Future Splat books - What do you want from them?

[Hytheter]

I've seen a few posts around about what people don't want from splat books; specifically, the consensus seems to be that we don't want to mess up what is currently a well balanced game by flooding the spectrum of possibility with billions of new options, many of which are broken or result in a complicated mess like 3.5.

But what do you want to see in future releases? Is there some specific area you'd like covered, like new classes/prestige classes, feats, spells, or what have you?

Personally I'd like to see a fair few more feats, so long as they follow the trend of being interesting and varied as they are in the PHB. I'm particularly interested in the old-style multiclassing feats, that support multiclassing by allowing different class abilities to be combined in interesting/synergistic ways, or just by changing the ability scores that classes use (for example the obscure but very cool Kung-Fu genius feat that let monks play off of Intellegence instead of Wisdom). Obviously they'd have to be careful not to upset balance and maybe avoid helping combos that already work, but I think it could add something to the game, especially since multiclassing is generally considered to be kind of weak.

[Vemynal]

New Races and classes are always fun. Yet, I'm gonna say a giant *NO!* to Prestige classes. I feel like they were awesome, and fun, but they were also half of 3.5's problems.

Races I'd love to see include Goliaths, Aasimar, Warforged, Changlings, Goblins.

I'd love to see a class similar to the Inquisitor from Pathfinder. A divine/sneak/skill type class.

[Chaosvii7]

Blood magic.

All I want is a splatbook about blood magic.

I don't want a lot of custom races and classes; I'd rather have a greater variety of subclasses and backgrounds instead. Instead of new spell lists for classes, I think they should do what the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster do and make any new classes or subtypes use specific schools of magic from already established lists, to help with spell bloat.

[Hytheter]

New Races and classes are always fun. Yet, I'm gonna say a giant *NO!* to Prestige classes. I feel like they were awesome, and fun, but they were also half of 3.5's problems.

Races I'd love to see include Goliaths, Aasimar, Warforged, Changlings, Goblins.

I'd love to see a class similar to the Inquisitor from Pathfinder. A divine/sneak/skill type class.

Come to think of it it, it's odd that Aasimar aren't already in, when Tieflings are in the PHB...

I think I agree on Prestige Classes. What would be preferable is probably more subclasses (although Clerics and Wizards probably get enough of those already). It'd be nice to play a Sorcerer that isn't intrinsically linked to dragons and that doesn't have to make a bunch of extra rolls for random effects. The inquisitor might even be workable as a Rogue subclass.


Blood magic.

What is that, exactly?

[RustyArmor]

Blood magic is from various other sources/games, mostly dealing with using your blood or other peoples as components and spells related to blood like effects.
It ranged from weak, useless and nearly killing you off for little gain. To insanely powerful and broken. Depending on what game/source its from.

[edge2054]

I think I'd like a book that expanded the selection of archetypes.

[Ferrin33]

What is that, exactly?

Magic powered by blood, and usually controlling blood as well.

What I would like to see:


More classes and more archetypes for existing classes. Specifically psionics and soul binding(Binder/Incarnum), but I'll take whatever they throw at us. :p
More races and subraces, or multiple choices in racial features for existing races and subraces to choose from.
A "spell replacement" system that allows you to switch out spells from the cleric, druid, and wizard spell list for new spells in a splatbook. That would allow you to add more variety without increasing their possible versatility every day beyond what is possible in the Player's Handbook. Not needed for classes that choose their spells known on level-up.

[Ralanr]

If there are more paths, I'd like to see a calm rage path for the barbarian.

I like tranquil fury, and I'm not sure I would be able to role play it with the current paths (in my mind, there is probably nothing stopping me unless I pick Berserker.)

[Yagyujubei]

The biggest thing for me would be a splat book based solely around Alchemy/Poisoncraft/Artisan Crafting that would flesh out some more rules for them and list some items obtainable by them.

Obviously more classes and class features is something everyone wants because variety is the spice of life and all that, but at that point I think homebrewing works just as well if not better. It's pretty simple to be like "ok, this class/feature path gets upgrades at this, this, and this level so I'll just slot in different things for those levels" and balance shouldn't be a huge problem as long as you get some opinions about it from others to make sure it's not OP.

[Dr paradox]

Expanded rules for all kinds of non-combat related things. Wilderness exploration, resource management and scarcity, Diplomacy, stuff like that. One of the things I'm liking about the system is the way that it treats combat as something that happens in the context of a world rather than the assumed base component of a game the way 4e was built.

If they can figure out a compelling way to do diplomatic encounters, I would buy the hell out of that. Heck, how about a splatbook buillt around court intrigue and espionage? Spymaster archetype for rogues, bodyguard archetype for fighters, some additional divination/divination blocking spells, rules on buying support and building connections between conniving nobles... I've always run it purely narratively, but it would be cool to have some rules options, so that the players can feel like they have real agency outside of what the DM dangles in front of their nose.

[Sartharina]

I want an official catfolk race that's fun and balanced.

[SaintRidley]

Monster ecology books like we got with the Fiendish Codices, Lords of Madness, and Libris Mortis are always up top on my list of wants.

[VoxRationis]

I'm gonna go with SaintRidley and Dr. Paradox on this one. I've had enough of munchkin-fuel. I want books which help develop deep, intricate storytelling and worldbuilding. Not that I don't put effort into doing those things myself, but someone could really explain how all the creatures in the Monster Manual manage to fit in one world (obviously, there are many more species on Earth than are present in the MM, but the MM focuses on (usually carnivorous) megafauna with high energy requirements and a high degree of mobility, which means that interspecific competition would be terrible).

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Well, theres always the approach that it ISNT a long term stable ecosystem. It's not gonna work out in the long run, even with legions of druids, magic, and divine intervention.

[Cambrian]

Psionics and Campaign settings are my top priorities. Not even looking to run games in other settings-- I just love those sorts of manuals.

Mainly getting setting specific content like subclasses, races, equipment, etc...

Spells are dangerous. I'd like to see future spells limited to things that don't offer drastically different utility than spells can already accommodate-- so some sort of an ice-based fireball would be fine, but preferably not a new X to Y alteration spell.

Feats are also dangerous. A psionics manual would of course have some psionic feats (like psionic initiate) and those shouldn't be much of an issue. Really new feats should only be for concepts the current feats can't cover including setting specific concepts.

Overall I want splatbooks to focus more on backstory and fluff and less on granting new mechanical options unless currently nothing facilitates anything close.

[Ghost Nappa]

Blood magic.

All I want is a splatbook about blood magic.

I don't want a lot of custom races and classes; I'd rather have a greater variety of subclasses and backgrounds instead. Instead of new spell lists for classes, I think they should do what the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster do and make any new classes or subtypes use specific schools of magic from already established lists, to help with spell bloat.

Mainly getting setting specific content like subclasses, races, equipment, etc...

*snip*

Overall I want splatbooks to focus more on backstory and fluff and less on granting new mechanical options unless currently nothing facilitates anything close.

....

That's actually rather spot on actually.

- Goblins and other "Monstrous Humanoid PCs"
- Aasimar
- Blood Mage (Cast from HP!)
- More Backgrounds
- More Subclasses (Especially Ranger, Sorcerer, and Bard)


I'd like to say magical equipment construction TIPS. Don't give me a list of magical equipment that "exists." Gear optimization is like the biggest time-suck and mental drain for me. Tell the DM how to make cool stuff and where to put it and so on.

[Cambrian]

Monster ecology books like we got with the Fiendish Codices, Lords of Madness, and Libris Mortis are always up top on my list of wants.
Very much agree. I love any books that give more detail on the worlds/realms and their inhabitants. And the more sinister or different the society the better.

If such books had no rules (for players) then I don't think WotC could make too many of them (too many to afford, but it couldn't break the system).

Funnily enough a lot of what people want from splat books will more than likely be part of core when the DMG drops.

[Steel Mirror]

I am most looking forward to campaign setting books. Eberron, FR, Dragonlance, and Ravenloft all would make it to my must-buy list. Darksun seems popular, and has some cool stuff in it. I never actually had any experience with Spelljammer, but I would be interested in seeing what 5E could do with it. I'd also love for them to do like they did back in 3.5, and run a competition for a brand new setting custom-made for 5E.

My wish is to see them make setting books that not only introduce a new world to play in, but a new way to play D&D as well. Kind of what they did with D20 modern back in the day. A setting book that also introduced new classes to match the new environment, perhaps with a subsytem or two to reinforce the genre conventions or setting themes that they were going with. Sanity for a horror-survival game, maybe. Firearms and ranged martial combat options for a musketeer swashbuckling world.

Not optimistic that it will ever happen, but it would be cool!

[Nizaris]

Only a handful of classes, sub-classes and specialized feats replacing as much as possible.

Psionics: Psi-Warriors and Ardents are Fighter archetypes, Lurks are a part of Rogues. Psions stand alone and Wilders can maybe stand alone? Don't think there's enough to subclass with Wilders though. Soulknife can either go Monk subclass or possibly a feat.

Ebberon: I want me some Warforged and Artificing.

Misc: Pathfinder's Alchemist would be interesting and I think their existing subclasses show that it can support subclasses. I also would like them to go back to Wizard variants like when it was the Mage: Wizard. Sha'ir and even Witch could match the Wizard with slightly different Spellcasting class ability and patron (Djin or Witch's) or other specializations are just another form of Arcane Tradition. I love Truename magic so if they could make a working one I would be ecstatic. I liked the Arcane Archer feat and prestige class replacers like that if balanced would be nice.

[neovenator250]

New Races and classes are always fun. Yet, I'm gonna say a giant *NO!* to Prestige classes.

Races I'd love to see include Changlings


This is what I'm interested in. I LOVE Changelings, flavor-wise. Haven't been able to play one yet.

[Shadow]

I'd love to see a class similar to the Inquisitor from Pathfinder. A divine/sneak/skill type class.

Inquisitor, Rogue subclass
Wis instead of Int, cleric spells instead of wizard
Divination, evocation, enchantment (our group finds it overly restrictive to only allow two schools for AT/EK and have thus offered a third school for each, so this falls in line with that).
Now you just have to speak with your DM to alter level 3/9/13/17 subclass abilities into something appropriate.

As for myself, I want more subclasses. Backgrounds are already mutable enough and easily created. More woldn't hurt, but also aren't needed. Subclases are all that I want to see, and lots of them.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Steel Mirror
I am most looking forward to campaign setting books. Eberron, FR, Dragonlance, and Ravenloft all would make it to my must-buy list.... I'd also love for them to do like they did back in 3.5, and run a competition for a brand new setting custom-made for 5E.

The one thing I would most like to see is an updated sourcebook devoted to the Moonshaes in the Forgotten Realms. They really missed out by not doing one for 3.5, and I think they only glossed over the region in 4E, so I'd say the Moonshaes are overdue for some love.

And yes, definitely a competition for a completely new setting. I happen to like Eberron, so I'd be interested to see what people would come up with ten years on.

[AmbientRaven]

A "spell replacement" system that allows you to switch out spells from the cleric, druid, and wizard spell list for new spells in a splatbook. That would allow you to add more variety without increasing their possible versatility every day beyond what is possible in the Player's Handbook. Not needed for classes that choose their spells known on level-up.
[/LIST]

Fantastic Idea

What i would like to see:
-More Races, Including Aasimar, Yuan-ti, Svirfneblin, Goblin, Orc, Gnoll, Kobold + some other monster races
-More Class Archetypes for Bard (Inspiration to cause confusion ect maybe, like the NWN/BG Jester), Sorcorer (Blood Magic maybe? Expend HP to Increase damage), Ranger (a DW focus), Druid (Animal Compnion based caster)
-Better animal companion Rules
-More classes
-More Backgrounds

[Easy_Lee]

This generation makes it easy to generate new class archetypes, so no excuses if we don't see more of those. Some I would like to see:

Thief-Acrobat (rogue who can finesse quarterstaves and spears) or Acrobat (fighter or monk)
Swashbuckler (rogue or fighter with int and dex-based features)
Kensai (DW fighter)
Shintao (monk)
Henshin Mystic (monk)
Master Thrower (rogue)
Amazon (ranger)
Blade dancer (fighter)


More dragons! Who could forget about the five metal dragons from forgotten realms? And we need some force dragons, such as ethereal, phantom, radiant, force, etc. Force dragon ancestry on a warlock 2 / sorcerer x would be downright sick.

A wider variety of spells, particularly for wizards. Right now, the wizard spell list is heavy in some schools and shallow in others (divination has few options). Evokers are punished for not picking fire by a general lack of spells and no level 9 spell. Since the entire set of wizard archetypes is based on a single school, we need more spells, hopefully ones that don't break the game (no spells that target multiple saves at once).

New classes:

Psion (Psionic Warrior, Psionic Fist, and Psion Uncarnate as archetypes)
Something that uses both strength and dexterity to their fullest (acrobat could potentially do this)
Shadowknight


Feats:

Make the fighter fighting styles a feat option (+Stat)
Elemental affinity to reduce cost of elemental monk abilities from a particular element, or some other way to reduce their heavy ki costs
Dagger Specialization (+DEX)
Better TWF options
Extra Metamagic (+CHA or INT)
Extra Ki (+WIS or DEX)


Also, some skill tricks would be cool to add some explicit options for melees. I realize most things that would qualify as skill tricks could easily be rolls discussed between DM and player, but having some starting points would be a good addition. I don't think it would make sense for characters to give anything up for these; rather, have it be assumed that players with a given skill proficiency and high enough stat are capable of skill tricks.

The list goes on and on.

[rollingForInit]

Psionics. Aside from that, I don't want a lot of new classes (I certainly wouldn't mind a few), since I want every class to feel unique. As opposed to 4th where half of them felt like the same thing. More interesting subclasses would be awesome, though. Missing races from previous editions.

I would also like an alternate feat system. Something where you can get feats more often without it getting terribly unbalanced, and without sacrificing ABI's. Will probably only happen in my dreams, but one can always hope.

[squashmaster]

I want setting books with new monsters/races/templates/optional rules/items/archetypes/backgrounds/maybe full classes that are related thematically to the setting itself. Not adventure books per se. If adventures are included then it should make the book that much bigger, but the setting itself should be the focus. A launching point for either making your own adventures within that setting or using premade adventures.

Do one for each major setting, except maybe Forgotten Realms cause come on, enough with that already. Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Planescape, Dark Sun, Eberron.

And then do a new major setting contest to give people even more incentive to switch to 5e.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

My wish list for splats:


More Class Archetypes. I love mixing and matching concepts, but I dislike multiclassing (conceptually), so this would be cool
More Races. Again, variety is cool. Not sold on Aasimar, but might be neato in an adventure where they would make sense.
More Backgrounds. What about Farmboy? Did you ever think of that? HUH!?!
Adventures. I think this is what they're gonna mostly focus on anyway.
I love Medieval Fantasy, don't get me wrong. But once in a while I'd prefer my Paladin to be a Man Called Paladin. I'm also planning a game right now that would be awesome to include 5E Guns.


The last one there especially. I generally like adding quirks to my settings, and I hate going straight Medieval. Knights and Wizards are fine, but Steam-powered Knights riding atop tanks and wielding shotguns, and Wizards? !@#$%ing AWESOME!

[rollingForInit]

I just realised something else. If they end up releasing a bunch of setting specific books and other fluffy things, with all the new classes, races, feats and spells spread out across two dozen volumes, I'd love to have a few compendiums released in the future. All D&D Spells, All Monsters, All Races, All Classes. Etc. Both for ease of looking things up without going through lots of different books, and for those who won't be interested in the Forgotten Realms or Eberron or anything like that, but just want the system-relevant things such as classes and races. Without paying for stuff that's of no interest.

[Steel Mirror]

The last one there especially. I generally like adding quirks to my settings, and I hate going straight Medieval. Knights and Wizards are fine, but Steam-powered Knights riding atop tanks and wielding shotguns, and Wizards? !@#$%ing AWESOME!I definitely second that. Let's see some more variety for officially supported ways of playing D&D! Superheroes, Mechs, Future War, Space Opera, Wild West...let a thousand D&D setting flowers bloom!

[stitchlipped]

My wish list for splats:


More Class Archetypes. I love mixing and matching concepts, but I dislike multiclassing (conceptually), so this would be cool
More Races. Again, variety is cool. Not sold on Aasimar, but might be neato in an adventure where they would make sense.
More Backgrounds. What about Farmboy? Did you ever think of that? HUH!?!
Adventures. I think this is what they're gonna mostly focus on anyway.
I love Medieval Fantasy, don't get me wrong. But once in a while I'd prefer my Paladin to be a Man Called Paladin. I'm also planning a game right now that would be awesome to include 5E Guns.


The last one there especially. I generally like adding quirks to my settings, and I hate going straight Medieval. Knights and Wizards are fine, but Steam-powered Knights riding atop tanks and wielding shotguns, and Wizards? !@#$%ing AWESOME!

I can agree with this, more or less (but we don't need a Farmboy background - just refluff Folk Hero!).

I definitely don't think the game needs new classes and will be disappointed if we get a glut of them. New "class" ideas should be dealt with in one of 3 ways:

1. All other concepts are handled with sub-classes, period. Probably the best idea, really. The others below may be more flexible but will probably just invite problems!
2. If they want to create more complex archetypes that require
heavier adaptation of existing classes, possibly introduce a system of advanced subclasses which substitute out other abilities from the existing class progression.
3. Encourage the concept to be achieved through multiclassing, perhaps by offering substitute class abilities or subclasses that are only available to multiclassers, or feats that can only be taken by characters with prerequisite classes.

[stitchlipped]

I just realised something else. If they end up releasing a bunch of setting specific books and other fluffy things, with all the new classes, races, feats and spells spread out across two dozen volumes, I'd love to have a few compendiums released in the future. All D&D Spells, All Monsters, All Races, All Classes. Etc. Both for ease of looking things up without going through lots of different books, and for those who won't be interested in the Forgotten Realms or Eberron or anything like that, but just want the system-relevant things such as classes and races. Without paying for stuff that's of no interest.

Oh yes, definitely this. Spell Compendium was one of my favourite 3.5 books. The other was Unearthed Arcana (which it sounds like this edition's DMG may take a few cues from!)

[Rallicus]

Home building rules (cost for materials, labor, etc). Mechanical guidelines on how to help the PCs build a city. Guidelines on how to have NPCs in said city or NPCs associated with the PCs (significant others, children, etc) grow while the PCs are out adventuring. Like maybe a d20 chart rolled each year the PCs are gone, with results kind of like how backgrounds can be handled.

Like the DM rolls behind the screen, gets a 1, and the PCs come back a year later to find the rogue's son is in prison for thievery. ("Where did you learn this from, son?!" "I learned it from you, dad! I learned it from watching you!")

I got a soft spot in my heart for games like Harvest Moon, so that's probably where this is coming from.

Oh, and ways the PCs can get Lair Actions in their homes or the cities they built.

Maybe call it... "The Daily Life Handbook."

[ZeshinX]

More archetypes/specializations/whatever people call them for ALL classes. Variant classes/class abilities. Setting-specific variants for classes (Oriental Adventures, Dark Sun, etc).

I'd like to see this done in a fashion more akin to Pathfinder's Advanced Player's Guide, where options for all core races/classes exist in the same book.

I'd also very much like to see a scaling back of the emphasis placed on this storyline stuff. Not elimination, but much less "in your face" pushing of it. I like 5e very much, but this heavy-handed push of their storyline adventures is really keeping me from fully embracing 5e. I don't care about their adventures. I make my own. The content in those is useless to me. Others find it very useful, and that's great, I don't want to see WotC (or those they contract) stop making them. I just want content I can use. Expand the core in ways more useable by those of us who don't care about the pre-built adventures...at the very least gives us some idea about the direction it will go as far as content not related to adventure modules.

[Rallicus]

I just want content I can use. Expand the core in ways more useable by those of us who don't care about the pre-built adventures...at the very least gives us some idea about the direction it will go as far as content not related to adventure modules.

And have it become a bloated abomination like 3.X? No thanks.

I'm perfectly fine with Adventure Paths and modules, and I hope that's the direction they're going to take. Of course said modules will have stuff to expand the core game in it -- I read somewhere about the Oathbreaker Paladin archetype being added in the next Adventure Path -- so it gives material for people who run their own games as well.

I'd much rather have small amounts of new, well-thought content, over entire splatbooks filled with new rules, classes, and variants.

But I'm probably in the minority here.

[stitchlipped]

And have it become a bloated abomination like 3.X? No thanks.

I'm perfectly fine with Adventure Paths and modules, and I hope that's the direction they're going to take. Of course said modules will have stuff to expand the core game in it -- I read somewhere about the Oathbreaker Paladin archetype being added in the next Adventure Path -- so it gives material for people who run their own games as well.

I'd much rather have small amounts of new, well-thought content, over splatbooks filled with new rules and variants.

But I'm probably in the minority here.

Well, I like splatbooks, but I also don't want there to be a bajillion of them.

I think if they focus most of their efforts on the APs, and only release a splatbook every so often, it would be ideal. Books with new player options (Player's Handbook 2, 3, or whatever) can come out every few years, compiling all the new material from the APs and provide additional material on top of that for those of who are only interested in world-building material and game support.

Anything else released probably should relate more to fleshing out campaign worlds or monster ecology.

[ZeshinX]

And have it become a bloated abomination like 3.X? No thanks.

I'm perfectly fine with Adventure Paths and modules, and I hope that's the direction they're going to take. Of course said modules will have stuff to expand the core game in it -- I read somewhere about the Oathbreaker Paladin archetype being added in the next Adventure Path -- so it gives material for people who run their own games as well.

I'd much rather have small amounts of new, well-thought content, over splatbooks filled with new rules and variants.

But I'm probably in the minority here.

I think bloat is certainly a valid point, minority or majority. 5e is a good system, but if all they put out is adventure paths with the possibility of miniscule class options contained therein, then I'll be sticking with PF and their "balanced" approach.

I don't think 5e will be exclusively adventures of course, but until I can see what kinds of splat options they offer, and the general frequency/quality of them, well, PF is where my money will go.

[Rallicus]

Here's my problem with splats: the more you release, the greater chance of class discrepancy. Suddenly nobody wants to play any fighter archetype other than the new Gladiator, which pushes the already worst option (Champion) into the dark pit known as "never play as this."

I know GiTP has a lot of focus on optimization, which is why I left for roughly two years and only just came back a few days ago. I hate, absolutely hate, running 3.X. I understand the appeal of it but running it as a DM is such a headache... I had a player once tell another player, "You're going fighter? Seriously? Pick up Tome of Battle, dude, or this campaign is over."

That was my final straw. Dropped the game, never looked back. Swore of D&D for good and went to other systems. But my love of high fantasy drew me back to 5e, and I'm hooked again.

I want Pathfinder to continue to thrive. I want that fanbase to stay there. But please, please, for the love of deity, keep 5e going in this direction. Simple, intuitive, etc. Keep the classes and archetypes minimal. Release splats once or twice a year, if ever, and don't include things that stomp on the feet of core.

[ZeshinX]

Here's my problem with splats: the more you release, the greater chance of class discrepancy. Suddenly nobody wants to play any fighter archetype other than the new Gladiator, which pushes the already worst option (Champion) into the dark pit known as "never play as this."

I know GiTP has a lot of focus on optimization, which is why I left for roughly two years and only just came back a few days ago. I hate, absolutely hate, running 3.X. I understand the appeal of it but running it as a DM is such a headache... I had a player once tell another player, "You're going fighter? Seriously? Pick up Tome of Battle, dude, or this campaign is over."

That was my final straw. Dropped the game, never looked back. Swore of D&D for good and went to other systems. But my love of high fantasy drew me back to 5e, and I'm hooked again.

I want Pathfinder to continue to thrive. I want that fanbase to stay there. But please, please, for the love of deity, keep 5e going in this direction. Simple, intuitive, etc. Keep the classes and archetypes minimal. Release splats once or twice a year, if ever, and don't include things that stomp on the feet of core.

I'd rather see splats expand on the core. Not add new systems like Tome of Battle (a splat I absolutely despise for 3.5).

I share your view about the core. I don't want to see it invalidated or rendered obsolete by newer options, the way ToB destroyed all the core martial classes. More options for the core classes (archetypes and the like) are what I'd like to see.

[Joe the Rat]

Setting material.
Psionics.
More Subclasses over More Classes (If you can work it as a subclass, do that. If you can't, then make a new class).
Subclasses tied to settings. Backgrounds tied to settings.
A few more races (again, tied to settings).

Guidelines to help you build additional races and subclasses (assuming such is not in the DMG).

[odigity]

Why is no one asking for software?

Someone mentioned wanting compendiums to gather all the related rules from all the splatbooks they envision coming out some day (a bit premature...). How about a Safari-style online subscription to all content, like O'Reilly did for tech books? How about an official WotC database with search, instead of fans having to compile every spell manually and make a searchable/filterable site as a labor of love? How about being able to auto-generate overland maps, dungeons, towns, heck, even cities with hundreds or thousands of heuristically-detailed NPCs, like Massive did for fight scenes (from the LotR films)? A client/server phone app so your players can log in to your campaign, send secret messages to you, see parts of a map without other players seeing it, etc?

Actually, forget all that; just update this:

http://www.amazon.com/Book-Erotic-Fantasy-Gwendolyn-Kestrel/dp/097420451X

[mabriss lethe]

From everything I've seen and heard, there isn't going to be a massive checklist of splatbooks coming out for 5e. I've heard claims that they'll be focusing on fewer, larger updates so that every rulebook that comes out is a major system resource instead of a hodgepodge scavenger hunt through several redundant books.

[Shadow]

Yeah, the splatbook per month model is a thing of the past.
There will of course be splat, but not to the extent that there has been in the past, and therefore not to the extent that many of you are fearing/hoping/planning for.
Thier metrics show that all the splatbooks just prove to drive away more players than they draw in, so they simply aren't going to have anywhere near so many.
In an interview, Mearls said (to paraphrase) that it's probably going to take some time before people realize just how serious they are about this.

[stitchlipped]

In an interview, Mearls said (to paraphrase) that it's probably going to take some time before people realize just how serious they are about this.

He's right because I'll believe it when I see it. Or in this case, don't see it.

[Solamnicknight]

I'd like to see the Dragonlance, Greyhawk, Spelljammer, and Ravenloft campaign settings again. Especially Dragonlance :smallcool: and Spelljammer. I'd also like to see some more adventures released. Also if they release Dragonlance new novels.

[Shadow]

He's right because I'll believe it when I see it. Or in this case, don't see it.

I expect that the vast majority of splat will be focused on campaign setting material rather than a bunch of class books and whatnot for a few years at least.
Between that, adventure paths, and supplemental stuff (such as the spell card packs as example) that will keep sales going decently for a while.
Eventually they're going to have to release other forms of splat, yes. But there won't be a *need* to do so for a long while, and WotC has claimed to recognize this.

[IAmTehDave]

I'd like to see the Dragonlance, Greyhawk, Spelljammer, and Ravenloft campaign settings again. Especially Dragonlance :smallcool: and Spelljammer. I'd also like to see some more adventures released. Also if they release Dragonlance new novels.

Huh...someone calling themselves Solamnic Knight would like to see Dragonlance, eh? Who'd have thought. :smalltongue:

Personally I want to see:


Updates to every official campaign setting.
ESPECIALLY Spelljammer
And Dark Sun (I always wanted to play in DS but never got a chance)
Psionics. I could see the base classes being subclasses for existing classes, though: Wizard>Psion Sorcerer>Wilder Fighter>Psywar Monk>Soulknife Rogue>Lurk Cleric>Ardent for instance.
Magic Item creation rules, or at least rules for importing 3.X utility items (I want my damn Bag of Boulders) and the like.


There are other things, but those would be top.

What I don't want to see:

Loads and loads of new spells.
Loads and loads of new classes
Adventure Paths for the rest of time.

[MustacheFart]

I would like to see splat books that contain nothing but templates, feats, prestige classes, traits/flaws fore more feats, and crazy, playable monster races.

[rlc]

I'm gonna say a giant *NO!* to Prestige classes. I feel like they were awesome, and fun, but they were also half of 3.5's problems.


eh, they can just make them like epic destinies or super backgrounds that you have to earn and they'd work fine. I'm sure people would whine about it because it's "different," but, really, who cares?

[Shadow]

Guys, subclasses are 5e's Prestige Classes.

They are where you take your base class and modify it for personal taset for both flavor and crunch.
I, for one, strongly believe that PrCs were the defining characteristic contributing to the downfall and eventual ridiculous imbalance of 3.x, and I absolutely do *not* want to se them implemented in 5e.
Subclasses and multiclassing is all that's needed.

[Endarire]

Planescape.

[cobaltstarfire]

Like most people I think I'd like to see more subclasses, particularly for those that only got a couple of paths.

Support for monstrous PC's that doesn't make them completely gimped as a PC. I think is my number one thing...and that's likely to be in the DMG.

While I'm not that interested in new backgrounds, I think they're a given and should be included for those who don't want to use or retool the existing ones.

[Dhavaer]

The Dark Pact warlock and Storm sorcerer. Also a gish class more mage-y than the Eldritch Knight and more fight-y than the blade warlock.

[mephnick]

Sub-classes and properly contained prestige classes that don't require multi-classing, just natural progression of base classes.

I guess I'm in the minority in thinking that reliance on multi-classing was one of the main problems with 3.5 and not a feature.

The character combinations you see on these boards that go like x/y/z/a make me want to vomit.

[ZeshinX]

Prestige Classes are most certainly something that should NOT return. As others have mentioned, subclasses take that role in 5e, and accomplish it far more elegantly than 3/3.5 prestige classes.

Multiclassing....some love should go that way, but I don't think it needs much (too much will likely lead to PrC-styled madness all over again). I just hope it stays minimal, otherwise the game will degenerate back into gestalt-like bloat that happened in 3/3.5 and is now really starting to happen in Pathfinder with the Advanced Class Guide.

Psionics....I'd like to see, since I do enjoy psionics, but I wouldn't miss them if they stayed absent.

[Grayson01]

More Races, Subraces, Classes (I want my Dragon Shaman Back please and Maybe the Scout which could be a subclass), maybe some feats but not over powered and crazy, and more back grounds. I like the special features of the Backgrounds an dwould like more of them.

[Fwiffo86]

What I desire in a splat book....

1 - Description, explanation, and implementation of titles, duties of nobles, and governmental structures for Monarchy, Theocracy, etc.

2 - How to climb the governmental structure. How do you become knighted (what does that actually mean)? How do you become a Baron, or Duke, etc. What do these titles mean? Barbarian Tribes (how they govern themselves, etc), Non-human government structures.

3 - NO Additional classes/spells/races/feats/etc. Unless they conform to the design ideology of the core books, have been reviewed and properly balanced against the rest of the available options.

4 - Ritual ONLY spells (caveat that none of them could be used for combat advantage/use)

5 - Societal structures and how they work. Examples) Thieve's guild (entering, jobs, operations), Army (how its used, raised, operates), Merchant Guilds (how they operate)

7 - Some sort of metric to judge power against. How powerful is your typical King's Guard? What about the average pickpocket? What does character level mean against the rest of the world?

8 - Common side effects to big things. What happens when you cast WISH? What about Miracle? Storm of Vengeance? How do these things affect the world and its people? Does having that much power spark wars?

9 - As few game statistics as possible. Preferrably none. If that means no new spells/feats/classes/etc. I am perfectly fine with that.

10 - Repairs/rewording of existing material to further align it with its intended design. (errata)

[Shining Wrath]

More monsters. Current MM is woefully under-feyed, lacks ooze, needs more celestial seasoning.

Additional backgrounds. For example, Servant - as in Samwise Gamgee, Sancho Panza, etc.

More domains, more sorts of sorcerer, different Wild Magic sorcerer tables.

[INDYSTAR188]

I would really love to get my mitts on a Planescape and Forgotten Realms campaign guide. Really though, aside from those I hope we only get a PHB2/DMG2/MM2 type of books. I firmly believe that by including splatbooks without careful consideration the game designers can water down and ruin their product.

*I should add that I'm very interested to see what WotC does with the whole 4E Forgotten Realms timeline. What happened with the spellplague and the merging of the continents? Why is Anarauch a desert again?

[cobaltstarfire]

Ahh I forgot to add another thing, fluff and good artwork, I want fluff, main fluff, alternate fluff, whatever I love fluff.

I've never really used my draconomicon, but I really like to read it...and look at the artwork in it.

[Aldurin]

I want to see splatbooks that mesh fluff and mechanics well without leaving too much for breaking with other books' content. Also understanding when a concept should be its own class or an entire series of archetypes. The Shadow Magic section of Tome of Magic from 3.5e has some of my favorite fluff, but mechanically it was an egregious flop. I'd like to see it come back in a functional version this time, half to renew my faith in WotC doing cool things correctly, and half so I don't have to do it myself.

[Galen]

I'd like to see the following classes & races done in 5E, and done well:
- Binder
- Swashbuckler
- Samurai
- Dragonfire Adept
- Artificer
- Warforged
- Catfolk
- Killoren
- Aasimar
- Mongrelfolk
- Goliath
- Elan
(some of those were awesome flavor-wise, but 3.5 didn't really get them balanced mechanically)
Possibly some can be done as subclasses (eg. Samurai as a Fighter subclass).

I'd like to see more martial feats and general-purpose feats.

I'd like to see more divine domains.

And yes, I'd like to see Psionics.

[Fwiffo86]

I'd like to see the following classes & races done in 5E, and done well:
- Binder
- Swashbuckler
- Samurai
- Dragonfire Adept
- Artificer
- Warforged
- Catfolk
- Killoren
- Aasimar
- Mongrelfolk
- Goliath
- Elan
(some of those were awesome flavor-wise, but 3.5 didn't really get them balanced mechanically)
Possibly some can be done as subclasses (eg. Samurai as a Fighter subclass).

I'd like to see more martial feats and general-purpose feats.

I'd like to see more divine domains.

And yes, I'd like to see Psionics.

Many of these are very cool, but can be easily simulated with present material, well the classes anyway.

[IcemanJRC]

- Binder
- Dragonfire Adept
- Killoren
- Aasimar
- Elan


What are these and why are Aasimar so popular? I've been wanting to ask about all these classes and races people want from older editions and I'm always like "Wha?" so I figured I'd finally ask. I've seen Binder and Aasimar a couple times and the others seemed sufficiently nondescript so I'd also like to know those, if someone would mind explaining.

[Rfkannen]

What are these and why are Aasimar so popular? I've been wanting to ask about all these classes and races people want from older editions and I'm always like "Wha?" so I figured I'd finally ask. I've seen Binder and Aasimar a couple times and the others seemed sufficiently nondescript so I'd also like to know those, if someone would mind explaining.

Hey sure ill explain
- Binder. Never actualy played with one or played one or looked at it.

- Dragonfire Adept; the dragonfire adept is generally a class based around dragons. Personally a lot of flavor can be derived from this class, and it had pretty cool mechanics what with getting scales and a breath weapon, personally they are similar enough to the sorcerer subclass to not be needed.

- Killoren You ever play 4e? Wilden. So bassically tree people, tree people are cool.

- Aasimar. LIke teiflings but holy. Some people like playing a character with a race that gives them a celestial flavor. Also personally I always wanted to play an evil one that took advantage of peoples asumptions of aasimar.

- Elan. Hard to explain, like a physcic hive mind kind of? Generally pretty cool.

[Demonicattorney]

I just want more Battle-master maneuver options, with a cooler use of Superiority Dice, maybe have some maneuvers that cost more than 1, or that you would roll your superiority dice more than once so that the size matters.

[IcemanJRC]

Hey sure ill explain
- Binder. Never actualy played with one or played one or looked at it.

- Dragonfire Adept; the dragonfire adept is generally a class based around dragons. Personally a lot of flavor can be derived from this class, and it had pretty cool mechanics what with getting scales and a breath weapon, personally they are similar enough to the sorcerer subclass to not be needed.

- Killoren You ever play 4e? Wilden. So bassically tree people, tree people are cool.

- Aasimar. LIke teiflings but holy. Some people like playing a character with a race that gives them a celestial flavor. Also personally I always wanted to play an evil one that took advantage of peoples asumptions of aasimar.

- Elan. Hard to explain, like a physcic hive mind kind of? Generally pretty cool.

I see. Well the Aasimar seems like it should've been included in a themed supplement with the Tiefling, missed a boat on that one. Wilden were wicked, so Killoren seem killer too, Elan, eh I dunno PC hive mind sounds not my style, but perhaps in the psionic handbook that is basically guaranteed to come out? Dragonfire Adept is the only thing I disagree with. Dragons are so essential to DnD(ragons) that everybody should get some love, I don't really feel like you can be the best at dragons, there's already Dragonborn and DragonSorcs, some other dragony subclasses would be cool, but a whole class just to be like "Yo Im a dragon." seems silly.

Oh, and my personal wish list: Systems! I like subsystems, like kingdom management or stuff like that, but made with a gamist perspective, simulationist systems end up reading like textbooks and I already don't want to buy textbooks for school, why would I want to buy more for fun? Also something I've always ALWAYS wanted is monster classes. Like imporved natural weapons and that sort of stuff, so that you can just run around as a Gnoll, or a Kobold, or something, not necessarily a Gnoll Barbarian or Kobold Rogue. Though the issue I usually find with those is they tend to be a little flat.

[Hytheter]

I'd like to see the following classes & races done in 5E, and done well:
- Binder
- Swashbuckler
- Samurai
- Dragonfire Adept
- Artificer
...
(some of those were awesome flavor-wise, but 3.5 didn't really get them balanced mechanically)
Possibly some can be done as subclasses (eg. Samurai as a Fighter subclass).

Yeah, Samurai should be a Fighter subclass if it gets made at all (is it really that different to a normal Fighter that it needs its own subclass?) and Swashbuckler should be either Fighter or Rogue imo.
Dragonfire Adepts in 3.5 were very similar to Warlocks mechanically and could be done as a new Dragon subclass for those.

Binders share similar flavour to Warlocks, but could be mechanically different. Artificiers are fairly unlike anything that exists currently, although the new direction of the game regarding Magic Items might make them unfeasible.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

TBH, samurai seem prestige class material. Theyre setting dependent and likely alignment dependent, too.

[Vemynal]

Binder class utilized "Vestiges" to gain certain powers. Conceptually think of Link from Majora's Mask. With all those different masks have different powers, purposes, and abilities. Except a Vestige was far more than a mask; thematically they could be dead gods, things from the far realms, unknown entities, ancestral spirits, etc. Some Vestiges grants spells, others combat prowess, they ran the whole gambit of different purposes.

Elans are a race of aberrations with psionic powers. Originally human (or other races), they are changed into a new form by other elan. While still humanoid looking, they are immortal and able to sustain their bodies with psionic power instead of food and drink.
Basically Elans were originally "Psionic Humans" but got more flavor later.

[VoxRationis]

What about a samurai is actually that different from a fighter that you consider it a prestige class?
In my opinion, a title that applies to an entire social class determined by birth should not also be used to apply to something one needs to have slain dozens of enemies to get into.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

well, mostly that the big concept of prestige classes is classes specific to a group in a setting.

The concept of Samurai as oathsworn warriors of a Japanese-themed lord fits into this pretty well; its a fairly specific, setting dependent group.

What counts against it is that may not be specific enough; Harper Agent is pretty specific, for example.

[Logosloki]

I'd rather like setting splatbooks. Chiefly Dark Sun, since I have fond memories. This way you can introduce new races, sub-races, classes, sub-classes, backgrounds, equipment and feats that are themed to the setting which would allow you to personalise better for a particular campaign.

[VoxRationis]

You can have prestige and a place in the setting without a mechanical reinforcement of the fact.

[odigity]

What I desire in a splat book....

1 - Description, explanation, and implementation of titles, duties of nobles, and governmental structures for Monarchy, Theocracy, etc.

2 - How to climb the governmental structure. How do you become knighted (what does that actually mean)? How do you become a Baron, or Duke, etc. What do these titles mean? Barbarian Tribes (how they govern themselves, etc), Non-human government structures.

3 - NO Additional classes/spells/races/feats/etc. Unless they conform to the design ideology of the core books, have been reviewed and properly balanced against the rest of the available options.

4 - Ritual ONLY spells (caveat that none of them could be used for combat advantage/use)

5 - Societal structures and how they work. Examples) Thieve's guild (entering, jobs, operations), Army (how its used, raised, operates), Merchant Guilds (how they operate)

7 - Some sort of metric to judge power against. How powerful is your typical King's Guard? What about the average pickpocket? What does character level mean against the rest of the world?

8 - Common side effects to big things. What happens when you cast WISH? What about Miracle? Storm of Vengeance? How do these things affect the world and its people? Does having that much power spark wars?

9 - As few game statistics as possible. Preferrably none. If that means no new spells/feats/classes/etc. I am perfectly fine with that.

10 - Repairs/rewording of existing material to further align it with its intended design. (errata)

...I just thought this deserved twice as much attention as all the other posts.

[Objulen]

1) Planescape
2) Dark Sun + Psionics
3) More class specializations
4) More feats and backgrounds
5) More races

[Cambrian]

...
Agreed on all accounts. I'd be quite happy if splat was limited to campaign settings and of course psionics.

Once the major campaign settings have been offered I'd also be interested to see them look to publish new settings as well.

One major advantages for limiting splat to campaign settings and adventures is it implies that the content is up to WotC standards, but is also is intended for a specific use. So it's not assumed to be core, but it can easily be allowed with DM permission.

[Galen]

- Binder
- Dragonfire Adept
- Killoren
- Aasimar
- Elan
What are these and why are Aasimar so popular? I've been wanting to ask about all these classes and races people want from older editions and I'm always like "Wha?" so I figured I'd finally ask. I've seen Binder and Aasimar a couple times and the others seemed sufficiently nondescript so I'd also like to know those, if someone would mind explaining.The Binder is not at all like Warlock, as someone suggested above. The Warlock has one patron, serves him, and gains his powers. The Binder doesn't have a patron, he doesn't serve. He binds vestiges into his service. For reference, vestiges as just one step below gods. Immortal spirits who just missed the cut to be divine. And they serve the Binder. Not the other way around. Also, he can bind different vestiges each time, becoming the ultimate jack-of-all-trades.

DFA is basically a fire-breathing human (or gnome, or dwarf). It's just a class that has to be made. I guess can be done as a subclass of Warlock, with Tiamat (Bahamut) as his patron.

Killoren are spirits of nature. You can basically play as a manifestation of mother nature itself. Well, not in 3.5, because in 3.5 they suck mechanically. That could be the reason why you never heard of them.

Aasimar are descendants of angels, just like Tieflings are descendants of demons. If the latter was made, why not the former?

Elan are humans that were made into aberrations (literally; they have the Aberration type) with Psionic abilities by powers unknown. They're also immortal, elf-style, except much cooler. Because Elves can't kill you with their brain.

[stitchlipped]

For reference, vestiges as just one step below gods. Immortal spirits who just missed the cut to be divine. And they serve the Binder. Not the other way around.

It's been a long time since I read Tome of Magic but I seem to remember there being an aspect to it you've missed out. If I recall correctly they don't necessarily serve willingly and the connection works both ways, if they win the struggle of wills during the Binder's attempt to tap their power, they can instead take control of the Binder and use him/her as a vessel to walk the mortal world.

[Aldurin]

The Binder is not at all like Warlock, as someone suggested above. The Warlock has one patron, serves him, and gains his powers. The Binder doesn't have a patron, he doesn't serve. He binds vestiges into his service. For reference, vestiges as just one step below gods. Immortal spirits who just missed the cut to be divine. And they serve the Binder. Not the other way around. Also, he can bind different vestiges each time, becoming the ultimate jack-of-all-trades.

I'd like to add that it's not necessarily "failing at divine ascension" that makes a vestige. There's many vestiges in the Tome of Magic that didn't seek godhood, but were interesting badasses in their own rights who underwent fates that brought up many questions (and many more when you consider the monsters added by that section of the book) about what actually happened to them. My preferred interpretation is that they are souls (or imprints of souls, in some cases) abandoned or damaged as such that no plane or deity can claim them, leaving them on the edge of reality in a state of existence that no one else can understand. It's the right amount of groundwork and ambiguity to make it some of the strongest-fluffed material in 3.5e.

Again, Tome of Magic brought back for 5e, but functional, would be amazing.

[Joe the Rat]

I want my Dragon Shaman Back please



- Dragonfire Adept

Maybe after Tyranny of Dragons is over? I'm thinking "Rules for playing something that is essentially the bad guys" is not where they want to go right now. Yeah, yeah, metallics. But being All About the Drakes (no Wyverns) is sort of the theme of the villains du jour. Having the disciplines return as a good guy (read: PC) options after the good guys win would be a fitting coda. Harness this so it doesn't happen again. Or "Damn, that almost worked. I bet I could really snag some swag if I used those powers..."

That and I'm thinking "Warlock Pact" for the quick-and-dirty approach. Or an Oath of the Dragon Paladin

[Fwiffo86]

...I just thought this deserved twice as much attention as all the other posts.

And yet.... no one has any commentary. *shrugs*

[stitchlipped]

Maybe after Tyranny of Dragons is over? I'm thinking "Rules for playing something that is essentially the bad guys" is not where they want to go right now. Yeah, yeah, metallics. But being All About the Drakes (no Wyverns) is sort of the theme of the villains du jour. Having the disciplines return as a good guy (read: PC) options after the good guys win would be a fitting coda. Harness this so it doesn't happen again. Or "Damn, that almost worked. I bet I could really snag some swag if I used those powers..."

That and I'm thinking "Warlock Pact" for the quick-and-dirty approach. Or an Oath of the Dragon Paladin

I really don't want any of the dozens of ways to give PCs dragon powers back. The sheer volume was unnecessary, downright silly, and totally undermined the awesomeness of dragons because everyone could get a piece of their action.

[T.G. Oskar]

I might be swimming against the current, but I'd like to see more classes. If anything, I'd like to see what concepts are wide enough to be a class.

Saying that you wouldn't like to see more classes because every earlier concept can be turned into a Subclass (or through Multiclass) eventually leads to invalidating quite a bit of the other classes. In essence: why have Paladin or Ranger, if Fighter/Cleric or Fighter/Druid do the same work? Why have Barbarian if the class is just an angry Fighter? Why have Warlock or Sorcerer if they're only different ways of casting Arcane Magic? I find that the developers, in an attempt to conserve almost all classes from all Player's Handbooks (save for Warlord/Marshal, since I find Battlemaster does no justice to them), managed to work something out of them to make them distinct from a Fighter, a Wizard, or a Fighter/Cleric mix.

Going by that regard, classes should be concepts that are wide enough to comply with a great deal of subclasses, in a way paralleling the concept of PF Archetypes. PF Archetypes are suffering from bloat, because they're trying to replace multiclassing and PrC'ing with it, which is starting to go wrong because some of the Archetypes end up replacing things you want for things you don't want, only to aim for those things you really like. There are concepts I'd like to see, returning or not, into proper classes; Psionics' classes are one of the examples, the Artificer class has a LOT of support behind it (in fact, I consider the PF Alchemist to be better as an Artificer subclass, alongside a "magic-using blacksmith" of sorts and a "magitek engineer"), and I could see some support for a Marshal/Warlord class and maybe a proper Gish class that doesn't invalidate the Eldritch Knight (though, the Eldritch Knight as-is can be pretty strong, given that it can buff itself and have the better nova/extra attacks abilities of the Fighter, something said hypothetical Gish class might not be capable of achieving).

Subclasses will be easier to deal with, however, so I can expect to see a lot of them. There's a lot of classes that could cross over as subclasses: as mentioned by others, the Swashbuckler could easily be a Fighter or Rogue subclass (IMO, should be a Roguish Archetype to give that class some solid fighting skill), and other classes like the Shadowcaster (Wizard School?), Scout (Roguish Archetype, with Skirmish being a plus to Sneak Attack), and so forth. It's evident that Subclasses will also replace most of the Prestige Classes; perhaps the Horizon Walker will be a future Ranger subclass for a hypothetical Planescape/Spelljammer campaign supplement?

Now: saying that there should be little of that is restricting players to very specific conceptions, while having others fall behind. The base classes haven't been fully explored, and there's a lot of material to cut.

Regarding Races: I would definitely support the Aasimar returning, given that the Tiefling is given WAY too much support in spite of its heritage because of its "coolness", whereas the latter is left abandoned. I already mentioned I could see a blend of old-school Aasimar (descendant of celestials) and the 4e Deva, perhaps with a hint of Kalashtar lore with it (the concept of reincarnation as a result of their eternal struggle against Evil). I'd also like to see certain monsters as races, particularly Orcs, most Goblinoids and maybe Gnolls (oh, and Kobolds). Those races that are low Challenge and humanoid, to be precise, for when the Common Races (and some of the Uncommon ones) aren't enough. They could be the "Rare" races, since any of them becoming an adventurer and perhaps fighting against their kin would be difficult to perceive, but the more options available, the better.

Feats are probably the easiest thing to homebrew and work with, and most likely we'll see a lot of them, so I also expect those.

Thus, while I agree with some of the posters here (more subclasses, more races and more feats), I also disagree by accepting more mechanical things (like more classes, so as long as you can tweak subclasses out of them without having to think so much). The more options you have in a game, IMO, the better, as you can provide players with flexibility. It's also the easiest thing to work with.

That said, I don't really mind having those options neatly packed in big books and released every 5-7 months, so that there's enough time to handle them. Perhaps they could use the same format that they used before (which isn't perfect, mind you, but it works to an extent) of "previewing" the classes in Adventure Paths with specific flavor and then have the book hold a more generic version which has the complete version. Perhaps some popular options may bleed into free content, to expand people's accessibility to the game beyond the Big Four (races and classes), just as they did when they added the Noble into the Basic Rules document.

As for fluff...I love what they did to the Monster Manual, since it explains each monster and some key details without boggling you, having the monster statblock be smaller than the image and the content. Perhaps there could be themed books that deal with the ecology of large races, such as one that details the lifestyle of "savage" humanoids, from the Common races to the Monster races. That simple approach to fluff should be something the splatbooks should have, giving you ideas and knowledge without boggling you down.

[Aldurin]

Feats are probably the easiest thing to homebrew and work with, and most likely we'll see a lot of them, so I also expect those.

I think the development of new feats will be crucial to whether WotC can make this work, since they've made the effort to change their access and value into stuff that's more workable (3.5e is notorious for the "always this, never this" featlist since they were working off of such a low mechanical value to the point where they couldn't properly balance each bonus). Especially now that it seems that feat trees and prerequisite feats will be dead and gone for the most part, we'll probably see a more even usage of every feat than past iterations have accomplished. Or at least I hope.

[odigity]

And yet.... no one has any commentary. *shrugs*

Everyone's too busy saying "more monsters" "more archetypes" "more spells" over and over -- but they also don't want more splatbooks, see.

(not that I wouldn't mind a few more Fighter and Rogue archetypes, but you still get Most Valuable Post)

[Aron Times]

Why is no one asking for software?

Someone mentioned wanting compendiums to gather all the related rules from all the splatbooks they envision coming out some day (a bit premature...). How about a Safari-style online subscription to all content, like O'Reilly did for tech books? How about an official WotC database with search, instead of fans having to compile every spell manually and make a searchable/filterable site as a labor of love? How about being able to auto-generate overland maps, dungeons, towns, heck, even cities with hundreds or thousands of heuristically-detailed NPCs, like Massive did for fight scenes (from the LotR films)? A client/server phone app so your players can log in to your campaign, send secret messages to you, see parts of a map without other players seeing it, etc?

Actually, forget all that; just update this:

http://www.amazon.com/Book-Erotic-Fantasy-Gwendolyn-Kestrel/dp/097420451X

This is what you're looking for:

http://www.dnddungeonscape.com/

[Argo]

More Rogue / stealth options.

More interesting mundane and alchemical equipment.

I'd really love a series of MASSIVE coffee-table type books similar to the Draconomicon from 3.5, only much bigger and with more artwork and more descriptions of the minutae of different creature types.

One about Dragons, one about Magical Beasts, one about Abominations, one about Sea Life, etc. Get deep into where these creatures live, their habits, their likes and dislikes, the way they interact with the land and the people around them, and the lives they make for themselves.

[Slipperychicken]

Training variant rules. As in, you can put in time (and probably pay for resources and a teacher) and get a benefit. Such benefits could manifest in something like proficiencies, XP, feats, or ability score bumps. This would give the wizard a reason to read books in a library, and give the fighter a reason to practice.

More default combat options, which don't cost feats or require you to be a specific archetype. Especially rules for choking people and damaging their limbs.

More playable races.

Playable monsters which make sense and are balanced within a standard dnd 5e party.

Less bloat (i.e. We don't need 800 firebolt-variants, nor do we need 50 ways to have dragon-heritage, nor do we need a dozen variants of fullplate).

Class options in the form of archetypes. Very little to no overlap between archetypes; each one should be genuinely different.

Options to let us play DBZ-like characters. Punching people, shooting lasers, flying (eventually), having an ultimate attack.

Fewer broken options.

Variant rules for accidental killings (i.e. You tried to "just knock him out", but ended up killing the guy anyway).

[Grey Watcher]

I'd like them to focus more on archetypes for existing classes rather than trying to churn out a whole new class for every conceivable character concept. (A good example is the Eldritch Knight archetype: rather than creating separate "gish in a can" class, they just made it a specific build for the Fighter.

The only two things I can think of that might warrant distinct classes: Artificer (within which I would love to see an Alchemist archetype) and Psion (3.5 and 4e's myriad psionic classes could be consolidated as archetypes, I think).

I'd like to see them run with the design idea of "fewer spells, but many spells scale with the slot level used". Also, I think we have plenty of "I burn the monster!" spells. I'd rather see them fill in legitimate gaps, like a Stone to Flesh to go with Flesh to Stone.

I think a wider selection of races and subraces is a good thing, too. Would love some viable options for "monstrous" PC races, because not every campaign setting has Goblins, Orcs, Kobolds, and the like as irredeemable, baby-eating monsters, and even where they are, why should Drow get all the "I'm a rebel against my ~EVIL~ species" fun?

Actually, here's an idea: maybe some Archetypes that aren't necessarily attached to class. Like alternate rules for vampirism or lycanthropy where the basic condition is less awesome, but you can take a "Vampire Archetype" to give your character more of the benefits of the MM vampire (and maybe beyond, who doesn't want to be like Drac himself and be able to walk in the sunlight, albeit weakened?). Of course, given that different classes give their archetype bonuses with different schedules, it might have to be a suite of archetypes, like "Vampire Barbarians get A, B, C..., Vampire Fighters get A, D, C.... Vampire Wizards get C, D, E...)

[Finieous]

The only thing beyond core I really want is a smart easy-to-use dungeon/wilderness/encounter builder. I want to be able to select a map from a library of templates so I don't have to draw/create the whole thing, and I want to be able to edit and customize it. I want a complete library of monsters, traps, hazards and treasure that I can drag and drop onto the map, and the stat blocks are automatically populated in the map key text. I can do the story and fluff -- that's the fun part. Create a DM productivity tool that takes care of some of the drudgery.

[IAmTehDave]

The only thing beyond core I really want is a smart easy-to-use dungeon/wilderness/encounter builder. I want to be able to select a map from a library of templates so I don't have to draw/create the whole thing, and I want to be able to edit and customize it. I want a complete library of monsters, traps, hazards and treasure that I can drag and drop onto the map, and the stat blocks are automatically populated in the map key text. I can do the story and fluff -- that's the fun part. Create a DM productivity tool that takes care of some of the drudgery.

http://www.dnddungeonscape.com/ might have that sort of functionality. Here's to hoping!

[Finieous]

http://www.dnddungeonscape.com/ might have that sort of functionality. Here's to hoping!

I do hope so, but it's a desperate, unrealistic kind of hope.

[Rater202]

I want to see 2 splat books.

Each one cpontains at least the ollowing

1 Race, 1-2 subclasses fro every class that dosn't have one related to the topic, and a good dozen or so feats/backgrounds/magic items.

I want one for dragons(Sorceror doesn't get a subclass unless it works differently) and one for Necromancy/Undead(Wizard wouldn't get one, unless "Becoming a Lich" were used as an option instead of necromany focus)

Off the top of my head, a Celeric worshiping Tiamot or Bahamut could have a dragon Domain, while one of the Deities from Libris Mortis could proivide an UIndead Domain. A Death/Dragon Knight subclass could work for either Paladin or Fighter. a Wizard Subclass for dragons could be a wizard that learned magic from a dragon, thus skewing their proficientcy towards one "Element". Warlock for Dragons could easily draw from Dragon Shamon or dragon fire Adept, with a Great Wyrm dragon as the patron, while an Ancient Ghost could serve as the undead/necromancer patron. Necro sorcerer either has a vampire in thier ancestry, or was born at a conflux of negative enrgy.

[Fwiffo86]

Everyone's too busy saying "more monsters" "more archetypes" "more spells" over and over -- but they also don't want more splatbooks, see.

(not that I wouldn't mind a few more Fighter and Rogue archetypes, but you still get Most Valuable Post)

It is my opinion that this form of thinking (more classes/races/feats/etc) is why 3.5 got completely out of hand (more than it already started as that is). Personally, information that doesn't have game stats is far more useful to me. How does the typical kingdom actually work for instance is far more useful to me. Specifically, the character level and its relevance to the world is some desperately needed information.

I have always disagreed with giving stats to things like gods. If you give something a stat, some player somewhere can kill it. I like to think the gods (unlike Forgotten Realms) are impossible to understand. Something akin to a cat attempting to understand human culture. It's alien, and beyond their ability to comprehend. Thus, it cannot be quantified in any meaningful way.

The PHB, MM, and the like already have enough stats set forth to simulate anything you need. We don't need more of them. We need guidelines for the things that are part of every D&D world that don't already have metrics. (see my original post for examples)

But hey, what do I know?

[Knaight]

There are a handful of 3.x books that seem like they should actually be transferred over in some form, at least conceptually. Notably:
Psionics: The expanded psionics handbook was a seriously good book, and it's different enough from the existing material that new classes and such actually make sense.
The Complete Series: The complete series was a pretty good set for when you wanted to focus closely on a particular aspect. Complete Warrior had rules for large battles, volley fire, other such things that belong there, and it's more that sort of thing that interests me. A few new classes, a few new subclasses, and the rest of the book focused on the other such rules and guidelines seems good to me. Note that the XPH-like could easily be rolled into Complete Psionic, the ToB-like to Complete Warrior, the MoI like into Complete Arcane/Divine (though Complete Mage covering both of those seems fine to me).
The It's Blank Outside Series: Stormwrack is a seriously useful book for a naval or underwater campaign, and it's not something that has any danger of getting in the way in a more normal one. Sandstorm was pretty good for deserts. I'm thinking specialized rules, specialized equipment, feats, spells, and monsters for these books. Classes don't really need to get in here at all.

Meanwhile, things like the DMG II can be busy not making the cut. Beyond adventures and campaign stuff, the above seems like a pretty complete set to me, ideally worked out to about 8 books total. Complete Psionic, Complete Warrior, Complete Arcane, Complete Divine could easily be half of them, representing all the new classes and such. That leaves 4 full scale terrain books - ocean, tundra, desert, and maybe add one for jungle.

[Grey Watcher]

What I desire in a splat book....

1 - Description, explanation, and implementation of titles, duties of nobles, and governmental structures for Monarchy, Theocracy, etc.

2 - How to climb the governmental structure. How do you become knighted (what does that actually mean)? How do you become a Baron, or Duke, etc. What do these titles mean? Barbarian Tribes (how they govern themselves, etc), Non-human government structures.

...

5 - Societal structures and how they work. Examples) Thieve's guild (entering, jobs, operations), Army (how its used, raised, operates), Merchant Guilds (how they operate)

7 - Some sort of metric to judge power against. How powerful is your typical King's Guard? What about the average pickpocket? What does character level mean against the rest of the world?

8 - Common side effects to big things. What happens when you cast WISH? What about Miracle? Storm of Vengeance? How do these things affect the world and its people? Does having that much power spark wars?

I dunno, these sorts of things vary so very heavily between campaign settings that I don't see how a uniform "metric" would really help matters. I mean, a fully-realized military structure doesn't really help me as a player, since my rank and whatnot take a backseat to actually going on missions. And do I really care what the day-to-day duties of the king or the duke are? How does that really help me play in or run an adventure? Even if I AM the Duke, if I wanted SimFief, I wouldn't be playing D&D.

Plus, it just seems like there's too much variance, even within a campaign setting. The military of nation A might have a completely different structure and ethos to that of nation B.

And, to go even farther, why does this need to be a sourcebook? Couldn't you just pick up a book about real-world feudalism, organized crime, or non-city-building societies to get your world-building ideas?


3 - NO Additional classes/spells/races/feats/etc. Unless they conform to the design ideology of the core books, have been reviewed and properly balanced against the rest of the available options.

Fighting power creep is always a good thing, in my opinion.


4 - Ritual ONLY spells (caveat that none of them could be used for combat advantage/use)

I would make this a hard rule, but definitely a strong guideline. I mean, how many ways to make a cloud does one magic system really need? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0604.html)


9 - As few game statistics as possible. Preferably none. If that means no new spells/feats/classes/etc. I am perfectly fine with that.

I dunno, I get really excited about new options for character building. Given that the 5e PHB has a lot fewer mechanical bits and pieces than its 3e counterpart, I hope that future splatbooks follow that example, giving us quality over quantity. (And I define quality as "filling niches that the exiting things don't without overshadowing them.)


10 - Repairs/rewording of existing material to further align it with its intended design. (errata)

Is printed errata really necessary in the age of the internet?


The PHB, MM, and the like already have enough stats set forth to simulate anything you need. We don't need more of them.

I disagree. There's no rule support for things like artificers and alchemists, and the absence of Flesh to Stone is annoying (yes, there's Greater Restoration, but I think if Wizards can have Remove Curse as well as Bestow Curse, I think having Stone to Flesh as well as Flesh to Stone isn't too much to ask). Wizard schools based on something other than the classic schools (for example, elemental specialties). Other Sorcerer Origins would be good, too, since not everyone wants to turn into a dragon or have randomized magic. (Fey, Shadow, Fiendish, Celestial, Divine, are all ideas that come from just what's in the PHB.)

That said, I'll agree that they should run with the "less is more" design philosophy, and concentrate on putting in things that are actually useful to players and fit in with the game, rather than just stuff for stuff's sake. I guess it's just finding the right balance between too many and too few options.

[Shining Wrath]

I'd like them to focus more on archetypes for existing classes rather than trying to churn out a whole new class for every conceivable character concept. (A good example is the Eldritch Knight archetype: rather than creating separate "gish in a can" class, they just made it a specific build for the Fighter.

The only two things I can think of that might warrant distinct classes: Artificer (within which I would love to see an Alchemist archetype) and Psion (3.5 and 4e's myriad psionic classes could be consolidated as archetypes, I think).

I'd like to see them run with the design idea of "fewer spells, but many spells scale with the slot level used". Also, I think we have plenty of "I burn the monster!" spells. I'd rather see them fill in legitimate gaps, like a Stone to Flesh to go with Flesh to Stone.

I think a wider selection of races and subraces is a good thing, too. Would love some viable options for "monstrous" PC races, because not every campaign setting has Goblins, Orcs, Kobolds, and the like as irredeemable, baby-eating monsters, and even where they are, why should Drow get all the "I'm a rebel against my ~EVIL~ species" fun?

Actually, here's an idea: maybe some Archetypes that aren't necessarily attached to class. Like alternate rules for vampirism or lycanthropy where the basic condition is less awesome, but you can take a "Vampire Archetype" to give your character more of the benefits of the MM vampire (and maybe beyond, who doesn't want to be like Drac himself and be able to walk in the sunlight, albeit weakened?). Of course, given that different classes give their archetype bonuses with different schedules, it might have to be a suite of archetypes, like "Vampire Barbarians get A, B, C..., Vampire Fighters get A, D, C.... Vampire Wizards get C, D, E...)

If a DM wants to have an NPC capable of creating magic weapons he's going to have to roll his own Artificer / Alchemist; ergo, having them do it for us might save a lot of time.

If they don't give any guidelines in the DMG I'm gonna go 2nd Edition - to get a magic weapon made you have to find the NPC, get the recipe from him or her, and then go on quest(s) to get the rare ingredients.

[Steel Mirror]

That said, I'll agree that they should run with the "less is more" design philosophy, and concentrate on putting in things that are actually useful to players and fit in with the game, rather than just stuff for stuff's sake. I guess it's just finding the right balance between too many and too few options.As a short summation of what I want from 5E, this is pretty good. It reminds me of an old engineering adage: Your design isn't complete when you can't think of anything more to add, it's complete when you can't think of anything else that you could take away (and still have it be functional).

[Greylind]

As a short summation of what I want from 5E, this is pretty good. It reminds me of an old engineering adage: Your design isn't complete when you can't think of anything more to add, it's complete when you can't think of anything else that you could take away (and still have it be functional).

Only thing I can think of that I want, besides a few more monsters and base NPC's (I suppose I can wait until they can be as well done as the 5E MM), is money sinks for characters. Strongholds, hirelings/henchmen, non-magical items and equipment, services, etc. The PH has some good stuff to begin with, but more would be great to have.

[MadGrady]

I would really like to see some level specific tables/lists for items/weapons/loot that could be given to a certain level party and not be completely out of whack. I know that this sort of thing becomes highly subjective depending on the DM and the campaign he is running, but they could use HoDQ and the like to at least present a sort of baseline and then we can remove/flood items to the party as we so desire.

I would also love to see the Divine classes get a little more love. I would love to see something like an inquisitor or oracle show up.

[Grey Watcher]

I want to see 2 splat books.

Each one cpontains at least the ollowing

1 Race, 1-2 subclasses fro every class that dosn't have one related to the topic, and a good dozen or so feats/backgrounds/magic items.

I want one for dragons(Sorceror doesn't get a subclass unless it works differently) and one for Necromancy/Undead(Wizard wouldn't get one, unless "Becoming a Lich" were used as an option instead of necromany focus)

Off the top of my head, a Celeric worshiping Tiamot or Bahamut could have a dragon Domain, while one of the Deities from Libris Mortis could proivide an UIndead Domain. A Death/Dragon Knight subclass could work for either Paladin or Fighter. a Wizard Subclass for dragons could be a wizard that learned magic from a dragon, thus skewing their proficientcy towards one "Element". Warlock for Dragons could easily draw from Dragon Shaman or dragon fire Adept, with a Great Wyrm dragon as the patron, while an Ancient Ghost could serve as the undead/necromancer patron. Necro sorcerer either has a vampire in thier ancestry, or was born at a conflux of negative enrgy.

Can't believe I forgot one very specific thing that I want: support for dragonborn having useable wings. As you say, a draconic archetype for each class would be great, so that I can play, for example, Dragonborn Fighter who can (eventually) spread his wings and fly. (At lower levels it would obviously be something much tamer, like maybe a wing buffet attack or advantage on athletics checks to jump and climb.) Seriously, to me the pictures of Dragonborn that always leapt out and said "Play me! Play me!" were the ones where they had wings.


I would also love to see the Divine classes get a little more love. I would love to see something like an inquisitor or oracle show up.

I'm having trouble figuring out how an Inquisitor is substantially different from an Oath of Vengeance Paladin. :smallconfused:

[Shadow]

I'm having trouble figuring out how an Inquisitor is substantially different from an Oath of Vengeance Paladin. :smallconfused:

Inquisitor was a sneaky skill monkey type, but other than that.... :shrug:
One of the guys in our group was asking about an Inquisitor type. We homebrew subclasses if needed to fit a concept. Rogue was going to be the base class, with a Wisdom based divine Arcane Tricker chassis. And actually, now that I think about it, using the pally spell list (minus the smite spells) and a couple of cool features at 3/9/14/17 would definitely be the way to go. We were talking about choosing schools, but the pally list works just fine, mostly.

[Intercessor]

1. More races and more sub-races for existing races.
2. More sub-classes and not many more classes.
3. Setting books for sure!
4. Adventures for sure!
5. 5e based games that AREN'T Dungeons and Dragons, I'm thinking of things like d20 Modern or Star Wars Saga edition.

[IcemanJRC]

There are a handful of 3.x books that seem like they should actually be transferred over in some form, at least conceptually. Notably:
Psionics: The expanded psionics handbook was a seriously good book, and it's different enough from the existing material that new classes and such actually make sense.
The Complete Series: The complete series was a pretty good set for when you wanted to focus closely on a particular aspect. Complete Warrior had rules for large battles, volley fire, other such things that belong there, and it's more that sort of thing that interests me. A few new classes, a few new subclasses, and the rest of the book focused on the other such rules and guidelines seems good to me. Note that the XPH-like could easily be rolled into Complete Psionic, the ToB-like to Complete Warrior, the MoI like into Complete Arcane/Divine (though Complete Mage covering both of those seems fine to me).
The It's Blank Outside Series: Stormwrack is a seriously useful book for a naval or underwater campaign, and it's not something that has any danger of getting in the way in a more normal one. Sandstorm was pretty good for deserts. I'm thinking specialized rules, specialized equipment, feats, spells, and monsters for these books. Classes don't really need to get in here at all.

Meanwhile, things like the DMG II can be busy not making the cut. Beyond adventures and campaign stuff, the above seems like a pretty complete set to me, ideally worked out to about 8 books total. Complete Psionic, Complete Warrior, Complete Arcane, Complete Divine could easily be half of them, representing all the new classes and such. That leaves 4 full scale terrain books - ocean, tundra, desert, and maybe add one for jungle.

I change mine to this one, it seems good. I like specific mechanics more than lots. I also don't want my books to be all fluff and no crunch because I don't need Wizards to sell me a book on how deserts work, I have wikipedia for that, I need Wizards to tell me how much barding for my giant scarab costs. I think I agree that it's what's important.

[MustacheFart]

I would like to see grafts and other such modifications I can make to my character to increase his powah.

[EugeneVoid]

Multiclassing support. One thing I loved about 3.5 was the ability to be a lot of different classes, or the Traveler's Harlequin in 4e. In 5e, it seems entirely in-optimal to multiclass, except in some very VERY niche cases. Why be Wizard/Rogue, when you can be just be a bard with Hunter's mark or a wizard 20 with knock. I don't know. Why Multiclass out of Paladin unless you are ~level 15+?

[Fwiffo86]

Multiclassing support. One thing I loved about 3.5 was the ability to be a lot of different classes, or the Traveler's Harlequin in 4e. In 5e, it seems entirely in-optimal to multiclass, except in some very VERY niche cases. Why be Wizard/Rogue, when you can be just be a bard with Hunter's mark or a wizard 20 with knock. I don't know. Why Multiclass out of Paladin unless you are ~level 15+?

I believe that is the actual point. You should sacrifice power for increased utility.

[...]

I just want Half-Apes.

*Insert Shameless Self-Advertising of 5e Thread Here*

[Hytheter]

Options to let us play DBZ-like characters. Punching people, shooting lasers, flying (eventually), having an ultimate attack.

You mean Way of the Four Elements Monk? He can punch things four times per turn from 5th level, fly from 11th and gets a number of blasty spells in between.

[VeliciaL]

I'm pretty happy with the class archetypes overall, but I think there's one class that definitely needs a few more, and that's sorcerer. The two in the PHB are neat and all, but for those to be the only options is somewhat disappointing.

I'd also like to see more races. The PHB options are fine for the PHB, but are a bit bland. I do imagine this will be a thing for setting books, though.

On that note, setting books, especially if they're written to act as a primer for someone unfamiliar with the setting. It can be a bit daunting to get into a setting using older material, especially for something that's really well fleshed out like Forgotten Realms.

This is mostly coming from a player standpoint, mind.

[T.G. Oskar]

I'm pretty happy with the class archetypes overall, but I think there's one class that definitely needs a few more, and that's sorcerer. The two in the PHB are neat and all, but for those to be the only options is somewhat disappointing.

The Sorcerer seems to be tacked in as a late-comer, and thus has no defined development. The devs probably weren't sure of adding the class, since it overlaps to an extent with the Warlock, which wasn't on some playtests either.

All classes could use some more Subclases. For example: I like the concept of Damage Redirection (in short: take damage from an ally regardless of the distance, or deal retributive damage to an attacker), but sadly options for Paladins are very limited (plus, I'm also angry that Warding Bond was set up as a Cleric-only spell). I had to homebrew a subclass for it, and I managed to mix it with some stronger healing; those two concepts ended up with a pretty solid Oath with solid tenets. I'd love to see something along those lines as an official Subclass, if only because it allows a lot of exploration in terms of its tenets, and allows playing a very distinct form of Paladin, not to mention it has the perfect deity to represent it (Ilmater, obviously). Likewise, there are classes from early games that aren't represented fairly, and turning them into subclasses for one or more classes would be awesome (Swashbuckler, Scout, etc.)

The Sorcerer is one of those classes that needs some help. Despite overlapping with the Warlock, the Sorcerer's Sorcerous Origins have a lot of races they can draw magic from, and they don't have to be limited to classes. For example: Spellfire could be turned into a Feat, but also as a Sorcerous Origin; you can wield Spellfire and THAT was what awakened your magical potential. There could also be a Fiendish origin (having fiendish blood in your veins; aimed towards Tieflings), a Celestial origin (same, but with celestial blood and aimed towards the eventual Aasimar/Deva instead), a Fey origin (ditto, except fey) and Aberration (you get the idea). That's four subclasses you can evaluate. I believe I saw a Undead Origin on EN World, actually. There is a lot to cut from regarding the Sorcerer (in terms of Sorcerous Origins), so it may end up being a class that seems lackluster at first but eventually gets a lot of ways to play with.

[Cybren]

I want no splatbooks.
I wouldn't mind if new feats and spells and even subclasses or races appeared in other books, but splat books specifically annoy me and I'm glad their stated goal is to not do them.

[Eslin]

I want proper 3.5 style splatbooks, but fewer and balanced. 3.5 was filled to the brim with useless options and the occasional way too good one - I'd like to see a slower release of big books full of new options, like the PHB II. Honestly, even prestige classes would be nice, though I wouldn't mind their absence if they manage to get the subclasses to take their place properly - eldritch knight is a good example, despite the poor actual class features.

[Cambrian]

My main desire is still the psionics content and the campaign guides. I'm thinking now a lot of the psionic content could be subclasses with just radically different concepts like psions as new classes.

Just a few questions for fun:
would anyone like to see campaign settings go back to box sets, remain in the more modern book format, or even a new format completely?


I'd be interested in possibly seeing campaign books broken up into pieces. For example a players guide to the setting and a separate a DM guide with the unique monster content.

It has the potential to increase the sales and helps create a division between the DM content and the player content.

While I like Pathfinder's ability to add back-story content with their softback mini-books, I don't want to see the same splat rules that is offered in them. Ideally a restart of the magazine lines (Dragon specifically) could replace them, and a digital Dungeonscape release would work assuming the software is good.

[Valraukar]

I guess I'm in the minority in thinking that reliance on multi-classing was one of the main problems with 3.5 and not a feature.

The character combinations you see on these boards that go like x/y/z/a make me want to vomit.

Yes! Preach it! One of my favorite things about fifth edition is how they've designed the classes to be played from 1 to 20. One of my least favorite things about third edition was the ridiculous amount of multi classing.

I'd like to take it one step further in fact and leave prestige classes in the dumpster where they belong.

[Valraukar]

I want no splatbooks.
I wouldn't mind if new feats and spells and even subclasses or races appeared in other books, but splat books specifically annoy me and I'm glad their stated goal is to not do them.

My thoughts exactly; But since additional content is inevitable, ideally(for me at least) we'd see nothing more than updates to the various campaign settings. Less rules, more fluff, more time to focus on characters settings adventures encounters etc.

[Eslin]

My thoughts exactly; But since additional content is inevitable, ideally(for me at least) we'd see nothing more than updates to the various campaign settings. Less rules, more fluff, more time to focus on characters settings adventures encounters etc.

I'm hoping for the direct opposite - if I wanted to play something for the fluff, I'd be doing LOTR or star wars or 40k, D&D is about the game. I sincerely hope they keep fluff to an absolute minimum and concentrate on making sure their crunch is balanced and interesting.


Yes! Preach it! One of my favorite things about fifth edition is how they've designed the classes to be played from 1 to 20. One of my least favorite things about third edition was the ridiculous amount of multi classing.

I'd like to take it one step further in fact and leave prestige classes in the dumpster where they belong.

Prestige classes may be less necessary now that sub classes like eldritch knight exist. Regarding 3.5's multiclassing, it was less a feature of the system and more a feature of how bad many classes were/how many classes front loaded the good stuff. The exact same system is present in 5th (3.5 classes were supposed to be played to 20 most of the time too), except that now they have the benefit of experience so they've designed them to work from 1-20.

[Valraukar]

Prestige classes may be less necessary now that sub classes like eldritch knight exist. Regarding 3.5's multiclassing, it was less a feature of the system and more a feature of how bad many classes were/how many classes front loaded the good stuff. The exact same system is present in 5th (3.5 classes were supposed to be played to 20 most of the time too), except that now they have the benefit of experience so they've designed them to work from 1-20.

I disagree; In fifth edition I find most of the classes and subclasses to have abilities that make it worthwhile for a player to take them from 1 to 20 without feeling pressure to multiclass. Regardless of whether or not a class supposed to be played 1 to 20 (I suppose we have no way to know as to the best of my knowledge there is no explicit statement on the matter for either addition from wizards), I believe fifth edition is going to far better job of designing them for that purpose than 3.5.

Certainly, there are some exceptions (Beast master Ranger comes to mind), but in general I think they've been much more successful in class design in this edition with respect to balance between classes, and creating interesting/fun class abilities

[Eslin]

I disagree; In fifth edition I find most of the classes and subclasses to have abilities that make it worthwhile for a player to take them from 1 to 20 without feeling pressure to multiclass. Regardless of whether or not a class supposed to be played 1 to 20 (I suppose we have no way to know as to the best of my knowledge there is no explicit statement on the matter for either addition from wizards), I believe fifth edition is going to far better job of designing them for that purpose than 3.5.

Certainly, there are some exceptions (Beast master Ranger comes to mind), but in general I think they've been much more successful in class design in this edition with respect to balance between classes, and creating interesting/fun class abilities

You apparently disagree, but you just repeated everything I said. Everything works fine from 1-20 now (with the exception of a few crappy capstones) which was supposed to be the case for classes in 3.5 too but there were maybe five base classes in the entire system that 20 levels were optimal for. Everything's still not perfect (for instance battle master's scaling is horrendously thought out), but the basic chassis is great and I have high hope for future splats as long as they make sure no truenamers or archivists get published.

[Valraukar]

Really the only thing I was disagreeing with was that one of your sentences implied that 3.5's system and it's character class design were two different things.

[Eslin]

Really the only thing I was disagreeing with was that one of your sentences implied that 3.5's system and it's character class design were two different things.

They are two different things. 3.5's system is very similar to 5e's, 5e is basically a simpler and more streamlined version of 3.5's rules. What broke 3.5 is it's character class design - if 5e and 3.5 swapped class design, 5e would be the broken edition. Not trying to start an edition war (3.5 is my favourite roleplaying system after all), but 3.5's class design was broken in a number of ways, which combined with its general attitude to magic and magical items made the game very complicated and incredibly biased in favour of casters.

[silveralen]

I'd like more archetypes generally and maybe slightly expand other aspects (spells, feats, even invocations) but not an absurd degree. Races could be good as well, though I'm sure we will see those in campaign settings.

Mostly though I want whatever books are added to live up the quality we have now.

[Soular]

Garden Gnomes.

[MustacheFart]

My newest and first sincere want from future books. I want a playable version of the Bullywug. They're listed as evil but if you read the MM's description they're actually perfect for a player character. I really can't see a reason to not be able to play as one.

[Slipperychicken]

Garden Gnomes.


Gnome, Halfling, or Dwarf.
Red pointy hat.
White bushy beard.
Steal underwear Stand in garden
???
PROFIT!

[Rfkannen]

My newest and first sincere want from future books. I want a playable version of the Bullywug. They're listed as evil but if you read the MM's description they're actually perfect for a player character. I really can't see a reason to not be able to play as one.

Bullywug were my absolute favorite race in 4e. I would love this.

[Bellberith]

Elan and Gith Races as well as psionic classes/subclasses (can easily make psionic variants of fighter, monk, sorcerer, wizard)

[MustacheFart]

Bullywug were my absolute favorite race in 4e. I would love this.

You could play as a Bullywug in 4th ed? Damn, wish I had gotten the chance to.

[Fwiffo86]

Bullywug were my absolute favorite race in 4e. I would love this.

Admittedly, I think this is cool. But on the other hand, I see that as a sign of entirely too much stuff to choose.

[Eslin]

Admittedly, I think this is cool. But on the other hand, I see that as a sign of entirely too much stuff to choose.

No such thing as too much stuff to choose from as long as it's all kept balanced

[edge2054]

I'd like them to be focused more on theme then race/class.

Like, give me a book full of oriental themes or monster themes. One book that lets me run a new kind of campaign.

More focus on the DM and campaign I guess then on power creep.

[edge2054]

No such thing as too much stuff to choose from as long as it's all kept balanced

You keep saying this but I disagree. Options can be overwhelming for new players and even old players. Another argument is barrier to entry, both from a knowledge and a financial perspective. Seeing three books on the game store shelves is a lot less intimidating for most new players then seeing twenty, even if seventeen of them are clearly marked as optional.

You can like having lots of options Eslin but there's no rule stating that it's good for everyone or even that it's good game design.

[MustacheFart]

You keep saying this but I disagree. Options can be overwhelming for new players and even old players. Another argument is barrier to entry, both from a knowledge and a financial perspective. Seeing three books on the game store shelves is a lot less intimidating for most new players then seeing twenty, even if seventeen of them are clearly marked as optional.

You can like having lots of options Eslin but there's no rule stating that it's good for everyone or even that it's good game design.

True but if I want to be able to play a Frog guy then I should be able to play a Frog guy. What others get to walk around as half dragons but I can't play a frog guy?

Seriously, I would like to see simple a racial template builder. Basically, instead of tons of races include a formula to allow DMs to apply appropriate stats to an existing non-player race of their choice in order to make it playable.

[Eslin]

You keep saying this but I disagree. Options can be overwhelming for new players and even old players. Another argument is barrier to entry, both from a knowledge and a financial perspective. Seeing three books on the game store shelves is a lot less intimidating for most new players then seeing twenty, even if seventeen of them are clearly marked as optional.

You can like having lots of options Eslin but there's no rule stating that it's good for everyone or even that it's good game design.

There's no rule, except that it becomes more fun the more options you have. Options are only a barrier to entry when they are necessary - in 3.5 you needed half a dozen books and a lot of system mastery to make a good character, now someone can make a useful character with just the PHB. As long as they're kept balanced, there are absolutely no downsides to having more options and a very obvious upside - more choice!

[edge2054]

True but if I want to be able to play a Frog guy then I should be able to play a Frog guy. What others get to walk around as half dragons but I can't play a frog guy?

Seriously, I would like to see simple a racial template builder. Basically, instead of tons of races include a formula to allow DMs to apply appropriate stats to an existing non-player race of their choice in order to make it playable.

And I'd like to play a ratling.

I mean, I'm not saying that WotC shouldn't release future content. But it needs to be handled in a much better way then it has been in the past. I don't think the Complete Book of Elves or the Tome of Blood style releases is what I want. It implies that if I want to play an Elf or a Sorcerer or an Elf Sorcerer that I should own those books and be familiar with all of the options in those books. If I'm a new player wanting to play such a character it implies that I need to buy three books instead of one to jump into the game.

Maybe that's a good way to sell books, or maybe it was in the past, but it doesn't feel like a good way to build a quality game that will have lasting appeal.

Consider instead the Complete Book of Humanoids. I think we rarely tapped into books like this at our gaming table aside from the occasional player who always needed to be a special snowflake. On the other hand we ran a short campaign where we all played humanoids and that book was invaluable.

In other words I'd love to see books aimed at expanding campaign options rather than a bunch of square pegs being shoved into the medieval fantasy campaign hole.

There's a way to introduce options while keeping the scope in check. I think Oriental Adventures was an excellent 'splat book' and I'd like to see WotC go back to that rather than continue with the class/race oriented ones. That's really all I'm saying.

[edge2054]

There's no rule, except that it becomes more fun the more options you have. Options are only a barrier to entry when they are necessary - in 3.5 you needed half a dozen books and a lot of system mastery to make a good character, now someone can make a useful character with just the PHB. As long as they're kept balanced, there are absolutely no downsides to having more options and a very obvious upside - more choice!

Again that's just your opinion and while you're entitled to it that doesn't make it true.

Watch Gordon Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares. Invariably if he goes into a restaurant that has a large menu he cuts it down to size. This isn't just so staff can run the restaurant more efficiently but also so the customer isn't overwhelmed by so many choices.

A similar phenomenon happens when you go into a grocery store to get dinner without a shopping list prepared. You may make a choice in a few minutes or you may spend a half an hour there trying to figure out the 'best option' for dinner.

These are examples of choices you make that can lead to analysis paralysis. Choices that have very little long term effect. Compare dinner you'll eat over half an hour to choosing a character that you intend to play for several months or longer.

And all of this is putting aside the fact that 'keeping things balanced' is a lot harder than it looks. For one we have intentional power creep from the designers because power creep sells books. Assuming that can be avoided this edition, which I think is the goal as it will prolong the life of the product, you still have the issue of keeping things fresh. The game already has quite a few classes and option. How do you keep new options both fresh and balanced?

Well.. you spend a lot of time and money playtesting things. Which slows down releases. Which in turn limits options because you're not publishing a splat book every month.

[Steel Mirror]

Watch Gordon Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares. Invariably if he goes into a restaurant that has a large menu he cuts it down to size. This isn't just so staff can run the restaurant more efficiently but also so the customer isn't overwhelmed by so many choices.While I agree with you that the choice of what to eliminate or take away from a menu of options is at least as important as the choice of what you include, I think that this choice should be made on the level of the individual DM and campaign, not on the level of the game system as a whole. The game system should be full of disparate options and creatures, races, spells, and subsystems to fit a massive variety of possibilities.

But not every pseudo-medieval setting is going to want playable dark elves, wu-xia infused monks, or jedi-like soulminds. Conversely, there might be a DM getting his oriental horror game planned out that doesn't see a place for tinker gnomes, barbarians, or non-cursed magic items in his game. So both DMs channel their inner Ramsey, look at the vast world of options available in 5E, and then start ruthlessly trimming away until they are left with a focused menu that perfectly reflects what they want their restaurant campaign to embody.

Because, let's face it, we'll never have a fanbase or even a development team that is in 100% agreement on that trolliest of questions, "What IS D&D and what ISN'T D&D". Everyone has their own list of things that absolutely must be included or they are pissing on the fans, and what must never be mentioned again because it was the biggest mistake since Complete Book of Elves. And the two lists tend to bleed a lot into each other, depending on the person you ask.

[Sartharina]

TBH, samurai seem prestige class material. Theyre setting dependent and likely alignment dependent, too.

Samurai are either Paladins (Devotion Oath) or Fighters.

[Eslin]

Again that's just your opinion and while you're entitled to it that doesn't make it true.

Watch Gordon Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares. Invariably if he goes into a restaurant that has a large menu he cuts it down to size. This isn't just so staff can run the restaurant more efficiently but also so the customer isn't overwhelmed by so many choices.

A similar phenomenon happens when you go into a grocery store to get dinner without a shopping list prepared. You may make a choice in a few minutes or you may spend a half an hour there trying to figure out the 'best option' for dinner.

These are examples of choices you make that can lead to analysis paralysis. Choices that have very little long term effect. Compare dinner you'll eat over half an hour to choosing a character that you intend to play for several months or longer.

And all of this is putting aside the fact that 'keeping things balanced' is a lot harder than it looks. For one we have intentional power creep from the designers because power creep sells books. Assuming that can be avoided this edition, which I think is the goal as it will prolong the life of the product, you still have the issue of keeping things fresh. The game already has quite a few classes and option. How do you keep new options both fresh and balanced?

Well.. you spend a lot of time and money playtesting things. Which slows down releases. Which in turn limits options because you're not publishing a splat book every month.

That makes no sense. I like my stores to have as many options as possible, ditto with my menus. And using a television chef as an analogy is pointless, considering the vast difference in pretty much every aspect between a menu and a character. This is like arguing that the monster manual is far too large, they should cut out 80% of the monsters so the DM doesn't have so much choice.

Analysis paralysis only really occurs when you have no sorting system and have to parse everything sequentially. With good balance and an indexing system, there's no real problem with having as many splatbooks as is financially effective for the company to release (which is likely to be the real factor in how many we get) - if you're looking for added customisation you get your concept (elf ranger) and you check out a book or two that seem relevant (big book o' tree huggers and the book of hitting people in the face by day), then skip to the section about ranger-ness.

This didn't really work in 3.5 because everything was so disconnected and the balance was so screwy that you didn't check books for their theme, but for the small sections of them that could be used to create a non useless character.

[Gettles]

I just want my Warblade-style blatantly superhuman "anime" Fighter that gets a lot of people super butthurt.

[Eslin]

I just want my Warblade-style blatantly superhuman "anime" Fighter that gets a lot of people super butthurt.

I've never understood why a warblade was more blatantly superhuman than, say, a barbarian.

[mephnick]

There's no rule, except that it becomes more fun the more options you have. Options are only a barrier to entry when they are necessary - in 3.5 you needed half a dozen books and a lot of system mastery to make a good character, now someone can make a useful character with just the PHB.

You can make a "good" character in the PHB now, but what about 30 splatbooks from now? Will the core options still be seen as good options?

I'm sure people thought the options in 3.5 core were decent at release, until core was no longer relevant.

[Triclinium]

You can make a "good" character in the PHB now, but what about 30 splatbooks from now? Will the core options still be seen as good options?

I'm sure people thought the options in 3.5 core were decent at release, until core was no longer relevant.

It has been said before, and this time I will repeat the mantra, "Much of the broken stuff in 3.5 was in the player's handbook". Core casters were always relevant, while core martials were never relevant. This is clearly not the case in 5E.

[mephnick]

I know.

The post I replied to said you needed 6 books and system mastery to make a good 3.5 character and that those options were necessary, which is obviously not true.

I'm just wondering, now that martials actually have a relevant base with which to work from, whether a bunch of splat classes will make the core classes less relevant. There's almost always power creep.

[Scirocco]

I've never understood why a warblade was more blatantly superhuman than, say, a barbarian.

3 words: Iron Heart Surge

[Triclinium]

I know.

The post I replied to said you needed 6 books and system mastery to make a good 3.5 character and that those options were necessary, which is obviously not true.

I'm just wondering, now that martials actually have a relevant base with which to work from, whether a bunch of splat classes will make the core classes less relevant. There's almost always power creep.

I still only believe that to have been true for 3.5 core martials, and it wasn't really creep so much as a flying leap into the land of the relevant when ToB came out. There may be some creep, likely to be in feats more than anything else, but WotC has expressed a certain devotion to keeping everything on roughly the same playing field, as reflected by bounded accuracy. So even with the potential release of new classes, subclasses, races, and who knows what else they have a pretty solid region to keep everything confined to. Of course that is placing a certain amount of faith in words, so I could easily be proved wrong in the future.

[mephnick]

Of course that is placing a certain amount of faith in words, so I could easily be proved wrong in the future.

Yeah, I'm just a pessimist. I really hope they stick to their guns regarding limited splats.

I actually do have high hopes for how bounded accuracy will keep everything relevant. Even as a huge fan of e6, I feel like I can completely drop it with 5e.

[Eslin]

3 words: Iron Heart Surge

As opposed to the sudden ability to get stronger than any human has ever been and shrug off falling from orbit? All iron heart surge does is end an effect on you.

[Gnaeus]

I've seen a few posts around about what people don't want from splat books; specifically, the consensus seems to be that we don't want to mess up what is currently a well balanced game by flooding the spectrum of possibility with billions of new options, many of which are broken or result in a complicated mess like 3.5.

I want billions of new options. I want new base classes, and new class paths. New race options and variants and templates. More spells and feats and magic items. I want the ability to make as many different potential characters as is humanly possible. Making it more like 3.5 is a good thing. If my group feels the need for balance, I will get there at the table.

[Eslin]

I want billions of new options. I want new base classes, and new class paths. New race options and variants and templates. More spells and feats and magic items. I want the ability to make as many different potential characters as is humanly possible. Making it more like 3.5 is a good thing. If my group feels the need for balance, I will get there at the table.

Agreed, for a very specific definition of more like 3.5. I want it more like 3.5 in terms of all the options you just mentioned, if quantity needs to be lowered so we have better quality, so be it.

I'd like to remind everyone claiming splats were bad for 3.5 to remember most of what was broken in 3.5 was core. Sure, you'd get a prestige class or feat or spell or item that was too good occasionally, but every single broken thing from the dozens of splats still didn't total up to the amount of broken options from the PHB. The main problem 3.5's splats actually had was the reverse - approximately 8 in every 10 feats or prestige classes were completely useless.

The 3.5 splats raised the ceiling somewhat for casters and a huge amount for martials, so the gulf between a newbie and an optimiser grew even larger. As long as 5e remembers why it has bounded accuracy (and that we're going to need some actual melee options soon), we'll be fine.

[silveralen]

I'd like them to be focused more on theme then race/class.

Like, give me a book full of oriental themes or monster themes. One book that lets me run a new kind of campaign.

More focus on the DM and campaign I guess then on power creep.

I like this as well, but alot of the power creep that happened in 3.5 did despite appearing as a theme/setting piece. Frostburn (I think that's the name?) comes to mind from personal experience.


That makes no sense. I like my stores to have as many options as possible, ditto with my menus. And using a television chef as an analogy is pointless, considering the vast difference in pretty much every aspect between a menu and a character. This is like arguing that the monster manual is far too large, they should cut out 80% of the monsters so the DM doesn't have so much choice.

Some people like as many options as possible, some prefer to keep things simple. It depends on the person. It is an opinion, neither is inherently right, more options is not always inherently better.

It wouldn't surprise me if someone wanted a smaller monster manual, especially if it led to a cut in the price.

[Eslin]

I like this as well, but alot of the power creep that happened in 3.5 did despite appearing as a theme/setting piece. Frostburn (I think that's the name?) comes to mind from personal experience.

Name one thing in frostburn more powerful than a core-only druid. Seriously, anything. 3.5 had almost no power creep because the ceiling was incredibly high from day one.
The only thing I can think of that could possibly fit the bill is the 140000gp major ice heart that meant you could have a persistent fimbulwinter, making a 15 mile radius patch of winter whereever you put it. Which is strong, sure, but it won't help you win any fights or really do much apart from be a plot item the enemies are using.

[Valraukar]

That makes no sense. I like my stores to have as many options as possible, ditto with my menus. And using a television chef as an analogy is pointless, considering the vast difference in pretty much every aspect between a menu and a character. This is like arguing that the monster manual is far too large, they should cut out 80% of the monsters so the DM doesn't have so much choice.

I'd argue the analogy is a lot more fitting than you might think; as someone who cooked in restaurants for years, from dives to working for a James Beard winner, I will tell you that as the number of menu rofferings increases linearly the difficulty in executing all of them at a consistent standard of excellence increases exponentially. If you'd like me to elaborate and explain just why that is, I'd be happy to but as it will require a good deal of space and I'm typing on a tablet I shall simply state that such is the case. My experience as a diner strongly supports this trend. When I walk into a restaurant and I'm given a menu with fewer items the likelihood of each being of high-quality (both the ingredients and their execution) increases, and the converse is also true.

There are of course outliers, and few menu items certainly does not guarantee that any of them will be good, but it absolutely decreases the chances of them being crappy simply because of the lower demands of the simplified parameters.

I will boldly extend that model to this discussion: 3.5 & 5e Core PHBs are 2 different restaurants with small menus.

3.5 has a chef who prefers drinking to cooking, it's cooks are lazy and poorly trained, their kitchen and pantry are dirty and disorganized. As a result their food sucks across the board. Maybe they crap out a good burger or make decent mashed potatoes(wizard, cleric, Druid), but everything else is dog food.
5e has a chef who is thoughtful, who thinks about every detail of his restaurant from top to bottom. He takes time to make sure his cooks are well trained as they actually do the cooking and represent him, he installs pride in his staff such that the cooks are disciplined, the kitchen and pantry are well-ordered and immaculate. The chef meticulously tastes each dish that leaves the kitchen to ensure his standards are met. As a result nearly everything is of a uniform excellent quality, and certain dishes are heavenly, but nothing is crap.


From reading your other posts on the topic I think you'll agree with me that 3.5e's core classes were poorly designed and balanced, and that 5es core classes are of a much higher quality and balance.

Now lets say both 3.5 and 5e decided to double their menus (make it rain splat). 3.5s foundation sucks and the splats only magnify their already ample shortcomings. 5e runs a double risk, preparing the new items crappily or worse, lowering the quality and consistency of their existing menu.

You've also mentioned that if the system is well made than plugging new content into it should not matter. Unfortunately new content necessarily complicates that system, and the more complex the system, the chance for error increases quadratically.

[Triclinium]

Name one thing in frostburn more powerful than a core-only druid. Seriously, anything. 3.5 had almost no power creep because the ceiling was incredibly high from day one.
The only thing I can think of that could possibly fit the bill is the 140000gp major ice heart that meant you could have a persistent fimbulwinter, making a 15 mile radius patch of winter whereever you put it. Which is strong, sure, but it won't help you win any fights or really do much apart from be a plot item the enemies are using.

Wasn't Ice Assassin in Frostburn? And even that is only debatably on par with core druid.

[T.G. Oskar]

I could apply the Kitchen Nightmares analogy to the shift between 3.0 and 3.5.

Take a system that works, but that has certain problems because of certain garnishes (Haste spell, Harm spell), certain dishes that weren't too attractive (Paladin, Ranger), systems that could use a facelift (the Bard's Bardic Music), and of course, clutter (Innuendo, Read Lips, Scry, Wilderness Lore). Now, check what works and what doesn't, and change until it works.

The thing with 3.5 was that the optimization scenario wasn't big enough, and those who found the powergaming options weren't listened because they were trying to address the options of a majority; also, that they still thought in a certain way. The change to Haste and the eventual reorganization of actions was a huge step to balance the system (before, you had only two partial actions and every extra action was a partial action, so Haste could allow the melee to move and full attack...or the caster to cast twice. See the problem?), but it wasn't revised carefully to see the other problems that were there (Gate and Chain-Gating Solars, Contingency being too powerful, Time Stop, Shapechange, etc.). They didn't imagine that, eventually, that voice would grow stronger and start to overwhelm, shifting the paradigm of play in more tables than before (the "God" Wizard style of play using little to no Evocation spells other than Forcecage, and instead showing why Conjuration and Transmutation were the king schools). Eventually, once the Tier system was developed, it was used as undeniable evidence of the power casters held (whether it *is* undeniable evidence is beyond the scope of this thread, so no Tier discussions, please).

When 3.5 was near its end, the designers and developers grew bolder. They actually reached a point where they were starting to make things that work (Tome of Battle, the Binder) and they started to adapt to the paradigm, but until they changed Core, they couldn't do much. Thus, the Edition change, which went WAY into careful designing so that everything was balanced...by making everything just about the same (again: no 3.5 vs. 4e vs. 5e discussions, please; this is my opinion, not a fact). The amount of books in 4e is far, far less than the amount on 3.5 (without counting 3.0 books, except maybe the ones between the transition), so it could be said safely that the amount of options in 4e was less than in 3.5, and that each option was designed so that it could be checked carefully.

5e decided that it had to be simpler, but still impose imbalance because people seem to like imbalance. At least, that's what their polls mostly shown, though a good deal of the polls showed that they wanted more fluff than crunch by the way they often mentioned slight changes to monsters and whether people agreed, or wanted to keep the fluff of older editions. Here is where I find that the analogy is somewhat flawed: you're jumping straight from a bloated edition where the final design was finally where the chefs found the key, to a system that takes advantage of that design but relies more on nostalgia, without considering the intermediate edition.

A restaurant could afford having less dishes and better prepared ones; they aren't a franchise, after all. When a restaurant becomes a chain (franchised or otherwise), sometimes its best to offer some options, because you have to tailor your menu to different people. Another thing about the restaurant is that you return. Once you buy the Core books, WotC is left with no other revenue unless they change editions, therefore they need splats. If you make splats where there's no crunch, a portion of the audience won't get it because it's not tailored to their choices. Alternatively, a fully crunchy splat will isolate the other portion of the audience, as it doesn't cater to their tastes. And, those who want the crunch are as varied as the divide between fluff and crunch; that also goes without saying that there is some overlap. Fluff-heavy books are great for DMs, but offer nothing for players that already had their choices or that make their choices based on their choice of mechanics; having a book where it explains in detail the life in the Sword Coast will be worthless to someone who's interested only in fighting, or who doesn't like the Realms at all. Those who do will find it invaluable. On the other hand, the one who's interested in fighting will want more monsters, better items and more fighting options, while the one who loathes the Realms will want...an entirely different campaign setting. Alternatively, you could have a roleplaying fan of the Realms...who'd prefer an entirely different part of it, such as Mulhorand. That book will be only of marginal worth.

Part of what the 5e designers and developers want is to cater to all tastes, which is a highly improbable goal. Any subsequent book they design has to cater to all tastes as well, which includes both roleplayers and optimizers, fans of all editions and fans of all kinds of campaign settings. Sure, you can appease the majority and leave some scraps to those on the minority to hook them, but then you have to define the majority. AND, even if you do cater to a majority who wants more fluff and less crunch, you HAVE to cater to the people who likes the crunch because otherwise you'll isolate them, and they'll prefer returning to their favorite edition, potentially harming your sales. All of this has to deal with option: a lot of times, people will gravitate towards the same plate, but every now and then you'll want a different plate, and you'll want a good set of options for that. Sometimes, that new option might be the "flavor of the month".

I'd personally go for a "flavor of the month" approach: release new content in an unpolished format online (for those of us who want lots of options), and if the content is used a lot, integrate a more polished format in the splat. That way, you have control over what gets in and what doesn't, and you create a form of playtest in that way. If you don't, then the content exists for whoever wants it anyways, but the chef in its specific table may ban it by houseruling it away; after all, not every table will accept feats and multiclassing, despite being a PHB option. If it becomes popular, then the developers can dedicate hours to refining the plate (the option, or the content to add) so that it fits the setting.

[silveralen]

Name one thing in frostburn more powerful than a core-only druid. Seriously, anything. 3.5 had almost no power creep because the ceiling was incredibly high from day one.
The only thing I can think of that could possibly fit the bill is the 140000gp major ice heart that meant you could have a persistent fimbulwinter, making a 15 mile radius patch of winter whereever you put it. Which is strong, sure, but it won't help you win any fights or really do much apart from be a plot item the enemies are using.

Fair point, Compared to that, nothing. I do remember it had options that were, overall, better for many classes, but nothing trumped full caster.

[Valraukar]

Part of what the 5e designers and developers want is to cater to all tastes, which is a highly improbable goal.


I'd agree That such a goal is highly improbable. I don't necessarily know that that's what the designers and developers want to do. Of course as a business your job is to make money & in order to make money you have to have sales in this case. But if catering to everyone is indeed their intent, Then at the very least the opinions frequently expressed in this forum are evidence that they've been less than successful.

I think if they cater to anyone, it seems to be to those of us who wanted a more streamlined experience that put the power back into the DMs hands (where it belongs IMO). I hated having to have 20 different resources to refer to while playing 3.5. I'd love to avoid that in 5e, hopefully the team holds true to its stated intention of releasing a smaller number of splats.

[Gnaeus]

I'd agree That such a goal is highly improbable. I don't necessarily know that that's what the designers and developers want to do. Of course as a business your job is to make money & in order to make money you have to have sales in this case. But if catering to everyone is indeed their intent, Then at the very least the opinions frequently expressed in this forum are evidence that they've been less than successful.

I think if they cater to anyone, it seems to be to those of us who wanted a more streamlined experience that put the power back into the DMs hands (where it belongs IMO). I hated having to have 20 different resources to refer to while playing 3.5. I'd love to avoid that in 5e, hopefully the team holds true to its stated intention of releasing a smaller number of splats.

I hated that too. They need to keep the 20 splats and have a reference doc like the PFSRD. But a book that doesn't have additional character options is not a thing I will buy.

[azoetia]

Personally I'd like to see Ravenloft and Dark Sun campaign settings and a book of undead. That's all I'm likely to employ beyond core unless something really impresses me.

Since this edition is modular I'm all for splats filled with optional classes, subclasses, races, feats, and bolt-on-able subsystems. It doesn't matter to me what else gets released since I almost certainly won't be using it in my campaigns and am under no pressure to do so. If they make your game more fun, then have at it.

[edge2054]

I'm fine with lots of options, if and only if, its presented in a way that keeps it digestible.

To go back to the restaurant anology. Rather than opening a franchise the owner could open a new restaurant offering a different menu. In fact that's exactly what the successful restaurant owners I've worked with have done. I knew one guy that had a steakhouse right across the street from an Italian place.

So how does this relate to splat?

If I'm playing in a FR game at most I should need the PHB. If I want I should be able to pick up the FR player guide. That guide should be choked full of crunchy character options for the setting. I shouldn't need to comb through ten other books looking at character options when 50% of them don't fit the campaign I'm in.

As an example take the gatecrasher prestige class. I loved this thing. Always wanted to play one. But my group wasn't into planescape. This class was the burger on the menu at Mexican restaurant that I thought about ordering but knew wasn't going to taste right with my margaria. The burger I'd spend way to long staring at.

[Triclinium]

I'm fine with lots of options, if and only if, its presented in a way that keeps it digestible.

To go back to the restaurant anology. Rather than opening a franchise the owner could open a new restaurant offering a different menu. In fact that's exactly what the successful restaurant owners I've worked with have done. I knew one guy that had a steakhouse right across the street from an Italian place.

So how does this relate to splat?

If I'm playing in a FR game at most I should need the PHB. If I want I should be able to pick up the FR player guide. That guide should be choked full of crunchy character options for the setting. I shouldn't need to comb through ten other books looking at character options when 50% of them don't fit the campaign I'm in.

As an example take the gatecrasher prestige class. I loved this thing. Always wanted to play one. But my group wasn't into planescape. This class was the burger on the menu at Mexican restaurant that I thought about ordering but knew wasn't going to taste right with my margaria. The burger I'd spend way to long staring at.

How will extra options in D&D ever adversely affect you if they all remain in the same balance window that the PHB has presented? This isn't engineering, the point is not to remove as many parts as possible to come up with the simplest solution. Complexity defines characters, making them more interesting and more difficult to properly portray and play as.

In terms of what you need? You never need more than the PHB. You will note that extra books are being referred to in terms of options, because they are optional. Splat has always been exactly that, and anybody who tells you that you ever need more than the core books is just lying to you.

[VoxRationis]

{{scrubbed}}

[Valraukar]

How will extra options in D&D ever adversely affect you if they all remain in the same balance window that the PHB has presented? This isn't engineering, the point is not to remove as many parts as possible to come up with the simplest solution. Complexity defines characters, making them more interesting and more difficult to properly portray and play as.

In terms of what you need? You never need more than the PHB. You will note that extra books are being referred to in terms of options, because they are optional. Splat has always been exactly that, and anybody who tells you that you ever need more than the core books is just lying to you.

If you read any of the above posts you'd see that your stipulation (How will extra options in D&D ever adversely affect you if they all remain in the same balance window that the PHB has presented?) is much easier said than done. Necessarily, introducing more moving parts to the machine makes the chance of glitch ing/malfunction increase. Also achieving the balance you refer to becomes necessarily more difficult to achieve the more arguments we introduce to the system of equations.

[Triclinium]

If you read any of the above posts you'd see that your stipulation (How will extra options in D&D ever adversely affect you if they all remain in the same balance window that the PHB has presented?) is much easier said than done. Necessarily, introducing more moving parts to the machine makes the chance of glitch ing/malfunction increase. Also achieving the balance you refer to becomes necessarily more difficult to achieve the more arguments we introduce to the system of equations.

I would argue that the extra options are worth the risk of the system becoming less and less balanced. I still had a huge amount of fun in 3.5, and that system is pretty well established to be poorly balanced. I'm not arguing that splat will always remain in the same window, but why assume it will fail to be balanced before any has been released? And if an option is adversely affecting your game, the easy solution is to remove it. It isn't a necessary part of the base system.

[Valraukar]

Personally I have no problem with more options being available when I DM. Just because I know that in my games, I have no qualms about tweaking and adjusting things as needed if something seems unbalanced or ruining the experience for other players.

My problem with splats is that as a DM and a player it has been my experience that when players see something written down in one of the split books they feel that they can point to that article as gaming law, going so far as to say that they should overrule the DM of their game should her/he disagree. Those type of disagreements are sadly the sort of things that ruin a session or even a campaign, and it only happens more frequently now that I play on roll20 (all my tabletop group has moved away.)

[edge2054]

How will extra options in D&D ever adversely affect you if they all remain in the same balance window that the PHB has presented?

Spending hours combing through poorly organized splat books, shifting through classes that aren't relevant to what's on the menu, adversely affects me. The less familiar the player is with the setting, the splat book, and the rules, the more adversely they're affected.


This isn't engineering, the point is not to remove as many parts as possible to come up with the simplest solution. Complexity defines characters, making them more interesting and more difficult to properly portray and play as.


It's a game system. Adding more moving parts most certainly disrupts the balance of the system as a whole. But that wasn't my point. My point was that more options aren't always a good thing. That more options == good is a matter of taste and not a point of fact.

[Triclinium]

It's a game system. Adding more moving parts most certainly disrupts the balance of the system as a whole. But that wasn't my point. My point was that more options aren't always a good thing.

I can respect that view even if I don't agree with it.

[Sartharina]

No such thing as too much stuff to choose from as long as it's all kept balanced


You keep saying this but I disagree. Options can be overwhelming for new players and even old players. Another argument is barrier to entry, both from a knowledge and a financial perspective. Seeing three books on the game store shelves is a lot less intimidating for most new players then seeing twenty, even if seventeen of them are clearly marked as optional.

You can like having lots of options Eslin but there's no rule stating that it's good for everyone or even that it's good game design.And I disagree with you. More non-core options is good as long as it's not power creep. Having a core works, but restricting the game to only that core is terrible.
Spending hours combing through poorly organized splat books, shifting through classes that aren't relevant to what's on the menu, adversely affects me. The less familiar the player is with the setting, the splat book, and the rules, the more adversely they're affected. So they don't bother looking past the core, and are unaffected by the nonstandard options entirely.




It's a game system. Adding more moving parts most certainly disrupts the balance of the system as a whole. But that wasn't my point. My point was that more options aren't always a good thing. That more options == good is a matter of taste and not a point of fact.But new races aren't moving parts - they're static parts easily ignored or included.

[VoxRationis]

And I disagree with you. More non-core options is good as long as it's not power creep.

Having additional options usually equals at least some degree of power creep, if only because people are only going to use options that work well for them, and giving people additional options means they have more potential ways to min-max or otherwise push their character beyond previous limits of what was possible. It's not necessarily impossible to publish useful supplementary material which is perfectly balanced, including its effects in combination, with the core, but it's very, very difficult.

Having a core works, but restricting the game to only that core is terrible.

Do you not play games until they come out with additional materials? If the absolute minimum includes "splats," don't they just become the "core"?

So they don't bother looking past the core, and are unaffected by the nonstandard options entirely.

Not true; if the environment the player plays in is replete with such extra-core material, the player who restricts himself to core typically finds himself at a disadvantage.

[Sartharina]

Having additional options usually equals at least some degree of power creep, if only because people are only going to use options that work well for them, and giving people additional options means they have more potential ways to min-max or otherwise push their character beyond previous limits of what was possible. It's not necessarily impossible to publish useful supplementary material which is perfectly balanced, including its effects in combination, with the core, but it's very, very difficult.The power ceiling can remain firmly in place. It's not 'power creep' to provide additional support for underdeveloped roles/playstyles. For example, in 3.X, the Pouncing Full Attack remained DPR king even after Tome of Battle came out and supported more mobile warriors - but what WAS power creep was how we ended up with the Pouncing Full Attack in the first place.


Do you not play games until they come out with additional materials? If the absolute minimum includes "splats," don't they just become the "core"?The absolute minimum is 'core'. But deciding that no more development should go into that game after the core's established is terrible because it leaves a lo of options unfinished.


Not true; if the environment the player plays in is replete with such extra-core material, the player who restricts himself to core typically finds himself at a disadvantage.Not necessarily, if he goes with options that are strong even without extra-core material, and if the game is balanced with core, then staying within core remains valid.

As it is - a Basic-only Burglar Halfling Rogue with the Criminal Background is still relevant alongside a full PHB Half-Elf Assassin rogue with Crossbow Master and Dungeon Delver feats and the Charlatan background, though the latter will be more combat-oriented.

[Fwiffo86]

The absolute minimum is 'core'. But deciding that no more development should go into that game after the core's established is terrible because it leaves a lo of options unfinished.


I am not sure how I feel about this statement. It feels very.... I dunno how to word it. Additional races/classes/abilities are not necessarily options that "need" to be explored at this point.

Power Creep is inevitable unless the ideology of the core is maintained strictly. There is nothing that can be done about it. That being said, the easiest way to minimalize it is to provide content that has no game stats. Examples would be World Design books that explain things such as organizations, governments, pricing, etc.

I am far more interested in how my character could potentially earn titles, land, etc (fulfilling the role of an knight) basically rewards that transcend the trivialities of "loot" or "leveling". Unfortunately, I have absolutely no references to work from as these topics were abandoned many years ago when AD&D came out. I really don't see a point to adding additional races, when there is no actual description governing how they interact with the rest of the world, or vice versa.

What is sorely missing is how the world reacts to the characters, not how many different races/classes/abilities can we come up with. Give me something I can actually craft a story with instead of more shades of one color.

[Sartharina]

I will not be happy with the current racial selection until Catfolk are added. So there!

[Valraukar]

I will not be happy with the current racial selection until Catfolk are added. So there!

Ninja'd.

Now we come to the heart of the matter as far as Sarth is concerned.

[Rfkannen]

Were are my bullywug!

[Eslin]

I am not sure how I feel about this statement. It feels very.... I dunno how to word it. Additional races/classes/abilities are not necessarily options that "need" to be explored at this point.

Power Creep is inevitable unless the ideology of the core is maintained strictly. There is nothing that can be done about it. That being said, the easiest way to minimalize it is to provide content that has no game stats. Examples would be World Design books that explain things such as organizations, governments, pricing, etc.

I am far more interested in how my character could potentially earn titles, land, etc (fulfilling the role of an knight) basically rewards that transcend the trivialities of "loot" or "leveling". Unfortunately, I have absolutely no references to work from as these topics were abandoned many years ago when AD&D came out. I really don't see a point to adding additional races, when there is no actual description governing how they interact with the rest of the world, or vice versa.

What is sorely missing is how the world reacts to the characters, not how many different races/classes/abilities can we come up with. Give me something I can actually craft a story with instead of more shades of one color.

All we need for that is the DMG, past then the story depends on your imagination. Figure out how things work in the setting you've created, you don't need books for that. The DMG looks like it'll have a lot of crunch in it, so I could see the need for a 'how to design and run an organic world' kind of book for those who need it, but past then what we're missing is more options. The balance in 5e has pretty obvious guidelines, it looks like they'll have a much easier time than they did in previous editions - so I want to get some actual use out of that. I want more classes, sub-classes, feats, races, spells, maybe some prestige classes for concepts sub-classes don't fit.

I want a game like 3.5 where my players can create anything their imagination can come up with, but balanced enough that they don't need to spend 20 hours studying the system to do so. I am aware sacrifices need to be made - to keep things balanced there may need to be fewer releases, less total options. I'm fine with that - we've had countless options but poor balance already (3.5), few options but good balance (4e), I and my players are ready and waiting for a large number of options with good balance. At the very least I want some actual options for melee characters beyond the pathetic selection of maneuvers a battlemaster gets.

[Fwiffo86]

All we need for that is the DMG, past then the story depends on your imagination. Figure out how things work in the setting you've created, you don't need books for that. The DMG looks like it'll have a lot of crunch in it, so I could see the need for a 'how to design and run an organic world' kind of book for those who need it, but past then what we're missing is more options. The balance in 5e has pretty obvious guidelines, it looks like they'll have a much easier time than they did in previous editions - so I want to get some actual use out of that. I want more classes, sub-classes, feats, races, spells, maybe some prestige classes for concepts sub-classes don't fit.

I want a game like 3.5 where my players can create anything their imagination can come up with, but balanced enough that they don't need to spend 20 hours studying the system to do so. I am aware sacrifices need to be made - to keep things balanced there may need to be fewer releases, less total options. I'm fine with that - we've had countless options but poor balance already (3.5), few options but good balance (4e), I and my players are ready and waiting for a large number of options with good balance. At the very least I want some actual options for melee characters beyond the pathetic selection of maneuvers a battlemaster gets.

How is the bolded statement not an answer to your second paragraph?

What may be more useful, and helpful to everyone is guidlines for building things that don't already exist. Then the onus of creation is on the DM, not WotC.

Some examples:

Guidelines for race/feat/class/sub-class creation: Map out bonuses vs. abilities, how to choose them, which are appropriate to your needs, etc.

Build your own Kingdom: Guidelines for creating an actual kingdom/church/guild that offers options to choose from based on need, simply select what you want.

I think something like this will A) be more cost effective, and B) Satisfy a wider audience so they can custom out their own races and whatnot because it will be specific to their table.

[Eslin]

You don't need a guide for race creation, just look at present races and give them between +3 and +4 stat bonuses total and abilities equivalent in utility to other races. And regarding actual political structures, there's almost nothing specific to D&D to add.

Though as stated, it may be they can create enough advice to fill a book and if there is then those who want it can buy it, but overall there's no reason not to have almost every book give more mechanical reasons.

[MustacheFart]

If it was up to me, I would have stripped most, if not all, mechanical benefits from the races (they could've easily been placed elsewhere). Then races would purely be about fluff. They should be about who you want to be roleplaying-wise and not just who's best for your build. It would also make adding new races incredibly easy as they're just fluff skins at that point.



Regardless, I want my Bullywug and Hadozee.

[Eslin]

If it was up to me, I would have stripped most, if not all, mechanical benefits from the races (they could've easily been placed elsewhere). Then races would purely be about fluff. They should be about who you want to be roleplaying-wise and not just who's best for your build. It would also make adding new races incredibly easy as they're just fluff skins at that point.



Regardless, I want my Bullywug and Hadozee.

That works nicely from a gameplay perspective, but also ruins verisimilitude when the orc is no stronger than the halfling.

[MustacheFart]

That works nicely from a gameplay perspective, but also ruins verisimilitude when the orc is no stronger than the halfling.

You can already have a halfling with a higher strength than the (half)orc. The halfling just has to put his points into strength and the orc player puts his elsewhere. If you meant the halfling vs the Orc npc/monster then that makes zero difference either. The stat block for the Orc simply has strength as the highest allocated stat. Most likely someone playing a halfling isn't going to dump all their points into strength.

It's really no different when you look at it that way. If a DM wants Orcs to remain as strong grunts then he allocates points accordingly or the MM does for that matter.


I can't think of a good reason that "verisidiculoustude" can't remain even without the +x to a certain stat racial modifier. Hell, people seem to choose the variant human most often over regular human because of the extra feat showing that there is a limit to how much they care about the +x racial stat boosts.


EDIT: I also love the idea that it gets rid of those player-accepted "norms" that certain races are strong in a specific way (Ie. Orcs have high strength, *blank* has high dex, etc), making the game that much more scary. You can't immediately size up an Orc as a dumb brute. Maybe he is the fast nimble one in the tribe.

[Knaight]

While I agree with you that the choice of what to eliminate or take away from a menu of options is at least as important as the choice of what you include, I think that this choice should be made on the level of the individual DM and campaign, not on the level of the game system as a whole. The game system should be full of disparate options and creatures, races, spells, and subsystems to fit a massive variety of possibilities.
Any game that isn't a complete generic is going to have to make the decision to eliminate options; even a complete generic can only have subsystems that focus on so many things. To use a fairly noncontroversial example, D&D's basic design involved pretty much eliminating vehicles, and completely eliminating futuristic vehicles. What gets emphasized in subsystems, what skills are there, etc. are made with that taken into account. Starships are simply not relevant to the system, and their absence is really not a problem.


I will not be happy with the current racial selection until Catfolk are added. So there!
A decent system for making new species would be nice. I generally operate on a human-only paradigm with settings, but if it's going to break it's not going to be for hominids. Bring on the reptiles, the arthropods, the amphibians, the fish.

[Gnaeus]

That more options == good is a matter of taste and not a point of fact.

That more balance == good is also a matter of taste and not a point of fact.

[MadGrady]

That more balance == good is also a matter of taste and not a point of fact.

Agreed. A DM technically can balance anything really. Albeit 5e I believe makes this act a bit easier than past experiences.

[MaxWilson]

I want books that focus on monsters. "Ecology of the Intellect Devourer", "Ecology of the Behir," "Illithid Society and Mores", etc., like the old Dragon articles. Some of the best and most interesting parts weren't about combat at all, it was things like how Behirs have a super-efficient digestive system and can survive on a diet of rocks, and how they hate dragons. (That bit of lore survived into 5E apparently.)

Anything that helps you run creatures as more than just stat blocks.

Obviously I can make up my own Mind Flayer ecology instead (they reproduce hermaphroditically every fifty years, there's a 50:1 ratio of illithids to slaves at any given time, with half the slaves being farmers and half being artisans or warriors, they're an autocracy ruled by an Elder Brain, their cities are typically guarded by acid traps and patrols of 20-30 slaves with Intellect Devourers embedded among the slaves as spies, etc.) but it can be fun to have ideas that are shared with a broader community so that lots of people (and characters) know what to expect when you find three-toed tracks on the ceiling in the Underdark. Metcalf's Law applies to ideas as well as computers.

[Shadow]

That more balance == good is also a matter of taste and not a point of fact.

Yeah, having certain choices being clearly, undeniably, and inarguably far superior to others is good for certain playstyles.
[/sarcasm]

Ummm, no. Balance is good, and that's not a matter of taste. More options being good is only true if those extra options are balanced, and that's also not a matter of taste.

Champion fighter and Beast Master ranger are examples of this.
Everyone seems to agree that thse two options are subpar compared to their brethren, dropping the peceived available fighter choices down to two and the preceived ranger choice down to one. If options that are imbalanced appear to make the current choices obsolete, then there will only be a single choice for every class.
Sure, there are 8 different wizard schools right now. But adding a wizard subclass that's OP will not give us a ninth choice. Instead it will effectively drop that eight down to one.

More choices are not better unless those choices are balanced. Every time an underpowered option is introduced, the number of perceived options does not change.
Every time an overpowered option is introduced, the number of perceived options is decreased rather than increased.
More options only actually offer us MORE options if they are balanced.

[Rater202]

Not everyone has the most fun when everybody in the party is equal, and balance, optimization and "Clearly Superior" only really matter on paper.

In my first ever 3.5 campaign, my High Elf cleave path fighter10(with a shield, wielding a bastard sword one handed)/S**y savage profession wererat 2/Dire Rat 1/ Nerfed all to hell Warshaper 5(only one nat weapon per limb, and I had to have the limb so no growing tentacles) was totally not at all optimized, and was literally the only PC to make it from the first session to the last.

This group included druids, a multible sorcerous/Wizards(One guy kept dieing and alternated between arcane spellcasters and dwarf fighters. I was orignally going to play a Dread NEc but GM wanted to keep it core only for a few sessions. I joked that I could have reanimated his dead PCs and kept the zombies around longer than he kept them alive) and an other PC who kept getting retconned into other things due to magic cards and/or GM fiat(Elf Ranger-Drow Warlock-Ogre Mage Warlock-Albino Drow Warlock-Albino Drow Dread Necromancer)

And even with the GM and other players screwing me over( see worst GM and Things I may not do threads for details) I was still having fun.

Options don't equal fun, and balance doesn't equal fun.

Fun equals fun.

[MadGrady]

Not everyone has the most fun when everybody in the party is equal, and balance, optimization and "Clearly Superior" only really matter on paper.

In my first ever 3.5 campaign, my High Elf cleave path fighter10(with a shield, wielding a bastard sword one handed)/S**y savage profession wererat 2/Dire Rat 1/ Nerfed all to hell Warshaper 5(only one nat weapon per limb, and I had to have the limb so no growing tentacles) was totally not at all optimized, and was literally the only PC to make it from the first session to the last.

This group included druids, a multible sorcerous/Wizards(One guy kept dieing and alternated between arcane spellcasters and dwarf fighters. I was orignally going to play a Dread NEc but GM wanted to keep it core only for a few sessions. I joked that I could have reanimated his dead PCs and kept the zombies around longer than he kept them alive) and an other PC who kept getting retconned into other things due to magic cards and/or GM fiat(Elf Ranger-Drow Warlock-Ogre Mage Warlock-Albino Drow Warlock-Albino Drow Dread Necromancer)

And even with the GM and other players screwing me over( see worst GM and Things I may not do threads for details) I was still having fun.

Options don't equal fun, and balance doesn't equal fun.

Fun equals fun.

Agreed as well. Optimization does not equal fun (and in many cases, I too have enjoyed playing a suboptimal combination of race/class). The point I was making, was that balance is entirely relative.

A class that is balanced in one game, can easily be unbalanced in another depending on the situations the DM puts forward. A fighter is terribly underpowered if there aren't ever any fights. A wizard is underpowered if always fighting baddies with magical immunities (being general for sake of argument).

As long as you and the DM are committed to having a fun game, fun will be had. After all, who doesn't love cleaving the head off a monster, or blasting off a fireball :smallbiggrin:

[Gnaeus]

Yeah, having certain choices being clearly, undeniably, and inarguably far superior to others is good for certain playstyles.
[/sarcasm]

Ummm, no. Balance is good, and that's not a matter of taste. More options being good is only true if those extra options are balanced, and that's also not a matter of taste.

Champion fighter and Beast Master ranger are examples of this.
Everyone seems to agree that thse two options are subpar compared to their brethren, dropping the peceived available fighter choices down to two and the preceived ranger choice down to one. If options that are imbalanced appear to make the current choices obsolete, then there will only be a single choice for every class.
Sure, there are 8 different wizard schools right now. But adding a wizard subclass that's OP will not give us a ninth choice. Instead it will effectively drop that eight down to one.

More choices are not better unless those choices are balanced. Every time an underpowered option is introduced, the number of perceived options does not change.
Every time an overpowered option is introduced, the number of perceived options is decreased rather than increased.
More options only actually offer us MORE options if they are balanced.

That was a pretty long post to not have a single true word in it.

I can point to a large number of games that do not have much balance (as I assume he is using the term, it really means a lot of different things to different people, but that's a different rant) that have been both wildly popular and fun to play. Rifts is a fantastic example. So is Ars Magica. White Wolf. 3.pf. Every time an option is introduced, it adds more options. Given the number of moving parts in a game this complex, it adds exponentially more options of what kinds of characters you can build.

If you want to play 5.0 core, do it. Doesn't hurt my feelings. I want 5.0 to have all the range of options 3.5 had and more. I want to know that I can build a half dragon centaur war blade/barbarian spiked chain tripper if that is what works in my game (because I loved that character) If you feel that you have to include every single thing in play because of some perceived sense of player entitlement, I suggest you work that out with your players. Balance isn't a plus in a game system. If I am in a group that wants balance, the best place to fix that is at the table where we can include the options we want, instead of just the options you think we want.

[Shadow]

That was a pretty long post to not have a single true word in it.

If you really believe that then there's no point in the two of us ever having a conversation with the word "balance" involved ever again.

[Gnaeus]

If you really believe that then there's no point in the two of us ever having a conversation with the word "balance" involved ever again.

I really believe that. And if you persist on passing your game damaging opinions off as facts, you are welcome to leave the conversation at any time.

[Shadow]

I really believe that. And if you persist on passing your game damaging opinions off as facts, you are welcome to leave the conversation at any time.

I'm not leaving the conversation. But I am certainly done discussing it with someone that won't even admit that Champion fighter and Beast Master ranger are subpar options compared to their brethren.

[MadGrady]

Perhaps a new thread should be started, and we can get back to what this post was originally about....

It's just a suggestion.

I'll be quiet now

[Rfkannen]

I want a monster race to become the most supported in the game by splat books. Perhaps bullywug. Perhaps minotaur.

[Sartharina]

I'm not leaving the conversation. But I am certainly done discussing it with someone that won't even admit that Champion fighter and Beast Master ranger are subpar options compared to their brethren.

Champion fighter can be awesome, especially as a Great Weapon Half Orc.

[Gnaeus]

Champion fighter and Beast Master ranger are examples of this.
Everyone seems to agree that thse two options are subpar compared to their brethren, dropping the peceived available fighter choices down to two and the preceived ranger choice down to one. If options that are imbalanced appear to make the current choices obsolete, then there will only be a single choice for every class.
Sure, there are 8 different wizard schools right now. But adding a wizard subclass that's OP will not give us a ninth choice. Instead it will effectively drop that eight down to one.

Were this true, every single 3.5 party would have only tier 1 characters in it, because that is clearly the most powerful party. And yet, that is not the normal result in play. People choose to play all tier 1s, all tier 3s, all tier 5s, but most people choose to play mixed parties, and for a great many groups, that works great. Just because an option is not something you would choose, or that is mathematically advantageous by some measurement, does not mean it isn't an option.


I'm not leaving the conversation. But I am certainly done discussing it with someone that won't even admit that Champion fighter and Beast Master ranger are subpar options compared to their brethren.

Mechanically weaker does not mean subpar. Anything that people wish to play is a valid option. If I want to play a guy who is a circus lion trainer, Beast master is a superior option, even if its DPR may not measure up. Not everyone evaluates classes by DPR.

[MadGrady]

If I want to play a guy who is a circus lion trainer, Beast master is a superior option, even if its DPR may not measure up.

I would love to see a full background workup for this.

Bonds, Ideals, Flaws.

[VeliciaL]

I would love to see a full background workup for this.

Bonds, Ideals, Flaws.

I'm envisioning Entertainer, with Animal Handling substituted for Acrobatics, and "Chair and Whip" as your "instrument" of choice. :smallbiggrin:

[Shadow]

Mechanically weaker does not mean subpar.
That's precisely what subpar means in this context. Subpar means below average. Being mechanically weaker than its counterparts is exactly what makes it subpar.


even if its DPR may not measure up. Not everyone evaluates classes by DPR.
Who said anything about DPR?

[ThatKreacher]

I personally want a book on psionics introducing new classes and psionic version of subclasses and psionic races, a book that introduces a functional binder, shadowcaster, and truenamer as either classes or subclasses, and has more spells and subclasses for existing classes, so ToM but more than just introducing new systems, and a book mirroring ToB but also adding more subclasses for existing martial classes, and a few enivroment books like Stromwrack and Sandstorm. oh yeah, and an entire book devoted to a campaign setting where goblinoids are the standard races and humans/elves/halflings etc. are barbaric and almost always evil.

Is that too much to ask for?

[SaintRidley]

I want books that focus on monsters. "Ecology of the Intellect Devourer", "Ecology of the Behir," "Illithid Society and Mores", etc., like the old Dragon articles. Some of the best and most interesting parts weren't about combat at all, it was things like how Behirs have a super-efficient digestive system and can survive on a diet of rocks, and how they hate dragons. (That bit of lore survived into 5E apparently.)

Anything that helps you run creatures as more than just stat blocks.

Obviously I can make up my own Mind Flayer ecology instead (they reproduce hermaphroditically every fifty years, there's a 50:1 ratio of illithids to slaves at any given time, with half the slaves being farmers and half being artisans or warriors, they're an autocracy ruled by an Elder Brain, their cities are typically guarded by acid traps and patrols of 20-30 slaves with Intellect Devourers embedded among the slaves as spies, etc.) but it can be fun to have ideas that are shared with a broader community so that lots of people (and characters) know what to expect when you find three-toed tracks on the ceiling in the Underdark. Metcalf's Law applies to ideas as well as computers.


The Illithiad (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0786912065/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0786912065&linkCode=as2&tag=sairidatpowro-20&linkId=I36GPLP7NZNXWMTR) might be right up your alley. One of the best book purchases I ever made among all D&D books, and I don't even play 2e.

[silveralen]

I can point to a large number of games that do not have much balance (as I assume he is using the term, it really means a lot of different things to different people, but that's a different rant) that have been both wildly popular and fun to play. Rifts is a fantastic example.

Rifts is an amazing example of a system with such a horribly unbalanced, convoluted, power creep system that it is literally easier to run the campaign in GURPs or some D20 modern/3.5 hybrid than it is to run it straight. I've used a modified version of TORG (do people still even know what that is?) to run it and it still simplifies it immensely. In fact, I have never played, run, or even met anyone who has run a single game of rifts that didn't involve GM fiat about class choice, modified rules, and additional home brewed rules at minimum.

It's a really fun game conceptually, but the moment you start talking about the system itself as if it is praiseworthy I think we have an issue.

[Sartharina]

The champion fighter has best DPR in the game. And a boost to initiative.

[Suichimo]

The main thing I care about is if they make a book focusing on Fighters, for example, focus completely on the Fighters. 3.5 was REALLY bad about that. Basically every splat book, even ones like Complete Warrior, had tons of spells in them rather than using that space to help the classes the book was centered around.

[Eslin]

That was a pretty long post to not have a single true word in it.

I can point to a large number of games that do not have much balance (as I assume he is using the term, it really means a lot of different things to different people, but that's a different rant) that have been both wildly popular and fun to play. Rifts is a fantastic example. So is Ars Magica. White Wolf. 3.pf. Every time an option is introduced, it adds more options. Given the number of moving parts in a game this complex, it adds exponentially more options of what kinds of characters you can build.

If you want to play 5.0 core, do it. Doesn't hurt my feelings. I want 5.0 to have all the range of options 3.5 had and more. I want to know that I can build a half dragon centaur war blade/barbarian spiked chain tripper if that is what works in my game (because I loved that character) If you feel that you have to include every single thing in play because of some perceived sense of player entitlement, I suggest you work that out with your players. Balance isn't a plus in a game system. If I am in a group that wants balance, the best place to fix that is at the table where we can include the options we want, instead of just the options you think we want.

Keep in mind Shadow and I disagree about everything, and I'm still saying this - that was an insulting way to put it, you can disagree without saying 'That was a pretty long post to not have a single true word in it.'.

Side note - in this instance, he's absolutely correct, balance is essential. I've played a barbarian/warblade dracotaur (half-dragon centaur seemed pointless when the race already existed) with a spiked chain, back in 3.5, having that option was a good thing, but that the option existed didn't mean the game had to be unbalanced, 3.5 just happened to be incredibly badly balanced. I loved it, it's still my favourite edition ever, but they had no idea what they were doing back then and everything turned out skewed.

5e is a chance to fix that - it has the same basic chassis 5e did, but now they have the benefit of time and experience. They have room to add as many options as they want now, but balance is essential to making sure the game is playable without the DM having to go through everything with a fine toothed comb and ban half of everything.



Mechanically weaker does not mean subpar. Anything that people wish to play is a valid option. If I want to play a guy who is a circus lion trainer, Beast master is a superior option, even if its DPR may not measure up. Not everyone evaluates classes by DPR.

It absolutely does. This is the point of levels, xp, classes in general - you want to become stronger. Characters of equal level should be equal in power (this does NOT mean DPR, it means all characters should be equally useful), that is the entire point of a level. Nothing should be sub-par.


The main thing I care about is if they make a book focusing on Fighters, for example, focus completely on the Fighters. 3.5 was REALLY bad about that. Basically every splat book, even ones like Complete Warrior, had tons of spells in them rather than using that space to help the classes the book was centered around.

Complete warrior had a bare few pages of spells, just as complete arcane had some feats and classes that were useful to martials. The design makes sense - concentrate a bunch of spells useful to martials in complete warrior, concentrate a bunch of martial options useful to casters in complete arcane.

[edge2054]

I just want relevant books. Put the ravenloft stuff in the ravenloft setting. Don't force me to comb though 10 garbage options every time I want to make a caster.

If I'm going out to eat at a steakhouse I've already decided what I'm in the mood for. Don't fill the menu with Chinese food.

Its not so much that options are bad, its that they're not always good. I know I can play a ravenloft character in a ravenloft game. Put it on the ravenloft menu.

Its a matter of presentation.

[MadGrady]

I just want relevant books. Put the ravenloft stuff in the ravenloft setting. Don't force me to comb though 10 garbage options every time I want to make a caster.

If I'm going out to eat at a steakhouse I've already decided what I'm in the mood for. Don't fill the menu with Chinese food.

Its not so much that options are bad, its that they're not always good. I know I can play a ravenloft character in a ravenloft game. Put it on the ravenloft menu.

Its a matter of presentation.

Definitely agree here. I am all for lots of options, but I want those options to be well organized. I would prefer single themed books (either around setting, monster, or class) than multiple books with multiple settings, classes etc. That would make is so much easier to organize.

[Knaight]

Rifts is an amazing example of a system with such a horribly unbalanced, convoluted, power creep system that it is literally easier to run the campaign in GURPs or some D20 modern/3.5 hybrid than it is to run it straight. I've used a modified version of TORG (do people still even know what that is?) to run it and it still simplifies it immensely. In fact, I have never played, run, or even met anyone who has run a single game of rifts that didn't involve GM fiat about class choice, modified rules, and additional home brewed rules at minimum.

It's a really fun game conceptually, but the moment you start talking about the system itself as if it is praiseworthy I think we have an issue.

I'd consider the balance a side issue here, honestly. The problem with Rifts is that the core mechanics just suck. Even if all of the options were totally balanced, the core mechanics would still suck. It's a convoluted mess, and getting something that isn't a convoluted mess out of it requires retooling the system from the ground up.