In Ten Words Or Less - State What You Want In Future D&D Products.
Storybased Settings, Memorable Villains, Hardcover Books, Paintable Miniature line.
~Veronus
Hardcover books (PHB 4, Arcane Power 2, etc)
Non-Essentials Material
Twelve words, so sue me. ;)
Crunchy Dragon Articles
Playtest Previews
(I've come to realize that the last one hasn't existed in the world since the late 90's.)
Anticipation Provoking Products.
More Cowbell.
well what I want.....
lets see....
A FR Deity book( with 2e style art, the 3.x version had wasted page art, not to say it wasnt good art as it was)
and a decent non mmo or online pc game.... co-op is fine.
more than 10 words.... sue me
A grain of mud you mean???
well what I want.....
lets see....
A FR Deity book( with 2e style art, the 3.x version had wasted page art, not to say it wasnt good art as it was)
and a decent non mmo or online pc game.... co-op is fine.
more than 10 words.... sue me
Take it with whatever grain you wish.
Monster Vaults.
Board Games.
Compiled Magazines.
Boxed Sets.
More Essentials.
Better Communication.
Better Magazine Content.
Cake.
-Hardcover D&D books that match the core 4E books
-Neverwinter Campaign book in hardcover
-unpainted sets of D&D minis (throw in stat-cards for the boardgams as well)
(hyphens and abbreviations mean it's still 10 words!) >.>
More Dungeon Delves
No softcovers at all.
Downloadable CB
Hardcovers.
Working MB.
No cards.
Epic supported.
Finished VT integrated with the MB and CB.
Our wishes are granted as per latest WoTC_Trevor Broadcast YAY !
It’s time for the next step in the D&D Virtual Table beta. We’ve been talking about integrating the tools as a big part of our plans, and soon D&D VT beta testers will be able to try out the process and tell us what they think. Starting next week, all members of the D&D Virtual Table beta will also get access to the web-based Adventure Tools beta. This tool will have a Monster Builder, similar in functionality to its classic, downloadable counterpart. Here’s a first look at what people can expect:
Shortly after we get the Adventure Tools beta up and running, we’ll be turning on the connectivity between the Virtual Table, Adventure Tools, and Character Builder so that testers can check out creating characters and monsters, and importing them into the VT for use.There’s one more important bit of information that I’ll leave you with. At D&D Experience next week (January 27th-30th) we will have a D&D Virtual Table Seminar with some cool things going on. One such thing is the fact that everyone who attends the seminar will be included in this next part of the D&D Virtual Table beta and be able to check out this cool new functionality. For all those not able to make it to D&D XP this year - make sure to stay updated on everything that’s going on with event/seminar coverage on the D&D XP site, and keep in mind we still have plans to invite DDI members at a later stage of the beta.
No card games
Full shadow classes
.pdf's
Sell the D&D franchise to someone who cares.
Not a chance, but +1 for the sentiment...
(For example, Mage is a "sub-class" of Wizard, and Enchantment, Evocation, Illusion, and Pyromancy are the current Builds for the Mage.)
I am kind of preparing this year's campaign as our final 4th ed campaign, just in case.
When I begin to see the reprinting of existing books (or variants of existing concepts) or books that summarize an edition, it's a sign for me to move on, there will be not much new things of interest to me here.
Version independent products.
While I bought the 4e box set, I didn't like it and don't use it. What have I bought since then? The three Essentials box sets of Dungeon Tiles: Dungeon, Wilderness and City. They're nicely made, they come in good boxes, and I can use them with any game system.
I would like the counters included in other essentials box sets to be offered separately. I don't want a new revised paperback of a game version I didn't like to begin with. I would like to buy the counters, however, if packaged similarly to the Essentials tile sets. (That is to say, a nice attractive box with ten sheets of just counters.)
I would like all the PDFs of all the past products offered for sale as before.
I would like a book of some of the newer monsters, races and classes to be put out as a 3.5 edition for those fans still playing 3.5 (as one of my groups is) or who are now playing Pathfinder (as another is).
I'd like to see Dragon and Dungeon both put back into print as regular magazines with a subscription to both giving you free access to the DDI.
I doubt I will get any let alone all of these, but these are what I would want.
Speaking as an old school D&D player and writer (in fact my first sale was to Dragon back in the day) here is what I want and what I buy:
Version independent products.
While I bought the 4e box set, I didn't like it and don't use it. What have I bought since then? The three Essentials box sets of Dungeon Tiles: Dungeon, Wilderness and City. They're nicely made, they come in good boxes, and I can use them with any game system.
I would like the counters included in other essentials box sets to be offered separately. I don't want a new revised paperback of a game version I didn't like to begin with. I would like to buy the counters, however, if packaged similarly to the Essentials tile sets. (That is to say, a nice attractive box with ten sheets of just counters.)
I would like all the PDFs of all the past products offered for sale as before.
I would like a book of some of the newer monsters, races and classes to be put out as a 3.5 edition for those fans still playing 3.5 (as one of my groups is) or who are now playing Pathfinder (as another is).
I'd like to see Dragon and Dungeon both put back into print as regular magazines with a subscription to both giving you free access to the DDI.
I doubt I will get any let alone all of these, but these are what I would want.
The tokens should be doable. If they could lock all but the most stubborn of hackers out of replicating PDFs, I think I could see them allowing their past products (though probably not 4th edition, more's the pity) to be sold as PDFs; however, I think that Hasbro and by extension WotC is more worried currently about piracy and the current edition than it is about serving up old edition material. Thus I don't see them touching 3.5/Pathfinder territory with a 10 foot pole. The magazine publishing world is in the tubes, I can't see them publishing hard copies.
So one out of 4 things are possible, and really, if they just sold the tokens I might well buy them. It would solve my problem of having to make my own.
I found I like the racial handbooks too. I would like to see those continue.
Bob
- the shadow power soure not just being an add on to other classes
- more monster beasts
- guns and more sci-fi monster
COMPLETE Character Builder!!! (1)
D&D Miniatures (2)
PDFs (3)
4e Modern (4)
(1) Complete, like with all the feats and items and so on, including rarity if they have to keep it, customizable/hideable power cards, and the other nice bits the old one had/has.
(2) I can understand not wanting to make minis for whatever arcane business reasons. But if ya ain't gonna make 'em, then license them so we can buy actual beholders, dragonborn, tieflings, ettins, and so on from some other mini maker, and not have to decode 'lizardmen,' 'hellspawn,' or whatever legal runarounds.
(3) Seriously! I've bought the books - the only thing keeping me from downloading 'pirate' PDF versions is my incredible laziness -and I'm an over-50, barely-computer-literate old fogey. A couple of my friends have them, and I know they'd spring a couple bucks if they could buy them honestly (as I probably would).
(4) Pipe dream, I know. But a man can dream, can't he? Somewhere between SW Saga and 4e, there should be a nice modern/SF game. I'd give it a shot for sure.
What I would like to see is a resurgence of the offline CB because not everywhere I go will have access to WiFi from my new laptop. And there are things in the online version that I want to be able to access in the offline one, and can't.(More than 10 words I know)
magic user that cast spells remember that ?
Star Frontiers d20, 4e compatible.
Character Builder updates.
TOKENS AND UNPAINTED BOARDGAME FIGURES DO NOT REPLACE D&D MINIS!
(I can't believe they didn't announce a new series of high-quality token pack releases for this year at DDXP. They have years of source artwork and it would be relatively easy to get them into the market. Yes, I can do and make my own, but time and toner are money! Seems like a blown opportunity after pushing the game in this direction, and they'd be useful for any version not to mention other games).
1. unpainted minis (most likely sold in lots of old molds)
2. Metal/Pewter minis (most likely unpainted)
3. New game (Heroscape replacement?)
Tokens are a fix until some sort of real Mini stratagy can be figured out. I look for one of three things...
1. unpainted minis (most likely sold in lots of old molds)
2. Metal/Pewter minis (most likely unpainted)
3. New game (Heroscape replacement?)
I'm thinking they'll switch to a material that is much cheaper than plastic like clay or wood then go ahead and paint them...
I keep telling them: LEGO DnD! We can then make our own PC mini!
Time to invest in biological polymers...
I keep telling them: LEGO DnD! We can then make our own PC mini!
Not going to happen, unfortunately. No way they would license something to a competitor. It would still be very awesome (I have been making LEGO PCs for years).
Time to invest in biological polymers...
I keep telling them: LEGO DnD! We can then make our own PC mini!
Not going to happen, unfortunately. No way they would license something to a competitor. It would still be very awesome (I have been making LEGO PCs for years).
Hasbro has their own building block line?
Time to invest in biological polymers...
I keep telling them: LEGO DnD! We can then make our own PC mini!
Not going to happen, unfortunately. No way they would license something to a competitor. It would still be very awesome (I have been making LEGO PCs for years).
Hasbro has their own building block line?
They used to(Built to Rule), no sense in them not bringing back. But LEGO is still a competitor to their major age groups, so it is very unlikely.
Hehehe Build to Rule dungeons! Buy different rooms, build them in 3d and assemble to taste :p
Oh I forgot about Build to Rule.
Hehehe Build to Rule dungeons! Buy different rooms, build them in 3d and assemble to taste :p
WANT! That would be amazing.
forums to stay on topic!!!
Is that directed at us or just a dig at the forums at large?
And that'll never happen. Its the nature of the beast.
Ten words does not nearly sum up what I want!
Feywild, Far Realm, Primordials;
Dark Sun boons and themes; Eberron shards and races; Dragonlance; Eberron villains;
conversion rules for essentials; working Character Builder;
5 new adventure paths (Nerath, Krynn, Eberron, Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun);
firearms rules;
Epic level support;
Player's Handbook IV to support neglected classes and races (runepriest, seeker, artificer, changeling, kalashtar, bullywug, bladeling, kenku, kobold, goblin, orc, shardmind, wilden, shadar-kai).
More support for Artificer, Seeker, Runepriest, themes, and AEDU classes.
Back to basics. More Story, characters, and magic. No more board games.
+ 5 vorpal weapon this.
It needs to be about roleplaying, not wargaming. The core of the game should be about imagination, not combat where ever character is basically the same.
And for all the god's sakes, ditch the striker-controller-whateverer designations which focus the game on combat instead of roleplaying.
Back to basics. More Story, characters, and magic. No more board games.
+ 5 vorpal weapon this.
It needs to be about roleplaying, not wargaming. The core of the game should be about imagination, not combat where ever character is basically the same.
And for all the god's sakes, ditch the striker-controller-whateverer designations which focus the game on combat instead of roleplaying.
The game is only as combat-focused as you make it. The party roles only show what characters of a particular class (or sub-class in the new format) is best at when in combat. And in a game like Dungeons & Dragons combat is typically about 50% of the gaming experience (roughly.)
And if you are one of those people who think that a class shouldn't be shoehorned into only party role... well, I agree with you. That's one of the reasons that I think the new Essentials-style class format is far superior to the old format.
Back to basics. More Story, characters, and magic. No more board games.
+ 5 vorpal weapon this.
It needs to be about roleplaying, not wargaming. The core of the game should be about imagination, not combat where ever character is basically the same.
And for all the god's sakes, ditch the striker-controller-whateverer designations which focus the game on combat instead of roleplaying.
The game is only as combat-focused as you make it. The party roles only show what characters of a particular class (or sub-class in the new format) is best at when in combat. And in a game like Dungeons & Dragons combat is typically about 50% of the gaming experience (roughly.)
And if you are one of those people who think that a class shouldn't be shoehorned into only party role... well, I agree with you. That's one of the reasons that I think the new Essentials-style class format is far superior to the old format.
How do post-E classes NOT shoehorn into party roles any more than pre-E. I really don't see it?
Back to basics. More Story, characters, and magic. No more board games.
+ 5 vorpal weapon this.
It needs to be about roleplaying, not wargaming. The core of the game should be about imagination, not combat where ever character is basically the same.
And for all the god's sakes, ditch the striker-controller-whateverer designations which focus the game on combat instead of roleplaying.
The game is only as combat-focused as you make it. The party roles only show what characters of a particular class (or sub-class in the new format) is best at when in combat. And in a game like Dungeons & Dragons combat is typically about 50% of the gaming experience (roughly.)
And if you are one of those people who think that a class shouldn't be shoehorned into only party role... well, I agree with you. That's one of the reasons that I think the new Essentials-style class format is far superior to the old format.
How do post-E classes NOT shoehorn into party roles any more than pre-E. I really don't see it?
Probably with the idea that a Fighter in Essentials can be a defender (Knight) or a striker (Slayer).
i.e. not that they don't shoehorn, but that they allow the people who want a controller Ranger (you know, a Seeker) or a leader Druid (you know, a Shaman) to have what they want with the name they want instead of supporting a more specialized concept of classes and not getting hung up on legacy names and functions of legacy classes (you know, like controller Rangers or leader Druids).
So there's a different shoehorning in Essentials, the shoehorning of independent 4th edition classes back into what the older players expect to see, instead of divorcing the preconceived concepts of what a class can do from what the name had been in previous editions, and from the possibility that the Hunter or Sentinel could have been more support for the Seeker or Shaman, for example.
Ten words: I want WotC to start implementing what the gamers say!
+ 5 vorpal weapon this.
It needs to be about roleplaying, not wargaming. The core of the game should be about imagination, not combat where ever character is basically the same.
And for all the god's sakes, ditch the striker-controller-whateverer designations which focus the game on combat instead of roleplaying.Lack of role playing is a player issue not a system issue. The game has absolutely no rules for “how to” in this department so there is no reason you can’t.
You RP playing risk don’t you what’s the difference?
Risk is not a roleplaying game. It's a board game version of a strategic military game.
Chess is not a roleplaying game either. Neither is poker, even though all playing card decks have twelve character cards in them--fourteen if you add in the jokers.
Making D&D focus on combat and combat roles by definition removes the focus from roleplaying and roleplaying solutions.
Risk is not a
roleplaying game. It's a board game version of a strategic military game.
Chess is not a roleplaying game either. Neither is poker, even though all playing card decks have twelve character cards in them--fourteen if you add in the jokers.
Making D&D focus on combat and combat roles by definition removes the focus from roleplaying and roleplaying solutions.
I feel sorry for you and your group if this is the mind set. RP does not require rules.
For once, I agree with you, TD. You can roleplay in Monopoly if you so chose.
For once, I agree with you, TD. You can roleplay in Monopoly if you so chose.
Yes exactly. Not having rules for RP is the best way to make RP organic and real.
Hogwash.
There are rules that add to roleplaying and there are rules that detract from it.
Making the rules focus on abstract combat roles detracts from the roleplaying.
Hogwash.
There are rules that add to roleplaying and there are rules that detract from it.
Making the rules focus on abstract combat roles detracts from the roleplaying.
Hogwash.
Making rules that reward groups that work together in combat encounters, when the game focuses on telling the story about a group of adventurers that work together and often end up in combat encounters, does nothing to detract from roleplaying. The comment is ludicrous in the extreme.
If anything, what hurt roleplaying were the rules in previous editions which gave monsters absolutely zero mechanical reason to ever attack the heavily armored warrior, who was supposed to act as the group's first line of defense (according to the narrative of the game). If anything, what hurt roleplaying were characters that had no clear purpose in many of the game's encounters, and who were thus trap choices. If anything, what hurt roleplaying were rules for things such as crafting which detracted from your other capabilities, and in effect punished you for making roleplaying choices.
I choose 4e thank you very much.
Hogwash.
There are rules that add to roleplaying and there are rules that detract from it.
Making the rules focus on abstract combat roles detracts from the roleplaying.
Hogwash.
Making rules that reward groups that work together in combat encounters, when the game focuses on telling the story about a group of adventurers that work together and often end up in combat encounters, does nothing to detract from roleplaying. The comment is ludicrous in the extreme.
If anything, what hurt roleplaying were the rules in previous editions which gave monsters absolutely zero mechanical reason to ever attack the heavily armored warrior, who was supposed to act as the group's first line of defense (according to the narrative of the game). If anything, what hurt roleplaying were characters that had no clear purpose in many of the game's encounters, and who were thus trap choices. If anything, what hurt roleplaying were rules for things such as crafting which detracted from your other capabilities, and in effect punished you for making roleplaying choices.
I choose 4e thank you very much.
+1
Dragonlance 4E
Moar Monsters
Ya know, I've seen another game by Hasbro that uses cardstock characters (since we dont have minis anymore) and uses spinners with numbers (to replace those troublesome dice). It even sounds similar to Dungeons and Dragons: Chutes and ??????.
Wizards/Hasbro, or whoever is charge around there, time replace some staff! GWorld, board games, failed online efforts (VT tables, PC builders, etc.), quit messing around with spin off products and rule editions, SUPPLY ACTUAL DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS GAME CONTENT!!! You have FR, Ebberon, Dark Sun, Dragonlance, and Planescape, in the DnD "barn" and they chose Gamma World.
Heh, "OK DnD management, choose one: a million dollars, super bowl tickets for life, or a puppy". Dnd management answer: "what kind of puppy?"
Oh and telling everyone what you're going to to release is not content...
Start releasing real DnD role playing products and you can have our group's 25 years of support back.
However, my kids are anxiously awaiting your version of Chutes and Ladders, they have requested you dont have any of the characters be shardminds or seekers.
For once, I agree with you, TD. You can roleplay in Monopoly if you so chose.
Yes exactly. Not having rules for RP is the best way to make RP organic and real.
Hogwash.
There are rules that add to roleplaying and there are rules that detract from it.
Making the rules focus on abstract combat roles detracts from the roleplaying.
You're confusing rulesets and game mechanics with role playing. You can roleplay in any system, if you so choose. The only thing that detracts from the ability to roleplay is the inability to roleplay.
For once, I agree with you, TD. You can roleplay in Monopoly if you so chose.
Yes exactly. Not having rules for RP is the best way to make RP organic and real.
Hogwash.
There are rules that add to roleplaying and there are rules that detract from it.
Making the rules focus on abstract combat roles detracts from the roleplaying.
You're confusing rulesets and game mechanics with role playing. You can roleplay in any system, if you so choose. The only thing that detracts from the ability to roleplay is the inability to roleplay.
By that logic, checkers and bingo are roleplaying games.
I demand a little more focus on roleplaying for something to qualify.
Making rules that reward groups that work together in combat encounters, when the game focuses on telling the story about a group of adventurers that work together and often end up in combat encounters, does nothing to detract from roleplaying. The comment is ludicrous in the extreme.
If anything, what hurt roleplaying were the rules in previous editions which gave monsters absolutely zero mechanical reason to ever attack the heavily armored warrior, who was supposed to act as the group's first line of defense (according to the narrative of the game). If anything, what hurt roleplaying were characters that had no clear purpose in many of the game's encounters, and who were thus trap choices. If anything, what hurt roleplaying were rules for things such as crafting which detracted from your other capabilities, and in effect punished you for making roleplaying choices.
I choose 4e thank you very much.
This. So very much this. Why is a character with 10 ranks in Profession: Underwater Basketweaver any more roleplayed than a character in a system that doesn't have those kinds of skills who has a well thought out background, personality, and goals?
CD that is the first thing you have said sense the GW CCG debate I agree with. Sad isn’t it.
Depends on why you mean it is sad...
There are mechanics that can hinder storytelling. As in you can only make X amount of CP each month off of a craft skill. 4E got rid of that and put in the DMs hands. One DM might say you make 1GP per month another might say its negligible. That's what 4E brings to the table. It gets rid of complicated separate rule systems and puts it in the DMs hands. That way if a player tries to do the Wall of iron cheese from 3.X the DM can say nope doesn't work...
I think people are confusing storytelling with roleplaying. Storytelling you form the story. Most of the time this is the DM's job. Players are meant to help the DM tell the story not by creatively describing how they get around the rules, but by making meaningful choices that are presented by the DM.
There are mechanics that can hinder storytelling. As in you can only make X amount of CP each month off of a craft skill. 4E got rid of that and put in the DMs hands. One DM might say you make 1GP per month another might say its negligible. That's what 4E brings to the table. It gets rid of complicated separate rule systems and puts it in the DMs hands. That way if a player tries to do the Wall of iron cheese from 3.X the DM can say nope doesn't work...
It's not like not having a crafting system was a great innovation in 4e. 1st ed didn't have a crafting system either.
I'm not saying that the 3.X craft system is the be all and end all, nor am I saying that it was fixed in Pathfinder (because it wasn't--the Craft rules were basically dragged and dropped from the SRD, warts and all). But it is nice to have some system in place where a character can be quantifiably better than another in some craft, profession, or artform.
Saying it's in the DMs hands means it's back to 1st edition where the character with a well-wrought background of being reasonably good at X and okay at Y will be unable to compete with the Mary Sue player who makes themselves the best at everything because the only limitation is the DM rolling their eyes.
I think people are confusing storytelling with roleplaying. Storytelling you form the story. Most of the time this is the DM's job. Players are meant to help the DM tell the story not by creatively describing how they get around the rules, but by making meaningful choices that are presented by the DM.
There are mechanics that can hinder storytelling. As in you can only make X amount of CP each month off of a craft skill. 4E got rid of that and put in the DMs hands. One DM might say you make 1GP per month another might say its negligible. That's what 4E brings to the table. It gets rid of complicated separate rule systems and puts it in the DMs hands. That way if a player tries to do the Wall of iron cheese from 3.X the DM can say nope doesn't work...
It's not like not having a crafting system was a great innovation in 4e. 1st ed didn't have a crafting system either.
I'm not saying that the 3.X craft system is the be all and end all, nor am I saying that it was fixed in Pathfinder (because it wasn't--the Craft rules were basically dragged and dropped from the SRD, warts and all). But it is nice to have some system in place where a character can be quantifiably better than another in some craft, profession, or artform.
Saying it's in the DMs hands means it's back to 1st edition where the character with a well-wrought background of being reasonably good at X and okay at Y will be unable to compete with the Mary Sue player who makes themselves the best at everything because the only limitation is the DM rolling their eyes.
Except they have in backgrounds and themes. The fact that you can't reasonably expect an adventurer to make as much money blacksmithing as adventuring. Take into account someone dedicated to blacksmithing is going to make just enough profit to live on. It makes perfect sense to put it into the DMs hands. If they want to come up with a complicated system (or borrow a homebrew system) then that is up to the DM...
I think people are confusing storytelling with roleplaying. Storytelling you form the story. Most of the time this is the DM's job. Players are meant to help the DM tell the story not by creatively describing how they get around the rules, but by making meaningful choices that are presented by the DM.
There are mechanics that can hinder storytelling. As in you can only make X amount of CP each month off of a craft skill. 4E got rid of that and put in the DMs hands. One DM might say you make 1GP per month another might say its negligible. That's what 4E brings to the table. It gets rid of complicated separate rule systems and puts it in the DMs hands. That way if a player tries to do the Wall of iron cheese from 3.X the DM can say nope doesn't work...
It's not like not having a crafting system was a great innovation in 4e. 1st ed didn't have a crafting system either.
I'm not saying that the 3.X craft system is the be all and end all, nor am I saying that it was fixed in Pathfinder (because it wasn't--the Craft rules were basically dragged and dropped from the SRD, warts and all). But it is nice to have some system in place where a character can be quantifiably better than another in some craft, profession, or artform.
Saying it's in the DMs hands means it's back to 1st edition where the character with a well-wrought background of being reasonably good at X and okay at Y will be unable to compete with the Mary Sue player who makes themselves the best at everything because the only limitation is the DM rolling their eyes.
If you want or need a quantifiable skill then you are not looking for roleplaying. Roleplaying in a game is not a quantifiable thing.
If the DM cannot reasonably smack down mary sue characters, they need to get a backbone.
But it is nice to have some system in place where a character can be quantifiably better than another in some craft, profession, or artform.
Which is unlikely to ever make a difference in the career of a PC, ever. No seriously, it will almost never, ever be an issue in a D&D game. Ever. And if it ever does come up, most often as a result of a DM smoking a bit too much crack, then it can easily be covered by some other skill.
And on top of that, this is what is known as "Roll-Playing."
As everyone else has said (other than you) you don't need mechanics to roleplay. Ever. EVER. EEVVVVEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRR. 'Nuff said.
non-combat mechanics
No, you don't need mechanics to roleplay. But you do need mechanics if you want to encourage any sort of non-combat activity, which is what many people actually mean when they talk about role-playing.
The mechanics are what the players will gravitate around. If 95% of the game mechanics and 95% of any given character's abilities are oriented entirely around solving problems through combat, then players will default to combat as the solution to any given situation 95% of the time.
You can role-play in monopoly. And if everyone at the table agrees, you can even use house rules to do things that the rules don't normally cover. But almost nobody does. Same with 4e - you've got a nice page encouraging you to make up things the rules don't cover - but in my experience almost nobody does.
As opposed to say, nWoD. Now, granted, the mechanics aren't always great, and the combat certainly isn't balanced, and the rules for non-combat stuff can and does get in the way of role-playing some times. But the range of activities I see characters engage in is much greater in nWoD, because the rules actually cover a variety situations and characters have much more significant non-combat abilities, and most importantly players can make meaningful, mechanical character choices regarding those abilities at character creation and as their character develops. How many meaningful mechanical decisions do you make about your character's non-combat abilities in D&D ever?
I'm not saying D&D should try to be more like WoD, heavens no. D&D is a much more combat oriented game, and should be, so giving characters the option to take non-combat abilities at the expense of being worse in combat is just a bad idea. But I wouldn't mind a few more non-combat rules structures to go with, or a few more class powers with more significant non-combat utility (ie, something other then just 'bop X enemies for Y damage and Z status effect'). Or an easier to navigate ritual system not banished to some appendix at the back of the book - one that doesn't require such onerous casting times as to be non-useful, or punish you by taking resources from your combat gear (again, in D&D I don't really want to see non-combat options come at the expense of being worse in combat). Maybe something not quite so completely caster oriented, either.
Maybe a 'skill tricks' system of extra abilities gained at various levels based on your trained skills? Maybe the 'Arcana Unearthed-esque' series of optional rules articles supposedly coming in Dragon some time "soon" might introduce something useful. But of course, this is all way more then 10 words, so it's somewhat off topic.
The mechanics are what the players will gravitate around. If 95% of the game mechanics and 95% of any given character's abilities are oriented entirely around solving problems through combat, then players will default to combat as the solution to any given situation 95% of the time.
You can role-play in monopoly. And if everyone at the table agrees, you can even use house rules to do things that the rules don't normally cover. But almost nobody does. Same with 4e - you've got a nice page encouraging you to make up things the rules don't cover - but in my experience almost nobody does.
As opposed to say, nWoD. Now, granted, the mechanics aren't always great, and the combat certainly isn't balanced, and the rules for non-combat stuff can and does get in the way of role-playing some times. But the range of activities I see characters engage in is much greater in nWoD, because the rules actually cover a variety situations and characters have much more significant non-combat abilities, and most importantly players can make meaningful, mechanical character choices regarding those abilities at character creation and as their character develops. How many meaningful mechanical decisions do you make about your character's non-combat abilities in D&D ever?
I'm not saying D&D should try to be more like WoD, heavens no. D&D is a much more combat oriented game, and should be, so giving characters the option to take non-combat abilities at the expense of being worse in combat is just a bad idea. But I wouldn't mind a few more non-combat rules structures to go with, or a few more class powers with more significant non-combat utility (ie, something other then just 'bop X enemies for Y damage and Z status effect'). Or an easier to navigate ritual system not banished to some appendix at the back of the book - one that doesn't require such onerous casting times as to be non-useful, or punish you by taking resources from your combat gear (again, in D&D I don't really want to see non-combat options come at the expense of being worse in combat). Maybe something not quite so completely caster oriented, either.
Maybe a 'skill tricks' system of extra abilities gained at various levels based on your trained skills? Maybe the 'Arcana Unearthed-esque' series of optional rules articles supposedly coming in Dragon some time "soon" might introduce something useful. But of course, this is all way more then 10 words, so it's somewhat off topic.
I think I made the cut.
Dnd players are smart guys. Dont try to bullshit us. Less book, more quality. That's it.
F
Top Secret d20, 4e
Ravenloft!!!!!!
DMG 3
VTT with complete Monster creator integration. I have more, but I'm probably over 10 words...
More Essentials classes, more monster vaults, more dungeon tiles.
exactly
Something fun & new
This. This. I don't mind essentials so much, but I want something new, not just endless repackaging of the original classes.
Printed quality dungeon magazines would make me happy as well
Not to mention ppl get hooked again and go back to the store to buy the splat book they missed last time hoping they'll get the edge they need to survive
By that logic, checkers and bingo are roleplaying games.
I demand a little more focus on roleplaying for something to qualify.
No. It means that you could role play those games if you so choose. It does not make them role playing games, as that is not what they were designed for. I also did not say that good, meaningful role play would result from it.
2) Boot Hill 4e
3) Top Secret 4e
4) Dragonlance 4e
5) Off-line Character Viewer (if the off-line builder is to much to ask for or expect - this would include an iPad app as well)
Note: I didn't count the 4e or the stuff in parentheses as they are simply qualifiers.
2.essentials
3.essentials
4.essentials
5.essentials
6.essentials
7.essentials
8.essentials
9.essentials
10. Spartacus Tie In
**: essentials
no essentials
no essentials
That's ten!
I want the Core books reprinted, with errata. Yes, really!
That's ten!
+1... for each... so that would be +3
Down with Essentials
Removal of Marketing Team
Adventures! For all levels!
No essentials
no essentials
no essentials
+10
+One Billion.
Linux stuff
Monster cheat cards for DMs ease <10
EDIT:
*at least for the players. Although miniatures fighting tokens could look funny.
EDIT2:
Hmmm... real miniatures for the players and cardstock miniatures for monsters could be a way.
*going over my word count, but I mean more mage-like subclasses and classes, with AEDU power progression and choices of powers at each level. I don't mean more content for the mage specifically - wizards gots plenty.
Modern zombie apocalypse game 4e.
More Essentials / Standard 4E class crossover
CON/INT builds
In Ten Words Or Less - State What You Want In Future D&D Products.
Storybased Settings, Memorable Villains, Hardcover Books, Paintable Miniature line.
~Veronus
1. Magic Item Compendium
2. More MM's like Monster Vault.
3. Simpler Magic Items, without a daily power on everything. Preferably magic items that don't resource management at all.
Trap Builder
Dungeon Builder
Encounter Builder
Aquatic monsters
Desert monsters
Bring back the real chartacter sheets for those of us that actually care about knowing the math of our characters.
More Options period, make sure to bring up the support for all classes to a baseline as it is now its amazing how different the support for classes and races are in 4 edition even more so with essensials taking up all releases of 2011 compleatly.
more Customization
less focus on combat (esp. items/spells)
Official Miniatures of exclusive races
More: hardcover books, minis
Gamma World.
Gamma World.
Gamma World.
Gamma.
World.
More Eberron support.
E-mail ddi delivery.
Ponies.
Quality.
What alsow would be nice is a random trasure and monster generator. The generator should have a group generator implemented as wel then a DM can generate random encounter right away. For even bether use implement a option for campains and area. Random encounter are alway's fun when traveling or other circumstances for the DM and the party
Options
(1) 1, 2, 3 monsters or a group encounter
(2) LVL encounter
(3) Campain or Area.
(4) Trasure
And so on Wel that up to you to fill in the blanks :P
Subclasses suck
in your opinion
Lack of options is a failure of the system. Are we back to the days of "bad classes make for good RP?" I don't think so.
you keep forgetting that a subclass can be an AEDU class and subclasses kill two birds with one stone, adds new class and adds powers to already classes we have.
"5e: Minis not required; Different classes work different; less videogame-y"
To answer in long:
IMO, though I'm mostly a grognard stuck in past editions, I think there are some things from 4th and essentials that are good. The game balance, for one. I may be a planescape fanboy, but as an alternate to the good ol' Great Wheel, the cosmology is pretty kickass. And tieflings and fey as core races? Hell yes.
But, I've still got my gripes. Of course I do, or you'd see a little dragon head icon under my name and hear from me regularly, not just when I get here from "recent topics" First is the reliance on minis. I've played both 3rd and 4th (and some 2nd and 1st as well) and while every edition runs smoother with miniatures, 4th really fails to run without them. This is a weakness. Also, I don't know how many of you are goign to get this M:tG reference, but I am a Melthos. I like fluff, and I like crunch that speaks volumes about the fluff without Italic Text explaining everything. It dissapoints me that the differences between a fighter's moves and a wizard's spells are primarily cosmetic, not coded deep into the rules. Perhaps that changed somewhere with the volumes of errata I look at and shudder when I think about apporaching 4th again. If it has, I am grateful.
Lastly is somethign I don't know if anyone will agree with. 4e feels more like a modern videogame than I'd like. It's my opinion that D&D, as a tabeltop RPG, should revel in going things that CRPGs can't, in having room for adaption and a little spice of chaos I find... lacking. You shouldn't be able to package up D&D as a set pieces board game.
Sir_Blackheart666 Still no answer eh?
Well isn't that odd, you seemed to think subclasses were the best thing ever; but in three days can't find one thing to argue your point ov view. The new design is sub-par, and the people doing the design are not very good at it.
oh sorry, i just got bored of you, i like the binder...just becasue you think its bad, dont mean crap to me
Sir_Blackheart666 Still no answer eh?
Well isn't that odd, you seemed to think subclasses were the best thing ever; but in three days can't find one thing to argue your point ov view. The new design is sub-par, and the people doing the design are not very good at it.
oh sorry, i just got bored of you, i like the binder...just becasue you think its bad, dont mean crap to me
It isn't that we think it's bad. It is bad. It's mechanically inferior to the PHB1 warlock in every way, shape, and form. The PHB1 warlock can do everything the Binder does, and do it better.
Basically, they took stuff away from the Warlock, and didn't replace it. Then, they called it The Binder. The warlock was already mostly a controller.
What do I want from future D&D products? Consistency. Heroes of Shadow was a good opportunityhh to show off the new design mixed with old, and it failed in every aspect except for the Blackguard. Almost everything in that book is extremely underpowered. A few others need minor tweaks.
Full shadow full classes; that have options, and don't suck.
As for the binder: you know what, it's off topic, I'll drop it.
What do I want from future D&D products? Consistency. Heroes of Shadow was a good opportunityhh to show off the new design mixed with old, and it failed in every aspect except for the Blackguard. Almost everything in that book is extremely underpowered. A few others need minor tweaks.
So what does the not-paladin get? I read somewhere it's a striker build but beyond that I have no idea. The real question; could it have been done w/o 4.5?
It's a competent striker, built like the Cavalier. It's most definitely the tougest striker ever conceived. Makes the Slayer wish he had durability.
I actually really like the class. Has some good nova potential, paladin hp and surges, plate proficiency. It's really not that bad. It's a Schwalb creation.A Blackguard MC Fighter with the Dreadnought PP would basically just be a DM crying a lot screaming "WHY WON'T YOU DIE?!"