D&D General What elements does D&D need to keep?

[Minigiant]

I agree with your premise.

However, I'd far rather see feats Go Away. Bake the key elements that make a class what it is into those classes and bin the rest. ASIs, on the other hand, while somewhat unneccesary are all in all relatively harmless.

Boom. Simplified gameplay (and simplified build phase), and way fewer balance/optimize issues.

Feats may be one of my few must-haves.

I much prefer customizability to simplified gameplay. I pretty much hate everything simplified gameplay has done in the field of D&D because unlike some other systems, D&D and its children can't seem to make character creation and advancement fun while doing it.

This all goes to my point that an essential element of D&D is level based classes with very strong archetypes in universe.

The wizard uses a spellbook, can't heal with spells, wears no armor, and his or her weapon options are terrible.

The issue is that said archetypes are so strong and enforced that us humans get bored of seeing them. Then we want to tweak them and can't agree how. And we get bored of them faster now that other media have copied the D&D class archetypes so you already see them a lot.

 

[Lanefan]

Feats may be one of my few must-haves.

I much prefer customizability to simplified gameplay. I pretty much hate everything simplified gameplay has done in the field of D&D because unlike some other systems, D&D and its children can't seem to make character creation and advancement fun while doing it.

There's the difference, I guess: I don't see character creation and advancement as that big a deal. It's just a chore that has to be done and got over with so as to get to the real fun, which is playing said character in the game.

 

[Vaalingrade]

There's the difference, I guess: I don't see character creation and advancement as that big a deal. It's just a chore that has to be done and got over with so as to get to the real fun, which is playing said character in the game.

For me, one leads into the other. I like fine-tuning who and what my character is to get a specific experience I'm going to get in play.

Tonight for example, I'm not just playing and aasimar bard, I'm playing a half-cocked mad scientist with Disney princess tendencies thanks to my feat loadout. (Pathfinder game, so I have a healthy amount of feat and archetype choices). And it's not just me playing at that, I actually have those abilities mechanically: I science the monsters we fight to develop armaments for the team and can sing animals to our defense... and also manipulate shadows because whatever celestial is in my family tree isn't normal.

 

[Remathilis]

For me, one leads into the other. I like fine-tuning who and what my character is to get a specific experience I'm going to get in play.

Tonight for example, I'm not just playing and aasimar bard, I'm playing a half-cocked mad scientist with Disney princess tendencies thanks to my feat loadout. (Pathfinder game, so I have a healthy amount of feat and archetype choices). And it's not just me playing at that, I actually have those abilities mechanically: I science the monsters we fight to develop armaments for the team and can sing animals to our defense... and also manipulate shadows because whatever celestial is in my family tree isn't normal.

With the obvious caveat of "play what you like", I have never gotten these types of characters. The ones who MUST be 3-4 archetypes crammed together like that. I have a player in my group who does exactly this: he can't pick just one archetype, he picks several and somehow his tortle bard w who not only fights giants and wanders The Sword Coast in search of adventure, is also a popular chef and the culinary critic writer and restaurant reviewer for a Waterdeep newsrag and whose personality is a mix of Volo, Anthony Bourdain and Alec Guinness's Obi-Wan. That sentence wore me out. There is nothing wrong with playing off type, but that reads to my like three very interesting characters (mad scientist, Disney princess, sinister-origin aasimar) all Frankensteined together.

Play what you love man, but I don't get it.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The thing is, it's not like I set out to make this weirdo; she happened organically: a Bard with the archivist archtype. The mad science came from having craft: alchemy that I ended up getting very aggressive with getting reagents for. The Disney Princess came from Handle animal skill + Fascinate turning our wilderness encounters hilarious as I hypnotized every animal. The aberrant celestial thing came from spell choice and an alternate aasmiar trait that the party started commenting on and I ran with.

My point is that I was able to get something cool because I had a lot of room to customize.

 

[turnip_farmer]

I am baffled how levels can be so popular when XP are not? What's the point of levels if you don't earn your XP?

 

[jmartkdr2]

I am baffled how levels can be so popular when XP are not? What's the point of levels if you don't earn your XP?

You get stronger and get new abilities.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I am baffled how levels can be so popular when XP are not? What's the point of levels if you don't earn your XP?

Personally? Because levels are discrete increments of power that keep characters from being too lopsided like in some non-level-based advancement games. In HERO or M&M for example, it's really easy to make a character who is trivially easy to hit and bring down because you ignored that aspect while with levels, you usually get automatic improvements for basic competence.

XP on the other hand is a lot of extra bookkeeping for the player and work for the DM. This got even worse in the editions where XP could be drained or spent in addition to being level currency.

 

[turnip_farmer]

XP on the other hand is a lot of extra bookkeeping for the player....

How is it?

"The session is over. Add this number I am telling you to your current XP number."

Not sure if you've handled XP in some other way, but this can only be described as a negligible amount of extra bookkeeping.

 

[meltdownpass]

How is it?

"The session is over. Add this number I am telling you to your current XP number."

Not sure if you've handled XP in some other way, but this can only be described as a negligible amount of extra bookkeeping.

Simple in theory but not in practice. Sometimes a player isn't present. Sometimes a character dies and a new character is inserted into the story. Sometimes there are side-sessions where only part of the group is present. Sometimes the GM revises the amount of XP they give out and someone misses it. Sometimes the game system requires you to spend or gain experience points beyond simply adding at the end of the session. Sometimes levelling up occurs numerically at a point that makes no sense in the story.

People like level-ups because it drips novelty and mastery into the game. Handling a strict XP number on the other hand really does add complexity. Just last game session in one of my groups I asked how much XP I should have, to sanity-check the number I had on my sheet. I got four different answers.