D&D 5E What 5th edition needs to achieve IMO

[DonTadow]

Or martial, divine, arcane, (primal? psionic?)

Probably too much of a break from the traditional though!

I think it's too gamey. It feels like going in thinking combat first, and I"m thinking more of the traditional party archetype. I need someone strong, someone with a connection to god, someone who can do magic and someone who is sneaky.

THe idea behind hte 4 classes is, this was all there were in 1st edition. Let's go back to that. Then, use feats as 2nd edition kits. A feat would bea a special ability, skill bonuses and save bonuses. THis way, we do simple adding and not long division. Even spell casting has feats that would give you 10 points and access to "this school" etc.

You create a open way to design a character without needing a ton of different rules and supplements.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Or martial, divine, arcane, (primal? psionic?)

Probably too much of a break from the traditional though!

Or Defender, Striker, Leader, Controller.

This is exactly the reason why I don't want Fighter / Cleric / Magic-User / Thief. I don't want my only divine character to HAVE to be a healer/leader. I like paladins. I like avengers. I like invokers. And for that matter, I don't want my only leader character to HAVE to be a priest. I like warlords and bards too.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I"m thinking more of the traditional party archetype. I need someone strong, someone with a connection to god, someone who can do magic and someone who is sneaky.

The reason for the cleric archetype was not for the need for a connection to god, it was for having a healer in the party. So the base game doesn't need a "cleric", it needs a "leader" (for lack of a better term). Someone who heals and buffs the party. Sure, a cool theme would be a "divine cleric" that heals and buffs due to his connection to his god... but I don't want every healer to be that way.

Race / role / theme (power source). That gives us all much more flexibility in character generation.

 

[Redshirt]

5e needs to finally do away with the "christmas tree" effect like WotC has talked about in the past. Do away with +X items and give us items that feel magical.

I'd prefer they put them back in the DMG, but that's just me.

 

[Pssthpok]

It would be awesome if we just tossed all the grid-like ridiculousness of 4E forever.

No power source. Why are there so many different sources for magic? Shadow, primal, psion, arcane, divine... gimme a break. Likewise, no roles. If the fighter wants to pick up some Lockpicking, what's stopping him? His class, silly. Nuts to that. Give me modularity/versatility, or give me -10 HP.

No daily/encounter powers. Awful, way-too-meta way of balancing the game that annihilates suspension of disbelief. Just tone it all down. Not every fighter needs to be Ichigo or Inu Yasha. I prefer my fighters as salt-of-the-earth type, sword-and-board sluggers who aren't remotely magical in what they do. 4E ruined that for fighters. They all had these... glitzy powers. Lame.

No grid-measurements. Use feet or meters, but not ambiguous "squares". I disliked being relegated to a mat because the rules couldn't handle themselves any other way.

No more DDI. This is a symptom of a disease, namely the fear of being out-shined by the PC game market. D&D is brand-strong, and needs to embrace its pencil-and-paper roots by making a game that's about quick dungeon generation, flexible social and combat conflict resolution, etc. Making your game (and by extension, your game's rules) rely on the internet is basically admitting that your game can't hack it compared to PC games.

Transparency in monster and spell design. I cannot... simply CANNOT stress this enough. Show us how it's done, and make sure when we look in the MM, the numbers actually work out the right way. I was so disheartened by the 4E MM when the damage for monsters wasn't at all like the DMG said.

I have to go, but I'm really... really abraded by the news of 5E, a meere 4 years after 4E. Just... sad and encouraging and I dunno.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I need someone strong, someone with a connection to god, someone who can do magic and someone who is sneaky.

THe idea behind hte 4 classes is, this was all there were in 1st edition.

Of course, in OD&D there was only three classes (Cleric, Fighting Man, Magic User) - which was partly behind my lightweight suggestion of martial, divine and arcane

(thieves came in "Supplement 1, Greyhawk" as I'm sure you know)

An alternative which True20 uses is putting the divine and arcane 'magic users' together, and have warrior, expert and adept as the basic classes for a more role-based set of options.


Cheers

 

[DonTadow]

The reason for the cleric archetype was not for the need for a connection to god, it was for having a healer in the party. So the base game doesn't need a "cleric", it needs a "leader" (for lack of a better term). Someone who heals and buffs the party. Sure, a cool theme would be a "divine cleric" that heals and buffs due to his connection to his god... but I don't want every healer to be that way.

Race / role / theme (power source). That gives us all much more flexibility in character generation.

True, (i started to say healer), it's not what the term used is, it's the marketing. A 10 year old knows what a fighter is, a warrior. A 10 year old does not know what a striker is. Divine? Arcane Magic. vs Priest and Wizard. I felt 4e tried to get too complicated with this. Call a spade a spade. (for marketing reasons). I can't remember, but i wrote something 5 or 6 years ago during the war, that said that us as players should have the goal if growing the game. 40 years ago, when dnd was created, we used simple, common words that the non-gaming population understood. Dungeons, dragons, wizards and warriors. Sure now, we realize that on a tactical positions, but that's not attractive to the public.

I would never play an MMO that actually used hte term healer, tank, dps class. Even though we know what it is, they should keep the immersion. Again, WOTC can take this old school appoach and not even put a word on it. Make it a true reboot. Dungeons and Dragons (no edition at all). It's a bold declaration that THIS is dungeons and dragons and nothing else is.

 

[ACpilot]

For me to play 5E it must:

1 - Have simple yet satisfying rules, with enough room and underlying stability so DMs and players can deviate from certain rules at certain times without having every other sub-system of the game fall apart.

2 - Have rules which discourage min-maxing; make the game more about how players distinguish themselves DURING PLAY with creativity and imagination, rather than during character creation or advancement with selected powers.

3 - Have rules which support a fast-paced game full of adventure, danger, and magic.

4 - Have rules which encourage PC players to approach the game ABSOLUTELY instinctively, rather than needing players to understand certain essential "game concepts" or game rules. In other words, players should be encouraged to make choices based on their imaginary character and the situation they find themselves in within the world of the game, rather than based on a set of game actions/options rigidly outlined in the rules - or worse based on rules which prescribe mathematically optimal actions due to selected powers etc (min-maxing).

5 - Adventure planning (mechanics wise) and combat must take very little time - this one is really just a practical concern as I have such limited time available for gaming.

 

[Hassassin]

2 - Have rules which discourage min-maxing; make the game more about how players distinguish themselves DURING PLAY with creativity and imagination, rather than during character creation or advancement with selected powers.

Alternatively, have min-maxing be automatic and character creation choices only affect what you are min-maxed at.

 

[Aldarc]

I can't really say what 5E must do or needs in order to achieve, but I can at least say what it should IMHO.

5E should...
1. be flexible enough in its design for a variety of different worlds and playstyles.

2. be easy enough for a DM to master and assemble their own adventures without requiring a huge time sink.

3. be highly accessible in difficulty for players of all skill levels, but rewarding to those who master the system. This is something that many video games are slowly learning. Games such as Team Fortress 2 and Starcraft are able to pick up many casual players because the learning curve of entry is small, but the learning curve of mastery is steeper. This allows people to get a lot out of the game from beginning to end while also encouraging players to learn how to "master" the game.