PDA

View Full Version : Hopes for D&D 5.0



Pages : [1] 2

PetterTomBos
2011-02-01, 08:23 AM
Just for fun, as the edition wars rage between 3.5/PF/4e;

What do you hope/dream/want/wish for/miracle for/w.e. for the future? How could WOTC make something we wouldn't want to disintegrate them for ? ;)

DeltaEmil
2011-02-01, 08:36 AM
They would publish it for free, or even better, they give us money each time we play D&D. Aside from that, the important thing is that they regularly update and publish erratas.

Talyn
2011-02-01, 08:37 AM
I'd love for them to keep the 4E paradigm of skill and combat progression, but find a way to bring back true Vancian magic into the system.

No tieflings, no gnomes.

panaikhan
2011-02-01, 08:42 AM
I'd want D&D5E to bring back the round circle.
It's the most infuriating aspect of 4E to me.

Kerrin
2011-02-01, 08:50 AM
I would like the option to be able to purchase all of the materials as indexed and searchable PDFs.

I like a good hardcover to cuddle up with and read on the couch but I much prefer PDFs for at the gaming table, so I'd buy a mix of both formats.

dsmiles
2011-02-01, 09:00 AM
Personally, I wish for a return to the days of AD&D 1e. I honestly don't feel as if it was that complicated. I mean, if a 7 year old can learn it, why can't everyone else?

hamlet
2011-02-01, 09:01 AM
I want them to re-release AD&D and BECMI.

If wishes were horses . . .

Domigorgon
2011-02-01, 09:25 AM
My ideal D&D 5.0 would be downloadable and easily searchable on the web, in the form of an SRD. The designers would receive feedback and polish the rules on an annual basis (like what we had with 3.0 to 3.5 to Pathfinder). Software programs (like DM-Djinni and E-Tools) would be available to help DMs organize and prepare their sessions better.

Longcat
2011-02-01, 09:31 AM
Hmm, let's see:

Classes: Every class should have at-will and encounter powers, kinda like 4e or SAGA, but they should remain unique and flavorful. Get rid of Daily abilities altogether.

Can't think of anything else of the top of my head now.

Comet
2011-02-01, 09:36 AM
Planescape, Ravenloft, Dark Sun and Spelljammer.
All those, neatly in a row on my shelf with the new edition core rulebooks. Everything I'd need.

Kyrthain
2011-02-01, 09:39 AM
Hmm, let's see:

Classes: Every class should have at-will and encounter powers, kinda like 4e or SAGA, but they should remain unique and flavorful. Get rid of Daily abilities altogether.

Can't think of anything else of the top of my head now.

Definitely agree that all classes should be able to enter each encounter with at least 90% of their shiny abilities ready to go. That's the big reason I love playing TOB characters in 3.5

LordBlades
2011-02-01, 09:40 AM
Bring back the freedom and variety of pre 4th edition, while still having a reasonably balanced system.

The Rose Dragon
2011-02-01, 09:44 AM
For starters, Wizards would no longer be associated with the name.

Second, Hasbro would also no longer be associated with the name.

Third, it would use Unisystem as a base.

Thialfi
2011-02-01, 09:48 AM
Since my group never switched away from 2e, I will echo Dsmiles sentiments. It would be nice to have some new published 2e material. Specifically in the Planescape and Dark Sun settings. It is tough coming up with new stuff on your own after 30 years of playing.

Yora
2011-02-01, 09:49 AM
I want them to re-release AD&D and BECMI.

If wishes were horses . . .

I'm not a fan of classes and character levels, so it's unlikely I'll ever return to run D&D. But what could bring me back were a continuation of AD&D, returning back to a point before d20 and start again from there.
3rd Ed. seemed very cool with the customization allowed by feats and I greatly welcomed the streamlining of making almost every roll a "d20 + bonuses - penalties" roll.
But I no longer want to bother with "character builds". Having the ability customize your character is nice, but I don't want to have to bother with long lists of available options to unlock certain actions my character can take, and I don't want my players to spend too much attention to it as well. I want them to think of their characters personalty and the situation they are in, not thinking about numbers and feats.
What I would like is a D&D that has rules to resolve if a certain path of action results in success or failure for the PCs. I don't want a game that is about the rules.
But since all d20 systems are about building character stats, it's not something I see released under the D&D label.

true_shinken
2011-02-01, 09:51 AM
For starters, Wizards would no longer be associated with the name.

Second, Hasbro would also no longer be associated with the name.

Third, it would use Unisystem as a base.

OK, we get it, you dislike D&D.

Tengu_temp
2011-02-01, 09:52 AM
It should combine the modularity of 3.5 with the balance of 4e.

Every character should be fun to play and possess many abilities they can use in combat. Every character should gain new options as they level up, not just get better at what they already were able to do.

Combat should be fast and exciting. Dying should be hard, but getting knocked out or otherwise unable to fight should be easy if you act stupidly.

Every stat should be useful for every, or almost every, character. Choices made for style (like a lightly-armored warrior) should be viable.

No randomization during character creation, like rolling for stats or HP. No alignment system.

No Vancian magic, no daily powers. Characters should be able to fight as much before resting as the players and DM want them to, instead of artificial limitations of "if you fight too much, the wizard runs out of spells and becomes useless" and "there have to be several unimportant encounters before the boss, or else everyone tramples him with spamming daily powers".

The Rose Dragon
2011-02-01, 09:57 AM
It should combine the modularity of 3.5 with the balance of 4e.

Every character should be fun to play and possess many abilities they can use in combat. Every character should gain new options as they level up, not just get better at what they already were able to do.

Combat should be fast and exciting. Dying should be hard, but getting knocked out or otherwise unable to fight should be easy if you act stupidly.

Every stat should be useful for every, or almost every, character. Choices made for style (like a lightly-armored warrior) should be viable.

No randomization during character creation, like rolling for stats or HP. No alignment system.

No Vancian magic, no daily powers. Characters should be able to fight as much before resting as the players and DM want them to, instead of artificial limitations of "if you fight too much, the wizard runs out of spells and becomes useless" and "there have to be several unimportant encounters before the boss, or else everyone tramples him with spamming daily powers".

So, you want something like M&M, but balanced without GM intervention?

Hammerhead
2011-02-01, 10:02 AM
No character building beyond rolling attributes, deciding on a class.

Race doesn't matter unless you're a member of the race's class.

No tables or complex rules that need to be looked up during play.

Magic involves extended rituals and inscrutable effects. Players might cast a spell from a dark book of ancient lore, but it won't be easy, and its effects will be lot-relevant.

Every book that's not the Player's Handbook (singular) is a monster manual or setting guide. Every monster gets a page of text.

None of the "Challenge Rating" or "Monster Level" or "Wealth by Level" nonsense.

Planescape, Ravenloft, Al-Qadim and Dark Sun support.

Tengu_temp
2011-02-01, 10:05 AM
So, you want something like M&M, but balanced without GM intervention?

More limited in scope. M&M is a universal system, I want DND to focus on heroic fantasy, but do it well. And I guess I'm fine with a class and level system, in this case.

BadJuJu
2011-02-01, 10:12 AM
I like the ToB, Totemist, Factotum stuff. Binds, manuvers, and ispiration points are cool. And Binders. Should try and use those as the base of their system. Druid should lose wildshape or spell casting.

Kaww
2011-02-01, 10:17 AM
No hopes whatsoever, I will, probably, continue playing 3.5 or PF.
Maybe if they make a system that can make anything and if they pay me to learn it I might play it.

Orzel
2011-02-01, 10:20 AM
Something similar to Signature Moves. I want my character to be special when I want him to be special with nerfing. If I make a wizard who chucks fireball the size of houses, I don't and any other wizards casting my spell.

Make every ability stat matter for every character. I don't care how they do it. Make a reason for a base fighter to have high Charisma or a base wizrd to have high Strength.

Reverent-One
2011-02-01, 10:20 AM
None of the Challenge Rating or Monster Level or Wealth by Level nonsense.


Why is it better for a DM to have to eyeball it and guess how powerful a given encounter is?

Hammerhead
2011-02-01, 10:27 AM
Why is it better for a DM to have to eyeball it and guess how powerful a given encounter is?
CR creates expectations for a proper level of monster to encounter. In AD&D, when players ran into a dragon at level 2, they ran, hid, solved problems and dealt with it. In 3e when level 2 characters run into a dragon, their players whine (and are somewhat supported by the DMG in doing so).

Psyren
2011-02-01, 10:33 AM
OK, we get it, you dislike D&D.

^

On topic: I would love it if they integrated more of an electronic focus. Make a social media version (e.g. facebook) - one with more control, unlike the Progress Quest-ish Tiny Adventures. The brand is strong enough - and normal facebook games are boring enough - that they could tap a large audience by putting a nice flash-based dungeon romp with full DDI integration up on the webs.

Make a couple of pre-mades to get fledgling DMs' feet wet, then give them the tools to create their own.

Bibliomancer
2011-02-01, 10:33 AM
Why is it better for a DM to have to eyeball it and guess how powerful a given encounter is?

One of the primary advantages to doing that is the DM bases encounters on the players' power level, not level. Thus, there is less of an incentive for the group as a whole to optimize because the world will adjust to them without experience rewards becoming significantly larger. This also would make it easier for the players to agree on a general optimization level, and prevent the DM from pitting them against over (dragons) or under (anything without a range attack) powered monsters.

I haven't tried this myself specifically, but when setting up encounters against a mix of foes I don't bother calculating EL, especially since it reads way too high for low level opponents anyways.

Sipex
2011-02-01, 10:35 AM
I really only wish that it's completely different than every other version of D&D so that the edition wars will be interesting to watch.

Lurkmoar
2011-02-01, 10:38 AM
I really only wish that it's completely different than every other version of D&D so that the edition wars will be interesting to watch.

That's unspeakable. I like it.

As for myself... something I won't have to shell out more then a hundred bucks to get a game running and annual updates and rules fixes would be nice. I'm not a picky man.

Kurald Galain
2011-02-01, 10:40 AM
I hope that all powers, feats, and items would only be available in randomized packs of cards. You can buy a starter pack that gives you a level-1 character, and then you can buy booster packs for your class or power source that give you common options for heroic tier, uncommons for paragon tier, and rares for epic tier. Since D&D is a team game, you can swap these with your party members so that if your wizard ends up with the Sword of Kas, he can trade it for a Meteor Swarm instead.

Comet
2011-02-01, 10:43 AM
Here's another thing I'd like to have:

A character sheet that doesn't invoke feelings of filling out a goddamned tax form.
One page, max two is absolutely necessary, some space for history, notes and possibly a picture if you really want to. And make the sheet with some graphics and style, instead of just boxes and lines.

Come on, I'm going to be staring at that sheet for a good six hours at a time. Other games manage to make their character sheets interesting and reflect the mood and style of the game, why can't D&D do the same?

SamsDisciple
2011-02-01, 10:43 AM
Give classes as general guidelines but instead of being forced to focus on the class have a set of basic abilities that you can choose from at each level. Like when you level up you have the choice to buy four out of the following choices, higher HP, higher Bab, more skills, better saves, a feat, a level of spell casting. Each path or choiceshould be balanced so magic should still be powerful but not so much that everyone and their dog is a full spell caster, way to do that is to make feat trees longer which gives more options/maneuvers that are on par with spells but also make the individual spells have prerequisites before you can take them. Lastly if feats/special abilities are on par with magic remove the stupid x/day junk for individual abilities and instead add some thing like stamina points that determine what you can do before getting tired

Reverent-One
2011-02-01, 10:44 AM
CR creates expectations for a proper level of monster to encounter. In AD&D, when players ran into a dragon at level 2, they ran, hid, solved problems and dealt with it. In 3e when level 2 characters run into a dragon, their players whine (and are somewhat supported by the DMG in doing so).

In such a case, the DM could simply say "I'm the DM, deal with it. Not everything in the world is going to be just the right power for you to slay it in a straight fight", meanwhile without some sort of general measure of a monsters power, the DMs job gets a lot harder. Seems like too much would be lost in order to correct an easily solved problem.


One of the primary advantages to doing that is the DM bases encounters on the players' power level, not level. Thus, there is less of an incentive for the group as a whole to optimize because the world will adjust to them without experience rewards becoming significantly larger. This also would make it easier for the players to agree on a general optimization level, and prevent the DM from pitting them against over (dragons) or under (anything without a range attack) powered monsters.

I haven't tried this myself specifically, but when setting up encounters against a mix of foes I don't bother calculating EL, especially since it reads way too high for low level opponents anyways.

This assumes that the DM can properly judge both the PCs' and the mosters' power levels, which is something I don't think is always the case.

Sine
2011-02-01, 10:45 AM
I feel myself grognifying, so I may stick with 4e no matter what. But just for fun...


They would publish it for free, or even better, they give us money each time we play D&D. Aside from that, the important thing is that they regularly update and publish erratas.
QFT. Also, it'd be nice to not need stealth-errata (aka feat taxes) for 5e.


I'd want D&D5E to bring back the round circle.
It's the most infuriating aspect of 4E to me.
Even better, make the hex map default. :smallsmile:


What I would like is a D&D that has rules to resolve if a certain path of action results in success or failure for the PCs. I don't want a game that is about the rules.
Ah, am I the only one confused by these two sentences? :smalleek:


Why is it better for a DM to have to eyeball it and guess how powerful a given encounter is?
I want to not need WBL too, assuming 5e has no +X items, but I'll second Reverent-One's question. What's so bad about having a solid set of guidelines?

Bibliomancer
2011-02-01, 10:51 AM
This assumes that the DM can properly judge both the PCs' and the mosters' power levels, which is something I don't think is always the case.

Admittedly, this is would represent the optimal case, but in general if the DM can't assess his or her players' power levels there will be problems with encounters with or without a CR system. An optimized tier 1 character can handle a CR significantly above their level (I recall seeing a post by a level 10 incantrix explaining how normally he operated in a low-buff mode for CR appropriate challenges but was able to whip out enough long-duration protections to allow the level 10 party to defeat a balor) while a low tier character will struggle with 'level appropriate' challenges after some point. A level 20 samurai would probably not be able to defeat the tarrasque without some very judicious magic item choices.

Ultimately, many things come done to DM judgement, and the fact that they can make mistakes will mean that the players should learn when to run and when to fight. If all encounters are assumed to be CR appropriate, the only real options are 'fight and fight some more.'

Urpriest
2011-02-01, 10:55 AM
Monsters and characters as utterly interchangeable. 3.5 was approaching it with level adjustment, animals getting skill points, and the like. 4e discarded it. I want a game where anything that the DM can throw at you, you can eventually play, and any published monster can be built and tweaked with published sub-elements, like Exalted's Charms. And I want a CR/ECL system that keeps this structure balanced and keeps combat as smooth, variable, and satisfying as 4e's is.

Modular spellcasting would be nice too, with organization not in terms of game mechanics like most point buy systems but in terms of in-world features of the magic.

potatocubed
2011-02-01, 10:57 AM
Quality control.

A better integration between game rules and game world.

A better complexity/depth ratio.

olthar
2011-02-01, 11:00 AM
I'd like to keep some of the 4th edition power ideas (mostly to get rid of the "I swing my sword" for 20 levels as a fighter), but also return to a vancian magic system. If my wizard wants to cast feather fall 3 times per day, then he should be able to cast feather fall 3 times per day!

I'd like to keep (/add) a nonvancian element to magic. Give wizards the ability to sculpt spells in a more "manipulate energy" way and then just have the vancian system as a backup. Building on this, I'd like a variant system that allows wizards to think up the effect of their magic (and then give the DM the ability to rule based on how the wizard roleplays it). Why should every fireball be a massive explosion from some randomly chosen point of origin? Maybe my wizard likes making a literal ball of fire and then throwing it like a bowling ball, or maybe I want my "ball o fire" to take the form of a running horse that tramples fire across everything (maybe that would lower the difficulty of the save but increase the damage dealt).

Since casters shouldn't get all of the fun, I'd also like further emphasis on descriptive attacks / called shots. Again, have these bonuses/penalties be based on the ability to roleplay a combat.

Of course, for those who want a combat to go quickly, you can just rely on the vancian system with "I use attack power x."

I'd like to keep some of the parity, but wizards should be the hardest hitters and easiest to kill, thieves should be second but more specific 1 target type, fighters 3rd, and healers last. It makes parties balanced. If nobody wants to play the healer because they don't enjoy being turtles that can heal everyone, then make it an npc and problem solved for party.

Oh, and lastly, I'd like to add a sanity system (or something similar) like in call of cthulhu. Cause it's fun to go insane.

ShriekingDrake
2011-02-01, 11:04 AM
Bring back the freedom and variety of pre 4th edition, while still having a reasonably balanced system.

^^ This--most definitely this.

Totally Guy
2011-02-01, 11:05 AM
Social mechanics.

Psyren
2011-02-01, 11:19 AM
Ah, am I the only one confused by these two sentences? :smalleek:


No, I am too :smallconfused:


Fleshing out the Facebook idea:
- It would work best if Facebook created multi-person chat so that you could run a gaming session for a group. Otherwise it could use a built-in chat app or just a Wall-like post-response system.

- A Facebook game would not step on DDO's toes (much) since it would go after the flighty Zynga base instead of the entrenched WoW base like DDO is.

- For bursts of play at work or while otherwise distracted, you can set up "defualt behavior" for your PC to take when your turn elapses.

- They can either use microtransactions to sell their splats, or simply make all the material available with a DDI subscription - one that feeds directly into the game itself. (It also gives people incentive to keep their DDI subscriptions active, to keep using the premium options available in their online games.)

- They could use it as a large platform to playtest new powers, feats and even classes, all without the worry of the playtest version becoming co-opted by the community or hurting the sales of the final product(s).

- Microtransactions add granularity too the purchasing process. Instead of loading a splat down with junk and a few powerful options to try and justify the purchae to a gamer, the options themselves can be bought piecemeal.

ImperiousLeader
2011-02-01, 11:32 AM
I'm still a fan of 4e, but here are some improvements I'd like to see:

1. Ditch alignment altogether, and introduce some FATE-esque aspects for character background and traits. I could see a hybrid d20, FATE system working quite well.

2. Improve the Magic Item system. 4e characters are still too magic item christmas tree for my liking. Inherent bonuses rock, though.

3. More flexibility in power selections. The Attack/Utility divide is too rigid for my taste.

4. I like the Essentials take on Class/Subclass. Include that from the start.

CycloneJoker
2011-02-01, 11:35 AM
They bring back the complexity and amusement value of 3.5, and give me back my "Powers cost powerpoints." Remove the "My fighter can swing REALLY, REALLY hard once per day." Keep with the convenience of 4e. Make "powers" not the norm, vancian or Power Points, please, or all at-wills, like the lock.

Also, add a bit of variety in power level, while avoiding tier 1. I want to be able to dink around with my truenamer, and I want to be able to fit in with a casual group, while still min-maxing, one of my favorite parts.If they still work there, sack the people who made Erudite, Druid, and the like.

Yora
2011-02-01, 11:41 AM
Ah, am I the only one confused by these two sentences? :smalleek:
When I run a game, and I stoped using D&D for that some time ago, my players want to spend their time exploring and learning about the places their characters visit and interacting with the people they meet to solve the problems currently at hand.
When getting into a castle, the interesting part is finding a way in, either getting around the guards or finding a way to deal with them. When the players have decided what they want to do, they want to know how that course of action turns out for them and what happens next. When you get into a fight, the question is if you defeat the enemies, they manage to escape, force you to retreat, or capture or kill you. Some action is good and fun, but it should not take too long, since the only thing that matters is what situation they face once the fight is over.

3rd and 4th Edition is all about the encounters. There are a couple of open lock checks and bluff checks, but 95% of the game rules is about what actions you take during a combat round to get a few more hp from the enemies while hopefully not loosing too many of your own. But in our group, we don't care about all the options you have in a fight. You swing your swords and throw some magic missiles for 10 minutes and hope it was a good idea to start a fight, and then it gets back to the main part of the game of thinking what to do next. In D&D, there are just far too many things to consider in a fight so it takes very long and is very slow, and you keep a great deal of gaming time going through the lists which spells to memorize, which equipment to buy, and what feats to pick and how to use your skill points when you gain a level.
That's all things we don't want to spend much time on.

In the older AD&D editions, you picked your race and class, rolled your ability scores and from time to time you increase your THAC0 and hit points.
But in 3rd and 4th edition, custumizing and fine tuning your characters so you have a wide range of good options which you can use during combat is what the game is all about. Yes, you can play the game with few and short fights, but there's just so much additional baggage that it's just not a very efficient way to do that.

Not that this is an inherent flaw of the recend editions of D&D. But if I were to get into a new edition of D&D, it would be a game like that.

Czin
2011-02-01, 12:17 PM
A balance of fluff and crunch. A return to using greyhawk as the default setting. A return to vancian magic and the nine point alignments (those were hallmarks of D&D, getting rid of them left a sick feeling in my stomach), undo all the horrifically contrived changes done to the forgotten realms setting by 4e. More versimilitude in the rules, more difference between classes (perhaps a balance between 3es heavily tiered classes and 4es sameness), return to the old true dragon age categories, bring back 3.Xs skills and feats but retain 4es daily and per encounter powers, make archons, eladrins, and angels servants of good again, make yugoloths independent of demons, make mind flayers come from the future once more (it made them more unique), dump this silly gods and primordials conflict (shoehorning it into Faerun was stupid, I'd like to see it gone for good), make Vecna a greater god (and lawful evil).

Keep the Dragons as merely being "usually" X alignment, make more of the stuff available on PDFs, bring back the old OGL instead of the horrendously limiting new one, make the system modular like 3e so that homebrewing will be easier, and make character death expensive like it was in AD&D.

dsmiles
2011-02-01, 12:32 PM
I hope that all powers, feats, and items would only be available in randomized packs of cards. You can buy a starter pack that gives you a level-1 character, and then you can buy booster packs for your class or power source that give you common options for heroic tier, uncommons for paragon tier, and rares for epic tier. Since D&D is a team game, you can swap these with your party members so that if your wizard ends up with the Sword of Kas, he can trade it for a Meteor Swarm instead.I can feel the sarcasm dripping from every word in that.

Psyren
2011-02-01, 12:38 PM
*snip*

I'm... still not sure I understand. It sounds like you want freeform. But... with rules?

Yora
2011-02-01, 12:47 PM
I'm... still not sure I understand. It sounds like you want freeform. But... with rules?
Have you ever played an RPg that is not D&D?

I would call it "streamlined".

dsmiles
2011-02-01, 12:51 PM
Have you ever played an RPg that is not D&D?

I would call it "streamlined".You mean like Amber Diceless? I'd call that pretty streamlined.

Kerrin
2011-02-01, 12:52 PM
When I run a game, and I stoped using D&D for that some time ago, my players want to spend their time exploring and learning about the places their characters visit and interacting with the people they meet to solve the problems currently at hand.
Yora, it sounds like you and your players play more of a storytelling type game than one that revolves heavily around fighting mechanics. I'm interested; what game system(s) do you use for this?

warmachine
2011-02-01, 12:57 PM
That Paizo acquire the rights to write it.

Sine
2011-02-01, 01:03 PM
When I run a game, and I stoped using D&D for that some time ago, my players want to spend their time exploring and learning about the places their characters visit and interacting with the people they meet to solve the problems currently at hand.
When getting into a castle, the interesting part is finding a way in, either getting around the guards or finding a way to deal with them. When the players have decided what they want to do, they want to know how that course of action turns out for them and what happens next. When you get into a fight, the question is if you defeat the enemies, they manage to escape, force you to retreat, or capture or kill you. Some action is good and fun, but it should not take too long, since the only thing that matters is what situation they face once the fight is over.

3rd and 4th Edition is all about the encounters. There are a couple of open lock checks and bluff checks, but 95% of the game rules is about what actions you take during a combat round to get a few more hp from the enemies while hopefully not loosing too many of your own. But in our group, we don't care about all the options you have in a fight. You swing your swords and throw some magic missiles for 10 minutes and hope it was a good idea to start a fight, and then it gets back to the main part of the game of thinking what to do next. In D&D, there are just far too many things to consider in a fight so it takes very long and is very slow, and you keep a great deal of gaming time going through the lists which spells to memorize, which equipment to buy, and what feats to pick and how to use your skill points when you gain a level.
That's all things we don't want to spend much time on.
Ah, okay, I think I see what you're saying. You want more detailed rules for things other than combat, and not so many combat options. Your first posted read like "I want more rules! But I don't want the game to be about rules."


In the older AD&D editions, you picked your race and class, rolled your ability scores and from time to time you increase your THAC0 and hit points.
But in 3rd and 4th edition, custumizing and fine tuning your characters so you have a wide range of good options which you can use during combat is what the game is all about. Yes, you can play the game with few and short fights, but there's just so much additional baggage that it's just not a very efficient way to do that.
I can't speak for D&D's half dozen first [pseudo-]editions, but I did start gaming with 2e. And I can assure you that, in the hands of a power gaming group, 2e was all about tons of options and toon 'builds.' It's just that unlike in 3e and 4e, most PC 'building' happened at character creation. There were no feats, but there were dozens of classes, kits, and weapons, and if you got into the Skills & Powers splat...oy! And then there were the magic-users, who were only a bit less complex than 3e casters thanks to the absence of feats.

2e did have a really simple fighter, for players who wanted to do nothing in combat from level 1 to 20 except roll d20s and a damage dice. Though there were still different fighter builds, thanks to dozens of weapons and Weapon Specialization. Ever hear of the dreaded dart specialist? Yeah, it was rather silly. :smallsigh:

sonofzeal
2011-02-01, 01:05 PM
My #1 hope is that they'll resume support for previous editions, continuing to print 3.5 and 4e books, and maybe even add some more as they go.

Yora
2011-02-01, 01:06 PM
Yora, it sounds like you and your players play more of a storytelling type game than one that revolves heavily around fighting mechanics. I'm interested; what game system(s) do you use for this?
Currently BESM 3rd and Shadowrun, but I'm not a huge fan of either system. There are probably lots of really good systems, but I have an illogical aversion of dice pools. BESM is the only class-less game that does not use dice pools I know of, so I picked it out of neccessity.


I can't speak for D&D's half dozen first [pseudo-]editions, but I did start gaming with 2e. And I can assure you that, in the hands of a power gaming group, 2e was all about tons of options and toon 'builds.' It's just that unlike in 3e and 4e, most PC 'building' happened at character creation. There were no feats, but there were dozens of classes, kits, and weapons, and if you got into the Skills & Powers splat...oy! And then there were the magic-users, who were only a bit less complex than 3e casters thanks to the absence of feats.
I never use splatbooks. It's just throwing out money for options I never want to use. :smallbiggrin:
And so far I had only one player who was looked into the books in search of options on his own iniciative. Everyone else just picks up the PHB at level up and asks me what would work for their characters.

Psyren
2011-02-01, 01:09 PM
Ah, okay, I think I see what you're saying. You want more detailed rules for things other than combat, and not so many combat options. Your first posted read like "I want more rules! But I don't want the game to be about rules."

Thank you, that clears it up.


Have you ever played an RPg that is not D&D?

I would call it "streamlined".

I haven't, nor do I really care to. Out of combat is where roleplay matters the most, so having heavier rules there than during a fight makes no sense to me.

tcrudisi
2011-02-01, 01:13 PM
One of the primary advantages to doing that is the DM bases encounters on the players' power level, not level. Thus, there is less of an incentive for the group as a whole to optimize because the world will adjust to them without experience rewards becoming significantly larger. This also would make it easier for the players to agree on a general optimization level, and prevent the DM from pitting them against over (dragons) or under (anything without a range attack) powered monsters.

I don't think that will work effectively. First of all, it's hard to get a group to decide on a proper power level. Then, all it takes is one person to decide to up their power to make themselves better in combat than their allies, others see that someone else did it and they follow suit. Next thing you know, everyone is optimized for combat and thus, no one is optimized.

It gets even worse when you don't get to choose your group, like with LFR. You sit down at a random table every week without knowing who your group will be. It's just impossible.

I think they pretty much have to keep it like it is for simplicity's sake.

Yora
2011-02-01, 01:18 PM
I haven't, nor do I really care to. Out of combat is where roleplay matters the most, so having heavier rules there than during a fight makes no sense to me.
I used to think that D&D is a perfectly usable system for roleplay heavy campaigns. If you don't want to optimize your character and have only a few short encounters every session, there's nothing that stops you from doing that.
All the other "games" I've read were d20 modern, Star Wars Saga, and Warcraft RPG, but they are all 3.5e variants.

But when I first started to look at non-d20 games, I instantly realized that there are so much more better ways to handle low-combat games. Simply by having a d20 character sheet in front of you, you stop thinking about the situation of your character in the story and face obstacles by thinking what a person options a person has in such conditions, but immediately go through all your skills, feats, class features, and spells to see which of them could be deployed best in a situation like this.
"When all you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail."
Having different rules does change the way you approach situations within the game.

Zaydos
2011-02-01, 01:19 PM
Well besides that they start making stuff for the older editions (AD&D 1e & 2e books, 3.0/3.5 books, and even 4e); something different.

I mean there's Basic and AD&D 1e and 2e; which while there are major changes from Basic to AD&D they all felt like the same game to me (I was a kid)

There's 3.0 and 3.5 which are a different game entirely.

There's 4e which is another completely different game.

Each one has its strengths (2e has awesome fluff, and actually is the easiest for me to tell stories in as a DM; 3.X is my personal favorite with customization and lots of options; 4e is an excellent tactical game and is in theory balanced*).


*I say in theory because except with a 10 person group I have never ran into party-balance issues in any edition. 4e had a little party imbalance, but not enough to ruin anyone's fun, due to player skill and the DMs penchant for mobs of minions making the sorcerer's chaos sphere and AoE more effective compared to the other 3 strikers (although the monk did well, and glancing at the character sheets the ranger was the strongest on paper).

5e should be a different game as well. There are some constants heroic fantasy, elves, dwarves, wizards, fighters, clerics, thieves, some sort of class system (there's already a lot of games without a class system); but honestly I don't want it to feel like 2e or 3.X or 4e but something new and original.

And have more options :smallbiggrin:

AtlanteanTroll
2011-02-01, 01:23 PM
The removal of powers. A new setting. PDF versions. Some OGC or OGL or whatever it's called, I like my 3rd Parties damn it.

...

And while I'm dreaming, I'd like Gary Gygax to return from the dead and forcibly take D&D back to the Lich kingdom of TLR.

Yora
2011-02-01, 01:33 PM
5e should be a different game as well. There are some constants heroic fantasy, elves, dwarves, wizards, fighters, clerics, thieves, some sort of class system (there's already a lot of games without a class system); but honestly I don't want it to feel like 2e or 3.X or 4e but something new and original.

And have more options :smallbiggrin:

While in the case of core 3.0 I would argue in favor of it, I think 4E can't really be called an Edition. There's no attempt to improve the rules or fix things that didn't really work as intendet. Instead it was going back to square #1 and coming up with something new. And not with the intention to improve anything, but to get customers to buy lots of new books. Pathfinder however, IS a new Edition of 3.5e.
I think with 5e we will see something similar. Agree that it will be called D&D and probably has the 6 ability scores, and completely start anew from there. The question is, whyt kind of market segment they might want to target. If they keep heading into the direction they turned to with 3.0, the next game will be an upstart competitor with Warhammer.

Kurald Galain
2011-02-01, 01:33 PM
Simply by having a d20 character sheet in front of you, you stop thinking about the situation of your character in the story and face obstacles by thinking what a person options a person has in such conditions, but immediately go through all your skills, feats, class features, and spells to see which of them could be deployed best in a situation like this.
"When all you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail."
Having different rules does change the way you approach situations within the game.
I completely agree.

FMArthur
2011-02-01, 01:36 PM
I just want a modular class system again. :smallfrown:

Sipex
2011-02-01, 01:36 PM
Oh wait, I actually have serious input.

I would like to see working rules for battle against creatures which are far larger than you (ie: More than 'I hit it in the foot till it dies') and rules for large scale battle.

AtlanteanTroll
2011-02-01, 01:38 PM
I would like to see working rules for battle against creatures which are far larger than you (ie: More than 'I hit it in the foot till it dies') and rules for large scale battle.

Haven't there been creatures where the different limbs (and head and torso) have each had a certain amount of HP?

Knaight
2011-02-01, 01:39 PM
I want it to be a failure of a system, massively and publicly, in such as a way as to increase visibility to the hobby as a whole, and drive other games into the spotlight. Say GURPS, Burning Wheel, Synapse, Fate, and WoD, for a nice variety that makes it clear there are a bunch of games as soon as one is even in the hobby.

Barring that, some serious streamlining is in order. Something along the lines of the Fudge scale mechanic to handle all size differences, drastically fewer statistics, with less focus upon combat exclusively. A statistic block should be able to fit in two lines, and climbing a mountain should get as much mechanical focus as killing an orc. Alignment also needs to be completely removed, with something along the lines of the Burning Wheel Belief system or Synapse motivation system instated as an option instead.

dsmiles
2011-02-01, 01:43 PM
Oh wait, I actually have serious input.Who says all of our input isn't serious? I really do wish for a return to AD&D 1e. I play it more often than the much-touted 3.5e.

Pard
2011-02-01, 01:50 PM
After investing a few hundred bucks in 3.5 and then another couple hundred in 4e... I'd like if they could make one edition and never, ever change again. Add content and that is it.

So basically, I guess I'd buy 5e, but they should make it so awesome and perfect that there is never a need for another edition... ever. No "essentials" no ".5" just nothing else. Add classes and races and feats and skills and spells and creatures and worlds and whatever, but stop making me buy all new books every 3 to 5 years!

Or how about a trade in system? You trade in your old books and they give you a PDF of the old book plus a new book at a VERY reduced cost...

Knaight
2011-02-01, 01:50 PM
Who says all of our input isn't serious? I really do wish for a return to AD&D 1e. I play it more often than the much-touted 3.5e.

You are familiar with the whole old school revolution movement, and the sheer amount of new games that basically are 1e or games of a similar era right? Labyrinth Lord, OSIRIC, that sort of stuff.

MarkusWolfe
2011-02-01, 01:52 PM
I'd like to see it just like 3.5 or Pathfinder, but with the following changes:

-everyone is the same 'tier'; ie, the type of balance 4e achieved, but still keeping the classes unique
-alternatively, 'high tier' classes have MAD issues, while 'low tier' ones don't
-everyone has outside of combat roles to play, and to help with that
-everyone gets another 3 skill points per level

Sipex
2011-02-01, 01:53 PM
Who says all of our input isn't serious? I really do wish for a return to AD&D 1e. I play it more often than the much-touted 3.5e.

You misunderstand, my previous post before this wasn't serious.

I was referring to myself when I said it.

Ellardin
2011-02-01, 01:55 PM
I really want a "return" (If this past even existed) to the old style of fantasy that is presented in the Older Editions of Dungeons and Dragons, I want to buy books of Fluff, not new stats that I most likely won't ever use. I do not want to see a Paragraph of Blah, Blah, Blah until I get to the "Numbers". Some things that would be nice to see.

- Magic as portrayed as extremely Mystical, wondrous and Exotic to the general populous, few wizards, sorcerers, mage-preists, walk the Earth. (Also it would be nice to not see, Psionics/Divine/Arcane/Shadow/Binder/Incarnum/Wot/Bard/Ranger/Spontaneous/non-spontaneous/Vanician/Spell-Points/Incantations/Recharging/Druid/Elemental/Savant/Society of Atheists/true naming/Skills based.....Basically I don't want to see a cluster **** of magic systems or practitioners, that have no Lore based connection to the Official Settings. I also want Magic to have a context within the gaming system, not just content in which it is apart of the gaming system.

- Get rid of the Skill System presented in 3.5; base the new one off of Dangerous Journey's Mythus, or just have a skill section on your character sheet where you can write down some key skills your character can perform.

- Bring back storylines much like: Vecna Reborn and Die Vecna Die!

- Possible Race/Class restrictions or make Races a class, have Race powers and skills.

- Get rid of Feats, Have a few Key Character/Race/People/Class Skills that you can invest in and raise in level. Mostly getting away from the cluster **** of 2000+ Feats.

- I also agree that there should be a better connection between game rules and game world, it would be nice to see that.

- Bring back the freedom and variety of pre 4th edition, while still having a reasonably balanced system. (THIS)

- A Large Fantasy Feel.

BobSutan
2011-02-01, 01:56 PM
Just for fun, as the edition wars rage between 3.5/PF/4e;

What do you hope/dream/want/wish for/miracle for/w.e. for the future? How could WOTC make something we wouldn't want to disintegrate them for ? ;)

It's have the flexibility of 3.5, the collapsed active & passive perception and stealth skills 4E, and a collected Feats resource online broken down by type (Melee, Ranged, Arcane, Divine, etc). Talent trees are welcome, but shouldn't be what the game is geared towards. Creativity is the key. I'd also like to see an integrated "gritty" variant from the start a la E6.

Yora
2011-02-01, 01:59 PM
After investing a few hundred bucks in 3.5 and then another couple hundred in 4e... I'd like if they could make one edition and never, ever change again. Add content and that is it.

So basically, I guess I'd buy 5e, but they should make it so awesome and perfect that there is never a need for another edition... ever. No "essentials" no ".5" just nothing else. Add classes and races and feats and skills and spells and creatures and worlds and whatever, but stop making me buy all new books every 3 to 5 years!

Or how about a trade in system? You trade in your old books and they give you a PDF of the old book plus a new book at a VERY reduced cost...
That would defeat the purpose.
I think Gygax and Arnrson really wanted to give people a game to enjoy and they somehow had to pay the bills. I don't think they got very rich with it, though. But WotC produces D&D because the company is looking for more ways to get money. The actual designers and writers probably also care for the game, but the people who decide about scedules and editions don't.
And the busines model simply is: Produce a steady stream of splatbooks for a couple of years, and when we no longer have any ideas for more books and people start to think they have enough, we start a new edition and begin the entire process all over again.

hamlet
2011-02-01, 02:00 PM
You are familiar with the whole old school revolution movement, and the sheer amount of new games that basically are 1e or games of a similar era right? Labyrinth Lord, OSIRIC, that sort of stuff.

Most people are.

But what we really want is the return of D&D name brand to the AD&D/BECMI days.

We know we won't get it, but we can wish.

And yes, we're entirely aware of the crud that got shoveled out of TSR at times. But we're also acutely aware of the gold as well.

Psyren
2011-02-01, 02:03 PM
And while I'm dreaming, I'd like Gary Gygax to return from the dead and forcibly take D&D back to the Lich kingdom of TLR.

"TLR?"

And Gygax had some pretty weird ideas himself, so I don't know about that one.



But when I first started to look at non-d20 games, I instantly realized that there are so much more better ways to handle low-combat games.

I'm not arguing that other games can do it better, but D&D was never designed to be "low-combat," so being ill-suited for it is to be expected. Hell, it was based on a wargame, and it's hard to have much more combat than that.

This is not a failing of Dungeons and Dragons, any more than Magic: The Gathering being unable to model anything but combat is a failure of that game.

Yora
2011-02-01, 02:04 PM
And I respect that D&D in 3rd and 4th Ed. does it's job very well. They are not bad games. But the question at hand is what things we would want to see in a 5th Edition that we would want to buy it. And my answer is going back to a much more simple game as it has been in earlier editions.
I don't expect it to happen, but that's what would get me into a game.



Well, to be fair we're all suffering from severe nostalgia.

The good things about AD&D were Ravenloft, Dark Sun, and Planescape. That's what we remember fondly as some of the most amazing things in RPG history. We probably don't cheer for THAC0 tables and the weird saving throws.
But that brings me back to my earlier point: Settings turn out to work differently depending on the rules you use. Dark Sun in 4th Edition just isn't the same as in 2nd.

Kurald Galain
2011-02-01, 02:04 PM
You know, I've never had much of a problem with the balance in 3E. Yes, I'm aware of the more common charop tricks, but I find that in practice, most people simply don't play that way.

Although admittedly I haven't tried this above level 12, and certainly not at epic. Still, that gives you a dozen levels to work with.

Pika...
2011-02-01, 02:05 PM
Just for fun, as the edition wars rage between 3.5/PF/4e;

What do you hope/dream/want/wish for/miracle for/w.e. for the future? How could WOTC make something we wouldn't want to disintegrate them for ? ;)

To be able to look and laugh as everything that was said about 3.5 holdouts by the new/fresh 4.0 hipped up fans is said about the 4.0 holdouts by the 5.0 hipped up fans. Supposedly history already repeated itself with the 2.0/3.0 change, so I am hoping to just relax, and smirk as the next wave of edition wars spreads across gaming stores and the net, and we 3.5 holdout will finally be accepted among the retired 0ed-2.0 veterans. Then we could not give two CPs about what those damn kids are arguing about as we stroke our grey beards and enjoy our preferred gaming system, finally at peace.

Reverent-One
2011-02-01, 02:14 PM
To be able to look and laugh as everything that was said about 3.5 holdouts by the new/fresh 4.0 hipped up fans is said about the 4.0 holdouts by the 5.0 hipped up fans. Supposedly history already repeated itself with the 2.0/3.0 change, so I am hoping to just relax, and smirk as the next wave of edition wars spreads across gaming stores and the net, and we 3.5 holdout will finally be accepted among the retired 0ed-2.0 veterans. Then we could not give two CPs about what those damn kids are arguing about as we stroke our grey beards and enjoy our preferred gaming system, finally at peace.

What's stopping you from doing that now?

Yora
2011-02-01, 02:15 PM
Those damn kids who insist their stupid games are as good as our superior ones. :smallyuk:

Sipex
2011-02-01, 02:17 PM
All this thread is missing is a lawn to get chased off of.

Reverent-One
2011-02-01, 02:21 PM
Those damn kids who insist their stupid games are as good as our superior ones. :smallyuk:

Who would still be around when 5e comes out. In fact there'd be even more of them, since there'd be 4e and 5e players. :smalltongue:

Yora
2011-02-01, 02:28 PM
All this thread is missing is a lawn to get chased off of.
Depends. Are there any penalties by RAW for stepping on the lawn, or is that only fluff text to serve as an inspiration to DMs. Of course, you can always Rule 0 it.

Psyren
2011-02-01, 02:40 PM
*snip*

I play Pathfinder, so I don't think my beard is all that gray just yet. :smalltongue:

Also this:

http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/979299305_WsMkV-L.jpg



Depends. Are there any penalties by RAW for stepping on the lawn, or is that only fluff text to serve as an inspiration to DMs. Of course, you can always Rule 0 it.

Well, the DMG says that lawns should not be stepped on, but Grass Compendium contradicts that in several places. CustServ has ruled both ways and the errata is only half-complete. Which one is primary source?

Pika...
2011-02-01, 02:43 PM
What's stopping you from doing that now?

I am too young to have a pretty grey beard yet...

Reverent-One
2011-02-01, 02:44 PM
I am too young to have a pretty grey beard yet...

Ah, of course. Silly me for asking.

Zaydos
2011-02-01, 02:45 PM
The good things about AD&D were Ravenloft, Dark Sun, and Planescape. That's what we remember fondly as some of the most amazing things in RPG history. We probably don't cheer for THAC0 tables and the weird saving throws.
But that brings me back to my earlier point: Settings turn out to work differently depending on the rules you use. Dark Sun in 4th Edition just isn't the same as in 2nd.

I miss the saving throw tables, and attack rolls that didn't have 20 bonuses applied to them... at the same time I have to make a Will save versus rabies not to try and bite you if you take away my 20 random bonuses.

While I'll admit I miss the Dark Sun and Planescape fluff, I've never played either of them. I miss playing 2e because as a system it did have advantages (then again 3.X is my favorite and my mainstay).

That said, I can't agree with you more that settings work differently depending upon the rules you use.


You know, I've never had much of a problem with the balance in 3E. Yes, I'm aware of the more common charop tricks, but I find that in practice, most people simply don't play that way.

Although admittedly I haven't tried this above level 12, and certainly not at epic. Still, that gives you a dozen levels to work with.

I DMed a 12th to 20th game. The players didn't know any of the tricks though.

Ozreth
2011-02-01, 03:08 PM
4e had some awesome stuff but there are two reasons i don't play it:

1. Powers. Hate powers. They don't have to bring back vancian casting but powers are just so silly.
2. Length and insanely tactical feel of battles.

Change at least #1 and I'll be happy with 5e.

As for the other conversation going on: when most new people delving into ad&d for the first time the advice they usually get is "stick to core, it is where the system shines and is the most fun and fluid. Stay away from all the splat, it just complicates."

I think that 10 years from now people will say the same for 3rd. Right now we talk of all of the numbers, feats, classes etc getting in the way of critical thinking and good story telling. But what if you got rid of every 3.5 book you own save for the 3 core books. The core system is easy to pick up and is easily adaptable to and style of role play.

Also, people will tell you to play ad&d (esp. 2e) with handwaves and shrugs, skipping rules abs making up your own as you see fit. This is still encouraged in 3rd but we tend to forget it.

jseah
2011-02-01, 03:17 PM
I don't expect many people to take my position, but I would like to see 5.0 be MORE complex than even 3.5

1. Fluff explains mechanics
The system and dice or whatever, is designed to model some underlying explanations. So when your DM has to rule 0 an edge case or ambiguous interpretation or otherwise special circumstances, you can still say it makes sense.

2. Fluff explanations for everything
How spell X works and what it's edge cases are (did you know fireball in 3.5 melts lead?)
How X maneuver works, what triggers it, when should it not work
Why does monster Y have Z immunity? How can it avoided or negated? Or maybe it can't be, why?

How does this climbing piton give it's bonus? When will it fail? Are there walls this doesn't work on? (chalk cliffs might be too crumbly to stick pitons in)

3. As much focus on non-combat as combat
Spells for non-combat, skills for non-combat. Entire classes focused on doing things that don't involve fighting at all.
Profession cook can be a skill or an entire class. See 4.

-> 4. Unified class features, feats, skills, spells (GM only)
A complex and powerful metasystem that allows you to create class features or feats. Even entire subsystems if you wish.
Examples and basic stuff are all worked out. Fireball is broken down and shown how it was put together in the metasystem. Trip, Craft Alchemy, Barbarian Rage.
Metasystem contains useful fluff to help guide the fluff of the created abilities. Everything is explained at some conceptual level.

This doesn't have to be around. I'm still unsure if it is possible at all. Would freaking awesome if it was though. Preferably without having to use calculus. Quadratics are ok though. >.>

5. Unified character system
One system for everything. The end. Characters, NPCs, monsters, gods, objects even.
You can work out the stats for a stone wall and it works in the character system. You can model a monster in the system. A random silversmith or sheepherder.
Numbers in the system matter. Almost every action has a method of resolution. See 6.

6. Optional depth and complexity
Task resolution has optional depth. You can make baking pies a single cooking skill roll all the way to using multiple class features to balance spice and create a unique dish.

Urpriest
2011-02-01, 03:42 PM
-> 4. Unified class features, feats, skills, spells (GM only)
A complex and powerful metasystem that allows you to create class features or feats. Even entire subsystems if you wish.
Examples and basic stuff are all worked out. Fireball is broken down and shown how it was put together in the metasystem. Trip, Craft Alchemy, Barbarian Rage.
Metasystem contains useful fluff to help guide the fluff of the created abilities. Everything is explained at some conceptual level.

This doesn't have to be around. I'm still unsure if it is possible at all. Would freaking awesome if it was though. Preferably without having to use calculus. Quadratics are ok though. >.>


Just for that, I have decided to create the world's first Poincare invariant, unitary, path-integral form RPG! Hmm, perhaps the PCs uniqueness can be represented with Grassman variables...

By the way, I agree with a lot of what you're saying, and I think it would actually be good for sales, even if the system was imperfect. As Yora has pointed out, if a gamer just wants a fun story they don't need a bunch of new books o' crunch. The people buying books are to one extent or another people who like complexity for complexity's sake. People like you and me. We're probably their most faithful/prolific customers.

Hammerhead
2011-02-01, 03:54 PM
But D&D is the game where you go into caves, bump into silly traps, kill stuff and probably get eaten by a giant mole!
Roleplay mechanics kind of go against the spirit of the thing.

edit: I was responding to something when I pushed Post. Oh well.

Dimers
2011-02-01, 03:58 PM
I'm amazed by the lack of edition war in this thread. :smallsmile:

I don't want less combat, but I want more non-combat. I'd like to see Rule 0 (and the responsibilities that go with it) to be repeated in many phrasings throughout the material, to help players avoid a sense of entitlement. I want every purchase to be both print and searchable electronic. I want computer programs bundled with Core to allow complex mechanics and recordkeeping to be handled by a machine*. I want verisimiltude in character death -- adventuring should be dangerous, and resurrection should be extremely rare, making each character precious.


* For example, when a dozen minions and two lieutenants are helping a boss, it can really be a pain to keep track of initiative and hit points and available actions for each one.

jseah
2011-02-01, 04:13 PM
Urpriest:
XD Path integrals is about the limit I got to in calculus before I ditched physics for biology.
Yes, you can call me a traitor now. Or perhaps a coward since I didn't want to do the math, even if it would have earned me a better grade than I'm getting now memorizing random bits and pieces of bio.


Still, in a computer game, you are NOT limited by complexity. As long as you can make a computer do the work, who cares how complex it is? In fact, requiring a math degree to reverse engineer the game mechanics might discourage the tendency for competitive gaming to focus on the "best build".

I want computer programs bundled with Core to allow complex mechanics and recordkeeping to be handled by a machine*.
Make arrows have aerodynamics (craft skill to air friction), weight and resistance to wind deflection vs range vs impact energy. Archery is not just about strength.
Just imagine the horror on the WoW forums if they find the next update makes characters unoptimizable. Or at least have character choices that have an obvious but difficult to calculate effect. (numerical integration FTW)
I might even play it. >.>

On a tabletop, I can tolerate needing a calculator. Maybe even trigonometry and basic 1st order calculus in the rare edge cases that turn out to be incredibly plot important. (even then, if it can be relegated to working it outside the session, that would be ideal)
Much more than that, I can't see myself doing it. In the game design, you can use it of course, but neither the player nor the GM should have to deal with that regularly.

You can get away with more if the RPG is PbP though, since you have much more time and no pacing to keep up.

BobSutan
2011-02-01, 04:47 PM
Give classes as general guidelines but instead of being forced to focus on the class have a set of basic abilities that you can choose from at each level. Like when you level up you have the choice to buy four out of the following choices, higher HP, higher Bab, more skills, better saves, a feat, a level of spell casting. Each path or choiceshould be balanced so magic should still be powerful but not so much that everyone and their dog is a full spell caster, way to do that is to make feat trees longer which gives more options/maneuvers that are on par with spells but also make the individual spells have prerequisites before you can take them. Lastly if feats/special abilities are on par with magic remove the stupid x/day junk for individual abilities and instead add some thing like stamina points that determine what you can do before getting tired

Just about everyone I know, myself included, has been waiting for such a modular system. The question is, would it be accepted as "D&D"?

E6 kinda does this with allowing BAB, Saves, Caster Level, etc to be bumped up with Feats.

Enix18
2011-02-01, 04:48 PM
I want 5E to not be a gimmicky, money-draining vortex. They ought to go the Pathfinder route and require only two core rulebooks (or keep the current three rulebook format, and just make them all cheaper). They ought not to go the 4E route and pretend that 30 metric tons of extraneous accessories are necessary to play the game. (I have nothing against 4E itself, but Wizards is using it to make their avarice more patent than ever...)

And they most definitely should not try and sell me trading cards that will turn my campaign into a horrible, drug-induced, post-apocalyptic sci-fi monstrosity. *cough*gammaworld*cough*

On a less rantish note, some sort of unified online database would be nice (as I believe others have already mentioned). Being able to search for information on the different books, the game fluff, and all the individual mechanics would really enhance the experience.

RagnaroksChosen
2011-02-01, 04:53 PM
Just about everyone I know, myself included, has been waiting for such a modular system. The question is, would it be accepted as "D&D"?

E6 kinda does this with allowing BAB, Saves, Caster Level, etc to be bumped up with Feats.

Theoretical Everstone D20 did this... If you didn't play with srd class's and just used the Everstone ones... Each class had a group of abilities and points they could spend on there class abilities.


IMHO, 5e should go back to something similar to 3.5. In the sense of classes and how they progressed however. I think they should have alternate class features that make each of the ability scores some what viable.
Also Think they should decrease the amount of classes that are SAD and make them all MAD. This way Characters one of one score thats through the roof and every thing else is low... makes for more well rounded/balanced characters.
That and better skill system. (aka more well balanced and more options)

ImperiousLeader
2011-02-01, 04:57 PM
Reading through this thread ... I have to add a new wish.

I want 5e to be quite different from 3.5 and 4e. All the wishes for "just like 3.5/4e/system I like" seem pointless. 5e should be new. Yes, take what works from the older editions and other games, but I do want 5e to be its own creation.

Draz74
2011-02-01, 05:02 PM
My real answer to this whole topic is in my sig. Seems quite compatible with at least half of the wishes people are throwing around, too.


Barring that, some serious streamlining is in order. ... drastically fewer statistics, with less focus upon combat exclusively. A statistic block should be able to fit in two lines, and climbing a mountain should get as much mechanical focus as killing an orc.
So ... you want Risus, basically.


They ought to go the Pathfinder route and require only two core rulebooks (or keep the current three rulebook format, and just make them all cheaper).

I don't remember exactly how Pathfinder divided things up, but I've been saying for years that the three Core books is a silly tradition to keep as a sacred cow.

The real way to run D&D as a viable business (i.e. constantly selling new material), without making the game eventually fall apart, is to

make a very robust Core system (which I could see as two books, a PHB and a DMG, or I could imagine it being just one)
don't change the mechanics of the game much with splatbook material -- a few crunch-heavy supplements are fine, but they should be rare and not introduce whole new subsystems of the game
produce and sell a lot of Campaign Settings and Adventures/Modules, and
the hardest part: don't put things in the Core books that should be setting-specific! Since that includes all but the most common Monsters, there should not be a need for a core Monster Manual!

Hammerhead
2011-02-01, 05:03 PM
If D&D sticks with a six-attribute system and classes, it would be cool if every class could benefit from all of the attributes in different ways.

3e was the only edition that really did this at all, and even then it was rare. Like the 3.0 psion, or 3.5 cloistered cleric or mystic ranger, where each character has the same basic abilities, they can play very differently, depending on attribute rolls.

A Wis-based Ranger's spells are a meaningful ability, where a high-Str Ranger might more or less ignore them in favor of spending actions poking monsters with pointy things and high-Cha rangers might use Animal Charm-ery or a high-Int Ranger has a deep skill list to dip into instead of fighting or casting in battles.

ETA:
And pretty much everything Draz said, but with lots of monsters. Even bad ones. I still love me some nilbog.

Sine
2011-02-01, 05:12 PM
I'm amazed by the lack of edition war in this thread. :smallsmile:
Give it a page or two; we've already had at least one "4e it teh WotC money-grab, PF only needs core 2(?) to haz fun!" rant. :smallsigh:

Knaight
2011-02-01, 05:19 PM
So ... you want Risus, basically.
[/LIST]

No, simply rules lighter. 1e fits all the criterion listed except for streamlining and out of combat depth, its not heavy by any means.

Gryndle
2011-02-01, 05:29 PM
My hope would be for some unknown third party to release 5E with a simplistic ruleset that allows for both diversity, creativity and balance.

How that would be accomplished I have no idea.

But in all honesty, if either WotC or Paizo published it, I would jsut stay with 4E or go back to 2E.

true_shinken
2011-02-01, 05:31 PM
Give it a page or two; we've already had at least one "4e it teh WotC money-grab, PF only needs core 2(?) to haz fun!" rant. :smallsigh:
Talk about over reacting. We actually had a 'I have nothing against 4e, but WotC is showing how money grabby it can be through it'.

Psyren
2011-02-01, 05:47 PM
I have to give Paizo props. So long as they stay away from Psionics and let DSP do it. (But they can lend DSP their artists :smalltongue:)

true_shinken
2011-02-01, 05:48 PM
I have to give Paizo props. So long as they stay away from Psionics and let DSP do it. (But they can lend DSP their artists :smalltongue:)
Sadly, we both know that's not gonna happen. :smallsigh:

Tankadin
2011-02-01, 05:56 PM
Just imagine the horror on the WoW forums if they find the next update makes characters unoptimizable. Or at least have character choices that have an obvious but difficult to calculate effect. (numerical integration FTW)
I might even play it. >.>

I know that over at Maintankadin there was at least one guy getting a PhD in math that ran the data gathered by other players through Matlab and LaTeX to break down whether or not a particular enchant increased threat or surviability or at what point diminishing returns made one stat more valuable than another.

I think you underestimate the depth of nerdiness surrounding the RPG hobby.

Bringing up WoW is an interesting point, though. A lot of the Grognards on the WoW forums protest how the game is being dumbed down and that the reward system is benefiting casual players too much. I don't see Blizzard caring much about that vocal minority because making the game more accessible means more subscribers.

So I guess my hope for 5.0 would be a really slick and easy to use base system that really let you run wherever you wanted with it but sharing all of the math and concepts under the hood that would let people really go off the development and world building deep-end. Something that could model 2E if the group wanted it to. Or 3E or 4E. I dunno. It probably can't be that elegant or modular.

kyoryu
2011-02-01, 06:10 PM
I want a game that rewards goal completion more than process. The rewards should come from "rescue the princess," not "kill the guards." This opens up ways of accomplishing the goal without penalizing characters for seeking non-combat solutions. "XP for gold" wasn't a great rule in 1e, but it at least approached this.

I want a game that gives all classes choices and options. No 1e "I hit the orc" fighters, please.

I want strong classes, and being a single class to be viable. D&D is a class-based system, and should stay so. If I want skills, I'll play GURPS or Hero System, or....

I want some level of build choices, but primarily within the class structure. Not all Fighters should be the same, nor all Wizards.

I like the general power structures of 4e. If using that as a base, I'd like more at-will abilities. The psionic classes are, I think, a good example (more at-wills, but enhanceable). This would allow players to (in comparison to 4e) take more situational at-wills, and prevent battles from turning into at-will spamming once the encounter/daily powers are blown.

I'd like more adventuring, non-combat skills. However, the game should remain "dungeons and dragons," and not turn into "bakers and blacksmiths." Ideally, these would be a separate "power pool" from combat capabilities, so you would not have to choose between being effective in combat, or out of it.

I want all classes to be relatively viable. The power disparity worked in 1e for reasons that are no longer typically viable - so, let's move away from it and stop pretending that wizards being weak at low levels actually is a balance point - the DM isn't going to kill the precious snowflakes anyway. Classes should all be effectively the same JaronK Tier. I'd prefer something around Tier 3, but I don't really care so long as everyone's roughly within the same Tier. This doesn't mean fetishistic balance, as the Tiers aren't about power, really, but flexibility - there can still be significant power differentials within a single JaronK Tier.

I'd like a focus on some of the "feel" of 1e adventures - you're going into a dungeon or whatever with a mission. You've got limited resources. Running out of resources before accomplishing your goal is a very real possibility.

I'd like a system that encourages encounters to be more diverse and have "failure" conditions outside of TPK (or capture, TPK's cousin) - the bad guy gets away with the treasure, or manages to invade the city forcing the characters to flee, or whatever. Similarly, this goes with the "goal-based" rewards as in the first point. Combat should be a means to an end, *not* an end itself. Fleeing should be a viable option (for both sides), and the rules should, generally, support this.

Overall, I'd like the game to be more goal-based, and less activity-based. A lot of this is DM factor, of course, but it'd be nice to see more support in the rules and 'how to run games' for this, at least.

Darklord Xavez
2011-02-01, 06:11 PM
No. My hopes for 5th edition is that there isn't one. There you go.
-X

dsmiles
2011-02-01, 06:11 PM
Stuff.
Is there a "Like" button on here, for this? :smallsmile:

Belobog
2011-02-01, 06:13 PM
Let's see...

- Removal of Dailies
- Every power that requires a hit has a "Miss: Effect" line
- Death to Ability Scores

Is that everything? I think that's everything.

Psyren
2011-02-01, 06:15 PM
No. My hopes for 5th edition is that there isn't one. There you go.
-X

If there IS a 5e, they probably won't call it that.

true_shinken
2011-02-01, 06:18 PM
Is there a "Like" button on here, for this? :smallsmile:

+1 to this. I say WotC makes kyoryu the chief editor for 5e!

LansXero
2011-02-01, 06:18 PM
I want a game that rewards goal completion more than process. The rewards should come from "rescue the princess," not "kill the guards." This opens up ways of accomplishing the goal without penalizing characters for seeking non-combat solutions. "XP for gold" wasn't a great rule in 1e, but it at least approached this.

I want a game that gives all classes choices and options. No 1e "I hit the orc" fighters, please.

I'd like a focus on some of the "feel" of 1e adventures - you're going into a dungeon or whatever with a mission. You've got limited resources. Running out of resources before accomplishing your goal is a very real possibility.

I'd like a system that encourages encounters to be more diverse and have "failure" conditions outside of TPK (or capture, TPK's cousin) - the bad guy gets away with the treasure, or manages to invade the city forcing the characters to flee, or whatever. Similarly, this goes with the "goal-based" rewards as in the first point. Combat should be a means to an end, *not* an end itself. Fleeing should be a viable option (for both sides), and the rules should, generally, support this.

Overall, I'd like the game to be more goal-based, and less activity-based. A lot of this is DM factor, of course, but it'd be nice to see more support in the rules and 'how to run games' for this, at least.

Isnt all that valid for 3.5? :S

dsmiles
2011-02-01, 06:19 PM
Let's see...

- Removal of Dailies
- Every power that requires a hit has a "Miss: Effect" line
- Death to Ability Scores

Is that everything? I think that's everything.I'm sorry, I can't agree here. Sometimes, if you miss, you just miss.

Psyren
2011-02-01, 06:19 PM
Isnt all that valid for Pathfinder? :S

Fixed that for you; especially the "class choices and options" and "more at-wills" bits.

jseah
2011-02-01, 06:21 PM
I think you underestimate the depth of nerdiness surrounding the RPG hobby.
Not if it has hundreds of variables, most of which are environmental and not technically under the control of the player. Eg. number of X spell previously cast in the last 20 seconds in this map could change how fire mana flows across the landscape and make fire spells more/less effective at certain points or even change how they work.

If magic ran a bit more like weather, like having a prevailing weather for mana streams or something in each map, but also affected by the spells people cast, then it gets all manners of complex.

At the same time, if you add in spells that have one or more player set variables that have various tradeoffs against each other, like mp cost vs casting time vs damage per shot vs shots total vs shots per second, all of which affect both what they cost the player directly and how they change the magical environment. Add difficult to measure and nigh impossible to predict chaotic environmental effects, you have the makings of a mathematically irreducible system.

...

Now I want to play that game. Magic weather and PC spells that affect it in an MMO... Would be a pretty awesome gimmick to muck around with.

Feedback effects in a magic system. Let's see you predict THAT!

Reverent-One
2011-02-01, 06:22 PM
Isnt all that valid for 3.5? :S

I was thinking the much same thing, only for 4e.

LansXero
2011-02-01, 06:25 PM
I was thinking the much same thing, only for 4e.

I thought the essentials fighter was going back to 'I hit the Orc' but yeah, goal-focus seems more of a DM thing than a system thing.

Fox Box Socks
2011-02-01, 06:29 PM
Isnt all that valid for 3.5? :S
Honestly, for me? No.

3rd Edition felt too cluttered and unfocused for me, like it was trying too hard to be a GURPS clone than it was trying to be D&D (seriously, why do I need rules for farming, DMG? It's not a game about people who farm). Also, there was the whole "Point Buying your stats is a horrible idea because it blatantly encourages minmaxing, but Point Buying your class levels doesn't somehow because I say so" thing was an enormous turnoff, as it directly lead to the game becoming less "I can't wait until I slay that dragon and save the kingdom" and more "I can't wait until my build kicks in". And Pathfinder is no better; Paizo had me right until the part where I was told they needed to stop printing the core rulebook because there weren't rules for stairs (are you kidding me? Stairs? I know how stairs work, Paizo).

Ditto to everything kyoryo said. I really like the power progression, but I want more non-combat utility powers.

DeltaEmil
2011-02-01, 06:33 PM
Yo guys, for all that it's worth, let's all not turn this into a baddly dubbed "my edition is better than your edition" internet-fu b-movie (or even f-movie for fail)... with lame edition war instead of kick-ass fighting.

Belobog
2011-02-01, 06:37 PM
I'm sorry, I can't agree here. Sometimes, if you miss, you just miss.

I'm of the opinion that no action should be completely invalidated due to random chance. Every action should have an effect, even when you fail. Everyone has a story where either they, or someone they were playing with, could not contribute because they could not roll more than a 3 the entire session, and they might as well not have come at all. Stories like this are not good things. I don't think making sure you always do some damage or you still get to apply a nasty effect on a miss is out of the question, though choosing one and having the choice's effects reduced are obvious concessions.

true_shinken
2011-02-01, 06:43 PM
I'm of the opinion that no action should be completely invalidated due to random chance. Every action should have an effect, even when you fail. Everyone has a story where either they, or someone they were playing with, could not contribute because they could not roll more than a 3 the entire session, and they might as well not have come at all. Stories like this are not good things. I don't think making sure you always do some damage or you still get to apply a nasty effect on a miss is out of the question, though choosing one and having the choice's effects reduced are obvious concessions.

That's where game vs simulation becomes problematic. It's nice to have such things in a game, sure. In a simulation, it becomes... weird. You just created a world were people can't dodge.

LikeAD6
2011-02-01, 06:47 PM
I want a Dragonlance update for 5e. Heck, I still want one for 4e.

kyoryu
2011-02-01, 06:49 PM
Isnt all that valid for 3.5? :S

Not in my opinion. Some of it is. Some of it is true for 4th. Some of it is true for 1st.

I deliberately avoided even saying "3." simply to avoid the edition wars. Let's keep it that way, if we can.

This is about what we want in 5th ed. Not about flaming other editions.


I'm of the opinion that no action should be completely invalidated due to random chance. Every action should have an effect, even when you fail. Everyone has a story where either they, or someone they were playing with, could not contribute because they could not roll more than a 3 the entire session, and they might as well not have come at all. Stories like this are not good things. I don't think making sure you always do some damage or you still get to apply a nasty effect on a miss is out of the question, though choosing one and having the choice's effects reduced are obvious concessions.

I can't agree with this - because the assumption would be the same would be true for enemies.

Variability in results is good. Sequential, perfect knowledge games are solvable.


+1 to this. I say WotC makes kyoryu the chief editor for 5e!

I do live in Redmond... and have game industry (computer) experience. You could start a write-in campaign. :smallbiggrin:

Belobog
2011-02-01, 06:52 PM
That's where game vs simulation becomes problematic. It's nice to have such things in a game, sure. In a simulation, it becomes... weird. You just created a world were people can't dodge.

I also believe HP damage does not have to be body damage. A rogue with a 1d4 knife stabbing a guy thirteen times before he falls down is ridiculous. Said knife fight could a series of dodges, feints, and parries between two opponents, each wearing the other out until one makes a fatal mistake and finds a knife in his liver. They could be taking HP damage that entire time.

Knaight
2011-02-01, 06:55 PM
I'm of the opinion that no action should be completely invalidated due to random chance. Every action should have an effect, even when you fail. Everyone has a story where either they, or someone they were playing with, could not contribute because they could not roll more than a 3 the entire session, and they might as well not have come at all.

That's an indication that way too much time is being spent on combat, nothing more. That said, I agree that there should be some effect from a miss. At the very least, having another person waving a sword at you is going to limit your options, even if you can dodge and block everything they try.

kyoryu
2011-02-01, 06:56 PM
I also believe HP damage does not have to be body damage. A rogue with a 1d4 knife stabbing a guy thirteen times before he falls down is ridiculous. Said knife fight could a series of dodges, feints, and parries between two opponents, each wearing the other out until one makes a fatal mistake and finds a knife in his liver. They could be taking HP damage that entire time.

HP damage has pretty much never been straight blows. Every version from AD&D 1e (maybe earlier, don't have those books) has said so, explicitly.

Heck, in 1e, combat rounds were *one minute*. Clearly, the game was not trying to suggest that in combat one fighter swings a sword, the other just sees if he's good enough to actually hit him, then the other does the same thing - and then they wait for 58 seconds or so.

Besides, typically good fighters *don't* take those solid blows, as they defend themselves well enough that most of the hits they take will be nicks or small cuts. It's only the novices that walk straight into attacks.

true_shinken
2011-02-01, 06:58 PM
I also believe HP damage does not have to be body damage. A rogue with a 1d4 knife stabbing a guy thirteen times before he falls down is ridiculous. Said knife fight could a series of dodges, feints, and parries between two opponents, each wearing the other out until one makes a fatal mistake and finds a knife in his liver. They could be taking HP damage that entire time.
Yeah, that makes sense. My whole proposition made little sense anyway. Hit points were exactly like you mentioned in every edition of D&D, I believe.

Chuckthedwarf
2011-02-01, 07:04 PM
It's gonna be in 3D! 3D!!!

You'd have holographic boards and everything.

On topic, I greatly dislike the direction it took with 4.0. So, please no more of that. Pathfinder and 3.5 suits me just fine, with balance being roughly where it is. I certainly think that in some situation classes should be somewhat more balanced mechanically and that pretty much every class should have access to some kind of a cool trick, but Wizard by no means should ever be a fighter's equal. When spells are as powerful as swords, what's the point in distinction?

For sure, non-magical classes need some help, similar to what ToB has done. And they certainly need non-combat or otherwise utility abilities, preferably as unique and useful for some situations as they can get. The "Dumb Wall of Bricks" with 2 - int Skill Points per level who can only swing a sword at things should probably go... And be replaced with a "Less Dumb Wall of Bricks" with 3-4+ skill points in a greater skill list, with flavourful class abilities of some kind and perhaps even a unique mechanic for something.

And, yeah, some of the higher level spells could probably get neutered a little bit. And Epic progression for non-casters should be more supernatural, no more Epic Spells feat vs +2 to attribute sort of thing.

Sine
2011-02-01, 07:13 PM
Yeah, I don't feel the need to have every single roll effect something, but if that's how 5e were designed it wouldn't be any sillier/vaguer than any other edition.


Talk about over reacting. We actually had a 'I have nothing against 4e, but WotC is showing how money grabby it can be through it'.
Overreacting? You must have me confused with someone else (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lASM_n2R_TY). I just call 'em as I see 'em.

Belobog
2011-02-01, 07:17 PM
I can't agree with this - because the assumption would be the same would be true for enemies.

Variability in results is good. Sequential, perfect knowledge games are solvable.

The assumption would include enemies. It means that every enemy is a threat, and you have to make tactical decisions based on that. Misses giving effects still allows results to be variable, even if you lose results like 'do not contribute'.

On HP and damage, could you provide some page numbers? I have some friends I'm trying to convince, and a paragraph or so would really help.


That's an indication that way too much time is being spent on combat, nothing more. That said, I agree that there should be some effect from a miss. At the very least, having another person waving a sword at you is going to limit your options, even if you can dodge and block everything they try.

DnD devotes the lion's share of rules to combat, so combat is gonna be what I concern myself with. Though, changing skill results from 'pass/fail' to 'success/success with complication' is probably a good idea, a la Mouseguard.

molten_dragon
2011-02-01, 07:25 PM
Ideally it would marry the flavor and number of options available in 3.5 with the balance of 4th. 4th did a pretty good job of balancing things, but at the cost of making all the classes feel the same.

avr
2011-02-01, 07:41 PM
This has probably already been said, but - I'd like your character to be playable without having to plan what abilities you will be taking far in advance (or worse: defined from level 1).

Ozreth
2011-02-01, 07:51 PM
I think peoples definitions "of playable" have gotten way out of hand in the past 10 years.

You have to choose everything in advance to be playable? When you get the chance just pick a new spell and feat that sounds really fun to use and suitable to your character and you are set, and you can play! And the DM caters to how your character grows. It's that simple really.

dsmiles
2011-02-01, 07:56 PM
I think peoples definitions "of playable" have gotten way out of hand in the past 10 years.

You have to choose everything in advance to be playable? When you get the chance just pick a new spell and feat that sounds really fun to use and suitable to your character and you are set, and you can play! And the DM caters to how your character grows. It's that simple really.Unfortunately, not everyone develops their character this way. :smallfrown:

true_shinken
2011-02-01, 07:57 PM
This has probably already been said, but - I'd like your character to be playable without having to plan what abilities you will be taking far in advance (or worse: defined from level 1).

Then you're in luck. This is true for every edition of D&D ever. :smallamused:

kyoryu
2011-02-01, 08:04 PM
On HP and damage, could you provide some page numbers? I have some friends I'm trying to convince, and a paragraph or so would really help.


Well, I don't have my DMG here, so I'll edit this with the page later, but here's the quote from 1e DMG:


It is quite unreasonable to assume that as a character gains levels of ability in his or her class that a corresponding gain in actual ability to sustain physical damage takes place. It is preposterous to state such as assumption, for if we are to assume that a man is killed by a sword thrust which does 4 hit points of damage, we must similarly assume that a hero could, on the average, withstand five such thrusts before being slain! Why then the increase in hit points? Because these reflect both the actual physical ability of the character to withstand damage - as indicated by constitution bonuses - and a commensurate increase in such areas as skill in combat and similar life-or-death situations, the "sixth sense" which warns the individual of some otherwise unforeseen events, sheer luck, and the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine protection. Therefore, constitution affects both actual ability to withstand physical punishment hit points (physique) and the immeasurable areas which involve the sixth sense and luck (fitness)

(snip paragraph on Rasputin)

Consider a character who is a 10th level fighter with an 18 constitution. This character would have an average of 5 1/2 hit points per die, plus a constitution bonus of 4 hit points per level, or 95 hit points! Each hit scored upon the character does only a small amount of actual physical harm - the sword thrust that would have run a 1st level fighter through the heart merely grazes the character due to the fighter's exceptional skill, luck, and sixth sense ability which caused movement to avoid the attack at just the right moment.



DnD devotes the lion's share of rules to combat, so combat is gonna be what I concern myself with. Though, changing skill results from 'pass/fail' to 'success/success with complication' is probably a good idea, a la Mouseguard.

I agree - and that's generally what good DMs do, anyway. I like the fact that Mouseguard reifies it.


Ideally it would marry the flavor and number of options available in 3.5 with the balance of 4th. 4th did a pretty good job of balancing things, but at the cost of making all the classes feel the same.

Please, let's avoid the edition wars. "All 4e classes feel the same" is a class edition wars statement - I don't know any 4e players that agree. It is not an objective statement of fact in any way. Let's not shut down the thread, k?


I certainly think that in some situation classes should be somewhat more balanced mechanically and that pretty much every class should have access to some kind of a cool trick, but Wizard by no means should ever be a fighter's equal. When spells are as powerful as swords, what's the point in distinction?

So that everyone can have fun? The wizard power curve made *sense* in 1e, where characters actually died (and so the low survivability of a wizard was actually a detriment), and the assumption was that most players would have multiple characters. It worked then because even if you were the dumb rogue one game, you might get the wizard the next - and getting a wizard to the point where they were powerful *was* an achievement, as it didn't happen frequently.

That's not true in modern games. So, the classes should be balanced in regards to modern RPG reality - which is that most campaigns tell a long story, most players will play a single character, and PC death is generally rare.

While playing a fighter might make sense in a 1e game, why would anyone want to do so in a more modern game?


I think peoples definitions "of playable" have gotten way out of hand in the past 10 years.

You have to choose everything in advance to be playable? When you get the chance just pick a new spell and feat that sounds really fun to use and suitable to your character and you are set, and you can play! And the DM caters to how your character grows. It's that simple really.

It's one of the effects of more build-centric games. Certain powerful combinations require that level of planning, or you can't get them.

I don't like that level of optimization. Let the character grow organically, and enjoy the process.

erikun
2011-02-01, 08:04 PM
Ability scores similar to AD&D, where they are difficult to increase and don't generally lead to bloat. I especially like that moderate magical equipment provide a moderately good ability score and excellent magical equipment provides an excellent ability score, rather than having them all just add to the character's existing score - the latter encourages everyone to get 18s in their scores, hoping to boost them with equipment, while the former makes it okay to have even a fighter with a strength of 8. I didn't much care for the complex tables, though.

Races similar to 4e, preferably without ability score modifications. An interesting race should provide interesting racial benefits, not a preferred bonus to your class's primary ability scores.

Base classes with a good handful of abilities and numerous optional alternate class features, somewhat like 3e. Multiclassing that actually works, somewhat like d20 Modern - where a 15th level character with a few wizard levels can cast fireballs appropriate for a 15th level character, but doesn't necessarily have access to chain lightning.

"Orders", "titles", or some other similar mechanism that allows a character to take an oath (like a paladin) for some benefit (as a paladin), which is lost if the character breaks that oath. This would be independant from classes.

HP down to make fighting easier, AC up to make armor meaningful. Being knocked out not automatically equating death, and allowing characters to easily recover HP naturally (effectively allowing multiple encounters as 4e, without the healing surges). Ability damage far more common, and working as a deterrant from fighting all day.

Class balance, in the sense that all classes can contribute to their roles against a similar level obstacle. That is, a 5th level fighter has about the same chance of defeating a "CR 5" combat-oriented, perception-active opponent as a 5th level rogue has to sneak by them unnoticed.

Monsters, or at least monster generation rules, as good as 4e. Traps and other obstacles listed with a challange level as well, allowing them to be incorporated against characters using the same rules as combat.

Some catch-all category of "boons" or such, for interesting gifts (or curses) that the character gains through role-play experience, rather than class levels. I also liked the idea of rituals, although not for every effect that 4e uses them for.


Please pardon my excessive use of sentence fragments.

kyoryu
2011-02-01, 08:07 PM
"Orders", "titles", or some other similar mechanism that allows a character to take an oath (like a paladin) for some benefit (as a paladin), which is lost if the character breaks that oath. This would be independant from classes.


I completely agree with this. I think Prestige Classes (3.x) and Paragon Paths (4e) were supposed to accomplish this, but they never really seemed to work out "as intended."

Knaight
2011-02-01, 08:08 PM
DnD devotes the lion's share of rules to combat, so combat is gonna be what I concern myself with. Though, changing skill results from 'pass/fail' to 'success/success with complication' is probably a good idea, a la Mouseguard.

Pass/Fail is fine, but unless there are actual consequences for failure there isn't much point. Pass/(Fail, take trivial amount of damage, try again) is indicative that someone screwed up somewhere. There is a philosophy behind parts of the independent gaming market, that every roll should be massive, with huge effects on the story from then out. Its an extreme view, but D&D can certainly afford to move much closer to it.

Thurbane
2011-02-01, 08:09 PM
My personal hopes for D&D 5.0?

Basically, the chassis would be 3.5, with some of the clunkier bits streamlined or removed, with some cherry picked highlights from 4E.

Also, a system that has no reliance on web-only content or internet connections, and no subsciption fees. I want a system that can be played with BOOKS ONLY.

Oh, and bring back Greyhawk as a campaign setting. :smallbiggrin:

Knaight
2011-02-01, 08:17 PM
Also, a system that has no reliance on web-only content or internet connections, and no subsciption fees. I want a system that can be played with BOOKS ONLY.

I'd go one further. I want a system that uses books only during character creation, and ideally not even then. In play, one should never have to reference a book. Furthermore, the character sheet needs to be 1 side of 1 page, and the only reference needed to play the character from memory.

Ozreth
2011-02-01, 08:24 PM
My personal hopes for D&D 5.0?

Basically, the chassis would be 3.5, with some of the clunkier bits streamlined or removed, with some cherry picked highlights from 4E.

Also, a system that has no reliance on web-only content or internet connections, and no subsciption fees. I want a system that can be played with BOOKS ONLY.

Oh, and bring back Greyhawk as a campaign setting. :smallbiggrin:

I dig it. As convenient as web and electronic stuff may be, it is slowly killing the spirit of pencil and paper games. I mean that's the point of the game right, to be played with pencils and paper?

AtlanteanTroll
2011-02-01, 08:31 PM
I dig it. As convenient as web and electronic stuff may be, it is slowly killing the spirit of pencil and paper games. I mean that's the point of the game right, to be played with pencils and paper?

*shrugs* Debatably. While I was DMing today, I just used my laptop. No books, no pencils, no nothing. (Players did though.)

Thurbane
2011-02-01, 08:36 PM
I dig it. As convenient as web and electronic stuff may be, it is slowly killing the spirit of pencil and paper games. I mean that's the point of the game right, to be played with pencils and paper?
Yeah, pretty much. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but that's how I like to play my games. Now don't get me wrong, I love having books and such in electronic format, for easy reference, but making it a requirement of playing the game just isn't for me. Theoretically, I want to be able to play D&D in a remote cabin with no web connection, or electricity for that matter. :smalltongue:

dsmiles
2011-02-01, 08:36 PM
*shrugs* Debatably. While I was DMing today, I just used my laptop. No books, no pencils, no nothing. (Players did though.)However, not everyone enjoys having face-hiding laptops at the gaming table. I know I don't, I find them distracting.

The_Jackal
2011-02-01, 08:41 PM
Just for fun, as the edition wars rage between 3.5/PF/4e;

What do you hope/dream/want/wish for/miracle for/w.e. for the future? How could WOTC make something we wouldn't want to disintegrate them for ? ;)

Discard the cumbersome class system and build an a-la carte system that lets people buy the abilities they want within a common framework. That will get rid of the ridiculous prestige-class salad that 3.5/PF became, and offer the customization that 4E desperately needs.

AtomicKitKat
2011-02-01, 08:41 PM
Succubi back in the Abyss. Asmodeus a shell.

Dust
2011-02-01, 08:47 PM
Neverwinter Nights 5e.

true_shinken
2011-02-01, 08:50 PM
I'd go one further. I want a system that uses books only during character creation, and ideally not even then. In play, one should never have to reference a book. Furthermore, the character sheet needs to be 1 side of 1 page, and the only reference needed to play the character from memory.
You can't expect this of D&D. Period.

Thurbane
2011-02-01, 08:51 PM
Discard the cumbersome class system and build an a-la carte system that lets people buy the abilities they want within a common framework. That will get rid of the ridiculous prestige-class salad that 3.5/PF became, and offer the customization that 4E desperately needs.
2E had an option similar to this, in the DMG. You could "buy" class abilities, then total them up to determine how many XP you needed to level up at each leavel (1E and 2E used different XP progression for different classes).

true_shinken
2011-02-01, 08:58 PM
2E had an option similar to this, in the DMG. You could "buy" class abilities, then total them up to determine how many XP you needed to level up at each leavel (1E and 2E used different XP progression for different classes).
But this 'custom classes' all had a level cap, IIRC.

Knaight
2011-02-01, 09:10 PM
You can't expect this of D&D. Period.

I can desire it from D&D, which is what this thread is about.

erikun
2011-02-01, 09:11 PM
I always forget a few things in these conversations, so let's see if I can get all the remaining points this time.

Remove the +X from weapons and equipment. A 20th level fighter with an iron sword should be just as compotent as one with a flaming vorpal sword; it's just that one has more flashier magical tricks. Neither one would be advantaged against a Balor, as you'd need Cold Iron to get past its defenses.

While we're on that subject, let's allow spellcasters holding Cold Iron to get past the Balor's defenses as well. It's a rather classic fantasy trope.

Monsters should have "levels", both so they are playable as PCs (if desired) and so that the DM may choose an appropriately-powerful opponent for the group. A 1st level medusa may just have a strange appearance and a poisonous bite; a 8th level medusa her petrifying gaze. A 15th level medusa should be a formidable combatant, along with her powers.

"Racial base classes" following a similar logic for the 'player' races. A dwarven paragon (to use the 3e/4e term) would be strong, resilient, and efficient in heavy armor. An elven paragon would be a fast, magical, and good at forest movement.

Skills similar to 4e, although with a bit more expansion for "roleplaying" skills. I'm not talking about Craft (Bowyer & Fletcher), although a Woodcrafter skill would not only include making arrows but also forestry and appraising the quality of bows.

Alignment needs to be revised. I'm thinking something similar to World of Darkness: the character gets "Action Points" whenever they do something fitting for their alignment that puts the character at an otherwise disadvantage. A good-aligned character giving away significant treasure or a magical item to a charity or a good cause would get an AP; giving 1g to a passing beggar would not. A lawful-aligned character who agrees to meet an opponent on an open battlefield would get an AP; one who organizes their backpack every night would not. An evil-aligned character would get AP for slaughtering innocents. AP can be spent in typical fashion (extra actons, bonuses to rolls, etc) but no class abilities would explicitly use AP. It both redefines alignment into something that makes sense in the game world (do this, get X bonus) while allowing the DM to completely remove either alignment or just AP without gimping certain class choices.

Remove "epic" levels from the 3e mindset. If you want truely epic abilities, become a deity or something similar. There is no reason why a character can suddenly cut through mountains or slaughter planets with one spell just because they're 21st level rather than 20th.

Published adventures should take a big lesson from... well, just about any other system. Including older AD&D adventures. The current editions of D&D have forgotten more and more the adventure and setting, and focused more on building combat or trap encounters.

Use ranges (5', 100', etc) but not specifically the square grid. There should be rules for using square grid, for difficult problems such as spheres (and rules for a hex grid, for square buildings) but not require either. Some people like squares, some like hexes, and some like just doodling on a paper or describing things without visual aids, and shouldn't be penalized in doing so.

AtlanteanTroll
2011-02-01, 09:12 PM
However, not everyone enjoys having face-hiding laptops at the gaming table. I know I don't, I find them distracting.

Face-hiding? I glanced at the screen a bit, sure, but I was watching my players more then the comp.

Ozreth
2011-02-01, 09:24 PM
*shrugs* Debatably. While I was DMing today, I just used my laptop. No books, no pencils, no nothing. (Players did though.)

And I'm all for that. I like seeing the different styles of play from player to player, but I like that (until recently) it was all original and unique to the individual person. DIY if you will.

I think it is cool to use your laptop to download third party programs used to generate dungeons.

I like people building and using their own terrain in games.

I like people making notecards for their spells etc.

But I liked these things because they weren't the norm. They were creative, community building ideas and innovations that add to the beauty of a game as simple and flexible as dungeons and dragons.

When Wizards starts hand feeding us all of this stuff, or even making it mandatory it becomes mundane and uninspired.

kyoryu
2011-02-01, 09:28 PM
Discard the cumbersome class system and build an a-la carte system that lets people buy the abilities they want within a common framework. That will get rid of the ridiculous prestige-class salad that 3.5/PF became, and offer the customization that 4E desperately needs.

Couldn't disagree more. D&D is a class-and-level system, always has been. If you go away from that, it ain't D&D any more.


However, not everyone enjoys having face-hiding laptops at the gaming table. I know I don't, I find them distracting.

As opposed to, say, a DM screen? :D



Remove the +X from weapons and equipment. A 20th level fighter with an iron sword should be just as compotent as one with a flaming vorpal sword; it's just that one has more flashier magical tricks. Neither one would be advantaged against a Balor, as you'd need Cold Iron to get past its defenses.

I really, really like this. It makes magic interesting, and I've never liked the idea of "outgrowing" magic items. I generally try to aim for this in my games.



"Racial base classes" following a similar logic for the 'player' races. A dwarven paragon (to use the 3e/4e term) would be strong, resilient, and efficient in heavy armor. An elven paragon would be a fast, magical, and good at forest movement.

You get close to race/class restrictions, which are pretty universally despised.



Alignment needs to be revised. I'm thinking something similar to World of Darkness: the character gets "Action Points" whenever they do something fitting for their alignment that puts the character at an otherwise disadvantage.

Agreed. And go back to the two-axis system, with better descriptions so that people do not assume that alignments mean diagnosable mental conditions. No, your Chaotic Evil character does not feel compelled to kill everyone he meets.



Remove "epic" levels from the 3e mindset. If you want truely epic abilities, become a deity or something similar. There is no reason why a character can suddenly cut through mountains or slaughter planets with one spell just because they're 21st level rather than 20th.

Agreed. I don't like epic levels in any edition.



Use ranges (5', 100', etc) but not specifically the square grid. There should be rules for using square grid, for difficult problems such as spheres (and rules for a hex grid, for square buildings) but not require either. Some people like squares, some like hexes, and some like just doodling on a paper or describing things without visual aids, and shouldn't be penalized in doing so.

Meh, I'm okay with squares. They're not perfect, but they're universal, accessible, and can allow for less arguing than arbitrary geometry.

AtlanteanTroll
2011-02-01, 09:31 PM
And I'm all for that. I like seeing the different styles of play from player to player, but I like that (until recently) it was all original and unique to the individual person. DIY if you will.

I think it is cool to use your laptop to download third party programs used to generate dungeons.

I like people building and using their own terrain in games.

I like people making notecards for their spells etc.

But I liked these things because they weren't the norm. They were creative, community building ideas and innovations that add to the beauty of a game as simple and flexible as dungeons and dragons.

When Wizards starts hand feeding us all of this stuff, or even making it mandatory it becomes mundane and uninspired.

Yeah. I get what your saying.

Czin
2011-02-01, 09:31 PM
Oh and one more wish, please, stop overusing the Forgotten Realms setting, it's bad enough that it hogs nearly every single D&D video game (There was one, exactly, one D&D game for Greyhawk, there are eleventy bazillion CRPGs for Faerun.) There were over a dozen "X of Faerun" books and maybe half that many Eberron books, but did Greyhawk, Planescape, or Ravenloft get any of that love? No...No they didn't. So I'd like to see what is essentially in my eyes a cheerier version of Greyhawk with a slightly altered pantheon and cosmology with a different planet as it's focus taken down a peg or two.

erikun
2011-02-01, 09:46 PM
You get close to race/class restrictions, which are pretty universally despised.
I'm not sure I follow the connection. It would be like allowing the fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue, and "dwarf paragon" classes to a dwarf character, while the fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue, and "elf paragon" classes to an elf character. That's not really any different from racial paragon classes in 3e or racial paragon paths in 4e, and the biggest complain I've heard from them is that they almost universally suck.


Meh, I'm okay with squares. They're not perfect, but they're universal, accessible, and can allow for less arguing than arbitrary geometry.
I'm okay with squares myself, but I'd like to have the option (and support) of hexes if desired. Or the option of describing the ancient ogre hall as two hundred feet by two thousand, with a great oak table running the length of the hall... without having to break out graph paper to simulate a fight between four party members and two orcs.

3.5e did a pretty good job of this, it just forced the grid in situations such as attacks of opportunity or facing/reach, which felt unnecessary to me.

kyoryu
2011-02-01, 10:27 PM
I'm okay with squares myself, but I'd like to have the option (and support) of hexes if desired. Or the option of describing the ancient ogre hall as two hundred feet by two thousand, with a great oak table running the length of the hall... without having to break out graph paper to simulate a fight between four party members and two orcs.


Unfortunately, it's really hard to support grids and hexes. For one thing, the number of adjacent enemies is different, which has a bunch of balance implications.

Sine
2011-02-01, 10:49 PM
Unfortunately, it's really hard to support grids and hexes. For one thing, the number of adjacent enemies is different, which has a bunch of balance implications.
I haven't found that to be true, as a hex DM. So long as an area of effect has roughly the same number of squares/hexes within it, you're not likely to catch more or fewer foes within it. Unless there's a massive difference in area, range is usually the more important factor balance-wise.

The only thing I've had to change as a hex-user is flanking; instead of having to be exactly opposite your ally, you only have to be two hex sides away [120 degrees] from your ally. Personally, I think being able to flank with a third ally makes much more sense anyway, so life is good. :smallcool:

dsmiles
2011-02-02, 05:47 AM
As opposed to, say, a DM screen? :DI actually keep my DM screen, dice, and notes on a side table. The only thing in front of me is the dry-erase board that I draw the battlemaps on. :smallwink:

Eldan
2011-02-02, 06:36 AM
Customizable characters, while still having recognizable archetypes. I don't know why, but I just can't build good characters with pure point buy but no guideline.

I also want books back that are 80% fluff. And well-written fluff please.

Also, if I can be dreaming: I want them to hire Tony Di'Terlizzi to exclusively do all the art. He's only gotten better since his Planescape days.

Psyren
2011-02-02, 06:52 AM
I dig it. As convenient as web and electronic stuff may be, it is slowly killing the spirit of pencil and paper games. I mean that's the point of the game right, to be played with pencils and paper?

*Steps off Ozreth's lawn*
:smallwink:

I'm all for the game being playable without technology, but ignoring it entirely when there is so much that could benefit all four sides (designers, retailers, DMs and players) feels like wasted potential to me.

Eldariel
2011-02-02, 07:55 AM
I'd love for them to take the best bits of AD&D (distinct but semi-balanced system, variety of classes with warriors being hardiest, rogues hitting hardest and casters having esoteric abilities), 3e (free multiclassing [adjusted], huge skill selection, ToB, unified monster & class progressions), 4e (condensed skills, adjusted feats) and slam it together,

Shyftir
2011-02-02, 07:56 AM
Concept:
I want a game with balance, customize-ability and fairly simple rules. Take the best aspects of 3.5 (customizable, and um, customizable did I mention it was customizable?) and 4.0 (balance and simplicity) and add a new dash of in game creativity.

D&D needs the ability to do interesting things, not because your character sheet says so but because your character tries to do it. Making a called shot shouldn't be a feat it should be an idea.

That's what I want.

Details:
It needs classes and levels, otherwise it just ain't D&D.
Multi-classing is desired as a real option.
Simple skill system.
Focus on combat for crunch, let non-combat be about fluff and creativity.

Quirinus_Obsidian
2011-02-02, 09:05 AM
My only wish: Please make 5.x less dependant on magic.

I've never played 4.x before, so I can't say anything about it. I will pretend that it does not exist :smallamused:

I would like to see less of a dependence on magic and more focus on physical combat; and by extension, ranged combat.

3.x is too magic dependent. I mean; the complete Wizard and Sorcerer spell lists are completely INSANE. "You need a magic item for (x), and another magic item for (x)". "A wizard needs to do (x) while the druid does (z)". Total BS. Spells like "Gate" and "Wish", "Reality Revision" and epic spells should never have existed. Worded and cast properly, they are automatic "win" buttons. That is not fun. At all. "Oh I'm gonna cast 'Win Button #5' and completely invalidate everyone's characters and the DM's plans". To Hades with that. Give me a greatsword and some heavy armor any day.

Also, shapeshifting (a'la Druid or Polymorph spells) should be abolished.

Corronchilejano
2011-02-02, 09:09 AM
The whole reason D&D is special is because of:

a. Classes.
b. Magic.

Strip these from the game and it's no longer D&D.

Frozen_Feet
2011-02-02, 09:52 AM
My wishes:


Make non-magical classes completely independent of magical items. Remove any and all connection between money and experience points.
Reduce prices all across the board to reasonable numbers; make money actually count as frellin physical items.
Craft a reasonable non-adventurer centric economical basis for the rules.
Redo non-combat skills and spells and powers so that non-magical equipment matters.
Create equally sophisticated rules for both combat and non-combat situations, but make them less complex overall than 3rd edition combat. Take a step away from "there's a roll for everything".
Make roleplaying an integral part of the game again, so that the players are invested in it as more than just tactical simulation.
Either make 3d6 roll for stats mean something, or scrap it all together.


Reasonings: Especially in 3rd Ed, wealth, and the way it works, is effectively in-game representation of a meta-game pointbuy system used to make characters more effective. This... has several truly annoying in-game implications. If concepts like "Tippyverse" and "magic marts" say something to you, you know what I'm talking about.

In similar vein, in 3rd Ed, crafting is effectively a way to turn XP into gold. There are two things I find jarring in this. Firstly, who the hell is going to pay them, and secondly, with what? D&D invokes the idea that gold is effectively infinite resource, and more to the point, magical items and everyday economy work on drastically different scales. Even low-level adventurers completely blow the economy for ordinary people.

In my opinion, character power and wealth should be far more disconnected, with clearly diminishing returns if trying to use one to gain the other. Character wealth by itself definitely shouldn't be more powerful than entire classes.

Finally, as fun as I find tactical simulations, I dislike the path 4th Ed took and generally find modern D&D's "there's a roll for anything" distasteful. I want the system to take a step away from that and start rewarding players using their own wits and imagination, and giving incentive for creating drama or getting involved in setting-building instead of just hanging around in wait for the next combat encounter.

EDIT: Oh, forgot to elaborate about the 3d6 rolls. Well, here it is: there was a time when rolling for abilities was most of the character generation, and those scores remained somewhat meaningful throughout the character's career. These days, they're just a legacy. Heck, modern D&D doesn't even allow for the lower part of the spectrum to take effect, which is just stupid.

So, either the system should erase last remnants of the system (such as using 10s as "average" ability") and find a better benchmark with much more variation allowed in the negative direction, or they should bring back the 3 to 18 range and make it matter. Even for a hero, being bad at something can be an important part of character, and rules should allow that, dammit.

Sipex
2011-02-02, 09:56 AM
In addition I'd like minis to make a return but to be sold in theme packs so, as a DM, I can pick up the pack I know I need to meet my current requirements.

(ie: Goblin Tribe would be a nice theme pack. A box full of goblins, multiple of the same type.)

Psyren
2011-02-02, 10:02 AM
That is not fun. At all.

I have plenty of fun rewriting reality (or casting spells I haven't learned), thank you.

Also, it's Dungeons & Dragons, not Swords & Horses. There's plenty of great games focused on low-magic, but D&D isn't and shouldn't be one of them.

Corronchilejano
2011-02-02, 10:08 AM
In addition I'd like minis to make a return but to be sold in theme packs so, as a DM, I can pick up the pack I know I need to meet my current requirements.

(ie: Goblin Tribe would be a nice theme pack. A box full of goblins, multiple of the same type.)


This so much. I'd actually buy more minis (a lot more) if they weren't randomized. As it is right now, there's really no incentive to it.

Sine
2011-02-02, 10:15 AM
Also, if I can be dreaming: I want them to hire Tony Di'Terlizzi to exclusively do all the art. He's only gotten better since his Planescape days.
I'll second this. Tony's the best D&D has ever had, and the best any company can hope for. :smallsmile:

Eldan
2011-02-02, 10:20 AM
*Steps off Ozreth's lawn*
:smallwink:

I'm all for the game being playable without technology, but ignoring it entirely when there is so much that could benefit all four sides (designers, retailers, DMs and players) feels like wasted potential to me.

I like a clean table, with nothing on it save dice and character sheets. We used a laptop for a while (mainly for me to look up the adventure) and that just got in the way and distracted the players.
So, the rule was:
Everyone has one set of dice, onecharacter sheet of X pages, one pencil, one glass filled with drink of choice.
One player has a small booklet for notes and details about the adventure.
The DM has up to two books, a few sheets of notes, a pencil, a set of dice and perhaps a map.

Everything else goes under the table or elsewhere.

Psyren
2011-02-02, 10:27 AM
A laptop could potentially be distracting, but I saw a DM use his iPad to great effect. He rolled dice on it, had everyone's character sheets/power lists, kept the adventure in another window, had diagrams for prop placement that he could easily transfer over to the cloth mat grid in the center etc. This was for a 4e game of course, but could be even more useful in 3.5 where character sheets are more complicated.

Tablets and touchscreens are the future of tabletop; that video using Microsoft Surface to play D&D is proof of that. We don't need fancy 3D graphics, but having a computer calculate your move speed and encumbrance for you in real time, automatically determine if your flank is legal and which squares are affected by your area attacks would be solid gold.

Hell, I'd be happy with a program that just used static sprites or pictures to represent characters, as long as it modeled the grid and abilities faithfully.

Corronchilejano
2011-02-02, 10:29 AM
Hell, I'd be happy with a program that just used static sprites or pictures to represent characters, as long as it modeled the grid and abilities faithfully.

Maptool with macros.

Psyren
2011-02-02, 10:30 AM
Maptool with macros.

And here I thought it could only do the maps themselves.
*Goes off to tinker with it*

Fox Box Socks
2011-02-02, 10:35 AM
Also, it's Dungeons & Dragons, not Swords & Horses. There's plenty of great games focused on low-magic, but D&D isn't and shouldn't be one of them.
Agree'd. D&D is, ways, and probably should continue to be a game about adventuring heroes in a magical world. Everything else (an in-game economy that makes sense, sensible rules for non-magical item crafting, what have you) should come secondary, if they even come at all.

Eldan
2011-02-02, 10:50 AM
Ah.

Well, I should add that I don't use grids or battlemaps at all.

AtlanteanTroll
2011-02-02, 10:55 AM
I have plenty of fun rewriting reality (or casting spells I haven't learned), thank you.

Also, it's Dungeons & Dragons, not Swords & Horses. There's plenty of great games focused on low-magic, but D&D isn't and shouldn't be one of them.

Tell that to the players of E6. :smallamused:

bokodasu
2011-02-02, 11:00 AM
You know... I kind of would like 5e to be a card game. Yes, I did say I disliked them putting cards in D&D, but as an entirely separate edition, that could be pretty fun. Sell a basic "DM pack" with some monsters, NPCs, bonuses, treasure, etc. plus a rulebook. Sell a base pack for each class that has everything you need for that class - spells for wizards, maneuvers for fighters, equipment, whatever, and then booster packs that contain more stuff.

Note that these should NOT be random, generally (some random boosters for like treasure or something, ok, but the great majority should be more like splats with tear-out pages rather than a CCG), and you'd use them for both character creation (choose your powers) and play (spellcasting). It'd be going to complete modularity, but you wouldn't have to look things up across fifty different books all the time.

Of course, part of the reason I'd like this is that I already *have* D&D that I like, I don't need another ruleset for the same game.

Skeppio
2011-02-02, 11:01 AM
Lesse, things I want in a hypothetical 5th Ed:

-Fluff that actually means something.

-Fluff that doesn't contradict previous fluff. (Eg: 3rd Ed Metallic Dragons are virtuous and heroic, like their creator Bahamut. 4th Ed Metallic Dragons are suddenly amoral selfish jerks, for no reason. :smallfurious:)

-More Slaads and Inevitables. Slaads and Inevitables are cool. :smallcool:

-More templates for things that should be templates. (Eg: Dire Animal, Aasimar & Tiefling, almost every undead in existence, etc)

-Better Alignment rules, ones that weigh in intention as well as action. (3rd Ed's was bad. 4th Ed's was WORSE.)

-Spellcasting not automatically dominating melee. (Eg: A Fighter that can stand up to a high-level Wizard)

-Tanking mechanics that actually work. (Something like the Knight's challenge ability, but with more polish and tinkering)

-More LA-0 Races that are actually unique and interesting! (None of this Wood Elf, High Elf, Frost Elf, Moon Elf, Dishwasher Elf, Elfity Elf Elf, etc) Failing that, less crippling playable monster mechanics. (The 3rd Ed monster class system was beyond terrible. 4th Ed's system was kinda cool)

-More monsters that aren't pure evil or surly pricks or something. 3rd Ed was pretty bad with this. 4th Ed did appallingly bad with this.

-Continue the minis, but in theme packs, like 'Orcish Hordes' or 'Armies of Baator' or something, instead of the randomised miniature packs. (And a Gargantuan Green Dragon miniature, pretty please? :smalltongue:)
Abolish "Always Chaotic Evil", except maybe for creatures like Demons, who are literally made of evil (heck, a compelling story is all that separates even one of them from a Lawful Good tag). That whole idea has sparked more pointless arguments over morality than any one human could imagine. :smallannoyed:

-Everything to be playtested for broken-ness before release. EVERYTHING.

-PHB, MM1, DMG. That is EVERY book that should be necessary. (None of the "Oh, here's half your classes, the rest are in PHB2 and PHB3" crap that 4th Ed pulled.)

-Proofreading, proofreading, PROOFREADING!!! :smallfurious:

Yora
2011-02-02, 11:06 AM
Tell that to the players of E6. :smallamused:

E6 is a makeshift fix if for some reason you have to use D&D. Be it availability of books or that people don't want to go through the effort of learning an entirely new system.
It works reasonably well and I do like it a lot. But when you pick a system for such a type of game from any that are available, E6 is not a very optimal choice.

Frozen_Feet
2011-02-02, 11:08 AM
Oh yeah, about Alignment:

Take it back to being Law Vs. Chaos instead of Good Vs. Evil! And make those things mean something too, darn it.

Throughout its whole existence, there's been a gradual paradigm shift from Law & Chaos to Good & Evil, made most poignant and explicit in 4th Ed, where Law and Chaos aren't even meaningul parts of Alignment outside two special occasions.

While 4th Ed acknowledging this (in a way) and cleaning the mess up somewhat, I'd still like if the game took a turn into other direction and returned to more grey and alien version of Alignment.

Psyren
2011-02-02, 11:11 AM
-Everything to be playtested for broken-ness before release. EVERYTHING.

***

-Proofreading, proofreading, PROOFREADING!!! :smallfurious:

For these two to work, the community must be involved during testing. Blizzard and Paizo both learned this lesson; why hasn't WotC?

Reverent-One
2011-02-02, 11:30 AM
-PHB, MM1, DMG. That is EVERY book that should be necessary. (None of the "Oh, here's half your classes, the rest are in PHB2 and PHB3" crap that 4th Ed pulled.)


So every class that's ever going to made for the edition needs to be in the PHB? No adding new classes later allowed?

Frozen_Feet
2011-02-02, 11:39 AM
So every class that's ever going to made for the edition needs to be in the PHB? No adding new classes later allowed?

At least I would consider that a boon. ACFs, PrCs, extra spells and the like could easily be made into feats that could be taken at any point of a character's career.

EDIT: I'd even go so far and say that the scatter-brained and bloated class structure of 3rd Ed is direct result of the designers not taking the already-modular nature of the Feat system to its logical conclusion. Great many Class Features and Alternate Class Features are just "feat by another name".

Psyren
2011-02-02, 11:50 AM
So every class that's ever going to made for the edition needs to be in the PHB? No adding new classes later allowed?

I think he wants all the "core" classes to be in one book (e.g. 4e Monk didn't arrive until PHB3); honestly though I don't care when the classes arrive so long as they are cool and reasonably balanced without a dozen dips, ACFs or PrCs.

grimbold
2011-02-02, 11:59 AM
{{scrubbed}}

Kerrin
2011-02-02, 12:13 PM
I also want books back that are 80% fluff. And well-written fluff please.
If D&D 5.0 could include some themed source books like Gurps they'd be way ahead of where they are now. I don't even play Gurps and I've bought their themed source books (e.g Celts) just to enjoy reading and occasionally use things from them in other games - because they're well done.

Kerrin
2011-02-02, 12:16 PM
In addition I'd like minis to make a return but to be sold in theme packs so, as a DM, I can pick up the pack I know I need to meet my current requirements.

(ie: Goblin Tribe would be a nice theme pack. A box full of goblins, multiple of the same type.)
Yes, I would have bought some of their minis if they weren't in randomized packs. As is, I haven't bought any because I don't like spending my money without knowing what I'm getting.

As it is now, it's sort of like buying a can of something that has no label at the grocery store and not knowing what's inside.

Sine
2011-02-02, 12:33 PM
You know... I kind of would like 5e to be a card game. Yes, I did say I disliked them putting cards in D&D, but as an entirely separate edition, that could be pretty fun. Sell a basic "DM pack" with some monsters, NPCs, bonuses, treasure, etc. plus a rulebook. Sell a base pack for each class that has everything you need for that class - spells for wizards, maneuvers for fighters, equipment, whatever, and then booster packs that contain more stuff.
That could be a lot of fun!

I said it during the recent 'ZOMG get Magic out of my D&D!' ragefest, and I'll say it again: designing 5e powers to be randomized could be a lot of fun too. It'd certainly cut down on analysis paralysis.


-Fluff that doesn't contradict previous fluff. (Eg: 3rd Ed Metallic Dragons are virtuous and heroic, like their creator Bahamut. 4th Ed Metallic Dragons are suddenly amoral selfish jerks, for no reason. :smallfurious:)
Um, nobody expects anyone to use mutually exclusive fluff at the same time. Pick which one you like and run with it!

Also, 'fluff that actually means something'? Care to elaborate?


-PHB, MM1, DMG. That is EVERY book that should be necessary. (None of the "Oh, here's half your classes, the rest are in PHB2 and PHB3" crap that 4th Ed pulled.)
1. Every edition has pulled that crap. D&D has a long tradition of putting a half dozen to a dozen classes in core, and then adding a bunch more classes with later splats.

2. I don't know where people get the idea that anyone needs splats to play D&D, but it's just silly.

LikeAD6
2011-02-02, 12:37 PM
My only wish: Please make 5.x less dependant on magic.

I've never played 4.x before, so I can't say anything about it. I will pretend that it does not exist :smallamused:4th edition is less dependent on magic. You can make a great party with just the four martial classes.

Calmness
2011-02-02, 01:26 PM
I just wish they would get rid of all those pointless base classes in 3.5. Hexblade, marshal, favored soul, samurai... they are only good at cluttering the game and confusing players, and can easily be substituted by PHB classes with unique flavor and/or feats. Actually, many would simply fit better in the game as prestige classes, as most of them are awfully specific.

Kylarra
2011-02-02, 01:34 PM
I'd like to see more ACFs and less base classes.

Knaight
2011-02-02, 01:37 PM
I agree entirely. Warrior, Thief, Divine Caster, and Arcane Caster are all that are needed, with feats or ACF taking care of the rest.

Frozen_Feet
2011-02-02, 01:47 PM
Said it once, will say twice: ACF are just Feats by another name. They could be integrated to the Feat system with no fuss to streamline the character creation process even more.

GodotIsW8ing4U
2011-02-02, 01:47 PM
While 4th Ed acknowledging this (in a way) and cleaning the mess up somewhat, I'd still like if the game took a turn into other direction and returned to more grey and alien version of Alignment.

Just be Unaligned. Unless you're a Paladin, you impose no restrictions on yourself by being Unaligned. Unaligned can be thought of as basically saying "screw your good/evil, I'm living life how I want". It's not really an alignment in itself; it's choosing no alignment. I've found that it can actually be pretty cool to just be Unaligned and form your character freely.

The way I set up campaigns in 4E, the vast majority of NPCs are statted as Unaligned so I don't approach them with any preconceived ideas of how I should portray them. There are a lot of very fun NPCs that I probably would have ended up making boring or forgettable if I had worried about alignment. Way I see it, 4E set up the vestigial basics of an alignment system for people who wanted one and otherwise went "screw it; people are more complicated than that". Sure, they set up most monsters with Evil or Chaotic Evil in their stat block, but that's at most just a guideline to their behavior, and a lot of those monsters exist as enemies to be crushed in combat rather than negotiation prospects or major NPCs anyway.

About the only thing that makes me care about alignments anymore is Planescape, and that's mostly because we couldn't have the Outer Planes system without the alignment system. Of course, 4E presented the new Astral Sea Spelljammer-influenced version of Planescape that doesn't give a toss about alignment, and I've found I actually like it even more

Drynwyn
2011-02-02, 01:51 PM
Bring back the freedom and variety of pre 4th edition, while still having a reasonably balanced system.

YES. This is what needs to happen. 3.5 was very, very good. They need to apply neccesarry nerfs without completely changing the system. Also, " encounter" powers need to go.

LansXero
2011-02-02, 01:53 PM
Said it once, will say twice: ACF are just Feats by another name. They could be integrated to the Feat system with no fuss to streamline the character creation process even more.

I wish feats were a much more available resource then, or earnable in-game.

J.Gellert
2011-02-02, 01:53 PM
Only 1: I hope it will be called something other than "Dungeons & Dragons" so that whoever publishes it will kindly stop micturating all over such a heavy name.

Also, I approve of the fact that such threads come up so often into 4th edition, because I am a bad, evil, spiteful person and want to see Hasbro fail in an epic way.

GodotIsW8ing4U
2011-02-02, 01:54 PM
Yes, I would have bought some of their minis if they weren't in randomized packs. As is, I haven't bought any because I don't like spending my money without knowing what I'm getting.

As it is now, it's sort of like buying a can of something that has no label at the grocery store and not knowing what's inside.

Personally, I'm glad they've axed all their minis lines and replaced them with tokens for pretty much exactly this reason (among others). I'll admit, I've amassed a huge collection of Star Wars Minis from back when I used to play Star Wars Saga Edition, but I never really went in for a D&D Minis collection, and now I never have to. These tokens are amazing; they're so much easier to transport than minis, you can toss 'em down easy, the artwork's great, and you've got the Enorminator rings to turn Large monsters into Huge monsters in the blink of an eye. The tokens are cheap to produce too, it seems, since every product with tokens comes with OCEANS OF THEM. Between the Red Box, the DM's Kit, and the Monster Vault, I doubt I'll ever need to buy minis or even tokens again.

Kylarra
2011-02-02, 01:55 PM
Said it once, will say twice: ACF are just Feats by another name. They could be integrated to the Feat system with no fuss to streamline the character creation process even more.Potentially, but that would require you to give out significantly more feats than before by any standards if your only customization is going to be through feat and skill selection. I'd personally rather them stay separate.

Reverent-One
2011-02-02, 02:01 PM
Said it once, will say twice: ACF are just Feats by another name. They could be integrated to the Feat system with no fuss to streamline the character creation process even more.

Except it wouldn't streamline the process. Instead of have a default selection of class features, which if you really feel like it, you can go through and switch some out, you'd have to make a choice for each potential set of choices. Say there's a generic Arcane spellcaster that has much the same options for class features as the 3.5 arcane casters, you'd have to pick from the various types of spellcasting (prepared, spontaneous, point based perhaps), the familar or one of the various ACFs available instead, ect and so on. It's not really much harder, but it's certainly not more streamlined.

Hammerhead
2011-02-02, 02:08 PM
Only 1: I hope it will be called something other than "Dungeons & Dragons" so that whoever publishes it will kindly stop micturating all over such a heavy name.
But the name is the product. Whatever's published under the D&D title's going to be the most popular rpg around.

Unrelatedly, I hope Dungeons and Dragons 5e, instead of having dungeons or dragons in it, has lots of space ships, sixguns and zombies.

Psyren
2011-02-02, 02:18 PM
YES. This is what needs to happen. 3.5 was very, very good. They need to apply neccesarry nerfs without completely changing the system. Also, " encounter" powers need to go.

I think "Encounter powers" are fine - Tome of Battle and Skill Tricks proved that they can add a lot to the game, though I would prefer they simply work like Binder abilities i.e. 5-round cooldown so that you can potentially use them twice in a longer and more desperate fight, and so that you have a clear guideline as to how long before you can use them again, to take care of nebulous definitions of the term "encounter."


Potentially, but that would require you to give out significantly more feats than before by any standards if your only customization is going to be through feat and skill selection. I'd personally rather them stay separate.

As would I, especially since some of them really have to as they give multiple feats (e.g. Feat Rogue and Feat Soulknife.)

ACFs are like flaws - give up something to get something else - except they are more like a focus of study for your character than an arbitrary penalty to balance them out. They're a great way to introduce more in-depth options than feats, without creating whole new classes - Mystic/Wildshape Ranger and Soulbound Weapon Psywar are terrific examples of this.

Reverent-One
2011-02-02, 02:22 PM
I think "Encounter powers" are fine - Tome of Battle and Skill Tricks proved that they can add a lot to the game, though I would prefer they simply work like Binder abilities i.e. 5-round cooldown so that you can potentially use them twice in a longer and more desperate fight, and so that you have a clear guideline as to how long before you can use them again, to take care of nebulous definitions of the term "encounter."

Which isn't an issue in 4e either, you get them back after a short or extended rest.

Frozen_Feet
2011-02-02, 02:49 PM
Just be Unaligned. Unless you're a Paladin, you impose no restrictions on yourself by being Unaligned. Unaligned can be thought of as basically saying "screw your good/evil, I'm living life how I want". It's not really an alignment in itself; it's choosing no alignment. I've found that it can actually be pretty cool to just be Unaligned and form your character freely.
I'm afraid you completely misinterpreted what I want. I'm okay with the base dichtomy being Good & Evil, but I'd like for it to shift back to Law & Chaos. Being Unaligned or scrapping Alignment are exactly the opposite I want - rather, I want meaningful, influential Alignments, that just are morally gey (read: not about Good & Evil) by themselves.


Potentially, but that would require you to give out significantly more feats than before by any standards if your only customization is going to be through feat and skill selection. I'd personally rather them stay separate.


Except it wouldn't streamline the process. Instead of have a default selection of class features, which if you really feel like it, you can go through and switch some out, you'd have to make a choice for each potential set of choices. Say there's a generic Arcane spellcaster that has much the same options for class features as the 3.5 arcane casters, you'd have to pick from the various types of spellcasting (prepared, spontaneous, point based perhaps), the familar or one of the various ACFs available instead, ect and so on. It's not really much harder, but it's certainly not more streamlined.
Those, I argue, would depend on the specifics of the new Feat system. My opinion is that the Feat system as it was in 3rd Ed was half-assed; Feats could be full-blown Class Features and technically are for one of the original base classes (Fighter), but in practice they're all over the place, with some having both great impact and fluff while others are just tiny mechanical building-blocks to fill a character sheet with.

If ACFs, PrCs and the like were to be merged into Feats, I'd expect it to be accompanied with reimagining what Feats can and should do. I'd also expect scrapping lots of the less-influential choices or integrating them to others; there'd hardly be need to try and replicate all possible choices of 3rd Ed or the like. In fact, 3rd Ed had many frivolous and redundant options, and their amount just grew as time passed. Toning them down would be a good thing.

Kerrin
2011-02-02, 02:52 PM
Personally, I'm glad they've axed all their minis lines and replaced them with tokens for pretty much exactly this reason (among others). I'll admit, I've amassed a huge collection of Star Wars Minis from back when I used to play Star Wars Saga Edition, but I never really went in for a D&D Minis collection, and now I never have to. These tokens are amazing; they're so much easier to transport than minis, you can toss 'em down easy, the artwork's great, and you've got the Enorminator rings to turn Large monsters into Huge monsters in the blink of an eye.
I do agree that the tokens that came with the Monster Value are nice to use! I use them quite a lot now.

Thurbane
2011-02-02, 02:55 PM
At least I would consider that a boon. ACFs, PrCs, extra spells and the like could easily be made into feats that could be taken at any point of a character's career.

EDIT: I'd even go so far and say that the scatter-brained and bloated class structure of 3rd Ed is direct result of the designers not taking the already-modular nature of the Feat system to its logical conclusion. Great many Class Features and Alternate Class Features are just "feat by another name".
Actually, I kinda agree with this...as much as I love variety in creating characters, 3.X simply had too many base classes, IMHO. No earlier editions had anywhere near the number that 3E did.

And the fact that so many of the non-core classes were simply revamps or slight variations on existing classes. What is a Beguiler if not simply a Rogue/Sorcerer? Why do you need a Scout when you have Rangers and Rogues? Also, many non-core base classes could easily have been represented as PrCs.

I know a lot of people hotly disagree with me on these points...and some non-core classes are truly unique in concept (Binder, Dragonfire Adept etc.), but all in all, I think 3E suffered from serious base class bloat.

Kylarra
2011-02-02, 03:10 PM
I think that if you want to imagine a completely revamped "feat system" that is essentially a plethora of near equivalent options with all sorts of improvements and goodies, that would certainly be an interesting endeavor. However, when you speak of folding ACFs into the feat system, you need to state outright that you speak of this hypothetically improved feat system, rather than the one that exists in d20/3.X already, as that will be the reference point that many, myself included, will see when you say "feats" and thus hold objections.

Strictly speaking, that hypothetical feat system might as well just be a set of pointbuy abilities, which would streamline even farther as they wouldn't have to be near equivalent in power/scope to every other feat.

Sipex
2011-02-02, 03:13 PM
Actually, going on the whole less classes thing, what if 5e had NO classes and stuck to feats/skills?

You figure out your stats and race then using whatever numbers and modifiers you just get feats. Feats with different pre-requisites but you get so many more feats.

As others have suggested, there are feats to cover class features so you can effectively be a class if you want to be but in reality you're just an assortment of feats which work to emulate how that class would work.

Maximum customisability.

Would need quite a lot of work.

Calmness
2011-02-02, 03:14 PM
Actually, I kinda agree with this...as much as I love variety in creating characters, 3.X simply had too many base classes, IMHO. No earlier editions had anywhere near the number that 3E did.

Indeed, Frozen Feet and you put it very well. All that variety is one of the reasons while I sometimes grow tired of D&D 3.5. Speaking about first and second edition: was anyone ever bothered by the lack of options in character customization back then? I'm just curious, as I have never had the chance to play either of them.

stainboy
2011-02-02, 03:18 PM
And the fact that so many of the non-core classes were simply revamps or slight variations on existing classes. What is a Beguiler if not simply a Rogue/Sorcerer? Why do you need a Scout when you have Rangers and Rogues? Also, many non-core base classes could easily have been represented as PrCs.

Well, the difference is that a beguiler isn't terrible. I'm fine with gish classes to replace underpowered core multiclass builds, or themed casters that could be built with sorcerer but using the themed class makes them more distinctive.

I don't know why Scout exists either. Strafing back and forth every round just isn't interesting. (And it's pretty terrible once you hit mid levels and you give up iterative attacks to do it.)

hewhosaysfish
2011-02-02, 03:34 PM
Indeed, Frozen Feet and you put it very well. All that variety is one of the reasons while I sometimes grow tired of D&D 3.5. Speaking about first and second edition: was anyone ever bothered by the lack of options in character customization back then? I'm just curious, as I have never had the chance to play either of them.

I'd assume that the people who designed 3rd ed were bothered. Or at least believed that their target market were bothered.

Thurbane
2011-02-02, 04:03 PM
Indeed, Frozen Feet and you put it very well. All that variety is one of the reasons while I sometimes grow tired of D&D 3.5. Speaking about first and second edition: was anyone ever bothered by the lack of options in character customization back then? I'm just curious, as I have never had the chance to play either of them.
Back when I played AD&D 1E and 2E, I never really felt like my options were too limited.

Later in 2E, they introduced "kits", which were a little like a precursor to prestige classes - allowing your character to specialize in one area. The the Player's Option line of books came out (often referred to as 2.5) and opened up a whole load of options.

Perhaps I didn't miss the options back then because they didn't exist, but honestly, I never felt the game suffered for it.

-----

As far as dropping classes altogether, in favor of a skill and power buy option, I think that would make D&D lose a lot of what makes it special. The class concept has been ingrained since it's earliest incarnations...I really wouldn't like to see that go.

true_shinken
2011-02-02, 04:25 PM
D&D without classes wouldn't be D&D anymore

lesser_minion
2011-02-02, 04:28 PM
D&D without classes wouldn't be D&D anymore

Not really -- there is no more of a rule saying D&D has to feature classes and levels than there is one saying that it has to feature Vancian magic.

The most important thing I'd like to see in 5th edition is Incarnum. It's easily one of the most interesting concepts in the game, and it's also distinctive enough to be worth including (compared with the default magic rules).

I'd actually like to see psionics be completely excised from the game in 5th ed. It's just a sacred cow that gets automatically rehashed every single edition, despite never covering any new ground -- it's just magic with a few new names, a few barely-significant changes, and a different limiting mechanic.

The Rose Dragon
2011-02-02, 04:30 PM
Meh. Not really. As long as it has Incarnum, there shouldn't be an issue.

To be honest, Dungeons & Dragons needs only two things: 1) Dungeons, 2) Dragons. It is not called "Classes & Levels", after all.

Sine
2011-02-02, 04:31 PM
Indeed, Frozen Feet and you put it very well. All that variety is one of the reasons while I sometimes grow tired of D&D 3.5. Speaking about first and second edition: was anyone ever bothered by the lack of options in character customization back then? I'm just curious, as I have never had the chance to play either of them.
2e had plenty of options if you had splat books; the problem was that they were horribly balanced. I remember a beggar kit that granted you the ability to eat really fast. Yes, you read right. No, you didn't gain any benefit by eating fast or even at a normal pace; eating fast was the benefit. :smallannoyed:

I can't speak accurately about earlier editions, but I do love me my options so long as they're balanced.

Jayabalard
2011-02-02, 04:50 PM
Actually, going on the whole less classes thing, what if 5e had NO classes and stuck to feats/skills?Then a huge number of people are going to say "it's not D&D" (and they'll ignore anyone who says anything like "well WOTC owns it and they say it's D&D so that's what it is")

erikun
2011-02-02, 04:55 PM
Yes, you read right. No, you didn't gain any benefit by eating fast or even at a normal pace; eating fast was the benefit. :smallannoyed:
That sounds like it would be rather handy in Dark Sun. If there's only one portion of food and several characters around it, being able to eat the whole meal in one "round" would be very significant to staying healthy.

So would running very fast afterwards.

The Rose Dragon
2011-02-02, 05:16 PM
That sounds like it would be rather handy in Dark Sun. If there's only one portion of food and several characters around it, being able to eat the whole meal in one "round" would be very significant to staying healthy.

Alternately, you could just make those several characters your next meal if you are a halfling.

true_shinken
2011-02-02, 05:18 PM
To be honest, Dungeons & Dragons needs only two things: 1) Dungeons, 2) Dragons. It is not called "Classes & Levels", after all.

I thought you didn't care about D&D.

The Rose Dragon
2011-02-02, 05:19 PM
I thought you didn't care about D&D.

I don't. But I like commenting on it anyway, in memory of AD&D.

Czin
2011-02-02, 05:19 PM
4th edition is less dependent on magic. You can make a great party with just the four martial classes.

4th edition makes parties less Dependant on magic by making everyone innately magic to some degree, there is no way to explain half of the powers without resorting to magic, healing surges being one of the more blatant examples. When I first read about the healing surge system in one of 4e's preview booklets my reaction was (to paraphrase the nostalgia critic); "EXPLAIN BOOKLET!!! EXPLAIN!!!" Sure they gave gameplay reasons for it, but I did not once read anything resembling a fluff explanation for something that flies in the face of the experiences of everyone who has ever been injured ever, in addition to the already existing critical existence failure problems.


One thing I would like, if it was at all possible, can wizards please take the idiot who drew the pit fiend in the 4th edition monster manual and drag him behind the woodshed to be shot? Comparing the huge, muscular, delightfully reptillian, and badass Pitfiend of 3.X e art to the (comparatively) scrawny, flat-faced, glowing eyed, dork in 4e art is just painful. Especially when 3.X's monster manual gave the Pit Fiend such a perfect pose while 4e's monster manual puts the Pit Fiend into a pose that makes it look like it's having a seizure.

Also, can they finally have names in Infernal like every other devil ever? I find the fact that every variation of devil save for the most powerful one's infernal names are common knowledge to be incredibly hard to believe.

Thurbane
2011-02-02, 05:29 PM
Yeah, put me firmly in the "D&D without classes really isn't D&D" camp. If I can't say "I'm a Dwarven Fighter" or "I'm a Human Wizard", I really wouldn't feel like I was playing D&D. As much as I'm not a fan of 4E, at least it still ticks that box. Sure, you can be anything, and say that you are those things, but it just wouldn't feel right for me.

There's plenty of fantasy RPGs that don't use a class system, and that's all fine and well. They may be great systems in their own right. I would really hate to see D&D go down that path, though...

Sine
2011-02-02, 05:35 PM
Alternately, you could just make those several characters your next meal if you are a halfling.
Alternatively, play a warforged. Oh wait, 2e...:smallbiggrin:


4th edition makes parties less Dependant on magic by making everyone innately magic to some degree, there is no way to explain half of the powers without resorting to magic, healing surges being one of the more blatant examples. When I first read about the healing surge system in one of 4e's preview booklets my reaction was (to paraphrase the nostalgia critic); "EXPLAIN BOOKLET!!! EXPLAIN!!!" Sure they gave gameplay reasons for it, but I did not once read anything resembling a fluff explanation for something that flies in the face of the experiences of everyone who has ever been injured ever, in addition to the already existing critical existence failure problems.
Like you say, PCs are magical. *shrug* It works for me.

Note: This is not unique to any single edition.

Psyren
2011-02-02, 05:48 PM
Which isn't an issue in 4e either, you get them back after a short or extended rest.

Which is itself arbitrary. What constitutes rest? Is it the same for all races? A warforged can walk the earth forever, lost in thought, without exerting himself; does he need to sit still to rest?

Simply put a time-based cooldown on it I say; 30 seconds for "encounter powers," aka 5 rounds.

Czin
2011-02-02, 05:49 PM
Alternatively, play a warforged. Oh wait, 2e...:smallbiggrin:


Like you say, PCs are magical. *shrug* It works for me.

Note: This is not unique to any single edition.

It doesn't make sense when Joe Schmoe the Commoner is capable of using healing surges. If things worked like that no one would ever bleed to death, someone who was just clubbed to near-death would be able to get back up, totally healed within minutes. It's impossible for me to justify that and maintain versimilitiude when everyone and their dog can do it.

DeltaEmil
2011-02-02, 06:08 PM
Joe Schmoe the commoner has 1 hp and dies or is immediately taken out in combat in one hit. He has no healing surges. And no, you don't (or at least shouldn't) roll out how the NPC Joe Schmoe gets taken out by Albert the NPC-Assassin.

And yes, you need to sit down and refocus in your thoughts how to do the maneuvers/powers again or check out on your limbs if they're still good to go to do encounter-powers/tob-maneuvers another time, and that does make sense for some people.

Now that stuff has been explained and clarified, let's go back to the wish-lists for 5th edition without any stupid edition-warring.

kyoryu
2011-02-02, 06:09 PM
Which is itself arbitrary. What constitutes rest? Is it the same for all races? A warforged can walk the earth forever, lost in thought, without exerting himself; does he need to sit still to rest?

Simply put a time-based cooldown on it I say; 30 seconds for "encounter powers," aka 5 rounds.

A short rest is 5 minutes out of an encounter, without *strenuous* exertion. That sounds like a time-based cooldown.


It doesn't make sense when Joe Schmoe the Commoner is capable of using healing surges. If things worked like that no one would ever bleed to death, someone who was just clubbed to near-death would be able to get back up, totally healed within minutes. It's impossible for me to justify that and maintain versimilitiude when everyone and their dog can do it.

Boxers get beat up, to the point they're almost knocked out, and after a few seconds in the corner are back up and fighting.

Sounds like spending a healing surge.

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2011-02-02, 06:10 PM
Avenge the slight of 4E's first PHB and make Gnomes and Half-Orcs the only playable races until PHBII. Also, half-orcs should be large and gnomes small. Medium sized creatures are lame old fogeys hanging on to the past.

Kylarra
2011-02-02, 06:11 PM
Actually, I kind of hope it follows a similar format to the way Saga Edition classes work where you've got talent trees that you can use to customize your character and multiclassing will give you a few of the starting bonuses from that class, but not all of them, to avoid front loaded dips.

stabbitty death
2011-02-02, 06:16 PM
I would like a very 3.5 like system, balanced, and with 1 or 2 sample builds , like 3.5 starting packs taken up to 20 for those who don't want to go through the ardourus/wonderful process of character creation. Oh well, a guy can dream.

Czin
2011-02-02, 06:16 PM
A short rest is 5 minutes out of an encounter, without *strenuous* exertion. That sounds like a time-based cooldown.



Boxers get beat up, to the point they're almost knocked out, and after a few seconds in the corner are back up and fighting.

Sounds like spending a healing surge.

Those are nonlethal injuries, I'm talking about what D&D classifies as lethal damage. If you've been stabbed thirty times with a spear, have just been disemboweled with a Zweihander so that you need to hold your intestines in, and have had your skull bashed in with a mace, you are not getting back up without aid, but healing surges say that "nope, you can instantaneously heal these fatal wounds without any help from anyone else."

There is simply no way to explain that without going to the "LoL magic" route, which can work if only certain people can do it, but since 4e's rules allow for absolutely everyone and everything to use them, it now becomes a permanent strain on versimilitiude and threatens to turn a role playing game into an overly complicated wargame with imbalanced sides.

Kylarra
2011-02-02, 06:20 PM
Actually, the majority of things can't do that, only PCs and certain mobs.

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2011-02-02, 06:21 PM
Boxers get beat up, to the point they're almost knocked out, and after a few seconds in the corner are back up and fighting.

Sounds like spending a healing surge.

Yeah, but that's part of the training. Maybe they aren't epic heroes, but good boxers (the kind who don't stay down) are probably a lot better at this sort of thing than "Joe Schmoe the commoner" is.

In regards to the post immediately above the one immediately above me, Beowulf held his breath for, like, a week and that wasn't "LOL MAGIC" it was just "LOL HE'S EPIC." I have no problem with that approach working. You just tense up your abs and hold those guts in, furrow your brow until your skull's back in place, grit your teeth and tell your capillaries what's coming to them if they let you bleed out of those spearholes.

DeltaEmil
2011-02-02, 06:22 PM
Those are nonlethal injuries, I'm talking about what D&D classifies as lethal damage. If you've been stabbed thirty times with a spear, have just been disemboweled with a Zweihander so that you need to hold your intestines in, and have had your skull bashed in with a mace, you are not getting back up without aid, but healing surges say that "nope, you can instantaneously heal these fatal wounds without any help from anyone else."

There is simply no way to explain that without going to the "LoL magic" route, which can work if only certain people can do it, but since 4e's rules allow for absolutely everyone and everything to use them, it now becomes a permanent strain on versimilitiude and threatens to turn a role playing game into an overly complicated wargame with imbalanced sides.Hyperbole. If you've been stabbed thirty times, have just been disemboweled with a Zweihander so that you need to hold your intestines in, and have had your skull bashed in with a mace, then you're an anime character, or you are dead, and have only suffered exactly this wounds after you've run out of healing surges, making this a narrative tool in the hands of the players.

Also, only those who matter get healing surges. The player characters (who are not and should never ever be Joe Schmoe the commoner, this needs to die in fire and is badwrongandnotfun), and a few selected monsters who by using this make combat drag on (which should only be okay in a very few times).

And now, back to 5th edition. Discussing healing surges (again) should be continued in another thread.

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2011-02-02, 06:29 PM
I'd like (after the gnome and half-orcs only core, of course), a wider variety of creatures become easier to play. All LAing monsters as-is really did was make it harder to be whatever type of creature. 4E's approach is better, although slightly too homogenized.

pinwiz
2011-02-02, 06:35 PM
I'd like (after the gnome and half-orcs only core, of course), a wider variety of creatures become easier to play. All LAing monsters as-is really did was make it harder to be whatever type of creature. 4E's approach is better, although slightly too homogenized.

you know, the difficulty of playing monsers as PCs and have them on par with the party is one of the only things that bugs me about 3.5. I wanna play a minotaur that's balanced and can be played from level one.

Also, I like the idea of a power/class feature buy. It makes it so you can play exactly what you want, without the X/Y/Zprestigeclass builds of 3.5. Maybe have base classes, and then the customizable class?

rayne_dragon
2011-02-02, 06:42 PM
I hope they don't make 5.0 for another 9 years. I don't like having what feels like constant edition wars and kinda just wish they'd stop tinkering with it. The constant errata to 4e drives me up the wall because some of it seems so arbitrary and slipshod.

Czin
2011-02-02, 06:44 PM
I hope they don't make 5.0 for another 9 years. I don't like having what feels like constant edition wars and kinda just wish they'd stop tinkering with it. The constant errata to 4e drives me up the wall because some of it seems so arbitrary and slipshod.

I feel you, 3.X's run was just far too short for me (only 7 years...when every edition before it got at like ten.) I think 4e would have been met with less hostility if it didn't come around at 3.5's apex.

Kesnit
2011-02-02, 07:30 PM
There is simply no way to explain that without going to the "LoL magic" route, which can work if only certain people can do it, but since 4e's rules allow for absolutely everyone and everything to use them, it now becomes a permanent strain on versimilitiude and threatens to turn a role playing game into an overly complicated wargame with imbalanced sides.

Guess you've never heard of a soldier who has been wounded getting up and getting in the fight, or carrying his comrades away from the battle. That's what healing surges represent - the ability to be hurt and to keep going.

Czin
2011-02-02, 07:32 PM
Guess you've never heard of a soldier who has been wounded getting up and getting in the fight, or carrying his comrades away from the battle. That's what healing surges represent - the ability to be hurt and to keep going.

Adrenaline (because that is what you are referring to) is more accurately rendered by temporary stat bonuses because it's benefits go away when it stops pumping in your veins.

jseah
2011-02-02, 07:33 PM
The player characters (who are not and should never ever be Joe Schmoe the commoner, this needs to die in fire and is badwrongandnotfun)
Some people (like me) are bothered by labeling something a Hero with a capital H.

Hence my wish that 5.0 had one character sheet applicable to everything.

I'd like to add a new one.

7. It should support different playstyles.
Heroic fantasy can remain a focus, but should support mystery, intrigue, **punk, magitech and maybe even slice of life!
More game types compatible = more people will be willing to play.

cfalcon
2011-02-02, 07:36 PM
That Hasbro have nothing to do with it.

D&D is a brand name to those guys.


I can think of a lot of ways to improve the game, but none will happen from a big company like that. I want a decent simulation of a magical reality, and there's plenty of editions to choose from that do that already. Locking down rules, making us torrent up PDFs instead of having searchable things, screw all of that. We have the future now, nothing branded 5.0 is gonna fix anything.

Czin
2011-02-02, 07:40 PM
Some people (like me) are bothered by labeling something a Hero with a capital H.

Hence my wish that 5.0 had one character sheet applicable to everything.

I'd like to add a new one.

7. It should support different playstyles.
Heroic fantasy can remain a focus, but should support mystery, intrigue, **punk, magitech and maybe even slice of life!
More game types compatible = more people will be willing to play.

Agreed, I like AD&D and 3.X for the fact that in those systems, Monsters and Players had the same stat systems whereas 4.0 gave them separate stat systems (though looking at my only two 4e splatbooks, Monster stats appear to be comfortingly similar to 3.X's, so I suspect that 4e's player character design must be radically different than what I'm used to) for some reason I never understood.

WotC seems to go with the mantra of making new splatbooks (or sub-systems, see D20 modern and future) whenever the demand for other playstyles rises. Though I'm guessing that you're in the "everything I need should be in Core or in the SRD" crowd.

Czin
2011-02-02, 07:43 PM
That Hasbro have nothing to do with it.

D&D is a brand name to those guys.


I can think of a lot of ways to improve the game, but none will happen from a big company like that. I want a decent simulation of a magical reality, and there's plenty of editions to choose from that do that already. Locking down rules, making us torrent up PDFs instead of having searchable things, screw all of that. We have the future now, nothing branded 5.0 is gonna fix anything.
Though this idea may sound abhorrent to many there is one way to free D&D from Hasbro.

Have Games Workshop buy out Wizards of the Coast from Hasbro. While it will probably result in one company gaining as of now unheard of levels of domination over the tabletop gaming sub-industry (Being dominant in the Trading Card game, Wargame, and Role Playing game fields all at once) Games Workshop is somewhat more interested in it's consumers opinions than Hasbro.