4E fans, what exactly do you want to see in D&D Next?

58 posts / 0 new
Last post
Before we even get into the meat of my topic, I want to make something very,very clear. I'm a relatively new D&D player. I started playing during 4E. 4E was the edition Iearned how to play with. I then went and learned 3.5. 4E will always have a fond place in my heart, and I do like a lot of what it did. That said....there are a lot of things 4E did that don't feel very D&D-ish. Some of them were good changes, some of them were bad, and some of them were change for the sake of change.

So, one of the stated design goal of D&D Next is to create a game that feels like D&D. And I think one of the general consensuses of older edition players is that 4E doesn't feel like D&D. I can see why they say this. I don't quite entirely agree with them. 4E did do some things that were awesome and felt D&D to me. But there were elements of it that didn't feel very D&D-ish to me.

But I like 4E, and it would be a shame for us to lose everything that 4E brought us.

So what elements of 4E would you guys like to see make a return in 5E?

And remember, the playtest packet as we have it is not the final rules of the game. There are things they're still working on. So I already know two things that are going to come up, and I'd like to address them ahead of time:

1) Regarding the complex fighter: They're working on him. They said he isn't finished, so he didn't make it into this version of the playtest. Truth be told, at this stage of the playtest, where the intent is to test the core mechanics in as simple of a setting as possible, I think giving us the simple fighter was the right move. That said, I want both versions of the fighter to be core, and I'm hoping we get the complex fighter before the playtest is over so we can critique it and help them build exactly what we want.

2) Regarding tactical grid based combat: That's most likely going to be a module. This is a decision I agree with. Not everyone has access to a grid and minis, and not everyone wants to play with them. It's easier for them to add rules and guidelines for playing with a grid to a system that assumes you aren't using one, than it is for them to remove grid based combat elements from a system that assumes you use them. Hopefully, this is the type of rules module that is released early into the game's life, maybe even in the initial batch of core books as a "core module".
I will also say that I agree that there needs to be some rules written into the core for slightly more tactical combat, such as basic combat maneuvers, flanking, and opportunity attacks. Or, if they want to insist on such things being modules, then they better be example modules placed into the initial core books, that way the numerous people who want to see them have access to them right away.

One final note: I want this to be a mature, civilised discussion. If you have nothing positive to say about 4E, then you have nothing to contribute to this conversation and should take your opinions elsewhere. On the other hand, 4E fans, this thread is not an excuse to bash other versions of D&D. Let's keep our discussion focused on what 4E did right, not what other editions did wrong.

In the end, none of this is fact, but just our individual opinions.
D&D Experience Level: Relatively new First Edition: 4th Known Editions: 4th, 3.5 --- Magic Experience Level: Fairly skilled First Expansion: 7th Edition Play Style: Very Casual
I like percentage-based healing, rather than roll-based healing. I don't think it's ever fun to waste a heal by rolling a 1. It's just needless frustration. (I feel the same way about rolling HPs at Level-Up).

I like the tactics/grid combat system with map and minis. I am not advocating only that system, but I don't think it would be at all difficult to design a robust system that allows that and Theatre of the Mind without disadvantaging either system (which is why I think removing Opportunity Attacks and Flanking as specific bonuses is a good idea).

-- To expand on that, I think OAs and Flanking can still be implemented on a map and minis system just using the Advantage/Disadvantage rules without having to add any set of rules that wouldn't really work in TotM where exact position isn't known.

I like spell and skill cards (and stat blocks). They aren't at all necessary, but they were a great system for easy table reference.  While they can be made by players, I would like to see some sort of online tool for the new edition that allows you to create (or just select) and print sheets of them like the online Character Sheet does for 4E.

I'll add more if I think of them.
THE 4E MANIFESTO



CLASS BALANCE, NOT THREE PILLARS!


That means in any given situation all characters are equally useful, although they may be useful in different ways. Having any one character type designed to dominate any encounter runs against what we want. We want balanced game design, not 3-pillar design where one character shines at the expense of putting others in the shade.



NO DOWNTIME, FUN FOREVER!



We want to be having fun. We don't want to be removed from the fun by having run out of resources (healing, spells, etc) and thus becoming useless or by meaningless make-work (counting ammo, having to hunt for rules). Any time my character is useless is time I'm thinking about playing something more fun. Note - it is ok for my character to be less effective due to unwise resource expendature, but not for my character to be ineffective.



MEANINGFUL CHOICES, MEANINGLESS NEVER
!



We want each of our choices, in character creation, in combat, in role-play to count and have a real effect upon the game. Shallow rules don't satisfly us.



CLARITY:
IMPROVISATION NOT INTERPRETATION



We want rules to be clearly written with no room for subjective interpretation. When I read a spell description my mental picture of what it can do should match the DM's picture - I should never have to guess how the DM will choose to interpret my character's abilities this week. We want room to improvise, but that springs from clear objective rules for commonly used abilities or commonly occouring situations that we can work outwards from - not from writing subjective and unclear rules.



WE DON'T CARE ABOUT 'AT-WILLS' OR 'THE GRID' LIKE YOU THINK WE DO



Seriously. An at-will spell or power is just a shortcut to 'class balance' and 'no downtime' - it is a tool to fun play, not the end-game. Playing combat out with tactical rules on a grid is a way to have meanigful choices in combat beyond just reducing HP, we are not tied to the grid but we do like exciting mini-based combat where strategy and choices have an impact.

SLAPPING AT-WILLS AND GRID-BASED COMBAT 'MODULES' ONTO AN UNCLEAR AND IMBALANCED SYSTEM WITH TOO MUCH DOWNTIME AND A LACK OF MEANINGFUL CHOICES DOSN'T CUT IT.


GIVE US THESE THINGS AND TAKE OUR MONEY!

NO DOWNTIME, FUN FOREVER
We want to be having fun. We don't want to be removed from the fun by having run out of resources (healing, spells, etc). Any time my character is useless is time I'm thinking about playing something more fun. Note - it is ok for my character to be less effective due to unwise resource expendature, but not for my character to be ineffective.



Before the inevitable "Kids These Days" war this point will start, I would say (at least for me), it's not an issue of never having a challenge where my character's choices are restricted, or even never having a point where my character can't do anything.

It's never wanting to go into every encounter knowing, "Well, I only have two spells I can cast and then it's sitting back and doing nothing or swinging and missing repeatedly with my crappy quarterstaff". 

Every character should at least be moderately useful at any point (outside of specific circumstances brought on by the adventure or encounter -- or poor decision making), and no one should be the guy who runs out of useful things to do well before the encounter is over.
NO DOWNTIME, FUN FOREVER
We want to be having fun. We don't want to be removed from the fun by having run out of resources (healing, spells, etc). Any time my character is useless is time I'm thinking about playing something more fun. Note - it is ok for my character to be less effective due to unwise resource expendature, but not for my character to be ineffective.



Before the inevitable "Kids These Days" war this point will start, I would say (at least for me), it's not an issue of never having a challenge where my character's choices are restricted, or even never having a point where my character can't do anything.

It's never wanting to go into every encounter knowing, "Well, I only have two spells I can cast and then it's sitting back and doing nothing or swinging and missing repeatedly with my crappy quarterstaff". 

Every character should at least be moderately useful at any point (outside of specific circumstances brought on by the adventure or encounter -- or poor decision making), and no one should be the guy who runs out of useful things to do well before the encounter is over.



Exactly. Running out of useful things to do isn't fun. Being overshadowed by another character isn't fun. Not having your choices seem meaningful isn't fun. Having to guess how the DM thinks the rules work isn't fun. We like fun.
NO DOWNTIME, FUN FOREVER
We want to be having fun. We don't want to be removed from the fun by having run out of resources (healing, spells, etc). Any time my character is useless is time I'm thinking about playing something more fun. Note - it is ok for my character to be less effective due to unwise resource expendature, but not for my character to be ineffective.



Ok, so what exactly does this mean to you? Are you saying that you don't want Vancian casting? Or am I misinterpreting this statement?

The way I see it, 5th edition does it right. Wizards have daily spells that they have to manage, but at the same time, they have their minor at-will spells. This means that even when I use all my daily spells and we still have half an encounter left, at least I can still fee wizardy. At least I still can cast spells and contribute to the fight, rather than be an ineffective knife-thrower/archer/staff fighter. Sure, I'm not making as dramatic of an input as before, but that's because I didn't manage my resources better and/or because the party is going to rest after this encounter because everyone is running low on resources.
D&D Experience Level: Relatively new First Edition: 4th Known Editions: 4th, 3.5 --- Magic Experience Level: Fairly skilled First Expansion: 7th Edition Play Style: Very Casual
5efan, that's actually a very good writeup for many a edition, not just 4e.
However, those design goals are not all part of what next intends to do.

those two points stand out, that next explicitly does not want to do:
CLASS BALANCE, NOT THREE PILLARS! and CLARITY: IMPROVISATION NOT INTERPRETATION
that's probably the main thing why 4e (and honestly, often 3.x as well) does not sit well with the older player base. They are used to overpowered DMs, and happy with it, as most of those DMs are use to being overpowered as well. Take someone 30 years younger, they'll likely be not as happy.
Here be dragons: IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cydyvkj/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/c54g6ac/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/csw6fhj/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cbxbgmp/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cz7v5bd/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/ccg9eld/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/c8szhnn/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cp68b5u/.gif)
56767308 wrote:
Sadly, I don't think this has anything to do with wanting Next to be a great game. It has to do with wanting Next to determine who won the Edition War. [...] For those of us who just want D&D Next to be a good game, this is getting to be a real drag.
57870548 wrote:
I think I figured it out. This program is a character builder, not a character builder. It teaches patience, empathy, and tolerance. All most excellent character traits.
Saving throws: PC should be able to make a Fort save using the better of his STR or CON modifier. Or a Reflex save using the better of his INT or DEX modifier.

It's still a check, it just gives the players a way for their character to defend itself in the way that they would do so.

Cuts down the multiple-attribute dependency from six attributes to 3.

(I'll probably house rule this anyway)!

-Brad

Attack rolls: PCs should always make attack rolls.

Spell casters shouldnot have fixed spell-save DCs. Instead let them make an attack roll to set the DC (when they are not attacking vs AC).

It's a little more exciting/variable. I would love to really "nail" a burning hands spell - or even score a Crit!

I am willing to accept the fact that sometimes I cast the spell so poorly a child could make the save - as long as I can make that attack roll and maybe cast so well that Vecna is shocked by it.

-Brad

That's one thing I like about the NADs system: My success is determined by my die roll, not the DM's. 
I 100% disagree with saving throws being the better of multiple stats. 4e basically made it so only 3 stats out of 6 where important and really contributed to min/maxing.

as for playing the wizard he is very similar to the 4e wizard. He has at wills and he has resource dailies, YES no encounter spells, but MORE dailies.

The healing issue is just a mind set. Some people don't want to fight if they are not a 100% and others just think it's stupid to be dying and then 5 minutes later at full health. I think a middle meeting would be best. For me being a little hurt creates a need for more thoughtful game play if I only have 12/20 hit points I'm going to fight the next encounter differently than if I was full strength.

I do think a better system and compromise can be reach than the one they currently have.
I could write a lot more but on the spot I'd have to say I'd rather have more encounter powers then daily. The one thing that bugged me about 3e was the 15 minute day so I could get my spells back. Maybe the answer in having different type of schools or spheres of magic. You can have the vance magic, or  you could have spell system built from components like in Monte Cooks World of Darkness game, or you could have 4e's or maybe you could use the spell system from Dragonlance 5th age, similar to Cook's WOD. The thing that sold me on 4 to become with was that they had gotten rid of Vance magic. I like having skills. I get the idea of the backgrounds and themes and its not horrible but we need to know more about what the definition of Nature Lore or Forbidden Lore is, before we can really judge how it works. 
I know I'm not an expert at all I hope I don't make anyone mad by saying these things. I've seen other posts where some people take it very personal when people don't agree with them. I'm ok with people not agree with me but we need to treat each other with respect. 

Ok I'll think of more stuff and I'll read more, thanks for the topic its a good one.  
I 100% disagree with saving throws being the better of multiple stats. 4e basically made it so only 3 stats out of 6 where important and really contributed to min/maxing. as for playing the wizard he is very similar to the 4e wizard. He has at wills and he has resource dailies, YES no encounter spells, but MORE dailies. The healing issue is just a mind set. Some people don't want to fight if they are not a 100% and others just think it's stupid to be dying and then 5 minutes later at full health. I think a middle meeting would be best. For me being a little hurt creates a need for more thoughtful game play if I only have 12/20 hit points I'm going to fight the next encounter differently than if I was full strength. I do think a better system and compromise can be reach than the one they currently have.



I don't mind having healing that doesn't basically make you at full health for every encounter, I just don't like healing that is wasted on a bad luck die roll.

As to min/maxing, Min-Maxers Gonna Min-Max. It's not really possible to design a dynamic system they can't break. I'm not completely sold on whether "3 stats" or "6 stats" is a better system, but I don't know that making a rule based on what Min-Maxers will do is all that useful.
5efan, that's actually a very good writeup for many a edition, not just 4e.
However, those design goals are not all part of what next intends to do.

those two points stand out, that next explicitly does not want to do:
CLASS BALANCE, NOT THREE PILLARS! and CLARITY: IMPROVISATION NOT INTERPRETATION
that's probably the main thing why 4e (and honestly, often 3.x as well) does not sit well with the older player base. They are used to overpowered DMs, and happy with it, as most of those DMs are use to being overpowered as well. Take someone 30 years younger, they'll likely be not as happy.



Yes, it seems that the core design of 5e is the from the ground-up incompatable with modern play styles, and all the bolted-on modules in the world won't help that.
Balanced Classes. In  all situation character should be able to contribute.

Tactical combat: No interpretation. Solid and precise rules.
I Remember asking to the customer service, if forced movement was triggering damage for the stinking cloud power.
They answer me : It's a DM call.
They should hire some guy form Magic TCG  to help them build a solid core rule.
And don't tell me you cant improvise with a solid core rule.

Open rule for skill challenge and role play. For that we need flexibility.

Revised rule for stealth. I dont like power like Chameleon which allow the rogue a quasi permanent invisibility.

They have put some limits to CharOp aberration, but designer look at rule with romance but player look at them as power gamer.
We should have some threshold to limit rule tweek.

Designer also should consider that modern players are now full of trick.
Players have now  experience in TCG, MMRPG, Boardgame and other RPG. 
Modern player want to take more decision, have more thing to manage.

A good topic! Off the top of my head, here are things I think should be included:

--Class Balance. Give everyone something fun to do in combat.

--Healing as a minor action (so clerics can still be fun to play).

--Clear, consistent rules.

--Tactical Options (so DMs can use them if they want, and dispense with them if they don't). These include Opportunity Attacks, for example.

--Monster stat blocks (seriously, the DM's job is going to be much harder if you return to the 3.5 system) and monster powers (so they are not just 'move and attack' automatons).

--Let the attacker role the attack.


Essentially, I am asking the developers to learn what they did right with 4e, and not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Unified, clear rules; simplicity of presentation and design, but complexity of choice for those who want it.


     

"What is the sort of thing that I do care about is a failure to seriously evaluate what does and doesn't work in favor of a sort of cargo cult posturing. And yes, it's painful to read design notes columns that are all just "So D&D 3.5 sort of had these problems. We know people have some issues with them. What a puzzler! But we think we have a solution in the form of X", where X is sort of a half-baked version of an idea that 4e executed perfectly well and which worked fine." - Lesp

So what elements of 4E would you guys like to see make a return in 5E?

In the end, none of this is fact, but just our individual opinions.

I started playing with Basic, then moved on to 2nd Edition, v3.5 and finally 4e.  I enjoy the lore of D&D more than the mechanics of the game.  Both have their place to be sure.

DDN will be an anniversary editon, so nostalgia will apparently play a big part.  Nothing wrong with that.  Nostalgia is normally a big draw for me when it comes to D&D; 4e has changed my expectations however.  I need *more* from the game now, so DDN may not be the game for me.  That's my feeling so far (but it's still incredibly early of course).  We'll see.

4e is the first game of D&D where I appreciated the mechanics as much as the lore.  I love the 're-imagined' feel of things BTW.  So, I hope to see quite a lot of 4e in DDN.  I don't believe it will happen but that's my hope.  

= = =

I'd like to see Vancian casting make a comeback; I've missed it.  That's D&D magic in my mind.  Other than that throwback, D&D legacy mechanics don't interest me much.  I don't care for rolled (random) hit points, save or die, 'button-mashing' fighters, the walking band-aid (Cleric).

Things that 4e does that I like:  Fixed hit points, AEDU power structure (with a mix of Vancian), Bloodied as a 'trigger' for more interesting fights.  Healing surges.  I like the simplicity of how skills are handled (trained/untrained), I like racial bonuses (without penalties), flex bonuses.  4e is an actual system, it's cutting-edge (if you will ;)), and it works well.  Earlier D&D systems were often ad-hoc, throwback (by modern standards at least), and requred a lot of DM's discretion.  IMO of course.

Heck, even the push, pull, slide nature of 4e combat has grown on me.  I imagine the action in first-person or third-person view, depending on what's happening.  So, if my PC is talking to an NPC, I see things as being face-to-face.  When it's time to fight, my mind's eye pulls out for a more tactical view of the action.  It's all very video-game like but it works for me.  It took a while though; at one point, I was certain I hated 4e combat.  Now, I love it.

= = =

I'm sure the things I enjoy about 4e will be added in later.  My biggest concern is that the system I see in the playtest is very AD&D-ish; adding 4e-style elements later is gonna be clunky I think.  I was expecting to see a hybrid of original 4e and DDE as the base of the playtest (so my expectations were inaccurate, right off the bat).  If nothing else, 4e/DDE uses the same underlying system, just with different approaches.  I'm just a hobbyist though, not a desinger, so we'll see.  There's still a lot of playtesting to be done.
/\ Art
My personal 4e-like list:

* Martial Classes with multiple options. I don't care if they get quite as many choices as the spellcasters, but I dislike how very simple the Fighter seems compared to the rest of the classes.

* Encounter powers. I'd be very happy with Martial classes getting Encounter-based abilites, while spellcasters have more daily abilites. I'm not a fan of every resource being reduced to the Daily standard again.

* More guidelines on commonly attempted combat tricks, please.

* Minor (or Incedental action) healing from the cleric. Allow the Cleric to be awesome and not just a healbot. Maybe more things baked into healing spells like Healing Word or give up Channel Divinity uses.

* I don't mind the addition of the healing kit as a requirement for healing outside of combat, but can we please ditch the Hit Dice mechanic and go back to percentage-based healing surges? Though I wouldn't mind them being called something different, don't call them Hit Dice. That causes too much confusion for the Old School players like myself.
56816218 wrote:
What I find most frustrating about 4E is that I can see it includes the D&D game I've always wanted to play, but the game is so lathered in tatical combat rules that I have thus far been unable to coax the game I want out.
When the Cat's a Stray, the Mice will Pray
I'm a player more tuned to 3e and 2e then with 4e. Although I'll admit that 4e did somethings work way better than in my preferred editions. That's what I want from 4e to stay in Next:

- Monsters are easy to rule

I like to create monsters on the fly, improvising them from my imagination. 3e tried to create a monster builder sub-system, but the rules were too complex and I had to create my monsters in advance. Nowadays, I don't have time to tinker a lot on adventures just as I did when I was 16. 4e scored high on that topic, for I can create any monster, ability, power, whatever I want in a glimpse. I'm not a fan of monsters being able to cast spells using the same mechanics of caster PCs. I prefer the spells being built-in in the monsters's stat block.

- Area effects 

Bursts, Zones and Blasts are easier to interpretate than Spheres, Lines and Cones. Even though I don't like grid-based combat, these rules are simpler to comprehend even in 'Theatre of the Mind' mode. 

- Attackers roll for the attack

One of my greatest frustrations with 3e was that most low level spells lose all their effectiveness in high level play. Illusions and enchantments simply don't work. Creatures have very high Saves and Spell Resistances. Best solution for casters was to buff the party and stay behind the lines. 4e handled this very nicely, as even the lowest spell could hit and crit Orcus if you rolled high! Awesome. I don't want static DCs back, but it's not that difficult to houserule it too. As casters are going to have greater dependence on minor at-will spells, it's better that they can use them even against the tougher enemies. 

Now, things from 4e I DON'T want EVER come back in Next:

- Lots of self-healing

You know, I like the concept of healing surges, but I just think there were too many of them. I prefer the hit dice mechanic presented so far.

- Class balance for the sake of tactical balance.

For me, that's where 4e got down the hole. Let me put clear that I'm a casual 4e player, so I can misinterpretate some points. My guess is that 4e pushed hard on tactical balance, effectively creating only 4 classes: Striker, Defender, Controller and Leader. I couldn't feel much difference between playing a fighter or a paladin. I want balanced classes, but want them to feel really different from each other. I'm okay with some classes being better than others in some aspects, especially those where a class is supposed to be the BEST. No problem if the fighter is awesome in melee combat;  the rogue is awesome in sneaking and finding traps. Difference is nice, folks!

- Magic Item in character progression.

3e and 4e made characters dependable of magic items, and this was one of my greatest concerns about Next. Fortunately, they already pointed that Next won't follow this path. Instead, it will be an approach closer to 2e's.

Edit: Oh yeah, Rituals were a great additionn of 4e too!  
- Class balance for the sake of tactical balance.

For me, that's where 4e got down the hole. Let me put clear that I'm a casual 4e player, so I can misinterpretate some points. My guess is that 4e pushed hard on tactical balance, effectively creating only 4 classes: Striker, Defender, Controller and Leader. I couldn't feel much difference between playing a fighter or a paladin. I want balanced classes, but want them to feel really different from each other. I'm okay with some classes being better than others in some aspects, especially those where a class is supposed to be the BEST. No problem if the fighter is awesome in melee combat;  the rogue is awesome in sneaking and finding traps. Difference is nice, folks!



This is a bit of an oversimplification of the issue, but basically, yeah, 4E resulted in the four roles being more distinguishable than the classes were... which I think was a good thing on one hand (you weren't stuck needing four specific classes and then the fifth guy gets to be whatever), but also a bad thing (classes felt very much the same).

I think the problem, though, was that there were too many classes that really were just the same thing with different skins. It's a syndrome brought on by the need to keep selling expensive books. Fourth Edition has, what, twenty six classes?

There really should be only a handful of classes and let themes and skills fine-tune them to the build you want. 




Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool.
Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
- Class balance for the sake of tactical balance.

For me, that's where 4e got down the hole. Let me put clear that I'm a casual 4e player, so I can misinterpretate some points. My guess is that 4e pushed hard on tactical balance, effectively creating only 4 classes: Striker, Defender, Controller and Leader. I couldn't feel much difference between playing a fighter or a paladin. I want balanced classes, but want them to feel really different from each other. I'm okay with some classes being better than others in some aspects, especially those where a class is supposed to be the BEST. No problem if the fighter is awesome in melee combat;  the rogue is awesome in sneaking and finding traps. Difference is nice, folks!



This is a bit of an oversimplification of the issue, but basically, yeah, 4E resulted in the four roles being more distinguishable than the classes were... which I think was a good thing on one hand (you weren't stuck needing four specific classes and then the fifth guy gets to be whatever), but also a bad thing (classes felt very much the same).

I think the problem, though, was that there were too many classes that really were just the same thing with different skins. It's a syndrome brought on by the need to keep selling expensive books. Fourth Edition has, what, twenty six classes?

There really should be only a handful of classes and let themes and skills fine-tune them to the build you want. 

Fewer classes is definitely better in my mind. Fewer powers, fewer feats, fewer of everything really.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
Things I want from 4e to 5e:

1) No 5 minute workday. Every class should have things to do for 4-8 encounters in a day at all levels. Clericless parties should be able to muster enough HP to last that long as well.

2) No 72-hour workday. Expendibles, in particular healing items, have to be limited enough to make PCs rest from time to time.

3) Proportional healing. Flat number healing just does not work with HP as written.

Note that Healing Surges solve those first three problems. They are the single best innovation 4e brough to DnD, and are IMHO so important to good game play they should be core, not a module.

4) Nothing bypasses HP completely. I'm not a huge fan of save-or-dies and save-or-sucks at all, but the HP threshholds on the current iteration of spells are a great way to compromise. The Stirge and the Medusa? Not so much.

5) Every class has tactical choices built in. Again, my preference is 4e-style standardization, but I'd settle for the Factotum, Wizard, Warblade party where even though the PCs use different systems, they all have different choices. If players want to self-limit or self-challeng with a basic-attack-only fighter they should have a module that caters for them, but it's unhealthy to have that option as a core assumption (even if add-ons change that).

6) Grid-based combat.

7) Monster that don't use PC rules or assumptions. Putting PC-level spells, damage, and class features on monsters makes the game unbalanced.

8)  Uniformity of effects. Don't have shields, Shield, and Shield of Faith all use different (stacking!) mechanics to represent the same thing. Don't have some spells arbitrarily require attacks and other use passive save DCs.

9) No noobie traps. If I hand a new player a book, he or she should be able to come to my table with a PC that contributes to the party--3e useless characters like "fighter1/wizard1/cleric1" should not be possible.

And I think that's about it. This is an exhaustive list, but the truth is that nearly all of these things could be imported into a game that looks a LOT more like 3e than 4e. AEDU worked for me, but not so much that I need it, and non-standardized classes makes me very nervous about balance issues, but it's hardly impossible to do right.
Check out my blog--now REACTIVATED with DnDnext feedback!
Talking about the stuff that excited me in 4e.

Rituals - keep them, I think they're one of the best things ever.

Stances - Essentials was even hotter than 4e core as it found a way to make fighters more interesting without making them wizard clones.

Other than that, the main thing that appeals to me about 4e is how it fixed problems 3.5 introduced, although the fix was short lived. So while I want to continue seeing those problems avoided, a new method should be introduced.
Some of 4e's biggest innovations were in the Dungeon Master's Guide.  It had a lot more advice on how to run a game, divided intelligently into building an encounter, building an adventure, and building a campaign, as well as table stuff like managing different types of player.  Some of this stuff showed up for the first time in 3.5e's DMG2, but it needs to be at the heart of the core rules for the DM.

Monsters were written to be much easier to run, and the math was all exposed so it was also much easier for DMs to create new monsters of their own and have them be fair.  This was a massive improvement over the CR guesswork of 3e.  And while I'm not sold on the idea of fixed roles for character classes, having roles for monsters makes perfect sense.

The clear and uniform layout of powers, monsters, items, traps, and everything else was really nice.  I think the distinctly slick and modern-looking formatting (font, color choices, etc) was offputting to some old-school players, but I'm pretty sure that WotC can actually get the best of both worlds here:  choosing a format that evokes the look and feel of older editions, while still retaining the substance of the 4e-type layout.  Currently the playtest does seem to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater on this front, however.

The warlord was a good idea for a class.  The avenger was an awesome idea for a class.  The 4e monk was an exceptionally well done approach to a classic class.

And (though I realize this is something campaign specific) I really liked the new cosmology, breaking the oversymmetry of the Great Wheel system.  In particular, the Feywild, though having a rather silly name, added a concept that was in a lot of classic folklore and also appears in a lot of modern fantasy, but that D&D had never really focused on before.  (Arborea was sort of Faerie, but not really; the Wheel concept forced it into playing too many other roles as well.)


This is a bit of an oversimplification of the issue, but basically, yeah, 4E resulted in the four roles being more distinguishable than the classes were... which I think was a good thing on one hand (you weren't stuck needing four specific classes and then the fifth guy gets to be whatever), but also a bad thing (classes felt very much the same).

I think the problem, though, was that there were too many classes that really were just the same thing with different skins. It's a syndrome brought on by the need to keep selling expensive books. Fourth Edition has, what, twenty six classes?

There really should be only a handful of classes and let themes and skills fine-tune them to the build you want. 



The thing is that even clases of the same role felt very diferent from each other in both flavor and mechanic level, while sometimes they have a "version of what the other class of the same role can do", they usually do it in a diferent way (bard enabler powers feels diferent than warlord enabler powers). While on 3.0/3.5 for 95% of the time...classes are just modifiers and proficencies per class levels, and sometimes access to certain category of spells...from the SHARED SPELL POOL!,  that's why i say that is BS that 4e classes felt all the same, when 3.0/3.5 classes for most part, are indeed the same except for some mods on some stuff...
THE 4E MANIFESTO



CLASS BALANCE, NOT THREE PILLARS!


That means in any given situation all characters are equally useful, although they may be useful in different ways. Having any one character type designed to dominate any encounter runs against what we want. We want balanced game design, not 3-pillar design where one character shines at the expense of putting others in the shade.



NO DOWNTIME, FUN FOREVER!



We want to be having fun. We don't want to be removed from the fun by having run out of resources (healing, spells, etc) and thus becoming useless or by meaningless make-work (counting ammo, having to hunt for rules). Any time my character is useless is time I'm thinking about playing something more fun. Note - it is ok for my character to be less effective due to unwise resource expendature, but not for my character to be ineffective.



MEANINGFUL CHOICES, MEANINGLESS NEVER
!



We want each of our choices, in character creation, in combat, in role-play to count and have a real effect upon the game. Shallow rules don't satisfly us.



CLARITY:
IMPROVISATION NOT INTERPRETATION



We want rules to be clearly written with no room for subjective interpretation. When I read a spell description my mental picture of what it can do should match the DM's picture - I should never have to guess how the DM will choose to interpret my character's abilities this week. We want room to improvise, but that springs from clear objective rules for commonly used abilities or commonly occouring situations that we can work outwards from - not from writing subjective and unclear rules.



WE DON'T CARE ABOUT 'AT-WILLS' OR 'THE GRID' LIKE YOU THINK WE DO



Seriously. An at-will spell or power is just a shortcut to 'class balance' and 'no downtime' - it is a tool to fun play, not the end-game. Playing combat out with tactical rules on a grid is a way to have meanigful choices in combat beyond just reducing HP, we are not tied to the grid but we do like exciting mini-based combat where strategy and choices have an impact.

SLAPPING AT-WILLS AND GRID-BASED COMBAT 'MODULES' ONTO AN UNCLEAR AND IMBALANCED SYSTEM WITH TOO MUCH DOWNTIME AND A LACK OF MEANINGFUL CHOICES DOSN'T CUT IT.


GIVE US THESE THINGS AND TAKE OUR MONEY!


I tell you this, if D&D was a country, You would be my President!
No more vancian. No "edition war" for me, thank'you.


This is a bit of an oversimplification of the issue, but basically, yeah, 4E resulted in the four roles being more distinguishable than the classes were... which I think was a good thing on one hand (you weren't stuck needing four specific classes and then the fifth guy gets to be whatever), but also a bad thing (classes felt very much the same).

I think the problem, though, was that there were too many classes that really were just the same thing with different skins. It's a syndrome brought on by the need to keep selling expensive books. Fourth Edition has, what, twenty six classes?

There really should be only a handful of classes and let themes and skills fine-tune them to the build you want. 



The thing is that even clases of the same role felt very diferent from each other in both flavor and mechanic level, while sometimes they have a "version of what the other class of the same role can do", they usually do it in a diferent way (bard enabler powers feels diferent than warlord enabler powers). While on 3.0/3.5 for 95% of the time...classes are just modifiers and proficencies per class levels, and sometimes access to certain category of spells...from the SHARED SPELL POOL!,  that's why i say that is BS that 4e classes felt all the same, when 3.0/3.5 classes for most part, are indeed the same except for some mods on some stuff...



I hated the 3.0/3.5 class system even more :P

It might be going too far to say they all felt the same, what I meant was more that it felt like they created whole new classes for what could have easily been accomplished by a theme. 


This is a bit of an oversimplification of the issue, but basically, yeah, 4E resulted in the four roles being more distinguishable than the classes were... which I think was a good thing on one hand (you weren't stuck needing four specific classes and then the fifth guy gets to be whatever), but also a bad thing (classes felt very much the same).

I think the problem, though, was that there were too many classes that really were just the same thing with different skins. It's a syndrome brought on by the need to keep selling expensive books. Fourth Edition has, what, twenty six classes?

There really should be only a handful of classes and let themes and skills fine-tune them to the build you want. 



The thing is that even clases of the same role felt very diferent from each other in both flavor and mechanic level, while sometimes they have a "version of what the other class of the same role can do", they usually do it in a diferent way (bard enabler powers feels diferent than warlord enabler powers). While on 3.0/3.5 for 95% of the time...classes are just modifiers and proficencies per class levels, and sometimes access to certain category of spells...from the SHARED SPELL POOL!,  that's why i say that is BS that 4e classes felt all the same, when 3.0/3.5 classes for most part, are indeed the same except for some mods on some stuff...



I hated the 3.0/3.5 class system even more :P

It might be going too far to say they all felt the same, what I meant was more that it felt like they created whole new classes for what could have easily been accomplished by a theme. 

Yeah, mostly I think they could have pooled powers into power source. That would have allowed a lot of moving parts to be reused from one class to another. It can be a bit tricky, and you'd still need some stuff at the class level, but with core groups of powers at the source and then themes that can glue on a whole bunch more stuff the class then becomes more about unique features and core concept. Not 100% sure how it would work out, but it seems generally doable.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
- Class balance for the sake of tactical balance.

For me, that's where 4e got down the hole. Let me put clear that I'm a casual 4e player, so I can misinterpretate some points. My guess is that 4e pushed hard on tactical balance, effectively creating only 4 classes: Striker, Defender, Controller and Leader. I couldn't feel much difference between playing a fighter or a paladin. I want balanced classes, but want them to feel really different from each other. I'm okay with some classes being better than others in some aspects, especially those where a class is supposed to be the BEST. No problem if the fighter is awesome in melee combat;  the rogue is awesome in sneaking and finding traps. Difference is nice, folks!



This is a bit of an oversimplification of the issue, but basically, yeah, 4E resulted in the four roles being more distinguishable than the classes were... which I think was a good thing on one hand (you weren't stuck needing four specific classes and then the fifth guy gets to be whatever), but also a bad thing (classes felt very much the same).

I think the problem, though, was that there were too many classes that really were just the same thing with different skins. It's a syndrome brought on by the need to keep selling expensive books. Fourth Edition has, what, twenty six classes?

There really should be only a handful of classes and let themes and skills fine-tune them to the build you want. 



52 classes (not including hybrids), 74 races.

Oh, another thing -

4e killed off the full-round action.  In particular, the full-round attack.  For all the other reasons that 4e combat can take a long time, this choice did significantly speed up combat rounds from high-level 3e.  It also made fights more dynamic, because you could move around without giving up most of your firepower for the round.  Good call.

On a similar note, the restrained way 4e handled summoning magic and kept summoners to the same basic action economy as everybody else fixed what had been an endemic problem with 3e druids (especially 3.5e druids, who could spontaneously cast summons :/) and to a lesser extent other summoning classes.  A zoo druid was really fun to play, not nearly so fun to play with.

In general, the idea that you do one really interesting thing per round is a good one, and keeps the turn moving around the table.
As someone who's played multiple Defenders in 4e, I'd be hardpressed to call them anything but wildly different.

Playing a Fighter, the "hold the line YOU SHAL NOT PASS" type of Defender, played incredibly different from the Battlemind's, "You can run, but there is nowhere I can't follow you and punish you" type of Defender, which also played very different than the Swordmage's, "I'm gonna put a ward n you that lessens damage you do to my allies while I go over here and beat up your friend here" playstyle, and then with the Warden's, "COME HERE YA PANSIES, I CAN TAKE ANYTHING YOU GIVE ME." playstyle along with his tendency to throw out difficult terrain and stuff.

So yeah, same role, played very differently. 

I would like to ask a follow up question at the risk of thread jacking:


I think the majority of what is being mentioned here are all good things that D&D can benefit from. My question though is do all of these things have to be in the “Core” rules?


Let me clarify a little. Let’s assume that the play test packet that we have downloaded is a final product, please keep in mind this is a hypothetical and assume perfect execution on the designers part. Would you be satisfied if the things you are all asking for were applied as rules modules?


Again this is purely hypothetical and as a hypothetical we will assume that the application of these rules can be done in and elegant and easy to manage way.


So it all boils down to this. Do these requests have to be “core” in order for you to be satisfied with D&DN as a game, or will the intent of the designers to add all of these options, in some form or another, as modules that can be added individually be enough?

Do they have to be in the core rules? No. Do the core rules have to be built in order to accomodate such features correctly? Yes.

Most worries on the playtest stuff concern the latter.


THE 4E MANIFESTO



CLASS BALANCE, NOT THREE PILLARS!


That means in any given situation all characters are equally useful, although they may be useful in different ways. Having any one character type designed to dominate any encounter runs against what we want. We want balanced game design, not 3-pillar design where one character shines at the expense of putting others in the shade.



NO DOWNTIME, FUN FOREVER!



We want to be having fun. We don't want to be removed from the fun by having run out of resources (healing, spells, etc) and thus becoming useless or by meaningless make-work (counting ammo, having to hunt for rules). Any time my character is useless is time I'm thinking about playing something more fun. Note - it is ok for my character to be less effective due to unwise resource expendature, but not for my character to be ineffective.



MEANINGFUL CHOICES, MEANINGLESS NEVER
!



We want each of our choices, in character creation, in combat, in role-play to count and have a real effect upon the game. Shallow rules don't satisfly us.



CLARITY:
IMPROVISATION NOT INTERPRETATION



We want rules to be clearly written with no room for subjective interpretation. When I read a spell description my mental picture of what it can do should match the DM's picture - I should never have to guess how the DM will choose to interpret my character's abilities this week. We want room to improvise, but that springs from clear objective rules for commonly used abilities or commonly occouring situations that we can work outwards from - not from writing subjective and unclear rules.



WE DON'T CARE ABOUT 'AT-WILLS' OR 'THE GRID' LIKE YOU THINK WE DO



Seriously. An at-will spell or power is just a shortcut to 'class balance' and 'no downtime' - it is a tool to fun play, not the end-game. Playing combat out with tactical rules on a grid is a way to have meanigful choices in combat beyond just reducing HP, we are not tied to the grid but we do like exciting mini-based combat where strategy and choices have an impact.

SLAPPING AT-WILLS AND GRID-BASED COMBAT 'MODULES' ONTO AN UNCLEAR AND IMBALANCED SYSTEM WITH TOO MUCH DOWNTIME AND A LACK OF MEANINGFUL CHOICES DOSN'T CUT IT.


GIVE US THESE THINGS AND TAKE OUR MONEY!


I tell you this, if D&D was a country, You would be my President!



Thank you, but I'd prefer the title "ultrapotus".
So what elements of 4E would you guys like to see make a return in 5E?


1) Parity between the classes.  All classes should be able to have either a straightforward set of options, or an immense breadth of options depending on player preference.  As an example, casters shouldn't be the only ones who get SoD's just because they use magic.  Fighters should be able to decapitate or disembowel.  Rogues should be able to garrotte or slit throats from the sahdows.  Rangers should be able to shoot for the heart.  Etc.

2) Skill challenges.  Yes, as presented in 4e, they needed some work.  However, if we were to take "it's imperfect" as a reason not to include an improved version of something then nothing from D&D would ever be carried forward.

3) Simplified presentation.  The power stat-block from 4e was a very clear and consice way of stating rules.  If they include options for tripping, bull-rushing, grappling, etc., I'd like to see the rules part of the description presented like the 4e power stat blocks.

4) Monster stats.  Monsters in 4e were presented so much better than they were in 3e.  For an example of why I think 4e's monster presentation was simpler and better, check out my breakdown of the 3.5 Aboleth stat-block in the spoiler below.

Show
Let's open a 3.5 monster manual and have a look shall we?  The very first monster in the 3.5 MM is the Aboleth.  Have a look at the aboleth.  It's stat-block takes up half a column and fails to explain it's special attacks of "Enslave, psionics, slime," and it's special quality of "mucus cloud."  Those special attacks/qualities are described in text blocks on the previous page.  Those text blocks take up almost one whole column.  Also, the Aboleth's "psionics" consist of a list of spells containing: hypnotic pattern, illusory wall, mirage arcana, persistent image, programmed image, project image, and veil.  The monster manual doesn't describe these spells at all save for their Save DCs and caster level.  The monster manual doesn't even tell you what page of the PHB each of those spells are on.  You have to look them up.  Since those abilities are part of the Aboleth's stat's, let's have a look.

hypnotic pattern (takes up just over half of a 1/3 page column in the PHB),

illusory wall (takes up 1/3 of a 1/3 page column in the PHB),

mirage arcana (takes up 1/3 of a 1/3 page column in the PHB.  However, it also says "functions like
hallucinatory terrain."  This requires us to look that spell up as well and adding another 1/3 of a 1/3 page column to the space taken up by mirage arcana for a total of 2/3 or a 1/3 page column),

persistent image (takes up 1/3 of a 1/3 page column in the PHB.  However, it also says "functions like silent image."  This requires us to look that spell up as well and adding another 1/3 of a 1/3 page column to the space taken up by mirage arcana for a total of 2/3 or a 1/3 page column),

programmed image (takes up half of a 1/3 page column in the PHB.  However, it also says "functions like silent image."  This requires us to look that spell up as well and adding another 1/3 of a 1/3 page column to the space taken up by mirage arcana for a total of 2/3 or a 1/3 page column),

project image (takes up 2/3 of a 1/3 page column in the PHB),

veil (takes up half of a 1/3 page column in the PHB).

So, to actually fully describe the Aboleth (not the Aboleth Mage, mind you, but the regular Aboleth, the very first monster in the MM), 3.5 takes: 1/2 of a 1/2 page column for the stat-block, 1 whole 1/2 page column to actually define the "special attacks" and "special qualities" named in the stat-block (that's 1 and 1/2 columns of a page in the MM), and 1 page and 1 1/3 page column to define the effects of the spells listed in the Aboleth text.  So the Aboleth in 3e takes two whole pages to define what the Aboleth does, and it forces you to look up those chunks in two different books without providing any page numbers.

Compared to that, 4e's presentation of everything you need to actually run the monster all together in the same place is a HUGE improvement.  And I think that's as close as one can get to objective proof that 4e made at least one improvement on 3e.


5) Martial Healing.  I know some people don't like it, but I don't care.  Give us the option of making martial healing into temp HPS, and that largely eliminates the immersion problem people have with martial healing.

6) The ability for anyone to use ritual magic with a single feat.

7) "healing surges."  What I mean by this is that I'm fine with either the 4e version or the HD mechanic.  However, the name healing surges just makes more sense.  For that matter, can we get "bloodied" back as well?  I also want to see options for making healing both grittier and more heroic, but I don't recall that from 4e.
There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.



SLAPPING AT-WILLS AND GRID-BASED COMBAT 'MODULES' ONTO AN UNCLEAR AND IMBALANCED SYSTEM WITH TOO MUCH DOWNTIME AND A LACK OF MEANINGFUL CHOICES DOSN'T CUT IT.


GIVE US THESE THINGS AND TAKE OUR MONEY!



huzzah
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 


THE 4E MANIFESTO



CLASS BALANCE, NOT THREE PILLARS!


That means in any given situation all characters are equally useful, although they may be useful in different ways. Having any one character type designed to dominate any encounter runs against what we want. We want balanced game design, not 3-pillar design where one character shines at the expense of putting others in the shade.



NO DOWNTIME, FUN FOREVER!



We want to be having fun. We don't want to be removed from the fun by having run out of resources (healing, spells, etc) and thus becoming useless or by meaningless make-work (counting ammo, having to hunt for rules). Any time my character is useless is time I'm thinking about playing something more fun. Note - it is ok for my character to be less effective due to unwise resource expendature, but not for my character to be ineffective.



MEANINGFUL CHOICES, MEANINGLESS NEVER
!



We want each of our choices, in character creation, in combat, in role-play to count and have a real effect upon the game. Shallow rules don't satisfly us.



CLARITY:
IMPROVISATION NOT INTERPRETATION



We want rules to be clearly written with no room for subjective interpretation. When I read a spell description my mental picture of what it can do should match the DM's picture - I should never have to guess how the DM will choose to interpret my character's abilities this week. We want room to improvise, but that springs from clear objective rules for commonly used abilities or commonly occouring situations that we can work outwards from - not from writing subjective and unclear rules.



WE DON'T CARE ABOUT 'AT-WILLS' OR 'THE GRID' LIKE YOU THINK WE DO



Seriously. An at-will spell or power is just a shortcut to 'class balance' and 'no downtime' - it is a tool to fun play, not the end-game. Playing combat out with tactical rules on a grid is a way to have meanigful choices in combat beyond just reducing HP, we are not tied to the grid but we do like exciting mini-based combat where strategy and choices have an impact.

SLAPPING AT-WILLS AND GRID-BASED COMBAT 'MODULES' ONTO AN UNCLEAR AND IMBALANCED SYSTEM WITH TOO MUCH DOWNTIME AND A LACK OF MEANINGFUL CHOICES DOSN'T CUT IT.


GIVE US THESE THINGS AND TAKE OUR MONEY!


I tell you this, if D&D was a country, You would be my President!



Thank you, but I'd prefer the title "ultrapotus".

Not "Omnipotent Glory"? How about just "Perpetual Dungeon Master"? NOBODY can trump that, not even the gods!
That is not dead which may eternal lie
1.) Classes contributing equally to encounters in different ways. Ignoring outliers like the Ranger, I loved that a Barbarian would do a ton of damage on a charge, that a Rogue could do a bunch with Sneak Attack, and Avenger was a monster against the creature he oathed, a monk could spam multi-attack targets surrounded by baddies.... and so on. They fought differently, felt different, but still did their job. I like how Defenders worked in different ways (control, defenses, single target lockdown, mass marking etc). I liked the idea of controllers, even if I don't think they manager to pull it off quite right.

Warlord was bloody fantastic. Rest of the leaders can stay, I guess. Overall, I feel like roles were a success. I would scale back the number of powers, for sure (to reduce that "sameness" SOME people have) and use more class features to keep them distinct.

2.) Healing surges. Probably need less of them though. I like the idea that at some point, no amount of finger wiggling from your devote friend (or screaming from your warlord) is going to get you back on your feet. 

3.) NADs. Sped things up way more for us (I dont understand people thar think 5 different people rolling dice and adding different numbers is faster than 1 player rolling 5 times, adding the same number). Keep the attackers making the roll.

4.) Monster creation. The mechanics made them super easy to make. I really hope Next has another monster builder. For such a small tool, you could crank out well built monsters and SCALE them in no time flat. A great addition.

5.) In- turn action economy was good (no full round boredom), although out of turn actions need to be cut WAY WAY back. I'd be fine seeing 99% of out of turn actions going away.
Yeah, mostly I think they could have pooled powers into power source. That would have allowed a lot of moving parts to be reused from one class to another. It can be a bit tricky, and you'd still need some stuff at the class level, but with core groups of powers at the source and then themes that can glue on a whole bunch more stuff the class then becomes more about unique features and core concept. Not 100% sure how it would work out, but it seems generally doable.



If I could design 4e all over again, I'd have multiple pools of powers, some by power source, some by role, and some by class.

So a Wizard (Arcane Controller) would be able to choose powers from the Wizard pool, the Arcane pool, and the Controller pool.  In turn, the Sorcerer (Arcane Striker) could choose from the Arcane pool as well, but not from Controller or Wizard pools, instead drawing from the Sorcerer pool and Striker pool.

A Fighter and Paladin could both draw from the Defender pool, but from differing power source pools (though the Paladin would likely have been a dual martial/divine class if I were in charge), and so on and so forth.

Themes would just add on top of that.  Take a theme?  You now have access to a small pool of "theme powers".

Basically, it remains a class system, but with several elements of point-buy style customization.  Much like Vampire allowed characters of a given clan to choose which Disciplines they wanted to focus on, you could make a very Martial-ey Fighter, or a Defender-ey Fighter, etc.
Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging. Roll dice, not cars.
4E fans, what exactly do you want to see in D&D Next

A release date of 2018 or later.

Want to see the best of 4e included in 5e?  Join the Old Guard of 4e.

5e really needs something like Wrecan's SARN-FU to support "Theatre of the Mind."

"You want The Tooth?  You can't handle The Tooth!"  - Dahlver-Nar.

"If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly"  - E. Gary Gygax

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!