Top 10 changes will 5E D&D have to implement to satisfy you?

[TheFlatline]

or that planning by players seriously takes longer than actual adventuring (3.X)

Okay since you bring that up I have to ask. WTF is up with this?

It's like every caster has this unbelievably agonizing deal to go through when it comes to memorizing spells every morning. I find whenever I'm a caster I have a go-to set of "adventuring spells" that kind of covers what I generally might need during the day, and I'll change those up if I have advanced warning. If certain spells are never used or turn out to be BS, I'll adjust every now and again.

However it seems like most casters I play with have to contemplate and agonize over what spells they're going to take. Part of this is decision paralysis brought on by obsessively compulsively gaining every spell in existence possible. Part of it is... I dunno, self-inflicted?

The whole "go to town to buy shit" thing seems broken too. I mean, we're talking about mundane shit and minor magical items at best most of the time. Should it really take 3 hours real-time to buy rations, a few potions, and a wand of cure light wounds? So between the hour of picking spells and the 3 hours of visiting the town, we get in maybe an hour of actual adventuring/game time a session.

Then in the pathfinder game I was playing (and was un-invited from because of various reasons) that hour of adventuring would boil down to one, *maybe* two combats and absolutely no storyline development. Combat would take an hour because the DM would get glazed over keeping track of one or two NPCs/monsters, and we'd end up smoking said monster by gang-fucking it to death.

At one point the DM bitched "I don't ever get to do anything with my monsters." And I said "No shit Sherlock. There's six of us, and me and the fighter average around one hundred twenty five points of damage a round. Which means you need at *least* a monster with 150 hitpoints every round you want him to survive, or you need to throw us up against something I can't hit with a 2 or better."

Bah I'm rambling. But yes, I'd like to see a game where downtime logistics is significantly less than adventure time.

[Grek]

If you're having trouble with people being too OCD about what spells they pick, talk them into playing a sorcerer. Despite the fact that it's a weaker class, it's often more fun to play since you don't have to prepare spells.

[Ikeren]

I have never met someone that obsessed with picking spells. Pretty much everyone I know has a "typical list" which they'll tweak every once in a while. "Oh, I'm dropping the 3rd web for a 2nd glitterdust tonight." Sort of thing.

[ModelCitizen]

I've never met a wizard player who didn't run with a default list on the back of their character sheet. Although I do take that as a sign that a 10th level wizard individually selecting 1st level spell slots is more hassle than the average wizard player wants.

If 5e goes with anything like Vancian I like the idea that low level slots just drop off the list. A 9th level wizard gets 5th, 4th, and 3rd level slots but no 1st or 2nd. If they need a 2nd level utility spell they can still prepare it in a 3rd level slot. (This also keeps low level spells from being effectively free, so you don't get clerics stacking 10 different low level buffs.)

[Username17]

The fact that wizard players typically engage in defaulting behavior during spell preparation is a clear indication that spell preparation presents too many choices. If spell preparation wasn't overwhelming, players would actually think about it and do it.

-Username17

[Ice9]

Well ... sort of. To some extent, it's the "blind choice" problem. You come to an intersection, do you go left or right? Without more information, you might as well flip a coin.

Prepared spells are often in the same situation. Even if your number of spells is small enough that you can entirely grasp it without any defaulting or heuristics, you still have to pick something. So you pick out what seems like a good mix of spells for a typical day.

Now - when exactly do you change that? Unless you know beforehand what challenges you'll face, you have no basis for doing so. Sure, certain things are obvious - last time I played a Wizard-type, I had several lists: Humanoids, Brute Monsters, Outsiders, Stealth/Infiltration, In Town, BBEG, and Investigation. But in terms of say, tweaking the spell list to account for the fact that I'll be facing monstrous spiders, crossing an underground ravine with strong wind currents, and sneaking past a three-headed undead giant? Sure, I could do that - if I knew, which I almost never did. So it wasn't complexity that was the primary limiting factor in precision tuning, it was the lack of information.

That's why I now feel that either:
A) Pre-mission information gathering should be a big thing, ala Shadowrun. Or ...
B) Classes shouldn't use daily preparation mechanics.

[FatR]

or that planning by players seriously takes longer than actual adventuring (3.X)

Okay since you bring that up I have to ask. WTF is up with this?

It's like every caster has this unbelievably agonizing deal to go through when it comes to memorizing spells every morning.

It is not only memorizing spells, although memorizing spells is a big part, particularly for full-list access casters, whenever party gets a break they spend hours on how to spend the cash they earned, what items to buy or craft, discussing possible tactics (and what they need to obtain for them) and so on. At low levels it is OK, but at mid levels I'm increasingly often finding myself forced to sit twiddling my thumbs for hours, while players plan. Personally, I'm not going to run another 3.X-based game, at least not one that is supposed to go above level 5, without removing non-spontaneous casters and severely simplifying item system.

[Username17]

It is not only memorizing spells, although memorizing spells is a big part, particularly for full-list access casters, whenever party gets a break they spend hours on how to spend the cash they earned, what items to buy or craft, discussing possible tactics (and what they need to obtain for them) and so on. At low levels it is OK, but at mid levels I'm increasingly often finding myself forced to sit twiddling my thumbs for hours, while players plan. Personally, I'm not going to run another 3.X-based game, at least not one that is supposed to go above level 5, without removing non-spontaneous casters and severely simplifying item system.

Actual wizards aren't so bad. Full-list casters like Druids and Clerics get completely unmanageable once the players start hunting through the spell compendium. There are 48 fucking 3rd level Druid Spells in that fucking book, and the Player may well be expected to pick their three or four favorites out of that on short notice for a specific adventure. We're going to the ice caves, do you want to prepare mass snow shoes? Fuck, I don't know, what the fuck does it do? Might you be better off with attune form or primal form? Better fucking read all that shit at the fucking table and find out!

For Wizards it isn't as bad, because while there are even more spells for them to go through, they have to choose ones for their spellbook between adventures for the most part or even have them inflicted on them by the MC through found loot. The Wizard usually only has about 6 choices for their 3rd level spell selections on a day to day basis. They don't have to decide if the journey to the Forest of Doom warrants preparation of junglerazer because they don't have that spell in their spellbook.

Basically: fuck Clerics. Everything about that stupid class is terribad. Druids are even worse. Especially when they decide that they need to transform into a combat form on short notice. Oh fuck that is messed up. Having to call time while they dumpster dive through monster books to figure out whether they are high enough level to transform into a particular kind of giant cat and what the fuck happens to all their numbers when they do. Argh.

In-game dumpster diving should not happen, because it takes too much time. Full List Spell Preparation should not happen. Full List Casting like Beguilers can only happen if those lists are short. Monster lists for Summoning or transformation should be simple and short. Going through the Fiend Folio to find out what demons are secretly on the Summon Monster List at various levels is not acceptable.

-Username17

[ModelCitizen]

@FatR & Ice9: Eh, spell preparation has its place, 3e prepared casters just know too many fucking spells. ToB uses basically a spell preparation mechanic and I've never heard anyone complain about warblades changing out their readied maneuvers.

E: I've seen wizards get up to cleric level terribleness. I was DMing, it was my fault for running a game where most of the antagonists were wizards with lootable spellbooks, but still. Given how often WotC's actual writers give canon characters spellbooks with "all of the spells up to 3rd level" and bullshit like that, I gotta assume a lot of DMs have made the same mistake.

[tussock]

Basically: fuck Clerics.

There is that. Still, that 2nd edition idea of mythoi priest spheres, where the Cleric class has 20 mini spell lists and you get 4 of them for your dude, plus some core stuff, that's not a bad idea (you could even make PC clerics be Good aligned to get healing, woot!, or not).
Tough to pick at first, but they can pre-choose them for you with Gods, even describing how that combo should play out.

3e totally could've gone that way, but didn't, because Clerics had to be awesome so someone would always want to play one.

They should really split up the arcane list a bit too, give default Wizards classic Transmutation and Divination only, good fun, ~120 spells on the list.

[Lokathor]

@FatR & Ice9: Eh, spell preparation has its place, 3e prepared casters just know too many fucking spells. ToB uses basically a spell preparation mechanic and I've never heard anyone complain about warblades changing out their readied maneuvers.

E: I've seen wizards get up to cleric level terribleness. I was DMing, it was my fault for running a game where most of the antagonists were wizards with lootable spellbooks, but still. Given how often WotC's actual writers give canon characters spellbooks with "all of the spells up to 3rd level" and bullshit like that, I gotta assume a lot of DMs have made the same mistake.

Within the context of Frank's above rant, that's because all the ToB classes are "Wizard" style classes, instead of "Cleric" style classes.

[erik]

Yeh, wizards are easy to select spells for. Every one I've ever seen just preps Spectral Hand and Shivering touch.

[sake]

Monster lists for Summoning or transformation should be simple and short. Going through the Fiend Folio to find out what demons are secretly on the Summon Monster List at various levels is not acceptable.

I'm reminded of Neverwinter Nights (1&2), where the Druid is considered one the weakest class choices despite it being almost identical to it's god-like PnP counterpart... entirely due to it's limited shape change and summon options. Not that that's saying much, NWN was always a bizarro DND where the Fighter was considered a pretty damn solid class and evocation Wizards were often called overpowered.

you could even make PC clerics be Good aligned to get healing, woot!

No. No, that idea needs to be dragged out in the street, shot, beheaded and then placed on a stake as a warning to anyone else that might try to link basic class concept abilities to fucking alignments again. And then we do the same thing to "Assassinations and using poisons are always an evil act" and "Paladins follow a special one size fits all code of honor that may have jack all to do with the actual code of the god they're sworn to (I.E. How the fuck do Paladins of Helm even work?"

[K]

Monster lists for Summoning or transformation should be simple and short. Going through the Fiend Folio to find out what demons are secretly on the Summon Monster List at various levels is not acceptable.

I'm reminded of Neverwinter Nights (1&2), where the Druid is considered one the weakest class choices despite it being almost identical to it's god-like PnP counterpart... entirely due to it's limited shape change and summon options. Not that that's saying much, NWN was always a bizarro DND where the Fighter was considered a pretty damn solid class and evocation Wizards were often called overpowered.

Well, NWN had a better combat engine than DnD. I mean, I've rarely seen a 3e DM start a combat that didn't fit on a battlemat, so NWN's trick of fireballing crap several times as it ran up to you just never came up.

What classes and tactics and spells are good is heavily based on circumstance. I mean, I played the old Baldur's Gate games with a single Fighter/Mage/Thief character because the computer AI just could not handle certain tactics when used by a single player who was not fighting with a full party. In fact, I found the game harder with a full party.

[Archmage]

Well, NWN had a better combat engine than DnD. I mean, I've rarely seen a 3e DM start a combat that didn't fit on a battlemat, so NWN's trick of fireballing crap several times as it ran up to you just never came up.

This is the crux of the issue. Evocation actually is good if 90% of your enemies are swarms of low-level critters who actually die (or nearly die) when you hit them with chain lightning. Isaac's Missile Swarm or whatever as a 4th level spell pitches out 10d6 worth of magic missile-equivalents that never miss, can't be saved against, and never damage friendly NPCs no matter what difficulty setting you've chosen. If you are theoretically going to fight two hundred zombies instead while you hack through the Crypt of Despair turn undead is absolutely amazing and actually murders things instead of making everyone at the table go "how does this ability work again?" before you argue about what "turning damage" actually means and eventually discover that even if the vampire didn't have turning resistance the fact that he's a boss monster five levels above the party average your cleric brandishing his holy symbol is going to do jack shit.

[Caedrus]

Real time videogames are not like open-ended pen and paper games.

[Ice9]

@FatR & Ice9: Eh, spell preparation has its place, 3e prepared casters just know too many fucking spells. ToB uses basically a spell preparation mechanic and I've never heard anyone complain about warblades changing out their readied maneuvers.

E: I've seen wizards get up to cleric level terribleness. I was DMing, it was my fault for running a game where most of the antagonists were wizards with lootable spellbooks, but still. Given how often WotC's actual writers give canon characters spellbooks with "all of the spells up to 3rd level" and bullshit like that, I gotta assume a lot of DMs have made the same mistake.

ToB is encounter preparation (at least with Adaptive Style, I think even without it you can switch in a relative short amount of time). I've got no issue with encounter preparation (assuming the list length doesn't get unwieldy), because it's definitely possible to have useful info about the next battle or two, even without SR-type scouting.

[K]

Real time videogames are not like open-ended pen and paper games.

Considering many real-time video games were modeled directly off of pen-and-paper games, they actually share quite a bit. The only real difference is that CRPGs run more complicated scripts, reward faster decision-making, and have more limited story content.

This means that you can learn how to make better TTRPGs by looking at the failures and successes of CRPGs, and the other way too.

[tussock]

Not that that's saying much, NWN was always a bizarro DND where the Fighter was considered a pretty damn solid class and evocation Wizards were often called overpowered.

Meh. 3e monsters are a bit time consuming to run big groups through encounters, and it particularly feels that way if they're not much of a threat in the first place, so you end up with most DMs using just a couple of high CR monsters with a tonne of HP each; thus the domination by nova Wizards abusing 3e's weak-ass monster defences against spells.

3e Fighters can't out-damage that sort of monster, so you just have to make it fail a save, which only your few highest level spells can do. Emergent behaviour from monster complexity and details of the saving throw odds.

you could even make PC clerics be Good aligned to get healing, woot!

No. No, that idea needs to be dragged out in the street, shot, beheaded and then placed on a stake as a warning to anyone else that might try to link basic class concept abilities to fucking alignments again.

Yeh, /JK, sorries. But I'm cool with Undead creation and Fiend-summoning being Evil, and it's got to be an interesting game dynamic if the bad guys you're fighting can't heal but you can. The evil gods can always let their faithful claim health through vampiric means.

And then we do the same thing to "Assassinations and using poisons are always an evil act" and "Paladins follow a special one size fits all code of honor that may have jack all to do with the actual code of the god they're sworn to (I.E. How the fuck do Paladins of Helm even work?"

Poison really needs a nice death spiral mechanic. Fort saves that lower your fort save and stuff. 1/minute, so it's not in combat, but a little post-combat mini-game. Hit-and-run tactics from poisoners. Illegal, not Evil.

But Paladins should totally be LG with a super-code. Fuck all that post-modern noise about objectivity and fairness in alignments: Paladins are the personification of Lawful Goodness. All their powers should represent that selfless dedication to protecting the innocent and righting wrongs. Batman, ye olde ideal knight.

And they shouldn't be dedicated to Gods in the first place, that's FR's problem, with Greenwood's atheist-hating ways.

[ishy]

If you make poisons strictly out of combat that means that pcs basically never use it.
Some people might actually want to play a master poisoner and actually use that in combat not just be another generic fighter in combat.

And 5e needs to dump lawful and chaotic alignment.

If healing is only available for good it means that if I run an evil group they have no ability to heal eachother if one goes down. That sucks.
Sure some shades of evil will not help eachother, but not all.

[Ferret]

But Paladins should totally be LG with a super-code. Fuck all that post-modern noise about objectivity and fairness in alignments: Paladins are the personification of Lawful Goodness. All their powers should represent that selfless dedication to protecting the innocent and righting wrongs. Batman, ye olde ideal knight.

And they shouldn't be dedicated to Gods in the first place, that's FR's problem, with Greenwood's atheist-hating ways.

WAT.

No, fuck that. If Paladins should exist as a base in their current form (which I technically disagree with) they should continue be Full-Plate-Dude-With-Smattering-of-Divine-Magic-Who-Swords-Things-In-The-Face (as appropriate to their diety; I might not expect to see a Paladin of Boccob in plate and mail...)

What -should- change is that ANY Diety should sponsor paladins, and there should be at least a guide for what Paladins of Kord are expected to uphold and defend vs. what Paladins of Wee Jas or Hextor or whoever.

[Winnah]

Alignment needs to go. I find it hinders more games than it does provide any kind of useful framework for rules.

I'm still arguing with a friend about 'Lawful Good' behaviour, an argument spawned by an NPC in game from nearly 10 years past.

Worse than that are the arsehole DMs who have attempted to force some bastardised morality play on players via their interpretation of some settings pantheon, or even worse, their own custom pantheon.

If an evangelical apologist smites undeserving foes with a literal rhetorical hammer during a game, then more power to them. I don't need that characters role-playing options affected more by some overly simplistic metagame morality grid, than better defined components of the story and campaign world.

[hogarth]

Alignment needs to go. I find it hinders more games than it does provide any kind of useful framework for rules.

You're going to be disappointed, then. They've mentioned alignment as one of the essentially D&D-ish details that they're going to preserve.

[Username17]

Alignment needs to go. I find it hinders more games than it does provide any kind of useful framework for rules.

You're going to be disappointed, then. They've mentioned alignment as one of the essentially D&D-ish details that they're going to preserve.

Yeah they have. I don't understand it, considering that playing without alignment is about the most common house rule in the universe and no one can make a coherent defense of alignment and no one has ever been able to do so despite trying for forty years.

But yeah, one of the easiest and most obvious steps to making a better game would be junking the alignment "system". They have already ruled that out as a possible way forward. Blows my fucking mind.

-Username17

[virgil]

Those damn DM power-trips where they decide whether you're acting in alignment, as well as the infamous alignment definition debates, are iconic to D&D.