D&D 5E What Aspects of Every Edition Should be Included in 5e?

[ChainSawHobbit]

This is my opinion on what aspects of each D&D edition so far should be incorporated into the upcoming fifth edition. Please share your own ideas.

Basic D&D: The minimalistic philosophy concerning character options. Dungeons & Dragons doesn't need a massive bloat of items, spells, powers, feats, races, classes and themes to be fun. Getting the options right is much more important than frantically churning them out. Sure, there should be enough to give your character a distinct feel, but do they really need dozens of new powers to choose from at every level? A handful is enough, so long as those powers are crafted with care.

AD&D 1e/2e: Being a hero. One of the things that irks me about Fourth Edition is that there are several races that are only really playable as dark, brooding anti-heroes that walk the line between light and darkness. Races such as tieflings, shades, other shades (called "shadar-kai" or something), and drow. I'm okay with a bit of that stuff here and there, but it seems that dark characters are getting more attention than shiny ones as of late. It explicitly states in the new Red Box "Dungeons & Dragons is about being a hero", but WotC isn't really living up to that.

The art. One thing I loved about old AD&D - especially late 90s AD&D - was the art. Adventure covers looked like the covers of those awesome old fantasy and sci-fi novels, and brought to mind things like Conan the Barbarian, the Hobbit, and Forbidden Planet.

The lack of focus on balance. Some character classes are harder to play than others. Some have a harder time staying alive. Suck it up. I'm not saying there should be intentional power gaps between classes, but the game feels more real when more attention is paid to making the classes interesting and believable than evenly powerful.

AD&D 3.0/3.5: Miniatures and grids being optional. One of the amazing things about 3.x was the fact that one can play equally well with or without using miniatures and grid maps. Sure, grid maps made the game a tad more realistic, but everything worked perfectly and confusion-free without them. I understand that Dungeons & Dragons is made by people who play A LOT of tactical miniatures games, which is why they should make an extra effort to make miniatures optional.

The multi-classing system. It was great how classes could be layered on top of each other, used to build characters like lego-blocks. One could play a tenth-level character who was a Barbarian/Druid with an extra focus on greatsword use and combating undead (Druid 4/Barbarian 4/Fighter 1/Paladin 1) without too much messing around. It was fun to construct new classes by combining existing ones.

AD&D 4e/Essentials: The minimalistic skill system. One of the things I used to dread about 3.5 character creation was assigning skills. One had to first figure out how many skill points they had (which took longer than it should have), then decide where they would put them, then apply ability modifiers, then calculate synergies, then realize that they screwed up early on and have to do most of that again. Fourth Edition fixed this.

The monster design. I think 4e monsters stuck around a little to long in battle, but besides that, monster design was near-perfect. Monster roles were great, sub-roles were even better, and making homebrew monsters was as fun as it was easy.

 

[mneme]

It's an entertaining game, well enough.

White Box: Problem solving. Early D&D -- White Box, AD&D, and Basic, certainly -- were all about creative ways to solve problems. Sure, you could run up to things and wack them -- but classes like Wizard and Thief (once there was a Thief) were pretty rubbish at first level, and had to get creative--and even Fighters were often better off running a cow ahead of them than fighting everything all straightforward-like. That problem solving atmosphere -- and the idea of traps as something for the players to think about and try to figure out, not something to make die rolls at as was all too frequent in 3e and 4e -- is a huge part of what made early D&D the sensation it was.

AD&D: A sense of humor. AD&D didn't take itself too seariously -- something you could tell just by perusing the rulebook, full fo random jokes on whatever was amusing and on topic (not to mention quasi-intentional hilarities like the prostitute table). And since D&D's strength, when weighed against other RPGs, is as a light fantasy rpg with tactical combat, that humor is important to keep track of.
Also, the alignment system. The 9 alignments was a core product identity in D&D, and it was simply a terrible idea to get rid of it--all downside. Really, what were they thinking?

AD&D2: I've never played this edition, but that doesn't stop me from having opinions. So I'd say we should take the story emphasis from D&D2; the idea that reward mechanics (that's exp and treasure) don't -have- to all be about loot and death, but can be structured around anything that the game wants to encourage. If you're a wizard, you get exp from casting spells and researching, if you're a fighter you get exp from fighting things and learning new secrets of the sword, etc -- and regardless, you get exp from solving quests and overcoming story-relevant challenges, because that's what the game is about for -everyone-.

3e: The customizability. 3e was the first edition that let players go wild with customization, making items part of the customization options, and overall giving characters interesting choices all up and down the level chart. This wasn't perfect -- there was nothing you could do as a level 15 fighter to gain some spellcasting that wouldn't give you spellcasting that simply wasn't worth your time while giving up a level that would have been far stronger in a fighter class -- and similarly multiclassing out of a spellcasting class was incredibly painful. But the core concept was very important.

4e: The reduction of the skill system. Siloing (so each character had an option to be competent in combat). At-will powers (no running out of spells). Monsters, and traps as monsters (but see my comment on White Box). Starting character durability. Deeper races. The "unaligned" alignment (because it should be possible to play a "darkish" character without automatic character conflict beyond that resulting from roleplay, or to opt out of the alignment system). A vast decrease in how much the alignment system was wired into the game in the first place; no detect alignment, spells that only worked against specific alignments, and far fewer classes you could only take with specific alignments.

 

[haakon1]

This is my opinion on what aspects of each D&D edition so far should be incorporated into the upcoming fifth edition. Please share your own ideas.

Excellent post.

I'd you an XP, except I can't. Not that I've given you too many, I just can't at all, for anyone. Not even an option on my screen. And I can't see what I just got XP for, either. Is that happening to everyone, or just me?

Anyhow, I agree with almost everything you said. From a 3.5e who generally dislikes 4e, I think you're right on that the skills were better in 4e. Can't of anything else that worked better for me in 4e.

The two things I didn't agree on were:
-- Making minis optional. I think it adds a lot to the game. I only started it with 3e, but I'm convinced it's good stuff now. Of course, you did say OPTIONAL.

-- Monster design in 4e. I only played it, not DM'd, but I thought the monster roles was lame. I like the 3e approach of monsters work just like regular characters better -- and I definitely don't like minions. But I guess if this stuff were OPTIONAL, it would be fine.

Optional, that's the keyword for 5e, eh?

 

[haakon1]

4e: The reduction of the skill system. Siloing (so each character had an option to be competent in combat). At-will powers (no running out of spells). Monsters, and traps as monsters (but see my comment on White Box). Starting character durability. Deeper races. The "unaligned" alignment (because it should be possible to play a "darkish" character without automatic character conflict beyond that resulting from roleplay, or to opt out of the alignment system). A vast decrease in how much the alignment system was wired into the game in the first place; no detect alignment, spells that only worked against specific alignments, and far fewer classes you could only take with specific alignments.

The skill system is the one thing I'd keep from all that. Well, maybe few classes being limited by alignment, but that was an easy rule to customize around going as far back as AD&D.

 

[Aldarc]

Just to cover our bases: Races, classes, levels, magic, and rolling polyhedron die.

 

[Jack99]

The multi-classing system. It was great how classes could be layered on top of each other, used to build characters like lego-blocks. One could play a tenth-level character who was a Barbarian/Druid with an extra focus on greatsword use and combating undead (Druid 4/Barbarian 4/Fighter 1/Paladin 1) without too much messing around. It was fun to construct new classes by combining existing ones.

Please no. This was absolutely the worst thing about 3.x. At the very least, they would have to make the system so that you do not gimp yourself by being just a regular class all the way through.

 

[Raith5]

Please no. This was absolutely the worst thing about 3.x. At the very least, they would have to make the system so that you do not gimp yourself by being just a regular class all the way through.

Agreed, I remember playing a FTR/CLR in 3rd ed and he was considerably sub par. I think hybrids work quite well in 4th - more work to set up, but they work well at the table.

 

[Lanefan]

It's an entertaining game, well enough.

White Box: Problem solving. Early D&D -- White Box, AD&D, and Basic, certainly -- were all about creative ways to solve problems. Sure, you could run up to things and wack them -- but classes like Wizard and Thief (once there was a Thief) were pretty rubbish at first level, and had to get creative--and even Fighters were often better off running a cow ahead of them than fighting everything all straightforward-like. That problem solving atmosphere -- and the idea of traps as something for the players to think about and try to figure out, not something to make die rolls at as was all too frequent in 3e and 4e -- is a huge part of what made early D&D the sensation it was.

AD&D: A sense of humor. AD&D didn't take itself too seariously -- something you could tell just by perusing the rulebook, full fo random jokes on whatever was amusing and on topic (not to mention quasi-intentional hilarities like the prostitute table). And since D&D's strength, when weighed against other RPGs, is as a light fantasy rpg with tactical combat, that humor is important to keep track of.
Also, the alignment system. The 9 alignments was a core product identity in D&D, and it was simply a terrible idea to get rid of it--all downside. Really, what were they thinking?

AD&D2: I've never played this edition, but that doesn't stop me from having opinions. So I'd say we should take the story emphasis from D&D2; the idea that reward mechanics (that's exp and treasure) don't -have- to all be about loot and death, but can be structured around anything that the game wants to encourage. If you're a wizard, you get exp from casting spells and researching, if you're a fighter you get exp from fighting things and learning new secrets of the sword, etc -- and regardless, you get exp from solving quests and overcoming story-relevant challenges, because that's what the game is about for -everyone-.

Up to here is all yummy goodness. Fine call on the humour in 1e.

3e: The customizability. 3e was the first edition that let players go wild with customization, making items part of the customization options, and overall giving characters interesting choices all up and down the level chart. This wasn't perfect -- there was nothing you could do as a level 15 fighter to gain some spellcasting that wouldn't give you spellcasting that simply wasn't worth your time while giving up a level that would have been far stronger in a fighter class -- and similarly multiclassing out of a spellcasting class was incredibly painful. But the core concept was very important.

I'd like to see more focus on single-classing: a Fighter is a Fighter and leaves all the sneakery to the Thieves, who in turn leave that risky magic stuff to the Mages, etc. In 3e it was way too easy to build a character who could, in theory, do it all - and thus didn't really need the rest of the party.

As a very nice side effect, this forces the party to depend on each other as each can do things the others simply cannot.

Secondary consideration: characters should be simple enough to play (and roll up) that playing more than one at a time becomes a viable option again.

4e: The reduction of the skill system. Siloing (so each character had an option to be competent in combat). At-will powers (no running out of spells). Monsters, and traps as monsters (but see my comment on White Box). Starting character durability. Deeper races. The "unaligned" alignment (because it should be possible to play a "darkish" character without automatic character conflict beyond that resulting from roleplay, or to opt out of the alignment system). A vast decrease in how much the alignment system was wired into the game in the first place; no detect alignment, spells that only worked against specific alignments, and far fewer classes you could only take with specific alignments.

Huh? Wha?

You contradict yourself here - in your 1e summary you say how great the alignment system was yet here you advocate its removal. Can't really have both, you know.

Also, each character doesn't really have to be competent in every combat as long as each is competent in most and can shine in a few. This becomes even less important if one takes your 2e summary re how experience can be earned and applies it to the game.

Lan-"yummy goodness for the win"-efan

 

[delericho]

BECMI: The Starter Set. It's the most important in-print product for the entire game. Get it right!

1st Ed: Adventures. More important than the specific adventures, though, is their range, tone, and even 'voice'.

2nd Ed: Settings. More important than the specific settings, though, is the way that each setting managed to be distinct, while still being D&D.

3e: The OGL

4e: DDI support

Also, the rules should be based on the 3e/4e hybrid - both is a decent, but not perfect starting point; combine the two sensibly, and you've got a really good place to start.

 

[mneme]

Huh? Wha?

You contradict yourself here - in your 1e summary you say how great the alignment system was yet here you advocate its removal. Can't really have both, you know.

You misunderstand (or misconscrue).

Good thing from 1e:

The 9 Alignment System

Bad thing from 1e-3e:

Alignment is -everywhere-, getting in your business -- Paladins are only balanced by being LG-restricted, Assassins must be evil, Barbarians must be Chaotic; alignment detects reduce roleplaying down to "is it evil? Then it's an enemy"; alignment casted spells sometimes have too-strong effects and make it problematic to adventure with people in the wrong place of the spectrum from you, etc.

Good thing from 4e:

Alignment is much less tied to system; most class alignment entanglements are gone, Paladins, Barbarians, Assassins can be any alignment (but alignment is tied to deity for Divine characters); no detects or Circles of Protection or Dictums messing things up.

Also, the Unaligned alignment. Alignment should have an opt-out!

Bad thing from 4e:

The removal of CG, CN, LE, LN, and N.

Also, each character doesn't really have to be competent in every combat as long as each is competent in most and can shine in a few. This becomes even less important if one takes your 2e summary re how experience can be earned and applies it to the game.

I think that while it's useful to remove/deemphasize it, adding back some of the general immunities of earlier editions (creatures immune to melee damage, or immune to magic, or antimagic zones, or having more things be immune to sleep, somewhat more frequent disarming, etc) is a good thing; it introduces a lot more variation and lets people have secondary competences that mean something.

But the fact is, D&D shines as a combat and problem solving game. So yeah, even if you're giving the option not to do so, you should be -able- to build every PC role as having a basic combat competence -- and shouldn't have the frequent blanket shutdowns that 3e has like spell resistance/immunity (yes, you could get around it, but that was also a big complextiy/mastery issue), immunity to sneak attack damage, spell components/vocal parts (and silence zones).

I'm fine with players being able to opt out of one of the 3 primary fields of endeavor of D&D (that is, combat, social interaction/manipulation, and problem solving). But every class, every race should be able to be built without doing so; this is something 4e did better job with than previous editions, but not a good -enough- job.