Things I want that have not been mentioned or I want to specify my own touches:
I want a two*-pronged game (either two distinct pillars, or a divergence at maybe 6th or 9th level. One column is where the warriors and rogue are/stay experienced everypersons who succeed by luck, brilliance, caginess and (mostly) realistic application of force and daring-do; paired with spellcasters who make illusionary vipers to scare away enemies or create 'pay hp to bypass' crowd control like walls of thorns or other relatively grounded magics. The other column is where there are spellcasters who can raise the dead, traverse the planes, turn back time, grant wishes, and such; they are alongside warriors who lop the tops off mountains, rogues who can leap to the clouds (and balance on them), bards who can serenade Death itself until it gives up a loved one, and so forth.
*or more, with potential for middle grounds
Alternately, I would like a game where warriors and rogues fought alongside Battlemages who use spells instead of swords and arrows (the spells doing similar, if not identical, things to said swords and arrows) and Taskmages who used spells instead of skills (again, of similar style and scope). The spells that raised the dead and travelled the planes and such would then be part of a separate progression unrelated to class (and maybe main level) that is open to anyone (and the answer to 'is magic better?' becomes 'yes, but since this is open to everyone, the spellcasting
classes aren't better').
Regardless, I would an expansive non-magical, non-combat resolution system, where people can do more than just succeed or fail. This too will likely have to be divided for people who want 'realistic' heroes, and those who are playing Beowulf swimming for days in armor (and maybe in-between). Fighters should be allowed at this table, to the point where the line between dexterous fighters and rogues (or burly rogues and other types of fighters) may become blurry. That's fine. If these need to be in supplements or 'stronghold builder's guide,' 'intrigue-maker's guide,' etc. so be it.
On to what others have said...
Cutting out like at least 1/3rd of the spells, but none of the new ones, just from the original PHB. There's so many in there, and tbh, I really don't know why they exist in 5E. I'm not sure Simulacrum needs to be in the game anymore.
But it can stay, if they make the game fun for Dms to run at high levels.
Honestly, the spell names and base ideas can stay, the implementations just have to really be crafted (and tested, and tested again) to make sure that they don't disrupt the game. I recall Simulacrum and summons and druid wildshape and shapechange-y spells in various editions which were honestly pretty weak (
wish has always been a nightmare balanced against costs the first step was finding a way around suffering). The various Force _____ spells could also be made less break-ish if you could just regular-violence your way through them, etc.
Better or any real support for running chases (similar to Hot Pursuit), crafting, aerial combat (facing!), naval combat, mass combat (bring back Battlesystem in some form), and dominions and dynastic play. Support for natural blessings and curses. Support for divine intervention. Support for holy sites, holy days, astrology, and magically tainted areas or nodes of power. Support for spirits, shamanism, and animism. Support for horror and madness. Disease and injury support. Support for 'man vs. nature' scenarios. Support for fumbles, spell fumbles, and stunts. Rebalance win button spells. Truly useful religious supplements (see Book of the Righteous). Exploration as a true pillar of play. Functional guidelines for running social challenges/encounters. Reduced number inflation with play as the goal of play and not leveling as goal of play.
Return D&D to it's roots as a world simulation and stop trying to assume what game is going to happen at the table and just support the game you think I'm going to play or want to play. Let my table decide where the focus of play is. Let my decide what the difficulty and tier is going to be. Sell me minigames that extend the game. Stop selling alternative chargen as the focus of what your rules offer.
Bravissimo! Magnifico! Other words of adulation!
It often makes me really wonder what play at some of these designers tables is like. Are their players so tame and lacking in creativity and novel desires that they really think they are offering functional rules? I feel like I have to write a couple of pages of house rules after practically every session because of the huge areas that players want to explore that the game system doesn't cover, and that is true of actually expansive rules sets and not just the overly narrow "the game is about chargen and combat" rules of 4e and 5e.
I would hold off on assuming this has anything to do with what the designers play, and more about what they think we the buying public want as a common architecture of gameplay. I'm assuming that their tables have all sorts of social encounters, politics, domain play, wilderness whatnot, but they don't believe we want what they use (or not 51% or more of us want any given version thereof, that last part probably being true).
An edition change in which the fans don't use it as an excuse to be complete jerks to each other.
Man, you dream bigger than I. If wishes were horses, I would get an Andalusian showhorse , and you'd get a pegacentauricorn.
Not to be flippant, but you play and see what happens.
It's tough to articulate because there aren't really a ton of system to compare it to, but I want a D&D where your farmboy doesn't get Extra Attack because he hit 5th level and is a fighter, he gets Extra Attack because he helped the son of a famous swordsmaster and the swordsmaster agrees to teach him his techniques.
Wouldn't that be any of the point-buys (GURPS, HERO, etc.) with training as a gate/point reducer? I love the idea, but class&level seem like rather hard to shake D&D-isms.
