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?
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
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
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)
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.
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.
