Community

I think what a lot of us realize, is that there is a strong 3.x crowd, there is an equally strong 4.x crowd. It's hard to argue numbers either way, but ultimately, which one has more or less isn't what matters. Everyone loves their edition and or likes/dislikes a previous edition.

This is my attempt to start sorting through what I like/don't like about each edition and what would work out to be imo a useable and good system between the 4 previous editions. I would really like to see other people doing the same.

If Wizards is truly trying to bring "editions" back together, meeting somewhere in the middle is imo the best option, and completely do-able with plenty of versatilty in game options for DM's and players.

(note these are just my starting ideas from having played: White Box, AD&D, Basic D&D, 2e + options, 3e, 3.x, 4e+essentials)

Healing/HP’s:

4e:

• Pro – cleric isn’t essential, healing is scaled to class/hit point value. Characters start less fragile but are still in danger.
• Con – It feels like after a combat, you fully heal with no expenditure and no reason.

1/2/3.x:

• Pro – Healing felt essential, it was a critical resource that had to be managed
• Cons – Clerics were mandatory, healing didn’t scale well at all and was way too random. Characters literally drop in one hit.

Proposal:

• A fixed starting hit point amount, ala 4e and 3.x, I lean more towards the larger 4e number with increased monster damage ala 4e.
• Characters get a hit point amount per level (‘base&rsquo, wizards get 6, clerics 8, fighters 10, barbarians 12
• This is also your base healing amount when a cure spell is cast.
• Healing spells heal your ‘base’ amount +1 dice.
  • More powerful healing spells add more dice and/or increase the ‘base’ amount
  • Characters could once per encounter/day/whatever rest and “second wind” to recover ‘base’ naturally. Perhaps a higher number to make magical healers “less” required.

Spell Casting:

4e:

• Pro – Casters never run out of spells, they never feel useless or overpowered.
• Con – Casters feel like “everyone else”, essentials sorta fixes this.

1/2/3.x:

• Pro – Magic felt different from the rest of the system, spells were varied and often unique
• Con – Casters were *way* overpowered at high levels, useless at low levels (except a few broken spells)

Proposal:

• Non-casters go back to a set “basic attack” similar to essentials and previous editions.
  • Give these non-casters some cool abilities/stances/auras that let them occasionally do extra stuff to make them less boring.
  • Let them use them at will with perhaps a duration and a small cost to activate them (a few hp’s?). This helps ensure they aren’t constantly spamming some ability without specifically returning to power cards and when they can be used.
• Casters go back to having spell books (clerics and mages, for example). They have a list of spells they know, perhaps maintaining a reasonable limit per level (not 1/2/3.x where you have 100 spells per level).
  • Allow casters to use 1^st level spells they know “at-will”. And a casting progression chart after that like:

• This gives a mix between Vancian casting and the 4e idea that casters never run out of spells. It gives a spell progression back to casters and allows them a cool number of unique spells per day without ever running out of lower level ones.
• Spells can be balanced with “similar” damage/effect output as other classes so they don’t completely outshine everything as in previous editions.

 Roles

4e:

• Pro – Easily gave players an idea of what kind of character they wanted to play
• Con – Gave the impression and feeling that you were then pidgeon holed by class choice.

1/2/3.x:

• Pro – Roles existed just like in 4e, they just weren’t pre-determined. Character classes essentially fulfilled one or two “roles” but it gave the illusion of being more free-form.
• Con – Could be confusing for new players and allowed people to make “traps” for themselves by trying to be something their class wasn’t very good at without extreme tricks.

Proposal:

• Some variation within. The concept of roles isn’t going anywhere, but perhaps design classes around the idea of having more than one role be an option. Drop striker completely, because everyone wants to be one anyway… give all classes the ability to deal damage if they want to make those decisions for their character.

Classes/kits/paths/etc:

2/3/4e: Pretty much the same, a giant amalgamation of a dozen different classes. 4e had by far the most balanced game play and had the least “useless” classes.

1e: Much fewer in overall classes, some were completely broken, others completely useless.

Proposal: Don’t go back to 1e. Multi-classing needs to be a real option without making a character useless.

Races:

All Editions: A mixture of roughly the same races with a few new ones per edition.

Proposal: Take the base races from every Initial PHB to date, these should be the base races of 5e.

• Humans, Elf (Wood elf), Eladrin(High elves), Dwarves, Half-elf, Gnome, Dragonborn, Halfling, Tiefling, Half-Orc.
• Use the original names for Elves, High Elf/Wood Elf, drop Eladrin.
• This mixture keeps all edition players happy.
• Drop stat bonuses from race completely, instead giving interesting benefits and abilities.

Magic Items:

All Editions:

• Pro – Gives character cool new things and a regular bonus to reward them for adventuring, a new occasional perk of cool stuff.
• Con – An escalating need of needing more and more magic to be a useful character has been growing since 1e.

Proposal:

• Get rid of magic item bonuses completely. No more +1 swords, no stat boosting items, not defense boosting items. This just leads to “required” items that ruin the fun of magic and just make the game more tedious for the DM.
• Create interesting items that “do” things as properties, or abilities occasionally. Think 4e with inherent bonuses. The + really stops mattering, instead magical properties and powers are what make the items interesting. Higher “level/power” items, can do better stuff giving players a reason to keep hunting for new “stuff”.
• As an option for DM’s, allow Magic bonuses on items rather than “inherent” bonuses. Giving DM’s that really love the bonuses the option to use them in their games.
• Lastly, let’s get rid of the ridiculous gold amounts for items. Hell 4e even had to make up new currencies just to fathom how you could pay for magic items because the numbers were so silly. 1,125,000 for an item? That is over a ton of gold. That is just silly. Drop the numbers, this isn’t Final Fantasy where numbers in the millions is cool.

Jan 12, 2012 -- 4:32PM, Jokubas wrote:

Overall, I feel like 3.X did flavor a lot better, but 4.0 did rules a lot better. That's not to say that 4.0 didn't allow for roleplaying or have perfect rules though.

Agreed.

Jan 12, 2012 -- 4:32PM, Jokubas wrote:

I like your system of spellcasters getting unlimited versions of earlier schools as they level, but still think that non-spellcasters should have something similar. In fantasy literature, a spellcaster has the option of getting really creative and powerful, but it simply doesn't work in a game. Telling the spellcasters they can have variety and fun, but everyone else just keeps swinging and maybe even lose health for it is not fun. I think 4.0 was on to something, but it needs some tweaks. Maybe there need to be less powers that are more distinct, with your base weapon attack remaining your normal attack (or perhaps a chosen base attack from a list of simple but archetypal fighting styles).

I agree here also, and would like to see essentials style fighter classes like the slayer, and knight... auras, stances, special maneuvers sometimes, etc... I would like to see the "melee" classes be simpler for the most part... (not just basic attacks though). I would like them to be more tactical, strategic... and caster to generally be more flashy, with more variety. A fighter that can provide an stance that provides defense bonuses to allies, or one that can charge enemies that attack allies, etc would give them plenty of options to choose from and even switch mid-fight without having to have huge power packets.

Jan 12, 2012 -- 4:32PM, Jokubas wrote:

I think your proposal of including all past core races is a good idea, but I still don't think Tiefling should come without Deva/Aasimar >_> (even if it means they need another reinvention).

I have no problem with additional races, but I think the core races really must be there.