Don't kill me, but what would you like from a fifth edition?

141 posts / 0 new
Last post
No idea when it may come out, but I thought this fourm has gone far to long without people yelling at each other. What has it been, 20 seconds?
But seriously, keep it civil. I want classes, races and all that jazz, and not that stuff about powersources and roles. I like 4e powers, but like how 3.5 had class features that were truely defineing and were gained after 1st lv. I love balance and options and beleive class features need to be more customizable. Races should play more of a role, and multiclassing should be far away from anything it has been as of yet. themes are wonderful and should become just as much a part of the game as your race or class.

What do you think? 
holydoom.weebly.com: Holydoom! A lighthearted RPG in progress. Loosely based on 3.5. 4, and GURPS. Very, Very, Very loosely. Seriously, visit it now. http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29086701/I_HIT_IT_WITH_MA_SWORD!_(like_this!):_A_Slayers_Handbook An attempt at CharOp
To anyone who thinks Pathfinder is outselling D&D
While one report may say that FLGS report a greater amount of book sales, one cannot forget the fact that the 71000 DDI subscribers paying 6-10 dollars a month don't count as "Book Sales."
"see sig" redirects here
Oblivious troll is Oblivious
PbP supporter!
General thoughts, feelings, and info on DDN!
Stuff I Heard Mike Say (subject to change): Multiclassing will be different than in 3.5! That's important. There is no level cap; classes advance ala 3.5 epic levels after a set level. Mundane (AKA fighter and co) encounter and daily powers will probably not be in the PHB (for the lack of space), but nor will they be in some obscure book released halfway through the edition.
You can't please everyone, but you can please me. I DO NOT WANT A FREAKING 4E REPEAT. I DO NOT WANT A MODULE THAT MIMICS MY FAVORITE EDITION. I WANT MODULES THAT MIMIC A PLAYSTYLE AND CAN BE INTERCHANGED TO COMPLETELY CHANGE THE FEEL, BUT NOT THE THEME, OF D&D. A perfect example would be an espionage module, or desert survival. A BAD EXAMPLE IS HEALING SURGES. WE HAVE 4E FOR THOSE! A good example is a way to combine a mundane and self healing module, a high-survival-rate module, and a separate pool of healing resource module.
One thing I want is for them to design the overall architecture - how classes, races, roles, power sources, backgrounds, and themes fit together - and then stick with it for the life of the edition. Oh, and multiclassing and hybrids. They don't have to release the entire architecture all at once, but after a portion has been released that portion shouldn't be changed.

The attempts to change that are what I dislike the most about Essentials and its aftermath. It's like redesigning and rebuilding the chassis of a truck while someone is driving it down the road.

They COULD HAVE had an initial architecture that allowed for all the Essentials classes.  For example, they could have attached role to "build" ("subclass" is actually a better name) rather than to class - so, perhaps, the beastmaster ranger could have been a controller while the archer and two-weapon ranger are strikers. It would have worked just fine. And that isn't the only possibility either. But they didn't. So they had to jack things around and hack things up, breaking a number of firmly-embedded assumptions.

In contrast, there was no difficulty with adding themes and backgrounds, because those were simple additions to what had previously been released. Not alterations. 
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
I would like stats to be disconnected from attack modifiers and defenses.  I find 4E sometimes very limiting regarding character design because of how stats are linked to attacks and defenses.  You need a very high primary stat which makes a moderate (say, mostly 14s instead of an 18 and 12s) character impractical.  In addition, with the way the stats are paired (Dex or Int for AC/Reflex, for example), character concepts become further limited.  Rogues are not smart, wizards are not fast, etc.  Separating stats from attacks and defenses would free up all of these types of characters from those limitations.

I really like roles, and so I would like to see them further defined, especially the controller, both with regards to class features but also powers (if 5E even sticks with the powers format).  Currently it is a bit mixed, as some roles get a feature separate from the power (like marking, or striker damage), while others get a feature built into the powers (controllers and area powers).  This makes power swapping a bit muddled (it can be great to pick up a controller power, but a defender power won't necessarily increase your defending abilities).  Building role features into the powers themselves would help solve this.  You would take a striker power to deal more damage, or a leader power to help your allies.

Lastly, assuming they stick with the roles, I would like to see Striker damage toned down.  They should of course deal the most damage, but I don't think they should deal orders of magnitude more damage.  Other roles should feel just as important, rather than placeholders to allow the striker to do the actual work.
2 things. One I just don't like +1 armour, weapons and neck pieces and secondly I'd reduce the costs of Rituals from components to 1 piece of chalk.
Lastly, assuming they stick with the roles

They will stick with roles in some form, because those are a recognition of the reality of the game. A fighter, a rogue, a cleric, and a wizard have NEVER been interchangeable in terms of what they do for the party.

Exactly what that form will be, though, is more difficult to predict.

I'd like to see the roles, at least in their descriptions, broken down a bit more into recognized subroles - an archer ranger and a two-weapon ranger are both strikers, and they both do massive damage, but they are still not completely interchangeable; a leader that says "hey Joe, you're +3 to hit until end of my next turn" is different from a leader who says "hey Joe, you have 25 temp hit points".

And I'd like to see roles either entirely independent of class, or attached to subclass (aka build) rather than class.

As for powers, I can see there being racial powers, class powers, subclass powers, maybe role powers, and theme powers. Also all of those can have features (including features that are powers), which don't necessarily all kick in at level 1.
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
Fewer "....Sixth Edition; sky is falling." threads. Also, fewer grognards who insist that it's new, not 2E/3.x, and not what they like, thus, is bad, and must ruin perfectly good dialogue for forward movement in the system by insisting backwards is best.

Realistically, a strong hybridization of the base classes from 4E and the subclasses from Essentials. Classes that get scaling abilities, power options, and features at all levels. Beyond that, everything else is fine. Magic items can still be made plot relevant through creativity, and more fluff is entirely unnecessary, as it creates the immense problem of 3.x where severing Fluff from Mechanics is next to impossible. Ontop of that, most people (I hope), are intelligent and creative enough to devise their own fluff for their character as they see fit.
4E is a great game and I hope to continue to play it for a long time. That being said, I hope they don't cling too closely to what it is. I'd like them to try something different.

That said, I'd like to add a new type of monster. Rather than just skirmisher, artillery, etc. I'd like to add a monster type that would give players a challenge that couldn't purely be overcome by systematic application of damage or simply having better stats. A monster that is technically "balanced" but that takes a bit of trial and error to figure out. Not a monster that makes classes feel useless but one that makes players feel empowered to have overcome. I'm thinking of a lot of boss battles in video games where you have to figure out the bosses weakness and then exploit it to win rather than just always overwhelming it with better to hit rolls and better damage output combined with basic tactics.  I don't want to lose those things as they exist now but augment them with new types of monster challenges.
* Remove the '+'s from magic items.
* Somehow streamline things further so combats are shorter. (No ideas, here.)
* I would like to see errata be used to IMPROVE existing material, instead of fixing / nerfing, but I don't think there's any money in that idea.
* Stick with the tokens. Some tips on how to best use the Dungeon Tiles would probably be helpful in getting people away from the wet-erase battlemat, as well.
* Ask for honest feedback with weekly one-question, multiple-choice polls on the front page (one entry per IP), and display the results. I'd much more interested in what the D&D audience at large thinks of the game rather than just those who dwell on the message boards.
* From day one have a built-in system with an eye towards encompassing all sorts of character ideas. I would go with Class, Race, Origin (region/environment-based), Background (pre-adventuring activity), and Theme (a class-neutral mechanic that reflects your interests in adventuring). And most importantly, don't cross the streams - don't create 'Themes' that should flavor-wise be 'Origins' or 'Backgrounds.'

Otherwise...streamline the various powers and things, so writing a character's abilities won't take quite so much page space.
4e D&D is not a "Tabletop MMO." It is not Massively Multiplayer, and is usually not played Online. Come up with better descriptions of your complaints, cuz this one means jack ****.
I echo the things said about magic items: NO MORE PLUSSES. If you can screw Vancanian or whatever, you can screw that.
DND brand dry erase boards with a grid with a background on one side and status tracking on the other would be cool. Maby.
Monsters with weaknesses (explotable by pritty much every class, if not all) was a cool idea and I second it.
I would like to add another question. What kind of suplementary matirial would you like to see. I'm talking game aids, books, etc. And what would you definately keep from forth.
holydoom.weebly.com: Holydoom! A lighthearted RPG in progress. Loosely based on 3.5. 4, and GURPS. Very, Very, Very loosely. Seriously, visit it now. http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29086701/I_HIT_IT_WITH_MA_SWORD!_(like_this!):_A_Slayers_Handbook An attempt at CharOp
To anyone who thinks Pathfinder is outselling D&D
While one report may say that FLGS report a greater amount of book sales, one cannot forget the fact that the 71000 DDI subscribers paying 6-10 dollars a month don't count as "Book Sales."
"see sig" redirects here
Oblivious troll is Oblivious
PbP supporter!
General thoughts, feelings, and info on DDN!
Stuff I Heard Mike Say (subject to change): Multiclassing will be different than in 3.5! That's important. There is no level cap; classes advance ala 3.5 epic levels after a set level. Mundane (AKA fighter and co) encounter and daily powers will probably not be in the PHB (for the lack of space), but nor will they be in some obscure book released halfway through the edition.
You can't please everyone, but you can please me. I DO NOT WANT A FREAKING 4E REPEAT. I DO NOT WANT A MODULE THAT MIMICS MY FAVORITE EDITION. I WANT MODULES THAT MIMIC A PLAYSTYLE AND CAN BE INTERCHANGED TO COMPLETELY CHANGE THE FEEL, BUT NOT THE THEME, OF D&D. A perfect example would be an espionage module, or desert survival. A BAD EXAMPLE IS HEALING SURGES. WE HAVE 4E FOR THOSE! A good example is a way to combine a mundane and self healing module, a high-survival-rate module, and a separate pool of healing resource module.
. . . I like pluses on my weapons.  That's part of what I like about any game with magical stoof.  Weapons that add to my attack, and . . . whatever else.

As for what I want out of 5th ed, that's too long a post to go into here in the time I have.  I'll come back and make a full post later.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
That's it, you're dead meat.  
I like pretty much everything about 4th, but this is what I would like.

Classes no longer having built in roles. Instead they have a VAAAAST array of powers they can choose at each level. So that any class can be any role.
I like pretty much everything about 4th, but this is what I would like.

Classes no longer having built in roles. Instead they have a VAAAAST array of powers they can choose at each level. So that any class can be any role.



Yeah, it was kind of a bad idea to restrict each class to a single role.  There should have been a small number of classes with a large number of build options, instead of a large number of classes each with a small number of build options.


Yeah, it was kind of a bad idea to restrict each class to a single role.  There should have been a small number of classes with a large number of build options, instead of a large number of classes each with a small number of build options.


Thats why I dropped the 4e wizard like a bad habbit. In 3.x wizards had the ability to define themselves through their powers in a way that no other class had, but which every class should have had (the ability to express their core identity through their powers).


Yeah, it was kind of a bad idea to restrict each class to a single role.  There should have been a small number of classes with a large number of build options, instead of a large number of classes each with a small number of build options.


Thats why I dropped the 4e wizard like a bad habbit. In 3.x wizards had the ability to define themselves through their powers in a way that no other class had, but which every class should have had (the ability to express their core identity through their powers).



My biggest problem with defining one's self is that sometimes what a player designs is mud.  Also, I found the "Bard/Sorcerer/Wizard" magic lists of the past boring, in so much as the lists were for all of them, and not that they got unique, interesting powers.  I like that a wizard is alwys going to be mainly a controller, and that a sorcerer is always going to be mainly a striker.  It gives PCs purpose.  Well, purpose other than pissing off the other players and the DM with a "master of none, dabbler of all" type of character that a system with unrestricted access to all roles for all classes gives.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]


Yeah, it was kind of a bad idea to restrict each class to a single role.  There should have been a small number of classes with a large number of build options, instead of a large number of classes each with a small number of build options.


Thats why I dropped the 4e wizard like a bad habbit. In 3.x wizards had the ability to define themselves through their powers in a way that no other class had, but which every class should have had (the ability to express their core identity through their powers).



My biggest problem with defining one's self is that sometimes what a player designs is mud.  Also, I found the "Bard/Sorcerer/Wizard" magic lists of the past boring, in so much as the lists were for all of them, and not that they got unique, interesting powers.  I like that a wizard is alwys going to be mainly a controller, and that a sorcerer is always going to be mainly a striker.  It gives PCs purpose.  Well, purpose other than pissing off the other players and the DM with a "master of none, dabbler of all" type of character that a system with unrestricted access to all roles for all classes gives.

"My biggest problem with defining one's self is that sometimes what a player designs is mud."


This shouldn't have to be a problem. If the concept is fun and makes the player/group happy, who cares? Also, the system doesn't have to dictate a role for a PC to have "purpose". Regardless of whether a sorceror is forced to be a striker, if he happens to choose all defender powers, he would serve a purpose just as well as if he chose striker powers. Does a sorceror serve a purpose in a party full of strikers? How about a sorceror defender in a party full of strikers?
1) A return to the AEDU system, possibly some small variation (PPs, Stances and Tricks I feel are ok) but nothing like taking away daily powers and limiting characters to one encounter power ever again.

2) Solid and unchanging implementation of the Class/Subclass structure which I see as a perfect way to get multiple roles out of one class.  Themes being implemented from the begining and calculated into the overall game balance so they can be both effective and balanced.

3) getting rid of +x magic items, that math should be incorperated into the standard mechanics.  Magic items should have cool properties and effects that define them and be handed out based on the needs of the narrative and not as a nessecary part of game balance.  This also frees up player resources, no longer do they have to hoard their money for semi manditory equipment upgrades, they could if they wanted to invest in magic items of course but they would also be equaly free to spend their treasure doing other things, which leads into my fourth point.

4) Free up money for story purposesMoney can be either a narrative or a mechanical currency but it shouldn't be both and I feel it works better as a narrative currency. I love things like Henchmen and Hirelings, fortresses and other things that in the current system are sort of a waste of resources.  As a player I have even been known to engage in philanthropic endevors, my Eladrin Warlord spent a good deal of his cash and free time buying equipment for and training village millitias so that they could defend themselves from bandits and marauding monsters, My Dwarven Cleric built temples to Moradin in many of the cities we visited and used his money to support his bid for High Priest.  I would like the freedom to be able to do interesting and mostly narritive things with my cash without feeling like I am crippling my character.  
 
 "My biggest problem with defining one's self is that sometimes what a player designs is mud."


This shouldn't have to be a problem. If the concept is fun and makes the player/group happy, who cares? Also, the system doesn't have to dictate a role for a PC to have "purpose". Regardless of whether a sorceror is forced to be a striker, if he happens to choose all defender powers, he would serve a purpose just as well as if he chose striker powers. Does a sorceror serve a purpose in a party full of strikers? How about a sorceror defender in a party full of strikers?




This is something I'm not really sure you can even be right/wrong about, because it really comes down to personal preference. Of course game design reflects the personal preferences of the people making it, so naturally you will end up with a product that will please some and not please others.


I DM two games. One rolls attributes, the other uses point buy. The underlying philosophies are that one group feels rolling can have you end up with inferior characters and that's no fun, while the other thinks that it's an organic experience and flaws are half of the game. As long as each person in each group can agree to the system, I have no problems with either.


Personally, I tend to the 'point buy' viewpoint. The real trouble with "bad" characters is that D&D is a team sport. Even if a player enjoys the character they created, if that character is a drain on the team then suddenly you are interfering with other people's enjoyment. Bad decisions (be they personal or game design) never affect just one person.




Chainmail bikinis.

More pages. I LIKEM THICK.

Leather Bound.

Big gems in the cover. 
I am Black/Green
I am Black/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both selfish and instinctive. I value growth and community, as long as they favour my own objectives; I enjoy nature, and I particularly enjoy watching parts of nature die. At best, I am resilient and tenacious; at worst, I'm uncontrollable and destructive.
Chainmail bikinis.

More pages. I LIKEM THICK.

Leather Bound.

Big gems in the cover. 

21st century and girls are also gamers too, BOY. 

Nothing invite girls to game like chainmail bikinis. *rolls eyes* 
I'm sure I might be in the minority, but I haven't had a single female refuse to play (or even get mildly offended) by classic fantasy female art, aka chainmail bikinis, plate mail with boob-windows, and so on. My wife loves playing strong, buxom female warriors. Her sister does as well. My son's girlfriend always comments on how she wishes she could really look like the women in the artwork (her favorite is the barbarian female on page 12 of Primal Power).

My wife (a psychologist) tried explaining the association of females to a predominantly male genre and the way they are depicted in said genre. Most of it was over my head, but I got the general gist. It basically boiled down to women who see a scantily-clad (or inappropriately clad) woman, and the effects it has on their own self-esteem. Women with self-worth issues are much more likely to take offense to them than those with higher self-worth. The only comments my wife will make amount to "I wonder if she gets sunburns in awkward places when she wears that", or "I didn't think you could make a great-axe sexy-looking, but she pulls it off", or "If I could find armor like that in real-life, I'd buy it in a heartbeat". She's a strong woman with high self-esteem. Something as clichèd and old-school as a chainmail bikini won't even register on her "offense" radar. Now, someone with poor self-esteem might take issue with it, but that's much more an issue with them than with the art. Just an opinion, naturally.
I'm sure I might be in the minority, but I haven't had a single female refuse to play (or even get mildly offended) by classic fantasy female art, aka chainmail bikinis, plate mail with boob-windows, and so on. My wife loves playing strong, buxom female warriors. Her sister does as well. My son's girlfriend always comments on how she wishes she could really look like the women in the artwork (her favorite is the barbarian female on page 12 of Primal Power).

My wife (a psychologist) tried explaining the association of females to a predominantly male genre and the way they are depicted in said genre. Most of it was over my head, but I got the general gist. It basically boiled down to women who see a scantily-clad (or inappropriately clad) woman, and the effects it has on their own self-esteem. Women with self-worth issues are much more likely to take offense to them than those with higher self-worth. The only comments my wife will make amount to "I wonder if she gets sunburns in awkward places when she wears that", or "I didn't think you could make a great-axe sexy-looking, but she pulls it off", or "If I could find armor like that in real-life, I'd buy it in a heartbeat". She's a strong woman with high self-esteem. Something as clichèd and old-school as a chainmail bikini won't even register on her "offense" radar. Now, someone with poor self-esteem might take issue with it, but that's much more an issue with them than with the art. Just an opinion, naturally.

I think the ones who would refuse to play because of it or who are turned off by it on a very basic level, probably would never come in contact with gamers simply because they're so far in the other direction.  And if you did come in contact with them about it, they'd likely divert from the issue and just say they're not interested rather than going off on a rant about the art. Self Esteem may play a part in it for some, but I doubt that's a common issue. I certainly don't have female self esteem issues, being a male, who's loud and proud about playing D&D but even I see that the gross objectification of women in fantasy/comic/etc art is mostly based on teen age power fantasy (the core demo), which can be a turn off for more mature consumers of either gender. I don't mind it. But when I was a teen and ruled by those parts of myself (rather than ruling them) I'm sure I found it more appealing. My wife, never having had a teenage male power fantasy simply sees it as something clearly not targeted at her as a consumer. I can't disagree. I don't begrudge D&D for knowing its target demographic and focusing on it like a laser. But I'm not willing to blame consumers for not simply ignoring that focus without solid justification.
Now, someone with poor self-esteem might take issue with it


Why should D&D be a game only for people with high self-esteem?  I think 13-20 year-old women (and that's probably the target aurdience for new girl gamers) are going to have a high proportion of people with self-esteem issues, just like boys in that age group.

If we alienated all the potential D&D players with self-esteem issues, we'd be even more of a niche hobby than we are now.

but that's much more an issue with them than with the art.


Artwork doesn't have issues because it's an inanimate thing.  So, if there's an issue with the game for any reason, it's more of a problem with them than it is with the inanimate object, like artwork, or mechanics, or prose, or the quality of binding.  So trying to fob off the issue on the person being turned off by the art is, in my just-an-opinion, a cop-out.
Since it (the art) has moved a good deal away from what it was in the '70s or '80s, if they have not yet been alienated by it, they likely won't be in the future...unless we suddenly take a drastic step backwards. If they have issues with it as it is now...well...that's too bad. Not sure what to tell them, aside from don't ever turn on the TV, open a magazine, or go out into public. If their sensibilities are that fragile, they're going to have a hell of a time out in the real world.
Monsters with specific/secret weaknesses... Is this for some reason not possible in 4e? You mentioned "like in video games". I've seen bosses vulnerable spots, which would require facing and called shots, not all that simple. I've seen bosses with keyword weakness, which I think is called vulnerable X in 4e. I've seen bosses weak against certain weapons and tactics, which seems to be solved with a Trait. Some bosses can only be hit if a switch is flipped or some such, which are terrain features and skill challenges.

Mixing class roles/more generalized characters... You want to be a magic-user that buffs? Isn't that a cleric/paladin? You want to be a cleric that's called "wizard"? You need you Rogue to have INT? For the skill checks? Train them? Wait until you're higher level? Just be bad at STR or CHA? I think we can't have a ridiculously powerful multiclass system, because optimization exist. Get rid of optimization and folks can make whatever characters they want because monsters could be weaker.

Pluses... it's a math game, the pluses will have to be tacked onto something, somewhere.

What would I want from 5e? Nothing really, I think the tools exist in 4e. Are the answers printed in a book yet? Probably not. Products like the recent Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan are very close to previous edition layouts, its vague, story focused, and random instead of rigid and tactical. I think this is the direction 4e is taking and that it will work.
 "My biggest problem with defining one's self is that sometimes what a player designs is mud."


This shouldn't have to be a problem. If the concept is fun and makes the player/group happy, who cares? Also, the system doesn't have to dictate a role for a PC to have "purpose". Regardless of whether a sorceror is forced to be a striker, if he happens to choose all defender powers, he would serve a purpose just as well as if he chose striker powers. Does a sorceror serve a purpose in a party full of strikers? How about a sorceror defender in a party full of strikers?




This is something I'm not really sure you can even be right/wrong about, because it really comes down to personal preference. Of course game design reflects the personal preferences of the people making it, so naturally you will end up with a product that will please some and not please others.


I DM two games. One rolls attributes, the other uses point buy. The underlying philosophies are that one group feels rolling can have you end up with inferior characters and that's no fun, while the other thinks that it's an organic experience and flaws are half of the game. As long as each person in each group can agree to the system, I have no problems with either.


Personally, I tend to the 'point buy' viewpoint. The real trouble with "bad" characters is that D&D is a team sport. Even if a player enjoys the character they created, if that character is a drain on the team then suddenly you are interfering with other people's enjoyment. Bad decisions (be they personal or game design) never affect just one person.



The former of your points is why I support hybrid/multiclass, point buy/dicerolling, magic pluses/inherent pluses, and more in a new system.  It's all about choice, and personal preference.


However, as your second point states, if personal preference impinges on the enjoyment of others, it becomes less about self expression, and more about how much that druid with class features that are controller and striker but powers that are solid defender would be damned annoying, not helpful.  The whole point of subclasses, for example, is to keep separated what needs separation, and join up what can be joined without killing a role in the party; fighter can be a striker, and all the fighter defenders can use are the utility powers because of how they structured it.  To me, nothing could be more beautiful.


My big point is that when you select a class, you know what you are getting yourself and the rest of the party into.  Counting on the average game player to not make a totally useless character "because their concept is cool", well that's a danger I would rather any system not take. 


There's rules for personal enjoyment, and rules that are more or less likely to step on the toes of other player's enjoyment. I personally think the Power Source + Role Powers kind of idea would create a glut of characters on the "more likely to step on the toes of other's enjoyment" end of the spectrum.

"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
Monsters with specific/secret weaknesses... Is this for some reason not possible in 4e? You mentioned "like in video games". I've seen bosses vulnerable spots, which would require facing and called shots, not all that simple. I've seen bosses with keyword weakness, which I think is called vulnerable X in 4e. I've seen bosses weak against certain weapons and tactics, which seems to be solved with a Trait. Some bosses can only be hit if a switch is flipped or some such, which are terrain features and skill challenges.
*snip*



It's more of a standard  monster we were looking for. You are right, a portion of solos and maby even some standards have weeknesses that are not vulnerability. It would just be neat if a litte stat box said "when you daze a kobold with an effect that deals damage, he also takes 3 ongoing damage"

Like if every monster had one of these, or maby most or something, it would be neat.
 Or a boss that when flanked from all sides deals twice as much damage, but takes have of it himself.
I know its possible now, but I would like it to be core.
holydoom.weebly.com: Holydoom! A lighthearted RPG in progress. Loosely based on 3.5. 4, and GURPS. Very, Very, Very loosely. Seriously, visit it now. http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29086701/I_HIT_IT_WITH_MA_SWORD!_(like_this!):_A_Slayers_Handbook An attempt at CharOp
To anyone who thinks Pathfinder is outselling D&D
While one report may say that FLGS report a greater amount of book sales, one cannot forget the fact that the 71000 DDI subscribers paying 6-10 dollars a month don't count as "Book Sales."
"see sig" redirects here
Oblivious troll is Oblivious
PbP supporter!
General thoughts, feelings, and info on DDN!
Stuff I Heard Mike Say (subject to change): Multiclassing will be different than in 3.5! That's important. There is no level cap; classes advance ala 3.5 epic levels after a set level. Mundane (AKA fighter and co) encounter and daily powers will probably not be in the PHB (for the lack of space), but nor will they be in some obscure book released halfway through the edition.
You can't please everyone, but you can please me. I DO NOT WANT A FREAKING 4E REPEAT. I DO NOT WANT A MODULE THAT MIMICS MY FAVORITE EDITION. I WANT MODULES THAT MIMIC A PLAYSTYLE AND CAN BE INTERCHANGED TO COMPLETELY CHANGE THE FEEL, BUT NOT THE THEME, OF D&D. A perfect example would be an espionage module, or desert survival. A BAD EXAMPLE IS HEALING SURGES. WE HAVE 4E FOR THOSE! A good example is a way to combine a mundane and self healing module, a high-survival-rate module, and a separate pool of healing resource module.
Since it (the art) has moved a good deal away from what it was in the '70s or '80s, if they have not yet been alienated by it, they likely won't be in the future...unless we suddenly take a drastic step backwards.


Well, that's what we're discussing, isn't it?  Carl_the_half-ork wanted the return of the chainmail bikini from the 70's and 80's.  Some people said it would turn off women.  You then stated that if anybody was turned off by chainmail bikinis, it was their problem.  And I then said that I think it's the hobby's problem if it's turning off people who would otherwise want to play.  And then you wrote the above.

We weren't talking about today's art.  We're talkign about Carl_the_half-ork's call for a return of cheesecake Boris Vallejo-style art from the 70's and 80's.


Yeah, it was kind of a bad idea to restrict each class to a single role.  There should have been a small number of classes with a large number of build options, instead of a large number of classes each with a small number of build options.


Thats why I dropped the 4e wizard like a bad habbit. In 3.x wizards had the ability to define themselves through their powers in a way that no other class had, but which every class should have had (the ability to express their core identity through their powers).



My biggest problem with defining one's self is that sometimes what a player designs is mud.  Also, I found the "Bard/Sorcerer/Wizard" magic lists of the past boring, in so much as the lists were for all of them, and not that they got unique, interesting powers.  I like that a wizard is alwys going to be mainly a controller, and that a sorcerer is always going to be mainly a striker.  It gives PCs purpose.  Well, purpose other than pissing off the other players and the DM with a "master of none, dabbler of all" type of character that a system with unrestricted access to all roles for all classes gives.

"My biggest problem with defining one's self is that sometimes what a player designs is mud."


This shouldn't have to be a problem. If the concept is fun and makes the player/group happy, who cares?  ?


My problem is when mud becomes the best option and simultaneously the worst based on adv system mastery - from what I hear its exactly what happened in 3e.  Some Roles like loner who attempts to do everything and either does it better than everyone or always badly... and the other options is misfit who cant be depended on to do anything because he doesnt have a role in the most frequent form of conflict in the game.

I mean I like hybrids and you can build a hybrid with a rather defocused role... they arent terrible but in general they shouldnt be the norm  ... there needs to be solid reason to be a pure class or something has failed miserably.
 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

one thing i never been realy sure about in 4th edition this the carpet + 1/2 level to skills

to me it only seems to do are the folowing things
make dungeon master have to come up with higer and higer numbers doe DC for the rolls.
makes items and feats that gives skill bonuses like a +1 or +2 totaly irrelivant at higer levels
that if players come back to a point they had been before at low level for some reason now they can easely climb/jump things that where chaliging at lower level even if the apropriate ability score has not increased or no investment was made in the skill.

so skills might be somthing they might look at.


since they introduced themes i realy enjoyed them
if they ever would do a new edition i would like to see themes become an inherent part of character creation.
for example each class would give a anumber of skills you could train in your background/theme would give a few more
so the list of skills your character could train in would be class skills+theme background skills.
the class would focus on the combat abilities of a character the background/them would focus on the non combat abilities of the character
1) Keep the Math
Seriously. We know what works now. The wrinkles have been ironed out and the baseline has been set nicely. Don't start from scratch.
Modification and adjusting is fine (increasing accuracy, reducing monster hp, etc) as long as the foundation remains the same 

2) Flexible Classes

I'd like classes at the forefront with options and builds that are not subclasses. So you're not a slayer or a knight or a weapon master, you're a fighter. Instead, I'd like to see you pick a class and have a choice of options that lend themselves to different builds (dps, tanking, etc) and multiple choices at higher levels, so you can focus on a certain role or mix-and-match if your group needs a little more of one or the other. 
"Okay, I just reached seventh level and my warlord is leading well, but I feel we're suffering in defence, so I'm going to take a "defence" power and off-tank a little."
Yeah, the reason we didn't see this initially was Balance. But now, with 5e likely coming out after 7+ years of playing, if they keep the basic math it should be much easier to make it work without breaking the game. As long as they have intro builds and advice for new players. 

3) Fewer powers with overlap.
There are too many and it gets complicated. You need specific support for each class, so you can't release a book or article and easily support two classes with the same page. It's much easier if powers can be, for example, wizard and sorcerer and warlock. It'd really help prevent incidents like the seeker and runepriest withering from lack of support. 
Plus, with so many powers, the easy names vanish and you need to get stranger and stranger. Everyone knows what a fireball does. Even if you're from a different edition. It's in the name: ball of fire. But how about Visions of Avarice or Grasp of the Grave? They're not so easy to grasp without sitting down and reading the power. 
They added sorcerers to the game entirely because too many pages were dedicated to wizards and they wanted another class that could use those pages. Now every class is like that and it really limits and devours the page counts of books. 

4) Something else other than feats.  
Feats try to do too much and fail at most. We need more and alternate ways of character customization. I'd like to see 5e tackle this a few ways.
First, choices of class features at higher levels. Instead of taking the all but mandatory Improved Class Feature X feats, instead you get to choose how you modify your class' signature feature. So instead of every rogue eventually taking Backstabber, instead at 5th level every rogue chooses a Sneak Attack customization.
Second, something akin to Talents from World of Warcraft. "Combat Manoeuvres" or "Tactics". Something to replace the feats that are mechanical and situational combat bonuses. These should be universal and divorced from class. Maybe they could be related to Power Source to add common mechanics and more synergies when playing with another class of the same type.
Lastly, feats. I think feats are essential as the universal customization element. I think they should have very few class or race or theme prerequisites and really be universal. They should be the basic elements of customization. And out-of-combat for the most part. D&D needs a place they can focus story and role-playing mechanics, and feats are a good location.

5) ThemesThese NEED to be part of the base game. Seriously. They're awesome. They need to stay and be in the PHB. Not in the PHB2 or the first accessory. They should NOT be an add-on or additional mechanic. They NEED to be part of the base game.
Too often an awesome mechanic pops-up late in the lifespan of an edition and just gets forgotten about when making the new edition, likely because of different staff and the new team not reading the old stuff. This cannot happen with Themes, they're too good of an idea.

6) Melee Basic Attacks are Usefull
Personal gripe. I dislike how 4e removed the option of just using a BMA. Yes, Essentialls kinda-sorta added it back in, but they shoe-horned equivalence through stances. Making BMAs < At-Wills removes a choice. It reduces the number of potential tactics. I'd rather BMAs be the go-to for fighter martial types and At-Wills be situational with less chance to hit for more damage or less damage and a status effect. 


I don't think many of the new classes have really earned their place, not if 5e adopts the Essentials design of classes being able to swap roles. The Avenger is just a damaging Paladin, and the Invoker is just a controlling Cleric. Not enough differentiated the flavour. Kill them and take their stuff, add it to other classes. Likewise the battlemind, ardent, runepriest, warden, and seeker can go bye-bye. 
Excluding the Warlord (which really does feel different than a leader fighter, and counter be more different still). And the swordmage is different enough from a tank-wizard that it should stay. And I think the shaman is different enough from druids with its spirit connection to remain.

Races... I like the dragonborn and deva. They're quite interesting. I think the eladrin should just be folded back into the elves and made an elven sub-race. I love me some minotaurs. The wilden and shardmind haven't really stood out or earned their place, and very little was done with the githyanki to really make them interesting. 
 

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

Jester, i like your ideas,but the way you would implement them. Also, the avenger, warden and battlemind all have their place. I agree that seekers abd runepriests should go, though runepreists might be able to carve something out for themselves.
holydoom.weebly.com: Holydoom! A lighthearted RPG in progress. Loosely based on 3.5. 4, and GURPS. Very, Very, Very loosely. Seriously, visit it now. http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29086701/I_HIT_IT_WITH_MA_SWORD!_(like_this!):_A_Slayers_Handbook An attempt at CharOp
To anyone who thinks Pathfinder is outselling D&D
While one report may say that FLGS report a greater amount of book sales, one cannot forget the fact that the 71000 DDI subscribers paying 6-10 dollars a month don't count as "Book Sales."
"see sig" redirects here
Oblivious troll is Oblivious
PbP supporter!
General thoughts, feelings, and info on DDN!
Stuff I Heard Mike Say (subject to change): Multiclassing will be different than in 3.5! That's important. There is no level cap; classes advance ala 3.5 epic levels after a set level. Mundane (AKA fighter and co) encounter and daily powers will probably not be in the PHB (for the lack of space), but nor will they be in some obscure book released halfway through the edition.
You can't please everyone, but you can please me. I DO NOT WANT A FREAKING 4E REPEAT. I DO NOT WANT A MODULE THAT MIMICS MY FAVORITE EDITION. I WANT MODULES THAT MIMIC A PLAYSTYLE AND CAN BE INTERCHANGED TO COMPLETELY CHANGE THE FEEL, BUT NOT THE THEME, OF D&D. A perfect example would be an espionage module, or desert survival. A BAD EXAMPLE IS HEALING SURGES. WE HAVE 4E FOR THOSE! A good example is a way to combine a mundane and self healing module, a high-survival-rate module, and a separate pool of healing resource module.
What would I like from 5e?

How about a 10-year run.  No 5.5 - no matter how plausible the essentials-like deniability - no 'new directions,' no sniffing around about 6e until year 10. 

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

What I would like to see is the elimination of Dailies (this is not based on an inability to understand them but my preferred play style, I prefer consistency to the ability to pull out a spike).

The other thing I would like to see is skill parity across classes, the thing that most infuriates me about 4th edition is a Knight/Slayer/Weaponmaster with 3 skills, more if you took the right race and other classes with 2 fixed skills and choice of 4 (or 1 fixed and choice of 4).

*edit* I would actually prefer that people who like dailies be able to have classes that cater to them and people like myself who prefer the Essentials martial paridigm (Slayers, Thieves, Knights, Scouts specifically) have classes that are balanced (roughly anyway, I find the current balance acceptable, I am aware others do not) to play at the same table.
What I would like to see is the elimination of Dailies (this is not based on an inability to understand them but my preferred play style, I prefer consistency to the ability to pull out a spike).



I agree.  I would also like to see the game revolve around a per-encounter balance entirely.
I would also like:
The removal of automatic skill trainings and the class skill list.
The removal of the divine, primal, and shadow power sources.  Martial, arcane, psionic, done.
The removal of alignment entirely.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Now, someone with poor self-esteem might take issue with it


Why should D&D be a game only for people with high self-esteem?  I think 13-20 year-old women (and that's probably the target aurdience for new girl gamers) are going to have a high proportion of people with self-esteem issues, just like boys in that age group.

If we alienated all the potential D&D players with self-esteem issues, we'd be even more of a niche hobby than we are now.

but that's much more an issue with them than with the art.


Artwork doesn't have issues because it's an inanimate thing.  So, if there's an issue with the game for any reason, it's more of a problem with them than it is with the inanimate object, like artwork, or mechanics, or prose, or the quality of binding.  So trying to fob off the issue on the person being turned off by the art is, in my just-an-opinion, a cop-out.

Agreed, I'm not comforable with having a self-esteem litmus test. Pass this bar and you're "qualified" to play D&D. I realize that's not what's being said, but it's the practical application of such a mindset.

Also,

"Since it (the art) has moved a good deal away from what it was in the '70s or '80s, if they have not yet been alienated by it, they likely won't be in the future."

This makes the assumption of a static consumer base, that everyone who may be inclined to play now was similarly inclined in the 70's or 80s. Every day, consumers come "of age" for D&D. Lets say that age is 12 years old. Every day, every year, a new crop of 12 year olds will be seeing the art for the first time. Likewise, a new crop of Age "x" consumers will be seeing the art for the first time as they take their first trip to a hobby store or first trip to a comic shop (I'm not saying its the first time they'll see oversexualized protagonists, but rather the first time they see them as representations of the hobby). I think it would be prudent not to instantly alienate a healthy portion of the potential userbase. Even if one assumes alienation might only impact "low-self-esteem" individuals (which I don't agree with) its still likely to be a significant portion.

Like I said, I don't have a problem with the art. But, unfortunately for me, my wife does (36 years old, 3 kids, not really a low-self-esteem person). I'd like her to play with me, but the depiction of women, at the very least, creates a hurdle to bringing her (and other women) into the hobby. I guess the ultimate question is whether or not the art style is a net gain. Does the objectification of women in much (not all) of the art attract more males than the number of females it alienates. My gut is that the art style is a net gain. If it weren't, or if their demo studies didn't indicate the likelihood of it being a positive, they wouldn't be doing it.

I'd also like to note that really, D&D is far from the worst offender in this regard. Comic book art is vastly more alienating to women. WoW art is worse IMO too. So while I do take the issue seriously, I think it's worth pointing out that relatively speaking D&D is only a mild offender IMO.
Monsters with specific/secret weaknesses... Is this for some reason not possible in 4e? You mentioned "like in video games". I've seen bosses vulnerable spots, which would require facing and called shots, not all that simple. I've seen bosses with keyword weakness, which I think is called vulnerable X in 4e. I've seen bosses weak against certain weapons and tactics, which seems to be solved with a Trait. Some bosses can only be hit if a switch is flipped or some such, which are terrain features and skill challenges.

Mixing class roles/more generalized characters... You want to be a magic-user that buffs? Isn't that a cleric/paladin? You want to be a cleric that's called "wizard"? You need you Rogue to have INT? For the skill checks? Train them? Wait until you're higher level? Just be bad at STR or CHA? I think we can't have a ridiculously powerful multiclass system, because optimization exist. Get rid of optimization and folks can make whatever characters they want because monsters could be weaker.

Pluses... it's a math game, the pluses will have to be tacked onto something, somewhere.

What would I want from 5e? Nothing really, I think the tools exist in 4e. Are the answers printed in a book yet? Probably not. Products like the recent Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan are very close to previous edition layouts, its vague, story focused, and random instead of rigid and tactical. I think this is the direction 4e is taking and that it will work.

No, I think it most definitely IS possible. They just don't do it. I'd like them to not only do it, but to create it as a well-defined and balanced element of the monster repertoire. Something like a keyword weakness is probably the closest to what I'm talking about but not quite. I'd like it to be something that can be figured out by any player, not just someone with attacks that target a certain keyword or defense.  I'd like such a monster to work for all races/classes, just like most all do now.
 "My biggest problem with defining one's self is that sometimes what a player designs is mud."


This shouldn't have to be a problem. If the concept is fun and makes the player/group happy, who cares? Also, the system doesn't have to dictate a role for a PC to have "purpose". Regardless of whether a sorceror is forced to be a striker, if he happens to choose all defender powers, he would serve a purpose just as well as if he chose striker powers. Does a sorceror serve a purpose in a party full of strikers? How about a sorceror defender in a party full of strikers?




This is something I'm not really sure you can even be right/wrong about, because it really comes down to personal preference. Of course game design reflects the personal preferences of the people making it, so naturally you will end up with a product that will please some and not please others.


I DM two games. One rolls attributes, the other uses point buy. The underlying philosophies are that one group feels rolling can have you end up with inferior characters and that's no fun, while the other thinks that it's an organic experience and flaws are half of the game. As long as each person in each group can agree to the system, I have no problems with either.


Personally, I tend to the 'point buy' viewpoint. The real trouble with "bad" characters is that D&D is a team sport. Even if a player enjoys the character they created, if that character is a drain on the team then suddenly you are interfering with other people's enjoyment. Bad decisions (be they personal or game design) never affect just one person.



The former of your points is why I support hybrid/multiclass, point buy/dicerolling, magic pluses/inherent pluses, and more in a new system.  It's all about choice, and personal preference.


However, as your second point states, if personal preference impinges on the enjoyment of others, it becomes less about self expression, and more about how much that druid with class features that are controller and striker but powers that are solid defender would be damned annoying, not helpful.  The whole point of subclasses, for example, is to keep separated what needs separation, and join up what can be joined without killing a role in the party; fighter can be a striker, and all the fighter defenders can use are the utility powers because of how they structured it.  To me, nothing could be more beautiful.


My big point is that when you select a class, you know what you are getting yourself and the rest of the party into.  Counting on the average game player to not make a totally useless character "because their concept is cool", well that's a danger I would rather any system not take. 


There's rules for personal enjoyment, and rules that are more or less likely to step on the toes of other player's enjoyment. I personally think the Power Source + Role Powers kind of idea would create a glut of characters on the "more likely to step on the toes of other's enjoyment" end of the spectrum.


"However, as your second point states, if personal preference impinges on the enjoyment of others, it becomes less about self expression, and more about how much that druid with class features that are controller and striker but powers that are solid defender would be damned annoying, not helpful."

Ok fine, but this assumes that the goal is to be super combat effective. Not all groups have that as their primary goal. Groups rolling their own stats are most likely not optimizers. They're probably more interested in fleshing out characters and stories based on RP and dice outcomes.  Nothing wrong with that I think. It can be quite fun. In fact, in a group like that, an optimizer who picked all the right feats and gear to do amazing frost damage might be deemed to "be damned annoying" by the group.

Point is "bad" is pretty subjective. What's bad in one group might be original and interesting in another. Neither is right or wrong. I have no problem with giving lots of auto-pick help in a character builder, "the easy button" if you will. Pick a defender, striker, etc. But I also see nothing wrong with having classes be able to have a pool of powers to pick from that would allow them to be a hybrid role or whatever. Put these options in Unearthed Arcana if you want. Hide them behind a couple of "for experienced players only" banners in the character builder or something. That's fine with me.
No attack roll. It's a waste of time.

Simple roll damage.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

I think that one of the biggest things is that 5th edition needs to pull a quarter of a step back from gamism, as far as powers are concerned. 4th edition is bloated, but it wouldn't be considered bloating at all if all 8000 powers were imaginative and grounded abilities. I don't think that fighters should take a back seat to wizards, but I do think that martial as a power source needs to be worked harder to be more clearly mundane. Perhaps it shouldn't even be considered a power source. Melee and Ranged Basic Attack don't have the martial keyword, y'know. And to be clear, what I mean is that attack powers should be pretty easy to understand as doing exactly what they're named to do. And I think that abilities should stick with the old D&D way of being named bluntly. "Steel Serpent Strike" doesn't say a whole lot, but "Hobbling Strike" certainly does. It cuts down on potential mechanical expansion, I suppose, but I think that indicates that there shouldn't be such a blind expansion of powers like 4th edition had.
I don't use emoticons, and I'm also pretty pleasant. So if I say something that's rude or insulting, it's probably a joke.

  • Remove the rigid need for magic item x at level y in order to make the math work.

  • Somehow make encounters less mechanically defined ... while it makes for easily scalable encounters and predictive difficulty, it also creates bland (to me) encounters. 

  • A new edition should keep in mind that players have fun when they're hitting. A player whose character's attack bonuses lend themselves to misses as much as hits doesn't seem to have as much fun.

  • Do away with Savings Throws. Instead, simply have the ongoing power attack again.  Something like a forced move over a cliff would be handled as an opposed roll based on a stat.

  • I agree with removing Daily powers, with an eye toward encounter based system design. Anything that requires you to remember or take note from one encounter to the next.  If there's one thing that Encounters has taught me, it's that players aren't very good bookkeepers.  Did they use an action point last week or didn't they? Daily power used three weeks ago or not?  The Action Point could be given for each encounter, with extra Action Points earned per tier.

  • Second Wind as a minor action (free action for dwarves). Already a house rule in some games.


Sign In to post comments