D&D 5th Edition makes the New York Times

[Yora]

In that case, make it Dungeon & Dragons 2013.

[Human Paragon 3]

At first, i was excited to see D&D 5e in the NYT... but reading the article, you can practically see the eye-roll at the end of every sentence.

The author is talking about a billion dollar sales figure, but the tone is one of obvious incredulity and disappointment that such a product could be successful. It's a "childish pursuit" unlike basketball, literature, and movies, which have entire sections in this newspaper...

[bloodtide]

My dream would be for 5E to bring back the DM.

Right on the first page have a disclaimer--''This game is not Fair and Balanced. We could not make such a game even if we had 100 years. And we don't have that much time. This is a simple action adventure game created so that you can have fun.''

And then--''The DM is the absolute ruler of the game, even above the published rules. All players agree to go by what the DM says.''

And--''As a Dm you must make sure everyone has fun, and whatever your group thinks of as 'balance' is done.''

And then a bunch of pages about how the DM must take control of the game, and not just sit back and let the rolls and rules have control.

So if you have a Melee Whiner Type Group it would give advice like --''Make sure that sometimes the mage's fireball just fizzles out, but when the fighter attacks a single target his weapon 'leaps' to hit all foes in range. That way your group will like the 'options' the fighter has.''

[Manateee]

I'd like:
Rules-light core, supplemental crunchiness, zero magic item dependence and lots of monster manuals.

My default dungeoncrawl system has been WR&M with the AD&D 2e monstrous compendiums for inspiration. It'd be nice to have continuing support for that kind of game, and to have the sort of widespread system acceptance that D&D gets.

[Tenno Seremel]

From my view on 3.5:

Feats that work for once. Also, no super long feat chains.

Something about auto-scaled saves vs spell DCs.

Useful at wills at low levels.

[Tvtyrant]

My dream would be for 5E to bring back the DM.

Right on the first page have a disclaimer--''This game is not Fair and Balanced. We could not make such a game even if we had 100 years. And we don't have that much time. This is a simple action adventure game created so that you can have fun.''

And then--''The DM is the absolute ruler of the game, even above the published rules. All players agree to go by what the DM says.''

And--''As a Dm you must make sure everyone has fun, and whatever your group thinks of as 'balance' is done.''

And then a bunch of pages about how the DM must take control of the game, and not just sit back and let the rolls and rules have control.

So if you have a Melee Whiner Type Group it would give advice like --''Make sure that sometimes the mage's fireball just fizzles out, but when the fighter attacks a single target his weapon 'leaps' to hit all foes in range. That way your group will like the 'options' the fighter has.''

How is this different then just posting a sign saying "homebrew your own game, give us the money!" on the inside cover? Why would I pay for a game that has as its central feature me making up the rules, when I could do that for free?

[Alejandro]

Numbered editions are so last century. They'll probably call it D&D Vista or something.

So you're saying it will not work well with your PC?

[Metahuman1]

How is this different then just posting a sign saying "homebrew your own game, give us the money!" on the inside cover? Why would I pay for a game that has as its central feature me making up the rules, when I could do that for free?

Because it gives you guide lines to work with. And it's not like that hasn't been accepted tradition in table top since 1st edition anyway.

All it does is spell it out in the book a little more clearly and give some suggestions on how to do it well.

Also, Another I second the notion of Lot's of Good Feats that Actually do things. I like the idea in Frank and K's Tome project that all feat paths should be condinsed down into one feat that scales with level. Makes something like weapons focus or Dodge witch is only taken to get into a PrC or get a much better feat later worth while in it's own right.

[Ziegander]

I'd like:
Rules-light core, supplemental crunchiness, zero magic item dependence and lots of monster manuals.

This, this, 1000 times this. Core should be as rules-lite as D&Dly possible, and run with JUST ONE BOOK. The game should function on a tight, well-oiled, and basic game engine, with any other stuff coming from supplements.

[Seerow]

I'm going to disagree on the "lots of feats that do lots of unique things".


If feats are everyone's primary source of cool things, then sure. But most everyone who says this ALSO wants cool abilities a la maneuvers/spells. In this case, most feats that would do something cool, would be better as a power. Why make Stand Still a feat when that would be a great buff, or immediate interrupt power? Why make power attack a feat rather than a core combat option? Why should whirlwind attack or rapid shot be feats rather than powers?


I think it would actually be pretty cool if feats could let you direct yourself towards a given role. Rather than having classes in stringent roles (something a lot of people complain about), have most classes capable of filling 2 or 3 roles via power selection, and then feats augment the passive things that make them better at that role. Things like "Upgrading a power to add a status effect is cheaper" or "When you hit a target, you can choose to make the attack apply to a small area" as controller focused feats. Standard damage increases, mobility, and power cost reductions for striker focused feats. Defense increases and things that discourage enemies from attacking allies as defending focused feats. A player can choose to mix and match the feats to taste, but are expected to choose to lean towards one role.



So basically powers = cool things, feats = passive things that increase baseline statistics or modify powers.

[Tenno Seremel]

Why make Stand Still a feat when that would be a great buff, or immediate interrupt power?

Because you can use it over and over again, for example.

[Seerow]

Because you can use it over and over again, for example.

So it could be an at will power, or extremely low cost power, depending on the system. Or a passive buff that's relatively cheap to put up all day. There's plenty of ways to handle it as a power in almost any system.

[Eldan]

Well, I have a few unrealistic wishes first, but sure:

Make Planescape the core setting and hire Tony Di'Terlizzi to do all the art.

Back to reality now:

I think the game would work better with fewer classes that had more mechanical diversity. Make two dozen classes, at most, but give each of them options at every level. Like Tome of Battle's maneuver selection, a mage's spell selection and so on, for every class. Meaningful build choices at every level. And make hte mechanics diverse, so that every class is different in every relevant aspect. Power application, focus, resource management, all of them.

Less focus on combat. I'd likeat least as many, if not more, utility powers than combat powers. And I'd like these versatile. Ideally, every power would have both utility and combat applications. A fireball would also have applications in siege warfare, mining and controlled demolition. And that's just the obvious ones.

Wide power scales. I love 3.5 because a level 20 character is so massively different from a level 1 one. It's not just the numbers getting bigger and the number of powers increasing. It's the scale of things a character can affect. From raw recruit, to local hero to global warlord to planar force, 3.5 can handle all of these as players (handle them badly, perhaps, but it isn't entirely closed to the idea).

More fluff. I love books that are almost entirely fluff. Give me books of world descriptions. More Faces of Sigil, less Complete Epic Level Samurai. More Van Richten's Guide, less Monster Manual XVIII.


Edit: A few more.

Take the idea of balance behind the next shed and shoot it in the head. I'd rather have an unbalanced game that works as a world simulator and is mechanically diverse than one where no one is stronger than his team mate.

Less boring mechanics. Almost every 3.5 book seems ot have sections that are just not worth reading. More feats that give just +1 to something. I'd really love to see an edition with only a handful of numerical bonuses. No more +2 to a skill feats, or +1 to hits, or +2 intelligence items. They are boring.

[Seerow]

I think the game would work better with fewer classes that had more mechanical diversity. Make two dozen classes, at most, but give each of them options at every level. Like Tome of Battle's maneuver selection, a mage's spell selection and so on, for every class. Meaningful build choices at every level. And make hte mechanics diverse, so that every class is different in every relevant aspect. Power application, focus, resource management, all of them.

If you're making everything down to resource management different, you probably want to keep the number of classes to about 8. Even that is pushing it. And I think if you tried to do D&D with classes that starkly limited, you'd incite rebellion.

I would however be fine with 8 core classes that are radically different at everything, and then have alternate classes in splat books that are similar to one of the core 8 in terms of resource management, but have some different class features to make the play differently.

[Tenno Seremel]

So it could be an at will power, or extremely low cost power, depending on the system. Or a passive buff that's relatively cheap to put up all day. There's plenty of ways to handle it as a power in almost any system.

As long as you don't get a very small amount of at-wills that are useful only at low levels.

[Seerow]

As long as you don't get a very small amount of at-wills that are useful only at low levels.

Well yes I'm not saying "I want to see a 4e clone"

[Dark Kerman]

Hello, as i'm sure most of you have heard, there is word on the wind of 5th edition. What I wonder is what people want it to include and what you think would make it good?

[Maxios]

Get rid of the horrible balancing (it's a good idea in theory, but in practice it gets rid the ability of customising your charater to your liking), and the at-will/encounter/daily attack system.

[Eldan]

If you're making everything down to resource management different, you probably want to keep the number of classes to about 8. Even that is pushing it. And I think if you tried to do D&D with classes that starkly limited, you'd incite rebellion.

I would however be fine with 8 core classes that are radically different at everything, and then have alternate classes in splat books that are similar to one of the core 8 in terms of resource management, but have some different class features to make the play differently.

Let's see of how many i can think.

Tome of Battle: per-encounter powers.
Warlock: At-will powers.
Vancian: per-day powers.
Psionics: points for powers, on-the-go.
Incarnum: points for stat increases and powers, usually pre-invested.
Binder: selection of power-sets, with cooldownper ability.

Hmm. That's six.

Anyway, as for alternate classes: I'd prefer those more as alternate class features. Make Paladin an alternate class feature for clerics. that kind of thing. Swap out a few abilities, keep others.

[Istari]

Lots of alternate classes/archetypes pathfinder style.
Mechanically different classes, wizards continue to use spell slots with no metamagic, but have more ritual and magic item style abilities, and sorcerers switch to spell points, have bloodlines, default access to metamagic for example.
Warriors and Skill monkeys get combat options.
Very few Save or Xs.

4e had some things they did right, but killed immersion, made combat too movement oriented (I want to be able to play without needing a battlemap sometimes) and made the classes too similar.

[CTrees]

Also, no super long feat chains.

Actually, I like the idea of a super long, complicated feat chain, but only if the end result is something awesome. I think that's what the designers were going for with some feats like Whirlwind attack, but they unfortunately failed (badly). I think a good example is Pathfinder's Dimensional Agility/Assault/Dervish/Savant line. It's a lot of investment, and it's arguable whether it's worth it, but the end result (teleporting around so rapidly you can flank a creature with yourself, and making attacks between teleports) is just cool - now you can finally be Nightcrawler, only with more death!

[Toofey]

I hope it gets back to actually being dungeons and dragons. I would like to see D&D back to it's roots, with tons of optional bells and whistles and a larger selection of 'base' classes.

[Excession]

For the most part I like 4e, but there are some things I'd like to see:

• Remove some of the complexity of tracking status effects. Actually, some of the essentials classes have already done that. The Knight's aura 1 for marking as opposed to the original Fighter's "mark what you attack" for example. The Hexblade being a warlock without a curse is another good example. No complex conditions from at-will actions might be a good guideline.
• I dislike the tracking required for the once per round immediate action. Again, the Knight shows that using once per turn opportunity actions works fine.
• Get PCs and monsters onto roughly the same numbers. Monsters should be faster to build, but it'd be nice if the HP totals and damage output were in the same ballpark.
• If they're going to continue with the most pre-built essentials style, they should have a rule that you either get a choice or a good power. No bad or highly situational stuff that you are forced to take. As an example, there's a Hexblade build where the first daily is a close burst 1 that isn't even enemies only. Why does a single target striker get a hard to use AoE for a daily?

[Tenno Seremel]

Actually, I like the idea of a super long, complicated feat chain, but only if the end result is something awesome. I think that's what the designers were going for with some feats like Whirlwind attack, but they unfortunately failed (badly). I think a good example is Pathfinder's Dimensional Agility/Assault/Dervish/Savant line. It's a lot of investment, and it's arguable whether it's worth it, but the end result (teleporting around so rapidly you can flank a creature with yourself, and making attacks between teleports) is just cool - now you can finally be Nightcrawler, only with more death!

On the other hand that makes it so it is rare in play because of the amount of investment required. Not sure if that's a good thing.

[Totally Guy]

I hope for a game where fights can be honestly lost as well as won without bringing the game to a halt.

[Eldan]

Someone mentioned that feats should be numerical and passive things, and class powers new abilities.

I couldn't disagree more. Feats that are "+2 to damage" or "+3 to a skill" bore me. It's just bigger numbers, it's not anything new.

To me, the difference is that class abilities are only open to one class, while feats are open to everyone. Which means that a lot of things that are feats in D&D should really be class powers: if only fighters or people with turn undead or arcane casters can take a certain feat, make it a class power, not a feat.

A good feat, to me, should give a new ability that is open to every class, and not too tightly linked to an archetype. That's all.

[Seerow]

Someone mentioned that feats should be numerical and passive things, and class powers new abilities.

I couldn't disagree more. Feats that are "+2 to damage" or "+3 to a skill" bore me. It's just bigger numbers, it's not anything new.

To me, the difference is that class abilities are only open to one class, while feats are open to everyone. Which means that a lot of things that are feats in D&D should really be class powers: if only fighters or people with turn undead or arcane casters can take a certain feat, make it a class power, not a feat.

A good feat, to me, should give a new ability that is open to every class, and not too tightly linked to an archetype. That's all.

1) Why does a feat need to be something new? Why can't it be something that makes you better at what you do? It's nothing new is not a valid argument in of itself unless that is all you get when you levelup. As long as you are getting class features and powers, it isn't.

2) You assume powers are available to only one class. I'd much rather spells be like they are in 3.5, where there is a lot of overlap between classes. Not a 100% overlap, but some.

3) Coming up with dozens or hundreds of unique non-passive abilities that aren't keyed to a specific class or archtype is ridiculously hard. Just try to come up with a list, see how far you get.

[Tyndmyr]

Ideally? It'd be a bit like 3.5, but with the following changes.

Easier char creation with less fiddly bits like mundane adding for skill modifiers. Note that I LOVE complex chars myself, but copying numbers is just tedious, and some players really like simple chars. Both styles of char should be viable.

More dangerous combat/complex encounters. Even without notable optimizing, I can kinda faceroll any vaguely level appropriate encounter in 3.x or 4.

Better social rules. Holy god, do I hate diplomacy as it is written.

Better support for non-magical laden item chars. Again, I have no problem with them myself...but not everyone needs to be one.

An explicit mechanism for players/dms to negotiability affect the plot, similar to drama dice or fate points.

Smaller numbers. Seriously, a thousand xp per level, 100 xp an encounter...you can basically lop off the last digit of all that stuff. It's like tracking spell components or purchases of fishhooks. Dispense with all the pointless bookwork.

[Saph]

More than anything what I'd like them to do is go back to including real significant variety between the classes.

In 3.5 you can play a basic melee fighter/archer, a Vancian caster, a spontaneous caster, a psionic character who casts with PP, a ToB martial adept who uses maneuvers, an Incarnum user who reallocates essentia, a factotum who uses inspiration, and a dozen other types who are all wildly different in mechanics and feel, and you can play all of those classes at any level between level 1 weaklings who go down in one blow to level 20 near-omnipotent demigods who treat the multiverse as their playground.

It's the variety that appeals to me and it's the reason that I'm still playing 3.5 despite having given up on 4e a couple of years ago. If they can't match 3.5's variety then I'm probably not going to stick with 5e no matter how shiny it is.

[Tyndmyr]

It's the variety that appeals to me and it's the reason that I'm still playing 3.5 despite having given up on 4e a couple of years ago. If they can't match 3.5's variety then I'm probably not going to stick with 5e no matter how shiny it is.

This, really. I *love* variety. I expect a decent amount of it even within core. If it doesn't have variety, it gets, at best, relegated to a niche game for running when there's something that fits into what it handles best. The games that have massive systemic variety in core are invariably the games I run for campaigns of any length.