What D&D5e could have be

Could you elaborate on this?

>because it resolves the System Wars problem
How?
>the GURPS problem
What?
>and basically every problem
Such as?

So now they can just start releasing expansions that build on the ruleset of 5e but with their own unique mechanics and races and-

Oh wait, that's what killed TSR.

Eh, while I can understand your perspective I think you're overstating the importance of that portion of the community. It's a vocal minority with a lot of disposable income, but you can do well while ignoring them.

You really want to hear this?

Actually, no, 5e will likely remain bland and marketable. If it did anything else it wouldn't resolve anything I've mentioned.

RPG's sell like shit and take up ridiculous amounts of room in a store compared to every other product; splats often eat up shelf space and can lock cash down forever, hosting groups is more often than not cost prohibitive.

how is 4e any different then?

I just want to be able to properly call bullshit on you, because calling bullshit on vague blanket statements isn't fun.

It tried actually getting people to actually buy merchandise through game mechanics (minis, mats, maps, etc).

Don't forget Fortune Cards.

>If they used this and ditched racial bonuses it would be great. No more ideal race/class combo.

A good chunk of their customers are there for the minmaxing.

I'm probably gonna piss off a lot of Veeky Forums here but I wholly think it's because of casterfags. 3.5e let them dominate all the tables with their "hurr intellect always beats brawn, even though I'm hurling a giant meteor at your face instead of actually outwitting you" kinda deal. They didn't want to piss off their fanbase too much which they knew pandered to this kinda ideal. Where spellcasters are both the scalpel, AND the wrecking ball while martials are their little pawns to soak up damage.

Also, because of simplicity. They sacrificed so much cool shit and great ideas all in the name of simplicity. Bounded accuracy is a SUPER flawed system, but they decided to implement it anyways because they felt like high level players should still somehow be challenged by low level enemies? How high level players should somehow approach situations in the same way as low levels? It's a little ridiculous to think really. How a caster can literally call down the presence of his GOD to help, yet somehow, this spring trap should be approached in the same way from the perspective of a high level rogue to a fresh level 1....actually it's fucking bonkers

So in short 5e is hurting RPG stores by being an RPG.

I think what they were going for with bounded accuracy was moving hitpoints away from rpg style total life, and rather a measure of how long your character can keep fighting.

So, rather than a lategame pc becoming a literal fuckoff wall, immune to being swarmed by lower levels, now with hp slowly decreasing you can play it off as him getting tired etc.

Is it better? worse? fuck if I know, that's subjective skub and up to you. Personally I find my players enjoy enemies that do small amounts of damage, rather than being attacked by a small group and having them all fail their attacks.

But HP has always been abstract

>tfw you use to get Advantage for being drunk during the Playtests but I abused it so hard in a demo game at Origins it didn't make it into the full game.

i actually want to hear your opinion user because its not autism if you have something to solid to say

true, and maybe I'm a shit DM with shit players, but having that 'ticking clock' seems to make them more invested in fights, even the clock wont reach zero for ten turns.

Plus it lets me do more fun things with larger groups. It means that the backline is always nervous about stray enemies getting past the front line, even if the damage is minimal, my players seem to hate the thought of their full hit points not being full anymore. Plus, low level mobs hitting means i can do gimmiky crap like deciding that one of the two mobs who decided to go after the wizard has a poisoned dagger etc.

>Is it better? worse?
Depends on the power setting you want. In 5e/AD&D, this seems nice: Even Conan can be killed by an army of mooks.

4e, on another matter was (a really good term, IMHO) Medieval Avengers, so it is good (too!) that high level players are immune to low level mooks (no respectful Avenger can be defeated by an army of normal men).

So, "john does" that become legends (5e) have rules differently from heroes that become gods (4e). AND THAT'S OK.

Alright. It's a long rant, so I'll start first by telling you the First RPG Problem, as it has the least to do with this discussion, and is the shortest bit.

All tabletop rpgs, and I do mean all, are designed with D&D in mind. Specifically,
with the D&D Class system in mind, either in utilizing it, defying it, or somehow trying to balance between using it and NOT using it. This is unavoidable.

Please hold for the Rant, it's a long one, so it may take me a while.

take your time dude

Starting from a false, arbitrary premise? This is going to be fun.

Mostly, yeah. RPGs are not a product with long-term viability. People buy new magic cards because Meta's change and sets cycle in and out. If you have an RPG book, you've got the RPG.

It's why 3.5 had so damn many splatbooks. To keep ongoing monetary investment.

>All tabletop rpgs, and I do mean all, are designed with D&D in mind.
Including those that came before D&D? It might be first murderhobo simulator, but it's not the first tabletop role-playing game.

>It's why 3.5 had so damn many splatbooks.
Careful now, Veeky Forums believes the myth that people actually brought and played with most of the splats.

This is because you need all those options from those 20 splat books you pirated for that optimized build, and playing anything except charop caster is badwrongfun.

Paizo is unironically better businesspeople than Hasbro, their ongoing subscription service, store and organized play was the future of sustainability for RPGs and despite the game being basically dead they're still somehow doing better than Wizards D&D department.

Paize has to care about Pathfinder. Hasbro doesn't give a flying fuck about D&D.

The only entries that may qualify are essential wargames with role-playing thrown on as flavor, if you want to get technical, which only further enforces the entire class-based role.

To start with, this entire blogpost is predicated on one, simple, concept: RPGs are mediums to tell a story, but they're also Games, and the trouble with Games is that people do eventually get bored of playing the same one over and over again, no matter how fun they may be.

To give a vidya example, think of RPG Systems as Game Engines, and individual campaigns as Game Titles utilizing that engine. Eventually, no matter how original or unique each title is, anyone would get tired of playing the same game over and over again. How long do you think it would take before you got tired of playing every Mario Platformer?

Next is how this involves 5e.

People could or they could not. As long as they continued to be sold the company didn't give a shit.

4e's online idea was really good. Sorta like how Office 365 works these days. A minor investment but an ongoing one would make the game more immediately accessible to people without buying the full books (Good for new players/players who often have low disposable income per month) but it would also mean constant ongoing profit for the company.

And then the guy working on it died in a murder suicide and things went off the rails.

>no respectful Avenger can be defeated by an army of normal men
But minions represent, in terms of mechanics, lesser foes that are easily dispatched, but can still sap the stamina and will of the hero.
Shit, the book says outright that if you don't think a single foe is appropriate, then make them a swarm as a level appropriate foe. Ever see a huge block of 15 orcs taking on the lone fighter?

Swarms and Minions were such a godsend for running large battles. A 20ft x 20ft swarm of soldiers as a single creature was so much less headache.

>DND was not the first tabletop role-playing game

I think you'll find it is.

I'm the sort of wanker who always corrects people when they misattributed something as the first to do something.

Don't get me wrong, nothing would fill me with more autistic pride then being able to correct people about DND not be in the first tabletop role-playing game. But Dungeons & Dragons really was the first

>But Dungeons & Dragons really was the first
It really was not. You can argue that those that came before were just board games with role-playing element, but original D&D itself had more in common with wargame than RPG in a modern sense.

iirc, it was pretty much Chainmail right ?

What if...what if they release a version of the game using some of the playtest version concepts?

What if we get an, and excuse me for thinking like this, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons?

bumping for the incoming rant

Yes, minions would be (taking MCU as example) the Skiitari army in Avengers 1. But a common human army is useless against an Avenger.

I'm pretty excited to see what maximum over autism looks like.

>heroic tier encounter, pushing through waves of reckless goblinoids in their camp, trying to get to the macguffin
>each round the DM recycles 1dX more from his Pile Of Goblins and sticks them on the edges of the map

>Upper-paragon-tier encounter which is actually a pitched battle between two small armies, where the warlord gets to actually direct a formation of cavalry (one swam unit) into the enemy's flanks. Being abstract enough, being bloodied/wiped out could mean the unit was cut down to the last man, or simply scattered to the winds, with survivors and stragglers being more battlefield ambience than actual foes ('you charge across the [open terrain], passing a guy who drops his shield and runs, and another two looting a fallen enemy's corpse').

>Epic tier battle of notHelm'sDeep where, 4e being Superhero Edition, it's entirely thematically appropriate and rules-backed for the party fighter to hold the breach in the walls against the enemy's army (several swarms of pikemen stuck in the chokepoint) single-handedly while the sorcerer rains fire down on them, and the warlord and avenger are climbing over the enemy dragon up in the skies, booting off the rider and slashing at its neck and wings

Swarms and minions were a goddamn godsend

>it's entirely thematically appropriate and rules-backed for the party fighter to hold the breach in the walls against the enemy's army (several swarms of pikemen stuck in the chokepoint) single-handedly

iirc one of the Defender epic destinies was 'Your legacy on the world is you go and find yourself a breach in the world where demons or beings from the far planes are invading and you hold that breach forever'

>b-but minions are stupid! they have 1 hp, which means even a level 1 commoner can kill them! I don't understand abstract hp! muh 3.PF!

>All tabletop rpgs, and I do mean all, are designed with D&D in mind. Specifically, with the D&D Class system in mind, either in utilizing it, defying it, or somehow trying to balance between using it and NOT using it. This is unavoidable.

This seems like a tautological assertion, inasmuch as it's possible to claim that any RPG which doesn't follow the D&D class system is thereby "defying" it. Could you explain how it applies to FATE?

>in b4 "FATE isn't a roleplaying game"

High Concept is a class. Atheists: 0 D&D: 1

Let's be honest though. Abstract HP is dumb.
I feel like these games should have enough scaling so that minions could have more than 1 hp but hitting them would still be a guaranteed wipe.

Basic was a modified game of Chainmail with excuses for a running plot and character advancement.
Perhaps if the Avenger was epic level, and even then, I'd run a minion block of 40+ pikemen/gnolls (and have, the paladin recklessly charging a adhoc'd block of 25 chain devils was a campaign highlight). The point of minions was nonthreats being mildly threatening enough to be approached, but not turn the tide.

Abstract HP is the only way HP works or makes any sense.

>Abstract HP is dumb.
And when someone yells "tatakae senpai!" and you regain HP it represents what?

The other facet of RPGs is the Learning Curve. How fast it takes someone to learn an rpg to the point where they really "Start having fun."

5e, as it is, has the highest ratio of learning curve to relative substance of fun to be had, both on the DM and Player side. We constantly bag on 5e for being bland, or boring, but at the end of the day, it's the first thing we suggest whenever some newb on the board comes in and asks what he and his friends who have no experience with RPGs should get into. The only thing we had that came relatively close to that before 5e was TSR D&D, more specifically the Box Sets.

But as to relative payoff? It wanes as time goes on. Players get bored of it, sometimes rather quickly, and so players and groups start to look for different systems and different experiences. And THAT is the main point I'm trying to make. 5e is a microcosm of the RPG experience. You learn it, you play it, you enjoy it, and then, no matter what the story may be, or how good it is, you eventually begin to tire of it, and start looking for new heights, new challenges, new experiences.

Fate defies the System in the same, but opposite way GURPS Does. It avoids the Class system by giving you rules for a Character based on traits and abilities. The difference is where GURPS is focused on defining the limits of these abilities, Fate is concerned about giving you freedom of choice.

I respect that you have an opinion, user, even if I feel it is entirely foolish and nonworkable, especially since HP was such from the word go.
I have a running issue with games that model hp/wounds realistically because those games often make it so that you will be taking hits, rather than avoiding them entirely. SR and Gurps are examples where taking hits basically put you on the slide to failure with no recovery, making alpha strikes the preferred winning stroke, and that puts a lot of power in the GM's hand.

Well, I mean abstract in the sense "oh, this 100hp character got hit for 5 damage, the blow was somehow magically way way less than this other character who only has 8"

It's the same kinda damage, but the character themselves can take the punishment much better. Obviously things like Second Wind, and yelling or whatever to heal teammates is still abstract. I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with fools telling me that "hurr it's literally only skill why a high level character with high hitpoints doesn't get beat up as much as a low level" even though healing magic has NEVER healed by percentage or anything.

The wounds they sustain are still at the same level, regardless of prowess

I'm DND at least.
In a better system, it would do nothing to effect your meat points.

This. Also falling damage. Your high level of contact prowess isn't going to make a thousand foot drop non leathal.

By 'better' you mean 'one more fitting my preferences'. They aren't the same thing.

>It's a recognized in-universe fact that the more 'epic' a hero is the more resistant they are to healing magic
Did I fix HP?

Nope, because there isn't actually a problem.

Bingo. Fucking bingo. Things like acid, poison, etc.

These are things that would easily kill a normal DYEL commoner but sometimes leave hardly a scratch on high level adventurers.
Is it because the poison was somehow magically less effective now? Did they somehow manage to dodge the acid? Did they somehow stand on the coolest part of the lava? Did they fall in a way that didn't leave their legs and internal organs smashed to pieces?
No. It's because they're just that fucking badass.

They aren't. The wounds they sustain are much more severe. Their mental and physical fortitude is much much greater than a non combatant creature. Think along the lines of Hercules, Achilles, Beowulf, etc. They are just way more hardy than your average person. The same thing applies to adventurers. They are essentially superhuman and even demigods past mid game.

You got beaten into a bloody pulp, then burned to a crisp, then fell 300 meters into lava but survived through sheer force of will? Nothing 8 hours of sleep can't fix.

Fortunately, in D&D, it's not meat points, and in other systems, it would still have the same effect pursuant to it's stated goal.
You are confusing fluff for mechanics, user.
Iirc, 3e was the only game to not make falls after a point "You are dead". 2e, a fall was either a outrageous save v death or just death, 4e, it was take more damage than any pc less than epic can survive, or splat.
It seems that people still carry the idea that D&D adventurers past 2e are still regular people when the mechanics do not begin to support it. 4e outright says you are not a regular dude, you are greater by dint of destiny (if you achieve it)

If one hit is basically a wipe, you may as well just give them 1HP.

Here's a fun tip: in 4e, monsters only exist at a certain level/stats because of the inherent narrative challenge they present. This isn't some simulationist system where a goblin has X HP because it has Y levels in 'goblinoid' or whatever. It has X HP because X HP is roughly what provides Y challenge to heroes of a given level.

Given 4e's linear challenge rating, it's probably the most elegant way to keep a LV2 bandit a reasonable threat. You -can- run an appropriate encounter budget's worth of LV2 bandits at a LV6 party, but the game tells you this will be boring as they will struggle to threaten the PCs (with hits) and the PCs will not struggle to take them down (AC, HP). Making them 'properly scaled' enemies with appropriate defences, attacks, and only 1 HP is the most elegant way to both keep them as fragile as they should be, while also keeping them relevant in a fight - within the game's existing structures.

It won't work in 3.PF because that game is an austistic simulationist hellscape. It won't work in 5e because they opted to go the other side of the spectrum, Bounded Accuracy means that goblins with spears still stay relevant because nobody ever becomes stupid-powerful. I imagine the idea was to get that AD&D feel, where at a certain level you stopped gaining a billion HP, and 'mid level' threats stayed relevant. Unfortunately I don't think they hit that mark (HP bloat is a big issue still, encounter CR guidance is still awfully sloppy), but given the framework 5e uses, I respect how they handle it without using Minions or Swarms. Personally, I still prefer 4e because I like not having to waste my time wrestling the system into submission just to make a smooth game, but in 5e, I wouldn't be porting over minions or swarms because the system isn't designed for them.

Basically.
Even by RAW standards, this is literally what happens.
>It seems that people still carry the idea that D&D adventurers past 2e are still regular people
And I say, fuck those people. Fuck those people with a giant cactus. These fags are probably the same ones that eternally cucked martial classes in the first place with their whole "gritty realism" which actually underpowers characters more than what living, breathing, individuals have done in the past

I think there's a lot of truth behind the "5e is everyone's second favourite system" phrase.

>It seems that people still carry the idea that D&D adventurers past 2e are still regular people when the mechanics do not begin to support it.
I'm pretty sure D&D adventurers were always meant to be special.

user, I know gross hyperbole is accepted on Veeky Forums, but it doesn't make you less silly for using it.

Well, in the earlier games, adventurers were special in that they were crazy fucks who would, and sometimes succeeded, at shit most would balk at.
They were special due to courage and guts, not mechanically superior.

>
Here's a fun tip: in 4e, monsters only exist at a certain level/stats because of the inherent narrative challenge they present. This isn't some simulationist system where a goblin has X HP because it has Y levels in 'goblinoid' or whatever. It has X HP because X HP is roughly what provides Y challenge to heroes of a given level.

And while that isn't ideal all the time for RP, for game balance and combat....it absolutely is. But even barring that fact and bounding the system a little more tightly(think 5e but with actual proficiency and AC/saves gains)...it's still possible to simulate low level "goons" without completely putting their HP at 1. For instance, my level 10 fighter in our homebrew 5e game has 22 strength. Even roling a cuck 1 on their damage dice, and your standard goblin is dead.
A wizard casting a cantrip that deals 4d8(since they're high level) is almost certain to kill it as well. So you can still have your baddies that are a threat in LARGE groups, without going for the copout "well, they're minions so..."

As long as your characters aren't cucks and have damage scaling at high levels, you're fine

Every edition makes mention of this, but editions like 3.PF do not reflect this in the rules, where first level fighters can get their asses kicked by housecats or whatever.

I really don't like 5e, but if there's anything I will give credit to it for, it's A. the race/class/background modular classbuilding system (it's not the first system to, but I like that its there) and B. asking the question, especially to the more martial classes, "what made you so damn special to stand head and shoulders above the rest of the pack?"

Pic kinda related bc 4e.

Your solution, however, is needlessly overworked and leads to a lot of math quibbles.
Minions as 4e did it is simple, and simple almost always is a better route, leads to less fuck ups. I've yet to see an argument against minions that didn't rely on approaching the game as something it isn't and never claims to be or hedges on comparisons to other games.

>in our homebrew 5e game has 22 strength.

Evidently homebrew, as strength caps at 20 for non-barbarians (And even then only at 20)

I wouldn't call it a copout; I'd call it efficient use of my time. Again, wouldn't use in 5e because the system isn't built that way, but in 4e, given that there's a very linear progression of stats for monsters, it's easier to go:

>appropriate-challenge monsters tend to die in about 4 hits
>make 4x the monsters, with 1HP each
>have 16 goblin mooks instead of 4 level-appropriate orcs

than to go:

>appropriate-challenge monsters tend to die in 4 hits
>make 4x the monsters with 1/4 the HP
>have to tweak their AC, attack roll, damage, etc to still be relevant
>have 16 butchered frankengoblins instead of 4 level-appropriate orcs, not really sure if they'll be useful or not, how much XP are these things worth anyway

I'd rather run a system where 20 gobbos roll their save (or get attacked on their NAD, fucking WHY did 5e go back to saves?), and I simply take them off the board or not. In any given fight where it's "PCs vs a horde of baddies" I'm not really interested in if a guy has 5HP or 2HP in that kinda fight, I'm just interested in if he's still relevant or not.

There's not reason to assume healing would heal a percentage. A heal that heals, through whatever combination of abstractions, approximately one longsword hit worth of damage regardless who it heals seems just an intuitive as a heal that heals relative the maximum survivability of the target.

It's an arbitrary choice that I think works fine, since it doesn't make healing magic more effective on high HP targets while almost nothing else scales that way.

Well, it's also worth mentioning that in 4e healing was more effective on high HP targets, given how Surges worked. Your Surge value was directly related to your max HP.

Uhh....I'm saying you don't have to change anything. Including their actual HP. I'm saying if your platform isn't shit, these low level mooks would die in one hit regardless but still leaves for the ever so slight possibility of really cucking out on your damage die and having them actually survive....
Fuck stat caps. At least as long as your main stat doesn't really go beyond 24, things don't get too crazy...god I really hate bounded accuracy

So is that autist going to deliver on why D&D 5ed solves GURPS problem and what was that problem in the first place?

>You can argue that those that came before were just board games with role-playing element, but original D&D itself had more in common with wargame than RPG in a modern sense.

People can (and do) say the same thing about the current game. But the earliest example of a commercially available tabletop role-playing game is the original white box edition of Dragons published in 1974.

Plenty of games of come afterwards, much better ones as well. But it really was the first.

To be fair, he could have found a manual.

Yeah, CLW was 'Heal = Surge Value' (Without actually costing a surge. Which is why it was a daily. Free healing is fucking rare). That way it was always going to heal you 1/4 of your HP, which fits 'Light Wounds' very nicely.

So if all you're doing is creating extra uncertainty and annoying bookkeeping, why not have them all have 1HP and be done with it?

And healing from rest is still based on hit dice.

In contrast to this, you have GURPS. Now, before GURPSFans start raking me over the coals about the "GURPS is difficult" meme, I want to clearly state the main two flaws of the GURPS system:

1. GURPS is not difficult to learn, but every rule is made to be self-sufficient, in and of itself in order to be able to independently interact with every other rule that may be present in a game. This means that most, if not all rules have a staggering amount of brevity to them, making them difficult not to learn, but to become familiar with them. In other words, the hardest part of learning a new system is always getting players to read the damn rules, and GURPS has it the worst of any system!

2. Game Balance, as well as Player and System Limitations are left entirely in the domain of the GM. This means that the learning curve of a GURPS GM is fairly staggering, as they also have the System to learn on top of all that. GM-ing GURPS is quite difficult.

Were it not for those two flaws, GURPS would, in fact, be one of the best RPGs out there. It has potentially limitless challenge and gaming experiences, And I'm saying all this while being Duckanon, he who shills Mythras over GURPS.

And there you have it. My entire argument. RPGs are Games, and people eventually get tired of them and try new ones. System Wars are the result of people arguing X over Y because they got tired of/disliked X and are playing/reading Y now, and understanding the way the 5e learning curve/boredom curve works, or that of any system, is the fastest way to convince someone they should get into GURPS, or they'll get into GURPS of their own accord after years of playing multiple RPGs and finally deciding the time is right to try GURPS.

Exactly.

>Your solution, however, is needlessly overworked and leads to a lot of math quibbles.
lol, his solution works fine, it's how 3.5 worked, "minions" in 3.5 had 5 hp and they died in 1 hit from most adventurer attacks anyway. 4e minions solved a literal non-issue. It was a nothingburger of a mechanic.

Functionally identical except eliminating annoying edge cases doesn't strike me as a bad thing.

Sure back in the days of "you can't have animal companion because it will slow down combat" edition having rules for "minions" were non-issue.

That's not entirely true. 4e fixed scaling issues there.

In 3.5, 'minions' got increasingly less and less likely to actually put a hit on the PCs so they'd generally just be hitting on 20s. 4e minions are designed to actually hit often enough to be worth rolling for. Taking no damage on a miss also did a good job of making AOE useful against them but not an auto-win.

Seconding this question.

He did. Here:

For real bro? This is legend.

>0D&D
O for Original
Not 0 for zero

It also doesn't feel like OD&D at all.
Fighting-Men just got shittons of attacks against humanoids.
You know what would feel like OD&D? Wandering Adventures instead of Wandering Monsters and armor being irrelevant against non-humanoid monsters.

>What D&D5e could have be
Have you tried looking at the open playtest? Try cut a whole bunch of cool stuff just because the 3ecasterfaggots wouldn't stop screeching.

hodor