D&D (2024) What do you expect/hope to see in future playtest packets? (+)

[UngeheuerLich]

The d20 "old" way was making thise items mandatory. I don't want them back.
Never.

 

[tetrasodium]

The d20 "old" way was making thise items mandatory. I don't want them back.
Never.

Even during the pre-d20 era magic items were extremely important in ways that don't apply to 5e because PCs are so comparatively godlike now with the extreme lack of risk/letality/resource attrition. That's further compounded because 5e decided there was One True Way and Only One True Way of stat=19 items for characters wgo don't even need them now. If I as a GM want to give out a lesser +N magic item I need to fight against the player desire to turn it into a stat=9 -> stat=19 item& the 16(18) +4 format doesn't even exist to them. Having magic items required was a good thing.

 

[Horwath]

I'd like to see them spread class features, powers and abilities out over higher levels instead of front loading everything.

I would like the opposite,

all features up to level 11, after that just improvements of current features and more usages.

no need to wait 14 levels or more before your character goes online.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Expect: relatively minor tweaking of character options.

Hope: get rid of ASIs or at least put them in +1 feats. New Monster manual with more interesting/varied abilities and tactics, especially that get recharged on a nat 20. Inspiration officially re-roll. Every class gets a signature ability that costs inspiration.

And a pony. I want a pony.

 

[masshysteria]

I'm hoping to see the following:

• A better economy. What do players do with all the gold that is awarded to them? What does the magic item economy look like (the answer to this may differ in based on campaign setting and I'd love it: Eberron v. Dark Sun v. Forgotten Realms)?
• Uses for all the saving throws or a return to Fortitude, Will, and Reflex. Some saves just never seem targeted by spells or monsters and therefore the presidencies in them seem wasted. If there is a return to the three saves, some sort of 4e like conversion rule of taking the higher of either X or Y legacy save and applying it to Z new save could work.
• A Charisma caster converted to a Constitution caster. There are too many charisma casters right now with the Bard, Sorcerer, and Warlock. At a table with these you end up with a lot of skill overlap. Changing the Warlock or Sorcerer to Constitution could really set them apart from other casters. They would be better at Concentration checks and have more hit points, open them up for new styles of play.
• The return of the Warlord class. I know parts of it are found in things like the Battle Master and it had a lot of powers based in grid-based combat. But I'd love to see it be reworked and leveraging 5e's cool additions like advantage and inspiration, in addition to movement, temporary hit points, and saving throws.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Even during the pre-d20 era magic items were extremely important in ways that don't apply to 5e because PCs are so comparatively godlike now with the extreme lack of risk/letality/resource attrition. That's further compounded because 5e decided there was One True Way and Only One True Way of stat=19 items for characters wgo don't even need them now. If I as a GM want to give out a lesser +N magic item I need to fight against the player desire to turn it into a stat=9 -> stat=19 item& the 16(18) +4 format doesn't even exist to them. Having magic items required was a good thing.

I am sorry, I can't follow your train of thought. But that is probably on me.
I really don't want to have the +2/4/6 items back, as it makes the rich even richer. I always thought that items which help the poor are better designed. So now the weak character can feel nearly as mighty as the strength guy, but not quite.

I like it, if magic items change the way a character will play. For me it makes the game more interesting. To start with a concept and see how the character develops, due to need of the group, story reasons, or because they find some new magic item.

This is also the reason why I endorse multiclassing as it works in 5e. It allows me to develop my character in very different ways. Feats help too. And subclasses, and some class abilities that allow for a choice.

I don't like builds that are planned from the beginning and need certain items to function.
In 3e and 4e, in my opinion, magic items lost the magic and became tools to increase numbers, just to keep up with expected target numbers.

 

[tetrasodium]

I am sorry, I can't follow your train of thought. But that is probably on me.

Harry ford once famously said something like ""any customer can have it in painted any color you want as long as that's black" 5e makes a lot of design choices that are of a similar restricted logic while claiming that 5e is designed to enable you to do what you want.

I really don't want to have the +2/4/6 items back, as it makes the rich even richer. I always thought that items which help the poor are better designed. So now the weak character can feel nearly as mighty as the strength guy, but not quite.

I like it, if magic items change the way a character will play. For me it makes the game more interesting. To start with a concept and see how the character develops, due to need of the group, story reasons, or because they find some new magic item.

This is also the reason why I endorse multiclassing as it works in 5e. It allows me to develop my character in very different ways. Feats help too. And subclasses, and some class abilities that allow for a choice.

I don't like builds that are planned from the beginning and need certain items to function.
In 3e and 4e, in my opinion, magic items lost the magic and became tools to increase numbers, just to keep up with expected target numbers.

If you don't want to have +2/+4/+6 items in your game there's a simple solution for that. Specifically you should not give them out in your game. 5e makes the design choice of "some people don't want +2/+4/+6 items in their game so nobody needs them to exist". I could gave said bring back rather than change x to y, but maybe that word choice is frustration over fighting 5e's enforced one true way for so many years. With 5e being tuned so players almost always succeed the difference between +4 &from an item +5 from a base stat is that the character with the +4 from an item almost always succeeds at the thing associated with the item and has a +5 elsewhere to almost always succeed on some other area as well.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Harry ford once famously said something like ""any customer can have it in painted any color you want as long as that's black" 5e makes a lot of design choices that are of a similar restricted logic while claiming that 5e is designed to enable you to do what you want.

If you don't want to have +2/+4/+6 items in your game there's a simple solution for that. Specifically you should not give them out in your game. 5e makes the design choice of "some people don't want +2/+4/+6 items in their game so nobody needs them to exist".

Maybe you misunderstood me. I took your word as: replace my 19 stat item with your +2/+4/+6 stat item.
I don't want your stat items back if they replace mine.
If both are in the game, I can live with that.
Maybe I misunderstood you, then I am sorry. Otherwise, you would do exactly what you try to read into my statement.

And no. I would prefer if they don't come back, because it takes up space that could be used for things I like more.
But I won't come here crying if they end up along with the items I like, and maybe even use them once in a while.

Btw, there are already +2 items in the game: ioun stones, and my character uses one of them.

 

[tetrasodium]

Maybe you misunderstood me. I took your word as: replace my 19 stat item with your +2/+4/+6 stat item.
I don't want your stat items back if they replace mine.
If both are in the game, I can live with that.
Maybe I misunderstood you, then I am sorry. Otherwise, you would do exactly what you try to read into my statement.

And no. I would prefer if they don't come back, because it takes up space that could be used for things I like more.
But I won't come here crying if they end up along with the items I like and, as you say, just don't use them.

I could have worded the original better & didn't consider people maybe liking what the stat=19 type brings to their game. I don't really care if they both exist or if body slots and attunement slots both exist but as a GM trying to force one back in. If I try it tends to result in one of two things:

• "It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it." - Bob feels like body slots are more restrictive than attunement slots because he can't do something like use bracers of archery ogre power & defense all together(yes that's the point they serve & why I want them). so bob drags his feet & fights it tooth & nail with any petty oops or petty time wasting can I x explain Y hoping to get the thing he doesn't want dropped
• I tell the group there is no way they are getting an attribute=19 item but attribute +2/+4/+6 items exist - Bob really wants an attribute=19 so pushes for it over & over again while invoking the depends on not understanding it part of the last one & refusing to track base(modified) scores or expressing confusion over things like "complex houserules" at any point he can.

If both existed in the core system it would simply be a matter of saying "we are using x" or "nope you don't find it & I can tell you that you never will"

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I could have worded the original better & didn't consider people maybe liking what the stat=19 type brings to their game. I don't really care if they both exist or if body slots and attunement slots both exist but as a GM trying to force one back in. If I try it tends to result in one of two things:

• "It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it." - Bob feels like body slots are more restrictive than attunement slots because he can't do something like use bracers of archery ogre power & defense all together(yes that's the point they serve & why I want them). so bob drags his feet & fights it tooth & nail with any petty oops or petty time wasting can I x explain Y hoping to get the thing he doesn't want dropped
• I tell the group there is no way they are getting an attribute=19 item but attribute +2/+4/+6 items exist - Bob really wants an attribute=19 so pushes for it over & over again while invoking the depends on not understanding it part of the last one & refusing to track base(modified) scores or expressing confusion over things like "complex houserules" at any point he can.

If both existed in the core system it would simply be a matter of saying "we are using x" or "nope you don't find it & I can tell you that you never will"

They both exist already. At least the +2 versions for certain stats.