What supplemental information do we need most right now?

[cbwjm]

I said More Spells, but what I really want is updates of older spells.

5e Dream = old Dream + Nightmare, so I don't need Nightmare any more. But I don't know that if I look for Nightmare first.
Upcasting a low-level spell means I don't need "a Fireball (under another name) at every level" any more.

Elemental specialists are kind of short in the toolbox right now (as noted above). Emotion-manipulators are also. There should be conversion steps - or an example - to turn Fireball into Coldball, Forceball, and all the other damage types. So not all Wizards look alike.


Something else desired is a way to convert spells into ritual-castings or into something like 3e's Incantations.

Ah dammit, I hate when I update a spell and then find out later that it was folded into another spell. I created a version of nightmare because I thought that 5e only had a version of the dream spell.

 

[CapnZapp]

So you're basically asking for a rewrite of the rules so expansive that it would be an entirely new edition? I say that because I don't see how you can get what you're asking without completely overwriting the existing rules. For example, with your background changes, all existing backgrounds would be moot because you're adding a ton of power to your suggestion. Same with racial levels, prestige classes, etc. Those are all major things that have a significant impact to the existing structure.

Needless to say, I don't agree that what 5e needs the most right now is a rewrite second edition. But obviously opinions vary.


*********************

Back to the op...

I voted feats, but into that I'd also like to see more things like BM fighter maneuvers. Basically, more options for existing PCs to expand customization. I don't see any need to alter the actual rules or mechanics at all.

He asked. I answered. Simple.

And no, I don't want a new edition.

 

[CapnZapp]

Oh I see what you mean... I thought that feats qualified to " can be used with an existing character" and "add complexity to the build for all characters" (when compared to the ASI alternative).

But entirely new frameworks on top of the current ones? Sorry, not gonna happen. We may get alternate class features (mildly probable) or prestige classes (minimally probable) but we won't likely ever get anything that adds on top of the existing frameworks because they would render characters that use those straight better than characters who don't, while one of the founding principles of 5e is the coexistence of characters of different complexity at the same table. I don't think WotC wants to embark in the design of a framework that would separate players into incompatible gaming groups, and the target audience of which will be particularly demanding in terms of game balance, meaning such design would be more costly than valuable.

Again no.

My aim is for "basic" and "advanced" characters to coexist.

And adding, say, wild talents is equal to every character.

 

[Hussar]

I want more dungeon rooms. Not a dungeon, but like just a bunch of separate, independent rooms with a variety of features and fascinating, inspiring descriptions.

Like a Monster Manual, but for rooms.

This, this, a THOUSAND TIMES this.

 

[thorgrit]

I'd like some Setting love - even if not published in a large hardcover book, then at least opening DM's Guild up to more settings than FR and Ravenloft. That way if they see a particular setting related series of products is in demand, with examples of real money backing it up, maybe they might be influenced to release a full product based on that. (Alternately, of course, if people's treatment of other settings only gets a handful of good products, they may just leave well enough alone and not officially convert an older setting into 5e. Either way, they'd have more data to make a decision, if they want to uncork that djinn.)

A big handful of backgrounds, as well as some more extensive advice on creating new ones, would be helpful. If this product doesn't exist already? I know it's "simple", roughly two skills, a tool or a language, some thematic items, and a Feature ribbon, but a bigger list of examples to look at would make it easier.

For those on the list, though, I chose Classes. Nothing against people who want more complexity in their games, but what about adding more simplicity too? I'd like to see more classes (and/or archetypes) that are as simple and easy to understand (and quick to build) as a Champion Fighter. For spellcasters, I'd be satisfied if they were no more complex than a Battlemaster Fighter. Options that can be contained within the few pages of a class writeup, without flipping through larger areas like spells.

 

[Li Shenron]

Again no.

My aim is for "basic" and "advanced" characters to coexist.

And adding, say, wild talents is equal to every character.

Maybe I don't understand you. To me a "wild talents" system sounds like you add talents to all characters to keep them equal. That means you can't have both PCs with and without wild talents in the same group. I think this is what WotC doesn't really want in 5e. Having both simple and complex wild talents would not avoid this problem.

To keep that principle, you could let wild talents replace something else, so wild-talented PC would coexist with others. But then this becomes either alternate features or substitution levels, or you could just make wild talents into feats. The system is already there. It could be criticized for being too stingy (too few feats per PC) but it's there.

Racial feats are an example of re-using the feats system for basically implementing racial levels. Or at least it would be if they didn't stop at 1 feat per race. You just have those racial levels occur at the feats levels.

Skills feats could be another example, aimed at expanding the use of skills for interested players.

 

[CapnZapp]

Maybe I don't understand you. To me a "wild talents" system sounds like you add talents to all characters to keep them equal. That means you can't have both PCs with and without wild talents in the same group.

Why is that a problem?

How is this any different from using or not using feats, or multiclassing? Why would it EVER be an issue, as if some players didn't communicate with their DM before chargen??

Why are you questioning a basic reply as if there somehow is something unreasonable with it?

The lengths some of you go to question *absolutely everything* I say...

Jeez

 

[Li Shenron]

Why is that a problem?

How is this any different from using or not using feats, or multiclassing? Why would it EVER be an issue, as if some players didn't communicate with their DM before chargen??

Why are you questioning a basic reply as if there somehow is something unreasonable with it?

I think I probably just don't understand your examples:

- adding bloodlines or wild talents
- racial levels*
- expanded backgrounds*: your choice of background giving access to unique abilities or perhaps starting gear
- adding a new class framework ("advanced player's handbook") where you don't get bonuses automatically but instead get to choose at each level. Essentially redoing classes to feature fewer automatic class features.
- prestige classes

But your aim here is clear:

My aim is for "basic" and "advanced" characters to coexist.

And that's a good aim, in fact it's a general 5e aim.

So probably I am thinking of something different, when I read your list.

For example, "bloodlines" makes me think of something that each PC can pick at 1st level and gets some benefits (some immediately, maybe some others later). If a PC doesn't pick a bloodline, he's straight worse than a PC with a bloodline.

Similarly, "Expanded backgrounds" sounded to me like adding more benefits to existing backgrounds at no cost. That forces everyone in the same group to use expanded backgrounds, or be worse than characters that use them.

To me that's a problem, and that's why I say that WotC won't probably do it: it means that PCs using an advanced module aren't compatible with PCs using only the core frameworks. Feats don't create incompatibility because anyone not wanting feats gets something else instead (ASI).

On the other hand... "Racial levels" originally made me think that the choice of race gives you also some benefits at later levels. That would mean that characters using racial levels would be better than characters not using them. But now that I think about it, maybe you meant actual levels that would work as in multiclassing? In that case, you could take your next level in your race instead of taking the next level in your class. And that would be OK, because both choices would be equal.

And just as well, prestige classes wouldn't be a problem either (assuming they work more or less as in 3e), as a player could happily ignore them and just level up in their main class, without being effectively inferior to other PCs.

A framework for not getting bonuses automatically but instead cherrypick could definitely be made to avoid the incompatiblity problem. In this case I am still skeptic they would ever do it, but for another reason, namely as I already mentioned that it probably needs too much design and playtest work compared to how many people are interested, especially considering how much the target audience is demanding in terms of balance and robustness of such framework. [IOW, I think at WotC rather than spending a huge effort to come up with a micromanagement system wanted by a minority, and them probably ending up with something that the majority of such minority will criticize anyway, they'd better off just saying to such minority that they should create their own system that perfectly suits their preferences]

 

[pukunui]

I would go with “none of the above”.

 

[delericho]

I don't think we really need anything, to be honest, but I would certainly like to see support for the various settings, and the rules elements associated with them (such as psionics to go with Dark Sun and Eberron, and similar).