D&D 5E Stuff from your favorite edition you DON'T want in Next

[Michael Morris]

Perhaps...like multiclassing from 2nd edition and lower, limited HD's, dual classing from earlier editions. Weapon speeds, 1 minute rounds, hmm, I bet I can do this all day. This thread was to ask what you don't want to see, and I answered.

You gave an answer right up there with "I don't want to see any dragons or dungeons in the game any more," and not in a good way. Defining characteristic. Sacred Cow. WotC was burned hard by 4e and Pathfinder rose up precisely because the designers ignored these concepts. There are certain things in the game you do not change. If you want them changed then go play another game.

 

[nightwalker450]

4e is my edition.

I'd like money to be brought to reasonable levels. Take magic items off the market, make them cost (costs should be in time/energy, not in gold) more to create than you could ever sell it for. Then make the rest to reasonable amounts in silvers.

Feats/Costs just to be competent. 3e was worse at this, but you shouldn't have to take a ton of feats just for a concept to be up to par. A concept should be able to be possible within the first 2-3 levels, you shouldn't have to spend every feat/feature you have at it just for it to be reasonable. (Paragon Multiclassing was the worst of 4e) Level requirements are fine, but no feat should be buried under half a dozen other feats/requirements just to be accessible especially when you aren't ever going to make use of those requirements.

 

[Warbringer]

There are certain things in the game you do not change. If you want them changed then go play another game.

What things do you not change?

Since 1e on there have been many, many alternate rules for just about every rule in the book ... From AC as DR, to spell point and mana systems, to gestalt characters, to the unknown thousands of house rules. And re no dungeons and no dragons, one could argue Ebberon was that exact version of DND... ( yes dragons, but you don't fight me... )

Things I don't want to see again, and I'd have to go with 3rd as favorite,

Level stacking multiclassing (doesn't work for spell casters)
Monsters on same build rules as pc
Skill points (allocation creates win/ fail on skill tests)
1001 splat books
14 arcane casting types

 

[Ratinyourwalls]

Then make that decision now. Step off that treadmill if your orientation toward D&D Next is so negative.

The game isn't set in stone yet. There is still plenty of time for it to change before we step on the treadmill. If WotC has shown us anything from this debacle it's that shouting loudly from the mountaintops is the most effective way to bring about the D&D you want.

 

[B.T.]

Favourite Edition: 4th
Stuff I don't want from Fourth: Mike Mearls.

I lolled.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Favorite edition: 4th, I guess?
Stuff I don't want: 45-minute-IRL combat rounds.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Then make that decision now. Step off that treadmill if your orientation toward D&D Next is so negative.

My mommy always told me to keep an open mind.

 

[FireLance]

And mandatory magical items.

A bit of a side-point, but magic items are never mandatory if you select your monsters appropriately. In 1e/2e, it means avoiding creatures that can only be damaged by magic weapons and are immune or resistant to spells (creatures that can only be damaged by magic items but lack spell resistance and immunity are still viable choices if there is a spellcaster in the party who can do the heavy lifting in terms of dealing damage). In 3e/4e, it means using lower-level monsters than the party would normally be able to handle under standard assumptions (and IMO, this much easier to do in 4e than in 3e).

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't want to see classes!!!

[video=youtube;nA2UF1xwGP4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=nA2UF1xwGP4[/video]

 

[Ahnehnois]

You gave an answer right up there with "I don't want to see any dragons or dungeons in the game any more," and not in a good way. Defining characteristic. Sacred Cow. WotC was burned hard by 4e and Pathfinder rose up precisely because the designers ignored these concepts. There are certain things in the game you do not change. If you want them changed then go play another game.

I can't say I buy this at all. Dungeons are long gone for most people aren't they?

To this particular point, the development of D&D through 2e and 3e at least was largely about breaking down the class system, revealing the constituent elements of characters and allowing players to manipulate them. Previously class-based abilities were dissociated from class (feats and skills). Multiclassing was vastly expanded. Hybrid and specialized classes proliferated. 2e had kits, 3e had alternate class features and substitution levels, and PF has expanded those concepts with archetypes. Customized classes are currently the norm. The days of saying "I'm a fighter" and having that statement define your character are long gone.

Going from a design-your-own-class system to a "classless" skill and feat based system is really only an incremental and very logical step from where the game has been evolving. And even in such a system, it's not hard to create a "class" of suggested abilities, retaining the concept to give beginners a starting point and traditionalists something to hang on.

Of course, 4e is completely outside of this paradigm, but it is evidence that a good segment of the audience will tolerate all kinds of radical changes. Certainly, powers for fighters are a far bigger change than simply disassembling the existing fighter into its component parts; it was already a set of bonus feats anyway. I don't think the sacred cow notion holds much water. Certainly, the 3e vs PF vs 4e dynamic did not arise because some groups were traditionalists and others wanted change.