Quote from: Aos;328808Dudes, start contributing, or you'll get pwned.

Impossible. I don't get pwned by n00bz. They R ze suxxorz. Benoist FTW.

Redo Cyclopedia with all classes* running 1-36th, and the racial classes ala the Gaz line included, and ascending AC/bonus to-hit system.

So we get the following class list:
Human: Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Thief, Mystic, Mystic-Acrobat
Elf: Warrior, Warrior-Wizard, Treekeeper (FMC)
Dwarf: Warrior, Warrior-cleric
Halfling: Warrior

(Note: Demi-human thieves buy each thief ability as a general skills... and are nominally warriors.)
(Note: Paladin, Avenger, Druid subclasses are prestige classes that GM's could allow earlier...)

Quote from: aramis;328856Redo Cyclopedia with all classes* running 1-36th, and the racial classes ala the Gaz line included, and ascending AC/bonus to-hit system.

So we get the following class list:
Human: Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Thief, Mystic, Mystic-Acrobat
Elf: Warrior, Warrior-Wizard, Treekeeper (FMC)
Dwarf: Warrior, Warrior-cleric
Halfling: Warrior

(Note: Demi-human thieves buy each thief ability as a general skills... and are nominally warriors.)
(Note: Paladin, Avenger, Druid subclasses are prestige classes that GM's could allow earlier...)

I'd come close to this myself. Albeit I'm afraid I'd simplify it a bit more.

Can you hit things well? Get a Warrior Prime Class.
Use Cleric Magic? Get a Priest Prime Class...

Continuing down the line. I've actually started hacking together Paths of Glory from this idea--basically you get class abilities that are extremely simple skill packages. Then I'll add feats--but not specialty perks, instead feats are things anyone can do, but have a simple Target Number. (Cut arrow from air? Leap over an enemies head? etc..etc.)

Quote from: Fiasco;328752You seem to have a lot of posts to your name but do any of them contribute anything useful?

I think Aos' post was a reference to a quote, attributed to Albert Einstein, to the effect that the Third World War would be fought with nuclear weapons and the Fourth with sticks and stones. I laughed anyway.

I think there could be three different answers, depending on whether you wanted to

i) satisfy current D&D players.

ii) bring in new players, or

iii) make your 'ideal D&D'.

Quote from: Age of Fable;328887I think there could be three different answers, depending on whether you wanted to

i) satisfy current D&D players.

ii) bring in new players, or

iii) make your 'ideal D&D'.

I woudl agree but disagree you have to answer these three points but there can be only one answer.
One of the reasons I opened the post was that we get a lot of 4e criticism but it rapidly stops being constructive.
I don't follow the re-release OD&D as an option for a start is flawed in amy ways but more importantly its already available so by all means reprint it and even offer support but no need to re-badge it.
The 4e designers had a hard job. Maybe it was a job they didn;t need to do .. but put that to one side. They wanted to tackle the 3 points above and they did the best job they could.
I don't like a lot of what they have done but i was thinking if I could have done a better job? Could I have created a game that had the ability to attract new players appealing to the core of the WoW get on with it style of action play whilst satisfying the older school D&D guiys and the folks like me that want a lot of stuff outside combat.
What I outlined was my stab at it.
It's very personal but the key to me is keep the core really clean just 4 base classes but use the template idea to add vaiartions players love and give the DM a toolkit to create more but bounded by stuff so a Ranger can be a figther that can sneak, track and at higher levels gets access to some magic. The pay off would be lower hit dice (d8) maybe reduced access to armour chain only ...
The same cleanness with combat but then options rules to take it further along the tactical route.
I guess what I would end up with is a pretty lite core system but with a very large range of simple variants. The idea of providing tool kits means you get the whole game from the off. However, comercially you can still sell splat books that give exampels of stuff you could build yourself. To me tha tis a fair compromise between the need to make a profit and the need to provide a finished product from the off.

Quote from: Age of Fable;328887I think there could be three different answers, depending on whether you wanted to

i) satisfy current D&D players.

ii) bring in new players, or

iii) make your 'ideal D&D'.

you missed one which jibbajibba didn't:

iv) appeal to MMOers

If I ignore (i) I can make life even easier... and still hit (iv)...

hybridize Cyclopedia and T&T.

Cleaned up 3.0 with a much higher emphasis on accessibility. That means drastically simplified monster stat blocks, easy character generation and a focus on getting a lot of adventure out of your game time. Focus on the core d20 framework and get stuff like synergy bonuses and different save/BAB progression for monsters out of the game.

Also:

Quote from: Aos;328742I don't know, but 5e will be done with sticks and stones.

Yup.

If one were to start from the 3E/3.5E D&D ruleset, I would probably try to figure out what exactly is causing the slow grinding combat and nightmarish bookkeeping at higher levels.  Removing all the feats and skills systems from 3.5E doesn't seem to solve either problem.

Over the years I thought the feats and skills systems had sort of a "tacked on" feel to them.  I wonder whether it would be better to redesign the classes to actually be less crappy at any level, without requiring a huge proliferation of feats and skills or other tacked on subsystems (ie. such as the "Book of 9 Swords").

Quote from: aramis;328930hybridize Cyclopedia and T&T.

Forward to Adventure...?

Quote from: jibbajibba;328527I would say a generic fantasy setting but then that would be what I want from D&D your version could be ..whatever.

D&D hasn't ever really been generic fantasy.  It's its own type of fantasy.

I'd have done 4e by making "fantasy Star Wars Saga... except without the funny shape and paper size."  Mostly.  A few other tweaks here and there.

I'd have put some of the 'old favourites' in PHB 2 and 3 into the PHB to make a basic set up more complete. I guess this would have killed PHB 2 and 3 but maybe it'd have paid off with more players buying a PHB and then more in the long run.

Quote from: Diavilo;329257I'd have put some of the 'old favourites' in PHB 2 and 3 into the PHB to make a basic set up more complete. I guess this would have killed PHB 2 and 3 but maybe it'd have paid off with more players buying a PHB and then more in the long run.

This occurs to me, on reading that:

I would have given away the rules in the PHB (64 pages or so), plus the fighter, cleric, wizard, and rogue classes. For free. The whole thing. Also humans, elves, dwarves, and halflings.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;328985Forward to Adventure...?

haven't read it... can't afford it, don't know anyone who has it, and can't even find it pirated... All I've seen is the character sheet, and that looks a lot more like 3E.

But I suspect I'd hybridize a good bit differently than Pundit.

Quote from: Thanlis;329273This occurs to me, on reading that:

I would have given away the rules in the PHB (64 pages or so), plus the fighter, cleric, wizard, and rogue classes. For free. The whole thing. Also humans, elves, dwarves, and halflings.

Sort of like the SRD, then?