Name one new thing you would like to see in D&D 5e

Hello everyone, 


This thread is about what you would like to see as a new mechanic in D&D. This should be either something completely new that you think other editions never tackled porperly, or something that appeared in an accessory/unearthed arcana as an alternative rule that you particularly liked and that would like to see more of (and please explain why) or something that was always there (in most editions of D&D) and would like to see removed....for good.



I, for once, would like to see:

1) A comeback of the Wound Points/Vitality Points mechanic or some similar alternative. In this system you recover Vitality Points quite fast (perhaps replenishing them fully after a short rest?) so that characters don't need artificial things like healing surges, nor do they need frequent long rests to be able to move on with the adventure.
 
2) Damage Reduction mechanic for Armors. Maybe it's just me, but hitting a dude in a big armor shouldn't be about actually hitting the target, but going through their thick defenses. On the other hand, characters that rely heavily on dexterity to avoid being hit should use their Reflex Defense (making it a dodge) instead of the standard AC. 

3) A new system for multi-classing that doesn't penalize me in terms of more XP needed to level (as in 3e) nor fewer abilities gained in my first class (as in 4e). I'd like something more like a Gestalt character solution (3.5e Arcana Unearthed).   

4) Guilty Pleasure: Council of the Wyrms...making dragon characters Innocent 


5) The abolition of "Daily" abilities/powers/spells/whatever. I honestly never found anything more "metagame" than that. There is nothing in my life I can think of that I can only do "only once" daily.
IMAGE(http://www.forum-signatures.com/wizard/Sigs/2010/final1329876348159.jpg)
The ability to push yourself such that you're drained for days afterwards. Not to be hurt so bad you're drained, but to actually go all out, and use abilities that damage you so much it takes more than one night to fully recover.
I would like to see them really emphasize the tool box approach to making the game.

Some players want complexity and others want simplicity.  Give players the tools to make the game as complex as they want it to be.

Start with a simple system and then layer sub systems on top of it.

Start at Hit Points as an abstraction of over all capacity,  move up to wounds and vitality if you want, or keep going all the way to Hit Locations and individual Wound Thresholds



The OP pretty much covered all I want, *especially* point 4.

What I'd like to see would be guidelines/modules for playing with any thing at 1st level; dragons at 1st level? sure; plane hopping right at the start? no problem; rule a kingdom or lead an army? go for it. Naturally, this would mean that not all 1st level characters are equal, but that's pretty much what the modules would mean, I think.
"I don't want to fight dragons." - Hiccup If dragons are to be invovled, I much prefer to play as a dragon, dragon rider, dragonslayer-slayer, dragonfriend, or anything else *but* a dragonslayer.
A modular system that allows you to play the game how you want it, while still leaving almost all material published usable in any of these variants.

In one game, one rule system, have different ways of doing:
class/race abilities
multiclassing/featclassing/gestalt/talent trees
feats/qualities/powers
combat flow
skills
magic items/treasure/wealth
difficulty/lethality

Luckily, this is more or less what WotC is saying they want to do with 5e, from what I gather.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

maybe a elementalist class who creates his spells magica style

so cast abilities somthing like :
op i chose range 5 costing 1 point
chose burst 1  costing me 3 points.
add ongoing fire for 2 points and add the rest of my points alouwed this turn  toward damage.
The ability to push yourself such that you're drained for days afterwards. Not to be hurt so bad you're drained, but to actually go all out, and use abilities that damage you so much it takes more than one night to fully recover.

]

so maybe somthing like :
you expend 12 healing surges and go for the .

you can get into negitive healing surges using this power.
negative healing surges heal at the rate of 1 per day, after the point where you healed back to 0 healing surges you heal normaly.


nuclear option:
effects the next power you use:
all areas are increased by 3 squares, dubel the amount of damage dice from the power, if you hit a target you automaticly score a critical.
any creature taking more then his healing surge value in damage dies.
Heh, the OP is asking for all old things.

With regards to points 1, 2, 5: these are abstractions, just like hitpoints. Yeah, some of them go out on a limb, but so does the concept of levels, saving throws, and just about everything attached to a die roll. If it interferes with your immersion, it would be great for the new edition to allow you to use an approach that allows to discard the offending mechanics. And I think we'll get that, but we'll have to see.

I like new settings and new classes and new ways to approach the game. I'm a big 4E guy, and I'd prefer to see it as the skeleton for the new edition, since it does run smoother than the previous editions, and is largely scaleable. Despite my severe trepidations (this edition is so unnecessary), I do look forward to seeing how they implement their design goals of keeping me on board while luring back the 3ers...
#1 — Daily powers need to go. Encounter powers (and even some actions) could be expanded to have a "Surged" effect. See #2.

#2 — Hit Points or Surges could be spent to use an encounter power again in the same encounter, to get a more powerful version of the power, to get more damage from an attack, etc. Heck, they could do away with Action Points and the extra action for a Surge that lets a player roll 2d20 for an attack or power and use the higher die. I'll take a better chance to hit over another action just for speeding up combat.
This thread is highly misleading.

I like Kingreaper's idea, a lot!  A mechanic that let's you push through to finish a story arc but then requires real down time.  The vancian and daily powers require rest that hinders the story while simultaneous feeling like "a good nights rest" will heal all wounds.

I would like to see full 3D support in the core mechanics.  As the game became more about "squares" than feet and distances, it ignored 3D more and more.  I thought the game should talk about cubes instead of squares, but the legacy of the game isn't that neat and tidy.  I hope 5e talks about firing an arrow at an enemy 20' above the fray standing on a balcony.  I like how 4e cleaned up the flying rules, or dumbed them down but they were really quite involved - they were so difficult they almost acted as a deterant to flying.  That's what I would like to see. 
Attach Endurance to more feats and more functionality. I have no idea how to use endurance in my game. For the most part I just replace fort saves with it as long as its outside of combat.

Attaching it to more feats would be like if your trained in Endurance you can take Armor feats.

Feats that can be improved on upon by other feats later on. This was taken out of 4e, but it seems like it could be could to bring this back. Though then again that was before Abilities where seperated from Feats.
Ant Farm
1) An almost toal elimination of the AEDU powers system. I think there may be some value in using AEDU as a model for spellcasting, but otherwise it needs to go.

2) A character creation system that is flexible enough to build stats to suit character ideas, instead of having to force character ideas into roles or limited creation schemes.

3) A return to a 3.X style Monster Manual & monster customizing system.

4) Support for all the existing campaign worlds.


Since nobody is actually sticking to the idea of one thing...

1. The Primal power source- I thoroughly enjoyed the change in flavor for druids and barbarians, and the new class options they added to fit (I love the shaman). While half of the classes didn't exist in previous editions (or were very different), I think they fit very well, and fill certain archetypes nicely. I particularly liked the way these classes fit together and felt different (particularly in the descriptions, but also the mechanics).

2. At least the option for an AEDU power structure for most, if not all, classes. I just like them. I have no problem if options exist to avoid using powers, but I want to have powers available to be used.

3. Improved monster customization - The systems in 4th edition for customizing monsters (beyond changing their levels... I'm talking templates and class abilities), are cumbersome, and rarely used. The system of adding class levels from 3.5, while interesting and fun from a tinkering perspective, is time-consuming, and adds additional burden when designing encounters. I would like to see something that remains quick and easy, but allows for better customization... guidelines for switching in class abilities or feats without significantly altering the power level (adding class abilities in 4th made a normal monster an elite... sure you could just switch in a power, but I want actual rules).

4. Separate combat and non-combat feats - In the past two editions with feats, there have been lots of interesting non-combat feats that I have looked at, enjoyed, and never taken, because there was a more relevant combat feat to take. When feats look like an arms race, you don't do anything that doesn't contribute to your combat capacity. I think having the two be separate would make people take more of those non-combat feats, if just because they are free. Other models could be used (wilderness knacks, cantrips, skill powers, or the like), but I would like to have more flavorful options for non-combat abilities that don't cause combat abilities to lag behind by taking them, and feats seem like a good way to do that to me.
I think there should be 20 combat skills, crunch heavy stuff, spread over the 6 abilities.  Endurance is cool, but I think Swimming should be applied to Constitution.  Most swim checks are not how fast you can swim but can you keep swimming or holding your breath. 

I would also like to see 20 non combat skills.  Like brewing beer or being a blacksmith.  I am gonna choose Swim skill over Blacksmith 9 out of 10 times, so create two lists so I can do both.

Same for feats like DarkSidhe suggests.  Utility stuff had that feel, but with powercreep most of my players ended up taking more attack powers.  It has to be clearly labeled as Combat and Noncombat so that line doesn't blur.
1) An almost toal elimination of the AEDU powers system. I think there may be some value in using AEDU as a model for spellcasting, but otherwise it needs to go.




well that is what they pretty much already did with essentials.
personaly think 5th is going to be much like essentials.
it was clear in the essentials material that the 4e core is holding the developers back.

so 5th might be essentials as it's core with a nice sause of other editions over it. 
4. Separate combat and non-combat feats

Are there any non-combat feats that need to be a feat?
4. Separate combat and non-combat feats

Are there any non-combat feats that need to be a feat?



For my part, no. Feats just seem like a reasonable way to do it, since I would like to see you gaining more of them as you level, but I am in no way tied to the word "feat." I just want to have some separate pools of combat and non-combat abilities.
I just want to have some separate pools of combat and non-combat abilities.

I don't disagree.
However, scanning over a list of 4E's feats, I didn't really see any that don't affect the ability to make things get dead.
1.  I hope the game doesn't take the modular, tool box, point-buy, approaches too far.  The system should be intuitive and fun.  If there are 'behind the scene' sidebars (notes from the designers), page after page, then the game is too complex for my tastes.  

I'm all for the game appealing to as wide an audience as possible.  By that same token, a single game can't possibly be everything to everyone.  The designers have set the bar pretty high in that regard already; hope they can meet it.

2.  Since this will be the anniversary edition of D&D, I'd like to see emphasis on the lore of the game.  I've really enjoyed following D&D lore over the years.  In my mind, lore transcends editions, it isn't (necessarily) tied to settings; more than mechanics, lore is what makes D&D what it is.










/\ Art
I want a better skill system.

I don't like the simplistic 4e aproach to skills.

At the same time I despise the 3x system where how many skill points you get is largely based upon class. 
Now I don't mind the idea of certain classes getting bonuses if they take a "class skill", but the idea that you could make amt INT 4 rogue & still somehow get to spend more skill points than the guy who for some reason makes genius fighter??  Or the stereotypical genius wizard?  
It's hard to pick just one, but these are my two big game changers or deal breakers.

1) I would like the mechanics of the game to be easily translatable to real world concepts. If there are mechanical limitations, then I want there to be logical reasons why such would exist in a fantasy reality. This allows for easier immersion, less suspension of belief, and much easier DM rulings. I want to be able to say, 'this is how it works, that makes sense'. If I can't extrapolate to reality on major issues, even with some serious mental gymnastics, it throws everything into question for me.

2) Interesting and varied character creation balanced with ease of adventure construction for DMs, with consistent mechanical ideas between PCs, NPCs, and monsters. This could be as simple as putting the focus on the first goal, and then supporting the second with templates and online resources to make the DM's job easier. Some of my greatest fun is making complicated special snowflake new characters and planning their progression. Some of the biggest headaches running games is creating all of the special snowflake villains that are just being introduced to die.
I want a better skill system.

I don't like the simplistic 4e aproach to skills.

At the same time I despise the 3x system where how many skill points you get is largely based upon class. 
Now I don't mind the idea of certain classes getting bonuses if they take a "class skill", but the idea that you could make amt INT 4 rogue & still somehow get to spend more skill points than the guy who for some reason makes genius fighter??  Or the stereotypical genius wizard?  

4e is Anakin Skywalker.  They said he would bring balance to the force... he killed all the jedi's then he killed all the sith - balanced. 

3x needed balancing, but 4e went so far beyond!  L&L talked about some abstraction, which I hope we don't see.  In this modular game plan, I would suspect we see coarse Trained and fine Skill Points system to choose from.

But the inbalance in classes is legacy cheese.  I think it is also apparent in 4e's skill list as well.  I think skills should be for everyone, a part of the Combat element of the game.  Need to climb, balance or perceive something?  Check your skill mod.  I think rogue stuff should become a class feature, even if it's just a Class Bonus mechanic to the skill mechanic. 

Bring back noncombat skills, and let your Intelligence modifier apply then.  Backgrounds in 4e were just a place to get a bonus to skills.  Noncombat skills felt like your character had some other medival fantasy interests!

Now that I think about it, didn't Luke really bring balance to the force?  His incessany whining killed Yoda as well as Vader and Emperor.

If anything, this just goes to show how many different voices and types of gameplay there are out there.

It seems like people have a different way they want to see all these options presented
class/race abilities
multiclassing/featclassing/gestalt/talent trees
feats/qualities/powers
combat flow
skills
magic items/treasure/wealth
difficulty/lethality

Many people like to mix and match the ways these options are presented, it seems.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

I would like to see combat become skill based. D&D has an integrated skill system, why not have Fighting, Shooting, etc as a trained or untrained skill instead of an arbitrary bonus?
I would like to see combat become skill based. D&D has an integrated skill system, why not have Fighting, Shooting, etc as a trained or untrained skill instead of an arbitrary bonus?



Would this be primarily for games that aren't combat-centric? I can't imagine that in most people's games (with combat being so central to play) that players wouldn't just dedicate the max # of points into "fighting" or "shooting" (as their class/playstyle dictates) every level - which is effectively what happens with level-based progression now.

In other words - how do you see this being implemented, and how would it change the flavor of the game from what we have now? 
WolfStar76 Community Advocate (SVCL) for D&D Organized Play, Avalon Hill, and the DCI/WPN LFR Community Manager DDi Guide

Created by MyFitnessPal - Free Calorie Counter

4e is Anakin Skywalker.  They said he would bring balance to the force... he killed all the jedi's then he killed all the sith - balanced. 

Now that I think about it, didn't Luke really bring balance to the force?  His incessany whining killed Yoda as well as Vader and Emperor.




Anakin: Balance, 2 Sith, Palpatine and Vader, 2 Jedi, Yoda and Obiwan
Luke: Unbalanced, 1 Jedi.

All I want from 5th is everything that was in 4th minus +1 feats and items etc.

I would like twice as many feat selections; Non-Combat and Combat feats alternating each level. Non-Combat feats consisting of things like Ritual and Alchemy stuff, Skills, Languages, Crafting etc. 
One thing I want to see in 5e?  OTTerfolk.
Resident Prophet of the OTTer.

Section Six Soldier

Front Door of the House of Trolls

[b]If you're terribly afraid of your character dying, it may be best if you roleplayed something other than an adventurer.[/b]



Would this be primarily for games that aren't combat-centric? I can't imagine that in most people's games (with combat being so central to play) that players wouldn't just dedicate the max # of points into "fighting" or "shooting" (as their class/playstyle dictates) every level - which is effectively what happens with level-based progression now.

In other words - how do you see this being implemented, and how would it change the flavor of the game from what we have now? 



Honestly, I'd like to see skill points go away as well. Micro-managing skill points was one of the things I didn't like about 3E. I much prefer 4E's trained or untrained skill approach. The classes could basically spell out who starts trained in combat skills. 4e automatically gives classes the training they need to do their jobs—Clerics get Religion, Rogues get Stealth and Thievery, and Wizards get Arcana. Fighters could just and easily start trained in the Fighting skill. With that in mind, I'd like to see a Spellcasting skill for wizards as well.

Using this approach, the Trained and Untrained steps for skills may need to be a little more broken down. The system could have "Trained" for a +2 bonus, "Expert" for a +4 bonus, and "Master" for a +6 bonus. For example, a wizard starts untrained in Fighting but maybe as Trained in Arcana and Expert in Spellcasting.
   One new thing?

Some class's that reflect other standard fantasy books besides the group Tolkien game.


Elric,Conan,Hawkmoon and Corum are all heroes that people want to play but never have fit into the narrow class system that D&D offers.


Mostly because D&D is viewed as a group game. However, not once in 30 years has anyone wanted to break out of the standard box and try something differant? Something they read perhaps?


I would love to see optional rules for one player type games with more class offerings that let you play and adventure like any of the heroes from the fantasy novels the game was based on.          

             I would love to see a really complex character creation system for player characters and a simpler one for producing NPCs and cannon fodder for tactical miniatures games. For me a big part of the player’s fun is character creation I want my players to have a ton of options. I want them to have a lot of choices for skills and feats that make a real and lasting impact on how they play there character long after it is developed at first level. One of the things 3.5 forgotten realms did well were the origin feats for race and nationality that were first level only I loved those. One of the few things 4E did well was Retraining I think that should be renamed, call it a character evolution level maybe every 4th level the player gets a free chance to retrain there character and an opportunity to add some new skills feats or ability’s. I want a system that avoids off the shelf cookie cutter characters but produces some class continuity, something that is flexable enough to designe Elric Hawkmoon ect.