What would you change?

[Easy_Lee]

Imagine that you're staring at the final copies of the 5e PHB and DMG. They're about to go out to print for the first time. What's the one thing you would change?

[UrielAwakened]

Add epic levels.

If that's too vague, fix the Sorcerer.

[DivisibleByZero]

-- Remove Death Saving Throws and revert to -10hp = dead.
-- If we're including the MM, then I'd make pretty much everything a lot of stuff tougher. Bring back some of the monsters' nasty abilities that they've lost. Just generally increase difficulty.
-- Make Sorcs use Spell Points by default, and couple them with Sorcery Points into a single pool.
-- Change Warlocks from their current Pact Magic design back into more of an Invocation focused class. Keep Pact Magic, but with less spells, capping at 4th lvl slots, and give them more Invocation progression in a manner similar to the 3e Warlock. But keep Mystic Arcana going all the way to 9th, but instead of 6th-9th it would be slots to 3rd and MA from 4th-9th. Basically, use the exact same formula, but only going to 3rd level spells/slots @lvl5, with MA beginning at lvl7 instead of lvl11. This would allow for more invocations to be granted, some of them as at-will spells akin to 3e. I know it sounds convoluted, but we've tried it and it works well.
-- Include an Arcane half caster.
-- Redesign ASIs and Feats to be +1 at every other level with less powerful but more balanced Feats (basically make every feat an half feat, sometimes requiring a single two-part chain.... but no more than two... to create the more powerful current feats).
-- Remove Bonus Actions and bake them into other actions/features.

[alchahest]

Put the warlord back in.

[UrielAwakened]

Put the warlord back in.

Nevermind I'm changing my answer. This.

[M Placeholder]

Add a section on Psionics and have a Psion class. Playing a Dark Sun campaign without Psionics is like Pizza without cheese, and the power of the mind is also important in Eberron, so a section on that and a base Psion class is something I would have put in.

Sometimes we don't know we miss something till it arrives. That's how I feel about the UA Nomad.

[ZorroGames]

Nothing. I am happy with it as it is.

[jiriku]

Tables. Spell tables that indicate which spells require concentration, and which are rituals. Magic item tables organized by rarity. And each spell needs a line indicating which base class can cast it at what level.

It is MUCH harder than it needs to be to find what you're looking for in the spell and magic item sections. I find that it's almost mandatory to use web resources to find anything in a reasonable amount of time -- at which point, why am I paying for a book?

[NecessaryWeevil]

Bind the damn things properly.

[Pont]

Except for very minor stuff I would change NOTHING, I think 5e is a masterpiece of simplicity and playability, and I have in my 30+ years of DM'ing never had as much fun as with this edition.

[Easy_Lee]

Bind the damn things properly.

I had this problem as well, but kept mine together up until recently. I literally just contacted customer support a few weeks ago, sent them the pictures via email, and they sent me a new one in the mail. So you should still be able to get a replacement.

[alchahest]

Bind the damn things properly.

yeah, definitely. my warlock pages just fell right out two weeks after getting the book.

[UrielAwakened]

Tables. Spell tables that indicate which spells require concentration, and which are rituals. Magic item tables organized by rarity. And each spell needs a line indicating which base class can cast it at what level.

It is MUCH harder than it needs to be to find what you're looking for in the spell and magic item sections. I find that it's almost mandatory to use web resources to find anything in a reasonable amount of time -- at which point, why am I paying for a book?

This is a good one. The books are all organized terribly.

[mephnick]

I would re-organize them completely.

If I had two bullets and was in a room with Bin Laden, Hitler and whoever organized the index I would shoot the index guy twice.

[Maxilian]

I would change the MC restriction of some classes

Like Paladin will be STR or DEX 13 and CHA 13

and Ranger be STR or DEX 13 and WIS 13, instead of just DEX for Ranger or just STR for paladins, to let people go with less common options.

[Maxilian]

I would re-organize them completely.

If I had two bullets and was in a room with Bin Laden, Hitler and whoever organized the index I would shoot the index guy twice.

And this, i agree with this, is so freaking hard to find ANYTHING! (unless you have looked so much through it that you know where most things are out of memory)

[Potato_Priest]

I'd add mechanics for forced movement and grappling so that it's a contest, rather than auto-ending the grapple. I would also allow a creature to expend an attack to attempt an escape, rather than a full action.

I'd make the grappler feat less terrible or remove it completely. We don't want new players going for trap options like that.

The weapon master, skilled, linguist, magic initiate, ritual caster, and resilient feats could all be taken multiple times.

Also, a spells table with schools, spell properties (like ritual) and components would be great, +1 to whoever suggested it.

I'd take out multiclassing and reintoduce it as one of the wacko options in the DMG, just to discourage its use.

Edit: Shoot, only one thing? It'd still be the first one I mentioned. I like grappling, and having better mechanics for it would be nice.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Gonna agree with DivisiblebyZero and Jinku and add in some other things

-Change the Ranger to the Revised Ranger, Keep the spells and spell progression, make them prepared. Remove Favored enemy for something that works on anything you've killed in the past X amount of time. Make animal companion somewhere between familiar and find steed as part of base class, then change beast conclave to increase the power of said animal companion, adding in more exotic options as well. Include deepstalker or a trap focused subclass. Maybe add something like a skirmish effect in, move X feet attacks that turn gain XdX in damage (probably something low). OR Wisdom to initiative maybe. Add in a cool end game feature.

-Change something about 4e Monk Maybe everything maybe barely anything but something.. Give Shadowmonks devilsight for the darkness they cast.

-Have thrown weapons work like ammunition if one or both hands available.

Im sure there's more but thats what i see. And it looks like i might have to delay the PHB

[Demonslayer666]

I would add DC examples for skill checks.

[GlenSmash!]

In addition to some of the things others have mentioned, I'd make the -5/+10 part of GWM something any character could do while taking the attack action with a 2-hander or versatile weapon in two hands.

I would also make the bonus action attack from PM something that can be done with any melee weapon.

Then GWM, and PM would become half feats with the remaining bits.

[Hrugner]

Only one thing? Many of the changes it needs would require a second or third change to ensure that it stayed balanced. I suppose I'd break feats down into their individual pieces, add a point value to each, arrange them in a prerequisite tree, and give people feat points to spend at each level on either a feat piece or a stat increase. I'd rather scrap it and start over though.

edit: This is a higher priority. I agree with this and the guy who wants proper charts and tables.

I would re-organize them completely.

[Tanarii]

Off the top of my head, and heavily influenced by what others are posting:
- get rid of GWM, PAM, and SS. Or nerf them heavily.
- change Natural Explorer general features to work in any natural terrain for the Ranger. Possibly limit the expertise feature to specific terrains. Possibly make the expertise feature apply to all checks related to natural terrain.
- change Remarkable Athlete to stack with proficiency.

For the DMG, I'd change chapter 8 Running the Game as Chapter 1. That's FAR more important than how to create a world of your own. That's, like, number 5 on the list of things a DM needs to be able to do in order to run a good game. (Edit: this is heavily based on modern DMs having easy access to adventures and modules. I suppose it makes technical sense you need to design an adventure and a place to put it before you run the game, if you don't. :smallbiggrin: )

(I'd say make Alignment and Personality chapter 2 of the PHB, but you really do need to know your race, class and background first. Since those things have an impact on Personality.)

[Blas_de_Lezo]

I would re-organize them completely.

If I had two bullets and was in a room with Bin Laden, Hitler and whoever organized the index I would shoot the index guy twice.

Same here. And then I'd break the gun by hitting his dead head, before the terrified look of the other two.

[Trampaige]

Change the game to some variant of gritty realism long rest, to bring more balance to short rest characters vs full casters, and to free up DMs to have more engaging campaigns without the 5 minute adventuring day.

[Pex]

I give everyone three guesses what I'd change, and the first two don't count.
:smalltongue:

[Potato_Priest]

I give everyone three guesses what I'd change, and the first two don't count.
:smalltongue:

Knowing you, you'd probably like to unrestrict saving throw DCs and have the DM decide what it ought to be based on the scenario.

[mephnick]

I give everyone three guesses what I'd change, and the first two don't count.
:smalltongue:

Remove the DM role from the game completely and add rules that allow each player to just yell what he does at the top of his lungs and have it automatically succeed.

[2D8HP]

Some of the previous suggestions sound real good to me, but I have one change that I'd like above all:

Bigger more readable type, especially the index.

[Kane0]

I'd add in the Exploration and Interaction pillars.
Then after that I'd go mucking around with the finer points of combat, if only because so much attention has already been given to it. Combat can sit down and wait its turn for once!

[Tanarii]

I give everyone three guesses what I'd change, and the first two don't count.
:smalltongue:
Replace the DM with a computer, with none of all the rules 'hidden' behind the scenes.

[Haldir]

Warlock as an Int based caster. Int is still the strongest stat in the game, if you ask my humble opinion, but the sheer bulk of charisma casters is just silly.

[DanyBallon]

Add a huge yellow label on top of the cover saying "WARNING
This is a completely new game using the name D&D. Throw away all the rules you know and start from fresh. Follow these tips and you'll enjoy even more this edition ;)"

[Pex]

Tsk tsk, ignoring the obvious to go for the joke. I hate tyrannical DMs, not the concept of DMing.

:smallfrown:

Provide tables with DCs of example tasks for all skills. Reinforce that Persuasion is not Dominate Person. Characters gain proficiency in one skill or tool every X levels or get a bonus of +1 to a skill they are already proficient with, unsure of proper X.

[Specter]

Tables. Spell tables that indicate which spells require concentration, and which are rituals. Magic item tables organized by rarity. And each spell needs a line indicating which base class can cast it at what level.

It is MUCH harder than it needs to be to find what you're looking for in the spell and magic item sections. I find that it's almost mandatory to use web resources to find anything in a reasonable amount of time -- at which point, why am I paying for a book?

This. Plus adding some difficulty from being brought back from 0hp, because as it is it's too easy.

[mephnick]

the sheer bulk of charisma casters is just silly.

Agreed. It's stupid how universal CHA is in 5e. Now 80% of the players in the game get to be the face!

[Malifice]

Change the game to some variant of gritty realism long rest, to bring more balance to short rest characters vs full casters, and to free up DMs to have more engaging campaigns without the 5 minute adventuring day.

Isnt that already in the DMG?

[Ivellius]

Yeah, releasing a book with an index that doesn't insult players by telling them they're looking up the "wrong" term and no, you're not going to tell them where it is even though you know what they're looking for seems easy to accomplish and implement.

[Malifice]

For mine, I would make it slightly less forgiving.

Between whack-a-mole, revivify coming online at 5th level (and raise dead being lowered in level, and the material component cost dropping) from mid tier of 5th level onwards, the game becomes very forgiving.

I have some issues with the rest mechanism as well. Foisting the 6-8 encounter adventuring day on us and leaving it in the hands of the DM to manage has its advantages, but it becomes tiring having to manage it all the time.

For such an integral and fundamental mechanic (it governs resource recovery, which ties directly into class balance and encounter difficulty) it deserved more attention and discussion from the Devs (at least in the DMG).

I'd also like fast rules to buff monsters. Sort of like a quick and dirty 'advanced monster' template along the lines of +2 to all D20 rolls and Save DCs, +5 HP per HD, +2 AC, +1 CR.

[Eric Diaz]

Would replace all intances of ""... on a short or long rest" for "on a short rest", for starters.

One thing? That is difficult...

Although I DO agree that 5e is something of a masterpiece in most aspects.

Off the top of my head, plus what people posted...

- Warlord, sure. Replace the warlock or sorcerer with this one.
- Fix food and water. I still cannot believe they dropped the ball so obviously.
- Fix falling damage while we are at it.
- Everybody is proficient in all STs, advantage in two.
- Expertise becomes widespread.
- In fact, I would "unbound" accuracy a little bit. I am a bit undecided about fighters getting better "to hit", but... 5e works. So I don't know. I use level/3, level/2, and level in my B/X game. Could work in 5e. Not sure. What I want is high level characters to be even more powerful.
- Make the whole game a bit less "wordy". Darkvision is described ONCE. Fighting styles too, probably. Lots of short cuts.
- Probably some small fixes on moon druid and ranger.
- 0 HP should be more punishing.

The DMG....

- The section on automatic success is awful. Would replace for the section in the original DMG explaining what a bell curve is.
- The section on creating monsters... would avoid using "do whatever you want" a zillion times, making things a bit clearer.

[mephnick]

For such an integral and fundamental mechanic (it governs resource recovery, which ties directly into class balance and encounter difficulty) it deserved more attention and discussion from the Devs (at least in the DMG).

I get what they were trying to do: Having some classes go all day (rogue) vs having classes with powerful but expendable resources (casters). But honestly, the game would probably be better if they just based every single class off a long rests. Yeah, it might feel a bit same-y, but certain game and DM styles wouldn't completely destroy half the classes in the game.

[KorvinStarmast]

Imagine that you're staring at the final copies of the 5e PHB and DMG. They're about to go out to print for the first time. What's the one thing you would change?

Nothing. I am happy with it as it is. 98% of my answer.

Tables. Spell tables that indicate which spells require concentration, and which are rituals. Magic item tables organized by rarity. And each spell needs a line indicating which base class can cast it at what level. Well played. :smallcool:

Bind the damn things properly. +5

Except for very minor stuff I would change NOTHING, I think 5e is a masterpiece of simplicity and playability, and I have in my 30+ years of DM'ing never had as much fun as with this edition. My 98% answer.

If I had two bullets and was in a room with Bin Laden, Hitler and whoever organized the index I would shoot the index guy twice. I'd hold the ammo and help you reload, but I'd for sure kick Bin Laden in the face. And Hitler in the nut.

[Potato_Priest]

Would replace all intances of ""... on a short or long rest" for "on a short rest", for starters.


Why would you want to do that?

[Malifice]

I get what they were trying to do: Having some classes go all day (rogue) vs having classes with powerful but expendable resources (casters). But honestly, the game would probably be better if they just based every single class off a long rests. Yeah, it might feel a bit same-y, but certain game and DM styles wouldn't completely destroy half the classes in the game.

They did that last edition and it didnt go down too well.

I dont mind this current system. As DM I can add in more short rests to the campagin if I want to give Fighters a boost, and add in more encounters between long rests if I want to tone down the casters.

I have my hands on 2 seperate dials (encouters between long rests, and number of short rests per long rest) to play around with and by so doing, adjust encounter difficulty and class balance without changing a thing mechanically.

It just gets tiresome to do after a while.

Im running Age of Worms and the PCs have been tasked to recover Dragothas phylactery before he learns of its location. Manzorian the mage has infomed them they have around 3 days before this happens.

It didnt take long to do, and the players have an idea of how long till the doomclock ticks past midnight (and a CR 28 spellcasting ancient red dragon dracolich with magic items turns up to torch them), but somtimes I wish I could just sit back and not have to bother thinking up a reason every single session.

[oxybe]

I would re-organize them completely.

If I had two bullets and was in a room with Bin Laden, Hitler and whoever organized the index I would shoot the index guy twice.

Well the former two are already corpses, so why waste a bullet on them when a perfectly healthy body is right there?

[UrielAwakened]

Why would you want to do that?

Because it's a meaningless phrase.

A short rest is innately already part of a long rest.

If something recharges on a short rest, then it must recharge on a long rest by default.

And yeah completely remaking the create-a-monster section is my new answer. I'm kind of already doing that in excel. They explain it so poorly.

The real way you create a monster:

1) Pick the CR you need.
2) Give it ability scores (based on this table that shows averages and maximums per CR)
3) Give it about twice its CR in hit dice, more or less if you want it to be more or less tough.
4) Pick any traits from this list that affect HP, AC, attack rolls, or damage.
5) If it has spells, pick its 3 most damaging ones. Otherwise calculate its damage for the first 3 rounds.
6) Now look at the HP and damage tables for your CR. Does it fit? If not, give it a few more AC or one less multi-attack/spell level.

Done.

[Eric Diaz]

Why would you want to do that?

What UrielAwakened said.

Also, I'm reading the MM and one monster has two abilities, one is "2/day" and other is "recharges after a short or long rest".

Well, If I can understand "2/day" I can understand "1/short rest".


Because it's a meaningless phrase.

A short rest is innately already part of a long rest.

If something recharges on a short rest, then it must recharge on a long rest by default.

And yeah completely remaking the create-a-monster section is my new answer. I'm kind of already doing that in excel. They explain it so poorly.

The real way you create a monster:

1) Pick the CR you need.
2) Give it ability scores (based on this table that shows averages and maximums per CR)
3) Give it about twice its CR in hit dice, more or less if you want it to be more or less tough.
4) Pick any traits from this list that affect HP, AC, attack rolls, or damage.
5) If it has spells, pick its 3 most damaging ones. Otherwise calculate its damage for the first 3 rounds.
6) Now look at the HP and damage tables for your CR. Does it fit? If not, give it a few more AC or one less multi-attack/spell level.

Done.

I did SOME of the math, it might be helpful:

http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com.br/2017/02/single-digit-monsters-for-5e-d-quick.html

PDF here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8yC9untvl8Nd1E0Z3NpZ2tRZHc/view

[UrielAwakened]

Ye this is fine but I really care about incorporating the ability scores and having things like AC, attack bonus, and damage mods arise from that organically.

The dumbest part of the CR calculation table is the fact that it buries the proficiency bonus in the attack bonus, and trying to play with the numbers can have a cascading effect as a result.

A much better attack bonus table just subtracts the proficiency bonus out (So at CR 1, the primary attack ability score should actually be a +1, and the primary spellcasting ability score (if its a spellcaster) should be a +3, etc...). Of course, this means that at some CRs, a monster should have something like a +4 in its primary attack stat, and then 1 CR higher, only a +3. It's dumb but I didn't make it that way.

[Spacehamster]

Change original ranger to revised ranger, have spells properly sorted by class.

[snickersnax]

Include rules for an Epic6 variant. It solves almost everything I don't like about 5e.

[Cl0001]

Better define hiding and illusions.
Literally those two relatively small aspects of the game have 1/2 the community wondering how it works.

[Magic Myrmidon]

I give everyone three guesses what I'd change, and the first two don't count.
:smalltongue:

Allowing 18s with point buy?



As for me, I'd probably stick the revised ranger in the main book as opposed to the base ranger.
Give sorcerers their subclass-based spells known that were tried out in Unearthed Arcana.

Those are the ones off the top of my head without too much examination.

[KorvinStarmast]

Warlock as an Int based caster. Int is still the strongest stat in the game, if you ask my humble opinion, but the sheer bulk of charisma casters is just silly. Yeah, I was going to say that but am glad you did.

I dont mind this current system. As DM I can add in more short rests to the campagin if I want to give Fighters a boost, and add in more encounters between long rests if I want to tone down the casters. I have my hands on 2 seperate dials (encouters between long rests, and number of short rests per long rest) to play around with and by so doing, adjust encounter difficulty and class balance without changing a thing mechanically. I like the way you put that.

[Waazraath]

Lots of smart stuff said already. Don't know if I have anything new to add, but here it goes.

I greatly enjoy the edition, and wouldn't change too much, but:
- a bloody decent index
- not having the PHB fall apart
- some examples for skill DC's, per skill
- a bit more rules on special combat moves like grappling and mounted combat
- a bit more lethal (less healing spells / different death saving throw system)
- no bloody 1 handed quarterstaff wielding
- wish / simulacrum cheese
- make some monsters a bit more complicated, with special abilities.
.... and that would mostly be it. The only (sub)class I wouldn't play atm is the monk 4e, but that might be because I haven't tried it yet.

[JPicasso]

Obviously, all the races excepting Gnomes,
and all the classes excepting Paladins are just wasted space that could have been filled in
with pictures and stories of more Gnome Paladins.

Duh.

[Demonslayer666]

Lots of smart stuff said already. Don't know if I have anything new to add, but here it goes.
...
- no bloody 1 handed quarterstaff wielding
...

What's wrong with 1 handing a quarterstaff?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4w_2U2_qEY&feature=youtu.be&t=20

[DanyBallon]

Lots of smart stuff said already. Don't know if I have anything new to add, but here it goes.

I greatly enjoy the edition, and wouldn't change too much, but:
- a bloody decent index
- not having the PHB fall apart
- some examples for skill DC's, per skill
- a bit more rules on special combat moves like grappling and mounted combat
- a bit more lethal (less healing spells / different death saving throw system)
- no bloody 1 handed quarterstaff wielding
- wish / simulacrum cheese
- make some monsters a bit more complicated, with special abilities.
.... and that would mostly be it. The only (sub)class I wouldn't play atm is the monk 4e, but that might be because I haven't tried it yet.

You realize that there are no skill DC in 5e, there are ability checks DC, and if you are proficient in a skill that the DM think should apply (sometimes it's an evidence, sometimes less), then you can add your proficiency bonus to the roll you make.

[DracoKnight]

I would do two minor things:

1) Elemental weapon gets put on the Wizard spell list.
2) Base Pact of the Blade uses Charisma to hit and damage.

Other than that, I'm pretty much satisfied with the system.

[JNAProductions]

Few minor grappling changes. Make it so you can grapple someone of any size, just with some advantage or disadvantage, based on size differences.

[kenposan]

How has no one said the halfling art yet?

[lunaticfringe]

Agreed. It's stupid how universal CHA is in 5e. Now 80% of the players in the game get to be the face!

This! Also the reorganization stuff. I also like & use Mercer's rules for multiple spells cast on your turn.

3 Alignments: Lawful, Chaotic, Neutral. As it should have stayed.

[Pex]

Allowing 18s with point buy?


D'oh! Forgot about that. Most definitely.

:smallbiggrin:

[Cybren]

Imagine that you're staring at the final copies of the 5e PHB and DMG. They're about to go out to print for the first time. What's the one thing you would change?

Your hypothetical is a bit too late in the game for anything intended on being a balance change, since it won't be able to be play-tested, but i'll follow the spirit and not the letter of the premise:
1) The battlemaster maneuvers Parry and Riposte have to have some sort of synergy or be renamed/removed.
2) There shouldn't be racial features & feats with the same exact name. Halflings can be Plucky.
3) Two Weapon Fighting needs, at some point, for the optimal use case to be a one handed weapon and a light weapon. Presently you go from two light to two one handed, only bothering for a light in niche scenarios
4) the Eldritch Knight needs a new name because in the years following the original incarnation of the concept WotC decided "eldritch" meant "warlocks".
5) Warlocks are int based i don't care how many people whine.
6) I would remove the section on customizing backgrounds just to annoy people that like to add "you can customize your background to get proficiency in any skill you want"

[DivisibleByZero]

6) I would remove the section on customizing backgrounds just to annoy people that like to add "you can customize your background to get proficiency in any skill you want"

I'd be fine with most of what you said, but I would fight this one tooth and nail.
There are limitless BG options, of which the PHB and SCAG only have a comparative handful.

[Haldir]

Remove the cringy Salvatore fetish images/quotes from the section on races. I even enjoy his work, for the most part, but that stuff is too much. Shoving Drizzt into everything is the default marketing tactic for these people.

[KorvinStarmast]

3 Alignments: Lawful, Chaotic, Neutral. As it should have stayed. Yeah, a chance to undo some of the damage to alignment as a game tool. A chance missed.

[Tanarii]

2) There shouldn't be racial features & feats with the same exact name. Halflings can be Plucky.
3) Two Weapon Fighting needs, at some point, for the optimal use case to be a one handed weapon and a light weapon. Presently you go from two light to two one handed, only bothering for a light in niche scenarios
4) the Eldritch Knight needs a new name because in the years following the original incarnation of the concept WotC decided "eldritch" meant "warlocks".
5) Warlocks are int based i don't care how many people whine.
6) I would remove the section on customizing backgrounds just to annoy people that like to add "you can customize your background to get proficiency in any skill you want"
Your ideas are intriguing me and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Seriously, all of these would have been an improvement. Personally 'Arcane Knight' would have been fine, although I'm not sure if there's some history behind the name. An old 3.5 PrC perhaps?

[BoutsofInsanity]

Finally!

Change the Sorcerer as it's been said already about how people are unsatisfied with it.

THE RANGER REMASTERED:
1. Powerful Animal Companion
2. Spell Casting with a limited Spell Selection focused on Survival, Tracking, and Transportation Spells. Not summoning.


Remove False Choices or Forced Roles. If you can gain a weapon style, you should be able to pick any style. If you want to play an archer paladin, you should be able to do that.

Make Warlocks able to use more spells, or have invocations that are at will or 1 a days that don't impact the amount of regular spells you can cast. Revamp the Warlock to be able to have multiple choices on how to play the character, more invocations based around your patron.

Add Warlord back in. One of the best feeling things about 4e.

Add extra systems in there, attempting to add some clarity to ideas about Social Combat, or Economics. Optional Rulesets that might fit a different style of game.

Add a more comprehensive way to handle Stealth and Expertise. At some point, the Rogue just runs away with the Stealth abilities along with Perception.

Add ways to use stats for other things. Int for Perception or Sense Motive rather then Wisdom. Add more layers of player choice and valid styles.

I remembered this one: SPLIT RACIAL GENETIC ABILITIES FROM CULTURAL ONES!!!!! Dwarves automatically get Darkvision, they don't automatically get dwarven weapon training


Finally, get a workable system for making disadvantageous roleplaying choices, and mechanically weak options for greater options at the table. Example: If I take this disadvantage, one a day I may reroll a dice roll if I don't like it. Because you are a hero, and you should be lucky sometimes.

[Malifice]

6) I would remove the section on customizing backgrounds just to annoy people that like to add "you can customize your background to get proficiency in any skill you want"

If you're picking background is purely for skills then just pick one that gives you a skill you already have.

Then you can just pick whatever skill you want.

[lunaticfringe]

I love the Customizable Background it leads to awesome character ideas.

Gasp! A player took That Skill! OMG sooo broken!

Yeah whatever...

[ruy343]

I agree with a lot of what has been posted, but I'm on a kick here.

Gripe 1: Whack a Mole:
The biggest contributor to the "Whack a Mole" problem is the "Healing Word" spell, allowing a player to have their turn AND revive a friend, and since the moment you regain hit points, you start fresh with your saving throws, there's no meaningful consequence for getting knocked out (especially since the -10 HP death rule is gone).

All I want changed is for the PCs to hold their death saving throw failure count until they spend a hit dice to regain hit points during a short rest, and for each successive drop below 0 HP to add a bonus death saving throw failure. Suddenly, combat matters, and players aren't invincible.

Gripe 2: When combat turns sour, it becomes boring
When players are at zero HP, they roll death saves, and then their turn is skipped. I feel like that isn't a good system to maintain player engagement. Characters with Zero Hit Points should be able to do a handful of things on their turn, instead of having their entire turn skipped - that's the fast track to having a player pull out their phone and become disengaged. Include a table of actions that a character can do while at zero would allow my characters to at least "feel" injured, but still have a turn. (The new Star Trek Adventures RPG does a variation on this, and it's a neat idea - basically, if you're down, you can spend a resource (momentum) to ignore that for one turn, though that resource pool quickly dries up).

Gripe 3:
Spell tables:

Spells by cost of components (and what those components are), so that I could point out to my players that a given spell was costly, requiring more investment than just a spell slot.
Spells by school of magic (especially given the restrictions on the EK and AT)

[mer.c]

I'd toss in a Martial rebalance (my current pet project). May as well give the TL;DR here.

Generally, tone down GWM a bit, remove PAM bonus attack, and bring other styles up to make up the rest of the difference. Each archetype has a strong style-defining feat available at level 4+.


GWF style: Change to give +1 damage die, drop lowest. Beautifully balances 1d12 vs. 2d6 weapons. Fast and fun.
GWM feat: Low-level/top-end damage reduced (half-damage cleave, stacking +1 hit penalty each consecutive Power Attack on the same turn). Still best at killing enemies with less than average AC/HP. No longer the be-all-end-all of martial DPS.
Dual-Wielding rework: Style no longer gives ASM damage, instead giving non-light weapons and decoupling the extra attack from the bonus action. Dual Wielder feat retooled, giving +1 damage and cumulative +1 hit when attacking target consecutively. This makes it good at attacking tougher targets (so opposite of GWM). With Extra Attack, can make either one attack or two half-damage attacks with Two-Weapon Fighting (which works well with the cumulative bonuses).
PAM: Bonus attack removed, now makes your threatened area difficult terrain for your enemies. Props to whoever proposed this; I forgot who you are but it's an amazing change.
Sharpshooter: Only relaxes cover in normal range, and reduces cover by one degree instead of ignoring it. Same stacking +1 hit penalty per Power Attack as GWM.
Shield Master: Can bonus-action to set guard on nearby ally until your next turn. Can use Shield Master abilities on yourself or on them if they're within 5' of you. (If you use your Evasion ability on them, you automatically fail your save if you're subjected to the same effect.)
Add Thrown Weapon feat: A little extra damage and hit, nearby enemies don't give your thrown weapon attacks disadvantage if you're wearing a shield, and can make throw two weapons as TWF attack instead of one. Also add bonus action to draw two light weapons to the core rules. Not to compete with Sharpshooter style, but meant to be its own thing that mixes melee and ranged styles.
Add Master Duelist feat: If you're using a 1-handed weapon and no shield, gives AC and Initiative. If you're using a 1-handed weapon and no offhand weapon, gives Hit and Damage. (Gives both if using neither shield nor second weapon.) Lets you move 5' as part of your attack action twice per turn. Can turn a miss into another attack with advantage once per Short Rest. Numeric bonuses are less than +2 Dex unless fighting with an open offhand, but good mobility buff. Seems duelist-y.
Add Staff Fighter feat: Extra attack from PAM finds its way over here, but at half damage and only usable when wielding the staff in two hands. Can use Str or Dex for staff attacks. You get +1 AC vs. each target you attacked with a staff until the beginning of your next turn. Doesn't overpower Monks because their bonus actions are better spent on unarmed strikes than nerfed staff attacks, and +1 AC isn't worth a feat, and they can already use Dex for attacks.

Perhaps more controversially, change up Paladin Smiting:


Can cast your Smite spells as a bonus action when you hit someone with a melee attack, instead of concentrating on the spell. Messing with their powerful concentration spells really limits the usefulness of what should be a cool feature set. (Also apply this to ensnaring strike from Oath of the Ancients.)
Damage cap of Smite abilities and spells is set by your Paladin level. 2d8 max at level 2, 3d8 at 5, 4d8 at 9, 5d8 at 13, 6d8 at 17. Slight buff to pure Paladins. Cuts down on MC Smite cheese, while also giving Sorcerers more room to be good per se instead of as a prestige class for level-2 Paladins.

[snickersnax]

What's wrong with 1 handing a quarterstaff?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4w_2U2_qEY&feature=youtu.be&t=20

Great fight scene, but this is more like duel-wielding blow guns as improvised weapons. I mean bamboo sticks weight less than 1/3 what an oak quarter staff weighs.

[Mister_Squinty]

1. I would swap the Monk Hit Die with the Ranger's.
Reason: From what I've seen, the primary melee classes (Fighter/Paladin/Barbarian) get a d10/d12, the ranged/melee balanced classes (Rogue/Bard/Cleric/Druid/Warlock) get d8, and the primary ranged casters get d6. As Monks are primary melee, and Rangers are balanced, they should swap.

2. I would modify the primary "roll for stats" from "4d6 drop 1" to "2d6+6".
Reason: It gives the same low end as array/point buy, the same average as array/point buy, with a slight chance to exceed the array/point buy limits. This would allow race/class combos to get a +3 on their primary stat outside the cookie-cutter standard (Halfling Wizards, Gnome Paladins).

3. I would change Warlocks to a INT caster to balance the stats casters use.
Reason: As it, Wizards are the only class that uses INT as the primary stat. If you count the Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight, it's 1 2/3 casters. WIS has 2 1/2 casters (Cleric/Druid/Ranger), while CHA has 3 1/2 (Bard/Sorc/Warlock/Paladin).

4. I would made Intimidation a STR Skill.
Reason: CHA currently has 3 skills used to influence others. STR has one skill total. Needs a rebalance.

[JakOfAllTirades]

Re-work the Warlock class so it's not completely gimped.

Throw out everything to do with Perception and Stealth - every single word of it - and start over from scratch.

[Corran]

Imagine that you're staring at the final copies of the 5e PHB and DMG. They're about to go out to print for the first time. What's the one thing you would change?
I'd make sure that no one wathes, and I would rip out the pages detailing the skill system, and I would place in their stead the corresponding pages from the 3e PHB.

But if someone would see me doing that and stopped me, I would at least negotiate about changing the feats (ie break them into small pieces and allowing them to be taken more frequently).

[Demonslayer666]

Great fight scene, but this is more like duel-wielding blow guns as improvised weapons. I mean bamboo sticks weight less than 1/3 what an oak quarter staff weighs.

It's clear to me that those bamboo staffs were durable enough to be used as weapons, and nowhere near as flimsy as a blowgun.

[TealWastelander]

Change Ranger to Revised Ranger, make Find Steed either a better spell or a Paladin Feature, add a feat or two to making throwing master type characters a thing, or at the very least a fighter or rogue subclass (or just add a boomerang type weapon that returns to your hand as a free action), fix 4 Elements Monk, and add bit of the UA bits on downtime activities and traps.

[Mister_Squinty]

It's clear to me that those bamboo staffs were durable enough to be used as weapons, and nowhere near as flimsy as a blowgun.

Except for the part where they got cut in half by a scarf. :smallsmile:

Every video I can find of live sparring with staves, instead of katas or demonstrations, show a two handed grip.

[Jaqrabbit]

I can't believe only two people have brought up Hiding, but yes, that. Every time someone puts the words stealth, hiding, or anything related in the title of a thread, it winds up being 25 pages long and ends up as an argument about whether or not you can walk into a huge empty white room and automatically know there's an invisible kitten napping at the back of it under an also invisible footstool.

And also yes, the Halfling art is god awful.

[Demonslayer666]

Except for the part where they got cut in half by a scarf. :smallsmile:

Every video I can find of live sparring with staves, instead of katas or demonstrations, show a two handed grip.

Except the video I linked, of course. :smallbiggrin:

That's because they are short on one-armed monks.

So let me get this straight, you have seen katas and demonstrations where the staff was used 1 handed, yet you don't believe it is possible to fight with it one handed? Curious. Usually when someone demonstrates how something works, I kinda have proof it works. Ok, maybe not the guy who puts a screendoor in the bottom of the boat and seals it with flex-seal. I'd have to see that for myself. :smallsmile:

I agree that two-handed is the most versatile and widely accepted way to wield a staff. But absolutely nothing prevents it from being wielded like a spear without a tip. If you allow 1 handed spears, you should allow a one handed quarterstaff.

Now I can't get Daffy Duck's staff-work out of my head.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cuihrjLNAo

Edit: spelling is hard

[Theodoxus]

Without changing a ton of rules along the lines of the excellent work of playgrounders (I was going to name names and then my mind went blank and I didn't want to inadvertently miss someone) - I'd simply say the Index. Why spend the added type to say "Prone - see Movement, Page xxx" you could have simply typed "Prone - Page xxx". It's the worst thing ever. I really don't need to know that Prone is under Movement, or that Armor is under Equipment or that Skills are under Ability Checks. Just list the damn page I'm looking for - else I tend to forget what I'm looking for, as I see something interesting in the index list near what I'm going for and end up spending 15 minutes reading up on spell shapes...

[Mister_Squinty]

So let me get this straight, you have seen katas and demonstrations where the staff was used 1 handed, yet you don't believe it is possible to fight with it one handed? Curious. Usually when someone demonstrates how something works, I kinda have proof it works.

A kata or show fight is for entertainment, not for bashing your opponent into the dirt. Every actual sparring session, or competitive staff video I can find shows both combatants using a two handed grip. A martial arts movie, even well made, isn't evidence of anything, unless you want to argue that D&D quarterstaff users can throw them like spears and cloth whips can break stone walls.


I agree that two-handed is the most versatile and widely accepted way to wield a staff. But absolutely nothing prevents it from being wielded like a spear without a tip. If you allow 1 handed spears, you should allow a one handed quarterstaff.

By that reasoning, I should be able to cut steak with a spoon, since it is one handed and metal, just like a knife. The pointy bit on the end of the spear makes a big difference.

[Demonslayer666]

A kata or show fight is for entertainment, not for bashing your opponent into the dirt. Every actual sparring session, or competitive staff video I can find shows both combatants using a two handed grip. A martial arts movie, even well made, isn't evidence of anything, unless you want to argue that D&D quarterstaff users can throw them like spears and cloth whips can break stone walls.



By that reasoning, I should be able to cut steak with a spoon, since it is one handed and metal, just like a knife. The pointy bit on the end of the spear makes a big difference.

Strikes, punches and kicks are for bashing your opponent.

The bo staves were not movie tricks like the scarf. Stop strawmanning the staffs with a scarf. They were fully combat capable, which the video clearly demonstrates at least to some level. If you think the whole fight was matrix-style cgi, then you would have a point.

I am not saying a quarterstaff should do piercing damage. I don't know where you got that. There is no spoon.

[Saiga]

Limiting myself to one would be: rebalance classes around the same rest mechanics so that the balance of power doesn't noticeably shift if you don't follow the DMG adventuring day. Make everyone have some form of short rest resource recovery that they can use so many times per long rest (like Arcane Recovery) so that they can't Nova everything either.

I'd really like to rebalance a lot of options as well, though. Like make PAM's bonus action attack only effect Spears and Quarterstaves wielded with two hands (to give those two a niche use, and to prevent PAM+Glaive being so much better than TWF for wanting a BA attack) or rebalancing classes so they're not assumed to have made certain choices - if Warlocks are based around EB and Agonizing Blast, don't make them spend a cantrip choice and evocation choice on them. Have them be part of the base class.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Personally, I'd love to tear the Abilities section out of the edition, turn it into delicious sacred hamburgers, and let the damn edition be purely skill-based. But that's just me (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?503455-5e-Without-Ability-Scores-skills-Skills-Skills).

I'd also like to do something to make skill checks less of a "lol it's all about the d20 roll lol" crapshoot. Rules for using proficiencies as permissions, faster scaling for skill checks, higher base numbers across the board...anything, really.

Oh, and I wouldn't mind changing short rest mechanics to "per encounter." Makes it much easier to compensate for differing adventure day lengths.

[Mister_Squinty]

Strikes, punches and kicks are for bashing your opponent.

Making the big wooden stick just for show?


The bo staves were not movie tricks like the scarf. Stop strawmanning the staffs with a scarf. They were fully combat capable, which the video clearly demonstrates at least to some level. If you think the whole fight was matrix-style cgi, then you would have a point.

I believe the scarf "strawmanned" the staves by snapping them in half. If you want to say dual wielding staves is legit because of movie magic, consistency would require that you also say the whip now can break walls.


I am not saying a quarterstaff should do piercing damage. I don't know where you got that. There is no spoon.

You said the quarterstaff should be able to be a one handed weapon because the spear is. But there is no one-handed pole weapon that does slashing. Why the inconsistency?

Might be because there is no historical equivalent to a one handed glaive. Just like there is no historical equivalent to a one handed quarterstaff.

The one-handed quarterstaff is the double axe of 5e.

[Telwar]

Take the saving throw vs Attack split, take it out back, make it dig its own grave, and shoot it in the back of the head so even if someone finds it it needs a closed-casket funeral.

Pick one and stick with it, don't switch between the two based on what the writers had for breakfast that morning. It bothers me so damn much, and it makes exactly as much sense for the defender to make a sword or bow attack miss (i.e. save against it) as it does for a fireball to miss someone in its effect radius (made their save).


As a note, this would not fix everything I think is wrong with 5e (my primary complaint is the writers' fundamental laziness and insistence on making their laziness into a supposed virtue of "rulings not rules" that in fact wastes my time as a DM), but it'd be a start.

[Deleted]

Imagine that you're staring at the final copies of the 5e PHB and DMG. They're about to go out to print for the first time. What's the one thing you would change?

I would drop the sorcerer's spell list. I would then add a small section to their spell casting saying that they can pick any full casting spell and gain their spells.

Now you have a Sorcerer who you can customize and is very different from the Wizard.

OR

Make the cleric casting work like Warlock casting as those two things are essentially the same thing (borrowing power).

It takes too many changes to really fix the big issues my groups have with 5e but these two things would go a long way of making two classes (Sorcerer or Cleric) different from two similar classes (Wizard and Druid).


Edit++++

If you have an issue with there not being a historical version of a weapon... Well... There wasn't a historical version of a wizard that actually could cast magic so why the double standard? By that logic all mages should be rogues with expertise (sleight of hand).

[Mister_Squinty]

If you have an issue with there not being a historical version of a weapon... Well... There wasn't a historical version of a wizard that actually could cast magic so why the double standard? By that logic all mages should be rogues with expertise (sleight of hand).

And have finesse versatile katanas that do 1d12/2d10 damage! With 18-20 threat range and x3 crit!

If WOTC wants to make up double axes, double swords, spiked chains, etc, that's up to them. The one handed quarterstaff is another example of those made up weapons, based on its non-existence in our history.

Given the original topic, I would include removing that made up weapon from the equipment list in my edits.

[Magic Myrmidon]

Regarding the quarterstaff thing, I would say that using a movie to demonstrate it is fine, considering this is a game in which the characters are meant to do things that are impossible. I can't see a warrior doing 8 strikes with a greatsword in 6 seconds. Heck, dual wielding wasn't really done the way it is in this edition, but we accept it.

That, and you know, elves, dragons, etc.

Fantasy compared to fantasy, not fantasy held up to the standard of reality.

[Potato_Priest]

Might be because there is no historical equivalent to a one handed glaive. Just like there is no historical equivalent to a one handed quarterstaff.

The one-handed quarterstaff is the double axe of 5e.

I think that the medium-sized stick is a fine counterpart of the 1-handed quarterstaff, and they've been around for a while. :amused: It might not be a military-grade weapon, but really neither is the quarterstaff. In real life a spear is pretty much always better.

Katanas Naginatas were sometimes wielded in one hand from horseback (according to answers to a question that I asked on the "Got a Question about Real-world armor, weapons or tactics" thread), and are pretty darned similar to a glaive.

[Mister_Squinty]

Katanas were sometimes wielded in one hand from horseback (according to answers to a question that I asked on the "Got a Question about Real-world armor, weapons or tactics" thread), and are pretty darned similar to a glaive.

My reading shows that glaives are about 7 feet long, 8 1/2 counting the blade head. That would be very dissimilar from any katana I've seen.

[Potato_Priest]

My reading shows that glaives are about 7 feet long, 8 1/2 counting the blade head. That would be very dissimilar from any katana I've seen.

Oops, sorry, I meant naginatas. I have edited my original post to reflect my intended meaning.

[Mister_Squinty]

Oops, sorry, I meant naginatas.

I could see a naginata being used from horseback as a light lance weapon, sure. The weight and momentum of the horse alleviates the need for two-handed leverage.

The same theory could be applied to a quarterstaff as well.

[Malifice]

Re-work the Warlock class so it's not completely gimped.


Its not gmped. Your DM just sucks in policing the adventuring day. Either via ignorance or choice.

I play a Bladelock (Fighter/ Warlock) and he's one of the strongest in our party.

We generally get 6 encounters per long rest, and 2 short rests per long rest.

[JakOfAllTirades]

Its not gmped. Your DM just sucks in policing the adventuring day. Either via ignorance or choice.

I play a Bladelock (Fighter/ Warlock) and he's one of the strongest in our party.

We generally get 6 encounters per long rest, and 2 short rests per long rest.

Yeah, the Bladelock; a fighting Warlock. Funny how everyone pretty much agrees it's impossible to make this archetype function as advertised without multiclassing as a Fighter. This isn't a feature, it's a bug! The Bladelock isn't even close to being workable without some sort of "patch" and the other archetypes aren't much better.

[Malifice]

Yeah, the Bladelock; a fighting Warlock. Funny how everyone pretty much agrees it's impossible to make this archetype function as advertised without multiclassing as a Fighter. This isn't a feature, it's a bug! The Bladelock isn't even close to being workable without some sort of "patch" and the other archetypes aren't much better.

A 9th level caster isnt as good as fighting as a fighter without MCing into fighter?

Oh noes! Dur system is broken.

[Tanarii]

The Bladelock isn't even close to being workable without some sort of "patch" and the other archetypes aren't much better.
That's a complete load. I've seen many perfectly functional Bladelocks in play. They work just fine.

What they (generally) aren't is built to be melee primary that can caster. They're what's advertised on the box: full caster primary with some melee capabilities.

[mephnick]

I've always wondered why people pick Bladelock when what they want is actually an Eldritch Knight.

[DarkKnightJin]

I've always wondered why people pick Bladelock when what they want is actually an Eldritch Knight.

Because they don't like the 1/3 caster progression, I guess. Either that, ot the lure of Agonizing Blast is too much to resist.

Personally, I have 2 or 3 possible character ideas floating in my head that would probably go Eldritch Knight. If I don't convince myself to have 'em go Paladin, instead..

[mephnick]

Because they don't like the 1/3 caster progression, I guess. Either that, ot the lure of Agonizing Blast is too much to resist.

Yeah, so they turn around and say "I want full caster progression and Agonizing Blast!" and then pick the Bladelock...and then after 5 sessions throw their books on the floor and yell "This Bladelock isn't as good in melee as a Fighter, how dare you WotC!!" I'm just not sure what confuses people so much about the Bladelock that everyone's so dissatisfied with it. It's a "full" caster with some tricks to last in melee for a couple rounds in a pinch before you get out of melee and start casting again. That's it. The Pacts aren't meant to be powerful defining features. You get rituals, a small pet, or the ability to use weapons better. You're still a Warlock.

[alchahest]

Or because they hit level 3 in warlock, and don't want a pet or a book, and think it'd be cool to be able to pull a weapon out of the air if you get stuck somewhere you shouldn't be.

Sort of corner case, but remember other people can use your pact weapon for up to a minute. So if you're ever captured, just summon your warlock weapon and hand it off to the party paladin to smite some fools with for a hot, bloody minute.

[Ignimortis]

Warlock would actually make a fine half-caster through INT...

On topic - I'd change a lot. I like some points of 5e and some points of 3.5e, so the revised 5e by me would be a mix of both. Things I'd change for sure: general power level increase from level 6 and higher, unbind the accuracy a bit (not to the 3.5 extent, but make d20 rolls have less of an impact in things you're supposed to be good at), make a proper fixed-value skill system. Also the revised ranger is the default, and sorcerers get bonus spells from their bloodline.

[Mister_Squinty]

Its not gmped. Your DM just sucks in policing the adventuring day. Either via ignorance or choice.

I play a Bladelock (Fighter/ Warlock) and he's one of the strongest in our party.

We generally get 6 encounters per long rest, and 2 short rests per long rest.

So as long as you cross with a fundamentally strong martial class, and your DM gives you a predictable number of encounters between short and long rests, the Warlock is a great choice?. :confused:

[DivisibleByZero]

there are many "perceived" problems with the warlock, but the only real problem is that they don't get enough spells which scale with slot increases.

That isn't to say that I wouldn't change them, as I have already explained how I would. But they work perfectly well as is.

[Anonymouswizard]

What would I change.

First, this class system needs a major overhaul.
-4 classes, Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard. Four broad archetypes that have been around almost forever in D&D, although ideally I'd drop the Cleric as well.
-Make more specialised classes subclasses. The Fighter gets Barbarian/Monk/Paladin/Warlord, the Rogue gets Assassin/Ranger/Thief, Wizard gets Druid/Evoker/Illusionist/Necromancer, Cleric gets Invoker/Healer/Warlock (lists are not exclusive).
-Throw out Ability Scores, and add in weapon skills and 'tool skills' (things like Alchemy, Disguise, blah). Alternatively throw out scaling proficiency bonuses and increase the ability to improve ability scores (which are now just the bonus).
-Realise this is a pointless exercise because I'm starting to turn this into Fantasy AGE, which already exists, stop and read a book or something.

[Mikal]

Make sure that any location that references a specific rule also references the other part of that rule if it's elsewhere in the book, or better, make sure the rule is completely spelled out.

2 examples

1- PHB: Sorcerer talks about being able to cast a spell as a bonus action and another spell as your regular. In an entirely different section it notes that if you cast a spell as a bonus action you can only cast a cantrip with the other.

2- DMG: One section talks about how anyone can read and use a magic scroll unless the description says otherwise. The magic item section for spells states that only those who have the spell in their class spell list can read a scroll, otherwise it's unintelligible.

If you're going to have those types of caveats in there, then you either need to reference the other part of it, or just place it twice if you really need it in each location, even if paraphrased.

[DivisibleByZero]

Make sure that any location that references a specific rule also references the other part of that rule if it's elsewhere in the book, or better, make sure the rule is completely spelled out.

2 examples

1- PHB: Sorcerer talks about being able to cast a spell as a bonus action and another spell as your regular. In an entirely different section it notes that if you cast a spell as a bonus action you can only cast a cantrip with the other.

2- DMG: One section talks about how anyone can read and use a magic scroll unless the description says otherwise. The magic item section for spells states that only those who have the spell in their class spell list can read a scroll, otherwise it's unintelligible.

If you're going to have those types of caveats in there, then you either need to reference the other part of it, or just place it twice if you really need it in each location, even if paraphrased.

I agree that Quicken could have been explained better.
But the two things with scrolls you're talking about are completely different. There are two kinds of scrolls. The first are general scrolls (which do not cast a spell, as per the list of spells in the PHB), which anyone can use. There is only one at this point in time that I'm aware of, that being a Scroll of Protection. The second kind are Spell Scrolls (as per the list of spells in the PHB). Those require the spell be on your list.
I agree that they could have done a better job of it by simply leaving the "it has to be on your list" part of the general rules, and creating an exception for the Scroll of Protection, but that's what's going on there.

[Mikal]

I agree that Quicken could have been explained better.
But the two things with scrolls you're talking about are completely different. There are two kinds of scrolls. The first are general scrolls (which do not cast a spell, as per the list of spells in the PHB), which anyone can use. There is only one at this point in time that I'm aware of, that being a Scroll of Protection. The second kind are Spell Scrolls (as per the list of spells in the PHB). Those require the spell be on your list.
I agree that they could have done a better job of it by simply leaving the "it has to be on your list" part of the general rules, and creating an exception for the Scroll of Protection, but that's what's going on there.

Thought I was on your ignore list?

Anyway, just brought those two up as specific examples because I'm starting in a game where a player thought that spell scrolls could be used by anyone cause of the splitting of those two bits of info, as well as thought that Quicken would allow them to cast two leveled spelled at once.

And he's been playing for a little while.

For the most part, the books are good at showcasing the specific examples of how something works, but hides gems like that for people who don't go through every part of it.

[mephnick]

as well as thought that Quicken would allow them to cast two leveled spells

Yes, they needed to sidebar this on the actual Sorc page. Every single player I've had looks at Quicken and thinks "Cool!" and then I have to explain that it's actually not a great choice until high levels for 90% of sorcerers. Then they get sad and flip to a different class...

[Mikal]

Yes, they needed to sidebar this on the actual Sorc page. Every single player I've had looks at Quicken and thinks "Cool!" and then I have to explain that it's actually not a great choice until high levels for 90% of sorcerers. Then they get sad and flip to a different class...

It is a little disheartening when you realize that the best thing you can do with Quicken Spell is to use it on Eldritch Blast instead.

[Demonslayer666]

Making the big wooden stick just for show?



I believe the scarf "strawmanned" the staves by snapping them in half. If you want to say dual wielding staves is legit because of movie magic, consistency would require that you also say the whip now can break walls.



You said the quarterstaff should be able to be a one handed weapon because the spear is. But there is no one-handed pole weapon that does slashing. Why the inconsistency?

Might be because there is no historical equivalent to a one handed glaive. Just like there is no historical equivalent to a one handed quarterstaff.

The one-handed quarterstaff is the double axe of 5e.

So you do believe that was CGI, and not two guys using bamboo staffs?

I believe they actually did that and there was no movie magic other than the high likelihood of it taking several takes to make the fight scene. To me, that was real sparing, albeit choreographed, with real enough weapons that it could work in combat.

If you don't think a quarterstaff can be thrust or swung with one hand hard enough to hurt you, then that's fine. I certainly think it would. Again, it has absolutely nothing to do with damage type. You can use a spear without a tip on it just like a spear. You won't do piercing damage, but you will still do damage, I guarantee it.

[Tanarii]

You can use a spear without a tip on it just like a spear.In other words, not really possible to use one over about 4-5ft effectively in one hand unless you're part of a massed formation & it's braced on a shield.

[Grim Portent]

So many things, but if I had to pick the Animate Dead and Create Undead spells are probably the first things on my list of annoyances.

I'd scrap the limits on creature type and scrap the 24 hour control timer. Anything that was alive and left a corpse can be animated if you meet the requirements to animate it and it's yours until you release it, it dies or a more powerful necromancer steals it.

As is the spells make having a necromancer NPC rely pretty much entirely on ignoring the spells that are supposed to be the basis of animating the undead, and PCs can't even try to emulate fictional necromancers at all. Hell they can't even make a zombie dragon to ride or animate a god damn horse! 5e manages to make necromancy even worse than 3.5 at actually feeling like necromancy and 3.5 was previously the worst attempt at it I had seen.

[Mister_Squinty]

So you do believe that was CGI, and not two guys using bamboo staffs?

I believe they actually did that and there was no movie magic other than the high likelihood of it taking several takes to make the fight scene. To me, that was real sparing, albeit choreographed, with real enough weapons that it could work in combat.

I believe it was two men swinging a pair of bamboo staves at each other, agreed.

I do not believe that it was, in any way, a reflection of a genuine fighting style. Neither combatant, despite being in fantastic physical condition and with years of martial arts training, would have been able to effectively attack his opponent and defend himself using two long poles.

In essence, it is the same as the lightsaber duel in Phantom Menace. For the purposes of that movie, a double bladed lightsaber, and the fighting style to use it, existed. In no way would a weapon with double blades of that length be a safe or effective weapon in a real fight.


If you don't think a quarterstaff can be thrust or swung with one hand hard enough to hurt you, then that's fine. I certainly think it would. Again, it has absolutely nothing to do with damage type. You can use a spear without a tip on it just like a spear. You won't do piercing damage, but you will still do damage, I guarantee it.

I do not believe a plain, blunt, one handed pole would be effective as a military weapon. I believe this because, in the thousands of years of the history of recorded warfare, there are no apparent records of anyone using one. Given how brutally efficient warfare is in determining the best weapons and best tactics in changing conditions and technologies, the fact that there are no one handed quarterstaves is telling.

But WotC put the versatile tag on the quarterstaff, and it's both RAW and RAI. Just like the urgosh and the double bladed sword in 3e, one handed quarterstaves is an official thing. It's also on my (and apparently others') lists of rules that we would change if given the chance.

Fair enough? :smallsmile:

[2D8HP]

Long ago in a thread east of the sun and west of the moon I posted:


Only allow the players access to the free online Players Basic Rules (http://dnd.wizards.com/node/4896) not the PHB!
Use the "Slow Natural Healing", and "Gritty Realism" variants from page 267 of the DMG.
Remember Warlocks, Dragonborn and Tieflings are NPC's only!
If they whine make them roll 3d6 in order for their stats. No takebacks!
All the PC's "backgrounds" are: "Loot hungry murder-hobo"...
PC "Trait", "Ideal", "Bond", and "Flaw" all should be "meets like minded individuals at tavern, to go on noble quest to steal loot from Dungeon dwellers".
That should suffice.
Please PM when you need a player for that campaign.
Thanks
:wink:

And I can go on how I'd like 5e to be more like TSR B/X D&D and less like Pathfinder (or just make B/X more like 5e), but..... no rules changes are as good as having actual other people to who will play the game!

If my changes make D&D as unpopular as it was in the early 1990's, then those changes aren't worth it.

On the other hand if they make D&D as popular as it was in the early '80's huzzah!

[Deleted]

I've always wondered why people pick Bladelock when what they want is actually an Eldritch Knight.

I honestly prefer the short rest magic mechanic better than the daily magic that the EK gets.

Also having cool and interesting class features, which the Fighter sorely lacks, is another reason.

Actually being able to rely on a mental score, without it making me suck at my other stuff, is also a good reason.

Bladelock keeps close enough with the fighter in damage during most levels of actual gameplay. People will generally stop playing around level 8 ish after all. But the Fighter can't keep up with pretty much anything else that the Warlock can do. The Fighter (even EK) drags behind in soooo many areas that there is no reason to not pick the Warlock is you want a magical fighter. I do like V-Human Fighter 2 (Magic initiate) when multiclassing but I typically stay single class.

[snickersnax]

If you want to say dual wielding staves is legit because of movie magic, consistency would require that you also say the whip now can break walls.

I wish that whips couldn't break walls, but RAW they can... Wall of Stone: Each panel has AC 15 and 30 hit points per inch of thickness.

Oddly enough for a character with 20 dexterity and 10 strength, a whip is a better choice to break down a wall than a hammer, pick, or maul :frown:

I wish that there had been a "does this make sense" check by the editing staff, before they finalized the rules set. Lumberjacks and miners with whips... who thought that was a good idea?

[Mister_Squinty]

I wish that whips couldn't break walls, but RAW they can... Wall of Stone: Each panel has AC 15 and 30 hit points per inch of thickness.

Oddly enough for a character with 20 dexterity and 10 strength, a whip is a better choice to break down a wall than a hammer, pick, or maul :frown:

I wish that there had been a "does this make sense" check by the editing staff, before they finalized the rules set. Lumberjacks with whips... who thought that was a good idea?

I'd never looked at the rule that way... It's hilarious in hindsight.

It would probably get too complex, but giving stone objects immunity to slashing damage and resistance to bludgeoning would have made a lot of sense.

[mephnick]

I'd never looked at the rule that way... It's hilarious in hindsight.

It would probably get too complex, but giving stone objects immunity to slashing damage and resistance to bludgeoning would have made a lot of sense.

I have a very simple table with resistances for objects. I did away with object AC, because how stupid is that, gave things damage resistence per hit and more hit points

[snickersnax]

I'd never looked at the rule that way... It's hilarious in hindsight.

It would probably get too complex, but giving stone objects immunity to slashing damage and resistance to bludgeoning would have made a lot of sense.

Yeah that's a good idea, but it doesn't fix trees. Chopping (slashing) damage is clearly the damage type of choice to chop wood. Somehow the ax should be the best weapon for the job, but its not.

And while I'm on a rant, it doesn't fix executioners (usually assassins due to massive single blow damage). Seeing as how you can only sneak attack with a finesse weapon, the clear choice for executioner is rapier, and a whip wouldn't be a bad choice either... BAH!

Make the math work for axes to be the weapon of choice for chopping wood and chopping heads.

[Malifice]

I wish that whips couldn't break walls, but RAW they can... Wall of Stone: Each panel has AC 15 and 30 hit points per inch of thickness.

Oddly enough for a character with 20 dexterity and 10 strength, a whip is a better choice to break down a wall than a hammer, pick, or maul :frown:

I wish that there had been a "does this make sense" check by the editing staff, before they finalized the rules set. Lumberjacks and miners with whips... who thought that was a good idea?

The rules for damaging objects expressly tell the DM to rely on common sense and to use his 'best judgement'.

They also state the DM is free to rule some weapons or damage types simply cannot damage some objects.

Not sure about in your game but in mine this means you can't whip or bow through a Wall of Stone.