D&D 5E What I want out of 5th edition and my thoughts on what we have so far.

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

I want to say first that there are things I like about the new edition and things I don't like about it.

What I want out of 5th edition is less emphasis on combat. I do not judge a class by how much DPR it does. I see any action whether it's in combat or out of combat as being useful. I don't need there to be a certain number achieved in order for it to be considered useful. I also don't want universal combat where every combat action effects all creatures (SA for instance effecting undead etc..).

I also don't want a lot of hand holding when it comes to death. I don't need there to be a long complex system of keeping me alive. I like a simple -10 hp and I'm dead. I know we now have hit dice instead of Healing Surges and I want that gone. Call it what you will, it's the same thing and I never liked it.

I like the idea of the feats and backgrounds but to be honest, the feats seem more like backgrounds and less like feats.

I've given a look at the monsters and I'm not too happy with some of them. You have skeletons and zombies with an intelligence and they specifically understand common. I would rather them understand commands only through the magic that animated them. Same goes with Golems.

I like how some of the classes were done but there are a few I would like to have seen changed. I would have liked to have seen the ranger with either spell known or actually abilities instead of prepared spells. I also hope they keep a rein on the spells. They can sometimes get out of hand the more of them that come out.

I wish the races didn't give you stat modifiers. I would like to have seen only the classes give you these. I would like for the game to get away from the optimal race and class combo.

I have more and will discuss them more in the thread.

What are your thoughts?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I want to say first that there are things I like about the new edition and things I don't like about it.

What I want out of 5th edition is less emphasis on combat. I do not judge a class by how much DPR it does. I see any action whether it's in combat or out of combat as being useful. I don't need there to be a certain number achieved in order for it to be considered useful.

No can do.

A large chunk of rules revolve around combat, and the rules are supposed to be designed with the "rule of fun" in mind. This means each PC should be able to contribute equally in combat. Sitting on the sidelines and tossing daggers after you've used your one Sleep spell or one Backstab is not fun for most players, and selling such a game system won't be profitable.

There are ways to contribute in combat that don't involve damage, and indeed 4e codified these roles (only strikers are out to do huge DPR). However these should be class-based. I don't want to see "be clever, use oil" or "be clever, buy war dogs" because any fighter could also do that ... while still enjoying their higher AC, hit points, damage, etc...

WotC has historically been bad at non-combat. There's no narrative control features beyond spells. Attempts to deal with this often didn't make sense. (I could take my Int 8, Cha 11 fighter in 2e to high levels, build a keep, become a lord and attract followers, even though my fighter is not particularly intelligent, won't impress the king and isn't all the great at instilling loyalty. I don't recall high Charisma doing anything to boost my follower's morale either, although that's the kind of thing that might not have been in the core rules. Note that the rules said at whatever level the fighter gained followers, without me being able to do anything to enhance that. Dark Sun was the worst in this regard. If you're a high-level fighter, you gained followers, period... even if you didn't want them!)

I also don't want universal combat where every combat action effects all creatures (SA for instance effecting undead etc..).

See "rule of fun" above. Since 3rd Edition, WotC has moved away from "total immunity" because it's less fun. The requirement to have a magic +x weapon became an advantage to having that weapon (or disadvantaged by not having it). Immunity to a damage type usually became a resistance. In 5e, monsters that used to be immune to nearly all spells are now just magic resistant. (While probably not intended, even a 3e wizard isn't much slowed down by magic immunity. Conjuration bypasses it.)

Now of course there are other ways of "fixing" the issue. If an encounter with undead always included a priest or necromancer to control zombies, the rogue could try to sneak attack the necromancer. But WotC cannot read a DM's mind and has no idea why some DMs think it's okay to utterly nerf a PC's abilities.

I also don't want a lot of hand holding when it comes to death. I don't need there to be a long complex system of keeping me alive. I like a simple -10 hp and I'm dead.

That's not terrible, but I think the reserve should be deeper than -10. Otherwise the line between "fighting at full ability" and "dead" is too thin.

I know we now have hit dice instead of Healing Surges and I want that gone. Call it what you will, it's the same thing and I never liked it.

They're actually not the same thing. But in any event, they were intended to make clerics not required. I believe WotC has failed in this. You get very few Hit Dice (literally one at 1st-level), so you still want a cleric who casts healing spells and makes you lots of potions, and the good healing spells have touch range and take a standard action, so St. Bandaid is expected to take up his full turn healing allies. (4e did this very well. Healing Surges take away the healee's resources, not the healer's. Someone who uses poor tactics and keeps getting surrounded and ganked cannot ask the cleric for more healing surges. The cleric can do nothing for them! And since the cleric is only using a minor action to heal, they can still smash things with their mace.)

I've given a look at the monsters and I'm not too happy with some of them. You have skeletons and zombies with an intelligence and they specifically understand common. I would rather them understand commands only through the magic that animated them. Same goes with Golems.

I'm not a big fan on "non-abilities" so I don't mind if the zombie has Intelligence. I wouldn't mind if they could only understand magic commands. But I have to wonder, what is the point of the complaint? You can't talk to a zombie or golem anyway, and it's not intelligent enough to report what you said to it's master. (Unless they're looking at you through the animate's eyes, but that's more of a clever necromancer ability than a zombie ability.)

I like how some of the classes were done but there are a few I would like to have seen changed. I would have liked to have seen the ranger with either spell known or actually abilities instead of prepared spells. I also hope they keep a rein on the spells. They can sometimes get out of hand the more of them that come out.

I'd like to see rangers with actual abilities, but then the ranger isn't really a class, so there's no way WotC can determine what these abilities are. Plus they're stuck on some nonsensical restrictive model anyway. As for reining in the spells... WotC needs to sell splatbooks to make money. I'd say ban the stupid splats, but after seeing people require a character builder for Pathfinder, I suspect there will be a 5e character builder, official or not, complete with all those splats.

I wish the races didn't give you stat modifiers. I would like to have seen only the classes give you these. I would like for the game to get away from the optimal race and class combo.

I rather expect that WotC thinks elves should always be the best archer rangers. They were in Lord of the Rings!

 

[Ahnehnois]

WotC has historically been bad at non-combat. There's no narrative control features beyond spells.

Narrative control mechanics have absolutely nothing to do with the non-combat side of play. Or, at least, no more so than with combat. Nor are spells narrative control features.

Not that I disagree with the first part; the non-combat areas of the game have been and continue to be underdeveloped.

 

[The Human Target]

I want almost nothing you want.

I'd be fine with races not having stat boosts, but I'd rather combat effectiveness and ability scores to have nothing (or little) to do with each other.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I want to say first that there are things I like about the new edition and things I don't like about it.

What I want out of 5th edition is less emphasis on combat. I do not judge a class by how much DPR it does. I see any action whether it's in combat or out of combat as being useful. I don't need there to be a certain number achieved in order for it to be considered useful.

Combat balance is incredibly important for the game, even if it doesn't mean very much to you personally. You say that a class's DPR doesn't matter, so then why bring this up? If it doesn't matter to you, why does it bother you that they've tried to make it balanced? Do you actually prefer for it to be unbalanced?

I also don't want universal combat where every combat action effects all creatures (SA for instance effecting undead etc..).

Occasional immunities are fine. They force players to think outside the box or try new things. What isn't fine, IMO, are entire categories of creatures being immune to a class's signature ability, such as all undead being immune to sneak attack. That is the opposite of fun. Instead of encouraging occasional cleverness, it simply makes people uninterested in playing rogues in undead-heavy adventures, of which there are many.

I also don't want a lot of hand holding when it comes to death. I don't need there to be a long complex system of keeping me alive. I like a simple -10 hp and I'm dead.

That sounds like a very easy house rule to implement in your games.

Personally, I like the whole death saving throw thing. It's more suspenseful. With a predictable "die at -10 hp" rule, and bleed for 1hp per round, you know with absolute certainty how much time you have left. If you're only at -1 when you fall, you can breathe easy because you know your allies have 9 rounds to save you. Death saving throws make it much less predictable. But, to each his own.

I know we now have hit dice instead of Healing Surges and I want that gone. Call it what you will, it's the same thing and I never liked it.

I'm not at all fond of hit dice as healing either. Thankfully, it's a very easy rule to ignore.

I like the idea of the feats and backgrounds but to be honest, the feats seem more like backgrounds and less like feats.

I'm not sure I'm following.

I've given a look at the monsters and I'm not too happy with some of them. You have skeletons and zombies with an intelligence and they specifically understand common. I would rather them understand commands only through the magic that animated them. Same goes with Golems.

I am of the opposite view. I like animated creates to have a minimal degree of intelligence, because that actually fits the way their behavior has always been described. If something has an Int of 0, it shouldn't be able to do anything at all, since it is literally incapable of thought. Zombies, golems, etc, on the other hand, have always been described as having a basic intelligence and ability to respond to their surroundings. They can identify food from inanimate objects, they know how to operate their limbs and fight, and are at least smart enough to chase after their prey. To me, that is Int 1 at the very least. It's a level of intelligence similar to many insects, fish, and other simple animals.

I like how some of the classes were done but there are a few I would like to have seen changed. I would have liked to have seen the ranger with either spell known or actually abilities instead of prepared spells. I also hope they keep a rein on the spells. They can sometimes get out of hand the more of them that come out.

I agree about the ranger. I'm not against them having spells entirely, but the whole idea of them praying for a different set of spells each day like a cleric never made much sense to me. I'd also like to see an option to play a ranger without spells.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

Combat balance is incredibly important for the game, even if it doesn't mean very much to you personally. You say that a class's DPR doesn't matter, so then why bring this up? If it doesn't matter to you, why does it bother you that they've tried to make it balanced? Do you actually prefer for it to be unbalanced?

Why is combat balance important? Who decided that all combat oriented classes needed to be balanced damage wise? I honestly don't care if the barbarian out damages my fighter or vice versa. I don't play these classes for the sheer damage that they may be able to do.



Occasional immunities are fine. They force players to think outside the box or try new things. What isn't fine, IMO, are entire categories of creatures being immune to a class's signature ability, such as all undead being immune to sneak attack. That is the opposite of fun. Instead of encouraging occasional cleverness, it simply makes people uninterested in playing rogues in undead-heavy adventures, of which there are many.

Not sure where you get the idea that people don't like to play rogues. I run weekly Pathfinder games and rogue is the top class that is usually played.



That sounds like a very easy house rule to implement in your games.

Personally, I like the whole death saving throw thing. It's more suspenseful. With a predictable "die at -10 hp" rule, and bleed for 1hp per round, you know with absolute certainty how much time you have left. If you're only at -1 when you fall, you can breathe easy because you know your allies have 9 rounds to save you. Death saving throws make it much less predictable. But, to each his own.



I'm not at all fond of hit dice as healing either. Thankfully, it's a very easy rule to ignore.



I'm not sure I'm following.

If you read a lot of the feats, they sound more like backgrounds.



I am of the opposite view. I like animated creates to have a minimal degree of intelligence, because that actually fits the way their behavior has always been described. If something has an Int of 0, it shouldn't be able to do anything at all, since it is literally incapable of thought. Zombies, golems, etc, on the other hand, have always been described as having a basic intelligence and ability to respond to their surroundings. They can identify food from inanimate objects, they know how to operate their limbs and fight, and are at least smart enough to chase after their prey. To me, that is Int 1 at the very least. It's a level of intelligence similar to many insects, fish, and other simple animals.


Not sure why zombies, skeletons, and golems need to worry about food. Skeletons, zombies, and golems have never ever been described as having thought and so far, they haven't been described as having thought in Next either.



I agree about the ranger. I'm not against them having spells entirely, but the whole idea of them praying for a different set of spells each day like a cleric never made much sense to me. I'd also like to see an option to play a ranger without spells.

Responded.

 

[Mercurius]

Responded.

Just an FYI - its very difficult to tell which text is yours and which is the other members. You might want to separate the quotes out.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Why is combat balance important? Who decided that all combat oriented classes needed to be balanced damage wise? I honestly don't care if the barbarian out damages my fighter or vice versa. I don't play these classes for the sheer damage that they may be able to do.

Why is combat balance important? Seriously?

Damage isn't the only way to measure martial power. If the fighter has higher AC and can disarm opponents, it's just exercising power in a different way. (This is very clear in 4e. Fighters aren't the heaviest dealing class, being defenders. Barbarians are strikers and deal lots of damage. Fortunately they have different roles, so no one complains if the barbarian does more.)

Not sure where you get the idea that people don't like to play rogues. I run weekly Pathfinder games and rogue is the top class that is usually played.

Pathfinder rogues can sneak attack a much wider variety of opponents than their 3rd Edition counterparts... and the class is still generally unpopular, because it's skills can be stolen by other classes that have better combat abilities as well.

Not sure why zombies, skeletons, and golems need to worry about food. Skeletons, zombies, and golems have never ever been described as having thought and so far, they haven't been described as having thought in Next either.

Well, some undead need to eat brains... More to the point, a zombie can distinguish between its master (which it won't attack), a living creature (which it will) and an undead creature (which it won't). That's basic intelligence.

 

[Texicles]

I know we now have hit dice instead of Healing Surges and I want that gone. Call it what you will, it's the same thing and I never liked it.

Might I persuade you to consider the following modification to your statement?

"I know we have hit dice instead of Healing Surges and I want that optional. Call it what you will, they're conceptually similar enough that I don't care for either. That said, I recognize that other people like things that I may not care for and don't think that they should be deprived of rules they favor just because I dislike them."

I generally disagree with most of the things you'd like to see change, but I certainly hope that, through optional, modular game design, we can both have what we want.

 

[Dausuul]

What I want out of 5E is a clean, tight edition that combines the best features of BD&D and 4E. Character creation should be quick, with a few big meaningful choices instead of a million small fiddly ones. The classes should be balanced without being cookie-cutter; a rogue is better at exploration than a fighter and a fighter is better at combat than a rogue, but both can contribute substantially in either scenario. There should be options to shift the focus of the campaign as the PCs advance, away from dungeon crawling and toward dominion-building, if that's the way the DM and players want to go. Magic items should be strictly up to the DM--no more of this wealth by level or expected bonuses business.

All in all, I think 5E is looking pretty good by my standards. I do think saving throws and skills and proficiency are kind of a mess, and I hope they clean that up, but that's my only major complaint.

Oh, and I want the option to play a necromancer who commands an army of undead. Not one pathetic minion like in 4E. Not a gang of ten or twenty like in 3E. An army. That can be part of the dominion-building rules if necessary (hard to see how it could be balanced for dungeon crawling). But I haven't had that option since 2E and I want it back.