Where do you see (or want) 5.0 to go?

[delericho]

Unless 5e is a radical change from 4e, I won't even bother to check it out. I may play it, if someone is interested in running it for me, but I'll not DM. I also simply do not trust the current team at WotC to put out a game I would like - they're clearly capable of putting out a perfectly good game (they did 4e, after all), but I don't think they can do a good game for me.

As for how I think 5e should look:

- A single Core Rulebook of no more than 256 pages, including everything that is needed to play. Oh, and price it at no more than $30 (adjusted for inflation).

- A much simpler ruleset. 3.5e is weighed down with too many options by far, and too many bonus types. Pathfinder is essentially the same, only moreso. 4e is simpler on some levels, but has that horrible micromanagement of conditional and temporary modifiers.

If you look at 3.0e, the 'kernel' of that game is simple, powerful and elegant. Unfortunately, even in the 3.0e core rules, it is layered with huge amounts of unnecessary complexity. Scrap the complexity, and you'd be on to something. (SWSE is another example of the complexity level to aim for.)

- Ditch the powers structure (at-will/encounter/daily); I don't like it. Ditch "system mastery" as the abomination it is. Keep explicity class roles (but be less rigid about them), and keep the monster roles and the minion/standard/elite/solo distinction.

- Beg, borrow or steal a team of crack adventure writers, and lock them in a room until they come up with the single greatest adventure path of all time, to be released concurrently with the new rules.

- Oh, and talking of concurrent releases: the new Basic Set should release at the same time as the Core Rulebook, and in fact should include that same Core Rulebook as one of the key components.

- Anyone who uses the words "cool", "awesome" or "Fun" (with the capital 'F'), or the phrase "knock-down, drag-out fight", when talking about the new edition, or who 'promotes' the new edition by trashing any previous version of the game shall be immediately sacked.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I didn't say I didn't want standard races, or that I specifically wanted non-standard races. I said that "standard" doesn't exist in the way that you mean it here.

Unless you go human, elf, dwarf, fighter, wizard and cleric. I think those would have to be considered standard. Is that what you mean?

Whatever, man.

 

[Azgulor]

For me, 5e will be named Pathfinder Role-Playing Game, 2nd edition.

Of course, anything is possible and I'd look at a WotC-developed 5e. However, for the forseeable future, that ship has sailed.

If D&D 5e went back to more old-school, sword-n-sorcery focused material I'd have to give it a hard look. However, I believe the "wahoo" genie is out of the bottle and I don't think it's ever going back in.

 

[bagger245]

If D&D 5e went back to more old-school, sword-n-sorcery focused material I'd have to give it a hard look. However, I believe the "wahoo" genie is out of the bottle and I don't think it's ever going back in.

It really depends on the game designers. If they happen to see it your way, then you strike gold. Same with the rest of you who posted. It seems 5e or future D&Ds are the current game designer's vision of D&D. Sure they will listen to major complains and include it in the design goals but it's still following their vision of what they think D&D should be.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

More fluff in the core books. More than now, more than in the 3e books. In fact, just swap the current ratios of fluff and crunch.

 

[scruffygrognard]

Move away from the rules-heavy model of 3.5 and 4th edition to create a fun, fast and rules lite d20 game.

Start with the basics (including classic races and classes, as well as Vancian magic) and build an awesome game around the simple core rules.

 

[Shazbot79]

I think that, when designing a 5th edition of Dungeons & Dragons, it should be remembered that while the game CAN be used to craft a story and it CAN be used to simulate a fictional world, and indeed there should be some support for these things, D&D is first and foremost a game.

This means that an emphasis should be put on fun table play, cohesive math that works across all levels, class balance (my definition for class balance is that any character can contribute meaningfully in all aspects of the game: combat, social roleplay, exploration, problem solving, etc. not that every character should be equally effective in all situations) and the possibility for character death/failure.

Secondly, I think that one of the primary design goals of any edition of the game should be accessibility, since D&D acts as the gateway into the hobby for most gamers. Therefore, the system should be relatively simple at it's core and obtuse mechanics should be kept to a minimum.

I think that 5th edition should have a few tropes assumed by the rules, like the idea of points of light in an ever encroaching sea of darkness...but should largely remain fluff neutral. This means that races and classes are stripped down to their most iconic identity and left at that.

The DMG could could offer advice on running different types of games, different flavors of setting and offer literary references that DM's can mine for inspiration.

The release schedule for Campaign Settings should be more rapid than one per year and would ideally focus on campaign settings that have their own unique flavor, so Greyhawk for pulp sword and sorcery fantasy, Forgotten Realms for epic high fantasy, along with more off the beaten path settings like Eberron, Dark Sun, Planescape, etc. Also, setting books should include optional rules to hue the game closer to the settings feel.

One thing I don't get, and is a notion that I'm seeing a lot of, is an appeal for a return to earlier iterations of D&D. That is to say that I don't really see the value in A) keeping D&D locked in a time capsule so that it only changes incrementally with each new edition, or B) retreading ground that has already been covered by AD&D, BECMI and games like Swords & Wizardry or Labyrinth Lord. I suspect that this may have more to do with one's sense of personal validation rather than what is best for the game.

 

[Shazbot79]

Start with the basics (including classic races and classes, as well as Vancian magic) and build an awesome game around the simple core rules.

I would stick with the classes and races that most gamers have come to EXPECT as being a core part of D&D.

The following list isn't meant to be exclusionary, rather these are the classic options that I feel the core game should include from the outset.

Classes:
Cleric
Fighter
Rogue
Wizard
Ranger
Paladin
Druid
Bard
Barbarian

I wouldn't mind see a few others, like Warlords and Warlocks as well, if there's room. Sorcerers could become redundant, depending on how the Wizard class is constructed.

Races:
Humans
Elves
Dwarves
Halflings
Gnomes
Minotaurs
Dragonborn...what the hell, I like 'em. Sue me ; p

I think that half-bred races like Half-Elves and Half-Orcs should necessarily be their own separate entities, when something like bloodline feats for humans can take the place of these.

However, I wouldn't be overly distraught if say, Elves were to subsume Eladrins place as capricious Feywild denizens and Shifters became the defacto forest crawling commandoes that 4E elves have become. Nor would I shed a tear if Kobolds or Goblins were to kill Halflings and take their stuff.

As for vancian magic, I don't really see that as a necessary component of the game...and many players were clamoring for a new magic system as it is.

 

[scruffygrognard]

One thing I don't get, and is a notion that I'm seeing a lot of, is an appeal for a return to earlier iterations of D&D. That is to say that I don't really see the value in A) keeping D&D locked in a time capsule so that it only changes incrementally with each new edition, or B) retreading ground that has already been covered by AD&D, BECMI and games like Swords & Wizardry or Labyrinth Lord. I suspect that this may have more to do with one's sense of personal validation rather than what is best for the game.

My perspective on this is this is that, after playing 3rd edition for 10 years and playing 4th edition a number of times until I tired of it, I think that looking back at earlier editions of D&D might be what's best for the game. I'm not saying that Basic and AD&D are perfect, but they are have a lot of elements that can be cherry-picked to create a better version of D&D than we've had since August of 2000.

At the same time elements that worked well in 3rd and 4th edition could be incorporated into 5th edition as well.

For example, Vancian magic needs to be cleaned-up quite a bit, but I'd hate to see it totally eliminated in 5th editon.

 

[Jasperak]

- More realism where possible, at expense of gamism.
- A serious shift in attitude from "the rules are rules" to "the rules are guidelines"; corollary to this is not to try and make a rule for everything, and to encourage house-ruling and tweaking.
- Fewer bonuses (or lower possible bonus numbers) of all kinds. Rule of thumb: if the bonus or +-amount is or can be bigger than the number of sides on the die you're rolling, there's a problem.
- More focus on character personalities and less on character optimization. Ideally, a char-ops board for 5e would serve no useful function at all.
- The return of resource management, be it of spells, gear, time, whatever.
- A return to archetypal classes and races as the norm, with non-archetypes as the exception.
- Spells that feel like magic; with components, casting times, chance of failure, and not everyone can cast 'em.
- A flexible system that can handle different game styles right from the start; even to the point of rules subsets for said styles. These subset expansions could be put out in booklets about the size of an adventure module (but would have to come out with the initial release to be of any use). Some ideas:
~~ A rules subset for long slow-advancing campaigns
~~ A rules subset for tournaments and one-offs
~~ A rules subset for beginners
~~ A rules subset for heroic play (like 4e, you're a hero before you start)
~~ A rules subset for grim-'n'-gritty (you're a commoner to start and might never get too far beyond that)
~~ A rules subset for games where PCs can/cannot create their own magic items (whichever is opposite to the default)
~~ A rules subset for online play

I'm sure I'll think of more later...

Lan-"and it has to have mules. And harlots, too!"-efan

Interesting, I'm playing that game now