I am not a fan of the Pathfinder system myself, I do think their products are top notch...I mean the Pathfinder Bestiary 2 is simply sensational.

*they certainly know a good idea when they see one.


----------



## Shemeska (Jan 5, 2012)

Upper_Krust said:


> The Pathfinder daemons are basically the daemons from 3E with the addition of the Four Horsemen (which was basically what I was suggesting).
> 
> Your above excuse is pure sophistry.




They're very, very different in terms of motivations and desired end results in the long-term scale of things. I went out of my way to try to emphasize that and differentiate Paizo's daemons from the yugoloths of the Great Wheel, both because most of the IP surrounding the 'loths was closed content, and I wanted to make them unique enough on their own so that the oft-repeated criticism of the 'loths as being second fiddle to demons and devils wasn't an issue with the PF daemons (not that I agree with that criticism).

Other than being NE fiends, they're rather different beasts entirely.

Yugoloths were liars and manipulators. They were the oldest of the fiends, the architects of the Blood War, and the paradoxically self-important, utterly selfish -slaves- of the concept of Evil that they served. Mortals didn't matter, not at all, but they would suffer nonetheless. In their own words they wanted only to strive towards perfection and create a perfect multiverse: one which was utterly devoid of mercy.

Daemons are pitiful lost wretches venting their self-loathing on the multiverse. The daemons despise and obsess over mortal life. They want to see the spark of life extinguished from the planes. They don't care about pain, or destruction, or your suffering in the slightest. They just want you dead and to add another soul to the pyre. They aren't the eldest race of fiends, they don't serve baernaloth masters from the primordial earliest days of creation, and in fact they're utterly alone, with no greater masters to serve and at times flailing about as to the philosophical implications and rationale behind what they do. Everything will die, and then what? Perhaps they themselves don't know. There is no plan, there is only an unending hunger.

If you think the PF daemons are just yugoloths plus the 4 Horsemen, I must have failed at some juncture.

EDIT: That's my last on this subject since it's horribly off topic in this thread. Want to talk more, make a thread for it.


----------



## Argyle King (Jan 5, 2012)

Ten seems to be the generally accepted number for these things, so here's my wishlist.


1) Sooner rather than later.  I'm sure this is blasphemous to a lot of people, but I feel ready for a change.  I've had fun with 4E, but I burned out on it very quickly.  I'd be perfectly fine if 5E were released tomorrow.

2) Re-evaluate what it means to level up.  I'd like to see options for horizontal advancement and broader play rather than continuing to inflate numbers and go in a vertical and linear direction.  

3) Nod a little more toward realism and consistency.  I'm not asking for a huge shift here; just work with me a little bit.  I enjoy 4E, but there are too many moments when what the rules say is going on doesn't seem to mesh with what the narrative and story say is going on.  Plenty of people love the 4E approach, so I understand taking it further; I'd just like a few concessions to help me feel as though I'm still part of the target audience.

4) Explore more interesting ways of indicated sexual dimorphism with Dragonborn.  I get the idea behind 'dragon boobs,' but I think more interesting options are available.  See The Elderscrolls and their lizardfolk for some ideas.

5) Keep the idea of racial options as you level up.  I think this is one of the few things I like about post-Essentials D&D.  In the beginning, it was said that race would be made to matter more; I don't understand why that idea didn't come through until so late.  

6) Figure out a way to make mounts not suck.  This relates to #2 and taking a second look at what 'levels' mean.  There are a lot of cool character concepts I have which involve mounts.  Unfortunately, a lot of mounts are only good for a few levels, and then I need to replace them just like I do my magic items.  It would be nice to be able to play a knight who keeps the same trusty steed throughout his career.  

7) Keep a lot of the 4E cosmology.  I like it.  I do miss some things from 3rd Edition, and there certainly are some 4E things which I don't like, but -overall- I like the new fluff.  

8) Expect a little more out of your players; have faith in the community.  I understand the idea of making the game easier to learn.  I also understand the ideas of streamlining and lowering the barrier of entry.  However, I also believe new players can surprised you with what they're able to understand.  RPG elements are more familiar to society as a whole now than they (I assume) ever have been.  Plant the seeds of a more educated player now, and reap the rewards later.  Use it as a good PR opportunity if that helps; show how a more mentally stimulating game can be used to encourage kids to learn.

9) This spins off of 8.  Find a good way to market to kids and parents who would like to teach their kids.  The market is there, but I feel as though it has not been handled well.  Red Box was not what I had hoped for at all.

10) Support the Beer Hat Movement.


----------



## Pour (Jan 5, 2012)

Shemeska said:


> And the Shadow Plane, and Ravenloft, and etc...
> 
> Like chedder bubblegum flounder icecream at times conceptually IMO, but it could have been a decent place for the 'loths if they'd been tied into it from the start, rather than what they actually got being dumped into the Abyss with little to no integration.




Part of me finds the whole idea of a 'multiverse' as much the same thing, an infinite smorgasbord of every kind of world, time, gravity, and occurrence imaginable, like cheese, pickles, cake, pine needles, an old boot, and literally infinite other ingredients on an open faced sandwich. It's so varied, these planar guides even cite worlds you and I can't even imagine!  I know there are diehard OSRs who dislike it outright, and that's fair.

I mean the only saving grace of the multiverse in my mind is how much fun can be had inside it, and the space it provides DMs and designers to create in. Once you embrace those most loveable qualities, I find it difficult to berate a Shadowfell or Feywild, or an Elemental Chaos and Astral Sea on the merits of it containing a lot of cool things. They're really just one step away from all the planar organizations of past editions. Couldn't you even shift the placement of a few of these Grey Waste/Shadow/Hades/ Underworld planes in the Great Wheel, draw a black circle around them, and call that region the Shadowfell?

Really, the only thing a person could rightly dislike imo is the distribution of said planes, or how  the Shadowfell deviated from the old way of setting things up, or if you dislike the Raven Queen, which I suppose is what you're saying. Fair enough. Just trying to wrap my head around the comment.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jan 5, 2012)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> They're very, very different in terms of motivations and desired end results in the long-term scale of things. I went out of my way to try to emphasize that and differentiate Paizo's daemons from the yugoloths of the Great Wheel, both because most of the IP surrounding the 'loths was closed content, and I wanted to make them unique enough on their own so that the oft-repeated criticism of the 'loths as being second fiddle to demons and devils wasn't an issue with the PF daemons (not that I agree with that criticism).
> 
> Other than being NE fiends, they're rather different beasts entirely.
> 
> ...




None of your above babbling does anything but obfuscate the otherwise crystal clear situation which is all about your _volte-face_.

In 2006 when I posted on the FC3 thread that the daemons should be tied to the Four Horsemen you were TOTALLY against the idea.

Fast forward a few years and 'all of a sudden' YOU REALLY LIKE the idea to the extent that you wrote a book about it! 

Instead of 'manning up' and just saying "yes it was a good idea Krusty, you were right", you faffed about with a load of backpeddling on how these horsemen are VERY, VERY DIFFERENT. 



> If you think the PF daemons are just yugoloths plus the 4 Horsemen, I must have failed at some juncture.




I haven't read any material on the matter beyond the Pathfinder Bestiary 2. Your name is not mentioned within the credits of that book and thus any personal failure/success on your part is lost to me. 

That said, beyond the obvious embarassment of this situation, you shouldn't feel downhearted. Your own book, the Book of the Damned (which I have yet to check out), seems like my 'cup of tea'...hardly surprising though, given the initial impetus behind its premise. 



> EDIT: That's my last on this subject since it's horribly off topic in this thread. Want to talk more, make a thread for it.




I apologise for the momentary derailing of the thread. I think we have said all we need to say on the matter and to be fair if I laugh any more I'm liable to do myself a mischief.


----------



## P1NBACK (Jan 5, 2012)

I hate to pick on you, TheFindus, but your answers are just about the opposite of what I want. 



TheFindus said:


> Mr. Mearls and Mr. Cook, here are my wishes:
> 
> 1. Wait for a couple of years with the next edition, please do. I am having a lot of fun with 4E as it is. Do not feel pushed or nudged too much by those who have a problem with what 4E is now and want it to be removed. You do not know if they will like the new edition. You do know, however, that I and many others like 4E very very much.




4E is getting its ass handed to it by Pathfinder and other RPGs. I'm not saying rush a product out of the door, but day-by-day I hear about more and more people switching to Pathfinder. 

Me personally, I don't play either 4E or Pathfinder at this point. I've gone back to old school D&D (via clones), so I don't really have a stake in either system. What I see though is 4E continually losing ground. If that continues, it'll become harder and harder for 5E to pull players away from those ongoing games. I don't think WotC = D&D means much anymore. Hell, I've introduced people to "D&D" via playing games like Lamentations of the Flame Princess and Adventurer Conqueror King. So, the actual mechanics of 4E at this point are so far from what a lot of people think of when they think of "D&D" that I don't think there's any reason to latch onto the system as it stands. 



TheFindus said:


> 2. Do not "bring the magic back" if that means that a magic user is stronger than a fighter. I wish for balanced classes.




No. I don't want balanced classes. What I want are classes that tilt against each other and nudge each other and fill different gaps in the play dynamic. 

There's something interesting I've noticed about playing old school D&D and it's that the problem stemmed more from changes to what came before and leaving other things the same than from how things actually were from the get-go. 

3E mucked this up quite a bit. For example, people decry Wizards as being "too powerful" in 3E. Well, there's a reason for that, and it's not because Fighters didn't have spells like in 4E. It's because 3E took all the good stuff Wizards had from previous editions and stripped away all the limitations. 

Then, tack on the fact that the high-level Fighters lost their strongholds and armies and 3E replaced them with "bonus feats" and suddenly you have a stark contrast between the two in power level. 

There's a dynamic that can't be attained from "balanced" classes. And, the only reason you would need them to be balanced is if your game was _only _about combat. 

Classes need to fill different voids, for different styles of players and personalities. There is more to the game than combat, and classes enable those players who enjoy the other things to excel in those areas. 

Balance has nothing to do with that. So, why do we need it? 



TheFindus said:


> 3. I wish for mechanics that can do without certain +x items built into the system. I would like to see magic items with special powers, yes. But my Battlemind should not need a +5 armor or a certain +x-to-attack-feat at a certain level just to be able to compete with a monster.




I agree, but I don't think magical items should be "special powers" either. I think magic should be dark, mysterious, dangerous and powerful. 

A character should think twice every time they plan to use a magical item. They should give the player an edge, but be risky or have some sort of fallout. Using a magical item should be a hard choice. 



TheFindus said:


> 4. Rely on digital technology to make the game easy to prepare for all players, including the GM. Being able to make characters and monsters in just a couple of minutes is a good thing for me, because I have a job, a family and several other hobbies.




Oh man, no way. If we have to _rely on digital technology _then the game is too complex already. I want a basic game I can play pickup games with by grabbing the box off the shelf when family members are over and want to give it a shot. 

I want to be able to roll up characters in 5 minutes _using dice, pencil and paper _only and get into the game with minimal prep time. 

If I need some online program or database software to manage all the options and choices, you've already lost me and those potential players who might actually try the game at family gatherings. I want to be able to say, "Yeah, you guys wanna try it?" and grab the box off the shelf after explaining what D&D is at a party and get playing right away. Instead of, "Well, we can play next Sunday - it'll take some time to go over character creation and all that...." 

Screw that. By next Sunday those people will have forgotten all about D&D and I'm not interested in trying to wrangle them into the game when they've already lost interest. 



TheFindus said:


> 5. I wish for a toolbox of options with a lot of narrative control. For powers I would like to see mechanical crunch, seperated from the power's flavor text that I as a player or a GM can change according to a situation.
> I wish for a basic ruleset, with extras added on top, if I like to use them.




This is what killed 4E for me. Dissociating mechanics from the fiction _even more so _would not be my ideal version of D&D. 

In fact, let's go back the other way. Let's design this game with the fiction _first _and mechanics to supplement that. 



TheFindus said:


> 6. I wish for online magazines with good campaign arcs, optional locations or encounters that I can drop into my campaign easily and advice on how to apply my character's abilities to the fiction.




I want tools that help inspire me to come up with my own goodness. If I download something from WotC's site, I want it to be environments and sites that are more akin to sandboxes with tons of little tidbits of things I can draw from and use. 

Published adventures are of no use to me. I want resources, inspiration and monsters, magical items and exotic locales that inspire my imagination. I don't want a story written for me that I have to lure my players through.


----------



## Matt James (Jan 5, 2012)

P1NBACK said:


> I want tools that help inspire me to come up with my own goodness. If I download something from WotC's site, I want it to be environments and sites that are more akin to sandboxes with tons of little tidbits of things I can draw from and use.
> 
> Published adventures are of no use to me. I want resources, inspiration and monsters, magical items and exotic locales that inspire my imagination. I don't want a story written for me that I have to lure my players through.




A lot of the recent content does just this. DDI has had a facelift and it's very refreshing.


----------



## P1NBACK (Jan 5, 2012)

Matt James said:


> A lot of the recent content does just this. DDI has had a facelift and it's very refreshing.




Awesome. Glad to hear that.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jan 5, 2012)

TheFindus said:


> Mr. Mearls and Mr. Cook, here are my wishes:
> 
> 1. Wait for a couple of years with the next edition, please do. I am having a lot of fun with 4E as it is. Do not feel pushed or nudged too much by those who have a problem with what 4E is now and want it to be removed. You do not know if they will like the new edition. You do know, however, that I and many others like 4E very very much.




I have no preference as to whether a 5E comes out next week, next year, or next decade...or honestly if ever.  No preference at all.

However, I just wanted to point out that even if 5E does come out, it can't affect the fun you're having with 4E unless you choose to let it do so...

Even if 4E is removed from DDI (which I think would be a colossally stupid thing to do, and would show they didn't learn a damn thing from the release of 4E), you still have all of your books.  You can still play it as much as you want.  You can even still use the VTT on DDI (as so many DDI subscribers take pains to tell players of other older editions...)

How does this affect your fun as concerns 4E???


*scratches head*


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jan 5, 2012)

Hey El Madhi! 



			
				El Mahdi said:
			
		

> However, I just wanted to point out that even if 5E does come out, it can't affect the fun you're having with 4E unless you choose to let it do so...




Well thats true, however, the release of 5E would surely herald the end of official 4E products from WotC. That would make 4E itself less fun though it wouldn't make playing 4E less fun.

Although that in itself raises an interesting point because at the moment (and this is only my personal opinion) there seems very little on the horizon from WotC that interests me. Ironically, Paizo (even though I don't and won't play Pathfinder) are still bringing out books I'd probably pay money to own/read.

While I am here I should probably segue into my thoughts on what 5th Edition should or shouldn't do.

1. Mechanically 4th Edition is brilliant. I'm not saying its perfect but it does so much fantastically, that the next edition must have a relatively similar structure to its backbone.

2. Boxed Sets

Break up the tiers into seperate boxed sets (just like the original Dungeons & Dragons).

- Red Box (Basic/Heroic), Green Box (Expert/Paragon), Blue Box (Master/Epic).
- Stagger the release of each boxed set by 4 months.
- Put different design teams (and different artists to give each a seperate look and feel) on each tier of play, in effect make them try and out-do each other.

*Red Box*
- Basic DM Rules and quick start guide.
- PC Rules for Levels 1-10 and easy step guide to creating a character.
- Relatively Civilized World Areas (Towns, Forests, Hills, Swamps, Dungeons)
- Crux of the set focuses on Dungeoneering/Questing.
- Small Town detailed as the staging point for campaigns.
- Pick 10 classic themes (Goblin caves, Bandit camp, Orc fortress, Vampire Castle etc.), each targeting one level of play and create 10 monsters of varying levels and ranks around each theme. 
- Include illustrated character sheets for 8 iconic characters (representing 8 different classes and races) as well as the obligatory blank character sheet for photocopying. 
- A character's race basically becomes the 'paragon path' of levels 1-10.
- Small introductory adventure with maps and counters (optional deluxe/expensive boxed set with miniatures instead of counters)
- Red Dice (one of each type)

*Green Box*
- Basic DM Rules and quick start guide (reprint from Red Box)
- PC Rules for Levels 11-20 and easy step guide to creating a character. 
- Hostile world areas (Deserts, Arctic Regions, Volcanic Regions, Underwater, Underdark)
- Crux of the set focuses on Stronghold Building/Running and adding Politics to your game. 
- Mass Combat rules.
- Country detailed with players initially given a border keep to run (the keep thats part of the town detailed in the Red Box).
- Pick 10 classic themes (Drow City, Yuan-ti Fortress, Volcanic Prison, Liches' Lair, etc.), each targeting one level of play and create 10 monsters of varying levels and ranks around each theme. 
- Include Updated illustrated character sheets for 8 iconic characters as well as the obligatory blank character sheet for photocopying. 
- Small introductory adventure with maps and counters (optional deluxe/expensive boxed set with miniatures instead of counters)
- Green Dice (one of each type)

*Blue Box*
- Basic DM Rules and quick start guide (reprint from Red Box)
- PC Rules for Levels 21-30 and easy step guide to creating a character.
- The Planes (Feywild, Shadowfell, Astral Plane, Elemental Chaos, Far Realm)
- Crux of this set focuses on running a Country and the path to becoming an immortal.
- Continent detailed with players initially in charge of their own country (the country thats detailed in the Green Box).
- Rules for Gigantic monsters.
- Pick 10 classic themes (Demonweb Pits, Zehir's Pyramid, Iron Tower of Dispater, Tiamat's Lair), each targeting one level of play and create 10 monsters of varying levels and ranks around each theme. 
- Include Updated illustrated character sheets for 8 iconic characters as well as the obligatory blank character sheet for photocopying. 
- Small introductory adventure with maps and counters (optional deluxe/expensive boxed set with miniatures instead of counters)
- Blue Dice (one of each type)

*Additional 'Companion' Supplements*
- (Bi-Yearly) Monster Manual (for each tier) detailing 10 more themes each with 10 monsters. 80 pages 
- (Bi-Yearly) Players Options (for each tier) detailing new classes and races. 64 pages 
- (Bi-Monthly) Adventure (six per year, 3 heroic tier, 2 paragon, 1 epic). 48 pages. Focus on smaller adventures with maybe 12 important encounters detailed.
- (Yearly) Campaign Setting (not tier specific) each campaign world has a completely new starting point/goals for Level 1, Level 11 and Level 21 characters. Also has new 'takes' on the iconic (player) character examples.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 5, 2012)

Upper Krust, the only thing I would add to your boxes is a gift certificate for a free year of DDI with every box.

That and my Red box would use the Chaos Scar as the base campaign.  It's right there after all.


----------



## Virel (Jan 6, 2012)

Monte & crew, take two weeks and dig out the Basic version of D&D and/or AD&D and play it. Actually play it. 

See how rules light it is compare to 3e/3.5e?

See how fast it can play with a good DM?

Design something that plays and feels like that. Or just update the rules a little and call that 5th ed.

PS - Get rid of the feats & bring back the magic items, it's doubtful the game can support lot's of both.

Next actually playtest the new game before it's released. Not just with WotC hacks and fanboys. Then playtest it some more. Actually listen to the playtesters carefully. If you can find some old edition fans get them to playtest your new game too.

Throw it out and start over if it looks like the recent D&D offerings.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 6, 2012)

P1NBACK said:


> <SNIPPAGE>
> No. I don't want balanced classes. What I want are classes that tilt against each other and nudge each other and fill different gaps in the play dynamic.
> 
> There's something interesting I've noticed about playing old school D&D and it's that the problem stemmed more from changes to what came before and leaving other things the same than from how things actually were from the get-go.
> ...



 A lot of that is play style - what folks call the 15 Minute Adventuring Day. If the Wizard holds on to spells then it becomes less of a problem.

Unfortunately, I do not think that was addressed in the DMG, and it really should have. 



> Then, tack on the fact that the high-level Fighters lost their strongholds and armies and 3E replaced them with "bonus feats" and suddenly you have a stark contrast between the two in power level.



 Again, playstyle - not every game benefited from having keeps and strongholds. Not every fighter _wanted_ keeps and armies, and if the game was dungeon heavy then having that many expendable NPCs was a problem.

E.G.G. and co started with wargaming, and fighting men were very much a part of that. He liked having massive battles, but not everyone does. (It is worth noting that I _do_ like mass battles, and naval conflicts. I _want_ mass combat rules....)

Kingmaker, on the other hand, gets folks started on strongholds and armies at much lower level, and is all about realms. Great fun, even if the mass combat rules are a trifle shaky. 

Not exactly disagreeing, just saying that sometimes the balance, or lack thereof, is in how the powers are handled.

Right now I am playing (yay!) in a Pathfinder game, my paladin and the summoner's eidolon are the two with the most combat under our belts. We had a session a month or so ago where not a single spell got cast - the witch was busy doing other things. (We were laying a trap for one of my paladin's superiors - who was working for the bad guys.) 

Paladin, witch, inquisitor, rogue, summoner, and ranger.... We are an odd mix.... 

The Auld Grump


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jan 6, 2012)

P1NBACK said:


> No. I don't want balanced classes. What I want are classes that tilt against each other and nudge each other and fill different gaps in the play dynamic.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



I think what you're getting at is that magical has been made too mechanical and not magical enough. It should have arbitrary limitations and serious costs, and it doesn't. It didn't have enough costs _before_ 3e.



> There's a dynamic that can't be attained from "balanced" classes. And, the only reason you would need them to be balanced is if your game was _only _about combat.
> 
> Classes need to fill different voids, for different styles of players and personalities. There is more to the game than combat, and classes enable those players who enjoy the other things to excel in those areas.
> 
> Balance has nothing to do with that. So, why do we need it?



Well said.



> Oh man, no way. If we have to _rely on digital technology _then the game is too complex already. I want a basic game I can play pickup games with by grabbing the box off the shelf when family members are over and want to give it a shot.
> 
> I want to be able to roll up characters in 5 minutes _using dice, pencil and paper _only and get into the game with minimal prep time.
> 
> ...



This is where profit butts heads with making a good game. FWIW I totally agree. Insider is an attempt to monetize the game that hasn't inspired nearly as much revulsion as it should have.



> I want tools that help inspire me to come up with my own goodness. If I download something from WotC's site, I want it to be environments and sites that are more akin to sandboxes with tons of little tidbits of things I can draw from and use.
> 
> Published adventures are of no use to me. I want resources, inspiration and monsters, magical items and exotic locales that inspire my imagination. I don't want a story written for me that I have to lure my players through.



You know, that's pretty much what I want. I wonder how many of us there are? (I'm guessing a lot).


----------



## bouncyhead (Jan 6, 2012)

TheAuldGrump said:


> Paladin, witch, inquisitor, rogue, summoner, and ranger.... We are an odd mix....
> 
> The Auld Grump




Apologies for off-topic, but our PF experience, post APG, is also of really weird mixed-bag parties. Current Kingmaker group: Druid, Cavalier, Inquisitor, Ninja, Alchemist, Paladin.


----------



## Knightfall (Jan 6, 2012)

Dear Mike and Monte,

I am responding to the request on this thread because I have strong feelings about the current state of Dungeons and Dragons. Note that I have tried to like 4e, and in some ways, I do like certain aspects. (Themes are a great example.) As well, certain products were highly innovative such as the Essentials line. Monster Vault is my favorite 4e product.

However, overall I am unhappy with the current game system. This fact has forced me to stick with v.3.5 or look towards games such as Castles & Crusades and the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game.

Now, I understand why 4e changed so much after the "experience" that was 3e and the OGL. While I can't say what the final reason(s) was/were at Wizards of the Coast, I can guess. But, I'm not going to go there.

Instead, I want to focus on the positive, and I hope you will do the same. D&D, as a game, has been the driving force behind the roleplaying game industry for nearly as long as I have been alive. In that time, it has changed a lot. Some good, some not so good, and some very bad.

I cut my teeth on Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 2nd Edition; I knew that system had flaws, but I enjoyed the game immensely, regardless. When 3rd Edition was announced, I was excited and skeptical. The game would have to be outstanding for me to love it as much as I did 2E.

Is it wrong for me to say that I loved a pen and paper RPG system. Perhaps. 

Regardless, 3E was a smash hit with me. It gave me everything that I needed to truly build my own game world(s). It allowed me to take raw ideas and fit them to the game system. I could create my own races, classes, prestige classes, feats, skills, spells, domains, etc. And I could do it without breaking a sweat.

4E does not allow me the same flexibility to create all that I need. If I'm to buy 5E, it has to allow for modularity. And it must be able to do it quickly and easily. If it doesn't, you've lost me.

I have no problem with the concept of powers. I do have a problem with there being so many of them. Powers should not be the defining concept for 5E. Spells should be spells. Arcane and divine classes (as well as psionic ones) should not be relegated to being the same as martial classes. They are special for a reason. Yes, wielding a sword isn't easy, but it isn't the same as harnessing arcane might or channeling the power of the Gods.

Warriors and rogues can have other options. Stunts, knacks, or whatever you want to call them.

For me, powers should represent something special that goes beyond the traditional core benefits of a class. Abilities that are supernatural and innate come to mind. Powers should stand out above the rest of the core mechanics. Otherwise they are not truly powerful.

(And the core classes should be THE core classes that go back to the beginning of the game. Period. Save the "new" classes for splats or a Player's Handbook II.)

How do you implement this? I do not know. I wish I did. I wish I could make it easy for you and for everyone else that plays/DMs D&D.

What I do know is this: you cannot just throw away the history of the game. The new planar design is interesting, but tore down too much of what existed previously. That was a huge minus for me. A redesign is a good idea, but it must pay homage to the game's roots.

I have no problem with the new core gods. The core game should have its own core pantheon that is separate from the rest of the D&D worlds. The new alignment system has grown on me although there should be an option to use the old nine alignment system.

Yes, I'm asking a lot.

The core game needs to be accessible to everyone. I understand WotC's need for DDI, and it has been a resounding success for those who love the idea of everything being online. I wish I was one of them, but I am not.

I guess this makes me an old grognard. So be it.

I need the physical product in my hands. Accessing game material electronically is okay, but it can never replace the feel of the books in my hand. I guess the thing I miss the most are the physical copies of DRAGON and DUNGEON Magazine. Yes, I realize that print magazines are dying, but I still miss them. (Thank the Maker for Kobold Quarterly.)

5E needs a way to get the online content into my hands as a printed reference. I need that option or you've lost me.

POD comes to mind.

Now for the really hard part. The whole OGL vs. GSL vs. no open support at all debate.

I know what I want, but I don't think I'm going to get it. I want WotC to embrace open gaming once again. Yes, more restrictions are fine. Whatever protects your IP should be considered. But it cannot cripple the spirit of the license. The GSL was a fart in the dark. A puff of wind pointed at the 3PP community.

Yes, I know I said I wasn't going to go there, but I needed to write it.

If WotC isn't going to support the spirit of the Open Gaming ideal, then I say "just forget it." Move on. Make D&D the best game it can be without worrying about whether or not it has 3rd-party support. The game has always been at/near the top of the roleplaying game industry. I believe 5E can remain so even without an OGL. (But. I. Still. Want. One!)

As long as the core game is good, I will likely buy it. If the entire game is great, I will jump for joy.

Thank you for your time.

Regards,

Robert P. Blezard
a.k.a. Knightfall

Edmonton, Alberta
CANADA


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 6, 2012)

Upper_Krust said:


> 2. Boxed Sets
> 
> Break up the tiers into seperate boxed sets (just like the original Dungeons & Dragons).
> 
> ...





This is exactly what my post earlier would have said if I had been cleverer and more structured in my thinking 

I don't expect them to do this, but I would love them to. I think it could be a brilliant introduction to D&D campaigns, moving beyond 'the dungeon' and scaling adventures up into more complex environments and 'types' of adventure.

Cheers


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 7, 2012)

P1NBACK said:


> There's a dynamic that can't be attained from "balanced" classes. And, the only reason you would need them to be balanced is if your game was _only _about combat.
> 
> Classes need to fill different voids, for different styles of players and personalities. There is more to the game than combat, and classes enable those players who enjoy the other things to excel in those areas.
> 
> Balance has nothing to do with that. So, why do we need it?



No, things are not all about combat, but the disparity in power did not just exist in areas of combat, but also in the social sphere and skills. Magic was never just for combat, though fighting is. Why be a skill-monkey or trap-master when the wizard can do the job potentially much better with the right spell or two? Why be a warrior, when the wizard can do the job potentially much better? Why be a charismatic socialite when the wizard can potentially do it much better with the right spell or two? Yes, every class should have its own niche in which they can fill the void, but the problem was that many of the magic classes filled the void in ways that snubbed out the mundanes. The magic classes generally filled the void and then some. Their powers and lists kept expanding such that they could replicate practically everything done by the mundanes. There are limitations to fighting, but there were practically little limitations to magic apart from running out of spells, which became a non-issue at higher levels. So while I agree with your design philosophy in theory, it unfortunately did not work out that way in practice, at least in my own experience.


----------



## Shemeska (Jan 7, 2012)

Upper_Krust said:


> *Blue Box*
> - Basic DM Rules and quick start guide (reprint from Red Box)
> - PC Rules for Levels 21-30 and easy step guide to creating a character.
> - The Planes (Feywild, Shadowfell, Astral Plane, Elemental Chaos, Far Realm)




I'm gonna throw my copy of the Planescape box set at you. 

While the planes are full of terrible things and even more terrible environments depending on who/what you are and what plane we're talking about, there's no reason at all to restrict the planes to only players above a certain level. It's more difficult at times and perhaps very selective when you're low level, but I hesitate to go down that road for fear of the whole 'planes as extraplanar dungeons' dynamic creeping into play. 

I much prefer the late 2e handling of that in opening up the planes to PCs of much varied levels. Designing a new edition, I'd hope that would be the case.


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 7, 2012)

I don't think Upper Krust is limiting the planes to upper level characters. I think the general idea, if I am understanding his intent correctly, is simply to divide the environments evenly and that planes are just more convenient to put in the "epic level box." But I would imagine, just like with all the other content distributed amongst the three boxes, that you could honestly use the content and flavor itself for any level.


----------



## LurkAway (Jan 7, 2012)

Shemeska said:


> While the planes are full of terrible things and even more terrible environments depending on who/what you are and what plane we're talking about, there's no reason at all to restrict the planes to only players above a certain level. It's more difficult at times and perhaps very selective when you're low level, but I hesitate to go down that road for fear of the whole 'planes as extraplanar dungeons' dynamic creeping into play.
> 
> I much prefer the late 2e handling of that in opening up the planes to PCs of much varied levels. Designing a new edition, I'd hope that would be the case.



That's exactly what I didn't like about Planescape. The outer realms became a playground for humans (of any level). I find it implausible (even by fantasy standards) and it's just too humanocentric for me. It's like mice putting on airs in a big house, strutting about like they're so important -- instead of being constantly frightened and scurrying and hiding and trying not to get caught and killed by cats or mousetraps or giant brooms.

Then, to add insult to injury, these pretentious low-level humans (ala mice) had acquired an annoyingly haughty planar cant. Instead of dying in droves, getting murdered, kidnapped, enslaved, tortured, soul-sucked, and meeting horrible ends from wrathful angels and terrifying demons, or at least humbly living by the very skin of their teeth, instead they're strutting around mildly insulting each other.

Please, 5E, keep the mortal world humanocentric, and the other planes an inhuman and dangerous realm where mostly epic heroes dare to trespass.

Edit: Excluding the Feywild and Shadowfell, which I think are fine for Paragon tier, maybe dabbling in Heroic tier, as they're a twisted reflection of the mortal world, and I believe the game supports this by stating that each prime world is mirrored by its respective faerie and shadow lands.


----------



## Connorsrpg (Jan 7, 2012)

4th Edition made the Planes more accessible at lower levels and I think that is a good thing.

i am completely opposed to this idea of box sets introducing options slowly. Great for newbies maybe, but not people that are very familiar and want to dive right in to all possibilities. Make a proper beginners set, but don't make that the only option for everyone.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jan 7, 2012)

Howdy Hussar! 



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Upper Krust, the only thing I would add to your boxes is a gift certificate for a free year of DDI with every box.




Good idea! 



> That and my Red box would use the Chaos Scar as the base campaign.  It's right there after all.




Possibly, though I'd be interested in seeing something fresh with the new edition.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jan 7, 2012)

Howdy Plane Sailing! 



			
				Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> This is exactly what my post earlier would have said if I had been cleverer and more structured in my thinking






I meant to add...

- Give the boxes more depth than the contents require so that you can use them to contain later supplements.



> I don't expect them to do this, but I would love them to. I think it could be a brilliant introduction to D&D campaigns, moving beyond 'the dungeon' and scaling adventures up into more complex environments and 'types' of adventure.




I think they have to do it.

I think the main problem with D&D (RPGs in general) is appealing to new customers. Not only is there a bewildering choice of DOZENs of books, but it won't be apparent to the casual customer, what they should buy.

The boxed set approach solves that.

Strong colour-coding with the design will also help people keep track of what books they need. Although I think the original OD&D boxed set colours were too overwhelming (in terms of the amount of flat colour to artwork, the colours dominated too much), I'd probably have the front colour like a big letter 'D' maybe with a thin left stroke and bolder right stroke.

Red (Box & Supplements) Basic Game (Levels 1-10)
Green (Box & Supplements) Advanced Game (Levels 11-20)
Blue (Box & Supplements) Expert Game (Levels 21-30)
White (Supplements) Neutral (non-tier specific) material (like campaign settings)
Gold (Box & Supplements) potential (Master Game?) Immortals Tier material

So a customer can go into the store and they know they just need one product to play the game. They don't need 3 books, a set of dice, miniatures, to photocopy character sheets in one of the books, maps and so on. Everything is self-contained within the box and you can start play within 30 minutes of opening it and familiarising yourself with the contents.

Since OD&D, there has been no real colour coding attempt. Thats okay if you have maybe half a dozen products, but when you have 30-40 books and supplements it can be hard for the casual customer to know which from which.

If instead you have strong colour thematic design. You have a Red Box and red trade-dressed supplements clearly marked:

Basic Game: EXPANSION BOOK 1 - PLAYERS HANDBOOK
Basic Game: EXPANSION BOOK 2 - MONSTER MANUAL
Basic Game: EXPANSION BOOK 3 - ADVENTURE (which basically contains the Dungeon Master's Guide portion of the material. Why have books for detailing traps or new magic items when you can create an adventure and use those traps/items within the adventure and showcase them then and there).


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jan 7, 2012)

Hey Shemeska! 



			
				Shemeska said:
			
		

> I'm gonna throw my copy of the Planescape box set at you.




*Box bounces off*

You forget I am much too high level, there was nothing in Planescape that could possibly hurt me. 



> While the planes are full of terrible things and even more terrible environments depending on who/what you are and what plane we're talking about, there's no reason at all to restrict the planes to only players above a certain level. It's more difficult at times and perhaps very selective when you're low level, but I hesitate to go down that road for fear of the whole 'planes as extraplanar dungeons' dynamic creeping into play.




You know my opinions on Planescape (we've had this debate on and off for years).

In and of itself Planescape was a good product, BUT in my opinion it was a BAD idea for D&D as a whole.

Basically what Planescape did was say "Lets get to the kewl stuff right now!" But it did that to the detriment of everything else.



> prefer the late 2e handling of that in opening up the planes to PCs of much varied levels. Designing a new edition, I'd hope that would be the case.




I couldn't disagree more strongly.

Each tier of play should be about something NEW. 
Each tier of play should should EXPAND the horizons of the game.
Each tier of play should UP THE ANTE.
The contrasts between each tier of play should be pronounced.

If I start off at Level 1 living in Asgard battling demons then where do I go and what do I do for an encore?

There is no sense of progression with Planescape. 1st level characters should be in awe of an audience with the town mayor, not hobnobbing with the gods.

My suggestion is that the more dangerous an area, the later in the game you should encounter it. You should not be going to the Underdark at 1st level, let alone Hell!

In Planescape, Hell was as cosy as the Shire.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jan 7, 2012)

Hey there Aldarc! 



			
				Aldarc said:
			
		

> I don't think Upper Krust is limiting the planes to upper level characters. I think the general idea, if I am understanding his intent correctly, is simply to divide the environments evenly and that planes are just more convenient to put in the "epic level box." But I would imagine, just like with all the other content distributed amongst the three boxes, that you could honestly use the content and flavor itself for any level.




I'm not suggesting that there would be no overlap between the tiers of play. 

*But pound-for-pound monsters from more hostile regions should be tougher (and thus higher level) than typical humans.*

In addition the regions themselves should be tangible threats to the PCs.

Basic medium sized humanoid from non-hostile earthly region (e.g. human) = Level 1
Basic medium sized humanoid from hostile earthly region (e.g. drow/yuan-ti etc.) = Level 6
Basic medium sized humanoid from planar region (e.g. demon, devil etc.) = Level 11

Hostile Earthly region = +5 Level oppression
Planar region = +10 Level oppression

Drow are dangerous opponents at the worst of times, but fighting drow in the underdark should put you at a further disadvantage. Doubly so when fighting devils in Hell or demons in the Abyss.

So my thoughts are that you could probably encounter drow during the Heroic Tier, but you wouldn't want to go anywhere near their territory until the Paragon Tier.

Same thing with basic demons and devils. You might encounter them at the paragon tier but you wouldn't want to venture anywhere near Hell until the epic tier.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jan 7, 2012)

Hey connorsrpg! 



			
				Connorsrpg said:
			
		

> 4th Edition made the Planes more accessible at lower levels and I think that is a good thing.
> 
> i am completely opposed to this idea of box sets introducing options slowly. Great for newbies maybe, but not people that are very familiar and want to dive right in to all possibilities. Make a proper beginners set, but don't make that the only option for everyone.




People who want to 'dive right in' to the desert will probably die of thirst
People who want to 'dive right in' to the arctic will probably die of hypothermia
People who want to 'dive right in' to spelunking will probably get lost, get trapped and then then die.

PCs who want to 'dive right in' to Hell should just have their character sheets burnt in front of them. 

The point is, you need knowledge, training/experience and the proper equipment before even thinking of venturing into hostile environments. Hell should be more (physically AND mentally) hostile than anywhere on Earth.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jan 7, 2012)

Upper_Krust said:


> ...
> Each tier of play should be about something NEW.
> Each tier of play should should EXPAND the horizons of the game.
> Each tier of play should UP THE ANTE.
> ...




I find that the use of _"should"_ when applied to a product that's driven mostly by the creativity of it's customers, with a customer base made up of a plethora of styles and preferences, is usually a bad idea.

The game most definitely could be presented that way, but as with any approach will have it's negatives as well as positives.

However, placing it in the realm of the GM as one possible approach seems to me one much more likely to be recieved successfully and benignly.


----------



## Dragonblade (Jan 7, 2012)

I don't like the tiered box set approach. Its one reason I refuse to buy or play Dragon Age.

What WotC should do with Essentials is eliminate the redundant material and release everything in in Heroes of Fallen Lands and Forgotten Kingdoms, along with the Rules Compendium in a single hardcover book that you literally call D&D Essentials.

Thats it. Thats all players need to buy. For DMs, you have the Monster Vault and a DMG with all the best content from DMG 1 and 2 along with artifact rules, minion and henchmen rules, the stronghold rules, and 0 level PC rules from Dragon.

The rest of the books are optional. Campaign setting books, magic item books, adventures, DM  related monster books like Open Grave and so on.

But I would also borrow from the Paizo model and strongly recommend making a series of APs that form a cornerstone for all your other products.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jan 7, 2012)

Hey El Mahdi! 



			
				El Mahdi said:
			
		

> I find that the use of _"should"_ when applied to a product that's driven mostly by the creativity of it's customers, with a customer base made up of a plethora of styles and preferences, is usually a bad idea.




Surely the tiers should be markedly different, otherwise what would be the attraction of playing them, they would just be the same only with more math.



> The game most definitely could be presented that way, but as with any approach will have it's negatives as well as positives.




I'm curious to hear what those negatives are?



> However, placing it in the realm of the GM as one possible approach seems to me one much more likely to be recieved successfully and benignly.




If the GM wants to allow Level 30 powers for 1st level characters then thats their prerogative, but it doesn't mean the game should be designed on the basis that 1st level characters should have access to Level 30 powers. Nor should the Basic box contain those Level 30 powers.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jan 7, 2012)

Upper_Krust said:


> Surely the tiers should be markedly different, otherwise what would be the attraction of playing them, they would just be the same only with more math.




Editions came and went before 4E without having defined tiers.  Tiers are certainly not a necessity.

I think _"should be markedly different"_ isn't accurate.  

Could be different? Yes
May be different? Yes

Should be different?  Those who don't like the concept or application of tiers would likely disagree. 




Upper_Krust said:


> I'm curious to hear what those negatives are?




To those who don't like tiers, there existence is a negative.  To those who do like tiers, it's a positive.  This concept is just like any other, and will have positives and negatives in herent to it (based on player preferences).  People's preferences are subjective.  But the game by necessity, must attract people to play it (and the more, the better).  So, those subjective preferences must be considered when designing a game.  

I think the game is better served with the concept of tiers (and other concepts), and the associated realms of activities within each, applied as a seperate campaign model (one of many), or as an example to GM's of how they can run a long term campaign or campaigns at varying levels...rather than as a default assumption of which the game's mechanics are built around and specifically support.




Upper_Krust said:


> If the GM wants to allow Level 30 powers for 1st level characters then thats their prerogative, but it doesn't mean the game should be designed on the basis that 1st level characters should have access to Level 30 powers. Nor should the Basic box contain those Level 30 powers.




Agreed.  I just disagree that Level 30 powers should be mechanically required in order to adventure in certain settings, such as among the planes.

I even think that designing Campaign products in this manner is a mistake.  It unnecessarily limits the audience that the product may appeal to right from the start.

There are plenty of people that love the concept of adventuring among the planes but don't necessaily like high level play.  I feel that making planar adventures a defacto high level setting is a mistake.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jan 7, 2012)

Upper_Krust said:


> I'm curious to hear what those negatives are?



The general problem with tiers is that they create a form of self-justification that causes rules bloat. In 3e and prior editions, characters simply got more powerful as they leveled. It was clear that there were distinctions between "tiers" but these were implicit and roughly defined. I don't see the need to draw lines between low, mid, and high-level play. The levels themselves do that well enough.

The specific problem is what the tiers are. Starting level 1 as "heroic" actually removes the feel of low-level play as it exists in most of D&D. "Epic" was never included in the core rules before 4e.

In short, tiers take a great deal away from the game, and I'm not sure what they add.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jan 7, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> In short, tiers take a great deal away from the game, and I'm not sure what they add.




For some, not for all.  I think it goes both ways.

For some players, Tiers add a lot to the game.  They like the deliniation and the assumptions that go with them.  Others don't.

For some, it adds a great deal to the game.


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 7, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> The general problem with tiers is that they create a form of self-justification that causes rules bloat. In 3e and prior editions, characters simply got more powerful as they leveled. It was clear that there were distinctions between "tiers" but these were implicit and roughly defined. I don't see the need to draw lines between low, mid, and high-level play. The levels themselves do that well enough.
> 
> The specific problem is what the tiers are. Starting level 1 as "heroic" actually removes the feel of low-level play as it exists in most of D&D. "Epic" was never included in the core rules before 4e.
> 
> In short, tiers take a great deal away from the game, and I'm not sure what they add.



As the boxes are being presented as simply a "starter's guide," I don't really perceive this as a problem for those new to the game. As to what tiers add, I would say that they provide basic guidelines for new DMs and players as to what players are assumed to be capable of handling in the campaign. This may be a complete non-issue, or even something that detracts from the game, for an experienced veteran gamer as yourself, but I can definitely see how this setup could be beneficial for bringing in new DMs and players into the hobby.


----------



## Greg K (Jan 8, 2012)

Upper_Krust said:


> Hey connorsrpg!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




really?  Low level campaigns should not be able to be set in such regions? Humans cultures exist in those regions in our world. There is no reason not to support  campaigns  that take place in those regions or visit such regions at levels 1-10 (in the latter case, maybe, some of the PCs hail from such regions and there is a need to go there or there is some other reason to adventure there). 
 Having to pick up a supplement with rules supporting levels 11+ which I would probably never use (not a fan of any edition above 10-12- especially, 4e with paragon paths and epic destinies being required) just to get environmental rules would ensure I never pick up such a game.
The same goes for a boxed set to get the other planes like the Feywild.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jan 8, 2012)

Hey El Mahdi! 



			
				El Mahdi said:
			
		

> Editions came and went before 4E without having defined tiers.




Technically OD&D had tiers of play.

Technically 2E acknowledged high level play options.

Technically 3E had two tiers (Standard and Epic)



> Tiers are certainly not a necessity.




They are a gaming (and marketing) aid, nothing more, nothing less.



> I think _"should be markedly different"_ isn't accurate.
> 
> Could be different? Yes
> May be different? Yes
> ...




I don't understand why anyone would 'dislike' the *concept* of tiers. I can understand people not liking to play certain tiers, but not liking the concept is bewildering. Its akin to not liking Level 13 because its unlucky.



> To those who don't like tiers, there existence is a negative.  To those who do like tiers, it's a positive.  This concept is just like any other, and will have positives and negatives in herent to it (based on player preferences).  People's preferences are subjective.  But the game by necessity, must attract people to play it (and the more, the better).  So, those subjective preferences must be considered when designing a game.




Help me understand why someone wouldn't like different tiers? As I have said I can understand why someone wouldn't like to play certain tiers but then surely the solution is not to play them rather than disliking the concept of them.



> I think the game is better served with the concept of tiers (and other concepts), and the associated realms of activities within each, applied as a seperate campaign model (one of many), or as an example to GM's of how they can run a long term campaign or campaigns at varying levels...rather than as a default assumption of which the game's mechanics are built around and specifically support.








> Agreed.  I just disagree that Level 30 powers should be mechanically required in order to adventure in certain settings, such as among the planes.




So what you are saying is that the most hostile environments imaginable MUST be shoehorned in to 1st Level play...is that accurate? 



> I even think that designing Campaign products in this manner is a mistake.  It unnecessarily limits the audience that the product may appeal to right from the start.




Again there is a flipside to this. If you make all the tiers the same then the higher tiers are simply the same thing with more math. Its self-defeating. Either make each tier offer something different or don't make them at all.



> There are plenty of people that love the concept of adventuring among the planes but don't necessaily like high level play.  I feel that making planar adventures a defacto high level setting is a mistake.




As I have said before I would be happy with some overlap. Plus someone else mentioned that technically the Feywild and Shadowfell are echoes of the material plane and not as overtly hostile as say the Elemental Chaos or the Far Realm.

But the flipside to your argument is this: are you saying that the higher tiers cannot have unique places (such as the planes)?

Getting late here, will reply to other comments in the morning - goodnight all. Interesting discussion.


----------



## Incenjucar (Jan 8, 2012)

Plenty of people have a psychological aversion or preference to one thing or another, whether or not they would enjoy the thing in and of itself if that reaction did not exist.

I personally find tiers useful because they create a slightly-less-artificial point between "acts" of a campaign, when hidden threats are revealed or known-but-distant threats start to react to the characters, which require characters to seriously step up and develop.

Hitting level 11 is a good point for characters to seek special training, join an organization they've finally proven worthy of, or unlock a secret in themselves. Hitting level 21 is when they realize their destiny, and the TRUE immensity of the threat that can only be stopped by those who have gone through so many ordeals. You don't have to use it that way, and you can do that without ever leaving Heroic, but it gives you a nice tidy growth curve to work with.

--

You can get to any plane at any level, you're just more restricted when you're lower-level.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jan 8, 2012)

Aldarc said:


> I don't think Upper Krust is limiting the planes to upper level characters. I think the general idea, if I am understanding his intent correctly, is simply to divide the environments evenly and that planes are just more convenient to put in the "epic level box." But I would imagine, just like with all the other content distributed amongst the three boxes, that you could honestly use the content and flavor itself for any level.




I may be reading Upper Krust wrong, I have been known on occasion to miss the point.

And with Planescape, I agree that the content could be used for any level.

With 4E, however...


4E PHB, pg. 28-29 - The Three Tiers / 4E DMG, pg. 146-147 - Tiers of Play




> PHB: The thirty levels of your career _*are*_ divided into three
> tiers: the heroic tier (1st level through 10th level), the
> paragon tier (11th level through 20th level), and the
> epic tier (21st level through 30th level)...
> ...




A default style and play experience hard coded into the rules.  If you're a player of one of the other multitude of game and campaign style preferences, you'll just have to live with being a square peg in a round hole.  Or just play using our style.  It's more fun anyways.

What do you mean you'll just play another game?  Good luck with that.  We don't make the old game anymore.  And we even pulled all the old editions pdf's.  So you can't get those either.

Hey!  Wait!  Where are you going?!?  Didn't you hear that part about your not having a choice?

Wait...  What the hell is that Pathfinder thing...​ 

Heroic Tier


> PHB: _In the heroic __tier, your character *is* already a hero, set_
> _apart from the common people by your natural talents,_
> _learned skills, and some hint of a greater destiny that_
> _lies before you..._


​​​

So much for using a zero to hero style play...



> PHB: You move around on foot or on a relatively
> mundane mount such as a horse...




So, my 5th level Paladin from a previous edition with an animated stone horse must have been an anomaly...



> PHB: The fate of a village might hang on
> the success or failure of your adventures...
> 
> DMG: The fate of a village might hang on the success or
> failure of heroic tier adventurers...




So much for hometown boy saves the world...  So much for the everyman hero who's in the right place at the right time...



> PHB: If you face a dragon, it *is* a young one
> still searching for a lair, one that has not yet found
> its place in the world.
> One, in other words, that is much like you.



​

"Not to worry guys.  If we meet a dragon, it will be level appropriate.  Don't worry about determining if we should fight or run away, any Dragon we meet, we can handle."

Of course though, as GM this obviously doesn't mean you _can't_ introduce a high level dragon.  But according to the rules, you _shouldn't_...  (there's that _should_ assumption again...)


Paragon Tier


> PHB: _In the paragon __tier, your character *is* a shining_
> _example of heroism, set well apart from the masses..._
> 
> DMG:_ By 11th level, characters are shining examples of courage_
> _and determination—true paragons in the world, set_





> _well apart from the masses._




So much for the down-on-their-luck, poor, washed-up, morally bankrupt, burned-out veteran that becomes the world's last hope...



> DMG: They...are able to use magic rings




Sorry Frodo...​​​​



> PHB: When you reach 11th level, you choose
> a path of specialization, a course that defines who you
> are within a certain narrow range of criteria...




Why do I have to choose a destiny again...?

Oh, I see.  I can't simply be a fighter that just increases their knowledge and formidibility.  I _have to choose_ a destiny that determines how I... (continued further down)



> PHB: ...the fate of a nation or even the world might hang in



​


> the balance...
> 
> DMG: The fate of a nation or even the world might depend
> on momentous quests that such characters undertake.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​



​ 
What...?  My father and grandfather did that when they were still wet behind the ears, but I have to wait until I'm a _Paragon_...




> PHB: When you face a dragon, it *is* a
> powerful adult who has established a lair and found its​place in the world. Again, much like you.




"Whoa there Rogue!  It may look like a juvenile Dragon, but trust me, it isn't.  How do I know you ask?  Well, we are Paragon aren't we?  Duh!"


Epic Tier


> PHB: _In the epic __tier, your character’s capabilities *are*_
> _truly superheroic._


​​​

"What?!?  I'm a Superhero???   Hmmm.  I don't _feel_ like a Superhero.  I'm still living in this crappy room at the Rotgut Pub.  Oh well.  I guess it's become a Superhero or just call it quits.  There's no room for more mundane high-level heroes in this world..."



> PHB: ...your most dramatic powers come
> from your choice of epic destiny




"But I don't want that Power.  And I definitely don't want some predetermined path!"

"Sorry Luke.  It's your Destiny..."




> PHB: _You navigate otherworldly realms..._






> DMG:_ ...Epic characters traverse otherworldly realms..._





"So, my Dad was just pulling my leg when he talked about traveling to Sigil as a young man just off the farm."

"I obviously don't want to go to the planes.  Everything is Epic level there.  Apparently all soldiers in Sigil are born level 21 or higher..."




> PHB: The dragons you encounter _*are*_ ancient wyrms of






> truly earthshaking power...




"Sorry, Ma'am.  I can't save your daughter from that Dragon.  It isn't Epic enough..."​ 
Immortality

Wait...???  What?!?  Immortality...???  What if my campaign and play style doesn't lead to immortality?  Maybe I'll just ignore this part...



> A character’s epic destiny guides how he or she ultimately
> exits the world. That hero’s story has to come
> to an end, though his or her actions leave existence
> indelibly changed. Each epic destiny presented in the





> _Player’s Handbook​_​​​​suggests a way for a character with
> that destiny to achieve immortality. It’s up to you, in
> cooperation with your players, to determine how their​
> characters get there.
> ...






> ​






> ​






> ​






> ​






> ​






> ​






> ​






> ​






> ​






> ​






> ​






> ​






> ​






> ​






> ​






> ​






> ​






> ​






> ​






> ​






> ​






> ​






> ​






> ​






> ​






> ​






> ​






> ​






> ​






> ​






> ​






> ​






> ​






> ​






> ​






> ​






> ​






> ​






> ​






> ​






> ​






> ​






> ​






> ​





Oh!  Okay...  Now I get it that whole Epic Destiny thing.

So basically, I have to choose a destiny I don't want, and limit my character concept as I level up in ways I don't want to, all for a campaign and play style that I don't like and probably won't use.  But since it's hardwired into the rules I can't just ignore it...  *sigh*



So, where does all of this lead?  How is it apropos of this thread?

Well let me tell you...


Dear Mike & Monte.

Please do not design a game that hardwires into it any specific play style or default campaign assumption.  Please keep in mind that this game needs to appeal to a broad base.  Go for a more basic chasis that includes a base with nods to all play styles.  Then provide instruction and advice on how to gear the game towards specific play styles and varying complexity levels...without shading said advice with judgements about what's fun or unfun.

Please, make _Inclusiveness_ your watchword.

Thank You.

Sincerely,
Mark "El Mahdi" Armstrong

​


----------



## El Mahdi (Jan 8, 2012)

Upper_Krust said:


> Technically OD&D had tiers of play.
> 
> Technically 2E acknowledged high level play options.
> 
> Technically 3E had two tiers (Standard and Epic)




Agreed. However, none of those systems/editions had the concept as hardwired into the rules as 4E, or as impossible to ignore or skip as in 4E.

Hardwiring it into the rules made it restrictive to those who don't enjoy those concepts, rather than inclusive to gamers of all preferences.


Don't misread me though, either in this post or the previous post. I don't hate 4E. I don't prefer it, but I do feel that there are parts of it that are sheer genius (which I have shamelessly stolen as houserules for use in my own games).

But I think that I (and many others) have some valid criticisms of the 4E system. And since we are (likely) moving forward towards another new edition, now is the time for such feedback.


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 8, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> I may be reading Upper Krust wrong, I have been known on occasion to miss the point.
> 
> And with Planescape, I agree that the content could be used for any level.
> 
> With 4E, however...



...your game preferences weren't met. Simple as that. But I'm not sure what that has to do with my post. Maybe it's a new idea that's not related, but it's hard to respond to the tone of your post following this point without further potentially sending this thread into edition wars. What you are saying does not read so much an appeal for Mearls and Monte for 5E but a pointed slam on 4E. It has the wrong spin. (Also, I think you are reading far too much into the tier labels and nitpicking what are meant only as general guidelines to give a general idea of the power levels and not absolutes. Your character in 1E-3E, for example, never started out as a zero, but as someone who was already a heroic cut above others.)


----------



## El Mahdi (Jan 8, 2012)

Aldarc said:


> ...your game preferences weren't met. Simple as that. But I'm not sure what that has to do with my post. Maybe it's a new idea that's not related, but it's hard to respond to the tone of your post following this point without further potentially sending this thread into edition wars. What you are saying does not read so much an appeal for Mearls and Monte for 5E but a pointed slam on 4E. It has the wrong spin. (Also, I think you are reading far too much into the tier labels and nitpicking what are meant only as general guidelines to give a general idea of the power levels and not absolutes. Your character in 1E-3E, for example, never started out as a zero, but as someone who was already a heroic cut above others.)




I had responded directly to one of Upper Krusts posts that came after yours, but before I had actually seen your post.  I wasn't so much trying to address you specifically, and contemplated removing your name from the quote so that it wouldn't flag you, but in the end I felt that might be seen as unfair or underhanded.  I'm definitely not trying to call you out at all.  Sorry if it seemed that way.

The rest wasn't really for your but was for the general thread along the lines of a response to Upper Krust again.  It it came across as 4E bashing, I apologize.  I certainly didn't intend it that way.  4E isn't my preferred system, but I think parts of it are absolute genius (parts of which I've shamelessly stolen as houserules).  I actually use my 4E core books, but just as references for the parts I use as houserules.

Sorry for any confusion or percieved warring.


----------



## Incenjucar (Jan 8, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> And with Planescape, I agree that the content could be used for any level.
> 
> With 4E, however...




Sigil exists in 4E, and all the major planes have hub cities where heroic adventures can occur. It's only harder in 4E because there is less content, which takes time to create.



> A default style and play experience hard coded into the rules.  If you're a player of one of the other multitude of game and campaign style preferences, you'll just have to live with being a square peg in a round hole.  Or just play using our style.  It's more fun anyways.




You can't play godzilla in a mech suit in OE, clearly D&D was a failure from the start.



> What do you mean you'll just play another game?  Good luck with that.  We don't make the old game anymore.  And we even pulled all the old editions pdf's.  So you can't get those either.
> 
> Hey!  Wait!  Where are you going?!?  Didn't you hear that part about your not having a choice?




They pulled *4E* PDFs. So.



> So much for using a zero to hero style play...




They have pre-1st level rules now.



> So, my 5th level Paladin from a previous edition with an animated stone horse must have been an anomaly...




Obsidian Steed is a level 5 magic item.



> So much for hometown boy saves the world...  So much for the everyman hero who's in the right place at the right time...




See above.

Last I checked I could throw Demogorgon riding the Terrasque and using Tiamat as a familiar at a level 0 party.

The rules explicitly state that you do not have to choose a paragon path or an epic destiny.



> What?!?  I'm a Superhero???   Hmmm.  I don't _feel_ like a Superhero.  I'm still living in this crappy room at the Rotgut Pub.  Oh well.  I guess it's become a Superhero or just call it quits.  There's no room for more mundane high-level heroes in this world..."




Mundane high-level hero? How does that even work?


----------



## Wiseblood (Jan 8, 2012)

I have to admit I'm with El Mahdi on this one. I feel the campaign should dictate the tiers of play not game mechanics.


----------



## Connorsrpg (Jan 8, 2012)

I don't care either way re tiers. I actually don't mind them (but I wish there was a 'you are normal' tier b4 Heroic ).

I am even happy for Player Options to be released as a progression for these tiers (but this doesn't help future planning for those that do it).

What I don't want to see is Level/Tier/Box Set dictating when specific terrain, adventure types, locales and even planes come into play. In my mind all setting stuff should be left separate for the GM and options given to them from the get go to develop their own too.

Maybe Player and GM material need different approaches, though I am happy with the release of several PHBs and DMGs (just like MM's). Much better than the 'Complete' series for 3E, where 'there was something for everyone' in each book, but really there was bugger all for wizards in one and fighters in another for eg. I stated then it would be better to just release additional PHB's. Not sure what the prob with this has been....other than, yes, there needs to be 'something' simpler for new players. A box set done well maybe...or a better explained PHB, perhaps with the Core Rules in separate book? Core rules and Player's Options book that interacts with the Core rules. I am not sure on newbies products. I have introduced dozens of players (many young) over the years by just playing?

I just don't want to see those of us well versed in the hobby all have to start out with a 'Basic Red Box' again. FWIW I hated the original - blasphemy I know - (but I was already playing AD&D when i got it).


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jan 8, 2012)

Howdy Ahnehnois! 



			
				Ahnehnois said:
			
		

> The general problem with tiers is that *they create a form of self-justification that causes rules bloat*. In 3e and prior editions, characters simply got more powerful as they leveled. It was clear that there were distinctions between "tiers" but these were implicit and roughly defined. I don't see the need to draw lines between low, mid, and high-level play. The levels themselves do that well enough.
> 
> The specific problem is what the tiers are. Starting level 1 as "heroic" actually removes the feel of low-level play as it exists in most of D&D.




I fail to see how tiers create rules bloat? Can you give me an example?



> "Epic" was never included in the core rules before 4e.




It was in OD&D, in effect the Master Boxed Set.



> In short, tiers take a great deal away from the game, and I'm not sure what they add.




Clarity for one. Identity for another.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jan 8, 2012)

Howdy Greg K! 



			
				Greg K said:
			
		

> really?  Low level campaigns should not be able to be set in such regions? Humans cultures exist in those regions in our world. There is no reason not to support  campaigns  that take place in those regions or visit such regions at levels 1-10 (in the latter case, maybe, some of the PCs hail from such regions and there is a need to go there or there is some other reason to adventure there).




I'm not saying there couldn't be overlap, but the crux of the matter is this.

There is only so much space within books to detail the game. Detailing one environment also encompasses the enemies that populate that environment. What you seem to be saying is that not only must every region, plane and habitat be detailed from day one, but that all these places should be accessible from Level 1. Its just insanity.

You cannot detail and populate every environment from day one. Therefore it makes sense to divide the areas and monsters based on how hostile they are.

I'd rather have 10 areas detailed and well populated than 30 areas badly detailed and underpopulated.

Its like putting the Balor in the Monster Vault. Yes it was a well designed monster but its utterly useless for the purposes of anyone running an epic campaign. What are they meant to do with one monster, have the PCs fight Balors in every encounter!? 



> Having to pick up a supplement with rules supporting levels 11+ which I would probably never use (not a fan of any edition above 10-12- especially, 4e with paragon paths and epic destinies being required) just to get environmental rules would ensure I never pick up such a game.




Those (campaign) portions of a particular boxed set could also be sold seperately.



> The same goes for a boxed set to get the other planes like the Feywild.




See above. There's no reason why the campaign material from the Red, Green and Blue boxes could not be compiled and released in a neutral non-tier specific format. 

BUT if the game wants to attract the casual gamer it needs to have at the forefront self-contained boxed sets that contain everything you need to start play. Instead of forcing a casual gamer to have to buy a bewildering laundry list of books, maps, dice, character sheets, tokens/miniatures. The game needs to have that immediacy provided by the boxed set approach.


----------



## steenan (Jan 8, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> Dear Mike & Monte.
> Please do not design a game that hardwires into it any specific play style or default campaign assumption.  Please keep in mind that this game needs to appeal to a broad base.  Go for a more basic chasis that includes a base with nods to all play styles.  Then provide instruction and advice on how to gear the game towards specific play styles and varying complexity levels...without shading said advice with judgements about what's fun or unfun.




Dear Mike & Monte.

If you want me to buy and play your game, give it sharp focus and make it work really well within the playstyle it is designed for. Let me know, clearly, how you expect the game to be played so that I may fully enjoy its strengths. Don't waste your time and my money on things that don't help the game be good in what it does.
There are too many good RPGs I may buy for $15 or less to even consider a game that sacrifices quality and ease of use for "inclusiveness". Decide what you want to offer and follow this decision. If your game lacks focus, it will be worse than some other game in every important area - and I'd rather play this other game.


I'm afraid you won't be able to satisfy everybody, whatever you do...


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jan 8, 2012)

Hey there! 



			
				El Mahdi said:
			
		

> So, my 5th level Paladin from a previous edition with an animated stone horse must have been an anomaly...




Maybe he was just the exception, not the rule though.

They are not saying you couldn't have a stone horse, just that most people don't (at that level).



> So much for hometown boy saves the world...  So much for the everyman hero who's in the right place at the right time...




Yes I loved that bit in Lord of the Rings where Frodo decapitated the Balrog...oh wait, thats right, it was the high-level immortal (?) Gandalf who actually took that monster on.



> "Not to worry guys.  If we meet a dragon, it will be level appropriate.  Don't worry about determining if we should fight or run away, any Dragon we meet, we can handle."
> 
> Of course though, as GM this obviously doesn't mean you _can't_ introduce a high level dragon.  But according to the rules, you _shouldn't_...  (there's that _should_ assumption again...)




The more civilised an area, on average the less threatening the monsters are you'll run into. The more hostile the environment, the more dangerous the creatures.

If you run into a dragon in the nearby hills next to the town, then chances are it will be young enough to have not brought much attention to itself.



> "Whoa there Rogue!  It may look like a juvenile Dragon, but trust me, it isn't.  How do I know you ask?  Well, we are Paragon aren't we?  Duh!"




Actually by detailing the same monsters using different ranks (and thus different levels adjusted to keep the same XP value) you could encounter dragons of the same ages at different points of the game. 



> "What?!?  I'm a Superhero???   Hmmm.  I don't _feel_ like a Superhero.  I'm still living in this crappy room at the Rotgut Pub.  Oh well.  I guess it's become a Superhero or just call it quits.  There's no room for more mundane high-level heroes in this world..."




Thats what happens when you don't make the tiers distinct enough. Paragon tier characters should be involved in running Castles and Temples, Epic Tier characters involved in running countries.



> Please do not design a game that hardwires into it any specific play style or default campaign assumption.  Please keep in mind that this game needs to appeal to a broad base.  Go for a more basic chasis that includes a base with nods to all play styles.  Then provide instruction and advice on how to gear the game towards specific play styles and varying complexity levels...without shading said advice with judgements about what's fun or unfun.
> 
> Please, make _Inclusiveness_ your watchword.




...In other words make sure 5th Edition is a 5000 page book, every rule, every location, every option and every play style must be detailed from day one.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jan 8, 2012)

EDIT: Meh, I musta been feeling oversensitive.

Nothing to see here.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jan 8, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> They pulled *4E* PDFs. So.




They pulled _*all*_ pdf's.  Not just 4E.




Incenjucar said:


> They have pre-1st level rules now.




Closing the barn door after the horses have fled.  It was hardwired into the game in a manner that makes this style extremely difficult to impossible.  People contemplating whether to switch to 4E read the core books when they came out, realized they couldn't play their type of game with it, and moved on.

It's a lot easier to sell a new game at the start, than try to sell it later after minds have been made up.  If the _core rules_ had been inclusive for all play styles, from the start, they likely wouldn't have lost so many after the initial release. 




Incenjucar said:


> Obsidian Steed is a level 5 magic item.




And as above, also not in the initial core rules (PHB1, DMG1, MM1).  Contributing to the same result as above...




Incenjucar said:


> The rules explicitly state that you do not have to choose a paragon path or an epic destiny.






> PHB: When you reach 11th level, you choose
> a path of specialization, a course that defines who you
> are within a certain narrow range of criteria...




Not in the initial _core rules_...

It doesn't say _"may"_...it doesn't say _"you have the choice"_...it says _"you choose"_...

A defacto, hard-wired campaign style.

The only thing that's expressed as "optional" (actually uses the word "optional"), is concerning Destiny Quests.

It may say that in subsequent books, or on DDI.  But again, that's an example of closing the barn door after the horses have left.  They lost people with the core books.  Those that had already left were never going to see subsequent books or DDI changes, and would likely be hard sell to bring back anyways (as explained above).




Incenjucar said:


> Mundane high-level hero? How does that even work?




Not everyone plays where high-level characters are automatically _"Paragons"_ and _"Shining Examples"_.  Some play where high-level characters can appear like that, but it's a choice, not a defacto assumption.  The initial core rules don't even present the possibility of such play.

So, as for an example of how that works:  I'm a 21 year veteran of the USAF, with 5 years in Combat Search & Rescue, 5 years an AF Special Operations, and a veteran of 5 wars.  If I were to "stat" myself out, I think a level somewhere over 10th wouldn't be unimaginable.  But I can guarentee, when I walk around or enter an establishment, people don't automatically say: _"Wow!  A Paragon!"_  Quite honestly, they don't know me from any other person.  And I'm not anywhere in the same league as SOF Operators.  You could walk by a Navy SEAL on the street, and never even know it.

Many people like to play where high-level characters are automatically recognized as something very special.  And that's cool.

Others don't.  And that's also cool.

A system that hard-wires one play-style into the system, and won't even acknowledge the other.  That's a mistake.



But again, as I've said earlier, I am not 4E bashing.  There are pieces of 4E I think are genius, and I use them as houserules in my own games.  This is however, a thread for feedback to Mike & Monte about feedback on going forward into a new edition.  I am doing so in hopes that the mistakes of the past do not get replicated in their current endeavor.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jan 8, 2012)

Hello.



Upper_Krust said:


> They are not saying you couldn't have a stone horse, just that most people don't (at that level).






> You move around on foot or on a relatively
> mundane mount such as a horse...




Nope.  Not seeing it.  If it said "Most likely, you move around on foot or on a relatively mundane mount...", or "The norm for characters of this level is..."

But they didn't.  they said exactly what the quote says.  You are free to interpret it anyway you want though.  Just as everybody does.  But whether you feel my interpretation of that quote is wrong, I was far from alone.  And I'm certain it cost WotC customers.  If they want to avoid losing customers in this manner with the next edition, this is a mindset and mistake that should probably be avoided.




Upper_Krust said:


> If you run into a dragon in the nearby hills next to the town, then chances are it will be young enough to have not brought much attention to itself.




The chances are it's young...  On this I agree.  But that's not how it's presented.




Upper_Krust said:


> Thats what happens when you don't make the tiers distinct enough. Paragon tier characters should be involved in running Castles and Temples, Epic Tier characters involved in running countries.




There's that should again.  Not everyone plays this way.  The last thing many people want is a character that has to be in charge of a castle.





Upper_Krust said:


> ...In other words make sure 5th Edition is a 5000 page book, every rule, every location, every option and every play style must be detailed from day one.




I can certainly understand why you might think that, but it's not what I'm saying.

By inclusiveness I don't mean that every playstyle need be described in extensive detail.  I mean that inclusiveness needs to be the philosophy in mind when writing the game.

The language of 4E shows that the writers had very specific game style and campaign styles in mind whe they wrote it.  And those styles were hardwired into the system.

Simply changing ones mindset and avoiding words like _"should"_, "_avoid_", "_skip_", "_unfun_", etc., can make all the difference.  It's the difference between exclusivity and inclusiveness.  It doesn't require a 5000 page book, just as previous edition books didn't require 5000 pages for this.  (Though I'm not saying previous editions were perfect in this regard either.  I feel it's a mistake in thinking and presentation regardless of the edition.)

I also think the DMG can give a basic overview of the different types of play styles (Simulationist, Gamist, Narrativist) without also being overly verbose.  It can describe them.  Talk about how to identify your preference.  And then talk about how to apply them to game play.  And it won't require a 5000 page book.


Thanks for reading.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jan 8, 2012)

P.S.

Dear Mike & Monte,

Please continue DDI support for 4E even when 5E is released.  It would be a shame to ditch all the work that was done developing the 4E data base.  I understand that release of new 4E material won't happen, though occasional inclusion of fan submitted material in Dungeon or Dragon would be greatly appreciated.  But please do not just scrap the 4E character/monster/encounter builders, the compendium, and the VTT support just because of 5E.  It would be a shame to repeat the mistakes of the 3E to 4E transition.

Sincerely,
Mark "El Mahdi" Armstrong


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jan 9, 2012)

El Mahdi said:
			
		

> Hello.




Howdy! 



> Nope.  Not seeing it.  If it said "Most likely, you move around on foot or on a relatively mundane mount...", or "The norm for characters of this level is..."
> 
> But they didn't.  they said exactly what the quote says.  You are free to interpret it anyway you want though.  Just as everybody does.  But whether you feel my interpretation of that quote is wrong, I was far from alone.  And I'm certain it cost WotC customers.  If they want to avoid losing customers in this manner with the next edition, this is a mindset and mistake that should probably be avoided.




I think you are placing too much importance on what is basically a summary.



> The chances are it's young...  On this I agree.  But that's not how it's presented.




Nothing that couldn't be solved by a few random encounter tables.



> There's that should again.  Not everyone plays this way.  The last thing many people want is a character that has to be in charge of a castle.




With great power comes great responsibility.

I'd wager that many people don't play that way in the higher levels because it simply isn't supported by the rules. What that means is that Paragon and Epic gaming is just more dungeoneering...only with more math.



> I can certainly understand why you might think that, but it's not what I'm saying.
> 
> By inclusiveness I don't mean that every playstyle need be described in extensive detail.  I mean that inclusiveness needs to be the philosophy in mind when writing the game.
> 
> The language of 4E shows that the writers had very specific game style and campaign styles in mind whe they wrote it.  And those styles were hardwired into the system.




Paralleling low fantasy/sword & sorcery, mid fantasy/tolkeinesque and high fantasy/epic archetypes.



> Simply changing ones mindset and avoiding words like _"should"_, "_avoid_", "_skip_", "_unfun_", etc., can make all the difference.  It's the difference between exclusivity and inclusiveness.  It doesn't require a 5000 page book, *just as previous edition books didn't require 5000 pages for this.*  (Though I'm not saying previous editions were perfect in this regard either.  I feel it's a mistake in thinking and presentation regardless of the edition.)




Players Handbook 1-3 + Dungeon Masters Guide 1-2 + Monster Manual 1-3 + Demonomicon + Manual of the Planes + Elemental Chaos + Astral Plane + Shadowfell + Feywild + etc. + etc.

To make everything core would take 5000 pages.



> I also think the DMG can give a basic overview of the different types of play styles (Simulationist, Gamist, Narrativist) without also being overly verbose.  It can describe them.  Talk about how to identify your preference.  And then talk about how to apply them to game play.  And it won't require a 5000 page book.




I'm not worried about basic overviews. I am talking about outlining enough information (on locations and creatures) in the initial books/boxed sets to actually warrant the inclusion and make those areas playable.

The near 1000 pages of the PHB + DMG + MM is TOO MUCH information for casual gamers and its too much expenditure (and even after that you still need dice, character sheets, maps, tokens/minis etc.). 

Once we acknowledge that the boxed set approach is VASTLY superior for attracting new gamers you have to assess what information you want to get across. It doesn't make sense to have 5000 pages or even 1000 pages.


----------



## Incenjucar (Jan 9, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> They pulled _*all*_ pdf's.  Not just 4E.




_Exactly._



> Closing the barn door after the horses have fled.  It was hardwired into the game in a manner that makes this style extremely difficult to impossible.  People contemplating whether to switch to 4E read the core books when they came out, realized they couldn't play their type of game with it, and moved on.




At level 1 you're still fighting kobolds, you just have more abilities to use against them than you would in previous editions. It's true that some people like to start out as commoners, but it's also true that a lot of people do not. It certainly would have been nice for them to put the optional rules in somewhere, earlier, though.



> It's a lot easier to sell a new game at the start, than try to sell it later after minds have been made up.  If the _core rules_ had been inclusive for all play styles, from the start, they likely wouldn't have lost so many after the initial release.




No edition of any game can boast this.



> And as above, also not in the initial core rules (PHB1, DMG1, MM1).  Contributing to the same result as above...




A stone horse is a rather specific option, and your DM can easily say "Oh yeah and your horse is made of stone." They still don't have elemental classes, and won't when the elemental book is release, and THAT is a far, far bigger deal than a specific magic item.



> Not in the initial _core rules_...
> 
> It doesn't say _"may"_...it doesn't say _"you have the choice"_...it says _"you choose"_...
> 
> ...




You can choose to take paragon multiclassing instead. Epic destinies, on page 172 of the PHB, explicitly state that you don't have to take them, but you can grab one at any time after 21st and get all the powers retroactively.



> Not everyone plays where high-level characters are automatically _"Paragons"_ and _"Shining Examples"_.  Some play where high-level characters can appear like that, but it's a choice, not a defacto assumption.  The initial core rules don't even present the possibility of such play.




It's the whole heroic fantasy thing. WotC isn't going to force you to play heroes, but they want to promote that. You can also play a bunch of self-declared paladins in V:TM.



> So, as for an example of how that works:  I'm a 21 year veteran of the USAF, with 5 years in Combat Search & Rescue, 5 years an AF Special Operations, and a veteran of 5 wars.  If I were to "stat" myself out, I think a level somewhere over 10th wouldn't be unimaginable.  But I can guarentee, when I walk around or enter an establishment, people don't automatically say: _"Wow!  A Paragon!"_  Quite honestly, they don't know me from any other person.  And I'm not anywhere in the same league as SOF Operators.  You could walk by a Navy SEAL on the street, and never even know it.




No human being who ever lived is at all comparable to a 10th level PC. A 10th level PC is 1/3 of the way to *godhood.*



> Many people like to play where high-level characters are automatically recognized as something very special.  And that's cool.
> 
> Others don't.  And that's also cool.
> 
> A system that hard-wires one play-style into the system, and won't even acknowledge the other.  That's a mistake.




If nobody knows of your exploits, your DM is unlikely to give you magical fame. 4E promotes things, but there's no mechanical effect of being paragon that forces behavior from NPCs.


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 9, 2012)

Upper_Krust said:


> Technically OD&D had tiers of play.
> 
> Technically 2E acknowledged high level play options.
> 
> Technically 3E had two tiers (Standard and Epic)



Interesting that 1e did not, and is my preference; though I had never noticed this (very minor) connection before now.



> I don't understand why anyone would 'dislike' the *concept* of tiers. I can understand people not liking to play certain tiers, but not liking the concept is bewildering.



I'm not a fan.  I don't mind a fuzzy sort-of idea of low-level play, mid-level play, and high-level play but these really don't need to be hard-cast into the system.  Each group will define these things differently - 7th level may be low to one group, mid to another, and high to a third...and off the chart for an E-6er. 



			
				Incenjucar said:
			
		

> They have pre-1st level rules now.



They do?

Why oh why weren't these included with original core 4e?



			
				Upper Krust said:
			
		

> Paralleling low fantasy/sword & sorcery, mid fantasy/tolkeinesque and high fantasy/epic archetypes.



Paragon-tier 4e is already well past low fantasy in my eyes and pretty quickly leaves Tolkein behind as well.

Lan-"can anyone tell me if 4e is capable of high camp a la Hercules/Xena"-efan


----------



## Hassassin (Jan 9, 2012)

Lanefan said:


> > They have pre-1st level rules now.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I think a better question is: what's the point of making 1st level awesomer if you then need to add pre-1st levels? Wouldn't it be simpler to have 1st be 1st and give rules for starting at 3rd/5th/whatever?


----------



## Nagol (Jan 9, 2012)

Lanefan said:


> Interesting that 1e did not, and is my preference; though I had never noticed this (very minor) connection before now.




1e had two tiers of play: pre-Name level and Name level where the holding rules kick in and playstyle may change.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jan 9, 2012)

Hey Lanefan! 



			
				Lanefan said:
			
		

> Interesting that 1e did not, and is my preference; though I had never noticed this (very minor) connection before now.




Weird that I played a character up to 117th-level Lesser God in 1st Edition then. 

The design of 1E was interesting in that after a certain point your character really didn't get that much more powerful by levelling up. Its basically like having a capstone level (where you stop getting abilities) but then allowing PCs to transcend the capstone but with massively diminished benefits. This worked fairly well because it kept a very large chunk of the Monster Manuals and Fiend Folio relevant no matter what level you played at, while simultaneously allowing for inclusion of the immortals and monsters from Deities & Demigods.



> Paragon-tier 4e is already well past low fantasy in my eyes and pretty quickly leaves Tolkein behind as well.




Witch-kings, Dragons, Balrogs, Artifacts and clashes with massive armies in my opinion suggest Paragon Tier.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 9, 2012)

I definitely second the notion to flesh out the tiers. I'm a big fan of the BD&D tier system. First tier is "local dungeon crawling," where you hack up monsters in dungeons close to your home base. Second tier is "wilderness adventuring," where you venture into distant and dangerous regions. Third tier is "domain rulership," where you carve out a kingdom of your own and defend it. Fourth tier is "quest for immortality," where you set out to make a permanent mark on the world.

The trick, I think, is to make sure that the new elements added with  each tier are optional. So when you move into the "domain rulership" tier, there are rules for domain rulership and mass combat  for those who want to explore such areas, but you can keep right on  dungeon crawling if you want to.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jan 9, 2012)

Hey Dausuul! 



			
				Dausuul said:
			
		

> I definitely second the notion to flesh out the tiers. I'm a big fan of the BD&D tier system. First tier is "local dungeon crawling," where you hack up monsters in dungeons close to your home base. Second tier is "wilderness adventuring," where you venture into distant and dangerous regions. Third tier is "domain rulership," where you carve out a kingdom of your own and defend it. Fourth tier is "quest for immortality," where you set out to make a permanent mark on the world.




Your breakdown might be better than my original suggestion. So I proffer a revised...

Red Box = Levels 1-5
Green Box = Levels 6-10
Blue Box = Levels 11-20
Black Box = Levels 21-30
Gold Box = Levels 31-50

Its obvious that the lower levels will have the most players and require the most support. 



> The trick, I think, is to make sure that the new elements added with  each tier are optional. So when you move into the "domain rulership" tier, there are rules for domain rulership and mass combat  for those who want to explore such areas, but you can keep right on  dungeon crawling if you want to.




As I posted earlier, I really think Dungeon Crawling takes care of itself at higher levels.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 9, 2012)

I want the commoner tier... should be pretty easy to do. As suggested: the second tier can follow pretty soon and have rules forstarting there.
If you present it like that:

The first tier of play is useful if you are a new player and don´t know about the system. You can learn the basics of your class one by one and learn skills and tricks along the way.
It may also be useful for more experienced players who like to play a very low powered campaign that takes place in a city and is more based on intrigue than combat, as a little bit more powerful enemies can be very deadly.

If you want to start as an adventurer, you can skip those levels and start with the choice of the listed abilities you learned before you started adventuring.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jan 9, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Before mechanics, consider the basics:
> 
> *What's the goal of D&D?*
> 
> ...





> That is why we are excited to share with you that starting in Spring 2012, we will be taking this process one step further and conducting *ongoing open playtests with the gaming community to gather feedback on the new iteration of the game as we develop it. With your feedback and involvement, we can make D&D better than ever.* We seek to build a foundation for the long-term health and growth of D&D, one rooted in the vital traits that make D&D unique and special. We want a game that rises above differences of play styles, campaign settings, and editions, one that takes the fundamental essence of D&D and brings it to the forefront of the game. In short, we want a game that is as simple or complex as you please, its action focused on combat, intrigue, and exploration as you desire. We want a game that is unmistakably D&D, but one that can easily become your D&D, the game that you want to run and play.
> 
> D&D is more than just a set of rules for fantasy gaming. It launched an entire gaming genre and played a pivotal role in creating the entirety of the gaming industry, both analog and digital. The game has lived and thrived because it has awoken a spark of creation, visions of daring adventure, wondrous vistas, and untold horrors that pull us all together as a community of RPG fans. *It is the countless players and DMs who have brought it to life over the years. The game is at its best when it is yours.*
> 
> For that reason, we want your participation. *The goals we have set for ourselves are by no means trivial or easy. *By involving you in this process, we can build a set of D&D rules that incorporate the wants and desires of D&D gamers around the world. We want to create a flexible game, rich with options for players and DMs to embrace or reject as they see fit, a game that brings D&D fans together rather than serves as one more category to splinter us apart.



I'll give credit where it's due. They're saying that D&D should be for everyone, and doing some form of cooperative development. I remain skeptical of the company that gave us 4e and of the possibility of politicking, but I acknowledge that a positive message has been put out there, which is a step forward in itself.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jan 10, 2012)

[Double post]


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jan 10, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> No human being who ever lived is at all comparable to a 10th level PC. A 10th level PC is 1/3 of the way to *godhood.*



Except Chuck Norris.


----------



## Siberys (Jan 10, 2012)

I don't want rules, rules, rules - except for combat.

I don't want needless redundancy (see: the existing power system)

Refluffing should be an important part of the game - as long as the fluff can fit, it should be usable!

I don't want RP-only effects (craft, profession, certain feats, et cetera) to be built into the base system. These get in the way of RPing, in my experience, and detract from effectiveness. Make this a variant module.

I want more than two pillars of character creation! Race and class should carry near equal weight, and there should be a theme or similar as well!

I don't want feat glut - no feats just for elf wizards! Very few just for elves, or just for wizards!

I want fast combat that can be played with or without minis.

I want meaningful conditions, but I don't want them to dominate play and make tracking effects difficult.

I want combat to be dynamic - no full attack/pass, ever!

Off-turn actions should be available, but not the be-all, end-all.

In short; I want rules for combat, and a system for layering descriptions onto those rules, so I can do close to whatever I want with it, and without a lot of the glut seen in both 3e and 4e.


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 10, 2012)

*Magic should be flexible, dangerous, and wondrous, but also limited.* 

- Magic should not be the end-all be-all fix to problems in adventures. There should not be a spell for everything, as that not only bloats spell lists, but it also overshadows non-mages. 

- Higher level magic should not be an automatic "I win" button. 

- Mages, of all sorts, should have their moments to shine, but not at the persistent expense of "the mundanes." 

- Drastically reduce the spell list, but make it flexible enough for both character customization/specialization and combat improvisation. 

- Upper level mages should be of equivalent power as non-mages. 

- Mages should have at-will magical attacks and prestidigitation. Let mages feel magical by constantly having spells to throw around to defend or amuse themselves. (Perhaps with minor restrictions, such as "must have a wand or staff" equipped.)

*Classes should be defined and distinguished by playstyle.*

- By designing classes around popular playing styles, you were both on the right track with Arcana Evolved and Iron Heroes. 

- Simply having one caster who, for example, is basically designed around doing the same thing with divine magic instead of arcane magic is not going to cut it. 

*Clerics (and healers of all stripes) should be optional and not mandatory.  for successful adventures.*

- If people enjoy healing and support, then let them play that. But it should not be assumed or required for adventures. (I would honestly like to see [much like in Arcana Evolved] the arcane classes being given some magical healing to reduce the load and dependency of healer classes.)


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 10, 2012)

Aldarc said:


> *Magic should be flexible, dangerous, and wondrous, but also limited.*
> 
> - Magic should not be the end-all be-all fix to problems in adventures. There should not be a spell for everything, as that not only bloats spell lists, but it also overshadows non-mages.
> 
> ...



I don't mind higher-level magic having an "I win" component as long as there is an associated risk to the caster and-or her allies.



> *Classes should be defined and distinguished by playstyle.*
> 
> - By designing classes around popular playing styles, you were both on the right track with Arcana Evolved and Iron Heroes.
> 
> - Simply having one caster who, for example, is basically designed around doing the same thing with divine magic instead of arcane magic is not going to cut it.



I'll add in: give all classes some relevant out-of-combat utility abilities if possible; and make sure the utility spells stay in.



> *Clerics (and healers of all stripes) should be optional and not mandatory.  for successful adventures.*
> 
> - If people enjoy healing and support, then let them play that. But it should not be assumed or required for adventures. (I would honestly like to see [much like in Arcana Evolved] the arcane classes being given some magical healing to reduce the load and dependency of healer classes.)



What's the point, then?  All that would do is concatenate arcane and divine casters into one caster type...making it more powerful/essential to have in a party instead of less.

I don't mind healers/support being essential as long as there's an assumption going in that if the players don't want to play it then the DM will lob an NPC into the party to handle that role.

Lan-"I have 76 hit points, but not very often"-efan


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 10, 2012)

Lanefan said:


> I don't mind higher-level magic having an "I win" component as long as there is an associated risk to the caster and-or her allies.



More in terms of things that basically having the caster completely rewrite the universe or instantly demolish everything. 



> What's the point, then? All that would do is concatenate arcane and divine casters into one caster type...making it more powerful/essential to have in a party instead of less.



See Arcana Evolved's universal spell system. Also see other systems that opt for the warrior-rogue-mage trinity instead of the warrior-rogue-mage-cleric quaternary. 



> I don't mind healers/support being essential as long as there's an assumption going in that if the players don't want to play it then the DM will lob an NPC into the party to handle that role.



I take that as a sign that the necessity of healers should be reconsidered. Why should healers be required at all?


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 10, 2012)

Aldarc said:


> More in terms of things that basically having the caster completely rewrite the universe or instantly demolish everything.



If instantly demolishing "everything" is going to include the caster and allies I suspect most casters would have serious second thoughts. 

As for rewriting the universe (I assume you're referring to "Wish" here), that's where the DM comes in: the more you ask for, the greater the chance of it going horribly irredeemably wrong.



> See Arcana Evolved's universal spell system. Also see other systems that opt for the warrior-rogue-mage trinity instead of the warrior-rogue-mage-cleric quaternary.
> 
> I take that as a sign that the necessity of healers should be reconsidered. Why should healers be required at all?



Because otherwise you're going to spend an awful lot of time every session watching people rest and recuperate.  (the 4e idea of getting back to full h.p. after a night's rest just doesn't work for me at all)

Healers are a game mechanic to allow you to get on with the game, pure and simple, only they have been inserted into the game in a way that is sensible and believable within the game world.  I'm more than ready to live with that.

That, and I like the divine influence.  If I ever were to go to a "trinity" as you call it, it'd probably be warrior-thief-cleric and leave out the arcane.  But I don't see myself ever doing that. 

Lanefan


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 10, 2012)

Lanefan said:


> Because otherwise you're going to spend an awful lot of time every session watching people rest and recuperate.  (the 4e idea of getting back to full h.p. after a night's rest just doesn't work for me at all)



What do you mean "otherwise"? Doesn't that presume that a healerless D&D must work in one particular way with one particular design? But it doesn't have to be that way. Nor does it have to be the 4E way. 

Edit: For example, what if the design of "healing" and clerics were completely rethought such that they did not so much cast spells to patch up damage, but to prevent the damage from being taken? This is an approach that is becoming increasingly common in video games with "healers" or even those without healing roles (i.e. Guild Wars 2). Taking a cue from 4E, what if healing or damage prevention was simply a secondary effect of a cleric's attack? 



> *Healers are a game mechanic to allow you to get on with the game, pure and simple, only they have been inserted into the game in a way that is sensible and believable within the game world.*  I'm more than ready to live with that.



And that's what I find so problematic. The class is designed to be a crutch that let's players of other classes play the game properly. The cleric helps cope with the fundamental design flaw without actually fixing the problem. But D&D should be designed, in some way or another, to make playing support an option but not a requirement (i.e. a crutch). 



> That, and I like the divine influence.  If I ever were to go to a "trinity" as you call it, it'd probably be warrior-thief-cleric and leave out the arcane.  But I don't see myself ever doing that.
> 
> Lanefan



Isn't the triune in the original edition of D&D though? Isn't the triune what you find in many RPGs? (e.g. Diablo 1, Dragon Age, etc.)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 10, 2012)

1) When providing game advice, don't state it in absolutes, like "talking with guards isn't fun". Provide different interpretations and approaches to issues. Don't make believe you really think there is just one way to do things.

2) Fluff vs Reference Manual: 
The rule books should provide stuff that is written "fluffy". In-character descriptions of events and things like that. Make a large enough section of the book fun to read for a player.

But when it comes to the hard rules, formulate them clearly, present them in a clean format that is fast to read and works as a reference at the gaming table. Do not shy away from repeating information in a more formal context. 

3) Points of Light:
The setting, t he mythology, and all the vague and undefined elements, the cosmology, it's all awesome. Don't throw it out!

4) Balance
It is still important. D&D 4 presents the best attempt at it so far. Don't sacrifice any of that. There must be ways to maintain balance and still appeal to storytellers, grognards and whatnot. 

Mustrum "Grogn4rd" Ridcully


----------



## Hussar (Jan 10, 2012)

Mustrum Ridcully said:
			
		

> 1) When providing game advice, don't state it in absolutes, like "talking with guards isn't fun". Provide different interpretations and approaches to issues. Don't make believe you really think there is just one way to do things.




Oh, for the love of all that is holy, DO THIS!   

-------------

Here's something I want.  I want, as a DM, to be able to stat up a monster, by hand, in under five minutes.  I want a stat-block to take up two lines at most.  I want to go back to very simplistic monsters which had maybe one special ability at most.  

The "stat block" needs to go.

However, that being said, I would like a fairly lengthy list of maneuvers that monsters could perform - fairly standard actions (not the game mechanic standard action, but, stuff that comes up fairly often) that work based on the creature's capabilities.  For example, a giant's stat block would have what the PC's need to roll to hit it, it's HP, move, attack bonus and damage.  It's a giant, it doesn't need anything else.

However, in the Monster Maneuver's section there would be something with the prerequisite of hands and very large size which would allow me to pick up an enemy and toss him X squares away for Y damage.  All creatures that fit the pre-requisite can do this.  Add in a bunch more like that, and I'm a happy camper.


----------

