Do you want anything new in D&DN?
- Thread starter Raith5
- Start date
thedungeondelver
Adventurer
I want options for new things for people who want new things. I don't want to alienate people who like blink elves, massive skill trees, and that sort of thing. Good lord, no. That's the whole point. We can all share in this so long as none of us - the grumpypants original D&D fans all the way through to the D&D ESSENTIALS players - feel like we're being given the middle finger and told to go take a hike as was the case when 4e was released.
Room for everyone, that's what I say.
Let me explain something. I would never, ever say someone using UNEARTHED ARCANA isn't playing AD&D. I would never suggest that a guy who prefers to use the witch subclass from THE DRAGON wasn't playing AD&D. Playing original D&D with all 4 supplements and stuff from THE STRATEGIC REVIEW? You're still playing D&D.
4e threw down a set of barriers to old school mechanics and said "there's no room in here for you". D&Dn will remove them. What's not to look forward to? I want more people to play D&D, not fewer. I wanna go to a con with my character sheet and sign up for a game where it's warforged, tieflings, dragonborn, blink-elves and say "Whoa Nellie let's get our superhero on!", flip the switches, and rock that game for a few hours. Then go home and use the same character in a near-AD&D game (or depending on how flexible the rules are, an AD&D game). Not the concept, not a character with the same name and similar stats, except.
And I want those same people to be able to come to my table and with a little bit of explanation and discussion understand my D&D game and game with me. If their races and classes don't fit, then we dice up new ones but the game stays the same.
D&Dn is the chance for this. And that's new, and I want it in the game. Wouldn't it be great if we could all have that? So yes, I want new things in D&Dn, even if I myself am not using them. Plus the potential fallout for other people is good; who knows, I may decide blink elves are a good thing. It's win-win for me and for later edition fans.
And for damn good reason if you ask me.
I'm surprised you cite fighter daily powers as a "really good innovation." They're one of the most controversial things about 4E and a lot of folks hate them--including some 4E players and DMs, like me. Against that, I don't see that they create any stunning improvements in gameplay.
In a more general sense, of course, the move to give fighters a range of combat powers was an innovation and did improve gameplay*. But by the time 4E was announced, we had already seen that innovation in action. That's what the Book of Nine Swords was all about.
[SIZE=-2]*Though there are people who dispute this as well.[/SIZE]
The tight mathematical balance of 4E was unexpected, but the general move toward balance was not.
In any case, it's important to keep in mind that there is a time to innovate and a time to consolidate. Look at Blizzard Software. Blizzard innovates very little; every game they make is something somebody else has already done. But Blizzard knows how to polish and tweak and refine, turning rough stones into glittering gems. I think 5E will be the "Blizzard edition," where the best innovations and ideas from old editions are collected, polished, and combined, and I look forward to it. It's something the game really needs right now IMO. Consolidate what we've got before breaking new ground.
Last edited:
Jeff Carlsen
Adventurer
Of course we want new things, but we want the old things done right first.
If I had to gauge the most common desire for 5E, it's not for a clone of any previous edition. It's more like:
1. Take what was learned building a unified mechanics system from Third Edition, which was wonderful but often overly complicated and difficult to work with.
2. Add what was learned by trying to rebuild the game in Fourth Edition, which brings with it a lot breakthroughs in game design.
3. Use that knowledge to rebuild AD&D.
Thus, you have a game that feels like older D&D, but plays better than any edition ever has by being simple at core, while allowing nuance and complexity for those who desire it.
I think that concept will feel very much new if they can pull it off.
If I had to gauge the most common desire for 5E, it's not for a clone of any previous edition. It's more like:
1. Take what was learned building a unified mechanics system from Third Edition, which was wonderful but often overly complicated and difficult to work with.
2. Add what was learned by trying to rebuild the game in Fourth Edition, which brings with it a lot breakthroughs in game design.
3. Use that knowledge to rebuild AD&D.
Thus, you have a game that feels like older D&D, but plays better than any edition ever has by being simple at core, while allowing nuance and complexity for those who desire it.
I think that concept will feel very much new if they can pull it off.
No, I am generally a fan of the direction that 4E took, but what I want out of D&D Next is an edition that builds upon many of the good ideas of 4E, but with some much needed evolution and refinement, and a general return to the mechanical variety of 3E.
I think that new rules and mechanics are going to be essential in carrying out the stated mission of a new edition that can recreate the feel of various older editions. You won't be able to achieve that just by recreate the mechanics of a single other edition, nor will it be feasible if the various different "modules" are mechanically incompatible with each other. As such, the underlying rules structure of D&D Next will have to be completely new. It will also be an excellent opportunity to see completely new ideas, which is something that D&D needs to have on a constant basis.
This might be controversial and impossible, but I'd like to try a campaign setting or optional add-on in which the PCs have access to a resurrection "machine" (like in Diablo where the character self-resurrects at a temple or checkpoint) via an elite organization or artifact or regeneration mutation or immortality charm.
-You could increase the grittiness and/or swinginess of combat without the disappointment and practical issues of frequently writing up a new character
-You could reduce reliance on clerics
-You could reduce reliance on warlord shouting, surges, and (if preferred) fluff hit points as represent more physical wounds
-It would be great for kids who don't want their characters dying
-A fun compelling resurrection process would cement uncertainty with raise dead and resurrection rituals
Those possible advantages, combined with any disadvantages of "temporary" death, might offset the loss of tension due to lack or rarity of permanent death.
I have some ideas but haven't quite fleshed out what would be a convincing resurrection story process, or how to deal with meta issues like a split party (if one or more PCs are resurrected in another location, rather than on the spot).
-You could increase the grittiness and/or swinginess of combat without the disappointment and practical issues of frequently writing up a new character
-You could reduce reliance on clerics
-You could reduce reliance on warlord shouting, surges, and (if preferred) fluff hit points as represent more physical wounds
-It would be great for kids who don't want their characters dying
-A fun compelling resurrection process would cement uncertainty with raise dead and resurrection rituals
Those possible advantages, combined with any disadvantages of "temporary" death, might offset the loss of tension due to lack or rarity of permanent death.
I have some ideas but haven't quite fleshed out what would be a convincing resurrection story process, or how to deal with meta issues like a split party (if one or more PCs are resurrected in another location, rather than on the spot).
Last edited:
- A serious attempt to provide an in-game justification for all n/day or n/encounter abilities (especially martial ones), if present. This just got crazy in 4e and would completely break us out of the story. When a player asks "Why can I only do this once a fight?" I want to have a clear answer that makes sense given the underlying assumptions driving the game world.
- A clarification on what exactly hit points are, that is then applied consistently. If hp represent actual wounds (even scratches) then shouting encouragement should not help. If hp are more abstract and represent energy to avoid the blow, then how do you justify poison/paralyze effects. I end up using both (energy to turn blows from severe to scratch) but it feels forced. It may be the best we can do.....
- A consistent (and optional) system for getting physical injuries in battle that lasts beyond the end of a five minute rest after a fight. Again, it breaks our sense of story if a guy can be unconscious and bleeding one minute and at full health five minutes later without using magical healing. Not everybody wants this, but it should be available somewhere in a way that's balanced with the rest of the system.
- A clarification on what exactly hit points are, that is then applied consistently. If hp represent actual wounds (even scratches) then shouting encouragement should not help. If hp are more abstract and represent energy to avoid the blow, then how do you justify poison/paralyze effects. I end up using both (energy to turn blows from severe to scratch) but it feels forced. It may be the best we can do.....
- A consistent (and optional) system for getting physical injuries in battle that lasts beyond the end of a five minute rest after a fight. Again, it breaks our sense of story if a guy can be unconscious and bleeding one minute and at full health five minutes later without using magical healing. Not everybody wants this, but it should be available somewhere in a way that's balanced with the rest of the system.
tuxgeo
Adventurer
Wanted new for DND Next:
Optional flavor text (and names?) for powers in the online character builder (and monster builder?).
Let me rewrite bard powers to say that "Staggering Note" does this:
A crescendo of raucous cacophony causes the creature to counter-react.
instead of the original "recoil clumsily" wording; and let me print out a character sheet that shows that change.
Let me rewrite bard powers to say that "Cutting Words" does this:
_You intertwine your jibes and gyres with mystic threads of bafflement
_ and tilt your target's centerline to pull it close despite intent.
instead of the original "luring a foe into a tactical blunder" wording; and let me print out a character sheet that shows that change.
(Bards should use alliteration and rhymes even in their flavor-text.)
Such flexibility would go a greater distance toward letting us make the game our own than not doing so would.
Optional flavor text (and names?) for powers in the online character builder (and monster builder?).
Let me rewrite bard powers to say that "Staggering Note" does this:
A crescendo of raucous cacophony causes the creature to counter-react.
instead of the original "recoil clumsily" wording; and let me print out a character sheet that shows that change.
Let me rewrite bard powers to say that "Cutting Words" does this:
_You intertwine your jibes and gyres with mystic threads of bafflement
_ and tilt your target's centerline to pull it close despite intent.
instead of the original "luring a foe into a tactical blunder" wording; and let me print out a character sheet that shows that change.
(Bards should use alliteration and rhymes even in their flavor-text.)
Such flexibility would go a greater distance toward letting us make the game our own than not doing so would.
Last edited:
Nivenus
First Post
Well, the thing is, doing something new is a tricky and risky proposition.
There are a ton of things I'd change if I was designing 5e solely for myself and my players. I'd get rid of base attack values and weapon proficiencies and merge them into weapon skills. I'd compress the classes and use a sub-class system and multiclassing to replicate most of the major archetypes. I'd get rid of AC, use Reflex as the base defense, and make damage resistance the main benefit conferred by armor. I'd get rid of hybrid races and replace them with hybrid templates a la 4e's hybrid classes. I'd make the alignment a ten alignment system with five main alignments and five advanced ones.
And so on.
However, WotC isn't making 5e or D&D Next for me. They're making it for everyone. Or at least, as many players of D&D's previous editions as possible. That's delicate enough as it is and it's an open question if they can possibly succeed in pleasing as many people as they aim to.
Adding the prospect of new rules or mechanics complicates things substantially. We all saw with 4e that many people rejected change with a vengeance, disregarding 4e and its revised races, classes, and magic rules. If 5e's going to make any major changes to the rules, WotC's going to have to play it cautious: otherwise they risk defusing their unity approach before they even implement it.
In answer to the question, yes, I'd like to see some new rules. I'd like to see new lore and new approaches to game design. But I'm not sure how WotC can do this while simultaneously trying to please fans of all the previous editions.
There are a ton of things I'd change if I was designing 5e solely for myself and my players. I'd get rid of base attack values and weapon proficiencies and merge them into weapon skills. I'd compress the classes and use a sub-class system and multiclassing to replicate most of the major archetypes. I'd get rid of AC, use Reflex as the base defense, and make damage resistance the main benefit conferred by armor. I'd get rid of hybrid races and replace them with hybrid templates a la 4e's hybrid classes. I'd make the alignment a ten alignment system with five main alignments and five advanced ones.
And so on.
However, WotC isn't making 5e or D&D Next for me. They're making it for everyone. Or at least, as many players of D&D's previous editions as possible. That's delicate enough as it is and it's an open question if they can possibly succeed in pleasing as many people as they aim to.
Adding the prospect of new rules or mechanics complicates things substantially. We all saw with 4e that many people rejected change with a vengeance, disregarding 4e and its revised races, classes, and magic rules. If 5e's going to make any major changes to the rules, WotC's going to have to play it cautious: otherwise they risk defusing their unity approach before they even implement it.
In answer to the question, yes, I'd like to see some new rules. I'd like to see new lore and new approaches to game design. But I'm not sure how WotC can do this while simultaneously trying to please fans of all the previous editions.
I'm pretty certain I fit the description of an old-school grognard, in that my group universally found 4e distasteful (it nearly broke up the group when we tried it, we all got so uninterested). However there isn't anything in this list...
Armor as damage reduction is something that's always appealed to me, but I've tried it in different forms several times and we always ended up rejecting it. To avoid the "guy with dagger can't ever hurt you" effect you end up having to layer on too many complications.
One thing I tried was to have a to-hit roll look at the difference in AC and Reflex (or touch AC if you want). If you hit Reflex it did damage reduction, if you hit AC you skipped damage reduction (hit outside the armor).
But it required messing with all the numbers to balance with the system as it was before, and I decided it wasn't worth the extra number you had to check after every hit in combat (I'm a big fan of simple cinematic combat).
Still, something like that could *theoretically* be added as an optional module.
I'd get rid of base attack values and weapon proficiencies and merge them into weapon skills. I'd compress the classes and use a sub-class system and multiclassing to replicate most of the major archetypes. I'd get rid of AC, use Reflex as the base defense, and make damage resistance the main benefit conferred by armor. I'd get rid of hybrid races and replace them with hybrid templates a la 4e's hybrid classes. I'd make the alignment a ten alignment system with five main alignments and five advanced ones.
that I would find breaks the basic feel of D&D, with the possible exception of armor as damage reduction. Some of it fits nicely into the "add complication in a module" design.
Armor as damage reduction is something that's always appealed to me, but I've tried it in different forms several times and we always ended up rejecting it. To avoid the "guy with dagger can't ever hurt you" effect you end up having to layer on too many complications.
One thing I tried was to have a to-hit roll look at the difference in AC and Reflex (or touch AC if you want). If you hit Reflex it did damage reduction, if you hit AC you skipped damage reduction (hit outside the armor).
But it required messing with all the numbers to balance with the system as it was before, and I decided it wasn't worth the extra number you had to check after every hit in combat (I'm a big fan of simple cinematic combat).
Still, something like that could *theoretically* be added as an optional module.
Similar Threads
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
June 16 2026 -
June 16 2026 -
September 16 2026 
Arcana Unleashed(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.
Replies (160) -
September 16 2026 -
October 1 2026 -
October 6 2026 -
January 1 2027
