What could OneD&D to bring YOU back to D&D? (+)
- Thread starter Retreater
- Start date
Scribe
Legend
It means we cannot complain, and must contribute to the thread with an assumed positive perspective towards the topic.
Uni-the-Unicorn!
Hero
Then start at level 3. That is a low level (still within the starting levels of 5e). We start at level 0. The only way to accommodate your taste and mine is to have things come on at different levels. So, the compromise is to have different starting points. If that is case, moving up generally is perceived as simpler.
Grendel_Khan
Hero
Only thing that might tempt me back to D&D would be a fantastic Dark Sun book. It's the only D&D setting or lore I've ever liked, and I like it a whole lot.
FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
1. This is a + thread.
2. I answered what would get me excited about 1 D&D. You don’t have to be excited about the same things I am and in a normal thread I’d be happy to debate you more, but this is a + thread.
3. Low level play is my favorite. I especially like levels 1 and 2.
MoonSong
Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
No, sorry no way to compromise. Currently I have the the ability to have my sorcerer act as a cleric replacement - a group's primary healer- from day one no matter the level. I'm not willing to give that up.
Whizbang Dustyboots
100% that gnome
The continuing lack of the warlord/marshal in 5E is extremely weird, especially as 1D&D would be an ideal time to bring them back and kick the hype train into high gear.
Uni-the-Unicorn!
Hero
My bad, i jump around so many threads I forgot where i was
Uni-the-Unicorn!
Hero
I have no idea what your talking about; however, compromise is often a good thing
MoonSong
Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
Yeah, I know compromise is good, but this time we have mutually exclusive preferences. Having 1st level be thematically defining for sorcerers is one of the best things about the class, and particularly when it allows them to be healers from first level, it lets me have a sorcerer who is a primary healer no matter the level and assume that role from the beginning. Losing that means that I no longer can join a game as the primary healer with a sorcerer. If you get what you want I lose what I like. Asking the party to be without a primary healer for two levels only for my sake is a tall order.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
I really don't think so. The game I run is Level Up with homebrew and 3PP from a dozen sources, including WotC. It's not my favorite game ever (that would be any of several OSR games), but it's my compromise edition, and Level Up has the complexity base I want from D&D.
Right now I am monitoring the playtest in case they come up with some ideas I can incorporate, but I can't imagine anything WotC would actually do that would encourage me to spend money on it.
Right now I am monitoring the playtest in case they come up with some ideas I can incorporate, but I can't imagine anything WotC would actually do that would encourage me to spend money on it.
overgeeked
B/X Known World
A proper, working monster creator. Bring back 4E monster design. Bring back balanced classes. Classes and subclasses should feel different, but there shouldn’t be disparity so glaringly obvious it’s visible from space. Remember that it’s a game and the books are technical manuals, so writing clear rules is the primary goal. A proper release of Spelljammer…something more akin to Ravenloft with a big single book of setting, lore, monsters, and adventure seeds…that, you know, contains the rules you need for the setting. A proper release of Dark Sun…with the Ravenloft treatment, not the slipcase nonsense. Or at least a slipcase with a proper full-sized book.
MNblockhead
A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site
Make it possible to get third-party publisher material in DDB and whatever VTT they release.
In terms of the 1D&D rules themselves, I would like more robust subsystems for strongholds, followers, organizations, reputation. I've homebrewed all of this in using multiple third-party publications for inspiration and it keeps high-level play and long campaigns engaging.
In terms of the 1D&D rules themselves, I would like more robust subsystems for strongholds, followers, organizations, reputation. I've homebrewed all of this in using multiple third-party publications for inspiration and it keeps high-level play and long campaigns engaging.
Horwath
Hero
I also dislike this; all subclasses at 3rd level new idea.
All subclasses can be from 1st level.
Abilities can be stretched over 3 levels.
EK can get weapon bond at 1st level. I would add Arcana proficiency to the subclass.
2nd level can be cantrips
3rd level: spellcasting
For 1D&D cleric:
Replace levels for Holy order and Channel divinity:
for subclass:
1st level: bonus spells
2nd level: disciple of life moved here from 3rd level
3rd: level: Preserve life moved here from 6th level
6th level: new ability: Efficient healer: revivify, restoration, raise dead, resurrection, true resurrection do not consume Material components. They are still needed for spell focus.
Last edited:
Argyle King
Legend
I think it would need to be a bigger change.
I like 5e. At the same time, the things I would like to see changed so-as to bring the contemporay D&D experience in line with what I want would involve changing aspects of the edition that are central to how it is currently built.
For example, I want the concepts of Backgrounds to be explored more (and more like how they were during the 5e Playtest and in the PHB). Instead, it appears that 5.1 is moving away from that, in favor of making Backgrounds anther vehicle for feats.
I actually would like more opportunities to select feats, but I want that to be a part of the normal progression. Yeah, I know many people don't like feats. I understand why, but the game is also trying to sell me on lists of feats while giving me very little opportunity to pick any of them. If feats are meant to be a part of building my character, give me more opportunities to select them as I progress (but not from backgrounds; backgrounds should be something different).
I would also like to have a better understanding of why certain choices are being made for 5.1. I'll admit that I'm older now, so I'm likely not the target audience for the game anymore. However, I often get the impression that the people designing the game aren't actually playing the game they're selling. It's cool to have houserules and do things differently, but I don't fully understand what the mindset is behind some of the errata, changes to how the game works, and so forth; I think part of that is because I'm not seeing eye-to-eye with how the people selling me the product intend me to use the product.
Sometimes, I feel like I'm standing at the checkout of Home Depot and the cashier is trying to convince me that I should spackle the same way that I caulk because there's a new set of screwdrivers in aisle four.
I'm struggling to understand the direction of the product or why I'm being told to use it in a particular way.
I like 5e. At the same time, the things I would like to see changed so-as to bring the contemporay D&D experience in line with what I want would involve changing aspects of the edition that are central to how it is currently built.
For example, I want the concepts of Backgrounds to be explored more (and more like how they were during the 5e Playtest and in the PHB). Instead, it appears that 5.1 is moving away from that, in favor of making Backgrounds anther vehicle for feats.
I actually would like more opportunities to select feats, but I want that to be a part of the normal progression. Yeah, I know many people don't like feats. I understand why, but the game is also trying to sell me on lists of feats while giving me very little opportunity to pick any of them. If feats are meant to be a part of building my character, give me more opportunities to select them as I progress (but not from backgrounds; backgrounds should be something different).
I would also like to have a better understanding of why certain choices are being made for 5.1. I'll admit that I'm older now, so I'm likely not the target audience for the game anymore. However, I often get the impression that the people designing the game aren't actually playing the game they're selling. It's cool to have houserules and do things differently, but I don't fully understand what the mindset is behind some of the errata, changes to how the game works, and so forth; I think part of that is because I'm not seeing eye-to-eye with how the people selling me the product intend me to use the product.
Sometimes, I feel like I'm standing at the checkout of Home Depot and the cashier is trying to convince me that I should spackle the same way that I caulk because there's a new set of screwdrivers in aisle four.
I'm struggling to understand the direction of the product or why I'm being told to use it in a particular way.
W'rkncacnter
Adventurer
i haven't actually left dnd - i'm in a 5e game right now, in fact - but i've also been playing pf2e recently and i'd be lying if i said i didn't massively prefer it to 5e. even if i were to run a 5e adventure (gears of revolution, for example), i'd probably just use level up instead (i've put far too much money into that thing to not at least use it once...). but we're here...so (ignoring the fact that i hate WOTC and have never - and hopefully will never - buy a single product from them if my life depends on it) let's see...
- technically not system related but it would 100% make or break my interest - nix all the predatory crap in the OGL 1.1. full stop. none of this reporting profits or only supporting specific formats crap - let people make content. hell, preferably nix the OGL 1.1 altogether. 1.0a is fine enough.
- take a good, hard look at saving throws. they're a disaster right now. the 3 weak/3 strong system sucks, getting proficiency in only 1 of each (whereas in, say, 3.5, it was common to have 2 good saves, which in 5e would be the equivalent of having proficiency in 4 saving throws) sucks, and because of how the game's math works, you WILL get to a point where you LITERALLY CANNOT make saves using 4 OUT OF 6 of your saving throws - half of which are 2 of the 3 major saves in the game. seriously, i've known saving throws weren't in a good spot for a while, but it took me a whole campaign to realize JUST HOW BAD of a spot they're really in. i'd argue it's the most broken system in the entire game (well, the most broken system in the game that actually properly exists, anyway).
- a proficiency tier system ala pf2e would probably help with this a lot, honestly, even if it's only ever used for saving throws. maybe give out proficiencies in saving throws as if you were x levels/tiers lower then you are? so like rangers are proficient in str/dex saves, then wisdom saves as if they were 1 tier lower (so prof-1 after 5th level), then every other kind of save as if they were 2 tiers lower (i.e. prof-2 after 9th level), or something. that still doesn't do anything about having half the saving throws barely ever show up feel really bad, but...it's a start?
- separate ASIs and feats. choosing between a stat increase and actually interesting character features is just a frustrating decision. it adds nothing to the game IMO.
- improve skills. there's a lot to do here - give skills more uses (NOT LESS, ONE DND GRAPPLING.), define those uses clearly, let us actually get good at using them, evaluate if tools actually need to exist or if they can just be folded back into the skill system...and honestly? give casters fewer skills then martials...like, across the board (bards can be an exception if they really have to be). casters already get tons of utility spells to deal with skill related things - let martials be good at skills to make up for that.
- make rules clear and specific. one dnd does seem to be pushing towards this, which is nice.
- TELL US WHY YOU DO THINGS. IN THE BOOKS. WRITE THEM DOWN. SHOW US YOUR MATH. why can we not cast leveled spells with our action if we do so as a bonus action? why is concentration so important to maintain? why are there 3 weak and 3 strong saving throws (okay, that one's a trick question - i'm pretty sure WOTC didn't intend that because i've looked at the DNDNext playtests and it was VERY obvious it was a phenomenon that popped up by complete accident, as shown by the fact that bards got proficiency in intelligence and charisma saves as late as the 10th playtest)? i wanna know these things, because i wanna know when (and if) to break them, and i can't do that effectively if i don't understand why exactly they exist.
- finish the systems you write. none of this "well magic items of x rarity are somewhere between 500 and 50000 gp" crap. go big or go home.
Last edited:
payn
Legend
I agree. Also, I know folks don't want to hear this, but I think they should examine ability mod to spell DC too. That is part of the imbalance problem as well.
Similar Threads
