D&D 5E What direction do you want to see D&D 5e go?

[Chaltab]

Um, what? The first thing WotC needs to do is rework the classes? So...we don't even have the MM and you want 5.5?

No, I don't want them to overhaul the existing classes, certainly not to that level, but to rethink how classes are structured. You recall how in 4E PHB3 and the Essentials line moved away from the more unified ADEU structure of the first two PHBs, yes?

Yeah, it's still really early, but keep in mind the new edition has existed in playtest form for quite some time, and I think for the next release/wave of releases after the MM and DMG could work on expanding the class design space, which I've found rather boring so far. Warlords, Warblades, Vampires, the sort of classes that you generally don't include in the first PHB.

 

[Ashr]

I think before they do anything else they need to seriously rework the class design. Too many classes rely on spell lists or weak class features. They've done a good job of fleshing out the design space outside of classes--backgrounds and such, but honestly there's nothing as (forgive the pun) inspiring as the 4E Warlord or as intriguing a concept as the early playtest Sorceror. Even the Battlemaster Fighter is kind a pale imitation of the 4E Weaponmaster.

I thought the Battlemaster was the 5e version of the Warlord, without the healing?

 

[Mouseferatu]

I want to see a focus on different rather than more (though the former can also include the latter, of course).

What do I mean?

I want new subclasses to feel substantially different from those we have, rather than just a slight tweak. Not so much as to violate the class archetype, of course, but close. If someone is playing a hypothetical cavalier-subclass fighter, or warmage-subclass wizard, or wrestler-subclass monk, or whatever, I want it to be a notably different experience. I want to be able to see, in play, in the span of one session, that there's something different about Bob's new fighter to anything I'm familiar with from the PHB.

I want theme books, as others have said, everything from horror to S&S to specific cultures. Each one should have theme/culture-specific rules and options--subclasses, spells, feats, maybe occasionally a new class--and they should all feel different in play, not just get to the numbers via a different route.

I want rules for alternate types of campaigns--ruling domains and building kingdoms; epic games that are vastly different from earlier play, as opposed to just higher numbers; something like the old immortals rules, including how to play a pantheon who's building a new world.

I want classic settings reborn, and I want them to focus on what's different. Play up, to almost ludicrous levels, what makes FR different from Greyhawk. Keep Eberron's unique cosmology.

Publish adventures of different sorts. If two dungeon crawls come out in a row, something's gone wrong. Do dungeons, yes. Do exploration. Do political intrigue. Do espionage. Do mountainous. Do aquatic. Do planar. Introduce new subsystems in the adventures, if that's what's necessary. If you want to do a big wartime adventure, like Red Hand of Doom, include mass combat and victory condition rules.

I realize there has to be some degree of "more of the same." People want classic-style modules of different levels. People are fans of settings that aren't really that different. I get it.

But beyond the bare minimum of that, give me a new and exciting reason to pick up each and every new release. Something that I could not get from simply extrapolating further on the numbers and options that are already out there.

 

[Ashr]

I want to see a focus on different rather than more (though the former can also include the latter, of course).

...give me a new and exciting reason to pick up each and every new release. Something that I could not get from simply extrapolating further on the numbers and options that are already out
there.

This. 100%

 

[Mouseferatu]

Expanding a bit from the "themed sourcebooks" concept...

I worked on two of the "Complete X" books in 3E, and they include some work I'm quite proud of. I also contributed to one of the "X Power" books in 4E, though I didn't do any of the mechanics in that one. Point is, though, I worked on both, and they were both relatively good experiences.

And for all that, I do not want to see these kinds of books in 5E.

Why? Because I want all the new mechanical goodies--classes, subclasses, feats, spells, magic items, monsters--to be concept-driven. I'm a big proponent of options, but not for their own sake.

What I mean by this, is... I don't want to see a book where the design goal is "Provide new toys for classes X, Y, and Z." I don't want to see a feat--any feat--created because the book it's in had more space to fill in that sub-chapter.

I want to see lots of new stuff, yes. But I want to see it because someone had a good idea for it, or because it enhances the feel/theme of a new setting or campaign style. A new battlemaster power because it's inspired by something traditional samurai did, appearing in a sourcebook on Asian-themed campaigns? Yes, absolutely. A new battlemaster power because "Hey, we should give the battlemaster more powers"? No.

And BTW, I do realize that this--and my above post--may be impossible given the demands of the market. I know that splitting their focus into too many niche products is part of what killed TSR with 2E. I get that books of player options tend to sell. If that's the reality of the situation, so be it. I still expect to like the edition. But we're talking personal preference, so I don't have to take market factors into account.

 

[steeldragons]

I want to see a focus on different rather than more (though the former can also include the latter, of course).
--snippity snip snip all good stuff--

But beyond the bare minimum of that, give me a new and exciting reason to pick up each and every new release. Something that I could not get from simply extrapolating further on the numbers and options that are already out there.

Everything you've said a 1000 times. Literally, everything. Great post.

Somebody slap some XP on the Mouse-man for me, please. I have to get busy "spreading some around", apparently.

 

[Jack Daniel]

I think all I really need out of D&D 5 is expanded rules to cover more modern and futuristic eras. Give me what I need to run golden age of pirates, pike-and-shot, Napoleonic France, Victorian steampunk, pulp heroes, modern day, urban fantasy, sci-fi, and space opera.

But especially the steampunk. A robust crafting system that would work for weird science technology as well as magic items.

 

[GameDoc]

I find myself agreeing with a lot of what is being said here. I'd like to see new features that are concept-driven and designed to provide a way to do something not covered in the existing design. No bloat or splat for the sake of bloat or splat.

Rather thang the "Complete X" or "X Power" approach to books dedicated to a specific class or subset of related classes, I would rather the options or expansions for all existing classes that are developed be put forth as a PHB-2 or PHB Annual. I'd also rather not see new races and classes embedded in campaign settings. I'd like the option to include artificers, genasai, warforged, and thri-kreen without having to possess the setting books where they historically originated as PC options.

I would actually rather see the campaign settings released as gazetteers with reference to core rules and without introducing too many new mechanics in and of themselves. I know it's not completely possible to do this (e.g., Dragonlance would need a moons of magic system), but keeping new mechanics, including new races and classes, to a minimum in campaigns settings would be good. If you want a setting to feature orcs as a PC race, don't design a whole new orc. Referenced their entry in the MM. It would be neat to get settings in an old school box set with a gazetteer, world map, and maybe a sandbox style focus on one area (e.g. City of Greyhawk, Sword Coast, etc.).

Finally, I'd like to see thematic sourcebooks, as many have mentioned. One on seafaring campaigns, one on horror themed, Bronze Age, etc. But again, I'd rather they focus as much on adapting what's in the core rules as introducing new mechanics, and with the latter only what is necessary and specific. Don't use a horror themed splat book to introduce a general feat or magic item that would fit in other settings.

 

[Jester David]

I'd like to see a really nice and sizable Manual of the Planes that *really* details all the major planes and gives the generic Shadowfell and Feywild some detail.

A Psionic Handbook with a new class (psion) with psionic subclasses.

After that, just accessories tied to the various adventure storylines would be cool. Books that are equal parts world sourcebook and splatbook like the last couple 4e books.
Maybe something with pirates of the Sword Coast to justify an aquatic/sailing book. An underdark book for subterranean/dungeon delving. A Kara Tur adventure with Oriental Adventures.

 

[halfling rogue]

I want them to update and convert old classic modules to 5e. Not just a stat conversion; some of those old modules had great stories and scenarios, but were poorly organized and badly written. Others are a little "sparse" and could use more plot elements.

I want my children to play Isle of Dread and Keep on the Borderlands and Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth and not struggle with lousy usability.

This. I'd be all over this.