What supplemental information do we need most right now?

[Cap'n Kobold]

Maybe I don't understand you. To me a "wild talents" system sounds like you add talents to all characters to keep them equal. That means you can't have both PCs with and without wild talents in the same group. I think this is what WotC doesn't really want in 5e. Having both simple and complex wild talents would not avoid this problem.

You could either do it by making it incompatible with characters generated without the wild talents system, and accept that they would be of a higher power level than the norm.
Some guidance might be needed about how to design encounters for parties using those rules as well.

Alternatively, you could try to balance wild talents with the existing rules using a flaw system. However I've yet to encounter a "Merits and Flaws" system that didn't massively increase the min/max potential of characters using it.

 

[delericho]

Alternatively, you could try to balance wild talents with the existing rules using a flaw system. However I've yet to encounter a "Merits and Flaws" system that didn't massively increase the min/max potential of characters using it.

Pretty much. I've seen a small number, but the key seems to be that you don't allow people to buy merits by taking on flaws. Instead, the flaw should grant some benefit if and only if it comes up in the game (so, if the character is scared of fire, the group encounters fire, and the player remembers to apply the flaw then he gains Inspiration... or something like that).

Otherwise, as you say, the consequence tends to be either that the min/maxer carefully selects flaws that will never come up or won't impact on the character, or he just 'forgets' to remind the DM when they apply - and uses the points thus purchased to buy the most powerful merits.

 

[Ratskinner]

I would say, snarkily, a full spellless ranger class and a full warlord class, just to put a stop to things.

But it wouldn't, because the ranger wouldn't be called a ranger because we already have one, and the warlord wouldn't be machanically capable of doing everything a 4e warlord does, because mechanics...so it would only change "how" those fans feel WotC screwed them.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Where's the "None of the Above" or "Other" choice?

I'd want more sub-systems to support specific types of campaigns. Mass combat, naval combat, operating organizations (thieves guild, temple, arcane tower, etc.), more fleshed out fear or madness rules for horror/lovecraft, etc.

I like how the big campaign books like Curse of Strahd present mini-versions of this, but I'd like to see a greater emphasis on presenting books that allow you to run many campaigns of that type, rather than just the one campaign presented in the book. Instead of being 90% campaign and 10% rules, I'd want 40% rules and three sample adventures.

One that hasn't been done yet would be good fairy tale/feywild book, where you could have rules for delirium and fey bargains, and three sample adventures dealing with the fey.