D&D 5E Three Wishes for 5E

[fuindordm]

I'm trying to think of the things I really, really want out of the new edition. Not just "nice to have" or "X edition did it best" things, but features of the new game that would get me excited about playing that edition over the long term.

Your own lists are welcome.

1. At least 3 Mundane classes + Warlord. One thing that has bugged me about every prior edition of the game is that so many core classes cast spells. In my own games, I've always had "mundane" ranger and paladin classes as an option, and used them frequently for NPCs. I hope that Mike and Monte can steal a page or two from Iron Heroes, and give us enough mundane classes in the core, including a leader-style class, so that non-spellcasting parties are viable. Because let's face it, if magic is so common that most adventurers have some spells, then it's a lot harder to make magic feel special to the campaign world.

2. Magic with style. There should not be a spell for everything (yay, Monte!). Along with the utility spells, there should be some spells with a significant cost or consequence, some spells that might be useful only rarely but contribute strongly to a class's unique style, and some spells that are just plain wierd. The same could be said of magic items.

3. Unique classes. I don't want balance between classes in the numbers. I want each class to give me a unique play experience. In 1e I loved playing the thief, even thought it was the weakest class in almost every respect, because it was fun to level up quickly (while remaining weak!) and challenging to contribute to the party while surviving to level up. Each class should have its own challenges, and bring its own rewards. Each class should have something useful to do in the common game situations, but there's room for inequality if it's compensated by style.

 

[harlokin]

I'm trying to think of the things I really, really want out of the new edition. Not just "nice to have" or "X edition did it best" things, but features of the new game that would get me excited about playing that edition over the long term.

Your own lists are welcome.

1. At least 3 Mundane classes + Warlord. One thing that has bugged me about every prior edition of the game is that so many core classes cast spells. In my own games, I've always had "mundane" ranger and paladin classes as an option, and used them frequently for NPCs. I hope that Mike and Monte can steal a page or two from Iron Heroes, and give us enough mundane classes in the core, including a leader-style class, so that non-spellcasting parties are viable. Because let's face it, if magic is so common that most adventurers have some spells, then it's a lot harder to make magic feel special to the campaign world.

2. Magic with style. There should not be a spell for everything (yay, Monte!). Along with the utility spells, there should be some spells with a significant cost or consequence, some spells that might be useful only rarely but contribute strongly to a class's unique style, and some spells that are just plain wierd. The same could be said of magic items.

3. Unique classes. I don't want balance between classes in the numbers. I want each class to give me a unique play experience. In 1e I loved playing the thief, even thought it was the weakest class in almost every respect, because it was fun to level up quickly (while remaining weak!) and challenging to contribute to the party while surviving to level up. Each class should have its own challenges, and bring its own rewards. Each class should have something useful to do in the common game situations, but there's room for inequality if it's compensated by style.

Not wishing to sound snarky, but what I want is:

1. No mundane Classes.

2. Magic that does not render Skills of other Classes obsolete. In 3e for example, anything you could do with a skill, you could do better with magic. Diplomacy? Charm spell. Jumping or climbing? Fly.

I also do not want Magic to go back to wrecking the DM's plots with divinations and teleports. You couldnn't do any kind of mystery or travel scenario because magic can simply bypass it.

3. I don't want Classes who's unique feature is that they are weaker.

 

[Oni]

1. At least 3 Mundane classes + Warlord. One thing that has bugged me about every prior edition of the game is that so many core classes cast spells. In my own games, I've always had "mundane" ranger and paladin classes as an option, and used them frequently for NPCs. I hope that Mike and Monte can steal a page or two from Iron Heroes, and give us enough mundane classes in the core, including a leader-style class, so that non-spellcasting parties are viable. Because let's face it, if magic is so common that most adventurers have some spells, then it's a lot harder to make magic feel special to the campaign world.

I think you'll get your wish. Barbarian, Fighter, Thief/Rogue, plus the Warlord.

2. Magic with style. There should not be a spell for everything (yay, Monte!). Along with the utility spells, there should be some spells with a significant cost or consequence, some spells that might be useful only rarely but contribute strongly to a class's unique style, and some spells that are just plain wierd. The same could be said of magic items.

Yes, magic that's full of flavor and isn't just a variant of X number of guys for X number of damage, lot's of out of combat weirdness.

3. Unique classes. I don't want balance between classes in the numbers. I want each class to give me a unique play experience. In 1e I loved playing the thief, even thought it was the weakest class in almost every respect, because it was fun to level up quickly (while remaining weak!) and challenging to contribute to the party while surviving to level up. Each class should have its own challenges, and bring its own rewards. Each class should have something useful to do in the common game situations, but there's room for inequality if it's compensated by style.

I hope you get your wish, 4e taught me that unique classes are much more important to me than balance.



As for myself. I wish...

...for feats to be interesting and worthwhile, and not just some boring +1 or +2 modifier. They need to actually bring something new and different to a character.

...combats that a quick and exciting, I really don't want to monopolize the game session because it takes so long.

...that (and this is unlikely) every class as something open ended they can learn, by that I mean like a wizard used to be able to learn any of the spells they could find I hope that there is someway to expand a character laterally that isn't hard capped by level, like being able to learn as many feats as you want given the right conditions, or pick up new skills, or something. A motivator to go out and do stuff.

 

[mkill]

1. At least 3 Mundane classes + Warlord. One thing that has bugged me about every prior edition of the game is that so many core classes cast spells. In my own games, I've always had "mundane" ranger and paladin classes as an option, and used them frequently for NPCs. I hope that Mike and Monte can steal a page or two from Iron Heroes, and give us enough mundane classes in the core, including a leader-style class, so that non-spellcasting parties are viable. Because let's face it, if magic is so common that most adventurers have some spells, then it's a lot harder to make magic feel special to the campaign world.

I agree. The funny thing is, I felt that 4E achieved this. It had Fighter, Rogue, Ranger and Warlord. Each of them had interesting and flavorful abilities, and none of them cast spells.

(Yes, I know someone will complain that these abilities didn't feel different enough from spells. All I can answer to that is that they weren't magical or spells, nothing in the book said they were spells, and nobody in our games ever pretended they were spells. At our table, they were "I smack it with my sword this and that way". So yeah.)

I hope that 5E Fighters, Rogues, Rangers and Warlords will be able to pull off similar cool stuff as their 4E counterparts. It can be by default, it can be a build option, it can use completely different mechanics - I don't care. I want the same result.

If 5E goes back to AD&D "want to do something cool? cast a spell!" I won't touch it with a 10-foot pole.

2. Magic with style. There should not be a spell for everything (yay, Monte!). Along with the utility spells, there should be some spells with a significant cost or consequence, some spells that might be useful only rarely but contribute strongly to a class's unique style, and some spells that are just plain wierd. The same could be said of magic items.

I think 4E rituals were originally meant to be that, but didn't deliver at the table. I agree that D&D needs a certain amount of odd and wacky spells and items, like the Apparatus of Kwalish (sp?). Doesn't have to be more than 10%, doesn't have to be all the in the core books, but it has to be there.
Magic items and their endless repetition of useless daily powers (another d6 extra damage *yawn*) was my biggest disappointment with 4E.

3. Unique classes. I don't want balance between classes in the numbers. I want each class to give me a unique play experience. In 1e I loved playing the thief, even thought it was the weakest class in almost every respect, because it was fun to level up quickly (while remaining weak!) and challenging to contribute to the party while surviving to level up. Each class should have its own challenges, and bring its own rewards. Each class should have something useful to do in the common game situations, but there's room for inequality if it's compensated by style.

Ugh, deal breaker for me.

If you want to build a character that's weak in combat - fine. But don't force that down the throat of an entire class. If you split the game in three elements - combat, social interaction, and exploration than each class should be able to contribute.

That doesn't mean you need each class to conform to a standard damage output per round. That doesn't mean combat roles need to be as strictly defined as they were in 4E. "Everyone contributes" means that if you have a 5 PC party, this party should only be 80% powerful of you remove one PC. This 20% can be anything - from BMX tricks to summoning angels. It can be smacking them with a sword in the frontline round by round, or it can be hiding in the shadows, aiming for the perfect shot to the heart. But it has to be there.

Same with the other areas - I don't want another 3E fighter with piddly skill points, the least number of class skills, only one skill each tied to his main abilities Str and Con, and nothing else. There are tons of ways to make a Fighter useful outside of combat. Don't make the PC give up combat skill to be better at the other areas (as hinted in the seminar). Build these into the class, at no extra cost.

 

[Number48]

1. A new edition of D&D. This is the #1 absolutely top deal-breaker for me. If the 5E is an earlier edition dusted off and polished up, no thanks. That would be great for free or cheap, but not worth another several hundred bucks.

2. Everyone should be equivalent in combat and out of combat. My personal preference is for a 2-class system, but it isn't a deal-breaker. The fighter should be able to be a diplomat or a sneak. The rogue should be able to stab someone in the jejunum every round. They don't have to be equal, but nobody should be feeling distinctly sub-par (Fighter, I'm looking at you).

3. Make magic magical. Wizards shouldn't have to carry a crossbow. A magical sword shouldn't be boring. A spell shouldn't be "I hit for 5 damage."

 

[fuindordm]

Not wishing to sound snarky, but what I want is:


3. I don't want Classes who's unique feature is that they are weaker.

No, of course not. The AD&D thief was interesting to play because it was about 80% exploration and 20% combat, and none of the other AD&D classes came close to having its utility for exploration. So the thief often got to see things first, and mess with an encounter first.

It would have been just as fun if it were less weak, but it definitely had a different feel.

 

[Oni]

Add one more to my wish list.

I wish for powers or abilities that don't preclude characters from being able to attempt something anyone should be able to do just by their very existence. For example Power Attack, why is that a feat or a class power? Taking a mighty great swing at the cost of accuracy seems like something that anyone should be able to naturally do. If a player looks at me and says, "I want to try X," I don't want to have to tell them, "sorry but you don't have the right feat/power," especially if one of there fellows across the table would feel slighted since had invested in that particular rules widget. I want to be able say, "sure, give it a try," and have a nice easy way of resolving all those situations that doesn't require me looking something up each different situation.

 

[MoonSong]

Just have a few:

-I wish for them to return Bards and Gnomes back to the core books (and monks, sorcerers, druids and Half-orcs while they are at that), nothing aganst the new things in the core 4e, but bards and druids are just that iconic and I would hate to have to wait one or two extra years and expend extra money just to play something that should be core.

-I wish for the skill system to be organic in nature (being able to be competent in some skills normal, very good in others and outright suck on yet others), not necessarily tied to character level, also I would like the option to trade combat capability for more and better trained skills (and the reverse to be possible too), and please bring back perform and disguise!! it sucks not having an objective way to gauge how good your character is with music. The part I enjoy the most of character creation and charatcer growth is working on the skillset of my characters. it would be great if they had both in and out of combat uses.

-While I understand powers are here to stay, and that they are elegant from a game design and balance standpoint I wish for the game designers not to make them explicit, moreso if they are class-exclusive, just call them class features/class abilities and call it a day. "Powers" strike as too generic and it makes all classes feel the same, I liked it back ehwn every class was unique mechanic - wise

-But overall I wish to have perform back as a skill.

 

[kitsune9]

Here's my list of four things:

1. 36 levels.
2. With #1 being said, flatter scaling of power.
3. BECMI modularity on new rule sets.
4. More cow bell (okay, maybe it's just three things)

 

[Mattachine]

No, of course not. The AD&D thief was interesting to play because it was about 80% exploration and 20% combat, and none of the other AD&D classes came close to having its utility for exploration. So the thief often got to see things first, and mess with an encounter first.

The AD&D wizard could do all of this by about level 5, with fly and invisibility. An illusionist did it even better.