# Blast from the past



## Professor Murder (Sep 28, 2021)

So instead of speaking about existing systems that should be altered or removed, how about this question.

For the upcoming rules refresh/revamp, what rule or system would you like to see return that didn't either appear in 5th ed at all, or is just a shadow of it's former self.

My vote: 4th ed's skill challenges. Probably still needs some work, but the potential is there.


----------



## payn (Sep 28, 2021)

I'd like a much more robust skill system than what we have in 5E.


----------



## overgeeked (Sep 28, 2021)

Off the top of my head...

4E skill challenges. 

4E monster design.

4E monster types: minions, standard, elite, solo; monster roles: skirmisher, brute, soldier, etc; and the bloodied condition.

4E monster lore checks listed with the monsters.

4E encounter design. 

4E classes like the warlord and the swordmage. 

AD&D2E monster ecology and more interesting descriptions, lore, etc for monsters.

AD&D2E spell acquisition for clerics and wizards.

AD&D natural healing instead of the superhero-style overnight regeneration of 5E. 

AD&D level and stat drains.

B/X 2d6 reaction rolls.

B/X 1d6 side-based initiative. 

B/X 2d6 morale checks.


----------



## niklinna (Sep 28, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> 4E classes like the warlord and the swordmage.



And shaman! (What? I liked it.)


----------



## Shiroiken (Sep 28, 2021)

War Machine for mass combat. Detailed monster ecology from 2E. Morale checks (1d20 is FAR to random).


----------



## LoganRan (Sep 28, 2021)

Return to a finite number of allowable spells per day (i.e. remove spammable cantrips).

Go back to different progressions (attacks, saving throws, etc.) for different classes (i.e. remove the "one proficiency bonus to rule them all" paradigm)


----------



## R_J_K75 (Sep 28, 2021)

LoganRan said:


> Return to a finite number of allowable spells per day (i.e. remove spammable cantrips).
> 
> Go back to different progressions (attacks, saving throws, etc.) for different classes (i.e. remove the "one proficiency bonus to rule them all" paradigm)



Agree with both.  The more I play/DM 5e the more I dont like it.  I agree it needs an overhaul but at 3 years out I think 5E needs to go and just create a new edition, because we all know the backwards compatible claim is B.S. A good portion of their announcement revealed next to nothing AFAICT.  The slip case comes out late January and then Mordenkainens book late 2022?  Why if this is included in the slip case will it not be available separately immediately?  Then theres campaign settings coming in 2022 & 2023 in new and exciting formats, what the hell does this even mean, in the bottom of a box of Cracker Jacks?  Just come out and say what you are potentially planning with the caveat it may change, they probably wasted an hour or two dropping hints but revealing nothing Sunday.  I'm not liking the way it seems things are heading at WotC so I have little faith in their next rule iteration and have been considering sticking to what rulebooks I have and be done.  I'll see as things progress and make that decision when the books come out.


----------



## jgsugden (Sep 28, 2021)

I am still not a fan of skill challenges.  

They reduce storytelling to dice rolling, and often resulted in weird 'fits' like where a group of PCs without a high intelligence PC attempted to research a solution in a library by a.) Moving shelves to get at the good books, b.) Climbing the shelves to get to the books too high to reach, c.) Spotting a book title that looked to be on topic, and d.) flirting with the librarian to see if she knew where the right book might be.  When that happened, and the DM started to say, "ok, you won the skill check" and I pointed out that we had not yet opened a book .... well, it was reason for me to take the skill check structure out of play and go back to just role playing it out like I did in prior editions (and have since after the first year of 4E).  

There are situations where they work well - but in my experience, just role playing it out works just as well in each of those situations.  They're a nice crutch for new DMs, but should be phased out.

As for what I want to see returned from older editions: 

* Levels 21 to 30.  It would be fun to kick the dust off some PCs that retired after hitting 20 and run them up a bit more.

* Psionics.

* More magic items that do not require attunement.


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Sep 28, 2021)

niklinna said:


> And shaman! (What? I liked it.)




 Mearls has mentioned the possiblity of a Shaman class.


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Sep 28, 2021)

R_J_K75 said:


> Agree with both.  The more I play/DM 5e the more I dont like it.  I agree it needs an overhaul but at 3 years out I think 5E needs to go and just create a new edition, because we all know the backwards compatible claim is B.S. A good portion of their announcement revealed next to nothing AFAICT.  The slip case comes out late January and then Mordenkainens book late 2022?  Why if this is included in the slip case will it not be available separately immediately?  Then theres campaign settings coming in 2022 & 2023 in new and exciting formats, what the hell does this even mean, in the bottom of a box of Cracker Jacks?  Just come out and say what you are potentially planning with the caveat it may change, they probably wasted an hour or two dropping hints but revealing nothing Sunday.  I'm not liking the way it seems things are heading at WotC so I have little faith in their next rule iteration and have been considering sticking to what rulebooks I have and be done.  I'll see as things progress and make that decision when the books come out.




 I do wish they'd show greater transparency with road maps like MtG does, I mean I know exactly what products are coming in 2022 and some of 2023, except the none Warhammer Commander Decks, and that is not hard to guess.


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Sep 28, 2021)

More rituals and less concentration requirements for spells. Too many spells go unused because they compete for spell slots and concentration.


----------



## aco175 (Sep 28, 2021)

I like 3e attack progression where fighters get better each level and others ad a slower pace.  I also like that eventually everyone gets a 2nd attack, or more.  It would need to be curtailed somewhat to better fit with what we have now.  It just stuck me as odd that a fighter and mage improved equally in attacking between level 1 and 5 for your proficiency bonus to improve.


----------



## Lidgar (Sep 28, 2021)

Retro Healing
Retro Cantrips
Retro Skills/Backgrounds (I could post more on this - suffice to say, less is more)
Retro gp expenditures for leveling up/training (not time it takes, just gp cost)
Retro attacks progression (per @aco175)


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Sep 28, 2021)

Lidgar said:


> Retro Healing
> Retro Cantrips
> Retro Skills/Backgrounds (I could post more on this - suffice to say, less is more)
> Retro gp expenditures for leveling up/training (not time it takes, just gp cost)
> Retro attacks progression (per @aco175)




 That is what the DMG is for as most of these changes would be broadly unpopular.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Sep 28, 2021)

Henadic Theologian said:


> I do wish they'd show greater transparency with road maps like MtG does, I mean I know exactly what products are coming in 2022 and some of 2023, except the none Warhammer Commander Decks, and that is not hard to guess.



I understand the teasing an upcoming adventure for a month or two but with these upcoming changes I agree there should 100% transparency regarding the rest of 5E and their plans on the 2024 edition.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 28, 2021)

Scarier undead.  Not necessarily level drain (because that's a pain in the behind bookkeeping wise), but something that makes them scary again.  Same with medusa and other other creatures.  

black and white lineart (not everything has to be color)

Monster ecologies (like in the old Dragon magazines).  Fluff and flavor matter IMO.  Not everything is a statblock.


----------



## Professor Murder (Sep 28, 2021)

Monster templates, just yah know, balanced-ish.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 28, 2021)

jgsugden said:


> I am still not a fan of skill challenges.




Oh, I love them... when they are presented properly.



jgsugden said:


> They reduce storytelling to dice rolling...




Properly presented, they allow you to turn storytelling _into_ die rolls, instead of into GM fiats.


----------



## Dausuul (Sep 28, 2021)

The return of the 5-minute short rest. My group has house ruled short rests to be 5 minutes, usable twice per day. It does wonders to keep short-rest and long-rest classes in balance.

I would also love to see the return of the "name level" and domain rulership concepts from the TSR era. Not the mechanics themselves, most of those mechanics were... poorly thought out... but the idea remains exciting and I'd love to see it resurrected for 5E.



Professor Murder said:


> My vote: 4th ed's skill challenges. Probably still needs some work, but the potential is there.



Ow, that's one I really don't want to see return. Not unless it gets a _whole lot_ of work. It was a noble idea, and I'm sure in the hands of a sufficiently skilled DM it could be good; but my experience (across three different DMs) is that the DM announces "Skill challenge!" and then my job is to find new ways to describe "I'm still trying to do the thing" and roll d20s until the challenge is over. It blows my immersion straight to hell and is also very boring.



Umbran said:


> Properly presented, they allow you to turn storytelling _into_ die rolls, instead of into GM fiats.



That assumes the DM has put work into learning how to _present skill challenges. _If the DM has not put work into that, and most haven't, I'll take DM fiat over a skill challenge any day of the week.

Skill challenges are presented as analogous to combat--but they don't come with any of the mechanical tools that D&D uses to create variety and choices in combat. So every skill challenge is the equivalent of basic attacks against a bag of hit points. It is _possible_ for a DM to build an exciting narrative with meaningful choices on top of that skeleton... but it's a lot harder than it is with the full array of combat options, and far fewer DMs are up to the job.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 28, 2021)

Dausuul said:


> That assumes the DM has put work into learning how to _present skill challenges. _




A DM has to put work into learning how to present _anything_.  So, this is hardly an argument against them.


----------



## Mind of tempest (Sep 28, 2021)

psionic.

a skill system that is good.

monster ecologies 

and having that 4e primal stuff as druids just end up animal lovers and that is dull.


----------



## Dausuul (Sep 28, 2021)

Umbran said:


> A DM has to put work into learning how to present _anything_.  So, this is hardly an argument against them.



All I know is that I've rarely seen a DM who couldn't present combat in a way that was at least moderately engaging. But I've rarely seen a DM who _could_ present skill challenges as anything other than a mindless die-rolling exercise.

So I would prefer not to see skill challenges make a comeback unless the designers figure out how to provide "out of the box" functionality as good as that of the combat rules*.

*How they would do that, I have no idea. I suspect it would require a whole other rulebook and would not be practical for D&D. So, in practice, my position may be equivalent to "I don't want skill challenges to come back at all." Which works for me.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 28, 2021)

Dausuul said:


> All I know is that I've rarely seen a DM who couldn't present combat in a way that was at least moderately engaging. But I've rarely seen a DM who _could_ present skill challenges as anything other than a mindless die-rolling exercise.




Because, personal experience is the limit to what happens?

The wonderful thing is, there' sis already an entire game that shows you how to do skill challenges well - it is Fate.  The entire game (including combat) is basically skill challenges (with different die rolls).

You don't need a whole other rulebook to do decent skill challenges.  They aren't that deep.  The problem is that, in D&D, players are generally trained to think mechanics first, rather than fiction first.  So, when we are told we are in a skill challenge, we think in terms of the mechanic, instead of what reasonable actions in the fiction might be helpful.

Try this - behind your GM screen, run a skill challenge, but _DO NOT TELL THE PLAYERS_ that is what you are doing.  Just ask what they are doing, and call for skill rolls when appropriate - when they either succeed or fail, narrate the results.  Whammo, you have a decent skill challenge.


----------



## AtomicPope (Sep 29, 2021)

Skill challenges are best used to represent a series of skill checks where the narrative serves as the map.  It removes the tedium of checking for traps every ten feet with your 10ft Pole™. The players are told their objective and then they decide what skills will best be served in achieving that.  The DM sets the DC, monitors progress, and provides the story behind their success and failures along the way.

The D20 skill challenge comes from Star Wars Saga edition, and was later implemented in 4e.  The skill challenges were broken down by tier and level, with the Average Tier sitting a few points lower for DC requirements.  When you look at the highest tiers they seemed impossible.  However, in Saga each of the heroic characters (aka PC classes) had access to Force Points which allowed them to add additional dice to rolls.  These Force Points were limited by level and only replenished when you gained a level, or if you had a class feature that replenished them.  They allowed PCs to strive for the impossible.  It's best to keep this in mind when designing them, and letting the players know what they're doing and just how difficult it will be.

Sometimes I'll start a skill challenge with a montage scene where the PCs are scouting, planning, and gearing up for their mission.  In my epic campaign the PCs had to sneak into an undead city to kill the Death Tyrant and then escape.  Part of the planning montage was a trusted informant who gave them a secret way in.  The skill challenge was broken up into several sections, each representing movement in and under the city.  When they reached their location then it would default back to standard D&D.  They could stealth, disguise, bribe, intimidate, climb, or do whatever best fit their character.  The way I spice it up is I limit one skill use per challenge, and I have a Challenge Skill (or two) that must be used during every PC's turn.  These Challenge Skills represent the theme of the challenge.  For the undead city it was History and Religion.  The DC is average (about 10-12), and represents the PCs awareness of their surroundings.  Success means no penalties.  Exceptional success means a +2 bonus on their next skill roll.

5e really needs a skill challenge system that's similar to Saga, not to mention an improved Inspiration that integrates with character classes, races, and even spells.  It would be nice to add a little bit of spice to the game with Inspiration.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 29, 2021)

Blasts from the past worth resurrecting:

--- The 1e idea that with things like skill checks etc. one roll does for all and represents the best attempt you can muster over the time* you're taking to do it; you don't get to keep re-rolling until you succeed unless each time you're trying something materially different in the fiction.  No take-10, no take-20.  You roll what you roll - once - and if you blow it, you blow it: try something different.

* - which means when you've got lots of in-fiction time you-as-player need to declare how long you're willing to spend on the attempt before giving up.

--- Faster, shorter, more lethal combats a la 0e-1e; with the added lethality there as an encouragement to look at other options besides combat.  This means generally fewer (much fewer!) hit points for monsters, more save-or-die effects, and so forth.

--- a return to death (without death saves) at -10 and possible unconsciousness between 0 and -9, a la 2e.

--- non-additive multiclassing where each class advances at its own rate, a la 2e.

--- the "bloodied" condition from 4e. (and while they're at it expand this to PCs as well; where becoming bloodied triggers some abilities while shutting down others)


----------



## Mind of tempest (Sep 29, 2021)

maybe that domains thing should come back?


----------



## Horwath (Sep 29, 2021)

4E short rest of 5 mins. Might limit them to 2 or 3 per long rest

4E healing surges instead of HD healing. much simpler and reliable


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Sep 29, 2021)

Lanefan said:


> --- Faster, shorter, more lethal combats a la 0e-1e; with the added lethality there as an encouragement to look at other options besides combat.  This means generally fewer (much fewer!) hit points for monsters, more save-or-die effects, and so forth.
> 
> --- a return to death (without death saves) at -10 and possible unconsciousness between 0 and -9, a la 2e.



D&D is a game about monster combat.  That's why an entire book is dedicated to presenting foes for characters to fight and 90% of a character sheet is statistics about how well the characters can fight.  Thus options besides combat will always be much, much further down the list of things the PCs will choose to do than fighting stuff is.  Combat will always be option #1, because that's how the game has been built.

And thus... any rules that kill or destroy characters really easily (and thus really often) are ultimately pointless.  Because then D&D ultimately becomes the board game that it already has in its background-- you have your "playing piece" for a session, you lose the game, the "playing piece" goes away, and then next game you start with a new "playing piece".  If this is actually what most players of D&D wanted, the game wouldn't have evolved _away_ from that paradigm so quickly and easily and so continuously over the last 40 years, with new rules constantly being added so that your "playing piece" character doesn't die and reset each session and you can see it stick around a long, long time (perhaps even the entirety of a campaign.)

If people want to play D&D combat as a board game with no character memory and a reset of a new playing piece each game session... that's why WotC's tried to make the 'miniatures combat game' a thing in both 3E and 4E's eras.  And in both cases they gained no traction in the marketplace.  Because that is not actually what 99.99% of D&D players want.


----------



## Li Shenron (Sep 29, 2021)

The only thing I really miss is the abundance of fantasy settings books.

Although it's not like you can't use old edition ones, it's only the crunch that doesn't work out of the box.


----------



## thundershot (Sep 29, 2021)

Wow. A lot of you are brutal. I love 5E’s clean system. It’s not realistic, no, but it’s not like the old days when you were beat down and had to go home for a week to heal up while the DM restocked the dungeon. I don’t miss that, I don’t miss wizards being useless early on. The only things I WOULD bring back.,

2E Spells (spells since 2E, to me, have been boring)
2E Monsters (over the top abilities even on low level ones), ecologies
3E Progression (different classes get different proficiency bonuses)
4E Minions (I guess there’s no reason not to make them in 5E)


----------



## Dausuul (Sep 29, 2021)

thundershot said:


> 4E Minions (I guess there’s no reason not to make them in 5E)



Thanks, I forgot that one in my response! Yes, minions definitely should make a comeback in some form. They were awesome, especially when you cranked up their damage output.

The challenge of doing minions in 5E is that 5E has gone back to the old paradigm of D&D, which is that a monster's stats reflect actual discernible traits of the monster. That is, if an ogre has 1 hit point, it tells you something about that ogre--she's badly injured, or physically very frail, or something like that. This was not true in 4E, where a monster could have 1 hit point simply because its job in the adventure was to be an easily-slain mook. The same ogre could be a solo monster or a minion depending on when and where it was encountered. Trying to apply that model to 5E would provoke a lot of backlash.

But that doesn't mean 5E can't have minions; there just needs to be a different implementation. Back in the days of yore, 1E fighters had a special ability where they got a whole lot of extra attacks any time they were fighting very low-level foes. That would be the approach I would take--an optional rule where any damage dealt by a character of level X or more, to a monster of CR Y or less, reduces that monster to zero hit points automatically. Instead of modeling the monster's frailty, you are modeling the badassery of the PC.

It's a mechanical sleight of hand--the end result is the same--but I think it would be a lot more palatable to a lot more people. In fact, now I think about it, I may have to try this as a house rule next time I run a game.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 29, 2021)

DEFCON 1 said:


> D&D is a game about monster combat.  That's why an entire book is dedicated to presenting foes for characters to fight and 90% of a character sheet is statistics about how well the characters can fight.  [them]



Change the word "fight" to "interact with" above and you'd be correct.

The interaction doesn't have to be violent; yet more and more that has become the default at cost of the exploration (sneaking past) and social (bargain with) pillars.  And at one time the game incented this by giving xp for bypassing foes without combat just as if you'd fought and killed them.


DEFCON 1 said:


> Thus options besides combat will always be much, much further down the list of things the PCs will choose to do than fighting stuff is.  Combat will always be option #1, because that's how the game has been built.
> 
> And thus... any rules that kill or destroy characters really easily (and thus really often) are ultimately pointless.  Because then D&D ultimately becomes the board game that it already has in its background-- you have your "playing piece" for a session, you lose the game, the "playing piece" goes away, and then next game you start with a new "playing piece".  If this is actually what most players of D&D wanted, the game wouldn't have evolved _away_ from that paradigm so quickly and easily and so continuously over the last 40 years, with new rules constantly being added so that your "playing piece" character doesn't die and reset each session and you can see it stick around a long, long time (perhaps even the entirety of a campaign.)



Define a long long time.  My guess is your definition and mine will be out by a multiplier of about five. 

And though you talk of playing pieces and board games as if to say lethality engenders such, I see it as just as unrealistically gamist when characters can put themselves in crazy-dangerous situations time and time again without any real worry about major or long-term consequences.

The way I see it, characters will quite realistically come and go - some last a long time, some don't last at all - but the party carries on; and that continuation of the party is more important.


DEFCON 1 said:


> If people want to play D&D combat as a board game with no character memory and a reset of a new playing piece each game session... that's why WotC's tried to make the 'miniatures combat game' a thing in both 3E and 4E's eras.  And in both cases they gained no traction in the marketplace.  Because that is not actually what 99.99% of D&D players want.



The minis game isn't really a comparable, in that there's no role-playing involved at all.


----------



## Helldritch (Sep 29, 2021)

What I would like to see
Save or suck situations. Presently, a save at the end of a turn is really too forgiving. Maybe two saves in a row would be better.

A reduction on attunable items. Too many items require attunement. 

A return to higher ability score requirement for multiclassing. It too easy to multiclass at the moment.

A return to non "useful" stat as requirement for some classes. This way, some multiclassung would be hard to achieve. 

Too many charisma based casters to my taste. I would like to see the warlock cast spells with constitution but with a high charisma requirement. Same with the paladin. Cast with wisdom, but requires a high charisma. Make the bard require a high intelligence but still cast with charisma. And so on...

Some rule to prevent three or four dips in classes. Limit it to two classes for most races and give elves and half-elves the possibility to go with three is wizard is one of the classes. 

There would be a lot more but the post would be a mile long...


----------



## Plaguescarred (Sep 29, 2021)

I'd like a larger weapon & armor table.


----------



## delericho (Sep 29, 2021)

Encumbrance.

Though, actually, I'm of the view that they should either beef it up or just eliminate it - I'm fairly relaxed about either. It's just the current halfway house that I find unsatisfactory.

(Much the same is true of alignment, except that with that one I think it is time to just get rid.)


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Sep 29, 2021)

Lanefan said:


> The way I see it, characters will quite realistically come and go - some last a long time, some don't last at all - but the party carries on; and that continuation of the party is more important.



And while you are more than welcome to enjoy that type of play... history of how the game has evolved is quite telling in just how many other people share in that desire.

So while you may welcome / desire a return to 0E lethality... I suspect your expectations are not going to be met.


----------



## Faolyn (Sep 29, 2021)

Sacrosanct said:


> Scarier undead.  Not necessarily level drain (because that's a pain in the behind bookkeeping wise), but something that makes them scary again.  Same with medusa and other other creatures.



Perhaps they would impose a temporary (or even permanent, until healed with a _restoration_) -dX to certain die rolls. Which could stack; if you ever get to a -d20, you die. I don't think it should be to _all _die rolls, though, but anything based on one stat (including saves), which depends on the type of undead.

In Level Up, wraiths cause the victim to take a level of strife in addition to damage. For those who don't know, Exhaustion has been split into Fatigue (physical) and Strife (mental) and can only be removed when you rest at a haven. So that's automatically a bit scarier right there.

I don't think medusaa are that bad, though. Petrifaction is basically death, unless you have a 9th-level or higher party; I don't mind there being two saves to avoid it. Cockatrices could use some bolstering, though.


----------



## Faolyn (Sep 29, 2021)

Helldritch said:


> Some rule to prevent three or four dips in classes. Limit it to two classes for most races and give elves and half-elves the possibility to go with three is wizard is one of the classes.



Having all classes get their archetypes at 2nd level would help to prevent that. After all, the most common dips seem to be sorcerer and warlock, both of whom get archetypes at 1st level.


----------



## overgeeked (Sep 29, 2021)

DEFCON 1 said:


> And while you are more than welcome to enjoy that type of play... history of how the game has evolved is quite telling in just how many other people share in that desire.
> 
> So while you may welcome / desire a return to 0E lethality... I suspect your expectations are not going to be met.



Of course not. Most people want superhero power fantasy, which is what WotC D&D provides. Lowest common denominator and all that. When easily winning all the time loses its luster, people start using tons of house rules or move on. Either to other games or, if they're even aware of them, older editions of D&D or retroclones.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Sep 29, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Of course not. Most people want superhero power fantasy, which is what WotC D&D provides. Lowest common denominator and all that. When easily winning all the time loses its luster, people start using tons of house rules or move on. Either to other games or, if they're even aware of them, older editions of D&D or retroclones.



Yep!  And there's nothing wrong with that.


----------



## jmartkdr2 (Sep 29, 2021)

I would like to see castle-building at name level return as an optional but well-supported system. High level characters simply should have the wealth and influence to become major political figures, and that doesn't mean an end to adventuring, just a big shift in what they do when not adventuring.


----------



## overgeeked (Sep 29, 2021)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Yep!  And there's nothing wrong with that.



Only if you want to be able to actually find players and DMs for games other than 5E.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Sep 30, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Only if you want to be able to actually find players and DMs for games other than 5E.



Then you need to decide what is more important... playing whatever game you want _exactly_ the way you want to play it, or just playing at all.

If you have a very narrow window of how you are willing to play an RPG and can't find others that share in that... it's no one else's responsibility (including the game companies) to adjust things so that you can.  You either work harder to find your group, or you relax your requirements for how the game has to be.

For @Lanefan, he has found himself a great group that all share in his stylistic choices and thus can play the game they want when they want to.  My only response to him was that his hopes of WotC rolling back the game in this update to where he likes lethality to be was not likely to happen, because history has shown his style is not popular.  If his style of lethality _was_ popular, the game wouldn't have spent 5 editions getting to where it is now requiring a rollback in the first place.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 1, 2021)

I thought of another one:

Bring back the 1e idea that spellcasting can and will be automatically interrupted by *any* disruption or damage. Further, make spells take time to cast (e.g. if your initiative is 16 you'll be casting from then until, say, 11; and you're interruptable during that time).


----------



## darjr (Oct 3, 2021)

I haven’t read the thread yet but wanted to say that there nothing as dressed as level drain.

Im not sure I want it back but something as dreaded would be cool. Not sure what though.


----------



## dave2008 (Oct 3, 2021)

jgsugden said:


> I am still not a fan of skill challenges.
> 
> They reduce storytelling to dice rolling,...



When done well they enhance storytelling with dice rolling. A skill challenge, can be a tool to help storytelling, if done well.


----------



## dave2008 (Oct 3, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Of course not. Most people want superhero power fantasy, which is what WotC D&D provides. Lowest common denominator and all that. When easily winning all the time loses its luster, people start using tons of house rules or move on. Either to other games or, if they're even aware of them, older editions of D&D or retroclones.



Interesting take, I found it completely possible to challenge (even kill) my PCS without any house rules.  I do think 5e is as "easy" as you think it is.


----------



## dave2008 (Oct 3, 2021)

R_J_K75 said:


> Agree with both.  The more I play/DM 5e the more I dont like it.  I agree it needs an overhaul but at 3 years out I think 5E needs to go and just create a new edition, because we all know the backwards compatible claim is B.S.



I disagree with most of this. I think the 2024 updates will be fairly minor and I am personally fine with that.  Honestly, I don't think I, or my group, needs another edition ever.  I may add LevelUp to our arsenal, but that is it. Everyone is different of course


----------



## dave2008 (Oct 3, 2021)

There are some good ideas in this thread, but I don't really think any of them have a chance to make the 2024 update.  On top of that, I don't think many of the ideas presented here would be good for the game (in terms of sales). The are better suite to a UA book or homebrew / house rules where they really belong IMO. In fact, If I think of adding anything from older editions I always run into  problems with how well 5e with a few tweaks runs for my group.  So, with that fear I would go with: 

BECMI War Machine updated to 5e.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Oct 3, 2021)

4E's AEU Powers (not a typo. The D part can go away forever).


----------



## dave2008 (Oct 3, 2021)

Vaalingrade said:


> 4E's AEU Powers (not a typo. The D part can go away forever).



I used to think so too, then PF2 proved me wrong.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Oct 3, 2021)

dave2008 said:


> I used to think so too, then PF2 proved me wrong.



How so?


----------



## dave2008 (Oct 3, 2021)

Vaalingrade said:


> How so?



Lack of attrition if everything recharges becomes less interesting


----------



## Ancalagon (Oct 3, 2021)

Flanking - advantage is too good IMO, but it's a shame that flanking does nothing otherwise (the optional rule in the DMG)
Low light vision vs darkvision
Morale checks
Monster ecologies
A bit more importance to damage type.
edit: how can I forget:  Dex not adding to weapon damage.  Dex is WAY too good in 5e.  Also, a way to make int less of a dump stat for many characters.


----------



## Azzy (Oct 3, 2021)

Default morale scores for monsters and better morale rules
Mass combat (in the same vein as BECMI's War Machine/Siege Machine)
More monsters from 1e and BMCMI
More spells from previous editions
A psionic base class (modeled roughly on 3.5's psion)
Skill challenges
Domains and rulership
Simpler monster math for creating monsters and determining CR/XP (like 4e)
A better armor chart
More weapons
4e's minions
Environment/habitat listings for monsters
Feats seperate from ASIs
4e-style fighters
3e-style familiars (and psi-crystals)


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 3, 2021)

Dausuul said:


> Thanks, I forgot that one in my response! Yes, minions definitely should make a comeback in some form. They were awesome, especially when you cranked up their damage output.
> 
> The challenge of doing minions in 5E is that 5E has gone back to the old paradigm of D&D, which is that a monster's stats reflect actual discernible traits of the monster. That is, if an ogre has 1 hit point, it tells you something about that ogre--she's badly injured, or physically very frail, or something like that. This was not true in 4E, where a monster could have 1 hit point simply because its job in the adventure was to be an easily-slain mook. The same ogre could be a solo monster or a minion depending on when and where it was encountered. Trying to apply that model to 5E would provoke a lot of backlash.
> 
> ...



Minios as used in 4e were problematic. 

Rather than being different monsters, monsters could be reduced to minions if you are x level higher. Or tge damage should scale in a way, that minions a tier below don't survive longer than a round or two on average and thus are outright killed by an attack.

For creatures below CR 1, in 5e it is more or less true due to bounded accuracy, but then there are enemys like the thug, who have more than 30 hp for a 1/2 CR  creature. But it has quite low AC. So at least you need a default ability to turn accuracy into damage.


----------



## dave2008 (Oct 3, 2021)

Ancalagon said:


> edit: how can I forget:  Dex not adding to weapon damage.  Dex is WAY too good in 5e.  Also, a way to make int less of a dump stat for many characters.



That would be a good one.  Not likely to happen, but it would be a nice update.


----------



## d24454_modern (Oct 3, 2021)

Professor Murder said:


> Monster templates, just yah know, balanced-ish.



Nah, Templates by nature are for either amping up enemies or making them more narratively interesting. They really don't need to be "balanced".


----------



## d24454_modern (Oct 3, 2021)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Yep!  And there's nothing wrong with that.



Which is why they should bring back Divine Ranks in the game.


----------



## Shardstone (Oct 4, 2021)

@DEFCON 1 is such a gaslighter sometimes. Any problem someone has with 5E you will make sure that the person knows its their fault.


----------



## dave2008 (Oct 4, 2021)

UngeheuerLich said:


> For creatures below CR 1, in 5e it is more or less true due to bounded accuracy, but then there are enemys like the thug, who have more than 30 hp for a 1/2 CR  creature. But it has quite low AC. So at least you need a default ability to turn accuracy into damage.



Something like: -5 to hit = +10 damage?


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 4, 2021)

dave2008 said:


> Something like: -5 to hit = +10 damage?



Yes... good Idea... this should be generally available to everyone.


----------



## Helpful NPC Thom (Oct 4, 2021)

Umbran said:


> Because, personal experience is the limit to what happens?



Snark is unseemly.

If 90% of people implement the rules improperly, I'd say there's a problem with the rules. 4e's conceptual design of skill challenges was workable; the presentation was deeply flawed; the numerical balance was iffy. Trying to implement narrative mechanics into D&D has always been more miss than hit because the system's not designed for it.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 4, 2021)

Helpful NPC Thom said:


> Snark is unseemly.
> 
> If 90% of people implement the rules improperly...




So, the point wasn't snark. The point was to _literally_ question the use of personal experience as a measure.

And here, you whip out a 90% number out of nowhere, as if that number is meaningful, or indicative, or anything other than an unfounded assertion.

It is enough to make someone want to be snarky.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 4, 2021)

Shardstone said:


> @DEFCON 1 is such a gaslighter sometimes. Any problem someone has with 5E you will make sure that the person knows its their fault.



Heh heh... or is it actually that any time someone has a problem with 5E, they only have a few choices to actually *solve* their problem... and spending pages upon pages of posts *complaining* about said problem _isn't one of them_.

Solution #1:  You have a problem with the game... then you make up your own rules or find someone else's rules to solve that problem and you add them to your game.

Solution #2:  You have a problem with the game but are unwilling to make up new rules to fix it... then you play the game with the problem still there and you just deal with it.

However, Solution #3:  You have a problem with the game... so you make post after post after post on EN World mentioning that it's a problem and then sometime down the line WotC sees your complaint and then _magically changes the writing in your book_ so the problem no longer exists.... well, I think we all know the odds of that happening. 

Don't get mad at me that you keep thinking if you just talk about what you want a whole lot that WotC will finally have no choice but to give it to you.  That's not how any of this works.


----------



## Helpful NPC Thom (Oct 4, 2021)

Umbran said:


> So, the point wasn't snark. The point was to _literally_ question the use of personal experience as a measure.
> 
> And here, you whip out a 90% number out of nowhere, as if that number is meaningful, or indicative, or anything other than an unfounded assertion.



Nine dentists out of ten recommend not using 4e's skill challenge system. 

I wasn't speaking literally in terms of statistics, but my experience has been similarly frustrating in regards to skill challenges, and I have heard like sentiments shared from other gamers. Anecdotally. The overall critique has to do with "immersion," or what I'd phrase as meta-mechanical transparency (progress clocks work in Blades in the Dark, they feel off in D&D).

There's a usable rules framework in skill challenges. The game needs a hefty chunk of rules text to communicate how to run one properly: appropriate DCs (less important in 5e), successes/failure thresholds, setting appropriate stakes, and a handful of sample skill challenges.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 4, 2021)

Shardstone said:


> @DEFCON 1 is such a gaslighter sometimes.



*Mod Note:*

You just stepped over the line into being personally insulting.  You're done in this thread.


----------



## Nefermandias (Oct 4, 2021)

Professor Murder said:


> So instead of speaking about existing systems that should be altered or removed, how about this question.
> 
> For the upcoming rules refresh/revamp, what rule or system would you like to see return that didn't either appear in 5th ed at all, or is just a shadow of it's former self.
> 
> My vote: 4th ed's skill challenges. Probably still needs some work, but the potential is there.



I am a huge fan of 4e, but I wouldn't like to see Skill Challenges back in the game.

 You see, skills work very differently in 5e. They used to be like buttons to be pushed by the characters, with distinct effects and DCs, now they are a tool for the DM to determine the outcome of an action whenever there's a level of uncertainty.

 I like both approaches, but I would very much like to keep them separate.


----------



## ehren37 (Oct 4, 2021)

Vaalingrade said:


> How so?



I havent played Pathfinder 2, but Tyranny essentially had that and fights got repetitive fast. Every encounter you basically ran through the same script. The system would need to be modified with random elements of some kind - more builders/consumers/reactions, or similar to the book of 9 swords where not all maneuvers are available each round.


----------



## ehren37 (Oct 4, 2021)

3e Binders. So much awesome flavor coupled with interesting mechanics.

The bloodied condition and abilities that triggered off of it.

A return to 4E's monster design, with clear roles for combat (since that's realistically how they'll be used the majority of the time). I had an extra tier of minions (goons) which had a damage threshold based on the creature's tier. Goons died if they took their threshold or more from a single attack. Any damage below it, bloodied the goon. A bloodied goon died if it took any damage, and many bloodied goons would try and flee or surrender. I loathe tracking hit points on "random grunt #4".


----------



## Eltab (Oct 4, 2021)

4e build-a-balanced-monster, plus a description of melee, single-target, and zone attacks which are level appropriate.  Use one (non-iconic) monster as the 'design example'.
In the DMG and a shorter version (modify an existing monster) in the MM.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 5, 2021)

Umbran said:


> And here, you whip out a 90% number out of nowhere, as if that number is meaningful, or indicative, or anything other than an unfounded assertion.




87.13% of such numbers are made up on the fly...


----------



## guachi (Oct 5, 2021)

Shiroiken said:


> War Machine for mass combat. Detailed monster ecology from 2E. Morale checks (1d20 is FAR to random).




Came here to say "War Machine". I still use it as it's not too hard to adapt to 5e. The 2e monster ecologies are good, too.


----------



## Professor Murder (Oct 5, 2021)

Prestige Classes. I know they were busted. But I miss em.


----------



## Professor Murder (Oct 5, 2021)

ehren37 said:


> 3e Binders. So much awesome flavor coupled with interesting mechanics.
> 
> The bloodied condition and abilities that triggered off of it.
> 
> A return to 4E's monster design, with clear roles for combat (since that's realistically how they'll be used the majority of the time). I had an extra tier of minions (goons) which had a damage threshold based on the creature's tier. Goons died if they took their threshold or more from a single attack. Any damage below it, bloodied the goon. A bloodied goon died if it took any damage, and many bloodied goons would try and flee or surrender. I loathe tracking hit points on "random grunt #4".



A very cool idea


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Oct 5, 2021)

Warlords, static defenses, Warlords, some kind of Skill Challenge-like _structure_ for non-combat encounters, Warlords, Prestige Classes, Warlords, the ability to craft magic items, Warlords, a wider variety of feat options, Warlords, oh, and also Warlords.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Oct 5, 2021)

ehren37 said:


> I havent played Pathfinder 2, but Tyranny essentially had that and fights got repetitive fast. Every encounter you basically ran through the same script. The system would need to be modified with random elements of some kind - more builders/consumers/reactions, or similar to the book of 9 swords where not all maneuvers are available each round.



A full rebuild would be much better than keeping the Adventuring Day.


----------



## Greg K (Oct 5, 2021)

Henadic Theologian said:


> Mearls has mentioned the possiblity of a Shaman class.



Yeah, but he also said it would be heavily influenced by the WoW Shaman


----------



## Mind of tempest (Oct 5, 2021)

Greg K said:


> Yeah, but he also said it would be heavily influenced by the WoW Shaman



mechanically or thematically?


----------



## Greg K (Oct 5, 2021)

Mind of tempest said:


> mechanically or thematically?



I don't remember. Either, imo, is poor


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 5, 2021)

Umbran said:


> So, the point wasn't snark. The point was to _literally_ question the use of personal experience as a measure.
> 
> And here, you whip out a 90% number out of nowhere, as if that number is meaningful, or indicative, or anything other than an unfounded assertion.



I don't disagree that the 90% number is a totally unfounded assertion. But unless you've done some market research you haven't mentioned, you can't produce a number with any more foundation. Neither can I. If all posts have to be backed up by hard data, hardly anyone on this forum can say anything at all.

So what's that leave? Personal experience. It's the only thing any of us can bring to the table in this discussion. I can't say what the market prefers or what the general experience is--but I can say what _I _prefer, based on _my_ experiences. And that's what I did say (and made a point of explicitly limiting my statements to that).


----------



## Mind of tempest (Oct 5, 2021)

Greg K said:


> I don't remember. Either, imo, is poor



explain why as I was too young to ever care about WoW?


----------



## Greg K (Oct 5, 2021)

Mind of tempest said:


> explain why as I was too young to ever care about WoW?



Research shamans (in the general sense) in a good Antropology of Religion text or from reliable sites (and not just about "shamans" of indigenous North American cultures (which themselves are very diverse).   Then look up a description of the WoW Shaman.


----------



## Mind of tempest (Oct 5, 2021)

Greg K said:


> Research shamans (in the general sense) in a good Antropology of Religion text or from reliable sites (and not just about "shamans" of indigenous North American cultures (which themselves are very diverse).   Then look up a description of the WoW Shaman.



I am coming down with depression can you not give me a research assignment, I get that it is offensive but beyond the mind-meltingly apparent what is wrong with it mechanically?


----------



## Umbran (Oct 5, 2021)

Dausuul said:


> But unless you've done some market research you haven't mentioned, you can't produce a number with any more foundation.




I didn't claim I could.

There's a pretty big point to be made about how we make these unfounded assertions to support that our opinion is stronger, in the majority, or otherwise "right".  I'm saying that's not a great idea.  I'm saying that we should learn to live and work with the uncertainty, rather than try to assert it out of existence.

If your point is really that awesome, you shouldn't need a phony statistic to make it look good.  It should be obviously good on its own merits, rather than need fictitious appeal to the masses to give it heft.

If you can't make it look that good, maybe your point isn't as universal as you want it to be.


----------



## Greg K (Oct 5, 2021)

Mind of tempest said:


> I am coming down with depression can you not give me a research assignment, I get that it is offensive but beyond the mind-meltingly apparent what is wrong with it mechanically?



Sorry about your depression. However, I have a migraine and am not going to take the time to explain it. Maybe, at another time. The best that I can do is say that Steve Kenson in Green Ronin's Shaman's Handbook for 3e (a variant of the cleric) and Michael Wolf's free version for 5e (a variant of the Warlock) on Dungeon Masters Guild are two different mechanical takes that do a pretty good job of a shaman for D&D (Edit: I do prefer the former as it covers different types of "shamans" and does a fairly good look at the topic)


----------



## Nefermandias (Oct 5, 2021)

Fourth edition has a Shaman base class. A primal healer who communes with spirits. It shouldn't be hard to bring it into 5e.


----------



## Mind of tempest (Oct 5, 2021)

Greg K said:


> Sorry about your depression. However, I have a migraine and am not going to take the time to explain it. Maybe, at another time. The best that I can do is say that Steve Kenson in Green Ronin's Shaman's Handbook for 3e (a variant of the cleric) and Michael Wolf's free version for 5e (a variant of the Warlock) on Dungeon Masters Guild are two different mechanical takes that do a pretty good job of a shaman for D&D (Edit: I do prefer the former as it covers different types of "shamans" and does a fairly good look at the topic)



thank you


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 5, 2021)

Umbran said:


> I didn't claim I could.
> 
> There's a pretty big point to be made about how we make these unfounded assertions to support that our opinion is stronger, in the majority, or otherwise "right".  I'm saying that's not a great idea.  I'm saying that we should learn to live and work with the uncertainty, rather than try to assert it out of existence.



I agree that made-up statistics are silly (I am not the one who posted the 90% thing); but if you're going to complain about people basing their posts entirely on personal experience, and real statistics aren't available, then made-up statistics is the only thing left.

I guess I'll just go back to your earlier post, where you said "Because, personal experience is the limit to what happens?" and reply "What else you got?"


----------



## Greg K (Oct 5, 2021)

Nefermandias said:


> Fourth edition has a Shaman base class. A primal healer who communes with spirits. It shouldn't be hard to bring it into 5e.



Where 4e failed, imo, was that a) Spirit Companion, iirc, focused on totems and  ignored other types of spirit companions such as ancestral spirit and  spirits of land (Including lakes, mountains, etc); b) the spirit companions were also to prescriptive for my tastes. For instance, in some cultures, Snake is a healing spirit, but we get only Bear. This is why I preferred Green Ronin's handling of a Shaman class- it essentially received Cleric Domains and gave examples of spirits that were appropriate for each Domain.


----------



## Mind of tempest (Oct 5, 2021)

Greg K said:


> Where 4e failed, imo, was that a) Spirit Companion, iirc, focused on totems and  ignored other types of spirit companions such as ancestral spirit and  spirits of land (Including lakes, mountains, etc); b) the spirit companions were also to prescriptive for my tastes. For instance, in some cultures, Snake is a healing spirit, but we get only Bear. This is why I preferred Green Ronin's handling of a Shaman class- it essentially received Cleric Domains and gave examples of spirits that were appropriate for each Domain.



assuming it is a full class then it would not have that problem in 5e or at least as much.


----------



## Stalker0 (Oct 8, 2021)

I’ll add another vote for the old morale rules. They are elegant in their simplicity and help to standardize monster tactics (undead fight until death, kobolds will disengage from a fight quick).

it really highlights that most monsters are not suicidal


----------



## Vaalingrade (Oct 8, 2021)

Dausuul said:


> I agree that made-up statistics are silly (I am not the one who posted the 90% thing); but if you're going to complain about people basing their posts entirely on personal experience, and real statistics aren't available, then made-up statistics is the only thing left.
> 
> I guess I'll just go back to your earlier post, where you said "Because, personal experience is the limit to what happens?" and reply "What else you got?"



Maybe if you don't have any evidence other than anecdotal just don't present your opinion as fact?


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 8, 2021)

Vaalingrade said:


> Maybe if you don't have any evidence other than anecdotal just don't present your opinion as fact?



I didn't. In fact I repeatedly emphasized "in my experience" in my posts. Those were the posts that got the "So personal experience is the limit to what happens?" reply.


----------



## Greg K (Oct 8, 2021)

Mind of tempest said:


> assuming it is a full class then it would not have that problem in 5e or at least as much.



I don't know. Some of those issues that I mentioned exist in the Circle of the Shepherd subclass for the druid (including the emphasis on Totems).


----------



## Mind of tempest (Oct 8, 2021)

Greg K said:


> I don't know. Some of those issues that I mentioned exist in the Circle of the Shepherd subclass for the druid (including the emphasis on Totems).



well, it is going to need at least one unique mechanic what would you rather have instead?


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Oct 11, 2021)

Greg K said:


> Where 4e failed, imo, was that a) Spirit Companion, iirc, focused on totems and  ignored other types of spirit companions such as ancestral spirit and  spirits of land (Including lakes, mountains, etc); b) the spirit companions were also to prescriptive for my tastes. For instance, in some cultures, Snake is a healing spirit, but we get only Bear. This is why I preferred Green Ronin's handling of a Shaman class- it essentially received Cleric Domains and gave examples of spirits that were appropriate for each Domain.



They actually did add an elementalist shaman subclass with the Dark Sun Campaign Setting (Aug 2010) and a World Speaker subclass in Primal Power  (Oct 2009), when the Shaman class itself only launched in Mar 2009. So within a year and a half, they _did_ add pretty much what you're asking for. And even the PHB2, where it launched, has powers specifically for calling on ancestor-spirits rather than animal or abstract ones.

Plus, 4e was super huge on reskinning, so like...why _couldn't_ you say your Protector spirit was a snake, or a Set animal, or whatever else? I legit don't understand why it's necessary to have Snake be its own spirit with distinct mechanics. Just declare its appearance and you're good. It's literally no different than declaring your character's height or weight--_theoretically_ it has mechanical merit, but _practically_ it's purely up to you as contextual flavor.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 11, 2021)

Dragon Magazine...._in print_.

And especially SnarfQuest.

Wrapped in brown mailing paper, so I can just raise my eyebrows conspiratorially to my non-gaming friends and they'll think I have something illicit.


----------



## Greg Benage (Oct 11, 2021)

Another vote for scarier undead. Rework the exhaustion system and use it for enervation. Like @Sacrosanct I don't think level drain is worth the bookkeeping, but enervation should suck bad enough that you really want to avoid it.


----------

