What things would you like to see fixed in 5e?

[Man_Over_Game]

Either through homebrew, official rulings, or even in a future edition, what problems do you see in 5e that you'd like to eventually get fixed? I have a few gripes of my own, but I'd like to hear what you guys have to say.


----------

My personal list:

General
Not many options for creating items, which is a shame for inventor-style of adventurers
Stealth is extremely vague, with few rules regarding the difference between Sound, Vision, Sound + Vision, Partially Obscured, using the same location over and over, and Movement.
d20 has too much random chance when combined with bounded accuracy. Note that a 20 Str check can break handcuffs, which means it'll take an average strength Wizard about two minutes of straining, or the strongest warrior on the continent (20 Str) 1/4 of the time of the Wizard (30 seconds).
Not enough differences between weapons. Likely intentional to make things quicker and less rules-heavy, but even some simple changes could mix things up (like, what's up with the trident, yo?)
Familiars are too good, scouts are not good enough.
Cantrips scale with level, but level 1 damage spells do not.
Initiative creates a different "game mode", where players expect combat vs. when they think they're safe, and where true tension doesn't exist unless Initiative is relevant.
Few rules to create improvised attacks or actions. Or, alternatively, not enough special melee actions.


Classes
Few tactical options for those who don't use magic.
Few tactical options for those who are in melee.
Major power disparity between characters based on the number of encounters per short rests per long rests, requiring many balance changes if tables want more or fewer battles per day.
No tactical Barbarian, who doesn't multiclass into much of anything very well. Can't cast spells, redundancy with armor proficiency, doesn't work with ranged, and everything else is Dexterity.
Too much reliance on Charisma-based Everything. Skills and Casting are often dominated by Charisma, and there is even Charisma-based attacking available.
Rangers.

----------

I'm a big fan of using 5e as a toolbox to change features as needed at my own tables. By seeing what people have issues with, I know what kinds of problems I can make solutions for at my tables. So please give me any concerns you might have, or just simply confirm (or deny) any of the issues I've listed above.

[Grod_The_Giant]

d20 has too much random chance when combined with bounded accuracy. Note that a 20 Str check can break handcuffs, which means it'll take an average strength Wizard about two minutes of straining, or the strongest warrior on the continent (20 Str) 1/4 of the time of the Wizard (30 seconds).
Major power disparity between characters based on the number of encounters per short rests per long rests, requiring many balance changes if tables want more or fewer battles per day.


I'd say these are by far my biggest concerns with 5e, followed by "over-reliance on ability scores makes characters too homogeneous" and "missing archetypes" (including, yes, a crafting class).

I've tried a couple things for the random chance issue, and to be honest, nothing has really felt great beyond treating highs scores and proficiencies like permissions. If you're willing to go for a more serious structural change, I think 5e would really benefit from being switched to a 3d6 system-- there are plenty of threads on the matter floating around.
The stupidly long expected adventuring days, ugh. The best solutions seem to be "multiply short rest resources by 3 and call 'em long rest," and "let everyone take 2 short rests/long rests without taking any in-game time."
Ability scores can be removed with surprisingly little impact (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?503455-5e-Without-Ability-Scores-skills-Skills-Skills), but good luck getting people to play like that.
...and I'm working on (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?570238-Grod-s-General-5e-Reference-and-Houserules&p=23400588) filling in missing archetypes.


(Also, brace yourself for the stampede of "5e is fine you're just playing it wrong" and "you can't change anything without totally destroying the balance of the game" replies)

[Marywn]

Put in bracing, tower shields, the ability to make a shield wall and we're good.

[LudicSavant]

I'll echo the ability scores issue Grod mentions.

[Whit]

Warlock is one class that needs a serious revamp.

From op abilities early to bad spell slots.
It’s a great class potential but needs major overhaul.

[supergoji18]

Advanced/Epic fighting techniques for higher level Martial characters. While wizards are calling down meteor swarms and sorcerers are bending reality to their whim, and equivalent level fighter has no real distinguishing features over a lower level fighter except for higher stats and more attacks.

In fact, make higher level gameplay better overall, especially for single class characters. The majority of capstone abilities are either boring, useless, or both, as are many of the abilities in the levels leading up to it. Almost every class gets everything they would ever want/need in their first few levels.

Also, making higher tier monsters capable of competing with high level characters would keep things interesting as well. Balors, Pit Fiends, Solars and Dragons, all of which are supposed to be the pinnacle of monster-kind, are a joke to any party of level 14 or higher. I'd like for them to have more features and combat options to keep them interesting. For example, why not have the Balor and Pit Fiend have access to some of the fiend patron warlock's pact features? Some of them are the sources of these pacts, so why wouldn't they be able to use these features? Picture just how much more intense a battle with a Pit Fiend would be if he had the power to (briefly) send a player to hell?

Edit: I also think spell points should be the core option instead of spell slots. Spell points feels more organic, while spell slots feel arbitrary.

[Man_Over_Game]

Edit: I also think spell points should be the core option instead of spell slots. Spell points feels more organic, while spell slots feel arbitrary.

People talked so much crap about 4e, WotC probably wanted to create as much distance as possible to keep the peace. If WotC removed leveled spells and spell slots in lieu of "mana" or "spell points", people would have had a friggin conniption over how "WOTC ONLY MAKES WARCRAFT GAMES NOW, GAME IS TERRIBAD".

It makes sense now, because we're used to 5e, but it made a lot of sense back when 5e came out why they did it. If they didn't pull some of the same BS from older editions that didn't make much sense, players wouldn't come back and they'd just assume it was "4e+1".

Sounds dumb, but the stupid way spell slots work is something a lot of oldschool players are accustomed to.

[Misterwhisper]

PRESENTATION:

Clean up a lot of the language, use different words to mean Melee weapon attack, melee attack, ranged attack, ranged weapon attack and the like.
This is the main issue is just the overall wording of many things that take a sage advice search to clarify what they actually meant.

Split up the fluff description of abilities and spells from the mechanics with either a heading or something.


Classes/feats:

MAKE ELDRITCH BLAST A CLASS ABILITY NOT A CANTRIP.

Fix combat style balance in some way, abilities that give bonus action attacks are so much more powerful than the options that don't.

Gives monks better defense.

Mechanics:

If the system is built on the idea of "Bound Accuracy" to the point that it was hammered in the whole time during playtest and release, then actually stick with it.
The idea that everything is supposed to be bound in a range but then in the PHB you have Pass Without Trace that gives +10 to a skill check is crazy, then in the very first expansion book they give blade singer an ability that gives 2 stats instead of 1 to their armor AND still get to use armor, and they get 2 stats to concentration.

Off the top of my head.

[Nifft]

Echoing a lot of what came before.

- Skills should mean more. Tool proficiency should mean something (not just Herbalism & Thieves).

- There should be some less-random mechanic than a d20 roll for success on some things -- like the aforementioned Strength checks to break items. It should be possible for PCs, but at least somewhat unusual, and not simply a matter of an average-strength person trying for two minutes.

- Warlock needs a re-write.

- Rangers and Sorcerers and 4Elemonks could use some help.

- Multiclassing into Cleric needs a nerf so it's not the most efficient way to get Heavy armor on a Wizard.

- Some spells should be turned into class features, including Eldritch Blast, Hex, Hunter's Mark, and Find (Greater) Steed.

- Stealth needs help.

- Add the Bloodied condition from 4e; key some of the nastier monster abilities off of it, so you're not always rewarded for playing yo-yo with healing. Make it more dangerous to have low HP.

- Maybe add some kind of trade-off between spellcasting and magic items or boons? So the non-casters have a niche and a thing to do at high levels.

- Replace HD with Healing Surges.

[carrdrivesyou]

Class variety. I am sick of seeing a "new and shiny subclass" for YET ANOTHER WAY TO PLAY A FIGHTER OR WIZARD. While having dozens of books necessary to make a character in previous editions was a hassle, it also allowed for more flavor and different builds and strategies. The class/subclass system is getting old fast.
The idea for an entirely new class such as the Mystic were shot down and ripped apart. And only for the benefit of adding psionic subclasses to other classes. The mystic dies and its skeleton parades forth as a mere shadow of itself in the form of the Psion.

Where are the shamans? Where are the alchemists? Where is anything that gets sneak attack other than rogues? Why can only BM fighters be decent at disarming people? Where is anything that breaks from the norm? Having the same formula for each class gives the same vibe of being repetitive and gets stale quickly. Like eating a different kind of pizza every day, eventually, you get tired of pizza altogether.

So I'm calling out WotC on these shenanigans. Honestly, without some more variety, I'm likely going to be looking at Shadowrun in the future instead of further installments of 5e. Their new material comes out at a positively GLACIAL pace, with errata taking just as long.

In essence, the game is getting boring and repetitive from a PC perspective, as there are very few flavors of character to pick from. And I have some spectacular DMs, with intricate stories, plots, and twists. So I am certain that my angst stems from the system mechanics.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Sounds dumb, but the stupid way spell slots work is something a lot of oldschool players are accustomed to.
That's a bit unfair, I think. Not all sacred cows are inherently bad-- some of them are crucial to what gives D&D its own unique feel, spell slots among them. Say rather that "the stupid way spell slots work is part of the system's identity," along with stuff like "classes" and "the d20."

[Unoriginal]

what problems do you see in 5e that you'd like to eventually get fixed?

Threads about "fixing" 5e.

[Xetheral]

Better pictures for Halflings. I've never had a player in 5e play one, and I think the terrifying imagery on the page might be a contributing factor.

[Doug Lampert]

Ability scores can be removed with surprisingly little impact (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?503455-5e-Without-Ability-Scores-skills-Skills-Skills), but good luck getting people to play like that.


Try claiming you're being really old school.

My memory of Men and Magic is that ability scores did NOTHING mechanical in the system described. They were there for the GM to call for rolls when you did something other than use a class ability or combat action.

IIRC in Greyhawk they added an ability prerequisite for the new Paladin class, and they added bonus XP for having a high score in your prime requisite.

Other bonuses, I think, came in Blackmoor.

[Sigreid]

I would remove the total heal in 8 hours.
I would like for curses such as lycanthropy to be much harder to get rid of.

[Man_Over_Game]

Oh, yeah, my biggest #1 gripe:

Don't have "Attacks with a Weapon" be different than "Weapon Attack". Don't have "Ranged Weapon Attack" be different than "An attack with a Ranged Weapon". The frustrating amount of stupid syntax with this has caused so much confusion, even Mearls, one of the big honchos of 5e, made some incorrect rulings due to the confusing language and once said that a thrown weapon was a "melee weapon attack".

I propose to change this:



Attack
Melee
Ranged


Weapon
Great Axe
Crossbow Shot


Spell
Shocking Grasp
Sun Soul's Radiant Bolt



To this:



Attack
Striking
Projectile


Physical
Great Axe
Crossbow Shot


Non-Physical
Shocking Grasp
Sun Soul's Radiant Bolt



So when you attack with a Handaxe in melee, it's a Striking Physical attack, but when you throw it, it's now a Projectile Physical attack. Same rules, different words.

[strangebloke]

I'd say these are by far my biggest concerns with 5e, followed by "over-reliance on ability scores makes characters too homogeneous" and "missing archetypes" (including, yes, a crafting class).

I've tried a couple things for the random chance issue, and to be honest, nothing has really felt great beyond treating highs scores and proficiencies like permissions. If you're willing to go for a more serious structural change, I think 5e would really benefit from being switched to a 3d6 system-- there are plenty of threads on the matter floating around.
The stupidly long expected adventuring days, ugh. The best solutions seem to be "multiply short rest resources by 3 and call 'em long rest," and "let everyone take 2 short rests/long rests without taking any in-game time."
Ability scores can be removed with surprisingly little impact (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?503455-5e-Without-Ability-Scores-skills-Skills-Skills), but good luck getting people to play like that.
...and I'm working on (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?570238-Grod-s-General-5e-Reference-and-Houserules&p=23400588) filling in missing archetypes.


(Also, brace yourself for the stampede of "5e is fine you're just playing it wrong" and "you can't change anything without totally destroying the balance of the game" replies)

Well, I think everyone has vehement opinions that certain things are or are not broken, but pretty much everyone agrees that the system could be improved.


I agree about high random chance. My rule is: "Proficiency = permission. If you are allowed to make the check without proficiency, you do it with disasdvantage." This works but it is a little clunky. I've tried switching to 3d6, but the trick there is that you vehemently don't want to use 3d6 for combat, since it makes all encounters very samey and makes certain things rather imbalanced. Some things that you want to have low variability at some times (like ability checks outside of combat) are also things that you don't want to have low variability at other times. (like initiative and other ability checks inside of combat.)
I'd like to change several poorly written, unclear rules. The whole 'bonus action spell' thing should just be: "You can't cast more than one spell of 1st level or higher per turn." In fact, every bonus action should be changed to a new sort of action. So instead of [Attack action+ TWF bonus action attack] you'd just have [TWF attack action]. Instead of [Dash action +Misty Step bonus action], you'd have Misty Step only castable when you're taking a 'normal action' (dash, dodge, disengage, attack, etc.) Outside of certain edge cases this would end up working the same, but its a lot more straightforward, since as it stands now there's tons of weird contingencies and order of operations SNAFUs. And then of course the whole "Melee weapon attack" nonsense.
I don't hate the adventuring day rules, actually, but it'd be appropriate to formalize the '2 short rests, each taking 10 minutes' option.
TBH I just really don't think certain archetypes can play nice in the same game as the core classes. Inventors will always either be "That lame guy who can only build one copy of 'x' magic item." Or "That guy who snickers when the DM says 'a month passes'." People who like the 'summoner' type are never happy unless they're overpowered, and they slow down the game ridiculously.

[Doug Lampert]

That's a bit unfair, I think. Not all sacred cows are inherently bad-- some of them are crucial to what gives D&D its own unique feel, spell slots among them. Say rather that "the stupid way spell slots work is part of the system's identity," along with stuff like "classes" and "the d20."

Spell slots are EASY and they work.

Spell points always seem to end up either being "cast everything in combat at the highest possible level and don't you dare 'waste' power on a utility spell" or "this low level spell imposes a killer debuff, so spam it as fast as possible to the exclusion of everything else."

If you did somehow balance things so high, middle, and low level spells were all reasonable and viable options in combat, then you'd have people playing accountant to keep track of their spell points.

I might like a fatigue based system better (see Ars Magica for a pretty good one), or if you demand unified systems you could give everyone a pool of mojo/mana/ki/whatever and power all special abilities off the single unified pool.

But spell points don't strike me as any better than slots. They aren't more "realistic": (a) it's magic (b) fatigue doesn't work that way, not even close.

[strangebloke]

Spell slots are EASY and they work.

Spell points always seem to end up either being "cast everything in combat at the highest possible level and don't you dare 'waste' power on a utility spell" or "this low level spell imposes a killer debuff, so spam it as fast as possible to the exclusion of everything else."

If you did somehow balance things so high, middle, and low level spells were all reasonable and viable options in combat, then you'd have people playing accountant to keep track of their spell points.

I might like a fatigue based system better (see Ars Magica for a pretty good one), or if you demand unified systems you could give everyone a pool of mojo/mana/ki/whatever and power all special abilities off the single unified pool.

But spell points don't strike me as any better than slots. They aren't more "realistic": (a) it's magic (b) fatigue doesn't work that way, not even close.

The trick is the magic of excluded options.

If you have a classless game, you actually end up with a very short list of builds, since there's generally an absolutely optimal way to build for a certain sort of thing. You want to be a skill monkey? Put points in the 'expertise' tree. You want to be a guy with two swords? 5 points into defense, 3 into light armor, 10 into TWF. It's a buffet, and you're just going to load your plate with whatever you want and call it a day.

Then you have the class, a 'meal' with lots of internal synergy, but more defined, limited options. There are lots of ways to build a 'skill monkey' in 5e because there are lots of classes and subclasses that interact with that role in different ways.


Similarly with spells, it creates this layer of nuance to which spells you want to cast at what times that I think really makes those decisions more interesting.

[Potato_Priest]

1. Big monsters get big damage AOE attacks, not lots of attacks. Seriously, is the tarrasque some kind of ballerina to get off 8 attacks/round at that size?

2. All classes key off the long rest for resources. 5 minute adventuring day? Gritty realism variant? No class balance problem!

3. Armor grants damage reduction, and fighter features significantly improve that reduction to make the fighter a viable tank even at later levels when AC is moot.

4. Barbarians get extra hp during a rage rather than resistance. Bear totem>everything and taking a thousand swords to the gut but going down like tissue paper in a little fire is suddenly not a thing, and barbarians are free to use their rages at thematically appropriate moments, rather than “before I take any damage”

[NaughtyTiger]

PRESENTATION:

Clean up a lot of the language, use different words to mean Melee weapon attack, melee attack, ranged attack, ranged weapon attack and the like.
This is the main issue is just the overall wording of many things that take a sage advice search to clarify what they actually meant.

Split up the fluff description of abilities and spells from the mechanics with either a heading or something.


This, omg, yes.
Hire a copy editor for 6e. Use cut/paste for the mechanics so features that are supposed to behave the same have the same wording.

something like MoG's language suggestion clearly addresses, while still keeping "plain english"

[Man_Over_Game]

1. Big monsters get big damage AOE attacks, not lots of attacks. Seriously, is the tarrasque some kind of ballerina to get off 8 attacks/round at that size?

2. All classes key off the long rest for resources. 5 minute adventuring day? Gritty realism variant? No class balance problem!

3. Armor grants damage reduction, and fighter features significantly improve that reduction to make the fighter a viable tank even at later levels when AC is moot.

4. Barbarians get extra hp during a rage rather than resistance. Bear totem>everything and taking a thousand swords to the gut but going down like tissue paper in a little fire is suddenly not a thing, and barbarians are free to use their rages at thematically appropriate moments, rather than “before I take any damage”

What's funny is that a lot of these concepts are actually big parts in 4e that people really liked. Especially the Rage aspect of Barbarians. They had a defensive mode that they initiated combat with, and then they could do a special action that caused them to Rage, which replaced all of their defensive options into high damage abilities targeted for aggression.

So you took damage until there was one boss left, and then you went to town. Rage activation abilities included things like charging at the enemy with flight, taking a mortal wound and laughing in the enemy's face (as you regenerate half of your health from lethal), or just straight up explode into flames.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

Threads about "fixing" 5e.

https://i.gifer.com/6j72.gif

[DrowPiratRobrts]

I would remove the total heal in 8 hours.
I would like for curses such as lycanthropy to be much harder to get rid of.

There are rules for this you know? They anticipated the desire for this as well as an even more heroic type of campaign and adjusted rests/healing/permanent damage for both. I believe it's in the DM's Guide off the top of my head.

[Man_Over_Game]

https://i.gifer.com/6j72.gif

A lot of people are gonna give shade, but 5E was designed from the ground up to be easily modified, so we can do whatever the hell we want with it. Ignoring that, to me, is like refusing to play with Legos without instructions.

Sure, you can play it that way, but the designers went to great lengths so we wouldn't have to.

[Grod_The_Giant]

What's funny is that a lot of these concepts are actually big parts in 4e that people really liked.
While I admittedly haven't played since the very early days, I feel like 4e had an awful lot more good stuff going for it than it's usually given credit for. Tight balance, interesting martial classes, a simple unified framework that could very easily be used to build all sorts of interesting mechanics, great and easy-to-use monsters, at least an attempt at skill challenges... It's a shame the reception was so toxic; I'd love to see a "4.5e" relaunch with baked-in noncombat stuff and classes written with years of experience behind the mechanics.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

Oh, yeah, my biggest #1 gripe:

Don't have "Attacks with a Weapon" be different than "Weapon Attack". Don't have "Ranged Weapon Attack" be different than "An attack with a Ranged Weapon". The frustrating amount of stupid syntax with this has caused so much confusion, even Mearls, one of the big honchos of 5e, made some incorrect rulings due to the confusing language and once said that a thrown weapon was a "melee weapon attack".

I propose to change this:



Attack
Melee
Ranged


Weapon
Great Axe
Crossbow Shot


Spell
Shocking Grasp
Sun Soul's Radiant Bolt



To this:



Attack
Striking
Projectile


Physical
Great Axe
Crossbow Shot


Non-Physical
Shocking Grasp
Sun Soul's Radiant Bolt



So when you attack with a Handaxe in melee, it's a Striking Physical attack, but when you throw it, it's now a Projectile Physical attack. Same rules, different words.

What are some examples of where people have trouble with the current language for attacks? I'm all for consistency, and maybe I'm just too used to reading everything in all games like MtG Cards when making rulings, but I've never run into a single issue of not knowing what kind of attack to use when adjudicating a ruling. I can't think of a single example where it's a problem, but clearly a lot of people hate it for some reason. What gives?

[DrowPiratRobrts]

A lot of people are gonna give shade, but 5E was designed from the ground up to be easily modified, so we can do whatever the hell we want with it. Ignoring that, to me, is like refusing to play with Legos without instructions.

Sure, you can play it that way, but the designers went to great lengths so we wouldn't have to.

Haha, I just thought Unoriginal's comment was funny. I agree with you, which is why I'm curious about the question you asked. It seems like by asking for 5e to be fixed you want the game designers to change it in a new edition (give me new LEGO instructions pls) rather than modifying it yourself (combine the Optimus Prime LEGOs with the Millennium Falcon set). Maybe I misunderstand the whole point of this post, but my recommendation to everyone is to change what you want at your table, because it's so incredibly easy to do so with 5e.

I don't want it to seem like I'm accusing you of not making the changes you deem necessary, because you say that in your OP. It always seems comical to me how many others are willing to jump on 5e and talk about how messed up "x" is or how broken "y" is without being willing to just change the game when they play and move on. If somebody is suggesting changes others could implement that's helpful. If someone's just complaining about the current system and not doing anything, that's less helpful.

[Man_Over_Game]

What are some examples of where people have trouble with the current language for attacks? I'm all for consistency, and maybe I'm just too used to reading everything in all games like MtG Cards when making rulings, but I've never run into a single issue of not knowing what kind of attack to use when adjudicating a ruling. I can't think of a single example where it's a problem, but clearly a lot of people hate it for some reason. What gives?

Mearls, once a lead designer of DnD, was under the impression that thrown melee weapons were still Melee Weapon Attacks, since they're still a melee weapon that just happens to be thrown. This would make them eligible for Barbarian Rage, Paladin's Divine Smite, and the Swashbuckler. This is not true, because while the thrown melee weapon is still a melee weapon, it's making a Ranged Weapon Attack, but is still eligible for abilities strictly related to melee weapons (but not Melee Weapon Attacks) like Dueling, Kensei weapon picks (but not certain Kensei weapon abilities related to melee weapon attacks when thrown), and other shenanigans. However, even being used as a Ranged Weapon Attack doesn't make it eligible for things explicit to Ranged Weapons, like the Archery feature. And then there are Darts (which are both Thrown, Ranged, but not melee).

Just....read that for a moment.

[Trustypeaches]

No tactical Barbarian, who doesn't multiclass into much of anything very well. Can't cast spells, redundancy with armor proficiency, doesn't work with ranged, and everything else is Dexterity.
They multiclass fine into Fighter and Rogue, but besides that ye, they're limited.

That said, Barbarian / Rogue and Barbarian / Fighter are two of the best multiclasses out there.

[Nifft]

While I admittedly haven't played since the very early days, I feel like 4e had an awful lot more good stuff going for it than it's usually given credit for. Tight balance, interesting martial classes, a simple unified framework that could very easily be used to build all sorts of interesting mechanics, great and easy-to-use monsters, at least an attempt at skill challenges... It's a shame the reception was so toxic; I'd love to see a "4.5e" relaunch with baked-in noncombat stuff and classes written with years of experience behind the mechanics.

Agree strongly.

I'd love to see a 5.5e which incorporated more of the nice things 4e developed, while continuing to avoid the things that made 4e unpopular.

ESPECIALLY the monster design. Holy hell it was a joy to use & create monsters in 4e (MM2+), and I say this as a 3.x veteran who probably spent weeks of my life figuring out what would work vs. what was broken in the published books.

5e monsters are better than 3.x monsters, that's for sure, but they're not as fun as 4e monsters were.

Tactical skirmish combat as a 5e module would be awesome, with forced movement on more effects.

-- -- --

As a side note, I feel like 4e failed in part because it gave people what they asked for, not what they actually wanted.

[Potato_Priest]

They multiclass fine into Fighter and Rogue, but besides that ye, they're limited.

That said, Barbarian / Rogue and Barbarian / Fighter are two of the best multiclasses out there.

Barbarian/paladin also works pretty well, because divine smite isn’t a spell.

[KorvinStarmast]

Not many options for creating items, which is a shame for inventor-style of adventurers Leave it alone; there is enough to work with, tailor it to the table.

Stealth is extremely vague, with few rules regarding the difference between Sound, Vision, Sound + Vision, Partially Obscured, using the same location over and over, and Movement.
Good. Rulings over rules (but yeah, it is a bit frustrating at times ...)

d20 has too much random chance when combined with bounded accuracy. Feature, not bug.

Not enough differences between weapons. Feature not bug, and trident can be dispensed with.

Familiars are too good, scouts are not good enough.Vague statement, unsupportable.

Cantrips scale with level, but level 1 damage spells do not. You upcast them.

Initiative creates a different "game mode", where players expect combat vs. when they think they're safe, and where true tension doesn't exist unless Initiative is relevant. True Tension is only found in True Scotsmen.

Few rules to create improvised attacks or actions.
Feature, not bug. You don't need rules to improvise.

Or, alternatively, not enough special melee actions.
Feature not bug. They are rethinking bonus action as is. Making a round / turn more complicated isn't consistent with the design model.


Few tactical options for those who don't use magic. Vague, unsupported assertion.

Few tactical options for those who are in melee. Overgeneral.

Major power disparity between characters based on the number of encounters per short rests per long rests, requiring many balance changes if tables want more or fewer battles per day. Depends on how well DM tries to embrace the design model.

No tactical Barbarian, False.


Too much reliance on Charisma-based Everything. Agree.
Get rid of Charisma as a casting ability.

What I Want To See
1. Exhaustion can be restored, one level at a time, via lesser restoration. The exhaustin mechanic is a mess, and it hoses Beserkers.
2. 4e Monk revised as Tanarii suggests (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23550440&postcount=29) or as CircuitEngie suggests (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23551111&postcount=52).
3. Take Pact of the Blade, tweak it to get the MAD toned down, then get rid of hexblade. (Not going to happen, so it goes ...)
4. Saving throws and Surprise. Both just don't feel right to me, though the former is what bugs me most. Going up in level does nothing for 4/6 saves. Don't like it, but I don't think they'll change it.
5. Shield Master: shove/knock prone needs to be at any time in the round. Ruling, I know, but I'd like it spelled out. (Yeah, not gonna happen)
6. Battle master: give more maneuvers sooner
7. Metamagic. Needs one more added in mid levels.

Things I agree with:

Clean up a lot of the language, use different words to mean Melee weapon attack, melee attack, ranged attack, ranged weapon attack and the like. This is the main issue is just the overall wording of many things that take a sage advice search to clarify what they actually meant.
Things I disagree with:

Split up the fluff description of abilities and spells from the mechanics with either a heading or something. No. Do not do this. Mechanics/fluff dichotomy is an attitude problem. (IMO)

But Unoriginal prolly has it right.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

Mearls, once a lead designer of DnD, was under the impression that thrown melee weapons were still Melee Weapon Attacks, since they're still a melee weapon that just happens to be thrown. This would make them eligible for Barbarian Rage, Paladin's Divine Smite, and the Swashbuckler. This is not true, because while the thrown melee weapon is still a melee weapon, it's making a Ranged Weapon Attack, but is still eligible for abilities strictly related to melee weapons (but not Melee Weapon Attacks) like Dueling, Kensei weapon picks (but not certain Kensei weapon abilities related to melee weapon attacks when thrown), and other shenanigans. However, even being used as a Ranged Weapon Attack doesn't make it eligible for things explicit to Ranged Weapons, like the Archery feature. And then there are Darts (which are both Thrown, Ranged, but not melee).

Just....read that for a moment.

But just because Mearls got confused by his own writing doesn't mean we have to...I agree with you that the thrown melee weapon isn't elibible for Rage or Divine Smite. That, to me at least, is the most obvious reading of the RAW and interpretation of the RAI. For any of the examples you've given I don't think we have to think that hard to come to the most logical solution. I'm not trying to come down on you or anyone for having a problem with the wording, but I personally still have a hard time coming up with a case where it's not pretty clear how all of the triggers and reactions work.

Again, a lot of that comes from my MtG days. I played with people who were excruciatingly good at combining intricately worded cards, so over the years I got really good at working through the logical system and wording of those cards even when discrepancies arose. It's the same in my mind for 5e.

[bc56]

Surprise needs to be clarified. A lot.
The current wording makes it seem that characters on both sides of the fight can be surprised, and that caused all sorts of confusion when I DMed for an assassin.

There needs to be a better system for boss monsters. Legendary/lair actions are clunky and easy to forget.

Interaction skills should have their proper use, as rolls after presenting an argument to an NPC, modified by the way the argument plays off the NPC's beliefs, explained, so that people can't just say "I persuade the guard to let us through."

And, this isn't a mechanical issue, but the system should really do a better job of teaching how to run encounters other than combats.

[Man_Over_Game]

Surprise needs to be clarified. A lot.
The current wording makes it seem that characters on both sides of the fight can be surprised, and that caused all sorts of confusion when I DMed for an assassin.

There needs to be a better system for boss monsters. Legendary/lair actions are clunky and easy to forget.

Interaction skills should have their proper use, as rolls after presenting an argument to an NPC, modified by the way the argument plays off the NPC's beliefs, explained, so that people can't just say "I persuade the guard to let us through."

And, this isn't a mechanical issue, but the system should really do a better job of teaching how to run encounters other than combats.

Xanathar's does help clarify a lot of this, especially the encounter issue, but a lot of these are on point.

For boss monsters, just replace their Legendary Action to just automatically happen at the end of every player's turn, and just trigger a Lair action at the start of every initiative order. If I can remember that, it gets pretty simple rather than trying to keep track what's been used or not.

I guess creatures on both sides could be surprised, but it really does need to be cleaned up a bit, I agree.

[Potato_Priest]

Depends on how well DM tries to embrace the design model.

This is true, but a better system wouldn’t make the DM tailor the adventuring day to an arbitrary suggestion to maintain class balance.

[jas61292]

Surprise needs to be clarified. A lot.
The current wording makes it seem that characters on both sides of the fight can be surprised, and that caused all sorts of confusion when I DMed for an assassin.

That's cause they can. Surprise is an individual state, not something that goes by side. If the paladin is having a nice chat with an npc, and the rogue sneaks away and then suddenly shoots the npc without telling anyone first, the paladin and the npc are both surprised. And if the npc had a guard, and that guard had a high enough perception to see the rogue, he's not going to be surprised, but that doesn't stop his ward from being so.

While stealth rules as a whole are finicky and unclear, surprise being modual actually makes a lot of sense.

[KorvinStarmast]

And, this isn't a mechanical issue, but the system should really do a better job of teaching how to run encounters other than combats. Not a bad point. Perhaps for a hard back in 2020 or late 2019.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

Interaction skills should have their proper use, as rolls after presenting an argument to an NPC, modified by the way the argument plays off the NPC's beliefs, explained, so that people can't just say "I persuade the guard to let us through."

This is the DM's job if I understand you correctly. I don't care if you get a nat 20+12 persuasion. If you try to convince a bank guard to let you into the king's vault and he understands his duty/feels strongly enough about duty to join the military, he's not going to let my players through. DMs set the DC for every specific case, and they should take things like the NPC's specific beliefs into account. That's not a system problem though.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

While I admittedly haven't played since the very early days, I feel like 4e had an awful lot more good stuff going for it than it's usually given credit for. Tight balance, interesting martial classes, a simple unified framework that could very easily be used to build all sorts of interesting mechanics, great and easy-to-use monsters, at least an attempt at skill challenges... It's a shame the reception was so toxic; I'd love to see a "4.5e" relaunch with baked-in noncombat stuff and classes written with years of experience behind the mechanics.4e had a lot of interesting ideas, but part of the hate was caused by the serious implementation issues that would have been difficult to fix with a PF-style revision.* WotC made an attempt with Essentials but that was both too late in the run and kinda fell flat. There's also 13th Age, which is a more major departure that ends up feeling like an entirely different style of game (which isn't bad, but we're talking about fixing D&D).
*Skill challenges and rituals contained nice ideas but were extremely frustrating in play. Classes felt very same-y at least until PHBII (the issue with eliminating strong debuffs and severely curtailing duration with save-end is that everything becomes damage + minor rider). The main monster manual exemplified the "padded sumo effect;" the initial solo monsters were the biggest culprits, being boring bags of HP to be whittled down with at-wills. 4e was somehow even more egregious than 3e with its fiddly modifiers and the Christmas Tree effect. The game was almost entirely focused on Combat as Sport rather than CaW, which had been supported in every prior edition. There are a ton of dissociated mechanics that don't make sense in the narrative. There was a feat tax implemented in a much later book to correct the bad maths. And so on.

Ultimately 4e had a very Sid Meier feel, where you were better off sticking with the prior edition of the game until all the DLC (of sorts) fleshed things out... but by the time that happened they were moments from pushing the next edition.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

And, this isn't a mechanical issue, but the system should really do a better job of teaching how to run encounters other than combats.


Not a bad point. Perhaps for a hard back in 2020 or late 2019.

There's a 4e book I have that basically just talks about how to play roleplaying games well. It's very concise and helpful to players and DMs alike. It would be nice to update it for 5e and put something like that out. I'm surprised they haven't actually, considering how they've largely tailored to 5e to new players.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Honestly, none of the "this is vague" things matter to me at all. Because I'm not looking for competitive-game levels of precision. In fact, I would find that restrictive and annoying. 5e D&D is designed to be played as a conversation between a player and a DM. As a starting point, a set of defaults for a group to construct their own game. Not as a board game where every interaction is fixed. Consistency only matters between consistent things. And most things in game, in my experience, aren't consistent in-fiction. So making them consistent in mechanics breaks verisimilitude hard (for me).

Stealth/vision is vague because the situations in which it comes up are so varied. Skills are fine because players don't call for skill checks, DMs call for ability checks from specific players. You don't need a "must have proficiency" blanket rule--you can call for a check without proficiency if it makes sense (or just say "you fail" without a check).

DMs need to lighten up about rules and just let things flow. Players need to do the same, but also stop looking for "loopholes". Both sides need to stop weaponizing the rulebooks.

That isn't to say that 5e is perfect. Things I'd like to see change--

Sacred Cows
* Remove mechanical alignment. I hates it, yes I does. And it's such a vestigial part of 5e already...
* Ability scores either need to be strengthened in meaning or removed. Either way, but this half-way thing is a bit annoying.
* Encumbrance. Specifically, if you want encumbrance to matter, fix the stupid weights of things!
* Either end the "divine vs arcane" split or create more sub-types and make them matter.
* End the ravioli spell lists (connected with the above). I would like to see more required specialization for spell-casters.

Class Items
* I'd like to see more of a split between base and sub-classes in theming. Specifically, I'd like to see 4e's power source idea brought back and cleaned up. So that nature clerics (divinely powered) and druids (nature-powered) are more different. Ideally, base classes would set a power source and a general theme and then sub-classes could be more specific takes on that theme.

There are others, but those are my top items.

[Grod_The_Giant]

*Skill challenges and rituals contained nice ideas but were extremely frustrating in play. Classes felt very same-y at least until PHBII (the issue with eliminating strong debuffs and severely curtailing duration with save-end is that everything becomes damage + minor rider). The main monster manual exemplified the "padded sumo effect;" the initial solo monsters were the biggest culprits, being boring bags of HP to be whittled down with at-wills. 4e was somehow even more egregious than 3e with its fiddly modifiers and the Christmas Tree effect. The game was almost entirely focused on Combat as Sport rather than CaW, which had been supported in every prior edition. There are a ton of dissociated mechanics that don't make sense in the narrative. There was a feat tax implemented in a much later book to correct the bad maths. And so on.

Ultimately 4e had a very Sid Meier feel, where you were better off sticking with the prior edition of the game until all the DLC (of sorts) fleshed things out... but by the time that happened they were moments from pushing the next edition.

That tracks with my memory, yeah-- it took them a couple releases to get the monster math right and figure out how to write interesting powers, and they never really figured out how to integrate non-tactical-combat stuff properly.

I think a Pathfinder type thing might work out, to be honest. Rewrite the iconic core classes and monsters to be more in-line with interesting later options, throw in an optional automatic bonus progression (or totally altered system math; I don't remember if 4e used class-independent core numbers like 5e does), create a parallel system of actual utility powers (skill unlocks, maybe, or some sort of "some options based on your power source, some based on a 5e-style background system), and you should have something decent.

[Unoriginal]

A lot of people are gonna give shade, but 5E was designed from the ground up to be easily modified, so we can do whatever the hell we want with it. Ignoring that, to me, is like refusing to play with Legos without instructions.

Sure, you can play it that way, but the designers went to great lengths so we wouldn't have to.

So you're admitting there is nothing to "fix", you can just modify it until it pleases you?

[DrowPiratRobrts]

Honestly, none of the "this is vague" things matter to me at all. Because I'm not looking for competitive-game levels of precision. In fact, I would find that restrictive and annoying. 5e D&D is designed to be played as a conversation between a player and a DM. As a starting point, a set of defaults for a group to construct their own game. Not as a board game where every interaction is fixed. Consistency only matters between consistent things. And most things in game, in my experience, aren't consistent in-fiction. So making them consistent in mechanics breaks verisimilitude hard (for me).

Stealth/vision is vague because the situations in which it comes up are so varied. Skills are fine because players don't call for skill checks, DMs call for ability checks from specific players. You don't need a "must have proficiency" blanket rule--you can call for a check without proficiency if it makes sense (or just say "you fail" without a check).

DMs need to lighten up about rules and just let things flow. Players need to do the same, but also stop looking for "loopholes". Both sides need to stop weaponizing the rulebooks.



Read the above.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

So you're admitting there is nothing to "fix", you can just modify it until it pleases you?

That's what I was confused by as well...

[Misterwhisper]

Honestly, none of the "this is vague" things matter to me at all. Because I'm not looking for competitive-game levels of precision. In fact, I would find that restrictive and annoying. 5e D&D is designed to be played as a conversation between a player and a DM. As a starting point, a set of defaults for a group to construct their own game. Not as a board game where every interaction is fixed. Consistency only matters between consistent things. And most things in game, in my experience, aren't consistent in-fiction. So making them consistent in mechanics breaks verisimilitude hard (for me).

Stealth/vision is vague because the situations in which it comes up are so varied. Skills are fine because players don't call for skill checks, DMs call for ability checks from specific players. You don't need a "must have proficiency" blanket rule--you can call for a check without proficiency if it makes sense (or just say "you fail" without a check).

DMs need to lighten up about rules and just let things flow. Players need to do the same, but also stop looking for "loopholes". Both sides need to stop weaponizing the rulebooks.

That isn't to say that 5e is perfect. Things I'd like to see change--

Sacred Cows
* Remove mechanical alignment. I hates it, yes I does. And it's such a vestigial part of 5e already...
* Ability scores either need to be strengthened in meaning or removed. Either way, but this half-way thing is a bit annoying.
* Encumbrance. Specifically, if you want encumbrance to matter, fix the stupid weights of things!
* Either end the "divine vs arcane" split or create more sub-types and make them matter.
* End the ravioli spell lists (connected with the above). I would like to see more required specialization for spell-casters.

Class Items
* I'd like to see more of a split between base and sub-classes in theming. Specifically, I'd like to see 4e's power source idea brought back and cleaned up. So that nature clerics (divinely powered) and druids (nature-powered) are more different. Ideally, base classes would set a power source and a general theme and then sub-classes could be more specific takes on that theme.

There are others, but those are my top items.

On the weight of things in the book being way off, I was making a crossbow user who carried a heavy crossbow, until I noticed that a heavy crossbow weighs EIGHTEEN pounds.

Why does a crossbow weigh as much as an entire suit of Hide armor and the shield that goes with it?
A HCB weights 80% more than a great club?


Side question: Does the PHB printed in other countries and languages still use feet and pounds or do they use metic measurements?

[jdolch]

The one thing that immediately comes to my mind is i want them to fix the Short Rest <-> Long Rest Antagonism. I understand why they originally thought this was gonna be a good idea, because it brings variety to the classes. But i hate that in actual play it leads to players wanting the exact opposite playstyles depending on what class they main. I hate that when I play a Sorcerer and another Player plays a Warlock that we constantly battle for what kind of Rest we are going for. The Warlock understandably pushes for short rests because if he doesn't his usefulness drops like a stone and I on the other hand don't want to take "useless" Rests every 3 meters. (Then of course you have even more radical long rest players who would like to take long rests every 3 minutes which is even more problematic.)

I think this whole mechanic should be replaced so that it doesn't force people to play this way or that way jusst because the mechanics force it.

[Man_Over_Game]

So you're admitting there is nothing to "fix", you can just modify it until it pleases you?

Fixing problems pleases me very much.

Seriously, though, there's nothing wrong with liking things the way they are. There's probably several hundred thousand threads that all account for people following the rules.

But on the other hand, DnD didn't get to version 5 because people thought it was perfect the first time. I'm just looking forward to version 6. Not because version 5 is bad, but just because version 6 is potentially better.

And if making some minor modifications gets me to version 5.2, is that less than what I had before, or more? Because I'll always have version 5.

That doesn't mean version 3.5 was terrible. It's still a pretty big deal on the forum, if that's something you're interested in, but having interest in something better is how we got here in the first place.

[PhoenixPhyre]

On the weight of things in the book being way off, I was making a crossbow user who carried a heavy crossbow, until I noticed that a heavy crossbow weighs EIGHTEEN pounds.

Why does a crossbow weigh as much as an entire suit of Hide armor and the shield that goes with it?
A HCB weights 80% more than a great club?


Side question: Does the PHB printed in other countries and languages still use feet and pounds or do they use metic measurements?

Yeah, weights are horribly off. Dunno why, but it makes variant encumbrance in the name of "realism" totally fake to me--either ignore most weights entirely (regular) or fix the darn weights of things and then a meaningful encumbrance system can be used.

As to the side question...not sure. They may just go 5' = 1.5 m, but I don't know.

[Willie the Duck]

Try claiming you're being really old school.

My memory of Men and Magic is that ability scores did NOTHING mechanical in the system described. They were there for the GM to call for rolls when you did something other than use a class ability or combat action.

IIRC in Greyhawk they added an ability prerequisite for the new Paladin class, and they added bonus XP for having a high score in your prime requisite.

Other bonuses, I think, came in Blackmoor.

Pretty much all the specifics here are wrong, but you are right about the general trend. In oD&D (without supplements), stats were not all that important. You could get by fine with a strength 8 fighting man or Int 11 magic user or whatever. Dexterity, Constitution, and Charisma (the god stat of oD&D, given how important henchmen were for that game's play) each did specific things (example, con 6- and 15+ gave you -/+1 hp per hit die, as well as something akin to what would later become the system shock % in AD&D). The Prime Requisite stats (Str, Int, and Wis-- for the 3 classes), otoh, didn't actually do anything for the other two classes (minor exception, Int scores over 10 gave you extra languages, regardless of class), but merely provided an xp bonus for the class for whom the stat was the prime requisite (a number that was -20% - +10%, a real but not game-defining bonus).

Supplement I (Greyhawk) added all the other things like increased carrying capacity and attack bonuses for high Strength (along with the 18/## system for fighter strength), Int dictating spells learnable per level for magic users, etc.

Regardless, it --as well as the other basic/classic line, where stats would give you -3-+3 (with long odds on that +3) --are good examples of a rather 5e-like game which doesn't require so much reliance on stats.

[Unoriginal]

Fixing problems pleases me very much.

So your whole "A lot of people are gonna give shade, but 5E was designed from the ground up to be easily modified, so we can do whatever the hell we want with it. Ignoring that, to me, is like refusing to play with Legos without instructions" speech doesn't hold water.

There is no way to "fix" playing with Legos.



Seriously, though, there's nothing wrong with liking things the way they are.

Oh, are you sure? That's good news. I wasn't sure myself, given all the threads telling me how much 5e is **** because of X, Y and Z and how my playstyle needed fixing.



Seriously, Man_Over_Game, hasn't this topic been covered by the dozen threads on said topic that were made this week alone?

[DrowPiratRobrts]

But on the other hand, DnD didn't get to version 5 because people thought it was perfect the first time. I'm just looking forward to version 6. Not because version 5 is bad, but just because version 6 is potentially better.

This is true. And I'll say for myself that there are definitely potential improvements that could be made. But I'm very interested in when WotC would even begin thinking about a 6e or 5.5e. I personally think something akin to 5.5 would make more sense, but at the same time I just can't imagine them coming out with a new edition soon.

Will it be 5 years? 10 years? 15? From all that I've seen, it seems like 5e is here to stay for quite a long time. I think that's mostly do to its LEGO-like structure that you alluded to earlier. It's so modular and simple that it can be easily changed or adapted to fit any group's needs. I think that's 5e's best quality by far. Giving power over to the DMs and players was a massive step in the right direction imo.

My biggest complaint about 5e personally is, as many others have said for years now, the slow release of content. I especially want more classes in the next couple of years and less subclasses and/or adventures. They've done some great adventures so far in 5e, and with the two Waterdeep books in particular I think they've hit a grand slam. I think it's time for some spicy new classes and potentially new game mechanics with them. We could get Ninjas, Shamans, Mystics/Psions, Pirates (I'm thinking sword and pistol), Dervishes, Elementalists (like Monk WoFE but more expanded), and more. I'm sure there are so many other ideas that other people have had too.

[MaxWilson]

Either through homebrew, official rulings, or even in a future edition, what problems do you see in 5e that you'd like to eventually get fixed? I have a few gripes of my own, but I'd like to hear what you guys have to say.

My top two:

1.) Pedagogical improvements: 5E needs to do better at teaching DMs gaming structures beyond just railroading and dungeon crawling, especially since it devotes so little attention to teaching DMs how to do dungeon crawls properly.

2.) Game structure improvements: 5E needs to get away from cyclic initiative and its insistence on making every player but one sit there and do nothing while the player whose turn it is talks to the DM. 5E has a bunch of kludges in places like Legendary Actions and lots of off-turn reactions (Cutting Words) to fix issues of player engagement introduced by cyclic initiative, but it's better to just realize that the game is a team game, and design game structures that support cooperative play instead of discouraging it.

Everything else is minor compared to these two.

[Misterwhisper]

My top two:

1.) Pedagogical improvements: 5E needs to do better at teaching DMs gaming structures beyond just railroading and dungeon crawling, especially since it devotes so little attention to teaching DMs how to do dungeon crawls properly.

2.) Game structure improvements: 5E needs to get away from cyclic initiative and its insistence on making every player but one sit there and do nothing while the player whose turn it is talks to the DM. 5E has a bunch of kludges in places like Legendary Actions and lots of off-turn reactions (Cutting Words) to fix issues of player engagement introduced by cyclic initiative, but it's better to just realize that the game is a team game, and design game structures that support cooperative play instead of discouraging it.

Everything else is minor compared to these two.

Could be worse, could have the return of 3.5 where in a game of 7 players that were all level 11-13th a round of combat would take so long that people would do their turn and then leave and go get drive-though and come back before it got back to their turn again.

One decent combat could take an entire game.

That got so old, VERY fast.

[NaughtyTiger]

I like how folks are :your concerns don't matter, because the game is flexible and blah blah." but then immediately say "what needs to be changed is..." cuz THOSE parts of the game aren't up to the DM


cuz you are wrong about what you don't like, but my thoughts are dead on.



edited for pedantry

[DrowPiratRobrts]

My top two:



2.) Game structure improvements: 5E needs to get away from cyclic initiative and its insistence on making every player but one sit there and do nothing while the player whose turn it is talks to the DM. 5E has a bunch of kludges in places like Legendary Actions and lots of off-turn reactions (Cutting Words) to fix issues of player engagement introduced by cyclic initiative, but it's better to just realize that the game is a team game, and design game structures that support cooperative play instead of discouraging it.

Everything else is minor compared to these two.

Have you used the initiative variant? Basically both sides in combat roll and the winning side goes first. You still take turns, but you get to decide which order to go in every round. In my experience it makes combat much more collaborative and team oriented.

Beyond that I can't think of many mechanical changes that would sufficiently address this without wonking combat balance in the face (i.e. actions per turn, resources, timing, movement, etc.).

[Unoriginal]

I like how folks will go wave off this guy's concerns because the game is flexible and blah blah. but then immediately say what they want changed.... cuz THOSE parts of the game aren't up to the DM

Well, liking it is a positive reaction, at least. Myself I'm more in between confusion and despair about it.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

Could be worse, could have the return of 3.5 where in a game of 7 players that were all level 11-13th a round of combat would take so long that people would do their turn and then leave and go get drive-though and come back before it got back to their turn again.

One decent combat could take an entire game.

That got so old, VERY fast.

That's one reason I like a lot of 5e monsters and enemies. The good ones are often more lethal with less hitpoints. You feel the danger and pain of getting hit by them, but they don't take 12 full rounds to defeat. It also requires more creative play when they get special abilities.

[Willie the Duck]

Overall, I think people have touched on most of the big-picture issues. Certain rules like stealth/hiding, perception, what constitutes what kind of attack (ranged, weapon, spell, etc.), and so on are poorly worded and could have used a better explanation. Some basic formatting quibbles, etc. Handedness and the like probably as well*.
*every fiber of my being thinks that quarterstaves being versatile weapons was because originally you weren't going to be able to cast spells while wielding two-handed weapons, and they wanted staves to remain iconic wizard weapons, but then at the last minute that rule got shelved but the downstream effects were left in.

Likewise, there are a bunch of minor things that I consider quibbles -- stuff that I don't consider a big deal, but with hindsight I think I would do. Examples include making Find Familiar, Shillelagh, and Eldritch Blast class features and not spells to be poached; overall make the Cha-based classes and multiclassing between them not be such an optimizer's candyland, Hexblade and Shillelagh and the SCAG cantrips not being the go-to solutions to MAD gish issues (so as others have said, maybe tone down the influence of attributes), overall Dex being far and away the best choice unless you have feats which utilize Str-only weapons, the weapon-drawing rules making thrown weapons even worst than their lower range would imply, and maybe a general re-look at how multiclassing is done.

Those are my thoughts for now.

[MThurston]

Sneak Attack expand. All weapons but versatile, heavy and two handed weapons.

Initiative rules for sneak attack. I shoot an arrow but roll low for initiative. If they failed to notice me, initiative rules shouldn't save them.

Beast Master
3rd 1/4 Beast wirh Bonus Action tocontrol.
7th 1/2 CR beast
11th 1 CR beast
15th Large Beast of 1/4 & 1/2 CR plus shared spells.

Warlocks get 1 or 2 daily spells plus 2 spells that come back after a short rest.

Stop screwing over 2 weapon fighting and sword and board with spell casting. A cleric and Paladin can put a focus in a shield but no one else can????

[terodil]

Get rid of Charisma as a casting ability.
Huh? Why?

I'm rather fond of having a non-INT 'sorta-arcane' caster type available in the base sorcerer, and a non-WIS 'sorta-divine' caster type in the divine soul sorcerer -- both for flavour and mechanical differentiation. What attribute would you have them use instead?

Edit: @OP: Wording would probably be my first criticism as well. Either go with a simpler language and 'common sense', or continue in the 'lawyery' direction but then make sure there are no funny games (I agree with the whole melee/ranged (weapon) attack malaise). Also, whoever said their piece about the halfling art is so freaking right. That 'art' should be listed under the Abominations heading in the bestiary.

[Grod_The_Giant]

So your whole "A lot of people are gonna give shade, but 5E was designed from the ground up to be easily modified, so we can do whatever the hell we want with it. Ignoring that, to me, is like refusing to play with Legos without instructions" speech doesn't hold water.

There is no way to "fix" playing with Legos.



Oh, are you sure? That's good news. I wasn't sure myself, given all the threads telling me how much 5e is **** because of X, Y and Z and how my playstyle needed fixing.



Seriously, Man_Over_Game, hasn't this topic been covered by the dozen threads on said topic that were made this week alone?
Is 5e functional as is? Absolutely. Is it a fun system as is? Absolutely. Does it work perfectly every time for every table? Of course not. So why shouldn't we discuss the things that don't work for OUR group, OUR table? Why shouldn't we change the game to better fit our personal ideas of what d&d should be?

I enjoy playing 5e as written. I also enjoy homebrewing and tinkering with rules and discussing those things. So yes, I enjoy talking about what we find to be flaws in rulesets. I enjoy finding solutions to problems like "none of the encounter structures the book presents works for this campaign," or "the way scaling works bothers me."

Is that wrong? Hell no. No-one is forcing you to play their way, any more than you can force them to play yours.

[MaxWilson]

Have you used the initiative variant? Basically both sides in combat roll and the winning side goes first. You still take turns, but you get to decide which order to go in every round. In my experience it makes combat much more collaborative and team oriented.

Beyond that I can't think of many mechanical changes that would sufficiently address this without wonking combat balance in the face (i.e. actions per turn, resources, timing, movement, etc.).

I do use an AD&D-inspired initiative variant, described here (http://bluishcertainty.blogspot.com/2017/01/simultaneous-initiative-in-5e.html) (more discussion here (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?513971-Concurrent-initiative-variant-Everybody-declares-Everybody-resolves-WAS-Simultaneous-Initiative)).

Depending on what choices the players and the DM make, my variant sometimes behaves exactly like the variant you describe, so I know that the your variant works perfectly fine. I just like having the little bit of extra richness available for when I need it. (Specifically: if the DM just declares that all of the monsters Delay, then that round is equivalent to "all the players take a turn" and then "all of the monsters take a turn", but the players can't get complacent about thinking that they will always get to go first. Sometimes in fact the Delay makes them more paranoid about the monsters' intentions.)

There are all kinds of nice benefits: having a clean way to deal with "surprise" attacks from someone you were aware of already, like during a negotiation; having a smooth way to transition out of combat when someone wants to surrender; having clean way to deal with cooperative PC actions like "I pick up his head and you pick up his feet and we both carry him out the door" without any readied action nonsense, which in turn encourages more PC cooperation and more player-to-player engagement; making interactions with partial and total cover more tactically rich and exciting; increasing dramatic tension (e.g. initiative rolls are exciting because you only roll them when something important is at stake); etc.

[Unoriginal]

Is 5e functional as is? Absolutely. Is it a fun system as is? Absolutely. Does it work perfectly every time for every table? Of course not. So why shouldn't we discuss the things that don't work for OUR group, OUR table? Why shouldn't we change the game to better fit our personal ideas of what d&d should be?

I enjoy playing 5e as written. I also enjoy homebrewing and tinkering with rules and discussing those things. So yes, I enjoy talking about what we find to be flaws in rulesets. I enjoy finding solutions to problems like "none of the encounter structures the book presents works for this campaign," or "the way scaling works bothers me."

Is that wrong? Hell no. No-one is forcing you to play their way, any more than you can force them to play yours.

Sure, change whatever you wish. You having fun is more important than rules. I do it, you do it, everyone does it.

But don't pretend it's "fixing". Fixing is what you do when something is broken, or when you want to stop it from reproducing.

If you're doing something and people keep telling you that it need fixing, it's not an indicator they think doing it is ok.

[terodil]

Sure, change whatever you wish. You having fun is more important than rules. I do it, you do it, everyone does it.

But don't pretend it's "fixing". Fixing is what you do when something is broken, or when you want to stop it from reproducing.
That's something that keeps surprising me as well. The concept of customisation is pervasive in almost all aspects of our daily life now, be it in how PC programs behave or in what kind of movies your TV might recommend for you to watch. I mean D&D 5e could not really be clearer on that you are supposed to adjust the game to your liking, what else would people want? Have it printed as a watermark on every single page?

[Pex]

Have defined benchmark example DCs for typical uses of skills. Show how a PC can do something just because he wants to do it. Bring back Take 10/Take 20 in that the player can initiate it instead of leaving it to DM judgment.

Variant Human is the only human and given +2, +1 to ability scores of choice.

Allow the purchase of 16, 17, and 18 in Point Buy at a reasonable price. Scores start at 10 and let players choose to go to 8 for extra points.

I got used to choosing between ASI or a feat. I'm not thrilled with it, but I'm no longer bothered by it as I used to be. However, divorce it from a class feature and make it character level feature. Fighter and rogue can keep their extra ASI/Feat as a class feature.

Define specifically players choose the monster conjured via spells. Make pixies CR 1 to fix Conjure Woodland Beings problem.

Spellcasters may concentrate on a number of spells equal to Proficiency - 1. When a check is necessary each spell gets its own check. As part of Magic Initiate and Ritual Caster feats, add the following: When you allow another spellcaster to cast a spell on you that requires Concentration, you may take the responsibility of the Concentration required for the spell effect as it affects you. This counts against the number of spells you may Concentrate on.

[Nhorianscum]

An actual crafting system based on WBL.

A smoother and more accessable item system in general. With some depht to it.

The word "varient" removed from things like... multiclassing, flanking, grappling, etc

Retuning higher level spells in general (looking at you 8th level)

[Max_Killjoy]

I can't even find where additional skills outside those from Class, Background, etc, can be picked up by a character.

[Willie the Duck]

5E needs to do better at teaching DMs gaming structures beyond just railroading and dungeon crawling, especially since it devotes so little attention to teaching DMs how to do dungeon crawls properly.

Thought I should also jump on this point. I'm not going to pretend earlier editions made the non-combat/non-dungeon part of the game really exciting. GP=XP made the micro-managing of equipment, torches, rations, and arrows, vs. open encumbrance in which to cart treasure back home a necessary part of the game, but it didn't actually make it engaging to anyone not predisposed to it. Huge swaths of the gaming public have always found it boring and ignored it. Likewise much of oD&D and AD&D wilderness adventuring rules were downright bad (1e's Wilderness Survival Guide being notorious for making light jaunts across temperate countryside a battle for survival). 3e had a very exacting skill system which gave very concrete, inarguable, but often quite silly, DCs and tracking/knowing/crafting rules. So there's not really a perfect system I'd harken back to. However, if you decide to do any hexcrawling or focusing on wilderness adventures or the like, 5e tends to use the ad&d 1e Wilderness Survival Guide route of 'if you decide to use these optional rules, you suddenly can't accomplish anything/travel times are quadrupled, unless you have someone who is a wilderness expert, in which case you can ignore all this.' That just re-incentivizes not using said systems/bothering doing that kind of gaming. I'd like it if 5e had a proper chapter (or even optional book, I get that most people don't care) on the wilds, travel, foraging, etc. with rules other than 'include a ranger in the group, and this all goes away.'

[PhoenixPhyre]

a) An actual crafting system based on WBL.

b) A smoother and more accessable item system in general. With some depht to it.

c) The word "varient" removed from things like... multiclassing, flanking, grappling, etc

d) Retuning higher level spells in general (looking at you 8th level)

a) No. That requires having WBL and a magic mart. As well as the whole christmas-tree issue. It also requires redoing all the system math.

b) Why? In what way?

c) All of those* are rightfully variants (ie not default). Because the default is for simplicity this edition. Grappling isn't variant (although there are additional variants for grappling, IIRC).

d) Meaning? I'm not sure as to the context.


I can't even find where additional skills outside those from Class, Background, etc, can be picked up by a character.

Only stock way is through the Skilled feat. Other than that, you're basically limited to the 4 (or 5+ for bards, rogues, and a few racial variants) proficiencies. But that doesn't mean you're limited in what you can do--by default you don't need proficiency to attempt an action (except for lock picking). Proficiency is a bonus that can, but doesn't need to be, added to an Ability Check. There are no Skill Checks--there are only Ability Checks that may allow one of a few proficiencies (skills or tools) to be added. And which proficiency is is supposed to be is flexible--the DM is supposed to let the player suggest any reasonable proficiency.

[Potato_Priest]

I can't even find where additional skills outside those from Class, Background, etc, can be picked up by a character.

I believe that a skill proficiency is a potential boon that the DMG suggests granting as a quest reward, but I can't check it because my DMG is in storage.

[Marywn]

I wish there was a more legimate weapon crafting system, like where there is more variant than just Adamitenem and Mithril. And the quality of the weapon also went into it's stats

[PhoenixPhyre]

I believe that a skill proficiency is a potential boon that the DMG suggests granting as a quest reward, but I can't check it because my DMG is in storage.

Correct, under "Training" on DMG pg 231 (describing the rewards of being trained by a master as a quest reward):


Possible training benefits include the following
* The character gains inspiration daily at dawn for 1d4+6 days.
* The character gains proficiency in a skill
* The character gains a feat.

[Malifice]

What I'm finding hilarious is that most of these gripes are contained in the DMG as alternative rules.

The rules you all want are in the actual game.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

I do use an AD&D-inspired initiative variant, described here (http://bluishcertainty.blogspot.com/2017/01/simultaneous-initiative-in-5e.html) (more discussion here (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?513971-Concurrent-initiative-variant-Everybody-declares-Everybody-resolves-WAS-Simultaneous-Initiative)).

Depending on what choices the players and the DM make, my variant sometimes behaves exactly like the variant you describe, so I know that the your variant works perfectly fine. I just like having the little bit of extra richness available for when I need it. (Specifically: if the DM just declares that all of the monsters Delay, then that round is equivalent to "all the players take a turn" and then "all of the monsters take a turn", but the players can't get complacent about thinking that they will always get to go first. Sometimes in fact the Delay makes them more paranoid about the monsters' intentions.)

There are all kinds of nice benefits: having a clean way to deal with "surprise" attacks from someone you were aware of already, like during a negotiation; having a smooth way to transition out of combat when someone wants to surrender; having clean way to deal with cooperative PC actions like "I pick up his head and you pick up his feet and we both carry him out the door" without any readied action nonsense, which in turn encourages more PC cooperation and more player-to-player engagement; making interactions with partial and total cover more tactically rich and exciting; increasing dramatic tension (e.g. initiative rolls are exciting because you only roll them when something important is at stake); etc.

That's basically exactly how I play it when using this initiative variant. In fact, I think it might be time I suggest this to the DM for my player campaign.

[PhoenixPhyre]

What I'm finding hilarious is that most of these gripes are contained in the DMG as alternative rules.

The rules you all want are in the actual game.

That requires reading. And reading is hard.

Not blue, because true.

[NaughtyTiger]

This is the DM's job if I understand you correctly. I don't care if you get a nat 20+12 persuasion. If you try to convince a bank guard to let you into the king's vault and he understands his duty/feels strongly enough about duty to join the military, he's not going to let my players through. DMs set the DC for every specific case, and they should take things like the NPC's specific beliefs into account. That's not a system problem though.

It is the DM's job. But neither the PHB nor the DMG teach someone how to DM.

[stoutstien]

What I'm finding hilarious is that most of these gripes are contained in the DMG as alternative rules.

The rules you all want are in the actual game.

Actually this brings up my biggest complaint with 5th edition. Formatting.
Let's look at the dmg. The book design for DMs that hide all the necessary information information on how to build encounters and new npc's on various pages with no rhyme or reason.
they come up with a rough outline of creating a new NPC with A well designed CR system and then failed to explain how it works. And in the example they build it out of order???? The math is good but they freaking hide it from the player who needs it. They want you to make a npc then assignat it a cr instead of the other way around? Not to mention all this information is buried three quarters away into the book when it should be in the first couple of chapters.

Lets look at the monster manual. Greats stat block but if you haven't played the game very long is very little explanation of how the stat blocks work. I've seen a lot of DMs play NPCs as mindless bags if xp. A small side bar if recommend tactics wouldn't have taken up much space.
Also they could have added more templates and how they effect CR.
Phb- spells not listed by class in index bugs me and no page number references.
Heck even the character creation steps in the phb are out of order.

[Man_Over_Game]

I wish there was a more legimate weapon crafting system, like where there is more variant than just Adamitenem and Mithril. And the quality of the weapon also went into it's stats

Really wish I had my homebrew crafting notes. I came up with something a couple years ago, even did a bunch of research to compare the time it takes something like Plate Mail when compared to talent and expertise of the craftsman, and scaled well for price.

I think it was something like:

Labor = (Modifier + Proficiency)^2
Labor reflects how much work you put into the project in an entire day. Once your total labor reaches the gold cost of the item you're trying to create, the item is finished. To create an item, you need 1/2 of its worth in materials.

So, for example, Splint armor costs 200g. If you're a +3 Str and +2 prof Blacksmith, you complete 25g of work each day, so it'll take you about 8 days to finish that Splint armor, earning a 100g profit. If you do work per hour instead of per day, you do the rate at 20%, because you're a lot more efficient working the entire day than when you have a break.

With this method, a +4 intelligence and +3 proficiency Wizard could make a healing potion in a day, assuming they have 25g in supplies for each one.

Every additional bonus (+1 to AC, no disadvantage on stealth, half weight, etc.) increased the overall cost by 30%-200%, depending on what the changes were, and each one had to be applied after the other. So a +1 Plate Armor might go from 1500 to 3000, but if you wanted it to also have resistance to fire, that increases the cost by another 50% to 4500. People could help, but they can only provide half of the Labor hours that they spend towards the project.

[stoutstien]

It is the DM's job. But neither the PHB nor the DMG teach someone how to DM.
This. Every book is catered to the players but not the DM. the way these books are written they honestly expect every DM to have 5 plus years experience.

[Marywn]

Really wish I had my homebrew crafting notes. I came up with something a couple years ago, even did a bunch of research to compare the time it takes something like Plate Mail when compared to talent and expertise of the craftsman, and scaled well for price.

I think it was something like:

Labor = (Modifier + Proficiency)^2
Labor reflects how much work you put into the project in an entire day. Once your total labor reaches the gold cost of the item you're trying to create, the item is finished. To create an item, you need 1/2 of its worth in materials.

So, for example, Splint armor costs 200g. If you're a +3 Str and +3 prof Blacksmith, you complete 25g of work each day, so it'll take you about 8 days to finish that Splint armor, earning a 100g profit. If you do work per hour instead of per day, you do the rate at 20%, because you're a lot more efficient working the entire day than when you have a break.

With this method, a +4 intelligence and +3 proficiency Wizard could make a healing potion in a day, assuming they have 25g in supplies for each one.

Every additional bonus (+1 to AC, no disadvantage on stealth, half weight, etc.) increased the overall cost by 30%-200%, depending on what the changes were, and each one had to be applied after the other. So a +1 Plate Armor might go from 1500 to 3000, but if you wanted it to also have resistance to fire, that increases the cost by another 50% to 4500. People could help, but they can only provide half of the Labor hours that they spend towards the project.
Thanks! I will also look up other systems, just for corroboration. I like to be thorough.

[lunaticfringe]

Sure, change whatever you wish. You having fun is more important than rules. I do it, you do it, everyone does it.

But don't pretend it's "fixing". Fixing is what you do when something is broken, or when you want to stop it from reproducing.

If you're doing something and people keep telling you that it need fixing, it's not an indicator they think doing it is ok.

Most people are players and have no power to change anything rules related. That would suck. I'm pretty sure nothing posted here will affect any official material, so it's really just hoping->venting

On the other side of things: I really want to try out Dangerous Magic. The basic skeleton of the idea is if you cast a spell at a level higher than your Spell casting ability modifier you have to roll a check. If you fail the check you roll on the WHFRPG style table of screaming doom.

For some strange reason I can't get my players to bite. So DMs might have ideas they never get to tryout. It's a team game where everyone has to agree on the basics, that can stymie creativity sometimes.

[Max_Killjoy]

Actually this brings up my biggest complaint with 5th edition. Formatting.
Let's look at the dmg. The book design for DMs that hide all the necessary information information on how to build encounters and new npc's on various pages with no rhyme or reason.
they come up with a rough outline of creating a new NPC with A well designed CR system and then failed to explain how it works. And in the example they build it out of order???? The math is good but they freaking hide it from the player who needs it. They want you to make a npc then assignat it a cr instead of the other way around? Not to mention all this information is buried three quarters away into the book when it should be in the first couple of chapters.

Lets look at the monster manual. Greats stat block but if you haven't played the game very long is very little explanation of how the stat blocks work. I've seen a lot of DMs play NPCs as mindless bags if xp. A small side bar if recommend tactics wouldn't have taken up much space.
Also they could have added more templates and how they effect CR.
Phb- spells not listed by class in index bugs me and no page number references.
Heck even the character creation steps in the phb are out of order.

This is a huge problem with a LOT of RPG books. Stuff out of order, stuff scattered about, some rules buried in odd places, horrible indexes, etc.

[Morty]

I'd like for the rogue class to be less depressing. It might sound like a very specific thing, but it's what made me quit my 5E campaign. There was only one thing for me to do in combat - run around, hide, shoot. The subclasses are uninspiring, to put it mildly. The Scout subclass gave me some skill proficiencies and... let me run around better. Hooray? People give fighters grief, and deservedly so, but rogues have it worse.

[Marywn]

I'd like for the rogue class to be less depressing. It might sound like a very specific thing, but it's what made me quit my 5E campaign. There was only one thing for me to do in combat - run around, hide, shoot. The subclasses are uninspiring, to put it mildly. The Scout subclass gave me some skill proficiencies and... let me run around better. Hooray? People give fighters grief, and deservedly so, but rogues have it worse.
What about RP, how was the character?
Fighters are basically swing at them, then brace for impact. Well some of them.
Was it just the class that made you leave?

[Potato_Priest]

This. Every book is catered to the players but not the DM. the way these books are written they honestly expect every DM to have 5 plus years experience.

Well, Mordenkainen's tome of foes and tales of the Yawning Portal are almost exclusively useful for DMs (and players who want to metagame super hard), but that isn't because they teach you how to do a good job, and you're absolutely correct that none of the books really do that.

[Morty]

What about RP, how was the character?
Fighters are basically swing at them, then brace for impact. Well some of them.
Was it just the class that made you leave?

I enjoyed the character RP-wise. I had a good backstory for her and the GM was weaving it into the campaign (Storm King's Thunder, for the record). But her mechanical side was so boring that it negatively impacted my enjoyment.

[Digimike]

I have very few real "gripes" about 5e. Mostly just things that could be tweaked to make the game better.

Here's a few changes that I'd like to see though.

Short rest based classes would be fine if more tables took short rests. Give the ability to trade short rest hit dice for spell slots.

Slightly increase the ki gain over time for monks, same with sorcery points for sorcerer. Warlocks should probably get twice the slots they currently have.

Pet classes like ranger and warlock could use a boost. I'd say the Pets health total should be half of the player's and it should act independently of the player. No reason the player should lose it's actions.

As an final addition, I don't think high CR creatures have large enough health pools.

[Potato_Priest]

Short rest based classes would be fine if more tables took short rests. Give the ability to trade short rest hit dice for spell slots.

Wouldn't that actually exclusively benefit long-rest based spellcasting classes and warlocks, while doing nothing for fighters and monks?



Pet classes like ranger and warlock could use a boost. I'd say the Pets health total should be half of the player's and it should act independently of the player. No reason the player should lose it's actions.

If you use the Unearthed Arcana Revised Ranger, then this will be entirely the case. The warlock's familiar already gets to act on its own unless it's taking the attack action, and the revised ranger's animal companion even gets its own initiative.

[jdolch]

Too much reliance on Charisma-based Everything.

Says the cranky Emo Barbarian :smallbiggrin:

Actually I am a fan of Charisma now that Mike Mearls correctly pointed out that the actual definition of Charisma includes

2. a divinely conferred power or talent., so no more stupid questions like "How does looking good help me cast fireball?"

[Aussiehams]

[/QUOTE] Side question: Does the PHB printed in other countries and languages still use feet and pounds or do they use metic measurements?[/QUOTE]

Here in Oz at least it's still in feet and pounds. It's confusing, but if your using a battle map it's not a real issue as you just measure square's so the actual distance is pretty irrelevant. Could make it a lot harder for theatre of the mind though.

[jiriku]

I miss having things to spend my money on. One of my bigger feats in my last 5e game was managing to steal over 100,000 gp of trade goods from an enemy ruler, and in the end it wasn't useful for anything more than bragging rights because we had no use for the money. By the end of the campaign around 18th level, we had hundreds of thousands of gp sitting around in a vault and nothing to do with it. Really, after the first ten grand of loot per character we were set for the rest of the campaign.

I don't remember ever having that problem in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd edition.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I miss having things to spend my money on. One of my bigger feats in the game was managing to steal over 100,000 gp of trade goods from an enemy ruler, and in the end it wasn't useful for anything more than bragging rights because we had no use for the money. By the end of the campaign around 18th level, we had hundreds of thousands of gp sitting around in a vault and nothing to do with it. Really, after the first ten grand of loot per character we were set for the rest of the campaign.

I don't remember ever having that problem in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd edition.
It would be cool to get some good rules for castle building/realm management type stuff.

[Potato_Priest]

What I'm finding hilarious is that most of these gripes are contained in the DMG as alternative rules.

The rules you all want are in the actual game.

While some, perhaps even many of the complaints so far can be adressed by variant rules in the DMG and Unearthed Arcana, a large number of them also cannot. The following list, acquired from various authors, is pulled just from the first few posts on the front page.

Major power disparity between characters based on the number of encounters per short rests per long rests, requiring many balance changes if tables want more or fewer battles per day.

Too much reliance on Charisma-based Everything. Skills and Casting are often dominated by Charisma, and there is even Charisma-based attacking available.

Familiars are too good, scouts are not good enough.

Cantrips scale with level, but level 1 damage spells do not.

Initiative creates a different "game mode", where players expect combat vs. when they think they're safe, and where true tension doesn't exist unless Initiative is relevant.

Stealth is extremely vague, with few rules regarding the difference between Sound, Vision, Sound + Vision, Partially Obscured, using the same location over and over, and Movement

d20 has too much random chance when combined with bounded accuracy. Note that a 20 Str check can break handcuffs, which means it'll take an average strength Wizard about two minutes of straining, or the strongest warrior on the continent (20 Str) 1/4 of the time of the Wizard (30 seconds).

Put in bracing, tower shields, the ability to make a shield wall and we're good.

Advanced/Epic fighting techniques for higher level Martial characters. While wizards are calling down meteor swarms and sorcerers are bending reality to their whim, and equivalent level fighter has no real distinguishing features over a lower level fighter except for higher stats and more attacks.

In fact, make higher level gameplay better overall, especially for single class characters. The majority of capstone abilities are either boring, useless, or both, as are many of the abilities in the levels leading up to it. Almost every class gets everything they would ever want/need in their first few levels.

Also, making higher tier monsters capable of competing with high level characters would keep things interesting as well. Balors, Pit Fiends, Solars and Dragons, all of which are supposed to be the pinnacle of monster-kind, are a joke to any party of level 14 or higher.


It would be cool to get some good rules for castle building/realm management type stuff.

I had a DM who let us use an old 3.5e supplement for fortress building (unfortunately I don't remember its name). It was still remarkably relevant, since not much of that stuff actually interacts with the combat system very hard. You might need to divide the price of everything by 4 if your only source of revenue is DMG-style loot rolling, but otherwise it worked fine. Having one for 5e would still be nice though.

[Man_Over_Game]

Wouldn't that actually exclusively benefit long-rest based spellcasting classes and warlocks, while doing nothing for fighters and monks?


This is a solution for when you want your players to use it as needed:

Hit Dice can be converted into spell slots who's sum of levels equal the number of Hit Dice spent. This can be done by spending both your action and your bonus action.


Hit Dice can be used to give yourself an adrenaline boost in combat. You can use an action to spend up to half of your maximum number of Hit Dice, having up to your missing health in temporary hitpoints. Hit Dice spent this way do not provide health.

---------------------------

This is a solution when you want to determine when your players need to gain a burst of energy:

A boss creature has a feature called Adrenaline Rush.

Adrenaline Rush triggers by the boss taking a certain amount of damage, and does several things:


Rerolls a new round of initiative, the boss has advantage on their initiative roll.
Players can spend Hit Die in the same fashion as I've listed above.
The boss may choose a single creature. All creatures the boss did not choose within 10 feet of the boss are knocked back 10 feet away from the boss.
The boss has a new feature that changes the mechanics of the fight, or calls for reinforcements.


Other things that can trigger Adrenaline Rush is a lethal trap that is about to kill the players, an alarm being sounded, or the players being in a dangerous situation when one of them starts dying.

[guachi]

Upon first reading the Basic Rules 4.5 years ago I really liked short rests/long rests. But in practice they don't seem to work well for many (most?) games. I abolished short rests for resource regeneration and multiplied them by 3 and made them key off of long rests. Short rests for HD usage is now 10 minutes (an old school turn).

Another issue I have can actually be fixed by using DM variant rules - Gritty Realism and Slow, Natural Healing. Healing is just too fast and is compounded by the above problem of few fights and few short rests. PCs have 1-2 big fights and one 8-hour rest they do it all over again. There is very little pressure on PCs in the default rules.

I'd also like better descriptions of Hidden status. It mostly focuses on being seen/not seen and doesn't consider other senses as much.

Lastly, I wish there would be a book aimed at DMs for adventure creation and philosophy. The "big adventure book" would be a book on creating them.

[KorvinStarmast]

Huh? Why? Because charisma is people skills. (See Willie The Duck's post back a bit before yours).
Make a warlock an Int caster
Sorcerer: wis or int (or an average of both)
Bard: Int, per the original design.
Paladin: Wisdom (Yes, now they are even more insanely MAD ...)
But I know that this is not going to happen.

[KorvinStarmast]

An actual crafting system based on WBL.
No, that would be regressing to a lesser state.

What I'm finding hilarious is that most of these gripes are contained in the DMG as alternative rules. The rules you all want are in the actual game. Only if people buy the DMG. I have found a lot of entitled people on line who think they should not be required to buy a game to play it. They demand free rules. Pay what you like is OK for a part time gig, but I noticed that Apple never started a pay what you like business model. Wonder why that is?

That requires reading. And reading is hard. Not blue, because true. Yeah.

It is the DM's job. But neither the PHB nor the DMG teach someone how to DM. Then learn how to DM the old fashioned way: by DMing. That's how I learned how to GM Empire of the Petal Throne. I was working without a net. And I played with friends. I actually had friends, and still have friends. That really helps, having actual friends.

now get offa my lawn :smallbiggrin:

But seriously; learn how to DM by taking the plunge and doing it.
As a group, help that process by making the game a collaborative event with the players.
And everyone, share!
Take turns DMing. Don't dump it all on one gal, or one guy.
Behave like a friend would.

[Max_Killjoy]

Well, Mordenkainen's tome of foes and tales of the Yawning Portal are almost exclusively useful for DMs (and players who want to metagame super hard), but that isn't because they teach you how to do a good job, and you're absolutely correct that none of the books really do that.

From my POV, reading this thread, there's still a lot of "metagaming really hard" in 5e... so many of these posts are about how to squeeze every last game-mechanical drop out of a build, from synergies to whatever.

[Man_Over_Game]

Because charisma is people skills. (See Willie The Duck's post back a bit before yours).
Make a warlock an Int caster
Sorcerer: wis or int (or an average of both)
Bard: Int, per the original design.
Paladin: Wisdom (Yes, now they are even more insanely MAD ...)
But I know that this is not going to happen.

I've always been a big fan of specific subclasses using different modifiers, specifically with the classes that start with your choices at level 1.

I think having Charisma be a combat stat for a few things makes sense. I think limiting it to Bards and Paladins is a safe choice, but right now, you're talking about:

Sorcerer
Warlock
Bard
Paladin
Some Rogue abilities
Some Fighter abilities
Some Barbarian abilities

7/12 classes have options for Charisma, which is also probably one of the most commonly used stats for skills.

In comparison, Intelligence has:

Wizards
Some Rogue abilities
Some Fighter abilites

[Tetrasodium]

Put me down as another person who hates the way charisma has been excessively elevated. Most any kind of social interaction, multiple spellcasting options(both arcane and divine), add charisma to all kinds of things , healing, melee attacking, so on & so forth. It is unreasonable for a single stat to dominate in nearly every kind of encounter or party role/need. The lack of useful int based multiclassing options & ToBtype martial options makes the fact that charisma can do so much all the more glaring.

[KorvinStarmast]

7/12 classes have options for Charisma, which is also probably one of the most commonly used stats for skills. WoTC started it, and I just dislike what they did with it as a spell casting ability. But I have to be truthful, and say that I don't think that djinn is going back into the bottle. So I guess I was ranting, since the Sorcerer was the thin end of the wedge. So it goes.
Put me down as another person who hates the way charisma has been excessively elevated. Most any kind of social interaction, multiple spellcasting options(both arcane and divine), add charisma to all kinds of things , healing, melee attacking, so on & so forth. It is unreasonable for a single stat to dominate in nearly every kind of encounter or party role/need. The lack of useful int based multi-classing options & ToBtype martial options makes the fact that charisma can do so much all the more glaring. Thanks for pointing that out.

[MaxWilson]

Thought I should also jump on this point. I'm not going to pretend earlier editions made the non-combat/non-dungeon part of the game really exciting. GP=XP made the micro-managing of equipment, torches, rations, and arrows, vs. open encumbrance in which to cart treasure back home a necessary part of the game, but it didn't actually make it engaging to anyone not predisposed to it. Huge swaths of the gaming public have always found it boring and ignored it. Likewise much of oD&D and AD&D wilderness adventuring rules were downright bad (1e's Wilderness Survival Guide being notorious for making light jaunts across temperate countryside a battle for survival). 3e had a very exacting skill system which gave very concrete, inarguable, but often quite silly, DCs and tracking/knowing/crafting rules. So there's not really a perfect system I'd harken back to. However, if you decide to do any hexcrawling or focusing on wilderness adventures or the like, 5e tends to use the ad&d 1e Wilderness Survival Guide route of 'if you decide to use these optional rules, you suddenly can't accomplish anything/travel times are quadrupled, unless you have someone who is a wilderness expert, in which case you can ignore all this.' That just re-incentivizes not using said systems/bothering doing that kind of gaming. I'd like it if 5e had a proper chapter (or even optional book, I get that most people don't care) on the wilds, travel, foraging, etc. with rules other than 'include a ranger in the group, and this all goes away.'

Alternate gaming structures are not limited to just wilderness hex-crawling. Fundamentally, game structures are a metagame procedure: "how do the players do things?" Applying an inappropriate gaming structure to the situation at hand leads to poor experiences: consider a party who tries to find a tavern in a city using dungeon-crawling rules ("we go north one block--what do we see?") or tries to wipe out a goblin tribe in a dungeon using skill contest rules ("what's the Intelligence (Survival) DC to wipe out all the goblins?").

Alternate gaming structures can include influence-peddling (reputation building with NPCs), mysteries (find the next clue, which leads to further clues), mercantile activities (like trade route opening, which can drive hexcrawl exploration BTW, akin to Starflight), spell research, and so on. The Alexandrian has an interesting game structure here for party planning: https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/37995/roleplaying-games/game-structure-party-planning

The more game structures you know and can use effectively, the better your game gets.


It would be cool to get some good rules for castle building/realm management type stuff.

When done right, this results in a new game structure: castle-building/defending becomes an activity that is conducted at a different level of granularity from other forms of play. (Players plan out their castles, go on adventures to increase their castle-building budget, go on adventures to eliminate threats to their lands, etc.)

When it's done wrong it just gets ignored by players and DMs alike because it affects nothing important. ("So I can build a castle with 50,000 gp and 100 man-years of labor. Why would I want to do that?" You probably don't, unless there is a game structure to support it/make it interesting.)

[terodil]

WoTC started it, and I just dislike what they did with it as a spell casting ability. But I have to be truthful, and say that I don't think that djinn is going back into the bottle. So I guess I was ranting, since the Sorcerer was the thin end of the wedge. So it goes. Thanks for pointing that out.
Hm, okay. I get the mechanical side of the argument, and agree in that regard.

It does not, however, change the fact that a huge load of flavour would be lost in that transition. A sorcerer is not the bookworm a wizard is. INT simply makes no sense, and neither does WIS. A sorcerer is an impulsive, naturally gifted talent, and she is not required or expected to be particularly intelligent or wise.

[Potato_Priest]

From my POV, reading this thread, there's still a lot of "metagaming really hard" in 5e... so many of these posts are about how to squeeze every last game-mechanical drop out of a build, from synergies to whatever.

Yeah, but the kind of metagaming I'm referring to is reading the adventure you're playing and the monster manual so that you can unfairly exploit player knowledge.

[Man_Over_Game]

Put me down as another person who hates the way charisma has been excessively elevated. Most any kind of social interaction, multiple spellcasting options(both arcane and divine), add charisma to all kinds of things , healing, melee attacking, so on & so forth. It is unreasonable for a single stat to dominate in nearly every kind of encounter or party role/need. The lack of useful int based multiclassing options & ToBtype martial options makes the fact that charisma can do so much all the more glaring.

Hmm...A few things I can think of:

Bards can be Charisma or Intelligence
Sorcerers are Wisdom
Clerics are dependent upon your god at level 1, with the majority leaning towards Charisma (since they're often dealing with cults)
Wizards are Intelligence
Rangers can be Wisdom or Intelligence
Warlocks are dependent upon your patron at level 1, with the majority leaning towards Charisma (since they're often dealing with cults).
Paladins are Charisma
Druids are Wisdom
Monks are Wisdom
Rogues are Intelligence or Charisma
Fighters are Intelligence or Wisdom

With this kind of spread, this puts Charisma and Intelligence just under Wisdom in terms of combat use.

[NaughtyTiger]

something else i would change

replace wisdom with will.

i don't know how being wise lets me avoid being cursed, but i do understand how a strong will lets me bypass daunting effects.


Then learn how to DM the old fashioned way: by DMing. That's how I learned how to GM Empire of the Petal Throne. I was working without a net. And I played with friends. I actually had friends, and still have friends. That really helps, having actual friends.

but learning to DM from bad DMs makes more bad DMs.
my friends and i all took turns DMing, we sucked. the games sucked.
i didn't know good games until i lucked into a good DM 20 years later. now i am a better DM.

the most important player in the game has to learn it by screwing up, getting shamed.

best model for shy nerdy 13 year olds.... do something that is going to fail. oh, wait, no. that's a crappy model.

[Unoriginal]

I miss having things to spend my money on. One of my bigger feats in the game was managing to steal over 100,000 gp of trade goods from an enemy ruler, and in the end it wasn't useful for anything more than bragging rights because we had no use for the money. By the end of the campaign around 18th level, we had hundreds of thousands of gp sitting around in a vault and nothing to do with it. Really, after the first ten grand of loot per character we were set for the rest of the campaign.

I don't remember ever having that problem in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd edition.

How about you, I don't know, live like rich people do?

Buy fancy places, throw parties, buy masterpieces in all the crafts, get the latest in technology, etc.

Tons of money are useless unless you want to spend tons of money.

[Max_Killjoy]

Sorcerers are Wisdom


They are? :smallconfused:

[Max_Killjoy]

How about you, I don't know, live like rich people do?

Buy fancy places, throw parties, buy masterpieces in all the crafts, get the latest in technology, etc.

Tons of money are useless unless you want to spend tons of money.

No, no, that's not how it works.

1 -- Adventure for more loot.
2 -- Loot to be a better adventurer.
3 -- There is no 3.

:smalltongue::smallwink:

[Potato_Priest]

Hm, okay. I get the mechanical side of the argument, and agree in that regard.

It does not, however, change the fact that a huge load of flavour would be lost in that transition. A sorcerer is not the bookworm a wizard is. INT simply makes no sense, and neither does WIS. A sorcerer is an impulsive, naturally gifted talent, and she is not required or expected to be particularly intelligent or wise.

I actually think Wis would make great sense for the sorcerer. The monk uses wis because to use the great power within them they need to introspect, know themselves, and exert self-control and discipline. Sorcerers are the other class with great reserves of power within themselves. Why should they be any different? It'd certainly be a break from the "impulsive" sorcerer stereotype, but wouldn't necessarily be bad.

[JakOfAllTirades]

One thing that's new for 5E I'd like to see go away is the whole "game design (or re-design) via Twitter" phenomenon.

It's doing more harm than good, IMHO, as Twitter often does.

(I also wouldn't mind seeing Twitter as a whole just go away, but we're talking about 5E here, so never mind that.)

[terodil]

I actually think Wis would make great sense for the sorcerer. The monk uses wis because to use the great power within them they need to introspect and know themselves- why should sorcerers be any different? It'd certainly be a break from the "impulsive" sorcerer stereotype, but wouldn't necessarily be bad.
Well, two things -- firstly, monks and wizards are very, very similar. They are both extremely disciplined and dedicated. One spends years poring over his books, while the other spends years meditating and trying to discern the essence of things. The sorcerer, like the bard, is nothing of the kind. Secondly, you call it a 'stereotype', which is generally a negative term, but you could just as well call it 'class identity', a positive term. It's a matter of personal judgment, of course, but if the stone HAD to fall on one side of the fence, I'd always prefer flavour over balance; but then for me RPGs are always more Rpg than rpG. :smallwink:

[Man_Over_Game]

I actually think Wis would make great sense for the sorcerer. The monk uses wis because to use the great power within them they need to introspect and know themselves- why should sorcerers be any different? It'd certainly be a break from the "impulsive" sorcerer stereotype, but wouldn't necessarily be bad.

That's precisely my reasoning. Wisdom saving throws are about being courageous and resisting compulsion. It's about knowing the truth and defying lies. As a skill, it's about knowing exactly what your senses are trying to tell you.

Combine those concepts with things like Metamagic and the Sorcerer's way of understanding and controlling his form of magic, and how closely it is bonded to the elements, to blood, and even the gods, and it all really makes sense.

Sorcerers just never really seemed like friendly types despite having high Charisma, and players often make them into arcane hermits that are focused around burning things or understanding magic or trying to blow something up in the coolest fashion.

Considering they have the most number of cantrips, I think it'd be a good idea to have them come off as being "in tune" with the world around them.

[Potato_Priest]

Well, two things -- firstly, monks and wizards are very, very similar. They are both extremely disciplined and dedicated. One spends years poring over his books, while the other spends years meditating and trying to discern the essence of things. The sorcerer, like the bard, is nothing of the kind. Secondly, you call it a 'stereotype', which is generally a negative term, but you could just as well call it 'class identity', a positive term. It's a matter of personal judgment, of course, but if the stone HAD to fall on one side of the fence, I'd always prefer flavour over balance; but then for me RPGs are always more Rpg than rpG. :smallwink:

The sorcerer is like the bard rather than the monk because of its current class identity, and you're right that we shouldn't change the casting stat without changing that identity. However, just because something is doesn't mean that it must be. In other words, we could change the casting stat of the sorcerer along with its flavor and have a different sorcerer, which isn't what it was before but is still interesting.

[terodil]

Combine those concepts with things like Metamagic and the Sorcerer's way of understanding and controlling his form of magic, and how closely it is bonded to the elements, to blood, and even the gods, and it all really makes sense.
I think this is the disconnect right here.

For me, a sorcerer doesn't really *understand* how stuff works and then does it based on this knowledge; it's in her blood, it's instinctual. She doesn't learn how metamagic works through careful observation or introspection, but discovers or unlocks a talent that just slumbered inside her.

I mean ofc YMMV, just pointing out why I think it would be an overwhelming loss to flavour to make sorcs INT or WIS-based.
EDIT: If you did this, would there be ANY full caster that didn't spend half their life behind closed doors trying to create enough of a spark to light a candle? If you have some (rough) sort of equivalent in the martial classes (fighter vs. barbarian), then why not among the casters?


Sorcerers just never really seemed like friendly types, and players often make them into arcane hermits that are focused around burning things or understanding magic or trying to blow something up in the coolest fashion.
Hm, maybe? Sorcerers never were hermits to me. As said above, they're gifted, instinctual talents, they don't need to 'understand' or 'try'; so I always pictured them as partygoers rather than bookish. Going out into the world to maximise contact, maybe to randomly discover another of their gifts, and to have a good time, of course :smallcool:

[Tetrasodium]

Well, two things -- firstly, monks and wizards are very, very similar. They are both extremely disciplined and dedicated. One spends years poring over his books, while the other spends years meditating and trying to discern the essence of things. The sorcerer, like the bard, is nothing of the kind. Secondly, you call it a 'stereotype', which is generally a negative term, but you could just as well call it 'class identity', a positive term. It's a matter of personal judgment, of course, but if the stone HAD to fall on one side of the fence, I'd always prefer flavour over balance; but then for me RPGs are always more Rpg than rpG. :smallwink:


I was a little confused by the initial suggestions that monks be int based, but I think you have very effectively demonstrated why they should & done so well enough to make me consider simply declaring them so at some point down the line

[Potato_Priest]

EDIT: If you did this, would there be ANY full caster that didn't spend half their life behind closed doors trying to create enough of a spark to light a candle? If you have some (rough) sort of equivalent in the martial classes (fighter vs. barbarian), then why not among the casters?


That's a good question, since the sorcerer as a spontaneous magical force does sort of fill this void. However, to varying degrees, we'd have:
Bards- Who do have to study for their magic, but not usually as much as a wizard (see OOTS bard camp vs. wizard academies (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0126.html))
Clerics- Get their power from a god.
Warlocks- Who negotiate it with a being of great power. While that negotiation might be hard work, it's also presumably an easier (time investment wise) path to power than wizardry.

[terodil]

That's a good question, since the sorcerer as a spontaneous magical force does sort of fill this void. However, to varying degrees, we'd have:
Bards- Who do have to study for their magic, but not usually as much as a wizard (see OOTS bard camp vs. wizard academies (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0126.html))
Clerics- Get their power from a god.
Warlocks- Who negotiate it with a being of great power. While that negotiation might be hard work, it's also presumably an easier (time investment wise) path to power than wizardry.
I'll give you the warlock. True. (Though I've always considered warlocks to be kinda cheaty, it's not their own power, they just use somebody else's. Though, ofc, the same could be said of priests, who I don't really consider cheaty. Hm. Conundrum.)

But clerics don't count. They spend years cloistered in whatever church they belong to, with a few very rare exceptions where their church/god explicitly expects them to travel the lands. And bards are no full casters in my book.

Edit: Meh. Just re-read the PHB on clerics, and you may be right on this one too.

I will concede though that if you reflavoured INT or WIS away from excessive observation and introspection, respectively, to more of a generalist spellcasting ability, you could keep the sorc flavour with little change. (Though I'd be very, very sad to let go of my partying sorceress.)

Edit: Many games have, without damaging the caster's flavour. Oftentimes, INT is simply the representation of magical prowess, as STR is the representation of the ability to cause physical damage. I don't know where that would leave DEX and WIS though.

[Digimike]

Wouldn't that actually exclusively benefit long-rest based spellcasting classes and warlocks, while doing nothing for fighters and monks?

The problem is many tables refuse to short rest because of the full rest casters blowing their load every encounter. Actually taking short rests will benefit short rest casters. With an option to get some spells back that should lead to fewer long rests.

[Man_Over_Game]

To me, what's more important is trying to find the narrative that fits what I see players wanting the most out of their character.

Sorcerers often have some of the highest Charisma, but from my experience, they prefer to act as obsessive loners, leaving other people to do the talking. And their spell list, filled with a ton of attack-based options, all seem to suit.

By making them Wisdom, I feel it makes a good counter to the Druid, who has a lot of sustained abilities that are designed around Roleplaying over combat. Combining the two (being a Storm Sorcerer/Land Druid of the Coast, or being a Shadow Sorcerer with Spore Druid) makes a lot of sense.

Then moving the Charisma-based activity they used over to the Cleric and Rogues, who actually WANT to work with people, but don't have the stats needed to do so.

Most of the Sorcerers I know what to control everything and be the master of their universe, and maybe Wisdom is just a close match to doing that.

One particular part about Charisma is the fact that it's identified as a sort of "willpower of the soul, reflecting your ability to naturally be gifted", but that just never really came off as being accurate with how players actually USE Charisma. With these changes, there won't be a disconnect between "How to play a Sorcerer" and "What my stats say how I should contribute to the group". They often have all that Charisma, but I don't usually see them consider it more than just a spellcasting modifier.

Maybe with Wisdom, they'll feel like their primary stat is something that synergizes with how they want to play a Sorcerer. Now they can "feel" the emotions of creatures and people, they "know" where and when people are hurting, and they are naturally honed into the future, just enough to avoid an ambush.

[Tetrasodium]

That's precisely my reasoning. Wisdom saving throws are about being courageous and resisting compulsion. It's about knowing the truth and defying lies. As a skill, it's about knowing exactly what your senses are trying to tell you.

Combine those concepts with things like Metamagic and the Sorcerer's way of understanding and controlling his form of magic, and how closely it is bonded to the elements, to blood, and even the gods, and it all really makes sense.

Sorcerers just never really seemed like friendly types despite having high Charisma, and players often make them into arcane hermits that are focused around burning things or understanding magic or trying to blow something up in the coolest fashion.

Considering they have the most number of cantrips, I think it'd be a good idea to have them come off as being "in tune" with the world around them.

This seemed relevant In my games, I use both (int)arcana and (wis)arcana for two very different things. The int one is just like normal to understand what an arcane object is or know some bit of stuff about the arcane. The wisdom based one I use to feel the presence of magic Magic trap? Passive wis arcana, notice that bit of unassuming bit of treasure is magic?.. wis arcana. With the wisdom based one, you might get how there is a strong/weak spell or enchantment there & maybe some vague notion of what it's supposed to do. It's the int based one that tells you what it is, how to use it, how to disable/reroute it, etc. I put in this rule because I was tired of the human scorlock eating the rogue's lunch on being stealthy, the bard's lunch on social stuff (scorlock is less MAD than bard), the wizard on flexibility & casting, etc. Overall it worked well and helped partially level the field in some areas.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

I miss having things to spend my money on. One of my bigger feats in the game was managing to steal over 100,000 gp of trade goods from an enemy ruler, and in the end it wasn't useful for anything more than bragging rights because we had no use for the money. By the end of the campaign around 18th level, we had hundreds of thousands of gp sitting around in a vault and nothing to do with it. Really, after the first ten grand of loot per character we were set for the rest of the campaign.

I don't remember ever having that problem in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd edition.

You can send that gold in the mail to my party...we're trying to start a government and we've already dumped 30-40k at least into our manor, marketplace, canal to the coast, tavern construction, and other things as well. We'd be more than willing to spend your hard earned money if you have no use for it.

[terodil]

Sorcerers often have some of the highest Charisma, but from my experience, they prefer to act as obsessive loners, leaving other people to do the talking. And their spell list, filled with a ton of attack-based options, all seem to suit.
With all due respect, and I don't question your experience, but I feel this is more of an anecdote rather than corroborated evidence. If you took the first half-sentence out, I would have yelled 'WIZARD!' straight away. The sorcerers and sorceresses I have known and/or played myself have always been instinctive, social, and far more often than not ended up as the face of the party (unless there was a bard around or a rogue that wanted to specialise in it).


Then moving the Charisma-based activity they used over to the Cleric and Rogues, who actually WANT to work with people, but don't have the stats needed to do so.
I agree with that it's weird that rogues don't usually get the tools they need to do their jobs (most clerics do put at least a secondary focus on CHA though). Not that I would want to take this ability from sorcs because I think it goes well with their class identity.


One particular part about Charisma is the fact that it's identified as a sort of "willpower of the soul, reflecting your ability to naturally be gifted", but that just never really came off as being accurate with how players actually USE Charisma. With these changes, there won't be a disconnect between "How to play a Sorcerer" and "What my stats say how I should contribute to the group". They often have all that Charisma, but I don't usually see them consider it more than just a spellcasting modifier.
See above... again, this doesn't match my experience at all and I, subjectively, have difficulty imagining a table where that would be the case (i.e. CHA as a casting modifier only and not used for social interaction).

[Man_Over_Game]

With all due respect, and I don't question your experience, but I feel this is more of an anecdote rather than corroborated evidence. If you took the first half-sentence out, I would have yelled 'WIZARD!' straight away. The sorcerers and sorceresses I have known and/or played myself have always been instinctive, social, and far more often than not ended up as the face of the party (unless there was a bard around or a rogue that wanted to specialise in it).


I agree.


See above... again, this doesn't match my experience at all and I, subjectively, have difficulty imagining a table where that would be the case (i.e. CHA as a casting modifier only and not used for social interaction).

That's all fair, and it definitely doesn't match with what you described. Unfortunately, Sorcerers are this weird, exceptional...thing that doesn't really fit with anything. "Despite all odds, you are good at spellcasting without trying, without learning, and just because". Charisma may suit, but it's very contrary to how Paladins get their power.

Maybe if it comes up, I'll just offer the option for Charisma if their character matches. Maybe they get to choose their modifier, since they're often considered one of the weaker spellcasters anyway?

[Pex]

From my POV, reading this thread, there's still a lot of "metagaming really hard" in 5e... so many of these posts are about how to squeeze every last game-mechanical drop out of a build, from synergies to whatever.

Because that's all the rules can really provide - the mechanics and math of how the game functions. If those mechanics and math aren't fulfilling enough that doesn't automatically mean the player having the problem is wrong for having the problem. The game is not at autofault either, but the player remains not being autowrong.

It was asked what people wanted changed. It's unlikely to be done for 5E but may be done in a hypothetical 6E. Maybe it will be done in a hypothetical 5.5E. Those who are answering aren't doing it wrong, even you disagree with the fixes they would like.

[Man_Over_Game]

Because that's all the rules can really provide - the mechanics and math of how the game functions. If those mechanics and math aren't fulfilling enough that doesn't automatically mean the player having the problem is wrong for having the problem. The game is not at autofault either, but the player remains not being autowrong.

It was asked what people wanted changed. It's unlikely to be done for 5E but may be done in a hypothetical 6E. Maybe it will be done in a hypothetical 5.5E. Those who are answering aren't doing it wrong, even you disagree with the fixes they would like.

Well said. We can't tell you if Deception is a better skill to have than Persuasion, or if Control Flames is any more valuable than Gust.

However, we can tell you that Eldritch Blast is likely better than Firebolt, due to the fact that it has multiple hits and scales with on-hit effects, like those from Hexblade and Hex, and it uses the preferable Force damage type. That doesn't mean that Firebolt won't fit into your narrative of a Fiendlock, but since we can't read your mind, we can only read the books, and the best answer from the books is the only thing we can really provide, so you're gonna see a lot of that.

I don't care how many people say Illusory Script sucks, I still use it regularly. It was one of the spells for my Spy Warlock, and most people would have some strong words about that. But it's not something I can recommend to people, because it can only be a good idea if the user decides it is.

[terodil]

Maybe if it comes up, I'll just offer the option for Charisma if their character matches. Maybe they get to choose their modifier, since they're often considered one of the weaker spellcasters anyway?
I haven't really thought about this but now that you mention it, I think I think it's a great idea. I mean we kinda have precedent, although with tons of hoops and whistles, with the choice between STR and DEX for martials. I could imagine something similar for a bard, for example -- I'm sure there are bards that spend a lot of time researching and whatnot, and without a doubt, knowing what moves a crowd and intelligently choosing the subject matter for a song might more than make up for not-quite-stellar CHA scores. It would fit to allow such troubadours to substitute INT for CHA, imo.

[Man_Over_Game]

I haven't really thought about this but now that you mention it, I think I think it's a great idea. I mean we kinda have precedent, although with tons of hoops and whistles, with the choice between STR and DEX for martials. I could imagine something similar for a bard, for example -- I'm sure there are bards that spend a lot of time researching and whatnot, and without a doubt, knowing what moves a crowd and intelligently choosing the subject matter for a song might more than make up for not-quite-stellar CHA scores. It would fit to allow such troubadours to substitute INT for CHA, imo.

Not sure if you missed it, but one of my prior posts was a list of proposed changes to different classes' mental modifiers, including Charisma or Intelligence for Bards.

It's this one: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23556008&postcount=108

In my original post, Wisdom was a slightly more used modifier than Charisma or Intelligence, but making Sorcerer all 3 rather than Wisdom, and making Monk be either Wisdom or Intelligence would make Intelligence slightly more used than Wisdom or Charisma, which is great, considering Intelligence is the least used skillset.


To encourage more diverse builds and less OP multiclassing, I'd probably limit each subclass to a specific modifier.

For example: Horizon Walker and Monster Slayer would be Intelligence. Beast Master and Gloom Stalker would be Wisdom, and Hunter would be Either (because, let's be honest, they don't care about that mamby pamby spellcasting crap).

[terodil]

Not sure if you missed it, [...] In my original post, Wisdom was a slightly more used modifier than Charisma or Intelligence, but making Sorcerer all 3 rather than Wisdom, and making Monk be either Wisdom or Intelligence would make Intelligence slightly more used than Wisdom or Charisma, which is great, considering Intelligence is the least used skillset.
Yes. Off into my list of table options this goes. Thank you for the discussion, it was fun and I think my games will be better for it, too!

[Potato_Priest]

Maybe if it comes up, I'll just offer the option for Charisma if their character matches. Maybe they get to choose their modifier, since they're often considered one of the weaker spellcasters anyway?

Yeah, I think you and terodil are right that this is best offered as a choice. Especially if you have a table that doesn't allow multiclassing (this stuff could get annoyingly synergistic if multiclassers get to choose their casting stats) giving the cleric the option of using Cha or the sorcerer the option of using Wis can only really add to the game by making new character archetypes possible.

In a similar vein, I think letting eldrich knights and arcane tricksters choose their specialty schools and even switch casting classes is also a great option. I remember one particular eldrich knight who was more of a bardy knight, since that's where he got his spells from.

[Man_Over_Game]

Yeah, I think you and terodil are right that this is best offered as a choice. Especially if you have a table that doesn't allow multiclassing (this stuff could get annoyingly synergistic if multiclassers get to choose their casting stats) giving the cleric the option of using Cha or the sorcerer the option of using Wis can only really add to the game by making new character archetypes possible.

In a similar vein, I think letting eldrich knights and arcane tricksters choose their specialty schools and even switch casting classes is also a great option. I remember one particular eldrich knight who was more of a bardy knight, since that's where he got his spells from.

A really frustrating thing I found was that Arcane Archers can choose between Nature and Arcana, and also choose between Prestidigitation or Druidcraft, but they HAVE to use Intelligence for their modifiers, which seems really dumb.

Conceptually, I picture most "fighting men" using survivalist skills and relying on their senses to survive, so it just makes sense for Fighters and Rangers to use Wisdom as a potential modifier stat, more so than Intelligence, anyway.

[2D8HP]

.....I'd like it if 5e had a proper chapter (or even optional book, I get that most people don't care) on the wilds, travel, foraging, etc. with rules other than 'include a ranger in the group, and this all goes away.'


That would be cool.


...I really want to try out Dangerous Magic. The basic skeleton of the idea is if you cast a spell at a level higher than your Spell casting ability modifier you have to roll a check. If you fail the check you roll on the WHFRPG style table of screaming doom....


I'm liking that!


It would be cool to get some good rules for castle building/realm management type stuff.


That it would!


...learn how to DM by taking the plunge and doing it.
As a group, help that process by making the game a collaborative event with the players.
And everyone, share!
Take turns DMing. Don't dump it all on one gal, or one guy.
Behave like a friend would.


I agree mostly but....

....I think it's harder now.


"2D8HP, you moron, this is a golden age with far more access to good info than before, how can you think it's harder now you moldering Morlock?!"

Well yes, but it's like this:

When it was just the "Examples of Play" the small Dungeon of Zenopus and the fill in the blanks In Search of the Unknown module there just wasn't as much to go through, Phandelver is a great adventure, but it's a lot of material, and I suspect that it's intimidating to new DM's in a way that the less full stuff I started with was.

Anyway, my "fixes":

First off 5e D&D is immensely popular now (and Pathfinder is as well), and while D&D was pretty popular after E.T., Mazes & Monsters, and the Saturday Morning Cartoon was on but when Vampire/World of Darkness were big finding tables playimg swords & sorcery FRP games was really hard, and that's not the case now, most every Wednesday night there's a drop-in game.

That's immensely cool!

Since playing a good game with actual other people is better than reading the rules of a better game and going "That would be cool to play, if someone else was interested", and since my tastes aren't universal (what is wrong with people!), I strongly suspect that my "fixes" would make things less popular and thus worse but, eh, here goes some:


1) Not enough spellcasters accidentally bring Hell to earth and have their souls ripped from their bodies.

I really liked the old Stormbringer magic system in which sorcerers gained power by summoning and controlling demons, risking the demons controlling them!

The results of the rituals near the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark, and Conan the Destroyer are good templates what magic may bring forth.

2) Healing is too much, too fast.

The "gritty realism" option in the DMG is a good start.

3) Slow down "levelling up", and slow way down additional HP for PC's and have higher CR monsters have less HP as well, or increase damage all around except at First Level.


That's about it for my wishlist as a player.

As far as additional stuff for being a DM?
,
Pretty good there, I suppose bound prints of the free on-line new Basic rules for sale would be good, those and the new DMG are really good, and other than hiding much of the available options from players (when I Iast offered to DM using only Starter Set classes and races, so that I could manage it, my offer was firmly rejected), other than some of the suggestions in this thread I really don't know what to ask for, and I feel no lack of rules.

[djreynolds]

What a great thread?

MechaViking, I thinks it's his name, brought up:
Dexterity to Hit, for all attacks even spells attacks.
Strength to Damage, except for spells, instead use your casting stat.

It was proposed and obviously shot down, but adds something the game is lacking in, NOT dumping stats.

Swinging a greatsword is more than brute strength. Shooting a bow is more than dexterity.

Also, just allow anyone using weapons the choice to power attack. You just give up proficiency for added damage, double proficiency.

Just make sharpshooter and GWM, half-feats with a +1 to dex or strength and no power attack portions.

[Max_Killjoy]

Another thought -- could every Class be given two options for a character's "main stat"?

[Pex]

Yeah, I think you and terodil are right that this is best offered as a choice. Especially if you have a table that doesn't allow multiclassing (this stuff could get annoyingly synergistic if multiclassers get to choose their casting stats) giving the cleric the option of using Cha or the sorcerer the option of using Wis can only really add to the game by making new character archetypes possible.

In a similar vein, I think letting eldrich knights and arcane tricksters choose their specialty schools and even switch casting classes is also a great option. I remember one particular eldrich knight who was more of a bardy knight, since that's where he got his spells from.

Why is it a bad thing for two classes to use the same ability score for spellcasting given you are allowing players to choose their casting stat? Why is it a bad thing as the game is now? The only thing the ability score does is set the math - the spell attack roll and DC. You can have a million classes all using the same ability score. You'll have the same spell attack roll and DC of a single class character (of a million levels :smallyuk:).

It's fair to say particular things are too much of a thing in multiclassing, even if personally I disagree it's a problem. For example let Eldritch Blast be a warlock class feature scaling on warlock levels, but you can still multiclass warlock and pick up Fire Bolt as a normal scaling Cantrip for a range attack along with a couple of warlock invocations. However, before you say multiclassing in general is too good and needs nerfing perhaps staying single class should be buffed a bit so that you really want those high levels making multiclassing a hard but rewarding in itself choice. Let both options be their own awesomeness. If people do multiclass anyway let them. That's their business. It's their character, not yours even if you're the DM. It is the game designers' responsibility to ensure when two classes are multiclassed together the game does not fall apart into an unplayable mess. Given that won't happen it's not your place to say someone else should not multiclass.

"Your" in the preceding paragraph meaning the general colloquial you, not Potato_Priest specifically.

Of course then you get people complaining about power creep, but the game needs to define what characters can do at particular levels. If a player has a problem with that definition then perhaps they're not compatible and part ways but neither the player nor the game are wrong. I have to accept that does not mean the player should not talk about his problems of that matter to avoid hypocrisy since I do it for particular things as the game is now. :smallsmile: The player is certainly entitled to play the game anyway despite his gripes, as I do with the game as is now as well.

No matter what happens someone will be griping. Welcome to the internet.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Another thought -- could every Class be given two options for a character's "main stat"?

Let's run through the options, shall we (in the spirit of exploration):

Barbarian: Strength (obviously) and ... Dex (for the dervish theme).

Bard: Charisma and ... int? I don't like that fit, personally. Bards aren't bookish or studious, they're doers. Wanderers. Players.

Cleric: Wisdom and charisma (for the preacher type)? Intelligence for the bookish type? To me, it doesn't fit the idea that their power comes from being in-tune with their deity, not from books or from personal power.

Druids: Wisdom and ... nothing else really fits for me.

Fighters: already done. Dex and STR are both totally viable.

Monk: Dex/Wis and Str/Wis? For the more brawler type? Makes them super MAD though with no armor.

Paladin: STR/CHA and DEX/CHA are both viable currently.

Ranger: STR/WIS and DEX/WIS are both viable currently.

Rogue: DEX is king, add STR for a thug-rogue.

Sorcerer: Discussed elsewhere. I'm not fond of either WIS or INT for them. Maybe CON? That might be broken.

Warlock: Easy. CHA or INT.

Wizard: INT just fits so well...none of the others really do.

So it looks like wizards and druids are the sticky ones for me, personally.

[Morty]

As far as attributes go, I can get behind Grod's proposal from the very start of the thread and just cut them out.

[PhoenixPhyre]

As far as attributes go, I can get behind Grod's proposal from the very start of the thread and just cut them out.

I can't go that far. It's not D&D if there aren't 5 or 6 attributes. Do they need to be 3-20 with the modifiers being the most important? Dunno. But cutting them out entirely? No. Unless I misunderstood.

[Max_Killjoy]

I can't go that far. It's not D&D if there aren't 5 or 6 attributes. Do they need to be 3-20 with the modifiers being the most important? Dunno. But cutting them out entirely? No. Unless I misunderstood.


I'm of the opinion that characteristics at that "layer" are actually important to help reflect the particular character, and prefer to have at least two layers of attributes -- so characteristics and skills, say.

The reason I'm tempted to have two options for every class, or flexible linkage between the layers, is to keep all martial, or all magic, or all whatever, characters, from ending up mechanically same-ish. (That is, where all characters of Class X end up taking stat A and proficiency F.)

[Morty]

I can't go that far. It's not D&D if there aren't 5 or 6 attributes. Do they need to be 3-20 with the modifiers being the most important? Dunno. But cutting them out entirely? No. Unless I misunderstood.

In their current form, attributes are largely superfluous. So I'd prefer replacing them with proficiency bonuses entirely. That, or overhaul them to be less redundant with classes and proficiencies.

[JMS]

The reason I'm tempted to have two options for every class, or flexible linkage between the layers, is to keep all martial, or all magic, or all whatever, characters, from ending up mechanically same-ish.

I love the two option idea, and might include it in any further 5e games. 2 thoughts for the UA classes, Mystic might have a stat based on subclass, with stuff like Cha/Combat for the Avatar, Int/Wis for Wu Jen, Int/Cha for Awakened. Run out of steam for the last three, with stuff like Soulknife being unclear - Wis? Too much wis base. The tough one - can’t recal the name, is Wis/Con, and while I would love a Battlemind type Con caster, people would scream bloody murder, particularly if it came with other SAD Focusing tricks - Con based Hexblade feature?

More on topic for the thread, I want more options. More variety, and more push to choose different options. I love 5e because everyone plays it, and I can build a character in 30 minutes, less if I need to. However, the reason I now spend more time on 3.5 is that I have 5e close to memorized, at least for the roles I like (Caster or Skill-Monkey).

[Pex]

Ability scores are needed for flavor text. As it stands now in the game as is, given Point Buy, generally speaking every PC has the same +# to attack and DC to the saving throw for their class ability. At 1st level that's +5 to hit and DC 13 because they will have a 16/17 in the appropriate score. Yes you'll have the occasional player who has 15 or 14, but generally it will be 16/17. At 4th level the difference is only by +1 depending whether a player went feat or attribute increase. As the game progresses generally everyone is the same in their prime attack. At the high levels could the numbers start to be significantly different due to different choices of Feat/ASI and magic items, but the campaign is almost over by then. However, at 1st level, 3rd level, 6th level the barbarian, rogue, and wizard have the exact same attack modifier and DC for their class ability that has one. It's boring for everyone's character sheet to say +5, DC 13. You need the distinction the barbarian is muscularly strong, the rogue nimbly quick, and the wizard super smart. It's not enough to have it only in your head. Ink to paper ST, DX, IN mean something even though it's the +5 you add to your die roll.

[Tetrasodium]

Ability scores are needed for flavor text. As it stands now in the game as is, given Point Buy, generally speaking every PC has the same +# to attack and DC to the saving throw for their class ability. At 1st level that's +5 to hit and DC 13 because they will have a 16/17 in the appropriate score. Yes you'll have the occasional player who has 15 or 14, but generally it will be 16/17. At 4th level the difference is only by +1 depending whether a player went feat or attribute increase. As the game progresses generally everyone is the same in their prime attack. At the high levels could the numbers start to be significantly different due to different choices of Feat/ASI and magic items, but the campaign is almost over by then. However, at 1st level, 3rd level, 6th level the barbarian, rogue, and wizard have the exact same attack modifier and DC for their class ability that has one. It's boring for everyone's character sheet to say +5, DC 13. You need the distinction the barbarian is muscularly strong, the rogue nimbly quick, and the wizard super smart. It's not enough to have it only in your head. Ink to paper ST, DX, IN mean something even though it's the +5 you add to your die roll.

I agree & came across a really nice alternative to pointbuy & the genetic lottery 3d6/4d6 drop1 options a while back here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0K9mKpAMREU). effectively roll 4d6 drop 1 for each stat in order buy you can only try for a new array if you don't get at least two stats that are 15 or better. GM permission for another try might be an option if you get something bizarre & near unplayable like like 18 3 11 8 9. I've found that it works really well & does a great job of forcing players into roles they might not consider.

Hmm...A few things I can think of:

Bards can be Charisma or Intelligence
Sorcerers are Wisdom
Clerics are dependent upon your god at level 1, with the majority leaning towards Charisma (since they're often dealing with cults)
Wizards are Intelligence
Rangers can be Wisdom or Intelligence
Warlocks are dependent upon your patron at level 1, with the majority leaning towards Charisma (since they're often dealing with cults).
Paladins are Charisma
Druids are Wisdom
Monks are Wisdom
Rogues are Intelligence or Charisma
Fighters are Intelligence or Wisdom

With this kind of spread, this puts Charisma and Intelligence just under Wisdom in terms of combat use.


are you talking about as a spellcasting stat for ranger/ek/at/etc, or are you suggesting that everyone get a caster stat for using melee weapons & such?

[Man_Over_Game]

I agree & came across a really nice alternative to pointbuy & the genetic lottery 3d6/4d6 drop1 options a while back here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0K9mKpAMREU). effectively roll 4d6 drop 1 for each stat in order buy you can only try for a new array if you don't get at least two stats that are 15 or better. GM permission for another try might be an option if you get something bizarre & near unplayable like like 18 3 11 8 9. I've found that it works really well & does a great job of forcing players into roles they might not consider.



are you talking about as a spellcasting stat for ranger/ek/at/etc, or are you suggesting that everyone get a caster stat for using melee weapons & such?

I mean to replace the spellcasting/save stat used for those classes. The monk, for instance, uses Wisdom for its AC and its saving throws, but using Intelligence almost makes sense as an alternative.

[Keko]

Class variety. I am sick of seeing a "new and shiny subclass" for YET ANOTHER WAY TO PLAY A FIGHTER OR WIZARD. While having dozens of books necessary to make a character in previous editions was a hassle, it also allowed for more flavor and different builds and strategies. The class/subclass system is getting old fast.
The idea for an entirely new class such as the Mystic were shot down and ripped apart. And only for the benefit of adding psionic subclasses to other classes. The mystic dies and its skeleton parades forth as a mere shadow of itself in the form of the Psion.

Where are the shamans? Where are the alchemists? Where is anything that gets sneak attack other than rogues? Why can only BM fighters be decent at disarming people? Where is anything that breaks from the norm? Having the same formula for each class gives the same vibe of being repetitive and gets stale quickly. Like eating a different kind of pizza every day, eventually, you get tired of pizza altogether.

So I'm calling out WotC on these shenanigans. Honestly, without some more variety, I'm likely going to be looking at Shadowrun in the future instead of further installments of 5e. Their new material comes out at a positively GLACIAL pace, with errata taking just as long.

In essence, the game is getting boring and repetitive from a PC perspective, as there are very few flavors of character to pick from. And I have some spectacular DMs, with intricate stories, plots, and twists. So I am certain that my angst stems from the system mechanics.

Amen to that brother!
The thing I miss from 3.5 is character creation. Despite its glaring defects I loved going through various books with plenty of options to choose from. Despite I initially enjoyed a lot this edition it has grown rapidly stale on me. I had some hope when I saw the mystic but then it was apparently lost in the void so...(I also really liked the direction taken for the ToB -like stuff for Mike Mearls' weaponmaster fighter and revised ranger)

In this edition playing a class more than once feels the same. Yes you get a different subclass but you actually get just 2 different class features (the level 1-3 one and the level 6-7 one, the level 11-13 one is just a capstone for most games).
There are a few exceptions (like the 1/3 caster subclasses) but stil...

Also mid-high level class features are most of the time so bland in flavour and power and sooo boring mechanically.

This and skills being so much luck reliant. Unless you have expertise there is no way of really be good at something:
- at low levels it is mostly a die roll: against an average cd (14?) your success goes from 30% (-1 Stat and 0 prof) to 60% (+3 stat and +2 prof) so being good at something means that you are actually better than someone terrible 30% of the times. In my experience this means that most of the times, when I feel it should be my time to shine because we are rolling something I am supposed to be good at, someone else at the table with average ability score and probably no proficiency will roll high enough to be able to do/know things better than me.

-at the same time at mid-high levels against an average cd (18?) your success is 15% (No ability mod nor prof) up to 60% (5 ability mod and 4 prof)

so being trained in a skill based on your main stat means that you will always be average at it (just above 50% chance) while not being trained means you go further and further into hail mary territory. So bounded accuracy is a lie :smallcool: it's just valid for trained people, meaning you will never reliably do anything while non trained people will manage at low level as in previous edition but fall off leveling up.

This has the side effect that the main things you can do to try to improve your chances are less effective the more you need them. Getting a reroll or advantage on when you need a 16+ on the die will improve your chances far less than when you need an 11.

Being proficient in a skill based on dump stat (or vice versa) feels so bad too. Yeeeeeh I will know/do things I'm trained to do/know like 40% of the times!

Another thing I really don't like is that ASI and feats are alternative and given how starved you are for them the opportunity cost is very high, forcing you in a lose-lose situation:
-you either get the thing more relevant for your class (+2 to main stat which is sooo boring, or one of the few good feats) narrowing a lot your choices and differences from character to character
-or the cool stuff you want for you because you know, character concept, but it doesn't benefit your class (like some charisma related stuff for a fighter)

I have recently tried The Dark Eye rpg and I really enjoyed it, I suggest you look it up. Some things are quite weird coming from dnd at first and seems quite complicated but after a steep beginning it runs smothly.
The fifth edition (2017) despite being so new has more crunch from expansion books than next have had in 5(?) years. /rant out :smallyuk:

[2D8HP]

I just thought of something else I'd like:


More pre-gens, or some kind of defaults to make character creation quicker.

Still have the options for when you want to fine tune a "build", but except for equipment (thank you "Standard"!), making a 5e PC takes a lot longer than old D&D, which is nice as a sort of solo game, but sometimes you just want to play.

[Malifice]

Actually this brings up my biggest complaint with 5th edition. Formatting.
Let's look at the dmg. The book design for DMs that hide all the necessary information information on how to build encounters and new npc's on various pages with no rhyme or reason.

There is an index. And I dont find the DMG 'hides' anything at all.

There is a chapter on building encounters, and another one on designing NPCs .


they come up with a rough outline of creating a new NPC with A well designed CR system and then failed to explain how it works.

They explain how both work in the DMG. You (or your DM) just never read it.


And in the example they build it out of order???? The math is good but they freaking hide it from the player who needs it. They want you to make a npc then assignat it a cr instead of the other way around? Not to mention all this information is buried three quarters away into the book when it should be in the first couple of chapters.


In 5E they give you NPC stat blocks (Mage, Noble, Champion, Priest, Bandit, Archmage, Warlord, Gladiator, Thug, Guard, Veteran, Assassin etc etc etc).

Which NPC do you have in mind that isnt covered by one of these NPCs in the books?

If for whatever reason, none of these NPCs work for you, they're dead easy to tweak a little, and the DMG provides guidelines for doing so.

[Tanarii]

Three things I'd fix:

- Make it clear Darkvision is intended to be an inky blackness that blocks vision. As written it just snuffs out light and blocks darkvision.

- Make healing to full on a Long Rest a variant rule.
(Stolen from Segreid but I totally agree.)

- nerf the loving heck out of GWM, SS, and PAM

[Tetrasodium]

Three things I'd fix:

- Make it clear Darkvision is intended to be an inky blackness that blocks vision. As written it just snuffs out light and blocks darkvision.

- Make healing to full on a Long Rest a variant rule.
(Stolen from Segreid but I totally agree.)

- nerf the loving heck out of GWM, SS, and PAM

darkvisionblocks vision? did you mean the darkness spell? It already says "A creature with darkvision can’t see through this darkness, " in it. The problem is that the variant human scorlock with devils sight is the only one who can see through it without truesight or dispelling it with magical light

"- Make healing to full on a Long Rest a variant rule." what would the other option be?

[Mith]

Things I have looked at for 5e "fixes" (need to actually run a table with them to see if they sound good) I have thrown up on these boards before with mixed results, but one I would like to see is ways for Martial Characters to carry social influence that doesn't depend on Charisma. D&D-land is usually a feudal/warrior culture, so your high level martial characters would carry a huge social presence just by being the scariest person in the room. Druss the Legend by David Gemmell wasn't charismatic in the sense of a Bard, he just had a commanding presence of believing he was the scariest bastard in the room, and everyone else subconsciously agreed with him.


I would reflect this with Martial characters getting a boost to specific social skills based on class. Although with the more flexible means of gaining skills, you could argue that they just get a proficiency in (or Expertise if they already have it) in a Social Skill of their choice. I personally would just assign Barbarians Intimidation, Ranger Deception, Paladin Persuasion, and Fighters just pick one, but that's just me. It does step on the subclasses that give specific Social skills to these classes, but then they can get a better ribbon ability.


A though I had was to make Skill Proficiency essentially a "skill point" system akin to what I am recalling from the NWP from earlier editions, where instead of a 3.X style +1 skill point to +1 bonus, it's X points unlock this level of skill. You get the points to distribute every tier, and can choose to boost your existing skills to the next level, or gain proficiency/ Expertise. The idea of overlapping racial/background/class skills mean that you are trading a more expansive list for more points to invest in your smaller skill list. Expertise features from Rogue and Bard would instead give you more points to work with. Spending and ASI for a Skilled/ Prodigy feat would just gain you an extra number of skill points to expand your skills.


For this to work, you would probably need some form of cap to keep skills from being too unbalance, plus an increase in cost probably for higher levels of skill. The idea is to keep the idea of a proficiency bonus (which keeps the numbers small, so it doesn't become ridiculous like 3.5 can), while still having a bit of the customisability that one gets from the skill point system.

[Malifice]

Things I have looked at for 5e "fixes" (need to actually run a table with them to see if they sound good) I have thrown up on these boards before with mixed results, but one I would like to see is ways for Martial Characters to carry social influence that doesn't depend on Charisma. D&D-land is usually a feudal/warrior culture, so your high level martial characters would carry a huge social presence just by being the scariest person in the room. Druss the Legend by David Gemmell wasn't charismatic in the sense of a Bard, he just had a commanding presence of believing he was the scariest bastard in the room, and everyone else subconsciously agreed with him.


I would reflect this with Martial characters getting a boost to specific social skills based on class. Although with the more flexible means of gaining skills, you could argue that they just get a proficiency in (or Expertise if they already have it) in a Social Skill of their choice. I personally would just assign Barbarians Intimidation, Ranger Deception, Paladin Persuasion, and Fighters just pick one, but that's just me. It does step on the subclasses that give specific Social skills to these classes, but then they can get a better ribbon ability.


A though I had was to make Skill Proficiency essentially a "skill point" system akin to what I am recalling from the NWP from earlier editions, where instead of a 3.X style +1 skill point to +1 bonus, it's X points unlock this level of skill. You get the points to distribute every tier, and can choose to boost your existing skills to the next level, or gain proficiency/ Expertise. The idea of overlapping racial/background/class skills mean that you are trading a more expansive list for more points to invest in your smaller skill list. Expertise features from Rogue and Bard would instead give you more points to work with. Spending and ASI for a Skilled/ Prodigy feat would just gain you an extra number of skill points to expand your skills.


For this to work, you would probably need some form of cap to keep skills from being too unbalance, plus an increase in cost probably for higher levels of skill. The idea is to keep the idea of a proficiency bonus (which keeps the numbers small, so it doesn't become ridiculous like 3.5 can), while still having a bit of the customisability that one gets from the skill point system.

Any reason why you're not giving high level warriors of renown advantage on Intimidate checks?

And no published DnD world is based on a Feudal society barring possibly Birthright. Eberron, Krynn, Faerun, Greyhawk, Athas - none of them were remotely close to Feudal.

There are no Serfs anywhere of note, most towns are run by Mayors or similar and not Knights, cities are generally governed by noble or merchant houses acting in loose alliance with each other etc. Nation States have well and truly formed, and Republics and so forth abound. The Merchant class (which saw the death of Feudalism with its rise) is well and truly established.

Saying DnD accepts a default feudal society as its core assumption is as wrong as saying it accepts a default bronze age or even earlier hunter gatherer society as core.

The core assumption seems to be more of a late renaissance/ early industrial level of governance and technology more akin to our own Age of Exploration mid 2nd millennia, with magic taking the role of technology (and stagnating its development), featuring primitive Nation States, merchant alliances, banking and so forth.

[Tetrasodium]

Any reason why you're not giving high level warriors of renown advantage on Intimidate checks?

And no published DnD world is based on a Feudal society barring possibly Birthright. Eberron, Krynn, Faerun, Greyhawk, Athas - none of them were remotely close to Feudal.

There are no Serfs anywhere of note, most towns are run by Mayors or similar and not Knights, cities are generally governed by noble or merchant houses acting in loose alliance with each other etc. Nation States have well and truly formed, and Republics and so forth abound. The Merchant class (which saw the death of Feudalism with its rise) is well and truly established.

Saying DnD accepts a default feudal society as its core assumption is as wrong as saying it accepts a default bronze age or even earlier hunter gatherer society as core.

The core assumption seems to be more of a late renaissance/ early industrial level of governance and technology more akin to our own Age of Exploration mid 2nd millennia, with magic taking the role of technology (and stagnating its development), featuring primitive Nation States, merchant alliances, banking and so forth.

Some parts of khorvaire are feudal or semifeudal under warlords (ie droaam/karnath /lhazzar principalities) but that doesn't really change much.

I have a game where I ha e the players honor scores & background/classes/etc can situationally raise or lower it as relevant
The honor score goes up/down based on actions rather than asi & it can be used in place of charisma in most skill checks.

[Malifice]

Some parts of khorvaire are feudal or semifeudal under warlords (ie droaam/karnath /lhazzar principalities) but that doesn't really change much.

I have a game where I ha e the players honor scores & background/classes/etc can situationally raise or lower it as relevant
The honor score goes up/down based on actions rather than asi & it can be used in place of charisma in most skill checks.

Some parts of contemporary Earth society are still hunter gatherers, but it's not the accepted overall form of governance.

Iv never really understood the whole 'DnD is Feudal Europe' vibe. There are Galleons crossing oceans to far away continents (indeed there are also flying castles or even spaceships/ spelljammer ships zipping around the place), a well established merchant class and economic system involving sophisticated banking, private ownership of land, formal Nation States with established borders and standing armies everywhere, etc etc.

Its much more akin to 16th or so century stuff, just with technological advancement replaced, stagnated or supplanted by magic.

[Mith]

Any reason why you're not giving high level warriors of renown advantage on Intimidate checks?

And no published DnD world is based on a Feudal society barring possibly Birthright. Eberron, Krynn, Faerun, Greyhawk, Athas - none of them were remotely close to Feudal.

There are no Serfs anywhere of note, most towns are run by Mayors or similar and not Knights, cities are generally governed by noble or merchant houses acting in loose alliance with each other etc. Nation States have well and truly formed, and Republics and so forth abound. The Merchant class (which saw the death of Feudalism with its rise) is well and truly established.

Saying DnD accepts a default feudal society as its core assumption is as wrong as saying it accepts a default bronze age or even earlier hunter gatherer society as core.

The core assumption seems to be more of a late renaissance/ early industrial level of governance and technology more akin to our own Age of Exploration mid 2nd millennia, with magic taking the role of technology (and stagnating its development), featuring primitive Nation States, merchant alliances, banking and so forth.

The idea of advantage works, but it doesn't grow with you, which is what I like about proficiency/expertise in social skills, vs. advantage.

And fair point about me being sloppy with language. Although most tables I play at have a strong feudal system in place.

I still stand by D&D cultures being a warrior/honour cultures in most cases. Such cultures did revere their Heroic (in the Classical sense) figures. Using an Honour Score may work well. But having an easy way to manage such a fluctuating score may take some figuring out.

Perhaps Charisma for Personal Social Skills, and Reputation/Honour for your reputation among others?

[Morty]

Ability scores are needed for flavor text. As it stands now in the game as is, given Point Buy, generally speaking every PC has the same +# to attack and DC to the saving throw for their class ability. At 1st level that's +5 to hit and DC 13 because they will have a 16/17 in the appropriate score. Yes you'll have the occasional player who has 15 or 14, but generally it will be 16/17. At 4th level the difference is only by +1 depending whether a player went feat or attribute increase. As the game progresses generally everyone is the same in their prime attack. At the high levels could the numbers start to be significantly different due to different choices of Feat/ASI and magic items, but the campaign is almost over by then. However, at 1st level, 3rd level, 6th level the barbarian, rogue, and wizard have the exact same attack modifier and DC for their class ability that has one. It's boring for everyone's character sheet to say +5, DC 13. You need the distinction the barbarian is muscularly strong, the rogue nimbly quick, and the wizard super smart. It's not enough to have it only in your head. Ink to paper ST, DX, IN mean something even though it's the +5 you add to your die roll.

Or, hear me out here, you just role-play and describe your character however you want and keep the rules and numbers efficient. I thought that was supposed to be 5E's thing? If your barbarian's abilities let them cleave demons in half with a massive greataxe (or greatsword, but that's dangerously close to not being iconic and thus discouraged), you don't need an extra number on your character sheet telling you they're big and strong.

[HappyDaze]

While it echoes 4e, I'd like to see all classes rebuilt to have more even mixes of both short rest and long rest recharging abilities. This might be harder to do with some classes (Fighters & Rogues with LR abilities), but I feel it needs to be done to prevent many of the issues I've seen when party members are on very different "work schedules."

Rest-based healing just seems way too easy. I don't like that anybody surviving a battle with 1 hp can be at full health after 8h of rest.

I'd like to see the Bard rebuilt as a half-caster but with Warlock-like powers that can be tailored to fit the subtype. Not all Bards should use musical instruments.

I'd like all races to have both the starting abilities at 1st level and some later features that come online at 5th level, 11th level, and 17th level (as the tiers change).

Get rid of Ranger spellcasting. Give them nature-based invocations (like Warlock) in the place of spells.

Strip the Cleric class down and remove the turn undead ability. Now add more to each Domain, including Turn Undead to those where it's appropriate and putting something else in when it's not.

Change paladin's Divine Sense to detect the things that the paladin is opposed to (like Fey for Oath of the Ancients). Likewise, adjust Smite damage type by Oath as well as what creatures take the extra +1d8. Why does a LE Paladin with Oath of Conquest have to do radiant damage and extra against undead? Some of his closest friends, er... allies... are undead.

[Max_Killjoy]

Or, hear me out here, you just role-play and describe your character however you want and keep the rules and numbers efficient. I thought that was supposed to be 5E's thing? If your barbarian's abilities let them cleave demons in half with a massive greataxe (or greatsword, but that's dangerously close to not being iconic and thus discouraged), you don't need an extra number on your character sheet telling you they're big and strong.

So, then... what relates their "roleplayed" strength to forcing open a door, or lifting a rock off a comrade, or doing more damage than an average person, or grappling a foe to the ground, or etc?

Does the character actually need to invest separately in everything that being strong would affect their capability or likelihood of success with?

Or do they just get to make an assertion that the character is really strong, and therefore gets a bonus on anything that the DM agrees "being strong" would give a bonus to?

Or do we give each character a "stat" that translates their strength into the mechanics of the system -- and give this character a higher number than average?

[LtPowers]

Note that a 20 Str check can break handcuffs, which means it'll take an average strength Wizard about two minutes of straining, or the strongest warrior on the continent (20 Str) 1/4 of the time of the Wizard (30 seconds).

Only if the DM allows repeated-checks-until-you-succeed, which is hardly a given. It would be more accurate to say that the wizard has a 5% chance of breaking the cuffs (and anyone with an 8 STR has no chance) while the strongest warrior has a 30% chance. That seems more reasonable.


Powers &8^]

[Misterwhisper]

Only if the DM allows repeated-checks-until-you-succeed, which is hardly a given. It would be more accurate to say that the wizard has a 5% chance of breaking the cuffs (and anyone with an 8 STR has no chance) while the strongest warrior has a 30% chance. That seems more reasonable.


Powers &8^]

The problem with that is circumstances.

If you are manacled in the back of a cart on a long ride why should you only get one check for getting out?

[MaxWilson]

The problem with that is circumstances.

If you are manacled in the back of a cart on a long ride why should you only get one check for getting out?

It depends on what you (the DM) think the randomness represents, and whether the results of attempts are independent or correlated. If you think the check % represents finding a flaw in the manacles such that applying pressure in the right way will snap them, repeated trials will not be independent: if there wasn't a flaw the first time, there won't be a flaw the second or third time. If on the other hand it represents "can you summon the explosive burst of muscle energy necessary to snap bare steel," then yes, resting and retrying later on could conceivably result in success.

[HappyDaze]

If you are manacled in the back of a cart on a long ride why should you only get one check for getting out?

Because while you thought you were Clark Griswold off on a Vacation, you were really just Dinky the dog.

[Cybren]

Things that need fixing in 5E:
•Anti-synergy between the Parry and Riposte maneuvers.
•The halfling. You know which one.

[djreynolds]

I can see why 5E is more relaxed on stuff such as encumbrance, it can be time drag and its not a survival show.

I actually like the ability cap, the reality is with dice, bad rolls are still bad rolls and the dice still rule

I would just allow anyone to power attack, no feat, you can give up current proficiency bonus for double in damage. Now everyone can do it.
Even the wizard with an 8 dexterity can madly swing their quarterstaff in desperation

Just have GWM/SS as half feats minus the power attack portion.

[Potato_Priest]

Just have GWM/SS as half feats minus the power attack portion.

I think GWM would need another feature too. While the bonus action attack is an OK feature, it’s just not really that flavorful, and could use a ribbon or similar to spice it up. Preferably something to do with great weapons, since the bonus attack works with anything.

Some ideas- Grappling with a 2h weapon, using thrown weapons while wielding a 2h weapon, Overpowering resistance (but not immunity) to physical damage with a 2h weapon.

[Xetheral]

What are some examples of where people have trouble with the current language for attacks? I'm all for consistency, and maybe I'm just too used to reading everything in all games like MtG Cards when making rulings, but I've never run into a single issue of not knowing what kind of attack to use when adjudicating a ruling. I can't think of a single example where it's a problem, but clearly a lot of people hate it for some reason. What gives?


But just because Mearls got confused by his own writing doesn't mean we have to...I agree with you that the thrown melee weapon isn't elibible for Rage or Divine Smite. That, to me at least, is the most obvious reading of the RAW and interpretation of the RAI. For any of the examples you've given I don't think we have to think that hard to come to the most logical solution. I'm not trying to come down on you or anyone for having a problem with the wording, but I personally still have a hard time coming up with a case where it's not pretty clear how all of the triggers and reactions work.

Again, a lot of that comes from my MtG days. I played with people who were excruciatingly good at combining intricately worded cards, so over the years I got really good at working through the logical system and wording of those cards even when discrepancies arose. It's the same in my mind for 5e.

The problem isn't that there remain ambiguous or inconsistent cases after logically applying all the RAI from the tweets. The problem is that the wording regarding melee/ranged weapons/attacks requires that much parsing (and reading Twitter) in the first place. I frequently DM for new players who don't have any experience with TTRPGs, and when they read the PHB, they don't realize on their own that (e.g.) "an attack with a melee weapon" is not the same thing as a "melee weapon attack". It comes across as unnecessarily nuanced and jargony and regularly annoys my players, even after they get used to it. We get past it by commiserating with each other over the apparent absurdity (and by me resolving most misunderstandings in the players' favor).


Sure, change whatever you wish. You having fun is more important than rules. I do it, you do it, everyone does it.

But don't pretend it's "fixing". Fixing is what you do when something is broken, or when you want to stop it from reproducing.

If you're doing something and people keep telling you that it need fixing, it's not an indicator they think doing it is ok.

Interestingly, I don't interpret the use of the word "fix" as having the same pejorative context that you do. When a poster describes a problem they are experiencing at their table (and that I don't experience at mine) and expresses a need to "fix" that problem, I don't see that as suggesting that I'm doing anything wrong.

To the extent that other posters share my more-neutral interpretation of "fix", posts in this thread may not be intended as an attack on your (or anyone else's) playstyle.

[Skylivedk]

SNIP

General
Not many options for creating items, which is a shame for inventor-style of adventurers
Stealth is extremely vague, with few rules regarding the difference between Sound, Vision, Sound + Vision, Partially Obscured, using the same location over and over, and Movement.
d20 has too much random chance when combined with bounded accuracy. Note that a 20 Str check can break handcuffs, which means it'll take an average strength Wizard about two minutes of straining, or the strongest warrior on the continent (20 Str) 1/4 of the time of the Wizard (30 seconds).
Not enough differences between weapons. Likely intentional to make things quicker and less rules-heavy, but even some simple changes could mix things up (like, what's up with the trident, yo?)
Familiars are too good, scouts are not good enough.
Cantrips scale with level, but level 1 damage spells do not.
Initiative creates a different "game mode", where players expect combat vs. when they think they're safe, and where true tension doesn't exist unless Initiative is relevant.
Few rules to create improvised attacks or actions. Or, alternatively, not enough special melee actions.

I don't get the initiative part... My players can be scared ****less long before initiative is rolled. Skill checks for not stressed situations are slightly messed up with no DM interaction... 2d10 or 3d6 for more common situations might be better.

Classes
Few tactical options for those who don't use magic.
Few tactical options for those who are in melee.
Major power disparity between characters based on the number of encounters per short rests per long rests, requiring many balance changes if tables want more or fewer battles per day.
No tactical Barbarian, who doesn't multiclass into much of anything very well. Can't cast spells, redundancy with armor proficiency, doesn't work with ranged, and everything else is Dexterity.
Too much reliance on Charisma-based Everything. Skills and Casting are often dominated by Charisma, and there is even Charisma-based attacking available.
Rangers.


Overall, I think you list a lot of good points. Especially in terms of mechanically supported options for non-magic (both due to attacks just being attacks, weapons being the same and some weird weird limitations meant to allow specific features to shine; ie restraining someone you grapple with).


Threads about "fixing" 5e.

Easy, don't read them. If a new version comes out with changes, don't play it. Sounds like you have what you want.


What I'm finding hilarious is that most of these gripes are contained in the DMG as alternative rules.

The rules you all want are in the actual game.

Eh no, they're not. And many of the alternatives are weak/messes up core parts of the game (ie. Flanking giving advantage which led to my table giving a small bonus for flanking).


I'd like for the rogue class to be less depressing. It might sound like a very specific thing, but it's what made me quit my 5E campaign. There was only one thing for me to do in combat - run around, hide, shoot. The subclasses are uninspiring, to put it mildly. The Scout subclass gave me some skill proficiencies and... let me run around better. Hooray? People give fighters grief, and deservedly so, but rogues have it worse.

Agreed! It points to another point of how the three pillars are defined and allocated. Frankly, having someone be only good I'm a pillar or two can be a very excluding experience at a table.


The idea of advantage works, but it doesn't grow with you, which is what I like about proficiency/expertise in social skills, vs. advantage.

SNIP

Perhaps Charisma for Personal Social Skills, and Reputation/Honour for your reputation among others?

I very often allow strength for intimidation. It's mentioned as an example, so I've run with it.

Changes I'd like/a new take on DnD (and please let me know if a game system has them):

Way way way more non-magical attacks/actions (suggestions and DCs could go a long way).

No split between feats and ASI. You get a bit of both.

Less charisma based casters.

More uses for int outside spellcasting.

Better suggestions for tool/language/skill development. My Wizard is a super naturally intelligent being, yet he speaks less languages than I did five years ago and has a 1/2 chance to recall lore about monsters I could recite in my sleep when I was seven. In real life, I can pick up a new skill (accounting, law, car repair, car driving) fairly quickly. In DnD, I have to gain more power than most mortals and then either change class or sacrifice honing my intellect (something which is weirdly disconnecting, getting int that is, from having skills).

I'd suggest a scaling AC and less hp. When I did LARPing as a youngster, the good ones didn't get touched by the new comers. Same applied for my martial arts training.

Damage reduction from armour maybe.

A complete rework of power curves. So class balance more or less on all levels. It might take killing some darlings (wish, simulacrum), but it would make tier 3 and 4 less about who risked being a Spellcaster and more continuous fun.

I never played 4e, but I'm thinking I might have enjoyed parts of its combat system. At least, I've not been convinced by the short and long rest system.

Published adventures that support the suggested play modes (honestly, WotC, if you can't build good adventuring days, why do you think new DMs can?).

Remove or redo Constitution.

Stats in general had a nice mix of uses for most classes in IE Pillars of Eternity. I know that that system would be too complicated for tabletop, but it's worth a look.

Rethink how the three pillars (combat, exploration and social) work and why it's supposed to be fun that a few classes are excluded/dominate some of the pillars to the extent they do. It's a major downside of DnD that rangers have a lot of fast forward features and often martials can basically just tag along or stay away when you move in the city.

[Son of A Lich!]

If I had a sit down with Mearls in a hostage situation and we were negotiating the Fate of Dungeons and Dragons, I think I would have a couple of sticking points that I would refuse to walk away without;

There are really only three choices players make when it comes to creating a class in D&D, and it shows. Class, Race and Attributes. It used to also be Alignment, but they are definitely exorcising THAT demon out of the chassis. While I agree that Attributes could be done away with, I think that absolves a lot of the flavor that makes D&D unique. I didn't come to this comic because I like M&Ms, I came to this comic because I like the world of D&D. And I'm not talking in the M&M "Other" section, because my roots are here in D&D and I want the system to reflect the choices the players make. Taking out the 6 attribute scores just reduces an important bit of the legacy that D&D has made for itself.

Feats -

I like feats as an idea, but giving them away at intervals in place of ASIs creates a bit of a gooey yeuk I don't like in this edition. It makes humans too powerful and intriguing, while other races are left a bit lonely to 'wait' until their character's vision can be 'Turned on' by level up. The difference between two barbarians, one orc and one human, both gunning for Pole-arm Master, is that the human will always have the feat while the orc has to wait for 4 levels to get it for himself.

no, that's just not reasonable to me.

2For every two points above 11 in any attribute, you gain a feat tied to that attribute. You start with a strength of 15? You can take two strength related feats. Start with 16? you still get 2 feats. This means well rounded characters can pick and choose options they normally wouldn't have.

Further, many of the abilities tied to intrinsic spell casting and combat would be made into feats instead. Not all Wizards can concentrate on a spell after taking damage, the spell just fizzles. Take the Charimsa feat associated with spell casting, and your concentration spells become more viable of a choice. You want disarming or pushing as a combat feature, well here are the feats associated with them. Give a fighter subclass the ability to select additional feats he qualifies for, or doesn't qualify for at specific levels, and each fighter will be intrinsically different from the ground up.

I'd also have a feat (Probably intelligence) that allows grants you a limited fly ability. You split your ASI between CON and INT, and boom, your fighter can fly without someone needing to cast it on him. I'd also have regional feats for things like avoiding the cold and breathing underwater; probably not viable for most campaigns, but if you adventure takes place in the region you are in, you have the feats to avoid limitations.

Some class or subclass abilities would likely be rolled into higher gated feats, like Use Magical Items or Animal Companion. I'd also want to work in some Skill feats that require skill checks to use for good benefits, while also granting the skill. Acrobatics will allow you to use your acrobatics check as evasion, for example. If a Cleric has a dex of 13 and picks up the feat, he can acrobatics out of a fireball spell. This can also mean that choosing your class doesn't eliminate you from wanting a level dip into another class for their early abilities, but you have options to pick up the ones you need/want at expense of your feat selection.

Now, no one feels left out when they select Monk and have to wade through levels trying to balance improving numerous Attributes and everyone else just focuses on their main ability score and when 2 barbarians in a party pick their load out, select the same Strength, Dex and Con feats but one selects an intelligence of 13 and the other picks a Charisma of 13, the intelligent one can take Ritualist, and the Charming one can take Diplomacy. The two Barbarians now play differently from one another at no cost to the party as a whole.

I'd also increase ASIs to being around 6 from level 1-20 of all character classes, and 8 (or maybe even 9) for Rogues, Fighters and Sorcerers. So focusing on your class allows you to be capable of many things you want to be capable in, without need for multi-classing and awards you for sticking in your class.

The max for any attribute would be 21, but I'd also have a feat that just allows a player to max out at 25. Feats are powerful, and if you only want to specialize in one category, I think that 1 feat for the trade off is pretty reasonable.

For the next section, it's important to point out an intelligence feat that I would call necessary for the spell casting change to work; Well-practiced - You don't need to make spell casting checks for spells below 5th level. I'd probably also have one for Rituals specifically and a gated intelligence feat for all spell-casting.

Spell-casting.

First things first - Wish is only castable as a ritual, and it takes a few hours to cast. My god, why is Wish castable in Combat? Wish spells, from my perspective, ought to be a quest objective, not a usable feature of 18th level wizards. Can anyone argue for a spell more universally taken when given the opportunity? Any spell? I have a lot of problems with Vancian spell casting in general, but this spell is easily what keeps me from wanting to play high level games; It's universally breaking, it gives the best options for any spell at a 9th level slot to the class with the best options.

Now, I think that Wish is Useful for the table to have at it's access. I like the idea of it existing, especially for role playing purposes, but it is too versatile and often the answer to any problem the entire party can face. Also, if it's used and it disrupts the challenge of the game, I have to be the bad guy at the table and corrupt the wish. Bull, I don't want to be the bad guy, I want to have fun with my table. I don't want to start receiving pages of legal documents as whenever my players want to use wish to try and skirt any bad repercussions.

If a wizard is using wish to do something cool, I want that cool thing to be done. If it's a "Dues-ex-Machine" the spell, I'd rather just ban it rather than deal with it... Which means I'm telling the player they can't have nice things. And I'M the bad guy again. Making it a ritual that takes longer then a short rest to cast means the players have to use it carefully, I can work around the conditions, and they can't just wish away problems mid-combat.

The next thing I would do is make all spell casting multi-ability dependent; to put it easily - Wisdom is your spell's Constitution, Intelligence is your spell's Dexterity, and Charisma is your spell's Strength. You can't just dump everything and max out your wisdom as a druid, it will hinder your spell casting ability. Plus, things like Concentration needing your Con save will encourage you to need your con as well.

But if you don't have the Charisma to do massive damage with a fireball? That's cool, focus on your strong Intelligence and Wisdom, work on Buffing and Debuffing where you don't need high stats. Don't have a high wisdom? Focus on blasting, where you don't need high saves to do damage.

Next, I would have spells come in packages, spell lists, rather then let players pick out whatever they want. There would be a fair bit of overlap, so you don't HAVE to pick Evocation to get fireball, for example, but each list is unique and plenty of options for players to pick from. This way, players all have themed list that shape how their character plays. A Lich may have a number of transmutation and evocation spells, but you can reasonably expect that he doesn't have dimensional anchor up his sleeve.

Clerics would get to pick a few each day. Wizards would get to add lists as they progress and select specifics that aren't on their lists, and switch lists out at intervals. Sorcerers would get to expand their spell lists based on subclass, and have a slower progression. Warlocks would get spells that are slightly above their casting level and cast them at the highest spell slot, but would also get cantrips added to their list that are normally leveled spells (To ease up the invocation tax). Everyone would have at least three lists to choose from upon taking a spell casting class.

This would ease up on analysis paralysis that players often face when selecting their spells in the morning or upon level up. Some spell lists are going to be more valuable then others, but all will have their values and with the change to attributes, some spell lists will have more value to specific characters then others.

Then, I would have ritual be split into two different catagories. Rituals that can be cast as leveled spells for a spell slot, or ones that can be only cast as a ritual. This is for all utility spells. Spells that appear on spell lists have can be cast as both, spells that are strictly rituals can be learned and performed as anyone with an appropriate check. Rituals should be treated as loot, not just spells.

This means that Wizards can cast knock at their leisure, but a Rogue with the ritual can do it without a spell slot. This also means that a Fighter with the ritual can have his own undead buddy or warhorse, or that a ranger can locate an object or resurrect a fallen party member. The cleric can just do these things faster. Being on a spell list does not translate to being able to teach the ritual, they have the same out come but are performed differently. some rituals are quick, some take a lot of prep work, some take specific locations or items, some are silent etc, but they all are available to players, and a ritualist feat will allow them to perform them without a check.

That having been said.

Magic is naturally dangerous without practice. The well-practiced feat will let you circumnavigate around that. Otherwise, when casting a spell, you have to perform a general arcana check to master it. The check's DC is Spell level +4. If you are a spell casting class, you add your spell casting trait to the check, otherwise you use your Dexterity. A 10th wizard with 20 intelligence, trying to cast an 5th level spell, would have to roll a DC 9 check with +5 modifier, assuming he isn't well practiced. An arcane trickster, with 21 dexterity and trying to cast a 5th level spell, would have a +5 to try to be a DC 11 check. A bit more dicey, but a risk he would have to take.

The failure would never result in a TPK; The table would be 1-20. 1-10 are general campaign related issues but distinct between arcane and Divine. You anger a Demon/you get an arcane scar. 11-20 would be based on the spell casting class (with a general Nature/Undead consequence list for ritualists who fail their casting check), so that it keeps the flavor of the specific kind of failure. A wizard who fails his check may get a request from a wizarding college to 'check up' on his progress, while a sorcerer may have created a "flare" that a group of anti-magickers may track. Only very extreme ends would have permanent consequences that are not solely-fluff. Things like "You can't cast from that list of spells until XYZ", or "you lose 2 points of your spell casting attribute". This makes it a risk, keeps the party from out right trying to ban spell casting at the table (The wild magic conundrum), while Druid or bard continue to contribute to the flow of the story. Why did this mummy lord start marching his troops outward when we were in another continent? Because someone screwed up the Locate Object spell and now The Pharoh is under the impression were out to get his precious McGuffin.

By making half of it dependent on class also helps add additional dynamics to balance specific classes. You could have Warlocks gain the short rest benefits as per encounter, just add some rolling harsher, punishments for the deal. They CAN take the well practiced and related feats, but this inhibits other feats they could have taken and they would have to make that choice pretty quickly, since they start casting at a 5th level spell slot at level 9. It also fits the flavor of the pact magic.

-Subclasses.

I hate the "X = Rogue Harder" sub classes. Subclasses are a great work around the old Prestige Classes of 3.5; More elegant, more flavorful, and they let you hone in on specific elements of the class. It always feels like a waste when a subclass is just more of the same.

Leave the "Class Harder" bits to Feats. Some classes have abysmally low subclasses to choose from and I'd like to see that expanded out. Clerics just need their little bit about domains and the spell list selection change made earlier helps smooth everything else out. Sorcerers should easily have 10 origins to choose from. Here; Dragon, Fey, Celestial, Demon/Devil, Alchemical, Great Old Ones, Undead, Artifacts, Races, Elementals, Corruption, Shadowfell.

Boom, over ten off the top of my head. Give each a spell list and let players choose the other two. Now, give them each a set of options and let them pick up their magic lists from wherever they like (Including the aforementioned origin spell lists) and each sorcerer is unique. I just realized I left out the Land Types in the list above. That's got to be at least another 5 to 8.

Rangers... Rangers are almost the bards of this edition. They aren't quite Monks of 3.5, but they are a hard sell right now. Two things they were known for in earlier additions got hit hard by the nerf bat this edition. The naked ranger needs a pretty serious do over in my opinion, and forcing a subclass choice to make any one of their abilities better is almost insulting. Fortunately, with more feats to pick from and a wide score of attributes necessary for their skills, the naked ranger options are a fair bit better. They can pick up feats for mobility and mounted combat and two weapon fighting and not feel the sting of having low intelligence; they have ranger skills for the knowledge part. Or, they can focus on feats for knowledge, spell casting and subterfuge, and leave the combat stuff to their pet. Or they can focus on Wisdom and Dexterity and Constitution and be up close and personal and select a second combat pet as a feat.

Now, just remove the preferred enemy bit and make those the subclasses. This is a Dragon Slaying Ranger, this is an Horde Slaying Ranger, etc. The abilities they gain would help them all around rather then cornering them into only fighting specific enemies, and they can exceed the curve due to their specialization. Horde Slaying rangers may get a free cleave ability and unlimited OA with a reaction against the Disengage action, allowing them to be good against groups of Baddies. Dragon Slayer may have special attack options that help them anchor flying foes, and resistances to Elemental damage. Resistance to Elemental damage may high, but barbarians get better and with more health. a Dragon Slaying ranger can use these abilities against all foes, but really gets a chance to shine against Dragons specifically. Then, you can always make more Prefered enemies types and make rangers with tool kits that are wide and diverse. I could imagine a Bounty Hunter, Undead Slayer, Horde Breaker, Aberrant hunter, Mage Slayer and Leviathan Hunter all having unique abilities that can be applied to numerous foes outside of their reach that would make them amazing additions to any party without shoe-horning them into "Is this Undead?".

-1d20 v 3d6

I'm a huge fan of 3d6s as a general change, but simply because of Bounded Accuracy. If you are going to focus the games down to a smaller margin of modifiers, then using a bell curve over a linear swing is a huge advantage. Getting a +1 or -1 to something means a lot more when the difference in success/failure is 12% each way (Over the linear 5% of a D20). This also drastically improves the desire to spread out your attributes; Having a +9 to your Intelligence skills is less important then a +8 to intelligence and a +2 to dexterity because of diminishing returns on a bell curve.

Example;

We will be looking at a skill check, DC 15, with a proficient Intelligence skill (like Knowledge History), vs a Dexterity Skill Check untrained DC15 (Like Stealth).

Intelligence 20/Dex13
3d6
3d6+9 3d6+1 | 3d6+9 3d6+1 | 3d6+9 3d6+1 | 3d6+9 3d6+1 | 3d6+9 3d6+1 |
3d6+9 3d6+1 | 3d6+9 3d6+1 | 3d6+9 3d6+1 | 3d6+9 3d6+1 | 3d6+9 3d6+1 |
3d6+9 3d6+1 | 3d6+9 3d6+1 | 3d6+9 3d6+1 | 3d6+9 3d6+1 | 3d6+9 3d6+1 |
3d6+9 3d6+1 | 3d6+9 3d6+1 | 3d6+9 3d6+1 | 3d6+9 3d6+1 | 3d6+9 3d6+1 |
3d6+9 3d6+1 | 3d6+9 3d6+1 | 3d6+9 3d6+1 | 3d6+9 3d6+1 | 3d6+9 3d6+1 |

1d20
1d20+9 1d20+1 | 1d20+9 1d20+1 | 1d20+9 1d20+1 | 1d20+9 1d20+1 | 1d20+9 1d20+1 |
1d20+9 1d20+1 | 1d20+9 1d20+1 | 1d20+9 1d20+1 | 1d20+9 1d20+1 | 1d20+9 1d20+1 |
1d20+9 1d20+1 | 1d20+9 1d20+1 | 1d20+9 1d20+1 | 1d20+9 1d20+1 | 1d20+9 1d20+1 |
1d20+9 1d20+1 | 1d20+9 1d20+1 | 1d20+9 1d20+1 | 1d20+9 1d20+1 | 1d20+9 1d20+1 |
1d20+9 1d20+1 | 1d20+9 1d20+1 | 1d20+9 1d20+1 | 1d20+9 1d20+1 | 1d20+9 1d20+1 |

Intelligence 18/Dex14
3d6
3d6+8 3d6+2 | 3d6+8 3d6+2 | 3d6+8 3d6+2 | 3d6+8 3d6+2 | 3d6+8 3d6+2 |
3d6+8 3d6+2 | 3d6+8 3d6+2 | 3d6+8 3d6+2 | 3d6+8 3d6+2 | 3d6+8 3d6+2 |
3d6+8 3d6+2 | 3d6+8 3d6+2 | 3d6+8 3d6+2 | 3d6+8 3d6+2 | 3d6+8 3d6+2 |
3d6+8 3d6+2 | 3d6+8 3d6+2 | 3d6+8 3d6+2 | 3d6+8 3d6+2 | 3d6+8 3d6+2 |
3d6+8 3d6+2 | 3d6+8 3d6+2 | 3d6+8 3d6+2 | 3d6+8 3d6+2 | 3d6+8 3d6+2 |

1d20
1d20+8 1d20+2 | 1d20+8 1d20+2 | 1d20+8 1d20+2 | 1d20+8 1d20+2 | 1d20+8 1d20+2 |
1d20+8 1d20+2 | 1d20+8 1d20+2 | 1d20+8 1d20+2 | 1d20+8 1d20+2 | 1d20+8 1d20+2 |
1d20+8 1d20+2 | 1d20+8 1d20+2 | 1d20+8 1d20+2 | 1d20+8 1d20+2 | 1d20+8 1d20+2 |
1d20+8 1d20+2 | 1d20+8 1d20+2 | 1d20+8 1d20+2 | 1d20+8 1d20+2 | 1d20+8 1d20+2 |
1d20+8 1d20+2 | 1d20+8 1d20+2 | 1d20+8 1d20+2 | 1d20+8 1d20+2 | 1d20+8 1d20+2 |

When I accumulate the data here, we should see more success with the 3d6 rollings over all. Almost all of the intelligence D20 rollings should be success, while the Dexterity D20s should be almost all failures. With the 3d6s, Intelligence should have some failures and a lot more success with the dexterity checks. I will follow up with the analysis after posting (Since that will screw up the Dice Roller feature if I check, edit and post). Disclaimer; dice and statistics don't always go according to plan, but I've given each a sample size of 20 to prove my point. That doesn't mean RNG will screw me over if my understanding of Stats is wrong, I failed Statistics 3 times for a reason. I'm not claiming to be an expert, just a guy who took a suggestion and has seen positive results from it.

...

Beyond this; I will just parrot a lot of good points made by others. Stealth, Short/Long rests balance, boring and/or broken Class/subclass designs (Looking at you, 4E Monk and Rogue). Nothing really disheartening, still a fun game to play, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize and offer solutions for fixing.

[Son of A Lich!]

welp, That didn't work... odd. Anyone know why?

[Tetrasodium]

2For every two points above 11 in any attribute, you gain a feat tied to that attribute. You start with a strength of 15? You can take two strength related feats. Start with 16? you still get 2 feats. This means well rounded characters can pick and choose options they normally wouldn't have.
That's an awesome idea! edit: Unfortunately feats are way too powerful & not every stat even has enough things that make sense


The next thing I would do is make all spell casting multi-ability dependent; to put it easily - Wisdom is your spell's Constitution, Intelligence is your spell's Dexterity, and Charisma is your spell's Strength. You can't just dump everything and max out your wisdom as a druid, it will hinder your spell casting ability. Plus, things like Concentration needing your Con save will encourage you to need your con as well.


Breaking up spellcasting into an attribute for your save dc & an attribute for spell attacks is interesting & would allow for +N focus items & such to be a whole lot more common, but it also dives into the old 3.5 1/1 1/2 1/4 bab scaling problems for these newly MAD casters & the spells themselves along with many of the underlying systems don't really fit that kind of thing.


On your last points about the d20 being too swingy in ways that make the skilled less adept than the lucky in many cases.Something between shadowrun's bathtub of D6s & D&D's 1-20+ a generally small/mid single digit number would be nice

[Morty]

So, then... what relates their "roleplayed" strength to forcing open a door, or lifting a rock off a comrade, or doing more damage than an average person, or grappling a foe to the ground, or etc?

Does the character actually need to invest separately in everything that being strong would affect their capability or likelihood of success with?

Or do they just get to make an assertion that the character is really strong, and therefore gets a bonus on anything that the DM agrees "being strong" would give a bonus to?

Or do we give each character a "stat" that translates their strength into the mechanics of the system -- and give this character a higher number than average?

Grappling and shoving already use Athletics. Pure feats of strength could be folded into Athletics too, or a new skill could be made, like here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?503455-5e-Without-Ability-Scores-skills-Skills-Skills). Doing damage could be just a class- and level-based bonus, just like proficiency. After all, if a barbarian is going to make sure to keep their strength as high as they reasonably can, why not just say they get a +3 bonus to damage that grows to +4 and +5 later and be done with it? Again, this has been done and is found under the link.

[Ogre Mage]

The CR system is confusing, inaccurate, cumbersome and garbage.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The CR system is confusing, inaccurate, cumbersome and garbage.

On the contrary, it does exactly what it sets out to do (but not what most people think it's doing).

It measures average threat on an individual basis as compared to a weak PC of level CR - 1. Thus, a creature of offensive CR X has a tolerable probability (everything hits and deals average damage) of a 1-round-KO from full on a d6 HD character of level X - 1. Defensive CR measures (very roughly) time to live when focused--a CR X creature should survive approximately 3 rounds vs a party of 4 level X -1 characters, assuming no feats or magic items that grant a +X to hit or damage. All of this can be shown with relatively simple math. It's a conservative standard, erring strongly on the side of keeping PCs alive. But that's not a mistake, that's by design (whether you like it or not).

It does not (nor does it purport to) show the true threat of one of them vs a party. There are too many variables, and the DMG is very careful to state that CR is only the first step in balancing an encounter. No encounter-balance system can control for the variables in play, nor should they try to do so (because that would sharply limit the range of possible tactics, terrains, party compositions, etc. that are viable).

[Eric Diaz]

* Almost everything about weapons, I guess. Redundant weapons, weapons that serve no mechanical purpose, missing weapons, weapon feats, TWF, etc. Maybe cooler weapon crits! Would automatically "fix" the champion.

* Maybe the beastmaster?

* Maybe some additional uses for intelligence?

Bounded accuracy... eh... its a choice, not something to be fixed. But yeah, 3d6 would work better for skills.

Light and dark doesn't make much sense, of course, but this is fixable with common sense. As most of the game.

[Tanarii]

Most important fix for D&D 5e:

Move chapter 8 of the DMG, Running the Game, to chapter 1. Put it in the DM basic rules as the very first thing too. Far too many DMs have never read this chapter, and it's the most important thing a DM needs to read before they sit down to try to run their first game.

Better yet, also put it at the end of the PHB as an appendix for DMs, so players will see what's expected of DMs. In place of the gods/multiverse stuff.

[Max_Killjoy]

Grappling and shoving already use Athletics. Pure feats of strength could be folded into Athletics too, or a new skill could be made, like here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?503455-5e-Without-Ability-Scores-skills-Skills-Skills). Doing damage could be just a class- and level-based bonus, just like proficiency. After all, if a barbarian is going to make sure to keep their strength as high as they reasonably can, why not just say they get a +3 bonus to damage that grows to +4 and +5 later and be done with it? Again, this has been done and is found under the link.

For starters, you don't do that because that further reduces all characters to even more of a cookie-cutter sameness than they are now. Two Barbarians have far less direct differentiation in how strong they are, and you've made it that much harder to have a smart Barbarian, or a charming Wizard, or anyone else who isn't min-maxed into a half-baked trope.

More generally, you lose granularity and options in how to model the particular character at hand into the system mechanics.

Ditch classes LONG before ditching attributes.

[stoutstien]

For starters, you don't do that because that further reduces all characters to even more of a cookie-cutter sameness as they are now. Two Barbarians have far less direct differentiation in how strong they are, and you've made it that much harder to have a smart Barbarian, or a charming Wizard, or anyone else who isn't min-maxed into a half-baked trope.

More generally, you lose granularity and options in how to model the particular character at hand into the system mechanics.

Ditch classes LONG before ditching attributes.
I don't think we should ditch attribute overall I think we need to ditch the same attributes we've been using forever. Constitution could be a base casting stat. Dexterity should be split in the two, something like finesse and agility. Strength aslo could be split into two power and speed. This is mostly just spitballing. The mental stats should be combined maybe into just one.

[Ogre Mage]

On the contrary, it does exactly what it sets out to do (but not what most people think it's doing).

It measures average threat on an individual basis as compared to a weak PC of level CR - 1. Thus, a creature of offensive CR X has a tolerable probability (everything hits and deals average damage) of a 1-round-KO from full on a d6 HD character of level X - 1. Defensive CR measures (very roughly) time to live when focused--a CR X creature should survive approximately 3 rounds vs a party of 4 level X -1 characters, assuming no feats or magic items that grant a +X to hit or damage. All of this can be shown with relatively simple math. It's a conservative standard, erring strongly on the side of keeping PCs alive. But that's not a mistake, that's by design (whether you like it or not).

It does not (nor does it purport to) show the true threat of one of them vs a party. There are too many variables, and the DMG is very careful to state that CR is only the first step in balancing an encounter. No encounter-balance system can control for the variables in play, nor should they try to do so (because that would sharply limit the range of possible tactics, terrains, party compositions, etc. that are viable).

I don't play with anyone who uses it to calculate XP because they find it useless. Several years back Chris Perkins and Mike Mearls said they just use milestones. If even the game designers are not using the system they created, it is crap.

[Morty]

For starters, you don't do that because that further reduces all characters to even more of a cookie-cutter sameness than they are now. Two Barbarians have far less direct differentiation in how strong they are, and you've made it that much harder to have a smart Barbarian, or a charming Wizard, or anyone else who isn't min-maxed into a half-baked trope.

More generally, you lose granularity and options in how to model the particular character at hand into the system mechanics.

Ditch classes LONG before ditching attributes.

The exact opposite happens, because if the barbarian picks a proficiency in Society, Arcana or Religion, they're as good with them as a wizard or cleric. Or they can (again, going with the link) take a half-proficiency and be as good as if they had good Int with no proficiency. The whole point of the exercise is that 5E attributes don't actually provide much variety or customization.

[EggKookoo]

First things first - Wish is only castable as a ritual, and it takes a few hours to cast. My god, why is Wish castable in Combat? Wish spells, from my perspective, ought to be a quest objective, not a usable feature of 18th level wizards. Can anyone argue for a spell more universally taken when given the opportunity? Any spell? I have a lot of problems with Vancian spell casting in general, but this spell is easily what keeps me from wanting to play high level games; It's universally breaking, it gives the best options for any spell at a 9th level slot to the class with the best options.

If you read the details of the spell, the intended use for wish is to replicate any spell of 8th level or lower, or to achieve one of the bulleted effects (create a large item, regenerate mass hit points, grant mass immunity, force rerolls). As such, it's very useful to be able to use in combat since you'd be using it to replicate combat-oriented spells or to account for combat-based effects or events. I do agree that the "beyond the scope of the above examples" should only be castable as a ritual, but there's certainly a use for a spell-slot casting of it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't play with anyone who uses it to calculate XP because they find it useless. Several years back Chris Perkins and Mike Mearls said they just use milestones. If even the game designers are not using the system they created, it is crap.

Or maybe that's a problem with XP, not with CR?

[mephnick]

I would pay Adam Koebel and Sage Latorra for the rights to Dungeon World and force every prospective DM to run it before running DnD. The DW book blows any DMG out of the water when it comes to outlining how to run a game.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I would pay Adam Koebel and Sage Latorra for the rights to Dungeon World and force every prospective DM to run it before running DnD. The DW book blows any DMG out of the water when it comes to outlining how to run a game.

But only for DW. I find a lot of its advice actively harmful for the games I want to run. Different games need different approaches. One is not necessarily better than another.

[noob]

I would like an extra toolbox for making monsters in 5e such as a cr estimator.
I mean right now the whole "you find the cr yourself" does not give a first estimation and the whole cr system is confusing.

[EggKookoo]

I would like an extra toolbox for making monsters in 5e such as a cr estimator.
I mean right now the whole "you find the cr yourself" does not give a first estimation and the whole cr system is confusing.

I was very confused by the monster/encounter creation tools until I ditched the whole thing. I started pre-running combats assuming average rolls for everything until I developed a sense of how powerful to make a creature (or set of creatures). I still can't wing a balanced encounter on the fly but I can make a pretty satisfying one if I have time. I also moved to milestone leveling so determining the EXP by challenge is not an issue.

So I guess one thing I would suggest for a 5e upgrade is a de-emphasis on per-creature EXP (maybe move that to a DMG option section) and use milestone leveling as the default. It would make the gameplay more predictable and manageable but preserve creature EXP for those who want it.

[Skylivedk]

I forgot my biggest pet peeve:
Indexing. For the love of Oghma, please put direct page references in ALL instances. None of this: "See Combat" BS.

Also the same for spells in the spell list.

[Tanarii]

So I guess one thing I would suggest for a 5e upgrade is a de-emphasis on per-creature EXP (maybe move that to a DMG option section) and use milestone leveling as the default. It would make the gameplay more predictable and manageable but preserve creature EXP for those who want it.Unlikely to happen because of official play. And of course, XP is a sacred cow.

Plus, as my players have put it, I can pry their XP out of their cold dead hands. On the whole, players absolutely love XP.

[EggKookoo]

Unlikely to happen because of official play. And of course, XP is a sacred cow.

Plus, as my players have put it, I can pry their XP out of their cold dead hands. On the whole, players absolutely love XP.

Yeah, I know. It's not my experience -- my players care about leveling but aren't interested in experience points as numbers or a bookkeeping process -- but I understand I'm in the minority. Might be because we have a collective history of playing a lot of games without an XP mechanic.

[PwntumPrime]

A lot of people are gonna give shade, but 5E was designed from the ground up to be easily modified, so we can do whatever the hell we want with it. Ignoring that, to me, is like refusing to play with Legos without instructions.

Sure, you can play it that way, but the designers went to great lengths so we wouldn't have to.

As an AFOL my self I do have to agree that 5E does remind me a LOT of LEGOs

[PwntumPrime]

Why is EXP a sacred COW? I for one like using different ways of leveling up like training with the army if your a fighter or learning new spells while reading in a wizard's private library.

[Ignimortis]

I would pay Adam Koebel and Sage Latorra for the rights to Dungeon World and force every prospective DM to run it before running DnD. The DW book blows any DMG out of the water when it comes to outlining how to run a game.

IIRC, Dungeon World is one of those PbtA games which basically boil down to "there's no crunch and the GM explicitly decides everything that happens". If what I remember is indeed correct, then I would pay double for this to be outlawed and instead direct people to DMG II for 3.5, which actually had both using the game's many rules and getting everyone at the table to have fun while playing in mind.

On topic, well, most things have been said already, I guess. Personally, I figure 5e stops giving non-spellcasters new meaningful abilities past level 8 or so. High-level Fighters are explicitly bad at fighting a Dragon and explicitly good at fighting orcs, because orcs rely on numbers, which the Fighters gets more of, and the dragon relies on special abilities like flying and breath attacks and sometimes spells, which the Fighter never gets at all. That needs to be fixed.

However, the full list of fixes to 5e would probably turn it into an entirely different game, which isn't even using d20, and there aren't any Wizards or Fighters. There are people who cast spells, and there are people who swing swords, but they're designed differently altogether.

[noob]

As an AFOL my self I do have to agree that 5E does remind me a LOT of LEGOs

3.5 have a lego aspect too: you can rather easily adjust the rules you want and every creature is built with the same blocs.(which are feats, classes(and the associated sub blocs such as spells or picks), race and stats because in fact a beholder is someone of the beholder race with levels in the beholder class) and you can add new blocs rather easily.

[EggKookoo]

3.5 have a lego aspect too: you can rather easily adjust the rules you want and every creature is built with the same blocs.(which are feats, classes(and the associated sub blocs such as spells or picks), race and stats because in fact a beholder is someone of the beholder race with levels in the beholder class) and you can add new blocs rather easily.

Yeah, I would have to say I think 3.x is more lego-like than 5e.

[Sudsboy]

I'd like to see more differentiation between caster classes through either fewer shared spells (too late for that) or more class exclusive spells. The shared spell lists make playing casters too redundant for my taste.

I'd like to see feat support for one-handed and dual weapon fighting styles that make them competitive with GWM and Sharpshooter, or at least closed the gap a bit.

I'd like a revamp of short rest and long rest recharge powers so they worked like 4e encounter/daily powers, with appropriate adjustments to effectiveness. Short rest-dependent characters shouldn't be gimped by adventure design.

I'd like to see magic damage bypass all player resistances, otherwise barbarian resistance will be significantly better than heavy armor until very high bonuses to AC are achieved.

[Max_Killjoy]

I would pay Adam Koebel and Sage Latorra for the rights to Dungeon World and force every prospective DM to run it before running DnD. The DW book blows any DMG out of the water when it comes to outlining how to run a game.

I think I could live without your special "ran DW" certificate, and manage to run games in any other system without ever having bothered with any of the PTBA games. :smallyuk:

(And if that seems harsh, it's because I've grown tired of having PTBA games pushed at me, when they're in many ways the opposite of what I want from a system.)

[Max_Killjoy]

I forgot my biggest pet peeve:
Indexing. For the love of Oghma, please put direct page references in ALL instances. None of this: "See Combat" BS.

Also the same for spells in the spell list.

Also, if a rule references another rule elsewhere in the book, then give the actual page, not "See X in section A".

[2D8HP]

Unlikely to happen because of official play. And of course, XP is a sacred cow.

Plus, as my players have put it, I can pry their XP out of their cold dead hands. On the whole, players absolutely love XP.


Yeah, I know. It's not my experience -- my players care about leveling but aren't interested in experience points as numbers or a bookkeeping process -- but I understand I'm in the minority. Might be because we have a collective history of playing a lot of games without an XP mechanic.


Last game I was in where it was up for discussion the DM wanted to use XP (he liked to use it to award "role-playing") while we players were "Milestone is fine for us!".

[EggKookoo]

Last game I was in where it was up for discussion the DM wanted to use XP (he liked to use it to award "role-playing") while we players were "Milestone is fine for us!".

Some players don't like that as it feels game-ish. Thing is, D&D has been moving in that direction anyway. Way back in the 1e days, arguments would break out about who "got the XP" for delivering the killing blow. Eventually DMs would start sharing XP among whoever did damage. But then the healers spoke up, so then XP was divided among the PCs still left alive at the end of the fight. Then the dead PC players spoke up, as the damage that killed them was damage the living didn't take and so they got a share of the XP.

At latest by 3e (and maybe 2e or even late 1e?) the official approach was to just split the XP evenly among the party, alive or dead, regardless if they carried the fight or stood there stunned or charmed the whole time. Even if you got carried, chances are you contributed to an earlier fight or would later on, so it all evened out in the end. At this point we're basically awarding XP for milestones (we just call then encounters) and if the DM or published module is basically controlling how many encounters there are per scenario, it's not a huge leap to just have the PCs level at certain points along the adventure.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'll admit that I think XP is unnecessary. I always use fiat leveling (based on doing relevant things, whatever those might be). It's not milestone XP, but every "arc" or significant event. This lets them decide what they do and still level up at a sane pace.

[Max_Killjoy]

Something else I've noticed reading through the 5e PHB -- it doesn't appear that Intelligence grants any extra spells known, languages, skills, or... anything.

[noob]

Something else I've noticed reading through the 5e PHB -- it doesn't appear that Intelligence grants any extra spells known, languages, skills, or... anything.

it is the reason why intelligence is often a dump stat: it only works as a save and there is not so many spells countered by that save.

[2D8HP]

Something else I've noticed reading through the 5e PHB -- it doesn't appear that Intelligence grants any extra spells known, languages, skills, or... anything.


Yeah,

5e is often called a "retro edition", but not with INT, which could provide extra languages even in "Men & Magic"

[EggKookoo]

Something else I've noticed reading through the 5e PHB -- it doesn't appear that Intelligence grants any extra spells known, languages, skills, or... anything.

It does count toward prepared spells though.

[Tetrasodium]

It does count toward prepared spells though.


only if you are a wizard, not even int based Eldritch knight/int based Arcane trickster are affected that way.

[Thurmas]

I think the game is in a pretty great place right now. If it didn't change at all for another decade and just continued along the current model, I would be perfectly happy. That being said, I do think some things could be improved. Fixed is too strong a word for most, but certainly tweaked. The next product I would really like to see is a book of spells and magic items. I enjoy seeing new and different sub-classes for the existing classes. Some new classes would be neat, but if we don't see them I won't lose sleep over it.

I'd look at tweaks or fixes in two ways. One, fixes that require a new edition. Two, fixes that could work with a 5.5 version. The difference between the two being, a 5.5 release would be backwards compatible with all 5th Edition adventures and monster manuals. 6th edition changes would require things that wouldn't really be able to be compatible with the products already released.

The biggest change I would like to see in a new edition is the range of modifiers. This is was alluded in earlier posts in this thread with regards to the swing of a D20 versus 3d6. I'm fine with still using a D20, I just think that the scale of modifiers should be greater. To start with, make each attribute increase be an equal increase in modifier. Ie, 10 Str = +0, 11 Str = +1, 12 Str = +2, etc. This means that a Human with 20 strength would have a much increased chance of succeeding at a skill check vs a Str 10 human, as it should. A range of +0 to +10 makes more sense on a scale of a D20. It also means every attribute point counts instead of every other.

I’d also like to see changes to saving throws and AC so that they aren’t so static from levels 1-20. Maybe adding your proficiency bonus to all saves and AC would work, and adding double proficiency to saves you are proficient in. A level 1 character shouldn’t be just as strong as a level 20, gear notwithstanding, in these areas.

For fixes that could be implemented into a 5.5, it would start with general rules.
- Two weapon fighting rules need a big improvement.
- Improved, slightly more diverse weapons/armor table.
- Separate ASIs and Feats. Give dedicated levels where you select a feat and a dedicated where you select an ASI. Overall a combined increase compared to what the game currently gives. Something like ASI every 4 levels and a feat at 1 and every 5 levels after.
- A little change to concentration spells. Not necessarily how it works, but maybe reducing the number of spells requiring it. There are certainly some spells that shouldn’t require concentration in the current edition.

For classes:
- Barbarian - Fix the frenzy mechanic.
- Bard - I think performance should come into the mechanics or abilities more. Magical Secrets for all subclasses at level 6 and the Lore bard gets something else at 6.
- Cleric - Domain selection at level 2 or 3 instead of 1. More expanded spell choices for each domain.
- Druid - Tweak the Moon Druid to balance shape shifting across all levels.
- Fighter - Just make them more interesting and more flashy, especially at higher levels.
- Monk - Maybe a little tougher and some of the sub classes are really lacking.
- Paladin - Instead of Divine Smite as an ability, have only Smite spells, which get a bit of a boost so they are in line with the power of the current Divine Smite.
- Ranger - A complete rework. Trash the entire thing and start over.
- Rogue - Extra attack at level 5. Add a couple appropriate fighting styles. Sneak Attack becomes a special attack action.
- Sorcerer - Slight improvement with giving Sorc Level+Cha mod in spells known. Origin chosen at level 2 or 3. Give either all metamagic options at once, or set metamagic options at specific levels. Sorcery points refresh on short rest, but remove turning them into spell slots.
- Warlock - Agonizing Blast as a class ability. Rework Pact of the Blade. Give 3 spell slots sooner, around level 7 or 8.
- Wizard - Make the abilities the various schools just better. Have them interact more with the spells the Wizard casts. Some of the school abilities as they are just plain bad.

[Pex]

I forgot my biggest pet peeve:
Indexing. For the love of Oghma, please put direct page references in ALL instances. None of this: "See Combat" BS.

Also the same for spells in the spell list.

https://i.postimg.cc/rmFB9yYy/applause.gif

[EggKookoo]

only if you are a wizard, not even int based Eldritch knight/int based Arcane trickster are affected that way.

Yeah but... EKs and ATs don't prepare spells.

Clerics, druids, paladins, and wizards do. For each of these, their spellcasting ability ties into how many they can prepare. The other classes just have "spells known," which the those four have as well.

The difference with (and the advantage of) preparing spells is that a class that does so can swap out its available spells with each long rest. Bards, rangers, sorcerers, warlocks, and the various spellcasting subclasses are stuck with the spells they choose for at least an entire level, and even then by RAW they can only swap out one at a time.

[Keko]

Yeah I used to be an xp greedy guy that tried to bargain with the DM about xp ("you gave us xp for this/that right?", "this gave us xp right?", "can't you just give us a little more xp so we can level up?") but then in a moment of epiphany I realized it was toxic to me and to the table in general.

Now I try to be as zen as possible and it has done wonders for my peace of mind for other people too I guess. Having us moved to milestone level up have helped a lot though.

I admit that when the DM tells us we leveled up ofted this greed comes back: "so, on the next level up I'll get a new level of spells, let's see what spell could I get (spoiler I checked on the previous level up too); and after that in two levels I'll get that class feature I like and after that a feat (*goes through the feats again*)....and then I'll be an invincible level 20 god of war!"

It's kind of similar to loot greed (like having the inventory with every scrap weapon and armor of every goblin in the whole dungeon ("because sold as scrap metal you could get at least 2 gp")

It's just pick your poison I guess

I can never suggest strongly enough using milestones, as it removes some (in my opinion) bad bookkeping.

[Tetrasodium]

Yeah but... EKs and ATs don't prepare spells.

Clerics, druids, paladins, and wizards do. For each of these, their spellcasting ability ties into how many they can prepare. The other classes just have "spells known," which the those four have as well.

The difference with (and the advantage of) preparing spells is that a class that does so can swap out its available spells with each long rest. Bards, rangers, sorcerers, warlocks, and the various spellcasting subclasses are stuck with the spells they choose for at least an entire level, and even then by RAW they can only swap out one at a time.

While true, it doesn't help the situation of int not really doing anything all that meaningful compared to str/dex/con/wis or even the blessed charisma of social interaction +scorlock arcane/divine magic/melee attack/melee damage/etc options that was being discussed.

[mephnick]

But only for DW. I find a lot of its advice actively harmful for the games I want to run. Different games need different approaches. One is not necessarily better than another.

The general advice surrounding describing fiction etc is pretty much universal to good DMs, but whatever.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The general advice surrounding describing fiction etc is pretty much universal to good DMs, but whatever.

I saw nothing in there that was any better than what's in the 4e and 5e DMGs, and a lot that was totally inapplicable. So my experience is otherwise. As a PbtA game, DW makes very strong and controlling assumptions about the nature of the setting and structure of play that pervade everything. Those assumptions do not hold for most D&D games, so assimilating those assumptions (as you'd have to do for to be a good DW GM) is actively detrimental (at worst) and irrelevant (at best) to being a good D&D DM.

[Pelle]

Maybe not fixes per se, but the following are design assumptions I wish would have been different:

1. There are too many resources to spend between Long Rests. I wish the game was balanced instead so that one adventure day worth of encounters could roughly fit into 1 session of play. The variant resting rules don't fix that for my style of play.

2. Get rid of Bonus Actions. Yes, it gives more options, but it also makes the game more fiddly. I don't want combat to be a cerebral process of contemplating which combination of normal and bonus actions to make the turn tactically optimal, but rather quick decisions on which general action to take.

Small fixes don't bother me that much, those are easy to house rule and adjudicate at the table.

[EggKookoo]

1. There are too many resources to spend between Long Rests. I wish the game was balanced instead so that one adventure day worth of encounters could roughly fit into 1 session of play. The variant resting rules don't fix that for my style of play.

I agree that a number of things that refresh on long should be revisited to see if refreshing them on short would become unbalanced. For example, if a paladin burns a spell slot for Divine Strike, maybe that slot comes back on a short rest? Would that be too powerful? Maybe only for spell slot levels below the paladin's Charisma mod?


2. Get rid of Bonus Actions. Yes, it gives more options, but it also makes the game more fiddly. I don't want combat to be a cerebral process of contemplating which combination of normal and bonus actions to make the turn tactically optimal, but rather quick decisions on which general action to take.

I'm probably in the minority but I like bonus actions (even JC said he'd remove them if he could). What I like about them is that you only get one per round, so they're self-limiting. So for example a rogue must choose between using a bonus action to hit with a second weapon, or using the bonus action to dodge. How would you model that without it getting nuts? Like "If you're wielding two light weapons and you make an attack with one with your action, you may also make an attack with the other but don't add your ability modifier to the second weapon's damage. You may not make the second attack if you [rattle off a laundry list of features that used to use your bonus action, and each of these features must do the same]."

The bonus action is just a category or a grouping of actions. Much simpler to just say "You may use your bonus action to..." and be done with it. I think people get overwhelmed by the concept of the bonus action but it's really pretty simple. Anything you do has a tag associated with it (action, bonus action, reaction) and you have three buckets in front of you labeled the same. Whenever you do something, you put it in its bucket, and a bucket can only hold one thing at a time. At the start of your turn, you empty out your buckets.

[Morty]

Deciding what to use my bonus action on was the only remotely interesting thing my rogue could do in combat. I'm not sure why anyone would want to get rid of that.

[Pelle]

I agree that a number of things that refresh on long should be revisited to see if refreshing them on short would become unbalanced. For example, if a paladin burns a spell slot for Divine Strike, maybe that slot comes back on a short rest? Would that be too powerful? Maybe only for spell slot levels below the paladin's Charisma mod?


I like that there are different SR and LR dependent classes, that's nice. What I would like to see, is take a LR class like maybe Wizard and halve their number of spell slots per LR. Then balance other classes accordingly, expecting maybe 1-4 encounters and 1-2 SR per day. That's more feasable to get through in 1 session IME. Then it's much easier to pace the game such that only SR are taken at the table, LR happens between sessions, independent of heroic or gritty time scale. I want players to feel the consequence of wasting or saving their resources for later in the adventure day. That is diminished when you take several weeks break real time in the middle of it.



The bonus action is just a category or a grouping of actions. Much simpler to just say "You may use your bonus action to..." and be done with it. I think people get overwhelmed by the concept of the bonus action but it's really pretty simple. Anything you do has a tag associated with it (action, bonus action, reaction) and you have three buckets in front of you labeled the same. Whenever you do something, you put it in its bucket, and a bucket can only hold one thing at a time. At the start of your turn, you empty out your buckets.

In theory bonus actions are neat, but in practise I find it becomes quite fiddly. "I want to do this, now which combination of actions is more optimal for achieving that" or "I want to take this main action, now for my bonus action, let me look over all my spells to see if there are any bonus actions ones I want to cast". Removing BA surely reduces the granularity of actions, but it also makes the decisions much simpler and faster. Which I think is better, because I mainly want a quick narrative resolution of the combat, and not really a tactical puzzle to solve.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Which I think is better, because I mainly want a quick narrative resolution of the combat, and not really a tactical puzzle to solve.

If you don't want tactical combat, D&D might not be your best option. There are lots of games that do narrative resolutions much better. Losing that would irritate a lot of my players quite strongly, as well as many others that I know.

[EggKookoo]

I like that there are different SR and LR dependent classes, that's nice. What I would like to see, is take a LR class like maybe Wizard and halve their number of spell slots per LR. Then balance other classes accordingly, expecting maybe 1-4 encounters and 1-2 SR per day. That's more feasable to get through in 1 session IME. Then it's much easier to pace the game such that only SR are taken at the table, LR happens between sessions, independent of heroic or gritty time scale. I want players to feel the consequence of wasting or saving their resources for later in the adventure day. That is diminished when you take several weeks break real time in the middle of it.

Well, there's this for wizards:


Arcane Recovery

You have learned to regain some of your magical energy by studying your spellbook. Once per day when you finish a short rest, you can choose expended spell slots to recover. The spell slots can have a combined level that is equal to or less than half your wizard level (rounded up), and none of the slots can be 6th level or higher.

For example, if you’re a 4th-level wizard, you can recover up to two levels worth of spell slots. You can recover either a 2nd-level spell slot or two 1st-level spell slots.

They get this right out of the gate.


In theory bonus actions are neat, but in practise I find it becomes quite fiddly. "I want to do this, now which combination of actions is more optimal for achieving that" or "I want to take this main action, now for my bonus action, let me look over all my spells to see if there are any bonus actions ones I want to cast". Removing BA surely reduces the granularity of actions, but it also makes the decisions much simpler and faster. Which I think is better, because I mainly want a quick narrative resolution of the combat, and not really a tactical puzzle to solve.

So you're for removing not just the bonus action as a term, but as a function entirely? No more offhand attacking or bonus action spells?

[Skylivedk]

Deciding what to use my bonus action on was the only remotely interesting thing my rogue could do in combat. I'm not sure why anyone would want to get rid of that.

Agreed... And from a mechanical view, the action economy is the entire chassis of the depth of the game.

[Max_Killjoy]

As an observation, I find that I have to be very careful in contributing to this subject, because the things I would personally "fix" (note the scare quotes) when looking at D&D would often make the system fundamentally less D&D for those who actively enjoy it, who find it a good fit. I think it's better at that point to find another system. If someone doesn't like levels, or classes, or the particular action economy, or Vancian casting, or linear single-die resolution (ie, the d20), then they should keep an open mind to the possibility that this system simply isn't for them. Rather than trying to hammer the square peg into a round hole...

Of course, when one system is so much of the market, it's sometimes easy to miss that there are other options, or to be frustrated by the lack of opportunity to use systems that better suit one's tastes.

[EggKookoo]

As an observation, I find that I have to be very careful in contributing to this subject, because the things I would personally "fix" (note the scare quotes) when looking at D&D would often make the system fundamentally less D&D for those who actively enjoy it, who find it a good fit. I think it's better at that point to find another system. If someone doesn't like levels, or classes, or the particular action economy, or Vancian casting, or linear single-die resolution (ie, the d20), then they should keep an open mind to the possibility that this system simply isn't for them. Rather than trying to hammer the square peg into a round hole...

Maybe try to think of it as "5e tries to be X. Are there parts of 5e that don't work well for a game that tries to be X? Are there parts of 5e that actually work against the game being X?"

So instead of just it being opinions on what D&D should be, it's ways to tighten up 5e to make it more internally consistent.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Maybe try to think of it as "5e tries to be X. Are there parts of 5e that don't work well for a game that tries to be X? Are there parts of 5e that actually work against the game being X?"

So instead of just it being opinions on what D&D should be, it's ways to tighten up 5e to make it more internally consistent.


As an observation, I find that I have to be very careful in contributing to this subject, because the things I would personally "fix" (note the scare quotes) when looking at D&D would often make the system fundamentally less D&D for those who actively enjoy it, who find it a good fit. I think it's better at that point to find another system. If someone doesn't like levels, or classes, or the particular action economy, or Vancian casting, or linear single-die resolution (ie, the d20), then they should keep an open mind to the possibility that this system simply isn't for them. Rather than trying to hammer the square peg into a round hole...

Of course, when one system is so much of the market, it's sometimes easy to miss that there are other options, or to be frustrated by the lack of opportunity to use systems that better suit one's tastes.

But to echo Max_Killjoy here, one of the biggest things 5e tries to do is be a best-parts version of all the previous editions combined, with some new glue and paint. So making something less recognizable as D&D (which for me is about classes/levels, spell-slot-based casting, 6 ability scores and basic resolution using a d20 + modifiers) is exactly contrary to what it's trying to do.

You can "fix" a compact car by replacing it with a semi truck. But you don't have the same car you started with by any stretch of the imagination. It fits different needs entirely. Same with a lot of the "fixes" I've seen here (and in other such threads). They throw out the baby, the bathwater, and the entire bathroom, when they'd get what they wanted much simpler by starting with a different base. All while destroying the things that a lot of people (myself included) most prize about 5e. From my perspective, if someone "fixed" my car by giving me a muscle car or a motorcycle, I'd be strongly peeved. Even if the new vehicle was much more expensive and fancy. Sure, my car needs some work. The headliner sags, the driver's side sun visor is broken, and the rack and pinion leaks a bit. But those are fixes. Not a complete alteration into something alien. And that's the magnitude of what I'm seeing (some) people suggest here.

[Morty]

Agreed... And from a mechanical view, the action economy is the entire chassis of the depth of the game.

Being fair, nine times out of ten the best use of the bonus action was to run and hide so I could shoot at an advantage. But that was better than nothing.

[Pelle]

If you don't want tactical combat, D&D might not be your best option. There are lots of games that do narrative resolutions much better. Losing that would irritate a lot of my players quite strongly, as well as many others that I know.

Well, yes and no. There's a healthy balance to be made. Personally, I want some tactical combat, but would prefer if it was shifted a little to the lighter side. There can still be plenty to consider in the tactical sphere (movement, which type of action to take, who to target, spell selection, terrain etc), you just make the decisions faster instead of it bogging down to a chess game.



They get this right out of the gate.


Sorry, I don't see what that adds. It's fine that Wizards has some SR resources, but I would prefer all full casters to have less spell slots per LR. (and then have LR more frequently, i.e. before every session instead of every other session)



So you're for removing not just the bonus action as a term, but as a function entirely? No more offhand attacking or bonus action spells?

Basically, you would have to design the game from a totally new design space paradigm. Which is why I said it wasn't really a fix, but a design assumption I wish had been different. I guess Mearls has opinions on how to do it. You could have offhand attacking as a general option ("Attack with both weapons, something something balanced with normal attacking") or it could be an ability ("when taking the attack action, you get an extra attack with your offhand"). You can't achieve everything the same as you can with BA, and you need to be more careful to not stack things. I think it's easier for most people to choose one option from a slightly longer list, than to choose two options from two slightly smaller lists. Depends on the players, but I also find combat flows more smoothly when it's one decision/action per player per turn. I want to continually switch the spotlight as fast as possible.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well, yes and no. There's a healthy balance to be made. Personally, I want some tactical combat, but would prefer if it was shifted a little to the lighter side. There can still be plenty to consider in the tactical sphere (movement, which type of action to take, who to target, spell selection, terrain etc), you just make the decisions faster instead of it bogging down to a chess game.


I personally don't see it bogging down to a chess game. Mainly because I don't play with challenge-focused gamers--there's very little (if any) focus on being "mechanically optimal" or even "tactically optimal." But I (and the other more mechanically-minded players) appreciate the optional depth available. YMMV depending on the background and interests of the players involved.

Is the present version the best possible? No. But removing them wholesale would require tearing out lots of things and rebalancing from the ground up.

[EggKookoo]

But to echo Max_Killjoy here, one of the biggest things 5e tries to do is be a best-parts version of all the previous editions combined, with some new glue and paint. So making something less recognizable as D&D (which for me is about classes/levels, spell-slot-based casting, 6 ability scores and basic resolution using a d20 + modifiers) is exactly contrary to what it's trying to do.

You can "fix" a compact car by replacing it with a semi truck. But you don't have the same car you started with by any stretch of the imagination. It fits different needs entirely. Same with a lot of the "fixes" I've seen here (and in other such threads). They throw out the baby, the bathwater, and the entire bathroom, when they'd get what they wanted much simpler by starting with a different base. All while destroying the things that a lot of people (myself included) most prize about 5e. From my perspective, if someone "fixed" my car by giving me a muscle car or a motorcycle, I'd be strongly peeved. Even if the new vehicle was much more expensive and fancy. Sure, my car needs some work. The headliner sags, the driver's side sun visor is broken, and the rack and pinion leaks a bit. But those are fixes. Not a complete alteration into something alien. And that's the magnitude of what I'm seeing (some) people suggest here.

I'm not 100% sure if you're agreeing with me or not, but I think we're saying much of the same thing. If your goal is to have an efficient, safe car, then you can reasonably "fix" it without destroying its identity by finding things that make it inefficient and unsafe and adjusting them toward your goal. I agree, you don't fix X by making it not-X, you fix X by trying to make it as X as it can be.


Sorry, I don't see what that adds. It's fine that Wizards has some SR resources, but I would prefer all full casters to have less spell slots per LR. (and then have LR more frequently, i.e. before every session instead of every other session)

I would agree that it might be nice for all full spellcasters to have some mechanism of recouping at least some slots after a short rest. But most have some level of spell management. Bards, clerics, druids, and wizards all get Ritual Casting, so they can cast certain spells as much as they want outside of combat. Sorcerers get sorcery points that can be cashed in for more slots. Wizards get that Arcane Recovery which is fairly potent.

I get what you're saying. At the same time I wonder if that's not a good space for magic item features. D&D 5e really likes magic items to have interesting features that aren't just + bonuses everywhere. A necklace or headband or whatever that has a feature that lets you select a small number of slots that can restore after a short rest is actually an interesting idea. I may have to use that...

[Pelle]

I personally don't see it bogging down to a chess game. Mainly because I don't play with challenge-focused gamers--there's very little (if any) focus on being "mechanically optimal" or even "tactically optimal." But I (and the other more mechanically-minded players) appreciate the optional depth available. YMMV depending on the background and interests of the players involved.


I don't think my group is that challenged focus either. At least, they don't build characters around that, or play very competetively. But they want to fully utilize their abilities when it's their turn, so it goes more like this "for my action I want to __! Now I also have a bonus action to spend, let me look through my options and see what I could do. ......" It feels a bit dissociated, "I want to do something in the fiction, let's solve a puzzle on how to achieve that mechanically". Instead of that being a 1-to-1 decision.



Is the present version the best possible? No. But removing them wholesale would require tearing out lots of things and rebalancing from the ground up.

That's for sure. Which is why I don't bother do anything about it.

[Pelle]

I would agree that it might be nice for all full spellcasters to have some mechanism of recouping at least some slots after a short rest.

That's not what I'm trying to express at all...

[EggKookoo]

That's not what I'm trying to express at all...

Ok then, I'm totally lost.

[Man_Over_Game]

Ok then, I'm totally lost.

Pelle is saying that they're looking for a natural system that punishes/rewards players for their decisions in the current session, rather than waiting to punish reward the player several weeks later.

For instance, right after a Long Rest, you have everything you need available, and you can just spend it however you want. You play through 4 or so fights, and you didn't pace yourself properly, but this session was a blast because you were reckless and overpowered. Session ends.

Two weeks later, players rejoin, and now that player is feeling the struggle of only being able to provide cantrips. A recent Short Rest helps, but not enough to matter, and so they're limited to the next few fights of doing nothing. At this point, there's not much the player can do but wait to be useful at the next Long Rest, and feels like the game is rigged because they're no longer having fun.

That two weeks time creates a disassociation with the player's decision making, where the decisions of last session don't matter as much as what is happening in the current session, when in reality, blowing your highest level spell slots immediately after a Long Rest at the end of a session will severely bite you in the ass in your next session.

In the same kind of idea, you don't punish children or pets days after they make their mistake. You have to teach them what's wrong immediately after they've occurred the offense, otherwise, they'll blame their problems on something else (thinking they're bad for just existing, or just blame you for being a bad person).

Adults are smarter than animals and older than children, but we're not that much different. Pelle wants to tie in these parts of the psyche to the flow of the game, to make it more enjoyable and less frustrating.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't think my group is that challenged focus either. At least, they don't build characters around that, or play very competetively. But they want to fully utilize their abilities when it's their turn, so it goes more like this "for my action I want to __! Now I also have a bonus action to spend, let me look through my options and see what I could do. ......" It feels a bit dissociated, "I want to do something in the fiction, let's solve a puzzle on how to achieve that mechanically". Instead of that being a 1-to-1 decision.


I guess I've just never seen that personally except when connected to highly "competitive" players who are playing non-standard builds. The basic builds don't put much reliance on maximizing your bonus actions at all. I have players mostly just tell me what they do (in fiction) and then I fill in the mechanical bits or tell them that doing that is not possible due to <rule X>. Heck, half the time I have to remind them that they can take an action as well as a bonus action (usually going something like

P: I want to X [bonus action spell or homebrewed dragonborn breath weapon, usually].
Me: OK, if you do that you can also [cast a cantrip, take an action, etc]. What do you want to do?


I'm not 100% sure if you're agreeing with me or not, but I think we're saying much of the same thing. If your goal is to have an efficient, safe car, then you can reasonably "fix" it without destroying its identity by finding things that make it inefficient and unsafe and adjusting them toward your goal. I agree, you don't fix X by making it not-X, you fix X by trying to make it as X as it can be.


From your post I wasn't sure which side you were taking. I think we're in agreement on this point (with possibly the usual disagreement as to exactly the value of X, but that's normal).

[EggKookoo]

Pelle is saying that they're looking for a natural system that punishes/rewards players for their decisions in the current session, rather than waiting to punish reward the player several weeks later.

For instance, right after a Long Rest, you have everything you need available, and you can just spend it however you want. You play through 4 or so fights, and you didn't pace yourself properly, but this session was a blast because you were reckless and overpowered. Session ends.

Two weeks later, players rejoin, and now that player is feeling the struggle of only being able to provide cantrips. A recent Short Rest helps, but not enough to matter, and so they're limited to the next few fights of doing nothing. At this point, there's not much the player can do but wait to be useful at the next Long Rest, and feels like the game is rigged because they're no longer having fun.

That two weeks time creates a disassociation with the player's decision making, where the decisions of last session don't matter as much as what is happening in the current session, when in reality, blowing your highest level spell slots immediately after a Long Rest at the end of a session will severely bite you in the ass in your next session.

In the same kind of idea, you don't punish children or pets days after they make their mistake. You have to teach them what's wrong immediately after they've occurred the offense, otherwise, they'll blame their problems on something else (thinking they're bad for just existing, or just blame you for being a bad person).

Adults are smarter than animals and older than children, but we're not that much different. Pelle wants to tie in these parts of the psyche to the flow of the game, to make it more enjoyable and less frustrating.

So I'm even more lost because that's exactly what I thought Pelle was saying.

Although I do disagree with the contention that long rests don't happen at the table and only happen between sessions (assuming I'm interpreting that right). I never have my players take a long rest between sessions, it always happens at the table. I end sessions on cliffhangers whenever possible. But maybe that's just me.

But if Pelle is saying what you're describing, then it basically boils down to "it would be nice if full casters could cast more frequently and/or more reliably recover slots with a short rest," which is why I was pointing out the various ways full casters can either do just that or otherwise manage their castings.

Pelle, maybe you could provide some specific examples?

[DrowPiratRobrts]

The problem isn't that there remain ambiguous or inconsistent cases after logically applying all the RAI from the tweets. The problem is that the wording regarding melee/ranged weapons/attacks requires that much parsing (and reading Twitter) in the first place. I frequently DM for new players who don't have any experience with TTRPGs, and when they read the PHB, they don't realize on their own that (e.g.) "an attack with a melee weapon" is not the same thing as a "melee weapon attack". It comes across as unnecessarily nuanced and jargony and regularly annoys my players, even after they get used to it. We get past it by commiserating with each other over the apparent absurdity (and by me resolving most misunderstandings in the players' favor).



Interestingly, I don't interpret the use of the word "fix" as having the same pejorative context that you do. When a poster describes a problem they are experiencing at their table (and that I don't experience at mine) and expresses a need to "fix" that problem, I don't see that as suggesting that I'm doing anything wrong.

To the extent that other posters share my more-neutral interpretation of "fix", posts in this thread may not be intended as an attack on your (or anyone else's) playstyle.


To the "fix it" point, I think Unoriginal was moreso observing that the OP addressed this in a way to make it seem like the game itself needs "fixing" and not issues at one specific table or the other. I get that the OP is more nuanced than that, but it seems implied there and in the other comments that 5e just has a bunch of "broken" things that need a universal change at every table. But at my table, and maybe Unoriginal's as well as many other's, I haven't run into most if any of these problems with the exception of an imperfectly balanced game, which is always going to happen.


And as far as reading the rules goes, maybe we just run in different circles and DM in different ways. Most of the players I play with don't know the rules even 1/4 as well as I do. I actually find that helpful because they don't try to min/max to death or abuse wording. They just tell me what they want to do and I tell them if/how they can do it. If they ever read a spell or ability and mistake a "melee weapon attack " for an "attack with a melee weapon" then I just let them know about the relevant "rule interaction." I think it's incredibly rare for those two phrases to actually matter though isn't it? I can only think of things like when you throw a dagger it becomes a "thrown weapon" so "attack with melee weapon" no longer applies. But neither would a "melee weapon attack," so most of the time I don't think the parsing is needed.

I don't know. Maybe there are actually dozens of instances where it's really confusing and really really important to distinguish between the two. I haven't heard of or encountered specific examples yet though since 5e was released. If you have any I'd be interested in hearing them.

Sidenote: I almost never check Twitter or Sage Advice for rules (certainly never during a game session), but that's mostly because there's rarely ever a large disagreement about how the rules should work in the games I play in. I can think of the discussion on Leomund's Tiny Hut having a floor, but that's really it. Even my DM often asks me at the table how I would typically rule on a situation if it were my game, and we just work through it quickly to get back into the RP.

[noob]

how about making all the short rest ability be at will except for short rest abilities that would break the world that stays short rest based.(such as short rest abilities that creates lakes but a short rest ability which create ten liters of water is not world breaking even if it is very useful and short rest fabricate is the kind of thing that would get limited)

[PhoenixPhyre]

how about making all the short rest ability be at will except for short rest abilities that would break the world that stays short rest based.(such as short rest abilities that creates lakes but a short rest ability which create ten liters of water is not world breaking even if it is very useful and short rest fabricate is the kind of thing that would get limited)

So a monk can stunning strike, step of the wind, and flurry of blows every single attack? Yeah, no.

[Man_Over_Game]

Roberts is on point. Almost all of the games I was a player in had no changes to any rules and they were usually fun, and a good DM can usually make a ruling on the spot.



For example: Several weapons are better or worse, with disassociated costs (like how the Trident is so bad as a martial weapon). On top of that, the game allows us to "reflavor" things into any direction we want, so there's nothing stopping us from reflavoring a Short Sword into a Scimitar, except for the fact that a Scimitar already exists (at 2.5x the cost of a Short Sword).

So either Reflavoring is broken, and "customizing" parts of your character should come at an extra cost (to maintain balance with the weapons), or the weapons need fixing (to maintain balance with the existing option to reflavor them).

That's one direct example, and most people would just say "ignore it", which is the same kind of solution of kicking dirt under the rug. It might not be relevant if you ignore it, but that still doesn't mean that it's not a problem.

[Man_Over_Game]

So a monk can stunning strike, step of the wind, and flurry of blows every single attack? Yeah, no.

Sorry to get pedantic, but you can't Step of the Wind and use a Bonus Action attack in the same turn.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sorry to get pedantic, but you can't Step of the Wind and use a Bonus Action attack in the same turn.

True. But not having ki point limits would make 4e monks broken once they get fireball--at will fireballs. Or all their other abilities.

As for short rests in general, my preferred solution (since I run more cinematic games) is something like this:

You get 2 short rest tokens at the end of each long rest. As long as you have a few minutes to rest out of combat (or anything else with significant time pressure), you can spend one for the benefits of a short rest.

That, or I've given a "short-rest-in-a-can" potion in-game. Drink it over a minute of uninterrupted time and you have a short rest. These are given out when the quest-giver knows they're on a deadline. Here, they can stock up if they don't need the second rest and use one later (to give incentives to be sparing with resources).

I'm also quite open about "now would be a good time to take a short rest" comments, depending on the group in question.

[Man_Over_Game]

True. But not having ki point limits would make 4e monks broken once they get fireball--at will fireballs. Or all their other abilities.

As for short rests in general, my preferred solution (since I run more cinematic games) is something like this:

You get 2 short rest tokens at the end of each long rest. As long as you have a few minutes to rest out of combat (or anything else with significant time pressure), you can spend one for the benefits of a short rest.

That, or I've given a "short-rest-in-a-can" potion in-game. Drink it over a minute of uninterrupted time and you have a short rest. These are given out when the quest-giver knows they're on a deadline. Here, they can stock up if they don't need the second rest and use one later (to give incentives to be sparing with resources).

I'm also quite open about "now would be a good time to take a short rest" comments, depending on the group in question.

One solution I've been wanting to implement was a variant on the Gritty variants on rests.
Short Rests are 4 hours, a Long Rest is 24 hours.

To compensate for the fact that rests may not be available for when players may need to fight, I want to implement Ley Lines, which shorten the time it takes to rest when resting in one of these locations, and you can simply "feel" these locations, even without any magical experience. Ley Lines cut the time for a rest by 80%, making a Short Rest about 45 minutes, and making a Long Rest about 4 hours. Most Ley Lines are within dungeons, as many people in power seek to use this resource, but the Ley Lines shift slightly each year, making it difficult to plan a specific room or building to their use.

As a result, an entire dungeon can be built with a Ley Line point in the center, but several centuries later, the Ley Line point may be focused in the dungeon's latrine or some other unfortunate location that may not make sense.

This solves the problem of players having both too many rests and too few, with the decision being at my discretion to fine tune.

[KorvinStarmast]

but learning to DM from bad DMs makes more bad DMs. You assume new DMs are by default bad DMs. Bad assumption.

my friends and i all took turns DMing, we sucked. the games sucked. That's on you. We didn't have that problem.

i didn't know good games until i lucked into a good DM 20 years later. now i am a better DM. I tip my cap to your persistence.

the most important player in the game has to learn it by screwing up, getting shamed. best model for shy nerdy 13 year olds.... do something that is going to fail. oh, wait, no. that's a crappy model. That's a crappy model for behavior, regardless of someone's age. Get some real friends.
Any reason why you're not giving high level warriors of renown advantage on Intimidate checks? And no published DnD world is based on a Feudal society barring possibly Birthright. Eberron, Krynn, Faerun, Greyhawk, Athas - none of them were remotely close to Feudal. Feudal led to medieval led to middle ages led to late medieval led to early renaissance. Have played campaigns in all of those. (Such as, "no plate mail armor in the Feudal game ... the DM was most insistent. (He also DM'd our C & S games). (Man, I wish they'd release a 5e version of Birthright, there was a lot I liked about that piece of 2e ...

There are no Serfs anywhere of note, in FR? Yeah. IT's mostly early Renaissance, and maybe mid to late based on the WoTC artwork and the steampunk gnomes.
In my world? Three of the kingdoms have serfs/bound to the land farmers.

Most towns are run by Mayors or similar and not Knights, cities are generally governed by noble or merchant houses acting in loose alliance with each other etc.

Nation States have well and truly formed Nope, in FR Kingdoms have. and empires. What Republics? (Eberron?)

The Merchant class (which saw the death of Feudalism with its rise) is well and truly established.
Yes, hence mid to late middle ages FR, (Hanseatic League!) like with the Iron League in WoG (1e) to early renaissance.

Saying DnD accepts a default feudal society as its core assumption is as wrong as saying it accepts a default bronze age or even earlier hunter gatherer society as core. We played a Bronze age D&D in 1e. It was pretty neat. (And lethal). Phil Barker's Tekumel was an interesting meshing of bronze age (clenh hide) and steel iron age and some SF stuff (eyes) thrown together in a mixture. Mazes and Minotaurs tries to capture that feel.

The core assumption seems to be more of a late renaissance/ early industrial level of governance and technology more akin to our own Age of Exploration mid 2nd millennia, with magic taking the role of technology (and stagnating its development), featuring primitive Nation States, merchant alliances, banking and so forth. Disagree with your "early industrial" in general, but I'll not object too hard due to steam punk gnomes.

Rethink how the three pillars (combat, exploration and social) work and why it's supposed to be fun that a few classes are excluded/dominate some of the pillars to the extent they do. It's a major downside of DnD that rangers have a lot of fast forward features and often martials can basically just tag along or stay away when you move in the city. Really? We don't have that problem at our table.

Most important fix for D&D 5e: Move chapter 8 of the DMG, Running the Game, to chapter 1. Put it in the DM basic rules as the very first thing too. Better yet, also put it at the end of the PHB as an appendix for DMs, so players will see what's expected of DMs.
Far too many DMs have never read this chapter, and it's the most important thing a DM needs to read before they sit down to try to run their first game.
Applause. Yep.

Why is EXP a sacred COW? The point is to incentivize adventuring. It reaches back to pre D&D in Arneson's games, which included a mod (Svenson's notes cover this) where 1 HP = 1 XP. If a monster had 7 HP, you got 7 XP for slaying one, and either 100 or 1000 XP got you to the next level. Never made it into published form, but it started like this:
Huh, using chainmail combat here in the dungeon under the old castle, on hit and your soldier dies. 4 hits to kill the hero.
How do you become a hero? They tried a lot of different ways to figure that out (to include DM fiat by Dave A) and the eventual gamification of it appeared in Men and Magic. It's hard coded into the game's DNA. (the "by adventure leve" works for me too, ever since they removced XP for GP in treasure feature ...)

5e is often called a "retro edition", but not with INT, which could provide extra languages even in "Men & Magic" Yeah, I miss that.
For instance, right after a Long Rest, you have everything you need available, and you can just spend it however you want. You play through 4 or so fights, and you didn't pace yourself properly, but this session was a blast because you were reckless and overpowered. Session ends.

Two weeks later, players rejoin, and now that player is feeling the struggle of only being able to provide cantrips. A recent Short Rest helps, but not enough to matter, and so they're limited to the next few fights of doing nothing. At this point, there's not much the player can do but wait to be useful at the next Long Rest, and feels like the game is rigged because they're no longer having fun.
Man, that is reaching really hard to find something to complain about. We don't have that problem at our table, in terms of people complaining if they run out of special resources and have to dig and scrap to contribute.
Most of us accept it as a challenge, and try stuff 'off the character sheet' in order to contribute. You can always offer the help action so that that barbarian next to you gets advantage on his next attack. (My cleric frequently did this when short on spells, since I rarely did as much damage as our barbarian could).
Teamwork, not a bunch of individuals out for themselves.
The complainers can try doing that.
Here's another tip for them: stop looking at the character sheet and come up with a way to influence the situation.

Also, DM does "in summary of last session, this is what is going on ..." helps get us all back into the situation as the game begins three weeks latger. (Happens a lot in our Tier 3 game .. RL and adults, as you mentioned)

[PhoenixPhyre]

One solution I've been wanting to implement was a variant on the Gritty variants on rests.
Short Rests are 4 hours, a Long Rest is 24 hours.

To compensate for the fact that rests may not be available for when players may need to fight, I want to implement Ley Lines, which shorten the time it takes to rest when resting in one of these locations, and you can simply "feel" these locations, even without any magical experience. Ley Lines cut the time for a rest by 80%, making a Short Rest about 45 minutes, and making a Long Rest about 4 hours. Most Ley Lines are within dungeons, as many people in power seek to use this resource, but the Ley Lines shift slightly each year, making it difficult to plan a specific room or building to their use.

As a result, an entire dungeon can be built with a Ley Line point in the center, but several centuries later, the Ley Line point may be focused in the dungeon's latrine or some other unfortunate location that may not make sense.

This solves the problem of players having both too many rests and too few, with the decision being at my discretion to fine tune.

My gut feeling about that is that it's identical (from a player's perspective) to "you get a rest when the DM says you do." I would feel helpless to control anything under those circumstances--either the DM put a ley line in the right spot or you go without; miss your chance and you're facing what's supposed to be 2 adventuring days all at once.

But then again, I lean strongly to the cinematic. Normal short rests and "normal" 8-hr long rests work well for me 90% of the time because the party is usually working out of a safe haven on a daily time-scale (in which case they're home for a long rest every night) or are in the wilderness traveling (in which case there are very few adventuring days happening). Very rarely they're under a hard time crunch where they have to face a full day without any chance to take a 1-hr short rest--then I'll give them SR tokens. Basically I do a sliding scale depending on what they're doing. There's nothing magical about 8 hours of rest--it's just the average time needed (under safe conditions) to replace your expended inner strength. And either I'm tracking at the minute-to-minute level or at the hour-to-hour level (with fights at the turn-by-turn level), so a 45-minute rest falls in the cracks.

[Max_Killjoy]

Any reason why you're not giving high level warriors of renown advantage on Intimidate checks?

And no published DnD world is based on a Feudal society barring possibly Birthright. Eberron, Krynn, Faerun, Greyhawk, Athas - none of them were remotely close to Feudal.

There are no Serfs anywhere of note, most towns are run by Mayors or similar and not Knights, cities are generally governed by noble or merchant houses acting in loose alliance with each other etc. Nation States have well and truly formed, and Republics and so forth abound. The Merchant class (which saw the death of Feudalism with its rise) is well and truly established.

Saying DnD accepts a default feudal society as its core assumption is as wrong as saying it accepts a default bronze age or even earlier hunter gatherer society as core.

The core assumption seems to be more of a late renaissance/ early industrial level of governance and technology more akin to our own Age of Exploration mid 2nd millennia, with magic taking the role of technology (and stagnating its development), featuring primitive Nation States, merchant alliances, banking and so forth.

I wish Galloglaich was still around, he could detail chapter and verse how you're making a lot of bad assumptions about who lead towns when, feudalism vs the merchant class, etc... maybe based on "everyone knows" information originating scholarship that is simply bad and/or based on a narrow sample centered in England and France.

In the Baltic region, as a counter-example to the Anglo-French assumptions, "mayors" and councils ruled many cities in conflict with the feudal system, merchants competed with knights and nobles for their rights and powers, and so on, for several centuries.

[Man_Over_Game]

Man, that is reaching really hard to find something to complain about. We don't have that problem at our table, in terms of people complaining if they run out of special resources and have to dig and scrap to contribute.
Most of us accept it as a challenge, and try stuff 'off the character sheet' in order to contribute. You can always offer the help action so that that barbarian next to you gets advantage on his next attack. (My cleric frequently did this when short on spells, since I rarely did as much damage as our barbarian could).
Teamwork, not a bunch of individuals out for themselves.
The complainers can try doing that.
Here's another tip for them: stop looking at the character sheet and come up with a way to influence the situation.

Also, DM does "in summary of last session, this is what is going on ..." helps get us all back into the situation as the game begins three weeks latger. (Happens a lot in our Tier 3 game .. RL and adults, as you mentioned)

Sure, I don't have an issue with that aspect of things, I was just trying to detail the concerns Pelle had to ChrisBasken.

[EggKookoo]

Sure, I don't have an issue with that aspect of things, I was just trying to detail the concerns Pelle had to ChrisBasken.

An effort I appreciate. And man I wish I had thought more than FirstLast for my handle here, but it feels like it's too late to change it now...

[noob]

True. But not having ki point limits would make 4e monks broken once they get fireball--at will fireballs. Or all their other abilities.

As for short rests in general, my preferred solution (since I run more cinematic games) is something like this:

You get 2 short rest tokens at the end of each long rest. As long as you have a few minutes to rest out of combat (or anything else with significant time pressure), you can spend one for the benefits of a short rest.

That, or I've given a "short-rest-in-a-can" potion in-game. Drink it over a minute of uninterrupted time and you have a short rest. These are given out when the quest-giver knows they're on a deadline. Here, they can stock up if they don't need the second rest and use one later (to give incentives to be sparing with resources).

I'm also quite open about "now would be a good time to take a short rest" comments, depending on the group in question.

I do not see anything broken with at will fireball.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I do not see anything broken with at will fireball.

When you compare to the same-level wizard who can't exactly do the rest of what a monk (even without a subclass) can do...

[Man_Over_Game]

My gut feeling about that is that it's identical (from a player's perspective) to "you get a rest when the DM says you do." I would feel helpless to control anything under those circumstances--either the DM put a ley line in the right spot or you go without; miss your chance and you're facing what's supposed to be 2 adventuring days all at once.

But then again, I lean strongly to the cinematic. Normal short rests and "normal" 8-hr long rests work well for me 90% of the time because the party is usually working out of a safe haven on a daily time-scale (in which case they're home for a long rest every night) or are in the wilderness traveling (in which case there are very few adventuring days happening). Very rarely they're under a hard time crunch where they have to face a full day without any chance to take a 1-hr short rest--then I'll give them SR tokens. Basically I do a sliding scale depending on what they're doing. There's nothing magical about 8 hours of rest--it's just the average time needed (under safe conditions) to replace your expended inner strength. And either I'm tracking at the minute-to-minute level or at the hour-to-hour level (with fights at the turn-by-turn level), so a 45-minute rest falls in the cracks.

I get that.

Most of the times I have listed are there to be *mostly* organic, focused on the fact that, on average, Long Rests are provided long before players actually need them, so I focused on that first (as that's my biggest concern).

Once per day just wasn't working with the 8hr option, so I thought maybe an entire day's worth of rest would be an adequate choice. Still very possible and reasonable for an adventurer to want a day off, but not without wanting to get back into the action the next day.

From there, I wanted an option that reflected roughly the amount of rest someone might get overnight on an adventuring day, but also something they can do in the middle of an adventuring day if they need to. 6 hours was too long to use in the middle of the day, but 4 hours seemed fine. With 2 fights before 4 hour break, and 2 fights after, that sounds like a pretty physically exhausting day for an adventurer.

Then the Ley Lines just make delves and other risky adventures possible, especially if players are able to gather information about where the local Ley Lines are (so they know where and when rests may be possible and that investing heavily into a dungeon may be worth it).

I tried to come up with a reasonable amount of time for how long it may take for an adventurer to magically/naturally regenerate minor wounds, and an hour seemed pretty reasonable. This is enough time to cover things like the Monk's requirement of 30 minutes for their Ki regeneration, or to cover the attunement of most magical weapons. 45 minutes was a happy balance between 30 and 60 minutes. I don't plan on being strict on the per-minute requirement, with the actual minimum being about 30 minutes.

For Ley Line Long Rests, when a character can become fully rejuvenated in the middle of a war zone, I wanted to make it possible to do during a day, but still be just long enough to impose great risk at overstaying your welcome. 4 hours in a dangerous area is possible to do with some preparation, but can easily sway the remainder of a dungeon in the party's favor. They now have to plan around barricading a room, making a temporary location to rest in, or to avoid being spotted by patrols. It adds a lot of risk, with some major rewards, and I really like that. They could always high-tail it out of the dungeon and lose 1-2 days, or they can just risk it while they have the advantage and numbers, and Long Rest in the Ley Line.

[Pex]

Maybe not fixes per se, but the following are design assumptions I wish would have been different:

1. There are too many resources to spend between Long Rests. I wish the game was balanced instead so that one adventure day worth of encounters could roughly fit into 1 session of play. The variant resting rules don't fix that for my style of play.

2. Get rid of Bonus Actions. Yes, it gives more options, but it also makes the game more fiddly. I don't want combat to be a cerebral process of contemplating which combination of normal and bonus actions to make the turn tactically optimal, but rather quick decisions on which general action to take.

Small fixes don't bother me that much, those are easy to house rule and adjudicate at the table.

Before 4E they didn't use the terms "rests". You get back everything after a night's sleep and 3E introduced getting abilities you can do a number of times per day. I don't mind the rest system. I wouldn't mind a little borrowing from 4E where everyone gets something fun and awesome back on a short rest and then everything on a long rest. With everyone having long and short rest stuff there's no competing interests in when to rest.

Sometimes you can't short rest when a PC desperately needs to, and that PC was not being wasteful using his short rest dependent stuff. Conserving resources is fine and dandy but there are times when you have to use your stuff right then and there. Once in a while running on fumes, so to speak, isn't a terrible thing overall, but when you are running on fumes that game session will be frustrating and not in a fun way.

[Ignimortis]

I like that there are different SR and LR dependent classes, that's nice. What I would like to see, is take a LR class like maybe Wizard and halve their number of spell slots per LR. Then balance other classes accordingly, expecting maybe 1-4 encounters and 1-2 SR per day. That's more feasable to get through in 1 session IME. Then it's much easier to pace the game such that only SR are taken at the table, LR happens between sessions, independent of heroic or gritty time scale. I want players to feel the consequence of wasting or saving their resources for later in the adventure day. That is diminished when you take several weeks break real time in the middle of it.



In theory bonus actions are neat, but in practise I find it becomes quite fiddly. "I want to do this, now which combination of actions is more optimal for achieving that" or "I want to take this main action, now for my bonus action, let me look over all my spells to see if there are any bonus actions ones I want to cast". Removing BA surely reduces the granularity of actions, but it also makes the decisions much simpler and faster. Which I think is better, because I mainly want a quick narrative resolution of the combat, and not really a tactical puzzle to solve.

Wait, so you want to remove one third of actions in combat your character would take, thus reducing the complexity (already quite low) of 5e combat? What am I supposed to play this system for, if it won't even have somewhat tactical combat? At this point, I might as well as homebrew my own "D&D" in two days which won't be much different from 5e, and might even have some out-of-combat mechanics 5e lacks.


When you compare to the same-level wizard who can't exactly do the rest of what a monk (even without a subclass) can do...

But 4E monks get Fireball at level 11. Sure, 8d6 in an area is still probably slightly stronger than punching someone with Flurry of Blows. But eh, it's not THAT broken at level 11.