D&D 5E The 5E* Wishlist

[CleverNickName]

*Yes, I know that it is not yet decided whether the next iteration of the game will be called "5th Edition." I'm just using this as shorthand.

-----

So the developers are hard at work, crafting what we hope will be a perfect version/edition/rendition of our beloved tabletop RPG. Some of us are excited, some are nervous, some are apprehensive...and I'm a bit of all three. There are good bits in every edition of the game, in my opinion, and I hope that these gems make it into this new development.

What aspects of prior editions would you like to see in this new edition? What would you like to see changed?

For me:

Alignment: I was happy to read that "Alignment" was one of the top considerations of the new version. I like the way that alignment worked in 3.x, with the dual axis system (Good vs. Evil, Law vs. Chaos). I hope that this format sticks around in the new edition.

Deities: I also liked the way that gods were handled in 3.x Edition...each deity had a good amount of flavor elements, as well as crunch (domains, favored weapons, all that.) I like clerics, and I like it when the cleric's choice of deity actually matters.

Spells: I never quite cared for the "Vancian" magic system, mostly because it wrecks my willful suspension of disbelief when playing. "Whaddaya mean Merlin can't cast more than one fireball per day!? I guess Merlin will see you back at the inn." Vancian magic is balanced enough, and it makes sense for a lot of people, but it just always stuck in my craw for some reason. I would much rather see a point-based system for magic, magical abilities, and other "supernatural" effects of the game.

Condensed Skills: For all of its faults, I really like how 4E handled non-combat skills. I hope they continue down this path in the next development, and resist the urge to regress back to the multi-layered complexity of 3.x.

 

[kitsune9]

I liked 3.x alignment as well. No opinion on deities. Vancian magic works for me, but I'm open to new systems (such as spell points). Definitely agree on condensed skills. I think there should be a cap on skills of around 15-20 skills in all for the game.

 

[delericho]

IMO, 4e did exactly the wrong thing with alignment. Either it should have been kept around and remained meaningful, or they should have dropped it completely.

IMO, both alignments and deities should be handled in an "if you want" kind of a way - the Starter Set and Core Rulebook should omit these almost entirely. However, there should later be an "Alignment Supplement" that details the alignments. If a PC chooses to dedicate himself to an alignment, this then allows him to take alignment-specific powers, use alignment-specific magic items, and so on.

Likewise, the deities should probably be strictly setting-specific. If PCs in the setting dedicate themselves to the gods, they get to choose deity-specific powers. (Obviously, 'divine' classes would have a greater range of such powers... but shouldn't necessarily have a monopoly on them.)

As for my own 5e wishlist:

- A really good Starter Set. This is probably the single most important in-print product.

- A single Core Rulebook containing all you need to play the game. This should be no bigger than the 4e "Rules Compendium" - if this can't be done, the game is too complex, IMO. (For extra credit, the Starter Set should include the same Core Rulebook as everyone else uses.

- The core should present the simplest version of the game. Supplements can then add complexity - but it's nigh-impossible for supplements to remove complexity, so this should be avoided.

- A vastly reduced importance for ability scores. It has become vital to have the 'right' stats, which means that rolling ability scores is no longer a valid approach (granted, BECMI may have been the last time is was valid). But rolling stats is vastly preferable for new players, so...

- Some really good adventure support, and preferably not just rehashes of the same old classics. You can do "Ravenloft", since that's existed for all editions, but that's it! Give us something new!

There's more, but I think those are really the important ones.

 

[thedungeondelver]

I'd like to see alignment returned to the Good/Evil - Law/Chaos - Neutrality model, like it was for 30+ years.

A "skill package" system. Gary worked on Skill Bundles in LEJENDARY ADVENTURES and I think at least the option to do that in D&D would be nice. I never cared for d20 D&D's all pervasive skill system.

At least the option to granulate saving throws.

An easily flippable A/C system - this is more for me as a DM than for the world at large. It is just simpler to count down.

Differentiated XP charts. I've said time and again that a monolithic XP chart doesn't make sense, and why I feel that way, so...

Multi-classing (for everyone) that actually makes multi-classing a thing again, not just "take a level of this, take a level of that".

Keep class/daily/at-will powers but put Vancian-style magic back at the forefront - and I'll tell you why. Despite the disassociated mechanics of the whole daily/encounter/at-will power scheme of the most recent edition it didn't stick in my craw that much...

In AD&D, a Cleric can turn undead...at will

In AD&D a Paladin has a lay on hands ability...daily. Or can create a circle (10' or 1") of protection from evil - per encounter.

Now that the 4e team stacked a whole bunch of disassociated powers into those categories...well, that's their own problem. But the reasoning stands: doing stuff either at will, every encounter, or daily and the specificity of those things is and has been an inherent part of D&D from the get-go. I'd like to see a serious pruning back on silly things that got shoehorned into those categories, or at the very least some toggle switches so I can shut them off.

The person responsible for "DRAGONLANCE and FORGOTTEN REALMS WERE THE 1RST CAMPAIGNS EVAR!!!!ONEONE" to be fired. Hopefully that's the same person who decided to copy-paste pages out of 30 YEARS OF ADVENTURE: A HISTORY OF DUNGEONS & DRAGONS into the rulebook because yeah, that person too.

Everything else I've to say about this upcoming new edition of D&D I've said here

 

[kenjib]

I went back to 1st AD&D after 4th came back, and these are the things that would make me consider actually playing a new version:

1. Make combat resolve in far less time. Like 1/4 the time it takes in 4th edition.
2. Put all of the weird non-traditional stuff like tieflings and dragonborns in supplements rather than the core material.
3. Make it easy to play without miniatures.

As a bonus:

4. Get rid of the unified power/ability/spell system for different classes and make them more diverse. It makes it feel like it doesn't matter what class you play, because they are all pretty much the same with different names tacked on to roughly the same set of powers. Essentials helped a little with this, admittedly, but I think it should go further.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

• Alignment: Good-Evil and Lawful-Chaos
• Warlord: And other non-divine, non-cleric classes that can heal
• Stat Deflation: Make 11 the human average and 18 something special.
• Stat Definition: No more attacks using Charisma (how does that make any sense conceptionally). Strength is used for making melee attacks, Dex for ranged attacks.
• Hit Point Deflation: 1st level characters should have between 4-10 hit points
• Vancian Magic: DnD uses vancian magic. Include rules for non-vancian magic if you'd like (or if the power source suggests it), but you must have rules for vancian magic.
• Power Sources are Different: If you keep the concept of a power source (and I think it's a sound concept), make sure each power source feels different. Arcane should feel and play nothing like Martial. All classes of a similar power source should have access to the same spell / attack list (Warlock, Wizard, Swordmage, and Bard should have access to any Arcane Spell. Ranger, Fighter, Rogue, Warlord should have access to any Martial Power. Paladin, Cleric should have access to all divine prayers).
• Combat Speed: I should be able to run 3-4 combats in a session with plenty of time for roleplaying and exploration.
• Don't Assume Combat: Don't assume that combat is the perferred way to resolve problems in the game. Combat is a possible answer, it shouldn't be the default.

 

[Aldarc]

Re 4E Alignment: I like the 4E approach to alignment, primarily since most players I DM'ed or played with played CN and CE the same, LE and NE as the same, NG and CG as the same, etc. But one of the most ingenious things 4E innovated about the alignment system: unaligned.

 

[ChainSawHobbit]

Different Art: I genuinely dislike Fourth Edition art. Not only does it seem like it tries to hard to be "current" and "modern", but it isn't even all that good. Characters are often horribly disproportionate, and the colours are too bright and glaring.

Well-Designed Adventures: Since Third Edition, adventures have been rather uninspired. Other companies - like Goodman Games and Paizo - have managed to make ones that are significantly better. This needs to be changed if I am to buy D&D adventures again. Consider ditching your seemingly defective adventure design staff, and hiring some little known fantasy authors, as well as some writers from Goodman.

The Realms or Greyhawk as the Default Setting: I never found the Nentir vale particularly engaging. It has always seemed like every other genaric fantasy setting, only with less fluff, and stupider character races.

 

[CleverNickName]

3. Make it easy to play without miniatures.

and

4. Get rid of the unified power/ability/spell system for different classes and make them more diverse. It makes it feel like it doesn't matter what class you play, because they are all pretty much the same with different names tacked on to roughly the same set of powers. Essentials helped a little with this, admittedly, but I think it should go further.

Absolutely. I cannot agree more.

 

[Raith5]

Re 4E Alignment: I like the 4E approach to alignment, primarily since most players I DM'ed or played with played CN and CE the same, LE and NE as the same, NG and CG as the same, etc. But one of the most ingenious things 4E innovated about the alignment system: unaligned.

I agree in the sense that alignment should not overly restrict the moral choices that a PC can make. But if the player wants to make alignment a big deal then there should be rules for that which may give mechanical abilities or powers.