Ideas for D&DNext
I would like to see a removal of the race/class synergy necessity in D&DNext. Something that really bugged me in 4E was a “Confessions” column by Shelly Mazzanoble in DDi where she recounted how she was told to play a specific race if she wanted to be a class with certain abilities. (I do not remember the exact Dragon issue or the specifics of the story but that’s inconsequential.) When playing D&D, or any role-playing game, I firmly believe you should be open to any conceptual character you choose. If I want to play an elf barbarian, it shouldn’t cause me problems in combat or when choosing my abilities. It is between the players and DM to determine whether the chosen traits of a character are valid, not the rules.
To achieve this, I think the game should progress along the path laid out in Essentials. Any race should confer a static bonus to a single stat. For example, the Essentials Dwarf grants a +2 Constitution bonus; an Elf grants +2 to Dexterity.
Unlike Essentials, your choice of a second +2 bonus to an ability should be completely open. Rather than where the Essentials Dwarf gives you the choice of +2 to either Strength or Wisdom, the player should be allowed to choose any other ability to grant the secondary +2.
Honestly, I would be even happier if you simply were able to choose both abilities to bestow your +2 upon. The additional things races are granted, such as: “Dwarf’s Speed”, “Languages”, “Low Light Vision”, “Skill Bonuses”, “Cast-Iron Stomach”, “Dwarven Weapon Proficiency”, “Encumbered Speed”, “Stand Your Ground”, and “Dwarven Resilience”, to me, are what make races unique without putting more emphasis on them through ability bonuses. Again, DMs and players should determine valid characters, not the rule set.
This is the funny thing about D&D. Some of these I think are good ideas, and others I would be very sad if they make their way into my game. The game designers are going to have a heck of time making this next rule set. :)
For ability scores, if you’re going to let people take any 2 stats they want for ability score boosts, you should just give them more points to buy stats with in the first place. But of all your ideas, I dislike this concept the most.
At first, I liked the essentials method of ability score boosts, but now I’ve come to dislike it. I think races should be pushed into niches. I think players should have to make a few hard decisions, a few sacrifices here and there. But not quite as many as they’re forced to make now.
While races should have niches, I don’t think we should push them into that niche quite so hard. Give each race a bonus to only a single stat. So there might be more halfling rogues around, but not so many that it forces you to play halfling artful dodger rogues because you get a DEX and CHA bonus. And don’t let feat trees focus on a single race/class combo that encourage an already strong race/class pairing. I like the idea of specific race feats to go along with specific classes, but they should be focused more on off-beat race/class combos in order to prevent compulsory combinations. That way, each combination is truly unique in the way it plays out. The rules should give a slight advantage to certain race/class combos, but it shouldn’t be such a huge advantage that you are forced to play that combo to be competitive.
I think psionics were a great method for powers. I also think some fire and forget is good as well. And Essentials showing us that combining different power types is worthwhile. I’d like to see the different classes have different ways of managing their powers so they all feel different to play.
Multiclassing. I’ve written a blog post for changing 4e multiclassing and it’s not too far off from yours. Choose your normal class at first level. To gain a second class, use the current multi-class feats. They’re pretty good, so need to change those. You can even take it at first level. Then you should be able to gain non-power abilities from your second class through the use of feats, similar to how hybrids can improve their abilities. You can take powers from your new class as well, you just have to make sure that none of your secondary class’s powers are of a higher level than your primary class’s highest level power.
In my search for a game system, because I was simply bored of D&D 4E and bored to search fix for the game to simply work (shorter combat, better multi-classing ,etc), I found True20, by Green Ronin.
I know it’s been a while since it’s release, but this game system, is exactly what I wish D&DNext will look like.
Simple rules, based on the old D20 model. And, like an Unhearted Arcana book, many rules options, that you can swap in and swap out. By default it comes with no HP and rather use toughness safe to soak damage. But you can convert every thing in the book to use HP if you’d like.
The magic system is based on fatigue from casting spell, so you have to roll to save from it after casting certain spells. Save that is based on will, but as the rule book specified you can also put it a fortitude save to alter completely how magic works. So, like D&D4e, simple spell can be cast at-will, but big one need to save for fatigue and the save increment for each spell cast in succession in a certain time frame (witch is up to the DM to determine, 1 hour, a Day ? all depend on the feel you want to give to magic in your game).
Is uses three main class, Fighter, Expert and Adept. You want to cast spell ? you have to take Adept levels, you want to have many skills ? you have to take expert levels, etc. And you can multi-class freely between them like in D&D 3e. Every class abilities that exists from D&D3e (sneak, trackless step, animal companion) are feats. And you gain a lot of those to customize your character. So it’s up to the DM to choose if a certain Feat is ok for your character and all that.
One other thing that is brilliant from this game system, is that it’s bind to no explicit setting. It’s design to be playable with Fantasy, Space Adventure, Modern even horror if you’d like to. Each of those comes in detail with sub-genre info to inspire the DM and certain optional rules that might be interesting in that particular genre.
There’s even a book available (True20 Worlds of Adventures) that come with 5 campaign settings to use.
So once adopted, this single game system can be use for many different campaign.
That was my Two cents.
For those interested in True20 you can go to :
http://www.true20.com
I will certainly use that game system until the release of D&DNext.
This seems like the easiest way to do a modular approachthat would encorporate every dnd to date. So this seems like a possible idea that they might be doing. BRILLIANT
@Sean: That’s exactly how I felt. It serves to give everyone the option for the style of character they want to play. Thanks!
@Groumy: I’ve never checked out True20. It sounds a bit like Wyrm (Warrior Rogue Mage) which is an interesting idea.
@QuirkyDM: I agree that making a “One System to Rule Them All” is going to be very hard to acheive.
As for ability scores, my most favored solution is to remove them from racial choice. As I said, it’s between a DM and his/her players to determine what a valid character should look like.
As for multiclassing, I don’t like the multiclass feats in 4E. I think we’re in the same ballpark there, but we definitely have a difference of opinion.
Thanks for taking the time to comment!
I like the idea of choosing what to recharge with a surge-like mechanic. If they do go with Vancian magic, I could see x number of “spell surges” per day making that decision less painful. For the record, I think there will be classes that have different ways of dealing with powers. I could see a vancian wizard (perhaps with spell surges or a few at-wills like magic missile) playing with a point-based psion and a AEDU sorceror.
For races I would like to see a lot of the grated abilities become more theme-like – options you can choose to upgrade your character throughout your whole progression. This would help to add the flavor of a race without pigeonholing it. Done well, there would be several options for each race. For example, elves have a link to nature, and they are nimble and they are skilled in magic – you could enhance any or all of these aspects as you went up.
For multiclassing, I like the idea of choosing your class abilities, but I think your way might allow too much cherry picking. If you pick the best options from each class you could end up as effective as both classes. I’d have two lists for each class. If you multiclass you get the options on the first list – these will be the basic iconic functions of the class, like spellcasting, sneak attack, healing. If you single-class, you get the options on both lists. The advanced list would include things that are more exotic – for a rogue they might be poison or acrobatics, for a sorcerer it might include bloodline abilities. It’s probably too complicated for the modular system they’re shooting for, but I think it would solve a lot of the problems about multiclassing in 3e.
@Philo Pharynx: I could see WotC making each class unique in the way it plays. I’m not sure if that’s something I’d like, but of course I’d have to see it before saying I liked or disliked it.
I think we agree on races. I’d prefer features to define the race, not ability scores.
I am sure my multiclass system allows some cherry-picking. My answer to that is “Who cares?” I really dislike the idea that the game should cater to powergamers. I have often said it, and I firmly believe that powergamers will ALWAYS be able to game the system. They will always find loopholes. They will always pick the “optimal” choices.
The system should natively support the rest of us, who are looking to tell our stories without constraint. Again, the powergamers will do what they do best, regardless of the number of premium choices, so they’ll get their way no matter what.
I wrote my “system” pretty quickly, but I’d expect it to be more streamlined. Perhaps even getting specific abilities at specific levels (like in Neverwinter Nights). I would have no problem with that at all. Then, you’d be unable to cherry-pick, but instead need to take class levels along the path for the feature you hope to gain. Would that make more sense?
Back with my True20 thing ;)
Seeing comments about the Healing Surge macanism remembered me of the Conviction Points mecanism of True20. Each character have un certain amount of Conviction point each levels and Conviction can be use in combat to heal (make a recovery chek), gain additional actions, reroll a dice and each class as it’s own special core ability that allow a Conviction Point to be used for a specefic effect. In the case of the spell casting class, the adept, it allow the player to lower the DC for the fatigue check (so in 4e term, use a power without expending it, or recover a power use and use it right away).
I’d like to point out that the bonus to abilities from racial backgrounds and there to represent that the elf or more nimble than humans, and the dwarf are more sturdy en endurant than humans … removing those benefit will not fix any problem.
The problem with the ability mod and the race, his a problem cause by the internet and the way peapole build their character. Sorry if it’s shock you, but that’s my perspective. There is too musch Mini-Maxing and too much optimisation out there. Your suppose to play the role of an imaginary character. And sorry to wreck your world, but to play a character with some flaws is actualy pretty awesome. It’s awesom, because you remember more the situation where your flaws had the follow spot than the countless situation where your good ability resovle in a success.
Any way, back with my True20 thing, but theres some guide lines to create background (racials, regional or what ever you whant) so you can mash it up the way you want. At least, you can do it without having to wreck apart the game system, it’s design to be fully custimizable for the DM, but base on simple rules for the players to be able to just focus every one on the story and not the rules.
Once again, this is was my opinion on the subject.
@Groumy: I don’t see ability modifiers based on race as a “problem” just something I’m not in favor of.
As for minmaxing, I’ll always say the same thing: “I don’t care about people who minmax. Do not build the game based on them.” They will ALWAYS find a way to squeeze a little more juice from the system. Building the game to fight them takes choices away from the rest of us.
You’re not wrecking my world in regard to flawed characters. I play flawed characters. My first 4E character was a high intelligence wizard with a low charisma. I played him as genius with a severe alcohol problem.
But that was my choice. Which is my point. I want the option to play the characters I want to play. Whether I put flaws in or not is up to me and my DM (or me and my players when I’m behind the screen).
I don’t want to tell others how to play and I don’t want the system to tell me how to play either. Everyone should play the game they want to play.
As for your opinion, you never need to clarify. I welcome any opinion, even conflicting ones!
I’ve thought more about the multiclass system again and realize that we’re actually talking almost the exact same idea, it’s only the presentation of it that is different. First, I didn’t make clear that the only multiclass feat I support keeping is the “entrant” feat, the one that let’s you start multiclassing at all.
After that point, we have pretty much the same idea. I think we both agree that power swaps should be free or almost free. You say you want to trade in class abilities on a per level basis. I say use a feat to gain your secondary class abilities. but by using that feat to gain your other class’s abilities, you are actually foregoing a feat that would normally be used to bump up your primary class, like staff focus or wand expertise. In essence, you are trading in abilities.
So our ideas might be closer than I first thought. It’s just the presentation that differs.
How about making it more of an RPG again and less of a plastic miniatures game.
I like the idea of spending Healing Surges to regain powers. But I’d limit it to Martial characters. A neat little perk for them to balance with being limited in other ways (pseudo-realism).
@Quirky DM: I’m not sure I want to see sacrificing feats for class features. Especially if you get class features from your single class as you level up for free. You’d simply be sacrificing honed focus in a single class for the versatility offered by mixing. In that way, it is equally viable to play a human fighter, a dwarf bard, or a half-orc wizard/rogue/warlock.
@BIG RICH: I’m going to assume you’re not just trying to troll and simply ask: why can it not be both? According to initial stories, the upcoming edition plays equally well with AND without miniatures. Personally, if miniatures play is excluded from the next edition, I’d have no interest in playing. That’s personal taste, and while you may disagree, it makes neither of us “wrong.”
@Jester David: I’d really dislike that. Why does a fighter get to recharge his abilities, while the Wizard hides in the back until after the next rest? That’s something I felt like 4E really got on the right track with, giving everyone the opportunity to always be involved. I’d expect that any recharge system be available to everyone in D&D Next.
To be quite honest, in 4E, I have always felt Martial characters were the least limited. Again though, that’s personal opinion/subjective observation.