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.
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.
Improve on 3.x. I want my 3.5/3.PF books to be compatible with DnD Next. If they are not, I have no reason to buy DnD Next. PF is at the Gunslinger for classes and Bestiary 3. No need to buy a book with "new" basic classes and monster.
Why would I need another iteration of Illithids or wizards and fighter? Waste of money for me.
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.
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:Show
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
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.
Playtest or get off the playtest boards.
---
I want justice for the voice that can't be heard Vindication for every suffering and hurt Let retribution hold dominion over earth --Nemesis, VNV Nation
