Your Perfect 5E

Some are saying that if the playtest continues to do X, then they will probably not be playing it. Likewise, others see the inclusion (or removal) of X as an absolute good, and is one of the driving forces behind them playing 5E. This is extremely objective, as are most things related to "good" and "bad" in RPG rules.

Tell me about your perfect 5E. What elements do you want to ensure you will play and enjoy it? I'll break it down into elements for ease of reply. Please, please, please try to avoid bottoming this thread out as an edition-war. There is absolutely no reason to do that. Also, telling other posters that what they want is "wrong" is also highly unnecessary. There's no reason to do that.

1) Race Options. What races do you feel they should include? What races do you not want included? What bonuses/penalties should exist for various races?

2) Classes. This is a big one. What classes do you feel they should include? What classes should be avoided?

3) Class Options. Another big one. This would include individual class options as well as multiclassing.

4) Skills. Are the current ones too liitle or too much? Which ones do you want included? Which ones do you want removed or changed?

5) Backgrounds and Specialties. Which ones catch your attention? Are they over- or under-powered? Do they really add to or take away from the game? Which ones would you want to see?

6) Magic Items. Should they stick with +X items, or change things up a little? Should characters be as dependent on them? Which ones do you want to see included or left out?

7) Combat. Another big one. Do you like the gridless/miniless style of 5E? Do you think combat is resolved faster? Is the removal of certain options making combat boring? What would you change about how combat is handled?

8) Spells. Are they sufficient for the levels we have now? Are they overpowered or underpowered? Which ones do you look forward to seeing? Which ones do you hope never come back?

9) Out of Combat Options. How do you want to see these handled? Do you want certain characters being naturally better or worse at them? Do you think everyone should able to contribute 100% both in and out of combat?

10) Ease of DMing. Is 5E currently DM-friendly? Could it use some work? Is it easy to build encounters and reconcile character and monster actions?

That's it for now. Be honest!
To be fair, I'll go first.

1) Race Options. What races do you feel they should include? What races do you not want included? What bonuses/penalties should exist for various races?

I, personally, would like a wide variety of races. What I do not necessarily want is a dozen half-human races. I feel that tying humans to all of the major classes cheapens the whole experience. If they're going to do half-races, then why not half elf/dwarf? Why nor half dwarf/halfling? Mix it up a bit.

2) Classes. This is a big one. What classes do you feel they should include? What classes should be avoided?

I want many of the classics availble. Paladin, ranger, barbarian, monk, druid, and so on. As for which ones to avoid, I'd like to not see too many redundant classes that have only miniscule differences. If they're that similar to another class, I think they could be included as a specialty/background of another existing class.

3) Class Options. Another big one. This would include individual class options as well as multiclassing.

I want classes to feel different from each other. I want them to be able to contribute meaningfully to the party. As for multiclasses, I want them to actually work without completely overshadowing the core classes.

4) Skills. Are the current ones too liitle or too much? Which ones do you want included? Which ones do you want removed or changed?

Eliminate some of the Lore skills. Add in more physical-based ones. Combine some of the similar ones. In other words, streamline skills, but make viable options for all classes.

5) Backgrounds and Specialties. Which ones catch your attention? Are they over- or under-powered? Do they really add to or take away from the game? Which ones would you want to see?

I like backgrounds and specialties. I like what they can offer. Naturally, I'd like to see more of them, but that will come.

6) Magic Items. Should they stick with +X items, or change things up a little? Should characters be as dependent on them? Which ones do you want to see included or left out?

I have never liked simple +X items. I want magical items to actually offer something magical. My hope is that +X items will be the minority, and the magic items we get will be interesting items that characters actually want to hold on to, not look forward to trading in every time they gain a level.

7) Combat. Another big one. Do you like the gridless/miniless style of 5E? Do you think combat is resolved faster? Is the removal of certain options making combat boring? What would you change about how combat is handled?

4E was the only edition of D&D (outside of my few experiences with OD&D) that I used maps and minis. I never liked it. Yes, it worked wonderfully with the tatical powers offered by 4E. That's a given. I'm not sad to see it go, though. I missed the days of sitting with my players spread out across my den, with myself in an over-sized recliner, the rest in chairs, on couches, on the floor, or whatever. Free-form, descriptive-based combat, in other words. I feel that 4E combat-speed was one of the biggest reasons that I started losing interest in it. I like the speed of combat resolution in 5E. I'm sure that as more and more options are piled on that it will slow it down a bit, but my hope is that it will not reach the snail-pace of 4E combat speed.

8) Spells. Are they sufficient for the levels we have now? Are they overpowered or underpowered? Which ones do you look forward to seeing? Which ones do you hope never come back?

As long as they nerf some of the offenders of the past and outright rework or leave out the worst of those offenders, I feel spells will work just fine.

9) Out of Combat Options. How do you want to see these handled? Do you want certain characters being naturally better or worse at them? Do you think everyone should able to contribute 100% both in and out of combat?

I have never been of the mindset that every character should be able to contribute 100% to every possible situation that arises. I find that needlessly symmetrical, and deals a blow to character differences. I want characters that can excel at some things and fall behind with others. I feel that encourages teamwork and a sense of actually belonging to a party. I want characters to be able to contribute something to everything, but not be able to excel at everything.

10) Ease of DMing. Is 5E currently DM-friendly? Could it use some work? Is it easy to build encounters and reconcile character and monster actions?

I find 5E, so far, very simple to DM. I rarely have to consult the rules anymore when DMing it, as the rules are simple to remember. Adventure creation is also simple. I have already started converting older adventures for use in 5E. If we could get a codified way to create monsters, it would be even easier.
Uh, just look at my posts on the "What would you do to 4e" thread ;)
That is not dead which may eternal lie
Uh, just look at my posts on the "What would you do to 4e" thread ;)



So you don't really want a 5E at all, you want a slightly altered 4E?
Uh, just look at my posts on the "What would you do to 4e" thread ;)



So you don't really want a 5E at all, you want a slightly altered 4E?

Eh, I don't know about 'slightly', I guess that depends on how you define slight. If I were building a D&D right now, yes, it would owe a lot to 4e. It would be recognizably a 4e-based design. That doesn't mean it would end up any more like 4e than 3e is like 2e (well, it might be a little closer than that). I'm just saying go look at the other thread because it would be redundant to repost the same posts in 2 threads
That is not dead which may eternal lie
1) I'd rather not have really obscure, weird races that don't really fit. Shardminds, for example, they don't seem to fit in with the rest of the D&D world at all. 

2) I'd rather see kits make a return rather than a plethora of classes like 4E had. Warden, War Priest... ick. I'd rather have the typical 10 or so classes, with ways to vary each. 

3) Same answer as above, really. Not sure how I'd do multi-classing, because I can see how both the 4e and 3e way aren't optimal, and the 1st/2nd edition method is... also sub-optimal. Perhaps a slimmed down, more restrictive 3e method. 

4) I like having a lot of skills, though they could condense some of the lore's into 1 skill, many of them seem redudant or overlap a bit too much. That being said though, I don't want it to just be History, Arcana, Nature, Religion, Streetwise. I feel like that's TOO condensed. 

5) Backgrounds and specialties are great, in my opinion, but of course, adding more wouldn't hurt. But I don't think they should evolve any further than simply just packages of skills and feats. Also, a seperate feat and skill list for those who want to make their OWN backgrounds and specialties would be nice, I'd add that.

6) +X items should be in, as well as more interesting items of course. But they should NOT be mandatory to balance the game. The way 4e pretty much demanded you give your players magic items or else the monsters are going to wipe the floor with them did not tickle my fancy.

7) Love the gridless style. I pretty much enjoy everything about the combat at the moment, and can't think of something I'd change, except for the removal of the monster's marking abilities (Mob Tactics). I'd make them passives instead. 

8) I don't have much of an opinion on spells, but I enjoy how they're functioning at the moment and I look forward to seeing more. Some of them COULD be worded a little better, and fix the problem where one page says to add your Int modifier, and another says don't. Also, cantrips and orisons are great in my opinion, even if Radiant Lance may be a little over powered (in my groups experience). I also want to see more Detect spells, but I think I'm in the minority there.

9) I know this might be blasphemy, but I think Wizards and Rogues should be more versatile out of combat than say, a Fighter. They're called FIGHTERS. They fight things, thats what they do. Without shoehorning really annoying mechanics in, I don't see how they could be any more than a door breaker just by their nature. But I do think classes like the Rogue should be less viable IN combat than out of combat, I enjoy the skill monkey approach that Next is going for at the moment. 

10) I definitely enjoy the 5e DMing right now, from what I've read of it. I have not tried to build my own encounters yet however, though from what I've read, it seems fine and I don't think I'd change much. 
1) Race Options. What races do you feel they should include? What races do you not want included? What bonuses/penalties should exist for various races?


I want a nice variety of races. Races that are too similar or are just ofshoots of another race should go into subraces. Races that are good at the same niche, but aren't similar enough to warrant being a subrace(like Haflings and Goblins as a hypothetical) should have something that sets them apart, like racial features.

2) Classes. This is a big one. What classes do you feel they should include? What classes should be avoided?


Not too many class for one.
For another, no one class should be relegated to the Newbie Class as a whole. There should be a simple for version for at least the Big 4 classes(Rogue, Fighter, Wizard, and Cleric) so new players can get right into going for their archtype without needing to play one class in particular before they've had x amount of fun, with the options of moving into the more complex classes once they've gotten a feel for the game.

3) Class Options. Another big one. This would include individual class options as well as multiclassing.


We should ahve plenty of options for each class. As long as we don't get too many options(like Wizards in 3.x and 4e), and we don't egt options that are very clearly better than anything else you could pick, we should be fine.

4) Skills. Are the current ones too liitle or too much? Which ones do you want included? Which ones do you want removed or changed?


Eh..as long as we have a nice variety without getting too many(like why Hide and Move Silently are completely seperate skills.

6) Magic Items. Should they stick with +X items, or change things up a little? Should characters be as dependent on them? Which ones do you want to see included or left out?


Magic Items shouldn't be a core assumption of the system, but at the same time, the game math shouldn't snap like a twig the second they are introduced.

7) Combat. Another big one. Do you like the gridless/miniless style of 5E? Do you think combat is resolved faster? Is the removal of certain options making combat boring? What would you change about how combat is handled?


I don't mind short or long combat length, as long as I have interesting choices I can make round by round.

9) Out of Combat Options. How do you want to see these handled? Do you want certain characters being naturally better or worse at them? Do you think everyone should able to contribute 100% both in and out of combat?


Every class should have the potential to contribute, both in and out of combat, without getting shafted at either unless the player specifically builds them to be bad at one.

10) Ease of DMing. Is 5E currently DM-friendly? Could it use some work? Is it easy to build encounters and reconcile character and monster actions?


Really, this spot is one of my few outright dealbreakers. If DnDNext isn't at least DM Friendly as 4e was, I'm not buying it. Given what I've seen of 3.x, DMing it is a nightmare and I'm not touching it(froma  DM standpoint anyways, maybe as a player if I find the right group)
My responses in Blue



1) Race Options. What races do you feel they should include? What races do you not want included? What bonuses/penalties should exist for various races?

In phb 1 fully supported races I would like to see are the races from the 1st edition phb- by fully supported I mean these races have options for racial abilities, modifiers, and racial backgrounds/feats.  Humans also need more flavorful options than just +1 to all stats blech.  Shorthand rules for other races should be included in either the MM1 or the DMG1.  As time goes on Complete Hobgoblin type splatbooks should be used to expand the options available similar to whats available in the PHB 1 for regular races.

2) Classes. This is a big one. What classes do you feel they should include? What classes should be avoided?
1st edition PHB classes except for the assassin which should be a background/theme and not a class (barbarian should also be treated this way).  Specializations for wizards such as evoker, illusionist, transmuter, etc should be included as "themes".  Psionics should come in later as a supplement (and monk is not a psionic class).  Bards should be included as a regular class rather than a prestige class (as they did in 1st ed)

3) Class Options. Another big one. This would include individual class options as well as multiclassing.
Ideally for me I would like to see a unified class structure as we saw in 4e because that makes everything else so much easier to do but I realize that is not going to happen.  Ultimately all classes should be able to contribute meaningfully in all spheres UNLESS the player decides to design a character that is specifically incompetent in one or more spheres (such as a pacifist cleric or antisocial halforc).  Not only should all classes have the potential to have relatively equal power but all should have interesting options in combat and none should be just "I hit it again with my sword" (again unless someone WANTS to play that way in which case that should be a viable option as well).

Multiclassing similar to 4e hybrids works best with something similar to 1e/2e multiclassing set up coming next.  Unfortunately they seem determined to use my least favorite option which is 3e style- hopefully they intend to fix the problems I had with it (which I am not sure is possible)

4) Skills. Are the current ones too liitle or too much? Which ones do you want included? Which ones do you want removed or changed?
Current skills - there are far too many of them the list should be consolidated considerably.

5) Backgrounds and Specialties. Which ones catch your attention? Are they over- or under-powered? Do they really add to or take away from the game? Which ones would you want to see?
As I mentioned earlier I want to see both assassin and barbarian as backgrounds/themes instead of classes.  I want wizards to be split up into specialists similar to 2e maybe with some others such as Desert themed specialties or wildmages as well.

6) Magic Items. Should they stick with +X items, or change things up a little? Should characters be as dependent on them? Which ones do you want to see included or left out?
I want CHARACTERS to be interesting without having to be dependent on their toys.  No Christmas tree effect please.
 
7) Combat. Another big one. Do you like the gridless/miniless style of 5E? Do you think combat is resolved faster? Is the removal of certain options making combat boring? What would you change about how combat is handled?
Gridless options are fine.  Faster rounds and faster total combats are better than 3e or 4e which could both drag for different reasons.

8) Spells. Are they sufficient for the levels we have now? Are they overpowered or underpowered? Which ones do you look forward to seeing? Which ones do you hope never come back?
Not too happy with the spells so far especially the healing ones.  I NEVER want to see wish, unlimited teleports, scry and kill type spells again.  Limit buffs so we don't see what happened in 3e.

9) Out of Combat Options. How do you want to see these handled? Do you want certain characters being naturally better or worse at them? Do you think everyone should able to contribute 100% both in and out of combat?
Everyone contributes unless they choose not too.  They don't all have to be exactly the same level of contribution but they should all be able to contribute in some fashion as a default.

10) Ease of DMing. Is 5E currently DM-friendly? Could it use some work? Is it easy to build encounters and reconcile character and monster actions?
So far it's not as easy as I would like.

That's it for now. Be honest!




1) Race Options. What races do you feel they should include? What races do you not want included? What bonuses/penalties should exist for various races?



Races aren't really a sticking point for me. I don't care particularly what races are there. The main problem I have with races is baking into races things that should be in backgrounds. For example Stonecunning, in the current incarnation and associated fluff, makes no sense as a racial ability.


2) Classes. This is a big one. What classes do you feel they should include? What classes should be avoided?

3) Class Options. Another big one. This would include individual class options as well as multiclassing.



I honestly think D&D could survive with just 2 (Caster and Non-caster), but I tend to prefer more classes to less. The real trick is how many can be supported in the current model of "Every class has its own resource system all abilities are unique". Because in that model, each class takes up MUCH more page count than a model where there's more ability sharing between classes, and there's only so many resource systems you can really include in the core before you start frustrating GMs and new players trying to learn it all.

Ideally I'd like to see 3 resource systems in the core, with each one being tapped into by 2-4 different classes. These classes each access the resource in a slightly different way (See: Wizard vs Sorcerer or Warblade vs Swordsage in 3e), and while they draw from the same ability lists, would have some subset that is unique to them. Having overlap in areas where it can be done without harming class identities helps allow classes to be more numerous while still maintaining the versatility needed to keep up.

For multiclassing, I prefer the 3e method of multiclassing because of the flexibility it allows. Ideally with every class having a resource system, this could be tweaked in such a way that there is some synergy involved in multiclassing, so a Fighter3/Wizard3 isn't a waste of a character.

4) Skills. Are the current ones too liitle or too much? Which ones do you want included? Which ones do you want removed or changed?



Current skills are too weighted towards mental. Given the skill system is the only way mundane characters can currently interract with the world, the absolute lack of any skills for Strength or Con is a huge issue to me. I also can't stand the bounded accuracy system, and what it is doing to skills in general. 

Frankly, this area is probably the biggest dealbreaker for me at the moment. The skill system is so boring and flat, that the playtest packet itself tells a DM he can completely ignore it and just judge based on the die roll the majority of the time. Roll d20 and add something, let the DM figure it out, is not a skill system. If this isn't completely redone I have very little interest.

5) Backgrounds and Specialties. Which ones catch your attention? Are they over- or under-powered? Do they really add to or take away from the game? Which ones would you want to see?



These are all fairly underwhelming at the moment. It really feels like they included them to try to make 3e/4e fans happy, but then neutered them so they're practically useless to make AD&D fans happy. It's one of those half-assed comprimises that makes nobody happy in the end. The fact that right now I think the best feat in the game is the one that gives you a couple of cantrips, just so a non-caster can get a little bit of non-combat utility, should tell you everything you need to know about both the state of these subsystems and the non-caster characters.

6) Magic Items. Should they stick with +X items, or change things up a little? Should characters be as dependent on them? Which ones do you want to see included or left out?



Is there really anybody who wants +X items as the only magic items? I haven't seen anyone push quite that far.

I want more interesting magical items. I'd also like some dial/resource that allows the DM to tone the number of them up or down without seriously affecting character power levels.

7) Combat. Another big one. Do you like the gridless/miniless style of 5E? Do you think combat is resolved faster? Is the removal of certain options making combat boring? What would you change about how combat is handled?



I never used minis even in 4e.  At most a quick sketch on graph paper. I'm fine with reducing the need for a grid, but I don't like that the developers seem to think losing the grid means cutting out a lot of basic options from the game. 

8) Spells. Are they sufficient for the levels we have now? Are they overpowered or underpowered? Which ones do you look forward to seeing? Which ones do you hope never come back?



We have a few outlier spells that are way too strong, but right now the actual power level of spells isn't too bad. I'm personally more worried we're going to be seeing the number of spells at each spell level continuing to expand. Right now we already have nearly 40 spells at level 5. Following that progression we're looking at over 150 by level 20. Then double that for Cleric. Probably add it again for Druid. Then look at the spell list compared to older editions and figure the number of spells at each spell level is probably getting doubled, and we'll end up with just shy of 1000 just in the core book. That's my main concern right now. I'd rather see that number kept lower, especially if we're keeping a totally unique list of abilities for every class, or either casters will have 10x more options than everyone else, or the core book is going to be ridiculously huge.

9) Out of Combat Options. How do you want to see these handled? Do you want certain characters being naturally better or worse at them? Do you think everyone should able to contribute 100% both in and out of combat?



It really comes down to how in combat is handled. If they want one class absolutely dominating others out of combat, that class should be near useless in combat. But that's not the way D&D works, because combat is always a central focus. So I would rather see an even distribution. Maybe not perfectly symetrical, but a Fighter needs to be able to contribute even when he's not chopping the bad guys into sausage.

10) Ease of DMing. Is 5E currently DM-friendly? Could it use some work? Is it easy to build encounters and reconcile character and monster actions?



I'll admit I haven't played around much with the DM tools yet so I'm not sure how it compares. But I do know I really hate DMing 3e because of the broken CR system, and the huge pain of generating/running certain monsters (particularly those will spells or class levels); and love DMing in 4e because of the ease of encounter/monster generation. This is one area I really want to see the design be leaning heavily on 4e for.


Really, this spot is one of my few outright dealbreakers. If DnDNext isn't at least DM Friendly as 4e was, I'm not buying it. Given what I've seen of 3.x, DMing it is a nightmare and I'm not touching it(froma  DM standpoint anyways, maybe as a player if I find the right group)



Yeah this issue is huge. I could honestly live with varying class structures and such, but I never want to ever have to go through the BS "Monsters are built as PCs" crap that 3E tried to jam down our throats.
1) Race Options: I'd like the classic 2nd edition races. Humans, Gnomes, Halflings, Dwarves and Elves. If possible, with a couple of subraces for each. I wouldn't mind if they included some freakish races like Dragonborns or Half-Orcs. I really don't want elves to be renamed eladrins again.

2) Classes. The classics 2nd edition classes. Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue, Ranger, Paladin, Bard. I wouldn't mind more though.

3) Class Options. AD&D again! Fighters, rogues, paladins and rangers have their basic attacks and a whole bunch of options like in Skills and Powers. Wizards are vancian, clerics are whatever, I don't play clerics anyways. I'd be happy to see sorcers, warlocks and warlords in there too but that's not mandatory.

4) Skills. The current ones are not enough. I'd like to see all the physical skills back in the list (stuff like Acrobatics, Endurance, Atheltics).

5) Backgrounds and Specialties. These are already perfect.

6) Magic Items. I don't really care as long as I can avoid the magic mart I dislike so much. I don't mind the +X items either. As long as the combined AC/hit bonus from classes and items is less than +1 per two levels, I'll be happy. I just didn't like the +1 per level in 4th edition or even worse, in 3rd edition...

7) Combat. As long as it's fast. An easy fight is 5-10 minutes, a hard fight is 20-30 minutes. Of course, this is a bit slower at higher levels. I dislike that special fighter moves are modelized as CS dice. Rogues don't get to have fun in combat. I'd like support for both gridless an minis. The boss fights are nice with a grid. I think combats in the current playtest are too fast though.

8) Spells. I'd like to see most of the AD&D spells back in the game. Especially the ones for exploration/social. I don't mind if the more problematic spells are removed though. I'm talking about the really big ones, like Polymorph, Antimagic Field, Wish. That doesn't mean remove the option though! Monomorph spells are really no big deal. I don't mind if the cleric goes back to having spells of level 1 to 7. The level 8-9 spells were really boring anyways.

9) Out of Combat Options. Rituals, skills and eventually fancy ways to use your skills (skill tricks?). I don't think all classes should have equal options out of combat. I don't want anyone to be useless though. As a player, I like to sacrifice combat abilities for more out of combat stuff and sometimes, the other way around. I'd like to avoid having another class like the 3rd edition bard (boy this guy sucks).

10) Ease of DMing. What really made 3rd edition horrible for the DM was fixing the god damn math at higher levels. I like what I'm seeing in D&D Next right now.
1) Race Options. What races do you feel they should include? What races do you not want included? What bonuses/penalties should exist for various races?

All the PHB1 races plus the more dominant "monster" races. Dwarves, Elves (with high, wood and drow), Halfling, and Humans as classic. Half Elf, Half Orc, Dragonborn, and Tiefling in the PHB. Goblin (regular, hob and bugbear), Kobold, Warforged, and Minotaur in the MM. 

2) Classes. This is a big one. What classes do you feel they should include? What classes should be avoided?

Core 4. Ranger as wilderness expert. Paladin as blessed warrior. Monk as spiritual mystic. Sorceror as innate magician. Warlock as pact magician. Barbarian as a untrained warrior. Warlord as tactical or inspirational warrior.

3) Class Options. Another big one. This would include individual class options as well as multiclassing.

Classes feel different from each other and all have a PURPOSE for existing. Multiclassing should be organic.

4) Skills. Are the current ones too liitle or too much? Which ones do you want included? Which ones do you want removed or changed?

Too many lore skills not enough physical ones. The 4e skill list + Animal Handling, Concentration and Lifting is best.

5) Backgrounds and Specialties. Which ones catch your attention? Are they over- or under-powered? Do they really add to or take away from the game? Which ones would you want to see?

They are fine. Some are a bit too good they feel required and some too weak that they are purely flavor pick. But Overall okay.

6) Magic Items. Should they stick with +X items, or change things up a little? Should characters be as dependent on them? Which ones do you want to see included or left out?

+X items but no dependence outside of tactics. Monster should not even magic items to defeat them either.

7) Combat. Another big one. Do you like the gridless/miniless style of 5E? Do you think combat is resolved faster? Is the removal of certain options making combat boring? What would you change about how combat is handled?

As you as each character has 3+ meaningful choices and fights are 5-15 minutes, I am cool.

8) Spells. Are they sufficient for the levels we have now? Are they overpowered or underpowered? Which ones do you look forward to seeing? Which ones do you hope never come back?

Powerful and game warping spell should be pushed up in levels. There are only a few problem core spells and those can be handled easily to me.

9) Out of Combat Options. How do you want to see these handled? Do you want certain characters being naturally better or worse at them? Do you think everyone should able to contribute 100% both in and out of combat?

Everyone don't HAVE to be able to contribute in 100% situation. In fact that should be impossible. BUT every character should be able to contribute in any situation of their choosing if they choose to and doing so should be easy. A fighter should be able to be the party face with little work..

10) Ease of DMing. Is 5E currently DM-friendly? Could it use some work? Is it easy to build encounters and reconcile character and monster actions?

Gnarl said it best: What really made 3rd edition horrible for the DM was fixing the god damn math at higher levels. I like what I'm seeing in D&D Next right now. Next is on the friendlier side for D&D.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

1) Race Options. What races do you feel they should include? What races do you not want included? What bonuses/penalties should exist for various races?

It does not matter for me very much to me what races are included besides the very core, and I don't mind if they include any race as I will simply not use those I don't like. So, as long as someone likes them, the more the merrier.

I want the races to be different, this means I want them to grant different ability scores (i dont mind minuses), different racial abilities and other properties. If this makes some races better or worse for some classes or concepts, that is a bonus, not a drawback. It should feel different to play a different race.

I would prefer if cultural aspects of races are not hardcoded into the race abilities but kept as a separate module or part of the race description so it can be changed or swapped between races.

I would like to see a return of the rules to add class levels to monsters, and also a revised and improved version of the level-adjustment of monsters as pc races (the 3.x version of this rule was bugged much because the problems with multiclassing, since all monsters with classes are multiclass).

I would prefer to see the planescape tieflings and asimaar rather than the 4e ones if they are included at all.

I would not mind to see some racial levels that you can take as multiclass, containing bonuses to racial abilities.

2) Classes. This is a big one. What classes do you feel they should include? What classes should be avoided?

I feel that there are a few classes that are the core of the system, these are: Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard and Sorcerer. All other classes are just a bonus. When it comes to the actual mechanics of the classes I really don't want to see completely different systems for every single class, instead I would want a few core systems (melee combat, learned magic, innate magic) and have these systems portioned out in different amounts and combinations to the classes.

So for instance the paladin uses systems from the fighter and cleric, instead of a completely new system.

The core classes Fighter/Rogue, Cleric/Wizard, Sorcerer should represent classes that focus only on one of these systems, while other classes are hybrids of this basic palette. By doing like this, the mechanics bloat that happened in 3.x could be avoided, and multiclassing becomes easier to manage.

The rogue is the dex based warrior in my mind, not the skill master. Skill mastery should be a specialization.

I would like a Vancian variant of Wizard where they use spellpoints to prepare the spells in the morning, instead of using spellslots, but if there is no such wizard I can easily modify a spellslot wizard in such a way, so its no big deal.

--

Another point about classes..  I would like the most of the combat and magic rules to be in the core rules and not in the classes. For instance, what ability socres that are used for different weapons should be determined as part of the definition of the ability scores, not in the class mechanics. Really, as much as possible of the rules should be common between the classes.
 
3) Class Options. Another big one. This would include individual class options as well as multiclassing.

I think much of this was answered in the last question, but there are some more. When it comes to class options they should be constructed as additive instead of limiting. So when you select a class option you should be able to do the bsic stuff of the class, and then some from the option. If all the core abilities are confined in the options the classes will feel restricted and pigionholed.

I have nothing against class options to be fluff heavy, but classes in themselves should be mostly mechanics though.

I really liked the core concept of the 3.x multiclassing but it was really hard work to counter the inherrent bugs in it with houserule after houserule. I look forward to see the 5E version and I think multiclass-only progression lists for classes is a good way to go as long as spells and other class features are scaled to fit with the characters total levels.

Concerning the multiclassing I reiterate that it would become much easier if there is a few core systems (melee, learned magic, innate magic) and clear rules on how to mix them.

4) Skills. Are the current ones too liitle or too much? Which ones do you want included? Which ones do you want removed or changed?

I like extensive skill systems where characters can have different amounts in several different skill including learning new skills. I kind of miss all physical skills from the current skill list, I don't know if this is intended or not, but I would really like to see some skills like Climb or at the very least Athletics and Acrobatics.

I would also like to see the Use Magic Device skill/abiity in the game in some form.

5) Backgrounds and Specialties. Which ones catch your attention? Are they over- or under-powered? Do they really add to or take away from the game? Which ones would you want to see?

I like the general idea but I feel them to be too a little narrow. A quick fix would be to add one free skill (players choice) to all of them. If this becomes too much for those who want a prepared packet, add another default skill, that you can replace to all Backgrounds.

I would also like to see some high level background packages that you can pick at 5, 10, 15, 20 that adds some bonus to some skill, or a new skill, and adds some flavour (like, the background showing what you have been doing up to now)

Likewise with specialties..  they are a bit narrow. I would like 2 feats at level 1. Feats have long been the main possibility to flavour a character and shape it and generally I feel like you get too few of them.

In 3.x I made lots of human fighters, just to get the bonus feats to allow me to make the character I wanted. Give this posibillity to all.

6) Magic Items. Should they stick with +X items, or change things up a little? Should characters be as dependent on them? Which ones do you want to see included or left out?

I have a lot of opinions on this one..

* Separate masterwork and magic into two completely different item properties.
* Include masterwork in three quality levels: poor, normal, masterwork with corresponding -1, 0, +1 bonus
* Implement special materials as masterworks with special properties (such as resistance), non magical
* Magic items as a separate property that some items can have. Magic items should be rare and unique.
* Magic items can be of any quality.
* Magic items should range from minor passive abilities to the truly wondrous, but focus on the magic
* No +X magic items

* Masterworks are partly high level gear, partly gear sought out for particular situations (like resistance).
* Magic items are not a progression currency, they are campaign hooks, great rewards, flavour and part of the fantasy setting.

7) Combat. Another big one. Do you like the gridless/miniless style of 5E? Do you think combat is resolved faster? Is the removal of certain options making combat boring? What would you change about how combat is handled?

When I DM I like to be able to run some combats on the grid and some just as a narrative. So a main demand from me is that the game support such mixed styles.

Overall I like 5e so far and I am interested to see what is added in further playtests. I heard something about a tactical module, that sounds interesting.

8) Spells. Are they sufficient for the levels we have now? Are they overpowered or underpowered? Which ones do you look forward to seeing? Which ones do you hope never come back?

I feel that some pure damage spells are a bit too powerful.
I would like to see more spells that protect against spells. Generally I feel like one of the good ways to both make magic more interesting and to balance spellcasters is to let them fight amongst themselves. Give spellcasters the means to defeat other spellcasters and defend the party agains spells. I would like to see a new creative take on abjuration.

I dont have any particular spell I don't want to see in the game, although I find save or die spells boring. I generally have no problem to handle potentially overpowered or situationally exploitable spells and would rather see an inclusive spell list than a strictly balanced and pruned one.

I dont like how rituals are treated in 5E. I would like rituals to be amplified versions of spells, not just the same spell. There is so much potential in rituals, make use of it.
Also, gold is not a good resource for rituals.

9) Out of Combat Options. How do you want to see these handled? Do you want certain characters being naturally better or worse at them? Do you think everyone should able to contribute 100% both in and out of combat?

Yes, certain characters could be better or worse at them depending on the choices they have made, and more so, dependant on their roleplaying.
Out of combat situations should be dealt with through mostly roleplaying, with some skillchecks, spells or ability checks thrown in as apropriate.

This does not need to be balanced between characters, instead these situations should be left for the DM to adjust so that it fits just these characters and just these players.

10) Ease of DMing. Is 5E currently DM-friendly? Could it use some work? Is it easy to build encounters and reconcile character and monster actions?

I have been happily DMing wierd systems that were horribly designed so I am perhaps not the right person to tune the system for. I like tinkering with complex encounters, homebrewing and extensive world building. 5E is easy.

I would be interested to see some DM tools, such as monster construction rules, rules for adding classes to monsters and such, but I assume they will be added eventually.
1) Race Options. 
I would like minimally Human, Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling.  It would be nice if there are subraces (even humans ones).  I don't mind anything else but for me it's not necessary for me to be happy.  I do not want Eladrin.  I'd prefer them be a variation on elf.  

2) Classes. 
I would like minimally Fighter with simple option, Wizard with vancian option, Cleric mostly vancian, Rogue.  I don't mind others but only the above are necessary in my book.  I dislike the current fighter expertise dice as they are done but I think this is fixable with some houserules.  So not super worried if this is an isolated case.

3) Class Options. 
I'd like 1e multiclassing.  I'd like for elves to be able to work magic with armor.  I want healing to be magical.  I want mundane recovery to be much slower.  Practically I don't mind if there is a decent amount of magical healing.  I just don't want it handwaved.

4) Skills.
I like a long list.  I also like for each of the classes to get the same number of skill points.  If attributes adjust skill points then I think all attributes should adjust them.

5) Backgrounds and Specialties. 
I'm intrigued in the abstract.  I like Backgrounds probably more than Specialities.  But I do like some specialties so I'm open minded here.

6) Magic Items. 
No plus items at all.  Intelligent items with ego.  Powerful items (more 3e than 4e).

7) Combat. 
I like both ToTM and Grid.  The option for both is a good thing to me.  I see using mostly grid but ToTM might work in some instances.  

8) Spells. 
I like 5e so far.  I didn't like 4e's power curve much.  I also didn't like 4e rituals but I like 5e's approach.

9) Out of Combat Options. 
I don't think every class needs to be good in every situation.  But I do think it is better if classes are not one trick ponies.  They need to have some abilities outside of combat.

10) Ease of DMing. 
I'd like things to be easy. This probably isn't a deal breaker for me.  It's a nice to have.  I wouldn't want to break the game to make it easy though.

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

I wrote some thoughts a while back on my blog:
 http://community.wizards.com/the_jester/blog/2012/01/09/what_i_want_for_5e
 http://community.wizards.com/the_jester/blog/2012/06/28/5e:_must-have_modules

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

I am only going to respond to just one of your points here because I think I have a decend compromise for what is being demanded here and what people expect from classes like the rogue and fighter.

About Out of Combat options:
Essentially, I expect every character (not every class) to be able to contribute in each of the three pillars of the game: combat, exploration and interaction. However, I don't expect or want every class to be equally competent in each of the pillars... so long as they have something to contribute.
For instance, I expect the fighter to excel in the combat area while contributing less to the other two but still being able to pull the spotlight. The fighter (with combat minded specialty) could get twice or trice as many combat abilities as a character thought to suck at combat, lets say a rogue without sneak attack, yet the rogue could have one trick that definitely helps. Likewise, the fighter would get at least 3 skills and a special exploration or interaction trick from the background and perhaps another from the race. So long as they are not stuff that can easily be replaced by a spell or skill.
So ideally, when all the "tricks" each character has were to be separated in combat/exploration/interaction, each character would have to have at least one meaningful trick in each pillar, but not necesarily all characters have to be equalled in each pillar (just in the combination)
1) Race Options. What races do you feel they should include? What races do you not want included? What bonuses/penalties should exist for various races?


I would stick to what used to be standard core races: human, half-elf, elf, dwarf, halfling, gnome, half-orc. I like tieflings and dragonborn, but perhaps they can be based upon the setting that the races are in, such as similar races like warforged and kender.   

2) Classes. This is a big one. What classes do you feel they should include? What classes should be avoided?

Again, I would prefer the 2nd edition core classes, with some added in. Fighter, paladin, ranger, cleric, druid, mage/wizard, specialist, sorcerer, thief/rogue, bard, assassin would be optimal to me.
 
3) Class Options. Another big one. This would include individual class options as well as multiclassing.

2nd and 3.5 did the best job with what I felt were the essence of most of these classes, depending on which one discussing (there's not enough room here for me). As for multiclassing, I would probably go with the 3E/3.5 approach, as it was the least cumbersome.
 
4) Skills. Are the current ones too liitle or too much? Which ones do you want included? Which ones do you want removed or changed?

 
I am probably in the minority here, but I would like to see more crafting/knowledge-based skills that might be fun for RP and to round out the character. The skills in 4E were probably the most restrictive and limiting I dealt with in the game. 

5) Backgrounds and Specialties. Which ones catch your attention? Are they over- or under-powered? Do they really add to or take away from the game? Which ones would you want to see?

 
I really like the concept. I have said it elsewhere, but I feel as if they have the spirit of 2E kits, which I felt allowed for a lot of customization of the core classes. Beyond that, I would simply like to see the full list of backgrounds and specialities before passing full judgement as to whether or not they are powered correctly or whatnot.
 

6) Magic Items. Should they stick with +X items, or change things up a little? Should characters be as dependent on them? Which ones do you want to see included or left out?

Not really a fan of how magic items were worked in either 3.5 or 4E. I'm fine with some being simple +X items, but I would like to see the more interesting and abstract items from back in the 1/2E days, where the bonuses weren't tied to a specific type of item or whatnot. To me, 4E tried too hard to fix in rules a problem that is more of a DM style, in that they wanted to limit how many items one could have, while it really should have been the DMs choice. I also was never a fan of being able to purchase magic items; keep them interesting, customizable, and difficult to find.


7) Combat. Another big one. Do you like the gridless/miniless style of 5E? Do you think combat is resolved faster? Is the removal of certain options making combat boring? What would you change about how combat is handled?

So far it's an improvement on 4E. I felt that having all classes play into the constant use of powers slowed down the combat in my campaigns; it was like all classes had to search for their "spell" to use! I prefer minis, but I like that combat can be done with or without them, so that all styles are welcome.
  
8) Spells. Are they sufficient for the levels we have now? Are they overpowered or underpowered? Which ones do you look forward to seeing? Which ones do you hope never come back?

I really don't have an opinion about this right now, to be honest. I think the idea to have spellcasting work differently for wizards versus sorcerers is a cool idea, but I'm not sure this specific way is on the level yet. Perhaps with more play.

9) Out of Combat Options. How do you want to see these handled? Do you want certain characters being naturally better or worse at them? Do you think everyone should able to contribute 100% both in and out of combat?

 
I think that 2E & 3.5 did a pretty good job with non-combat options. A good mix of these styles would be great.
 
10) Ease of DMing. Is 5E currently DM-friendly? Could it use some work? Is it easy to build encounters and reconcile character and monster actions?

I wouldn't call it DM-friendly just yet, but it's getting there. As of now, the modularity that seems cool to me as a player seems downright unpleasant to me as a DM. However, so far it hasn't been too bad, since we have only received part of the rules.


One thing that I will add here, as to me this does have to do with DMing, is that I would like to see more campaign supplementing in 5E. I was highly disappointed in the campaign settings for 4E, not for the quality, but the lack of them. I know that some of you may believe that a few of the old settings overlapped, but I do believe that WotC can make it so that, even if they are similar, that the settings can be interesting and profitable. Because, to me, in the end the story's the thing. The rules can kick maximum butt, but without a good setting or story, it will still fall flat. I know my suggestions are many, but I would like to see Forgotten Realms, Mystara, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Eberron, Dark Sun, Planescape, and Birthright settings.  

Just roll some dice.

 

RADIO FREE BORDERLANDS:

Explore the new D&D podcast that is a celebration of all eras of the game! Discussing the loves, challenges, topics, ideas, and news of this great hobby in both a contemporary and historical view.

http://radiofreeborderlands.libsyn.com/


Really, this spot is one of my few outright dealbreakers. If DnDNext isn't at least DM Friendly as 4e was, I'm not buying it. Given what I've seen of 3.x, DMing it is a nightmare and I'm not touching it(froma  DM standpoint anyways, maybe as a player if I find the right group)



Yeah this issue is huge. I could honestly live with varying class structures and such, but I never want to ever have to go through the BS "Monsters are built as PCs" crap that 3E tried to jam down our throats.

Yup, same here. If DDN is not as easy to run as 4e there's nothing doing.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
Some are saying that if the playtest continues to do X, then they will probably not be playing it. Likewise, others see the inclusion (or removal) of X as an absolute good, and is one of the driving forces behind them playing 5E. This is extremely objective, as are most things related to "good" and "bad" in RPG rules.

Tell me about your perfect 5E. What elements do you want to ensure you will play and enjoy it? I'll break it down into elements for ease of reply. Please, please, please try to avoid bottoming this thread out as an edition-war. There is absolutely no reason to do that. Also, telling other posters that what they want is "wrong" is also highly unnecessary. There's no reason to do that.

1) Race Options. What races do you feel they should include? What races do you not want included? What bonuses/penalties should exist for various races?

2) Classes. This is a big one. What classes do you feel they should include? What classes should be avoided?

3) Class Options. Another big one. This would include individual class options as well as multiclassing.

4) Skills. Are the current ones too liitle or too much? Which ones do you want included? Which ones do you want removed or changed?

5) Backgrounds and Specialties. Which ones catch your attention? Are they over- or under-powered? Do they really add to or take away from the game? Which ones would you want to see?

6) Magic Items. Should they stick with +X items, or change things up a little? Should characters be as dependent on them? Which ones do you want to see included or left out?

7) Combat. Another big one. Do you like the gridless/miniless style of 5E? Do you think combat is resolved faster? Is the removal of certain options making combat boring? What would you change about how combat is handled?

8) Spells. Are they sufficient for the levels we have now? Are they overpowered or underpowered? Which ones do you look forward to seeing? Which ones do you hope never come back?

9) Out of Combat Options. How do you want to see these handled? Do you want certain characters being naturally better or worse at them? Do you think everyone should able to contribute 100% both in and out of combat?

10) Ease of DMing. Is 5E currently DM-friendly? Could it use some work? Is it easy to build encounters and reconcile character and monster actions?

That's it for now. Be honest!



I am much less worried about the wallpaper than I am about the foundation and frame. Right now half the foundation is poured concrete, half is cinder-block, and they are talking about bridging the gap with pilings plus attaching a mobile home on the back and pouring a slab for the entry hall and stairway. And perhaps throwing in some flying buttresses.

Of course there's NO REASON to think they can't make the whole thing hold together and be well-balanced.

"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
Yeah, well, I think that fight is already lost.
That is not dead which may eternal lie

1) Race Options. What races do you feel they should include? What races do you not want included? What bonuses/penalties should exist for various races?


Not a big deal.  It is a given that they will have more races than I think necessary.  Especially after a couple of years.  The races I would expect to see are Human, Dwarf, Elf, Halfling, and (Half)orc.  Beyond that - variety is good.  There is no reason for them to avoid any  race because if I don't like a race, I just don't use it.
Ability score bonuses are not necessary, but if used should offer more than one option for each race so that they don't push too strongly towards as single class (or too small a set of classes).  Other bonuses (like Weapon bonuses) should serve to encourage a cultural norm by making otherwise less attractive weapons more attractive. 

2) Classes. This is a big one. What classes do you feel they should include? What classes should be avoided?


Again  - they will probably have more classes than I feel necessary as well.  But the classes I want to see are:  Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Wizard, Sorcerer, Rogue, Cleric, Priest and Druid.   Note - some of these can be made into subclasses of a larger class - the distinguishng quiestion is:  Does each class have something unique and different about it that sets it apart from the other classes and changes how it plays.  For a Paladin to be worth making as a separate class, it needs to have something significant that a Fighter/ Cleric does not have; Likewise for the other classes.  There is no requirement to avoid any classes- as with races I can always ignore what I don't need. 

3) Class Options. Another big one. This would include individual class options as well as multiclassing. 


The major advance of the last thirty years is in character customization.  Although at times I think that this has gotten in the way of true characterization (some players tend to focus on mechanical distinctions for their characters and ignore personality distinctions) - there is no question but that it adds new dimensions to the game.  However, 3.x carried this to an extreme. 

The game should have feats - but needs to avoid the trap of having some feats be mechanically superior to others  -  the weaker 'concept' feats need to be made viable without sacrificing power.  Tbe 5N approach of making feats provide options rather than making the character stronger is a good start (even if a couple of feats violate this principle at present.) 

Multiclassing is desirable, and ideally offers two approaches:  One (modeled after either the 4E hybrid or the AD&D multiclass optionj) allows the character to advance simultaneously in two different classes.  The other would allow very limited multiclassing in the 3.x vein - but somehow avoid the problems injerent n the 3.x model (both the ability to accidentally create useless gimped characters and the abilty to game the system to create Uber characters - characters created with this approach should be comparable in strength to single class characters.

4) Skills. Are the current ones too liitle or too much? Which ones do you want included? Which ones do you want removed or changed?


The game should not have 'skills' as they were understood in the last two editions.  The problem with 'skills' is that they suggest to players that if they don't have the skill to do something, there isn't any point in trying.  And larger skill lists only reinforce this idea.  All players should feel as if they have a reasonable chance to succeed at any task and should be never be penalized for making the attempt (probably the single biggest flaw of the skill challenge idea from 4E).  The simplest way to accompish this is by having the ability score be the primary interaction between the players and the environment; failing that - by keeping DCs low throug capping the total trained + abiliity score bonus. 
 

5) Backgrounds and Specialties. Which ones catch your attention? Are they over- or under-powered? Do they really add to or take away from the game? Which ones would you want to see?


I like the idea of both backgrounds and specialities  They are in need of a lot of work - some (survivor, healer) more than others.    There are ways that others (necromancer) can be tweaked to give it a wider appeal.  And there are some missing gaps (a warlock dabber speciality, a sorcerer dabbler specialty). 



6) Magic Items. Should they stick with +X items, or change things up a little? Should characters be as dependent on them? Which ones do you want to see included or left out?


Players like items that make them better at what they do.  Such weapons are problematic under strict bounded accuracy - especially if they are going to be bounded in the range they are currently in.  Armor is the most problematic - plate armor with a +1 bonus to hit will often take a player from AC 19 (plate and shield) to AC 20 (Plate +1 and shield).  For a typical +4 bonus monster (the top half-dozen or so in the packet), this is a change from hitting on a 15 to hitting on a 16 - a 17% reduction in damage per round.   Against a far more common +2 attack bonus monster - this is a change from hitting on a 17 to hitting on an 18 - a 25% reduction in expected damage per round.  This is a huge bonus.  And the effect of a +2 or +3 bonus would be ludicrous.  For this reason, I think that the game should not have armor that grants a bonus to AC.   I think that magical armor should offer other bonuses - perhaps even includeing small damage reduction instead.

For magical weapons this is less of an issue - at least in part because the numbers are at the other end of the die.  For a character who hits on an 8 (the typical fighter against the typical creature in the Bestiary) the improvement is from 65% chance to hit to 70% chance to hit - an 8% increase in the chance to hit; when you consider the additonal increase in damage (roughly another 8%) you are looking at around a 16% total increase.  With a +2 weapon, this goes up to a roughly 33% net increase.  But to me, increasing the players attack bonus is less problematic than increasing their damage bonus - because doing more damage makes the game more fun, while making the player near invulnerable makes the game (non-obviously/ unintuitively) less fun by taking the risk and danger out of the game.  
The ideal magic items would be ones which have magical effects that are not strictly mathematical - although the nostalgic appeal of the mathematical bonuses is hard to deny. 




7) Combat. Another big one. Do you like the gridless/miniless style of 5E? Do you think combat is resolved faster? Is the removal of certain options making combat boring? What would you change about how combat is handled?


Faster combat is better.  I like the faster resolution of 5N.  At the same time, old habits die hard - and I have at least one player who appears to really misses the tactical depth of 4e.  I have resolved some fights as quick, purely theater of the mind combats (usually quick combats, often ambushes by the PCs or quick battles by PCs who are separated from the rest of the group), I have resoved some with miniatures on a sketch of the area but no grid (my preferred approach) and several using full grid-based combat.   They all have their advantages and I like the fact that all are supported.  One consideration is how many combatants are in the fight.

On the other hand - I can tell that one of my players is not as engaged during 5N games as he was during 4E games - and although he's not particularly communicative I believe, based on conversations over the years, that he really misses the tactical depth of 4E (for example when we switched from 3.x to 4E that was one of the things he liked about the switch).  It probably doesn't help that he plays the fighter in 5N either (although if I can some up with a fighter that satisfies him, I'll take that as evidence that we have arrived at a decent fighter implementaton). 


8) Spells. Are they sufficient for the levels we have now? Are they overpowered or underpowered? Which ones do you look forward to seeing? Which ones do you hope never come back?


We obviously need more spells.  We also need to take a look at them and stop the trend of turning all spells into damage dealing spells.  Ray of Frost was a problem because it didn't allow the use of an action to end its effect - it didn't need to be made into a damage spell.  Stinking cloud is classically an area controller spell - it should not be doing damage at all. 
The hit point caps are currently problematic.   The problem is that there are, essentially, three different hp scales:  There is the monter's hit point scale, there is the low Con PC scale and then there is the hgh Con PC scale.  Any spell designed to fit one of these scales will affect creatures on the other scales out of all proportion to their level.  It just doesn't work as intended.  For starters - they should return to no ConMod on hit points; high Con characters shouldn't outpace the lower Con characters to the extreme which they do. 
The hit point caps were also initially introduced as a way to balance 'encounter ending' spells - save or suck spells.  The logic was that these spells might not be very effective at first encounter, but would provide for a way to model them being weakenedd and eventually succumbing to such spells.  This idea appears to have been chucked by the wayside and the weakest part of it retained - the hp cap.
As for spells being OP or UP - they are both.  Some currently fall into each category.  Some (counterspell) should either be a cantrip or not a spell at all (change it to a class abiity).  But until the monsters are viable, there isn't too much point in trying to narrow down precise balance.  I do, however, think a stricter mathematical approach that considers spell shape (and its effect on expected number of targets) to estimate a total expected damage value for each spell can and should be taken into consideration when balancing the spells - the spells of a level ought to be within 10% or so of each other (with some adjustment for non-damage effects) and the increase from level to level should be mathematically tied to the level itself.

9) Out of Combat Options. How do you want to see these handled? Do you want certain characters being naturally better or worse at them? Do you think everyone should able to contribute 100% both in and out of combat?


Of course eveyone should be able to contribute in both cases.  However - the single most significant way of making this happen has already been covered: the use of ability scores rather than skills as the interface between the characters and the environment.    This does not, however, mean that the contribution of each character has to be equal in each encounter.  And, to some degree, this is up to the player.  Player inventiveness is something which needs to be encouraged. 

10) Ease of DMing. Is 5E currently DM-friendly? Could it use some work? Is it easy to build encounters and reconcile character and monster actions?


5E is more DM friendly than the last couple of editions.  Bounded accuracy (loose or strict) makes designing monsters easier.  the use of ability scores to mediate interactions makes it easier to set DCs and place challenges (you don't need to stop and ask "does someone have this skill? - everyone has ability scores and the odds are in a typical group someone will have at leaslt a decent modifier with each ability score).  The faster combats make it easier to focus on the narrative linking the adventures together and allows the players to get more done in a session.

That's it for now. Be honest!


Why would anyone be anything but?  Somehow I don't see anyone on these forums as likely to 'hold back.'


And finally - a question you didn't ask, but one I think is worth asking:

11)  What one change would you like to see, but which you are confident they will never change:

I would like to see the abilty score bonus progression flattened so that you get a +1 for every three points of ability score:  11-13 +1, 14-16 +2, 17-19 +3, 20+ +4.  This is a small change - but it percolates throughout the entire system to reduce number inflation in many ares.  The players do less damage, the players have lower AC (two areas where the combat numbers are flawed).   The racial and class bonuses become less significant.  The importance of lucky die rolls in character creation is reduced.  Etc.


Carl
1. Race Options.
I want every PC playable race and racial option ever written in a D&D book or magazine, ever.  Let the DM decide which ones to allow in his game, but do not discriminate within the PHB.

2 and 3.  Classes/Class options.
I have to combine these because I want classless and levelless D&D badly.  I'd rather have a point buy system, with point buys for the class options/systems of every class ever printed.  While it requires system mastery (which seems like a 4 letter word for some people), it allows everyone to play the character they want.  I'd also want prestige options to be bought with post character creation points (experience that can be given at the rate the DM desires), with appropriate prerequisites.

4. Skills.
The more the merrier.  3.X Ed seems to have the most, so I'd look to that as a template.

5. Backgrounds & Specialties.
I wouldn't have them at all.  Let people buy Skills and Feats, and don't pigeonhole them into premade options.  This is D&D, not a beginner's Red Book.

6. Magic Items.
In general, I'd give magic items a power players could use x times per "adventure", the term being determined by the DM generally as every x Encounters at his discretion.  This lets the DM balance the items to his game.  I'm not a big fan of +x powers on items, as they lead to stat bloat IMO.

7. Combat.
I prefer gridless combat.  Coming from an acting and LARP background in addition to table top, I am much more interested in theme and roleplaying than minis and gridded maps.

8. Spells.
I'd like to see separate spell sets for the different casting methods.  Inherent and Trained casters (Arcane, Divine or Psionic) would literally not be choosing from the same spell list, and there would be no overlap.  The 5E style Warlock would be neither Arcane nor Divine, instead having a completely alien power source.  I'd also like to see as many spells as could be added and balanced in the PHB.

9. Out of Combat Options.
I want to see Combat and Out of Combat Options brought together.  There is no real difference in life, why should there be in D&D?  Parlay in the middle of combat or taking out your warhammer to smash down a door, the system should provide a seamless transition into and out of these kinds of options at the drop of a hat.

10. Ease of DMing.
While my system seems complex, the vast majority of the complexity is placed upon the player.  The DM has the freedom to make and do whatever he wants.  Base power level of players and monsters can be tailored to fit the game "he" wants to run.  By removing many of the conventions we currently use, he is freed from the constraints those conventions once placed upon him.

I know I didn't answer many of the questions in a 5E specific manner.  That is because my "Pefect 5E" is too radically different from the current playtest to do so in a meaningful manner.

1) Race Options. What races do you feel they should include? What races do you not want included? What bonuses/penalties should exist for various races?


For the phb I think it's better to keep the selection small but well defined. If, for example, they kept it to human, elf, gnome, dwarf, hafling (essentially the traditional races) but spent a lot of time telling us what they were like, I'd be happy. If they can include more then great but I don't want that to come at the expense of any details about them.


Looking at the system as it is, I think that probably the half- races that usually stick to humans might best be implemented as subraces of humans.


2) Classes. This is a big one. What classes do you feel they should include? What classes should be avoided?


I liked having more than the basic four in the phb. I like the point mentioned earlier about classes that don't really provide more than a flavouring of one of the basic four being in there, but the ranger and paladin are sort of time honoured traditions of the game and could be made to be unique. I'd like to see them. I've always liked monks but I've always questioned why they were in the player's handbook.


To be honest I think their time would be better spent making a few classes really unique instead of giving us a lot of classes that worked similarly. By similarly I mean mechanics-wise, but the flavour is important as well. If that meant they left the paladin, ranger and bard as class options then I could live with that.


3) Class Options. Another big one. This would include individual class options as well as multiclassing.


The number of individual class options I'd like to see is heavily dependent on how much flavour the base classes have. Something with a ton of juicy rp-exploitable bits probably doesn't need a whole lot to flavour it, but on the other extreme the traditional D&D fighter (the 5e one's got more soul than what you traditionally expect) probably could do with some options under its umbrella. I'd like to see specialist wizards.


Multiclassing... I've talked about this a lot but my basic standard on that is I need to be free to multi what I want, when I want. If that creates irregularities where some combos are better than others then I'm happy with that. For me, D&D is all about empowering the gaming groups to create their own game from it and that means sometimes as a designer you need to pull your hands away from the balancing act and let the players do it. The designer's primary function in this is to hand us a framework we can then make our own.


4) Skills. Are the current ones too liitle or too much? Which ones do you want included? Which ones do you want removed or changed?


I actually quite like the skills we've got in 5e. There are some redundancies but all the variations of lore is helpful for newer players. Skills that act as umbrellas for a lot of subcategories tend to be really vague and when I do teach people how to play they often come back to me with questions about the difference between knowledge: religion and knowledge: nature so having seperate text boxes for each is good. Advanced players are, well, advanced and know what to skip.


5) Backgrounds and Specialties. Which ones catch your attention? Are they over- or under-powered? Do they really add to or take away from the game? Which ones would you want to see?


Love 'em. Give me more, but don't give me 4 archery specialties or 2 priest backgrounds. What I like about what I see now is it doesn't clutter stuff up by slitting hairs. If there honestly isn't a concept that needs to be distinct, then don't write it. Write me a swappable option to an existing bundle if there's something that could reflavour and push a character in a new direction.


6) Magic Items. Should they stick with +X items, or change things up a little? Should characters be as dependent on them? Which ones do you want to see included or left out?


+X is another big signiture D&D thing... I like 'em but I understand the silliness about them. Maybe make +X be tied to character level? Like you find a sexy sword that gives a bonus (unsexy swords do not give bonuses) and that specific numerical value depends on character level. Have the sexy sword offer anything within a range so forces of obsolescence still work. I like that magic items don't always stick with the character forever, but having some option to augment existing items is cool too.


7) Combat. Another big one. Do you like the gridless/miniless style of 5E? Do you think combat is resolved faster? Is the removal of certain options making combat boring? What would you change about how combat is handled?


I've never liked minis. I like hand drawing maps as we go but not on grids. I think it's important to let folks use minis if they want but please keep the main body of combat gridless.


8) Spells. Are they sufficient for the levels we have now? Are they overpowered or underpowered? Which ones do you look forward to seeing? Which ones do you hope never come back?


I like the spells in general but I do wonder how the scaling is going to work. For example is a fireball really going to be doomed to do 5d6 forever? I liked that spell damage scaled with your caster level.


9) Out of Combat Options. How do you want to see these handled? Do you want certain characters being naturally better or worse at them? Do you think everyone should able to contribute 100% both in and out of combat?


Tricky one. I'd like all characters to be good at some things out of combat and every player should have the option to do stuff out of combat. Because of the way classes key off attributes differently, there will be some that are going to be better than others and I don't mind that but it does suck when you're doing a social chapter and most of the group stands at the back waiting for something to kill.


A character's effectiveness out of combat should in no way impact their combat effectiveness.



10) Ease of DMing. Is 5E currently DM-friendly? Could it use some work? Is it easy to build encounters and reconcile character and monster actions?



I'm finding DMing very simple with the 5e rules. Monsters are clear, characters are quickly and easily sussed out (partly 'cause of the sheer lack of information but the way they're organised should keep it clear for a while). I used their adventure for a bit but I didn't like how it was laid out so I just started making stuff up with their writings as a springboard and things were very smooth. With my 3e DMing I don't tend to use the monster stats at all; I make up stats as I go and use the monster manual to inform me about things like appearance and ecology. This is much easier. I'd like more information about the individual monsters. I'd love it if they went back to the 2e monsterous manual format.

1) Race Options. What races do you feel they should include? What races do you not want included? What bonuses/penalties should exist for various races?
Inclusion/exclusion: All the races, though the Half-breeds seem limiting, maybe hybrids would be a better idea, fey up some humans, cvilise some elves or orcs, or unleash the beast in man; they can adapt to one another without needing to breed.
Bonus/Penalty: Whitewashing an entire race of individuals into the same pigeon-hole feels, well, rasist. Why not have them as individuals within the species with conformists, rebels and everyday citizens being equally represented.
ie A Typical Dwarf is tough, wise and gruff; a Normal Dwarf is sometimes wise, sometimes hardy, and the Rebel has a bigger personality than their beard.

2) Classes. This is a big one. What classes do you feel they should include? What classes should be avoided?
The word was all 10 of the PH1 classes would make an appearance. Looking at the list I could see each of them have their own character even, with plenty of room for interpritation. 4e's role + source mechanic gave us the hint of 4 jobs x 5 flavours, WotC even rebranded a few of the combos, some were good, some were like New Coke. Basically have enough classes to full most of the combo archetypes, but please don't get stuck on the same combo too often although some repeats are fun for flavours sake. 
ie Wizard/Sorcerror/Warlock = Learned/Innate/Shortcut path to Power.

3) Class Options. Another big one. This would include individual class options as well as multiclassing.
At this stage lacking. Or front loaded. All the options at the start and then none forever more? So much for character development.

4) Skills. Are the current ones too little or too much? Which ones do you want included? Which ones do you want removed or changed?
Even more front-loaded. And often so few related to the character's main profession. Skills could be more abstract, with areas and levels of mastery being more developed, with the tools for development being delievered as characters deploy them.

5) Backgrounds and Specialties. Which ones catch your attention? Are they over- or under-powered? Do they really add to or take away from the game? Which ones would you want to see?
Gear being a method of delivering starting gear is neat, especially for the "sub-job" backgrounds. Handing players "toolkits" for their characters is good, locking in skill choices is bad.
Specialities are restricting, but some of the options provided are very good. Herbalism is great to the point where it might be essential (ie no party Cleric), the multi-attack options of Rapid Shot and Two-weapon Fighting provide the same benefits of multi-target and crit-fishing, Defender is needlessly tied to an item, Arcane Dabbler and Iniate of the Faith demonstrate that feats are equal to about half a class feature.
So basically they're very nice railroads.

6) Magic Items. Should they stick with +X items, or change things up a little? Should characters be as dependent on them? Which ones do you want to see included or left out?
With Bounded Accuarcy making bonuses less common but more valuable, magic items gain more presence in the game. Which hopefully means more magic effects with less math to worry about.

7) Combat. Another big one. Do you like the gridless/miniless style of 5E? Do you think combat is resolved faster? Is the removal of certain options making combat boring? What would you change about how combat is handled?
Theater of the Mind is a great starting point for the action of combat. Grids and Minis are meant to aid in this, not detrack. Relational positioning could be a good mid-way point from pure TotM, to the use of restrictive griding.
Actions in combat are easier to resolve without the economy being worried about, although more empathisis on the REaction would be nice.

8) Spells. Are they sufficient for the levels we have now? Are they overpowered or underpowered? Which ones do you look forward to seeing? Which ones do you hope never come back?
The problem with the spells isn't that they're over or underpowered, but that they or rather the levels of effect their are unbounded. Aside from the simple prerequisite of what slot they go in, the effect of a spell is unrelated to the character employing it, unrelated to the target recieving it, unrelated to the level of the spell itself (and if higher level slots can have more power, why not power-up lower level spells with bigger slots?) .
Spells are so randum.

9) Out of Combat Options. How do you want to see these handled? Do you want certain characters being naturally better or worse at them? Do you think everyone should able to contribute 100% both in and out of combat?
"Who's got Diplomacy?" Skills working like pass-keys is crap. I'd rather the players query what their character could know or do, formulate a plan of attack, and then resolve and reward with skills. (ie skills get determined through use)
Then I'd be able to have the options to the players with plenty of familar challenges, interesting problems and the occasional unexpected twist to draw more out of the players, rather than it hinging on who's got the right character.

10) Ease of DMing. Is 5E currently DM-friendly? Could it use some work? Is it easy to build encounters and reconcile character and monster actions?
If I wanted to build a grinding treadmill with only scene changes. DM options should give me things to throw at the party based on what they're getting themselves into. Do monsters wander in this forest? How far is their range? Can we avoid them? Negociate? Trap? These are the questions players ask which DMs need options for.
Not cataloguges and tables. CHARACTER. Otherwise it doesn't feel like anything.

http://collectingrealities.blogspot.co.nz/
Before I dive in on the questions, I'm making the assumption that you're defining "include" as "core + a lot of the options that will be added in later books." So read my responses in that light, please.

1) Race Options. What races do you feel they should include? What races do you not want included? What bonuses/penalties should exist for various races? Include: Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Gnome, Centaur, Lizardfolk. Not inlcuded: well, I don't think anything reasonable should be excluded (though I really don't like half-orcs as PCs), but I had a problem with the Dragonborn being a core race when its existence was essentially tied to a setting. The base game shouldn't have anything that's really exclusive to a particular setting. So put the setting-dependent races in the setting book.

2) Classes. This is a big one. What classes do you feel they should include? What classes should be avoided? Having started with 1e, I like the "Class" and "Subclass" idea: Fighter (Archer, Ranger, Paladin, Cavalier, etc.), Cleric (Priest, Templar, Druid, Shaman, etc.), Mage (Wizard, Sorc, Warlock, Witch, etc.), Rogue (Thief, Spy, Assassin, Acrobat, etc.). I tend to think in broad categories with specific classes within the categories. I can't think of any classes that should be avoided. If someone wants to play it, give him the building blocks to make it.

3) Class Options. Another big one. This would include individual class options as well as multiclassing. Fighters should be able to specialise in a type of combat, whether sword-and-board, or unarmed, or archery, or whatever. Broadening that to the other classes shouldn't be too hard. Multiclassing: YES! So many of our group's PCs just cannot be built without multiclassing (NOT 1e's dual class). All the editions to date had their good points and bad points in implementing multiclassing: 1e - good = being able to multiclass at 1st level, bad = stat requirements. 3e - good = being able to add classes as one progresses, bad = too much added to the character when taking the 1st level in a new class. 4e - good = hybrid, where there was an effort to blend the classes, bad = multiclassing feat where you burnt a feat to add a small trickle of some other class's capability. To my mind, a multiclass PC should include capabilities of the second (or third) class, but not end up throwing everything possible into the mix. That's where frontloading was a problem and where 5e's "if this is your first class" will help a lot.

4) Skills. Are the current ones too liitle or too much? Which ones do you want included? Which ones do you want removed or changed? Both too little and too much. The number of skills on the list is about right. BUT -- too many Lore skills, and not enough variety otherwise. Some should be combined into a single skill (like Listen and Spot, or Hide and Silent) to make room for some others that could be added.

5) Backgrounds and Specialties. Which ones catch your attention? Are they over- or under-powered? Do they really add to or take away from the game? Which ones would you want to see? I like these, especially if we can create our own. For someone who wants to play (for example) a fighter, but doesn't have much more of a character concept than that, the Backgrounds and Specialities can give him some ideas to work with. Right now, the Specialities are just a list of pre-selected Feats, but no other perks beyond that. The Backgrounds, on the other hand, give a trait and some starting gear. I'd like to see the Specialities also include something besides Feats, like Backgrounds do.

6) Magic Items. Should they stick with +X items, or change things up a little? Should characters be as dependent on them? Which ones do you want to see included or left out? NOT stick with +X items. Magic weapons and armour should be special -- give special attacks or special defences, but not necessarily adds to attack or AC. In my campaign I'm going to completely change how wands, staffs, and rods work. They will no longer be spell batteries, but implements that focus magic and add something special to it, like a Wand of Fire won't cast fireballs, but will instead make it fire damage when a spell is cast through it. (So a MM will do fire instead of force, and maybe a + to damage.) Characters should NOT be dependent on them. That's one concept I like from 4e -- that a PC is not defined by his gear, but by his personal abilities.

7) Combat. Another big one. Do you like the gridless/miniless style of 5E? Do you think combat is resolved faster? Is the removal of certain options making combat boring? What would you change about how combat is handled? I like the combat as it is. Even in 1e we used minis because, as we're all familiar with melee combat ourselves, it's much easier for us to call actions when we can visualise the battlefield. So the gridless is neither good nor bad except that it's good for those who don't want to use a grid. It's easy enough for us who like minis to lay down a battlemat or map. Combat resolved faster? Faster than what? We still play a 2e-based campaign, and this runs just about the same, which is just fine with us. I'm not sure what options were removed, but we didn't find it boring. We found combat in our 4e trial to be boring. However, I AM considering how to use the 1e/2e initiative method in 5e. That would be about the only change.

8) Spells. Are they sufficient for the levels we have now? Are they overpowered or underpowered? Which ones do you look forward to seeing? Which ones do you hope never come back? Hard to tell, really, with only 5 levels of PC to work with. It seems to be working all right, but I'll reserve comment on this question until we have more to evaluate.

9) Out of Combat Options. How do you want to see these handled? Do you want certain characters being naturally better or worse at them? Do you think everyone should able to contribute 100% both in and out of combat? I don't think and never have thought that everyone should be able to do everything. We had one player who fussed when she couldn't fight as well as the fighter, cast as well as the mage, heal as well as the cleric, and sneak as well as the rogue. She played a druid. Yeah, she didn't last long in the group. I love having a well-defined speciality, whether it's fighter, mage, etc. I like to be super-good at a few things rather than a mediocre jack of all trades who can do a lot, but not very well. The fighter is the king of the battlefield. The mage can be king of utilities, of illusions, of battle magic (because the spell-switching lends itself to such versatility), but I usually have a mage that specialises in something and doesn't use but 1/3 of his spellbook. A rogue can sneak through a dungeon and disarm traps like no fighter could dream of, and the fighter shouldn't expect to be as good at it. Nor could either the rogue or the fighter put up a magical house in the wilderness for the group to sleep in at night. Each class has its thing to do, and since our campaigns aren't combat after combat after combat and nothing else, we don't mind at all that not all classes are super-effective on the battlefield. Sure, everyone can contribute, but like the player I mentioned above, they all have their weaknesses, too.

10) Ease of DMing. Is 5E currently DM-friendly? Could it use some work? Is it easy to build encounters and reconcile character and monster actions? I haven't tried building encounters and adventures yet. We've used the supplied adventures since we want to get the feel of the system first. Since our DMs (three of us out of ten players) are all quite experienced, DMing 5e isn't difficult at all. It's very similar to what we've been working with all along.

In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.

Here is my take on this question. I did not like 4th ed at all. I found that the game was all based around combat and not roleplaying. I think that:

1) Race Options. What races do you feel they should include? What races do you not want included? What bonuses/penalties should exist for various races? I think that the classic races should be in it with additional books introducing new races.

2) Classes. This is a big one. What classes do you feel they should include? What classes should be avoided? Again, I think the classic should be there. I see that a class named Warlock is now in the playtesting and this makes me think of World of Warcraft...not a good thing. I have been playing since 83 and things should stay simple and classic in feel. Additional classes can be introduced as it has been, in additional books and such like dragon magazine.

3) Class Options. Another big one. This would include individual class options as well as multiclassing. I think giving players as many options as possible. Each player's character should not be a carbon copy of the one before but a unique toon.  Multiclass should be allowed due to it has always been around. The rules for multiclassing should be simple and not complicated to figure out.

4) Skills. Are the current ones too liitle or too much? Which ones do you want included? Which ones do you want removed or changed? I really enjoyed the skill list from 3ed ed. It was complete for the most part but I feel there should be more streamlined to keep down redundancy.

5) Backgrounds and Specialties. Which ones catch your attention? Are they over- or under-powered? Do they really add to or take away from the game? Which ones would you want to see? I love to see this option in a book where you can select a background and get this advantage but also include a disadvantage with it so it will be balanced out. There should be specialties for each class but I feel that they should be held off for a few levels so a player can flesh out their character a bit before they become a major player in a small pond.

6) Magic Items. Should they stick with +X items, or change things up a little? Should characters be as dependent on them? Which ones do you want to see included or left out? I feel that +X items should be apart of the game but there should also be a section put in to help DM make unique +X items. I think back to AD&D and the Dungeon Master Guide with all the cool weapons and how it was arranged. You had the Artifacts and Wonderous Items and there was a section on how to make some for your own game. This I felt then and now was a great thing.

7) Combat. Another big one. Do you like the gridless/miniless style of 5E? Do you think combat is resolved faster? Is the removal of certain options making combat boring? What would you change about how combat is handled? I have played both way with my games. I feel that using a grid map is great for some situations like in a big fight but when it is a party of say 6 heroes taking on 4 orcs, no way. I feel that combat should have good options that you can do, like going up to an orc, picking him up and throwing him off the cliff instead of pulling out my sword and trading hits like the old boxing game where two people sit on either side and pulls a trigger to make the boxer punch and hope that you last longer then the one on the other side. In my game I use armor points and give each weapon a +/- mod to do damage to a specific armor. Makes combat more realistic.

7) Combat. Another big one. Do you like the gridless/miniless style of 5E? Do you think combat is resolved faster? Is the removal of certain options making combat boring? What would you change about how combat is handled? Spells seem to be going okay. I really enjoy having V,S, and M in a description for a spell and to know what they are.

9) Out of Combat Options. How do you want to see these handled? Do you want certain characters being naturally better or worse at them? Do you think everyone should able to contribute 100% both in and out of combat? I have to agree with SteeleButterfly on this one. If everyone could sit there and cast magic missiles at an advancing party of orcs while wearing armor and such, what is the point of having a mage in the party that is specialized in doing just that.  I wouldn't want to see a fighter who just got done with a big battle, walking around healing people unless they were a pally.

10) Ease of DMing. Is 5E currently DM-friendly? Could it use some work? Is it easy to build encounters and reconcile character and monster actions? I haven't DM this ed yet but by looking at the content it seems pretty easy.

The one thing I didn't like with 3ed and 4th ed was the AC. I still feel that AD&D had it down right with 10 to -10, -10 being the best. You don't get outrages AC's like 65 82 or so.
Some are saying that if the playtest continues to do X, then they will probably not be playing it. Likewise, others see the inclusion (or removal) of X as an absolute good, and is one of the driving forces behind them playing 5E. This is extremely objective, as are most things related to "good" and "bad" in RPG rules.

Tell me about your perfect 5E. What elements do you want to ensure you will play and enjoy it? I'll break it down into elements for ease of reply. Please, please, please try to avoid bottoming this thread out as an edition-war. There is absolutely no reason to do that. Also, telling other posters that what they want is "wrong" is also highly unnecessary. There's no reason to do that.

1) Race Options. What races do you feel they should include? What races do you not want included? What bonuses/penalties should exist for various races?

2) Classes. This is a big one. What classes do you feel they should include? What classes should be avoided?

3) Class Options. Another big one. This would include individual class options as well as multiclassing.

4) Skills. Are the current ones too liitle or too much? Which ones do you want included? Which ones do you want removed or changed?

5) Backgrounds and Specialties. Which ones catch your attention? Are they over- or under-powered? Do they really add to or take away from the game? Which ones would you want to see?

6) Magic Items. Should they stick with +X items, or change things up a little? Should characters be as dependent on them? Which ones do you want to see included or left out?

7) Combat. Another big one. Do you like the gridless/miniless style of 5E? Do you think combat is resolved faster? Is the removal of certain options making combat boring? What would you change about how combat is handled?

8) Spells. Are they sufficient for the levels we have now? Are they overpowered or underpowered? Which ones do you look forward to seeing? Which ones do you hope never come back?

9) Out of Combat Options. How do you want to see these handled? Do you want certain characters being naturally better or worse at them? Do you think everyone should able to contribute 100% both in and out of combat?

10) Ease of DMing. Is 5E currently DM-friendly? Could it use some work? Is it easy to build encounters and reconcile character and monster actions?

That's it for now. Be honest!

1) Race Options. What races do you feel they should include? What races do you not want included? What bonuses/penalties should exist for various races?

Dwarf, Elf, Gnome, Halfling, Half-Elf, Half-Orc, Human
Chameleon and Shifters from Eberron would be nice.



2) Classes. This is a big one. What classes do you feel they should include? What classes should be avoided?

Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, Rogue, Bard, Druid, Cleric, Wizard.
Sorcerer and Warlocks are okay.

I would like Druids to be altered to not be tree hugging hippies but true priests of a celtic like religion.  Same with Bard.  But I have low hopes for this and can live with out it.

3) Class Options. Another big one. This would include individual class options as well as multiclassing.

I don't like multiclassing.  I prefer hybrid classes if any.

4) Skills. Are the current ones too liitle or too much? Which ones do you want included? Which ones do you want removed or changed?

I see no reason for a skill point system.  Most skills run off an opposed roll so that it is stupid to have a skill that you are not maxed out with.

I liked knowledge skills, but the DC should not be set against critter HD.  It should be against common, uncommon, rare, very rare, etc.
Just because a monster has alot of HD or a high CR does not mean that little is known about it.

5) Backgrounds and Specialties. Which ones catch your attention? Are they over- or under-powered? Do they really add to or take away from the game? Which ones would you want to see?

I am watching you Backgrounds and Specialties.

6) Magic Items. Should they stick with +X items, or change things up a little? Should characters be as dependent on them? Which ones do you want to see included or left out?

No +X items please.

7) Combat. Another big one. Do you like the gridless/miniless style of 5E? Do you think combat is resolved faster? Is the removal of certain options making combat boring? What would you change about how combat is handled?

I would like to see rules without miniatures.

8) Spells. Are they sufficient for the levels we have now? Are they overpowered or underpowered? Which ones do you look forward to seeing? Which ones do you hope never come back?

I am so happy to see a return to the gygaxian magic system for the wizard class.  Do whatever you want with the Sorcerer and Warlock to make that crowd happy but leave me good old fashion spell slot gygaxian wizard.  I do like zero level spells.  Not sure if the damage is appropriate for spells yet because that depends on the power of the monsters.

9) Out of Combat Options. How do you want to see these handled? Do you want certain characters being naturally better or worse at them? Do you think everyone should able to contribute 100% both in and out of combat?

I don't like everything being a check.  I want good dialog and discourse above anything else.

10) Ease of DMing. Is 5E currently DM-friendly? Could it use some work? Is it easy to build encounters and reconcile character and monster actions?

I won't know how hard it is to build encounters until levels 13 and higher.  I am always looking for cleaver ways to use traps.

1) Race Options. What races do you feel they should include? What races do you not want included? What bonuses/penalties should exist for various races?


All the races from all the previous editions. They don't all necessarily have to be in the PHB1, but if that is the case I would like to see books including those races sooner then later.


Don't really care much for racial bonuses/penalties. If the exist I prefer they be as minimal as possible.


2) Classes. This is a big one. What classes do you feel they should include? What classes should be avoided?


In order of importance: Fighter, Rogue, Warlord, Assassin, Bard, Paladin, Sorcerer, Warlock, Ranger, Cleric, Wizard and Druid.


There isn't any class I would like to avoid. The more the merrier.


3) Class Options. Another big one. This would include individual class options as well as multiclassing.


I just want to see a equal distribution of the various class options. I also don't want any of the hybrid/multiclass options dwarfing the pure classes.


4) Skills. Are the current ones too liitle or too much? Which ones do you want included? Which ones do you want removed or changed?


I don't have much of a opinion on individual skills.


5) Backgrounds and Specialties. Which ones catch your attention? Are they over- or under-powered? Do they really add to or take away from the game? Which ones would you want to see?


I like the backgrounds and specialties so far. I find that help add to defining the characters, but as far as I can tell none of them seem extremely overpowered. It seems like one of those places that will be a future spot for abuse as WoTC starts publishing dragon articles and sell more books.


6) Magic Items. Should they stick with +X items, or change things up a little? Should characters be as dependent on them? Which ones do you want to see included or left out?


I'm fine with +X items as long as its removed as a bonus to attack roll. I'm fine with a +X to damage or critical damage.


I would leave out items remotely similar to 3e wands. Consumables used purely circumvent the downside of Vancian magic should not exist. If it isn't used to circumvent the flaws of Vancian magic then all classes should have access to it.


7) Combat. Another big one. Do you like the gridless/miniless style of 5E? Do you think combat is resolved faster? Is the removal of certain options making combat boring? What would you change about how combat is handled?


Every playtest of 5e I have done has had a grid and mini's so I guess its a non-issue. The speed of combat doesn't seem to have any connection to the grid or the mini's. I would like to see better defined flanking rules. Something like savage worlds “gang up” would work for both grid or gridless combat.


8) Spells. Are they sufficient for the levels we have now? Are they overpowered or underpowered? Which ones do you look forward to seeing? Which ones do you hope never come back?


Haven't played nor have any interest in 5e wizard and I haven't run a playtest with a wizard in the party so I don't know.


9) Out of Combat Options. How do you want to see these handled? Do you want certain characters being naturally better or worse at them? Do you think everyone should able to contribute 100% both in and out of combat?


I would like to see skills be something a player can choose to use in place of an ability check modifier. I'm fine with characters being better then others, but not really fine with someone being naturally better then someone with training. I think everyone should be able to contribute something. Classes might excel in one of those pillars should also be able to contribute to the other 2 pillars in some meaningful way.


10) Ease of DMing. Is 5E currently DM-friendly? Could it use some work? Is it easy to build encounters and reconcile character and monster actions?


I haven't been able to DM again since running my group using the first packet

Reality Refracted: Social Contracts

My blog of Random Stuff 

Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare." - Edmund Burke

Back to Product and General D&D Discussions -- because the mobile site is bad. (Fixed!)


Really, this spot is one of my few outright dealbreakers. If DnDNext isn't at least DM Friendly as 4e was, I'm not buying it. Given what I've seen of 3.x, DMing it is a nightmare and I'm not touching it(froma  DM standpoint anyways, maybe as a player if I find the right group)



Yeah this issue is huge. I could honestly live with varying class structures and such, but I never want to ever have to go through the BS "Monsters are built as PCs" crap that 3E tried to jam down our throats.

Yup, same here. If DDN is not as easy to run as 4e there's nothing doing.



Well on this particular point, I have heard and read them saying they will provide both a 4e approach and a 3e approach.   One is more template like and the other is adding class levels.   So you should be good on that front.  Just don't use the 3e option.   I will mostly use the 4e approach but I do feel those monsters with classes should have classes.

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

The whole "easy to DM" thing is very subjective.
Most folks would agree that 4E was "easy" to DM. That's almost a given across the board.
I, personally, think BECMI, 1E, and 2E were (are) easy to DM as well.  
I would say that they were no more complicated or difficult to DM than 4E is.
I skipped 3E/3.5 so I have no opinion on DMing those editions. 
Right now DDN has a very 2E feel to me, especially as the DM. I find it (as it stands right now) easier to DM than 4E. I have no doubt that once we get more options and higher levels of play that the difficulty will rise accordingly. How much it will rise is anybody's guess at this point.
The whole "easy to DM" thing is very subjective.
Most folks would agree that 4E was "easy" to DM. That's almost a given across the board.
I, personally, think BECMI, 1E, and 2E were (are) easy to DM as well.  
I would say that they were no more complicated or difficult to DM than 4E is.
I skipped 3E/3.5 so I have no opinion on DMing those editions. 
Right now DDN has a very 2E feel to me, especially as the DM. I find it (as it stands right now) easier to DM than 4E. I have no doubt that once we get more options and higher levels of play that the difficulty will rise accordingly. How much it will rise is anybody's guess at this point.



When you have a lot of experience it is hard to remember being new.  At least it's that way for me.  I don't really remember DMing being hard perse in any edition.  I do think that the online stuff of 4e really helped at constructing modules.   I think DM ease for me at least is not a super high priority.  I want it to help new DMs but I mean it's not for my game.  I can handle that part of it regardless of edition.

 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.


 Race Options. What races do you feel they should include? What races do you not want included? What bonuses/penalties should exist for various races?

I want all of the races from 1e and 2e but i might like more races included. I also want lots of subraces. 

2) Classes. This is a big one. What classes do you feel they should include? What classes should be avoided?

I want all of the classes from the previous editions.

3) Class Options. Another big one. This would include individual class options as well as multiclassing.

Please include multiclassing and a large variety of class options in 5e.

4) Skills. Are the current ones too liitle or too much? Which ones do you want included? Which ones do you want removed or changed?

I want more skills included in the game.

5) Backgrounds and Specialties. Which ones catch your attention? Are they over- or under-powered? Do they really add to or take away from the game? Which ones would you want to see?

They are great. let's see more of them.

6) Magic Items. Should they stick with +X items, or change things up a little? Should characters be as dependent on them? Which ones do you want to see included or left out?

+X items are okay. I love all of the items in the 3.5 SRD.

7) Combat. Another big one. Do you like the gridless/miniless style of 5E? Do you think combat is resolved faster? Is the removal of certain options making combat boring? What would you change about how combat is handled?

8) Spells. Are they sufficient for the levels we have now? Are they overpowered or underpowered? Which ones do you look forward to seeing? Which ones do you hope never come back?

I want ALL of the spells from all of the pre-4e editions to be included in D&D Next.

9) Out of Combat Options. How do you want to see these handled? Do you want certain characters being naturally better or worse at them? Do you think everyone should able to contribute 100% both in and out of combat?

Naturally everybody should  have a lot of out of combat options and be good at out-of-combat stuff.

10) Ease of DMing. Is 5E currently DM-friendly? Could it use some work? Is it easy to build encounters and reconcile character and monster actions?

I'm not sure about this one.



1) Race Options. What races do you feel they should include? What races do you not want included? What bonuses/penalties should exist for various races?

Basically how 5e is handling it.

2) Classes. This is a big one. What classes do you feel they should include? What classes should be avoided?

Also how 5e is handling it. There shouldn't be too many classes, but there should be lots of options for each. Paladins should be vengeful champions of any god, not heroic holy knights.

3) Class Options. Another big one. This would include individual class options as well as multiclassing.

3e-style multiclassing, lots of options within each class, Turn Undead as a spell. Clerics of different gods should feel almost like different classes.

4) Skills. Are the current ones too liitle or too much? Which ones do you want included? Which ones do you want removed or changed?

I want something simple with bounded accuracy.

5) Backgrounds and Specialties. Which ones catch your attention? Are they over- or under-powered? Do they really add to or take away from the game? Which ones would you want to see?

I like the way this is going. There should maybe more freedom in feat-choices, but other than that, I like it.

6) Magic Items. Should they stick with +X items, or change things up a little? Should characters be as dependent on them? Which ones do you want to see included or left out?

Characters should not be dependent on magic items, and they should be capped at +3.

7) Combat. Another big one. Do you like the gridless/miniless style of 5E? Do you think combat is resolved faster? Is the removal of certain options making combat boring? What would you change about how combat is handled?

I like the way 5e handles it.

8) Spells. Are they sufficient for the levels we have now? Are they overpowered or underpowered? Which ones do you look forward to seeing? Which ones do you hope never come back?

Its looking good.

9) Out of Combat Options. How do you want to see these handled? Do you want certain characters being naturally better or worse at them? Do you think everyone should able to contribute 100% both in and out of combat?

I think everyone should be doing something interesting and influential in combat, and everyone should be multiple effective options.

10) Ease of DMing. Is 5E currently DM-friendly? Could it use some work? Is it easy to build encounters and reconcile character and monster actions?

I think so. Perhaps easier 4e-style encounter building could be implemented. You are given an XP budget to spend.
My Twitter

Some are saying that if the playtest continues to do X, then they will probably not be playing it. Likewise, others see the inclusion (or removal) of X as an absolute good, and is one of the driving forces behind them playing 5E. This is extremely objective, as are most things related to "good" and "bad" in RPG rules.

Tell me about your perfect 5E. What elements do you want to ensure you will play and enjoy it? I'll break it down into elements for ease of reply. Please, please, please try to avoid bottoming this thread out as an edition-war. There is absolutely no reason to do that. Also, telling other posters that what they want is "wrong" is also highly unnecessary. There's no reason to do that.


Excellent questions and a great topic.

1) Race Options. What races do you feel they should include? What races do you not want included? What bonuses/penalties should exist for various races?


In the basic PHB I want Dwarf, Elf, Halfling, Human, Gnome. Half-elf, half-orc, half-ogre, and half-dragon (all 2nd style) would all be sub races of human giving mechanical and “real world” sub races to humans. They could add any other race they want and I would not have a huge problem with it, as long as they keep the race/ subrace standard for every race added.

2) Classes. This is a big one. What classes do you feel they should include? What classes should be avoided?



3) Class Options. Another big one. This would include individual class options as well as multiclassing.


I think both question 2 and 3 can be answered in my general thoughts for how they could do classes for next. I think in the basic phb they should only have fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric, monk, and psionicist. They should also include as many variations of these as possible and allow for multi classing ala 1e 2e with no racial restriction. They should have a stated blurb that lists which races classically do not use what class and which multi classes they typically use.


They should then release a series of hand books ala the 2nd complete series which bring in each specialty class, like paladin, ranger, druid, bard, barbarian etc.. These classes should have their own book and each book should delve fully into the class and have every spell available to that class, feat, background etc.. and all those should be restricted to that class only so that you don’t have the “which book is that from” syndrome. Each of those specialty classes should only be able to dual class ala 2nd  so that you don’t end up with huge power bloat characters. (my paladin, bard, psyonicist wants to sneak attack with holy force lightning bolts of doom)

4) Skills. Are the current ones too liitle or too much? Which ones do you want included? Which ones do you want removed or changed?


I like where they are with the concept, but they need to give out more skills to characters and they need to add more. Players look to skills as part of basic character design and use them to help flush out the backstory for characters. The skills need to be released and fully developed in the PHB and not added piece meal through multiple splat books.

5) Backgrounds and Specialties. Which ones catch your attention? Are they over- or under-powered? Do they really add to or take away from the game? Which ones would you want to see?


I do not like the lurker or magic-user as they currently are. Lurker is designed with metagame based skills that tell the DM what the player can do. I am not a fan of any ability that restricts DM presentation of events to players. Lurker has the “even if you see me you don’t see me” ability which is exactly what I did not like from 4th. There are better ways to give out abilities than to say you gain the “hidden” benefit even when you are not “hidden”. I also don’t think every spell using player should have a familiar. This can lead to a horde of “scouts” for the party which removes challenge from NPC tactics.

6) Magic Items. Should they stick with +X items, or change things up a little? Should characters be as dependent on them? Which ones do you want to see included or left out?

Leave the +x out. I also don’t like the term magic item. It makes ancient and powerfully crafted mystical weapons from a era long gone seem cheap. Every magical weapon and item should be more flavorful than just a generic +1. I would love to see these come back as true works of magic and relic style items with intelligent swords etc. But I don’t think we need basic and generic +x style items.



7) Combat. Another big one. Do you like the gridless/miniless style of 5E? Do you think combat is resolved faster? Is the removal of certain options making combat boring? What would you change about how combat is handled?


It is not gridless/ miniless. It can be played with a grid and minis quite easily but it does not need that to play. The focus of 4th on grid based combat was a weakness IMHO. It required too explicit of rules and it requires that rules work because they are the rule not because they fit the events that are happening in the game. Fighters mark was an example of this. It was so nonspecific that you had to create ways for it to function when it did not make any sense in the given situation. It has been argued multiple times and multiple ways but every time you explain why it works it has a flaw in a different situation presented. It relies on the rule of abstract as a game concept. While this works in simulation or miniature tactical games it can break immersion in rpg’s.


Combat is much faster that it was in 4th but this could just be the removal of two of the three types of actions that players had. You also have less HP bloat in NPC’s. Between the two of them it speeds combat considerably. I have no issue with adding more maneuvers provided they keep the single action per player to help keep combat moving.

8) Spells. Are they sufficient for the levels we have now? Are they overpowered or underpowered? Which ones do you look forward to seeing? Which ones do you hope never come back?

I do not think that they need to move all the spells to damage type. I did not like that change from the last packet to this one.



9) Out of Combat Options. How do you want to see these handled? Do you want certain characters being naturally better or worse at them? Do you think everyone should able to contribute 100% both in and out of combat?


Characters should be able to be designed to do whatever the player wants, but if a player does not make including non-combat in their character design that should keep them from participating in non-combat situations. If a player chooses to min/max a character to get as much combat power as they can and they do not choose non-combat skills and abilities that should keep them on the side lines when not in combat. Player choices should have effects.

10) Ease of DMing. Is 5E currently DM-friendly? Could it use some work? Is it easy to build encounters and reconcile character and monster actions?


I think it is in a good place to start.

That's it for now. Be honest!


I was.

DMG pg 263 "No matter what a rule's source, a rule serves you, not the other way around."
Here's what I want out of 5e:

1. Fun to play
2. Easy to DM
3. Balanced classes where everyone at the table feels valued
4. Fast and lightweight core rules, complexity must be optional (modular?)
5. Non-combat character features as important as combat ones
6. Gridless combat with a module for gridded combat 
7. Capture the "feel" of D&D (hard to explain, but if you've played a lot of D&D you know what I mean)

If the game can do all those things for me, I'll be happy. The details of how WotC gets there don't bother me too much as long as I get what I'm looking for.
Some are saying that if the playtest continues to do X, then they will probably not be playing it. Likewise, others see the inclusion (or removal) of X as an absolute good, and is one of the driving forces behind them playing 5E. This is extremely objective, as are most things related to "good" and "bad" in RPG rules.

Tell me about your perfect 5E. What elements do you want to ensure you will play and enjoy it? I'll break it down into elements for ease of reply. Please, please, please try to avoid bottoming this thread out as an edition-war. There is absolutely no reason to do that. Also, telling other posters that what they want is "wrong" is also highly unnecessary. There's no reason to do that.

1) Race Options. What races do you feel they should include? What races do you not want included? What bonuses/penalties should exist for various races?

2) Classes. This is a big one. What classes do you feel they should include? What classes should be avoided?

3) Class Options. Another big one. This would include individual class options as well as multiclassing.

4) Skills. Are the current ones too liitle or too much? Which ones do you want included? Which ones do you want removed or changed?

5) Backgrounds and Specialties. Which ones catch your attention? Are they over- or under-powered? Do they really add to or take away from the game? Which ones would you want to see?

6) Magic Items. Should they stick with +X items, or change things up a little? Should characters be as dependent on them? Which ones do you want to see included or left out?

7) Combat. Another big one. Do you like the gridless/miniless style of 5E? Do you think combat is resolved faster? Is the removal of certain options making combat boring? What would you change about how combat is handled?

8) Spells. Are they sufficient for the levels we have now? Are they overpowered or underpowered? Which ones do you look forward to seeing? Which ones do you hope never come back?

9) Out of Combat Options. How do you want to see these handled? Do you want certain characters being naturally better or worse at them? Do you think everyone should able to contribute 100% both in and out of combat?

10) Ease of DMing. Is 5E currently DM-friendly? Could it use some work? Is it easy to build encounters and reconcile character and monster actions?

That's it for now. Be honest!

First of all, I want to thank'you for the opportunity and offer praise for the very well-organised pool, I hope that the Higher ones will follow your exemple.

1) Race Options. What races do you feel they should include? What races do you not want included? What bonuses/penalties should exist for various races?

I need only humans and dwarves, and I can live with any other race, but I would like not to see weird races anymore thank'you

2) Classes. This is a big one. What classes do you feel they should include? What classes should be avoided?

I need 8 classes: monk, fighter, wizard, sorcerer, druid, cleric, rogue, psion, warlock.
I can live with or without any other class.

3) Class Options. Another big one. This would include individual class options as well as multiclassing.

I want different but balanced classes (in and out of combat), I never liked multiclassing.

4) Skills. Are the current ones too liitle or too much? Which ones do you want included? Which ones do you want removed or changed?

The more the better. Maybe a bit less lore skills and more physical skills (athletic, acrobatic, endurance...)

5) Backgrounds and Specialties. Which ones catch your attention? Are they over- or under-powered? Do they really add to or take away from the game? Which ones would you want to see?

I like very much backgrounds and specialties, I need much more of either. I absolutely want to see specialist wizard schools... I think that they are balanced enough.

6) Magic Items. Should they stick with +X items, or change things up a little? Should characters be as dependent on them? Which ones do you want to see included or left out?

I'd like better not to see anymore +X items. They souldn't be necessary, only very desirable.

7) Combat. Another big one. Do you like the gridless/miniless style of 5E? Do you think combat is resolved faster? Is the removal of certain options making combat boring? What would you change about how combat is handled?

That's my deal breaker, I played (nearly) every edition of D&D with miniatures and battlegrid. My group is very tactical/strategic oriented, so I absolutely need a tactical module.

8) Spells. Are they sufficient for the levels we have now? Are they overpowered or underpowered? Which ones do you look forward to seeing? Which ones do you hope never come back?

I hope to never see anymore "hand of fate" or similar spells, they can be the death of every investigation. 

9) Out of Combat Options. How do you want to see these handled? Do you want certain characters being naturally better or worse at them? Do you think everyone should able to contribute 100% both in and out of combat?

Every character should be able to offer a different (but equally effective) contribute in and out of combat.

10) Ease of DMing. Is 5E currently DM-friendly? Could it use some work? Is it easy to build encounters and reconcile character and monster actions?

I never found any difficulty to master any edition, the last was the most master-friendly (but most of all thanks to adventure tools), but this one is already easy enough.
No more vancian. No "edition war" for me, thank'you.

1) Race Options.

Races should not favor any specific class, so I want attribute or skill bonuses to be neutral in that regard or very minor. They should promote interesting roleplaying choices through racial makeup, and special abilities, including size, weapons, advantages and disadvantages. The core races should be as stated – human, dwarf, halfling, elf and human. They need to make sure sub-races offer additional options in regards to interesting roleplaying choices, including sub-races for humans based on environment (ocean, mountains, forests, etc.) or types of communities (city, village, wilds, etc.)

That will be enough to establish the base rules to flesh out any additional races.

2) Classes and Specialties.

They should stick with the core classes initially – fighter, rogue, cleric and wizard. Each one should have major and minor abilities related to the class. Then specialties can make features available to all classes to add new aspects, or grant minor features available to other classes.

3) Class Options.

Class options should focus on what makes each one different. Once they are done with the core classes and specialties, they should take a look at sub-classes that fill an iconic niche, like paladin, monk, ranger, barbarian, sorcerer, bard, warlock, druid, assassin, etc. Once that is done determine what is left for multiclassing.

4) Skills.

I want backgrounds and skills to be related into broad skill categories, then if you want to sub-divide skills to add more of a 3E feel, then add that on as an option, or additional rule to sub-divide broad skills but keep bonuses in check.

5) Magic Items.


Magic items should start off with a maximum of +3 to any check, defense, etc. then concentrate on what makes magic special by granting abilities to classes that offer more options to flesh out the character by offering interesting roleplaying choices, but create a special category for items that have long ranging consequences like flight, invisibility, so the DM has a mechanism to control these.

6) Combat and Spells

I want combat and spells to be a arms race for supremacy as represented through the classes. There has to be broad design guidelines to control the scope and power of each effect, so each class can attempt to counter each other and have a moment to shine.

7) Out of Combat Options.

I would prefer skills and related fluff to be treated as out of combat for every class, or equal for every class, versus creating skill mastery as one of the gaming tiers. 4E essentials started to go this route where classes could gain interesting combat and out of combat abilities at the same time.

8) Ease of DMing.

I want a well-defined action economy, an easy to determine level of progression for monster development and abilities, as well as anything listed above. Adventure series, supplements, offline computer utilities, and a virtual table top would be icing on the cake.

Race Options. What races do you feel they should include? What races do you not want included? What bonuses/penalties should exist for various races?
Human, Dwarf, Elf, Halfling, Half-elf.  Those are all essential must-haves.  I'd prefer to see the sillier races, like shardminds, illumians, thri-kreen, dragonborn, warforged, and tieflings left out entirely, or at least restricted to their appropriate settings.  I want to see appropriate penalties for small races.

2) Classes. This is a big one. What classes do you feel they should include? What classes should be avoided?
Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard.  Those are all essential to the game.  And it wouldn't feel like D&D without Paladins and Barbarians.  I'd rather not see druids return as anything other than a subset of cleric; I've never seen a good reason to keep them separate.  I remain unconvinced that we need any other classes than these.  Duskblades absolutely must not return under any circumstances.  And I've never felt that psionic classes added anything worthwhile to the game; save that sort of thing for science fiction.

3) Class Options. Another big one. This would include individual class options as well as multiclassing.
I like the idea of each class having a special mechanic peculiar to it alone.  I favor allowing a character to dabble in two classes, but no more, so I guess I support a kind of dual-classing (with appropriate restrictions), but not 3E-style multiclassing.

4) Skills. Are the current ones too liitle or too much? Which ones do you want included? Which ones do you want removed or changed?
De-emphasize skills altogether.  I do like allowing characters to be able to craft their own mundane items, though.

5) Backgrounds and Specialties. Which ones catch your attention? Are they over- or under-powered? Do they really add to or take away from the game? Which ones would you want to see?
I like what I've seen of this concept so far.  I have no particular favorites yet, though Soldier seems dull.

6) Magic Items. Should they stick with +X items, or change things up a little? Should characters be as dependent on them? Which ones do you want to see included or left out?
It's not D&D without +x items.  That said, I really like the idea of restricting them to the point that even a +1 sword is rare and awesome.

7) Combat. Another big one. Do you like the gridless/miniless style of 5E? Do you think combat is resolved faster? Is the removal of certain options making combat boring? What would you change about how combat is handled?
I definitely prefer the gridless style.  And what many regard as "boring," I hail as refreshingly straightforward.  The only point I'd firmly insist on is that heavy armour must be represented as being effective vs. all attacks at all levels, and that light armour/high dexterity characters must never, ever be permitted to approach the AC of heavily armoured characters.

8) Spells. Are they sufficient for the levels we have now? Are they overpowered or underpowered? Which ones do you look forward to seeing? Which ones do you hope never come back?
Some of the damaging spells are a bit overpowered.  I hope things like disintegrate, rusting grasp, metal to wood, etc. either don't come back or are seriously, seriously nerfed.

9) Out of Combat Options. How do you want to see these handled? Do you want certain characters being naturally better or worse at them? Do you think everyone should able to contribute 100% both in and out of combat?
Out of Combat Options should be simple.  On the other hand, I really enjoy medieval economics, crop yields, and low-tech travel logistics, and want to see the rules that govern these things in the game lavishly detailed and with a great deal of research put into them.

10) Ease of DMing. Is 5E currently DM-friendly? Could it use some work? Is it easy to build encounters and reconcile character and monster actions?
As long as it's friendlier than FantasyCraft, I'll be happy.



If you have to resort to making offensive comments instead of making logical arguments, you deserve to be ignored.

Can't believe this thread is rolling along so peacably.  Good job OP.

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

I find it interesting to see what other people want.
DMG pg 263 "No matter what a rule's source, a rule serves you, not the other way around."
Some are saying that if the playtest continues to do X, then they will probably not be playing it. Likewise, others see the inclusion (or removal) of X as an absolute good, and is one of the driving forces behind them playing 5E. This is extremely objective, as are most things related to "good" and "bad" in RPG rules.

Tell me about your perfect 5E. What elements do you want to ensure you will play and enjoy it? I'll break it down into elements for ease of reply. Please, please, please try to avoid bottoming this thread out as an edition-war. There is absolutely no reason to do that. Also, telling other posters that what they want is "wrong" is also highly unnecessary. There's no reason to do that.

1) Race Options. What races do you feel they should include? What races do you not want included? What bonuses/penalties should exist for various races?

This doesn't make a big difference to me one way or another as long as a reasonable selection of races is present and a variety of silhouettes are present. It probably makes sense for Humans/Halflings/Elves/Dwarves to all be there; I'd like there to be more races than just that in the PHB, but there's no other race I'd be absolutely crushed by the presence or absence of. For silhouette variety reasons, a "strong guy" race might make sense, and there's less room for an agile race because two are already present. There aren't any races that I would be unhappy to see.

2) Classes. This is a big one. What classes do you feel they should include? What classes should be avoided?

I'm fine with determining this experimentally; there should be as many classes as their are interesting mechanics for and reasonably distinct archetypes to support. Because people love symmetry and aesthetic balance, there probably shouldn't be, like, twenty caster classes and one martial class, even if the martial class is flexible enough to encompass every martial concept in a totally sweet way, but beyond that, I'm good. I do admit that I'm not at all a fan of the notion of segregating the "core four" from the rest of the classes design-wise, and I'm also not a fan of mindlessly rolling concepts together just because they seem similar from 20,000 feet. If what Next ends up with is, as they've suggested, the set of classes that have previously appeared in a PHB, I'd be happy with that. I don't think they have to make, say, the ranger a separate class if there's not a cool, interesting hook for doing that, but cramming classes with meaningfully distinct traditions together turns me off.
3) Class Options. Another big one. This would include individual class options as well as multiclassing.

I don't love any previous multiclassing system used by the game all that much. If they do use something like 3.5's, I hope that they design around it.
4) Skills. Are the current ones too liitle or too much? Which ones do you want included? Which ones do you want removed or changed?

I don't really care all that much one way or another on this, provided that there's not classes that are just all but skill-less and they don't fool themselves into thinking "extra skill points" is a party function.
5) Backgrounds and Specialties. Which ones catch your attention? Are they over- or under-powered? Do they really add to or take away from the game? Which ones would you want to see?

I'm happy with them. I think that the features could be sexed up a little bit, even.
6) Magic Items. Should they stick with +X items, or change things up a little? Should characters be as dependent on them? Which ones do you want to see included or left out?

I'd be happy if magic items are all lots of +sex and very little +X. They should be things that are awesome, not things that just keep you lined up with the math. I think it's okay if characters with more magic items are more powerful (it's hard to make things that are awesome but don't contribute significant power), but things with a high x-to-sex ratio, like a +3 Sword, are things I wouldn't miss.
7) Combat. Another big one. Do you like the gridless/miniless style of 5E? Do you think combat is resolved faster? Is the removal of certain options making combat boring? What would you change about how combat is handled?

Combat under the current Next playtest rules is less interesting to me than what I'm used to, and significantly so. It is faster, which I like, but this is mostly a function of the tissue-paper monster design; it's hard to know if Next is really holistically bent towards faster combats, because level 5 is, at least in previous editions, not a particularly slow level. I'm holding out hope for more sophisticated combat through modules, but I'll probably play anyway. Some of the mechanical design - CS in particular - is extremely good and makes me really excited.
8) Spells. Are they sufficient for the levels we have now? Are they overpowered or underpowered? Which ones do you look forward to seeing? Which ones do you hope never come back?

Next's magic is fine. My biggest worry is that they won't take the interaction or exploration pillars seriously, and instead of including magic that interacts with those pillars, they include magic that circumvents those pillars. D&D has a tradition of taking spells that are the interaction/exploration equivalent of "kill all the monsters no save" and making them something low-level characters have access to.
9) Out of Combat Options. How do you want to see these handled? Do you want certain characters being naturally better or worse at them? Do you think everyone should able to contribute 100% both in and out of combat?

Characters should be good at different things, rather than being either just good or bad. I don't know if everyone should be able to contribute 100% in and out of combat, but they should be able to contribute at least 80%. That doesn't mean that everyone needs to be the perfect person to handle every situation (in fact, that's bad), but most people should be somewhat useful in a variety of situations.
10) Ease of DMing. Is 5E currently DM-friendly? Could it use some work? Is it easy to build encounters and reconcile character and monster actions?

It's fine.
That's it for now. Be honest!

Not that anyone asked, but I don't like the current presentation of races (with the crunch, which I need to look at on a regular basis, buried underneath the racial description) or the classes (with the mechanical information, which again, is what I actually need, woven in between too much other stuff.) I get that people like that, because skimming over fluff text looking for what you need makes you a better roleplayer, but I find it slightly annoying.

Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
Sign In to post comments