Things from 4e (or earlier) you'd like to see adapted to 5e?

[Wasp]

Hi everyone!

Are there any elements from previous editions (mainly 4th edition but others as well if you want) that you still would like to see adapted in 5e? Or are there things that you have already brought over in your game?

Personally, I think minion rules were kinda cool asnd could work very well in 5e (if you can signal to players they shouldn't burn their stuff on minions)

[Tvtyrant]

Oh lots of stuff. The bigger rituals, encounter and daily powers for martials, marks, the big focus on prone as a condition, and leaders as a category.

[SirFrog]

Everything from 4E that I liked is already in 5E, the rest can stay put.

From 3E, I would like to see a few Prestige Classes return.

From 2E...THAC0...I kid, I kid

[Aussiehams]

Dragonborn breath should be a bonus (minor) action.

[Segev]

I miss the second level spell Command Undead.

[JoeJ]

The only things I really miss are all from 2e: priest spheres, the Historical Reference series, and Spelljammer.

[Asmotherion]

Not familiar with 4e nor care to become.

From 3.5:

i miss how summoning/planar binding used to function. i particularly disaprove how you don't chose your own summon in 5e unless homeruled otherwise. A generic Summon Monster Spell with upcasting should fix that but they probably won't do that.

Charm Person/Command Undead etc with looong durations.

The Shrink item spell and all the amazing things i could come up with it.

Ability Score Damage/Draining Spells. My arsenal was full of them. Poison and Necromancy spells are a lot less impressive when instead of dealing Con Damage (and chiping a large percentage of the opponent's HP) deal regular HP damage. i'm better off as a controler or blasting with a cantrip for Spell Slot Economy.

The Permanency Spell. Thow i understand it does not belong in 5e. Same for the Celarity and Spell Matrix Line of Spells. But it's something i miss using.

Orb Spells. Specifically how you could shoot someone in an AMF with them and punish them for Casting it. i dislike AMFs. They take away magic from D&D and nobody should do that.

Troll'ing the party's melee with the Polymorph or Trollshape Spell.

The Solid Fog Spell and the other spells in it's line. Some of my Favorite spells that were removed completely.

And to stray a bit from spells since it's all i seem to mention; Skills. Namelly a more defined list of what does what. i'm not a big fun of how you can roll a Wisdom (Arcana) or a Str (intimidate). And i feel there is a lack of mechanic to define weather i need to roll a Religion or Arcana to know what a Wight is and what the DC will be wich was more clear in 3.5e. And i miss that.

That's more or less what i'd want to see in 5e the following years to come. Some Polymorph Subschool Spells (Dragonshape comes to mind). Some Solid Fog line spells. More reliable Summons. And more clearly defined Skills. Ability Damaging Spells will be just a bonus.

[EggKookoo]

I really liked how 2e structured its classes. There were four core classes: Mage, Priest, Rogue, and Warrior. Each defined a hit die, EXP progression, to-hit (THAC0) progression, and a few other things. Then the specific class you might play is based on one of those four, essentially the way subclasses work in 5e except you start in the class right away from 1st level. A Wizard was a Mage "subclass," a Cleric or Druid would be a Priest "subclass," and so on. It made it feel like the classes were relatively constrained and balanced. Not sure if they actually were, but it felt that way. I'm not sure how it could have been rolled into 5e but I would have liked that. I was sad to see it go in 3e, and honestly I think some of my frustrations with running 3e games would have been mitigated (mostly about creating and running NPCs).

I also prefer the 3e approach to saving throws: Fort, Reflex, Will. I think they gave 5e six saves tied to the ability scores really just for the sake of doing that. My players aren't generally confused by 5e mechanics but I do have to explain the difference between a check and a save (and re-explain it) every now and then. We could have saves not use proficiency but instead your Fortitude is a combination of your Strength and Constitution mods, Reflex a combination of Dexterity and Wisdom, and Will a combination of Intelligence and Charisma. It would eliminate oddities like Strength saves (and really Int and Cha saves -- how often do those happen?). Maybe instead of providing proficiency for saves, your class grants advantage on them.

[Millstone85]

I really liked how 2e structured its classes. There were four core classes: Mage, Priest, Rogue, and Warrior. [...] A Wizard was a Mage "subclass," a Cleric or Druid would be a Priest "subclass," and so on. [...] I'm not sure how it could have been rolled into 5e but I would have liked that.Actually, a mage was a wizard "subclass". New editions just like to confuse old players for no reason.

Anyway, I would have preferred to see 5e classes designed on a triangle:




fighter

paladin

cleric

druid

wizard



barbarian





sorcerer





ranger



bard







monk

warlock









rogue

[Orc_Lord]

For me it's skills.

Why is there no appraise skill?

[JumboWheat01]

I'd like to see the Warlord become a thing again. A martial Leader? I'd play the crap out of that.

((Also I'd like to see 4e's pretty sweet artwork for Halflings make a comeback over 5e's... things.))

[NRSASD]

I'd love to see Binders as a base class.

Come to think of it, I'd like a couple more base classes. Like a viable non-magic scientist/alchemist/doctor/tinkerer class. Or a specialized urban ranger (my thoughts being, if a ranger is a fighter/druid and a paladin is a fighter/cleric, where's our fighter/rogue?)

[RogueJK]

Ravenloft (well, more Ravenloft) and Masque of the Red Death.

[EggKookoo]

Actually, a mage was a wizard "subclass". New editions just like to confuse old players for no reason.

I stand corrected. Well, I'm sitting, but you get the idea...

[EggKookoo]

Why is there no appraise skill?

That's just an Int check. If you want to apply proficiency you need to come up with a specific skill or mechanism that you use in conjunction with the check that would apply. For example, if you're trying to assess a gem and you're proficient with jeweler's tools, the DM should let you add your proficiency bonus to the check.

I do wish the manuals expanded on this more. I had to struggle through unlearning the older approach to skills before I grokked it, and while the Tools section in the PHB does actually explain it pretty well it would have helped if there were more gameplay examples of it.

[Sno]

Things I liked from 4e that I wish were in 5e:

Warlord.

I don't get the same feel of a martial commander in 5e.

Skill Challenges.

This has so much potential, and I wish it was expanded upon further in 5e.

[DeTess]

From 3.5e, I'd really like to see meldshaping make a return as a base class, or a couple of subclasses for existing classes. The same goes for the martial initiators, though you could get something vaguely similar by multiclassing monk and fighter or rogue.

[JoeJ]

Charm Person/Command Undead etc with looong durations.

I'll second this. It doesn't necessarily have to be a spell, but it should at least be an ability that some monsters have to keep victims under their control for weeks or months.

[Man_Over_Game]

One thing that 4e did well that hasn't been duplicated yet is complexity in melee combat, and making sure everyone feels like a badass. A Fighter did have an attack that was just an attack, but he also had an attack that moved enemies, increased AC, lost accuracy for offense, taunted enemies, or a bunch of other things.

In 5e, the difference between the Monk and the Fighter is that the Monk has more movement, makes smaller rapid-fire attacks, and has less AC but is better at shrugging off debuffs. Those are all pretty boring comparisons vs. how 4e did it (with the monk being basically a personified version of different forms of Chain Lightning).

[RogueJK]

1st level multiclassing, from 3.x

You basically start as 0.5 level in ClassA and 0.5 level in ClassB, and once you gain 2nd level, you become ClassA1/ClassB1, and progress normally from there. Kinda like 2e's multiclass characters, for the first level only.

Doesn't seem like a huge difference, but (for example) it can make that 1st Level Fighter/Wizard character feel a bit more like what you're envisioning, from the start.

Though you can approximate that in 5e in some cases, through Backgrounds and some racial abilities.

[jaappleton]

The Bloodied condition.

[Kane0]

Fort/Ref/Will saves
Bloodied condition
Alternate power sources (incarnum, psionics, binding, etc)
Warlord class
Martial powers (for combat depth)
Condition tracks
Multiclass feats (good concept but didn’t like the 4e implementation)

Oh, and any sort of subsystem that could flesh out the interaction and exploration pillars.

[Callak_Remier]

Elfs being immune to the paralyzing touch of ghouls

[Zehinoc]

I really want to see a good implemention of psionics in 5e. The UA Mystic just felt really weird to me.

Also, I loved the Knowledge Devotion feat. If we could get an AL legal ability like that, it would be so fun!

[Renvir]

The different at-will attacks is what I miss the most. They really enhanced the entirety of the RP and G elements of combat. Just make a list of 10-12 and replace the Fighting Styles with them and I would be very happy.

[Theodoxus]

I'm finalizing rules that incorporates (IMO) the best of both 4th and 5th editions.

It's basically boiled down to use 5Es bounded accuracy and 12 base classes and 20 levels, and then scrap everything else from 5th and use 4th Ed instead. I've added the at-will, encounter, daily and utility powers onto the 5E classes. I've added base level ups to the 4th ed classes that aren't in 5th, and most classes get some unique way of generating their 4th ed powers. I converted the 30 levels of 4th ed into the 20 levels of 5th by multiplying the power level by 2/3.

For instance, every class gets Utilities, starting at 2nd level. I simply added "Utility (1)" to their class list, Utility (2) at 6th, etc. At-Wills didn't change, just gives every class an option to take to do something strategic. I did create a rule that extra attack doesn't work with any powers; you either make a basic attack for every attack, or you make a single powered attack that might open up additional powers or basic attacks.

Encounter powers are different. Most classes need to spend a resource to generate them. Monks for instance, spend Ki, sorcerers spend sorcery points. (Long before this project, I had already converted sorcery points to short rest recharge). Both classes know all encounter powers, they just can't generate a power that's higher than their current level. Clerics's encounter powers are called "Prayers", and they Learn unique Prayers. They can retrain Prayers, and I've added a magic item "Moebius Prayer Scroll" that allows them so swap out prayers when they pray for spells. Most martial classes simply use the AEDU system straight out of 4th ed.

I incorporated Fort, Ref, Will Defenses - though my players are having a harder time wrapping their head around how you attack Fort defense. I had monsters attack their Fort, and the monk was all "How did it get past my AC to hit my Fortitude?" I explained they were little bugs that were poisonous, simply touching the PCs was sufficient to roll a hit against their fortitude... the player acquiesced, but I think it's going to be a running issue...

I'm currently working on adapting the classes the players aren't playing. They'd requested to see the Swordmage, and were quite happy with the result. There's a ton of things from 4th that should have been incorporated into 5th as a base line, and given Mearls love of the setting, I'm shocked he didn't have more pull in that direction... but I guess when you're crowd sourced for ideas and implementation, you end up with the least common denominator... 5E was fun and exciting, but lacks any depth to keep my interest... thank god for modding!

[Rukelnikov]

Being able to play "monsters", we did this a LOT in 3.x now its kinda iffy.

[Bloodcloud]

I also think the bloodied condition was an interesting and useful design concept. Gives an opportunity for interesting monster and players abilities.

I liked the minion concept. But i'll say, bounded accuracy really reduced the conceptual need for it. I find I'm not really missing it at this point as a dm.

A full on swordmage. Like as a dedicated class with subclasses. It could bring back so many prestige class and classes from 3e/4e. The eldritch knight and bladesinger don't quite do it for me, and bladelocks are a bit broken/shaky still, on top of being a bit too conceptually tied down.

Skill challenges were a interesting concept, but I found them a bit too all encompassing in 4e. Maybe an iteration of the idea?

Grafts and mutation. Some of my players had a lot of fun with that.

Half breed classes, like half-vampire, half dragon, half-demon and such. Maybe through feats, perhaps through subclasses, but htere is a significant pool of untapped potentiel there.

[Misterwhisper]

Honestly I with they would just redo the entire weapon section to make it seem like it is something more than an afterthought.

Everything crits on the same roll, everything is only doubling the weapon dice.

back in the day you could build an entire concept and character around the idea of a certain type of fighting, whether is was critical hitting on a 15 or better, or critical hitting on a 20 but doing like 4x damage, and crits actually multiplied all modifiers.

Back then it was, "Oh, you crit with your war pick, well that guy is dead as Dickens. Sweet"
Now it is, "Oh, wait I rolled a crit, let me roll 2d6 instead of 1d6... moving on."

[MilkmanDanimal]

The two thing I can think of out of 4e I liked have already been mentioned. I like skill challenges, and Matt Mercer has used them in Critical Role, and done so with a very "5e feel", basically asking players to creatively think up ways to use skills to approach things, and making a DM ruling on it, which very much feels like one of the big points of 5e in terms of creativity and flexibility. The other one is minions, and that's one thing I've used. Maybe not formally "minions" as much as "you're 8th level, they're kobolds, it's just easier to mark them dead on one hit than worry about it". Minions really captured the feel of truly disposable grunt troops, and I like the idea of that a lot.

[Legendairy]

For me it's skills.

Why is there no appraise skill?

I believe it’s covered in investigation, and says so, somewhere in the skill text.

[Tvtyrant]

I'm finalizing rules that incorporates (IMO) the best of both 4th and 5th editions.

It's basically boiled down to use 5Es bounded accuracy and 12 base classes and 20 levels, and then scrap everything else from 5th and use 4th Ed instead. I've added the at-will, encounter, daily and utility powers onto the 5E classes. I've added base level ups to the 4th ed classes that aren't in 5th, and most classes get some unique way of generating their 4th ed powers. I converted the 30 levels of 4th ed into the 20 levels of 5th by multiplying the power level by 2/3.

For instance, every class gets Utilities, starting at 2nd level. I simply added "Utility (1)" to their class list, Utility (2) at 6th, etc. At-Wills didn't change, just gives every class an option to take to do something strategic. I did create a rule that extra attack doesn't work with any powers; you either make a basic attack for every attack, or you make a single powered attack that might open up additional powers or basic attacks.

Encounter powers are different. Most classes need to spend a resource to generate them. Monks for instance, spend Ki, sorcerers spend sorcery points. (Long before this project, I had already converted sorcery points to short rest recharge). Both classes know all encounter powers, they just can't generate a power that's higher than their current level. Clerics's encounter powers are called "Prayers", and they Learn unique Prayers. They can retrain Prayers, and I've added a magic item "Moebius Prayer Scroll" that allows them so swap out prayers when they pray for spells. Most martial classes simply use the AEDU system straight out of 4th ed.

I incorporated Fort, Ref, Will Defenses - though my players are having a harder time wrapping their head around how you attack Fort defense. I had monsters attack their Fort, and the monk was all "How did it get past my AC to hit my Fortitude?" I explained they were little bugs that were poisonous, simply touching the PCs was sufficient to roll a hit against their fortitude... the player acquiesced, but I think it's going to be a running issue...

I'm currently working on adapting the classes the players aren't playing. They'd requested to see the Swordmage, and were quite happy with the result. There's a ton of things from 4th that should have been incorporated into 5th as a base line, and given Mearls love of the setting, I'm shocked he didn't have more pull in that direction... but I guess when you're crowd sourced for ideas and implementation, you end up with the least common denominator... 5E was fun and exciting, but lacks any depth to keep my interest... thank god for modding!

When you have time could you send me your rules? I have been working on something similar and would love to see how your attempt is going :)

[Malifice]

Elfs being immune to the paralyzing touch of ghouls

They still are immune in 5E:


Claws: Melee Weapon Attack: +4 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 7 (2d4 + 2) slashing damage. If the target is a creature other than an elf or Undead, it must succeed on a DC 10 Constitution saving throw or be Paralyzed for 1 minute. The target can repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on itself on a success.

https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Ghoul#content

[Willie the Duck]

Warlord.
I don't get the same feel of a martial commander in 5e.

I barely played 4e, and have no particular attachment to that class, but so many people with a stronger 4e background have bemoaned it's nonexistence in 5e that I figure the designers ought to have found a way to scratch that itch.

For me, what I really miss is from the TSR-era (but no particular implementation, so we can go with any edition). What I would like is for there to be more support for becoming a leader, a general, a stronghold-builder, a merchant prince, and so on. Something bigger than monster-hunter. I know Matt Mercer is working on the stronghold-builder part, but I figure that XGtE could have at least had a bit of this.

Likewise, I wish that overland wilderness travel (or, heaven-forfend, actual hexcrawling) was more interesting. As it stands, wilderness mostly boils down to 'ranger's presence negates the penalties the DM probably would have forgotten to impose if you hadn't reminded them that you have a ranger.' I know that it, like name-level keep&castle gaming was popular with only a minority of gamers even when it was a huge part of the ruleset, but they could have left some part of it in the new game.

3e-not sure. There are different things I really liked doing, playing, etc., but not sure which I'd want moved over.

[Theodoxus]

I barely played 4e, and have no particular attachment to that class, but so many people with a stronger 4e background have bemoaned it's nonexistence in 5e that I figure the designers ought to have found a way to scratch that itch.

For me, what I really miss is from the TSR-era (but no particular implementation, so we can go with any edition). What I would like is for there to be more support for becoming a leader, a general, a stronghold-builder, a merchant prince, and so on. Something bigger than monster-hunter. I know Matt Mercer is working on the stronghold-builder part, but I figure that XGtE could have at least had a bit of this.

Likewise, I wish that overland wilderness travel (or, heaven-forfend, actual hexcrawling) was more interesting. As it stands, wilderness mostly boils down to 'ranger's presence negates the penalties the DM probably would have forgotten to impose if you hadn't reminded them that you have a ranger.' I know that it, like name-level keep&castle gaming was popular with only a minority of gamers even when it was a huge part of the ruleset, but they could have left some part of it in the new game.

3e-not sure. There are different things I really liked doing, playing, etc., but not sure which I'd want moved over.

Matt Colville, actually - and it's completed. The pdf is available and I think the hard copy is shipping this month.

I purchased it, as I too missed the stronghold and henchmen aspect from yesteryear... and it's pretty slick, definitely maintaining the flavor you'd expect while updating them with a more modern flair. The only drawback for me is my players - all new to gaming with 5E, have no frame of reference and could give or take them... So I'm running them through a bit of a hex crawl, where they'll see ruined castles and similar locales in a 'points of light' style campaign to stake their claim in the wilderness. Natural spots to rebuild and expand their own empires. Hopefully it gets them hooked on this underserved area of D&D.

[Telok]

Morale, reaction rolls, and escape/fleeing rules. To bring back rules supported options beyond "kill everything & fight to the death".

More variety in xp options beyond "kill stuff" and "when the DM wants to". Because the first enforces the "kill everything" and the second isn't really a useful rule or structure for DMs who aren't sure when to level up the party.

[JoeJ]

Morale, reaction rolls, and escape/fleeing rules. To bring back rules supported options beyond "kill everything & fight to the death".

Morale, social interaction, and chases are all part of the rules already.

[GreyBlack]

Magic feeling more like "magic" and less like "an ability."

If we're going strictly with game features, I wouldn't mind seeing a more robust crafting system in place than we currently have available, or more options in terms of endgame play in core without resorting to 3rd party.

[Millstone85]

From 4e, I miss the Nentir Vale setting.

I used to think otherwise, but it would be easy to port to the 5e cosmology, with the following notes:

The Outer Planes are difficult to reach. Most souls are drawn to the Shadowfell, where they wander until they reincarnate in the Material or, more rarely, reach a divine demiplane in the Astral. One such demiplane has been conquered by devils.
The Inner Planes too are difficult to reach. Demiplanes exist in the Elemental Chaos, some of which have been conquered by demons. Githzerai and slaadi can also be found amidst the elements.
There is a crack in the crystal sphere, and fragments of it sometimes rain on the world. When collected, they spontaneously assemble into psionic constructs called shardminds. Those innately know of the crack, which they impute to a star touched by the Far Realm, and desire to repair the sphere by collecting more shards.

[Brutalitops]

Elfs being immune to the paralyzing touch of ghouls

Elves are immune to a ghouls touch but its in the ghouls stat block and not the elves stat block

[Shuruke]

Hi everyone!
Personally, I think minion rules were kinda cool asnd could work very well in 5e (if you can signal to players they shouldn't burn their stuff on minions)

I brought minions over and it helps to explain them as being frail, sickly, runts etc. Where most enemies use bows and swords these ones have darts and clubs.


Something I convert is getting rid of spell casting off monsters and using at will abilities or turn recharge abilities that way everything I need for the monster is right their and not partially in phb.

Skill challenges work great in 5e and can make something that was a moss like the chase rules a lot more fun if you do a chase and skill challenge.

At will abilities for fighters would be cool, something more than the basic
Attack action with variables of
The normal attack
Replace attack with shove away
Replace attack with shove prone.

Adding 2 at will abilities an archetype can go a long way for martial classes. Cuz then each one would have the 3 in common plus 2 either unique or close to unique options

Tbh spells are nice bit I like at will abilities from 4e better just not as used to that edition since all my friends got on 5e train it is nice to reward one as a one use scroll though.

[EggKookoo]

Something I convert is getting rid of spell casting off monsters and using at will abilities or turn recharge abilities that way everything I need for the monster is right their and not partially in phb.

I'm torn with this. Managing spell slots and prepped/known spells for NPCs is a pain. But if they become at-will or spell-like abilities with a recharge mechanic, it muddies up things like counterspell and other features that relate to actual spells. A good middle ground would help.

[Petrocorus]

I didn't use 4E.

But from 3.5, i'd like:

Settings:
- Eberron in an official release of course.
- The rest of the Forgotten Realms maybe? For those DM who would like to have infos on Narfell, or Aglarond without having to look for previous edition books.
- Spelljammer, Planescape and Dark Sun from 1E or 2E.

Spells:
- Shrink Item.
- Phase door, i just liked both those spells.
- More non-blasting Evocation spells.
- Endure elements. I understand why they didn't made it a 1st level spell, but it's a bit unrealistic that this has completely disappeared.
- A higher level version of Mage Armor.

Classes:
- The Psion and the Psychic Warrior, not scrambled in a single class, please.
- The Artificer, in a balanced way.
- The Sha'Ir. I just liked that class. It would make sense as a Warlock subclass.
- Prestige classes, probably in another form like prestige feats, and of course in a much more limited way. The ones with a strong thematic.
- Some Alternative Class Feature, like one that allows the EK to change its school of choice.

Other stuffs:
- Probably more mundane equipment.
- More pricing on mundane services, like construction.
- More clarity and precision in the wording of the rules.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm torn with this. Managing spell slots and prepped/known spells for NPCs is a pain. But if they become at-will or spell-like abilities with a recharge mechanic, it muddies up things like counterspell and other features that relate to actual spells. A good middle ground would help.

I just make some choices--he'll cast X this many times, Y this many times (if he has the choice). Or he can counterspell Z many times. And if it would be a spell, I let it be counterspelled/etc.

[caden_varn]

Defences. Make everything roll to attack, rather than some being roll to defend. I mean, why??? Saving throws should have been thrown out.

Higher HP at first level. At the moment, the first couple of levels can be deadly, then you are pretty unlikely to die except through a TPK. Sure, you can start at 3rd, but it is good. especially for newbies, to have a less complex, less prone to death start...

[Legendairy]

Defences. Make everything roll to attack, rather than some being roll to defend. I mean, why??? Saving throws should have been thrown out.

Higher HP at first level. At the moment, the first couple of levels can be deadly, then you are pretty unlikely to die except through a TPK. Sure, you can start at 3rd, but it is good. especially for newbies, to have a less complex, less prone to death start...

Kind of the opposite for me, more death! Well things being very threatening at all levels of play, death saves, like traps that insta kill. Maybe some instant killing poisons as well.

Personally the game doesn’t feel as threatening as it used to so sometimes player choices aren’t weight against the possibility of their character dying.

[EggKookoo]

Kind of the opposite for me, more death! Well things being very threatening at all levels of play, death saves, like traps that insta kill. Maybe some instant killing poisons as well.

Personally the game doesn’t feeling as threatening as it used to so sometimes player choices aren’t weight against the possibility of their character dying.

I've sometimes wondered what D&D would feel like if everything worked like saving throws.

Player: I hit the orc.
DM: [rolls] And he dodges. He hits you back.
Player: [rolls] Ack, I couldn't get out of the way. He hit me.

[Legendairy]

I've sometimes wondered what D&D would feel like if everything worked like saving throws.

Player: I hit the orc.
DM: [rolls] And he dodges. He hits you back.
Player: [rolls] Ack, I couldn't get out of the way. He hit me.

In the older editions there was a literal save vs death and it was used a lot. Kobolds had bear traps on ropes and would drop them from holes in the ceiling to snatch the characters heads in one module. That kind of stuff made an impact on how the players made decisions, as it stands with going unconscious then stabilization, or revivify and the like death isn’t as prevelant. That may not be a bad thing either, just sometimes you want the danger to be valid without it being combat or dm fiat.

[JoeJ]

Defences. Make everything roll to attack, rather than some being roll to defend. I mean, why??? Saving throws should have been thrown out.

This is not from an earlier edition, but I like what Mutants and Masterminds does there. The attacker rolls to hit against the target's parry* or dodge* attribute. If they hit, the defender makes a toughness* roll to try and resist the damage. Armor increases the wearer's toughness, making them better able to resist damage. There are also no hit points; a failed defense roll imposes a condition on the defender, depending on how badly they failed.

*sometimes a different attribute for certain kinds of attacks, but the method is still the same.

[EggKookoo]

This is not from an earlier edition, but I like what Mutants and Masterminds does there. The attacker rolls to hit against the target's parry* or dodge* attribute. If they hit, the defender makes a toughness* roll to try and resist the damage. Armor increases the wearer's toughness, making them better able to resist damage. There are also no hit points; a failed defense roll imposes a condition on the defender, depending on how badly they failed.

*sometimes a different attribute for certain kinds of attacks, but the method is still the same.

Reminds me of DC Heroes using MEGS. You have a Dex score, and to hit someone it amounts to an opposed Dex vs. Dex (it used a chart but that was the principle). If you hit, you made an opposed Str vs. Body. Again, simplifying -- you often used something to stand in for your Str if you were using a weapon or power, and something in place of your Body if you had armor or a force field or something.

[JoeJ]

Reminds me of DC Heroes using MEGS. You have a Dex score, and to hit someone it amounts to an opposed Dex vs. Dex (it used a chart but that was the principle). If you hit, you made an opposed Str vs. Body. Again, simplifying -- you often used something to stand in for your Str if you were using a weapon or power, and something in place of your Body if you had armor or a force field or something.

Right. M&M does have some similarities with the old DCH; enough to make me think that it was one of sources Green Ronin used as inspiration.

[Laserlight]

Bloodied condition, and effects triggered by it.

More forced movement.

[Sigreid]

Man, most of the stuff in this thread is stuff I'm glad is gone.

I could stand crafting, strongholds and followers, and more lethality.

[Willie the Duck]

Man, most of the stuff in this thread is stuff I'm glad is gone.

I could stand crafting, strongholds and followers, and more lethality.

Have you tried the optional material in the DMG built for such purposes?

[Tvtyrant]

Man, most of the stuff in this thread is stuff I'm glad is gone.


Hence why we still have arguments about what should and shouldn't be in the game. What I like about 5E is there is less character optimization bloat and easier math due to bounded accuracy, what I liked betrer about 4E was the combat grid focus and martial cantrips.

[2D8HP]

The slower healing rules in 1e, the morale and stronghold rules in 0e/1e.

Gold for XP.

The Greyhawk, historical, Known World, and Nehwon setting books from 1e, 2e, and B/X

Nentir Vale from 4e looks neat

So basically settings, as the the 5e DMG has a lot of options that come close to what I like about TD&D, and adding more is pretty easy, or I'd just play by the old rules, but it's harder for me to import to TD&D what I like about WD&D.

[Laserlight]

I've sometimes wondered what D&D would feel like if everything worked like saving throws.

Player: I hit the orc.
DM: [rolls] And he dodges. He hits you back.
Player: [rolls] Ack, I couldn't get out of the way. He hit me.

I've seen a system (maybe more than one) where the DM never rolls. The monster has a static attack score and defense score, and the players roll to hit and to avoid being hit.

[Telok]

Morale, social interaction, and chases are all part of the rules already.

I don't recall seeing those when I read the PH, MM, and DMG. Where were they?

I suppose I ought to clarify what I'm talking about. Morale is a mechanic for helping the DM decide when an npc or creature will decide to flee or surrender in combat. My experience is that most DMs have everything fight to the death unless they are running a module that has specific instructions for a specific encounter. Social interaction rules are more than pcs having persuade/deceive proficency and a charisma score. It's things like the old reaction rolls where not everything in a dungeon is automatically hostile and random encounters could be helpful npcs and not just another monster fight. The chase rules in the DMG were for outdoor/city chase scenes, not fleeing or retreating from combat. OD&D/AD&D 1e had actual rules covering fleeing combat in a dungeon where you didn't just sacrifice everyone with a <30' move speed.

[Ignimortis]

I doubt most of the old stuff can be adapted for 5e, because they were made with very different systems in mind, and I'm not talking about mechanics. 3e (perhaps unintentionally) and 4e (very much intentionally but botched in mechanics) had a different tone.

So this is more of "what I would like to see in 6e, based on 5e's perceived failures". Higher power levels for both players and monsters. 3e and 4e both had a much larger curve, and 5e basically stays in the E6 for 3e territory with everything scaled down to match. This leads to situations where higher-level enemies are not really that much vulnerable to lower-level heroes, but are quite vulnerable to an army of common 1/2 CR soldiers with shortbows.

Take a Pit Fiend for example - a 3e Pit Fiend can cast more than 10 spells, most of them at-will, including Invisibility, Greater Teleport and Blasphemy. There's also a fan-favourite Meteor Swarm 1/day for sieges or something. It's also outright invulnerable to being plinked to death because of their AC 40, Regeneration 5 and DR 15. Nobody but high-level opponents can even hit it outside of Natural 20, and if they do, their crit is probably not going to matter because of DR. If things do somehow go sour, the Pit Fiend can teleport away, too. Sure, it can be shot to death by trained longbowmen, about 900 of them...if it's not invisible and didn't get to act with a +12 to initiative against their +2.

A 5e Pit Fiend can cast Detect Magic or Fireball at-will, and Wall of Fire or Hold Person 3 times per day. It can't summon backup dancers, despite being a very high-ranking devil. It also has AC of only 19, which means that anyone can hit it rather easily and deals damage that won't go away next round, because 5e Pit Fiend doesn't regenerate, has no hard DR and instead only halves the damage, which means that a bow shot that deals 1d6+1 damage (4.5 on average) still does 2.25 average damage per hit. Therefore you only need about 600 archers, give or take, to take out a single Pit Fiend in one round. That's not even a very large army, and it takes down a general of hell itself, because it doesn't have an effective defense like Invisibility or Teleport. It will still tear apart a level 10 party, probably, but low-level soldiers are abundant and do well.


As for players, well, nobody but spellcasters gains anything markedly more powerful than things that they had before, after level 7 or so. Fighters and Rogues in particular actually don't get to do anything that "a guy at the gym" wouldn't be able to do with a lot of dedication and training, except for EKs who use magic for that. The thing is, they already were at this level back at level 1, just with less hitpoints, attacks per round and slightly lesser stats. So your 20-level journey was basically about learning to do the same things more often and more effectively, but not about learning how to do NEW things.

I would also like to see martial adepts make a return, but since 5e is very predicated on long rest/short rest resource management, they would probably be bad in play - if their systems get adapted to 5e's assumptions, then they're just flashy Battle Masters, and if not, then they would probably invalidate all other martial classes.

[JoeJ]

Therefore you only need about 600 archers, give or take, to take out a single Pit Fiend in one round. That's not even a very large army, and it takes down a general of hell itself, because it doesn't have an effective defense like Invisibility or Teleport.

You said yourself that this is a general of Hell. It's primary form of defense, and of offense, is its army of devils.

[Ignimortis]

You said yourself that this is a general of Hell. It's primary form of defense, and of offense, is its army of devils.

And yet it doesn't have any means to actually get that army in 5e. No summons (who can summon their own cohorts in turn), no Wish to set up a portal, no Create Undead. So it's basically equivalent to "what a human general can do, but with devils".

The point was that most monsters lost lots of their special abilities and are left with one or two gimmicks at best. Pit Fiend got Fear Aura and some minor spellcasting, Dragons got breath weapons and....uh, I think that's it, unless you give them spellcasting which is an optional rule.

[Yora]

I don't recall seeing those when I read the PH, MM, and DMG. Where were they?

Morale: DMG 273
Social Interactions: DMG 244-245
Chases: DMG 252-255

Whether those are good rules is another question, but they are there.

[Tukka]

From 4th edition, I miss most/everyone having at least two viable at-will attack powers associated with their class, rider effects and the miniatures combat in general, and the way monster roles and XP budgeting was handled. I also prefer the way the books were formatted.

I don't miss skill challenges per se, but I wish there had been an attempt to iterate upon the concept, or else that they had replaced it with a different but still comprehensive guiding framework for handling social and exploration encounters. In the 5th edition DMG, I don't think enough is done to describe how adventures can be structured to allow ample opportunities for the party to make meaningful ability checks, or employ utility magic/features.

I can't think of too much I miss from 3rd edition in a general sense. For certain types of campaigns I'd miss the system's lethality and the capricious nature of critical hits and save-or-suck spells.

I guess having stock monsters out of the Monster Manual that are nigh-untouchable to lower level or inadequately prepared parties would be another one. I would not run the Tarrasque as printed in 5th edition.

[Willie the Duck]

The chase rules in the DMG were for outdoor/city chase scenes, not fleeing or retreating from combat. OD&D/AD&D 1e had actual rules covering fleeing combat in a dungeon where you didn't just sacrifice everyone with a <30' move speed.

If you can call them that. Most of them were like 'monsters will not pursue if you round a corner.'

[Bloodcloud]

I don't recall seeing those when I read the PH, MM, and DMG. Where were they?

I suppose I ought to clarify what I'm talking about. Morale is a mechanic for helping the DM decide when an npc or creature will decide to flee or surrender in combat. My experience is that most DMs have everything fight to the death unless they are running a module that has specific instructions for a specific encounter. Social interaction rules are more than pcs having persuade/deceive proficency and a charisma score. It's things like the old reaction rolls where not everything in a dungeon is automatically hostile and random encounters could be helpful npcs and not just another monster fight. The chase rules in the DMG were for outdoor/city chase scenes, not fleeing or retreating from combat. OD&D/AD&D 1e had actual rules covering fleeing combat in a dungeon where you didn't just sacrifice everyone with a <30' move speed.

Morale system is unecessary to me. I frequently have enemies running from my players, but it sure depends on type and moster personality. Reading the fluff text usually gives guidance on that. Besides, there are rules for retreating, but how much and how enemies gives chase is up to the dm. Whcih is okay, because I don,t want enemy to work with basic AI like video games.

But perhaps a more explicit "typical enemy behaviour" text box could help. 4e was pretty explicit on that matter if I recall.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Morale system is unecessary to me. I frequently have enemies running from my players, but it sure depends on type and moster personality. Reading the fluff text usually gives guidance on that. Besides, there are rules for retreating, but how much and how enemies gives chase is up to the dm. Whcih is okay, because I don,t want enemy to work with basic AI like video games.

But perhaps a more explicit "typical enemy behaviour" text box could help. 4e was pretty explicit on that matter if I recall.

I agree. Things like morale, reactions are too situational to make good resolution mechanics out of. They're also extremely setting dependent. In FR (throughout most of the Sword Coast), the common reaction to a goblin or orc would be to call the guards. In my setting, that depends on where you are. One particular (very civilized) nation is majority orc or goblin! In another area, seeing a wood elf (or worse, a high elf) will call out the mobs with pitchforks, even though its the same races as are normally around them (humans, tabaxi, etc).

Stuff like this is best handled by the DM. Generic suggestions ("try rolling a wisdom save if there are major shocks like a boss falling") are fine, but rather vapid.