D&D (2024) What Should 1D&D Resurrect? +

[Scott Christian]

ASIs based on species.

(Not saying this to be argumentative, but I do think it is a good way to create common tropes, and in turn, helps create "rareness" of specific species/class combos.)

 

[CreamCloud0]

ASIs based on species.

(Not saying this to be argumentative, but I do think it is a good way to create common tropes, and in turn, helps create "rareness" of specific species/class combos.)

seconded, i don't need them to be fixed but i do want the defaults LISTED at least rather than a generic '+2/+1 assign freely', it's another layer of characterisation to help inform players of what the baseline strengths of the species typically are.

 

[Gorck]

seconded, i don't need them to be fixed but i do want the defaults LISTED at least rather than a generic '+2/+1 assign freely', it's another layer of characterisation to help inform players of what the baseline strengths of the species typically are.

I’ve been complaining about that for a while now. Initially, the races had default ASI, but some players weren’t happy because they felt limited in what class/race combinations they could make. So Tasha’s came out with the floating +2/+1, and both sides were happy. But then they decided (I think with the Harengon and Fairy) that no new races would have default ASIs. So those who didn’t like the defaults were happy, but those who did like them were SOL.

I don’t know why they couldn’t just leave the floating ASIs as a variant.

 

[Scott Christian]

I’ve been complaining about that for a while now. Initially, the races had default ASI, but some players weren’t happy because they felt limited in what class/race combinations they could make. So Tasha’s came out with the floating +2/+1, and both sides were happy. But then they decided (I think with the Harengon and Fairy) that no new races would have default ASIs. So those who didn’t like the defaults were happy, but those who did like them were SOL.

I don’t know why they couldn’t just leave the floating ASIs as a variant.

Not to be the slippery slope person here, but in my experience of both public and at-home gaming, once something comes out that enables players to be a bit better, it's the standard. There is no going back, and therefore, almost everyone switches over. That was what happened with the floating +2/+1. Of the forty or some odd people I know that play, once the gate opened, there was no DM that could close it back up even if they wanted to.

 

[Kannik]

I’d echo a lot of the above: the missing interesting character classes/concepts (swordmage, warlord, non-melee focused divine caster, something cool like the 4e artificer), character themes and paragon paths, 3 saves based on 2 attributes each, bloodied condition, defender role, minions, option to attack defenses vs saving throws, positioning, proper rituals, and the like.

Also, the Mystic. Very nifty mechanical concept that, while somewhat overly broadly used for psionics, could make a great elementalist (what they were trying with the wu-jen) as well as pure psionicist.

And, yes, psionics.

 

[The Shadow]

EDIT: Wait, is that something that was in a previous edition to be resurrected? Or just a general wish?

Totally. Remember "name level"?

 

[Mistwell]

What's something from D&D'Souza long and storied history would you like to see 1D&D bring back to the game? It could be a setting, an adventure, a class or race, a specific mechanic, or anything really.

Please keep it positive and avoid both edition warring and fighting about OGL issues, thanks

For my part: prestige classes.

1) Greyhawk
2) Some element of Morale rules for foes.
3) Magic item creation rules
4) Warlord class