D&D General What Do You Hope to See with 7e?


log in or register to remove this ad

Pedantic

Adventurer
Detailed, objective and specific skill DCs. I really want the skill system to be a source of active player agency, instead of a set of defenses you increase to mitigate risk.

Just set the DCs for locks in the book, so I can figure out what rogue build can most quickly and efficiently open every lock and enjoy being good at something.
 

I’m wondering what “big” changes you'd like to see in the game if/when they decide to make significant revisions.
  • Minions
  • Bloodied condition
  • 4e-style healing surges
  • Niche protection for classes
  • Monsters that have defined roles (leader, soldier, striker, etc.)
  • More survivable low-level characters
  • Meaningful positioning/flanking
Basically, my list is wanting to add more 4e design elements into the game.
I'd like all of those things. Minions are inherently optional (no one has ever had a gun put to their head and been forced to deploy minions). I'd very much prefer healing surges, with an optional rule to stop using them if people really really dislike that mechanic. Monsters essentially already have defined roles, they're just kept secret, so yeah, I'd prefer to see that.

One thing I absolutely hope to see in "6e" but don't expect to: "Zero levels" or "novice levels" or whatever people wish to call them. I genuinely believe that well-designed, effective zero levels are the only way to bridge an otherwise impassable gap and to deliver a great experience for both veterans and newbies alike. If they are legitimately well-designed and clearly called out as a fun opt-in system for people who like high difficulty experiences, they would support the interests of long-term fans without driving away new folks who are unlikely to appreciate being forced into high-difficulty situations. (Yes, Elden Ring was popular: it also loses about 50% of its players by about the 2/3 to 3/4 point of the game, and only ~40% of Steam players have defeated Maliketh, the Black Blade, whom you have to defeat in order to complete the game. Difficulty can cause some very substantial player attrition, and D&D is hoping for long-term adoption.)
 

UngainlyTitan

Legend
Supporter
Detailed, objective and specific skill DCs. I really want the skill system to be a source of active player agency, instead of a set of defenses you increase to mitigate risk.

Just set the DCs for locks in the book, so I can figure out what rogue build can most quickly and efficiently open every lock and enjoy being good at something.
This strikes me as more of a DM issue than a rules one and arises as much from D&D traditions as anything else. The 5e rogue is very good with locks (with expertise) and pretty reliable with Reliable Talent but some DMs will feel obliged to make locks more difficult as the rogue levels up and others will leave the DC of the average lock unchanged and nothing written down in a book is going to change that much.
 

Micah Sweet

Legend
Of these listed: only bloodied, niche protection, and meaningful positioning work for me.

For the rest, I'd rather see much the opposite. Minions and many other 4e monster-design elements are IMO awful, in that they sacrifice internal setting consistency on the altar of pure gamism. Healing surges just add to the problem of there already being too much healing available in the game. And I'd prefer to see the game become generally more lethal rather than less, if 5e is the baseline for comparison.

What would I like to see in a strip-it-to-the-studs new edition? On a broad scale:

--- true zero-to-hero play, where a 1st-level character is only a small step up from a commoner and a 2nd-level character is that same small step up from a 1st-level
--- magic be made risky and dangerous, casting easy to interrupt, wild magic surges possible, etc.; and no at-will spells or cantrips - this all to rein in the casters in comparison with the martials
--- greater granularity all round, which by default means less reliance on unified mechanics and more discrete subsystems for different tasks/purposes
--- greater emphasis on resource management, "resources" here including gear, rations, hit points, spells, and so on
--- fewer classes, each with more obvious strengths and weaknesses and all with strong niche protection; no single character can be good at everything, instead every character is very good at something and rather bad at a lot of other things
--- multiclassing exists but is always a "sub-optimal" choice - and clearly labelled as such
--- fewer PC-playable species, there's a few dozen too many in 5e
--- fast and easy character generation if a players goes with the suggested defaults (presented in the PH) for a given class; though more complex generation can be available should a player want it, the intent is that focus shifts sharply away from the "character build" aspect of the game in favour of the play-at-table aspect
--- a strong underlying design philosophy that says "for every benefit there must be a corresponding penalty or drawback somewhere else"; and yes, among other things this specifically means species-based penalties to some stats to cancel off the bonuses they get elsewhere
--- a body-fatigue or wound-vitality hit point system, complete with viable and logical long-term injury or incurability rules

EDIT to add:

--- more emphasis on downtime and non-adventuring activities e.g. training, stronghold/guild/temple construction, travel, etc.

Howzat? :)
I love all your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Actually, the closest game I've seen to what you're asking for is Adventurer Conqueror King (ACKS) from Autarch.
 


FitzTheRuke

Legend
I've recently come to the conclusion that it's not just me that doesn't like high-level play. It's that high-level play is poorly designed. It's not just poorly supported. It's not supported because it's not very good.

Now, there ought not to be any reason why this needs to be the case. I played all the way to level 30 in 4e, and while it needed some tweaking (I halved all monsters HP and doubled their damage output) to keep it from being a slog, it still worked and was fun.

I've played ONE encounter at L20 in 5e, and it was a bit of a mess. Too many fiddly bits.

My point here is (and even if you disagree with the above, I don't think you'll disagree with this): Above Level 10 needs to be completely re-thought out. Or at least, ALMOST completely. And then it needs some good adventures written for it.
 

I've recently come to the conclusion that it's not just me that doesn't like high-level play. It's that high-level play is poorly designed. It's not just poorly supported. It's not supported because it's not very good.

Now, there ought not to be any reason why this needs to be the case. I played all the way to level 30 in 4e, and while it needed some tweaking (I halved all monsters HP and doubled their damage output) to keep it from being a slog, it still worked and was fun.

I've played ONE encounter at L20 in 5e, and it was a bit of a mess. Too many fiddly bits.

My point here is (and even if you disagree with the above, I don't think you'll disagree with this): Above Level 10 needs to be completely re-thought out. Or at least, ALMOST completely. And then it needs some good adventures written for it.

ADnD 2e had it somewhat correct too: fighters for example attracted followers. So the game transitioned from personal stuff to something bigger. And the fighter was now being able to comoete with magic-users. No matter how powerful the wizard, the fighter was the one the common people identified with.

So whil I think, all non-spellcasters should be redesigned and getting fun abilities at each and every level some of which will be along the line of becoming a living legend.
 




cbwjm

Legend
Other than subclasses starting at 1st level with the same spread of subclass levels across classes, there isn't much I'd really want out of a possible 7e that 5e doesn't already do.
 


An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top