Things I want

[8wGremlin]

I want:

Eldritch knights that can pick a wizards school of magic
Eldritch knights that can pick druid, cleric, warlock, bard, or sorcerer spells
Sorcerers that can pick druid, cleric, warlock, bard, or wizard spells

etc..

what do you want?

[Cybren]

Things I want:

more int or strength based classes and archetypes
An expanded weapons table with more ways to distinguish weapons from one another
A systemized way of awarding XP outside of combat
Rules for managing a demesne
Adventures that aren't super over the top or dripping in D&D tropes from day 1.
More feats that are interesting and fun, like alert.

Incidentally I have multiple pages of notes on most of these things, because why not do it myself

[Shaofoo]

I want:

Eldritch knights that can pick a wizards school of magic
Eldritch knights that can pick druid, cleric, warlock, bard, or sorcerer spells
Sorcerers that can pick druid, cleric, warlock, bard, or wizard spells

etc..

what do you want?

You can do that right now.

Make your own game and say that Eldritch Knight and Sorcerers have no restrictions over choosing spells as long as they have the spell slot for it,

If you are saying you want an official representation then talk to your DM.

-

What I would like would be for people to be more appreciative for the stuff that they have.

[Sneak Dog]

Non-casters no longer being best defined as non-caster.
Giving them something unique for not being casters, something to make them inherently interesting, rather than rely on each individual non-casting class to do it, because that can fail. *glares at barbarian*. Because right now, a caster can do exactly what a non-caster can do, though probably worse or expending daily resources. But they can also cast, something interesting non-casters cannot replicate.


What I would like would be for people to be more appreciative for the stuff that they have.

Hehe. I think 5e is already a fine system. I would just like it to be a good or even great system. Honestly, I haven't found any roleplaying system that's actually good in my eyes. Makes me feel roleplaying systems are still very young.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I want to be under the sea! In an Octopus' garden, in the shade...

I'd also like better rules for social combat, extended checks/skill challenges, exploration, and ruling a domain.
And monsters with actual abilities beyond dealing damage.


What I would like would be for people to be more appreciative for the stuff that they have.
And for people to be more accepting when others want to change things.

[Gastronomie]

I'd also like better rules for social combat, extended checks/skill challenges, exploration, and ruling a domain.
And monsters with actual abilities beyond dealing damage. I'm personally not a fan of checks/skills in the first place, but that could be because I know only 5e's simple system. What's your reason for wanting "extended checks/skill challenges"? What was it like in other editions, and how was it attractive? Just curious.

I agree with how most monsters are damn boring. Too simple and monotonous.

[Legendairy]

Ooo a slippery slope, I want my free unearthed arcana to stop freely wasting my time! It's a joke I promise!

I want to forget everything I know about the rules and the monster since I've been playing since AD&D and not know about optimal and sub optimal choices, looking at you sharpshooter and its ilk. And just have everything be exciting and new but still be d&d.

[Shaofoo]

And for people to be more accepting when others want to change things.

So you saying that players should be more accepting when a DM changes things?


Ooo a slippery slope, I want my free unearthed arcana to stop freely wasting my time! It's a joke I promise!

I want to forget everything I know about the rules and the monster since I've been playing since AD&D and not know about optimal and sub optimal choices, looking at you sharpshooter and its ilk. And just have everything be exciting and new but still be d&d.

And some people complain that the release schedule is barren, considering the vitriolic reaction to UA I think that not having so many releases is a good thing, considering that people don't trust the makers of their game to make their game.

[JumboWheat01]

I want to see my enemies broken before me and hear the lamentations of their women...


Adventures that aren't super over the top or dripping in D&D tropes from day 1.

Oh, come on! I just wanted to have silly fun! *grumble grumble*

/silliness

I wouldn't mind seeing INT be useful for someone outside of Wizard-based casters. Though I personally avoid dumping it further than 10, it really is the most useless stat this edition, unless your a Wizard-based caster, and even they can be made in a way where they don't need INT all that much.

I also wouldn't mind seeing no more CHA-based casters. Half the classes with casting as a part of their vanilla class features use CHA. That's getting a little silly. (Bard, Paladin, Sorcerer and Warlock use CHA, Cleric, Druid and Ranger use WIS, and Wizard uses INT.)

Oh, also, I want more Eberron.

[Regitnui]

And some people complain that the release schedule is barren, considering the vitriolic reaction to UA I think that not having so many releases is a good thing, considering that people don't trust the makers of their game to make their game.

That certainly seems to be most of the problem. Nobody seems to believe that the D&D team can make D&D anymore, especially after the dual disappointment of Storm King's Thunder just being another FR adventure and the Quick Character Builder UA being three weeks late.

[BurchardOfEn]

To go along with JumboWheat1, I wouldn't be opposed to seeing subclass options that change the casting stat of a class(and possibly its Saving Throw Proficiencies) at 1st level with fitting flavor. This would lend itself mostly to Sorcerers and Warlocks (probably mostly to Sorcerers though).

As for things I want, I want the Unearthed Arcanas to at least try to be balanced to one another. I honestly don't think that they can have the same people working on, say, the Undying patron as the Undying Light patron as the two are so drastically divergent in utility with one being probably the worst Warlock subclass whereas the other can be used to make one of the most broken characters in the game if multiclassed with Paladin.

And, yes, I know that they're not meant to be ready for release, but it'd be at least nice to see them try to weed some things out with some simulated situation.

Aside from that, I'd love to see the Mystic finished and released with the Dark Sun campaign book hopefully at some point in the not-incredibly-distant-future(TM).

[Gastronomie]

So you saying that players should be more accepting when a DM changes things?Doesn't the DM have the right to force their changes upon their games? The players never have the right to reject a change done by a DM (unrelated to whether it's a good thing or a bad thing).

[treecko]

I want lots and lots of more feats. Keep making my fighters stronger!

[Shaofoo]

Doesn't the DM have the right to force their changes upon their games? The players never have the right to reject a change done by a DM (unrelated to whether it's a good thing or a bad thing).

The wish was for acceptance not for the ability to force change. DMs have that since day 1 of D&D as a whole. Players might not have the power to make change or deny the change but they have the power to walk away and never have to deal with the change in the first place.

But I am sure that the great majority of people will be able to talk things out and not have to come to a battle of wills like it happens so constantly here.

[ClintACK]

Things I want:

more int or strength based classes and archetypes
I'd settle for *some* reason for Int to not be the dump stat of everyone who isn't a wizard. (Like making Illusions into Int-saves instead of Wis-saves, maybe. Or a small bonus to Proficiency (that scales with Int bonus and with base Proficiency to a max of +2 at 20 Int and +5 base Proficiency))


An expanded weapons table with more ways to distinguish weapons from one another
Definitely. Perhaps greatly expanded Fighting Styles geared to different weapons. Like a whip-fighter style or a spiked-gauntlet style.


A systemized way of awarding XP outside of combat
Meh. I like letting DMs hand wave this. I just remember 2e, when spell casters got fixed XP for spellcasting -- so long as they could justify the spell. So there was a huge incentive to throw spell slots at problems rather than actually thinking about solving them. This did *not* make the game more fun or immersive. You got five times as much XP for throwing a 5th level spell at a problem than for solving it more elegantly with a 1st level spell.


Rules for managing a demesne
Again, I like the freedom to hand wave this. This isn't D&D's focus, and it's going to be incredibly dependent on the social and economic milieu of your world. So I can't see any fixed rules actually making anyone happy.


Adventures that aren't super over the top or dripping in D&D tropes from day 1.
I think Adventures often *should* start jam-packed with cliches and tropes. (You're in a tavern when a woman in a fine silk dress -- torn and bloody -- comes in screaming for help. Bang, you're off and running.) It makes it easier to jump in. Nuance and detail should come about naturally over time as you all play in that world. The cliches you started with will eventually look like your characters just didn't *see* what was really going on. (Sure, Bargan looked like a typical whiskey-swigging dwarf... but six months into the campaign you all know about the horrors he drinks to forget and yadda, yadda, yadda.)



Non-casters no longer being best defined as non-caster.
Giving them something unique for not being casters, something to make them inherently interesting, rather than rely on each individual non-casting class to do it, because that can fail. *glares at barbarian*.

Not sure what you mean. Rogue is already defined as the sneaky skill-monger. Ranger is the wilderness survival guy. Battle Master is the trained soldier. Barbarian Smash.



I also wouldn't mind seeing no more CHA-based casters. Half the classes with casting as a part of their vanilla class features use CHA. That's getting a little silly. (Bard, Paladin, Sorcerer and Warlock use CHA, Cleric, Druid and Ranger use WIS, and Wizard uses INT.)

Agreed. The problem is that Cha is *so* incredibly useful outside of casting. If you think of RPGs as a balance between Combat, Social, and Exploration, one whole piece is Charisma-based. Then making your attack roll, your save-DC and your number of spells all Cha-based as well...

It's a bit like the new Dex fighter -- now that you can get attack and damage modified by Dex, as well as initiative and AC.


Oh, also, I want more Eberron.

Oh, please no! :)

[fishyfishyfishy]

I want lots and lots of more feats. Keep making my fighters stronger!

Feats are not the answer to making the fighter stronger. If you want better fighters then additional subclasses, expanded maneuver list for the Battlemaster, and new weapon based spells for the Eldritch Knight are the answer. Nothing to be done about the champion unfortunately.

Not saying an expanded feat list would be bad, just that it is not a solution to making the fighter class better. That's a dangerous path the designers followed in 3e/3.5 and look how that turned out for them.

[JumboWheat01]

Not saying an expanded feat list would be bad, just that it is not a solution to making the fighter class better. That's a dangerous path the designers followed in 3e/3.5 and look how that turned out for them.

"If you took more than 12 fighter levels you are an idiot and should feel ashamed of yourself, rawrawrawrawrawrawrawr..." Oh, the number of guides I saw saying (something similar to) that all the time. I've purposely made pure fighters just to spite them.

[Cybren]

I'd settle for *some* reason for Int to not be the dump stat of everyone who isn't a wizard. (Like making Illusions into Int-saves instead of Wis-saves, maybe. Or a small bonus to Proficiency (that scales with Int bonus and with base Proficiency to a max of +2 at 20 Int and +5 base Proficiency))

My particular issue is just aesthetic. I like the idea of wizard style casting with spellbooks being more common, with wizards just being one version of it. That EKs and ATs dont have spellbooks saddens me, but that every new arcane caster they come with is cha based saddens me even more.


Definitely. Perhaps greatly expanded Fighting Styles geared to different weapons. Like a whip-fighter style or a spiked-gauntlet style.


The fighting style system is interesting. I'd be interested in doing a revision to it that unifies the combat feats like GWM and PAM with the fighting styles, sorta bringing back old school weapon proficiencies.



Meh. I like letting DMs hand wave this. I just remember 2e, when spell casters got fixed XP for spellcasting -- so long as they could justify the spell. So there was a huge incentive to throw spell slots at problems rather than actually thinking about solving them. This did *not* make the game more fun or immersive. You got five times as much XP for throwing a 5th level spell at a problem than for solving it more elegantly with a 1st level spell.

I was more thinking things like how in Dugneonworld your alignment and character bonds give you a vector to get XP by roleplaying your characters beliefs/relationships. Not an outstanding amount, just a relevant amount. Reward systems encourage behavior, and in many of my campaigns I like that kind of behavior. Also, personal character goals, like "I want to become a blacksmith" and then when you achieve that you get a bit of XP, and you move on to a goal of "I want to make the coolest goddamn sword ever and give it as a gift to the king",




Again, I like the freedom to hand wave this. This isn't D&D's focus, and it's going to be incredibly dependent on the social and economic milieu of your world. So I can't see any fixed rules actually making anyone happy.

Who cares about anyone? I just want to make me happy. But to say "this isn't D&D's focus" is a nonsequitor. D&D can focus on all sorts of things if it wants to. Some campaigns can be It's not D&D's focus because there's no rules for it



I think Adventures often *should* start jam-packed with cliches and tropes. (You're in a tavern when a woman in a fine silk dress -- torn and bloody -- comes in screaming for help. Bang, you're off and running.) It makes it easier to jump in. Nuance and detail should come about naturally over time as you all play in that world. The cliches you started with will eventually look like your characters just didn't *see* what was really going on. (Sure, Bargan looked like a typical whiskey-swigging dwarf... but six months into the campaign you all know about the horrors he drinks to forget and yadda, yadda, yadda.)


1) you seem to misunderstand what I want. The example you give is what I do want. What I don't want is every adventure to immediately deal with Evil Drow and Nefarious Fiendish Cultists that feed into a longer adventure where at the end you fight THE SUPER DEMON THAT SNEEZED ASMODEUS OUT EONS AGO BEFORE THE BLOOD WAR EVEN EXISTED
2) I don't want them to stop doing Legend of the Abyssal Hankie, I just also want things more like "A bunch of badass knights conquered this city and you have to defend them"



Oh, please no! :)

I mean, I don't like Eberron... at all, but I think more setting material could still give me things to steal for my own games.

[Corran]

Wow, this is the third time I try to write this post without turning it into a rant...
Basically, what I want, is an alternative feat and skill system (I have made my peace with what we have, but in truth, I really dont like them), and for WotC to hurry up the proper books and stop wasting time on adventure books, as I dont like playing ready adventures. Well, that's selfish, but this is what I want.

[Else Fangorn]

I would love to see some setpiece books instead of adventure books. Admittedly, I'm excited about Storm King's Thunder (the first of the official adventures I've cared about), but I would love to see some books that just have individual encounters and small dungeons that you can use in whatever world you like. They used to have some things like that in the old magazines, even during 4e, but I would love to see a big book of fun setpiece moments to use. I understand we have DMs Guild for that now, sort of, but I would like to have an official publication.

[ClintACK]

What I don't want is every adventure to immediately deal with Evil Drow and Nefarious Fiendish Cultists that feed into a longer adventure where at the end you fight THE SUPER DEMON THAT SNEEZED ASMODEUS OUT EONS AGO BEFORE THE BLOOD WAR EVEN EXISTED
2) I don't want them to stop doing Legend of the Abyssal Hankie, I just also want things more like "A bunch of badass knights conquered this city and you have to defend them"

Oh. Yes, please.

I'd actually love more support for lower fantasy.

The idea that every third-level party needs to be saving the world drives me nuts.

[Morcleon]

I want psionics, magitech, support for high-magic societies and worlds, and spells and abilities that are useful beyond the standard adventuring party.

[Gastronomie]

The wish was for acceptance not for the ability to force change. DMs have that since day 1 of D&D as a whole. Players might not have the power to make change or deny the change but they have the power to walk away and never have to deal with the change in the first place.

But I am sure that the great majority of people will be able to talk things out and not have to come to a battle of wills like it happens so constantly here.Due to the nature of table-talk games, ignoring the changes the DM made is virtually impossible. This is a necessary flaw that can never be treated by any mechanic or game system.

I honestly don't think there are many rules in 5e that need to be changed. If people of a certain group think there are, they can just ask their DMs, but my gaming group finds it fine (one reason for this being that they aren't optimized).

[Shaofoo]

Due to the nature of table-talk games, ignoring the changes the DM made is virtually impossible. This is a necessary flaw that can never be treated by any mechanic or game system.

I honestly don't think there are many rules in 5e that need to be changed. If people of a certain group think there are, they can just ask their DMs, but my gaming group finds it fine (one reason for this being that they aren't optimized).

You can totally ignore any changes a DM makes by not participating in the games, they can't affect you if you aren't a participant of the games. Of course walking away is considered a nuclear option and not one that should be taken lightly (unlike some people here who would walk away if the DM so much as changes one spell or even make certain spell components hard to find).

[Gastronomie]

You can totally ignore any changes a DM makes by not participating in the games, they can't affect you if you aren't a participant of the games. Of course walking away is considered a nuclear option and not one that should be taken lightly (unlike some people here who would walk away if the DM so much as changes one spell or even make certain spell components hard to find).Of course that's also true.

My point wasn't that the DM is absolute, my point was that "allowing the players to go against an ignorant DM in any way besides leaving the game" is virtually impossible. But eh, not a really important argument TBH. I think we're actually thinking the same thing anyways (as in the case with 99% of the arguments on these forums).

I agree that having lots of short campaigns could be nice.

[Sneak Dog]

Not sure what you mean. Rogue is already defined as the sneaky skill-monger. Ranger is the wilderness survival guy. Battle Master is the trained soldier. Barbarian Smash.


In 5e, when designing a caster, the casting part already makes them interesting, for there is already a set of interesting spells set up and there is no expectation for every spell to be unique to a caster. Overlap between spell lists is fine. This makes designing a new caster class fairly easy. If a feature is boring, then that is no problem.
However, when designing a non-caster, all the interesting parts have to come from the class features. Otherwise you just have a caster that cannot cast. There is a design burden here (design burden is an appropriate term here I hope).

Looking at the rogue, I'd say that is a great class that succeeded in being an interesting class to play both in and out of combat with expertise, cunning action and sneak attack. The barbarian and the fighter I'd use as examples of the risks of this design choice:

I liked playing a 4e barbarian with options. The way 5e is set up means I cannot anymore. The base barbarian class tells you to just spam the Attack action, perhaps grapple or shove once in a while, while the archetypes don't have enough power budget to change this. If there is a balanced archetype that does manage, then I will applaud whomever designed it.
The fighter almost has the same issue, except that there is enough power budget to change this, see battlemaster. However, this means that the design burden has simply moved to the archetype. Now when making a fighter archetype that doesn't just make it a caster, one has to make the fighter interesting with a strained power budget.

(I skipped the ranger, I don't really know that class.)

The result of the design choice to not give anything inherently interesting to non-casters is that I cannot have a barbarian that is interesting to play in combat.

[Shaofoo]

I liked playing a 4e barbarian with options. The way 5e is set up means I cannot anymore. The base barbarian class tells you to just spam the Attack action, perhaps grapple or shove once in a while, while the archetypes don't have enough power budget to change this. If there is a balanced archetype that does manage, then I will applaud whomever designed it.


The fighter almost has the same issue, except that there is enough power budget to change this, see battlemaster. However, this means that the design burden has simply moved to the archetype. Now when making a fighter archetype that doesn't just make it a caster, one has to make the fighter interesting with a strained power budget.

(I skipped the ranger, I don't really know that class.)

The result of the design choice to not give anything inherently interesting to non-casters is that I cannot have a barbarian that is interesting to play in combat.

You (and a bunch of others here) confuse number of options with how fun the class plays.

But in reality even a Champion or Barbarian can probably outdo even a wizard at things because it isn't about the stat block you hold in your hand but the character that you try to develop in the world. You don't need magic to change the world.

Of coruse feel free to play whatever you want and if you want to avoid the Barbarian and Fighter like the plague then do so (I personally avoid Druids like the plague).

[NecroDancer]

Extra skills for each positive int modifier

[2D8HP]

Mostly I want less.
As a player, compared to the D&D I knew, a 1st level PC is amazing!
But as a DM?
It's just too much.
Less classes and subclasses, less options, less rules, less overpowered PC's at 20th, and I would like 5e to be much less like 3e.
I "Basically" want 5e to be more like (but not completely like) the 1977 "blue book" Basic set D&D rules. And I want more levels, with a 40th level about as powerful as 20th level is now.


D&D should mostly be like oD&D but as well edited, and as clearly written as 5e, with some of the rule changes that 5e has (but not all). All the other editions should not exist!

There should only be three editions.
1) oD&D with the supplements and magazine articles that led to AD&D (you have to start somewhere).
2) The 1977 Basic set (not perfect, but still a treasure).
3) The ideal perfect form of D&D that will probably never exist.

If they publish a 6e within a decade from now, with so many editions poppin' out so soon after each other, I don't care if it's a little better, IT BETTER BE PERFECT!

While I am very much grateful that with 5e, for the first time in decades, I have been finally able to find other people willing to play a game called "Dungeons & Dragons, I pretty much feel that for the most part, over the last decades the changes have been:
TOO MANY!
TOO SOON!
TOO OFTEN!

STOP THE EDITION AVALANCHE!


Problems DM'ing?
1) First it was memorizing the rules, so when I was ten years old , I read the 48 page "Blue book" D&D rules three whole times over, before I felt I got it.
2) Then it was coming up with "adventures", so I read some stories, and watched some movies and I stole combined plot elements, and now it's second nature.
3) Then it was my players wanted to play RPG's with different settings, which we weren't familiar with, and I didn't have time to really learn the rules, so I just made the rules up and "winged it" (my players didn't really know the rules either), and the players loved it!
4) Now the problem is the players know the rules better than I do, and they're a lot more rules then there used to be, and each time the PC's "level up", there's a new ability and rule to remember, so I'm back to the problem being learning the rules, just as it was in 1978!


Only allow the players access to the free online Players Basic Rules (http://dnd.wizards.com/node/4896) not the PHB!
Use the "Slow Natural Healing", and "Gritty Realism" variants from page 267 of the DMG.
Remember Warlocks, Dragonborn and Tieflings are NPC's only!
If they whine make them roll 3d6 in order for their stats. No takebacks!
All the PC's "backgrounds" are: "Loot hungry murder-hobo"...
PC "Trait", "Ideal", "Bond", and "Flaw" all should be "meets like minded individuals at tavern, to go on noble quest to steal loot from Dungeon dwellers".
That should suffice.
Please PM when you need a player for that campaign.
Thanks
:wink:



My ideal TTRPG would:
1) Be at least as easy to learn and to create PC's as the 1977 "Basic" D&D rules were.
2) Have at least as quick flowing combat as 5e D&D has.
3) The ability to make special "snowflake" PC's like 3.x D&D.
4) Feel as intuitive to GM as early 1980's "Call of Cthullu", and be at least as easy to GM as CoC..
5) Have "Ranger" like PC's as awesome as the1e AD&D Ranger was.
6) Able to do "swashbuckling" adventures well.
7) Able to do "Swords and Sorcery" as well as 1981's Stormbringer!
8) Able to do "Arthurian" as well as (King Arthur) Pendragon.
9) Has settings as rich as Castle Falkenstein.
10) Not be as complex as 3.x D&D.
11) Not seem as ridiculous as Gamma World.
12) Not be a comic book superhero setting.
13) Not be a Cyberpunk setting.
14) Not have supernatural cannibals as PC's.
15) Not be a modern day setting at all.
16) Be large print (Flashing Blades looks really cool but I need a magnifying glass to read it, and some of 5e D&D as well).
17) Be in print and in the stores, not just "online".
18) Have actual other players, (in the '90's all the tables were either Cyberpunk or Vampire, today it's only 5e D&D or Pathfinder, which is a big improvement, but it would be nice to play say '77 Basic D&D or Pendragon as well).

[Legendairy]

Pretty much all that^^^. Slight differences but basically the same. I miss OD&D and AD&D but I do actually love 5e for what it is.

[Vogonjeltz]

1) you seem to misunderstand what I want. The example you give is what I do want. What I don't want is every adventure to immediately deal with Evil Drow and Nefarious Fiendish Cultists that feed into a longer adventure where at the end you fight THE SUPER DEMON THAT SNEEZED ASMODEUS OUT EONS AGO BEFORE THE BLOOD WAR EVEN EXISTED
2) I don't want them to stop doing Legend of the Abyssal Hankie, I just also want things more like "A bunch of badass knights conquered this city and you have to defend them

I am completely on board with this. There should be a couple of world threatening bladdity blahs, but overall I think we've played out the whole cultist/demonic invasion trope thanks to HotDQ, RoT, OotA, and PotA

Adventure modules I'd like to see:

1) Murder mystery/Film Noire style - examples: Maltese Falcon, Chinatown, Dresden Files; The adventurers are caught up in cases of mistaken identity, have been set up, or are being used by their clients to achieve some other ends. Most of the involved NPCs are deceitful or have ulterior motives.

2) War Story style - examples: Dirty Dozen, Kelly's Heroes, Saving Private Ryan; War were declared, the adventurers have to fight through a series of battles, gain rank, eventually being able to make strategic decisions and end the war. Example arc: Act 1: Establishes the setting and the underlying tensions between various nation-states, ends with a dramatic and enraging attack of some kind (a massacre, the palace is rocked by a massive explosion, an important kind and/or otherwise extremely popular noble, prince, or princess is killed/kidnapped/etc...) which starts off the war; Act 2: The PCs get involved into the war (sign on from patriotism or seeking revenge for the attack, conscripted, whatever); Act 3: Fighting the war to its conclusion. Interludes or secondary goals can include: Finding out who carried out the attack (maybe it was a false flag operation by another country, maybe it was a rival in home country, maybe it really was the enemy), exploiting the chaos to get rich quick (aka Kelly's Heroes), Becoming special forces sent on highly dangerous but considered important missions (dirty dozen/saving private ryan). Act 4: Culmination, the fallout of the war, or a final confrontation with those who initiated it and are ultimately responsible for the countless deaths that took place.

3) Quests to fix a problem - examples: Kings Quest series, Quest for Glory series, Dragonslayer; The adventurers have to find a cure for the blahdity blah that afflicts someone close to them, but it's located in a far away location and the journey is fraught with peril, or there's a longstanding curse on the land and the adventurer's have responded to the open call to fix it/taken it upon themselves to make it right.
Features: Classic tropes (Dragon ravages the countryside and requires virgin sacrifices and loot on a regular (monthly) basis; Baba Yaga or other witches or faeries who curse kingdoms/royalty for perceived slights, Suddenly ill family/friends whose only hope is a magic or special fruit/animal/vegetable/mineral and it becomes a race against time to save them!

In the race against time the real opponent is anyone or anything that might slow your progress. Perhaps the course of the disease/poison/sickness/organ failure is well known to healers, and there is a firmly established timeline that the heroes must adhere to or face failure. Challenges will be things that might distract them from their quest, or delay them unduly (Helping others might take too much time no matter how worthy the merit of their case, Imprisonment could prevent them from timely travel, Those demanding a toll for passage might be enemies because there is no faster route, etc...)

4) Slowly Dawning Horror Story - examples: Logan's Run, Soylent Green, Bioshock series, They Live; The adventurers are placed into a situation that seems normal, but context clues fed over the course of the campaign reveal an underlying awful truth about the world they have been existing in. This one can run the gamut from the players having been under some form of constant mind control but never having been aware of it (manchurian candidate), to their entire world being a construct or actually in the control of a malevolent force (the cabin in the woods, the truman show), to the source of their comforts in life being provided by a horrible nightmarish source (soylent green).

[Mandragola]

FWIW, I think intelligence should be used for initiative, instead of (or just possibly, as well as, using both bonuses) dexterity. The point being that the person who gets the first blow in should be the fastest thinking person, not the best dancer.

I know that in reality there are plenty of good reasons why the most dexterous person should be the fastest. But for gameplay reasons I'd like int not to be totally a dump stat and dex to be less of a god stat, and I think it's justifiable in fluff terms.

I think that dnd suffers from having 6 stats rather than 8, which quite a lot of other stats have. A system like L5R has an "accuracy" stat, used for all attacks, so that your chance to hit a thing isn't bound up with the same stat that determines how hard you hit (strength) or how good at dodging you are (dexterity). The issue in dnd is that you get to combine your +to hit, AC and damage dealt all into your dexterity - as well as your initiative bonus, reflex save, some important skills and thieves' tools. It's more things than any stat should have attached to it, and means that it's a no-brainer to cap it out for too many classes.

The same arguably applies to wisdom. Why are your willpower and your perception bound together in one stat, when they are such completely different attributes? So wisdom is clearly the most useful mental stat in combat, because it combines the chances of you being ambushed (which you want to avoid) with the chance you'll get frightened or confused (which you also want to avoid).

Meanwhile intelligence and charisma have a negligible effect on combat except for those classes whose abilities key off them.

Having said all that, the classes have been designed pretty well I think. The effect of that, and particularly the fact that the best melee weapons need to use strength, actually does pull the dex-based classes back into line with the strong ones. So despite the core system having some flaws, the class system has managed to remedy them to a large extent. Rogues are not seen as clearly superior to fighters and paladins. This may partly because of capping stats at 20, meaning that even the least MAD classes have to branch out or switch to feats at some point.

[ClintACK]

The same arguably applies to wisdom. Why are your willpower and your perception bound together in one stat, when they are such completely different attributes? So wisdom is clearly the most useful mental stat in combat, because it combines the chances of you being ambushed (which you want to avoid) with the chance you'll get frightened or confused (which you also want to avoid).

Meanwhile intelligence and charisma have a negligible effect on combat except for those classes whose abilities key off them.

Totally agree. The switch from Fortitude/Reflex/Will saves to S/C/D/I/W/Ch saves is a great idea, but the designers weren't quite willing to actually *do* that. So we're left with C/D/W saves and a couple of outliers.

I'd love to see Charisma saves for most control/charm type effects and Intelligence saves for most illusions.

I'd also prefer to see Strength saves for most of the defensive uses of Athletics -- like resisting a shove.

Ah, well. Maybe we'll get there in 6e, in a couple of years. :)

[Pex]

Defined DC examples for skills.

A saving throw system where you don't get worse at it as you level.

A Point Buy system of reasonable value and cost that lets you buy above 15 and allows for an 18 even if it takes a racial modifier to do it, and humans can have it too without costing an arm and a leg. Variant Human is official Human with the choice of +2 to one score or +1 to two different scores.

I prefer no concentration mechanic at all, but if it must still exist the ability to concentrate on more than one spell at a time, accepted doesn't have to be at 1st level but before 10th. Also losing concentration on one spell doesn't end it for all spells, again accepted doesn't have to be at 1st level and not necessarily at the same level you gain concentration on more than one spell but not too many levels later.

Paladin smiting does not use up spell slots. Channel Divinity that enhances the paladin's weapon is a bonus action.

Sorcerers and monks could use a few more of their respective points to power their class abilities and for sorcerers spells known.

Fighter Battlemaster maneuvers that can be taken at various minimum levels but be worthy of an ability of that level. Alternatively maneuvers that scale in power based on level more than just an increase in the die used. Think 3E feat chains as an analogy modified as appropriate for 5E.

Player always chooses the conjured creature, accepted can balance out the available creatures and when to avoid Ye Olde conjuring 8 pixies problem.

The suggested options of Wish are the default safe uses of Wish along with the universal spell application. Add in that any effect which says Wish can fix it counts as a safe use.

Evoker Overchannel works on Cantrips, accepted a limited number of times if must but doesn't damage the spellcaster.

Ranger Beastmaster uses a bonus action to command his Animal which is capable of continuing said action until Beastmaster gives a different command.

[fishyfishyfishy]

I never did answer the question. I want a system where ability scores actually matter. I want an end to the ridiculousness of the "ability modifier" and basing everything on the roll of a d20. D20 systems are just too random and swingy. Make it a 3d6 roll and you just have to score equal or less than your ability score to succeed. A skill or proficiency or special gear can raise your effective ability score for a roll, giving you a wider margin for success. I just really dislike the base dice mechanic.

[Pex]

I never did answer the question. I want a system where ability scores actually matter. I want an end to the ridiculousness of the "ability modifier" and basing everything on the roll of a d20. D20 systems are just too random and swingy. Make it a 3d6 roll and you just have to score equal or less than your ability score to succeed. A skill or proficiency or special gear can raise your effective ability score for a roll, giving you a wider margin for success. I just really dislike the base dice mechanic.

Here you go.

http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/

:smallbiggrin:

[Specter]

- Grappling being more important
- Rangers with better features at 6, 10 and 14 levels ( I even did a thread on that )
- More practical rules for skills
- More cleric domains
- Advantage sources to stack

But I'm not angered that I don't have these things.

[ClintACK]

- More cleric domains

This one you'll certainly get -- about one new domain with each new splatbook. :)

Really, though, as long as you're not Adventure League, get with your DM and homebrew something flavorful. It's a pretty simple formula -- domain spells, channel divinity, and a couple of interesting, but not overpowered, features.

[Specter]

This one you'll certainly get -- about one new domain with each new splatbook. :)

Really, though, as long as you're not Adventure League, get with your DM and homebrew something flavorful. It's a pretty simple formula -- domain spells, channel divinity, and a couple of interesting, but not overpowered, features.

I'm a man spoiled by 3.5, back then were (I hope I'm joking) hundreds of domains. But I'm working on the Justice domain right now, and it's possible to homebrew all of them.

[ClintACK]

I'm a man spoiled by 3.5, back then were (I hope I'm joking) hundreds of domains. But I'm working on the Justice domain right now, and it's possible to homebrew all of them.

Honestly, I'd prefer to homebrew each god's priesthood. The idea that a death priest of Vecna and a death priest of the Raven Queen are entirely equivalent except for fluff makes zero sense to me. Or a war priest of Bane and a war priest of Kord.

[JumboWheat01]

I'm a man spoiled by 3.5, back then were (I hope I'm joking) hundreds of domains. But I'm working on the Justice domain right now, and it's possible to homebrew all of them.

You're not TOO far off. The Realms (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Divine_domain) had over NINETY domains. And you chose two of them back in that day, so you had MANY combinations.

That said, I wouldn't mind a return of the Travel domain, rather than just assuming all deities of Travel are tricksters or nature-focused.

[RickAllison]

As I have lurked in this thread, one image keeps coming to mind. I keep seeing all of the posters' avatars singing "I Wish..." from Into the Woods...

[BurchardOfEn]

Honestly, I'd prefer to homebrew each god's priesthood. The idea that a death priest of Vecna and a death priest of the Raven Queen are entirely equivalent except for fluff makes zero sense to me. Or a war priest of Bane and a war priest of Kord.

I think the reason why they went with the route that they did is pretty obvious since there are people who want to play Death Clerics that have nothing to do with Vecna, the Raven Queen, or any Wizards deity related.

It's pretty obvious that the main desires are going to be more character and monster variation.

[Shaofoo]

As I have lurked in this thread, one image keeps coming to mind. I keep seeing all of the posters' avatars singing "I Wish..." from Into the Woods...

So who is Jack? We need to stop him before he screws everything up.

[RickAllison]

So who is Jack? We need to stop him before he screws everything up.

2D8HP? Gastronomie was Little Red, the chainsword kind of sold it...

[Sigreid]

Doesn't the DM have the right to force their changes upon their games? The players never have the right to reject a change done by a DM (unrelated to whether it's a good thing or a bad thing).

That's an outlook that can get a DM to have no one who wants to play in their world. The DM has to make their calls using their best judgement, and most DMs tweak some things, but ultimately it has to be a game people want to play in.

[Sigreid]

Well, that's selfish, but this is what I want.

Selfish is just another way of saying "You're doing what you want and not what I want so I'm going to try to embarrass/shame you into doing what I want." Calling someone selfish is selfish. :smallbiggrin:

[Regitnui]

Selfish is just another way of saying "You're doing what you want and not what I want so I'm going to try to embarrass/shame you into doing what I want." Calling someone selfish is selfish. :smallbiggrin:

Now that sounds like deflection. Sometimes they need to be called out on being selfish.

Also, I want more campaign settings. Eberron, Dark Sun, d20 modern and maybe Spelljammer, in that order.