Your Ideal Edition of D&D

[Aegeri]

I would absolutely hate a 5th edition as given in the OP. Bland and optionless is not my idea of interesting.

Personally what I want is the current edition, but fix the flaws in the key areas it went wrong in: EG no epic support, fix how the games damage metagame is based on charging and spamming multiple attacks (or off turn attacks). I would like to see monster HP towards epic reduced across the board, so that you don't need the current ridiculous [W] explosions you see in some theorycraft for a single attack power to keep up with multiple attack spam. Finally I want to see expertise and defense math fixes implemented into the system, without needing a feat tax to do so.

And a puppy.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Absolutely no puppies, but donkeyhorses are fine.

 

[Kzach]

My ultimate D&D isn't really D&D because I'd get rid of most of the remaining sacred cows. I'd have no levels, I'd eradicate hit points and replace them with something far better, and I'd utterly obliterate classes.

 

[josha]

Packages that come with class features, equipment, and powers may seem too restrictive at first, but each class could have a dozen or more packages.

For example, the fighter could have a greatsword wielding package that focuses on dishing out copious amounts of damage, a longsword and shield wielding package focusing of defense, a Drizzt-style dual-wielding package that focuses on wearing foes down with many attacks at a time, a polearm wielding package focusing on charges and long-range melee attacks, a warlord-style package focusing on buffing, a samurai-like package focusing accuracy, a barbarian-like package focusing on offence at the expense of defense, and countless others.

 

[the Jester]

Packages that come with class features, equipment, and powers may seem too restrictive at first, but each class could have a dozen or more packages.

For example, the fighter could have a greatsword wielding package that focuses on dishing out copious amounts of damage, a longsword and shield wielding package focusing of defense, a Drizzt-style dual-wielding package that focuses on wearing foes down with many attacks at a time, a polearm wielding package focusing on charges and long-range melee attacks, a warlord-style package focusing on buffing, a samurai-like package focusing accuracy, a barbarian-like package focusing on offence at the expense of defense, and countless others.

You're right back to option overload though, at least if you build it in at first level. In fact, that's my fix- don't have tons of packages for pcs at first level, but instead as advancement options- basically, you want to be good with axes? There's a prestige class for that. But if you're a fighter, you have a few basic options to choose between at first level and then a bit more each level you advance that are more general fighting abilities.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You're right back to option overload though, at least if you build it in at first level. In fact, that's my fix- don't have tons of packages for pcs at first level, but instead as advancement options- basically, you want to be good with axes? There's a prestige class for that. But if you're a fighter, you have a few basic options to choose between at first level and then a bit more each level you advance that are more general fighting abilities.

I think the question that wants to be asked is what are the minimum number of choices that will let the player define their character adequately and distinguish it from other characters? Then what is the minimum number of choices that a character needs to be able to have during play in order to be able to make some tactically meaningful choices?

That's what the game should aim for. It should also aim to reduce the amount of tracking that has to go on beyond that. Conditions were a good idea, but then somehow relying on them was quickly lost as a basic simplifying concept.

Things should be more distinct. 4e relies on a lot of rather small individual benefits, effects, etc and demands that the player stack them up to achieve something really significant. I think a lesser number of larger and non-stacking options would work better. Instead of a power plus a feat plus another feat plus 2-3 items adding up to "I'm really good at X" just have an option "You're really good at X, when you clobber your enemy with X, he's hosed." As long as each of those things is somewhat situational and requires a bit of tactics to pull off it is a superior option.

So, 'big bad axe wielding warrior' might simply be an option you take. When you whack someone with your big bad axe warrior daily power, you put a huge dent in them. When a couple minions run up you can kill them all with a big sweep of your axe. Make penalties and bonuses large but there are only a few of them. Trim back hit points a bit, make that one big killer blow really wreak havoc. Things will be a BIT more swingy but not much. The goal would be to make combat seem more like a skirmish and less like a chess game.

 

[Osgood]

I have thought about this a lot over the past year, when Essentials wasn't what I was hoping for. 4E is pretty close to my ideal version of D&D, so for me it would be 4E with the following alterations:

• Get rid of the linear alignment track, preferably bring back the old two axis system, but I would accept switching to something like Good, Evil, Lawful, Chaotic, and Unaligned.

• A more concise list of feats, that doesn't get too big too fast (closer to the essentials feat list). Perhaps have a guideline of never introducing more than x feats per year.

• I dislike "subclasses" like we see in essentials. Either have separate classes, or created a more flexible system where you pick from a list of ala cart class features.

• All classes have the AEDU power structure, but traditionally simpler classes (such as the fighter) have fewer and simpler choices, such as instead of gaining at new encounter power at higher levels, gain additional uses of the existing power (or at least have that as the default option, but with "advanced" choices available).

• Along those lines, I think each class should have a "simple" and "advanced" path. In a regular campaign, folks may opt in to the more complex options, but the simple choice is available for the casual or one-shot game.

• Rework the multiclass system. If you have ala cart class features, perhaps a multiclass feat allows you to freely take another classes features. Another feat would allows powers to be swapped.

• Magic items should more closely resemble earlier editions. Items should usually have properties as opposed to powers (except for special items), and allow a magic item to have multiple enchantments (within reason). Perhaps using the rarity system: uncommon items have two properties, rares have a power and a two properties, etc.

• Thoroughly play test classes, feats, and powers so there is less errata (perhaps an open play test where the classes are available to subscribers a year before the book is released). The books should remain useful references.

• Speed up combat. Remove or limit the game slowing abilities and conditions, such as triggered interrupts and reactions, stun, etc.

• Monster design is pretty good right now, but most standard monsters should have only one or two signature powers above the basic attack. I love the idea of minions, standard, elite, and solo monsters, but perhaps an evaluation of the HP structure... perhaps a minion goes down in one hit, and a standard monster goes down in two or three, an elite in five or six hits, and so on.

• Create a more robust skill challenge system. Perhaps every class should have at least one feature and/or utility power that supports skill challenges.

• Presumably DDI (or something similar) is going to be a part of the next edition, as the DM has the hardest job, make sure it supports them by having the tools they need at launch (monster builder, trap builder, treasure generator, map maker, etc.). If this is going to be integrated, be sure to consider that in the design process (ie don't create some rule element that can't easily be implemented in the tools)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't really dislike sub-classes so much as I think that you can achieve that level of variety in a more efficient way. Any character can use the big bad axe wielder option, thus you don't really need sub-classes so much. In the case of a character built as a defender it will make you a fairly high damage output defender perhaps, one that relies a lot on beat down. In the hands of a striker it will give you a high damage output but with a bit less consistency than say using a sword. Both options use the same 'option' (whatever you call it, theme, package, feat, whatever).

I think you could have a pretty limited class roster this way, and more combinations would be possible. You wouldn't really need 'ranger' vs 'rogue' vs 'fighter' so much anymore as you could be a tough defendery melee character or a strikery one. Other options would let you be more mobile with lighter armor or pick up heavy armor and better defenses at the cost of some mobility. A light weapon, light armor, Stealth, and a 'Sneaky Ambusher' option would give you basically a rogue. Much more reuse of powers and options between these 'classes'. It wouldn't be CLASSLESS, but it would really only require a small number of classes that embody the most basic core of your concept, warrior, mage, or priest would really be enough. Combined with power source choices you'd have pretty much all you need.

 

[Herschel]

4E "classic" with 2E fluff/settings is my "ideal". The one thing I'd change would be to no longer require power swap feats for multiclass UTILITY power choices. Attack powers without would be cool, but opens a lot of room for abuse.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I think I'm grognifying, so I may stick with 4e -- more specifically C4 -- regardless of what 5e looks like. The only thing thing that would make me really JUMP on board with 5e would be interesting tactical rules for things that D&D has never had [good] rules for: social combat, nation building and mass combat.

Because skill challenges just don't do anything for me.

4E "classic" with 2E fluff/settings is my "ideal". The one thing I'd change would be to no longer require power swap feats for multiclass UTILITY power choices. Attack powers without would be cool, but opens a lot of room for abuse.

Hm, I'd think it'd be the opposite. Attack powers are pretty straightforward compared to utility powers, so I'd think the latter'd be more prone to abuse. I don't really have any evidence of this, just an instinct.