D&D 5th Edition makes the New York Times

[rmg22893]

What I want are two things, either/or:

1) Durable lightweight sourcebooks (lugging around 20 or so moderately heavy hardback books gets ridiculous)

2) Official PDF sourcebooks

[Seerow]

What I want are two things, either/or:

1) Durable lightweight sourcebooks (lugging around 20 or so moderately heavy hardback books gets ridiculous)

2) Official PDF sourcebooks

If they give a free copy of the pdf with every hardcover bought, I'll be a very happy person.

[KicktheCAN]

I want linear power progression in the classes instead of the exponential progression so much of 3.5 has; then we could have some meaningful multiclassing. I want a Wizard 10/Fighter 10 to be just as powerful as a a Fighter 20 or a Wizard 20.

[Coplantor]

My hopes for 5th edition? Well, I dont care about the rules, I dont care if characters have saves or defences, I dont care for powers, at-wills, maneuvers or spells, I dont care for rituals, skills, feats and levels. I certainly dont care about classes, which are cooler, which are stronger, which are broken. I dont care for the races, if there is one to many scaly creatures as base races, if there are half or full orcs or how many halves can a character have. Dont care about setting, rules light or rules heavy, roleplay or rollplay.

What I do care, however, is that I can understand the basics of it reading the core book(s) only once! That things gets explained as they show up. The player's handbook should explain me how to play at the same time that it teaches me how to roll my first character. At the end of my first read through, I should have (even if very basic) a complete character. 2nd edition was somewhat good at it, 3.5 did it right and 4th edition was almost as good as 3.5 for that matter.

I want the books to be clear about what they mean, I dont want "Iron Heart Surge" like confussions. I've been mostly (and almost exclusively) a DnD player, one of the first non DnD games I checked was Exalted and I got tired of going back and forth between pages as I made my first character because the information I needed didn't followed a clear line as much as it just exploded and fell randomly between the pages of the book.

Mechanics should be easy to find if I need to check the mid-game. Some DnD editions had in the last few pages, a copy of every single table present in the book, boy was that helpful.

[LibraryOgre]

The Mod Wonder: Double posts prior to this should not be reported; they are likely artifacts of thread combination.

[Coidzor]

If they give a free copy of the pdf with every hardcover bought, I'll be a very happy person.

With the way smartphones and tablets and laptops are becoming more and more of a thing, it does seem like it'd make a certain amount of sense. :/

What you have made me see, I cannot unsee.

I am sorry. If it's any consolation, it was a cracked(?) article detailing a drunken misadventure through an oldschool D&D module that brought it to light for me. By explicitly calling it out.

Thought it was a fairly commonly mocked monster and at least partially for that reason though. Might be grossly misremembering that old article about stupid D&D monsters and its sequel that get trotted out semi-regularly.

[MukkTB]

A) Rules that are consistent with the concept of being a world simulator. Not as in the DM having to work through rules to figure out everything that happens in the world, but in the sense of the world making logical sense if the rules are taken literally as the game world's version of physics.
B) Complex and varied options and interactions, in both fluff and mechanics.
C) A simple reliable metric for character (and monster) power, such that knowing this one number (character level, challenge rating, or equivalent) is enough for DMs to judge likely encounter difficulty, possibly with caveats about the presence or absence of particular abilities.

Yes, these requirements (particularly B and C) place conflicting and opposing demands on the nature of the rules system that are difficult to resolve. Resolving them anyway is WotC's job and doing it successfully would justify a high price for the game.

Win.
C isn't so important though.

[Coidzor]

Win.
C isn't so important though.

Still, what it would indirectly say about how consistently put together the system was would generally be roughly positive-ish, and it does seem like it would be more convenient for the people running the game, especially when new.

[killem2]

After some more consideration, I'd like to see them return to 3.5 rule base if possible. I don't see it happening though. It would be nice to have some real conversions created so people could interchange between the editions,

[Delvin Darkwood]

Does anyone even think its at all vaguely possible to even satisfy each of the different edition camps with 5th edition?

[BIGMamaSloth]

This has probably already been said, but please, less books. I would far rather have one enormous core book with the dungeon masters guide, players handbook and monster manual in it than three smaller books.

[Curious]

Does anyone even think its at all vaguely possible to even satisfy each of the different edition camps with 5th edition?

No. And that's the problem WoTC is facing; the playerbase is massively fractured, more-so than it has probably ever been, especially with the massive migration of people to games like Pathfinder and Legend. Simply, 5e is their last chance to re-unite their former customers and dominate the market once more. If they fail though, I don't imagine d&d will ever quite recover.

[limejuicepowder]

I would like to see a more organic character building method. Somewhat similar to only having 4 or so basic classes (and multiclassing between them), but more so: each "level" of experience gained allows the character to increase their talents in a particular field, whether that's sneaking, fighting, magic, etc.

The fields themselves would supply special abilities, maneuvers, spells, and other active-type powers.

This system would match well with the "passive feat" school of thought, allowing players to further enhance the abilities they get.

Also, I would like a more engaged, back-and-forth and less turn based combat system. In 3.5 especially there is very little do when it's not your turn; this should change. While I never finished it, I was working on a Dragonball Z RPG where characters had action points to spend on maneuvers; because they could be used at almost any time and in response to almost anything, characters weren't penalized for being defensive, and it made for a much more realistic combat.

[smasher0404]

Slightly off-topic/wordy: Why can't WoTC try to maintain the previous systems instead of releasing new ones, people have the systems they like to play why not just continue to release errata and new content rather than forcing players to either update or run out of new classes that they can introduce. Releasing a new edition would only give profits a burst before settling back into past trends. If they instead released new material for old systems then people would be able to continue playing what they want while still buying their products.

Also maybe they could release content in smaller packets, maybe instead of full books that cost 20 bucks a pop, maybe release a bunch of smaller books filled with less materials and cheaper so people could pick and choose which they want to buy. For example, when you're on itunes which are you more likely to buy? a full album or one or two songs? They cost about the same to Apple who only has to pay for rights. WoTC owns the rights to everything so they could do the same thing hear, except their production cost after development would be 0.

[Lappy9001]

This thread kinda blew up, so I'm sorry if this has already been brought up.

I'd like more goodies for characters, even (nay, especially!) at low levels. One thing I liked about Pathfinder and 4e were at-will magic, 'cause a caster shouldn't run out of magic after 5 spells.

I also wish they'd close up the gap between casters and mundanes. It might be a legacy thing, but I'd like for it to be easier to reflect a bit of dabbling in the magic arts. One of the best things about the Elder Scrolls and Final Fantasy games is that everybody *can* cast magic, but not everyone does or chooses to specialize in it.

Basically, make it easier for people to play what they want. Isn't the point of imaginary play after all?

[Coplantor]

Slightly off-topic/wordy: Why can't WoTC try to maintain the previous systems instead of releasing new ones, people have the systems they like to play why not just continue to release errata and new content rather than forcing players to either update or run out of new classes that they can introduce. Releasing a new edition would only give profits a burst before settling back into past trends. If they instead released new material for old systems then people would be able to continue playing what they want while still buying their products.

Also maybe they could release content in smaller packets, maybe instead of full books that cost 20 bucks a pop, maybe release a bunch of smaller books filled with less materials and cheaper so people could pick and choose which they want to buy. For example, when you're on itunes which are you more likely to buy? a full album or one or two songs? They cost about the same to Apple who only has to pay for rights. WoTC owns the rights to everything so they could do the same thing hear, except their production cost after development would be 0.

I can think of a few problems. Till this day, 2nd edition is still enjoyed by a large group of people, so is 3rd, 3.5 and 4th. To realease books and extra material for all four versions of DnD, or even only two of them would require multiple teams of people working for each edition instead of one team focused in whatever the current edition is. By releasing a new edition, WotC tries to unify the fanbase, why? Well, when you print something, it is much more pocket friendly to print in large numbers, the more you print, the "cheaper" it becomes, so each sold unit represents a bigger profit.

Using your model, profit is smaller because they have to print in smaller numbers to satisfy a fragmented fanbase. Most people have their one RPG that plays the most (some people play only one RPG, heck, for some people DnD and roleplaying are the same thing) and more often than not, they play only one edition. Players of earlier editions move to newer ones if they feel it's worthy, at the same time, people new to the hobby will most likely buy the last edition. By releasing materials for older editions, old players wont feel the same regarding switching editions, and wizards gets stuck in a situation in which they have to satisfy the demands of a group of consumers more broken than druids that maybe it might be greater than but not as profitable as one unified fanbase.

TL;DR:
Less profit by book
More checks to sign

Also, it would be like releasing another expansion pack for the original Starcraft, awesome, yes, but quite silly in this day and age.

[Mando Knight]

Slightly off-topic/wordy: Why can't WoTC try to maintain the previous systems instead of releasing new ones,

Same reason that telling you that you need maintenance on your car will net the dealership less money than selling you an entirely new one.

Hasbro is almost unmatched in repeatedly selling the same thing with slightly different design variations. You've got the original Prime, and all of the Primes since, but maybe you should get the really cool Dark of the Moon super-ultra-deluxe Prime. Your collection really wouldn't be complete without it.

By releasing a new edition, WotC tries to unify the fanbase, why?

In the end, it just means there will be five competing editions of D&D, though. With only one being actually supported by the ones who own the rights.

[Coplantor]

In the end, it just means there will be five competing editions of D&D, though. With only one being actually supported by the ones who own the rights.

It wasn't really a question though, it was part of the argument

[BudgetDM]

Does anyone even think its at all vaguely possible to even satisfy each of the different edition camps with 5th edition?

Nope. I doubt even WOTC think that they can actually do it. They simply think that they can satisfy MORE with 5th edition.

[LordBlades]

I don't particularly mind that little suspension of disbelief. If the players get upset that the BBEG has a little more HP than he should or is somehow getting some great action economy shenanigans, then that is something that can be explained away on a case by case scenario.

The thing is, if you want a humanoid boss, you shouldn't have to make the character a much higher level than the party to make it fit that role. Which is what D&D currently does. You make the character 4+ levels higher than the party, then use a lot of his low-mid level spells on long term buffs to make him tougher. Using an elite template just skips the middle muddling around and gets what you want without needing any sort of rules mastery to pull it off.

I don't personally see it as any more verisimilitude shattering than a DM using a gestalt character as a challenge in a game that is generally non-gestalt. And yes, I have seen this done without players caring.

There's also plenty of people playing with monks and druids in the same party and not minding the power disparity, that doesn't mean it's a good thing.

I've seen quite a few people complaining about the lack of verisimilitude of the 4E world, mainly due to the fact that dissociated mechanics were so prevalent. Quite a lot of mechanical things that happen are rather hard to justify in in-game terms.

[The-Mage-King]

What I'd like?

• A diverse and useful skill system, preferable point based, so as to represent a character's skill with non-basic things
• A class and level system that allows for multiclassing properly, not just feats called multiclassing.
• Feats that add options, not numbers
• Something similar to 4E's powersources, with more diverse mechanics. The concept was good, but the enactment was... Lacking.
• Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards to be reduced, but not -quite- eliminated. Give the nerd who's been wandering around in robes for 15 levels more power than the guy who's been doing the violence. Make choosing a weak class early on pay off later. Just not so much.
• A diverse and sensible crafting system. No, seriously, I like crafting, and want it to thrive.
• Monster-as-PC rules that WORK.
• Large amounts of abilities that are mechanically interesting and diverse, with some, but not much, overlap between classes' skill sets.

Huh. Quite a bit.

[Feytalist]

Thought it was a fairly commonly mocked monster and at least partially for that reason though. Might be grossly misremembering that old article about stupid D&D monsters and its sequel that get trotted out semi-regularly.

Obligatory:

Stupid monsters and part 2.

Amusing read. Yes, there have been some weird D&D monsters over the years.

[Ashtagon]

I don't particularly mind that little suspension of disbelief. If the players get upset that the BBEG has a little more HP than he should or is somehow getting some great action economy shenanigans, then that is something that can be explained away on a case by case scenario.

The thing is, if you want a humanoid boss, you shouldn't have to make the character a much higher level than the party to make it fit that role. Which is what D&D currently does. You make the character 4+ levels higher than the party, then use a lot of his low-mid level spells on long term buffs to make him tougher. Using an elite template just skips the middle muddling around and gets what you want without needing any sort of rules mastery to pull it off.

I've always taken a different approach. If you want a boss, you play him like a boss. For most adventures in 3e and 4e, and even some of 2e, 'bosses' were made simply by making them be bigger and stronger and with more magical doohickeys. But they weren't played any smarter. Bosses should be smart. The first few times the party encounters them, they should stick around just long enough to gloat, and possibly kill a PC if the party is too confident. They have lackeys to fight for them. They don't need to be in the front line. Most of the time they aren't even on the battlefield.

The toughest boss my party ever defeated was a 5th level wizard. The party were all level 10+ at the time.

I agree this approach doesn't work in every case though. But for humanoids, and indeed any creature type that has some kind of rule of law, it makes perfect sense.

That said, your sample feat (skill feat adds +2 skill, rerolls/day, and enhanced action point economy) would fit just fine with what I'd ideally want. The feat you brought up specifically modifies another ability of the character, which is fine. I don't really see how writing on your sheet "Roll d10s" as opposed to "Roll d6s" is something more interesting to remember than "Get +2 to damage", but something like that isn't something I'd be opposed to.

I agree the enhanced action point economy (d10 instead of d6) isn't a big deal in terms of how big a bonus it actually is. But in terms of getting the player's attention at the table, making him remember what his character has, and encouraging more active participation in the group, it does the job wonderfully. It's not a power enhancement; it's a participation enhancement.

[Manateee]

One aspect of D&D that has always been one of its greatest hallmarks and weaknesses is the weight and complexity of the rules. Just learning to play means reading hundreds of pages of material in any edition. Compare to most other games [not necessarily rpgs], which take 1-10 minutes reading to fully understand, or the lighter RPGs that seem to be increasingly popular, which fit all their contents into 40-60 pages.

I'd be curious to see if WotC do away with the learning step in a new edition. With an interactive tablet app or light computer program, it would be very possible to have the same detailed rules-heavy game that D&D has always been, but to completely remove the need for players to know the rules ahead of time by shifting that task from the users to their software.

That's not something I expect to happen, but it is something that could impress me, if done by a company with Hasbro's resources.

[gkathellar]

This has probably already been said, but please, less books. I would far rather have one enormous core book with the dungeon masters guide, players handbook and monster manual in it than three smaller books.

Not gonna happen for two reasons: a) printing massive doorstoppers in hardcover is ridiculously expensive, and b) printing fewer books makes you less money.

Let me stress (a) for a second though. Hardcover doorstoppers are much, much too costly to reasonably produce. Especially if we expect them to have big dimensions and nice paper.

• A class and level system that allows for multiclassing properly, not just feats called multiclassing.

By which of course you mean that demihumans choose their multiclass at 1st level and split their experience points, and humans get to dual-class, starting over again at level 1, right? Because obviously that's proper multiclassing.

[deuterio12]

One aspect of D&D that has always been one of its greatest hallmarks and weaknesses is the weight and complexity of the rules. Just learning to play means reading hundreds of pages of material in any edition. Compare to most other games [not necessarily rpgs], which take 1-10 minutes reading to fully understand, or the lighter RPGs that seem to be increasingly popular, which fit all their contents into 40-60 pages.

I made and started playing my first D&D 3.0 character in less than 20 min. Really, if you're not a caster, you just need to take a quick look at the feats and basic equipment. The bases are pretty simple, roll a 1d20, add modfier, compare to DC, move on. Roll some other die here and there.

Even if you're a caster, there's not that many 1st and 0th level spells to choose from. You only need to read the rest as you level up, which really won't be that fast. Or if you want to abuse the game by reading the DM-only material, but that's only required for purposedly breaking the game, not playing it.

[CTrees]

With the way smartphones and tablets and laptops are becoming more and more of a thing, it does seem like it'd make a certain amount of sense. :/

Funny, my group primarily plays Pathfinder. I've got a new tablet on order, and one of the things I'm really looking forward to is using it to enhance my DMing. Put all the PDFs on there, keep all of my notes and references on it, add pictures and appropriate music... I could even get rid of the dice, but I'm sure I won't. Really though, all of this will let me get rid of the DM screen entirely, which is fantastic. Paizo releasing PDFs of everything is just one nice factor, there, but if 5E copies that? It will definitely be a selling point.

This has probably already been said, but please, less books. I would far rather have one enormous core book with the dungeon masters guide, players handbook and monster manual in it than three smaller books.

Nooooooooooo. I love tons of splats (they can be soft covers, but I needs them... my precious...). Also, I suggest never trying to play GURPS ("wait, was that rule in Rocks and Trees, volume 3 or Forests of North Asia?")

There's also plenty of people playing with monks and druids in the same party and not minding the power disparity, that doesn't mean it's a good thing.

This depends greatly on optimization level. Before I was DMing, my group, at one point, included a monk, a paladin/bard, and two druids, and a few others. The monk was consistently the top performing combatant, followed closely by the paladin. The druids were by far the weakest, thanks largely to things like not letting their pets fight, because they didn't want them to get hurt. Seriously. (for the record, I very quickly switched to a Shadowdancer, playing the scout/skill monkey, after I hurt a few too many feelings with a combat-focused character. Guys, 40 damage per round is not ridiculous).

[horseboy]

In short, what I'd like in 5th:

For it to be a real roleplaying game. To actually not watch in dark amusement and watch the rule implode on themselves the minute that you try and do something other than killing things and taking their stuff.

Is that too much to ask? Yeah, probably so.

[Delvin Darkwood]

In short, what I'd like in 5th:

For it to be a real roleplaying game. To actually not watch in dark amusement and watch the rule implode on themselves the minute that you try and do something other than killing things and taking their stuff.

Is that too much to ask? Yeah, probably so.

i could not of said it better myself

[DoctorGlock]

I made and started playing my first D&D 3.0 character in less than 20 min. Really, if you're not a caster, you just need to take a quick look at the feats and basic equipment. The bases are pretty simple, roll a 1d20, add modfier, compare to DC, move on. Roll some other die here and there.

Even if you're a caster, there's not that many 1st and 0th level spells to choose from. You only need to read the rest as you level up, which really won't be that fast. Or if you want to abuse the game by reading the DM-only material, but that's only required for purposedly breaking the game, not playing it.

3.5 does not have special "DM only" material. It does have 600 sourcebooks with material usable from level 1. Yes, it can in fact take forever to make a level 1 character.

As to what I want from 5e? Well, frankly, they will have to try dang hard to beat Legend.

They will need balance that does not come at the cost of versatility and customization and they will need it in under 200 pages.

Out of combat utility for all classes

Nice Things(tm) for everyone, not just the folks in pointy hats

Support for various playstyles. Want a low magic game? Want a superheroes game? Want a game for myths and deities? Support all of them and do not wed the default fluff to something the game isn't. D&D isn't crapsack Europe during the 30 years war. Stop pretending it is and note how magic has modernized society, you printed it after all.

Really, that's about it.