Imagine a situation: you are a lead developer of D&D 6e. What will you change and create?
Will you power up martials or nerf wizards?
Will you replace ft by meters or grid cells?
Will you gravitate towards sandboxery or more rigid settings?
What will you do with alignments?
Will you add more races, monsters, weapons?
Will you make combat more lethal or more power fantasy?
Will you finally make actual rules for things that don't involve mass murder?
>>47508371
I would get rid of AC, lower HP and damage, and add dedicated chapters for social encounter rules and exploration.
If I was really going nuts I'd get rid of classes, and make sorcery, wizardry, divine casting, Ki powers, martial maneuvers, etc subsystems that can be learned based on character concept.
>>47508371
None of those things, 5e did fine in most of those areas. The real thing 6e needs to do is have a decent marketing campaign behind it and have an online Resource Database like Pathfinder has.
>>47508371
>Will you power up martials or nerf wizards?
Why does everyone think that 20 levels in a guy with a sword has to be the equal of someone with phenomenal cosmic power.
>>47508540
But we have the same amount of experience! I should be able to divine things with my sword!
>>47508540
Oh come on.
>>47508371
Throw out everything, rebuild every class from scratch to fit within a universal framework that has subtle but significant differences, have a canon setting but also details on worldbuilding, condense alignments to a sliding scale since it's largely worthless, keep races the same, add a wide range of monsters, tighten up weapons and allow for addons beyond masterwork, have combat be lethal when you focus fire, and scrap out of combat rules for the most part and leave it to DM's call.
No wait, that's 4e.
>Bring the general power level and numbers way down
>Pare down the classes a fuckload
>Only give spells to wizards, druids and clerics
>Decrease the number of races to Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Haflings, and Beastmen that can stand in for half orcs or tieflings or dragonborn based on subtype (this is the only race with a subtype)
>limit wizard spells per day
>find some way to encourage more inventive combat
>abstract basic combat down to simpler terms
>make encumbrance rules simpler so people actually use them
>make feats a small, finite number that you get at chargen and that's it, maybe tie it to an attribute
>encourage focus on wizard utility spells rather than combat wizards
>Remove alignment, let GM decide when a cleric is acting against their code or gods wishes, etc
that's just off the top of my head
>>47508371
The only thing I would change is that wizard spells (not cantrips) have to be located/purchased or copied (with suitable fail rate) from scrolls/books and a Wizard only has access to whichever he chooses to take with him in a travel spell book. If the book is lost or destroyed, bye bye wizard spells. It was AD&Ds way of balancing magic users and it worked great.
>>47508540
That guy with the sword should be able to one-shot beings weaker than him, wipe out goblins in droves, and strike true as to not waste time shanking every last ruffian to make sure he stays down. Every blow he makes should progress combat in a way that makes his foes realize they just made a colossal mistake.I actually made a class like this
>>47508371
Bring back the core of 4e, and get it right from the start, make sure all the math is balanced, use the good version of skill challenges, etc, etc. Also give some more options for rituals, as well as making the ones the PCs get more viable to use (probably a budget of X GP per day of free rituals based on level), and experiment more with classes that can pull double duty on two roles, and such.
>>47508540
If levels are not equivalent in power, why bother having them?
>>47508371
>Will you power up martials or nerf wizards?
Little of both. Martials get fun toys to play around with, mages get a few more limitations. Mostly, I'd emphasize how the laws of physics in this world could allow Monks wrestling dragons or Fighters holding their wounds shut with sheer willpower.
>Will you replace ft by meters or grid cells?
I will usehexesas the default assumption.Each print DMG includes a stencil set and reusable map making tools and tips.
>Will you gravitate towards sandboxery or more rigid settings?
Sandboxier. Adventure paths' focus would be on groups and their goals, not predetermined events.
>What will you do with alignments?
Keep, but distance from morality. Angels are made from physical goodness, demons coalesce from clouds of Evil, the easiest way to make undead is two parts negative energy, one part elemental evil, one corpse, stir well.
>Will you add more races, monsters, weapons?
I'd add more unique ones. "+1 sword" would take a backseat to "If this sword doesn't hit anything, another attack is automatically made against whatever's in that square one turn later, regardless of the sword's position". If something's added just because it was there before, it should be looked at very carefully.
>Will you make combat more lethal or more power fantasy?
Less lethal, but faster to end. Fights would end in one side getting knocked unconscious or running away more often than total slaughter, except with large power disparities (mook hordes or final bosses)
>Will you finally make actual rules for things that don't involve mass murder?
Of course.Nonlethal takedowns are very important, after all.
Keep it coming, people, I need your butthurts and shitstorms to sustain my wretched trollpire body
>>47508540
Better questions.
Why should the wizard have cosmic powers?
>>47509084
You. I like you.
I would end up making it an expanded retroclone of B/X D&D, only updated for people familiar with the d20 system. I'd try to get it in regular stores by putting inexpensive books on bookshelves and starter sets in the board game aisles with the option to get higher quality color/hardback versions from hobby shops.
>And then WotC went bankrupt.
4th page bump because i'm a faggot
Asking here, does anyone have the screenshot of the anon explaining why 3aboos hate martials?
>>47509084
>Less lethal, but faster to end. Fights would end in one side getting knocked unconscious or running away more often than total slaughter, except with large power disparities (mook hordes or final bosses)
That sounds like more of an issue with groups and play-styles than rules, unless you're talking about including a paragraph that goes "Hey dumbasses, things really don't tend to fight to the bitter end 100% of the time, have enemies run away or surrender when shit goes south; don't use it as an excuse cheat your players out of XP or have enemies ambush the party at a later date either, that just breeds bad blood."
Other than that, 10/10, preddy gub
Basically merge the best of OD&D (with supplements) and 5e.
>advantage/disadvantage on checks
>no feats
>a handful of skills you get better at based on your class and literally everything else is handled by one kind of roll with a DC determined by the GM
>ascending armor class
>EXP requirements as a balancing mechanism
>encouraging 3d6 down the line
>stats between 3 and 18 give a maximum of +2/-2
>players encouraged to run the fuck away from many encounters
>either reduce number of spells per day dramatically or ditch Gygaxian magic for something with a more "magic is scary shit" vibe to it
>return to a three-alignment system
>ditch tiefling as a core class, but don't re-add gnomes either
>publish shitloads of supplements, but not character option supplements; DM supplements that offer more stuff to shove in those scary holes with your players
>make combat more lethal
>I will not "finally make actual rules for things that don't involve mass murder" because D&D has had rules for those things from the beginning. Thieves picking locks and pockets and disarming traps, for example.
Oh, that reminds me!
>no rules for social interaction; just act that shit out. Jesus
>except bards may get some special abilities relating to social situations
>no more sorcerers and wizards; you're a magic user and you can flavor it either way or totally differently
>>47508855
Because levels indicate power relative to other individuals of the SAME class.
A level 20 fighter is more powerful than a level 7 fighter.
Fighters should not be more powerful than wizards. This makes no sense.
>>47509794
Just have fighters level up faster. It's easier to learn to stab a dude than to harness the powers of the universe. That's also why NPC fighters are (or should be) far more common than NPC wizards.
That way you can have like a 9th level fighter and a 5th level wizard in a party, and it just works.
>>47509125
>why should a class that manipulates reality be able to manipulate reality
baka desu senpai
>>47509828
That's how it used to be in 2e.
I see no problem with this at all.
>>47508675
>Only give spells to wizards, druids and clerics
Explain.
>>47509866
That's how it was from od&d through to 2e, and I agree. I'm >>47509746
>>47509729
More that there would be rules for not killing things besides "You do X damage, but nonlethally". Bringing back some form of Morale (and tying Intimidate into it), more nuanced Diplomacy rules, and specific spells/techniques that can knock enemies unconscious (or scare them away, or tie them up, or...) faster than killing them with damage in exchange for not working on some types of enemies (zombies, golems, etc.) would be good starting points.
Also, there would be optional (but recommended) rules for modifying XP gain based on how you defeat an encounter - solving everything one particular way reduces XP gain (something like a stacking 5% after the first encounter, capped at a 50% penalty.), and using a solution for the first time in a campaign increases the experience reward.
I'd also start free playtests at every optimization level and actually listen to the feedback (except for "X class is too weaboo, axe it", "X system/edition is/was better", or stylistic choices without appropriate explanation).
Of course, this theoretical perfect system would never work out in practice.
>>47509828
>That way you can have like a 9th level fighter and a 5th level wizard in a party, and it just works.
what's the advantage of that approach instead of just taking the features of the level 9 fighter and giving it to the fighter at level 5, and then having them level at the same rate?
>>47508371
Get rid of "mundane-magical" dichotomy.
Everything is fucking magic now - that wizard? Magic. That fighter?Weeaboo fightanMagic. That deer over there? Magic, but deers are dumb shits so the difference is just slight resistance to other magic and higher regeneration.
Magic courses through everything - it is no longer a weird plug on the universe, it's woven into universe's fabric itself. If D&D wants to be high fantasy, at least make it PROPER high fantasy.
>>47509794
you are a faggot
>>47508371
The magic system of DnD is broken. The 1st through 9th spell level system needs to be completely torn out and replaced, with spells being balanced against each other rather than constantly ramping up in raw power.
Wizards shouldn't get 40+ fucking spells automatically either, a high level magic caster should have between 10 and 20.
If the magic system is not replaced, high level martials should be able to cut mountains in half and grapple colossal monsters.
>>47510146
Ah now I see what you mean. Sounds good and not necessarily impossible to implement, seeing as those ideas exist, albeit separately, in one system or another; have you considered houseruling your would-be-6e rules into existing D&D editions?
>>47510146
I agree with some of this (morale used to be incredibly important in a fight) and emphatically disagree with others (changing xp because the players act to their strengths and not to their weaknesses).
>>47510415
D&D should be sword-and-sorcery, not high fantasy.
>>47510664
>angry martialfag detected
Explain to me again how a muscleman swinging a piece of metal should be nearly as powerful as a master of the elements and time and space.
>>47511100
You're free to make your setting as magical or as mundane as you wish anon.
>>47511126
explain to me how a nerd in a bathrobe wiggling his fingers should be nearly as powerful as a trained warrior wearing armor and wielding a sword
>>47511126
Because making wizards masters of time and space is an arbitrary distinction.
If there were a group of people that could magically light 1 candle after chanting for 1 hour once per day, and upon leveling they got additional uses of that effect, and those people were called wizards, that would be just as valid, if not more valid than 'basically gods'
Magic is only as powerful as you want it to be, so saying wizards should be better because you decided magic should be strong is circular logic.
>>47509866
Agreed. Different rates makes the most sense.
Did we just solve the entire martial/magic argument?
>>47511221
Because that nerd can bend the very fabric of reality to his will.
>>47511302
Except that we're talking about D&D here. A high level wizard is basically a demi-god who can control time, space and will anything into existence.
A warrior is just a man with muscles and a big pointy stick.
>>47511317
Because it's not, and even Gygax went on to say that the purpose of levels was to demonstrate equivalent power/influence in the world, each in their own way, and then went on to say that, no, the different xp rates DID NOT WORK.
The only thing you did was try to front a backhanded way of justifying bad mechanics that even the creator admitted were flawed and didn't achieve their intended purpose..
>>47511391
I'm talking about how things should be, not how they are.
If there was no problem with how they worked, discussions like this would never pop up. They pop up all the time.
>>47509794
You are literally retarded.
>>47511391
>Because that nerd can bend the very fabric of reality to his will.
No he can't. Being able to create an explosion of fire or put some people to sleep, once or twice a day, doesn't make you a god.
>>47509746
>>no rules for social interaction; just act that shit out. Jesus
Stupid as hell. You are not your character.
>No rules for fights, act that shit out, beat up the DM
>>47511391
And this is talking about changing the system so Wizards are on par with pointy stick man instead of demi-gods, so you can actually have both in the same party like the game intends.
Again. Circular logic. You're saying wizards should be stronger because they are stronger
>>47511391
>A high level wizard is basically a demi-god who can control time, space and will anything into existence.
>A warrior is just a man with muscles and a big pointy stick.
Then why are the same level with the same experience? Why aren't we using a warrior demigod as inspiration for the warrior classes?
>>47511436
They pop up all the time because autists simply can't accept that their conan the barbarian muscleman power fantasy fighter can be defeated by an old man or a woman.
>>47511572
they pop up all the time because every class except a handful of tier 1 casters is commoner+ while the game advertises itself as a generalist system and not wizard duel stories
>>47511391
But why is that what a Wizard is?
>Because magic
And why does magic have to function that way to the detriment of the game?
>>47511522
High level wizards are basically gods. They can even create their own demiplanes. What can a high level fighter do? Buy a keep and hire some henchmen?
>>47511556
I'm not saying Wizards should be stronger at everything. Fighers will always be better at stabbing things with sharp objects. That's what they do. Working as intended.
>>47511608
People would rather play something magical in a fantasy setting.
Why is this surprising to you?
Of course playing a Wizard with access to hundred of cool and interesting spells is more appealing to a lot of people than a fighter who can only hit things with a stick?
That doesn't mean that fighters are broken. Some people like simplicity or want to roleplay a soldier/knight/merc/barbarian
>>47511543
Your character might be smarter than you. Better just have a rule system to see whether they figure out how to survive the dungeon completely independently of your input.
Combat rules exist as a way of making combat a challenge without requiring you to "beat up the DM" or go in a cave and fight a bear or something. Social interaction, despite what some may think, is relatively safe, and is something you're already doing if you're playing the game.
>>47511634
>I'm not saying Wizards should be stronger at everything. Fighers will always be better at stabbing things with sharp objects.
Except you are saying that, because you're arguing for 3.5 style caster supremacy. They type where a Wizard can simply transform into a giant dragon made of magical swords because 'lolmagic' and then be way better at stabbing.
Why should Wizards and magic encompass EVERYTHING on a single character when they could just as easily be restricted to being mediocre pyromancers or whatever.
Give a reason why Wizards have to be DnD style wizards instead of any other type of non-demigod wizard.
>>47508371
I would make martials feel more like Demi-Gods. 20th level Fighters should be able to pull off feats akin to Hercules, or fucking Kratos.
>>47510706
Yes, but I'm a lazy faggot who's bad at collecting my thoughts in one place.
>>47510965
Experience bonuses/penalties are an optional rule (so the DM could ignore it if they wanted a hack-and-slash murderfest or pure intrigue game) that mechanically encourages creativity and sharing the spotlight over just diplomancing/stealthing/blasting through an entire campaign; well-rounded characters (and parties) would become stronger faster than one trick ponies theorycrafted to hell and back.
>>47511543
>You are not your character.
Your character's mind is entirely in your hands, though. Unless you're saying that your character does things without human intervention.
>>47508371
>Will you power up martials or nerf wizards?
Yes. Insert natural break points / tiers like 4e's heroic / paragon / epic. As a way of letting people know that past that point you can't even be "just a sword guy". Also offers a clear level cap for a low / mid power level game.
>Will you replace ft by meters or grid cells?
No.
>Will you gravitate towards sandboxery or more rigid settings?
Leave this to GMs and campaign writers.
>What will you do with alignments?
Supernatural only. Only priest characters (who just reflect their deity's alignment) and monsters have alignment at low levels. Normal people pick one up at a higher tier, once they've broken in their character's personality.
>Will you add more races, monsters, weapons?
No. Scale back magic items tremendously from 3e/4e, where you were obligated to by a bunch of shitty +bonus equipment.
>Will you make combat more lethal or more power fantasy?
Unless you play with a 1e/2e mindset, D&D / d20 does not do lethal combat well -- the d20 ends up with far too much influence over character success and failure. So the latter.
>Will you finally make actual rules for things that don't involve mass murder?
Yes.
>>47511683
But the game advertises a party of equals delving dungeons, not wizards solving everything.
Would nobody play a wizard if they just had nothing but 1000 incredibly specific cantrips? If all they want is fantasy and complexity...
>>47511683
Much of the most exciting fantasy is about warriors or people with limited access to magic. Conan, Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, etc.
>>47511738
>why do wizards in D&D have to be D&D style wizards
It sounds like you might be playing the wrong game or at least the wrong setting anon.
D&D - generic D&D, Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Greyhawk, Planescape, etc... - is high fantasy and high level wizards are viturally omnipotent.
As I said earlier, you're free to homebrew a world where all wizards can do is chant for hours to light a candle if you want but don't claim that the game itself needs to change to suit your personal playstyle preferences.
>>47511706
Stupid. As. Hell.
There still needs to be a system for social interaction, unless you want to go lift that fucking fridge.
As long as you can explain what it is you're trying to do socially, it translates into the dice on the table, you strawmanning fuckwit.
>>47511869
No, I'm playing the right setting. It's your pathetic ass that has to have the superdoanything wizards, least you cry. 5e was a step in the right direction, but there needs to be more. Out of combat utilities need to be more universal.
>>47511810
>But the game advertises a party of equals delving dungeons
No it doesn't. This isn't Communism: the RPG.
Enough of this "everything needs to be balanced because we're all equal" bullshit. There will always be characters that are more or less powerful than others.
>>47511828
I agree. But that's beside the point.
Martial classes can be just as enjoyable as casters to roleplay if that's your thing.
Power up martials, bring back the unlimited max level.
>>47511869
Except in 3.5, that isn't the case at all. Its literally 1 edition of the game that has had this problem, at least to the severity that Wizards are demi-gods.
Is it so wrong to want more parity between classes like other editions have? For wizards to have some actual limits so they don't threaten to snap the game in two with their mere existence?
>>47511940
See, everyone? This is the cancer 3.PF breeds.
I can't wait until it dies out at last, and we piss on the grave.
>>47511764
Except you are ignoring that parties are often made of diverse characters with diverse methods.
It is rare that you have a group that can only approach the world in a singular fashion, so I fail to see what such a thing adds outside trying to get the group to metagame in a different fashion (rather than approaching situations according to their character's mindset and skill set, they try to do things differently knowing they will be rewarded for essentially breaking character).
>>47511869
>talks about not changing the game in a thread all about changing the game
Dude, you can stop now. Even the most diehard 3aaboos would be rolling their eyes at you right now. Even in the examples you speak of, those casters clearly were beyond human limits, often being liches, divinely favored or supernatural beings.
>>47511889
This. While interaction is an absolute goal, a player should not be penalized because they are not as eloquent as their character.
On the other hand, they should not be given a pass because the PLAYER is eloquent as well, and I have been on the receiving end of this.
>>47511926
Yeah let's homogenise all the classes! What could possibly go wrong there?
I'm starting to think you're trolling.
>>47511940
Yes. That's what levels are for, denoting power, so that people can easily tell which characters are balanced or more or less powerful.
The level system fails at that right now because a level x fighter is significantly different power from a same level wizard.
If you want to play a level 5 fighter in a party of level 15 wizards, great. But don't try to force everyone else to by breaking the game's mechanics.
>>47511889
Not the guy you were talking to but, I don't like it when GMs have social situations that are just people talking most of the time, but then randomly have one NPC who is arbitrarily belligerent and will not care about anything the players say until they all start rolling their charisma and then the NPC starts cooperating.
I think if the game's dialogue consists of things like "I tell the bar maiden a funny joke", have players roll. But if people are actually saying their dialogue out loud, in-character, they shouldn't have to roll.
>>47511963
He's a troll, anon, not an actual player.
Just ignore him, he's derailed the whole fucking thread.
>actually responding to the "pathetic nerd that got bullied by stronger kids so now he jerks off over his wizard" bait
Don't give him the attention he wants
>>47511940
Not perfectly equal, but also not unbalanced to the degree where half the party could be replace by a pack mule and a large doh without any significant difference.
Would you rather I say a party of Peers? Or Team-mates? Whatever world you want to use, everyone should bring something meaningful to the table, and need the others present.
>>47511963
>crying about 3.PF
>not realising that 5e is basically the same thing
wew lad
>>47511990
Yeah, because that's at all what I said, you brain damaged little shit.
Your system and way of thinking is dying, and I couldn't be more happy.
>>47508371
remove initiative and replace it with something better
>>47511983
Thank you, yes.
That's the worst shit. "Oh, my cha 6 int 5 barbarian is super-smart and highly eloquent because I, the player am."
Utter dogshit.
>>47512005
No, that's the worst thing. I've MET PEOPLE LIKE THAT. 3.PF literally induces brain fucking damage in people, so they think horseshit like that is actually how it should fucking work.
>>47512004
Why? Why should you get to bypass the system just because you're good at talking out of character? You can talk and talk and talk, but in the end, it comes down to the dice, ALONG WITH WHAT YOU SAID. If you spew some shit about wanting to fuck the princess to her father, yes, that's going to be some really big negs.
>>47511990
So instead of having each class do something special, you'd rather have one class do everything and one class do one thing poorly?
>>47508371
>raise magic resistance with each level gained
>powerful beings become god's anchors of reality keeping the world in one piece
>mages can bend reality and fuck shit up for smelly peasants with high level warriors walking through magic flames and easily slashing magical steel walls
would make a nice world
>>47511999
Classes will never be balanced. It's never happened in any RPG ever.
D&D is not competitve. There's no need for it to be balanced as long as it's fun. If you can't have fun without your weeaboo fighter teleporting behind every wizard he sees and slicing him into a thousand pieces with his masamune katana then I guess you're playing the wrong game.
>>47512015
The classes are not fundementally unbalanced to any significant degree. Each class is useful in its own way.
>>47512090
>That's the worst shit. "Oh, my cha 6 int 5 barbarian is super-smart and highly eloquent because I, the player am."
Good point. If you make a good choice, let's have you make a roll based on INT or WIS to see if your character is smart enough not to do it.
>"Okay, I'm going to stay back because the rogue said there's a trap over there."
>the DM rolls a dice
>"No you aren't. You're too stupid. Make a dexterity saving throw to see if you die."
>>47512128
>The classes are not fundementally unbalanced to any significant degree. Each class is useful in its own way.
Have you never heard of the tier system and/or the last 15 years of d20, or are you just enjoying ostrich-head syndrome?
>>47512128
>There's no need for it to be balanced as long as it's fun
>The classes are not fundementally unbalanced to any significant degree. Each class is useful in its own way.
Ok, you can play the 3.PF monk in a part with a druid, cleric, and wizard, then.
Also, who's up to start checking down Bingo?
>>47512041
Except it isn't.
5e is closer to 3.5 than anything else.
How mad are you?
>>47512162
>Let me strawman because I don't have an actual argument!
Fuck right off. Unless you actually have a response, don't expect another reply.
>>47512169
And yet, here we are, with you screaming and crying about how there's any restrictions on wizards at all.
It needs more utility effects for other classes, yes, but 5e is a great step in the right direction.
>>47512167
It's hilarious how pissed martialfags are at Pathfinder.
I don't even play 3.PF and I suggest that if you hate the system so much, that you don't either!
>>47512164
>tier system
I'm sorry, I play D&D to tell stories and have a blast with my friends. I'm not some powergaming neckbeard who thinks that it's some kind of pissing contest.
Tier list? What is this, Street Fighter? League of Legends? Fuck outta here with that MLG bullcrap.
>>47512090
>Why should you get to bypass the system just because you're good at talking out of character?
Player: Hey npc, *completely innocuous request or factual statement*
NPC: HMMMM... NO.
Player: but *more detailed explanation to assuage doubts about statement or request*
NPC: NO NO NO, NOT HAPPENING
Player: but why? *explains why there's no reason not to*
NPC: DON'T TALK TO ME OR MY WIFE'S SON EVER AGAIN
Player: *rolls charisma, gets a 12*
NPC: Oh yeah sure that's fine, come on in.
>>47512128
>The classes are not fundementally unbalanced to any significant degree. Each class is useful in its own way.
In 3.5? Yes, they are extremely unbalanced. A Druid gets a free 'fighter' to follow them around at first level, and it only gets worse from there.
"Casters are supposed to be better than fighters because magic is better than nonmagic!" never explains why in 3.X and Pathfinder, monks (supernatural) have always been complete shit compared to the likes of barbarians (purely extraordinary except for a few optional abilities).
>>47512209
Projecting much?
I'm perfectly happy with wizards in 5e. You're the one crying about how martial classes should be able to do everything that wizards can do for no reason.
>>47512247
I don't play it anymore, little idiot. It's clear you do, otherwise you wouldn't be defending one of it's mistakes so hard. Brain damaged retard.
>>47512182
My point is simply that your argument seems to be predicated on the idea that player ability should have no bearing on success or failure. How strong the player is has no bearing on whether the character is good at lifting things, true, but that's for practical reasons.
D&D is a game at which you can do well or poorly. It's not a storygame. It's a game about being a crazy asshole who goes into crypts with liches and shit and tries to take their stuff.
There's no need to have more than basic rules (i.e., a single dice roll) determining how competent your character is at persuading someone for the same reason there's no need to have more than basic rules (one dice roll) for determining whether you successfully pick a lock.
The fact is, D&D has always had rules for dealing with non-combat encounters, attempting to talk your way past guards, and so on, since the days of OD&D, and the reason they aren't as expansive as combat is that these interactions tend to be more fun to actually roleplay out rather than just "I try to talk my way past the guard." "Okay, roll diplomacy." And the rules it has had from the beginning through to now haven't changed much, aside from during 3.5 when you could be level one with a diplomacy of +8 and absurd shit like that.
There is no need to add more rules for those kinds of things, or they'll start getting in the way of roleplay and turning the game into a TV show with dice rolling, as I was trying to suggest in the example you called a strawman.
>>47512332
IT'S BAIT, ANON
YOU KEEP RESPONDING TO BAIT
>>47512295
No, I'm pretty sure the best solution would be for no single class to be able to do everything wizards do, including wizards.
But the moment you suggest restricting wizards in some way the retards crawl out of the woodwork to explain how magic should never have any limits ever
>>47512285
Because the West is superior to the East.
>>47512332
You're an idiot. I've been playing D&D since AD&D 1st edition. I'm currently playing 5e.
High level wizards have ALWAYS been more powerful than fighters. They start out weak but they end up as demi gods. That's always been part of the appeal of playing them.
Why do you assume that everyone who disagrees with you is some 3.5 fanboy?
>>47512337
>My point is simply that your argument seems to be predicated on the idea that player ability should have no bearing on success or failure.
Like I said, jackass. Fucking. Strawman.
Let me re-link the text, since thinking is so hard for you. Here, I'll highlight the important part.
Why? Why should you get to bypass the system just because you're good at talking out of character? You can talk and talk and talk, but in the end, it comes down to the dice, ALONG WITH WHAT YOU SAID. If you spew some shit about wanting to fuck the princess to her father, yes, that's going to be some really big negs.
>it comes down to the dice, ALONG WITH WHAT YOU SAID
>ALONG WITH WHAT YOU SAID
Going to pull your head out of your ass, now?
>>47512363
>oh no somebody has an opinion that differs from mine!
>this... this can't be happening... this is inconceivable.
>he must be trolling!
>>47512363
That's the sad, and pathetic thing. It's not.
Let that sink in.
There are motherfuckers that actually think like that, and they HAVE to be slapped down at every turn, so the poor newbies that read the shit they vomited up don't think it's acceptable. This is what let the 3.PF cancer spread in the first place. Never again.
>>47512420
>if you spew some shit about wanting to fuck the princess to her father
That should be auto-fail, I think, but sure, that's a DM thing. D&D already has sufficient rules for social encounters, and in 3.5, probably had too many.
Every major flaw in OD&D has been with regard to presentation and minor rules things (I admit ascending AC is better than descending, for example). The best D&D would be built upon OD&D.The best D&D is called Swords & Wizardry Complete.
Make mechanics to make exploring, looting, resting around a bonfire and traveling fun. Partly inspired by Darkest Dungeon and other "dungeony" videogames.
Get rid of alignments and make it a feature of some classes and monsters.
New setting, fuck forgotten realms and everything.
A Dungeon master guide that actually teaches you to build a campaing, a session and a scene (kinda like burning wheel).
Rethink martial classes. Not the mechanics but the concepts. You can put a "regular" warrior alongside a paladin a wizard or a druid because the latter give you a very specific and heroic idea about the character that you play and the concept of warrior only gives you something like "well, you are pretty good at hitting things and getting feats".
Also make less spellcaster classes with different magic systems that are more flexible but also a little more risky.
I'd try to give martial classes a bit more options and a little oomph in the saving throw department and give casters a few limitations, have them be a bit squishier and with lower saves as well.
HP would be slightly altered to not scale quite as aggressively on either side while damage would be around the same. I'd want to nerf monster hp a bit more than player hp though, so it doesn't get super lethal.
As far as class design, I'd worry about pissing off grogs but I'd want to get rid of vancian casting. Instead of resource managing spells, I'd have casters use cantrips and rituals basically with having to roll for casting. That would radically change how casters play though.
I'd go with sandboxy adventures and the main things I'd want to add would be more support for domain management, business ownership, church leadership, mass combat, etc.
>>47512442
What exactly are you so salty about? What did I say specifically that you disagree with?
>>47512383
Of course there should be limits on what wizards, or any class for that matter, can do. Nobody is arguing against that.
>>47511415
>the different xp rates DID NOT WORK.
They worked damn well. They also enforced playing your class's abilities.
>>47512483
>Make mechanics to make exploring, looting, resting around a bonfire and traveling fun. Partly inspired by Darkest Dungeon and other "dungeony" videogames.
So, inspired by games inspired by old D&D where you spent more time doing those things than fighting monsters?
>>47512522
Except a number of people in this thread throwing 'tism tantrums against the idea.
God, 3.PF did a fucking number on your brain, retard. You can't even remember the shit you just read 5 minutes ago anymore.
>>47508371
>Imagine a situation: you are a lewd developer of D&D 6e.
reread
>lead
Oh, that makes more sense.
I'd exchange the d20 for 3d6.
>>47508371
>Will you power up martials or nerf wizards?
Combine all martials into two classes. The first class would be focused on the theme of "skill" and would resemble a mixture of the current Fighter and Rogue. Like a martial equivalent of the current wizard, this character would be versatile and customizable. They would be skilled in a wide variety of areas with no division between combat and other skills, picking up both combat techniques and utility skills easily, eventually becoming a paragon of everything a normal human can be. This would be the class of your traditional swords & sorcery heroes.
The second would resemble the barbarian with less of a "wild man" focus. The theme of this class would be "power". It would exist for people who want a simple class that is good at hitting things. Like the current barbarian, it would be clearly and explicitly superhuman, performing incredible feats of physical and combat power, but not much else. Unlike the current barbarian you wouldn't be pigeonholded into being a primitive savage, but the rage thing would probably still apply. If Class 1 is Conan, this class is Guts.
A simple way to phrase this approach is that the "Fighter" class, which is too narrow and limited in scope, is broken into two and incorporated into the rogue and barbarian. You could probably fit in a third martial class between the two covering the monk and other weeaboo stuff, but it's not a priority.
If necessary, casters would be split up a little. Specialist casters like the Dread Necromancer and Beguiler would be the goal, with more limited, themed spell lists, rather than the traditional Wizard. The wizard, cleric or druid might be replaced by these classes (with no distinction between arcane and divine - a Necromancer class could be fluffed either way, for instance), or just redesigned along the same lines.
>>47512522
>Nobody is arguing against that.
And yet the suggestion of 'make wizards not demigods' as a limitation was argued against pretty heavily.
What's wrong with putting more limitations on the class that can do everything? Why not split it up into a bunch of specialist subclasses that do really specific things? Why not get rid of some spells that make other classes less useful?
Again, why do wizards have to be gods?
>>47512483
>A Dungeon master guide that actually teaches you to build a campaing, a session and a scene (kinda like burning wheel).
It's sad, the 5e dmg gave better advice on this than any dmg aside from 1e.
I wish though, they wouldn't pussyfoot around and actually tell gm's what sort of things work well for running a scene and good ways to structure an adventure. I feel like they're too scared of being accused of one true wayism to commit to solid advice for new gms'.
Make a map of a small area. Put a village in it. Have a nearby dungeon. Write up a conflict in broad strokes and opposing factions. Make a handful of interesting npc's. Include a couple side plots and additional interesting things to the area.
If they just gave direct advice like what I wrote to new gm's, we'd see a lot less new gm trainwreck adventures.
>>47512526
Yeah but also making them simple.
Moreover, make some random and goofy fun. Like make tables for what the adventurers talk about that night or make the food, rest, prayer, etc, give actual bonus for the day after. Its videogamy but come on nobody cares anymore for realism in fucking D&D.
>>47512248
In this outrageous strawman, the roll would be far harder due to pushing the person farther down the friend/foe line.
>>47512285
Because their base design is at odds with the mechanics.
>>47512546
>spouts ad homs
>can't formulate a single argument
Okay you can leave now.
>>47512601
So basically you're saying "nerf wizards". Can you be more specific?
>>47512659
Yeah, and you have an entire book for it so you can basically make have different guidelines for different sessions/campaings/scenes. Maybe burning wheel is a clusterfuck of rules but how the book (Burning Empires and Mouseguard too) tell you to build the narrative should be mandatory.
>>47512596
I'd say that it'd be easier to have just a wizard class but with more hard choices when it comes to specialization. Pretty much, you build a specialist wizard because you can't build to do everything.
In general though, casters massive versatility is the big cause of a lot of balance issues.
>>47508371
>Bring back leadership effects like morale
>Bring back speed factors for weapons during initiative checks
>make casting require a spell/skill check just like any other skill or action
>mute fuck-faggots like this asshole right here
>>47508540
>>47509794
I haven't played 5E yet so I don't know if any of that's actually been implemented.
P.S. Who the FUCK said ANYTHING about Wizard's having cosmic-level power? In 2E, a 20th level Wizard had a fucking 25% chance of failing any spell he cast on an Imp, please shut your meme-spouting mouth and projecting your bullshit mary-sue fanfictions into my games, thank you very much.
>>47509839
>manipulates reality
>he thinks spellcasters are psions
Chuckled hortily
t. Alberta Barbosa
>>47509839
So does science. Are you saying that Albert Einstein should be more powerful than a guy who hits him in the face with a sword?
>>47512687
The arguments have been made, my brain-damaged friend.
It's just up to you to actually read them for once.
>>47512695
Oh fuck, it's this nigger. Thread over, Mr. I think a Fighter can actually Compete With a Wizard, the rules are FINE is here.
>>47512395
Because even the creator came forward and said that it was a failure of the system that resulted in that?
hat it was 3.pf that people really started believing it was ok?
>>47512422
There is a difference between opinion and spouting out contrarian nonsense.
>>47512525
When the creator says it was ultimately a failure and did not realize what was intended, you should take that at face value.
If you roll a 20 on an attack roll, roll a d10. If it's a 10, then if your attack would damage the target at all, it dies instantly instead. That means every attack from any enemy that hits has a 1-in-200 chance of killing a player character.
How's that for encouraging players to think before entering combat?
>>47512689
Yeah, focusing their advice on different styles would be excellent as well.
Though one issue I think is that d&d is a lot of people first rpg. So the advice should be very much geared towards beginning gm's rather than a clusterfuck of vague ideas for several styles all thrown together.
D&D doesn't really teach how to actually run an adventure. And module design ends up being what teaches people how to build them. Mines of Phandelver is a very solid "teaching module" since it sorta shows how to build a more sandboxy adventure. Keep on the Borderlands as well, informed an entire generation of campaign design and is a big part of why sandboxy dungeon crawls with minimal story are so huge in the OSR.
D&D has a shaky history though when it comes to its intro module. I'm convinced that a large part of 4es issues stem from how dogshit keep on the shadowfell was. The first module is super important for d&d since it's going to teach habits to new gm's, give an example of how to structure an adventure and leave a huge impression as to how the game plays.
>>47512762
>When the creator says it was ultimately a failure and did not realize what was intended, you should take that at face value.
The creator of the game doesn't determine whether or not it worked for players. Otherwise I could make a game, everyone else hates it, and I say NO IT'S GOOD AND EVERYTHING WORKS WELL and they're wrong for thinking it sucks.
>>47512789
I'll be frank, mate.
If someone tried to introduce this rule, I'd walk. Instantly, no questions asked, I'd never play a game under someone who tried to introduce a rule so fucking stupid ever again.
>>47512762
>When the creator says it was ultimately a failure and did not realize what was intended, you should take that at face value.
Gygax probably thought Greyhawk was the best setting, too. I like the guy, but he wasn't infallible.
>>47512789
It would encourage builds that spam multiple weak attacks rather than single strong ones in hope of 1-shotting the dragon.
>>47512762
Like I said, brain damage, man. It's a sad, pathetic thing that can't be allowed to ever pass ever again.
>>47512758
>he thinks crying and ad hominem constitutes an argument
>>47512762
Show me where Gygax explicitly stated that "wizards are OP and need to be nerfed".
>>47508371
I would eliminate classes, vancian casting, and alignments entirely, hell, I'll just run down the list of sacred cows and slaughter each one, turning the game from some outdated piece of shit clinging on to life through name recognition alone into something that actually embraces all the new ideas and developments of the hobby.
Then I will fill a pool with the oily tears of all the grognards crying "not muh D&D" and frolic, reveling in their suffering.
>>47512840
>in hopes of 1-shotting the dragon
So you give damage resistance based on level as well.
>>47512758
>Oh fuck, it's this nigger. Thread over, Mr. I think a Fighter can actually Compete With a Wizard, the rules are FINE is here.
>literally so retarded he ignores 2e outright for his 3rd edition "rules as is, no house-ruling plx" OP spellcasters
You're literally wrong though. Go read the Magic Resistance rules for 2e.
>>47512695
I only disagree with the speed factors.
It's a neat idea but slows down combat a good deal.
Though speed factor combined with rolling initiative every round is an optional rule in the dmg.
>>47512863
I actually think OD&D is the best version of the game, but I think doing this or going "back-to-basics" and making a game based on old school D&D are the best options.5e is the best modern D&D though.
>>47512863
>making a narrativist trash system like dungeon world and proclaiming how modern it is while wanting to remove d&d
Literally hitler.
>>47512863
Why do people who clearly hate D&D continue to play it.
I mean, look at this thread. Non stop crying. Are you people masochists?
>>47512863
I'd actually be really interested to see a game that avoids all these things, and avoids all the other D&D "sacred cows," and yet is focused on crawling through dungeons, fighting monsters and so on, where it's always dangerous and you want to sneak when you can and everything.
>>47512687
>Can you be more specific?
I could, but that would require people wanting to have an actual discussion.
Just off the top of my head though, force wizards to focus and be more thematic. If a Wizard has strong Illusion spells, he should be an Illusionist, not also have the ability to scry and teleport.
Furthermore, make spells more impactful. Have big spells take rounds to cast rather than 6 seconds. Give the Fighter tools to protect the wizard while he preps the big spell, instead of just letting him throw it out right away and end the fight.
>>47512837
>probably
Gonna need quotes one way or the other for this statement to matter.
>>47512874
Fuckface spent 4 hours yesterday arguing that a 3.5 fighter could win in a fight with a 3.5 wizard. That's the downside of trips.
We can remember his idiocy.
>>47512942
He made Greyhawk, which means it was suited to his own tastes.
>>47512959
Yeah and I made some shitty campaign settings when I was younger too. Doesn't mean I love them unconditionally.
>>47512758
Players Handbook Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Second Edition
*AHEM*
"Magic resistance is given as a percentile number. For a magical effect to have any chance of success, the magic resistance must be overcome. The target (the one with the magic resistance) rolls percentile dice. If the roll is higher than the creature's magic resistance, the spell has a normal effect. If the roll is equal to or less than the creature's magic resistance, the spell has absolutely no effect on the creature.
Magic resistance enables a creature to ignore the effects of spells and spell-like powers. It does not protect the creature from magical weapon attacks or from natural forces that may be a direct or accidental result of a spell. Nor does it prevent the protected creature from using his own abilities or from casting spells and using magical items. It can be effective against both individually targeted spells and, within limits, area-effect spells.
If a magic resistance roll fails and the spell has a normal effect, the target can make all saving throws normally allowed against the spell."
*closes book*
Now go fuck yourself you fucking retard, and take your bullshit magic beliefs with you.
>>47512938
So basically you'd force the wizard to have to choose between one of the 9 schools and be limited only to spells from that school?
Problem with that is that nobody would choose divination since you'd be completely useless in combat.
>>47512685
>the roll would be harder because you didn't roll immediately and tried to roleplay
>>47512930
GURPS dungeon fantasy, a dungeon crawler campaign with something like Riddle of Steel, honestly there are already at least a dozen games you can do that with.
>>47512927
I don't play D&D anymore, that's why my idea to make a new edition of D&D is to make it not D&D, which will in turn make it infinitely better.
>>47512921
Mmmmm yes, that's the stuff, I want to jerk off to your rage using your tears for lube.
>>47512955
I was there.
It was filled with a good deal of crying on both sides, specifically from you for not acknowledging the fact that Wizards are sitting ducks without their spellbooks and a good deal from him about Planar Binding.
>>47513053
Naw, nigga, naw.
We all know just how fucking stupid you are. Drop the trip, and slink off. Or should I link the thread full of your dribbling retardism every time you post?
>>47513092
Yeah, wasn't like there were a NUMBER of ways posted around that or anything, or how he was proven wrong about PB every time he opened his stupid mouth.
>>47512483
>make it like a videogame xD
Fuck right off
>>47512823
>The creator of the game doesn't determine whether or not it worked for players
He was also a long term DM that had a few dozen years more experience than you, in more situations. You can't claim even half the time in the variety of situations.
>>47512837
Greyhawk was the one he used the most, but he wasn't it's sole creator.
>>47512852
Dragon 124, I think? Look for his interviews by TSR.
>>47513053
I'm sorry, you are forgetting that there are a lot of ways to use magic indirectly, even then, and have only been expanded on.
>>47513054
>>47513054
I dunno, there have been a number of focused magic classes that worked, like bards, duskblade, warmage, beguiler, etc.
>>47513058
Rolls come after rp, anon, and the roll should be directly influenced by it. If you come across as hostile and insulting, the roll will be harder to swing someone to your side. I'm sorry, would it be better if the post was:
>what do you say?
>I tell him that his mother told me he should do what I say while I fucked her ass
>alright, roll against this heightened DC/with these penalties
>>47513092
>wands, scrolls, rods, back up books aren't a thing
>lets not even mention clerics/druids, who need no such things, even holy symbols by the rules
>>47513122
No, someone said that there was a way around it but they never responded when asked.
I assume scrolls or wands, but then he's not actually casting spells, he's just using magical items.
>>47513054
I never said schools. I said thematics. How exactly you split them up could be done in a variety of ways.
Glad to see you're immediately trying to point out why my idea wouldn't work though.
>>47512695
Who the fuck cares about a goddamn imp at 20th level? Magic resistance in 1e was better, which worked basically like SR in 3e except it appears to have worked against conjurations -- 5% magic resistance was basically 55ish% against level 1 types.
>>47513103
Anon, he might've acted retarded in the other thread, but he's not wrong here. He mentioned how the 'unlimited cosmic power' of the wizard didn't work 1/4 of the time against a basic imp, and the other guy went 'lolno, wizards are bestest'. In that specific case it's completely alight to cite the thing that proves the other guy wrong.
>>47513180
>I'm sorry, you are forgetting that there are a lot of ways to use magic indirectly, even then, and have only been expanded on
I'm sorry that you've never played 2e and have no idea what you're talking about, since at level 20, a spell caster has access to only 2 level 9 spells, and it specifically states:
"Once a spell is learned, it cannot be unlearned. It remains part of that character's repertoire forever. Thus a character cannot choose to "forget" a spell so as to replace it with another."
Get fucked, wiz-shit.
>>47513240
The SR in 3E is a joke in the late stages of a long-term party, and it just functions like an Armor Class rating but without the complexity or carefully adjusted balance for it.
>>47513259
Now you are anon, how droll.
And i'm talking about illusions, spells that manipulate the environment, etc. Y'know, spells that don't target a individual and aren't applicable to magic resistance/SR.
>>47513085
>I don't play D&D anymore, that's why my idea to make a new edition of D&D is to make it not D&D, which will in turn make it infinitely better.
Have you played old versions of D&D? Because they're infinitely better than new ones by virtue of being made with all those things in mind rather than made independently and having those things shoved in to satisfy D&D fans.
>>47513240
>Who the fuck cares about a goddamn imp at 20th level?
Since they're moderately resistant to magic, the DM is for low-level enemies. A swarm of imps can laugh off the most powerful spells a wizard throws at them and just fly right over his head and stealing his hat, or drop pins from above at him, just to fuck with him.
I can imagine this neckbeard >>47508540
screaming "IM A COSMIC RULER, YOU CAN'T DO THIIISSS!" as imps harass the ever-loving shit out of him.
>>47513321
He's going on about how d&d isn't a modern enough game while being a gurpsfag.
So I don't know if he's open minded enough to try older d&d.
>>47513321
Yes, yes I have, and it doesn't change the fact the hobby moved beyond that shit, and so should D&D.
>>47513342
Forget his hat. Have the Imps steal his spell book and components.
>>47513319
Pretty sure we get that, but the "indirect" magical effects produced aren't going to be as effective as the magical weapons that they aren't immune to.
So it seems that those guys with sharp objects, like that guy described above, are more effective than wizards.
>>47512757
Science doesn't rewrite reality, it merely allows the user to understand the rules that govern our reality to a better degree than the average peon.
A scientist understands why explodes when introduced to water yet can be used to salt our roads and flavor/preserve our foods.
A mage of sufficient power is able to take those rules and alter them so that they achieve an effect that would otherwise be impossible.
Manipulating heat and air to produce a fireball, removing the heat and surrounding your hands in a wave of cold to damage foes with a touch, manipulating static electricity to shock someone with a touch, etc.
There's no sufficient explanation to explain this phenomenon beyond the manipulation of forces beyond mortal understanding and even if there was, the chaotic nature of magic would cause it to contradict itself since the rules we try to quantify are merely rules based upon our perceptions as a mortal species.
>>47508371
Get rid of alignments. Get rid of paladins.
Get rid of classes. Use an XP buy system like GURPS.
Get rid of "gods are real", make all magic arcane.
Get rid of Vancian magic, magic is now something like cWoD magic or Warp sorcery.
Get rid of HP, health now works like in Riddle of Steel - if you get hurt it is an actual injury of some kind.
Add "stunting" from Exalted.
XP is earned by completing a Goal, deepening/creating/resolving a Bond, or fulfilling a Desire. XP is never earned by killing things.
Skills now work like GURPS skills.
>>47513382
Delicious fat tears.
>>47512955
A 3.5 fighter CAN win against a 3.5 wizard, if the wizard makes wrong decisions and the fighter made all the right decisions. This is indisputable.
They're 3 tiers below wizards, aren't good at much, and aren't that good at what they're good at, but these comparisons always take place at a higher level of optimization than most people play at. Hell, most players and DMs aren't aware Conjurations & Illusion is GOAT.
>>47513180
>wands, scrolls, rods
Ahhh, yes, everything that's NOT associated with preparing and managing the spells that a Wizard has access to are ways around needing a spellbook to prepare the spells that the wizard has access to.
Gee, that's just so obvious.
>>47513458
You realize there is utility in not having all systems be exactly the same right?
If you want to play GURPS, play GURPS, but DnD does not need to be GURPS.
>>47508540
I guess for 6e I'd force Wizards to specialise in their studies, having to either be weak at a bunch of things or really good at one thing.
This is compared to the fighter and the rogue, whose skills are a bit more universal
>>47513397
So people who actually want to play a sword-and-sorcery adventure RPG are having "badwrongfun?"
>>47513298
>The SR in 3E is a joke in the late stages of a long-term party,
Its a comparison, dude. Its to explain how it worked.
>>47513443
>Science doesn't rewrite reality,
Neither does magic.
At it's best and most powerful, it causes changes.
At it's worst, it doesn't do much else other than conjure the forces that already exist in a way to suit the spells needs.
What spell are you referring to, because there are none that permanently change the way the universe works, no matter how much you want to project.
>>47511869
High fantasy doesn't equal a fuckton of magic
Heck, the most famous High Fantasy setting has the constant decline of magic as a major theme
>>47513458
>Get rid of "gods are real"
onii-chan, my fedora is tipping on its own
>>47513342
That's why you have golems, charmed minions, henchmen, etc. etc.
>>47513424
Any 20th level wizard who lets imps steal his book and spell components is so critically retarded that I can't imagine the sort of DM welfare that would allow someone too stupid to grasp the idea of "you hide the book somewhere lol."
>>47513549
Everyone knows how SR works, but using it as an example is just bad. No one wants Spell Resistance to function like an Armor Class because then it causes it to feel too similar to Martial classes. It should be individual of the systems of melee and physical combat, such as the way it was handled in 2e, or house-ruled 3rd where all spells require a spell-craft check with the DC being 14 + the spell level
>>47513595
>tfw in the original Conan stories, he had all the attributes of a rogue, a barbarian, a fighter, and was even able to activate magical runes and spells
>>47513540
You can play a sword and sorcery adventure without the D&D sacred cows. They are not integral to S&S, and if you think they are, then frankly I don't think you really even know what sword and sorcery is.
>>47513631
There's a certain point in 2e which you can get to, where there's rules for buying keeps and henchmen and just sending them out to do your work....You can literally meta-game by having your henchmen act as the adventuring party for the DM.
>>47513634
Er, its not the fault of spell/magic resistance that attack progression was recast as working like it.
>>47513712
No, it's the fault of Wizards of the Coast. 2E changed it for good reason.
>>47513689
There's no reason to do so, is the problem. Why would you be so stupid as to leave your henchmen alone and vulnerable?
We're not doing classes and we're not doing fucking "armor class"
>>47513753
>good reason
Matter of opinion. Imps being hugely resistant to low level mages has a relevant effect, while a high level party will laugh their collective asses off at imps showing up at high levels, etc.
>>47513756
>stupid
If you're being smart, you've already set up a lord-ship over a certain area with people living within your sphere of influence paying YOU, and you also get eventually get followers automatically if you reach a certain level of fame, meaning they become disposable.
Of course you could just roleplay it differently so you don't seem so careless.
>>47513788
I was using them to accentuate the power of magic in the game.
Why the hell would anyone use imps at level 20 for a serious encounter?
>>47513682
I agree in general, but I've never seen a non-D&D game that did it as well as old school D&D, so can you point me to some existing games that do?
>>47513558
>What spell are you referring to, because there are none that permanently change the way the universe works, no matter how much you want to project.
Wish
>>47508707
Fighters can already do that though.
>>47513894
Nice try anon, but it doesn't. Lets you do something very extraordinary once sure, but doesn't permanently change shit without nicely begging the DM.
>>47513790
No, they're never expendable/disposable. You get maybe 20-200 followers at level 9-10 and that's not something you get back.
Henchmen, similarly, aren't disposable.
I publish my classless point buy homebrew.
>>47511543
I am not my character but my character is nothing without my interaction.
I could roll to gain insight on something a character with vastly higher mental skills than me could do but at the end of the day, my character's success lives or dies by how I guide them in achieving the desired effect.
If the character was truly separate from me then roleplay wouldn't matter and my only purpose would be to roll dice and call out numbers, which would be infinitely more boring and lackluster than having someone get away with social interactions through roleplay without the aid of dice.
>>47510232
Because it allows a mixed party to contribute equally to the game without anyone feeling under/over powered due to the disparity between equal leveled characters.
A 5th level Fighter is not equal to a 5th level mage, a sword that swings harder is in no way equal to a spell that allows the user to fly or turn invisible.
However, if Fighters level up faster than mages, it creates a situation where hitting things better actually scales with your experience while also making sure that the mage in the party doesn't gain too much power too quickly in comparison.
In short, the fighter feels good because he has more levels early on and the mage feels good because when he does reach level 10+, he knows how significant it is since surviving to that level is easier said than done.
>>47511100
It hasn't been sword-and-sorcery since 3e anon.
At least with high magic, everyone is more or less on equal footing since they have access to magical forces.
>>47512031
Actually, it's a tabletop game.
Since we're talking about D&D, I'll forgive the mistake.
>>47513053
Thank you for spouting stupid shit under a trip so I can more easily ignore you.
You're doing the Emperor's work, tripfag.
>>47511522
High level mages can produce demi-planes, extra-dimensional spaces, and bind outsiders and the like to their whims.
Even then, fireball and sleep are both fairly powerful spells for the level you receive them and in 5e, you can actually scale them through the expense of a higher level spell slot.
>>47514123
3e's plenty Swords & Sorcery, even if its askew. Casters tend to focus on mind games like in S&S, conjurations are top tier like in Elric of Melnibone, etc. It isn't well done S&S and the warrior types aren't good at the willpower though, but oh well.
>>47514210
In 5e they're not binding much, if anything.
>>47514105
The thing is though, if a 7th level mage has the same xp as a 10th level fighter; why not just alter how fast they scale so you don't have to worry about class balance?
Though weak low level wizards and op high level ones isn't a good thing for having everyone contribute. The fighter gaining a keep and an army helps, as well as high level tsr wizards being way less impressive than high level wotc mages.
The easy fix though imo is that fighting super good is too focused an archetype to contribute outside of combat. Just get rid of thief and collapse it into fighter.
>>47511221
The same way I can rape the smug smirk off that loli's face, assgoblin.
>>47513833
Almost anything can be used for a serious encounter, the problem is the players getting pissed off that a bunch of imps just beat them
>>47511963
>>47511999
>>47512015
Levels were never meant to be balanced against one another, that was an invention of 3.5e and eventually became the standard as more people started out with it and PF.
In older editions, different classes had different EXP costs to level up. Martials like Fighters and Rogues leveled up quickly while mages like the Wizard and Cleric leveled up at roughly half the rate.
Martials were the guys who put their lives in danger taking hits, dealing damage, and stealing loot while the mages were the guys who hung back from the fray and either provided support or artillery fire.
A level 9 Fighter was capable of handling himself in most combat scenarios, especially with the aid of magical arms and armors while the level 5 Wizard was capable of performing powerful spells like Fireball, Lightning Bolt, and Flight to assist the party through damage or support.
This would become a bit funky in the very late game but at the same time, it meant that nobody in the party was too useful or too useless at every single problem. It also showed that, yes, the mage would eventually become one of the most power beings in the universe if they survived to level 10+ but getting there was also a struggle since they were still stuck with limited spells and low HP. This is how D&D was meant to be but as with most things, 3.PF ruined this perception and instigated the idea that the numerical value of the level being the same meant that two characters were inherently equal to one another.
>>47514105
>>47514325
Plus, the only classes in AD&D etc. that really varied greatly in XP was the thief n druid, plus a little bit the cleric. This sort of thing is fucking terrible as far as balance.
>>47514384
>fighters level faster than clerics
Eeh... maybe at some levels, not as a rule. Fighters would typically be maybe a level ahead of wizards. Not enough to make a difference.
>>47511889
>There still needs to be a system for social interaction, unless you want to go lift that fucking fridge.
Good thing I bought this.
Guess we can just roleplay now?
>>47513609
Felling triggered?
>>47513156
The only D&D edition that could be described as a video game was 3.PF, everything is more or less okay.
>>47514465
No, faggot. Lift bare handed, just like the character. Bottom, over your head. No tools, no nothing.
Can't do it? Whoops, guess you should let your character be your character, rather then you.
Fucking faggot.
>>47514648
That's retarded. Its a roleplaying game. You play a role in a fictional world. Social rolls defeat the purpose of the game in a way physical rolls never could.
>>47514648
Again, if your character is all that matters, why play? Your character may be smarter or dumber than you, and thus you either can't actually roleplay them, or you have to make them do stupid shit that gets them killed on purpose.
>>47513947
Many effects described under the purview of "Wish" does cause a permanent effect on the world around you, the exact nature depends on how dickish the GM feels about what the wish is being used on.
For example, I could say "I wish the BBEG was dead" and suddenly be thrown 200 years into the future after the BBEG died of old age.
I could also use wish to restore a creature back to life but again, it could be the difference between a resurrection and a raise dead.
Even then, there are spells such as permanency, resurrection, and the like that do fundamentally alter the universe in order to achieve a permanent change to the world.
Let's not get into spells like Miracle.
>>47511889
>>47514648
>fridge
>heavy
>250 pounds
>heavy
lol bitch-made manlets, amirite?
>>47514694
Yes. ROLE. PLAYING. GAME.
Where you can play shit other then yourself.
And that means, wait for it:
PEOPLE. MORE. GLIB. THEN. YOU. ARE.
As long as you can explain what it is you're trying to do socially, it translates into the dice on the table, you fucking idiot, same as anything else. You might not be eloquent enough in real life to get the exacts down, but if you can get the broad strokes of both how and what you're doing down, that's what the dice are for. Same as literally every other fucking thing in the game.
>>47513054
>Problem with that is that nobody would choose divination since you'd be completely useless in combat.
So play with players that see more to tabletop than "Diablo Simulator". When it comes to preparation and having the advantage, Divination is king.
>>47514728
Permanent effect yes, permanently changing the laws of reality no. My apologies if I was unclear though, I do note in hindsight how ambiguous I was.
>>47514728
Those don't "fundamentally alter reality" any more than say Create Water fundamentally alters reality.
>>47514711
>People shouldn't be able to play anything they aren't really
God, so glad I'll never play with you.
>>47513054
Or you can instead balance out the effects of schools to make divination slightly less dead-weight in combat, possibly by having it give re-rolls to allies or the like.
If all you do is say '1 school each', then everyone who's trying to powergame will just pick Conjuration and summon things that can cast the other types of magic for them. You need more tweaking than just simple lines being drawn.
>>47514755
>you fucking idiot,
Oh shit I didn't realize your feelings were hurt, my bad!
>>47508371
This. So much this.
>>47513458
>>47511543
This is the most neckbeard fa/tg/uy post I've ever read. Thanks Anon
>>47514756
There's a reason 2e told you not to play a Diviner. That reason is, it works much better as an NPC that the players visit when they need some divination done than as a player.
>>47514756
Its not just about hack and slash, but diviners can very easily delete all but hack and slash. Or at least potentially, depending on how the DM sees it.
>>47513458
>XP is never earned by killing things.
Never ever? What if you're basically Inigo Montoya, out to avenge the death of your father?
Wow this thread is ass.
If I were making a 6th Edition, I would start with a 10 level B/X style game. Once that was out, I would then make a M/I game with kingdom management, planar shenanigans and mass combat rules. Once you hit that tier, everyone gets some sort of Mythic bullshit power so it's hard coded that even martials are Kratos or Herc at this point.
Every class would be able to talk, fight sneak and interact with magic. That last one is very important, as not being able to properly interact with magic is what makes the martial/caster disparity so bad. For example, a Fighter would be able to rub Basilisk blood or Succubus cunt juice on their weapon and make it magical, while a Rogue gets various magical gewgaws they steal from places/create with ingenuity. The Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster would be archetypes usable from the jump as well.
I'd probably rename Fighters to Heroes, since Fighting Men were meant to be nameless and faceless from fucking Chainmail and that needs to change. Wizards would get fewer spells to keep track of, but probably be able to cast them at-will or with a short rest. Naturally, martials would get equally good abilities because fuck the enforced caster/martial disparity that (yes Virginia) existed in old school D&D too.
I'd make Feats simple, turn Multiclassing into something more like VMC but not shit, give weapon groups cool things you can do with them.
Basically, I'd take the good ideas from each edition and make something lightweight with it. I'd also package pregens for every class and have an intro module in the core book.
>>47514325
>>47514400
Not necessarily.
By its nature, combat is highly specialized in achieving two simple goals, striking and being struck while magic allows hundreds of different effects that can do anything from damage to healing to buffing allies to debuffing enemies.
It's hard to balance the power of powerful fighter and a powerful wizard because, as the concept of "linear warriors, quadratic wizards" suggests, the fighter's progression is linear and rises at a steady rate that's easily predictable while the wizard's progression increases exponentially due to the utility and versatility that most spells provide.
If classes leveled up at a different rate however, it gives a clearer idea of the relationship between the classes.
It avoids the issue of martials feeling weak when they're compared to an equal leveled mage and seeing just how little they can do.
It would also fix the broken CR system to a degree since encounters would be built around the idea that certain characters will have less levels than others, rather than assuming that everyone in the party is on equal footing just because the same number written next to the character's class. The Fighter would act as the base line when constructing encounters and the party would have to work together to either aid their buddies or make things harder for their enemies since once the Fighter goes down, the rest won't be too far behind.
>>47511543
>i wanna say that iam thankful for their help
>great. roll dice
>2
>"y-you too"
>>47514242
Sorcery renders sword obsolete every single time.
Many of the threats you fight will gradually become more and more magical as you level up.
That and the bulk challenges that would provide an interesting scenario to an all-martial party would be easily overcome through the use of one spell.
Even then, S&S from what I understand works only when the party is facing a threat that cannot simply be overcome without a degree of cunning and skill, which again, doesn't work in 3.PF since most non-magical options are hard-coded in the game's rules to either be limited or require too much work to pull off only to be rendered moot by the time you actually achieve it.
>>47514648
All you said was "lift that fucking fridge."
Now where do you want me to park it because I want to get back to playing really soon.
>>47509869
He would only give spells to wizards, druids, and clerics.
>>47514771
>>47514781
Oh, the wording threw me off.
I'll concede to your argument then.
>>47508371
I'd clean up 1e
>>47515270
It would be easier to just redo OD&D with some inspiration from 1e.
>>47515270
Just forward-port shit into 2e.
>>47512877
Speed factor is nice as a way to break ties
>>47515102
>linear fighters, quadratic wizards
This is merely a quirk of design, not of concept. It refers to how effects like Fireball and durational effects increase with level, and you get more of them and higher levels with level.
>it gives a clearer idea of the relationship between the classes.
I was pointing out that the classes had different XP progression rates, but aside from the thief it was never a matter of balance, it was just a thing.
There's essentially no reason to have the classes progtress at different rates. If you wanted, you could make a system with quadratic warriors and linear wizards if you want. Hell, feats for example could essentially be assigned "feat levels" based off the earliest they're acquired, and you could get as many feats as a wizard would have spells, and a wizard could get as many spells as a fighter did feats.
There's more to go (like feats getting level progression) but that's the general idea.
Anyway my point is there's no mechanical need for fighter/wizard disparity.
>>47515366
>I was pointing out that the classes had different XP progression rates, but aside from the thief it was never a matter of balance, it was just a thing.
Time for graphs!
>>47515387
Most of the XP curves are pretty similar.
>>47515157
Eh, factotums, warblades, eternal blades, and rogues are all fully pertinent to the genre and all plenty good.
>>47515366
>Anyway my point is there's no mechanical need for fighter/wizard disparity.
There isn't a need but unfortunately, the game has evolved to the point where linear warriors/quadratic wizards are expected, both in its design and in its concept.
Even in older versions of D&D, spells were devastating and either dealt massive damage with clever manipulation or were capable of ending encounters in one use, it's just that back then, there were more roadblocks that couldn't be easily overcome through cheesing the system or gaining a relatively cheap feat.
>>47515413
The 2e druid is the only core class to require more than 4.5 million XP to hit level 20. Second-highest is the 1e Paladin, at 4.2M.
>>47514400
It creates a feeling having "your guy." If players are tracking their own XP, it adds no additional complexity
>>47515441
Rogues have never been good, even in their introduction, their greatest contribution was features that all characters were assumed to be capable of performing anyways.
The rest are options that won't necessarily be available to most campaigns.
>>47515445
>the game has evolved to the point where linear warriors/quadratic wizards are expected, both in its design and in its concept.
I don't know what that means. At all. Its not the case in 4e or 5e.
The quadratic-ness in 3e, where casters were king, was only really pertinent to... damage, and giving warrior types quadratic damage would be perfectly fine.
The main issue was effects that are absolute from their getgo and don't need to scale anyway.
>>47515445
Mainly because life was cheap and there was no Internet explosion to facilitate charop culture at the time.
Also, there was a much greater emphasis on the DM straight deading shit that disrupted the game.
>>47515475
Rogues are definitely good in 3e, depending on party size. Certainly they do better in solo adventures than a wizard, which essentially will die to every ambush and to every trap.
>The rest are options that won't necessarily be available to most campaigns.
Houseruling 3e to be more broken is not my concern.
>>47515507
He's talking about the lack of explanation that accompanied the OD&D thief, which meant nobody realised that the thief's skills (HiS, OL, etc.) were meant to be above and beyond the abilities of normal people to search for traps and hide behind things.
>>47515052
If you completed a Goal, Bond, or Desire that involved killing someone then you could earn XP that way.
What I meant was that killing itself does not grant any XP.
>>47515485
>was only pertinent to damage
It was about the utility of spells in a wide variety of situations
