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

[Space Coyote]

I remember when the 3.5 edition came out, my gaming group thought that that would be the last edition of D&D because the game rules covered so much and offered so many options. Then the 4th edition was announced and we were curious as to what the changes would be.

At first I was a little disappointed because the 4th edition almost seemed like a different game altogether since so many rules were so different from any previous version. My gaming group is only just getting into 4th edition now (we made characters ), but it looks good so far. This kind of opened my eyes and I think that I would be receptive to a future version of the game being changed even further.

However, if the game were to change too much (such as completely removing the statistics or class or something similar), then there would be no point, if the game was no longer recognizable as Dungeons & Dragons.

I still think it is a little too early to think about a newer edition though heh.

 

[eriktheguy]

Have to agree with Abdul on that last bit. Houserules and tweaks are the reason communities like this exist, and many of the new rules of each edition were houserules used in the previous one. The players rule the game, not vice-versa. If you are in the habit of just telling people to make a 4e character for next week and don't want to throw them curveballs that isn't a problem, but there's no reason you can't tell them '4e next week, no bloodclaw, reckless or ruin items and you can take a free expertise feat' or something of the sort.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Here is my problem with your way of thinking: I play with a group at a local nerd store where most of the group doesn't talk much outside of the gaming table.

I've been running D&D games for 30+ years, and the majority of that time with a lot of the same players.

These are two very different situations. How well one knows the players can be a big factor in the tolerance towards changes in the rules no matter what edition you are playing. I can run stuff for my regular group that wouldn't work as a pickup game for strangers in a game shop.

 

[Garthanos]

The sense of wonder and imagination did not come from any rulebook and has nothing to do with the rules.

QFT

The idea that even the people one plays with at the LGS are strangers whos expectations for play are set in stone... or could stay such is kind of unlikely or contrived from my point of view. (conventions certainly).

 

[Prestidigitalis]

Getting in late -- I hope someone is still reading...

Problems with 4e and preferences for 5e:

1. Long combats with too much bookkeeping (marking, zones, status conditions, etc.) -- keep the flavor but streamline the "process" part. [Well-designed accessories could help a lot, even with no rule changes.]

2. Flavorful +1 magic items cast aside for vanilla +2s -- eliminate static bonuses on magic items and add even more flavor.

3. Too hard to make PCs that match character concepts (at least, all the players in my group believe this) -- loosen up multi-classing a bit, add more feats that allow cross-class feature use.

4. At-will powers are boring -- add more at-will powers, give characters more than 2 at Level 1, make at-wills more customizable without feats, e.g. at the time of the attack a character using Footwork Lure can choose to push 2, slide 1, or knock prone (save to avoid) [Please don't quibble, this is just an example of the idea.]

5. Rituals need some work. I'll leave tweaks up to the designers.

6. Rename "residuum" to "residium" because that's what everyone says anyway. (Given a choice, I would teach people how to read phonetically, but that doesn't seem to be practical.)

 

[Garthanos]

because that's what everyone says anyway. (Given a choice, I would teach people how to read phonetically, but that doesn't seem to be practical.)

Everyone can be persnickety in their own way for instance...
hmmmm I must have a mental block Residium sounds funny
makes me think of somebodies residence where as..
residual left over from a disenchanted magic item
called residuum works ummm better for me;-)

 

[Prestidigitalis]

Garthanos: Yes, "residium" sounds funny to me, too. Yet that's what everyone in my group says, except for me. I wonder if they all pronounce "vacuum" as "vacium"...

 

[KarinsDad]

My take:

1) Get rid of sameness. This is the #1 complaint of my players. Many of them want to jump to Pathfinder and the only reason they are not doing so is because we wanted a campaign to start at level 1 and go to level 30. That and the fact that everyone has spent so much money on 4E books (as DM, I probably spent over $400). A Fighter does indeed feel like other classes due to similarities of powers. Need an area effect, a Fighter can accomplish this. The major #1 offender of this is that nearly all powers are damaging powers. Yawn. My players want many more powers that do not do damage, but affect the environment or conditions of the foes or some such.

2) Bring back durations. X occurs until the start or end of the attacker's or target's round are TERRIBLE game mechanics. X occurs until a save is made is ok, but not all durations should be that limiting either. Allow buff spells that last for various extended periods of time. Allow Wizards to Fly.

3) Go back to few ability classes and many ability classes. In our games, the PCs for players that are not there are played by other players. In 3E, Wizards or other heavy duty spell casters might be harder for someone else to run, but Fighters and Barbarians and Rangers and Paladins and Monks and Rogues and Bards were pretty darn easy for anyone to just pick up. In 4E, there are so many class abilities and feats and powers that every single PC is more difficult to play, especially in combat, unless the player has played that class of PC before.

4) Get rid of dailies.
5) Get rid of milestones.
6) Make Action Points optional.
7) A lot less reliance on magic items.
8) Do not have a 6 delta between one PC and the next on a starting defense and then only raise 2 out of the 3 defenses with level advancement.
9) Better yet, do not have ability scores that rise. This creates problems between haves and have nots as one advances levels. The Wizard still fails his Perception roll at level 30 because the monsters have a better chance to Hide against him than they did at level 1.
10) Git rid of silly healing rules. Healing should not be limited to healing surges cause it does not make sense that pouring a Healing Potion down any creature's throat (PC or NPC) does not heal it. Magic should just plain overrule normal physics.
11) Git rid of silly special PC and monster rules. Monsters have no Healing Surges. Why not? When I have a monster Charm the PC, the PC should be able to heal the monster. The game physics should apply equally the same to PCs and to NPCs. Not just game physics on how fire works, but on how healing and all other game mechanics work.
12) And let a Charm be a Charm. Let a Domination be a Domination. The concept of the PC farting around and not doing everything in his power to assist the NPC is inferior game enjoyment design. Charms should be super serious threats.
13) Bring back real illusions, not game mechanics from other areas pretending to be illusions.
14) Get rid of auto-Identify in the dungeon. The game system is now so magic item dependent that upgrading a character sheet is time consuming plus there are few magic item mysteries anymore.
15) Get rid of temporary hit point class features. A power is one thing. Giving temporary hit points out the ying yang for a class is broken. This basically boils down to avoiding game mechanic class features (i.e. adding a class feature to play with a game mechanic more because the game mechanic exists than because it makes flavor sense for the class). Anytime a class feature is focused on the game mechanics, it's typically a mistake.

 

[SSquirrel]

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.)

They probably don't have it encoded in the rules that it is required b/c some people just don't care. I've known people in all editions of the game that leave things at "my fighter is angry, he swings his sword at the orc *roll*" and no edition will change that. I've been in groups that highly encourage more description and the DM awarded extra XP for various things. Nothing is stopping that from happening.

Some people are very good at the descriptions and some people aren't. I wouldn't want to see the mechanics of the game dependent on the players giving a thorough description. That will just help limit the number of players further.

 

[Turtlejay]

My take:
. . .some stuff. . .

There is no way to say anthing to this without sounding snarky or like I am attacking you personally. It just sounds like your list of changes are a huge rewind to 3.5 and its way of thinking.

I do not like the sameness (or homogenous in the main forum) argument. I don't see it, and I think it is a forest and trees problem. If you see PC's as a collection of their abilities, then they look the same. If you see them as individuals with different abilities that are built around a common framework, they are different. It is easy to say "Sorcerer and Fighter have 2 at wills, 3 encounters, and 3 dailies, they are the same!" without actually looking at what those powers *do* or considering how they interact with their class abilities and their behavior in combat.

For some of your other things (5,6,7,10,14,15) house rules work just fine. In fact, my current game has no magic items. We do not have wishlists. We were granted our first magic items at level *8*, and those are likely our only ones (and only one item per person, with some restrictions), and our game works just fine without them, thanks.

Jay