What would you change in D&D Next?

I keep reading people saying they're unhappy with D&D Next, it's dumbed down version of D&D, it's bad, etc...

What would you change it to make it enjoyable? Please be specific . Everything is not an answer.
Armor needs to be redone.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

Cantrips are boring.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

Weapons need more flavor.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

 Bounded acuracy would go being the main 1.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

 Bounded acuracy would go being the main 1.


I agree.  I want BA, I would implement my own.
 Bounded acuracy would go being the main 1.


I agree.  I want BA, I would implement my own.



I dont mind BA. Just the way they are implementing it.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

I would like the return of fort, ref, and will defenses.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

Bring back the bloody condition.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

I would get rid of classes and levels entirely.  I'd give players a large number of different kinds of Feats instead.  Skill Feats for non-combat options, "Class" or "Role" Feats for buying the specific powers they want, and "General" Feats for what Feats are currently used for.  I'd also give these Feats (as well as to hit and save progression) a point value, and let the DM decide when to dole out points, and how many.  This would also include a racial point buy at character creation, much like 2nd Ed's Player's Option: Skills and Powers.

I'd make the "core" game a series of modular options, causing the DM and the players to model the game to their playstyle and eliminating the need for many house rules.

I'd add class powers from every class ever used in any version of D&D ever, as well as add every race ever used (obviously not all of them would be in the PHB).

In many ways I'd embrace D&D's complexity and systems mastery.  I feel these are a distinct part of the D&D experience, and separate it from many other game systems.  I'd turn it into much more of a GURPS style system, while keeping the flavor, feel, and basic D20 mechanics (although not necessarily "The D20 System") and 6 stats of D&D.


I know it will never happen, so I push for as much modularity as possible in the PHB and "core" mechanics, hoping for a chance of something even remotely similar to what I want being at least mathematically/mechanically possible.  I'm not seeing much of a hope any more.  As the "core" becomes more rigid and bound, the flexibility potential becomes less and less.
Rip out any and all mechanics, start from scratch. Kick out Mearls and anyone else responsible for the mechanics so far. Re-hire Heinsoo. That would be a good start.



What's wrong with the mechanics? If you dislike them that much, there has to be a reason for it.
The skills need to be redone.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

(content removed)



Sorry about that. I'll edit my post. I don't want this thread to turn into a fight.

I was hoping people could elaborate on why they dislike D&D Next. More like Chakravant's post.

You say that the mechanics are clunky and unelegant. It's a d20 system. I don't understand, there are no alignment mechanics. At most, you have alignment restrictions in classes.
Rip out any and all mechanics, start from scratch. Kick out Mearls and anyone else responsible for the mechanics so far. Re-hire Heinsoo. That would be a good start.



i almost cut myself on that edge.


so far i think something needs to be done about saving throws. casters' spells get ever harder to save against while every creature in the game never gets very much to offset it. 

i also wouldn't mind a bit more granularity within the skill system. the option to learn a new skill or icrease an old one should come up at least once before 7th level. 
Bounded Accuracy goes away. This includes a rework of the skill system.

Martial types get better numbers and variety of options, including high level options.

High level casters drop lower level spell slots in exchange for more mid level spell slots. End result fewer overall slots at high level, but overall number of slots remains similar across the majority of levels, and you don't have to worry about why a wizard would waste an action on a non-augmented 1st level spell at level 20.

Hit dice replaced with healing surge-esque system. (At the very least all healing based on % of hp rather than a dX)



Those four things are enough to get started. Any one or two of them being done by the developers would at least give me a little bit of hope. 
I keep reading people saying they're unhappy with D&D Next, it's dumbed down version of D&D, it's bad, etc...

What would you change it to make it enjoyable? Please be specific . Everything is not an answer.


The Hit Dice healing mechanics. Its not healing surges, it doesn't serve the same purposes and it is kind of annoying that it is consider nod to 4e.

Big Model: Creative Agenda
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th Edition
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
Lol, god, hit dice. Why the f do things need to be random??
Lol, god, hit dice. Why the f do things need to be random??



Because as soon as you introduce a die roll, peoples brains turn off, and the developers have been taking full advantage since they realized this.
The first thing I'd get rid of is the excessive concern for balance.

The second thing I'd get rid of is the notion that any of the other classes has any business being anywhere near as good at any aspect of combat as the Fighter.

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

The Hit Dice healing mechanics. Its not healing surges, it doesn't serve the same purposes and it is kind of annoying that it is consider nod to 4e.



It validates the 4th edition definition of hit points which leaves room for all the things you can potentially have with that definition of hit points. Stuff like non-magical healing based on the hit die mechanism or second wind for instance.

Having hit die is basically giving the "hit point=meat" camp the finger.

It's also kind of giving the 4th edition fans the finger too though. While I agree with Mearls that proportional healing doesn't really make sense for healing spells, it totally makes sense for healing surges.
I would use encounter as the basic unit of recharge rather than daily.
SKILLS
The Hit Dice healing mechanics. Its not healing surges, it doesn't serve the same purposes and it is kind of annoying that it is consider nod to 4e.



It validates the 4th edition definition of hit points which leaves room for all the things you can potentially have with that definition of hit points. Stuff like non-magical healing based on the hit die mechanism or second wind for instance.

Having hit die is basically giving the "hit point=meat" camp the finger.

It's also kind of giving the 4th edition fans the finger too though. While I agree with Mearls that proportional healing doesn't really make sense for healing spells, it totally makes sense for healing surges.



Its not validating 4th edition definition at all. In order for that to happen magical healing would also have to be subject to the hit dice mechanics. HDs being half and half, only affecting non-magic healing, is more invalidating then not having any mechanic at all.

I agree with you that it flipping the bird to both sides.

Big Model: Creative Agenda
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th Edition
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
I would change cantrips to be more utility spells and not the big damage spells they are.  A cantrip should never do more damage than a first level spell.  I would call cantrips zero level spells as a cantrip in my opinion is a very weak effect for new people learning magic.  I would then give more spell slots, though I still don't want them doing damage like in earlier editions.  Basically I want more spell slots and less reliance on cantrips.  Not every spell has to be a ritual, give knock its power back and take away a ritual version of it.
One of the nice things about DDNext is that it's gotten intelligent people on the Internet to brainstorm things about ACTUAL modularity that are leaps and bounds beyond what WotC is doing. Here's a snippet from RPG.net, attributed to David. J. Prokopetz forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?680192-New-...

 
In a nutshell, in OD&D, the challenges are logistical: claim the treasure and successfully transport it out of the dungeon. You have characters with extremely limited resources because marshaling those resources in order to overcome that logistical challenge is the whole point.

Subsequent editions increasingly drifted away from challenges based on logistics and toward challenges based on discrete tactical set-pieces - but they retained a lot of mechanics that were fine-tuned for a game about logistical challenges, leading to all manner of mechanical weirdness and awkward workarounds. The question that informs 4E's basic design is: what would it look like if, rather than trying to bash square pegs into a round holes, you pitch out all the logistically driven mechanics and make a game that's designed around discrete tactical set-pieces from the ground up?

That's why you have at-will and encounter powers in 4E, among other things: the basic unit of challenge is the encounter, not the adventure, and the challenge that is posed is tactical rather than logistical. At-will powers exists so that it's impossible to lock yourself out of the tactical game by "using up" all of your interesting mechanical tricks, and encounter powers exist so that an adventure's early tactical set-pieces aren't rendered boring by the need to save up your mojo. Such powers would be wildly inappropriate in an OD&D-style game, with its logistical challenge model, but in a game based on tactical set-pieces they're vital.

What the fluff looks like is a completely separate question from how the resource economy works. You could have a descriptively low-powered game with 4E-style encounter and at-will powers, or a descriptively high-powered game with OD&D-style limited resources.

This is a big part of the reason that I think 5E's designers don't actually understand the old-school mechanics they're trying to recapture. They talk a great deal about at-will powers and rates of healing and such as though there's a platonic ideal for the appropriate level of each, without any evidence of recogising the fact that what's appropriate depends critically on what sorts of challenges the mechanics focus on. Indeed, many of the class write-ups in the latest playtest - especially the fighter - exhibit a random mix of abilities suited for logsitical, resource-driven challenges, and abilities suited for challenges driven by discrete tactical set-pieces, to the extent that it's going to be tough for some of the classes to co-exist in the same party as written, since they appear to be designed for completely different sorts of games.

(The really annoying part is that if they were serious about their much-talked-about notion of modularity, they could easily support both logistical, resource-driven play and tactical-setpiece-driven with the same set of classes via a unified and well-structured set of mechanical "dials", but past performance suggests that their idea of "modularity" revolves entirely around different ways to add modifiers to a d20 roll.)



TL:DR version make modularity base around playstyles, not whether or not you want feats.

"Ah, the age-old conundrum. Defenders of a game are too blind to see it's broken, and critics are too idiotic to see that it isn't." - Brian McCormick

I like the general feel of the game.  It feels D&D to me in a way that 4E doesn't.  Not a slam at all, I enjoy my 4E game but it's lacking a D&D feel.  Its intangible and like art "I know it when I see it".

Things I would change...
1) Advantage/Disadvantage - Love the idea, but would have the two "sides" cancel each other on a one for one basis and then the net determines overall advantage or disadvantage.  In the RAW, if you have two things giving disadvantage you only need to find one way to get advantage and you're rolling even dice.  We play that if you have two disadvantage conditions and only one advantage, then you're still at disadvantage.  If you can squeek out 3 ways of getting advantage, then you're at net advantage.  It's not complicated and gets players to work to get advantage.

2)  Human racials are the very definition of dull.  Every other race has at least some token attempt at culture, as stereotypical as it is.  Humans don't.

3)  Get rid of the skill die.  It's cumbersome and far too swingy.

4)  Get rid of feats that everyone should be able to do.  Trip as a feat?  Really?  Without it I can't trip someone, at least not easily.  Same with Bull Rush.  If it's something that a reasonable player would want to try in combat, then it shouldn't be a feat.  Feats should represent things that require special training or special abilities, not general combat maneauvers.

5)  Hit Dice and Healing spells should work like gaining hit points when you level.  Either roll or take the high average, player choice.  I don't mind Hit Dice that much.  I like the fact that the healing they represent has to be done outside of combat, making a character that heals more important in combat than in 4E.

6)  Implement a way for spells to score crits.  If the spell requires a save, then maybe a "1" on the save works the same way a "20" does on an attack.
I would get rid of the skill die. Get rid of HD healing. Get rid of con mod to HP every level. Get rid of daily resources for non casters. Get rid of spell slots for pallys and rangers. Significantly change class mechanics. And allow for less bounded accuracy.

Its not validating 4th edition definition at all. In order for that to happen magical healing would also have to be subject to the hit dice mechanics.



No sir, this I disagree with. In the 4th edition model, your hit points are a buffer before you let your defenses down and get a potential mortal wound. This buffer is a mix of meaningless bruises, cuts, fatigue, strain and whatever you want to put it in. The healing surges only make sense with this definition of hit points.

This whole buffer before wound definition of hit points is something specific to 4th edition. In the previous editions, you needed days to recover. That's not fatigue, that's actual wounds. This is why I'm saying that they are using 4th edition hit points in D&D Next otherwise, you wouldn't have hit die.


HDs being half and half, only affecting non-magic healing, is more invalidating then not having any mechanic at all.



It's not unreasonable to have magic that creates life. It's not necessary for magic to be tied to the natural healing mechanism.
One of the nice things about DDNext is that it's gotten intelligent people on the Internet to brainstorm things about ACTUAL modularity that are leaps and bounds beyond what WotC is doing. Here's a snippet from RPG.net, attributed to David. J. Prokopetz forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?680192-New-...



What does the guy mean by logistics? A resource management exercise?
I would make sure the design isolates certain concepts so one aspect of the game does not take on too much weight. So maneuvers would remain for martial based characters and spells for casters. Then use feats as a delivery system to add on new features via specialities or to extend spell use or maneuvers to other classes. While spells or maneuvers would be the most powerful effects, feats would be minor.

The next step would be to take a hard look at healing to make sure it can handle a variety of story pacing and styles. Most likely it would use hit dice whenever a class heals. So any heal spell would use [class hit dice] + level + bonuses or a similar formula. Magical healing would be the default, followed by a system for natural healing, and then an optional rule for healing in a campaign with no magic. Any healing spell or maneuvers would be written to remain generic in reference to the healing source, i.e. divine, psionic, martial or otherwise, so they can adapt to the system of healing chosen.

After that I would take a look at AC, Skill DCs, and Saves, to make sure they all scale apppropriately including attack bonus, save bonuses, defense bonuses, etc. and if the bounds for BA are still too restrictive I would relax them a bit. At the same time I would assume the use of magic in the system up to a +3 bonus. If it is decided not to use magic, then you can add a optional rule for inherent bonuses.

And finally I would look at classes to make sure they can contribute to all pillars of play, some may have less choices under certain pillars, but they should always have a moment to shine based on class ability, versus having to gain it through skill or feat selection.

As a side note, I would make sure monster design is simple and elegant to handle CR ratings appropriately, and there would be direct correlations between character creation and monster creation at the base level to help build some common elements in both.
I'd like casters to roll on all spells vs target's ability score instead of target rolling saves.

I'd like any sentence about alignment qualified with a "typically, but not always."

I'd like a warlord (with martial healing as a possible build/set of options).

I'd like monsters to have more fun things to do and not just be sacks of HP.

Its not validating 4th edition definition at all. In order for that to happen magical healing would also have to be subject to the hit dice mechanics.



No sir, this I disagree with. In the 4th edition model, your hit points are a buffer before you let your defenses down and get a potential mortal wound. This buffer is a mix of meaningless bruises, cuts, fatigue, strain and whatever you want to put it in. The healing surges only make sense with this definition of hit points.

This whole buffer before wound definition of hit points is something specific to 4th edition. In the previous editions, you needed days to recover. That's not fatigue, that's actual wounds. This is why I'm saying that they are using 4th edition hit points in D&D Next otherwise, you wouldn't have hit die.


Thats not a 4e definition; 4e just provide mechanics that lined up with the existing D&D definition.



HDs being half and half, only affecting non-magic healing, is more invalidating then not having any mechanic at all.



It's not unreasonable to have magic that creates life. It's not necessary for magic to be tied to the natural healing mechanism.



No its not necessary to have it tied to natural healing mechanism. It is necessary to have it tied to natural healing mechanism if your going to call it a nod to 4e.

Big Model: Creative Agenda
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th Edition
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
While I agree with Mearls that proportional healing doesn't really make sense for healing spells, it totally makes sense for healing surges.


I must have missed the article / pod cast / panel discussion where he mentions this (or I have forgotten about it since then), but what was his reasoning on why proportional healing doesn't make sense for healing spells?

As for what I would change in D&DN, well...

1) I would add back in the Fighter's Fighting Style. The Fighting Style was an interesting idea and helped to conceptualize the type of Fighter a player wanted to be. I would have expanded upon that idea so that it resembled the Rogue schemes, Cleric diety, Wizard tradition, Ranger favored enemy, etc. They all follow a similar pattern and it only makes sense that the Fighting Style would fit right in there.

2) I would replace the Hit Dice system completely with something more appropriate. Either something closer to a useable healing surge system from 4e (where the surge pool represented more hit points than you had available at any given time instead of less than your usual) or something completely different. Its current implementation just seems pointless. As it is right now, it feels like I am basically carrying an extra healing potion per level that I can only use per level and that just doesn't seem interesting enough.

3) I would decide what I wanted each class to do during a single game and ensure that is what happens. For example, if a Wizard is to be used as a Blaster able to inflict more damage than a Fighter, than I'm ok with that, but make it give up most or all of its utility, debuffs, etc, in the process.

3a) There is nothing wrong with redundant classes, but make sure everyone understands why they are redundant and what makes them unique doing this thing. For example, no one should look at the fighter as being the "best" in combat if other classes exist that fight just as well as it, instead people should expect some other thing that makes a given class unique.

4) Every class should have something useful to do in each identified pillar that they are best at over every other class. While it is always possible that a given game will not feature things that a typical adventure party does in a typical adventure, these ideas can be easily identified and suffice for most things.
Bring back the bloody condition.



+1, so much design space aroung it too.

I would scrap 5E and start fresh on multiple systems to deal with the fractured community, using the work done on 5E where applicable.
...whatever
I keep reading people saying they're unhappy with D&D Next, it's dumbed down version of D&D, it's bad, etc...

What would you change it to make it enjoyable? Please be specific . Everything is not an answer.



For me one major point with this packet are the ranger and paladin.
To may they don't have a good mecanics to them that make the feal and play difrently then other classes.
they are just things already in the game combined.
ranger fighter/druid
paladin fighter/cleric.

they should be designed to stand on their own abilities
for example you can do so much with the ranger concept instead they give some medioker abilaties that as well might just have been some feats.
and added spellcasting becouse they coulden't think of somthing better.

I would love to see the ranger to be the wilderness survival guy
instead of some semi spell caster with a hatred for a certain kind of creature.
For wizard: Cantrips are boring, and spell slots are too few.  It's going to result in most encounters, and most rounds, involving "Pew pew, I shoot my ray of frost" for low level wizards.  That gets boring pretty quick.

I'd like to see more non-damage cantrips that can alter the environment or change the game in subtle ways. 

For example, I think a weak wizard lock as a cantrip might be useful (I see more goblins are charging down the hallway, I wizard lock the door closed from a distance - that should delay them a couple rounds so we have a better chance of dealing with the goblins already in here with us). 

Same with some sort of stronger telekenisis (mage hand) that can move around larger objects but not organic matter like a foe (I pull the desk off the balcony to come crashing down in the middle of the floor we are fighting on, and then I take cover behind the smashed desk to avoid those arrows).

And finally, some sort of mind reading cantrrip (I spend the round sensing where the goblin keeps his treasure, before the fighter cuts him down). 

These are all things a wizared could do once their spell slots are expended that still helps the party, but doesn't directly damage foes.
SKILLS



+1

Not happy with changes in 3/20/13 packet.  
1st level characters have hit points that are too low.

I want to go back to maximum hit dice number + constitution score as the starting hit points.

The cleric I just built has 8 starting hit points.
The second thing I'd get rid of is the notion that any of the other classes has any business being anywhere near as good at any aspect of combat as the Fighter.


COmbat involves damage, tanking, buffing, debuffing, healing, convincing enemies to surrender, knowing your surroundings, and attacking at melee and ranged.

There's no way Fighters can be best at all of that without the class becoming a neurotic mess/
Get rid of the "spell schools" as they are, replace them with simplier named types of spells so that there is no spell cross over between schools. Have spells that do not have levels. Have scaling rules for spells that do not involve class level but rather work with either vancian slots or points to determine casting cost.