D&D 5E What direction should 5th edition take?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Changes I would like, and maybe in 5E, the audience is ready for them:
Remove static enhancement bonuses. Just do away with them. They are boring.
Instead, make items that gradually gain more powers as the character gains levels.

Implements and Weapons might be treated more similar. Implements could have a "proficiency" bonus and a range just like weapons, or at least provide similar modifiers and maybe even base damage.


I still would very much favor an approach that turned attacks into using the skill system. Even if that means that Skill Focus has to go.

More Class Features gained over the course of the levels.
More Non-Combat related abilities that carve out the role of the character in the world. This can be based on classes, races, power sources or backgrounds. Utility Powers would be primarily combat powers (as most of them are now), and instead we add new features or powers for non-combat stuff.

 

[LostSoul]

I'd like to see the fiction become more important.

Not that it can't be in 4E (I think it's probably the best of the various editions for it) but it seems as though it's far too easy to just ignore it.

I'd like a system where you couldn't just ignore the fiction.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Dangerous, too, though. There seem to be quite a few people that don't like the new fiction. And quite a few people that weren't fan of the old, either...

 

[WalterKovacs]

Those people stop listening to you at all and move to someone else who WILL give them what is in the rules...

If that was really the case, than it seems that they aren't interested in the kind of game you are describing. No system is going to be perfect, but ultimately, the rules shouldn't be forcing an entire group to play in a manner they don't like. However, if the group has differing opinions of what they want that's a different matter. Sure, most people want to play the system straight on their first run through, but a lot of your complaints are style complaints. A DM is suggested to give the party what they want from their list, but they can just as easily give them semi-random items. If the items are at least stuff the party can use, they'll be ok.

I agree that it's easier to get players to agree to house rules that are more lenient/in their favour as opposed to ones that give them less options, but on the other hand, it's likely easier to keep things balanced by restricting things than opening them up. If the group is mature, and the DM goes to the players explaining that the changes are to make it more mysterious, dangerous, challenging and interesting, and that is the kind of game the players want, I don't see how they'd go find another DM to run the rules straight when they don't seem to be enjoying that.

My players prefer to play exactly what is in the rules except stats, we prefer to play more super-hero stats than elsewise because we believe that the players are not peasants, there is a reason the world's safety relies on them and that they rose above the regular and normal citizens, threw down the pitchfork and picked up a sword. We play "Conan"s and "Raistlin"s.... but as a general rule, every other rule in a book is the end of it, we don't houserule anything else, if we need to houserule, we just stop playing a game and play something else that makes sense.

I've played with rolled stats in 4e and other "above the average". Firstly, the average PC is already heads and shoulders above the peasants. The groups I've ran with superheroic stats were able to handle dungeon delves appropriate for their level that were designed for 5 PCs with only 4 PCs in the party, and were able to have 6 encounter 'long' days, which consisted of a number of encounters above their level. There were no party deaths, and in many cases the players had to hold on to their dailies for a while.

Having "superheroic" stats is going to greatly increase the power of the party and make monsters less of a threat. Odds are less characters will have that one really bad non-AC defense, not to mention most will have great to hit and damage modifiers.

 

[Garthanos]

If that was really the case, than it seems that they aren't interested in the kind of game you are describing. No system is going to be perfect, but ultimately, the rules shouldn't be forcing an entire group to play in a manner they don't like.

Players handbook.

"Some magic items might be a bit harder to identify, such as cursed or nonstandard items, or powerful magical artifacts. Your DM might ask for an Arcana check to determine their properties, or you might even need to go on a special quest to find a ritual to identify or to unlock the powers of a unique item."

Who determines whether they might? the DM.
I interpret this to give the DM plenty of room for mystery ...
And even if the list under "such as" was all inclusive => the DM is the one who determines what items are non-standard I don't see anything on the charts saying any given item is standard or non-standard. Heck anything that just gives a +3 or less and has no other special abilities, could be defined as standard.

Things like this are one of the reasons building the game thinking ahead of time that it is going to applied to various different worlds like Michael Moorcocks multi-verse model.

In my game world some items are self evident even when non-standard... and some of them can be gleaned by a history check...but sometimes that takes finding somebody sage-like to help. (And sometimes only part of an items powers are self-evident)

There are in fact more interesting non-standard items having arcana checks and quests and specialized rituals ... are something the players relish both because its mysterious... and the item might not be just another +2 magic sword....and won't feel like it after they work through learning about it either. Sometimes they find out about the past user and that sword becomes a
​

Calling any of that House ruling is ummmm a self defeatist attitude and not something the game did to you.

 

[LostSoul]

Dangerous, too, though. There seem to be quite a few people that don't like the new fiction. And quite a few people that weren't fan of the old, either...

I don't mean the Feywild or dragon men with boobs. I mean ignoring the game world while you are playing the game.

This can be in a skill challenge or a combat:

What are you doing?
I'm rolling Athletics/I'm using Positioning Strike.

That's what the player's doing, but what is the character doing? It's too easy to leave that part aside.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Regarding the magic: the rules about identifiing magic and so can easly be rouse ruled, and as a matter of fact the rituals (if not sold every corner) make acces to campaign shaking spells only acessible if the DM allows (specially ressurrect like ones and teleportation).

The Rouse is a busy guy. Do you really think he has nothing better to do than make rulings for your campaign?

 

[Garthanos]

That's what the player's doing, but what is the character doing? It's too easy to leave that part aside.

I have made sure my player's are aware that there are many easily pictured ways of doing a cleave (reskinning the fighter) and that I am more than willing to give effectiveness boosts (ala DM's best friend) if they manage to find interesting ones which fits the current narrative in a cool way. It's a bribe I know but I try and show npc's doing it too... although as a dm there is a lot to do... so the pcs usually end up with more interesting actions ... as it should be.

 

[bonus]

I don't mean the Feywild or dragon men with boobs. I mean ignoring the game world while you are playing the game.

This can be in a skill challenge or a combat:

What are you doing?
I'm rolling Athletics/I'm using Positioning Strike.

That's what the player's doing, but what is the character doing? It's too easy to leave that part aside.

I think that this depends on the player and shouldn't be shoehorned into the rules.
Instead of just saying "I'm using Positioning Strike", a good player will say something along the lines of "Seizing the opportunity, I grab onto the zombie and pull him to the side, stab him with my dagger, which I use as a handhold to take advantage of the zombie's weight and bring myself around to another position". Or something like that.
If anything, 4e is really good for this kind of thing because the attack itself (and its flavor text) gives you a good starting point for describing cinematic moves.

 

[LostSoul]

Instead of just saying "I'm using Positioning Strike", a good player will say...

If you think that sort of thing is good, why not make the rules work in a way that either rewards the player for doing it or make it so that you have to describe your attack?

It's not too hard to do: "The DM determines the DC for the attack roll by selecting a Defense (AC, Fort, Ref, or Will) based on the description of the attack." That would do it. (That might not be the best way to do it, it's just an example of something that would make description necessary.)