D&D 5E What would you like to see added to 5E before it's published?

[ccooke]

Dragons sleeping ... Yeah sure, but then I'd like a chance of other creatures sleeping as well. Dragons shouldn't be the only ones who can be caught napping. Maybe monsters could be listed with an activity period (diurnal, nocturnal, crepuscular), or in the case of sunless environment dwellers, a percentage chance of being awake.

Meanwhile, in response to the OP, I'd like the Kris Kringles at Wizards of the Coast to put a knight subclass for fighters, a necromancer, a star pact warlock, tactics and narrative modules, trap building, a comprehensive downtime system, extreme weather rules, and most importantly, metallic dragons into the 5e stocking. A module for running Victorian settings with rules for pistol duelling would be nice, but is not essential.

Asking purely out of interest, what would a Knight fighter subclass get you that wouldn't come with an appropriate Trait in a background? I think there's a social and a training side to a knight, but while the classic knight-in-shining-armour has both, the concepts aren't exclusive.

You could have a knight background with a knighthood trait, giving you some rights (and expectations). Since all the background traits are supposed to be achievable in play, that means you have built-in mechanics to reward people in play with a knighthood. That way you can start out in play with the social status of a Knight, or achieve it during play regardless of your class.

For the training side, the traditional set of skills might best work as a Cavalry fighting style, available to any martial fighting class. Something that would complement but not replace the Mounted Combatant feat that anyone can take - maybe disadvantage on attacks of opportunity against you or your mount if you move, attack, and then move again.

Or am I missing something that's essential for a "knight", to you?

 

[Jester David]

It won't be called that.
It's going to be called Dungeons & Dragons, without any suffix or edition.

There's already two versions of the game just called "Dungeons & Dragons" which we call "OD&D" and "Basic" to differentiate between each other and the game as a whole.
And you need a unique clarifier for looking for products related to that edition in libraries, online stores, catalogues, and the like. You don't want to hit amazon or nobleknight.com looking for a particular book only to have to skim every single D&D book or item in their collection.

 

[Jester David]

I'd like to see tighter math. They really needed to solidify the numbers and I hope they had enough time to make that work across all levels.

More content in general (of course). We really need 3-5 builds for every class right out of the book.

I'd like to see more options that allow you to build and redefine your class. Right now most classes have you make a single choice and that's the only real decision you ever have to make. Having the option to make more complicated characters would be nice.

 

[tuxgeo]

I would like to see at least one attack cantrip for the Bard.
Ideally, such a cantrip should impose a rider effect in addition to dealing a modicum of damage; and it should allow either a DEX save or a WIS save to negate, unless it would be better as an attack vs. AC.

If "Ray of Frost" can reduce a target's speed, and "Shocking Grasp" can prevent a target from taking reactions, there should be some rider effect that a Bard can induce with an attack -- though it might need to be a Charm effect, given the fact that the Bard is attacking through Charisma. (I thought "Misdirected Mark" was well-designed in 4E, but I'm not seeing Marking as such a pervasive thing in 5E.)

Either before release or in an options module later, I would also like to see a greater variety of attack cantrips for classes using them. The Mage already has three, and could use more; the Cleric has one ("Sacred Flame") and the Druid effectively has two ("Fire Seeds" and "Shillelagh").

 

[Ichneumon]

Asking purely out of interest, what would a Knight fighter subclass get you that wouldn't come with an appropriate Trait in a background? I think there's a social and a training side to a knight, but while the classic knight-in-shining-armour has both, the concepts aren't exclusive.

You could have a knight background with a knighthood trait, giving you some rights (and expectations). Since all the background traits are supposed to be achievable in play, that means you have built-in mechanics to reward people in play with a knighthood. That way you can start out in play with the social status of a Knight, or achieve it during play regardless of your class.

For the training side, the traditional set of skills might best work as a Cavalry fighting style, available to any martial fighting class. Something that would complement but not replace the Mounted Combatant feat that anyone can take - maybe disadvantage on attacks of opportunity against you or your mount if you move, attack, and then move again.

Or am I missing something that's essential for a "knight", to you?

It all boils down to me wanting a Knight fighter subclass, even if I don't strictly need one. That said, if a combination of background, feats and fighting style result in a viable knight, that'll be OK.

 

[shadow]

PSIONICS !!!

I know I'm going to get some flack from this, but I really want to see psionics included as an option (not requirement) in the core rules. I've always liked psionics because they represent how I envision magic much better than Vancian spell casting.

In the 3e/3.5 psionics was treated as an afterthought and had little support beyond the core book. (Although there was the Complete Psionic late in 3.5e's life.) As far as I know, 4e didn't even have any psionics at all.

I would rather see psionics an optional part of the core rules rather than a tacked on system.

 

[the Jester]

My biggest "really want" is a decent version of the warlord.

Bard subclass without spells? ....Meh. I'd much prefer a fighter subclass. One that grants temporary hit points instead of actually healing. One who focuses on enabling his party, similar to what a bard does but distinctly different from it.

 

[Halivar]

In the 3e/3.5 psionics was treated as an afterthought and had little support beyond the core book.

In 3E, yeah. 3.5 was a LOT more solid, and the Expanded Psionics Handbook felt a lot more integrated.

As far as I know, 4e didn't even have any psionics at all.

PHB3 contained several ki-related classes, including the Psion, and I thought they were pretty good.

 

[Gadget]

PSIONICS !!!

I know I'm going to get some flack from this, but I really want to see psionics included as an option (not requirement) in the core rules. I've always liked psionics because they represent how I envision magic much better than Vancian spell casting.

In the 3e/3.5 psionics was treated as an afterthought and had little support beyond the core book. (Although there was the Complete Psionic late in 3.5e's life.) As far as I know, 4e didn't even have any psionics at all.

I would rather see psionics an optional part of the core rules rather than a tacked on system.

Hmmm....I don't think "In the Core books" and "Tacked on" are mutually exclusive concepts. I would rate 1e's random Talent Table as "Tacked on" despite being in the core books. 3.5's psonics system on the other hand, was one of the most comprehensive and nuanced treatments of psionics in D&D. 4e had several ki or psionics classes later in the production run that were quite good. I don't remember 2e psionics much, except that it was some kit/expansion book that was largely broken.

 

[Ichneumon]

PSIONICS !!!

I know I'm going to get some flack from this, but I really want to see psionics included as an option (not requirement) in the core rules. I've always liked psionics because they represent how I envision magic much better than Vancian spell casting.

In the 3e/3.5 psionics was treated as an afterthought and had little support beyond the core book. (Although there was the Complete Psionic late in 3.5e's life.) As far as I know, 4e didn't even have any psionics at all.

I would rather see psionics an optional part of the core rules rather than a tacked on system.

You won't get any flack from me, as I'd love to see psionics as well. But the developer noises I've heard on the topic strongly indicate that it'll be a post-release thing. In the end, I'd rather have a solid expansion product than some hastily assembled content shoehorned into the core rules.