D&D (2024) (+) Reviving Ideas from DnDnext

[HammerMan]

- Druid shapeshift comes with templates instead of using the monsters from the MM.

not just wild shape but do away with polyorph like abilities that let you pick ANY X from monsters manual and instead make a stat block similar to more modern summoning spells, but let you flavor it.

 

[HammerMan]

The martial die was absolutely amazing, but there's no way that makes a return. It goes against the "simple" philosophy that is very popular with most players/DMs.

it could.

Give a die code martial die to fighters (and subclasses of paliden/ranger maybe rogue and barbariand subclasses too... in my perfect world a wizard sub class too) the default use is to add to damage the first time you hit with a weapon attack. Sub classes then gain manuivers but keep a basic 'warrior' fighter (like champion) that only adds it to damage and has no other options... but they still get increased crit and fast healing and extra athlet (I think that's it) but I think it is doable...

if not break fighter in 2 the way we have a wizard and a sorcerer (and a bard and a warlock and an artificer) you can have a fighter and a XXXX (I like warlord or warblade but I don't really care the name) one kept simple one more complex.

 

[HammerMan]

And damage on a miss.

not an easy thing... but something expert weapon users should be able to buy into.

in 4e the most well know where paragon feats (aka level 11+) that gave an off stat to damage on a miss. so hit is 1d8+str mod+magic but miss is con mod for an axe or hammer. I think (may have been homebrew) there was a bow one for wis so hit is 1d8+dex mod+ magic but miss is wis mod.

I would love this. just a way to be better with weapons'.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

themes were great. I think we need something (background expansion, theme what ever you call it) that has overlap from class to class to give abilities to match what you want.

I would also like 5.5/6/Anniversary edition to build the martial die into fighters and have subclasses that work off it.

I would also love if they made sorcerers and wizards more distinct. I don't remember the whole thing but I remember a subclass (maybe it was a whole class build?) that as you spent slots you got tougher so you start the day as a wizard but end it like a barbarian.

Yes. That sorcerer was great. Even if it won't make it in as sorcerer, it probably would instead work as the psionic fighter or the arcane paladin/ranger

 

[HammerMan]

Because of the faction of folks who view hit points as a physical wounding mechanic. An evoker's fireball does damage on a miss because you still got singed from the flames but you avoided the brunt of the attack.

I think that "damage on a miss" could actually be sold with the right presentation. Calling it "damage on a miss" already sets up people to knock it down. For example, give the Fighter a special ability at 3rd level which is called something like "Weapon Expertise". The text of the rule is something like "You are so highly trained with fighting with your weapons of choice that you rarely actually miss your target when using them - if you do not beat the opponent's AC but also do not roll a 1 you are able to achieve a glancing blow on the target doing Str bonus + proficiency bonus damage. A 1 always misses." Or something to that effect. It respects the fiction for those who want hp to be meat and also works with the vision of the fighter as a martial weapon master.

I can get behind this idea, but I think the 'not your main attack stat' is the most important part. heck because Int is so underused part of me wants to use Int Mod as the damage on a miss "You trained so well turning most misses into a glancing blow by being intelligent."

 

[HammerMan]

Yes. That sorcerer was great. Even if it won't make it in as sorcerer, it probably would instead work as the psionic fighter or the arcane paladin/ranger

yeah I am fine with renames... "is not a rose by anyother name still an expensive flower that my girlfriend wants instead of the cheaper ones?"

 

[billd91]

The +1 point of ASI for initial classes was an excellent feature. The earlier playtests (packet 2 or so) had +1 from race, +1 from class. I'd be pretty content with +1 race, +1 subrace, +1 class. A good balance between racial archetype and class development.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Because of the faction of folks who view hit points as a physical wounding mechanic. An evoker's fireball does damage on a miss because you still got singed from the flames but you avoided the brunt of the attack.

In the system I'm working on, I've found myself just littering it with notes about how game terms are not in-world physics to ward off this particular monster.

 

[Rune]

I really liked the warlock (witch) who traded beauty for power.

The character I made, Pretty Polly (think a halfling version of Tracy Ullman’s character in Robin Hood: Men in Tights), has since made her appearance in multiple campaigns with various builds, but none of them has ever captured the feeling of sacrificing something for power that those mechanics evoked.

 

[HammerMan]

In the system I'm working on, I've found myself just littering it with notes about how game terms are not in-world physics to ward off this particular monster.

yeah I almost wish the words hit and miss were not as backed in... you rolled high enough to damage and you didn't roll high enough to damage needs better wording.

"I hit an AC 17"
"Sorry Monster has an 18, so you blade rebounds off the tough hide"
"Wait if it connected I hit right?"

and then we go back to touch attack in 3e... excuse me while I go try to uncross my eyes