What do you want in the next Next packet?

Title really says it all.
I know we'll get whatever WotC thinks needs to be tested next. And I'll be happy to do it. Some people don't feel like their feedback has mattered, but I do. I dig this process. Just wanted to get this disclaimer out of the way.
I'd like to see the WDD rules, or whatever they end up being called.
Those exploration rules certainly sound interesting. I'd like to give them a whirl.
I want to see what the basic game entails. Yes, I know what it'll consist of (I read! ), but I'd like a clear explanation of how to play a basic game.
I'd like to see at least one advanced module. Mass combat would be fascinating to see. I'm excited to know those rules. But, Legacy and tactical would also be appreciated. These could be chances to show detractors of dndn that this could be the game for them.
Classes. Ex-sorcerer, Bard, and Paladin are my hopes.
How about you? What do you expect or hope for?
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning." -Mike Mearls
I'd like to see a revision of races, which have pretty much stagnated as classes took all the design attention. Bringing in some new races would be a good time to evaluate races as a whole. 

Some of the other optional rules systems would be nice, like the exploration rules, multiclassing, and prestige classes.

I'd also like to see them release the full basic rules. What they plan on including in the basic rule package so we can test the crap out of that. 

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.

The Paladin and Ragner class

The Half-Orc, Gnome, and perhaps the Dragonborn races.

Some information and examples of Prestige Classes

Info about post 10th level play and maybe why classes such as the fighter seem to just STOP in advancement for pretty much everything besides more HP and Attack progression.

Maybe some exploration modules.        
I want the post-10 fighter dealt with because as it stands it's just not worth it to advance past level 10 fighter, so either they need to admit that and let us multi-class, or give the fighter some real post-10 progression. 

I want the cleric hit with a nerfbat, specifically his spell access which is way too huge.

I want the wizard to have some spells scribed limits. MAybe 1 spell of each level mastered (can always prep this spell even if not in a book or scroll), and then they can scribe either an additional int-mod spells per level, or 3 per level, or int-mod +level total extra spells, just some sort of hard limit.

Mostly however I want to see the race entries fixed so that the races aren't defined by gear dependent abilities, and humans aren't uber.
From the podcast with Mike Mearls and that other guy, it was hinted that we could see the gnome, half elf, and half orc, and at least one or two of the druid, paladin, and ranger classes. I would love to see all three.

I would also like to see weapons and armor get reworked. Weapon weights are way off in some cases, and with the ranger possibly coming out, medium armor needs to be made more viable.

Other than that, rules for traps and hazards and barbarian subclasses are on my list. Particular a bear shifting barbarian. Knew every rock and knew every tree, turned into a bar when he was only three.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/10.jpg)

I'm just so bored with Next that I no longer care.
Along with some of what others have mentioned, I want point buy to be able to bring a character to 18 pre-bonus from class and race.
Grid-based tactical combat with AoOs, flanking, etc.

OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player. 3E challenged the character, not the player. Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM. That's why I love 4E.

"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."

"People treat their lack of imagination as if it's the measure of what's silly. Which is silly." - Noon

"Challenge" is overrated.  "Immersion" is usually just a more pretentious way of saying "having fun playing D&D."

"Falling down is how you grow.  Staying down is how you die.  It's not what happens to you, it's what you do after it happens.”

jonathan_sicari -- 

I like that characters can't point-buy their way to 18 pre-bonus.  This brings back the viabilty of dice-rolling. With a 22 point-buy, die-rolling made no sense as it would almost always be worse.  Now, you can point-buy up to 15, or you can test your luck for a 17 or 18.
I don't because I personaly know people who will keep rolling stats untill they get what they want (minimum 3 stats between 16-18 and nothing under 10) because they insist that is the minimum needed to be 'playable'. Given what I consider to be minimum acceptable accuracy, I need to be able to buy at least a 16.

Also, for me, characters sitting at the same table with wildly disparate stats based solely on luck is non-viable.

Also, seeing as rolling 4d6D1 normally produces better character stats than a 25 point buy in 3.0, I find your claim of die rolling making no sense a little suspect. I've always (since I became aware of point buy) regarded point buy as superior to die rolling due to its inherent fairness, not being subject to statistical vagaries although I am aware there is a significant population who regard such gambling as being better (for reasons I cannot understand).
I just want to see the Advantage module where they replace 2d20 with a +2 modifier. I know it's easy, but I need to know that they're keeping it in mind so as to not create complex mechanics that take into account the other die roll.

Past that, I would like to see a "Traditional" tradition for wizards, which emphasizes use of the staff and dart/crossbow in order to conserve limited spells per day.

The metagame is not the game.

I don't because I personaly know people who will keep rolling stats untill they get what they want (minimum 3 stats between 16-18 and nothing under 10) because they insist that is the minimum needed to be 'playable'. Given what I consider to be minimum acceptable accuracy, I need to be able to buy at least a 16.

Also, for me, characters sitting at the same table with wildly disparate stats based solely on luck is non-viable.

Also, seeing as rolling 4d6D1 normally produces better character stats than a 25 point buy in 3.0, I find your claim of die rolling making no sense a little suspect. I've always (since I became aware of point buy) regarded point buy as superior to die rolling due to its inherent fairness, not being subject to statistical vagaries although I am aware there is a significant population who regard such gambling as being better (for reasons I cannot understand).


Nothing under 10? That's odd. My group re-rolls any stat under 8 though. Although people in my group prefer an array over rolling though. I think point buy is convienant since I keep my dice where we play but rolling is more fun if I can make my character not in advance. 
IMAGE(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/RockNrollBabe20/Charmed-supernatural-and-charmed_zps8bd4125f.jpg)
I just want to see the Advantage module where they replace 2d20 with a +2 modifier. I know it's easy, but I need to know that they're keeping it in mind so as to not create complex mechanics that take into account the other die roll.

Past that, I would like to see a "Traditional" tradition for wizards, which emphasizes use of the staff and dart/crossbow in order to conserve limited spells per day.


That could be fun if there is an ability to create magical enhancements for it so many times a day or through a cantrip. It provides for an alternative way to play instead. A staff wizard could be really fun too if you create the wizard with enough strength and con. 
IMAGE(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/RockNrollBabe20/Charmed-supernatural-and-charmed_zps8bd4125f.jpg)
I'd just like a new MDD system. It's hard to test most other aspects of the game when the combat system is so broken. I'd like to see a revision on the skills system too.
I agree that we need more races. The next logical choices are the Half-Orc, Half-Elf, and Gnome. I'd REALLY like to see Tieflings, Deva/Assassimars (however they're spelled), Dragonborn, Shifters, Goblinoids, Kobolds, Orcs, and (don't hate me) Shardminds. I realize that those races will probably be out once the game is officially done and not during a playtest, but I'd love to see them sooner anyway.
A Pactless Warlock class, 3.5 Edition style.
A Pactless Warlock class, 3.5 Edition style.




I don't have a problem with such a Warlock being around, but I wonder what would set it apart from a Sorcerer?
3.5 wasn't pactless, it was just pure fiendish.
A Pactless Warlock class, 3.5 Edition style.




I don't have a problem with such a Warlock being around, but I wonder what would set it apart from a Sorcerer?

Invocations as opposed to Wizard spells? An at-will Eldritch Blast?
A Pactless Warlock class, 3.5 Edition style.




I don't have a problem with such a Warlock being around, but I wonder what would set it apart from a Sorcerer?

Invocations as opposed to Wizard spells? An at-will Eldritch Blast?



Yeah, I get that, but if you didn't get your powers from a pact, how did you get them? Sorcerers are born with their powers. Are you born with them too or what?
3.5 wasn't pactless, it was just pure fiendish.

Not really. 3.5 Warlocks were blood based and had their powers from birth. There was no pact signed by them to gain their powers. While some of them did have ancestors that may have signed fiendish pacts in the past, that does not contractually obligate their descendants.
A Pactless Warlock class, 3.5 Edition style.




I don't have a problem with such a Warlock being around, but I wonder what would set it apart from a Sorcerer?

Invocations as opposed to Wizard spells? An at-will Eldritch Blast?



Yeah, I get that, but if you didn't get your powers from a pact, how did you get them? Sorcerers are born with their powers. Are you born with them too or what?

In 3.5 Sorcerers didn't gain their powers from birth. That was the niche of Warlocks. I'd like to see Warlocks regain their niche. Besides, the DDN Sorcerer is going to be moved to a different class and renamed. DDN Sorcerers aren't going to have from birth powers. Sorcerers are little more than an alternate spell casting style of Wizard, just like they were in 3.5.
(This is a direct answer to the original post, and ignores stuff since then, especially the side discussion on the provenance of sorcerers and warlocks.)

My wishlist has three main components, one hugely more important (and, to be fair, much more work) than the other two:

The math entirely re-thought, explicitly explained, and taken into consideration everywhere it is relevant, which is basically everywhere period, ESPECIALLY monster stats, which seem to have been mostly an afterthought to date. This needs to be the core of the system, not something they gradually work in AFTER screwing around with a zillion other things. Burn everything else to the ground and rebuild it from scratch if that's what it takes to get this right.

Warlocks back in, and at least one "classic" class besides the core four and the already somewhat established Monk. (The Paladin, Ranger, Druid, and possibly Bard would qualify, or perhaps a gish build, even though they haven't done that right as a core class since BECMI's Elf.)

At least one module worked out, with explicit instructions for playing both with and without it. The marketing fluff has been all "modularity, modularity, modularity" and to date they've done less than nothing mechanically to back that up. We're a year into the playtest and it's way past time for that to change.

Jeff Heikkinen DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
Sorcerors recieved magic from bloodline mixing with powerfully magic creatures, warlocks had magic grafted to their bloodline by ancienct pacts with fiends.

 
A Pactless Warlock class, 3.5 Edition style.




I don't have a problem with such a Warlock being around, but I wonder what would set it apart from a Sorcerer?

Invocations as opposed to Wizard spells? An at-will Eldritch Blast?



Yeah, I get that, but if you didn't get your powers from a pact, how did you get them? Sorcerers are born with their powers. Are you born with them too or what?

In 3.5 Sorcerers didn't gain their powers from birth. That was the niche of Warlocks. I'd like to see Warlocks regain their niche. Besides, the DDN Sorcerer is going to be moved to a different class and renamed. DDN Sorcerers aren't going to have from birth powers. Sorcerers are little more than an alternate spell casting style of Wizard, just like they were in 3.5.



I felt the pacts of 4e were a stronger niche than being born with them. I believe the Sorcerer as we saw it in the playtest was being renamed, but the Sorcerer is still going to be a class on its own different from what was saw. I could have sworn the Sorcerers in 3.5 got their powers from being born with the magic in their blood.
Sorcerors recieved magic from bloodline mixing with powerfully magic creatures, warlocks had magic grafted to their bloodline by ancienct pacts with fiends.

 

In 3.5 only Sorcerers that took Bloodline Feats after character creation had powers based as such. The vast majority of the class did not. It is odd although undeniable that the minority of 3.5 Sorcerers have shaped the image of the class.

At any rate I answered what I wanted in the next DDN packet. I don't think the original poster was asking for spirited debate on people's desires so much as what those desires were.
Actually, speaking of Sorcerers and Warlocks, I'd love for them to return too along with whatever the previous Next Sorcerer is getting turned into. I like a good Warmage.
A Pactless Warlock class, 3.5 Edition style.




I don't have a problem with such a Warlock being around, but I wonder what would set it apart from a Sorcerer?

Invocations as opposed to Wizard spells? An at-will Eldritch Blast?



Yeah, I get that, but if you didn't get your powers from a pact, how did you get them? Sorcerers are born with their powers. Are you born with them too or what?

In 3.5 Sorcerers didn't gain their powers from birth. That was the niche of Warlocks. I'd like to see Warlocks regain their niche. Besides, the DDN Sorcerer is going to be moved to a different class and renamed. DDN Sorcerers aren't going to have from birth powers. Sorcerers are little more than an alternate spell casting style of Wizard, just like they were in 3.5.



I felt the pacts of 4e were a stronger niche than being born with them. I believe the Sorcerer as we saw it in the playtest was being renamed, but the Sorcerer is still going to be a class on its own different from what was saw. I could have sworn the Sorcerers in 3.5 got their powers from being born with the magic in their blood.

The class in 3.5 says that some claim they gained their powers from a mixed bloodline, but there is no mechanical evidence of it and through the Bloodline Feats mechanical evidence against it.
Pacts were borrowed from a different 3.5 class, the Binder. I personally dislike classes from previous editions having their niches taken from them, and would prefer those classes have their niches returned to them. I want to see Binders in DDN, and that means returning their unique mechanics to them.
Sorcerors recieved magic from bloodline mixing with powerfully magic creatures, warlocks had magic grafted to their bloodline by ancienct pacts with fiends.

 

In 3.5 only Sorcerers that took Bloodline Feats after character creation had powers based as such. The vast majority of the class did not. It is odd although undeniable that the minority of 3.5 .


I'm going to deny what you here say is undeniable. Getting powers from exotic bloodlines was the flavour of the class from the very start. Sure, you chould choose whatever spells you wanted instead of having some mechanic that explicitly said "you have X ancestry and that gives you powers Y, Z and W", but the idea was supposed to be that which spells you got represented the legacy of having dragons or other unusual critters in your ancestry. All the Bloodline feats did was change the "instead of" above to an "in addition to".
Jeff Heikkinen DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
The Warlord CLASS and other options for non-magical and non-Divine healing.

Races reorganized to move all non-genetic/naturally occurring things into Subraces.  Dwarves being good at wielding axes is not genetic, it is cultural.

Alternate Magical Systems such as Spell Points or Encounter-based spellcasting.

Feats to be more frequent also continue past 10th level.  Preferably five feats every ten levels.

An option for skills to function more like 3E and 4E.
CORE MORE, NOT CORE BORE!
The Warlord CLASS and other options for non-magical and non-Divine healing.

Races reorganized to move all non-genetic/naturally occurring things into Subraces.  Dwarves being good at wielding axes is not genetic, it is cultural.

Alternate Magical Systems such as Spell Points or Encounter-based spellcasting.

Feats to be more frequent also continue past 10th level.  Preferably five feats every ten levels.

An option for skills to function more like 3E and 4E.




I would like to see the skill dice gone (or at least confined to the "basic" rules), going back to the bonus that can be customized

at least 2 "classic" classes


+ all you said above
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com
Sorcerors recieved magic from bloodline mixing with powerfully magic creatures, warlocks had magic grafted to their bloodline by ancienct pacts with fiends.

 

In 3.5 only Sorcerers that took Bloodline Feats after character creation had powers based as such. The vast majority of the class did not. It is odd although undeniable that the minority of 3.5 .


I'm going to deny what you here say is undeniable. Getting powers from exotic bloodlines was the flavour of the class from the very start. Sure, you chould choose whatever spells you wanted instead of having some mechanic that explicitly said "you have X ancestry and that gives you powers Y, Z and W", but the idea was supposed to be that which spells you got represented the legacy of having dragons or other unusual critters in your ancestry. All the Bloodline feats did was change the "instead of" above to an "in addition to".

Getting powers from exotic bloodlines had no mechanical representation when the class was created. Using Wizard spells is a mechanical indication that they did not get their powers from a bloodline. Born powers would have no reason to manifest in the exact same way as learned rotes. This is why original references to Sorcerer bloodlines were relegated to rumor, and used primarily as a method of driving an in game wedge between the two classes (Wizard and Sorcerer). Bloodline Feats showed actual bloodline powers that were not exact matches to trained arcane manipulation.

At any rate, I said what I wanted. I gave an opinion. Please stop trying to tell me what I want is wrong. It is not the topic at hand or the point of this thread.
I'm actually interested in seeing the following:

Class: Bard - A magical musician, This is only because I like music that evokes responses in my heart and mind.
Optional Rules: Multiclassing - There is a line in each of the classes in the current playtesting that hints at such rules being available at some point so I want to see them.
Race: Half-Orc - Simply because a lot of people also want to know what the half-orc will become.

I am Blue/White

I am Blue/White
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

I'm both orderly and rational. I value control, information, and order. I love structure and hierarchy, and will actively use whatever power or knowledge I have to maintain it. At best, I am lawful and insightful; at worst, I am bureaucratic and tyrannical.
Sorcerors recieved magic from bloodline mixing with powerfully magic creatures, warlocks had magic grafted to their bloodline by ancienct pacts with fiends.

 

In 3.5 only Sorcerers that took Bloodline Feats after character creation had powers based as such. The vast majority of the class did not. It is odd although undeniable that the minority of 3.5 .


I'm going to deny what you here say is undeniable. Getting powers from exotic bloodlines was the flavour of the class from the very start. Sure, you chould choose whatever spells you wanted instead of having some mechanic that explicitly said "you have X ancestry and that gives you powers Y, Z and W", but the idea was supposed to be that which spells you got represented the legacy of having dragons or other unusual critters in your ancestry. All the Bloodline feats did was change the "instead of" above to an "in addition to".

Getting powers from exotic bloodlines had no mechanical representation when the class was created.

No-one is denying this, but...
Using Wizard spells is a mechanical indication that they did not get their powers from a bloodline.

... this simply doesn't follow, especially given that it flatly contradicts the class description.
At any rate, I said what I wanted. I gave an opinion. Please stop trying to tell me what I want is wrong. It is not the topic at hand or the point of this thread.

I don't think anyone else said anything that could be accurately described that way, and know for a fact that I did not, so I would appreciate if you either clearly indicated that this insult was not directed at me, or rescinded it.

Jeff Heikkinen DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
Sorcerors recieved magic from bloodline mixing with powerfully magic creatures, warlocks had magic grafted to their bloodline by ancienct pacts with fiends.

 

In 3.5 only Sorcerers that took Bloodline Feats after character creation had powers based as such. The vast majority of the class did not. It is odd although undeniable that the minority of 3.5 .


I'm going to deny what you here say is undeniable. Getting powers from exotic bloodlines was the flavour of the class from the very start. Sure, you chould choose whatever spells you wanted instead of having some mechanic that explicitly said "you have X ancestry and that gives you powers Y, Z and W", but the idea was supposed to be that which spells you got represented the legacy of having dragons or other unusual critters in your ancestry. All the Bloodline feats did was change the "instead of" above to an "in addition to".

Getting powers from exotic bloodlines had no mechanical representation when the class was created.

No-one is denying this, but...
Using Wizard spells is a mechanical indication that they did not get their powers from a bloodline.

... this simply doesn't follow, especially given that it flatly contradicts the class description.
At any rate, I said what I wanted. I gave an opinion. Please stop trying to tell me what I want is wrong. It is not the topic at hand or the point of this thread.

I don't think anyone else said anything that could be accurately described that way, and know for a fact that I did not, so I would appreciate if you either clearly indicated that this insult was not directed at me, or rescinded it.


What does the class description have to do with the mechanical representation of the class? Mechanics are not fluff.

The point of this thread is "What do "you" want in the next Next playtest. I stated what I wanted. Upon further questions, I stated why. You are disagreeing with my states reasons why. You are in a real sense telling me my opinion (the reasons why I hold the view I do) are something you disagree with and in your view therefore wrong. The question of why I want what I want in the next Next playtest is not relevant to the topic, but I humored it nonetheless. You have shown me the error of my ways by repeatedly saying "Nuh uh." to those reasons. Next time I'll just report the post as off topic and spam.
More High Level Humaniod enemies.

It is very important that there are more than just freaks, beasts, and swarms of weak humaniods once you get past level 5 or so.

I hope to test and critique combat against strong enemy mages, experts, and warriors who are not undead, monstrous, or extraplanar.

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!

What does the class description have to do with the mechanical representation of the class? Mechanics are not fluff.

Yet another spectactular non-sequitur. No-one is saying mechanics are fluff. Your original statement didn't distinguish between the two, and insisting on the importance of the distinction now is just a post-hoc attempt to cover up your initial error.
The point of this thread is "What do "you" want in the next Next playtest. I stated what I wanted. Upon further questions, I stated why. You are disagreeing with my states reasons why. You are in a real sense telling me my opinion (the reasons why I hold the view I do) are something you disagree with and in your view therefore wrong.

No, I am saying that a statement of fact that you made is wrong. You can hold whatever opinions or preferences you like. However, once you start saying "I believe X because Y", where Y is an objective thing that can be true or false, you are no longer talking solely about opinions. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but no-one is entitled to their own facts, and pointing out that you were mistaken about one is not even remotely a personal attack.

If you had simply said "well, okay, maybe that was the flavour from the beginning, but I think WotC dropped the ball on that and it would make more sense this way", that would be one thing. I might even agree. But that's very different from the tactic you went with.
Jeff Heikkinen DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
i dont want to see any races beyond the traditional ones like elf, gnome, halfling, human, half orc, half elf and dwarf. other races will be addressed im sure in game world specific volumes like they have always done in the past. as for classes i want to see the classic 4 and other classes as sub classes like pally, assassin, ranger, and barbarian. as it is with magic all the specialty classes of wizard can be seperate kits with powers and spell use specifically tailored to them and therefore dosent need a who seperate class
1. A collection of monsters that are interesting to play, and the guidelines on how to modify or create new ones.

2. Levels 11-20. No, I mean the real ones, not the placeholders that are in there now.

3. Fine (or at least finer) tuned math, for monsters and players both.

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

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

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

I would like to see the skill dice gone (or at least confined to the "basic" rules), going back to the bonus that can be customized

I'll second that one. I really dislike skill dice and would welcome any option to nuke it from orbit.

Well it's not the dice (though i do like a bit more granularity on my skills), but the system I preffered 4e or even 3e's skill system. The detachment from specific abilities is awesome but the dozens of fiddly little hyper specific skills with very little crunch behind them is annoying.