D&D 5th do's and dont's question

Regarding each subject should they do or not do

1. Race. + and - to a stat for each non human race. Eg Dwarf +1 con, -1 Cha. B.Or no bonus or penalty or C. bonus to stat with no penalty

1B should a Race have class restriction or should any race play any class.

2. Hit points: more at first then slower progression. Or lower at first with medium progression
2.B. Con bonus per lvl for hit points or not.

3. Saves ; based on ability check or standard save chart

4. Xp: class based or standard one chart for all.

5. Bonuses to hit based on level or no bonuses based on level

6. Spells : 4th Edition style atcwill enciunter daily or old style chart by lvl

7. Melee combat. 4th edition style at will encounter daily or only feats.

8. Magic items like 4th or more like Advanced.

9. Class: redefined E.G. Priest can be Cleric Or Paladin
Warrior can be fighter or barbarian. Magic user can be wizard or sorcerer.
9B. List every class individually
9C. Keep only basic class Cleric,fighter,Mage,Rogue and all other classes are paragon abd Epic paths.

10. Alignment. All nine alignments or simplified like 4th edition.
11. Intelligence bonus to languages or should it be a skill option or a feat option.

12. Should all race choices from lights, Eberron, FR be put together as an option in the Players Handbook. E.G. Warforge is a race from Eberron, however if you the DM chooses, the warforge can be played in your game setting.
1. I'd like bonuses and penalties.

1b. I don't want restricted classes. I do want restricted multiclass combinations. But that's just because I like my traditions. This isn't a deal breaker, far from it.

2. More hit points at level 1 than in the former editions, less than in 4th edition. And the regular d4, d6, d8, d10, d12 hit die per level (and reroll 1s so that you can have even-numbered average hit points).

2b. No Constitution bonus to hit points. It makes Constitution too important.
 
3. Not sure. Either ability scores or charts or charts modified by ability scores I guess :D.

4. Standard one for everybody. The mathematical model without is really complicated.

5. Either none or very small. Maybe having your hit chance go from 55% to 70%.
 
6. A combination of at-will/encounter attacks as class features, daily spells to get the more dramatic spells and rituals for your "out-of-combat magical skills".

7. Not like 4th edition. At the very least, pooled resources. Yes for tactical melee classes with something more to do than "I attack".

8. Like Advanced.

9. No opinion.

10. Yes alignments but without game mechanics.

11. It doesn't make sense to have bonus languages for high intelligence.

12. No. Have the classic D&D Races (Dwarves, Gnomes, Elves, Humans, Half-Elves, Halflings) with the name they had in 7 out of 9 editions. 4th edition is 2 editions out of 9; if there's a choice to make on names, it's not the 4th edition one unless the race appeared for the first time in 4th edition. Other non world specific races are world-specific and/or optional in the "The Complete Book of wierd races your DM might let your play".


These are my personal preferences. If you disagree, I really don't care :p.
I don't really care about "do"s or "don't"s, as long as the game is playable and will give my group years of entertainment.
Regarding each subject should they do or not do 1. Race. + and - to a stat for each non human race. Eg Dwarf +1 con, -1 Cha. B.Or no bonus or penalty or C. bonus to stat with no penalty



Bonuses, no penalties, or no adjustments at all.

1B should a Race have class restriction or should any race play any class.



Any race can be any class, and any race can be good at any class.

2. Hit points: more at first then slower progression. Or lower at first with medium progression



More at first, then slower progression.

2.B. Con bonus per lvl for hit points or not.



Not.

3. Saves ; based on ability check or standard save chart



Of those options, based on ability check.

4. Xp: class based or standard one chart for all.



One chart for all.

5. Bonuses to hit based on level or no bonuses based on level



Bonuses based on level, just perhaps not as rapidly rising as 4e did them.

6. Spells : 4th Edition style atcwill enciunter daily or old style chart by lvl



4e style at-wills and encounters with no daily resources at all.  Characters balanced per encounter, not per day.

7. Melee combat. 4th edition style at will encounter daily or only feats.



See #6 above.

8. Magic items like 4th or more like Advanced.



More like Advanced, but not exactly like Advanced.

9. Class: redefined E.G. Priest can be Cleric Or Paladin Warrior can be fighter or barbarian. Magic user can be wizard or sorcerer. 9B. List every class individually 9C. Keep only basic class Cleric,fighter,Mage,Rogue and all other classes are paragon abd Epic paths.



The first option sounds closest.

10. Alignment. All nine alignments or simplified like 4th edition.



NO alignment, at all.

11. Intelligence bonus to languages or should it be a skill option or a feat option.



No strong opinion.

12. Should all race choices from lights, Eberron, FR be put together as an option in the Players Handbook. E.G. Warforge is a race from Eberron, however if you the DM chooses, the warforge can be played in your game setting.



Definitely.  Let individual groups and tables choose their limits.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
1. Bonus without penalty.  I think giving races bonuses to some stats is a good way to show what classes they might be good as without mandating they be those classes
        1b. no restrictions please

2. More at first and medium boosts after that.  The numbers don't relly matter, what matters is that first level front line characters should be able to take around 3-4 normal hits before going down, squishies should be 2-3, nobody should be down in 1 hit.
        2b. I could see it working, the one thing I want in leveling hp is a fixed number in the equation. 

3. I like NADs and saves from 4e, possibly more bonuses and penalties to save rolls to make them more dynamic.

4. One chart for all, makes it so much easier for me to ignore it.

5. No bonuses based on level, mostly flat math for hit, defense and skills please.

6. AEDU with exception based design.  Use the AEDU formating method and the basic structure but give each class/archetype/powersource/whatever their own exceptions to the basic structure.

7. 4th style, I could see replacing martial dalies with something else and giving them power pools, but striping them down to feat b*****s again is the wrong way to go.

8. No +x magic items all magic items are based around their properties and powers and not around their math.  No game breaking items outside of story specific mcguffins.

9. If we must have classes then I want them to make different classes really different.  A druid is not just a cleric of nature and a rogue is not just a stealthy fighter.  I could see some classes folding into one another like Fighter: Knight, Warlord, Slayer and Cleric: Priest, Paladin, Invoker.  But go to far and it just becomes silly.

10.  Alignment can get a basic rundown and have it's mechanics in a module not as core. 

11. Skills, feats, backgrounds and theme opitions would all be fine.  However just because I am smart doesn't mean I automaticaly know more languages.

12.  Seeing as the race list is something that just about every DM picks and chooses from anyway I see no reason why well liked and highly popular races shouldn't included from the get go.  Every time someone opens a poll about aditional races Warforged, Tieflings (old or new) and Dragonborn are always the most popular by a signifigant margin.
1. Race. + and - to a stat for each non human race. Eg Dwarf +1 con, -1 Cha. B.Or no bonus or penalty or C. bonus to stat with no penalty 1B should a Race have class restriction or should any race play any class.

There should be bonuses and penalties. All the races should have strengths and weaknesses. Not for balance's sake (though they should be balanced) but for flavor. This doesn't mean they should be barely noticeable mechanically, they should be quite noticeable without being dabilitating or overpowering, especially at lower levels to give a good sense of differentiation. Weaknesses should be lessened as levels increase (without disappearing completely), and strengths should become more powerful instead of just fading into the background as a miniscule bonus like in 3e. There should be no restrictions on race/class combinations.

2. Hit points: more at first then slower progression. Or lower at first with medium progression 2.B. Con bonus per lvl for hit points or not.

I personally enjoy the idea of low level characters being relatively fragile, it encourages planning ahead, and a greater depth of experience beyond "charge in and nuke everything". You have to earn the right to be Superman. It also reinforces the idea that low level characters are just that; low level. They're just starting out. They're barely out of their teens, fresh from training. I know a lot of people ignore starting ages, but it makes no sense for a 1st level Fighter with 0 XP to be a grizzled veteran in his mid 30's. If that's what you want to play then you should start out at a higher level. That being said, they should make it much much much easier to start a fresh game at a level other than 1. Sometimes you just want to jump into the awesome stuff without taking an extra hour to add everything to your character sheet. Con should give bonus HP per HD/Level, this is a fundamental aspect of the D&D experience.

3. Saves ; based on ability check or standard save chart

Saves shouldn't be a simple ability check. They should improve over time, but I don't like the standard fixed progression. Maybe give players the option of choosing which saves to improve at each level? Or every few levels?

4. Xp: class based or standard one chart for all.

One standard progression for all. Breaking it down by class or anything else is just needless complexity for no apparent reason.

5. Bonuses to hit based on level or no bonuses based on level

Again like saves, it should improve over time, but it shouldn't be a fixed progression. Figure out a way to let players choose how good at combat they are.

6. Spells : 4th Edition style at will encounter daily or old style chart by lvl

I dislike AEDU, it homogenizes spell casters. Playing different kinds of spell casters should feel very different. Wizards should not cast in the same way as Druids who should cast differently from Shamans who should have an entirely different means of casting from Duskblades etc etc ad infinitum. Learning new spells needs to be changed. The 3e class spell list sounds good in theory, but for classes with limited spell selection, there's no support for adding spells to their lists from new sourcebooks that could or should be appropriate for them. Spellcasting classes shoul have certain kinds of spell qualities that that dictate wich spells are available to them, and from there they can choose a limited number of spells to actually know how to cast. This only applies to new spells gained automatically at a new level. There should be absolutely nothing preventing a character from learning a new appropriate spell from a scroll or a tutor NPC in the middle of an adventure. Also unify spell levels. It's silly and obnoxious that a spell that can be cast by Clerics and Wizards is level 5 for one of them and level 6 for the other.

7. Melee combat. 4th edition style at will encounter daily or only feats.

If a martial character wants to perform some nonmagical combat action, there should be nothing stopping him from attempting it, no matter how complex or powerful it is or could be. Certain moves should be ruled too complex to succeed at or too complex to attempt without a penalty. More complex moves can have their penalties lessened over time as levels and skills increase. No nonmagical ability should be restricted to encounter or daily. There should be some means of limiting more powerful actions, some sort of physical energy, or accumulating penalties. But to simply say "no you can't charge like that again, you did it this morning" is silly.

8. Magic items like 4th or more like Advanced.

I never like the idea that you required feats to create magic items. It should require some sort of special ability, such as the relevent skill (Alchemy to brew potions, Blacksmithing to create magic armor and weapons), I like the idea of the XP cost to prevent the creation of magic item factory characters. Creating a magic item should be a big deal, it should require time, resources, and skill, and be an event more profound then a few Craft checks. Also expressing material costs as a simple GP amount is lame and boring. There should be "recipes" for magic items, a list of components and materials required to create any individual item.

9. Class: redefined E.G. Priest can be Cleric Or Paladin Warrior can be fighter or barbarian. Magic user can be wizard or sorcerer. 9B. List every class individually 9C. Keep only basic class Cleric,fighter,Mage,Rogue and all other classes are paragon abd Epic paths.

Classes should be dynamic and flexible, but A and C are overly simplistic. If I want to be a Bard, I want to be a Bard from day 1. Not some sort of generic charismatic rogue who happens to play the lute and may decide to pick up thievery and backstabbing later on instead.

10. Alignment. All nine alignments or simplified like 4th edition.

Hollywood Squares all the way.

11. Intelligence bonus to languages or should it be a skill option or a feat option.

Right now language is very binary. You either speak it or you don't. Characters should have languages they are fluent in from the beginning, the number being based on either intelligence or skill points or just as a free bonus based on race or region of origin or whatever your job/class/background is. Languages learned later should be more like skills. To put it another way, speaking any language is a kind of skill check, languages you are fluent in are automatic successes always, akin to a Str check to snap a twig.

12. Should all race choices from lights, Eberron, FR be put together as an option in the Players Handbook. E.G. Warforge is a race from Eberron, however if you the DM chooses, the warforge can be played in your game setting.

Maybe maybe not. Everything from campaign settings should be able to be plugged into the core setting with no effort.

Regarding each subject should they do or not do

1. Race. + and - to a stat for each non human race. Eg Dwarf +1 con, -1 Cha. B.Or no bonus or penalty or C. bonus to stat with no penalty

Racial bonuses optional. Racial penalties no.

1B should a Race have class restriction or should any race play any class.

Any race can play any class - and there are no racial level restrictions or experience penalties either.

2. Hit points: more at first then slower progression. Or lower at first with medium progression

A level-1 PC should be sure of survival, assuming he isn't an idiot, in a one-on-one encounter with a level-1 minion. (Or, alternatively, an ordinary mundane housecat.) How many HP does that take? The answer depends on how much damage such a minion does, which is a design decision.

After that progression depends on what level should be similarly safe from a level-1 non-minion, which is another design decision. (Actually, several - starting with how much damage the non-minion does.)

I am not afraid of two- or even three-digit numbers of HP at level 1, if that's what they have to do to achieve a suitable balance. I am also not afraid of one-digit HP at level 1, but it'll much tougher to make that work and be balanced.

2.B. Con bonus per lvl for hit points or not.

Probably not, unless it is in place of different increases for different classes.

3. Saves ; based on ability check or standard save chart 4.

That depends... are saves a duration mechanic like in 4E, or are they your ability to resist the auto-hit effects of every cast spell because spellcasters are so awesome (while weapon-users have to actually try to hit because they are lame) like in prior editions?

If saves are a duration mechanic, there should be a standard chart and bonuses/penalties should be pretty tightly restricted.

If saves are spell resistance because spellcasters are all automatically so perfect they are incapable of missing, then I'd go with ability checks; and bonuses should be as plentiful as to-hit bonuses or AC bonuses - so that your chance of failing to resist a spell is, on average, about the same as your chance of being hit by a weapon. But then, having thrown away a perfectly good defense mechanic and taken away a good potential duration mechanic so that it can be used as a defense mechanic, you now have to find a duration mechanic.

Xp: class based or standard one chart for all.

One chart for all classes. Period. This makes it feasible to throw out the awarding of XP entirely and just have everyone level at plot- or achievement-appropriate points.

5. Bonuses to hit based on level or no bonuses based on level 6.

Design decision. Either way can work.

Spells : 4th Edition style at-will encounter daily or old style chart by lvl

Definitely NOT the latter... or at least the chart must be massively revised. As you level up you CANNOT have every power you have get more powerful and get to use those powers more often and get new higher-level powers that are more powerful than any of the freshly-augmented powers you already have. It's just nuts.

I like having longer-term resources ("dailies" and healing surges in 4E). For all classes.

But, I don't like tying any resource to the in-game day, except as a desperation measure - i.e. if a combination of bad decisions and horrible luck means the party is really beat down at an unexpected point, they can rebuild, slowly, through a very-long rest (multiple days, minimum, sitting in one place, and a wagon in a moving caravan doesn't count). Instead, refreshing longer-term resources should be tied to in-adventure achievement. Sometimes that'll mean no refresh during a whole adventure; other times there will be several defined points where "when these things are done, the party can rest and recharge".

But basically, AEDU is as close to getting it right as any edition of D&D has achieved. Some versions of power-points might be as good (4E's psionic power-point classes have some internal issues that make it hard to judge the system itself).

 
7. Melee combat. 4th edition style at will encounter daily or only feats.

The more I hear about the "feats" for non-casters in late 3.5E, the more they sound like 4E powers. Including some of them being restricted in frequency of use, much like encounter and daily powers.

So, I'll go with AEDU powers, as in 3.5E and 4E.

8. Magic items like 4th or more like Advanced.

NO.

Magic items like they SAID the things would be in AD&D (but then didn't deliver). Namely, entirely optional. No matter what class or role you have, you don't need magic items to meet the standard expectations of that class. And a +1 enhancement bonus is a rare and special thing on a high-level magic item; in its place, have a wide variety of flavorful magic items.

Also, having experience with attribute-changing magic items in earlier editions and the complete absence of them in 4E, I want to specifically say that the absence of such things is vastly better.

9. Class: redefined E.G. Priest can be Cleric Or Paladin Warrior can be fighter or barbarian. Magic user can be wizard or sorcerer.

Don't care.

9B. List every class individually

Split on this one. There are powers that should appropriately be shared by power source, other powers that should appropriately be shared by role, and then some that should be class-specific. (Also a few race-specific and theme-specific, and maybe skill-training-specific.)

The disadvantage of that is that someone using just the books - even just PHB1 - to build a character, has to look in several places for his powers.

Which is also a disadvantage with some prior PHBs that listed all spells in one list, but the lists of which spells were available at what level for your class (and in what domain/school) were separate. This is probably why 4E went with all class powers for each class being in one place within each book, not intermingled with powers for any other class.

Of course, this disadvantage is not an issue with a character-builder program. The program can take the job of sorting out what powers you are entitled to choose from, and present you with one list.

9C. Keep only basic class Cleric,fighter,Mage,Rogue and all other classes are paragon abd Epic paths.

Unless those "basic classes" are defined so vaguely as to be meaningless, this is a bad idea.

10. Alignment. All nine alignments or simplified like 4th edition.

Hm... the 9-alignment grid, while far from perfect, does its job at least as well as any other alignment-like system I've seen in any other role-playing game. It's my first choice from what can be found in the history of D&D.

But it would be helpful to point out that most people won't even seriously try to be purely in one place on the alignment chart - let alone succeed. If you accurately place a real person on the alignment grid, it probably looks something like
one of these:
dangit, the pictures aren't showing up. Here are links, sorry: www.ninds.nih.gov/img/neuron_cover1.jpg and www.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/20...

 


My second choice would be to omit any reference to the concept.

My absolute LAST choice - possibly behind "never touch 5E at all" - would be anything with significant mechanical impact.

11. Intelligence bonus to languages or should it be a skill option or a feat option.

Skill, feat, or roleplay. Intelligence might affect how easily a character can learn a language, and how many languages a character can learn simultaneously, but should not impact how many languages a character already knows or how many he can learn eventually.

12. Should all race choices from lights, Eberron, FR be put together as an option in the Players Handbook. E.G. Warforge is a race from Eberron, however if you the DM chooses, the warforge can be played in your game setting.

This is a packaging decision. It doesn't even rise to the level of a design decision.

"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
Regarding each subject should they do or not do

1. Race. + and - to a stat for each non human race. Eg Dwarf +1 con, -1 Cha. B.Or no bonus or penalty or C. bonus to stat with no penalty



No stat mods.

 1B should a Race have class restriction or should any race play any class.



Core races should be able to play any class, though I don't think it should be set in stone that all races ever can be any class ever.

 2. Hit points: more at first then slower progression. Or lower at first with medium progression



Somewhere in between.

2.B. Con bonus per lvl for hit points or not.



It depends on the stat modifiers, but I lean towards not.

Saves



I'd like them to do what they did in old school but have them be an ability check. I'd also like them to improve with levels.

 4. Xp: class based or standard one chart for all.



Standard chart for all. I like how class based plays out for a party (because a party of characters slowly improves, a member at a time, so they can see improvement as they go without waiting for everybody to jump ahead at the same time), but it's rubish for balancing classes.  

5. Bonuses to hit based on level or no bonuses based on level



Bonuses to hit based on level, in one form or another.

6. Spells : 4th Edition style atcwill enciunter daily or old style chart by lvl



Neither? A hybrid? Something else all together? I like the old school chart, but wish for some encounter powers to be added. 

7. Melee combat. 4th edition style at will encounter daily or only feats.



Neither. Something else. Feats give me headaches. I want class abilities. I've never seen those stance things from 3.5's final days but they sound intriguing.

8. Magic items like 4th or more like Advanced.



More like advanced, but get rid of +x items. There's probably good ideas about 4e magic items, but I'm not familiar enough to comment. 

9. Class: redefined E.G. Priest can be Cleric Or Paladin Warrior can be fighter or barbarian. Magic user can be wizard or sorcerer.



I'm open to the idea. 

9B. List every class individually



Yes, just watch for class bloat.

9C. Keep only basic class Cleric,fighter,Mage,Rogue and all other classes are paragon abd Epic paths.



No.  

10. Alignment. All nine alignments or simplified like 4th edition.



Mark me somewhere between indifferent and all 9. I thought they were a good shorthand for a creature's inate or chosen outlook on life, and so aided roleplaying, but a lot of the alignment specific stuff like detect alignment was too fussy and can go away. 

11. Intelligence bonus to languages or should it be a skill option or a feat option.



Just a plain bonus, or a skill option (or both-- bonus languages to start, but the option to learn ore as one goes along). 

12. Should all race choices from lights, Eberron, FR be put together as an option in the Players Handbook. E.G. Warforge is a race from Eberron, however if you the DM chooses, the warforge can be played in your game setting.



Personally, I think they would be better left to the settings books. But I guess it depends. I am concerned about bloat from trying to fit everything into the players handbook, but just because a race started in a specific setting doesn't mean it should be excluded if it has grown beyond its origins.


1. Race. + and - to a stat for each non human race. Eg Dwarf +1 con, -1 Cha. B.Or no bonus or penalty or C. bonus to stat with no penalty



I'll take choice A, the good with the bad.

1B should a Race have class restriction or should any race play any class.



No thanks.

2. Hit points: more at first then slower progression. Or lower at first with medium progression



Something closer to the pre-3e method or maybe even the 3e method. I'm not a fan of a large sum at first level.

2.B. Con bonus per lvl for hit points or not.



Yeah.

3. Saves ; based on ability check or standard save chart



I prefer to forego charts.

4. Xp: class based or standard one chart for all.



One ring to rule them all.

5. Bonuses to hit based on level or no bonuses based on level



Based on level

6. Spells : 4th Edition style atcwill enciunter daily or old style chart by lvl



Old style.

7. Melee combat. 4th edition style at will encounter daily or only feats.



Depends.

8. Magic items like 4th or more like Advanced.



More like AD&D.

9. Class: redefined E.G. Priest can be Cleric Or Paladin Warrior can be fighter or barbarian. Magic user can be wizard or sorcerer. 9B. List every class individually 9C. Keep only basic class Cleric,fighter,Mage,Rogue and all other classes are paragon abd Epic paths.



Each class individually, but each class having options to customize.

10. Alignment. All nine alignments or simplified like 4th edition.



The 9 all the way.

11. Intelligence bonus to languages or should it be a skill option or a feat option.



I liked 3e's method--Int bonus + skill.

12. Should all race choices from lights, Eberron, FR be put together as an option in the Players Handbook. E.G. Warforge is a race from Eberron, however if you the DM chooses, the warforge can be played in your game setting.



I'll take the option method--just make sure that among those options the 1e/3e races are all there for me. I play in Grehawk and have no desire for Warforged, but they should be there for Eberron players or those that want to include them in other settings.
1 A, no class restrictions

2 More at first, then slower progression (much slower, I am big on reducing number inflations), the idea of starting out with con score for HPs only sounds like a great way to go. hps should range from 9-18 at first level, with most being between 11 and 15, which means you are not likely to die from one hit 9though still possible if its a crit), but not so much to where you still feel a bit nervious at level one about what might be behind the door you are about to kick in. I like con giving bonus to hps (and the ability to lose those bonus points though ability damge :D. in fact, maybe all a charcter should get when they level up is their con bonus (with a minium of +1 for those who have negative or 0 mod) Makes con pretty important but then again, if str is going to be your primary source for dishing out damage in this new system, you don't really want to neglict it either. Makes for tough choices! 

3 Saves based on Ability checks

4 Xp standard, one chart for all, its just more easy and makes sense if every thing is going to be equaly balanced

5 Optional bonus to hit based on level. They should be few and far between, and fighters should have option to swap for something more interesting, such as second attack at the end of the round or, bonus to inititative etc.

6 Mixed, mostly vancien style (big book of collected spells to chose from for when preping) but with toned down spell power, and ability to take limited number of (fairly weak) at will and encounter spells.

7 Mixed, I like what was posted at enworld about how an at will type power is gained though weapon specializing. Not neccesarily an AEDU format but still more interesting than just feats as per 3.x

8 Leaning towards older editions but not opposed to 4th ed style or elements showing up for certain weapons (flaming sword should allways do extra d6 fire damage, but it could do extra fire damage on a crit once per day, for example).

9 Keep the core iconic classes (fighter, cleric mage, THIEF) and include the popular extras such as paladin, monk, etc. the idea that some classes are rare, such as assasin, and only avalible to multi class into at higher levels, and might be by default complex comparied to a core thief class, sounds intersting if they can keep it from getting out of hand like the prestige classes in 3.x did.

10 Use all 9, they are more intersting, but stay away from all palidins must be LG type stuff

11 Extra languages should be a skill option. Every one should start off knowing their race language plus local language (a kind of regional version of "commen") with humans knowing one local language and getting + 1 language (either a race such as dwarven, or another regional language).

12 Core races should be human, dwarf, elf, half elf, half orc, halfling, gnome, and tiefling. Later optional races can be warforged, dragon born, etc.
1. Races should be different and balanced, not I am a short pointy eared human vs I am a tall human with a bumpy forehead.  Bonuses, lack of bonuses, and penalties all could be used.  I rather like the 4.5e version of +2/ (select 1 of 2 for +2) style that gives you a little room to work with.

1B. Any race can choose to be any class.  Some combinations work better than others.

2. Hit points about 75% of 4e at level 1, with variation as you progress.  Constitution makes a difference, but not gamebreakingly so.  Perhaps instead of 1d10 + 3, a fighter would get 3d4 (higher average, less likely to roll all 1s) and instead of +3, he gets 3 re-rolls for individual die in that set. 

3. Saves? Does this include non AC defenses?  I like the idea of the NADs in 4e.  Only curve them so AC and the others are all the same. A 20th level with 20 con should resist poison better than a level 1 with an 8 con. 

4. Xp: class based on standard one chart for all.

5. Bonuses to hit based on level.

6. Spells : 4th Edition style atwill. Keep that mechanic.  Possibly even have non-magical ones (wizard with crossbow) for low magic settings.  It is hard to argue low magic when everyone is throwing lightning from their fingers.  More like older editions instead of encounter/daily.  Spell research.  Not everyone has access to this power, etc. 


7. Melee combat. 4th edition style at will encounter daily.  Still might restric dailies like spells above

8. Magic items more like Advanced.

9. Class: fewer classes. A druid is like a priest who took this path.  Not a paragon path, the choices can start on day 1. Priest specializes in nature (and gives up something).  Takes Wild shape ability, but this doesn't work in metal armor. Spells with plant keyword don't have the "can't shed blood" keyword so priest uses Spear and scimitar.  Ta-da, a druid (example cited is very rough idea, not saying it is exactly how to do it)

10. Alignment. All nine alignments, restricted mechanics.  Protection from evil is fine (with no visible effect to the players), detect evil is much less fine.  Make it easy to ignore. Make it hard to be sure when in use.  A "charm to protect you from evil" should work, but  it doesn't automatically point out every evil thing for you.

11. Languages are a skill.  Let's face it, few and far between are the fun role playing sessions when one player can't speak common.  Languages in the game are more often than not a plot device.  Let the linguists be the linguists.

12. Races tend to be pick and choose anyway.  Also, including warforged in the Eberron book probably affects the sale of said book.  So I am not sure we get to change this.  I would like to see the best selection possible in the PHB (though my best selection differs from yours)

Regarding each subject should they do or not do 1. Race. + and - to a stat for each non human race. Eg Dwarf +1 con, -1 Cha. B.Or no bonus or penalty or C. bonus to stat with no penalty 1B should a Race have class restriction or should any race play any class. 2. Hit points: more at first then slower progression. Or lower at first with medium progression 2.B. Con bonus per lvl for hit points or not. 3. Saves ; based on ability check or standard save chart 4. Xp: class based or standard one chart for all. 5. Bonuses to hit based on level or no bonuses based on level 6. Spells : 4th Edition style atcwill enciunter daily or old style chart by lvl 7. Melee combat. 4th edition style at will encounter daily or only feats. 8. Magic items like 4th or more like Advanced. 9. Class: redefined E.G. Priest can be Cleric Or Paladin Warrior can be fighter or barbarian. Magic user can be wizard or sorcerer. 9B. List every class individually 9C. Keep only basic class Cleric,fighter,Mage,Rogue and all other classes are paragon abd Epic paths. 10. Alignment. All nine alignments or simplified like 4th edition. 11. Intelligence bonus to languages or should it be a skill option or a feat option. 12. Should all race choices from lights, Eberron, FR be put together as an option in the Players Handbook. E.G. Warforge is a race from Eberron, however if you the DM chooses, the warforge can be played in your game setting.




  1. Race: Bonuses only, no penalties.  Screw Penalties.


  • no class restrictions.  Any race can be any class.


  • More at first, then slower


    • Con score at beginning.  Without Healing Surges, you bet your ass Con mod at level up (with a minimum of 0; no negative HP from a negative com mod)


  • Saves based on ability.  Just say no to charts.  Say no to anything your players might have to look up that isn't on their character sheet.

  • Standard for all, and all level up at once, with no in-game way to spend and thus lose XP.

  • Based on level. 

  • All attacks based not in the old style.  Not specifically in AEDU style either.  Prefered is in encounter.  THough if I have to choose between Old or AEDU, AEDU in half a heartbeat. Not as default, per se, but as simple (i.e. 30 seconds or less) implementation at the start of the game.

  • Answered above.

  • no frame of reference for Advanced.  I like what was done in 4th ed, can someone define what the difference was?  Note, if it's charges and such we're talking about, lose them.  Also, Assuming one person gets a +4 weapon and another gets a +1 is just sucky, and not enjoyably fair at all.  So no to that as well.

  • B: each class is their own animal, with caveats.  Most classes should have varations within their theme.

  • Simplified or 9 point, as long as there is no mechanical impact I'm good.

  • Languages should be an extra option, though I won't say feat or skill, but not related to Int either.

  • Yes, all races should be encouraged to be in all settings.

  • "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]
    Race. + and - to a stat for each non human race. Eg Dwarf +1 con, -1 Cha. B.Or no bonus or penalty or C. bonus to stat with no penalty
    1B should a Race have class restriction or should any race play any class.



    1.  + and - though I wouldn't be opposed to bonus without penalty.
    1B. No racial restrictions, please.  More options equates to a better time (for me).

    2. Hit points: more at first then slower progression. Or lower at first with medium progression
    2.B. Con bonus per lvl for hit points or not.



    2. Lower with medium.  I like to become a hero.  I don't want my hero status guaranteed.
    2B. Yes to the Con bonus.

    3. Saves ; based on ability check or standard save chart



    3. Ability check.

    4. Xp: class based or standard one chart for all.



    4.  One chart for all classes.

    5. Bonuses to hit based on level or no bonuses based on level



    5. Bonuses based on level - though I do want each class to progress differently again.

    6. Spells : 4th Edition style atcwill enciunter daily or old style chart by lvl



    6. I want both.  I appreciate both (though I prefer ol' school) and can see a use for both in game.  Plus the more different ways classes work, the better.  I want to feel like each class is different.  So yeah, more systems is better IMO.

    7. Melee combat. 4th edition style at will encounter daily or only feats.


     
    7. Both would be cool.  I do believe that 5e definitely needs martial classes with powers, though.  Maybe not as many powers as 4e - more along the lines of ToB classes - but they need something.  It's cool, it's fun and it works.

    8. Magic items like 4th or more like Advanced.



    8. As far away from like 4th as possible.  Magic items in 4e didn't inspire me a bit and they most certainly did nothing to decrease dependence.  Gimme ol' school style magic items or a new look at them entirely.  Basically anything that's not how 4th handled them.

    9. Class: redefined E.G. Priest can be Cleric Or Paladin Warrior can be fighter or barbarian. Magic user can be wizard or sorcerer.
    9B. List every class individually
    9C.Keep only basic class Cleric,fighter,Mage,Rogue and all other classes are paragon abd Epic paths.



    9. No?
    9B. Yes.
    9C. Hells to the no.  I want many classes, I want to be able to play the majority of them from level one and I want to be able to multiclass to create something different.  Again, options and variety.  Let me experiment with different combinations and don't make it a massive pain in the ass to do.  Don't destroy it by making it mechanically stupid.  Ecourage customization.

    10. Alignment. All nine alignments or simplified like 4th edition.



    10. I'm fine with the 9.  I'm fine with mechanical representation of alignment.  Bring it on.

    11. Intelligence bonus to languages or should it be a skill option or a feat option.


     
    11. Int bonus.  If your Int grants two extra languages, you have two extra languages regardless of race, class, skills or feats - at level one.  You should also be able to forgo these if you desire and a skill or feat selection should allow you to gain more whenever you wish up to as many as you wish.

    12. Should all race choices from lights, Eberron, FR be put together as an option in the Players Handbook. E.G. Warforge is a race from Eberron, however if you the DM chooses, the warforge can be played in your game setting.



    12. While I certainly would like this, I don't really see it as possible.  That many races would take up too much room and detract from the rest of the book.  Give us the classics with a couple of others that are more easily used in neutral settings (give me Changelings, for example, but not Warforged - not that I have a problem with them, they're just pretty tied to a specific setting).
    Resident Prophet of the OTTer.

    Section Six Soldier

    Front Door of the House of Trolls

    [b]If you're terribly afraid of your character dying, it may be best if you roleplayed something other than an adventurer.[/b]

    1. Race. + and - to a stat for each non human race. Eg Dwarf +1 con, -1 Cha. B.Or no bonus or penalty or C. bonus to stat with no penalty
    +2 to one ability, +2 to choice of two other abilities, applied before point-buy.
    No dwarf has a 20 Con but every dwarf has at least a 12 Con.
    1B should a Race have class restriction or should any race play any class.
    No race/class restrictions, that's just silly.

    2. Hit points: more at first then slower progression. Or lower at first with medium progression 2.B. Con bonus per lvl for hit points or not.
    Just lower in general, especially compared to 4e.
    I'd like to see rolling for HP return as core.

    3. Saves ; based on ability check or standard save chart
    Based on ability scores with save modifiers.

    4. Xp: class based or standard one chart for all.
    One XP scale for everybody.

    5. Bonuses to hit based on level or no bonuses based on level 
    I don't think Bounded Accuracy will be good for D&D, small bonus to hit on level.

    6. Spells : 4th Edition style atcwill enciunter daily or old style chart by lvl
    Oldscool.

    7. Melee combat. 4th edition style at will encounter daily or only feats.
    Neither, level based x[W] damage with vancian stunts taken as feats.

    8. Magic items like 4th or more like Advanced.
    Advanced. 

    9. Class: redefined E.G. Priest can be Cleric Or Paladin Warrior can be fighter or barbarian. Magic user can be wizard or sorcerer.
    9B. List every class individually
    9C. Keep only basic class Cleric,fighter,Mage,Rogue and all other classes are paragon abd Epic paths.
    Nah, core classes with Optional Rules for other stuff.  No Paragon/Prestige stuff.

    10. Alignment. All nine alignments or simplified like 4th edition.
    Classic nine.

    11. Intelligence bonus to languages or should it be a skill option or a feat option.
    I would base it on Charisma mod.

    12. Should all race choices from lights, Eberron, FR be put together as an option in the Players Handbook. E.G. Warforge is a race from Eberron, however if you the DM chooses, the warforge can be played in your game setting.
    No.  I think campaign setting offering a couple races and class helps sell campaign settings.
    1. Races with small bonuses, no penalties, and loads of cool racial feats. No class restriction on races, and no races should be better than other races at a certain class. To balance stat modifiers, you should use racial + class combination feats (for instance, a feat that makes Dwarf Wizards able to cast their spells as runic, having some cool bonus, to balance out the fact that they have no relevant stat modifier). Alternatively, don't link ability scores to classes.

    2. Twenty-thirty hps at first, no huge Con dependancy.

    3. Do we really need saves? I liked defenses way more. Unless monsters have static attacks.

    4. I don't want to use XP at all. So standardized progression is a must.

    5. Small bonuses to hit based on level. I think +1 every five levels is good.

    6. Spells should be no different from other abilities in presentation and format.

    7. Melee combat should be no different from other abilities in presentation and format.

    8. Magic items should be bonuses, not a must.

    9. A different class should cover a meaningful difference in playstyle based on power source, role and range.

    10. No alignment.

    11. Languages are meaningless. It's either a plot point or it is not.

    12. Races should be options. Work with your DM to see how you can fit a certain race in a certain setting. I'd like there to be generic races to reflavor that cover the most foreign concepts.
    Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM!
    Show
    Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
    Ideas for 5E
    Regarding each subject should they do or not do
    1. Race. + and - to a stat for each non human race. Eg Dwarf +1 con, -1 Cha. B.Or no bonus or penalty or C. bonus to stat with no penalty


    Bonus and penalty.
    1B should a Race have class restriction or should any race play any class.


    I'm good either way.
    2. Hit points: more at first then slower progression. Or lower at first with medium progression


    Ummm... linear, whichever choice that is. As in, one hit die per level. Or, 10 + small class bonus (1-3) plus con modifier at first, plus class bonus and con mod at each successive level. Just not the inflated "I can take 5-6 hits before I die" 4th edition method.
    2.B. Con bonus per lvl for hit points or not.


    Con bonus per level, definitely a good thing.
    3. Saves ; based on ability check or standard save chart


    Combination of the two - several types of saves, multiple mods to affect the saves.
    4. Xp: class based or standard one chart for all.


    Either way is fine, once again, though having it clas based means you have have "expert" difficulty classes and "beginner" difficulty classes.
    5. Bonuses to hit based on level or no bonuses based on level


    Based on level and class.
    6. Spells : 4th Edition style atcwill enciunter daily or old style chart by lvl


    Either drop dailies and just have at-wills and encounters, or go back to Vancian.
    7. Melee combat. 4th edition style at will encounter daily or only feats.


    Umm...neither, really? Feats are nice and all, but WOTC has a tendency to print too many. I'd prefer if each class got a varying list of feats (30 per class AT MOST over the whole edition), mostly exclusive to that class, that they can burn to pick up class options, so a fighter could burn down his specific feats to get specialization and hit more consistently and harder, or a rogue could burn his to get a higher bonus to hit when flanking, and so forth.
    8. Magic items like 4th or more like Advanced.


    More like Advanced, though I've delved into the specifics of what I'd like to see many times.
    9. Class: redefined E.G. Priest can be Cleric Or Paladin Warrior can be fighter or barbarian. Magic user can be wizard or sorcerer.


    I'd be okay with that. I like subclasses.
    10. Alignment. All nine alignments or simplified like 4th edition.


    Good-Neutral-Unaligned-Evil. Unaligned would make you immune to alignment-based affects, positive or negative, while neutral would leave you in the spectrum.
    11. Intelligence bonus to languages or should it be a skill option or a feat option.


    All three? I'd like to see varying degrees of expertise, and combining all three seems to be the best way to do that. I'd like one person to speak in pidgin Elven while another speaks it fluently.
    12. Should all race choices from lights, Eberron, FR be put together as an option in the Players Handbook. E.G. Warforge is a race from Eberron, however if you the DM chooses, the warforge can be played in your game setting.


    No, just the classic races.