I just call the paladins of other alignments "Holy Warriors".*
* loved Book of the Righteous, too.
D&D 5E Stuff from your favorite edition you DON'T want in Next
- Thread starter RangerWickett
- Start date
I just call the paladins of other alignments "Holy Warriors".*
* loved Book of the Righteous, too.
I had a 14th level cleric NPC with the madness domain disintegrate and destruct(ion) two characters in the same round. So, no more save-or-die for me. (This was in 3.0)
Regarding the dazing, it was the same thing in 3.x, except you usually got to stun instead, so the monster could do nothing. As somebody noted on another forum, elites, and especially solos should have something to get out of dazes/stuns, which they are very vulnerable to.
Li Shenron
Legend
Favorite edition: 3.0
Don't want to see: grappling rules that require more than 1 step or roll per side.
Don't want to see: grappling rules that require more than 1 step or roll per side.
JamesonCourage
Adventurer
Stuff from 3.5 I don't want:
1) Biological and societal stuff getting grouped together for racial abilities.
2) Multiclass XP penalty.
3) Multiclass problems (caster to caster, for example).
4) Some oddly specific skills (Use Rope).
5) Poor skill support (Profession, Craft, Diplomacy, etc.).
6) Feats with huge prerequisites, or long feat trees.
7) The broken economy.
8) Little to no support for non-combat equipment.
9) HP oddities (falling damage, etc.).
10) Saving throws being low or high (with rarely a middle-ground).
11) Most rules apply to things of all sizes (5-foot steps applies to rabbits and Great Wyrm Red Dragons).
12) Different systems for maneuvers.
13) Lack of support for a lot of things (called shots, etc.).
14) Spell save DCs scaling off of ability modifier (or just save DC scaling in general).
15) Overpowered spells (Gate, Shapechange, etc.).
There's a lot of other minor little things here and there, but those are some of the major ones. As always, play what you like
1) Biological and societal stuff getting grouped together for racial abilities.
2) Multiclass XP penalty.
3) Multiclass problems (caster to caster, for example).
4) Some oddly specific skills (Use Rope).
5) Poor skill support (Profession, Craft, Diplomacy, etc.).
6) Feats with huge prerequisites, or long feat trees.
7) The broken economy.
8) Little to no support for non-combat equipment.
9) HP oddities (falling damage, etc.).
10) Saving throws being low or high (with rarely a middle-ground).
11) Most rules apply to things of all sizes (5-foot steps applies to rabbits and Great Wyrm Red Dragons).
12) Different systems for maneuvers.
13) Lack of support for a lot of things (called shots, etc.).
14) Spell save DCs scaling off of ability modifier (or just save DC scaling in general).
15) Overpowered spells (Gate, Shapechange, etc.).
There's a lot of other minor little things here and there, but those are some of the major ones. As always, play what you like
Neonchameleon
Legend
I don't want a repeat of 4e - I seriously doubt that WotC could make a better 4e than 4e was so I want D&D Next to be the best at what it does (rather than a committee designed mishmash that it appears to be becoming). Which means I'm going to say "Large cinematic combats".
LightPhoenix
First Post
From 2E, a lot of the arcane math, such as THAC0. The math shouldn't be an obstacle to playing.
From 3E, the big thing I would like not to be in the game is the "xmas tree effect". It exists in any edition, but 3.X was notable for it. Bonuses should be strictly typed (no untyped/misc/etc) and limited to a few non-overlapping types.
From 4E, I don't want to see such complexity of character options. Figuring out what to do amongst all the options bogged down the pace of combat even more than interrupts/reactions, IMO.
My big one though was from both 3E and 4E, and that's the dilution of the "Rogue" archetype. It started in 3E by expanding the thief to include stuff like thugs and swashbucklers (should be Fighter archetypes), and continued in 4E with the whole "striker" concept (Rogues should not be in the thick of combat). I don't have a problem with expanding the Rogue archetype, but it should be keeping with the core concept.
From 3E, the big thing I would like not to be in the game is the "xmas tree effect". It exists in any edition, but 3.X was notable for it. Bonuses should be strictly typed (no untyped/misc/etc) and limited to a few non-overlapping types.
From 4E, I don't want to see such complexity of character options. Figuring out what to do amongst all the options bogged down the pace of combat even more than interrupts/reactions, IMO.
My big one though was from both 3E and 4E, and that's the dilution of the "Rogue" archetype. It started in 3E by expanding the thief to include stuff like thugs and swashbucklers (should be Fighter archetypes), and continued in 4E with the whole "striker" concept (Rogues should not be in the thick of combat). I don't have a problem with expanding the Rogue archetype, but it should be keeping with the core concept.
Szatany
First Post
My favorite edition was 3.5. What I hope doesn't come back (from the top of my head)
- reliance of many abilities, effects and spells on ability score modifiers
- effects that modify ability scores, including poisons dealing ability score damage
- xp costs of spells and item creation
- economy that's completly bonkers
- 1st level characters that can afford best armors and weapons
- half of the book devoted to spells
- iterative attacks
- overall complexity of the game
- combats that take 1 hour or more
- many many spells (polymorph, clone, mordenkainen's magnificent mansion, etc.)
- skill levels vs. DCs
- sorcerers (as they were in 3e)
- overpowered druids
- tons of feats, 80% of which were useless
- noncasters overshadowed by casters at later levels
- casters overshadowed by noncasters at low levels
- enviromental damage always felt weird
- rigidness of character creation and development (no option, for example to trade something for more skills or feats)
- preparing and running high level adventures felt like work, not fun
- CR
- huge reliance on magic items (rings of protection, +weapons, +armor, cloaks of resistance and whatnot)
- races with level adjustment (remember those?)
- too much math and rolling in general
- reliance of many abilities, effects and spells on ability score modifiers
- effects that modify ability scores, including poisons dealing ability score damage
- xp costs of spells and item creation
- economy that's completly bonkers
- 1st level characters that can afford best armors and weapons
- half of the book devoted to spells
- iterative attacks
- overall complexity of the game
- combats that take 1 hour or more
- many many spells (polymorph, clone, mordenkainen's magnificent mansion, etc.)
- skill levels vs. DCs
- sorcerers (as they were in 3e)
- overpowered druids
- tons of feats, 80% of which were useless
- noncasters overshadowed by casters at later levels
- casters overshadowed by noncasters at low levels
- enviromental damage always felt weird
- rigidness of character creation and development (no option, for example to trade something for more skills or feats)
- preparing and running high level adventures felt like work, not fun
- CR
- huge reliance on magic items (rings of protection, +weapons, +armor, cloaks of resistance and whatnot)
- races with level adjustment (remember those?)
- too much math and rolling in general
Last edited:
TerraDave
5ever, or until 2024
Where to start...
1) Elements in the core (and I am only talking the core of the game) without obvious D&D precedent. No new equivalent of double swords, tanglefoot bags, or dragonborn. They can be in the supplements.
2) Fiddly complexity, mostly in spells, but also in things like combat options and class powers, that brings little marginal benefit to the game.
3) Long combats due to fiddly complexity, long prep before every battle, option excess (see below), interrupt excess, too many hp, too little damage, too much healing, conditions that drag battle out (well, taken to excess at least)...except when the combat should be epicly long.
4) Short combats due to fire and win effects (except when the combat should be short).
5) Options (races, classes, feats, spells, powers, items...) that are obviously better, always, then others, or options that are obviously not good.
6) Option bloat...this makes 3 worse, and is a problem by itself.
7) Options that might be interesting but are suppressed by 5 or 6 or design not accommodating them.
8) A game that feels to dry and generic....(take the 2E PHB, please!)...
9) Or overdoes the "default setting" with hardwired gods, places, history, background elements, in the foreground (aka players bit) of the game.
8) Too much wacky near the core (maxi manga art, gods as monsters, kender and tinker gnomes, double swords, tanglefoot bags, or dragonborn)...
9) Or no wacky at all (see above, plus things like "you will never see expedition to the barrier peaks in this edition").
That's probably enough for now.
1) Elements in the core (and I am only talking the core of the game) without obvious D&D precedent. No new equivalent of double swords, tanglefoot bags, or dragonborn. They can be in the supplements.
2) Fiddly complexity, mostly in spells, but also in things like combat options and class powers, that brings little marginal benefit to the game.
3) Long combats due to fiddly complexity, long prep before every battle, option excess (see below), interrupt excess, too many hp, too little damage, too much healing, conditions that drag battle out (well, taken to excess at least)...except when the combat should be epicly long.
4) Short combats due to fire and win effects (except when the combat should be short).
5) Options (races, classes, feats, spells, powers, items...) that are obviously better, always, then others, or options that are obviously not good.
6) Option bloat...this makes 3 worse, and is a problem by itself.
7) Options that might be interesting but are suppressed by 5 or 6 or design not accommodating them.
8) A game that feels to dry and generic....(take the 2E PHB, please!)...
9) Or overdoes the "default setting" with hardwired gods, places, history, background elements, in the foreground (aka players bit) of the game.
8) Too much wacky near the core (maxi manga art, gods as monsters, kender and tinker gnomes, double swords, tanglefoot bags, or dragonborn)...
9) Or no wacky at all (see above, plus things like "you will never see expedition to the barrier peaks in this edition").
That's probably enough for now.
Mine is a mix of 3e and 4e.
From 3e....go with 4e monsters. 4e player design to me was very controversial, but on the monster side its simply superior.
From 4e....ditch the magic item system. When as a DM, when I gave my players a chance to pick a powerful magic item out of the book and they had literally no interest....you know something is terribly wrong.
My perfect world of course would be a game that works for players like 3e but DMs like 4e.
From 3e....go with 4e monsters. 4e player design to me was very controversial, but on the monster side its simply superior.
From 4e....ditch the magic item system. When as a DM, when I gave my players a chance to pick a powerful magic item out of the book and they had literally no interest....you know something is terribly wrong.
My perfect world of course would be a game that works for players like 3e but DMs like 4e.
Similar Threads
