D&D 5E What rules would you like to see come back in 5E?

[Mistwell]

XP is gained for performing actions demonstrating mastery in each level of the class you are puzzling out. Players are already focused on mastering the game system appropriate to their class. So gaining XP by class for mastery in these systems is an easy conclusion for what's going on with XP. For example, Wizards gain for casting spells, Thieves for stealing treasures, Clerics for protecting and gaining believers, Fighters for besting opponents in personal or led combat.

So sort of like alignment - an incentive to behave a certain way based on the alignment you chose for that character. But in this case, the behavior is class-based, and the incentive is XP. Interesting...

 

[lutecius]

Variable class XP progression.

aargh! why would anyone want that (honest question)? It would just make things a nightmare to balance.

I really want this too... I almost can't believe that nearly nobody cares, that the current spellcasting rules aren't as vancian as they used to be. This to me is one of the defining mechanics of D&D, meaning that it's a huge part of the shared experience of playing D&D (for about 34 years) rather than another rules system, but sadly WotC did not include it in the list of defining mechanical elements, so as a consequence, keeping it in 5e was not a priority. I thought this would even prevent many older-editions grognard to recognize 5e as D&D, but seeing that almost nobody brings this up, then apparently I must be wrong.

I fully get that some people are still attached to it but the as far as I'm concerned , "real vancian casting" always felt clunky and counterintuitive, even (or especially) when I started playing with AD&D. It certainly wasn't anything like what I thought magic should feel like. If anything, 5e is still too vancian for my taste.

That said, I don't mind Vancian being the default as long as I get a solid spell-point variant for every caster… And by solid I mean a system that is well tested and taken into account when designing new spells and classes, not some rushed or unbalanced option tossed in the DMG and completely forgotten after that.

This thread should be titled "Oh please god no!"

This is the only proposal I'd support whole hearted.

Initiative: depends on the granularity. With well-defined actions like in 3e or 4e I prefer the static sequence.

Strictly Vancian, different progression tracks: No, just no.

To be honest, a lot of those posts express a wish to re-write 1e. Well, my tastes differ from 30 years ago; no need to pour old wine into a new wineskin.

This and this.
I don't even mind most of these suggestions but I don't really care for them either (except maybe for spell spheres and rules for followers) In most case they feel like bringing back some restrictions and convoluted mechanics just for nostalgia's sake, not because they add something to the game.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

I also agree wholeheartedly with morale rules. Very easy to make them optional if needed.

It wouldn't take up much room in a stat block either. Morale could simply be a number between 1-20. In order for the monster to stick around it had to roll equal to that number or higher. There would be universal modifiers to that number (i.e. -2 to the roll if below half hit points, +3 to the roll if they outnumber their opponents, etc.) Roll at the start of each round, or if a certain event occurs (i.e. someone is killed). Very simple to do once you know what the modifiers are.

Thinking about it a little more, morale rules could actually open up a bit of interesting design space around monsters, with some reacting different to other in certain situations. One type of monster could flee at the slightest amount of damage, another could fight to the death if they were in their lair or protecting their young. One type of monster could flee when their leader was killed, for another type killing the leader would spurr them on and they redouble their attacks.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

Double post

 

[Texicles]

aargh! why would anyone want that (honest question)? It would just make things a nightmare to balance.

I fully get that some people are still attached to it but the as far as I'm concerned , "real vancian casting" always felt clunky and counterintuitive, even (or especially) when I started playing with AD&D. It certainly wasn't anything like what I thought magic should feel like. If anything, 5e is still too vancian for my taste.

First part: I share your distaste but there are some balance merits to variable class progression. The linear fighter/quadratic mage can more easily be kept balanced relative to one another at a specific point in the story if they're not required to be the same level at that time. That said, I'd rather the game be balanced as best it can around uniform progression. Without an appreciation of the mechanics, it's off-putting to a new player to see their friends leveling up faster.

Second part: Totally. I know Vancian casting is a thing in D&D, and has been for at least a hundred years, but I don't dig it. At no point have I ever dealt with spell slots and thought, man, this is how casting spells should feel! However, given that some lurve it, I'll live with it and be thankful that the 5e iteration is impure in that regard.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Cleric domains/spheres. So there will be some spells that sit in a universal domain/sphere that all Clerics get, but the othere domains/spheres that Clerics do/don't get access to are determined by the god that they worship.

I want a Cleric of Pelor and a Cleric of Kord to have more differences than the holy symbol they carry and the domain spells they can cast. They should feel and play differently.

+1. Two priests that worship two very different deities should have very different spell lists, not 95% of the same spells plus a few domain spells.

Real vancian spell casting and scaling by level spells.

I really want this too... I almost can't believe that nearly nobody cares, that the current spellcasting rules aren't as vancian as they used to be. This to me is one of the defining mechanics of D&D, meaning that it's a huge part of the shared experience of playing D&D (for about 34 years) rather than another rules system, but sadly WotC did not include it in the list of defining mechanical elements, so as a consequence, keeping it in 5e was not a priority. I thought this would even prevent many older-editions grognard to recognize 5e as D&D, but seeing that almost nobody brings this up, then apparently I must be wrong.!

I fully get that some people are still attached to it but the as far as I'm concerned , "real vancian casting" always felt clunky and counterintuitive, even (or especially) when I started playing with AD&D. It certainly wasn't anything like what I thought magic should feel like. If anything, 5e is still too vancian for my taste.

I never liked Vancian casting either. Not only was it clunky and counterintuitive, as you said, it was the primary cause of the imbalance between spellcasters and non-spellcasters. In order for 5e to be a more balanced game, it simply had to go. I think 5e's approach is a very well designed system and is a good compromise that preserves the overall style and good things about Vancian casting while fixing its worst problems. You still have spellbooks. You still have the strategic element of preparing spells (and I could argue it's more strategic than it used to be, since you can prepare fewer spells at a time than before). But at the same time, you don't have the rigid inflexibility that forced you not only to guess what spells you might need in a given day, but how many times (ugh). Because wizards don't have to specify how many fireballs they prepare each day, this allows them to give wizards fewer daily spell slots overall, which greatly helps with the caster vs. non-caster imbalance of the past, especially at higher levels. And then there's at-will cantrips and rituals, which I really love, and allow wizards to continue to contribute even when their daily spells have run out (or when they're trying to conserve them).

The way I see it, what has always made a DnD wizard a DnD wizard was never the exact details of his resource management. It was that he carried a spellbook, used strange gestures and arcane words, and most importantly - the spells he used. Fireball, magic missile, invisibility, fly, and especially the named spells, like Mordenkainen's Sword. Those are what, to me, have always distinguished DnD wizards, not the exact technicalities of how they managed their daily spells. And in that respect, I think 5e wizards are still very much the same, iconic DnD wizards there have always been, just with better mechanics and IMO more balanced and more fun to play.

 

[Zardnaar]

If D&DN tanks hopefully they realize killing off sacred cows is a bad idea. It was something the 3E team was aware of and Monty talked about it in Dragon.

 

[Falling Icicle]

If D&DN tanks hopefully they realize killing off sacred cows is a bad idea. It was something the 3E team was aware of and Monty talked about it in Dragon.

3e tanked? That's news to me.

 

[Zardnaar]

3e tanked? That's news to me.

The developers of 3rd ed seemed a bit more aware of sacred beef than the 4E ones was the main point. Hence 3rd ed was the second coming of D&D after 1st ed basically.

 

[Jester David]

Weapon speed might be a fun tactical element. As would casting times.

I'd like to see a more granular skill system as an option.