Cast Raise Dead on a Game Element!

[mkill]

The opposite to the "Kill it with fire" thread, pick something that 4th edition (or third, or even earlier) dropped from the game but shouldn't have.

My list:

* Playable Monsters: 3rd edition went overboard with this (Anthropomorphic Baleen Whale?) but the idea of a "monster party" is cool. Definitely something for a splatbook.

* Spells are spells, combat maneuvers are combat maneuvers. While I don't mind using power format for both (lower learning curve), 4th edition had no descriptor or anything to set them apart. There was only the cruddy weapon / implement split, and power sources, which had no game effect.
This made it difficult to make antimagic or wild magic zones, bound and gagged wizards to prevent spellcasting etc.
If 5th ed uses the power format, add a "spell" or "supernatural" keyword.
Setting both clearly apart might have warmed up more people to the 4th ed barbarian...

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

AD&D style multiclassing. No more of this "Mystic Theurge" or multiclassing feat business, you get all of your powers from all of your classes-- at a lower level. Throw the dual-classing in there, too, but without the whole forgetting how to tie your own shoes angle.

Racial classes. By all means, let them multiclass, but Elf and Dwarf and Halfling should be classes. And speaking of... class limits. Not level limits, nothing like that, but some races can advance in some classes, and some races cannot. I'm sick to death of Dwarven Wizards and Elven Paladins.

Playable monsters, definitely. With their own racial classes and their own allowable multiclassing. Give weird races weird options.

3.X psionics. Matter of fact, use 3.X psionics for all the magic.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Flaws.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Playable henchman and followers and strong reasons to want them. Oh sure, you can do it in all of the later versions--as long as you don't mind dragging the game down for little payoff. To really matter, you need the option for unabashed operational play and managed resources. And to get that with a party of 15+ PCs/Henchman, you need some ultra simple conflict resolution options or ultra fast combat mechanics or both.

 

[Wormwood]

Simple character creation, even at higher levels. Life was cheap when it only took you 5 minutes to *completely* fill out your character sheet.

Low hit points across the board. You want a wizard to feel magical again? Make 5d6 damage actually kill things.

XP for gold (although I prefer the modern spin on that rule whereby you gain the xp for WASTING your gold on your lavish adventurer lifestyle)

 

[Keldryn]

Side-based initiative. It just makes combat run much faster.

 

[Lanefan]

* - System shock survival % roll - elegant mechanic
* - Resurrection survival % roll - ditto, and makes death more of a threat
* - Cleric-turning-undead matrix - turning undead has been a rules headache ever since this was dropped
* - Illusions that affect touch and thus can hurt
* - Safe polymorph only on self and only to any natural (i.e. non-fantastic) creature
* - Polymorphing anyone else into anything is ALWAYS a hostile act - if you polymorph an ally that ally's next action will be to try and kill you
* - Rebounding lightning bolts and expanding fireballs - magic needs its risks
* - Potions and wands that can do things spells cannot
* - Henches and followers
* - Retributive strike items
* - Donkeyhorses

Lan-"I don't even want to think about a retributive-strike donkeyhorse"-efan

 

[Jawsh]

I would like the 9-fold alignment system back, please. I did enjoy the foray into cutting back the alignments; it was fun to see Chaotic Good and Neutral Good join up into team Good.

So split them up again, but maybe they can still have some affinity for each other.

 

[Jiggawatts]

I too agree with bringing back class/race restrictions. For one it perserves the archtypes, and D&D has always been a game based around classical archtypes. And this, IMO, leads to more background flavor for the races themselves...its why hobbits/halflings are so enamored with magic, because they cant be wizards themselves, etc. Even a high percentage of modern fantasy video games still use this feature.

Now, I dont think that the list should be near as restrictive as it was in AD&D (especially 1E...elves cant be rangers....really). They should take a look at every possible demihuman race/class possibility, and any class that seems absolutely uncharacteristic of a race should be unavaible to said race, i.e. dwarven wizards, high elf barbarians, etc.

 

[mkill]

I too agree with bringing back class/race restrictions.

If that happens, I'll skip this edition.

Reason 1: Class / Race limitations are a setting item, not a rules item. D&D has a very long tradition of DMs creating their own worlds. If a DM wants to rule that hobbits have no magic talent whatsoever in their world, fine with me. Written in a rulebook? No way.

Reason 2: As a DM, I believe in supporting players to fulfill their idea of the character they want to play. It's their game too. If they want a halfling Wizard in my game, I'll help them find a background that fits my world. If that means they are the only halfling Wizard around, because I declared that halflings have no magic talent whatsoever, that is an awesome story hook.

It's interesting to see that some things show up in the Pro as well as the Anti thread.