Dear Mike & Monte

Plane Sailing · Dec 29, 2011

Morrus said:
Here's my top-ten wish list:

1) Stick to older races, at least in core. I'm not personally fond of tieflings, dragonborn, etc. There's room for them in supplements.

2) Vancian magic. I like it. I like the resource management aspect of it. I like that it works completely differently to, say, a fighter - the player actively has to do different things. I like that each spell is it's own little rules system in itself. My only criticism of it is that the spells are all too familiar. I would like to see a little at-will magic rather than a crossbow, though.

3) Just go back to regular old hit points. I prefer them to healing surges. Keep the numbers lower.

4) Make each class feel different. When you're playing each class, the player should actually be having to do different things. If one class spends most of its time moving, rolling to hit, rolling damage, then another class should be doing something entirely different (links to my Vancian magic point above). Go so far as to make the actual ability structure of each class different. Give fighters maneuvers, but don't make them even vaguely resemble or feel like spells.

5) Allow monsters to keep exception based design. This is the very best thing that came out of 4E for me. I don't subscribe to the "well, if the dragon can do that, then I should be able to, too" school of thought.

6) Flavour-wise, I'd like the grittiness level to be around 1E level. More LotR, less anime.

7) Art - my preferred art style came from the Dragonlance era. Not "dungeon-punk". No spikes.

8) Don't include a default setting. Instead, encourage DMs to make their own setting.

9) Miniatures can be great, but I'd rather they not be required. This probably means reducing the exact tactical positioning elements of the game, and abstracting a little more. I still feel that the best battlemap will always be the one the players imagine in their head. Miniatures can be useful at times, though, so don't rule them out.

10) Decrease reliance no magical items even further. Sure, allow the DM to have a magicness dial if you like, for those who like their magic items. 4E is an improvement on 3E in that regard (it's more a Christmas shrub than a Christmas tree) but didn't go quite far enough. Make every magic item distinct and interesting (see spells, above).

I agree with all of these except (4), which in 4e causes me too much cognitive dissonance, and makes it harder for me to learn the rules. Why does this monster have a Pin attack with its spear that recharges on a 6 while that one has a Pin attack that recharges when the target saves against the Pin? Why are there so many similar but slightly different monster powers that seem to lack rhyme or reason to whether they are encounter, recharge or something else?

I really really agree on 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 10 though!

Plane Sailing · Dec 29, 2011

Morrus said:
Like I said - scenes, not photoshoots.

Some of the only 4e scenes were tucked away in the 'worlds and monsters' preview booklet IIRC. i.e. rarely seen! There was one book which had a homage to 'keep on the borderlands' and I remember the stir that made as it was an actual adventuring locale - the whole thing, not just posed people!

Derren · Dec 29, 2011

About the whole "Exception based monster design", keep it to monsters, not npcs.

It is fine when that demonic orc or giant can do things the PCs can never do, but when Joe the human NPC can do thinks that Bob the human PC can never do it gets silly. (Common example at 4E release: Be a necromancer).

Plane Sailing · Dec 29, 2011

If I was to include my own wishlist (in addition to things I've agreed with above), I think I'd like to see rules along the BECMI kind of scale - starting with simple rules for basic, 1st level characters, adding the possibility of more extensive rules at later levels.

More later as my brain cells start working properly.

TheAuldGrump · Dec 29, 2011

Plane Sailing said:
If I was to include my own wishlist (in addition to things I've agreed with above), I think I'd like to see rules along the BECMI kind of scale - starting with simple rules for basic, 1st level characters, adding the possibility of more extensive rules at later levels.

More later as my brain cells start working properly.

I think that I have said the same thing about BECMI.

But for gods' sakes, put more than two levels in the B book! I really expected the new Red Box to do well, but having two levels and such limited options killed it before it could walk.

The Auld Grump

KidSnide · Dec 29, 2011

I would like to see 5e fix the silo-ing problem between Utility powers and Feats. Rather than having one set of powers and a second set of bonuses that are both mixed between non-offensive combat abilities and non-combat abilities, create a non-offensive combat pool and a non-combat pool. Provide powers and fixed bonuses for both pools.

That way, characters can be more or less complicated depending on the type of abilities they choose to take. Similarly, DMs can customize their campaign by letting the PCs select more combat abilities or more non-combat abilities, depending on the focus of the campaign.

A few other ideas (all stated by others) that I agree with:

- Minis should be optional.
- There should be fewer powers, and similar powers should be shared by multiple classes and the appropriate monsters.
- High level characters should be less complicated.
- There should be fewer magic items in the default version of the game.
- A simple basic version of D&D should be a core part of the game, not a late add-on.
- The PHB should be fun to read, not a text book on powers.
- The 3rd party licensing rules should be made generous enough that there will be more 3rd party content. I suspect allowing 3rd parties to integrate into the WotC electronic tools is the critical component to make that happen.

-KS

3catcircus · Dec 29, 2011

Plane Sailing said:
Why does this monster have a Pin attack with its spear that recharges on a 6 while that one has a Pin attack that recharges when the target saves against the Pin? Why are there so many similar but slightly different monster powers that seem to lack rhyme or reason to whether they are encounter, recharge or something else?

I don't even know what that means but I don't like it at all. This is part of the reason why 5e should completely ditch any and all terminology associated exclusively with 4e.

5e combat ought to allow that different monsters (and PCs) can do different things based upon how skilled they are vs. by virtue of just being a certain monster type or character class - this would ensure that the basic mechanic is the same but the more skilled combatant is able to do much more in a default situation.

Aldarc · Dec 29, 2011

Morrus said:
5) Allow monsters to keep exception based design. This is the very best thing that came out of 4E for me. I don't subscribe to the "well, if the dragon can do that, then I should be able to, too" school of thought.

9) Miniatures can be great, but I'd rather they not be required. This probably means reducing the exact tactical positioning elements of the game, and abstracting a little more. I still feel that the best battlemap will always be the one the players imagine in their head. Miniatures can be useful at times, though, so don't rule them out.

10) Decrease reliance no magical items even further. Sure, allow the DM to have a magicness dial if you like, for those who like their magic items. 4E is an improvement on 3E in that regard (it's more a Christmas shrub than a Christmas tree) but didn't go quite far enough. Make every magic item distinct and interesting (see spells, above).

I don't necessarily agree with some of your list points (i.e. Vancian magic), but these are three points with which I definitely agree, especially #9, which was a big turn-off for me with 4E.

FireLance · Dec 29, 2011

howandwhy99 said:
You know with a modular game we might see something like this. 4E Roles are almost entirely about skirmish combat. I could see alternate add-ons with Roles as well with particular variety and balance to the module.

Just to plug the proposal of themes as the basic building blocks of a character a bit more - I think this can easily be done under a themes framework. You could have Non-Combat Role themes in addition to Class, Race, and Background themes. The DM could then require all characters to have one class theme, one race theme, and one or more themes from any group, or he could allow each player to pick any three (or more) themes for his PC.

Frostmarrow · Dec 29, 2011

Rechan said:
It's interesting to see who pitches ideas that are similar to yours. Both AnonGemini and Frostmarrow proposed similar profession/non-combat roles like I did.

Thumbs up, [MENTION=85831]AnonGemini[/MENTION] and [MENTION=1122]Frostmarrow[/MENTION]

Maybe we are on to something? I think it's important, though, not to have classes and themes forming a perfect matrix. When it comes to D&D I expect some idiosyncracies. If the game is too elegant it sort of plays you. If there are no loose ends the human brain won't be intrigued and lured in to exploring the system.

Another thing: If characters are no longer defined as paladin and druid but as defender/diplomats and controller/whisperers something valuable is lost. Are the classes as we know them merely going to be recipies or set customizations of recepies?