Easy fixes to make 5E lovable and playable by everyone

Here are some easy fixes that would make 5E play able by all groups. They have been presented in other threads with almost everyone agreeing that they are a good way to handle it.

Schemes


Every class should get schemes. They can call them something else, for fighters maybe 'fighting styles', wizards maybe 'traditions', clerics could be 'mythos'. They would define those things about the class that are major and hard to define in a background or theme.


Fighter Styles:



  • Sword and Board - One handed weapon and sheild. Gets bonuses to one handed weapons and sheild use.

  • Two-handed - Gets bonuses to weapons that are weilded in two hands.

  • Archery - Gets bonuses to ranged weapons.

  • Pets - Gets to train and use a wild animal pet companion


Note: Each of the fighter styles would have a basic attack, AEDU, vancian, stamina point (see spell points), or whatever variant.

Wizard Traditions:


  • Vancian - Gets spells slots like the play test Wizard

  • AEDU - Gets spells like the AEDU 4E wizard. Spells put into encounter slots lose half the numbuer of damage dice. If they allow a save, you get no effect on a save. If they don't have a save you get a save for half effect. Durations is lowered to 1-2 rounds, area can be smaller by half.

  • Spell point - You get a number of spell points equal to the number of spell slot levels you can cast, for instance at level 3 (according to the pay test packet) you get 8 spell slot level (4 1st and 2 2nd spell slots). You could cast a total of 8 spell slots worth of spells you have prepared.

  • Check chance - You roll a caster check that starts at DC 11 - character level. Each time you cast you add the level of the spell to the chance. So after casting 3 first level spells the DC is 13. After casting 3 first and 2 second your DC is 17. You add your int modifier.


Cleric Mythos:


  • Sorcerer style spells - Same as play test packet

  • AEDU - Get spells like the AEDU 4E cleric.

  • Spell Points - see above.

  • Check Chance - See above, but instead of subtracting the character level the DM keeps track of how many times you've done things that is for or against your faith and gives you a number to subtract.


Overall that would solve a lot of problems...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I have mixed feelings.

Yes, it would "please all" and offer desired mechanics across the board, but a lot of what people are clamoring for is a tendency towards homogenization.

It occurs to me, that the devs are aiming for specific play experiences that resonate through the mechanics of each individual class. If the toolbox is largely the same for all classes, how do you create feelings of nostalgia, unique styles of class play, and other aspects of individualization that the game of D&D has as its precedent?

I agree with you, and I think that many people would be satisfied (as much as gamers can be), but I am definitely enjoying the experience of exploring the intricacies of every class and being taken back to a time when very specific individuals played very specific things because they had resonating identities.

...just thinking out loud.  

Danny

Let's see, a single, simplified system which can be learned in ten minutes, and modified at will with later modules...
...Or three bastardized, incompatible systems shoehorned together, each of which rewuires much more bookkeeping, and which forces players brand new to tt rpgs to decide which game to play, *after* they thought they'd made that decision by buying the basic game product.

Nah.
What I'd reccomed is to cut the inherant flavor of the classes, and lean on Backgrounds to do that. Then, make some of the Fighter specializations into Theme/feat options (ie, a "pet" fighter could take a theme that gives them an animal companion, and bonuses to it later on). After that, you can make the Wizard/Cleric options into separate classes. For example a Wizard could be a Vancian caster, and a mage could be an AEDU caster, and a Sorcerer could be a spell-point caster. A Cleric could be 3e Sorcerer-like, and a Warpriest could be AEDU. It might not be the most "efficient" thing, page wise, but it'll make it easier for new players, or people who want to get in and out of character creation very quickly.

I am currently raising funds to run for President in 2016. Too many administrations have overlooked the international menace, that is Carmen Sandiego. I shall devote any and all necessary military resources to bring her to justice.

Let's see, a single, simplified system which can be learned in ten minutes, and modified at will with later modules... ...Or three bastardized, incompatible systems shoehorned together, each of which rewuires much more bookkeeping, and which forces players brand new to tt rpgs to decide which game to play, *after* they thought they'd made that decision by buying the basic game product. Nah.

Agreed.  Which is why we are here trying to change DDN from the playtest state of being "three bastardized, incompatible systems shoehorned together, each of which rewuires much more bookkeeping" and turn it into a system that fans of any edition can enjoy.
What I'd reccomed is to cut the inherant flavor of the classes, and lean on Backgrounds to do that. Then, make some of the Fighter specializations into Theme/feat options (ie, a "pet" fighter could take a theme that gives them an animal companion, and bonuses to it later on). After that, you can make the Wizard/Cleric options into separate classes. For example a Wizard could be a Vancian caster, and a mage could be an AEDU caster, and a Sorcerer could be a spell-point caster. A Cleric could be 3e Sorcerer-like, and a Warpriest could be AEDU. It might not be the most "efficient" thing, page wise, but it'll make it easier for new players, or people who want to get in and out of character creation very quickly.

Cutting the inherent flavor from classes basically guts everything that D&D is all about.

I'm not seeing how bloating character build options will make the character creation process quicker, easier OR more efficient...

Danny

What I'd reccomed is to cut the inherant flavor of the classes, and lean on Backgrounds to do that. Then, make some of the Fighter specializations into Theme/feat options (ie, a "pet" fighter could take a theme that gives them an animal companion, and bonuses to it later on). After that, you can make the Wizard/Cleric options into separate classes. For example a Wizard could be a Vancian caster, and a mage could be an AEDU caster, and a Sorcerer could be a spell-point caster. A Cleric could be 3e Sorcerer-like, and a Warpriest could be AEDU. It might not be the most "efficient" thing, page wise, but it'll make it easier for new players, or people who want to get in and out of character creation very quickly.




How will it be "easier" for new players to contend with picking between two or three entirely mutually exclusive ways of designing their characters, rather than having one?  That would be like claiming it would be "easier" for players who are brand new to football to first have to determine the advantages and disadvantages of American vs. European, NFL vs AFL vs XFL league rules and their varants, *before* they've ever actually played, or even seen, a game.

Simpler is simpler.  More rules, additional math, more bookkeeping, more variants, are all the enemy of simplicity.  Is it certainly possible to argue that the core should be more complex, and many have been making those arguments (and the devs have been responding to them).  But you can't argue that "more complex = easier."
Cutting the inherent flavor from classes basically guts everything that D&D is all about.

What inherent flavor?
The core classes are about as generic as they can get.  All the "flavor" that's left is the armor screwjob wizards are still stuck with, and the still perceived (but long abandoned) notion of Cleric getting stuck with a mace, but both of those are lingering (from Chainmail) game-balancers barely painted over with vague "flavor".

It's the subclasses and exotics that get all the baked in flavor.  Even those have been on a slow path towards going away since 1989.
What I'd reccomed is to cut the inherant flavor of the classes, and lean on Backgrounds to do that. Then, make some of the Fighter specializations into Theme/feat options (ie, a "pet" fighter could take a theme that gives them an animal companion, and bonuses to it later on). After that, you can make the Wizard/Cleric options into separate classes. For example a Wizard could be a Vancian caster, and a mage could be an AEDU caster, and a Sorcerer could be a spell-point caster. A Cleric could be 3e Sorcerer-like, and a Warpriest could be AEDU. It might not be the most "efficient" thing, page wise, but it'll make it easier for new players, or people who want to get in and out of character creation very quickly.



I've explained this in all the wizard threads before, you can't make a sorcerer the only AEDU caster class, because you'll make the sorcerer fans that hate AEDU mad, and you'll make the AEDU wizard fans that hate sorcerers mad. Same if you try to shoe horn it into any other caster class that already has an iconic identity.

The best we can hope for like that is a second wizard class that is functionally identical except for how they gain spell slots and that would just be double work on WotC part.
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
What inherent flavor?

The studious, vancian Wizard. The pious, battlecaster Cleric. The skulking, dextrous Rogue. The sturdy, capable Fighter. ?

There's plenty of flavor. It's only in recent editions, through sameness and homogenization that they've seemed to lose their flavor.

The core classes are about as generic as they can get.  All the "flavor" that's left is the armor screwjob wizards are still stuck with, and the still perceived (but long abandoned) notion of Cleric getting stuck with a mace.

...and further genericizing them through redundant build options will solve this perceived problem?

It's the subclasses and exotics that get all the baked in flavor.  Even those have been on a slow path towards going away since 1989.

I don't agree.

Danny

What I'd reccomed is to cut the inherant flavor of the classes, and lean on Backgrounds to do that. Then, make some of the Fighter specializations into Theme/feat options (ie, a "pet" fighter could take a theme that gives them an animal companion, and bonuses to it later on). After that, you can make the Wizard/Cleric options into separate classes. For example a Wizard could be a Vancian caster, and a mage could be an AEDU caster, and a Sorcerer could be a spell-point caster. A Cleric could be 3e Sorcerer-like, and a Warpriest could be AEDU. It might not be the most "efficient" thing, page wise, but it'll make it easier for new players, or people who want to get in and out of character creation very quickly.




How will it be "easier" for new players to contend with picking between two or three entirely mutually exclusive ways of designing their characters, rather than having one?  That would be like claiming it would be "easier" for players who are brand new to football to first have to determine the advantages and disadvantages of American vs. European, NFL vs AFL vs XFL league rules and their varants, *before* they've ever actually played, or even seen, a game.

Simpler is simpler.  More rules, additional math, more bookkeeping, more variants, are all the enemy of simplicity.  Is it certainly possible to argue that the core should be more complex, and many have been making those arguments (and the devs have been responding to them).  But you can't argue that "more complex = easier."



The new players won't pick based on the mechanics, they will read the short description and say yeah, I want to play that. For instance:

Sword and Board (Base attack) - Want to pick up a character and not have to worry about anything but hitting enemies and  hitting them again with a little less damage but a little more defense? well this is a good fighting style for that.

Sword and Board (Vancian) - Want a fighter that can hit things reasonably well, but can do extraordinary moves several times per day with medium damage and medium defense? This is the fighting style for you.

Sword and Board (AEDU) - Want a fighter with medium defense and medium attacks that can boost those attacks several times per encounter and boost them even more several times per day? This is the fighting style for you.

Sword and Board (Stamina) - Want a fighter with medium defense and attacks that can use special moves for extra effect until they get tired? This is the fighting style for you.

Sword and Board (Trader) - Want a fighter with medium attack and defense that can trade some damage in order to trip, bull rush, grapple, or otherwise affect enemies? This is the fighting style for you.

See not that hard and it sure beats making 5 different classes that are effectively identical except for their resource pool...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I've explained this in all the wizard threads before, you can't make a sorcerer the only AEDU caster class, because you'll make the sorcerer fans that hate AEDU mad

Only because people are irrationally attached to class names, and fail to realize those classes are just containers for level-locked abilities. 
Just go look at any mention of non-LG Paladins in any of the countless alignment threads for some good proof.
"So which of these should I play, DM?"

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

"So which of these should I play, DM?"

"Ummm... you get to play the cleric, because no one else wants to."

"So which of these should I play, DM?"

"Ummm... you get to play the cleric, because no one else wants to."



*laugh*
As an aside, I love playing the cleric.

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

Only because people are irrationally attached to class names, and fail to realize those classes are just containers for level-locked abilities.

Absolutely agree with this!

As an aside, I love playing the cleric.

Me too!

Danny

I've explained this in all the wizard threads before, you can't make a sorcerer the only AEDU caster class, because you'll make the sorcerer fans that hate AEDU mad

Only because people are irrationally attached to class names, and fail to realize those classes are just containers for level-locked abilities. 
Just go look at any mention of non-LG Paladins in any of the countless alignment threads for some good proof.



Throw the names out. Some people want a blaster caster that gets their powers innately through their blood. Some want a studious book wizard that is a lore master of ancient and forgotten magical arts. Some want a deal making curser that punishes enemies.

Some of that you can get in themes and backgrounds, but most of that is core to the class so instead of having 50+ classes why not just put a 'scheme' type mechanic in that allows you to choose how you get your spells so that sorcerers can be blasters and still use vancian or AEDU or spell points?

Now we can probably move the weapon styles to a theme for the fighter, but leave the 'fighting style' so they can pick how they get their resources. If they choose base attack fighter they would get the weapon specialization of +1 to attack and +2 to damage or whatever every couple levels. If they pick vancian they can 'memorize' special moves they can use that deal slightly more damage or effects, but equal out to about +1 to attack and +2 to damage every couple levels or whatever...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Throw the names out. Some people want a blaster caster that gets their powers innately through their blood. Some want a studious book wizard that is a lore master of ancient and forgotten magical arts. Some want a deal making curser that punishes enemies.

Some of that you can get in themes and backgrounds, but most of that is core to the class so instead of having 50+ classes why not just put a 'scheme' type mechanic in that allows you to choose how you get your spells so that sorcerers can be blasters and still use vancian or AEDU or spell points?

Now we can probably move the weapon styles to a theme for the fighter, but leave the 'fighting style' so they can pick how they get their resources. If they choose base attack fighter they would get the weapon specialization of +1 to attack and +2 to damage or whatever every couple levels. If they pick vancian they can 'memorize' special moves they can use that deal slightly more damage or effects, but equal out to about +1 to attack and +2 to damage every couple levels or whatever...

This is merely conjecture, but it occurs to me that the devs are focusing the game on the shared stories, social interaction and collaborative aspects of the experience; largely getting the mechanics out of the way so as not to interfere with the forward progress of creativity. You, and those who share your sentiments, are feeling left out because you take great joy in playing with the mechanical aspect of the game. 

I wholeheartedly believe that future modules will offer you the options you seek, but the premise of the game must first be established.

You have valuable and insightful things to offer, and the game would be made better by your input if you could only relax, take it as it comes, and trust that the experience will be every bit as enjoyable as it has always been (even if it's not packaged exactly the way you demand it to be packaged).

Danny

If they pick vancian they can 'memorize' special moves they can use that deal slightly more damage or effects, but equal out to about +1 to attack and +2 to damage every couple levels or whatever...

I fail to see how replacing 4E with what's essentially four or five paralell variants of 4E all stacked together is going to appease the "everybody's the same!!" detractors.

Here's what to do:
Issue the first PHB with a 'default' subsystem for each class.  Then, release a "Kernel Reference Manual" of sorts with all the math unwound, and various substitute subsystems for each base class - just don't make us wait ten years for it like 2E did.
Some of that you can get in themes and backgrounds, but most of that is core to the class so instead of having 50+ classes why not just put a 'scheme' type mechanic in that allows you to choose how you get your spells so that sorcerers can be blasters and still use vancian or AEDU or spell points?

Now we can probably move the weapon styles to a theme for the fighter, but leave the 'fighting style' so they can pick how they get their resources. If they choose base attack fighter they would get the weapon specialization of +1 to attack and +2 to damage or whatever every couple levels. If they pick vancian they can 'memorize' special moves they can use that deal slightly more damage or effects, but equal out to about +1 to attack and +2 to damage every couple levels or whatever...

I fail to see how replacing 4E with what's essentially four or five variants of 4E all stacked together is going to appease the "everybody's the same!!" detractors.




They'll have the option of banning certain 'schemes' to make a 1e only table or whatever they want. The rest of us will be able to play the gambit from simple fighters to AEDU complex fighters. We all get what we want without having to have 50+ classes each with a different subsystem to worry about. I mean they already have Thief 'schemes', why not just put that onto every class, call it optional just like themes and backgrounds so the 'default' is to just get the +1 to damage or whatever every couple levels. The default wizard scheme would be vancian, but those like me could opt to change it by hitting the customize button... I don't see it as a huge divergence seeing as Theif's already get something similar...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
If they pick vancian they can 'memorize' special moves they can use that deal slightly more damage or effects, but equal out to about +1 to attack and +2 to damage every couple levels or whatever...

I fail to see how replacing 4E with what's essentially four or five paralell variants of 4E all stacked together is going to appease the "everybody's the same!!" detractors.

Here's what to do:
Issue the first PHB with a 'default' subsystem for each class.  Then, release a "Kernel Reference Guide" of sorts with all the math unwound, and various substitute subsystems for each base class - just don't make us wait ten years for it like 2E did.



Nah, They need to put it in the core PHB so that everyone can get on board...instead of 4E players going to games like 13th age and not looking back...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Nah, They need to put it in the core PHB so that everyone can get on board...instead of 4E players going to games like 13th age and not looking back...

So... Kernel Reference in the back of the PHB then?

Nah, They need to put it in the core PHB so that everyone can get on board...instead of 4E players going to games like 13th age and not looking back...

So... Kernel Reference in the back of the PHB then?




I wouldn't put it in the back, maybe behind the class description under a heading of 'customization' so you don't have to page flip...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Its actually less complex because the alternative is to have a fighter class for each subsystem, a wizard class for each subsystem, a cleric class for each subsystem, but not a Theif class for each subsystem because they already have 'schemes' built in.

Its using multiple vectors to create a simpler system that can be used to do complex things. We would get 1-2 classes for each type, fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue and be able to customize out 32 combinations instead of having 32 different classes that the new player has to read through and figure out which one they want...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I dunno. Those options for fighter styles seem a bit unsatisfying to me.  I mean, having a different progression track for every way a fighter might want to go about offing the bad guys isn't exactly an elegant solution.   Or if it is just this one bonus you get for using a specific weapon, your +1 to hit (for example) will have less and less impact the further you progress.

This part is just my opinion, but I'd rather have a number of maneuvers/stances within the combat system that any fighter can attempt, but with characters built a certain way being able to accel with their favorite style of play.  That also makes generalists viable without building a "generalist specialty".

Oh, and if you are going to have animal companions, I think that shouldn't be tied so much to class.  There's plenty of precident for different types of characters who have had animal companions. 
I dunno. Those options for fighter styles seem a bit unsatisfying to me.  I mean, having a different progression track for every way a fighter might want to go about offing the bad guys isn't exactly an elegant solution.   Or if it is just this one bonus you get for using a specific weapon, your +1 to hit (for example) will have less and less impact the further you progress.

This part is just my opinion, but I'd rather have a number of maneuvers/stances within the combat system that any fighter can attempt, but with characters built a certain way being able to accel with their favorite style of play.  That also makes generalists viable without building a "generalist specialty".



Those fighter style options wouldn't just be a +1 here or there, they would have special effects when they level.

Like a sword and board fighter would get stuff like grant disadvantage to all attackers when they use full defense.

2 handed weapon could give themselves disadvantage to attack to deal double damage or something.

All the cool class features you would see associated with that kind of style...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Ah, that's different then.  Saying "bonus" kinda gave the wrong impression there.  But what about someone who wants to be good at more than one thing.  Like say a Robin Hood who is both an outstanding archer and a swordsman?
As to the original post, it is fairly reasonable that all of those ideas should be supported because it really hurts nobody to include the additional options.  I might disagree with a couple of the specifics (the inclusion of a pet-based fighting style, but not an unarmed or dual-wielding one), but the specifics aren't nearly as important as the basic idea of making a flexible core.

The big problem is going to be what is considered mandatory and what isn't.  It was mentioned that the DM will always have the right to veto any option, but the way it all is presented is going to make a huge difference on whether or not a player will expect to be able to play a certain option and feel cheated when it's banned.

It's also going to be really hard to balance all of those options against each other, so I would strongly recommend that they not even try.  "Classic" classes should be retained as a cohesive option, and then AEDU and MP-style classes should be balanced internally and without regard to each other or the "classic" option.  Make it clear that a DM is free to allow cross-paradigm options, if they understand the full ramifications involved.

---

Skipping down to the more recent post, then, I'm not certain that granting yourself disadvantage in order to gain a tangible benefit would work well with disadvantage as a boolean mechanic.  I mean, you would either suffer no penalty whenever you were already suffering from any other source of disadvantage, or you would never be able to use it because the other disadvantage would prevent it.  That's all covered in my other thread, though.

The metagame is not the game.

I like the idea of pet classes.  I've always been a pet-class player in MMO's and although my DM doesn't like druids much and rangers little more, I still get to get a noncombat pet in -almost- every game.  It'd be nice to have something pet-based martial like Pathfinders Summoner class.

But forced specialization is bad imo.

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

I like the idea of pet classes.

Agreed, but since there's never been a core pet class in any PHB 1, it seems unlikely that they'll tackle it right off the bat.
But forced specialization is bad imo.

You could always have a "generalist" specialization, that gives some of the benefits of the other specializations but not to the same extent.

The metagame is not the game.

Agreed, but since there's never been a core pet class in any PHB 1, it seems unlikely that they'll tackle it right off the bat.


This makes me a sad panda.    Not that I think you're wrong, though.  Prolly have to translate a Summoner and run with it, because WOW is that class fun!

You could always have a "generalist" specialization, that gives some of the benefits of the other specializations but not to the same extent.


generalist specialization


...don't make me come up there. =}

I dunno.  It has too much 'role' feeling to me.  Definitely rubs me the wrong way.  I could, I suppose, if I absolutely had to, learn to deal with it.  But I would -never- 'enjoy' it.  But of course, I don't reasonably expect to truly 'enjoy' every little thing in there -- that's just not fair on my part to expect.

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

I like the idea of pet classes.

Agreed, but since there's never been a core pet class in any PHB 1, it seems unlikely that they'll tackle it right off the bat.
But forced specialization is bad imo.

You could always have a "generalist" specialization, that gives some of the benefits of the other specializations but not to the same extent.

Rangers have been the core pet class for some time.  Most of their 2E followers are animals, and they can befriend any non-hostile animal automatically.
Yah, rangers...but not in the way Im talking.  Rangers have a de-levelled druid's companion (3.x version).  By contrast, the Pathfinder Summoner is often referred to as 'The Eidolon and it's pet Summoner' because, in a very literal sense, half the time the Summoner is best served hiding behind a rock (!).  Now THATS a pet class!

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

"generalist" specialization




 You're joking, right?

If you need a generalist specialty, someone done screwed up somewhere. 
What inherent flavor?

The studious, vancian Wizard. The pious, battlecaster Cleric. The skulking, dextrous Rogue. The sturdy, capable Fighter. ?

There's plenty of flavor. It's only in recent editions, through sameness and homogenization that they've seemed to lose their flavor.

The problem with this mentality, is you're not losing this flavor, if you don't want to. Backgrounds and Rogue Specialties solve all those problems. The only thing that could possibly change that is certain classes leaning on certain ability scores for stuff, but with casters, it's a fairly simple thing to switch around the score related to spellcasting.

And the separation of mechanics and flavor does a lot more to broaden the game. I could decide that I want to fill the studious, Int-based role, but I want to play a cleric. If mechanics were further separated, I'd be able to do this, and play the role of a "theologian" cleric. Or I could decide that I want to have fun with what I can do with themes, and build a Rogue who relies only on Strength. He doesn't rob through sleight of hand, or deceit. He whomps them over the head with a mace, and takes their coinpurse. Some of the flavor remains, yes, but the flavor is not forced into the class, which means you can do a lot more with a concept.

Now, in a perfect world, would everyone have options that they'd want, and simultaneously not have there be too many options to confuse new players, or make character creation take too long? Sure. But the closest we could feasably get is to split what used to be 1 class into several choices, so that mixing and matching can be done, and if someone wants an easy or "classic" version of that class, they can pick from a short-list of appropriate backgrounds and themes for that class.

Unfortunately, adding another choice to caster classes, on the method of casting would have been nice, it seems that will not happen, so why not accept that you can create that character concept, with the mechanics you want, with backgrounds and themes? There could even be a section for Arcane casters that state that because the main difference between the classes is the casting method, it would list former classes' appropriate backgrounds and themes, to fit the flavors of those classes. For example, if you wanted a 4e warlock, maybe the AEDU class is Sorcerer. But maybe there's a Background "Eldritch-Pact" and a theme "Curser" or something, which allow you to build something with the same feel. Likewise, you could have those backgrounds and themes be added to a Fighter, and bam: you've got a Hexblade.

I am currently raising funds to run for President in 2016. Too many administrations have overlooked the international menace, that is Carmen Sandiego. I shall devote any and all necessary military resources to bring her to justice.

"generalist" specialization




 You're joking, right?

If you need a generalist specialty, someone done screwed up somewhere. 

Otherwise known as Bards...

Danny

The problem with this mentality, is you're not losing this flavor, if you don't want to. Backgrounds and Rogue Specialties solve all those problems. The only thing that could possibly change that is certain classes leaning on certain ability scores for stuff, but with casters, it's a fairly simple thing to switch around the score related to spellcasting.

And the separation of mechanics and flavor does a lot more to broaden the game. I could decide that I want to fill the studious, Int-based role, but I want to play a cleric. If mechanics were further separated, I'd be able to do this, and play the role of a "theologian" cleric. Or I could decide that I want to have fun with what I can do with themes, and build a Rogue who relies only on Strength. He doesn't rob through sleight of hand, or deceit. He whomps them over the head with a mace, and takes their coinpurse. Some of the flavor remains, yes, but the flavor is not forced into the class, which means you can do a lot more with a concept.

Now, in a perfect world, would everyone have options that they'd want, and simultaneously not have there be too many options to confuse new players, or make character creation take too long? Sure. But the closest we could feasably get is to split what used to be 1 class into several choices, so that mixing and matching can be done, and if someone wants an easy or "classic" version of that class, they can pick from a short-list of appropriate backgrounds and themes for that class.

Unfortunately, adding another choice to caster classes, on the method of casting would have been nice, it seems that will not happen, so why not accept that you can create that character concept, with the mechanics you want, with backgrounds and themes? There could even be a section for Arcane casters that state that because the main difference between the classes is the casting method, it would list former classes' appropriate backgrounds and themes, to fit the flavors of those classes. For example, if you wanted a 4e warlock, maybe the AEDU class is Sorcerer. But maybe there's a Background "Eldritch-Pact" and a theme "Curser" or something, which allow you to build something with the same feel. Likewise, you could have those backgrounds and themes be added to a Fighter, and bam: you've got a Hexblade.

I'd say it's more of a problem with semantics, rather than mentality.

How about this: The learned Wizard. The devoted Cleric. The skilled Rogue. The able Fighter.

The only contentious issue is the conceit that "doing everything would make everyone happy," which wouldn't make me happy, so, where does that leave us?

Danny

I like the idea of pet classes.

Agreed, but since there's never been a core pet class in any PHB 1, it seems unlikely that they'll tackle it right off the bat.

I think people are really missing the opportunities of Themes. "Pet" doesn't need to be a class feature or build-feature. It could be a theme. You want a Ranger with a pet Bear? Take the Animal companion Theme. You want your Artificer to have a clockwork Wolf? Reskin the Animal companion Theme. Ect.

I am currently raising funds to run for President in 2016. Too many administrations have overlooked the international menace, that is Carmen Sandiego. I shall devote any and all necessary military resources to bring her to justice.

I like the idea of pet classes.

Agreed, but since there's never been a core pet class in any PHB 1, it seems unlikely that they'll tackle it right off the bat.

I think people are really missing the opportunities of Themes. "Pet" doesn't need to be a class feature or build-feature. It could be a theme. You want a Ranger with a pet Bear? Take the Animal companion Theme. You want your Artificer to have a clockwork Wolf? Reskin the Animal companion Theme. Ect.




It's pretty hard to 'reflavor' "Hi, my pet does 85% of my damage".  That's a pet class.  Not 'a class that happens to have a marginally useful pet at times', but 'a class whose focus is the buffing, sharing of abilities, assisting a pet that does all the actual fighting'.

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

I like the idea of pet classes.

Agreed, but since there's never been a core pet class in any PHB 1, it seems unlikely that they'll tackle it right off the bat.

I think people are really missing the opportunities of Themes. "Pet" doesn't need to be a class feature or build-feature. It could be a theme. You want a Ranger with a pet Bear? Take the Animal companion Theme. You want your Artificer to have a clockwork Wolf? Reskin the Animal companion Theme. Ect.

I agree. Themes can do pets much justice.

However, there is definitely space for a pet-specific class.

Danny

I'd say it's more of a problem with semantics, rather than mentality.

How about this: The learned Wizard. The devoted Cleric. The skilled Rogue. The able Fighter.

The only contentious issue is the conceit that "doing everything would make everyone happy," which wouldn't make me happy, so, where does that leave us?



It leaves us like this: If you want a campaign with those four classes limited to that playstyle, go ahead. The devs have already said there will be a list of backgrounds and themes appropriate to each class. All you have to do is limit the allowed backgrounds and themes to those ones.

However, if I want a party that consists of a devoted Wizard, an Able Cleric, a learned Rogue, and a skilled Fighter, why shouldn't I get to have that? Isn't 5e supposed to be inclusive to different playstyles, rather than exclusive? it's easy to limit the classes down to a list of limited options which maintain the flavor of those classes (especially when the devs have talked about putting such a list alongside the class itself), but it's much harder to houserule a system which allows for a broader list of options, than what is presented. 

I am currently raising funds to run for President in 2016. Too many administrations have overlooked the international menace, that is Carmen Sandiego. I shall devote any and all necessary military resources to bring her to justice.

Sign In to post comments