# What could OneD&D to bring YOU back to D&D? (+)



## Retreater (Dec 22, 2022)

Let's take a break, if for only one thread, from discussing corporate policies, the fears about the OGL changing, and monetization. I think what has brought most of us to this forum is a love of the hobby and (more than likely at some point) a love of D&D.
Not gonna lie, I'm burned out on 5e as a rules set. I think that's why I've been down so much on the playtests and direction of OneD&D - it's not changing enough to revitalize my interest. 
When I saw the previews for 3.0, 4e, and 5e, each was different enough from its direct predecessors that I got excited for the changes. I don't feel the same way about OneD&D, even though I still get excited about new games from other publishers.
If you're a lapsed player - or simply a burned-out one like me - what would you like to see to get you excited?


----------



## Shades of Eternity (Dec 22, 2022)

the warlord for starters.


----------



## delericho (Dec 22, 2022)

Retreater said:


> If you're a lapsed player - or simply a burned-out one like me - what would you like to see to get you excited?




I honestly don't know. A new setting, maybe - but it would need to be something _genuinely_ new, and even then I'm not really in the market for a new setting so may well just ignore it.

I do know I'm no longer interested in their adventures, updates of classic settings (or Magic settings), or rules supplements. And the more I hear about their new core rulebooks, the less I like. 



Retreater said:


> I think what has brought most of us to this forum is a love of the hobby and (more than likely at some point) a love of D&D.




I used to love the game. I don't any more.


----------



## thullgrim (Dec 22, 2022)

Honestly probably nothing. I’d rather play 3.5 or Pathfinder (1e) or 4e.   I also have other games I run much more frequently than any D&D such as Savage Worlds, WHFRP 4e. The Savage Pathfinder implementation probably means I’m out on D&D for the foreseeable future.


----------



## payn (Dec 22, 2022)

Adventures like the ones Paizo makes.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Dec 22, 2022)

Encounter-based design

Everyone gets expertises to evade bounded accuracy on at least something the d20 doesn't rule.

Rules, not rulings.


----------



## FrogReaver (Dec 22, 2022)

I want early level thematic character abilities and D&D One seems to be removing thematics in exchange for more streamlining.


----------



## payn (Dec 22, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> I want early level thematic character abilities and D&D One seems to be removing thematics in exchange for more streamlining.



Interesting, what do you mean by thematic? Do you have examples of abilities and mechanics?


----------



## FrogReaver (Dec 22, 2022)

payn said:


> Interesting, what do you mean by thematic? Do you have examples of abilities and mechanics?



Tempest cleric makes a great example. Currently thematic flavor comes at level 1. Can cast thunder wave and shock guys that hit you. Under One those thematics go away till level 3 and even then are greatly reduced due to not having a thematic channel divinity. 

Warlocks will face similar issues. 

Hopefully that helps some.


----------



## MGibster (Dec 22, 2022)

While I've voiced concerns over comments about monetization, WotC hasn't driven me away from One D&D and at this time I still expect to purchase the new edition.  What I'd really like more than anythign else is a really good setting book.  Not an overblown adventure with some setting information in it, but an honest-to-God full blown setting book.


----------



## Yora (Dec 22, 2022)

I don't even care about the specifics of the game.
First WotC would have to clean up their act and do something about their long history of an unpleasant reputation. Then I might be inclined to take a look at what they might actually want to sell.


----------



## Yaarel (Dec 22, 2022)

Yora said:


> I don't even care about the specifics of the game.
> First WotC would have to clean up their act and do something about their long history of an unpleasant reputation. Then I might be inclined to take a look at what they might actually want to sell.



Heh. Maybe you misread the (+) for a (÷) ?


----------



## payn (Dec 22, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> Tempest cleric makes a great example. Currently thematic flavor comes at level 1. Can cast thunder wave and shock guys that hit you. Under One those thematics go away till level 3 and even then are greatly reduced due to not having a thematic channel divinity.
> 
> Warlocks will face similar issues.
> 
> Hopefully that helps some.



It does. I guess its not a removal but a reshuffle to make the levels more uniform across the classes. Id like backgrounds to fill some of this space myself.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn! (Dec 22, 2022)

Change only what is minimally needed to make the game better.


----------



## FrogReaver (Dec 22, 2022)

payn said:


> It does. I guess it’s not a removal but a reshuffle to make the levels more uniform across the classes. Id like backgrounds to fill some of this space myself.



See I’m all for reshuffling and doing all of that but not at the expense of thematics.


----------



## payn (Dec 22, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> See I’m all for reshuffling and doing all of that but not at the expense of thematics.



I mean, the thematics are still there, just pushed to level 3. Or do you see it as a removal?


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn! (Dec 22, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> See I’m all for reshuffling and doing all of that but not at the expense of thematics.



Not sure about 1D&D, but I always thought 5e was set up to deliver thematics at the subclass level. If you want to have thematics at the start, then you just start at third level.


----------



## FrogReaver (Dec 22, 2022)

payn said:


> I mean, the thematics are still there, just pushed to level 3. Or do you see it as a removal?



If I’m at level 1 they aren’t there. If I’m at level 2 they aren’t there. If I’m at level 3 I have less thematic stuff I can do than I do now at level 3. 

I’m Not going to argue about whatever you want to call that.


----------



## FrogReaver (Dec 22, 2022)

Uni-the-Unicorn! said:


> Not sure anbout 1D&D, but I all thought 5e was set up to deliver thematics at the subclass level. If want to thematics at the start, then you just start at third level.



The question was asked about what can be done to draw me to one d&d - a focus on thematics at low level would excite me.

One of my biggest pet peeves has been that EK’s get nothing magical before level 3.  IMO that really hurts there thematic appeal when starting at level 1.


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 22, 2022)

As someone who has been in the game since 1992, and even made academic decisions based on the game, but who saw 5E and went lol nope (but did finish a 6-year long 4E campaign):


Bring back balance without making it boring. No more options intentionally designed to be better, no more avoiding letting non-casters do cool stuff
Avoid making the game about about our heroes the primary casters and their bumbling sidekicks
Make martials fun and badass and flexible
Don't make me buy someone else's adventure to get the new crunch.
Systemize things to maintain consistent math where possible. Ideally, give us the math. It's so annoying having to figure out math for homebrew.
Give tactics more depth. Dazed is a good start.
Use clearer, more exact language. Natural language is terrible.
Stop making DMs make decisions about written rules. Our job is to break rules, not to guess at what they are.

I have a bunch of other wishes and caveats about buying specific things. Campaign settings that aren't balanced with the rest of the game can rot on the shelf, for example.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Dec 22, 2022)

They could start by showing some kind of interest in making TTRPG stuff instead of a lifestyle brand which might sometimes be related to what was once a TTRPG. I feel like half of the time I hear about WotC its about something not-related to stuff we do at the table. 

You need to stop patting yourself on the back because you are trying to be more inclusive (while many other company have done so a long time ago, btw) and start making gaming material that includes your changes! 

System-wise, I'd like a game that really includes the 3 pillars of play and ways to interact with those pillars outside of skill checks and spells.

And dont have spells for every corner cases: spellcasters should not be able to do everything. 

And give me magic that feels like magic, with reference to the recent fantasy tropes, not some niche book from 60 years ago!


----------



## payn (Dec 22, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> If I’m at level 1 they aren’t there. If I’m at level 2 they aren’t there. If I’m at level 3 I have less thematic stuff I can do than I do now at level 3.
> 
> I’m Not going to argue about whatever you want to call that.



Fair enough, the purpose of level 1 and 2 in 5E has long been debated on its purpose. I do see what you mean about the game not really hitting thematic stride until level 3.


----------



## Clint_L (Dec 22, 2022)

Retreater said:


> If you're a lapsed player - or simply a burned-out one like me - what would you like to see to get you excited?



I don't think that should be a primary design goal.

The problem with chasing lapsed players is that they have myriad reasons and a lot of them have little to do with 5e itself. The biggest one is that they got busy. This happened to me and almost all my gaming friends when we hit our 20s, started careers, families, etc. Gaming became a thing you did on occasion and the time investment of RPGs, in particular, became difficult to justify against all the other stuff you had to get done.

There's a reason so many of us started playing much more regularly in the past decade or so: that huge glut of teenagers from the 80s reached a point where devoting the time necessary to maintain a campaign became feasible again. Our kids got older, our job situation more predictable, our finances more secure, etc.

I think a lot of 5e's glut of players is hitting that same age, so that will lead to an inevitable contraction. The way to ameliorate it is to make the game less of a time and money sink, and I think WotC is trying to do this by making it much more digital. DnDBeyond certainly saves me hours each week. But I don't think this will soften the blow that much. People just age out of things.

Another reason players might leave is that they got burned out, like what you describe. Again, I think chasing those players is not a great strategy. Those players are looking for novelty, so in effect you are competing with other games that they could go buy. But if you change D&D so much that it feels as novel to them as Call of Cthulhu or something, you are likely to alienate a much bigger swathe of fans who were happy with the game as it is. That is actually what happened with 4e, which tried to change D&D into a World of Warcraft-style game. That is why WotC are going in exactly the opposite direction with OneD&D.

Another option is to create novel settings for the game. Maybe you can stop some folks from leaving for Call of Cthulhu by offering a Cthulhu-like setting for D&D! But this can be ultimately a trap, as TSR discovered, that leads to fragmenting and cannibalizing your own fanbase. So WotC know that their new settings have to remain close enough that you don't risk turning someone into, say, a Dark Suns player rather than a D&D player.

To be blunt, OP, players leaving because of burnout or for life reasons is inevitable, and WotC have indicated through OneD&D that they aren't really going to chase after those players too hard. They are trying to create a stable brand that can continually attract new, young players while remaining recognizable to those older players who want to return. In particular, chasing players like you who need novelty is a bad idea. They can't be as different as the many other options that are out there for you, nor should they try. There are a ton of great games - play them instead! And they intend to keep D&D waiting for if and when you want to come back.

TLDR: basically, WotC are turning D&D into McDonalds. They've got a formula that works (5e) and they are sticking with it. They will add novelty at the edges of the menu, but ultimately, this is the burger and fries of RPGs. And that means it's not going to work for everyone, because nothing works for everyone. But it works for a lot.


----------



## Retreater (Dec 22, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> I don't think that should be a primary design goal.



I agree. I don't expect WotC to listen to a small subset of players - such as me - at the expense of the enjoyment of a larger group. 
This thought experiment is to help me (and hopefully others) put into words what our hopes are, what we'd like the game to be. And maybe while doing that we can figure out a few things, including:
1) Are there other systems closer to that ideal than 5E or OneD&D?
2) Are there changes we can implement into either version of the game to reach our ideal?
3) Are our desires unreachable? Perhaps we should examine why we're tired of 5E or if we need a break in general?


----------



## Haplo781 (Dec 22, 2022)

"In keeping with the spirit of One D&D, we're opening the DM's Guild and OGL to every edition of D&D, from the 1974 White Box to 4th Edition."


----------



## Clint_L (Dec 22, 2022)

I mean, I've started incorporating _Dread_ directly into my games when I want to keep them really fast-paced and lethal. That certainly shakes things up!


----------



## Pedantic (Dec 22, 2022)

Specific skill DCs. 5e has unfortunately constrained the RNG too far to actually have enough of them, but what I really want is for my players to build characters that can't fail the DC X check to open non-magical locks and then break into everything.


----------



## CleverNickName (Dec 22, 2022)

Nothing...because I never left 5E.  (I probably won't leave it either, from what I've seen so far of OneD&D...but I'm trying to keep an open mind.)

Things I'd like to see, though:

Spell points in the Player's Handbook, even if it's listed as an option.  It's not visible enough in the DMG.
Monster templates, please.  I miss them so much.
Custom lineage (ala _Tasha's_) in the Player's Handbook as well, similar to the 5E Custom Background.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Dec 22, 2022)

Retreater said:


> I agree. I don't expect WotC to listen to a small subset of players - such as me - at the expense of the enjoyment of a larger group.
> This thought experiment is to help me (and hopefully others) put into words what our hopes are, what we'd like the game to be. And maybe while doing that we can figure out a few things, including:
> 1) Are there other systems closer to that ideal than 5E or OneD&D?



May be but do you have the time to explore or the players willing to follow. There is where a club scene is really useful. In that the club is game dedicated not tied to a specific game or genre.


Retreater said:


> 2) Are there changes we can implement into either version of the game to reach our ideal?



Again maybe, it really depends.


Retreater said:


> 3) Are our desires unreachable? Perhaps we should examine why we're tired of 5E or if we need a break in general?



This is the real crux of the issue, why are you tired of the game? To be honest reading your game schedule I am not really surprised it seems a bit relentless. Taking a break can be good. I did it in the noughties. I did not drop out completely in that I played the occasional game, did not DM but continued with wargames and boardgames.


----------



## payn (Dec 22, 2022)

Retreater said:


> I agree. I don't expect WotC to listen to a small subset of players - such as me - at the expense of the enjoyment of a larger group.
> This thought experiment is to help me (and hopefully others) put into words what our hopes are, what we'd like the game to be. And maybe while doing that we can figure out a few things, including:
> 1) Are there other systems closer to that ideal than 5E or OneD&D?



Speaking for myself, I'm a skill system guy. 5E is one of the worst skill systems. Which is a shame because its good in many other areas. Also, the adventure material could be a lot better. Id rather they break down those hardback monstrosities and take the setting info, player options, and adventure material and spread it out. Not asking for the return of monthly releases, but if they want to monetize players more, give them something singular to buy.


Retreater said:


> 2) Are there changes we can implement into either version of the game to reach our ideal?



Sure, but I'm afraid it would make the game a bit more complex. That might move out of the goal of being a causal entry level game. Though, everything is in degrees and oneD&D seems to be taking some steps in an interesting direction. YMMV  


Retreater said:


> 3) Are our desires unreachable? Perhaps we should examine why we're tired of 5E or if we need a break in general?



Had I started with 5E id probably love it. Though, I went from 2E to 3E to Pathfinder. I like that crunchy goodness, and chargen wilderness to play in. 5E is mild in comparison, although has a better running system (I love BA!). Since 5E lacks that player granularity, I rely on a GM selling me on a great campaign. That puts a load of effort on the GM that, IMO, is lightened some with a player option focused system. If the GM is in a rut, or just not that good, I still have my chargen to keep me interested, but not really when it comes to 5E. So great adventures/paths have a higher demand (from me) than previous editions. 

Do I need a break in general? Na. Im a system hopper and mechanical explorer. I wish more folks were. Some, however, are entirely inseparable from the D&D brand. If the books on the table dont say "D&D" on them, they wont play or be satisfied. It's more cultural than mechanical, though the squealing is loud when the mechanics are not to their liking. YMMV.


----------



## FallenRX (Dec 22, 2022)

payn said:


> Adventures like the ones Paizo makes.



god no


----------



## MoonSong (Dec 22, 2022)

To me 5e is a game meant to be low-effort easy-to-teach and easy to find games for. Everybody's second option. As such, I have not much reason to stay with it if a new version shows up. However, the new version has to be worth it. I won't buy a thing if the juice isn't worth the squeeze. What would make me a day one convert?  Having a good sorcerer class for once. If the designers give us a respectful and good rendition of the class, then I will make the switch, if not, I'll go back to my heavily houseruled 3.X and attempt a houseruled 2e with plain 5e for these low-effort times.


----------



## aco175 (Dec 22, 2022)

A few things I would like to see include;

Monster Design.  4e had a great system that allowed for one monster with multiple roles.  A goblin could be a shooter or a caster and not just a front line skirmisher.  It allowed a better encounter builder.  5e has been expanding the roles of monsters as they went along.

Magic Items.  Cool, game breaking items were always part of the game and streamlining or balancing the way things work to make for a low-magic fairness has been boring to me.  I get that the designers want to make class choices and PC development a main focus, but who does not remember their dwarf that eventually got both girdle of giant strength and the dwarven thrower axe.  I do not remember his name, but do remember his coolness.

Gold,  Give me something to spend it on.  Magic- yes please.  Stronghold- yes please.  Followers- yes, yes.  

Adventures.  Make them better.  Not sure.  The last several do not appeal to me as they seem to be something not D&D to me.


----------



## Malmuria (Dec 22, 2022)

Make a rules lite system to accompany their young adventurer's guides


----------



## Gorck (Dec 22, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Heh. Maybe you misread the (+) for a (÷) ?



I'm relatively new to this forum, but I've seen that "(+)" on threads before.  What does it mean?


----------



## Horwath (Dec 22, 2022)

d20 replaced with 3d6.
crit is 5 over DC.


----------



## reelo (Dec 22, 2022)

Honestly? Not much, I think. At least nothing that would find widespread appeal. But I'm fine with that. I have more systems I want to run that I find much more palatable these days. I'm just not WotC's target audience (anymore)

For me to re-embrace official D&D, they'd have to "power down" the whole thing, remove the magic from most of the classes that have magical subclasses, remove feats for all but pure melee classes, and cut down on the number of weird races by at least half. 

I know, I know, I'm old-fashioned, but I'm fully aware of that. I also don't like the current, almost Victorian aesthetic of the artwork. 

Something like "Hyperborea" (formerly AS&SH) or "Castles & Crusades" is much more to my liking, but D&D going that route is highly unlikely. Thankfully, those games already exist, so no hard feelings.


----------



## MoonSong (Dec 22, 2022)

Gorck said:


> I'm relatively new to this forum, but I've seen that "(+)" on threads before.  What does it mean?



It means it is a "plus thread", one where we add to the premise of the thread instead of arguing against it. For example if a thread was "how to reduce wizard into a sorcerer subclass" and the thread was a plus thread, we wouldn't tolerate dissension with the main idea, we'd instead discuss how to best do it.


----------



## Yaarel (Dec 22, 2022)

Gorck said:


> I'm relatively new to this forum, but I've seen that "(+)" on threads before.  What does it mean?



Yeah, the (+) means keep the responses to the Original Post "positive".

The joke was, the (÷) would mean making the responses "divisive".


----------



## HaroldTheHobbit (Dec 22, 2022)

reelo said:


> Honestly? Not much, I think. At least nothing that would find widespread appeal. But I'm fine with that. I have more systems I want to run that I find much more palatable these days. I'm just not WotC's target audience (anymore)



This, and I'm fine with it too. I'm old and have fond memories of older editions, and while I've had fun with 5e too the developments during the last few years is clearly targeting other demographics and consumer groups. OneD&D seem to go even further in that direction, and that's ok - like reelo I have other games to play.


----------



## Clint_L (Dec 22, 2022)

Thinking more on this, one thing OneD&D could do, since they are going to the digital platform, is do a better job of integrating all the adventures so that they can be more easily incorporated across different settings.


----------



## Scribe (Dec 22, 2022)

Gorck said:


> I'm relatively new to this forum, but I've seen that "(+)" on threads before.  What does it mean?



It means we cannot complain, and must contribute to the thread with an assumed positive perspective towards the topic.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn! (Dec 22, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> The question was asked about what can be done to draw me to one d&d - a focus on thematics at low level would excite me.
> 
> One of my biggest pet peeves has been that EK’s get nothing magical before level 3.  IMO that really hurts there thematic appeal when starting at level 1.



Then start at level 3. That is a low level (still within the starting levels of 5e). We start at level 0. The only way to accommodate your taste and mine is to have things come on at different levels. So, the compromise is to have different starting points. If that is case, moving up generally is perceived as simpler.


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Dec 22, 2022)

Only thing that might tempt me back to D&D would be a fantastic Dark Sun book. It's the only D&D setting or lore I've ever liked, and I like it a whole lot.


----------



## FrogReaver (Dec 22, 2022)

Uni-the-Unicorn! said:


> Then start at level 3. That is a low level (still within the starting levels of 5e). We start at level 0. The only way to accommodate your taste and mine is to have things come on at different levels. So, the compromise is to have different starting points. If that is case, moving up generally is perceived as simpler.



1. This is a + thread.
2. I answered what would get me excited about 1 D&D. You don’t have to be excited about the same things I am and in a normal thread I’d be happy to debate you more, but this is a + thread. 
3.  Low level play is my favorite. I especially like levels 1 and 2.


----------



## MoonSong (Dec 22, 2022)

Uni-the-Unicorn! said:


> Then start at level 3. That is a low level (still within the starting levels of 5e). We start at level 0. The only way to accommodate your taste and mine is to have things come on at different levels. So, the compromise is to have different starting points. If that is case, moving up generally is perceived as simpler.



No, sorry no way to compromise. Currently I have the the ability to have my sorcerer act as a cleric replacement - a group's primary healer-  from day one no matter the level.  I'm not willing to give that up.


----------



## Scribe (Dec 23, 2022)

Get us back to kicking in doors, taking loot, using loot on magic items, feats, racial schmorpal (???) feats, add back in ASI, more subclasses...

You know, 3.5/PF1 type stuff!


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Dec 23, 2022)

Shades of Eternity said:


> the warlord for starters.



The continuing lack of the warlord/marshal in 5E is extremely weird, especially as 1D&D would be an ideal time to bring them back and kick the hype train into high gear.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn! (Dec 23, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> 1. This is a + thread.
> 2. I answered what would get me excited about 1 D&D. You don’t have to be excited about the same things I am and in a normal thread I’d be happy to debate you more, but this is a + thread.
> 3.  Low level play is my favorite. I especially like levels 1 and 2.



My bad, i jump around so many threads I forgot where i was


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn! (Dec 23, 2022)

MoonSong said:


> No, sorry no way to compromise. Currently I have the the ability to have my sorcerer act as a cleric replacement - a group's primary healer-  from day one no matter the level.  I'm not willing to give that up.



I have no idea what your talking about; however, compromise is often a good thing


----------



## MoonSong (Dec 23, 2022)

Uni-the-Unicorn! said:


> I have no idea what your talking about; however, compromise is often a good thing



Yeah, I know compromise is good, but this time we have mutually exclusive preferences. Having 1st level be thematically defining for sorcerers is one of the best things about the class, and particularly when it allows them to be healers from first level, it lets me have a sorcerer who is a primary healer no matter the level and assume that role from the beginning.  Losing that means that I no longer can join a game as the primary healer with a sorcerer. If you get what you want I lose what I like. Asking the party to be without a primary healer for two levels only for my sake is a tall order.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Dec 23, 2022)

I really don't think so.  The game I run is Level Up with homebrew and 3PP from a dozen sources, including WotC.  It's not my favorite game ever (that would be any of several OSR games), but it's my compromise edition, and Level Up has the complexity base I want from D&D.

Right now I am monitoring the playtest in case they come up with some ideas I can incorporate, but I can't imagine anything WotC would actually do that would encourage me to spend money on it.


----------



## overgeeked (Dec 23, 2022)

Retreater said:


> If you're a lapsed player - or simply a burned-out one like me - what would you like to see to get you excited?



A proper, working monster creator. Bring back 4E monster design. Bring back balanced classes. Classes and subclasses should feel different, but there shouldn’t be disparity so glaringly obvious it’s visible from space. Remember that it’s a game and the books are technical manuals, so writing clear rules is the primary goal. A proper release of Spelljammer…something more akin to Ravenloft with a big single book of setting, lore, monsters, and adventure seeds…that, you know, contains the rules you need for the setting. A proper release of Dark Sun…with the Ravenloft treatment, not the slipcase nonsense. Or at least a slipcase with a proper full-sized book.


----------



## MNblockhead (Dec 23, 2022)

Make it possible to get third-party publisher material in DDB and whatever VTT they release. 

In terms of the 1D&D rules themselves, I would like more robust subsystems for strongholds, followers, organizations, reputation.  I've homebrewed all of this in using multiple third-party publications for inspiration and it keeps high-level play and long campaigns engaging.


----------



## Horwath (Dec 23, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> The question was asked about what can be done to draw me to one d&d - a focus on thematics at low level would excite me.
> 
> One of my biggest pet peeves has been that EK’s get nothing magical before level 3.  IMO that really hurts there thematic appeal when starting at level 1.



I also dislike this; all subclasses at 3rd level new idea.

All subclasses can be from 1st level.
Abilities can be stretched over 3 levels.

EK can get weapon bond at 1st level. I would add Arcana proficiency to the subclass.

2nd level can be cantrips

3rd level: spellcasting


For 1D&D cleric:

Replace levels for Holy order and Channel divinity:

for subclass:
1st level: bonus spells
2nd level: disciple of life moved here from 3rd level
3rd: level: Preserve life moved here from 6th level
6th level: new ability: Efficient healer: revivify, restoration, raise dead, resurrection, true resurrection do not consume Material components. They are still needed for spell focus.


----------



## Argyle King (Dec 23, 2022)

I think it would need to be a bigger change.

I like 5e. At the same time, the things I would like to see changed so-as to bring the contemporay D&D experience in line with what I want would involve changing aspects of the edition that are central to how it is currently built. 

For example, I want the concepts of Backgrounds to be explored more (and more like how they were during the 5e Playtest and in the PHB). Instead, it appears that 5.1 is moving away from that, in favor of making Backgrounds anther vehicle for feats. 

I actually would like more opportunities to select feats, but I want that to be a part of the normal progression. Yeah, I know many people don't like feats. I understand why, but the game is also trying to sell me on lists of feats while giving me very little opportunity to pick any of them. If feats are meant to be a part of building my character, give me more opportunities to select them as I progress (but not from backgrounds; backgrounds should be something different).

I would also like to have a better understanding of why certain choices are being made for 5.1. I'll admit that I'm older now, so I'm likely not the target audience for the game anymore. However, I often get the impression that the people designing the game aren't actually playing the game they're selling. It's cool to have houserules and do things differently, but I don't fully understand what the mindset is behind some of the errata, changes to how the game works, and so forth; I think part of that is because I'm not seeing eye-to-eye with how the people selling me the product intend me to use the product. 

Sometimes, I feel like I'm standing at the checkout of Home Depot and the cashier is trying to convince me that I should spackle the same way that I caulk because there's a new set of screwdrivers in aisle four.

I'm struggling to understand the direction of the product or why I'm being told to use it in a particular way.


----------



## W'rkncacnter (Dec 23, 2022)

i haven't actually left dnd - i'm in a 5e game right now, in fact - but i've also been playing pf2e recently and i'd be lying if i said i didn't massively prefer it to 5e. even if i were to run a 5e adventure (gears of revolution, for example), i'd probably just use level up instead (i've put far too much money into that thing to not at least use it once...). but we're here...so (ignoring the fact that i hate WOTC and have never - and hopefully will never - buy a single product from them if my life depends on it) let's see...

technically not system related but it would 100% make or break my interest - nix all the predatory crap in the OGL 1.1. full stop. none of this reporting profits or only supporting specific formats crap - let people make content. hell, preferably nix the OGL 1.1 altogether. 1.0a is fine enough.
take a good, hard look at saving throws. they're a disaster right now. the 3 weak/3 strong system sucks, getting proficiency in only 1 of each (whereas in, say, 3.5, it was common to have 2 good saves, which in 5e would be the equivalent of having proficiency in 4 saving throws) sucks, and because of how the game's math works, you WILL get to a point where you LITERALLY _CANNOT_ make saves using 4 OUT OF 6 of your saving throws - half of which are 2 of the 3 major saves in the game. seriously, i've known saving throws weren't in a good spot for a while, but it took me a whole campaign to realize JUST HOW BAD of a spot they're really in. i'd argue it's the most broken system in the entire game (well, the most broken system in the game _that actually properly exists_, anyway).
a proficiency tier system ala pf2e would probably help with this a lot, honestly, even if it's only ever used for saving throws. maybe give out proficiencies in saving throws as if you were x levels/tiers lower then you are? so like rangers are proficient in str/dex saves, then wisdom saves as if they were 1 tier lower (so prof-1 after 5th level), then every other kind of save as if they were 2 tiers lower (i.e. prof-2 after 9th level), or something. that still doesn't do anything about having half the saving throws barely ever show up feel really bad, but...it's a start?

separate ASIs and feats. choosing between a stat increase and actually interesting character features is just a frustrating decision. it adds nothing to the game IMO.
improve skills. there's a lot to do here - give skills more uses (NOT LESS, *ONE DND GRAPPLING.*), define those uses clearly, let us actually get good at using them, evaluate if tools actually need to exist or if they can just be folded back into the skill system...and honestly? give casters fewer skills then martials...like, across the board (bards can be an exception if they really have to be). casters already get tons of utility spells to deal with skill related things - let martials be good at skills to make up for that.
make rules clear and specific. one dnd does seem to be pushing towards this, which is nice.
TELL US WHY YOU DO THINGS. IN THE BOOKS. WRITE THEM DOWN. SHOW US YOUR MATH. why can we not cast leveled spells with our action if we do so as a bonus action? why is concentration so important to maintain? why are there 3 weak and 3 strong saving throws (okay, that one's a trick question - i'm pretty sure WOTC didn't intend that because i've looked at the DNDNext playtests and it was VERY obvious it was a phenomenon that popped up by complete accident, as shown by the fact that bards got proficiency in *intelligence *and *charisma* saves as late as the 10th playtest)? i wanna know these things, because i wanna know when (and if) to break them, and i can't do that effectively if i don't understand why exactly they exist.
finish the systems you write. none of this "well magic items of x rarity are somewhere between 500 and 50000 gp" crap. go big or go home.
...jeez yeah wow no wonder i prefer pf2e.


----------



## TerraDave (Dec 23, 2022)

Avoid creating a digital divide.


----------



## Horwath (Dec 23, 2022)

Have all spells that are published in 5E in 1D&D PHB,
possibly balanced between all 6 saves.


----------



## payn (Dec 23, 2022)

Horwath said:


> Have all spells that are published in 5E in 1D&D PHB,
> possibly balanced between all 6 saves.



I agree. Also, I know folks don't want to hear this, but I think they should examine ability mod to spell DC too. That is part of the imbalance problem as well.


----------



## overgeeked (Dec 23, 2022)

Argyle King said:


> Sometimes, I feel like I'm standing at the checkout of Home Depot and the cashier is trying to convince me that I should spackle the same way that I caulk because there's a new set of screwdrivers in aisle four.
> 
> I'm struggling to understand the direction of the product or why I'm being told to use it in a particular way.



Which, to me, is an odd take. Because when I'm looking at 5E stuff I get no sense whatsoever that they're trying to have an opinion on how the game should be played. Quite the opposite. It's like they took pains to specifically avoid having any opinion at all how the game should be played. It vaguely waves at several disparate styles of play and does none of them well at all. A common refrain about 5E is that it's the 2nd best edition at several things but isn't the best at being anything except popular. It seems to entirely lack any defining identity whatsoever. I wish the game had some specific goal or identity it was pushing. At least then I could like it or dislike it for what it's trying to do. As it stands it seems to only want to be as bland and milquetoast as possible.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Dec 23, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Which, to me, is an odd take. Because when I'm looking at 5E stuff I get no sense whatsoever that they're trying to have an opinion on how the game should be played. Quite the opposite. It's like they took pains to specifically avoid having any opinion at all how the game should be played. It vaguely waves at several disparate styles of play and does none of them well at all. A common refrain about 5E is that it's the 2nd best edition at several things but isn't the best at being anything except popular. It seems to entirely lack any defining identity whatsoever. I wish the game had some specific goal or identity it was pushing. At least then I could like it or dislike it for what it's trying to do. As it stands it seems to only want to be as bland and milquetoast as possible.



The upcoming edition shift does seem to be moving at least a little in a direction.  Not sure if it's toward something or just away from what I'd prefer, but it does seem to be moving.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 23, 2022)

I'm not out as such but looking at buying less/downsizing.

 I don't really need more books as such. They're overpriced book ends atm.


----------



## Argyle King (Dec 23, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Which, to me, is an odd take. Because when I'm looking at 5E stuff I get no sense whatsoever that they're trying to have an opinion on how the game should be played. Quite the opposite. It's like they took pains to specifically avoid having any opinion at all how the game should be played. It vaguely waves at several disparate styles of play and does none of them well at all. A common refrain about 5E is that it's the 2nd best edition at several things but isn't the best at being anything except popular. It seems to entirely lack any defining identity whatsoever. I wish the game had some specific goal or identity it was pushing. At least then I could like it or dislike it for what it's trying to do. As it stands it seems to only want to be as bland and milquetoast as possible.




It could be that my perception is mistaken.

However -from answers to rules questions; what's considered "natural" language and intuitive; choices for how to errata or change something; an so-forth -my perception is that there is a particular way that the folks writing the game see it and use it.

If they do, I get the impression that their way differs greatly from pretty much any group with which I've game. 

Certainly, there is a wide variety of approaches to rpgs. So, that's not unusual. But what sticks out in particular is some of the "fixes" and actual game design (rules errata, design of feats, changes in how the game works going forward) give the impression that I am playing the game very differently than how the people writing and designing it see it working. 

I say that because some of the changes and "fixes" to things go in a direction which I don't feel addresses the underlying issue. So, I'm confused about how some of the improvements are seen as better. 

It would help to understand the ideas behind why those changes are occurring. It's difficult to get excited about 5.1 when I feel as though I don't understand the mentality behind the design direction. 

Occasionally, even when information is put out, I don't even feel like I'm speaking the same language (which has been true during late 4e and during most of 5e). The words being said seem to mean something different to the people saying the things than how I understand them as a listener. 

Maybe that's an issue on my end. Either way, the result is that I have a lot of confusion and uncertainty about the product.


----------



## overgeeked (Dec 23, 2022)

Argyle King said:


> It could be that my perception is mistaken.
> 
> However -from answers to rules questions; what's considered "natural" language and intuitive; choices for how to errata or change something; an so-forth -my perception is that there is a particular way that the folks writing the game see it and use it.
> 
> ...



That's the trouble with "natural" language. It's open to interpretation. The designers meant one thing but instead of flat out saying that they couched it in ambiguous "natural" language, which a lot of people interpret in a lot of different ways...so they have to come in and "fix" things that are due to people interpreting the "natural" language differently than they intended. 

It's a game. It should be designed and written like a game. The rules should be explained like game rules typically are. The fluff can be as flowery and "natural" as they like.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Dec 23, 2022)

Argyle King said:


> It could be that my perception is mistaken.
> 
> However -from answers to rules questions; what's considered "natural" language and intuitive; choices for how to errata or change something; an so-forth -my perception is that there is a particular way that the folks writing the game see it and use it.
> 
> ...



Completely agree.  Some design insights in the books would be very much welcomed.  Doing so when errata is released would also be nice.

One thing about 13th Age I really liked (even though I ultimately fell on the other side of that game) was that they made sure to explain, in the book, why they were making the decisions they were making.  The fact that I didn't agree with most of those decisions was less important than that they justified them to me.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Dec 23, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> That's the trouble with "natural" language. It's open to interpretation. The designers meant one thing but instead of flat out saying that they couched it in ambiguous "natural" language, which a lot of people interpret in a lot of different ways...so they have to come in and "fix" things that are due to people interpreting the "natural" language differently than they intended.
> 
> It's a game. It should be designed and written like a game. The rules should be explained like game rules typically are. The fluff can be as flowery and "natural" as they like.



I understand the appeal, but the trouble with separating lore and mechanics is, IMO, that it makes the mechanics far less interesting to read, which makes them less likely to be read, which defeats the purpose of having them.  And the same thing happens to the lore, as disconnecting it from the rules makes a certain segment of players disregard it entirely.

In the end, the entire product becomes less appealing.


----------



## overgeeked (Dec 23, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> I understand the appeal, but the trouble with separating lore and mechanics is, IMO, that it makes the mechanics far less interesting to read, which makes them less likely to be read, which defeats the purpose of having them.  And the same thing happens to the lore, as disconnecting it from the rules makes a certain segment of players disregard it entirely.
> 
> In the end, the entire product becomes less appealing.



As a counterpoint, most players and DMs don’t bother reading the rules now with their “more engaging” natural language. And many who do bother are confused by the ambiguity of the language. So it’s self-defeating. It’s more interesting, according to you, but if fails at the primary function which is to accurately convey rules information.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Dec 23, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> As a counterpoint, most players and DMs don’t bother reading the rules now with their “more engaging” natural language. And many who do bother are confused by the ambiguity of the language. So it’s self-defeating. It’s more interesting, according to you, but if fails at the primary function which is to accurately convey rules information.



Well, it is just my opinion, but I found the 5e books far more readable than the 4e ones, and that's a big deal to me.


----------



## overgeeked (Dec 23, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Well, it is just my opinion, but I found the 5e books far more readable than the 4e ones, and that's a big deal to me.



Sure. Everyone has their preferences. For me, clearly stated rules in a game book beat all other considerations. I found 4E to be fantastic for that, which made them more readable to me. I also liked the fluff a lot more than 5E. Far more actual lore, inspirational bits and bobs, adventure seeds, immediately useable content, etc.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Dec 23, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Sure. Everyone has their preferences. For me, clearly stated rules in a game book beat all other considerations. I found 4E to be fantastic for that, which made them more readable to me. I also liked the fluff a lot more than 5E. Far more actual lore, inspirational bits and bobs, adventure seeds, immediately useable content, etc.



Totally.  I feel that 2e did a better job with lore on every point you mentioned, for example.  4e lore was ok, but to me I would have preferred it for a different fantasy game.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Dec 24, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> That's the trouble with "natural" language. It's open to interpretation. The designers meant one thing but instead of flat out saying that they couched it in ambiguous "natural" language, which a lot of people interpret in a lot of different ways...so they have to come in and "fix" things that are due to people interpreting the "natural" language differently than they intended.
> 
> It's a game. It should be designed and written like a game. The rules should be explained like game rules typically are. The fluff can be as flowery and "natural" as they like.



I would suspect that 'open for interpretation' is exactly what the designers want, because that way more people can make the rules the way they want it, rather that be beholden to one narrow and niche game play.

With hundreds of RPGs on the market, all catering to very specific people and game styles / genres... D&D is positioned as the big tent. And that's part of the reason why it can be as big as it is... since it can be anything to anybody.

The game right now has rules than can be interpreted as a game like you prefer. Not as airtight as you might want, but is doable. And you can bang them into a better shape for yourself if you feel you need to. But the rules are also open enough that those people who don't want the same sort of airtight mechanics that you want, can hammer them in the way they prefer as well. Again, not perfect... but doable.

And the reason we all do that hammering rather than find and play that one specific game that is 100% what we want is because I think we all actually like the idea of having a wider pool of people to game with. We like the varieties of D&D players we can sit down with and game with and enjoy playing with. That variety is the spice of life, so we swallow whatever distaste we might have for certain D&D styles and gameplay and stay with the game (or a variant of it). After all... we wouldn't all be here on this D&D message board if we didn't want to play it in some form or fashion.


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 24, 2022)

5E's lack of solid rules is one of the reasons I've not wasted my time or money with it. If I'm making my own rules, I don't need to buy broken books.

Homewbrewers can homebrew, but you don't put that responsibility on people and then demand money for it.


----------



## Mistwell (Dec 24, 2022)

I am not at all burned out on 5e. I've still never played a Barbarian, Paladin, Monk, or Warlock beyond a couple sessions. I'm still in two great campaigns per week.

For One D&D to grab me it just needs to be not a horrible disruption to what's already there. And so far the playtest isn't that. It's almost all improvements from what I've seen, though some of the nerfs are irritating. Nothing I've seen in there would turn me away from what I love about 5e. 

As for adventures I actually think they've been doing very well on that front for a while now (with one exception). But I truly would like Greyhawk.


----------



## Mistwell (Dec 24, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> 5E's lack of solid rules is one of the reasons I've not wasted my time or money with it. If I'm making my own rules, I don't need to buy broken books.
> 
> Homewbrewers can homebrew, but you don't put that responsibility on people and then demand money for it.



Man how is this a plus thread with stuff like this? This is not the thread for you. Like, specifically, this isn't the place for this kind of stuff.


----------



## Shades of Eternity (Dec 24, 2022)

honestly, I would do the digital release first and keep it for levels 1-10.

Then once it's run through the basics, it would be easy to expand and/or have the books of a higher quality due to actual play feedback (it's easier to adjust after the fact).

5e currently seems to hit a wall after 10+ and knowing how the rules work before releasing it would help a lot to get high levels playable.


----------



## panny (Dec 24, 2022)

Dark Sun could tempt me back but they'd have to do a bang up job on it.


----------



## MNblockhead (Dec 24, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> 5E's lack of solid rules is one of the reasons I've not wasted my time or money with it. If I'm making my own rules, I don't need to buy broken books.
> 
> Homewbrewers can homebrew, but you don't put that responsibility on people and then demand money for it.



When D&D came out, I played it entirely RAW for a while just so I could get familiar with the rules as they were published before I started playing around with or tweaking them. In fact, I still play almost entirely RAW in the sense that my homebrew is mostly adding on certain down-time subsystems rather than changing any core mechanics. 

My friends and I have enjoyed playing this "broken" game for nearly a decade. 

If the game isn't fun for you to play then absolutely, no reason to buy it. But despite it being amenable to homebrewing, homebrewing is not required to play it.


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 24, 2022)

MNblockhead said:


> When D&D came out, I played it entirely RAW for a while just so I could get familiar with the rules as they were published before I started playing around with or tweaking them. In fact, I still play almost entirely RAW in the sense that my homebrew is mostly adding on certain down-time subsystems rather than changing any core mechanics.
> 
> My friends and I have enjoyed playing this "broken" game for nearly a decade.
> 
> If the game isn't fun for you to play then absolutely, no reason to buy it. But despite it being amenable to homebrewing, homebrewing is not required to play it.



You can play with anything, but there are fully-designed games out there, and I don't feel a need to waste my time and money on a half-baked product where I have to do extra work. If WotC decides to make being a DM obnoxious again, I will continue to contribute to the DM shortage. If they want my money, they need to sell me a product that actually has a RAW in the first place. This goes double for any design I'd do - I don't want to have to guess how the average DM fills in the blanks in the rules to design content for them to use those rules with.


----------



## Tonguez (Dec 24, 2022)

Reduce reliance on magic in all classes (a magic subclass is fine)
Make skills useful
Dont use spells when skills can do fine (eg Alarm - just make it a Skill use)
Use Feats to define Subclass features and let them be swappable.
Just use custom lineage with a series of background/heritage feats
Better monsters, logical CR, a way to add class and roles to creatures
Lairs for all creatures (ie monsters are just one possible component of an encounter)

and bring back Birthright*  (though I’ve been looking the Duchy of Karameikos and thinking how it could be adapted as a domain-based game with PCs as Barons)


----------



## Shades of Eternity (Dec 24, 2022)

Tonguez said:


> Reduce reliance on magic in all classes (a magic subclass is fine)



This right here.

One of my biggest complaints is martial types got put back in the box after being amazing in 4e.

I want rangers that are essentially non magical deepwoods snipers (because robin hood complete with patriot arrow).

I want my warlord giving bonuses and telling people what to do because they are that awesome.





						Why the Warlord should be in 5e Dungeons and Dragons.
					

"When they walk into a room everyone seems to hush, as if expecting a speech. People are enthralled and their size always seems to be bigger...




					breadthofpopsanity.blogspot.com
				




I want to be able to emulate Hercules and/or Bret Hart and wrestle giants to their knees, size limitations be damned.

and I want to play Jackie Chan not wanting any trouble, but juggling random objects and/or step ladders in the way to cheeze off high level spellcasters.

dnd needs to go from a spells based exception game to a condition based exception so it opens opens up options, feels be damned.


----------



## W'rkncacnter (Dec 24, 2022)

Tonguez said:


> Use Feats to define Subclass features and let them be swappable.



i mean...i don't need this, but subclasses as feats would be kinda ballin.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Dec 24, 2022)

Shades of Eternity said:


> This right here.
> 
> One of my biggest complaints is martial types got put back in the box after being amazing in 4e.
> 
> ...



I sadly don't see any chance of WotC doing any of those things, but Level Up handles a lot of them quite well IMO.


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 24, 2022)

For the spells vs. abilities thing, I'd actually really love it if arcane spells often were hacks for wizards to use and enhance the supernatural abilities of creatures. For example, dragonborn breath is its own thing, but a wizard spell can be a spell that lets you create a dragonborn breath attack even if you're an elf, and then supercharges it as appropriate for the level.


----------



## Manbearcat (Dec 24, 2022)

I just don’t see it (my running WotC D&D) as a possibility at this point. I want my D&D to be one of three things:

* 4e

* Torchbearer

* Dungeon World

5e’s core design elements and play paradigm aren’t remotely compatible with any of those three games (each of which are very different games from one another while simultaneously having a few key pieces of kindred design architecture that informs one type of play ethos that they share on their Venn Diagram). WotC made key decisions during mid/late Next that more or less cemented me as firmly outside of their target audience. Which is fine. I’m happy enough to be in or out of their target audience and TTRPGing is as healthy as ever.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 24, 2022)

Shades of Eternity said:


> the warlord for starters.



And psion!


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 25, 2022)

I would like to see settings that are fleshed out to include the entire setting and not a small chunk of it.  Basically setting books similar in quality to the ones 3e put out.


----------



## DarkCrisis (Dec 25, 2022)

Cut HP and damage.  Lose Revivify and multiple saves against one spell/etc.  Toss Death saves.  Ease back on so much healing magic.  Sleep doesn’t fix 90% of issues.

Needs to lose the “easy mode” label that some joking use

And real sourcebooks not an adventure with 2 pages of general lore.


----------



## bedir than (Dec 25, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> wizard spell can be a spell that lets you create a dragonborn breath attack











						Xanathar's Guide to Everything
					

Explore a wealth of new rules options for both players and Dungeon Masters in this supplement for the world’s greatest roleplaying game.




					www.dndbeyond.com


----------



## billd91 (Dec 25, 2022)

Since 5e is what brought me *BACK* to D&D, I want OneD&D to not screw it up by putting a bullet in the golden goose’s head.


----------



## mamba (Dec 25, 2022)

Haplo781 said:


> "In keeping with the spirit of One D&D, we're opening the DM's Guild and OGL to every edition of D&D, from the 1974 White Box to 4th Edition."



I'd have liked to not stop at 4, i.e. I want the official material as PDFs

I don't see leaving D&D and I mostly like what I have seen from OneD&D, looks like a streamlined more consistent and better balanced version to me. What I would be looking for in addition (not expecting to get it however) are


a slower power progression (if the new level 20 is the current level 15 in power, that is fine)
stronger melee (via feats), weaker casters
drop all the new races like dragonborn, tiefling, aasimar, ... and stick to the 'standard' ones (I know, I can do that on my own too, so do not care all that much, but since 'you' asked  )
bring survival more to the front by weakening / removing Darkvision from chars (flight, water breathing etc. I got rid of by removing those races / species already), same for Goodberry, Tiny Hut etc. make them available later (I guess my first point would do that already to a degree) / more expensive


----------



## BlackSeed_Vash (Dec 25, 2022)

Make Intelligence a non-dump stat (excluding those that have it as their casting stat). Let me get extra languages/tool proficiency for each intelligence mod.
Make every Save important (looking at you Intelligence) or revert back to Fortitude, Reflex, Will.
Let martial feel just as epic at high levels as casters.
Pull Classes and Prestige Classes for 3.x - 4e and either make them into a class or archetype.  They can keep psionic archetypes they already made, but make some pure psionic classes.
An actually use for gold.
Crafting rules (magical and mundane) that a player can make use of within the confines of any adventure they sell.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 25, 2022)

Oh, yeah.  They should get rid of play balance around the adventuring day(groups of encounters) and balance around individual encounters instead.


----------



## Yaarel (Dec 25, 2022)

Make eight Abilities.


Strength
Constitution (Fortitude save)


Dexterity
Athletics (Reflex save)


Intelligence
Perception (Perception save)


Charisma
Wisdom (Will save)


----------



## SpaceOtter (Dec 25, 2022)

Very specifically support Theatre of the Mind play with optional rules in the core. Not just ye olde, "Here's a highly specific measurement/distance that you need to eyeball or handwave." but something like zone-based combat. And not tucked away in a little sidebar somewhere, but presented after ye olde specific ranges/distances/areas everywhere where needed, e.g. "Range: 30 ft. (1 zone)" and called out big and bold from the onset as a distinct choice for play.


----------



## Yaarel (Dec 25, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Oh, yeah.  They should get rid of play balance around the adventuring day(groups of encounters) and balance around individual encounters instead.



Is Short Rest scheduling ok?


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 25, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Is Short Rest scheduling ok?



I'm not sure what you mean by that.


----------



## Yaarel (Dec 25, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by that.



Short Rest ≈ per Encounter

... to design around


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 25, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Short Rest ≈ per Encounter
> 
> ... to design around



I don't like encounter powers. They're too artificial.  I'd much rather do something like proficiency times per day, which is better.


----------



## Yaarel (Dec 25, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> I don't like encounter powers. They're too artificial.  I'd much rather do something like proficiency times per day, which is better.



How would pro per day be, "balance around individual encounters instead"?


----------



## Argyle King (Dec 25, 2022)

I don't mind "natural language."

But, if used, it should actually be natural language. 

Example: There exists a plethora of unnatural rules distinctions between melee attacks, unarmed strikes, and the attacks (bites, horns, and etc) of an animal. 

I do believe that 4E had a pretty good layout for rules. There is plenty of viable middle ground between prose and technical writing.

Also, better indices in the books would help a lot.


----------



## Strider1973 (Dec 25, 2022)

Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition is still one of my favourite game systems, together with a bunch of other systems, but in my personal top chart it has lost the pole position, so to speak.
Here is my initial wish list for One D&D:

I'd like a more refined and detailed Skill System, and Proficiency Bonus System, event if I know it won't happen, since it would cause some serious issues about backwards compatibility. I like for instance what PF2 has done with the Proficiency System (I don't recall the exact name, now), and I like also what Level Up! Advanced 5th edition has done with Skill Specialties. I'd like One D&D made a step in that direction, even simply looking at Skill Specialties as inspiration (no pun intended...): I would like there were more ways to customize your characters without recurring to martial abilities or spells you can cast.
Better rules for Half Races, or rather Hybrid Species now: please, WotC, look at what Level Up! Advanced Fifth Edition has done, or even again PF2; even on DMs Guild there are excellent third party books for Hybrid Species. Please, WotC, put more crunch and more flavor as well into Hybrid Species!
I'd like also a series of "official" optional rules to tone down the magic in the game, so that the players would be able to play different kind and styles of fantasy, not necessarily High Fantasy: magic is really too much mundane in 5th edtion, and it seems to me it will be even more so in One D&D!
I'd like a more reliable CR/Balancing Encounter System: again, according to me both PF2 and Level Up! Advanced Fifth Edition have done a better job at creating a more consistent and reliable System to create encounters as difficult or easy as the GM/DM wants them to be than D&D 5th Edition has done, even with the improvement in Xanathar's Guide to Everything.
Merry Christmas and Happy life and Happy New Year to you and to all your dear ones, and Peace to the Whole World!


----------



## Sabathius42 (Dec 25, 2022)

I really liked the base design of 5e, but I er the years the lack of interesting new rules content to explore has led me to feel that it got stale.  More subclasses is great but doesn't work for me the same as more base classes with unique mechanics would.

Ultimately though what would bring me back would be a change in focus to release books with rules content for every table, not hybrid setting/adventure/rules books that I can only use small bits and pieces of.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 25, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> How would pro per day be, "balance around individual encounters instead"?



Short rest abilities are only the tip of the iceberg.  The game right now is balanced around hit point attrition and the abilities reflect that.  They would have to be changes such that hit points aren't what the game revolves around.  

Much of the game is about healing or mitigating damage and slow attrition of hit points and those abilities.  If you look at 1e-3e, while hit points were good, the game wasn't balanced around them. In a different model you can have an ability that is used proficiency times per day and still be balanced per encounter rather than the adventuring day.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 26, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> You can play with anything, but there are fully-designed games out there, and I don't feel a need to waste my time and money on a half-baked product where I have to do extra work. If WotC decides to make being a DM obnoxious again, I will continue to contribute to the DM shortage. If they want my money, they need to sell me a product that actually has a RAW in the first place. This goes double for any design I'd do - I don't want to have to guess how the average DM fills in the blanks in the rules to design content for them to use those rules with.




*Mod Note:*
While the OP is perhaps setting up such an issue, can you please stop using a (+) thread as a general dumping ground for your dislikes?  Thanks.


----------



## Warpiglet-7 (Dec 26, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> 1. This is a + thread.
> 2. I answered what would get me excited about 1 D&D. You don’t have to be excited about the same things I am and in a normal thread I’d be happy to debate you more, but this is a + thread.
> 3.  Low level play is my favorite. I especially like levels 1 and 2.



I try to take magic initiate…I like be able to use a cantrip attack here or there to show I am no mere fighter…

A feat early is surely one reasons I often take variant human of course


----------



## pogre (Dec 26, 2022)

Retreater said:


> If you're a lapsed player - or simply a burned-out one like me - what would you like to see to get you excited?




I still run some 5e, but the thing that would get me to jump to 1D&D would be a massive adventure campaign going from level 1 to 20.

I am fully aware I am very much on the minority on this one


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 26, 2022)

pogre said:


> I still run some 5e, but the thing that would get me to jump to 1D&D would be a massive adventure campaign going from level 1 to 20.
> 
> I am fully aware I am very much on the minority on this one



Something like a double-length Curse of Strahd?


----------



## Campbell (Dec 26, 2022)

Smaller, less linear scenario design.
Stronger support for exploration and social pillars, particularly for non-spellcasters.
 Tighter math.
More compelling and dynamic monster design.


----------



## pogre (Dec 26, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> Something like a double-length Curse of Strahd?



Yes, would not have to be Ravenloft _per se_, but something huge and immersive.

I am also one of those oddballs that enjoys running high level games.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 27, 2022)

Nothing. To quote Mr Darcy, "My good opinion, once lost, is lost forever." 6e (I refuse to dignify the obviously disingenuous notion that OneD&D isn't a new edition by calling it that) is clearly heading in a different direction than I have any interest in, but I've already bailed on D&D twice now, and I can't imagine that I'd come back to the normal, regular game. I've found my Holy Grail system, and it ain't D&D anymore.

If they do something so interesting that I want to buy it just to read it academically, that could happen, I guess. If they do something with the brand _outside of the game itself_ that is interesting enough to hold my interest, that could do it. I don't know what those things are, but I can imagine them existing, at least. If they started publishing really good novels again, or something, or had a really good computer/console game, or a decent streaming show, or something. I could get into those if they weren't hot garbage, but I'd be very skeptical that they wouldn't be. I'm even going to give the movie a chance to win me over, in spite of loads of red flags in the trailers so far.

But I won't play 6e, certainly. I didn't play much 1e, absolutely no 2e, or 4e, or 5e, and all of those did things that I really liked (along with a lot of things that I didn't, to be fair.) Honestly, I'm still salty that 3e turned into 3.5, even though I acknowledge that 3.5 was better than 3e once all was said and done, and I did buy a lot of 3.5 splatbooks. After a while, though, I was just buying them to read them and had little interest in actually using them. And after some time, I didn't even like the 3e premise of the rules very much anyway.

And I guess I could conceivably come back for a really great game with really great friends, regardless of the rules, but that's nothing that WotC can provide.

EDIT: I'd conceivably have a look at another new campaign setting, if it isn't janky. I know it probably didn't really do what WotC hoped it would, but I liked both the idea of Eberron, and its execution, and frankly, I really liked the idea of how they came around to selecting it. I submitted two campaign briefs myself, along with thousands of others, but that made me more excited about the game than anything before or since.

Even if I think that the premise of Eberron, ironically, is held back by being too tightly wed to being D&D.

And I'd be interested in modular stuff. Y'know, stuff that would be useful regardless of what system you play. I'd look at that, just for curiosity's sake, if nothing else.


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 27, 2022)

pogre said:


> Yes, would not have to be Ravenloft _per se_, but something huge and immersive.
> 
> I am also one of those oddballs that enjoys running high level games.



As much as I'm a purist about running my own adventures, I might pick something like that up just to learn from it. Solid chance I'd learn some new tricks from something on that scale. It would also be nice to see high-level play become more commonplace.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Dec 27, 2022)

Retreater said:


> Not gonna lie, I'm burned out on 5e as a rules set. I think that's why I've been down so much on the playtests and direction of OneD&D - it's not changing enough to revitalize my interest.
> When I saw the previews for 3.0, 4e, and 5e, each was different enough from its direct predecessors that I got excited for the changes. I don't feel the same way about OneD&D, even though I still get excited about new games from other publishers.
> If you're a lapsed player - or simply a burned-out one like me - what would you like to see to get you excited?



I am a player right now but have been a DM 90% of my just shy of 30 years gameing. 5e has not been my favorite game. I am VERY burnt out on it. My group has 'settled' for 5e being the 1 game we can all agree on, even though it is none of our favorites. 

What I want is 4e style game with 5e streamlined ideas with 2e HP... I am sure I am not getting that.

What it would take is enough new stuff for us to say this is different, without making it too much different. Yeah so almost impossible.


----------



## mamba (Dec 27, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> My group has 'settled' for 5e being the 1 game we can all agree on, even though it is none of our favorites.



If you end up playing 5e, it did something right that those others didn’t… I am actually surprised you do not alternate systems instead


GMforPowergamers said:


> What I want is 4e style game with 5e streamlined ideas with 2e HP... I am sure I am not getting that.



pretty sure too


GMforPowergamers said:


> What it would take is enough new stuff for us to say this is different, without making it too much different. Yeah so almost impossible.



isn’t that basically what they are aiming for? Or does it fall on the ‘not different enough’ side for you?


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Dec 28, 2022)

So I could make a lot of claims about what would bring me back as a DM, but if I'm really honest it's going to come down solely to to two or three things:

1) *Make my life as a DM easier in terms of prep.*

5E is one of the prep-heaviest modern RPGs, because you've got encounters (which should be balanced), NPCs (who don't have a great shorthand method), situations (with a real lack of generic systems to support that), traps, treasure/loot, and any monsters that are novel require a lot of effort to put together (unlike, in say, 4E's DDI where I could slap together a novel monster in _literally_ 5 minutes - and it would work, mathematically and tactically).

There's an absolute ton that could be improved here. I'm happy to use digital tools for some of the improvement, but stuff like Beyond's tools are either very poorly designed, or intentionally mis-designed. Specifically Beyond has an encounter builder - good - but that encounter builder has absolutely no easy way to exclude monsters you don't own - extremely bad. Every time you use the builder, you have to click 20+ times to select the sources you want, in annoying drop that sometimes clears itself. Beyond knows what books you own. Beyond knows what monsters you have. But because they have a conflict of interest, in that they want to "advertise" other monsters so you'll either buy them via microtransactions or buy the books they're in, it's never been a priority to fix this.

This is the sort of thing that should be a high priority for Beyond to fix if they're serious about making DM's lives easier. DMs finding a tool easy to use should be more important than extracting the the absolute max money from a few people who are impulsive enough to buy stuff that way.

And that's one example of many.

2) *Do better on art. Much better.*

5E's original art is okay, but there are very few stunning pieces. This is not true for MtG, even though it's own by the same company, and it's always hilarious to see the massive quality disparity when they put MtG art in D&D products.

I'd also like to see better writing, and more of it, but this is more variable. 5E has some good writing at least. A lot of RPGs do far better, especially these days, though.

So I think those are the biggest two, but close behind:

3) *Settings I'm actually excited about/want to run.*

This doesn't have to be bringing back older settings. What it does have to be is settings that are exciting, have something to say, and are presented in a really cool way. It also means not bringing out setting books where the actual setting is, quite literally, 10-20% of what's in the book, and claiming those are settings. They're not. They're adventures/campaigns with a certain amount of setting attached. Give me an actual setting I can chew on, and get loads of cool ideas from, and that excites me about D&D again.

When D&D lost me the first time, in the 1990s, that's how it got me back - Planescape - it was too exciting not to run it. When it lost me the second time, with 3.5E, it was mechanics that got me back because 4E was too interesting not to try, but from what we know of 1D&D that's already off the table, so settings are going to matter more.

At this point, I'd rather see new settings than revived ones, I think.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Dec 28, 2022)

mamba said:


> isn’t that basically what they are aiming for? Or does it fall on the ‘not different enough’ side for you?



I can't speak for @GMforPowergamers but I can certainly say that so far 1D&D doesn't yet seem to be addressing _any_ of the fundamental issues 5E has, and indeed is seemingly doubling down on some of the worst - it appears that they're going to keep the Short Rest class vs Long Rest class divide/power gap, for example.

The fact that they're recommitted to the "popularity contest" approach to rules design after seemingly moving away doesn't bode well here. Especially most people fear change, even when it's positive. I mean, had 3E gone "popularity contest", I have little doubt we'd have still seen race/class restrictions, for example. Even though once they were gone that proved a very popular move.

Still, they've got years yet. Let's hope some future packets are more daring.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Dec 28, 2022)

mamba said:


> If you end up playing 5e, it did something right that those others didn’t… I am actually surprised you do not alternate systems instead



not really Tuesday night there are 6 of us (5 players and a DM) and Saturday there are 4 of us (1 DM and 3 players) (and in theory we have a 1/month game but it has been 8 sessions in 14 months and non in January so I'm not counting it for this)

2 of us (myself and my oldest friend) over lap the groups so right now we have 8 of us.

3 of us want to play 4e more as 1st pref (of the 3 of us 2 want Savage world as 3rd choice and 1 wants WoD as 3rd choice)
2 of us want to play 3.5 (or pathfinder 1) more as a 1st pret (of them one wants to play WoD as 2nd choice and Mutants and Masterminds as 3rd other wants to play Torg as 2nd choice or Rifts as third (would put up with savage world but really wants original))
1 of us (is insane) and wants 2eD&D as 1st pref and Rifts (original only) as second and Torg as 3rd
1 of us wants to play any WoD or Superhero game most but would settle for 4e D&D.... never actually wants to rank an order
1 of us wants to play 5e most (only 1 but he started in 5e) and would do 4e as second choice and wont play a non D&D game but MIGHT consider pathfinder 2e, but no one else even has looked at it.

Now the fun part were we MIGHT try other systems again is World of Darkness... because the 3 of us that want 4e/savagworld/WoD and 1 of the 2 that wants 3.5/Wod/M&M make up the Saturday group... SO world of darkness is actually higher on the list and was what we were playing before covid... it was only that 5e D&D is easier on roll20 that moved us, BUT I have been experimenting and have a pitch for a 1930's VtM and a 2023 MtA useng the 20th anneversary rules... so maybe.

5e is only 1 persons favorite edition (funny enough the guy who is trying to run the 1/month that never happens)
other possibilities are Rifts and Torg but for the most part there are people with hard limits (major dislike) of each.

I tried to bring up Moruss's 5e variant as an advanced 5e and it was shot down as no one wanting to learn another 3rd pary system.


mamba said:


> pretty sure too






mamba said:


> isn’t that basically what they are aiming for? Or does it fall on the ‘not different enough’ side for you?



We don't know... this is why we are on the fense. Some of what we see we like some we don't. As for where it will land I don't know.
In general the idea that they wont address the systematic issue with caster/noncaster imbalance (that we feel, and we are not alone, is there)or the HP inflation that 3e 4e and 5e all have make me worry. We also disliked (and it seemed we were not alone) the auto pass on a 20 auto fail on a 1) and the new spell prep/list system. BUT we like the new ranger (except the spell thing) and the bard (although we don't understand why the change from song of rest). We really want a warlord and we are scared to see what the warrior options and wizard options will look like.   Since right now Hexblade warlock is our Most played class across all games what they do with that will ALSO infulence us.



Ruin Explorer said:


> I can't speak for @GMforPowergamers but I can certainly say that so far 1D&D doesn't yet seem to be addressing _any_ of the fundamental issues 5E has, and indeed is seemingly doubling down on some of the worst - it appears that they're going to keep the Short Rest class vs Long Rest class divide/power gap, for example.



yes, that is part of it. I also feel that having too many things that go off "Prof x per day" instead of off a short rest is a major flaw being introduced (yes it is already showin up in 5e). My blade singer right now has 2 things that run off it.


Ruin Explorer said:


> The fact that they're recommitted to the "popularity contest" approach to rules design after seemingly moving away doesn't bode well here.



yeah, I worry if enough people that want change are just throwing there hands up... of the 8 of us (plus 3 others I know IRL) 5 of us did the 1st survey and as of today only me and 1 other did the most resent... with 1 other saying 'they would when they have the time'


Ruin Explorer said:


> Especially most people fear change, even when it's positive. I mean, had 3E gone "popularity contest", I have little doubt we'd have still seen race/class restrictions, for example. Even though once they were gone that proved a very popular move.



there is an old adage about customers not knowing what they want.


Ruin Explorer said:


> Still, they've got years yet. Let's hope some future packets are more daring.



again we are paying attention and have a group text where we discuss changes even with lapsed players (the group text is 13 of us including only 7 of the 8 above I play with because the crazy guy that wants to play 2e or original rifts doesn't have a smart phone and doesn't like texting on his old flip phone)


Edit: as part of trying to keep our group together as much as possible back around 5e coming out we all made 'top 10' lists (with 1 exception for not wanting to rank and 1 expectation for joined right after this) and 5e was around the 5th or 6th spot on everyones list. Nobody HATES 5e, but none of us LOVE 5e.

Edit2: my most up to date top 10 is


Spoiler: top 10 games I want to run/play



1) 4eD&D
2) Savage Worlds Rifts
3) Savage Worlds Deadlands
4) Mage the Ascension
5) Vampire the Masquerade
6) 5eD&D
7) Werewolf the apocalypse
8) DCU (using the Mutants and masterminds version of the book)
9) Torg Eternal 
10) Star Wars d6 system

with honorable mentions to original Deadlands, original Rifts, 2e D&D and d6 DCU... and maybe outside chance Mutants and Masterminds 2e.

Never want to do again: Pathfinder 1e, D&D3e/3.5 Starwars d20 Starwars saga (although of all my dislikes it is the least) new world of darkness (so Mage the Awakening, Vampire the Requiam ect... with a carve out for Prometheon... I MIGHT be able to be convinced to play but not run prometheon)  
this has changed since the original list, Mage and Vampire switched places and TORG Eternal got added pushing d6 starwars down and that removed my old #10 Original Rifts


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Dec 28, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> As someone who has been in the game since 1992, and even made academic decisions based on the game, but who saw 5E and went lol nope (but did finish a 6-year long 4E campaign):
> 
> 
> Bring back balance without making it boring. No more options intentionally designed to be better, no more avoiding letting non-casters do cool stuff
> ...



where I indurce this 100% I am not sure that my group all would...


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Dec 28, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> Nobody HATES 5e, but none of us LOVE 5e.



Yeah that's where most of us are at, at this point. If it wasn't for 5E's vast support system (VTTs, Beyond, 3PPs, etc.) and the fact that we've all been playing D&D on and off for 30+ years I don't think it'd have much of a chance.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Dec 28, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> Yeah that's where most of us are at, at this point. If it wasn't for 5E's vast support system (VTTs, Beyond, 3PPs, etc.) and the fact that we've all been playing D&D on and off for 30+ years I don't think it'd have much of a chance.



The only people I find that love 5e are new players... BUT even they have a habit of stretching out and finding other systems (not normally other editions of D&D but that isn't never) they like more... and like my experience most find that others in there groups like different things better. 

At the game shop that closed right before covid lock downs I had introduced a woman to 5e, and she ended up DMing for the first year of covid online, and then she got her group back in person... and she wanted to use Fate, and another wanted to use Essence?(I might have that name wrong) and another wanted to use Fudge (that I though that and Fate were the same shows what I know) and 2 wanted to stick with D*D... so they all stuck to D&D until her group fell apart only about a month ago. She is now trying to get a Fate group together with very little luck, but she has been invited to a Vampire V5 game I am trying to suggest she at least try. 

of the slightly less then a dozen people I know that I brought into ttrpgs (all through 4e or 5e D&D) that didn't stay in my group but kep[t in touch this is not an abnormal story... they get into D&D want to branch out and find it hard to agree on what to branch too...

HOWEVER the biggest exception to this is a young man who was in the same group as that young woman when I introduced both to 5e.... he ended up playing in a 5e game for a bit then switched to running an OSR retroclone. I have not talked to him in over a year but last I heard he had a table of 6 players plus himself doing a OSR game.


----------



## payn (Dec 28, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> The only people I find that love 5e are new players... BUT even they have a habit of stretching out and finding other systems (not normally other editions of D&D but that isn't never) they like more... and like my experience most find that others in there groups like different things better.
> 
> At the game shop that closed right before covid lock downs I had introduced a woman to 5e, and she ended up DMing for the first year of covid online, and then she got her group back in person... and she wanted to use Fate, and another wanted to use Essence?(I might have that name wrong) and another wanted to use Fudge (that I though that and Fate were the same shows what I know) and 2 wanted to stick with D*D... so they all stuck to D&D until her group fell apart only about a month ago. She is now trying to get a Fate group together with very little luck, but she has been invited to a Vampire V5 game I am trying to suggest she at least try.
> 
> ...



I think the barrier, in my experience, is folks thinking they have to drag their D&D group over to another game. When I branched out it was always a combination of interested existing players and a search for new interested fans of other systems. If you limit yourself to the same folks, its not likely you will ever get to play something outside the collective interest.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 28, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> The only people I find that love 5e are new players... BUT even they have a habit of stretching out and finding other systems (not normally other editions of D&D but that isn't never) they like more... and like my experience most find that others in there groups like different things better.



There are a lot more old veterans who love 5e than you think.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Dec 28, 2022)

payn said:


> I think the barrier, in my experience, is folks thinking they have to drag their D&D group over to another game. When I branched out it was always a combination of interested existing players and a search for new interested fans of other systems. If you limit yourself to the same folks, its not likely you will ever get to play something outside the collective interest.



the thing is (for me) that as I get older I have less and less time to hang out. In my 20's I could have 5 different groups of friends with 5 different hobbies and still see and interact with all of them.
I am in my (lets call it mid) 40's, go back 15 years and I could have a board game group, a card shop group, 2 different Larps (one in door year around 1 outdoor sprin/summer only), 3 or 4 TTRPG games running (sometimes just a bunch of 1 shots like Pokethulu furry pirates and kobolds eat my baby, sometime deadlands, rifts, D&D) and little over lap between them and 0 overlap that was for all of them... and still date (occasionally) and play some basketball and do the chores my mom insisted I do, and still work.

Today I am in 2 nights of games, if we are going to do cards or board games it is on those nights INSTEAD of gaming... trying to do a 1/month game has proven to be impossible to schedule. 

Why is that, because we own houses/condos... we have major Significant others (spouse or fiancé or at least long term living with) some of us have kids, and those that don't have kids adjacent (nieces and nephews) and the 'chores' are less assigned and more "I need to get this done" even the chores for the live alone ones are no longer "Gee I could not do laundry this week and wear these pants" for the most part.

So if I take my buddy Linda as an example... she didn't want to play 5e at all. So I have not seen or talked to her outside of facebook in almost 3 years... she still got a save the date for my wedding next May, and she messaged me her and her husband wouldn't miss it... but if we had still been playing 4e she would talk to us weekly. 

another example is a friend that came BACK for 5e. Jim didn't like 4e. To this day he would prefer PF/3e. He though had found as his groups for PF broke up he didn't have a steady game... he came back and missed us all. He wanted to hang out. I saw him SLIGHTLY more during 4e and early 5e then I have Linda now (I mean no coivd helped but also his older brother stayed with our group for 4e/5e)


I don't know maybe it's just me, but I find I CAN'T keep 3 or 4 different groups of friends going in my 40s where I could have kept 10 groups in my 20s


----------



## payn (Dec 28, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> the thing is (for me) that as I get older I have less and less time to hang out. In my 20's I could have 5 different groups of friends with 5 different hobbies and still see and interact with all of them.
> I am in my (lets call it mid) 40's, go back 15 years and I could have a board game group, a card shop group, 2 different Larps (one in door year around 1 outdoor sprin/summer only), 3 or 4 TTRPG games running (sometimes just a bunch of 1 shots like Pokethulu furry pirates and kobolds eat my baby, sometime deadlands, rifts, D&D) and little over lap between them and 0 overlap that was for all of them... and still date (occasionally) and play some basketball and do the chores my mom insisted I do, and still work.
> 
> Today I am in 2 nights of games, if we are going to do cards or board games it is on those nights INSTEAD of gaming... trying to do a 1/month game has proven to be impossible to schedule.
> ...



I hear that. I find if I got the itch to run anything, I have to find the time and the people to play it. Nothing gets easier. Maybe there will be a gaming retirement community? Player turnover might be entirely different in that situation...


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Dec 28, 2022)

billd91 said:


> There are a lot more old veterans who love 5e than you think.



I don't "think" anything about the numbers over all I am shareing my personal experience and you can't 'correct me' on my personal experience  unless you are here with me

let me show what you THINK you are correcting here...


> The only people I find that love 5e are new players...



I find... Aka it doesn't matter if I am the outlier or not (and be honest neither of us know who is and who isn't)


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Dec 28, 2022)

payn said:


> I hear that. I find if I got the itch to run anything, I have to find the time and the people to play it. Nothing gets easier. Maybe there will be a gaming retirement community? Player turnover might be entirely different in that situation...



my buddies (current and those now just on FB/text) joke all the time that when we retire we will be back to gaming 4-5 times a week


----------



## Ahks (Jan 3, 2023)

The only thing that would bring me to the new services is if they encourage 3rd party content and provide ROBUST tools for homebrew and external rule sets.

What WotC does now is exclusionary, insular, and monopolistic. [I'll just delete these 15 more lines of rant I typed up and spare everyone my opinions]


----------



## ART! (Jan 3, 2023)

My group has been playing 5E weekly since January 2017, and we have a blast, but things about the game have started to bug me - especially now that I'm DMing again.


delericho said:


> I honestly don't know. A new setting, maybe - but it would need to be something _genuinely_ new, and even then I'm not really in the market for a new setting so may well just ignore it.





Grendel_Khan said:


> Only thing that might tempt me back to D&D would be a fantastic Dark Sun book. It's the only D&D setting or lore I've ever liked, and I like it a whole lot.





MGibster said:


> What I'd really like more than anythign else is a really good setting book.  Not an overblown adventure with some setting information in it, but an honest-to-God full blown setting book.



A new or retooled older setting is something that would get me excited, too. I think the rules would need more ways to dial things up and down - and more variant rules options - to be able to make this work. Dark Sun's S&S vibe definitely appeals to me. Theoretically, their new multiverse approach should make new setting books more likely.


Tales and Chronicles said:


> System-wise, I'd like a game that really includes the 3 pillars of play and ways to interact with those pillars outside of skill checks and spells.





Campbell said:


> Stronger support for exploration and social pillars, particularly for non-spellcasters.
> More compelling and dynamic monster design.




100% agree!

I want systems for social and exploration play that have enough weight/heft that they warrant their own encounter builders - or better yet an encounter building tool that can switch from exploration to social to combat.

And a system that had more dynamic monster design would play right into that.


Malmuria said:


> Make a rules lite system to accompany their young adventurer's guides



I think I would rather play that than the full rules!


MNblockhead said:


> Make it possible to get third-party publisher material in DDB and whatever VTT they release.



This would be amazing, and would be a _big_ selling point for me and my group.


Ruin Explorer said:


> 1) *Make my life as a DM easier in terms of prep.*
> 
> 5E is one of the prep-heaviest modern RPGs, because you've got encounters (which should be balanced), NPCs (who don't have a great shorthand method), situations (with a real lack of generic systems to support that), traps, treasure/loot, and any monsters that are novel require a lot of effort to put together (unlike, in say, 4E's DDI where I could slap together a novel monster in _literally_ 5 minutes - and it would work, mathematically and tactically).



Sweet Lord, yes. I find it kind of mind-numbing, really. See my comments above about a dynamic, multi-pillar encounter builder.


----------



## Clint_L (Jan 3, 2023)

5e already _did_ bring me back to D&D on a regular basis. Keeping me here...hmmm. I'm pretty invested as is. I'm not looking for big changes to the game; that would probably lose me. If the VTT is really good and intuitive to use, that could give me another avenue to find games if my current ones dry up.

Actually, scratch that; here's what I would like to see: WotC making a much bigger investment in the social side of D&D. I'm talking hosting/sponsoring regular fan gatherings all over the place. Have employees whose sole job is to foster community engagement and outreach in different regions, including making contact with all the FLGS and making sure that folks have ways to access the D&D community, if so inclined. Yeah, I don't think what is needed are drastic changes to the game, I think what is needed is much better commitment to the community.


----------



## Emerikol (Jan 5, 2023)

Retreater said:


> Let's take a break, if for only one thread, from discussing corporate policies, the fears about the OGL changing, and monetization. I think what has brought most of us to this forum is a love of the hobby and (more than likely at some point) a love of D&D.
> Not gonna lie, I'm burned out on 5e as a rules set. I think that's why I've been down so much on the playtests and direction of OneD&D - it's not changing enough to revitalize my interest.
> When I saw the previews for 3.0, 4e, and 5e, each was different enough from its direct predecessors that I got excited for the changes. I don't feel the same way about OneD&D, even though I still get excited about new games from other publishers.
> If you're a lapsed player - or simply a burned-out one like me - what would you like to see to get you excited?




I never adopted 5e and disliked 4e.  I really haven't liked WOTC or it's approach to gaming since the 3e era (even 3.5e was a rip off).  So I have little intention of picking up 5.5e.  The new style of D&D just isn't the sort of game I'm looking for when I roleplay.  They didn't address some key concerns when making 5e and that is why I abandoned the game at that time.   When I heard about all their fantasy race alignment crap, I felt a distinct satisfaction that I had not bought into their system.  

I suppose if Gary Gygax suddenly arises from the grave and WOTC decides to sell the whole game back to him I will check it out.  Or some equivalent of that outcome.


----------

