D&D 5th Edition makes the New York Times

[Seerow]

Perhaps I didn't quite explain what I mean.

They should not only have these things in one situation. I want them to perform consistently, on the basis of the same rules the PCs have. If an Arcanaloth grants arcane knowledge when summoned, he should have that same knowledge when he thinks about some other question. And I want a metric of how much he knows, in the stat block. The craftsman dwarf should have a full set of skills. It might come up in the game, and in that case, I want to have a basis to estimate if that dwarf also has an understanding of geology or not, and how much he knows about history. And I want to know how good he is at being a master craftsman. Good enough to forge good swords? Good enough to smelter adamantium? Good enough to forge Mjölnir? A number is a nice, concise way of showing this, when it can be compared to a table in the books. Skill +15: can reliably do X, Y and Z when in a calm situation.

And again, what you're asking for is more information than will ever be needed in the case of 99.99% of NPCs. You are asking for a DM to have an entire statblock for every minor NPC, which is something outrageous to demand. If you enjoy playing that way, that's fine, but it isn't the way the game at its core should be designed.

[tcrudisi]

No matter how good it may be, it’s too soon. I can’t keep an open mind when the money grab is so obvious.

It may be a money grab, but at least be optimistic about it. I can see D&D dying if they don't manage to get the entire fanbase behind them. Look at it: 4e probably isn't making a huge profit (if a profit at all). 3.5? Too many people left 3.5 to go to 4e, so if they tried to print new 3.5 books there wouldn't be enough players left for them to make a profit. Their only hope is to put forth a new edition and have everyone rally to their cause.

It's also in our best interest. Yes, more games mean more fun. But - those games could find themselves of closing down and without us getting any more if the flagship game of them all can't even turn a profit.

So look at this optimistically. Is it a money grab? Of course. WotC is a business. But as a customer we have to hope they are successful.

[Draz74]

And I dislike mana bar casters it feels like such a boring, flavourless mechanic. It's just dull, and I've seen it a million times. Give me binding, or incarnum, or vancian. A mechanic you can build a world, or at least an adventure around.

Mechanics like that are great ... if you're releasing a world, or an adventure. Not if you're releasing a game system that is supposed to be used to create stories in many different settings and worlds.

Personally, I think the Core magic system should be as "flavorless" as possible. Then, within individual campaign settings, they should spruce it up with minor mechanical boosts that abstractly turn it into something flavorful (a la Binding).

But then, I'm the guy that also keeps saying they should drop the Monster Manual as a "Core" component, and let new monsters be a big part of the "crunch" released in various campaign settings ...

[MeeposFire]

The problem is not making a profit. It is making enough profit. That is an advantage that smaller companies have in terms of keeping a game going. Paizo will be happy just to make a profit. Hasbro wants you to make $50 million in profit and have it get up to 100 million in a time frame. That is crazy for a RPG game. With D&Di I am thinking they make a profit but even if you are making a profit unless you make a BIG profit Hasbro will still call you a failure and force modifications.

[gkathellar]

Perhaps I didn't quite explain what I mean.

They should not only have these things in one situation. I want them to perform consistently, on the basis of the same rules the PCs have. If an Arcanaloth grants arcane knowledge when summoned, he should have that same knowledge when he thinks about some other question. And I want a metric of how much he knows, in the stat block. The craftsman dwarf should have a full set of skills. It might come up in the game, and in that case, I want to have a basis to estimate if that dwarf also has an understanding of geology or not, and how much he knows about history. And I want to know how good he is at being a master craftsman. Good enough to forge good swords? Good enough to smelter adamantium? Good enough to forge Mjölnir? A number is a nice, concise way of showing this, when it can be compared to a table in the books. Skill +15: can reliably do X, Y and Z when in a calm situation.

Have you seen how WoD does it? Most non-combat NPCs have a description, and a block of how many dice they have on skills they're notable for.

For example: You don't need full stats for some stoned deadbeat in an alley, because he'll give in to threats, he won't fight back and he doesn't know any computer science. What he does know is the street and his block specifically (Streetwise 5, +1 in his locale), drugs (Medicine 2, +3 Narcotics, +3 Hallucinogens) and the police (Politics 1, +3 Police). Summarizing his entire character only takes three stats, because that's the extent of his usefulness.

A master smith is no different. Give him Craft (Arms and Armor) +20 (or whatever number system you're using). Give him Geology +10 (+20 for metals), Trade +10 (+15 selling armaments) and Military History +15 because he knows about trades that are directly related to his. If he's exceptional at catching lies, that's an element of his character — give him Sense Motive +15. If you know he watches the History Channel give him History +10. All of this can be done much more easily then giving him a full stat-block, and is just as complete a process. And outside of his work and any relevant character details, you don't need to know anything else.

[Coidzor]

Having a ready rubric of what to set those skills to for quickly setting core competencies of NPCs would be nice though.

[Urpriest]

I don't really think the system needs to provide these simplified statblocks though. They're going to be different depending on what you as a DM expect the players to do. Besides, they're simple enough to create. As long as the game has sufficiently distinct subsystems, you can just do the creation work for the abilities you expect the creature to actually use in combat and leave the rest of it out. Some guidelines on that might be useful, but it doesn't need to be built in to the rules themselves.

[TheLoneCleric]

I never understood why most monsters have a natural attack system different than what the PCs use and some monsters were difficult to scale up. I'd like a system to scale monsters as easy as adding "class levels" to them. Without having to actually add PC class levels in all cases.

Digo, check out FantasyCraft. It kinda works like that and is a d20 clone..ish.

Personally?

• Classes that feel unique.
• Archtypes and Kits anything to cut down the number of base classes but allowing for more customization.
• Feats/Ritual/Powers getting folded into a unifed set of abilties for classes.
• Do away with the need for a grid. (imporant for online play)
• Understand the flavor differences between melee and casters, arcane and divine, and tactics vs skills.
• A more robuse use of skills and out of combat activity.
• NO DUMP STATS
• NO ROADBUMP FEATS

And I'm more more later.

[Yora]

On the paizo forum, some people said that published adventures are a very major part of RPGs. Wizards did publish only few adventures for 3rd Edition, but that never had a real impact because other companies created tonnes of adventures that kept the players happy. With 4th edition, wizards published even less adventures and this times there were only very few third party publications that could have satisfied this demand.

Since I neither used published adventures or 4th Edition, I can't say much about that but it is an interesting though.

[valadil]

It's a popular suggestion, but does anyone really expect the grid to disappear? Battlemats help sell minis.

[TheLoneCleric]

Then make it optional.

If I want to buy a tactical mini's game I will.

I don't, but you get my point. (I hope.)

[gkathellar]

So to sum up, we the Playground collectively demand from WotC that when 5e is released we should see that it...

1. has similarities to 4e
2. has no similarities to 4e
3. has similarities to 3e
4. has no similarities to 3e
5. has similarities to AD&D
6. has no similarities to AD&D
7. uses vancian casting
8. doesn't use vancian casting
9. has a small list of generic classes
10. has a wide lists of unique classes
11. has better social skills
12. has no social skills
13. puts more fluff in splatbboks
14. puts less fluff in splatbooks
15. has strong multiclassing
16. has no multiclassing
17. is well balanced
18. puts less emphasis on being "balanced"
19. gives powers to everyone
20. doesn't have powers for fighters
21. is revolutionary, fresh and visionary
22. stays true to its roots and still feels like DnD

and last but not least
23. doesn't break the fanbase in half and provoke massive edition wars.

Is there anything anyone else wants ot add or should I print this off already and mail it to WotC?

You should add, "Is [insert d20 D&D clone]" and "Is not [insert d20 D&D clone]."

[valadil]

Then make it optional.

If I want to buy a tactical mini's game I will.

I don't, but you get my point. (I hope.)

I do get your point and I agree with you that optional mapping is ideal. But I expect WotC won't do this. They'd rather say everybody must buy minis than let you think you can escape without paying the mini tax. (While I enjoy their games, I'm not a big fan of WotC as a company and I'm probably more cynical about this than I have to be.)

[Eldan]

It's a popular suggestion, but does anyone really expect the grid to disappear? Battlemats help sell minis.

God I hope so.

Look, I'm a Warhammer player. I love my minis. But I like to keep my minis and my roleplaying separate (well, not quite. All my warhammer heroes certainly have names and battle cries and stories).

[WarKitty]

Honestly, the biggest thing that would help would be a system with more layers of complexity. Not more complexity. 3.5's problem was that it required complexity and thus needed a large learning curve and a bunch of extra work to keep it running. 4e's problem is that it doesn't have enough complexity, and advanced players can start being bored. Create a system where there is a base rule set and several optional rule sets. The base system creates simple, well-balanced characters with fairly few rules. If you want more rules for diplomacy, or combining classes, or whatnot, there's a rule set for that - but if you don't, it's not an integral part of the system.

[horseboy]

I know exactly what D&D needs: Mystery.

I can get behind this.

God I hope so.

Look, I'm a Warhammer player. I love my minis. But I like to keep my minis and my roleplaying separate (well, not quite. All my warhammer heroes certainly have names and battle cries and stories).

You know what REALLY torques me off about D&D minis? The whole stupid "random" pack crap. My friends that actually have them are all just jumbled up crap, It's like "this thing here that looks like A is actually Q." If you're not going to be able to have what it looks like, just use pennies. If you're just going to use pennies, there's no need to waste money on minis.

edit:

Honestly, the biggest thing that would help would be a system with more layers of complexity. Not more complexity. 3.5's problem was that it required complexity and thus needed a large learning curve and a bunch of extra work to keep it running. 4e's problem is that it doesn't have enough complexity, and advanced players can start being bored. Create a system where there is a base rule set and several optional rule sets. The base system creates simple, well-balanced characters with fairly few rules. If you want more rules for diplomacy, or combining classes, or whatnot, there's a rule set for that - but if you don't, it's not an integral part of the system.

I'm seeing a lot of things like this. There's a problem with just "adding on" complexity. It's called "Companion II" in Rolemaster Classic. If you're using it you suddenly have 3-4 times as many skills, with some skills being broken down into 20 different skills (perception) and things that had been free now costing points (Power Point Development). Yet you're still sitting on the same amount of character resources you were prior, turning your character into a 3.5 fighter.

[gkathellar]

You know what REALLY torques me off about D&D minis? The whole stupid "random" pack crap. My friends that actually have them are all just jumbled up crap, It's like "this thing here that looks like A is actually Q." If you're not going to be able to have what it looks like, just use pennies. If you're just going to use pennies, there's no need to waste money on minis.

THIS. I tried to get into using minis back in 3E, but I couldn't actually get a hold of the ones I wanted, so I stopped. Maybe if it hadn't been a stupidly transparent MtG-esque scheme to get my money I would actually have been willing to give them a lot more of my money.

[Stubbazubba]

I don't think minis help the revenue figures enough to justify requiring a battlemat for the rules to have any application. Really, apps would outsell any miniatures line easily in today's market, and is definitely something they need to invest in. D&D and software haven't gotten along recently in the past, but that was because the software was sub-par, not because of anything inherent about D&D.

I want to be able to play any archetype and have an interesting degree of options available to me, both in combat and out. Sometimes I want to be a sword-for-hire or a retired infantryman, but I want to have combat options beyond "hit monster A or monster B for damage + slide." I think a lot of out-of-combat utility should be separate from class.

I agree with Seerow that classes should be able to cover multiple roles. I would suggest that abilities are separated into lists reflecting different roles within each class, with some generics which are non-role-specific. From these lists, PCs will make a build of 6-10 abilities. So long as you are not surprised, you can choose whichever build (fluffed as "stance" or "school of magic" or whatever else) you want to begin a battle. Swapping builds would require a standard or maybe even full-round action to refocus.

So, for instance, within the Fighter archetype you would have Marauder which is a Striker role, replete with Striker abilities, and a Guardian, which is a Defender role. The ability to switch roles mid-combat in response to changes in party make-up (when your Rogue goes down or what-have-you) and enemy tactics allows you to play the role you prefer while not enslaving your character concept to it. It actually reduces the number of abilities you have to keep track of at any given time (instead of having 20+ powers, you have three builds of 6-10 powers, with some overlap, and you know what each build does), while maintaining concept flexibility for characters. With that in mind, I would suggest slightly more generalized classes which mostly determine the mechanics being used, and then archetypes being a combination of role and class. Or vice versa.

External to that, I'd like Professions, or out-of-combat bundles. If I'm an athlete, I get +3 to all athletic checks, and some nifty ability or two that I can't think up at the moment. Tracker/Ranger (Track, search, possibly Perception), Smith/Merchant (Appraise, craft, Engineering), Diplomat/Scoundrel (Diplomacy, bluff, etc.), Burglar (Stealth, Appraise), Scholar (History, Knowledge, Spellcraft), Medic (Healing, Knowledge), etc. These could either be one or two-time purchases like a feat tree (+3 bonus the first time, +6 the next, one ability each time, maybe a third for +9/10 and a capstone ability), or be small, self-contained secondary classes that you pick once every third level or so. Other than that you assign, like, 1-3 skill points per level, just so there's some granularity for customization's sake.

These systems of progression are designed to be modular; you can replace the Professions System with pure Point-buy skills, or reduce skills entirely to Ability Checks; Classes and Archetypes can likewise be substituted with just playing a single archetype, or allowing players to use all of their class abilities together, not worrying about which lists or what stance/school it's from. On the simple side, there would be a default build for each role covered by that Class at different levels or something.

Then they need to seriously address the out-of-combat game. The Skill system has been plagued by poor implementation for several editions now, Skill Challenges being just the latest iteration. If combat is simplified to a 15-20 minute affair, then we can probably stand a little more crunch to some other aspects of the game. Stealth is an important one that needs attention, as is diplomacy, though the latter is significantly trickier than the former and I would completely understand if not much happened there. But dungeon exploration, environmental encounters, and chase scenes all also need to be included as 5-10 minute mini-games that everyone can contribute to and produce fun playing experiences/cool scenes for the story. Rolling all of them into one generic system may not work. You may need three; Stealth, Diplomacy, and Environment (including exploration and chase scenes).

Here's something I've developed, very rules lite for infiltration: You have a Static stealth score, like AC, it's just 10+Stealth (and whatever goes into Stealth). Every 10 feet (or whatever arbitrary distance works best) you have to move stealthily, you roll a die, and that determines what you encounter, be it a sentry, a locked door, some other environmental hazard, or nothing. If it's a locked door, then your lockpicker gets to work (automatic success if DC is 10+Disable Device or lower, roll if not), but if it's a Sentry, the Sentry makes a Perception check, and if said Perception check beats anyone's Stealth Class, they are detected, and the party has pretty much one readied action to silence him. If he successfully sounds the alarm but the party sneaks away, future Sentry encounters get a bonus on their Perception checks. Once this happens, one of the results on the die changes to "Discovered." If that is rolled, then the PCs can decide to either fight it out or run (initiating chase rules), or try and talk to them or however else they intend to deal with this possibility. Of course magic or abilities would allow you to re-roll a sentry's perception check, or otherwise modify this basic formula. Attacking a sentry who doesn't see you incurs a -6 penalty for an untrained sneak attack, no penalty for those who have the Sneak Attack ability.

That's about how I see Stealth working. It's not a whole lot of rolling, nothing too fiddly, with opportunities to use a small variety of skills, and everyone can sneak along with some degree of stealth.

Anyways, that's just for Stealth. Diplomacy's a whole different mess, and I have to go, so this is going to get posted a little pre-maturely.

tl;dr - Classes should be able to cover more than one role, though not necessarily simultaneously, separate in-combat and out-of-combat progression entirely, include simple mini-games for 5-10 minute (real time) stealth, chase, or environmental scenes. Diplomacy needs to have something, too, but it's a bag of worms so I understand if it doesn't get done terribly well.

[Alejandro]

It may be a money grab, but at least be optimistic about it. I can see D&D dying if they don't manage to get the entire fanbase behind them. Look at it: 4e probably isn't making a huge profit (if a profit at all). 3.5? Too many people left 3.5 to go to 4e, so if they tried to print new 3.5 books there wouldn't be enough players left for them to make a profit. Their only hope is to put forth a new edition and have everyone rally to their cause.

It's also in our best interest. Yes, more games mean more fun. But - those games could find themselves of closing down and without us getting any more if the flagship game of them all can't even turn a profit.

So look at this optimistically. Is it a money grab? Of course. WotC is a business. But as a customer we have to hope they are successful.

You are entirely right. And I am sure 4E is not making as much money as Hasbro wants, or else this would not happen at this time. But at the same time, my group refuses to use 3.5 any more, because we got tired of non caster classes becoming mostly useless after level 9 or so. (Your mileage may vary.)

So, we can't go back, only forward.

Incidentally, I and several members of my group are registered for:

http://www.baldmangames.com/ddxpnews/

And will be playing in:

The D&D Special and Seminar area will be in a special fenced off area. You cannot enter this area without having a valid NDA on file. No exceptions. No cameras or recording equipment will be allowed without prior approval from BMG and Wizards of the Coast.

D&D Secret Special: Caves of Chaos Playtest
Join the first public playtest of the next iteration of the Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game. The playtest offers players the chance to run pre-generated 1st-level characters through the Caves of Chaos, a four-hour D&D adventure. Wizards of the Coast staff will be running several tables each day. As part of the playtest, participants must sign a special non-dislcosure agreement for playtesters.
--
Needless to say, I am looking forward to it.

[killem2]

Edit: ^Eff no. Why is everyone abusing the poor word "mana" so much? And I dislike mana bar casters it feels like such a boring, flavourless mechanic. It's just dull, and I've seen it a million times. Give me binding, or incarnum, or vancian. A mechanic you can build a world, or at least an adventure around.

Its better than the 40 year old mechanic of spells per day crap. Its easier for new people to grasp, more new people = more money = more developement.

In addition, it scales much better than spells per day, and it follows the standard of rpgs since.. well the last 30+ years now.

If there is one thing d&d just got wrong, it was the way casters work.

So, yeah, give me mana bars.

[Vanzanze]

Can I have a wish here?

I'd REALLY love a throwback to the "monsters from Earth's lore" that we used to have in 1E/2E. Lamia, Medusa, Phoenix, Roc, Harpy. Stuff that anyone who ever set foot in a Mythology class (and intended to be there) would recognize.

Am I the only one tired of buying a Monster Manual and having 14,000 creatures from "other planes of existence" who look like something I threw up after a drinking binge with eyes/mouths/ears/blood/arms plastered all over them higgledy-piggledy, and have to scour for the ones I used to remember, only to find that they won't be included until the next Manual comes out?

I mean, come on. When I buy a bestiary book, I actually want to be able to use the critters in them, not wonder what the hell the designers and staff artists were all smoking or injecting when they came up with them. Then again, I'm probably one of the only people in the world who still thinks that on a world full of people-ish creatures, people-ish creatures should pose the majority of the problems, not Cari'thex the Abjudorant from the 9 1/2th Dimension and his army of 500-nostriled servants.

[gkathellar]

Can I have a wish here?

I'd REALLY love a throwback to the "monsters from Earth's lore" that we used to have in 1E/2E. Lamia, Medusa, Phoenix, Roc, Harpy. Stuff that anyone who ever set foot in a Mythology class (and intended to be there) would recognize.

Am I the only one tired of buying a Monster Manual and having 14,000 creatures from "other planes of existence" who look like something I threw up after a drinking binge with eyes/mouths/ears/blood/arms plastered all over them higgledy-piggledy, and have to scour for the ones I used to remember, only to find that they won't be included until the next Manual comes out?

Of course, of the five creatures you mention, all but the Phoenix are included in the core Monster Manual for 3.5 and 4E. So uh ... do you want to give some better examples?

[Eldan]

I think Vancian casting is very fluffy. It provides its own fluff right there in the mechanic. The wizard spends an hour contemplating whta spells he will need that day. He is a planner and a strategist. He then casts the spells almost to completion. He needs preparation, as magic is not natural and inborn to him. He stores those spells in head.

I just think the entire idea of a mage trapping pre-constructed magical templates in his head is wonderfully creative and miles above any "you have five gallons of magical energy left" mechanic.

[Seerow]

I think Vancian casting is very fluffy. It provides its own fluff right there in the mechanic. The wizard spends an hour contemplating whta spells he will need that day. He is a planner and a strategist. He then casts the spells almost to completion. He needs preparation, as magic is not natural and inborn to him. He stores those spells in head.

I just think the entire idea of a mage trapping pre-constructed magical templates in his head is wonderfully creative and miles above any "you have five gallons of magical energy left" mechanic.

So I'm guessing you hate all of the spontaneous casters, because they have spell slots but no preparation?

[Stubbazubba]

I can appreciate the appeal and the internal logic of Vancian casting, however, I don't want it to be the default magic mechanic. I would make it an optional class feature which lets you successfully cast spells you have prepared, bypassing whatever activation roll or whatever else is required of casting non-prepared spells. It would not be the entirety of your magic work for the day.

[navar100]

With a few unfortunate exceptions(Risen Martyr, that Exalted feat that provides a bonus to poisons), not really. That said, the exceptions were all terrible.

So, it's a pretty reasonable concern.

Actually, it's more a commentary on some others here hoping 5E would have it.

I know exactly what D&D needs: Mystery.

Starting with 3E and going over the top in 4E, the game has lost all of it's mystery. The players are too focused on the game part of everything, and not the role playing. Players don't care about the fluff ''oh that scary tentacled monster, sure, whatever...what's it's ac?''. Even more so, all character abilities are straightforward. If a character casts a spell, or uses an ability a set, exact thing happens.

1.Get rid of Knowledge checks. Or at least come up with a system to make them less of an impact. I've seen too many games where the players just ''read the MM page'' by making a high knowledge check, and then win the fight in two rounds by exploiting the monsters weakness and what they know about it. This type of thing must stop. The idea that a simple roll gives you knowledge of every single monster in the multiverse is dumb.

A great twist would be to make knowledge checks something like 50% unreliable. After all, not every sage is a know it all, and sometimes whole nations will believe the wrong thing.

2.Add simple variants to monsters. A lot like mini templates or monster class abilities. That way, no monster is 'by the book'. So no one can know exactly what a single monster can or can't do. Make things like spell like abilities more like ''can cast one 2nd level arcane spell 3/D'' not just ''casts knock 3/d''. Maybe even a system where monsters can 'cash in' abilites and switch them for others.

3.Make magic dangerous. So that when anyone uses any magic, anything can happen. Not so much that they die, just might be harmed or effected. Make it dangerous to use magic vs magic, have wild things happen, both good and bad. Give magic the awe and wonder it should have. Get rid of spellcraft and such, make magic so unique that no one can really understand it...all you can do is just use your experience and go by what you see. But get rid of the ''I have ranks in spellcrat so I know every single spell and magic effect in the multiverse'' crap.

4.Add more mystery to events. When ever a character tries something, always have a random chance that something might happen, good or bad. So a character can't just 'I swing my sword'', as something else might happen. You could build up a network of feats, classes and spells around this...with the risk of making events more extreme.

5.Make the DM ruler, not the rule books. So page one of each rule book says something like ''the rules here are second to what your DM says''.

Yeah, how dare players know stuff! Who do they think they are, feeling entitled to know about the world? They must forever be weakling ignoramuses because only the Almighty Holy Il Duce Ayatollah Fuhrer DM should have any PWER!

[CTrees]

I'd REALLY love a throwback to the "monsters from Earth's lore" that we used to have in 1E/2E.

I mean, come on. When I buy a bestiary book, I actually want to be able to use the critters in them, not wonder what the hell the designers and staff artists were all smoking or injecting when they came up with them.

To be fair, there was a lot in 1E/2E that was really friggin' bizarre. See the wolf-in-sheep's clothing, for a "used as avatars on this forum" example:

Spoiler

Show

[Coidzor]

To be fair, there was a lot in 1E/2E that was really friggin' bizarre. See the wolf-in-sheep's clothing, for a "used as avatars on this forum" example:

Spoiler

Show

Clearly the artist was recently divorced. So that's at least some explanation, I suppose. Then again, most of the squiddly, fishy monsters get the someone read too much Lovecraft explanation.

[gkathellar]

Clearly the artist was recently divorced.

What you have made me see, I cannot unsee.

[Seerow]

I don't get it, why did this thread get moved to "Other Systems" while the other 4 5e threads are still in the Roleplaying Games section, and Legend is still in the 3.5 section?