Community

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?

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. 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.